Mr ROCHER(6.42 p.m.) —I do not think it detracts from what the opposition is seeking to achieve to simply deal with section 9. It would assuage my concerns if that were left out. As far as I can tell, this has not been canvassed in the other place. I simply say that they got carried away up there with other matters and neglected to debate this. I do not know if it has been brought to anyone's attention in the parliament yet, remembering that it has only just been discussed up there before coming down here this evening.

But the logic of it defies support. You cannot have it both ways. If you want an escalation clause, go out and do a deal with a subcontractor on a building site if that is all you are prepared to offer. Let me say this: this is not a rise and fall clause—it is an escalation clause. If I read those words correctly, the only way a taxpayer can be affected by this is by it going up. So I wholeheartedly support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Werriwa.

Amendment negatived.

Mr Rocher —I wish to have my dissenting voice recorded in Hansard .

Original question resolved in the affirmative.