Western Australia had a similar fire versus no fire debate after the Dwellingup fire of the early 1960s, and the public came down strongly on the side of controlled burning. Then, in the 1990s, we had the Regional Forests Debate and, much to the annoyance of the anti-burning, anti-logging greenies, virtually all of the forest fauna known from the forest from the early days were still there: numbat, woylie, brush wallaby, wambenger, etc. Species lost through the introduction of the fox and cat or lost through permanent clearing in the agricultural areas were still extinct, of course, but logging and forest management practices were not one of the extinction causes nor one of the currently threatening processes.
You would think that, after decades of disastrous fires, eastern states' residents would open their eyes and accept that we live in a fire-prone environment which has been modified by 40,000 years or more of Aboriginal fire use. Two hundred years of European colonisation have seen this fire regime stopped, but the plants in our forests and bushlands continue to produce combustible material that falls to the ground, creating a powderkeg waiting to be lit by human beings or lightning.
WA hasn't had a serious forest fire for some 40 years thanks to its scientifically-based, conservation orientated prescribed burning regime. It's about time our eastern cousins got their act together, accepted reality and got on with the job of better using fire as a management tool in natural areas.

Brock perhaps you had better read 'Jackson's Track' and talk to some of the old fellas. You might be surprised at the historical use of 'controlled burning' by Indigenous clans.

Some claims made above require correcting:
Aboriginal fire regimes had no impact on plant evolution. That took a lot longer than 40,000 years. Second, the widespread existence of fire sensitive trees eliminates the theory of Aboriginal broadacre burning. Acacia, nor any other Australian plant requires fire. Although some seeds crack in heat, and then germinate prolifically, the same plants are killed by fires in the next and following years. The quoted explorers were kinda stupid. Why wouldn't Aborigines light signal fires to warn others of the strange animals and white people passing through their patch? Obviously, it's not what they did when there was no event to signal for. Post white arrival signal fires were much bigger because instant decimation by imported disease meant inadequate local numbers for ceremonies, so fires had to be seen by people much further away than earlier times. Finally, North East Arnhem Land Aborigines I listened to 35 years ago, in their own languages, explained all their fires to me, and a hunting fire covered about 1-2 hectares and was no more than 130 metres across; a spears throw span. These people were in their 60s and 70s and recalled precontact times in their areas. One last thing; litter reduces lower story and ground temperatures, and retains more moisture in both; which can effect the composition of flammable leaf oils. This, as an advantage factor in management depends entirely on conditions, terrain, latitude, plant regimes and access. Oh, and an official count of lightning is not necessarily factual. Rangers can and do lie. Generally, there can be no argument against total landclearing of protection corridors around susceptible southern urban centres; but the Top End is burned, between 70% and 100% every year, during the dry season when there is no lightning at all. These are caused by human agents and with no sustainable reason.

Tony Ryan makes some useful points, but not all of them are accurate, based upon my experiences
1. 40,000 years is loads of time for fire to impact upon plant evolution. In my garden, weeds that grow in the lawn and which normally grow to 20 or 30 cm now grow low to the ground, almost as a creeper, thanks to the impact of monthly lawn mowing.
2. Sylvia Hallam wrote extensively about fire in the WA environment. She noted the extensive use of fire by Aborigines in the Albany area long after white settlement when the use of signal fires wouldn't have been necessary. This was well before European diseases caused the native population to reduce. Her conclusion is that Aborigines used fire for many purposes and, as a result, the landscape was heavily affected by fire.
3. Tony's explanation of Arnhem Land Aboriginal fire sounds very accurate: lots of small fires to achieve particular hunting and presumably other outcomes.
4. A major controversy broke out in WA in the 1980s when an anthropologist wrote a report saying that it was part of normal Aboriginal practices to lie if it achieved benefits for their group. The report was withdrawn! So, yes Rangers may lie, just like Aboriginal people may sometimes lie. Neither comment is relevant to this fire debate.
5. AS CSIRO and government agency researchers are finding, the huge fires in the north of Australia are not desirable and should be replaced by many more small fires as used to occur when lit by Aboriginal people in pre-European days.

Tony Ryan's comments are interesting. (Part 1 response)

Firstly he claims that Aboriginal fire regimes had no impact on plant evolution as it took longer than the estimated 40,000 years they have been in Australia. It could be argued he is partly right. We know that 60 million years ago Australia was part of Gondwana & was mostly covered in rainforest. With the break up of Gondwana with continental drift, there was a progressive change in the climate. Present day eucalypts are seen to be an evolutionary response primarily to the decline in soil fertility generated by these events. We do know that climate began to deteriorate more dramatically about 20 million years ago & this led to increased droughts. This subjected eucalypts to a new selection pressure. It is commonly claimed that eucalypts evolved in a fire environment but this is not necessarily the case. We know the amounts of charcoal in the deposition profiles about 2 million years ago are linked to an increase in fire and a further increase early in the Aboriginal occupation era when all fire sensitive and moisture demanding plants of cool temperate rainforests finally disappeared. Therefore many of the attributes of present day eucalypts have origins in evolutionary processes which generated its adaptation to a range of environmental stresses such as poor soils, drought and fire.

To be continued

Secondly, he claims we have "widespread existence of fire sensitive trees" as proof that extensive firing has never been common. Considering that eucalypts make up the signifant proportion of trees across the Australian landscape, I will concentrate discussion on them. The only eucalypts which can be considered "fire sensitive" are the monocalyptus sub-genera found in the higher rainfall areas of the south-east, south-west and the high altitude snow gums (190 species out of 900 - 21%). However, they will eventually die out if no hot fire occurs at least every 350-450 yrs. They are an enigma in that the only way they can survive is through periodic hot fires (which only occur due to mesic understory in these forests) but these fires kill the trees. But we do know that the majority of Australia was covered in grassy woodlands at the time of settlement and the eucalypts in these areas are adapted to surviving regular fires (the only way you can sustain a grassy understory).