I contribute to debate on the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Planning Systems Reforms) Bill 2025. I understand the need for more housing and have consistently advocated for sensible infill development in areas on the northern beaches that have enabling infrastructure and are away from natural hazard risk. The Forest High School and Brookvale come to mind. However, I object to using the moral imperative of housing people to undermine robust planning processes in our State. I share numerous concerns with fellow crossbench members about weakening environmental considerations. I support the amendments brought by the member for Sydney and the member for Pittwater, and the sensible amendments from the Opposition. It is amazing what happens when all members work together.

My focus for the bill has been the provisions relating to bushfire. I thank the Government for working with me on the matter and listening to the concerns raised by bushfire experts. Originally the bill proposed to remove section 4.14 and section 10.3, which are the two bushfire provisions currently in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. Over recent weeks a strong consensus has emerged from bushfire stakeholders that removing them was not the right call. It would have reduced expert input and increased the risks of developments being inappropriately and dangerously sited. Strategic planning is vital but it should never become a roadblock or slow progress, which is a difficult juggle that the bill tries to address.

To ensure the ongoing safety and resilience of New South Wales communities, members need to retain the core requirements for bushfire prone land mapping and adherence to the Planning for Bush Fire Protection guide in primary legislation. Delegating those safeguards to subordinate instruments risks future dilution and undermines public confidence. Those measures are essential to address the escalating threat of bushfires in a changing climate, and to maintain the confidence of the insurance sector and broader community. The Government has now agreed to keep both sections in the Act, and I sincerely thank it for that. I will move an amendment that seeks to keep section 10.3, which relates to bushfire prone land mapping, in the Act.

Section 4.14 specifies that consent authorities assessing development on mapped bushfire-prone land must consider the relevant bushfire protection planning guide, called Planning for Bushfire Protection. That guide is a crucial document that sets standards for asset protection zones, building construction, siting and design, access arrangements, water supply and utilities, emergency management arrangements and landscaping to protect lives and property. Retaining the Planning for Bushfire Protection in the Act secures its important status. I support the Government's amendment to keep section 4.14 in the Act.

If incorporating references to "bushfire" in the State Environmental Planning Policy (Resilience and Hazards) goes ahead as originally planned, there should be consultation with a working group of relevant stakeholders from government and industry including, but not limited to, the planning department, the RFS, the Emergency Leaders for Climate Action, Western Sydney University bushfire academics, the Bushfire Protection Association Australia and the Fire Protection Association of Australia. I agree that the RFS is being smashed with too many development application referrals, which is unnecessary and inefficient. Its role needs to be narrowed to only riskier proposals. I beg the Government to invest serious dollars into bushfire mapping so that it is more accurate and does not create the current issues that occur in various instances.

I am concerned about the concentration of power in the Development Coordination Authority in the legislation, which ultimately rests solely with the Secretary of the Department of Planning. I am particularly concerned about the role that RFS advice plays in decision-making in strategic planning. The rezoning stage is critical. Once rezoned, the land value changes and the vested interests pushing towards a profit-maximising development outcome are fully mobilised. Where there is a direct trade-off between dwelling numbers and bushfire safety, it is understandable that the forces pushing for more dwellings become very strong. By that stage, proponents have become financially and emotionally invested.

By making smart decisions up-front at the rezoning stage, based on the objective scientific assessment of bushfire risk, we can prevent proponents spending millions of dollars on reports and we can save communities the ordeal of opposing reckless developments. That would also ensure there is less ammunition for planning proposals to be politicised. A fast no is in everyone's interests. I know the process very well because of the planning proposal for Patyegarang, formerly Lizard Rock, in my electorate of Wakehurst. Originally it was a plan for a 450-home subdivision smack bang in the middle of bushfire-prone land that was known to be high risk with very constrained evacuation routes and no infrastructure. The drawn-out saga took its toll on my community, the proponent and the RFS.

I believe that would all have been avoided if the bushfire risk was objectively assessed at the very start. It is my strong view that RFS advice should be sought and considered up-front before gateway determination and that, if the RFS does not support a proposal, it should not proceed. I hope that is possible through the Development Coordination Authority. I encourage the Minister to investigate how to achieve that and look forward to hearing how he will address it. I have raised this matter previously and I will continue to raise it after the bill. My engagement with the bill and the issue more broadly is motivated by a desire to protect lives and property from bushfire risk.

I want to see the experts in bushfire risk assessment and planning listened to up-front, not sidelined. I want to make sure that we take every step to minimise the danger to volunteer firefighters, Fire and Rescue and others who are brave and selfless enough to go towards the flames in an emergency when everyone is running away. I want people who buy homes to insure them into the future, which is currently in jeopardy. We cannot deny the reality that we live in a country with a long history of deadly bushfire tragedies. We know that fire weather is only getting more extreme. The high stakes were outlined in a letter to the Premier from Greg Mullins, the former commissioner of Fire and Rescue NSW and founder of Emergency Leaders for Climate Action, raising serious concerns about the provisions in the original bill. He said:

At slightly less than 1.5 degrees of warming in 2019/2020, NSW experienced its worst ever bushfires with property losses more than 1,000 per cent higher than the previous worst fire losses in 2013. Clearly, bushfire risk is on an upward trajectory in New South Wales, with one study predicting that the (then) hottest summer ever recorded in 2019 will by 2040 reflect an 'average' summer and by 2060 an 'exceedingly cool' one. The recent National Climate Risk Assessment predicts regular 50 degree days in Sydney by the turn of the century, which will drive rapid evaporation and drying, flash droughts, increased flammability of bushfire fuels, and extreme fire behaviour that will make protection of life and property perilous for firefighters. This is precisely why we need to build safer homes now, rather than establishing building stock incapable of protecting families.

Members cannot change planning decisions of the past, but we can make better decisions today about where to put homes to keep people out of harm's way. I will continue to fight for that. The bushfire provisions in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act were inserted in the wake of devastating bushfire tragedies and subsequent inquiries with recommendations about how we can avoid future impacts. Members should act to strengthen those provisions, not the other way around. My final comment and request to the Minister and the Government is to create an implementation panel similar to the one agreed to for the much-loved FOGO recycling bill. It may speed up the process and build confidence in the bill from all stakeholders.

Read the entire second reading debate on the NSW Hansard here