Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (14:12): Not at all. I would say the budget also includes almost $70 million, from memory, for women's health initiatives. The assistant minister, Minister Kearney, is leading the work on a women's health strategy. She's been doing a lot of work and consulting with various stakeholder groups. But this budget is a proud budget in terms of the investments in health, in hospitals, in primary care, in— Senator Ruston: I rise on a point of order. The question was specifically around a particular budget measure that is missing from the budget in relation to IVF for women and parents who have been diagnosed with cancer or genetic conditions. There has been no mention whatsoever of that measure. The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Ruston. I don't need the commentary. I do believe the minister is being relevant. She has been talking about women's health and, if not, I will direct her to the question. Minister Gallagher. Senator GALLAGHER: I think it was about our commitment. I answered the question right at the front when I said, no, I didn't agree with the proposition that was being put by Senator Askew. I went on to explain the investments we're making in women's health and the work that is being done to put together a strategy around it, because we take this seriously. We understand that women's reproductive health is key to women's health overall and that obviously has flow-on impacts into our economy and our community; that is the point I'm making. I'm also making the point that we have a very positive investment in health. In dealing with some of the challenges, again—surprise, surprise—we were left by a former government that had spent nine years trying to dismantle Medicare and not investing in health. The PRES IDENT: Minister, please resume your seat. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: You have a senator on her feet. Order! Order! Order! I have called the opposition to order three times. You had one of your frontbenchers on her feet. Senator Ruston? Senator Ruston: Once again, on a matter of relevance. The question referred specifically to a budget measure in relation to people who have cancer or genetic conditions in relation to IVF. She has not answered that question. The PRESIDENT: Senator Ruston, as you know, I can't direct the minister to answer the question in a way that might be your response. I do believe, for the second time, the minister is being directly relevant. Opposition senat ors interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER: Are you having another question? Because that wasn't the question. I have answered the question that was put to me straight up, and I am now going on to explain the other positive measures in the budget, including measures around women's health. It's a positive budget for women. It's a positive budget for health. It's dealing with a decade of delay and— The PRESIDENT: Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Ruston? Senator Ruston: Once again, on relevance: I respect your decision here, President, but the minister has not answered the question despite saying she has. I would ask you to direct her to answer the question. The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong? Senator Wong: If I may, President, before your ruling: I'd submit that if Senator Ruston had been paying attention the minister had actually responded directly to that point, the specific policy point, in her first few sentences. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator Wong: I'm very happy for you to spend as much time on this as you wish. We're always happy to have our record on health matched up against yours, but that's a different point. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Order! Order! Senator McGrath interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Senator McGrath! I should not have to name senators to call you to order. My ruling is: once again, I do believe the minister is being relevant. Minister Gallagher, did you finish? Okay. Senator Askew, first supplementary?