Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:47): 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? The SPEAKER: That question is running very close to making an allegation against a minister, and I think you could rephrase the question. Mr SHORTEN: 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?