I sometimes feel like a merchant of doom when discussing bushfire risks. I invoked the catastrophe of the 2025 Los Angeles bushfires and said it could happen here. I brought back memories of past fire disasters on the northern beaches, such as the 1994 fires when we lost 37 homes, and said it is only a matter of time until it happens again with a fire that is bigger and more furious. I do not like painting a picture of havoc for the future, especially not for my home and the places I love.

Anyone who knows me know that this type of pessimism is not in my nature. I think members demonstrated that during this debate. Like anyone who engages with the science of climate change and its consequences, my most fervent wish is that I am, in fact, wrong. But it is an undeniable fact that our State is becoming more flammable. Fire weather conditions are more extreme and will only get worse. With this knowledge, building new homes in bushfire-prone areas is reckless and wrong. We are setting people up to suffer.

My fundamental motivation to bring this bill to the House comes back to the following principles: protecting life and property, avoiding human suffering, listening to the experts and making evidence-based decisions in the public interest. I am concerned that we are moving away from those principles in New South Wales, and it turns out I am in good company. I have received letters of support for the bill from the Rural Fire Service Association and the Bushfire Protection Association. Significantly, I have also received a letter of support from eight former commissioners and deputy commissioners of the RFS and Fire and Rescue NSW. I thank those organisations and individuals for their support and commitment to bushfire protection. I particularly acknowledge Greg Mullins, AO, who was Fire and Rescue commissioner from 2003 to 2017, which is a hell of a stint.

I thank all members who contributed to the debate on this bill, including the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces and members representing the electorates of Castle Hill, Blacktown, Myall Lakes, Mount Druitt, Heathcote, Oxley, Riverstone, Penrith, Pittwater, Balmain, Coogee, Auburn, Camden, Liverpool, Gosford, Shellharbour—don't worry, Manly hates you too—Cessnock and Leppington. I am disappointed that neither the Government nor the Opposition support this important bill. It is ironic that members who are wearing orange to support the SES at an event just outside oppose this bill.

Despite that, bringing the bushfire protection bill to the Parliament was the right thing to do for three reasons. Firstly, I believe that having these powers in the legislation is the right policy approach. Secondly, the Government is actively updating the policy framework for consideration of bushfire in planning decisions right now. Through the bill, I have sought to positively influence that work, which is being done by the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure, completely removed from the Parliament. We are the elected representatives. Thirdly, for me, this is a matter of representing my community in Wakehurst and on the northern beaches. I will speak to those three points.

Firstly, I turn to the policy merit of the bill. Many of the opposing contributions mentioned that elevating the status of the RFS would create inconsistencies in how multiple factors are considered in the planning system. It is true that the planning system is about balancing considerations that are often competing. But not all considerations are equal and there is a risk that, in trying to meet multiple objectives, you compromise on the one that really matters. Some considerations are not appropriate for compromise and trade-offs. For me, a very high risk of lives burning to the ground fits into that category. A high risk of homes being uninsurable in the future also fits into that category.

I thank the member for Pittwater for spelling out the serious risks for insurance premiums and accessibility of building new homes in areas with high natural hazard risk, a cost concentrated with individual policyholders but ultimately borne by everyone. Look at the newest government department, the Reconstruction Authority. Look at how much it is growing and the costs to taxpayers in this State and nationally. It is appropriate to have the powers for the RFS commissioner in legislation because the stakes are so high. The member for Balmain made that clear in her contribution, recalling the devastation of the 2019-20 bushfires and the need to learn from those tragedies, and highlighting the fact that, if we think the protections are essential, they should be in legislation. Fundamentally, it is the role of government to protect life and property, and we do that by having strong laws.

The Government says the role of RFS advice should be resolved at the policy level rather than in legislation, and that is why the timing of the bill is important. Right now, there is a lot of uncertainty around the policy framework for considering bushfire risk in planning decisions. The relevant State environmental planning policy [SEPP] and ministerial direction will be updated this year. The Minister, to his credit, addressed that in his contribution. The Climate Change and Natural Hazards State Environmental Planning Policy and Local Planning Direction 4.3 Planning for Bushfire Protection are the key instruments outlining how bushfire risk must be assessed and applied in both strategic planning and development assessment. With the policy window open and the Government's determined focus on delivering housing, there is a big risk that protections will be watered down. But there is also an opportunity to make them stronger, and that is what I ultimately want to see.

I have provided the Government with a comprehensive set of suggestions for what I think should be in the ministerial direction and the SEPP, which reflect the intent of the bill. Some of those have been mentioned today and in the contributions last week, and I sincerely welcome the Government's constructive engagement. This is not about development applications, which were mentioned in a few contributions. Crucially, this is about the ability of the RFS to say no to a rezoning proposal for new homes on bushfire-prone land. That must be maintained in the ministerial direction. The ministerial direction exhibited removes that ability, making it weaker. That is not right.

At the same time as those policy changes, following the planning system reforms bill last year, machinery of government changes established the Development Coordination Authority to centralise assessments, including for rezoning proposals. That involves taking staff from the RFS and other agencies and putting them in the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure. In their letter of support for the bill, the ex-fire chiefs said:

"Removing expert staff from the RFS to be embedded with the new Development Coordination Authority, under leadership focussed on speeding up housing approvals rather than on objective assessment of bushfire risk. Over time this will dilute expertise, and staff will immediately lose ready access to fire scientists and firefighting experts to advise on complex proposals."

Many members mentioned the Development Coordination Authority [DCA] and the Planning Systems Reform Act from last year as a reason not to support the bill at this time. But that is precisely why I introduced the bill—because there is an imminent risk of the role of RFS advice being diminished through the process. From my perspective, the fact that the mechanics of the DCA are being worked out right now behind closed doors is a reason to introduce the bill and help bring some scrutiny to that process and make clear the community's justified expectation that the RFS will not be steamrolled in the new governance structure. The Government right now is essentially saying, "Trust us." Believe me, I want to. But I struggle because I have a concrete example of when the planning department made its willingness to ignore RFS advice crystal clear. That example is the Patyegarang, or Lizard Rock, planning proposal.

In its submission to the planning panel, the planning department said the proposal complied with fire policies while the RFS said the risk is far too high—a very direct conflict. I understand the planning department's motivations in wanting to find ways for the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council to generate income from its lands. I really do. However, we cannot right past wrongs by committing new wrongs that deny the facts of escalating fire risk and put lives at risk, including those of volunteer firefighters. It is only because the current ministerial direction contains the authority for the RFS to say no and the Sydney North Planning Panel respected that decision that the Patyegarang Lizard Rock proposal has not progressed further. That ministerial direction is slated to change and remove that authority later this year.

Meanwhile, we have no answer on the Patyegarang Lizard Rock proposal nearly 18 months after the Sydney North Planning Panel made its determination that the proponents had to work to find a proposal that the RFS would agree to. Really? As far as I understand it, the RFS continues to oppose the rezoning on bushfire risk grounds. I fear that the Patyegarang Lizard Rock decision is being put on ice until the rules change, which will allow the planning department to facilitate its approval. That is completely intolerable for me and my community. I remind members of the tabled petition signed by 12,000 to 14,000 residents. That is why I was pleased to hear the Minister state clearly in his contribution that the DCA and the updated policies "will not weaken or remove bushfire protection considerations in planning assessments and decisions".

I do not want to be conspiratorial, but when I hear that "the DCA will help to deliver faster assessments, fewer disputes and more consistent outcomes", I think it is fair to think that could just mean it will deliver the outcomes the planning department wants to see. The statements from the Minister reinforcing the status of RFS advice are important—and I thank him for those—but that sentiment must be reflected in decision-making. In their contributions a number of members mentioned that the bill was motivated by the local political issue in my area—the Patyegarang Lizard Rock subdivision. Yes, I am very transparent that this one planning proposal has been my entry into the bigger structural issue of statewide policy significance. It is often only through case studies that the real implications of abstract policies can be understood.

Therefore, I make no apologies for that. In fact, I think it is a very useful example for everyone to understand the risks involved. My concern is not only for my area but also for the whole State. I am motivated by not wanting to put anyone in harm's way anywhere in New South Wales. I also note the meaningful consideration of the bushfire-prone land mapping component by the Government and the acknowledgement that that is a worthwhile long-term goal. It should be a short-term goal: Fund it and get on with it. I urge the Government to continue to work on that because centralising the mapping function and updating the maps offers the opportunity to make them accurately reflect where historically bushfire-prone land no longer exists, such as the land mentioned by the member for Leppington. I am aware of similar work in Camden too. That therefore removes an unnecessary barrier to development.

The northern beaches are covered in accurately mapped bushfire‑prone land. That is why, for me, the bill is about fulfilling my responsibility to represent my community and doing everything I can to stop a dangerous subdivision in Lizard Rock but also thinking about the future with the values and best interests of my constituents at heart. Given their opposition to the bill, the Liberals should think long and hard about that.

The reality is that, in 2022, then Coalition Minister for Planning Anthony Roberts was the one who led the charge on the Northern Beaches Aboriginal Land Development Delivery Plan, which identified six sites with the aim of facilitating their development. Lizard Rock is the first cab off the rank. It was only just before the 2023 election that local Liberal candidates flipped the Liberal position on Lizard Rock. As local representatives and candidates, our primary concern needs to be for current and future residents and local RFS volunteers. I quote the support letter for my bill from the NSW Rural Fire Service Association, which makes this point:

"In addition to the community safety risks, inappropriate development on bushfire prone land also compromises firefighter safety …

Safety considerations in the planning system tend to focus on residents or other users of proposed developments. They should also take into account the risk to the firefighters who will be called to assist when there is an incident at the site of a proposed development. Their safety requires a greater focus in the planning process, especially when assessing larger developments."

I thank all the RFS volunteers on the northern beaches and across the State for what they do. I briefly address the contribution of the member for Oxley, particularly his suggestion that it was wrong to bring RFS members into the public gallery for a political debate. I think that really is an insult to the intelligence of those RFS volunteers. They are smart people who follow what is going on, think for themselves and are raising the alarm. For example, one of the gentlemen in the gallery last week works in insurance, including on climate risk, in addition to being an RFS volunteer. To suggest that I am somehow using them is pretty low, in my opinion, because those volunteers from my electorate and across the northern beaches fought fires, probably in the electorate of the member for Oxley—they were certainly very north, as well as south, in the Blue Mountains and across the State.

Dr Hugh McDermott: They're everywhere.

Mr MICHAEL REGAN: They are everywhere, and they are very respected. As for his broader commentary, I am sure there is nothing I could say that would change the mind of the member for Oxley. I thank him for taking an interest in the bill and its ramifications for my electorate, just as I have shown interest in native forests in his electorate. In doing so, he has demonstrated the important principle that, as a member of Parliament, it is legitimate to have opinions about matters outside one's own electorate. But the matter is far from a vanity project, as the member so angrily claimed. The member also stated that the RFS already has the necessary role and powers and that the bill is therefore not needed, missing the point that my key concern is that its past role is in the process of being degraded.

I am not anti-housing—far from it. In my area, there are many infill areas where I actively support significant housing uplift. I just think new homes need to be in sensible locations. Suggesting that concern is just a facade to oppose more homes in my area is a very lazy political critique that I reject. Out-of-control bushfires threatening lives and property may seem incongruous with comfortable suburban life in metropolitan areas but, in many areas—particularly on the northern beaches, where there are significant areas of urban-bushland interface—the threat is very real. We saw that in Gosford in December last year, when 16 homes were lost. And who could forget the 2019-20 bushfires that destroyed close to 2,500 homes and saw 26 people killed?

In September 2024 many in the Wakehurst electorate became all too aware of just how vulnerable to bushfires we are when a scheduled hazard reduction burn at Oxford Falls escaped containment lines and quickly gained pace towards homes in Cromer Heights. The situation quickly escalated and, by 3.00 p.m., residents in Cromer Heights were told that it was too late to leave and that they needed to actively monitor their properties for burning embers and put out spot fires. They were lucky that day: No lives or properties were lost, and the fire was quickly contained.

Less than a kilometre away in Dee Why, where my house is, not far from 20,000 to 30,000 units, ash from that fire rained down on cars and rooves. It was a real wake-up call to residents in my street, who were that far removed from the bush in a very built-up suburban area. They thought, "That's right: We could be under an ember attack. We actually need to get serious about this." I say well done to our RFS volunteers that no lives or properties were lost and that the fire was quickly contained. But it could have played out differently. The reality is that bushfire risk in the area is worsening as a result of climate change, and the effectiveness of traditional mitigation tools, such as hazard reduction burning, asset protection zones and construction standards, are limited because of the increasing intensity of bushfires. As one of the long‑time RFS volunteers explained to me, "Just two weeks ago it was too wet to burn; this week there was a runaway fire. The window for hazard reduction burning is now so small, and getting smaller. On Saturday it was 24 degrees. Can you imagine a day of 44 degrees, Michael, and gale‑force winds?" The reality is that we have to confront the likelihood—perhaps inevitability—of that scenario. Putting more homes in new suburbs that effectively are bushfire traps is just irresponsible.

I absolutely do not doubt the intentions of any of the members who spoke during debate, and the Government and Opposition more broadly, in wanting to protect life and property from bushfire. But the laws and policy frameworks need to reflect that intention in a robust way, particularly with the current housing push. That is what my bill is about, full stop—no more, no less. I thank everyone who contributed to the debate. I also thank them for their kind words, and their acknowledgement of my work in this Parliament and my contribution. On that note, I will resume my seat.

You can read the full debate here

14 May 2026, 12:30.