However, if there were to be a reaction to the agreement with Labor, surely that would have been felt most strongly in the seat that required the agreement with Labor in the first place: my seat. After all, the only reason an agreement with Labor was reached in the first place was because of the situation in the House of Representatives.

Greens MP Adam Bandt argues that everything should be on the table if Labor comes to the party.

One lesson we can draw from the 2013 spike in the Melbourne area and slump elsewhere is that at a national level, many progressive voters actively want the Greens and Labor to share power to achieve progressive outcomes, including by striking agreements to form government where appropriate. And this is part of the reason why we should be aiming to do it again as a means of making progressive change happen, if – and it's a big if – Labor is up for it.

Further, working with Labor only happens to the extent necessary to achieve progressive social change. It is a question of tactics and strategy, not a question of identity or power at all costs. We must fiercely retain our independence. There are thus very strong arguments against going into a formal coalition with Labor the way the Nationals have with the Liberals.

Some within Labor are confronting this issue head on. Victorian Labor Premier Daniel Andrews went out of his way during the 2014 election campaign to announce that he would not strike any deals with the Greens in the event of a minority Parliament. Chris Bowen, in his same "blueprint" for Labor, writes that "Labor and the Greens are not different shades on the same continuum; we are different parties that believe in different things" and that there should be no further agreements for government between the two parties.