The concept is very simple and eminently sensible. Thanks for this article Robert and Nick.

But of course the practicalities are not so simple. Replacing towering eucalypts with oaks or wattles or other fire-retardant species around houses that are built into or next to native forest or between towns and forests would be problematic and expensive in most cases.

Thus, I guess it would only be a suitable answer to the problem in a small percentage of situations.

Good lateral thinking.
This has been suggested before however, it has severe problems often creating bigger harder to solve issues.
Not to mention that there are some factual errors and omissions in the article.

Sadly the impact, practicality, desirability aren't fully understood or glossed over by the authors.The idea needs a lot more work to be a credible offering.

Belts of fire-retardant trees, preferably natives, around houses and urban areas, yes - and along country roads as well. How many lines would that have saved in Victoria last February ?

Such tree species could be interplanted in commercial forest projects, silky oaks for example (their timber is at least as valuable as pine): such protective belts around pine or eucalyptus plantations might take up only a tenth of the total area, without reducing eventual income substantially.

If ever major forestry projects are initiated in the north (near Indigenous communities for example), in response to the increased rainfall due to AGW (or at least a shift in the el Nino-la Nina patterns), it would make sense to plant those belts of fire-retardant trees first, then fill-in with inflammable species if this is decided to be the best option.

We can also ask the question. Should communities have been allowed in the midst of Eucalypt forests which provide habitat for indigenous species but are not reasonable places to build houses?

This information is particularly useful for people living in a bushland setting. Joan Webster has written on the topic in her useful books, including The Complete Bushfire Safety Book where a very useful list of fire-resistant species covers several pages. I am interested to see this analysis applied to the Canberra 2003 fires, and wonder if there has been any detailed research.

The wholesale clearing of vegetation which is often the response to bushfires doesn't usually include follow-up plantings, favouring a bare-earth approach. Yet in a climate change aware world, we need to at least maintain carbon-absorbing vegetation and preferably increase it. More work on native and introduced species which resist fire and post-fire studies can assist people rebuilding houses and reestablishing landscapes in burnt-out areas. Appropriately planted trees reduce temperatures inside homes and beautify landscapes. They only become a problem in a bushfire and if planting different species - even within an otherwise bushland setting - reduces risk there should be more awareness raising on the topic. Fruit trees are a useful alternative to elms and oaks, faster growing, and its hard to go past the blackwood, the local evergreen.

This article seem to me to contain the germ of an excellent idea - however it is doomed to remain ineffectual rhetoric because of misplaced jingoistic emotions re the iconic gum trees. We have imposed a European agriculture and social value system on a continent not appropriate to that imposition. We are, in most shires, not even permitted to trim or lop dangerous native trees, much less replace them in any systemic manner.
The bush fires will continue, as will the ever on-going land degradation.