Council’s ordinary meeting for June, held on Tuesday 24 June, initially looked set to break the recent pattern of significant time being spent grappling with state government legislation that negatively impacts local government.

Several matters with a distinctly local focus were discussed early, including the Goughs Bay Plan, a joint user agreement for Mansfield Performing Arts Centre, the Goulburn Murray Climate Alliance, the Station Precinct Stakeholder Group, a toddler playground in Goughs Bay, and a Memorandum of Understanding regarding the Friends of the Mansfield Library.

But that reprieve was short-lived.

Discussion of the 2025/26 final budget soon shifted to the impact of the newly legislated and controversial Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund (ESVF).

Those present at the meeting praised the finance team for preparing the budget, with the Mayor describing it as a “fiscally responsible budget in a hard economic environment,” and one that continues council’s commitment to listening to its community.

However, the tone soon shifted.

Mayor Cr Steve Rabie raised concern over the ESVF being collected through local government rates notices and questioned whether it was a legislative requirement.

Michael McCormack, council’s financial controller, confirmed this to be the case.

“Yes, it is a legislative requirement for local governments to collect the ESVF through rates,” he said.

Cr Rabie, a long-standing opponent of the tax, then asked CEO Kirsten Alexander what would happen if council refused to collect it.

“It will be a debt that council owes to the state,” Ms Alexander replied.

“We are required to pay that debt and it will be up to the state to decide what action they take upon non-payment, but they are legally able to recover that debt.”

The government has apportioned the ESVF through rates, meaning if residents refuse to pay the levy, council bears the cost by losing revenue when the state takes its share from whatever money is paid.

“I notice the increased rate for residential areas is 35 per cent and for commercial industrial areas,” said Cr Rabie.

“I want to put it on record that it is not council that is setting these rates.”

Ms Alexander warned that unpaid ESVF contributions could have far-reaching consequences on the shire’s budget.

“We need to work hard to get the message out to the community about how what they pay is apportioned,” she said.

“We will have to closely monitor our budget and take a very conservative approach to any additional expenditure during the year.”

Deputy Mayor Cr James Tehan, also a vocal critic of the tax, encouraged residents to pay it for now.

“I’d encourage everyone to pay it because it’s only going to hurt council if you don’t,” he said.

“I understand the significance of having to pay it, but it’s not the state government you will hurt by not paying.

“Be mindful of that, and if you don’t want to pay it, take it up with the state government and your local members—not council.”

Cr Rabie reaffirmed council’s opposition to the tax.

“I will continue, as Mayor, to fight for everyone in this shire, as I’m sure all our councillors will, to stop this unfair tax,” he said.

Despite their frustration with the levy, councillors welcomed the broader budget outcomes.

Cr Rabie said he was especially pleased with what it represented.

“Times are tough for everyone at the moment—just as the community faces economic pressure, so does council,” he said.

“We have delivered a rate rise of just 2.75 per cent, which is below the government’s 3 per cent cap.

“Your money is not wasted in this shire.

"Council has reduced costs for residents and ratepayers by making strategic changes to spending.

“We’ve had to plan an intensive four-year capital works program to address legacy issues. We’re now in a more sustainable position, focused on maintenance and renewal rather than constant repair.

“Council has made difficult decisions over the past six months, but they’ve been responsible ones, and I thank all the councillors for making them.”