STALLED debate and voting on the controversial proposed emergency services and volunteers fund has been welcomed by Victoria’s peak farming body.
The Fire Services Property Amendment (Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund) Bill 2025 was through its second reading in the upper house on Thursday evening, when after hearing from nine MPs, debate was adjourned until early April.
It’s understood the government didn’t have the numbers to pass the Bill, and would need to work with cross-bench MPs during the next four weeks.
The Victorian Farmers Federation wants the Bill to be referred to a parliamentary inquiry.
The government announced the fire services property levy would be replaced with the new emergency services and volunteers fund from July 1, 2025.
For residential and commercial ratepayers the levy will double, and for farmers it will almost triple.
Aimed to bolster protection for Victorians facing fires and other disasters, the key changes of the new ESVF include expansion of funding to include other emergency services in addition to the existing Fire Rescue Victoria and Country Fire Authority.
CFA and Victoria State Emergency Service volunteers would be exempt from ESVF on their principal place of residence.
The Victorian Farmers Federation said the reprieve must be used to iron out the “fundamental” issues facing farmers and regional communities.
President Brett Hosking said while farmers would be breathing a temporary sigh of relief, legitimate concerns still linger regarding the proposed “cash-grab”.
He said the median fire services levy for primary producers would increase by 109 per cent, from $621 to $1299 per assessment, with some landholders facing hikes in the tens of thousands of dollars.
Meanwhile, residential property owners would see a lower increase of 32 per cent.
“This is a step in the right direction,” Mr Hosking said.
“The government tried to push through a flawed tax without consultation and they have clearly failed to secure the numbers.
“I thank those MPs who have demonstrated strong leadership, slowing the passage of this new tax without proper community and stakeholder consultation.
“The VFF’s focus will remain on highlighting the very real destruction that this Bill will cause and making sure the government doesn’t steamroll through with a reckless decision.”
Mr Hosking said there would be no letting up on the opposition towards the Bill.
“This blatantly wrong tax is wrong today and it will be wrong in the coming days and weeks,” he said.
“The opposition towards it has been overwhelming and we must keep up the pressure to ensure farmers and regional Victorians aren’t hung out to dry.”
Member for Northern Victoria, Gaelle Broad, said the policy shift placed a “huge burden on regional Victorians already struggling with rising living costs”.
“This new tax raises over $2 billion over three years, yet the government only talk about a $250 million package for CFA and SES,” she said.
“The rest is to fund public agencies like Emergency Management Victoria, Forest Fire Management, the State Control Centre and Emergency Recovery Victoria.
“In another blow to renters, rental providers will be charged another $267 plus a variable fee.
“Many rental providers, already stretched by land tax and increasing costs due to more than 130 rental reforms introduced by this government, have no option but to increase rents or sell.”
A government spokesperson said “delaying this bill will only delay getting the sustainable funding and equipment our emergency services need to keep Victorians safe and to recover from natural disasters … which so often impact farmers and their properties”.
Speaking in Parliament, Victorian Treasurer, Jaclyn Symes, said the cost increase for farmers would be “very, very small” and would equate to 0.5 to 0.8 per cent of the value of agricultural production.
Rural Councils Victoria chair Rob Amos said the organisation did not support the increase and it was not the role of local government to enforce it.
“We just think in a cost-of-living crisis, to put this extra burden on our ratepayers is not fair,” he said.
“We don’t think councils should be tax collectors for the state government.
“The state government has an entity called the State Revenue Office and if they want to collect levies, we believe it should be done through them.”
