The Albanese Government begins this parliamentary term from a position of considerable strength. With a majority in the House of Representatives and a willingness to negotiate with the Greens in the Senate, the Government is well placed to see much of its legislative agenda become law.

That does not mean every proposal will pass unchanged.

Australia's Parliament was designed with checks and balances. The Senate remains a chamber of review, and while the Government can often secure enough votes through negotiations with the Greens, agreements usually involve amendments, compromises and lengthy discussions rather than automatic approval.

Recent tax reforms provide a clear example. Labor and the Greens reached agreement after negotiations over housing, capital gains tax and self-managed superannuation rules. The result was legislation that differed from the Government's original proposal, demonstrating that influence in Parliament is often exercised through negotiation rather than outright opposition.

For Australians, this raises an important question.

Should governments that have won an election be able to implement their agenda with minimal obstruction? Or is it healthy that legislation is refined by crossbench parties before becoming law?

Supporters of the current arrangements argue the Greens provide additional scrutiny, forcing governments to justify their proposals and improve legislation where necessary. They contend that compromise is a normal feature of a mature parliamentary democracy.

Critics see the situation differently. They argue that a relatively small party can exert influence beyond its electoral support by becoming the deciding vote in the Senate. From this perspective, governments may find themselves implementing policies that were never clearly presented to voters during an election campaign.

Neither view is entirely right or entirely wrong.

Australia's parliamentary system has always required negotiation whenever governments lack a Senate majority. In previous decades governments have relied on Democrats, independents, or other minor parties. Today's negotiations with the Greens are simply the latest version of that longstanding constitutional reality.

The more significant question is likely to emerge over the next three years.

If Labor continues to rely on Greens support for key legislation, voters will increasingly judge not only Labor's policies but also the compromises required to secure their passage. Every negotiated amendment becomes part of the Government's record.

The Albanese Government and Chalmers have the opportunity to enact substantial reforms. Whether those reforms are viewed as balanced compromises or excessive concessions will ultimately be decided not in Parliament, but by Australian voters at the next federal election.