News · Rates · Hunter councils
The Hunter’s 2027-28 rates caps are set: Dungog 5.3 per cent, Newcastle and Maitland 4.7. About half a point of each is for cybersecurity
The pricing regulator set next financial year’s caps on 13 October. Seven of the eight Hunter councils in its table may lift their total rates income by more in 2027-28 than they can this year, with Maitland, Dungog and Lake Macquarie moving furthest. The cap is not your bill, and each council still decides how much of it to use.
The short answer. The Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) sets a “rate peg” for each of the 128 NSW councils: the most a council’s total general rates income can rise in a financial year without a special application. Its information paper for 2027-28, dated 13 October 2026, puts Dungog highest in the Hunter at 5.3 per cent, Newcastle and Maitland at 4.7, Cessnock 4.6, Lake Macquarie 4.4, Port Stephens 4.2, Singleton 3.9 and Muswellbrook 3.8. The pegs apply from 1 July 2027. Statewide they run from 3.7 to 6.6 per cent.
2027-28 rate pegs, Hunter councils, against this year’s
Core rate peg (ink) plus population factor (ochre); the outlined tick is the council’s 2026-27 peg.
What moved, council by council
| Council | 2026-27 peg | 2027-28 peg | Change, points |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dungog | 4.0% | 5.3% | +1.3 |
| Newcastle | 4.2% | 4.7% | +0.5 |
| Maitland | 3.2% | 4.7% | +1.5 |
| Cessnock | 3.8% | 4.6% | +0.8 |
| Lake Macquarie | 3.2% | 4.4% | +1.2 |
| Port Stephens | 4.1% | 4.2% | +0.1 |
| Singleton | 4.2% | 3.9% | -0.3 |
| Muswellbrook | 3.1% | 3.8% | +0.7 |
Two things lift almost every council. The base cost change, IPART’s estimate of how much a council’s usual basket of wages, assets and running costs will rise next year, is 3.1 per cent for regional and rural councils, up from 3.0 per cent this year. IPART forecasts employee costs to rise 4.0 per cent under the Local Government State Award, asset costs 2.9 per cent and other operating costs 2.5 per cent. And there is a new line, the cybersecurity adjustment, worth 0.5 per cent for six of these councils and 0.7 per cent for Dungog and Muswellbrook.
The biggest jumps come from the population factor. Maitland goes from 0.1 to 1.0 per cent, Dungog from 0.7 to 1.5, and Lake Macquarie, which had none this year, gets 0.5. Singleton is the one council that goes down, because its population factor falls from 1.0 to 0.2.
The cybersecurity line
IPART says it added the adjustment after the NSW Audit Office found, in January 2026,
significant cybersecurity control deficiencies across local government, and after a consultant,
the Centre for International Economics, found the existing peg was unlikely to give councils
enough to meet the Office of Local Government’s recommended foundational standards. It
set different amounts for five council groups, from 0.41 per cent for metropolitan councils to
1.18 per cent for rural ones, because rural councils’ cybersecurity costs are a bigger
share of their general income. Its
media release puts the effect on an average residential ratepayer at
around $6 to $8 per year
.
The tribunal’s chair, Anthony Wing, says in the release that
Councils are accountable for how they use rates income to strengthen their cybersecurity capability
.
How growth gets counted, now in IPART’s own words
When we wrote up this year’s pegs in July, we worked out from IPART’s columns that
the population factor is population growth less the growth in supplementary valuations (new
rateable property already added to a council’s rate base), never below zero. The 2027-28
paper states it in a footnote: population growth
includes the change in estimated resident population less prison populations and less the change in supplementary valuations
,
measured with a three-year lag. That is why Cessnock, the fastest-growing council here at 3.1
per cent, gets a smaller factor than Dungog, which grew 1.9 per cent: most of Cessnock’s
growth is already in its rate base as new properties.
Every component of the eight Hunter pegs
IPART, Table 3. The productivity factor is 0.0 per cent for every council and is left out.
| Council | Base cost change | Emergency services levy factor | Levy subsidy catch-up | Cybersecurity | Core peg | Population growth | less new property | Population factor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dungog | 3.1% | −0.4% | 0.5% | 0.7% | 3.8% | 1.9% | 0.4% | 1.5% |
| Newcastle | 3.1% | 0.2% | 0.1% | 0.5% | 3.8% | 1.1% | 0.2% | 0.9% |
| Maitland | 3.1% | 0.1% | 0.1% | 0.5% | 3.7% | 2.2% | 1.2% | 1.0% |
| Cessnock | 3.1% | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.5% | 3.7% | 3.1% | 2.1% | 0.9% |
| Lake Macquarie | 3.1% | 0.1% | 0.2% | 0.5% | 3.9% | 1.1% | 0.6% | 0.5% |
| Port Stephens | 3.1% | 0.0% | 0.3% | 0.5% | 3.8% | 1.3% | 0.9% | 0.4% |
| Singleton | 3.1% | −0.1% | 0.3% | 0.5% | 3.7% | 0.6% | 0.4% | 0.2% |
| Muswellbrook | 3.1% | −0.1% | 0.2% | 0.7% | 3.8% | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.0% |
Upper Hunter, and what a peg is not
Upper Hunter Shire is one of seven councils with a special variation already approved for 2027-28, so its income rise is set by that approval rather than by the peg, and IPART says those seven do not get the cybersecurity adjustment through the peg this year.
The peg caps a council’s total general income, which IPART’s chair says is about a third of what NSW councils receive on average. It does not set any one household’s bill: councils decide how the rise is spread across rating categories, and may take less than the peg. A council that wants more must apply to IPART for a special variation; IPART says applications for 2027-28 are due by early February 2027. Anyone struggling to pay is pointed by IPART to their council’s hardship policy first.
Our view
A cap that rises with councils’ real costs is the system working, and a regional base cost change of 3.1 per cent is a modest number. The cybersecurity adjustment is defensible on the evidence IPART cites, and it pays for a capability the Audit Office told councils to strengthen. The chair’s own line puts the onus on councils to show what it buys. When Hunter councils set their 2027-28 budgets, a ratepayer can fairly ask each one what its cybersecurity money was spent on. This view is ours, built on the documents cited below.
Spotted an error in this story? Ask for a correction. Corrections are published, dated and left visible.