Let's be really clear. This bill—or three bills combined, because this government are not only gagging debate but combining multiple issues—is a betrayal of the Australian people. Every Labor member that votes for this bill, which they'll be forced to do, will have broken their word to their communities, because they did not take these changes to the last election, so their communities can no longer trust anything that any Labor member says.

You can always tell when they're uncomfortable with changes and they're forced to follow orders from the Prime Minister and this hapless treasurer, because we only had, out of 94 members, seven backbenchers speak on this legislation. Six had to sort of try and defend it and defend the undefendable, but the member for Chifley was also on that list. He wasn't as complimentary as his six colleagues that decided to try and defend the undefendable. He was very critical. Although I will give the member for Chifley credit, he technically—and I don't want a verbal him—did not criticise the Treasurer or the Minister for Finance or the Prime Minister at all, but he was very critical of the RDTI changes, and he was very critical of the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Finance, so I will be fair to the member for Chifley.

Although everyone in this House knows that a good minister runs their department, they don't get run by the department. Given the member for Chifley was criticising the Department of the Treasury, I'll let everyone decide whether the Treasurer is getting run by his department or he is running the department. Either way, clearly, the member for Chifley was right to criticise these R&D tax incentive changes, and he knows that this treasurer is not up to it, and this treasurer's decisions are hurting the Australian people. They're hurting Australian businesses today, and they will hurt the Australian people into the future.

Let me explain why these research development tax incentive changes are so damaging. There's an admission actually, I should say, from the Treasurer, because the Treasurer said he's going to consult on these RDTI changes for the next six months, so he broke his word at the budget, but then said he would consult. He's now rushed through more legislation, and so we're now going to have consultation on the consultation on the broken promise on another broken promise. What a disaster from this Treasurer who is so far out of his depth.

This is actually a serious discussion, when it comes to the RDTI, because, particularly for medtech and biotech companies, they rely on that funding to become viable. Let me share the story of one company that I've spoken to, but this could be many biotech companies. Let's be clear at 15 years for a medtech-biotech company, you lose access to the RDTI, but this company is 17 years old. It is currently in the middle of a $40 million stage 3 trial. These changes will cost this company $4 million to $5 million in cash flow, and this company is not profitable. That's why they still qualify under this refundable method today. For this company to continue these trials, they will need capital. They will need to go out to the market to get capital to continue to invest in a product that will save lives here in Australia. However, that journey has just got harder as well, because now, when people and investors are looking to invest in this company, they have to allow for this government clawing 47 per cent of that capital gain back through taxes, so it is a double hit for this business. This business is looking to solve a health challenge that is on the national health priority list for our country. This is a business that has invested in advanced manufacturing in Australia to make sure they can do the stage 3 trial and that would continue to invest in Australia. But this business and every medtech and biotech company in our country is now having to have the discussion about whether they will continue to invest in Australia or look to move offshore. Any company, particularly one that's not profitable, that's losing $4 million to $5 million in revenue, would be negligent if they didn't explore other opportunities. The Treasurer, as he always does, talked about consultation. Well, consultation's only valuable, Treasurer, if you listen and you actually make a change. If it's fake consultation where nothing changes, what's the point of it?

What has AusBiotech CEO Rebekah Cassidy said today about these changes? She said capping R&DTI refund eligibility at 15 years 'remains unrealistic'. She said:

Therapies for complex diseases can take well in excess of 15 years to research and develop due to the intensive nature of R&D and clinical trials required. When these companies stay in Australia, they can invest in advanced manufacturing to support their late-stage trials.

Australia has long wanted these late-stage clinical trials and advanced manufacturing to happen onshore.

She said they are concerned that:

If the legislation is passed in its current form, the new 15-year time limit risks encouraging early-stage research in Australia while pushing more later-stage R&D including clinical trials and associated manufacturing activities offshore.

That's the AusBiotech CEO confirming that these changes will make it harder for late-stage clinical trials and advanced manufacturing in our country.

Kate Cornick, who is the chief executive of the Tech Council, is also concerned. To be clear, it's a 15-year time cliff for medtech and biotech. It's 10 years for any other business. Kate Cornick said:

… the removal of supporting R&D and introduction of a general 10-year age limit on refundable offsets remained serious problems for tech firms.

That's the Tech Council representing start-ups across this country.

The Treasurer had the gall to stand up in question time and talk about how he's consulted on these changes. Well, two of the largest industry bodies representing start-ups in this country and biotech medical companies that are literally solving cancers have criticised these changes and said they shouldn't happen. But those on the other side say: 'We don't care about you. We're going to follow this Treasurer off a cliff.'

These R&D tax incentives will hurt Australia today and they will hurt our country in five years, in 10 years and for generations to come. It is a disgrace that this Treasurer has broken his word and is pretending that these changes are going to help innovation. He either doesn't understand what he is doing or is deliberately misleading the Australian people. Either way, it is unacceptable for a Treasurer to be so far out of his depth that the impact will be felt for generations to come.

I'll move to another issue when it comes to this Treasurer and broken promises—trusts. We hear the rhetoric from the Treasurer about how this is about wealthy people. It's about their ideology of targeting the one per cent. Let's be clear. If you're in the top one per cent and you're using trusts, as soon as these laws come in, you'll have the means and ability to restructure and change to minimise tax no matter what. But who this is going to impact the most is small businesses and family businesses that have set up trusts to protect their personal assets. It will be tradies and cafe owners in Casey. All across the country, small business will cop it in the neck again.

Let me read a letter from a constituent, a business owner. I could read hundreds of these, but, again, this government's gagged debate, so I can't read them all. They said: 'Over the years we've experienced multiple builders going into liquidation and consequently have had to borrow against our house to keep meeting our business commitments. Even when money does not come in, wages, suppliers, superannuation and tax still must be paid. I find it upsetting and frustrating when discussion in parliament and in the media portrays families using trusts as wealthy people trying to avoid paying their fair share of tax. This does not reflect our experience. Our trust structure is not solely about tax. It also forms part of how we manage business risk and seek to protect our family's assets and financial security. After more than 20 years building the business, protecting what we have worked for matters to us, particularly given the financial exposure we carry.' That could have been from thousands of my community. I'm sure it's the same for you, Deputy Speaker Boyce.

This government doesn't understand and doesn't care about the small and family businesses of our country that are wanting to have a go, get ahead and support their communities but want to make sure that, if it goes wrong, their personal assets—their house and a little bit for the future and for their children—are actually protected. This is a government that has never understood, and doesn't seek to understand, small business. That's why the coalition has been really clear. We will repeal these taxes and support the Australian people. Not only will we do that; we will back every Australian through our tax-back guarantee. That means, every time you get a pay rise, you don't have to pay more tax. What happens with inflation is your business wants to give you that pay rise because everything's more expensive. That puts you into a higher tax bracket, and then you automatically pay more tax when you go into the higher tax bracket.

That's the secret of this treasurer. It's why the Treasurer promises a tax cut in a budget and then actually delivers it into your bank account the next year—12 to 18 months later. It's because, by the time he's given you that tax cut, you've already paid for it four times over through increased income tax. But indexing the brackets means that, when inflation goes up, the bracket will go up, and you will stay on the same tax rate. That will give you, on average, $250 in year 1, $500 in year 2, $750 in year 3 and a thousand dollars in year 4. It will grow to $1,250 in year 5 et cetera—real reform and real tax relief for the Australian people.

If those opposite want to talk about how they want to support the Australian people, why won't they support the tax-back guarantee? The reason they won't is that the Treasurer relies on you paying more income tax so he can get ahead and spend it on wasteful ideas. This government doesn't get it, and small-business owners know it. A small-business owner spoke to me. He offered me the Albanese coffee. The Albanese coffee was an interesting coffee, Member for Bowman. It was offered at $25 because everything is so much more expensive and he's got taxes to pay.