Ms Michelle Murphy:

On retrofitting, we outlined in our submission that subsidies are generally taken up by those who can afford to make the upfront investment. Retrofitting is a prime example of that because people need initial funds to put in the upfront costs. Currently, this is functioning as wealth transfers from all households, including lower-income households, to those on higher incomes because the costs are socialised among everyone. An example of this is the carbon tax. The subsidy, however, goes to those households who can afford the upfront investment.

We can look at the tax structure and incentives or subsidies but we must consider the short-term and long-term costs. We must also look at the impact on different segments of the population and different regions, how to support the elimination of energy poverty and how to protect people from that poverty. That should be a prime focus. That is why, in addition to what is proposed as announced in the budget with the local economy retrofitting scheme, we must look at a State-led retrofitting scheme targeting people in social housing and poorer quality housing. This is to ensure they also get the benefits of transitioning to a low-carbon economy but in terms of reduced energy bills and improved health outcomes.

On the question of social dialogue, we outlined specifically in our submission how we see this might be done at a national level and particularly at a regional and local level. As Dr. Jeanne Moore pointed out in the previous session, we must get to grips with the granular element of how we might begin to do this because every region and community is different. There are different age, income and economic profiles. They have different assets so each region would be different. That is why we must bring that dialogue from a national level to a regional and local level.