BBC News Updated every minute of every day

Added: Tuesday, 17 November, 2009, 12:02 GMT 12:02 UK

It is pointless to apologise for something you had no hand in. BUt these acts should be recognised.

And, wherever possible, steps taken to put the damage right. I'm not talking money compensation necessarily. Reuniting families in this case.

Also, steps must be shown to be taken to prevent the situation arising again.

But an apology, on it's own, is a hollow thing. Especially when the person harrmed is long dead.

Sandy Fox, Derby, United Kingdom

Added: Tuesday, 17 November, 2009, 11:52 GMT 11:52 UK

Actually, the real point of this is money!!! Once the goverment says sorry, the floodgates will open on claims for compensation, not only from those still alive, but also from the relatives of those who have died!

I was not there and in any case would have had no impact on the decision making process. So although I agree that it shouldn't have happened, I am not sorry! But also take a look at the lifestyle most have in Ausi! and compare it to what they would have had here.... I rest my case!

Rumour Just swinging along, Rushden, United Kingdom

Added: Tuesday, 17 November, 2009, 11:51 GMT 11:51 UK

Ask the same Question to Germans and you will see the answer.

Robin Loxley

Added: Tuesday, 17 November, 2009, 11:50 GMT 11:50 UK

When the event or action happened within living memory and there are still victims who experienced it first hand, or their immediate family, then yes I think the government should apologise. It's not enough, certainly, but it may help to begin a long awaited healing process for some.

[giganticjess], Paris

Added: Tuesday, 17 November, 2009, 11:50 GMT 11:50 UK

It was the Australians who conducted any maltreatment that occured - not the British.
They can apologise - but why should we?

Ray Evans, Sheringham

Added: Tuesday, 17 November, 2009, 11:42 GMT 11:42 UK

An apology may comfort some, but I would be insulted and patronised to be apologised to, by people who werent even born when this happened and have not fully understood the meaning of what these people went through.

[Carolie38], Unpublished without breaking house rules, United Kingdom

Added: Tuesday, 17 November, 2009, 11:40 GMT 11:40 UK

What about all those Romans coming over and leaving collapsed buildings everywhere? Is Berlusconi going to apologise and send the UK a great big pile of cash?

And let's not talk about those Vikings and their destructive habits!

Mark Newdick, Danbury, CT, United States

Added: Tuesday, 17 November, 2009, 11:38 GMT 11:38 UK

What a joke.

Brown is happy to apologise for something he had nothing to do with but has failed to apologise to the British people for all the mistakes he has made in ruining the economy and whilst running the country.

He should have resigned long ago and his continuing failure to act decently and resign will not go unnoticed. Making an insincere apology regarding this matter is worthless when we all know his reason behind it is purely political.

Alistair Wood, London

Added: Tuesday, 17 November, 2009, 11:27 GMT 11:27 UK

I don't think there's anything wrong with someone apologising if they feel some responsibility for it; however I don't think it's the responsibility of an innocent generation to apologise for their forefather's mistakes. What happens in the past is just that - past - and the best we can do with it is take our lessons and try not to repeat those atrocities again. If we want to get petty, why doesn't the Pope apologise for the slaughter and persecution of pagans over the last 1000+ years or so?

[Kairra_Warrior_Cat], Kerra Isle, United Kingdom

Added: Tuesday, 17 November, 2009, 11:23 GMT 11:23 UK

Is "Snugglemuffin" saying that because the Clergy go and confess their sins every week, then it is OK to continue to sin the following week.
If so, shame on all you sinners and confession freeks.

[99fieryfred24], Havant UK, United Kingdom

Added: Tuesday, 17 November, 2009, 11:22 GMT 11:22 UK

I cannot understand how an apology from someone who played no part in the original offense can have any true meaning or offer any true comfort.

The ones who should apologise to the sufferers are probably long dead. Surely the real culprits are the actual abusers, who took advantage of defenceless children, and of course anyone in authority who knew of and ignored the abuse.

Acknowledgement and apology from these people would have some meaning, but from no-one else.

Linda Lee, Chester, United Kingdom

Added: Tuesday, 17 November, 2009, 11:13 GMT 11:13 UK

Yes it is correct, It is a slur on the past of Britian. Its also good that the Goverment of Australia has taken ownership of its part too.

However the goverment of Canada see's no reason to apologise. I guess that demonstrate's that one country in Australia has some idea of responsiblilty and the other in Canada is just adopting the american attitude of 'this is everybodys fault but mine'.

This was a british problem made worse by the goverments of Canada and Australia for a long time after

Steve Johnson, London, United Kingdom

Added: Tuesday, 17 November, 2009, 10:57 GMT 10:57 UK

OK, so Brown is not personally responsible.

Well, these terrible deportations took place into the 1970s. The Queen was Head of State for 20 years (UK, Australia and Canada). Maybe, as the ultimate authority, she should apologise?

Andrew, London

Added: Tuesday, 17 November, 2009, 10:43 GMT 10:43 UK

An apology without compensation is as hollow as it gets.

martin harris, London, United Kingdom

Added: Tuesday, 17 November, 2009, 10:40 GMT 10:40 UK

Look at poor Germany, they did not have to say sorry - they still pay for perceived wrongs.
martin, perth
Accepting an apology from Germany would mean forgiving and forgetting. The Holocaust should never be forgotten. The Germans also realise that. And what do you mean by “perceived wrongs”?

Marlin from Ashford, London