My question is for the Minister for Infrastructure. When asked in Senate estimates if he agreed with the minister's assertion that $30 million to purchase the Leppington Triangle was a bargain, the finance minister stated that compulsory acquisition should have continued to be pursued. Why did the government change course to acquire this land by agreement instead of through compulsory acquisition? Does the minister stand by his statement that this deal was a bargain?

I thank the member for Ballarat for her question. I was not the minister at the time. I became the minister for infrastructure in February 2018. This took place before that. That said, the entire purchase of the land is under three investigations—investigations that have been called for by the department itself and by the ANAO, an organisation with which the member for Ballarat is very familiar. The Federal Police are looking into it, as is an independent auditor. I'm sure that when those investigations, thorough as they will be, take place, the government will consider that review and act accordingly then.