Mr BUTLER (Hindmarsh—Minister for Health and Aged Care and Deputy Leader of the House) (14:21): I thank the member for her question. Members of the Labor caucus have been meeting with pharmacists for the last several months. I've been engaging with my caucus and with members of the crossbench, the crossbench parties, about the feedback that they've been receiving from pharmacists now for several months. I can also say: they've been meeting with doctors and the doctors' groups, and, most importantly—I say this as a reminder to those opposite—patients and patient groups. The measure that we delivered on Friday, as the Prime Minister has already alluded to, delivers cheaper medicines for almost four million Australian patients—those with ongoing health conditions, like heart disease, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, osteoporosis and so many others besides. This is delivering on advice that those opposite received five years ago—five years ago! Mr McCormack interjecting— The SPEAKER: The member for Riverina. Everyone just needs to cool it. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition on a point of order? Ms Ley: There is an important and relevant part to my question, Minister: can the minister confirm that the government has brought forward the next community pharmacy agreement by— The SPEAKER: Resume your seat. The Leader of the House. Mr Burke: A point of order: the relevance point of order that can be taken once during an answer is not there for the questioner to say there was one bit of her question that was relevant, which is what has just been put to the chamber. The SPEAKER: The minister was asked about meetings. He was asked about timings. He is listing who he's met with, when he has met them and who—everything else. So of course he is being relevant. I appreciate the deputy leader would like him to be relevant to a certain part of the question, but, under the standing orders, he is being directly relevant, and I ask him to continue. Mr BUTLER: I'm simply pointing out that members on this side have been meeting with all interests in this area: with pharmacists; with the pharmacists' lobby; with individual pharmacists in their electorates; but also with doctors' groups and patient groups. And have a look at what patients' groups said on Friday about the delivery of this measure. I've been asked question after question by those opposite about this measure, and not one of them has ever alluded to the interests of patients—not one of them has ever alluded to the interests of millions of patients who'll benefit from this. I can say confidently that those on this side have met with pharmacists, time and time again, to understand their view of this measure. Now, to the second part of the member's question—that is, about the new funding agreement, or what we call the community pharmacy agreement: I did confirm last week that we had agreed to a request from the Pharmacy Guild, the main pharmacy lobby group, to bring forward negotiations for that agreement, with the aim, if possible, of securing a new funding agreement by 1 March. That commitment was contingent upon a decision by the guild to stand down their campaign against this measure. A reasonable person in this building might question whether that commitment is being delivered upon, but that is a commitment that we have made. We intend, if it's reciprocated by the other side in negotiations, to deliver on it over the coming months. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER: The member for Casey is getting close to being warned, and so is the Leader of the Nationals.