PoliticalClaims.au

While the claim that funding was cut is factually accurate, the full story reveals more complexity: **Criticisms of the funding cut:** - The Energy Efficiency Council called the cut a "surprise" that created "huge uncertainty in the sector" [1] - Industry participants and staff reportedly welcomed the program as a means of getting improved access to decision makers and resources [2] - The independent ACIL-Tasman review had recommended continuing the program, finding it delivered substantial energy savings at reasonable cost [2] - Alan Pears, who helped develop the program, noted that the claimed compliance costs (up to $500,000 per business) were significantly overstated—the average was under $40,000 per year, while participants saved between $250 million to $1.2 billion annually [2] **Government justification:** - The Abbott government positioned this as part of their election commitment to reduce "red tape" and deregulate the economy - The program was linked to the carbon pricing mechanism, which the government had a mandate to abolish - Industry lobby groups had actively campaigned against compliance requirements [2] - The government stated they were consulting on how to "optimise energy efficiency policy" through the energy white paper process [1] **Key context:** This was not simply an attack on environmental programs—it was the Coalition dismantling their own party's program that had been maintained by the previous Labor government.