I emphasise again the need to not put new homes in areas with high bushfire risk. We need robust New South Wales Government policies that deliver strategic planning decisions that prepare us for the future and that do not make the problem worse.

The recent fires in Los Angeles and our own devastating 2019-20 bushfires demonstrate that need beyond question. In an era of escalating climate change, we must focus our efforts on disaster risk mitigation, not just mopping up after disasters happen. The last thing we should do is knowingly, unnecessarily and recklessly increase risk by putting new homes in harm's way. Insurance companies are acutely aware of the need to focus on disaster risk mitigation. I refer to comments from Suncorp CEO Steve Johnston, just last week. Suncorp is one of Australia's largest insurance companies, with brands including AAMI, GIO and APIA. In Suncorp's profit result report, Mr Johnston said:

" Severity and frequency of extreme weather is becoming an increasingly large part of everyone's premiums through natural hazard budgets and reinsurance protection. […] Suncorp remains committed to working with Governments, other insurers, banks, technical experts, community organisations and homeowners to reduce Australia's exposure to natural hazard risks. Reducing risk will not only protect lives, homes and businesses, but it will also go a long way in reducing the risk of a claim, in turn ensuring Australians and New Zealanders can access affordable, fit-for-purpose insurance."

Many in the insurance industry are calling for a dollar-for-dollar, pre- and post-disaster spending ratio. That means that for every dollar spent mopping up after disasters, a dollar is invested in mitigation. Given our insurers pay out billions of dollars in claims each year, risk mitigation will be expensive. Not allowing homes to be built in high-risk fire zones is an obvious solution to keeping insurance premiums and risk mitigation costs low for all Australians. The need to stop building in areas vulnerable to natural disasters is one of the reasons I support the New South Wales Government's focus on increasing density over greenfield developments.

I was encouraged to hear the Secretary of the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure, Kiersten Fishburn, also explain that logic in comments at the recent Sydney Summit run by the Committee for Sydney. She said that one of the reasons we need density is because we cannot keep building in areas with high natural hazard risk, including bushfire. I am glad to hear this clear-eyed view from the leader of the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure. I am particularly glad given that staff in her department have not shown the same wisdom in recent months. In fact, I was shocked to read the department's recommendation to the Sydney North Planning Panel to approve the Patyegarang planning proposal, despite the RFS's position that the rezoning proposal was too dangerous. The department thought it met the requirements of the Planning for Bushfire Protection Policy 2019; the RFS thought it did not. I am glad that the RFS was not ignored by the Sydney North Planning Panel, and a final decision about this specific proposal is yet to be made, which may be a concern. The Planning for Bushfire Protection Policy 2019 is providing the framework for assessment and decision-making in this case, but the reality is that it is out of date.

I turn now to the draft Bushfire Prone Land Package. This policy was originally slated to be finalised by mid-2024, but it has not been. The Bush Fire Prone Land Package was a response to recommendation 27 of the NSW Bushfire Inquiry following the devastating 2019-20 bushfires. The New South Wales Government at the time adopted all of the recommendations of the inquiry report, including recommendation 27. The draft package would result in amendments being made to update section 4 of Planning for Bush Fire Protection, making it far more robust. The pending bush fire policy for land use planning provides objectives and strategic planning principles to guide planning authorities when making merit-based decisions on or near bushfire-prone land.

The strategic planning principles in the draft policy include avoiding inappropriate developments in high‑risk bushfire locations or circumstances. Critically, the updated policy will also consider climate change impacts on future fire behaviour, as well as landscape context fire risks, which refers to the capacity in the larger landscape for a fire to build momentum, generate its own winds and become a firestorm. We need robust planning frameworks for bushfire risk that apply the best available science and minimise future risk to life and property. I was grateful to meet with the Minister's office today to get an update on the Bushfire Prone Land Package. I look forward to continuing to raise this issue so that we can make systematic improvements, make better decisions to save lives, and stop ignoring our RFS firefighters, who know best.

20 February 2025, 17:09.