Opinion Editorials and Articles
The Victorian Opposition says the Government's revised urban growth strategy highlights its incompetence.
Premier John Brumby has announced an expansion of Melbourne's urban growth boundaries to create more land for development.
The Victorian Government will encourage the building of 600,000 new homes around Melbourne, as the city struggles to keep up with population growth.
But Opposition planning spokesman Matthew Guy says the Government's figures are wrong.
"The government population figures are incorrect by 500,000 people ... the population of Tasmania," he said.
"You cannot factor in a mistake like that and say it's a simple error.
"This is a catastrophic error in the Government's ability to forecast our population in Victoria."
As part of the planning update, the State Government has announced six central activities districts to complement Melbourne's central business district.
The suburbs chosen are Box Hill, Broadmeadows, Dandenong, Footscray, Frankston and Ringwood.
Not-for-profit group Committee for Melbourne supports the updated expansion plan, but has called for higher density living along existing transport routes.
The committee's chief executive, Sally Capp, says she supports the idea of central activities districts which she says are effective overseas.
"It's a model that's worked well because at the moment we have over 70 per cent of our population in Melbourne all head towards the city every morning," she said.
"That is a model that we all know is just not sustainable and we know that whether we sit in a car every morning or whether we're taking public transport."
She says the State Government must establish a metropolitan planning authority.
"If we're looking at effective implementation of these plans, it seems that there needs to be an overarching body that has the authority, that also has the expertise and experience to be able to move forward on these planning issues very quickly," she said.
Last week, Committee for Melbourne claimed the ultimate Fast Thinking 2008 Innovation Prize and the award for Social Innovation at Sydney’s Powerhouse Museum. The awards were made to the organization for its work towards Melbourne's sustainability and ongoing prosperity.
According to the Chairman of Committee for Melbourne, Mr. George Pappas; who is also the Chairman of Melbourne-based renewable energy firm Energy Matters, the Committee has been working tirelessly for 22 years in order to achieve positive change in a wide range of areas; including climate change, energy, and transport.
Among its activities, the Committee for Melbourne released its 48 page FutureMap report earlier this year. The report sets out a blueprint for Melbourne's adaptation to the inevitable impacts of climate change, which include more frequent extreme weather events. The report was the result of 12 months’ work by 80 Melbourne organisations.
FutureMap also offers a series of recommendations for reducing Melbourne’s energy use in a future, carbon-restrained world. The FutureMap report covers a wide range of measures, including strategies for improving energy efficiency for domestic, commercial and government buildings in Melbourne and encouraging uptake of renewable energy sources; such as wind energy and solar power.
On the topic of transport, the report recommends encouraging Melbourne organisations to introduce staff travel behavioural change programs, including fuel efficiency training for professional drivers and salary packaging of public transport fares. FutureMap also supports alignment of national vehicle emissions targets with the best practice benchmarks of the European Union and reform of Federal tax arrangements to remove incentives that encourage car use over public transport.
REVIEW OF THE NATIONAL INNOVATION SYSTEM REPORT - VENTUROUS AUSTRALIA
Committee for Melbourne
URS Australia
Southbank, Victoria
When the Committee for Melbourne invited me to speak to you today, they said they wanted to hear about the role innovation would play in tackling climate change, and the progress of the government’s innovation review.
The two topics are closely intertwined.
Committing to a low-carbon future now will accelerate innovation and give us a head-start in developing climate change solutions that we can use at home and sell to the world.
There are actually advantages for Australia in moving early – and disadvantages in standing back and saying to the rest of the world, “you go first”.
This point is taken up very persuasively in the Committee for Melbourne’s Future Map: Melbourne 2030 report.
The review of the national innovation system – which it is my pleasure to release today – has recommended that climate change mitigation and adaptation should be one of our national innovation priorities.
The central question addressed by the review is this – how do we ensure that Australia has the innovation capacity to solve this huge problem – and the many other problems we face?
It has come up with some interesting answers, some of which I will touch on in a moment.
But first, some history.
Innovation policy
In 1984, the late John Button visited Sweden.
This was a turning point for innovation policy in Australia.
Button discovered that in Sweden:
“Government funds were spent on research and development, venture capital for small firms, export incentives, and training and re-training of workers.” (As it Happened, 1998, p. 256)
He came away convinced that if Australia wanted to remain competitive, it would also need more R&D, more skills, and more support for innovative firms.
When he returned home, Button developed what was in effect Australia’s first national innovation policy.
There were two parts to it.
Part one was to wean Australian industry off old-style protection and make it compete for its place in global markets and supply chains.
Part two was to dramatically increase support for innovation, not least by establishing:
the Management and Investment Companies Program (1984) the 150 per cent R&D Tax Concession (1985) – since reduced to 125 per cent Rural Research and Development Corporations (1989) and Cooperative Research Centres (1990).
Button made industry support conditional on firms becoming internationally competitive.
But at the same time, he was clever enough to design support that enabled firms to meet that condition.
He recognised that you couldn’t increase efficiency and productivity simply by exhortation.
You had to smooth the path by providing innovation incentives and boosting innovation capacity.
That is a view the present government shares.
The prime minister makes no bones about our readiness to offer “incentives to design innovative approaches to … long-term challenges”.
He stresses the importance of “recognising the power of markets, but recognising equally the limitations of markets”. (Rudd 2008)
Much of the great work done by John Button and his colleagues in the reforming Hawke and Keating governments has been undone over the past twelve years.
During that time, Australia became the only OECD nation to reduce public funding for higher education.
Business investment in R&D fell for the first time on record.
Growth in research degree commencements stalled.
Even without these setbacks, there was bound to come a time when we would have to rethink mainstays of our innovation support framework like the R&D tax concession and the CRC program, which are now a generation old.
That time is now.
Ten-point plan
In April 2007, Kevin Rudd and I released a ten-point plan to lift Australia’s innovation performance called New Directions for Innovation, Competitiveness and Productivity.
This was the basis for the innovation policy we took to the election in November.
We’ve already made great progress on those ten points.
The last of them was to “review government innovation and industry assistance programs”. (p. 27)
That review began in January and was completed last month.
We made it clear in the New Directions document that the review would be wide-ranging.
We specifically said it would consider national innovation priorities and R&D tax incentives.
We said it would be charged with “identifying gaps and weaknesses in the innovation system and developing new policy proposals to address them”. (p. 27)
The review was to prepare the ground for a partnership – involving industry, the research sector and government – dedicated to building a pervasive culture of innovation.
The review panel’s report – Venturous Australia: Building Strength in Innovation – does all this and more.
It is a tribute to the inspiration and application of Dr Terry Cutler and his colleagues Dr Megan Clark, Professor Glyn Davis, Professor Steve Dowrick, Professor John Foster, Dr Nicholas Gruen, Narelle Kennedy, Catherine Livingstone, Professor Mary O’Kane and Dr Jim Peacock.
Professor O’Kane also chaired the review’s Collaboration and CRC Review Working Group and produced a comprehensive report on the future of the CRC Program – Collaborating to a Purpose – which has been widely welcomed.
The panel has done a fantastic job and I want to thank them jointly and severally for their incredibly hard work under sometimes difficult conditions.
I also want to thank my department for giving the panel such magnificent support.
The panel members may be the stars of this grand prix, but the department were the pit crew that helped keep them on the track.
With nine members and as many perspectives, they had no shortage of ideas, no shortage of creative tension, and no shortage of lively discussion.
These are all good things.
The panel started a conversation that eventually involved thousands of Australians – writing submissions, taking part in stakeholder consultations, and attending workshops.
Their enthusiastic engagement in the review process demonstrates both how much people care about innovation.
Venturous Australia gives us a platform from which we can see the next frontier – a frontier beyond the one we defined in our ten-point plan.
It is now the government’s task to decide the best way forward.
We will respond to the review panel’s report with a policy white paper by year’s end.
The white paper will be informed by what the review panel has found and by our own consultations.
We don’t want the level of engagement generated by Dr Cutler and his colleagues to dissipate just because the review has been completed.
People will have many opportunities to share their ideas and opinions as the white paper is developed.
I don’t propose to take you through the report in detail, but I would like to highlight a few headline recommendations.
Restore funding
First, the panel calls on the government to restore Commonwealth funding for science and innovation to the level achieved in 1993-94, when spending peaked at 0.75 per cent of GDP.
In 2007-08 it was 0.55 per cent of GDP – a drop of 27 per cent.
The panel suggests that to get back where we were in 1993-94, we would need to invest about $2.2 billion a year more than we do now.
This is a big ask given the worldwide economic slowdown, the pressures on the budget, and the government’s priorities in other areas, such as health, education and pensions.
The panel’s call for increased Commonwealth investment echoes the Australia 2020 Summit’s recommendation that we should be aiming to double our R&D expenditure from all sources by 2020.
That would take us from the 1.8 per cent of GDP we spend today to 3.6 per cent – an intensity currently achieved only by Finland, Sweden and Israel.
The Commonwealth couldn’t possibly do that on its own.
Business already does more than half of Australia’s R&D, and if we want to lift our performance overall, we have to maximise its contribution.
That’s why I’ve given so much emphasis to collaboration and bridging the divide between research and industry.
Whether we can reach the review panel’s target for Commonwealth spending on science and innovation will depend on budget circumstances.
Whether we can reach the 2020 Summit’s target for total R&D spending will depend on how successful we are in creating an innovation ecosystem with high levels of collaboration and connectivity.
R&D tax credit
The second headline recommendation relates to tax incentives for business R&D.
The review panel proposes that we scrap all existing R&D tax concessions and replace them with two R&D tax credits:
a refundable credit of 50 per cent for firms with a turnover under $50 million
and a non-refundable tax credit of 40 per cent for larger firms.
A non-refundable credit can only be used by firms in profit.
A refundable credit can be used by firms in profit or loss.
The panel suggests that all Australian R&D should be eligible for these credits, regardless of who owns the intellectual property.
Between 1995 and 2004, Australia was one of only three OECD countries to reduce its tax benefits for business R&D – and of those three, our cuts were the deepest. (OECD, STI Scoreboard 2005)
During the same period, sixteen OECD countries increased their level of support.
That didn’t just put us behind other developed nations.
It put us behind the emerging powerhouses as well.
In a 2006-07 survey of R&D tax incentives, China ranked third, India sixth and Brazil seventh.
Australia was eighteenth out of thirty-eight. (OECD, STI Scoreboard 2007)
Anyone who thinks countries like India and China are competing solely on their low labour costs has missed the point.
They have made a massive commitment to R&D, and they are moving rapidly up the value chain as a result.
Developed countries everywhere are responding to the challenge these new innovation superpowers have thrown down.
They are building their indigenous innovation capacity and aggressively pursuing foreign R&D investment.
In the nine months since Labor came to office, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Spain have all introduced or extended tax incentives for business R&D.
Japan and the United States have flagged their intention to do likewise.
There have been serious questions about the adequacy of the present R&D tax concession for some time, and recent international developments have made it imperative that we find an answer to those questions sooner rather than later.
The review panel has come up with an idea that would restore Australia’s support for business R&D to the levels of the eighties and early nineties.
It would also bring us into line with what our competitors are doing today.
Is it the best way to achieve these aims?
That’s a question we will have to thrash out.
Innovation priorities
The third point I wanted to mention relates to national innovation priorities.
The review panel proposes five broad principles for determining priorities to shape innovation policy and funding programs.
Those principles are that we should:
leverage Australia’s natural endowments and built strengths focus on distinctively Australian challenges and global challenges Australia is advantageously placed to address focus on transforming and reinventing existing industries and service delivery internationalise Australia’s innovation system through global integration and invest in national capabilities, facilities and innovation infrastructure that support the above.
The panel goes on to apply these principles itself in defining a series of priorities, from population health to marine industries, and from finance and risk management to space and astronomy.
The panel’s emphasis on underlying principles allows plenty of scope to revise priorities in line with changing circumstances, while ensuring that there is a fundamental consistency and focus to our work.
Australia is a small country with only so many dollars it can devote to research and innovation.
We can’t be all things to all things to all people.
We urgently need to concentrate our efforts and resources if we are to achieve the scale of activity needed to remain globally competitive.
That’s why consistency and focus are so important.
That’s why it’s so important to set priorities.
Creative commons
The last big idea in the report I want to touch on is open access.
It is embodied in a series of recommendations aimed at unlocking public information and content, including the results of publicly funded research.
The review panel recommends making this material available under a creative commons licence through:
machine searchable repositories, especially for scientific papers and data cultural agencies, collections and institutions, which would be funded to reflect their role in innovation and the internet, where it would be freely available to the world.
It also argues that patent law should be tightened to ensure that the inventive steps required to qualify for a patent are considerable and that patents are well defined, leaving maximum scope for subsequent innovators.
This is consistent with steps I’ve already taken to revive work on the accessibility framework proposed – but never delivered – by the previous government.
Australia takes justifiable pride in the fact that it produces 3 per cent of the world’s research papers with just 0.3 per cent of the world’s population, but that still means 97 per cent of research papers are produced elsewhere.
We are and will remain a net importer of knowledge, so it is in our interest to promote the freest possible flow of information domestically and globally.
The arguments for stepping out first on open access are the same as the arguments for stepping out first on emissions trading – the more willing we are to show leadership on this, we more chance we have of persuading other countries to reciprocate.
And if we want the rest of the world to act, we have to do our bit at home.
The future
There is much more to Venturous Australia than this – seventy-two recommendations, 200 pages of analysis, a myriad of insights and ideas.
Ever since the review began, I’ve been saying that its report – and the government’s white paper response – would set the agenda for the next decade.
Like the Committee for Melbourne, we are very mindful of the long-term challenges facing this country and the need to tackle them not at some undefined time in the future, but right now.
Climate change is one of those challenges.
Boosting Australia’s innovation performance is another.
Our goals for innovation are too ambitious to be achieved in one budget, or even in one parliamentary term.
As the government develops its response to the review panel’s recommendations, it will be aiming to strike a balance between immediate needs and long-term aspirations.
We need to reverse the neglect of the past, steer safely through the difficult times we are experiencing at present, and prepare Australia for the future.
This will be a big task, but we don’t start empty-handed.
Venturous Australia gives us plenty to work with.
Emissions trading fazes many, but there is much to be done at a local level.
IT MAY not have been the first sign, but last week brought one of the more obvious indications yet of an affliction we will see plenty of over coming years: climate-change fatigue.
While polls consistently tell us people want action to stem global warming and are prepared to make sacrifices to get it, the answer — emissions trading, now spun as a carbon pollution reduction scheme — remains esoteric. Widely agreed to be the most important transformation of the economy in a generation, the fine detail of emissions trading bores people so much that it failed to entice a single talkback caller when Climate Change Minister Penny Wong was on ABC Melbourne local radio just five days after her blueprint was launched.
Lately there has been a proliferation of reports telling us of worsening scientific projections, of ways to cut our carbon footprint, of industries that believe climate change is a real problem but that somebody else should pay to fix it. So it is perhaps not surprising that arguably the most significant report to date detailing the impact of climate change on Melbourne didn't get the attention it deserved when it was released last week.
Called FutureMap, the report by the Committee for Melbourne — an influential collection of business and community leaders and academics — spells out the "locked-in" climate shifts we can expect over the next two decades regardless of what we do, including more hot days, less rain but more intense storms, and more bushfires.
More importantly, it is a call for action, with recommendations on economic, social and environmental steps to adapt to the changes already on the way and mitigate the effects beyond 2030.
Cities have a crucial and often underacknowledged role to play in tackling climate change — in fact, they are responsible for about 75% of the world's emissions. While we are sitting around hoping the world's leaders will get their act together on a global solution, there is plenty that can be done on a local level that is being ignored.
As the committee's climate change taskforce co-chairman Tony Wood puts it, Melbourne is an unusual city. The CBD and inner suburbs, built around a cafe culture and with plenty of public transport possibilities, most closely resemble Europe. Yet its outer reaches, where satellite cities spring up and roads are the link to the rest of the state, are closer to an American model.
It means approaches to tackling climate change in Melbourne must be multi-dimensional. Take transport. The report calls for a massive investment in public transport to improve its capacity, frequency, reliability and coverage.
Borrowing an idea from Melbourne City Council urban environment director Rob Adams, it also recommends a legal right to construct buildings up to six storeys high on public transport routes to boost its use from 9% to 35% of all motor journeys.
Recognising that we will continue to drive, the Committee for Melbourne backs Sir Rod Eddington's call for new highway links in unconnected parts of the city. But it also wants changes to the way vehicles are manufactured — moving away by 2015 from gas-guzzlers to cars that are friendlier to the environment to bring us in line with world-leading European standards.
There are recommendations to encourage cycling and walking, but also left-of-field suggestions worth a look, such as letting people salary sacrifice the cost of public transport tickets to make it more attractive.
The report reaches into most corners of how we live, calling for changes to our buildings, social equity programs, urban resilience (including making Melbourne more flood-resistant and boosting CBD greenery through heat-reducing parks and rooftop gardens) and business practices.
The most striking push is to introduce mandatory energy efficiency standards for all homes and offices. With buildings responsible for 23% of Australia's emissions and the estimated average energy rating of Melbourne homes just 2.5 stars (compared with a five-star minimum for new homes and major renovations) a significant difference could be made through insulation, double glazing and window shading. Low-income households would need to be given time to upgrade, and have access to loans, grants and rebates.
Less striking, but possibly most important, is a call for new legislation to be passed through a climate-change filter — will it have an unintentional negative impact on the planet? — and a review of regulations that perversely encourage emitting more greenhouse gas. At a national level, the most ridiculous example remains fringe benefits tax concessions that offer incentives to drive more kilometres each year in company cars.
The report sets up the committee as a player in the national climate-change debate. One of its priorities is an independent investigation to cut through the chaff on "clean coal" — capturing carbon dioxide as it is emitted, transforming it into a liquid and pumping it underground — and analyse whether the economic case for the technology will stand up.
Not all of the report is as forthright. Plans to include an emissions reduction target for the city were shelved, for example, after the authors failed to agree. And there are plenty of good ideas on the horizon not explored in FutureMap: take Sydney's tentative plan to build dozens of miniature gas turbines in the CBD to power skyscrapers and feed energy back into its grid, potentially cutting emissions from electricity by more than 50%.
But the ultimate message is clear and timely — while international negotiations stumble on, there is plenty that can be done in our own backyards, and the State Government and business have a crucial role to play.
Adam Morton is environment reporter.
The Committee for Melbourne, an independent network of Victoria's business leaders, has
called for the scrapping of tax breaks on company cars in an effort to help the environment.
The $1.6 billion concession, which underpins more than 10,000 fleet car sales a week, would
be replaced with more "sustainable transport modes" such as public transport if the committee
had its way.
The calculation of fringe benefits tax on work cars, which reduces as more kilometres are added,
was completely inconsistent with reducing carbon emissions, the business leaders said earlier
this week. Getting rid of the tax break for cars has also been backed by environmentalists and
accountants.
Two of the 80 organisations involved in the committee's report, General Motors and
Transurban, distanced themselves from this key recommendation on the eve of the launch of
the report, claiming it was a collaborative effort and they did not support all the conclusions.
Committee chief executive Sally Capp said the report was a blueprint for adapting to global
warming which, according to Ross Garnaut, author of the Garnaut Climate Change Review, will
have one of the greatest impacts in south-east Australia.
"We must understand the climate has changed and that part of the response is to adapt . . . it is
not all about mitigation. Our members have also said climate change is real and want to get on
with it," Ms Capp said.
The committee will also commission an independent review on whether low-emission coal is
commercially feasible by 2030 - to defuse the debate between sceptical environmentalists and
optimistic state government and brown-coal generator companies.
The report outlines the implications for Melburnians before analysing possible action by its
members and government on areas ranging from building and transport to business
procurement and social equity.
"We would really like to see the business community and government at all levels giving
climate change the significance it needs," Ms Capp said.
The review would complement measures being considered by the federal government's green
paper on emissions trading.
The committee's report recommends the state government consider climate change impacts
assessment for all new and proposed amendments to legislation and introduce planning
regulations to allow "as of right" six-storey/30 metre height development along major public
transport routes.
"It also calls on Melbourne's building owners to reduce their energy and water use - and
operational costs - through retrofitting," she said.
By Duncan Hughes
ROOFTOP gardens, soil footpaths and mandatory parklands are among radical plans to prepare Melbourne for climate change.
And the city's stormwater drains, health system and public transport infrastructure will struggle to cope in a hotter climate, the report says.
Key lobby group the Committee For Melbourne has drafted recommendations to retrofit city buildings and make the public transport system green, to prepare Melbourne for the threat of global warming.
The Futuremap report handed to the Government today reveals Melburnians are already living with the effects of climate change including increased sea levels at Williamstown, hotter days, drier weather and more frequent storms. The report calls for immediate action from government, business and the wider community.
"All major planning activity should incorporate a climate change impact assessment," report author and Climate Change Taskforce co-chair Tony Wood said.
The report suggests:
THE immediate introduction of more green space to help cool streets.
REPLACE concrete footpaths with plastic lattice filled with soil, gravel and grass to filter water into the ground.
COLLECT stormwater and run-off in underground tanks.
INCREASE support for low-income renters to install solar water heating.
COMPULSORY parks and gardens in all planning processes.
The report also called for a program to allow workers to salary-sacrifice the cost of an annual Metcard, to counter incentives to use cars more under fringe-benefit tax concessions.
"At the moment, if you buy a Metcard for year, it's over $1000 - we've spoken with Metlink, and we know there's an opportunity for employers in Victoria to buy in bulk to assist employees in changing their travel patterns," Committee for Melbourne chief executive Sally Capp said.
A spokesman for Environment Minister Gavin Jennings said: "We welcome this report."
He added that it would be considered in drafting the government's green paper on climate change.
- Georgie Pilcher and Mary Bolling
By Mathew Murphy
THE Committee for Melbourne will call on the Federal Government to scrap perverse subsidies such as tax concessions on company cars as part of its emissions trading scheme.
In a planned submission in response to the Government's green paper, the committee will also suggest that the Government not offer assistance to households in the form of cash payments.
Committee chief executive Sally Capp said she was concerned at comments made by Climate Change Minister Penny Wong that suggested the Government might continue to allow fringe benefits tax exemptions for company cars, which reward those drivers who clock up the kilometres.
"In some of the things we heard Penny say, it seems there wouldn't be the same attention to (tax exemptions) because our current behaviour is dictated by the current policy. If they want to change it then it is more than just introducing new policy; they need to counteract the current policy that is producing behaviour that is unhelpful," Ms Capp said.
Ms Capp — speaking ahead of today's launch of the committee's FutureMap, designed to prepare Melbourne for the impacts of climate change — said the Government had to avoid providing cash assistance to households as it did with the baby bonus payment.
"I am not sure how much of those baby bonus payments went to baby products … I suspect, as a lot of anecdotal evidence shows, that it went to things like plasma TVs," she said. "If the money is not used on things like insulation and energy-efficient appliances, then we are just creating more issues."
Ms Capp said that while Australia's proposed trading scheme was quite broad, she feared the sectors chosen for inclusion "probably reflect more of the political climate than climate change".
"When Penny Wong and the Government open speeches they talk about this as an issue of taking responsibility," she said. "But in a scheme where there are carve-outs at the front, only certain sectors are taking responsibility. It really puts more pressure on those industries and sectors that are required to respond."
The Committee for Melbourne has called for more rooftop gardens to help cut the city's carbon emissions.
MELBOURNE'S homes and high-rises would undergo forced upgrades to cut greenhouse emissions under a business-driven blueprint for the city to cope with climate change.
The plan - by the influential Committee for Melbourne - also calls for mass planting of rooftop gardens across the CBD and the introduction of a legal right to build up to six storeys along main roads to encourage public transport use. The recommendations are part of FutureMap: Melbourne 2030, billed as a unique report that analyses the predicted climate change impact on one city and offers ways to tackle it.
It found climatic change would reshape the way Melburnians lived, regardless of what action was taken.
Predicted shifts include a rise in some health problems and more buildings being at risk of flood damage due to a growing number of intense storms. Chief recommendations include compulsory energy and water standards for all buildings, a shift that could require "retro-fitting" existing homes and offices with better insulation, double-glazing and window-shading.
Victoria has a minimum five-star energy standard for new homes and major renovations, but no regulations for its existing stock, which is estimated to average little more than two stars.
"I think most people would now accept mandated standards around buildings is now the way to go," Tony Wood, co-chairman of the committee's climate change taskforce, said. Other recommendations include:
â– Standards to tackle the "urban heat island effect" - radiant heat in the CBD from roads and buildings - including urban green spaces and incentives to plant rooftop gardens.
â– Encouraging more people onto public transport by boosting population density along routes and improving its coverage.
â– Encouraging manufacturing of low-emissions cars.
â– Harvesting storm water, which is roughly equivalent to the city's total water needs each year.
â– Assessing all new laws for their impact on climate change.
â– Helping low-income home owners become energy efficient.
Committee chief executive Sally Capp said all levels of government should remove inconsistencies that encouraged people to emit more greenhouse gas.
Examples included offering companies higher tax rebates on cars driven greater distances.
The report, backed by more than 80 Committee for Melbourne members - business, community groups and academic institutions - also calls on the private sector to create an index of companies that use sustainable goods.
Environment Minister Gavin Jennings said the report would be considered in drawing up the Government's climate change discussion paper.
http://melbourne.org.au
The Brumby Government has welcomed the release of the Committee for Melbourne’s FutureMap report from the committee’s Climate Change Task Force.
Environment and Climate Change Minister Gavin Jennings welcomed the report and called on Victorian organisations to develop plans to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.
“The Brumby Government is taking action on climate change placing the interests of Victorian families, communities, regions and industries foremost while seeking to cut our greenhouse gas emissions,” Mr Jennings said.
“I look forward to further consultations with the Committee for Melbourne and will include the report from the Committee’s Climate Change Task Force in the deliberations leading up to the Government's Green Paper on Climate change.
“The report raises significant issues including the need to cut energy use in commercial buildings and protecting vulnerable Victorians from the economic effects of climate change.
“The Brumby Government is working to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from commercial buildings through its commitment to ensuring all new government office buildings are rated 5 green stars or higher.
“We are also providing $5 million to work with the Clinton Foundation to upgrade 16 existing government buildings to a higher environment standard.
“Through the Statement of Government Intent we have committed to ensuring our efforts to address climate change are consistent with our broader commitment to social justice as is demonstrated by retrofitting the homes of thousands of low-income Victorians.
“The Brumby Government has taken a leadership role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and preparing Victoria’s economy and community for the effects of climate change.
“We welcome input from the Committee for Melbourne’s FutureMap report from the committee’s Climate Change Task Force which will help to keep Victorians informed about the implications of climate change.”
“The Government has been working hard to encourage Victorian communities and industries to use energy more efficiently and make the switch to greenpower,” he said.
By Greg Burchall
Heritage revealed: Jason Marriner says inspecting places like his Plaza Ballroom can encourage pride in Melbourne's rich history.
IT'S easy to miss, even without all the hoopla that went with the opening of behemoth musical Wicked last weekend.
Just to the west of the opulent entrance to the Regent Theatre on Collins Street is a modest doorway and a steep set of narrow steps that descend to the little-seen heritage treasure that is the Plaza Ballroom.
The below-pavement Spanish rococo room will be open to the public tomorrow, along with seven other city landmarks for Melbourne's first Open House.
Regent/Plaza operator Jason Marriner, who heads the family company that also owns the Princess, Comedy and Forum theatres, says the Plaza has been put to some strange and wonderful uses over the years.
There are the regular requests, such as Jewish wedding ceremonies, the ARIA awards, the 500-seat dinners and the 1000-head cocktail parties. Then there are the odd asks, like the recent launch of Toyota's new Grand Prix petrol-burner.
"It was quite an operation," he recalls. "The car had to be broken apart completely and then carried down the stairs - without the motor, of course - and reassembled on the stage."
When the Marriners made a deal to restore the neglected State Government and Melbourne City Council-owned property in 1994, the Plaza was a subterranean lake, fed by a serious leak in the water feature of a former City Square.
Now painstakingly restored, the Plaza is just one of many rarely seen spaces we walk past, over or beneath every day.
"Buildings reflect our culture and try to work in with the zeitgeist, but we mostly never get to appreciate their inner workings," says Tim Leslie, of Bates Smart Architects.
Open House is already a popular event in Dublin, New York and London. The inaugural (and free) local version is driven by the Future Focus Group (FFG) of the Committee For Melbourne, in collaboration with the Melbourne International Design Festival. Other sites that can be explored tomorrow include the 11th floor Manchester Unity boardroom, the bell tower of St Paul's, the labyrinth under Federation Square and the Melbourne City Council's purpose-built sustainable technology offices, Council House 2.
"We want people to re-examine and engage with the city and be inspired by the work they see," Mr Leslie says.
The plan is to open more buildings throughout other city precincts for a full-scale launch next year.
Volunteer guides - usually architects or design students - will point out the hidden treasures and off-limit areas that are to be found beneath the ground and behind closed doors.
Last year, Open House New York had 750,000 visitors through 600 sites, while Open House London showed 100,000 people through 300 places.
Future Focus Group manager David Gould hopes the Melbourne version may go a little way to counter recent bad impressions of the CBD, including tales of violence, mayhem, drunks and general malfeasance.
"We want Melbourne to be a better place to live in. We want to encourage culture and a community-mindedness," he says.
As for the Plaza's Jason Marriner, he acknowledges that many places such as his are held in trust and can be used to encourage a pride of place.
"This entrance doesn't give much away," he says. "You need to know what lies beneath."