Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (20:31): This motion by the member for Sturt, on the criteria for independent youth allowance, is nothing more than a pretentious attempt to show concern for university students. I make this single point: if he were truly concerned for university students he would have opposed the Work Choices legislation that the previous government, of which he was a member, introduced into this place. Most university students I know work part time. They do jobs that most other people would not do. They do not get paid terribly highly, yet it was them and people in similar employment positions who would have been most affected by the Work Choices legislation. In fact, they would have been much worse off because of it. They were the ones who were going to lose all their rights. Let me also make it very clear that Labor believes the opportunity of high-quality education should be available to all students regardless of their background or where they live. The changes made to youth allowance payments in April 2010 were made to give more students the chance to go to university. They targeted those students most in need of assistance. Since those changes were made more than 100,000 young people have benefited because they are eligible for youth allowance for the first time or they are receiving more money than before. More than one-third of these young people are from rural and regional areas. If this motion is designed to address a problem for students in regional areas, it ignores last week's announcement that the number of rural and regional university students receiving youth allowance has increased by 22 per cent since changes to youth allowance payments were introduced. Hundreds of students are becoming the first members of their families to attend university. The new scholarship programs that were introduced have also been hugely successful over the past year in helping more students overcome some of the costs that come with attending university. More than 240,000 university students have received student start-up scholarships towards their education costs. More than 55,000 are from rural and regional areas. More than 36,000 university students who need to move away from home to study have received relocation scholarship payments towards their accommodation costs. More than 15,000 are from rural and regional areas. These changes have been positive not only for those living in rural and regional areas but also for those in my own electorate of Makin. For example, 841 young people in my electorate benefited from changes to the parental income test and now receive youth allowance. Since 1 April 2010, all university students receiving student income support have been entitled to a student start-up scholarship, providing essential assistance to university students for the high up-front costs of textbooks for each year of their course. In my electorate of Makin, 1,382 young people have benefited from these changes. The member for Sturt may be delighted to know that over 2,000 residents of the Sturt electorate have received the student start-up scholarships since 1 April 2010. I question whether the shadow minister would roll back the changes made in April 2010 if he were in government, thus denying thousands of young people in his electorate critical assistance. Since April 2010, all dependent university students receiving student income support who need to relocate to study receive a relocation scholarship valued at over $4,000 for the first year and over $1,000 for subsequent years of their course. To this point, 140 young people from Makin have been paid a relocation scholarship. I understand that in the Sturt electorate 214 young people would not have benefited from the scholarship had Labor not been in government. All in all, some 2,584 people in Makin receive youth allowance, and I understand that the figure in the electorate of Sturt is very similar. I will finish on this point: earlier this year we debated the student amenities legislation in this place. Again, I recall that the highest beneficiaries of student amenities at universities are young people from rural and regional areas. I also recall that it was the member for Sturt and his party who opposed that legislation every step of the way. If he were truly concerned about the welfare of students from rural and regional areas going to university he would have supported that legislation, but he did not—which again highlights that the motion he has brought before the House tonight is nothing but a stunt.