2 March 2009 UTC I simply feel that given the evident complexity of this issue there won t be space in this article to cover the truths and the mistruths around it yes there isn t limited paper space but articles can still become unwieldly in length the various interpretations of what the apology was and what it meant the A B C D etc are worthy of coverage but just not here in my opinion I m not going to say the present header is unwieldly I just wonder with what authority we can say that the apology was on behalf of the parliament and that includes the sentence in the section that says it was not only on behalf of the sitting parliament but all those plus all the governments that came before Did Rudd seriously take it upon himself to speak for so many people now long dead 03 00