Cultural awareness can, and should, be taught in other ways. If language learning is to be about gaining competence in a second language - and that would imply actually being able to use the language to communicate with a native speaker - then Australian schools fail miserably and will continue to fail especially while we insist in the belief that all languages take an equal time to learn.
Schools in China and Japan spend more time on learning the mother tongue than we do. They have to do this in order for the students to gain basic skills. If we want to teach Asian languages then we need to devote greater time to them. If we spend five hours on French or Modern Greek then we need to spend ten hours on Mandarin or Japanese.
We don't. We fail at teaching French and Modern Greek in that space of time.
We are wasting valuable learning time with a narrow, ideologically driven Asia-centric view of the world that says we 'must' learn Mandarin first and other Asian languages second and the rest of the world can learn English. It is an extraordinarily arrogant way of thinking even while it gives in to pressure from Asian trading partners.
If we could get past this hurdle and concentrate on using community resources and set up a scheme to assist many more young Australians to spend an exchange year in Europe or South America or even French speaking areas of Canade then we would achieve a much higher level of linguistic competence overall. Some of those students could then be encouraged with scholarships to take on the challenge of an Asian language.
It is not a scheme likely to find favour with the present government so we will continue to fail.

Surely the point of learning a second language early in one's schooling is not the language learnt, but the skill of learning another language.

I think the best language to teach all children from Grade 1 of primary school is Auslan, the Australian sign language.

First, it is a language.
Second, with children learning it at school materials will become cheaper and easier to buy for the whole population to learn it.

A knowledge of signed language is very useful for communicating in the following situations:
fun, saying something without grown ups understanding,
when it is noisy
with preverbal children, - babies as young as 4 months can start signing back to their parents
if someone is deaf

Among my several objections to Esperanto is its false claim to universality: it is European in origin, style, substance and past application. But Europe itself has left Esperanto well behind.

I support your advocacy for Auslan Denise. My daughters have learned some and its inclusion in their curriculum is clearly a success.

However, you seem to contradict yourself. You claim that the skill of language learning - not which language - is the whole point of such education, but then you isolate Auslan as the best, before citing a few practical uses for its study (beyond "the skill of learning another language").

Nonetheless, Auslan should occupy a separate, though privileged, position in this debate due to its physical / non-verbal particularity and its value in connecting with our speech- and hearing-impaired fellows.

But so much effort spent justifying and advocating dead languages, artificial languages, and the mystical aura of an imagined linguistic DNA in "blood and soil" heritage languages of Europe! All the time we seem to forget where we are, where our future lies and where an increasing proportion of our business happens and even people come from: Asia.

Is such energetic avoidance a result of fear and loathing? In other words: “xenophobia” and “hatred”? Or in just one word: “racism”?

Yes. Time to grow up and take our place in the world.

Sign language is certainly useful at times - yes, I know a little although not enough.
My advocacy of European languages is based on ease of learning and the time given over to language teaching and learning in schools. The simple fact is that, if we want children to learn Asian languages, then we are going to need to devote at least twice, even three, times as much time to learning them to get even the poor results we get now. Simply because we live adjacent to the Asian region is not a reason to learn Mandarin. Modern communication means that we have to be able to communicate with the world, not just one part of it. We are leaning so far in the direction of Asia that we keep losing major opportunities to trade, work and live with the rest of the world. At times this focus is so narrow that we lose sight of our place in the world. If we had worked things well we could have been 'the middle man' - the bridge between east and west, between Asia and Europe. We failed to grasp that opportunity and now we seem to be content to be the lap-dog of China.

In this context of language skill, facts would contradict Communicat's notion that "we are leaning so far in the direction of Asia". ASAA is one source that details Australia's sorry recent situation in Asian languages, but many details have been publicized to illustrate the point. Tertiary level statistics have shown an alarming deterioration in what used to be a modest area of study, but not the dysfunctional scene it is now.

I categorize Communicat's view as that of a defeatist approach we may call "mediocre exceptionalism". Whereas Keith may claim the innate supremacy of European culture (he even implies that Latin and Euro-Aryan tongues make us smarter!) Communicat, on the other hand, seems to justify emphasis on European languages by seizing the low ground i.e., "we're too dumb" and "these Asian languages are too hard".

Simple comparison with languages in our immediate region should make it clear that Romance and Germanic languages are often like dialects with very strong lexical and grammatical similarities. Multilingual ability has always been common in European countries often for that reason, not because of some concerted, intensive educational strategy in that direction. Similarly, Australian language education has been very minimal even in European languages; that's because they are really such a minor challenge, especially when achievement is often tested so rarely – and only gently - because of our hemispheric distance!

Communicat's claims to efficient use of resources also seems puzzlingly inconsistent with the backing anecdote. The funds for those kids' trips to France, Quebec and French Polynesia would be spent far better by giving them – or those more able and willing – competent, professional instruction in a regional language to properly stretch the boundaries of their minds.

As for the matter of Rudd speaking Mandarin: it's not really his doing, but rather the publicity which itself arose because of the enormous contrast with his predecessors. Consider Downer's rehearsed but shockingly clumsy French monologue in the election campaign (“Je suis le ministre”, indeed). Note too that Rudd has personal form in devising national language strategy (for example, see http://e-flt.nus.edu.sg/v4sp12007/henderson.htm for a thorough account).

Brilliant idea! Esperanto can be learn to the level of fluency in 6 or less months. That would give to a kid enough confidence and skill to learn another language. Mandarin? Why not? But put them in other order and force them to learn something difficult as Mandarin (German, Spanish or French) they'll end up with no language and with no desire to learn any language at all.

Good luck Australia

Ruslanko (Ireland)