Mr PRICE(10.39 a.m.) —As you would be aware, the opposition is not opposing this legislation, which really removes the liabilities for DIFF funding from EFIC to the Commonwealth account. I did not hear all of the contribution of the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Zammit), but I do not think he once mentioned that the government he is a member of has actually cancelled DIFF. The scheme no longer exists. I am not sure whether it is out of embarrassment or shame that he is unable to say it. DIFF is no longer there.

It is all very well to say, `EFIC is moving in and filling the gap,' but, in fact, it has not changed at all. It is certainly not changed by this bill, other than having a liability removed from it to the Commonwealth, and having to pay $40 million to the Commonwealth in consideration of the Commonwealth assuming liabilities for about $1.7 billion worth of loans.

This whole sorry saga of DIFF funding needs to be again placed on the record. Let me be quite frank. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Downer), when in opposition—I think in about November 1995—asked the most comprehensive question on notice about DIFF funding to the then Minister Bilney and got a response. The coalition went into the election saying that they were going to maintain DIFF funding. Of course, we know once they were elected they cancelled it. One can only conclude that during the election there was dishonesty when the people of Australia were told that the coalition would maintain DIFF funding.

We ought to reflect on the cancellation of this DIFF funding. The Development Import Finance Facility: why did we have it? In fact, it was the coalition that introduced DIFF funding in 1980. The first project under DIFF funding was approved in 1982—I might say with Labor Party support; it was bipartisan—but they were the ones that actually originated the scheme. You would think that they would demonstrate some pride of ownership. I note that the member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) will follow me in this debate. Perhaps he, or whoever is going to be the next coalition speaker, might exhibit a little bit of pride of ownership.

Mr Slipper —I do not think he is.

Mr PRICE —He is not? I can understand that. It is probably a matter of shame that prevents him from contributing.

DIFF funding is a mixed credit scheme which allows Australian companies to tender competitive contracts for the supply of Australian goods and services for projects in developing countries. Normally DIFF funding will cover an amount equal to 35 per cent of the contract and is combined with export credit from the Export Finance Insurance Commission of Austrade to provide a concessional loan to the recipient country.

It has been very successful. In this debate we cannot say DIFF funding created a level playing field for Australian companies. Of course it did not. Other countries have far more concessional arrangements: Japan, Germany, the United States—

Mr Sercombe —Sweden.

Mr PRICE —Sweden. It balances up a little bit and gives them a bit of a chance, but it is certainly not a level playing field. And you have abolished it. The government members over there have been party to the abolition of the DIFF scheme.

The member for Lowe was very proud to tell the House his experience as an importer. I do not understand how that is relevant to a debate about how you assist on exporting, but be that as it may, let us be generous about that and accept it from the member for Lowe. I have never been an exporter but when I was involved in communications I well remember a Victorian based company, Ericssons.

Mr Sercombe —A good company.

Mr PRICE —`A good company,' says the honourable member for Maribyrnong.

Mr Sercombe —A good part of Melbourne.

Mr PRICE —And a good part of Melbourne. I wonder if he is exhibiting—I am sure he is not—a parochial interest. They put in, I think from memory, a $300 million bid into Indonesia for communications equipment. Quite frankly, when you discussed it with the officials there, it was not that it was an inferior bid; it was not that the equipment could not and would not have made a significant difference. But when push came to shove the decision really got around to what was the best form of financing—who was giving the better deal there. They were at a disadvantage. That meant that jobs in Ericssons were at risk.

We keep on saying as parliamentarians—both sides, but we say it with a greater degree of genuineness—that we need to export more. Traditionally, in communications there have been very few exports. We were pushing companies like Ericssons into the export market. If they could not survive competitively in the bid with DIFF funding, how in the hell are they going to survive without DIFF funding?

The member for Hotham (Mr Crean) has pointed out that this backflip by conservatives on DIFF funding and the actions of the Minister for Foreign Affairs at the beginning of their new term of office was a cause of extreme embarrassment, if not humiliation, for the minister and the government. And why was that so? He was reporting to the House that DIFF funding did not make any difference to our neighbours in our region because DIFF funding is very narrowly focused. There they were not concerned about the announced cancellation of the scheme and, of course, that proved to be grossly misleading.

We went through a series of exposures one day after another where, far from being indifferent or not concerned about the cancellation of the scheme, and having contacted the minister, the ambassador, or high commissioner, or even having written letters to the minister, he was forced to come into the House and, effectively, make a grovelling apology and have the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) make it clear to the people of Australia that he was on a warning. He had not been sin-binned; he had not been sent off, but he was on his warning. And so he deserved to be.

But it brings no credit to this government to remove DIFF funding. We like to think in the Labor Party that we represent the workers and, indeed, we certainly strive to do that. We are absolutely concerned about jobs, about permanent jobs, and about growth in jobs and, given that obsession of ours, we are very concerned to ensure that the full range of measures is available to Australian industry and Australian services when they are producing here in Australia and, more particularly, when they are exporting. And it is quite clear that they need DIFF funding.

I should have mentioned that there is a whole range of projects, involving some 50 companies in all, caught up by the cancellation of the scheme. If there is one thing that business really objects to, that narks them more than cutting expenditure, more than slashes, it is an inability to plan and know where a government is heading. And these companies were narked because the government did not say that they are going to cut the scheme off and give businesses some advance warning. They did it overnight, and projects that were in the middle of approval processes were caught up.

Given that the coalition, the originators of the DIFF scheme, have now emasculated and removed it, perhaps the parliamentary secretary (Mr Andrew Thomson) who is going to sum up in this debate might tell us when he comes to this place: what were the conditions? Does he agree with me? What were their reasons for implementing the scheme in the first place, and have those conditions changed? Is Australian manufacturing industry so absolutely robust, flushed with funds and success that it no longer needs DIFF, and what are the implications of the cancellation of DIFF? How many Australian jobs are going to be lost? How many Australian dollars' worth of exports are going to be lost because of the cancellation of DIFF funding?

There is one other aspect of DIFF funding that I have not mentioned and that is that, yes, it certainly helps some companies get into the export business. But when you get into the export business, it does not conform to Australian accountants' theory of business. You do not get success in three months, or six months, or twelve months. The export business is a long-term business and you have got to be patient. You have got to be in there; you have got to prove yourself, and after a period of time one success will breed success again. So perhaps the parliamentary secretary might take the trouble to tell us how many Australian companies will be deterred from making that long-term commitment to exports.

Mr Sercombe —He would not know.

Mr PRICE —I am pleased to see the honourable parliamentary secretary in the chamber. But how many will be deterred from making that long-term commitment to exports? Can he give us an estimate? Did he ask his department to look at this? Can it provide us with some figures? Can it humour the Labor Party—because we are interested in jobs—and tell us how many Australian jobs this means? What does it mean to services exports? What does it mean to manufacturing exports?

I do not want to speak much longer in this debate; I want to make it clear from—

Mr Slipper —We do not want you to, either.

Mr PRICE —Thank you. I take that as a compliment, by the way, Mr Slipper. But I do want to say this: the Australian Labor Party in opposition is most concerned to do all that it can do to work with industry. The member for Hotham talked about industry plans that had been put in place when we were in government. Of course we are proud of those industry plans. The essential feature of them is that you need, in the first instance, to sit down with the industry, whether that is management or the workers, to ascertain where they are and where they see the potential to be, and develop a plan based around that. Industry plans do not necessarily mean forking out taxpayers' dollars for assistance. For example, the car plan involved an export facilitation approach. This did not cost any dollars, but it put the car manufacturers on notice that they really had to export. Again, with communications, it was looking at the role of the dominant carrier and the new carrier, Optus, in trying to get as many dollars and jobs as they are able to pull through Australian industry.

We are not embarrassed or ashamed of the fact that we are concerned about Australian jobs and Australian exports. We are prepared to sit down with industry to work through the impediments to growth and export to ensure that if there is a role for government to play in that, we will play it. I think that when we go to the next election, there will be a distinct contrast between a Treasury-led government indifferent to jobs and to firms surviving, and an opposition where we are concerned about Australian jobs, about growing Australian small and medium businesses and about developing plans that allow them to grow and to export. I think that when we go to the next election, the Australian people are going to see that we are reflecting their concerns on this. They are concerned about it. They are very worried about you mob over there because they believe that you have no commitment to Australian jobs or to Australian industry or services, and you may very well reap the reward of being indifferent to their concerns. We want to be assured on this side of the House that that does not happen to us.

As I said, we support this bill, but I am looking forward to—I cannot stay—reading the parliamentary secretary's response—

Mr Slipper —It will be a good response.

Mr PRICE —I am sure it will. I hope that he will do me the courtesy of specifically addressing all the issues that I have raised for him so that the Australian people can be better informed about his government's motivation and reason and what actual numbers they have to back up the actions that they have taken.