Baird's deceptively simple approach was this: don't just explain the reform; emphasise the benefits.

He used the tactic to full effect while pursuing the asset privatisations that became a hallmark of his time as treasurer and then premier.

Announcing the sale of the Port of Newcastle, Baird tied it to construction of a new light rail line in that city.

His ultimately successful decision to take the deeply unpopular part-privatisation of the electricity poles and wires businesses to the 2015 election was linked to the infrastructure that would be built with the billions of dollars of proceeds.

As a banker, Baird was a dealmaker at heart. Selling the benefits came naturally to him.

But as the troubled push to amalgamate the state's councils proves, some reforms are so toxic that no amount of talk about benefits will quell voter opposition, even for the best retail politician.

It's a lesson his successor Gladys Berejiklian and her Treasurer Dominic Perrottet may be about to learn in relation to another unpopular reform: a new funding model for fire and emergency services.

Households across NSW are receiving a notice from the state government explaining the new levy, which from July 1 will hit most property owners with an annual payment that will vary based on the unimproved value of their land and property type.

It replaces the present system of a tax on insurance companies that is passed onto policyholders.

The notice is titled: "A fairer levy for all of us", reflecting the government's pitch that the new system removes the unfair burden of funding fire and emergency from only those who have insurance, while the uninsured don't pay and still get the services.

The problem is that, for many learning how much they will pay per year, the new system seems anything but fair, even for those already paying the levy via insurance.

A couple of the government's key assertions are being strongly challenged: that the system will mean an average saving of $47 for existing fully insured property owners; and that the average annual payment will be $185.

The $47 saving figure is based on the expectation that the average cost of residential insurance will drop by up to 20 per cent as the levy is removed from premiums.

Former corporate regulator Allan Fels has been appointed to ensure this happens.

But the reality is - based on known land values and the government's online calculator - many property owners are about to be slugged with a substantially higher sum, despite having been fully insured for years.

Fairfax Media has been contacted by furious owners whose bill will more than double - or even triple in some cases.

Worse, many of them will pay more despite the chances of them needing to rely on fire or emergency services not having changed at all.

Further complicating matters is that the levy is moving from one paid in arrears to cover the previous year's fire and emergency services budget to one paid in advance to cover the coming financial year's funding.

That means those whose insurance premium was due in the first half of this year will pay the levy twice in a calendar year - an infuriating imposition that is giving the impression they are being double taxed.

A big part of the credibility problem for the government is that when the intention to introduce the levy was announced by then-treasurer Berejiklian in December 2015, the estimated average payment was put at $160.

This suddenly became $185 earlier this year as legislation was introduced into the Parliament.

Yet, as Labor's shadow treasurer Ryan Park has pointed out, based on the formula released by the government the levy on the average Sydney property with a land value of $774,000 will be $270.

That's about $100 more than the averages previously touted by the government. Oops.

Perrottet is valiantly sticking to his line that the new system is a fairer one that's in place in other states.

That may well be true (we have yet to see the Treasury modelling to prove it) but try telling that to the Sydney property owner whose payment is about to skyrocket.