If I’m correct I believe the RFS handle hazard reduction management. So if it was not done it was because the RFS believed that the 2018 HRM was sufficient, they didn’t have the resources, or the resources were directed to other areas where HRM had to be prioritised.
RFS are the lead agency for fire in NSW. National Parks does somewhere in the order of 75-80% of the total hazard reduction burns in area across the state each year. National parks tend to do a lot of big remote hazard reductions. The rfs and fire And rescue brigades tend to look after the smaller but complex urban interface hazard reduction works. The thing with hazard reduction burns is that it’s extremely weather dependent. Too wet, you can’t burn, too dry it’s too dangerous to burn. And there are also now restrictions on burning that might endure heavy smoke impacts on urban areas (a current state government policy). All of this has nothing to do with federal agencies or the greens in any way shape or form.
By the by. Back burning is a term generally used for when firefighters light up a burn to burn back into a wildfire to stop the progress of a wildfire. Hazard reduction burns is the term used for planned burns for fuel reduction.
And we ask the same questions up here for not just fire season but cyclone season …next time you drive anywhere on highways in CQ look at the overhanging gum trees that have branches thicker than my torso that not only become massive fire hazards if the cut the highway with fires but you get a half decent cyclone come through and rescue crews spend all day getting to people in need because they have to spend the day opening the highway