New emergency services charge ‘unfair, cruel’: Tatchell

MOORABOOL Shire Council has added its voice to the widespread outrage that has greeted the State Government’s new Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund (ESVF).

Legislation for the ESVF passed through the Upper House on 15 May. It replaces the Fire Services Property Levy and will take effect on 1 July, with councils still required to collect it.

After crossbench negotiations to get the legislation passed, the rate for farmers will be 71.8 cents for every $1000 of a property’s Capital Improved Value (CIV). It is currently 28.7 cents.

Residential charges, which appear on rate notices, will go from 8.7 cents for every $1000 of CIV to 17.3 cents.

The ESVF is expected to bring in more than $2 billion above the existing fire levy by 2028 and will pay for emergency services such as the SES, Triple Zero, the State Control Centre, Forest Fire Management Victoria and Emergency Recovery Victoria, as well as the Country Fire Authority (CFA) and Fire Rescue Victoria (FRV).

But while the Government says the new tax will bring Victoria’s funding arrangements for emergency services into line with other states, it has been widely condemned.

Councils, farmers and CFA volunteers have been among the most vocal, with some councils expressing dismay that they must collect it.

Moorabool Shire mayor Cr Paul Tatchell said many ratepayers would see “a significant increase” on their next rates bill.

“This change will impact rural communities far more than urban ratepayers, which is incredibly unfair and cruel to farmers in particular, who are already facing many hardships,” Cr Tatchell said.

“There are fairer ways to do this and it’s a shame the Victorian Government is using our rural property owners to claw back some of their huge debt.

“Councils are forced to add this onto every rates notice we send out; we are a collection agency for the Victorian Government, but when ratepayers see this massive increase, some will understandably think Council has imposed this extra cost.

“It needs to be urgently reconsidered or the consequences could be severe for our primary producers.”