KEY POINTS:
Australia's new Labor Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, has returned to work, facing a task that none of his predecessors could master - reconciliation with Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders.
And beyond the fraught question of a formal apology for the wrongs inflicted on indigenous Australians over the past two centuries, Rudd must also make good his promise of a real and effective pathway from the impoverished fringes of society to the mainstream of one of the world's most affluent societies.
His Indigenous Affairs Minister, Jenny Macklin, has already been deep in discussions with indigenous representatives over the form a national "sorry" should take, with all the complexities of meeting moral imperatives without accepting liability for billions of dollars in compensation.
She is also trying to develop the policy of intervention in the Northern Territory inherited from the previous Government into a new instrument for economic development that sheds the excesses of the dramatic takeover of remote Aboriginal communities and shifts emphasis from emergency response to long-term programmes.
Mr Rudd's ambitions to strike a new and effective accord with Australia's shamefully impoverished and dispossessed indigenous peoples are not new: previous Labor and Conservative Administrations also promised a bright and inclusive future for people trapped in Third World misery, and all failed to deliver.
While all states have made their own apologies, the Federal Government has been silenced by fears of litigation. And while billions of dollars have been poured over the past three decades into economic and social programmes, none has made any significant difference to the cycle of poverty that condemns Aborigines to shorter, harder lives than all other Australians.
Mr Rudd has promised real reconciliation, binding the symbolism of apology to the realities of economic advancement. Given the complexities, divisions and deeply entrenched inequalities of indigenous society, this will be an arduous, fraught task that will stretch well beyond the life of his Government.
But unlike previous Prime Ministers, Mr Rudd has the benefit of decades of hard experience, several important footholds, and a national mood more disposed to the commitment and action required.
And there is a real political will to succeed, so long as the commitment can be locked into place before good intentions are crushed by other priorities.
His building blocks include the right to vote, federal power to make laws regarding indigenous people and their inclusion in the census - breakthroughs reached in the 1960s - the first federal native title laws covering the Northern Territory in 1976, and the 1992 Mabo High Court decision recognising Aboriginal occupation before European arrival, and enabling nationwide, if restricted, claims to traditional lands.
Previous Governments also made formal moves towards Aboriginal self-determination and reconciliation which if nothing else thrust the symbolic and moral issues into mainstream politics.
Even former Prime Minister John Howard's refusal to say "sorry" added to the momentum by strengthening wider support for a formal apology.
But "sorry" will not be a simple word to utter.
Many Australians do not want an apology made on their behalf, rejecting what Mr Howard called the "black armband" view of Australian history and maintaining that they should not be held to account for the sins of previous generations.
Mr Rudd has overriden this view, but he has other serious hurdles, among them the wording and timing of the apology, and the question of compensation.
Demands for an apology grew after the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission published its report into Aboriginal "stolen children", forcibly removed from their families and thrust into an alien white society, often living as menials in European households.
The report, "Bringing Them Home", revealed the agonies of lives torn apart by decades of separation.
Opponents have argued that the policy, though flawed, was well-intended and that children were removed - not stolen - in what was seen as their best interests.
Even though this argument has been largely bulldozed aside, problems remain. Mr Rudd has accepted that the apology must contain the word "sorry", but has to balance other competing demands, including Aboriginal calls for the policy of removing children to be officially described as "evil" and "cruel". There is also a strong view that the apology must extend beyond the Stolen Generation to include all past injustices.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner Tom Calma has argued that while Mr Rudd and Ms Macklin must consult Aborigines over the wording, the final draft must be written by the Government if it is to have any meaning.
Mr Rudd will face indigenous fury at his refusal to bolster the apology with compensation. Aboriginal groups, noting recommendations of "Bringing Them Home" and the funds set up for victims of crime and other causes, insist that compensation of at least A$1 billion be provided.
Mr Howard's refusal to say sorry was justified by the fear that official recognition of guilt would also admit liability. But apologies by the states and territories have proved this wrong. Only Tasmania - voluntarily - created a small, A$5 million, fund for its Stolen Generation.
The Government's view is that while there will be no formal compensation package, this will not prevent individuals from taking action.
Two claims before the Federal Court were denied, but last year 50-year-old Bruce Trevorrow was awarded A$525,000 by the South Australian Supreme Court for unlawful and false imprisonment after being taken from his family as a baby in 1957.
Mr Rudd has also to address his promise to achieve constitutional recognition of indigenous Australians - a Labor policy reinforced after Mr Howard's pre-election pledge to put it to a referendum, but yet to be given any form. Beyond this is the absolute and pressing need to lift indigenous Australia out of crushing poverty.
Developing and establishing new programmes will be a complex and difficult job, requiring close co-operation with the states and the Northern Territory. Some radical solutions will be necessary.
South Australia took this path three years ago with dramatic intervention in the sprawling Anagu Pitjantjara Yankunytjatjara lands in the state's northwest after an alarming rise in violence, suicides and petrol sniffing. Although problems persist, gains have been made.
Mr Howard's A$580 million move into the Northern Territory last year, involving police, the military, medical and other teams, was a vastly larger, unprecedented and highly controversial move.
Sparked by horrific accounts of child abuse, the intervention widened to include health, education, housing, water supplies, and employment.
Federal authorities took over entire communities, removed Aborigines' control over access to their land, banned alcohol and pornography, abolished job creation schemes, and ensured that a significant proportion of welfare payments could be used only for food and other necessities.
Mr Rudd intends to continue with the intervention as part of his wider policy to close economic, education and health divides between indigenous and mainstream Australia.
But the intervention taskforce must now present comprehensive data on all programmes to determine which are working, and some aspects - including the axing of entry permits for Aboriginal land - will be dropped.
True reconciliation will require much more than an apology.
* LEFT BEHIND
Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders die an average 17 years earlier than other Australians.
They have much higher rates of cancer, diabetes and heart, kidney and respiratory diseases, and infant mortality is two to three times the national norm. Drug and alcohol addiction is rampant.
Educational levels are far lower than those of other Australians, rates of unemployment and homelessness or inadequate housing are much higher, and Aborigines are 11 times more likely to be jailed.
Native title and mining royalties have in places helped ease some of these problems, but most continue to live in Third World conditions.
