Paul,

"SM evidence please."

Well, you're wasting your time with that request.

Shadow Minister doesn't deal in evidence.

He deals in partisan spin.....and various wobbly rants garnished with kiddie names.

Poirot. too true SM does post many a rant without the slightest of references. I done mind anyone posting their opinion,but then present that opinion or unsubstantiated claim as fact, is a stretch. I wonder if SM can relate to my quip about bring the knitting.

Paul,

You say "evidence please" but don't specify for what.

You earlier asked me to provide a link, and I did. There was a similar discussion with comments from various people after the Victorian fires. None of this is new, and is common knowledge.

Are you seriously going to try and pretend that the Greens oppose the regulations that prevent bush clearance around houses?

Parrot,

The pot calling the kettle Black!

At least I don't lie.

That at least I don not lie.
We see it so often from SM a deliberate charge against his opponent of lieing.
The younger of us, one day will see both partys with a price on carbon policy.
We very well may, yes think it, Abbott dumped by his own party, not just or maybe at all because of his climate change is crap views.
But because he remains the man he always was, his over seas trip have seen him jump on the heads of his now powerless ALP victims.
He is fast emerging as this country,s G W Bush, or a reborn flying peanut Joe.
His words seem to come with pain and uncertainty after going in to a sausage maker.

Belly,

Yes, I reckon once in about every three or four posts he accuses his opponent of lying.

That's what you do when your argument has little substance.

SM,

http://nsw.greens.org.au/policies/bushfires

"The Greens believe that living with bushfire threat requires a coordinated approach that includes:

* planning of housing sites to avoid development in risk prone areas;
*strategically planned hazard reduction, including controlled burning, where and when climatic conditions allow it to be done safely and where it is consistent with maintaining the ecosystem;
*education and community awareness programs to reduce the incidence of arson; and
*a well funded and managed fire fighting service which can protect human life and homes and contain the spread of fires."

Let's see.....point 2 would be?....

"strategically planned hazard reduction, including controlled burning, where and when climatic conditions allow it to be done safely and where it is consistent with maintaining the ecosystem"

Parrot,

A) You can't count.

B) Yes, Lying is what you do when your argument has little substance.

C) "consistent with maintaining the ecosystem" = when hell freezes over, and "strategically planned hazard reduction" means you submit a doctoral thesis to remove the scrub, which is ignored for 6 months, and needs to be resubmitted several times at great personal expense by which time your house has already burnt down, or you have retired and moved.