Over recent weeks I have become aware of changes proposed by the New South Wales Government to the assessment of bushfire risk and the role of the Rural Fire Service in how planning decisions are made. The possibility of changes that weaken the consideration of bushfire risk is of significant concern to me because of the bushfire-prone land in my electorate and, in particular, the Patyegarang—formerly Lizard Rock—rezoning proposal to build 370 homes in Belrose, surrounded by bushland. On 24 August The Sydney Morning Herald published an article entitled "How new planning rules could stop emergency services blocking housing". It stated:

"The NSW Planning Department would have the power to override advice from emergency services about housing applications in fire-prone land or flood zones under a proposed overhaul of the state's Environmental Planning and Assessment Act."

Citing confidential sources, the article stated that the changes would give the department "more cover to make captain's calls". The Sydney Morning Herald clearly thought these reports had such veracity that it also published an op-ed slamming the proposed changes entitled "To ignore RFS advice on housing isn't just disrespectful. It's stupid".

Motivated by these reports, several of my Independent crossbench colleagues and I wrote to the planning Minister, making it clear we could not support any watering down of the bushfire risk advice in important planning decisions about housing. Within a few days, I received a response from Minister Scully. It stated that the Government has "no plans to change the rules around bushfire, flood or the possible impact of natural disasters on development". I was grateful for the prompt response. However, I was hardly reassured, particularly when just a few days later, on 3 September, the Hon. Emma Hurst, MLC, asked the Commissioner of the NSW Rural Fire Service, Trent Curtin, about it directly in budget estimates. The answer was illuminating. He said:

"It's not entirely clear to us at the moment what the proposed model is and how that would work. I am joining a steering committee with the department tomorrow, for our first meeting, to understand what the proposal might look like …"

He was very professional, and his intention to be collaborative with the department was clear. However, he did say:

"At the same time, we need to be cautious that we don't water down or filter any of the operational expertise …"

When I discussed this with Greg Mullins, the former Commissioner of Fire and Rescue NSW, he had this to say:

"Make no mistake—life saving regulations and codes have been built off the back of tragedies and lost lives, and those who seek to water them down or remove them have no credible reasons to do so. Those who know this better than anyone else are the men and women who run toward danger when everyone else is running away—our heroic emergency first responders. Their chief consideration is always life and public safety: not politics, not profits, and this is why they are so highly trusted by the community."

"Any plan to split away safety and planning responsibilities from emergency services to another agency appears designed to diminish expertise and influence. Over time any transferred staff will lose their connection to subject matter experts, and when they are replaced there will be no connection at all to emergency services' expertise. Their supervisors will not be focused on public safety, but on whatever targets their home agency currently identifies as important."

"As climate change super-charges bushfires like Black Summer and floods like those in Lismore in 2022, we need more focus on safety, not less."

I acknowledge that I do not know exactly what the Government is doing or proposing, as it has not told me. But I know enough to be very alarmed. That is why I have given notice of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Bushfire Protection) Bill 2025 and have started conversations with the Government about how we can maintain and improve the role of the RFS so we avoid building in high-risk areas, while also making the system as efficient as possible so we are not wasting the time and money of proponents.

Recently I spoke at the Northern Beaches District RFS awards presentation night. I made clear to the RFS staff and volunteers in the room, some with over 70 years of volunteering—and I emphasise it again now—that I will do everything I can to make sure that bushfire risk is assessed as rigorously as possible and the RFS maintains and improves its role in giving advice, particularly on rezoning proposals. As climate change turbocharges dangerous fire conditions, this is more important than ever. I know many local brigade members have serious concerns about potential residential developments that create firetraps for residents and for RFS volunteers. I completely understand their apprehension. They are the ones who will have to fight for lives and property in the case of a catastrophic bushfire. I say to members of RFS brigades on the northern beaches, particularly those in my local brigades at Beacon Hill and Belrose, that I am on the case. I have them and their families at the front of my mind, and I again thank them for their service.