I speak on the draft Sydney region plan and the way it addresses natural hazards and bushfire risk in planning for our city's future. The draft plan is currently on exhibition until 27 February. There is much in the draft plan that I strongly support: increasing housing diversity, focusing on urban renewal and infill close to existing infrastructure, delivering more social and affordable housing, and protecting Sydney's blue-green grid and urban tree canopy. Those are all objectives that I wholeheartedly endorse. However, I hold concerns about how bushfire risk is addressed. I have made a submission outlining those concerns, and I have also raised them directly with the Minister's office.
Sydney is a city both defined and blessed by bushland. It is part of Sydney's beauty, but it is also one of its greatest risks. Large parts of our city sit at the bushland‑urban interface, where thousands of homes are exposed in the event of a major fire. My electorate of Wakehurst on Sydney's northern beaches is one clear example. In December 2025, 16 homes, many more structures and one life were lost to bushfires on the New South Wales Central Coast. In January this year more than 500 structures were destroyed in Victoria. During the Black Summer fires of 2019‑20, 33 lives were lost and more than 3,000 homes were destroyed across Australia.
We also witnessed the January 2025 wildfires in Los Angeles. More than 10,000 homes were destroyed, and the losses were estimated at over US$250 billion. Experts have been clear that a fire event of that scale and ferocity in Australia is not a question of if, but when. That is the context in which the Sydney region plan must be developed. That is why I am concerned by a statement on page 60 of the draft plan under the heading "Minimise the impact of natural hazards to communities". It states:
"Any application of risk-based frameworks on land owned by Aboriginal landowners should consider Aboriginal peoples' economic participation, housing, social and cultural expression needs."
In my view, that sentence is problematic and must be removed. It suggests a lower or different standard of natural hazard assessment for a development on Aboriginal‑owned land. That would be a fundamental departure from consistent, merit‑based, risk‑based planning. I understand and support in principle the desire to support Aboriginal economic development and to enable land councils to generate income from their lands. But we cannot right past wrongs by creating new ones that deny escalating bushfire risk and place lives in danger, including the lives of our volunteer bushfire‑fighters.
For my community, the issue is not theoretical; it is playing out right now in the Patyegarang planning proposal—formerly known as Lizard Rock—in Belrose. The proposal seeks to create a 370‑home subdivision in bushland along Morgan Road. The NSW Rural Fire Service has consistently opposed the rezoning due to unacceptable fire risk, and anyone who has been to that area would know and appreciate and understand that. Despite that, the Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure has asserted that the proposal is compliant, contradicting expert advice from the RFS. If not for the current ministerial direction requiring that the RFS must not object for a proposal to proceed, the subdivision would already be underway.
In December 2024 the Sydney North Planning Panel refused to green-light the proposal, instead directing further work with the RFS. Two highly experienced planning experts on that panel voted to reject the proposal outright on bushfire risk grounds. What is troubling is the double standard. In 2021 the New South Wales Government cancelled the Ingleside Place Strategy, which would have delivered hundreds of homes nearby. Why? Because bushfire and excavation risks were deemed unacceptable. In that case, expert advice was heeded. But with the Patyegarang proposal on Aboriginal land, the department is determined to push forward.
There is no justification for applying a lower standard of safety to development on Aboriginal‑owned land than on any other land. Fire does not discriminate. Embers do not respect tenure. Risk does not change based on ownership. The sentence on page 60 must be removed. The plan must be clear. No development anywhere in Sydney should proceed where bushfire risk is unacceptable. Anything less would be reckless, and our communities deserve much better.
12 February 2026, 17:21.