leoj,
"Where else will the Greens and others be able to protest and get headlines?"
The Great Barrier Reef, of course!

Back to topic.

We're told that:

"Between them the Coalition parties won just over 42%
of primary votes. Labor just over 35%. That Labor seemed
to peg level with the government is due to a heavy flow
of preferences from the nearly 10% of Green votes. This
is now established as a consistent factor in national
elections."

"As long as preferences flow to the two major parties the
current system can provide majority governments."

The following link explains further. It's worth a read:

http://theconversation.com/election-2016-reveals-the-end-of-the-rusted-on-voter-and-the-death-of-the-two-party-system-61373

I am perfectly happy with the Jackie Lambys of this world being heard, hell I don't even mind the ratbag greens being heard. The problem arises when the ratbag fringe get some balance of power, & force their ratbaggery on the rest of us.

Dear Hassie,

I somehow doubt whether the minor parties will be able
to hold power in their own right. They don't have the
expertise, the training, or the knowledge to put together platforms
that will appeal to the majority of voters.

Aidan, "The Great Barrier Reef, of course"

As Kevin Rudd discovered to his great cost, the 'environmentalism' of the disloyal Greens (ask Julia Gillard too!) is just camouflage to conceal social activism.

There's a very interesting article in the Sydney
Morning Herald by Andrew P. Street on why isn't
Bill Shorten more popular if Malcolm Turnbull is
down in the polls?

One of the arguments presented states:

"Maybe the chocking truth is that nobody even notices
that Shorten is the leader of the Labor Party at all."

We're then told that "It may not matter - unless you're
voting in his electorate (Maribyrnong). You're not going
to vote for or against him in any case. Also, the Coalition
won in 2013 with Tony Abbott on an unusually tepid
approval rating, so its clear that a party can still romp it
in even if the public have reservations about the leader
and that's especially true if the government of the day is in
a period of policy problems marked by factional self-harm."

"And if Shorten doesn't appear to be a man of inspirational
vision, maybe we've had enough of those for a while."

"Kevin Rudd, Tony Abbott, and Malcolm Turnbull all had strong
personal vision for Australia. Maybe Australia needs a
competent bureaucrat that can actually, y'know, get stuff done."

"Shorten might not be the leader Australia especially wants - but
after five years of not very much, he might just be the one
we need."

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/view-from-the-street/why-isnt-bill-shorten-more-popular-if-malcolm-turnbull-is-down-in-the-polls-20170328-gv8p22.html