The behaviour of the Rudd Government following receipt of the National Hospital and Health Care Reform Commission report has been precisely the same as its reaction to the Garnaut report on climate change: Thanks, but we aren't particularly happy with the findings, so we'll take it into consideration and get back to you.
Kevin Rudd has always justified policy inaction while this area was under review; now that the reports are coming in, it seems that he didn't really mean anything anyway.
Garnaut recommended an emissions trading scheme that was tougher than Rudd wanted (that is, a scheme that would actually do the job), and so Garnaut and his report were discarded.
The report on health care has now advised the Government to undertake onerous reform that will place the Federal Government at the centre of health-care funding and provision, a burden and commitment that the Government is clearly unwilling to make, and therefore is presently under consideration, much as Garnaut once was.
In other areas, like education funding, the reports won't be coming back into well into a possible second term, and until then no action will be taken, on the grounds that expert advice is still being sought.
This procrastination is unacceptable.
Once, governments sought office to implement policies they had formulated and finalised before going to the polls. They now present a series of snappy sound bites and one-liners, only to back away from them once they're in office. A small difference that means a great deal for our democracy.
Joshua Smith, Gordon
Focus on choices
The call for increased residential density in the established areas of Canberra to accommodate population growth, to make our city more energy efficient and to minimise the cost of new utilities and road infrastructure is widely supported.
Your recent articles ''Canberra doubles carbon use'' (July 23, p2), and ''Naked suburbs fail on carbon'' (July 27, p1) also highlight our need to live more sustainably and for the whole community to think about what changes we can make.
By returning established inner suburbs to their former population densities when houses had an average of more than four occupants a wider variety of services and local businesses will locate there.
Increasing suburban density in a managed way, in and around town centres while retaining the heartland of existing suburbs, provides more lifestyle and workplace choices; and housing types a choice not just about suburban housing versus high-rise apartments but inclusive of other affordable dwelling options.
Andrew Mackenzie (''Focus should always be on design'', July 28, p9) rightly makes the point that our buildings and our suburbs should be well designed. We clearly agree with that, and to reduce our carbon footprint also requires all our buildings, new and existing, to be more energy and water efficient.
We need to think about how we retro-fit our city and its buildings.
The clear link between our affluent lifestyle and our carbon footprint means this is not only about urban form, but also about how we can live with less consumption and still make our lives pleasant and rewarding.
Our institute's sustainable cities forums are actively seeking to consider how the Canberra of the future can provide a more sustainable environment that supports the many and varied activities that people enjoy.
We extend an invitation to the community to join us in exploring possible scenarios during the remaining monthly forums and at our final workshop in November. For times and bookings, call 6208 2100.
David Flannery, ACT Chapter President, Australian Institute of Architects
Middle-age triumph
The low sequestration rate of vegetation in young suburbs is not largely due to reduced planting densities as stated in the article ''Naked suburbs fail on carbon'' (July 27, p1) states, but rather the effect of the age of the trees in these young suburbs.
Young suburbs have young trees.
While young trees can grow rapidly, because they are small, the absolute size of the carbon they fix through growth is also small.
This was the factor driving the small sequestration rate for young suburbs.
The most carbon is sequestered by middle-aged trees 20-40 yrs of age, which are relatively large and also fast growing. Old trees can be very large but are slow growing so they fix little additional carbon.
We estimated that the urban forest was responsible for 48 per cent of all carbon sequestered by vegetation in the ACT , even though it occupies less than 9 per cent of the land area of the ACT. These trends demonstrate that the urban forest and its continued renewal are key components of the sequestration process.
Dr Chris McElhinny, The Fenner School of Environment & Society, Australian National University
Email a friend