It's possible that Tony Abbott will regret his promise not to lead a minority government.
You can see why he said it, for the last three years has been bruising and frustrating for Abbott and the opposition.
But while unlikely, it's not impossible that a reduced crossbench will still hold the balance of power after the September 7 election.
Would Abbott reject the vote of, say, Bob Katter if that's what was needed to form government? Would his party let him?
Moreover, it exposed him to charges of arrogance which the Greens, who naturally love a hung parliament, were quick to make.
News that makes sense
Your trusted source for staying up-to-date with the world around you. Get free daily news updates and analysis, straight to your inbox.
"If the Australian people choose not to give one political party all the power, Abbott says he won't work with other parties or independents to form government," Greens leader Christine Milne said.
Abbott's promise was unnecessary, especially as the last parliament was not as disastrous as the coalition would have you believe; and some of the Labor's biggest problems, like the ballooning deficit, could hardly be blamed on the parliamentary numbers.
The government, over the three years, lost many procedural votes and a few divisions on private members' business.
It didn't lose a vote on legislation. According to House leader Anthony Albanese's office, parliament passed a total of 595 bills, or 12.6 a sitting week and 198 a year. This compared with the 10.4 and 178 during the Howard era.
However, some bills were amended more heavily than the government would have wished. And a few measures were not introduced, or proceeded with, because the numbers weren't there.
This wasn't necessarily a bad thing. Does anyone now regret that the bill to try to fix the so-called Malaysian solution disappeared?
Most importantly, the government went full term despite relying on a disparate group of volatile crossbenchers. It had a permanence that back in September 2010 seemed unlikely.
And that, perhaps, was this strange parliament's greatest problem. It was always living on the abyss. There were none of the certainties that people, especially business groups, are used to.
This left MPs on both sides in a fever of aggression, especially at question time which, despite sensible changes on length and relevance, was a woeful advertisement for parliamentary democracy.
Furthermore, Alabanese's office says, a whopping 16-1/2 hours of question time was lost through opposition suspension and censure motions.
Unfortunately, question time is the public face of parliament. The almost daily childish brawling there obscured much other work, like the greatly increased time for private members' business and the goodwill with which both sides approached most committee work.
The hung parliament was imperfect, but not so bad that Abbott should reject the idea out of hand from the outset.
