Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (12:24): I thank the Prime Minister for his remarks. I acknowledge, with respect, the traditional owners of this land, from the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people here in Canberra to the Yolngu people of Yirrkala in the north, from the Yawuru people of the north-west to the Yuin in the south-east, from the Noongar peoples of the south-west to the Meriam Mir of the Torres Strait Islanders. This parliament, and modern Australia, is built on what is, was and always will be Aboriginal land. I join the Prime Minister in acknowledging elders here, including so many Indigenous leaders in the galleries. I also, particularly today, want to acknowledge the surviving members of the stolen generation. I'd like to briefly reflect on the apology which took place 10 years ago. When you think about it 10 years on, the apology, in so many ways, speaks for itself. I do think it should be recognised that, without the bravery, decency and leadership of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, and the vital support he got from Jenny Macklin, it may not have happened. I think, like so many of the best moments of this parliament, the process afterwards makes you wonder what the problem was beforehand. It's a monument to the bigness, though, in particular to the spirit of our fellow First Australians and particularly members of the stolen generation. I don't know if the rest of us have the capacity to empathise, but imagine belonging to a stolen generation who had endured all manner of indignities and injustices and all kinds of trauma and tragedy. I wonder if the rest of us when, at long last, the government finally asked forgiveness could somehow find it in our hearts to grant it. Yet somehow, the stolen generation found it in their hearts to grant forgiveness in the spirit of healing. Looking back on that remarkable day, there are two things that we ought to remember. Firstly, there were plenty of people who said it could not and should not be done, that somehow saying 'sorry' could be divisive or counterproductive and that it would diminish our history and burden us with guilt. The lesson to all those who spoke against the apology 10 years ago—just as it was for those who argued against land rights, who argued against Mabo, who argued against native title, just as it will be the lesson the next time that people talk about black armbands or the Aboriginal industry—is that there is nothing to fear from recognising and owning the failures of the past and nothing to lose from an honest debate about our nation's history and the way we mark it. In fact, it is how we move forward. It's how we learn. It's how we continue to grow as a people who understand our past and are intent on a better future. But there's a second thing I think we should remember. We must remember that the apology was so much more than a set of well-chosen words. I believe it was more than just an expression of sorrow and regret. It was a declaration of intent. It was a promise for action. The continuing weight and meaning of the apology comes from what we do now: from our actions, from the changes that we drive, the gaps that we close and the unfinished business that we resolve. And that's what I would like to talk about today—unfinished business. In the past 10 years, state governments around the country, both Liberal and Labor, have established different forms of compensation schemes for the members of stolen generations. I do not say that they are all perfect, and I do recognise that there is work still to be done. But around 150 surviving members of the stolen generation who were the direct responsibility of the Commonwealth government—namely, First Australians in the Northern Territory and the Koori people of the ACT and Jervis Bay—have received no financial compensation whatsoever. They are still waiting for saying sorry to be matched by making good. It is time that the Commonwealth lived up to its rhetoric. It's time the Commonwealth stopped outwaiting the survivors. So today I announce that Labor will establish a stolen generations compensation scheme. To each of these survivors removed from their families, country and culture we would offer an ex-gratia payment of $75,000, as well as a one-off payment to ensure the costs of funerals are covered. Compensation's not about restoring people to the position they would've been in before what happened happened, but it is about resolving some of the unfinished business of the apology, and it follows an original recommendation from the Bringing them home report, now 21 years old. Regrettably, this fund comes too late for many members of the stolen generation. Today I acknowledge those who are no more, who did not live to see justice done. I also recognise that the trauma of forced removal ricochets down the generations. So a Labor government would provide $10 million to programs that assist with the healing of stolen generation members and their descendants nationwide, to be administered by the Healing Foundation. These programs support intergenerational healing, family reunion and return to country. This money would also provide some modest support for older members of the stolen generation, including help with aged-care services for those who, understandably, cannot bear the idea of moving to yet another facility in another institution. Reconciliation is not just about confronting the past. It's about making sure that mistakes are not repeated. I think that most Australians would be surprised to learn that there are over 17½ thousand first-nations children growing up away from country and culture. This is twice as many as 10 years ago. How can this be—twice as many? I think most Australians would be surprised to learn that, in 1997, 20 per cent of the children in out-of-home care were Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, but today it is 35 per cent and growing. How can this be? Thirty-five in every 100 children in out-of-home care are Aboriginal kids. The Northern Territory royal commission into juvenile detention revealed that far too many young people from broken homes found incarceration to be a dead end, indeed. The responsibility for tackling this doesn't just belong to the Territory government, any more than the problems of youth detention stop at one set of state borders. We all have to do better. It's why Labor has listened to First Australians and long called for justice targets to reduce incarceration rates and improve community safety. I actually think most Australians would be surprised to learn that a young Aboriginal man of 18 is more likely to end up in jail than university. In the same vein, it is why we encourage the government to urgently sign up to the remote Indigenous housing agreements for the states, because having a roof over your head is just essential to one's health, education and family safety. And it's why, in our first 100 days, a new Labor government will convene a national summit for first-nations children. We'd bring together the members of the Family Matters Coalition, Indigenous-controlled organisations like SNAICC, state and territory leaders and frontline service providers. We would use that summit to address the diaspora of first-nations children being placed in out-of-home care, to tackle the madness of massive overrepresentation of first-nations young people in youth detention, and to better understand and cure the curse of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder and other health issues disadvantaging children's development and their consequent life opportunities. It would be a focus on giving every child the best start in life, ensuring they growth up healthy, in strong families and in safe communities. Haven't we learned that children in out-of-home care lead different lives to the world we know? They lead lives of trauma and broken trust. In this place we talk about achieving a certain goal by 2028 or 2030, but these kids we are neglecting are the adults we hope will help us meet our targets. We put our faith in these kids getting a great education, finding decent jobs and being role models for others. But surely, if we're going to ask and expect that, we need to do more to provide a better start in life and at home? I believe this involves bringing everyone to the table and listening to Aboriginal people in frontline organisations. How do we tackling the addiction, conflict, violence and poverty? We all welcome the improvements in this year's Closing the gap report. I concur with the Prime Minister that it's heartening to see the goals for reducing child mortality and improving early child education back on track. Year 12 attainment remains strong. I acknowledge the progress of the procurement strategy. In this place we should certainly celebrate the successes, the blue sky, and there are many. But we also need to face up to the fact that on too many fronts progress remains far too slow. In the critical areas of reading and writing, numeracy, school attendance and finding good jobs we are not on track. It is hard to bid for a business contract if the reading, the writing, the numeracy, the attendance at school and the surviving family violence is so difficult. I think the most confronting harsh reminder of the road ahead is that there has been no significant change in Indigenous mortality rates in the past decade. We love to spend a lot of time in this place talking about rights: the right to freedom of speech or the right to freedom of enterprise. But what about the right to a fair trial? What about the right to a roof over your head? What about the right to control your own life? What about the right to grow old? I think every member of this place would agree that Australia can do better. We have to. So, before the talk of refreshing targets moves any further, we must also be clear about one thing. Falling short is no reason to lower the bar. I think it is uncomfortable for any of us to stand in this parliament and admit failure. I imagine it is hard for any Prime Minister of any political persuasion to stand in the people's house and say that too many of our first Australians endure second-class opportunities and suffer from Third World diseases. It should be hard for us as parliamentarians, and it should be uncomfortable to say it and hear it. But protecting our sensibilities is no reason to lower our sights. We, the parliament, the nation's leaders, must be held accountable. If a government cuts $500 million from Aboriginal services, it should have to answer for that. If a government walks away from a national agreement that is successfully building houses in communities, delivering local jobs and apprenticeships and skills, it should have to answer for it. If a government talks about partnership on health or justice but doesn't match words with resources, it should have to answer for that. Today can never be about pretending that low expectations and insufficient efforts somehow carry the virtue of pragmatism. When it comes to closing the gap we cannot be content with aiming for anything less than proper equality. In one vital respect, however, the promised refresh offers us all a new opportunity. The unmissable message from First Australians these past 10 years and, indeed, for far many more years than that, is, 'Nothing about us without us.' The most powerful improvement occurs when Aboriginal people take control of their lives, when governments support Aboriginal leadership and direct resources to those organisations. I have seen it myself. It is particularly true in health, where great Aboriginal controlled programs stand out among disappointing results overall. We know what doesn't work: government-invitation-only events, top-down decision making, hand-picked sources of advice, bureaucratic centralised service provision and the exclusion or minimisation of Aboriginal participation and authority. At Redfern, just over 25 years ago, Paul Keating had the wisdom to say that the problems started with us non-Aboriginal Australians. Today, let us respect that solutions must be authored, owned and controlled by Aboriginal Australians. This has to include a meaningful say for the First Australians and the decisions that affect their lives—a voice to parliament. I know that the Statement from the Heart at Uluru caught many parliamentarians by surprise. I acknowledge it was not the proposal for change that I expected. It was not an idea that had been canvassed by various parliamentary committees or the Public Service. But, with our shared record on this question, as we look at our inadequate progress on Closing the Gap, who are we in this parliament to simply reject it out of hand? After years of parliaments delivering well-intentioned, incremental disappointment, who are we to suddenly say this idea is simply too big or too bold? Who are we to say that we're only capable of minimalism or symbolism? Who are we to say that, because previous constitutional referendums failed at the end of the last century, we should endure the longest drought of constitutional change in this country and that change is simply too hard? Who are we to tell 1,200 delegates from 12 regional dialogues: 'Go back to the drawing board and try again. We here don't like it'? It's time for us to be better and braver than the path of least resistance. It's time we took the Statement from the Heart into our hearts. It's time we worked together to deliver on its key recommendations: a voice enshrined in the Constitution; a declaration to be passed by all parliaments—Commonwealth and state—acknowledging the unique place of the first nations in Australian history, their culture and connection; and a Makarrata commission to oversee a process of agreement making and truth telling. I know that some have characterised the concept of the voice as a third chamber of the parliament. That is lazy logic. That does a great disservice to the authors. It does a great disservice to our First Australians. It is not what the delegates at Uluru were seeking and it's not what Labor is advocating now. Nor will a voice supplant the parliament here or the First Australians in this place. Like the Prime Minister, I'm very proud that we now have first nations members represented in more numbers than ever before in this parliament and I'm very proud that Labor has so many first nations caucus members. The parliament could do with more. But, like every one of us, let us not sell them short. Every member of parliament, First Australian or otherwise, understands they have a duty to represent all their constituents. And they come with their loyalties to the parties that have supported them. But we cannot expect them to carry the weight of this issue on their own. We cannot have a process of consultation with Aboriginal Australia which relies on the ability of political parties to elect First Australians. The truth is that the Statement from the Heart calls for what both sides of the House say they are committed to: genuine partnership with, not to; real empowerment; and solutions constructed by first nations people. In this parliament, we owe it to move past misleading scare campaigns and get recognition back on track. It was in August or September, after Garma, that I wrote to the Prime Minister proposing we establish a joint parliamentary committee to put momentum behind Makarrata and work towards finalising a referendum question. That invitation stands. After eight months, we appear to be resolving the process of a joint committee, but the work of that committee should be about establishing how we advance the voice. Members of this parliament mightn't feel totally comfortable with or were surprised by what was proposed at Uluru, but in this place we don't get to choose what the people tell us. In this place, we listen to what the people tell us and we implement their will. And let me also be very straight—we want bipartisanship. But bipartisanship cannot mean an agreement to do nothing. It cannot be used as an alibi for the lowest common denominator. I ask the government to reconsider their rejection of the statement from the heart. But, if we cannot work on this together, the next Labor government will, instead, as a first step, look to legislate the voice to parliament. I say to the Prime Minister and the government—we will work with you, but we will not wait for you. We will begin the detailed design work in opposition, work with Uluru delegates and many other first-nations people who've led the thinking on this issue. And, if we form a government, we will sensibly move to finalise legislation which establishes the voice and includes a clear pathway to constitutional change, enshrining that basic principle that you don't make decisions about people without talking to them. In fact, I think it will be easier for a referendum to succeed and harder for a scare campaign to be run, if we already have lived legislative experience of such a body. In conclusion, for 10 years and four prime ministers this has been a day of words. Sometimes we've heard good speeches in defence of not so good results. It is always difficult when constructing a discussion about the nation's progress in partnership with First Australians. If you just talk about the problems, you're accused of not looking at the successes. If you talk about the successes, you're accused of not understanding the problems. It is a mixed record. I understand that. But one thing I know is that, when we work with First Australians, when we genuinely empower First Australians to take control of their lives and when we don't have top-down but bottom-up decision-making, we will get it more right than we will get it more wrong. I understand, fundamentally, this parliament is for all Australians. This parliament also is charged to make sure that we spend the scarce taxpayer resources most wisely, most prudentially and most effectively. But the best way to be prudential, effective and equitable is to do it with the people upon whom the decisions are being made. We can close the gap. It is not too hard. And it'll be First Australians, as ever, who will show us how. So, with hope and heart, let us pledge, again, 10 years on, to greater cooperation, better results, stronger progress and with a voice of First Australians entwined in every decision. Then we will close the gap. I thank the House.