The Country Mayors Association of NSW (CMA) has welcomed the NSW Government’s announcement of the Emergency Services Levy (ESL) Reform and the Inquiry that will consider five possible models for funding the ESL. However, this is a concessional welcome because if given the option, no Council in NSW would choose to be collecting a levy for the State Government to run the State’s emergency services, according to CMA Chairman Mayor Rick Firman OAM.

“The Board have written to our NSW Premier – the Hon Chris Minns MP, our Treasurer – the Hon Daniel Mookhey MLC and our Emergency Services Minister – the Hon Jihad Dib MP to state our position on the levy, with the understanding that the State Government collecting its’ own levy is not on the table. If there was a model that removed the burden of the Emergency Services Levy from Local Government, those models to be considered by the Inquiry would be redundant,” Mayor Firman said.

“The CMA Board and our 89 members share the Government’s view that the current ESL structure falls inequitably on those who take out property insurance. With 75% of the levy funded through a levy on those who take out property insurance, it is clearly not an equitable situation when everyone benefits from the services provided.”

Currently, Local Government is required to meet 11.7% of the ESL costs. Under the existing rate pegging system, Councils are unable to pass these costs on to ratepayers. “To maintain a balanced budget, many of our members are forced to account for rising costs of the ESL by cutting essential community services and local facilities,” Mayor Firman said.

“The CMA holds a firm position that property owners should not be burdened twice — once through their insurance premiums and again via their council rates. Furthermore, while our members hold the Rural Fire Service (RFS) and its volunteers in the highest regard, we believe the Inquiry should address emergency services budgeting,” he said.

“The RFS budget has increased significantly, from $642 million in 2020/21 to $807 million in 2024/25; with annual spending nearing $1 billion, we believe there is a clear need for greater budget oversight, ideally through IPART. The rate of increase has been far in excess of the ‘pegged’ rate increases that our members can impose and the impact of that is clear.”

“We commend the State Government for working on an area that clearly needs change.  The status quo is not an option.  Our Board and members look forward to reviewing the five proposed levy model options and providing genuine, constructive input.