Voting independent? It can be a risky move

They can also sharpen and refine legislative proposals. The Senate is the natural home of the minor parties, free from the burdens, baggage and responsibilities of government.

The Australian Democrats in the 1980s and 1990s modified GST and workplace laws, while the Greens have used their leverage in the Senate to drive an independent inquiry into the robodebt scandal.

The Greens have also used Senate power to push renewable energy; One Nation has championed regional jobs; but all these cost money.

Minor parties can push for their preferred expenditures from the Senate, but if their seats in the House force the major parties to accede always to their demands, the budget will inevitably suffer.

The Senate's role is to scrutinise, not govern.

Minor parties do their best work there, keeping the executive in check without the burden of running the show.

The formation of governments in the House of Representatives is undermined when minor parties and independents win House seats and major parties must rely upon them to form government.

Once inside the government or pledged to its support, a minor party loses its critical edge.

It is no longer an independent watchdog but a part of the government, often bound by confidential cabinet decisions and always forced into policy compromises.

A Labor-Greens coalition in the House could see the Greens trading their Senate clout for policy wins, but at the significant cost of diluting their ability to challenge the executive and hold ministers to account.

This dynamic is especially dangerous given Australia's looming budgetary crisis.

Ballooning deficits and rising debt demand disciplined fiscal management, which only a major party with clear control of the House can deliver. When minor parties hold House seats, they're tempted to engage in the American practice of log-rolling-demanding pork-barrel spending on their pet projects as the price of their support, inflating budgets and undermining fiscal responsibility.