THE Greens had long supported fuel reduction burns, Greens Senator Peter Whish-Wilson said yesterday.
Senator Whish-Wilson said it was time to put to bed misreporting that claimed the party did not support fuel-reduction burns.
"We do not support forest-regeneration burns, which are designed to increase biomass and growth - fuel-reduction burns are specifically designed to decrease them and provide community protection," he said.
"I was fortunate enough to be on the East Coast when the Tas Fire service gave its community briefing.
"There was a lot of concern over the lack of fuel- reduction burning in the area, but there was a fuel- reduction burn south of Bicheno about a year ago and the fire hit this area and burned down on itself.
"Parks and Wildlife categorically stated that without that fuel-reduction burn, they would have lost Coles Bay and the Freycinet Peninsular."
Coalition forestry spokesman Senator Richard Colbeck said that the Greens' backing of fuel reduction burns and call for additional Parks and Wildlife Service resources were "a bit rich ... when they have attacked them at almost every turn".
But Senator Whish- Wilson said that Senator Colbeck had either deliberately misrepresented the Greens or had based his claim on media misreporting.
Senator Whish-Wilson said that the Greens would push for additional resources for fuel-reduction burns in the state and nationally.
FARMERS START ROAD TO RECOVERY: Page 57