Minority government is as good as any alternative when its advantages and disadvantages are weighed up. Three years of minority government from 2010–2013 showed that.
Effective minority government is common around the world. It is a form of government which depends on compromise and negotiation and can deliver fairer and more inclusive outcomes.
It can also be slower, apparently messier and less decisive. It can give too much power to individual MPs.
Those who dislike minority government include the big parties which prefer a two-party system with government alternating regularly between the two. They want sole control over executive government when they hold the reins of power.
But when the big parties condemn the idea of a so-called hung parliament it is just self-interest speaking, as when both Malcolm Turnbull and Bill Shorten expressed their horror at the prospect of any sort of alliance with the Greens. Adam Bandt, the Greens Member for Melbourne, had indicated that the Greens were ready for an alliance if the big parties fell short of a majority in their own right.
The Coalition and Labor didn't want to show any lack of confidence in their prospects by admitting that possibility. They particularly didn't want to invite speculation about an alliance with the Greens because of their policies on climate change and refugees.
The prospect of a Greens alliance drew front page publicity, but the bigger issue was minority government itself.
The Gillard government was not a Labor-Greens alliance at all but a more broadly-based minority government. Julia Gillard needed four extra votes to govern and she managed to negotiate the support of first the Greens, then Andrew Wilkie, and finally both Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott. Surprisingly no one pointed this out.
"A much bigger problem for Labor during the Rudd-Gillard years than minority government was leadership instability. That is the legacy that will hurt Labor."
It was also surprising that Shorten missed the opportunity to defend the legacy of the Gillard government, a successful minority government which executed a considerable legislative program under extreme pressure.
There were good reasons for this hesitation, given his role in Labor's two leadership changes. However, despite that, Labor must always express pride in its legacy. Unwisely, after Labor's 1996 defeat, the new leader Kim Beazley failed to talk up the positive Hawke-Keating legacy. If Shorten allows 2007-2013 to be portrayed as disaster years it will ultimately hurt his chances of becoming prime minister.
A much bigger problem for