A Government Focus on Productivity Improvements
In light of the recent Federal election win by Labour, Treasurer Jim Chalmers has placed increasing emphasis on “productivity improvements” as a way to strengthen Australia’s economy, lift wages, and make growth more sustainable. While often framed in terms of technology, infrastructure, or workforce skills, productivity gains can and should also be found in how we regulate land use and assess development, especially in high-risk settings like bushfire-prone areas.
Too often, productivity is misunderstood as doing more work or cutting corners. But in planning and development, productivity means working smarter: improving outcomes while reducing unnecessary time, cost, and effort. One of the clearest opportunities for this lies in how we assess and approve new development in areas exposed to bushfire risk.
The Problem: One-Size-Fits-All Approaches to Risk
In many jurisdictions, development in bushfire-prone areas is subject to complex and sometimes rigid planning controls. Regardless of the actual level of bushfire threat, applicants may face multiple assessments, detailed reports, and significant delays, even for low-risk sites with existing access and defendable space.
This can create a regulatory bottleneck that:
- Slows housing delivery
- Increases costs for applicants, developers, governments and councils
- Ties up expert resources where they may not be needed, and
- Erodes public trust in the system.
The Opportunity: Proportionate, Risk-Based Planning Pathways
A key productivity improvement lies in making the development assessment process proportionate to the actual bushfire risk. In other words, match the regulatory effort to the level of threat, rather than applying a blanket level of scrutiny across the board.
Here’s how that might look in practice:
- Low-risk areas (e.g. BAL–Low to BAL–12.5) within low bushfire risk areas, good access and clear separation from vegetation could access fast-tracked approvals, provided they adopt pre-approved design templates or standard bushfire mitigation measures (like ember protection, setbacks, or non-combustible materials). These areas might also cap the upper BAL to ensure proportionality to the actual risk.
- Moderate to high-risk areas (e.g. BAL–29 to BAL–FZ) would still undergo detailed assessments, but these would be streamlined using clear, consistent guidance, digital tools, and a stronger focus on evidence-based outcomes that recognise reports provided by experts.
This approach ensures regulatory proportionality with scrutiny where it matters, less where it doesn’t, without compromising community safety or bushfire resilience.
Why It Matters for Productivity
A more proportionate, risk-based approach delivers real productivity benefits:
- Faster, cheaper approvals for low-risk development.
- Smarter allocation of expert time, focused on complex or high-consequence sites.
- Greater certainty and consistency for applicants, consultants, and regulators.
- Better outcomes without more paperwork.
In short, this is about getting more value from the system, not just doing less. It supports housing delivery, efficient regulation, and smarter bushfire risk management—all of which contribute to a more resilient, productive economy.
A Smarter Way Forward
Treasurer Chalmers has argued that productivity is the key to unlocking long-term prosperity. In planning and bushfire resilience, that means designing systems that work efficiently, fairly, and proportionately. By embracing smarter, risk-based pathways in bushfire-prone areas, we can deliver safer communities, reduce unnecessary burdens, and contribute meaningfully to Australia’s broader productivity agenda.
