Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) has opened its annual insurance reimbursement window for eligible firefighters – but a clause in the same collective agreement points to a wider question about how income protection reaches blue-collar workers, and who carries distribution risk if employer-sponsored schemes expand.
Under Clause 24 of the collective employment agreement (CEA) between FENZ and the New Zealand Professional Firefighters Union (NZPFU), eligible members can claim up to $50 per week – $2,600 a year – toward private life and income protection premiums for the period July 1, 2025, to June 30, 2026.
To qualify, members must hold a position covered under Parts 1, 2, 3, or 4 of the CEA and carry their own private cover. Those enrolled in the NZPFU Protect scheme are excluded – FENZ pays that premium directly to the insurer. Members with NZPFU Compensation Insurance are processed automatically, with no claim required.
Claims require a completed Excel form and a Tax Statement or Payment Summary submitted to [email protected]. Payroll should not be contacted.
NZPFU National Secretary Wattie Watson noted that members who previously submitted information for 2025-26 without the correct Excel form must resubmit. “If you have any questions or need a hand with the process, please contact the relevant FENZ staff through [email protected],” Watson said.
Read next: FENZ levy changes raise questions over emergency response capability
Clause 24.3 commits both parties to jointly exploring a subsidised group scheme that could replace individual reimbursement entirely. Any switch requires union sign-off and must resolve barriers for members moving from existing individual policies.
For brokers holding life or income protection cover for firefighters, that is documented displacement risk – in principle.
The practical complication: bargaining between FENZ and the NZPFU has been deadlocked since the previous CEA expired in June 2024. The parties entered Employment Relations Authority (ERA) facilitation in December 2025, met seven times, and adjourned in February 2026 without further dates. Industrial action has continued since August 2025. No successor agreement is in place, and no public progress on the Clause 24.3 group scheme exploration has been reported.
The risk is real. Its timeline is not.
The NZPFU Protect scheme – administered by Protect, insured by ATC, and underwritten by Lloyd’s – is being repriced. Changes effective September 1, 2026, follow a period in which claims outpaced premiums. The income replacement rate drops from 100% to 90% of average weekly wages, capped at $3,000 a week.
The NZPFU attributes the shortfall to brief claims the scheme was not designed to handle and alleges FENZ management steered members toward income protection claims rather than granting return-to-work duties – a charge that sits inside the broader industrial dispute.
For brokers advising other employers on group income protection, the mechanics are instructive. A flat-rate pooled structure spread across a single workforce is exposed when claim patterns shift, particularly where the employer-employee relationship may directly influence claim behaviour.
The NZPFU has acknowledged that firefighters face real barriers accessing individual income protection outside the group scheme – higher premiums, longer waiting periods, and underwriting requirements not present inside the group policy.
Consumer comparison data from MoneyHub shows income protection premiums for trade-classified workers run approximately $1,270 to $1,630 a year for two-year cover, rising to $3,000 or more for cover to age 65. Firefighters, as an emergency services occupation, attract higher loadings than standard trade classifications.
At $2,600 a year, the FENZ reimbursement cap covers only part of what longer-term individual cover for this workforce typically costs. Whether that figure moves in future CEA negotiations is open – and those negotiations remain stalled.
FENZ’s evidentiary requirements go further than standard insurer documentation typically provides.
Claims require a Tax Statement or Payment Summary with costs broken down by insurance type, applicable policy fees, and a GST breakdown specific to income protection. A transaction history, renewal letter, or generic policy summary is not accepted.
The reason: FENZ cannot reimburse cover types outside life and income protection, and its tax obligations differ between the two. Bundled policies marketed under names like “Life Cover” but incorporating trauma or medical components require explicit cost attribution by type.
This issue travels beyond FENZ. As collective bargaining increasingly incorporates insurance benefits across industries, other employers running comparable reimbursement arrangements will face the same documentation standard. Brokers placing bundled products should verify now whether their insurer partners’ standard documentation meets it – before a client’s claim is declined on paperwork.
Read next: FENZ levy puts New Zealand insurance brokers in funding debate
Income protection penetration in New Zealand sits at 15%, against 31% in Australia, according to the Australian and New Zealand Institute of Insurance and Finance (ANZIIF). The Financial Services Council New Zealand (FSC) State of the Sector report, published in February 2026, recorded 4.13 million life insurance covers in New Zealand against 1.35 million health insurance covers – a ratio that reflects persistently low uptake across income-related products.
The FSC has pointed to fringe benefit tax on employer-provided group cover as a structural barrier. FSC chief executive Kirk Hope has said “FBT on employer-provided group insurance schemes discourages businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, from including insurance as an employee benefit.”
Research commissioned by the FSC from the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (NZIER), published in August 2026, estimated that removing FBT from group life and health insurance would generate up to $198 million in net economic benefits. The proposal has not been legislated.
The FENZ model – whatever its current complications – sits at the early edge of a shift the broader market is watching.
