Our business sector lacks the skills to do business in Asia. And instead of improving, the situation is getting markedly worse.

With the unreliability of the US and Donald Trump, it is clearer than ever before that the US is not only the most aggressive and violent nation in history, but also a very unreliable ally as Malcolm Fraser reminded us many years ago.

First, we relied on the UK for security and trade. That reliance ended in tears in Singapore.

Then we encouraged the Americanisation of Australia across a wide field. The international and domestic fragility of the US is now plain. It is a country in decline by almost any measure. Trump is the symptom of an underlying malaise.

We must make our own way in Asia. We must build bridges to our region and not be a spear carrier for the US by ceding more and more of our country to the American military.

As Paul Keating has put it, we must find our security in Asia, not from Asia.

But in so many areas — security, diplomacy, learning, business, media and politics — we are less prepared than we were decades ago in learning how to live in peace and prosperity in our own region.

Our business sector’s skill in dealing with Asia is worse than it was 50 years ago.

Two-thirds of our two-way international trade is with Asia. But our business expertise in Asia is going backwards. Australian businesses are still “pale, male and stale”.

A recent report by the Australian Institute of Company Directors revealed that fewer directors with Chinese or Indian backgrounds sit on large, listed company boards than in 2017. Only 8.1% of ASX200 company directors are from non-Anglo-Celtic backgrounds, down from 8.8% last year and 9.5% eight years ago.

The findings are similar to the report in 2016 on “Australia’s Diaspora Advantage”. It revealed that social class and racism, either conscious or unconscious, still excludes many Australians of Asian origin from many institutions, particularly businesses. The business bamboo ceiling is still in place. It limits opportunities for people in Australia with Asian “talent”. It also limits the effectiveness of Australian businesses in Asia.

The report was prepared for the Australian Council of Learned Academies. Its members are the Australian Academy of the Humanities, the Australian Academy of Science, the Academy of Social Sciences in Australia and the Australian Academy of Technology and Engineering.

The report pointed out that people of Asian descent are unlikely to be included in the top echelons of Australian business. This is despite the evidence that students of Asian origin in our schools and universities have been ahead of the field for decades, and in large numbers too.

In this Journal, I have posted many articles on our failure to equip and prepare ourselves with the skills and knowledge needed to work effectively in our region. Maybe we don’t need an Asian language or indeed much business sophistication to dig up and sell iron ore, gas or coal to very willing buyers, but we certainly do need Asian skills to sell elaborately transformed manufactured goods and services, particularly tourism.

Tourism, as a business, has boomed over the years, but we do not get very much repeat business. We skip from one new market to another; first Japan, then South Korea and now China. Our tourism industry lacks Asian expertise.

Some Australian expats in business in Asia have developed Asian skills and sensitivities. But for an expat, coming home is often harder than going offshore. His or her world has changed by the overseas experience, but the culture of head office is as stubbornly Anglo-Celtic as it always was. Many leave, joining foreign companies or going overseas.

Success in Asia requires long-term commitment, but the remuneration packages and the demands of shareholders are linked to short-term returns.

Australia has been talking about equipping itself for doing business in Asia for decades, but we have little to show for it. We have had numerous reports; from the Garnaut report in 1999, Australia and the Northeast Asian Ascendancy, to the 2012 Henry report on the Asian Century. That 2012 report was trashed by the incoming Abbott Government. It tells the story quite bleakly about our failure and lack of national commitment in Asia. Tony Abbott still pines for the “Anglosphere”.

We talk about our future in Asia and the need to develop expertise to take advantage of these opportunities. But our follow through falls well short.

I’ve been dealing with business executives for decades, but I have yet to learn of a single chairperson or chief executive of any of our major companies who could fluently speak any of the languages of our region.

The major failing is at the top levels of business. The attitude and behaviour of board directors and chief executives is reflected in the attitudes and behaviour of their organisations. Consciously, or perhaps in some cases unconsciously, they reflect social class and race. With little diversity and very narrow experience, they select and appoint people like themselves.

One reason for this serious under-representation of people of Asian background in our major institutions is that while private and, particularly, independent schools have relatively ordinary educational results compared with some public schools with many students of Asian origin, the graduates from those private schools, nevertheless, succeed in access to senior positions in business. Parents pay very high private-school fees which, in effect, buy access to ruling social groups. They pay large amounts of money to get their children into a social network that will favour them against children from public schools.

Social class has a way of perpetuating itself. We should stop pretending that social class is not an important feature in Australia and, particularly, in some of our major institutions. The problem is particularly rampant at a senior business level, the director’s cabal of males with similar school, social and political backgrounds. They run closed shops. The “headhunters” help reinforce these “closed shops”. Together, they set the standard for major organisations. It is thus unsurprising that the recruitment and promotion policies of these companies reflect the attitudes at the top.

Some decades ago, at Qantas, I found that a major interest of directors was reappointment to the Board, rather than the interests of the company, its customers and staff. I don’t think much has changed. Reappoint people like yourself.

After I left Qantas, I was asked if I had been offered any directorships. Surely, the directors’ club would look after me? It didn’t, as a matter of fact; I was not surprised!

Governments take pride in trade and investment partnerships that have been negotiated with many Asian countries. But where are the business people to take full advantage of these arrangements?

Our business sector just does not get Asia. The bamboo ceiling is still well and truly in place. Don’t disturb the white men’s clubs. The most some of them see of Asia is the rugby sevens tournament in Hong Kong.