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) (14:42): The government did go through this at estimates and there was an impact analysis done. Obviously, the Pharmacy Guild has commissioned a report as part of their campaign which is opposed to this. As I said in answer to my first question, the government doesn't agree with the assumptions underpinning the report or the conclusions drawn from it. So I don't accept what that report says. The advice to the government and that we took is about the fact that Australians on these medicines could save hundreds of dollars a year by making this safe and modest change to the way their medicines are— Senator Ruston: I raise a point of order once again on relevance, President. The minister continues to refer to access and the cost of medicines, which I have not referred to at all. I was merely asking whether Australians would be worse off and whether pharmacies would close. The PRESIDENT: The minister is being relevant. Senator W ong: President, on the point of order: I would have thought an issue going to whether Australians are worse off might involve price. I know the opposition might find that— The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, I have responded to Senator Ruston's point of order and I've said that the minister is being relevant. Senator GALLAGHER: Six million Australians will be better off if they take up the opportunity that comes, if their doctor approves it. They will be able to access a supply for 60 days, as opposed to 30 days, for a limited group of medicines. They will save hundreds of dollars a year. We think it's an important cost-of-living measure.