Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday in question time in explaining why the Prime Minister sacked the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, the Prime Minister informed the parliament that there was conflict between the former secretary and the current agriculture minister—two people in conflict; one got sacked. Therefore, what steps did the Prime Minister take to satisfy himself whether the real issue was the conduct of the agriculture minister, or does the Prime Minister assert that the former secretary was 100 per cent to blame for the conflict?

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That question is running very close to making an allegation against a minister, and I think you could rephrase the question.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to rephrase the question if you insist, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday the parliament was told by the Prime Minister that the secretary of the agriculture department was sacked by him and he said there were issues between the department secretary and the minister. Why is the secretary of the agriculture department shouldering 100 per cent of the blame for the issues? What steps did the Prime Minister take to acquaint himself with the conduct of the agriculture minister in this matter?

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I told the parliament yesterday, when I was advised that there were issues between the secretary and the minister, I asked the secretary of my department to look into it. He did look into it and he brought some recommendations to me and I acted upon the recommendations—simple as that.