Subscribe to The Informer for monthly expert analysis, and to Events for advance notice of visiting world leaders and distinguished guests.
You may unsubscribe from Lowy Institute newsletters at any time. For information on our privacy practices and how to unsubscribe, see our Privacy Policy.
The most-pressing world events explained by Lowy Institute experts and global contributors, in your inbox, every Wednesday.
You may unsubscribe from The Interpreter at any time. For information on our privacy practices and how to unsubscribe, see our Privacy Policy.
Australia, explained.
We have limited data about the extent to which Australians move overseas, whether such movements reflect broader career opportunities abroad, or whether they are influenced by perceptions that their skills are more valued elsewhere (James D. Morgan/Getty Images)
Australia counts how many people enrol in Asia programs – not what happens to them afterwards.
We are creating Asia-capable Australians. But are we keeping them?We are creating Asia-capable Australians. But are we keeping them?
About the author
Andre Kwok
Andre Kwok is a lawyer, researcher and consultant. He has held roles across government, private-sector and research institutes, with a focus in Asian legal studies, criminal law, international law and international criminal law and space law.
Australia has spent years asking how it can become more Asia-capable. I was in the early years of high school when the 2012 Australia in the Asian Century White Paper (Opens in new window) was released. I remember my history teacher telling our class that Asia would shape Australia’s future, and that we would need language skills and cultural understanding to engage with the region.
That message stayed with me. It influenced my decision to study Asian Studies at university.
More than a decade later, as a young professional, I find myself asking whether Australia’s policy settings, education system and workforce have reinforced that ambition. Recent attention through the parliamentary inquiry into Australia’s Asia capability (Opens in new window) has renewed the focus on these issues. Yet one question remains largely unanswered: what happens to Australians once they acquire them?
A former colleague, a recipient of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s (DFAT) New Colombo Scholarship (Opens in new window) to Beijing, developed professional-level Mandarin proficiency while gaining personal growth through cultural immersion. After graduating, they chose to return to China, believing their language skills and professional network would be better valued outside Australia.
Hearing this highlighted a gap in Australia’s Asia literacy conversation.
We have become focused on producing graduates with Asia-capable skills, but we know far less about where these Australians go and how their skills are used. How well are we retaining and utilising these capabilities? Where do these graduates go after developing their skills? Are their language abilities and regional expertise being used in Australia?
Australia has traditionally focused on expanding the pipeline (Opens in new window): increasing the number of Australians with language skills and international experiences, with mixed success (Opens in new window). These programs have been measured through indicators such as participation in language programs, overseas exchanges, university partnerships and government and business initiatives.
Australia has in parallel developed various ways to measure Asia capability initiatives. Data collected by the Department of Education (Opens in new window), education and scholarship providers (Opens in new window) and DFAT (Opens in new window) track participation in language education and international mobility programs.
However, as this capability pipeline matures, a new set of questions emerges. Australia has limited longitudinal data on the pathways of alumni: where they live and work, how their education and in-country experiences have supported Australia’s economic, social and strategic priorities over time.
A common thread was a belief that language skills were more readily recognised and rewarded overseas, creating fewer incentives to maintain and further develop language proficiency at home.
We have limited data about the extent to which Australians move overseas, whether such movements reflect broader career opportunities abroad, or whether they are influenced by perceptions that their skills are more valued elsewhere.
While living overseas, I met Australians with exceptional Japanese, Bahasa Indonesian and Mandarin language proficiencies with little interest in returning to Australia. A common thread was a belief that language and intercultural skills are more readily recognised and rewarded overseas, creating fewer incentives to maintain and further strengthen their language proficiency at home. At most, these skills are an optional nice to have on the CV, rather than valued attributes by employers and Australian society at large.
While these are personal observations rather than evidence of a larger trend, they highlight a question in Australia’s Asia capability agenda.
The issue is not whether large numbers of Australians are leaving or whether existing programs are failing. Rather, we lack the evidence base needed to understand the scale, direction and impact of these programs, including where graduates go, how these capabilities are used. While DFAT’s Australia Awards alumni tracer (Opens in new window), most recently updated in 2023, and alumni research by the Australian Consortium for “In-Country” Indonesian Studies (Opens in new window) provide important findings, Australia still lacks a comprehensive picture of the larger alumni population and their long-term journeys.
Without this research, it is difficult to assess whether efforts to build Asia capability are supporting the outcomes Australia seeks.
We lack the evidence base needed to understand the scale, direction and impact of these programs, including where graduates go, how these capabilities are used (Felix Cesare/Getty Images)
Asia capability is not only the ability to speak a language or secure a job, but also about building intercultural skills and contributing to Australia’s presence in the region (Opens in new window). Developing these capabilities requires years of investment from students, education institutions and government programs.
While mapping the alumni profile won’t be an easy task, Australia needs a stronger evidence base to chart how these skills are being used and whether it is capturing the benefits of its investment in Asia capability.
Governments and education institutions should explore new methodologies in tracking language and mobility program alumni cohorts to better understand their post-program pathways over time. Regular touch points at three, five and 10 years after program completion, combined with collaboration across alumni networks, industry partners and employers, can create a feedback loop and findings about the impact of policies designed to raise Asia capability.
There also needs to be clearer messaging about the value and career relevance (Opens in new window) of Asia capability. Students are encouraged to develop Asian language and intercultural skills. However, many encounter less visible recognition of these capabilities in the workforce. This creates a real and perceived mismatch between the narrative that Asia capability matters and the opportunities available to apply it (Opens in new window).
With more Australians building lives across borders amid shifting geopolitics, global competition for talent and growing diaspora connections (Opens in new window), Asia capability is one of the defining issues of our generation (Opens in new window).
As the government considers its response to the parliamentary inquiry, Australia must move beyond counting the numbers enrolled in language courses. We need a clearer picture of where Asia-capable Australians go, how their expertise is used, and whether Australia remains connected to the capabilities it has helped create.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Australian government or any other organisation.
