My question is to the Treasurer. The Ambitious Australia report said that the R&D tax incentive must be globally competitive, retain R&D intensive firms and extend support to commercialisation. It didn't recommend a time limit. The legislation introduced today provides that companies older than 15 years can't claim the R&D tax incentive's refundable offset. I'm hearing from some of our most innovative medical research companies that many advanced therapies take longer than that to commercialise and that a 15-year limit will force them to consider moving offshore. Why is the government putting this important sector at risk?

Thankyou to the honourable member for her question and for her interest, again, in this important part of tax reform. This is about reforming the R&D tax incentive to better target the incentive towards growing firms. Two of the key changes are, first of all, to make the thresholds more generous but also to make the age limit more sustainable; that's the part that the honourable member refers to in her question.

On the threshold, it used to be that firms lost access to the tax offset when their turnover exceeded $20 million. We've been able to increase that to $50 million—so we've made that more generous—but we have put in place fiscally responsible support for transitioning firms onto the nonrefundable part of the tax offset after 10 years or after 15 years for biotech and medtech; I understand that that's what the honourable member is referencing and responding to.

We've done a lot of consultation here. I acknowledge particularly Robyn Denholm but also others, including those involved in the Ambitious Australia report. We've done a lot of work with them. I acknowledge that not every element of what we've put to the parliament today is unanimously supported around the sector, but, if you look at the letter that Robyn Denholm wrote to her colleagues, it's clear that we've gone a long way as a government to respond to some of the legitimate issues that have been raised. For example, we've got more support for the biotech sector, we've got safe havens for innovators and we're expanding support for activities that are integral to core R&D. Here I want to acknowledge some of my own colleagues who've been raising these issues as well. The legislation before the House is better because of that consultation, including in a number of those areas that I've worked with the sector on.

What it means, if you take it all together, is that we'll be more effectively supporting R&D. Whether it's the combination of increasing the offsets by up to 50 per cent for core, whether it's lowering the intensity threshold on the non-refundable offset or whether it's increasing the maximum expenditure threshold to $200 million, all of this means that each dollar of tax offset will generate around 20 per cent more business R&D and will increase R&D by young firms by around $400 million a year. Altogether, this will have a very positive impact on the sector. The bills we introduced today are better because of the consultation we did, including the engagement on some of the questions central to the view put forward by the honourable member. We're very confident we've struck the right balance here, and we seek the support of the parliament.