My question is again to the Prime Minister. I refer to the statement of Minister Nash at Senate estimates this morning: 'My chief of staff has complied with all the requirements to ensure that there was no conflict of interest.' I also refer to the Prime Minister's statement in the House on Monday: he 'was required to divest himself of' a shareholding and 'he was dilatory in doing so'. Who has misled the parliament—the Prime Minister or the Assistant Minister for Health?

Before I call the Prime Minister there is an assumption in that question that there has been a misleading of the parliament. That is out of order. You may rephrase your question.

An opposition member interjecting—

There are other forums of the House in which you can make those sorts of allegations.

Madam Speaker, on two points of order: in the first instance, you are ruling out of order a question, and a part of the question is identical to something that was in order only minutes ago. The second issue with that is it has always been the practice in this parliament that if there is a belief that someone has misled that we are allowed to ask a question about it.

I have asked the member to rephrase her question and the question will then stand.

Would you like me to ask the entire question with the rephrase, or just the end? I am happy to ask the whole thing again. My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the statement of Minister Nash at Senate estimates this morning: 'My chief of staff has complied with all the requirements to ensure that there was no conflict of interest.' I also refer to the Prime Minister's statement in the House on Monday: he 'was required to divest himself of' a shareholding and 'he was dilatory in doing so'. Who is right—the Prime Minister or the Assistant Minister for Health?

Happily, Madam Speaker, both. I want to make it absolutely crystal clear that there has been no breach of the conflict of interest rules.