zlacker

What you've been reading is quite obviously BS (both your links are to Murdoch media). The greens haven't been against controlled burns for decades but even if they were against they've only got 3/135 seats giving them no power to dictate policy.

There have been less controlled burns than desired, but that's mostly because of budget cuts and a much longer fire season due to climate change.

>>flukus+(OP)
My understanding is that in order to form a government, the Greens and others form coalition deals, through which some of their policies get implemented regardless of their actual number of seats.

As for my news sources - I don’t think they should be dismissed due to association with Murdoch. One of the articles responds to claims that the Greens aren’t against controlled burns with lots of links to evidence that they were indeed against it, at least for certain time periods or in certain jurisdictions.

>>throwa+n6
If the greens form a coalition with anyone it will be Labor who haven't been in power since 2011 and back then the greens had zero seats in parliament. Their policy on controlled burns is irrelevant, if they have no power and have never had power then they are not responsible.