The apology is in order, but how much will it cost.

Australia recently got something off its chest, an apology for acts perpetrated on its indigenous people, removing aboriginal children from their families and placing them with 'white' Australians or creating them state wards. Many feel the apology it is certainly a step in the right direction, and ends a period where a government flatly denied apologising for something that was not directly doing. Kevin Rudd put it this way:

"We have to remove the great stain on this nation's sould. It's time for fresh ideas for Australia's future."

A change of tack from where John Howard had previously stated:

Australians of this generation should not be required to accept guilt and blame for past actions and policies over which they had no control

It would to unwise suggest that he had no care for the aboriginal people, the draconian intervention in the Northern Territory, to protect many from dangers within their own communities, has started to bear fruit:

Cynthia Watson is one of 100 people who live in the Mount Nancy aboriginal township on the fringe of Alice Springs, one of the towns covered in the legislation. Police and soldiers have replaced town drunks, and Watson, 25, spends her welfare on feeding her four children, aged 2 to 11.

"No more grog means we have fewer fights,'' said Watson, who is camping with her children in Canberra.

There is a place for acknowledging mistakes in politics, and the concensus was heartening, many in Australia and around the world feel that Australia has matured a little after the apology has been given.

When I was younger, I remember listening to a speech in legalese from a QC, who explained that governments are much the same as private companies when it comes to the continuity of its legal form. A change of government does not equate to a dissolution of partnership, but moreso to a change of directors. Hence an admission of past liability does open a government up to legal preceedings. That QC is likely to be offering his services pro-bono to pursue the case: I remember him saying in particular nothing can be done until the governments makes some sort of admission. You'll forgive me for not remembering the the case law he was relying on.

The West Australian Aboriginal Legal Service has already started preparing a test case, which in the case of it suceeding, would today's twenty-somethings paying towards something that did not occur in their generation. The sums being bandied about vary.

Swept up in their goodwill they may have forgotten the consequences of such an admission. Howard surely saw this, and maybe his reasoning for not offering an apology was not only based on his sense of egalitarianism, but also on the future impact of apoligies on the nations' finances. I'm not saying it would be the only reason though.