Senator PATERSON (Victoria) (15:20): Today is the day that the federal budget will be delivered. I must admit that I am new to this place, but I would have thought that, on the day that the federal budget is due to be delivered, it might have merited the attention of opposition senators in question time. Yet the questions that they chose to ask today in Senate question time were on the following topics: firstly, the Indigenous Land Corporation's annual report—something that has been asked about previously and about which nothing new was learnt from; secondly, their conspiracy theories about higher education reform; thirdly, submarines; fourthly, the Cabinet Secretary—again an issue well ventilated in Senate question time in which nothing new was gained; and, finally, mental health funding. There was not one question on the budget, not one question on tax, not one question on the deficit and not one question on debt. While I am shocked and surprised on one level that no attention was devoted to economic matters by the opposition senators today, on the other hand I do understand that it is a little bit of an embarrassing topic for those opposite. I do understand that, on the day that the shadow Treasurer called a $19½ billion black hole in his costings a 'rounding error', Labor senators might not want to draw attention to budget matters. I understand, given their record in government, where they inherited $29 billion of net assets and in six years turned that into $153 billion of net debt, and with deficits as far as the eye could see for the forward estimates, that they might not want to talk about the budget and about economic management. I understand, given their plans for this election to increase taxes by more than $100 billion, that they may not wish to talk about the budget and matters of economic management. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson, just resume your seat. Senator Urquhart: Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order on the question of relevance. I understand that the question that we are taking note of is in relation to higher education. I have not heard one mention at all of higher education from the senator in his address so far. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Urquhart. You are correct, but I am sure Senator Paterson is—Senator Conroy, you have a point of order? Senator Conroy: On the point of order: it is a very correct point of order you have taken, but I would ask the chair to be lenient to the new senator. It is his first budget. It is a budget which he has criticised in the past, over the last few years. He does not want to talk about it. But I would ask you to be lenient on our new Senate colleague. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: It was my intention to be lenient, in any case, with all senators. But I was just about to say that I am sure Senator Paterson is coming to the question before the chair. Senator PATERSON: I thank senators for their helpful advice and assistance in this matter. I have to say that I am very glad that the topic of higher education has been raised. I am looking forward to discussing it today, particularly in the context of the opposition's capacity to estimate expenses and revenue in the future. We know that the errors that we have exposed today in their budget for the upcoming election of $19½ billion is not the only area in which they have made predictions which have not turned out to be correct. For example, opposition leader, Bill Shorten, says that he has a plan to provide free education for 100,000 STEM graduates. On the day that policy was announced, he initially stated that the cost would be $45 million over the estimates—a laughable costing, which he himself had to quickly correct. He subsequently stated that it might be $350 million, but the Department of Education and Training estimated the costing to be $2.25 billion. Those opposite cannot be trusted on higher education, in the same way that they cannot be trusted with the budget. You cannot deliver a world-class, high quality higher education system if you cannot deliver the funding that is necessary to make it work. Only the coalition has demonstrated that it has the capacity to manage the economy and the budget in a way which ensures that all of the important activities of government, including funding the higher education system, can be comfortably done. We cannot rely on people who predict that their revenue from cigarette taxes will be $37 billion when in fact it will be $19½ billion less to deliver anything for the higher education sector, to deliver anything for universities. It was, in fact, their changes—their incomplete reforms when in government—which uncapped the number of places that universities were allowed to admit in each course, which has caused a skyrocketing and a massive increase in costs for universities. I am a relatively recent product of the university education system, and I am very grateful for the time I spent at university. I think it is appropriate that whilst I was there I was required to make a financial contribution to my education, because I am the primary beneficiary of the education that I received. Andrew Norton, the pre-eminent higher education policy expert in Australia, who is at the Grattan Institute, has estimated that students who attend university are, on average, $1 million better off over their lifetimes than students who do not. It is entirely appropriate that we contribute to the cost of that education.