Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) has advised that emergency response times in some career‑staffed areas may lengthen as the New Zealand Professional Firefighters Union (NZPFU) escalates industrial action to twice‑weekly stoppages, extending a long-running employment dispute with implications for New Zealand’s levy‑funded fire and emergency system and insurance risk assumptions.
FENZ has stated that NZPFU members have notified one‑hour national strikes between noon and 1pm on Feb. 13 and 16, with additional stoppages signalled for Feb. 20, 23, and 27, and March 2. The agency says it will continue to respond to emergency calls throughout these periods. However, in areas ordinarily covered by career firefighters, nearby volunteer brigades are expected to respond to more incidents, which FENZ has indicated could affect response times.
Deputy national commander Megan Stiffler said the stoppages are occurring while FENZ and the union are engaged in facilitation ordered by the Employment Relations Authority (ERA). “We think striking when both parties are actively involved in facilitation needlessly puts the community at risk. We asked for facilitation as there was a significant gap between what we were offering and the NZPFU’s expectations. Our offer at the time amounted to a 6.2 percent average increase over 3 years and compared favourably with equivalent recent public sector agreements, but this was three times less than the NZPFU’s settlement proposal,” Stiffler said.
FENZ has outlined that its pre‑facilitation proposal would increase average senior firefighter base salaries from around $81,000–$87,000 to about $86,000–$93,000 by the end of the term, excluding overtime and allowances. The organisation says overtime and allowances currently add close to $39,000 on average to annual remuneration, and that average senior firefighter pay has risen 37% over the past decade, which it describes as more than 10 percentage points above average earnings growth across the wider workforce. Stiffler said FENZ’s view is that strike action should pause while facilitation runs its course. “We continue to call on the NZPFU to call off its now twice-weekly strikes while the process of facilitation takes place. We remain committed to a fair, sustainable, and reasonable settlement so we can continue working to keep our communities safe,” Stiffler said.
The NZPFU has told members it is proceeding with two one‑hour national strikes per week “in a bid to put pressure on FENZ to change their position.” The union’s national committee meets weekly to review upcoming stoppages and has confirmed that the Feb. 13 and 16 actions are set to go ahead, subject to any substantial movement in talks. Facilitation sessions are under way, with further dates scheduled. The union has advised that it will communicate with members if there is “any significant change to the situation.” In parallel, the NZPFU national committee is running a national series of membership meetings from Feb. 15 to 27. Sessions are scheduled at fire stations and other venues in Whangārei, multiple Auckland locations, Hamilton, Tauranga, Kawerau, Rotorua, Taupō, Wellington and nearby centres, Gisborne, Hawke’s Bay, Palmerston North, Whanganui, New Plymouth, Christchurch, Timaru, Dunedin, Invercargill, and Nelson.
National president Joseph Stanley and national vice president Martin Campbell are expected to attend many of the meetings, alongside branch and local representatives. The union has presented the meetings as a forum to discuss the current bargaining round, the operating and fiscal environment, and what it characterises as FENZ actions affecting the service’s capacity and capability, including a proposed organisational restructure. Members are being asked to attend where possible, participate in two planned ballots and consider future industrial and bargaining options. FENZ has been notified of the meetings so arrangements can be made for on‑duty crews.
The current phase of industrial action is part of a dispute that has developed over two bargaining cycles since 2019, encompassing pay, conditions, safety, structure, and funding. The first cycle, from 2019 to 2023, centred on a significant FENZ organisational restructure, negotiation of the 2021–24 collective agreement, and a dispute over how overtime worked on public holidays should be paid under the Holidays Act. The NZPFU eventually obtained a favourable ruling in the Employment Court on holiday‑pay calculations and a 2022 collective settlement for the 2021–24 term, publicly reported at around $145 million, which included cumulative pay increases and broader health and wellbeing provisions.
The second cycle began as the 2021–24 collective approached its June 30, 2024, expiry. FENZ has said bargaining for a successor agreement commenced in mid‑July 2024. The NZPFU has described much of that period as preparatory, with what it regards as the first substantive bargaining day occurring on Sept. 5, 2024. On June 13, 2025, FENZ tabled a three‑year remuneration proposal it said amounted to about 5.1% in total pay increases along with changes to allowances, referencing wider public‑sector pay guidance. The NZPFU rejected the offer following member meetings, stating that firefighters had not received a pay increase since July 2023 and arguing that the package delivered relatively low average increases when spread across the five‑year period from 2021.
From August 2025, NZPFU members undertook a range of industrial measures, including work bans and one‑hour national stoppages. FENZ subsequently applied to the ERA for facilitated bargaining, which was ordered in December 2025. In the same month, the NZPFU and the Public Service Association (PSA) filed a joint ERA challenge to a FENZ restructure proposal that could disestablish about 140 roles and affect around 700 positions, primarily in non‑operational functions. As of Feb. 12, 2026, no new collective agreement is in place for the period after June 30, 2024. Facilitation is ongoing, one‑hour rolling strikes continue, and the restructure is before the ERA.
For insurers and reinsurers, the dispute is relevant for its potential impact on emergency response capability and, in turn, on loss frequency and severity for fire and related perils. Midday one‑hour stoppages on Fridays and Mondays create recurring periods during which the configuration of response may differ from normal patterns in career‑staffed urban areas. FENZ has indicated that, during strike times, nearby volunteer brigades will respond to more calls in those areas. Even where life‑threatening incidents and calls requiring specialist equipment are prioritised, sustained variations in crew availability, appliance deployment, or turnout times can affect the progression and containment of some incidents. For larger commercial, industrial, infrastructure, and dense urban risks, that may increase the likelihood of higher‑severity fires and more frequent large claims.
From an underwriting and actuarial perspective, these operational factors form part of the hazard and protection environment underpinning assumptions about probable maximum loss, expected loss ratios, and rating relativities by occupancy, construction type, and location. Risk‑engineering requirements for certain risks may tighten, including expectations around fixed suppression, compartmentation, early detection, and on‑site response capability. Reinsurers assessing New Zealand’s aggregate fire and catastrophe exposure may also review how they classify protection levels in areas experiencing repeated industrial action or structural resourcing changes. That could feed into treaty pricing, attachment structures, and coverage terms, particularly where portfolios are concentrated in urban centres that rely heavily on career‑staffed stations.
The dispute is occurring within a funding structure under which around 95% of FENZ’s operating revenue is collected through levies on home, contents, and motor insurance policies, with the balance coming from other government and non‑levy sources. FENZ operates a network of about 14,900 personnel, roughly 1,300 fire appliances, and close to 600 stations, and responds to approximately 89,000 incidents annually.
If facilitated bargaining and any subsequent decisions lead to higher permanent pay scales, changes in workforce numbers, or an expansion of responsibilities – for example, additional medical first response or specialist capabilities – FENZ’s long‑term cost base is likely to rise. Options available to policymakers would include adjusting levy rates, increasing direct Crown funding, or reprioritising expenditure within FENZ, each of which carries different implications for service configuration and affordability.
For insurers, reinsurers, and intermediaries, any upward adjustment to the fire and emergency levy would add to existing pressures on property and motor insurance affordability, especially for catastrophe‑exposed property, higher‑risk occupancies, and portfolios already affected by construction, repair, and replacement cost inflation. Insurers, as the entities that invoice and collect the levy, may also have to address policyholder and stakeholder queries about premium movements where statutory charges are a contributing factor.
