The cuts totaled approximately $10 million over four years that had been committed by the previous Labor government, plus an end to long-standing annual payments of approximately $90,000 that EDOs had received for nearly two decades [2].
The EDOs confirmed they received notification from the Attorney-General's department on December 17, 2013, that funding would be terminated immediately, with no federal funding available after July 1, 2014 [3].
The cut to EDOs was part of a broader $43.1 million reduction over four years to "Legal Policy Reform and Advocacy Funding" which also included cuts to Legal Aid Commissions ($6.5 million), National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services ($13.3 million), Family Violence Prevention Legal Services ($3.66 million), and the Community Legal Service Program ($19.6 million) [5].
**The funding was newly committed by Labor just before the election:** The $10 million in funding was announced by the former Labor government in its "dying days" - during the 2013 election period [6].
The Abbott government argued it was reversing a last-minute commitment made by an outgoing government rather than cutting established long-term funding.
**Previous funding history:** EDOs had received approximately $90,000-100,000 annually from the federal government for about 20 years prior to 2013 [7].
The $10 million represented a significant boost committed by Labor that was never actually disbursed before the government changed.
**Stated rationale for the cuts:** Attorney-General George Brandis defended the decision by stating that "in a resource-constrained environment, legal assistance funding should be spent where it is most needed - helping actual people in actual distressful situations" rather than on "legal advocacy work" [8].
The government maintained that the cuts would not affect "frontline services" [9].
**Industry lobbying:** In October 2013, the NSW Minerals Council publicly called for Attorney-General George Brandis to stop funding the NSW EDO, expressing concern about the way it had helped stall mining project approvals [10].
According to Media Bias/Fact Check, SMH maintains a "reasonable centrist tone" in its political coverage and has historically endorsed candidates from both major parties [11].
The article was written by Tom Arup, identified as Climate Lead at the Centre for Policy Development, reporting factual information about the funding cuts.
**Did Labor do something similar?**
No - Labor did not cut EDO funding.
* * * *
In fact, the opposite occurred:
- **Labor committed the funding:** The Rudd/Gillard Labor government announced the $10 million, four-year funding commitment for EDOs in the lead-up to the 2013 election [13].
- **Labor pledged to restore funding:** In 2019, federal Labor announced it would restore funding to EDOs with a $14 million package over four years if elected [14].
- **Albanese government reinstated funding:** When the Albanese Labor government won office in 2022, it reinstated federal funding to the Environmental Defenders Office [15].
**However, Labor has faced criticism on related issues:**
- During the 2019 election campaign, the Morrison Coalition government highlighted that Labor had itself cut $6.5 million from Legal Aid Commissions in 2013 [16].
- The broader context shows that both parties have made cuts to legal assistance services at different times, though Labor has generally been more supportive of environmental legal services specifically.
虽然 suī rán 事实 shì shí 主张 zhǔ zhāng 是 shì 准确 zhǔn què 的 de — — — — 艾伯特 ài bó tè 政府 zhèng fǔ 确实 què shí 取消 qǔ xiāo 了 le 联邦 lián bāng EDOs EDOs 资金 zī jīn — — — — 但 dàn 重要 zhòng yào 的 de 背景 bèi jǐng 改变 gǎi biàn 了 le 对此 duì cǐ 的 de 解读 jiě dú 方式 fāng shì : :
While the factual claim is accurate - the Abbott government did eliminate federal EDO funding - important context changes how this should be interpreted:
**Critics' perspective:** Environmental groups and legal experts argued the cuts were politically motivated, coming after lobbying from the mining industry and designed to weaken environmental legal challenges against mining projects.
The timing (one week before Christmas) was criticized as deliberately designed to minimize public attention [18].
**Government's justification:** The Abbott government framed the cuts as a responsible budget measure, arguing that:
1.
EDOs could seek alternative funding through donations and state governments
**Comparative context:** This was a partisan issue where the parties had genuinely different policy positions.
The 2024-25 budget showed the Environmental Defenders Office receiving $3.35 million in federal funding [19].
**Industry influence concerns:** The NSW Minerals Council's October 2013 public call for EDO defunding, followed by the Attorney-General's December decision, raised legitimate concerns about mining industry influence on the policy decision [20].
Mining industry lobbying immediately preceded the decision, suggesting political motivation
The claim presents the funding cut as a standalone negative action without acknowledging that this reflected a genuine policy difference between the parties on environmental legal aid - a difference that has persisted with Labor restoring funding in 2022.
Mining industry lobbying immediately preceded the decision, suggesting political motivation
The claim presents the funding cut as a standalone negative action without acknowledging that this reflected a genuine policy difference between the parties on environmental legal aid - a difference that has persisted with Labor restoring funding in 2022.