The Greens may oppose some forms of back burning, but don't believe the spin. They oppose back burning with gasoline igniters from helicopters and similar techniques which form fires that are too hot and too damaging which are not natural and dont allow wildlife to escape. A slow back burn - ignited and followed on foot in a single line is what should be preferred and thats what the Green argue for (as do the actual firefighters in the RFS funningly enough).
This takes more resources and time however. The RFS has a problem mustering volunteers these days because since its amalgamation and formation of a head-office in Homebush, seems to have lost touch.
Also the Greens, last time I checked, are not in power and cant do diddly squat about anything. So you can take down the straw man.
The RFS is bureaucracy. The ones making the decisions are paid staff and often were never volunteers on the ground. They answer to the minister. They turn down back burn after back burn. It has become a game of politics and optics - ask any volunteer or the VFFA for that matter.
The volunteers appeal to the commissioner for a local burn and when he refuses then minister, both of whom pay them little more than lip service because in actual fact there is no desire by politicians of any flavour to back burn because the risk that it would get out of control is a PR disaster.
If loss of property is going to occur, they prefer it to be a natural disaster which was unforeseeable. They also profit from a disaster status, when an out of control fire reaches a certain size - paid staff of the RFS and NPWS get a pay-rise - see the complacency outlined in the Canberra Bush Fires case.
