More important than parks and state forest is private property.
Jamo,
Again, yes & no. If private property is such that the owner or occupier is incapable or unwilling to rid the property of noxious vegetation i.e. potential fuel then no, it's up to them. However, if the state of their property is such that it is a clear menace/fire potential for adjoining properties then yes, the proprietor should be required to have at least a fire-break along their boundary.
If an unkept property is a clear risk to ignite a State forest then yes, fire-breaks should be mandatory. EPA & other Govt agencies must also be more responsible for the area under their jurisdiction. Regular cold burns will ensure less fire damage !

Trying to sequester carbon in vegetation and the soil while your entire economy creates it is tantamount to trying to fill a bucket with a hole in it. The faster you pour the faster it exits via the hole. But if one deserts carbon as a source of transport and electrical energy the hole becomes a pinhole.

And you can't get ahead of our current circular carbon (put it in, pull it out) paradigm! And only because I believe our politicians are owned by the fossil fuel industry and coal? Albeit that alleged relationship could evolve over time?

National parks belong to all of us, not just a minority of rent-a-crowd, vociferous greens!

And it has been the lock it up and leaves it that has created most of the problems plus feral weed infestation tha invariably follows wildfires or so-called cool burns.

There may have been a time when cool burns were the only form of land management.

After all, the indigenous population had few tractors, bulldozers, graders of domesticated grazing ruminants, for their farmers?

Everything we derive from coal, gas, oil as energy or exports income has vastly superior and more profitable carbon-free, safer more affordable alternatives available to us!

No not tomorrow genius, but over the decade we'd need to transition to a CARBON FREE nuclear energy economy! ECONOMIC EVOLUTION?

I DON'T NEED TO ENDLESSLY REPEAT THE ONLY VIABLE, AFFORDABLE 24/7 SOLUTIONS AGAIN DO I?
Alan B.

it has been the lock it up and leaves it that has created most of the problems plus feral weed infestation tha invariably follows wildfires or so-called cool burns.
Alan B,
Yes and, who & what kind of people made those decicions ?
Let's hope there'll be some less indoctrinated decision makers by the time the cool burn opportunities for the next season comes around.
Perhaps we could get people who know rather than those "experts" we've been plagued with until now.

"the proprietor should be required to have at least a fire-break along their boundary."
Individual, this is where we have a problem.
Property owners aren't allowed to remove native vegetation. They can apply for permits, at their expense. Limited permits are sometimes granted. Sometimes not. Same applies for the owner seeking exclusion or containment.
I don't know how it is elsewhere but the recently created statewide planning scheme for Tas has created distance limits for clearing along boundary lines. It's down to 1 meter depending on the classification of vegetation. We don't even know how that could be done. It's not even vehicular access.
Arguably the current clearing bans extinguish liability for harm caused, which only encourages neglect. Red Greens don't think these things through do they.
Mandating can be a bad idea. It tends to produce perverse outcomes.
We need to remove native vegetation preservation requirements for private land. Then owners can perform the most beneficial actions for their land unhindered. The current rules regarding native vegetation have failed.
Shared waterways are a different thing of course. Incidentally waterway management was screwed up by the same governments that messed with vegetation laws. But that's a different discussion.

Removing vegetation preservation laws for private land doesn't mean it'll all suddenly be bulldozed away. One of the really perverse outcomes of the current clearing bans is they've turned areas of valued remnant bush into despised patches of noxious weed for the landowner. What remained before the bans, remained because it was valued for what it was. These dictatorial eco laws are so dumb. Dumb and dangerous.

We all need to admit to ourselves that we live in a climate that will get progressively hotter and drier.

I reside in the Blue Mtns and will be pushing to cut back the forests and keep a buffer between residences and the natural bush. Therefore no more mixed conservation zones with people living within the natural surroundings.

The catastrophic fires will be back. They are the new normal and we have to take measures to prevent loss of life and property when they do.

If we follow the advice of the AGW / CC denialists it will be business as usual and we will neglect putting in place the measures we need to protect human occupation areas.

Come on Mr O, the blue mountains going up every 6 to 10 years was the norm in the 50s, 60s & 70s.

How many times has the Bell Line of Road gone up, & how often has that extended to the Putty road. The whole area from Mittagong to Sandy Hollow is a death trap on a regular basis, all disgusting National Park.