The Crossbench Ultimatum
A 47-seat lower house has a governing party holding 21 seats and an opposition holding 18. Eight independents hold the balance. The government has passed a bill to create a statutory integrity commission, but the opposition has amended it in the upper house so that the commission's findings must be tabled in parliament within 24 hours of being finalised. The government accepts the principle of transparency but argues that 24 hours would expose complainants before procedural fairness checks are complete. The eight independents say they will vote against the bill unless the 24-hour rule stays. The government needs 24 votes to pass the bill; the opposition has said it will vote against the bill in its original form but will abstain if the 24-hour rule survives. The government's own backbench contains two members who have publicly supported the independents' position.
1. Calculate the arithmetic of the vote and assess whether the government can pass the bill without the 24-hour rule.
Read the worked answer
The chamber has 47 seats. The government has 21, the opposition 18, and independents 8. A majority requires 24 votes.
If the 24-hour rule is removed, the opposition has said it will vote against the bill in its original form. That leaves the government with 21 votes plus, at most, the eight independents - but the independents have said they will vote against unless the rule stays. So the government's maximum without the rule is 21 (its own members) plus any opposition members who break ranks, which no one has signalled. That is 21, short of 24 by three.
If the 24-hour rule is kept, the opposition abstains. Abstentions reduce the number of votes cast, but under most standing orders a bill still needs an absolute majority of the chamber (24) unless a quorum-and-simple-majority rule applies. The safer reading is that the government needs 24 affirmative votes regardless. With the rule kept, the government's 21 plus the 8 independents gives 29 affirmative votes, comfortably over 24 - provided the two dissident backbenchers stay with the government, which is likely since the rule is what they wanted.
Conclusion: the government cannot pass the bill without the rule, and can pass it with the rule. The arithmetic forces the concession.
2. Explain why the two dissident backbenchers are strategically pivotal even though the independents alone could carry the bill.
Read the worked answer
The independents alone do not carry the bill. The government has 21 votes; adding the 8 independents gives 29. That is enough only if all 21 government members vote yes. If the two dissident backbenchers cross the floor, the government side falls to 19, and 19 plus 8 equals 27 - still above 24. So arithmetically the bill survives even if the two dissent.
But the two backbenchers matter for a different reason: party discipline and the government's credibility. If they vote with the independents against their own party on a procedural motion, the government looks unable to manage its own ranks. That invites further defections on later bills and weakens the government's negotiating position with the crossbench. The crossbench also reads dissent as evidence that the government's position is soft, which raises the price of their support.
So the dissidents are pivotal not for the raw count but for the signal they send. In a hung parliament, perceived control of your own party is itself a source of power, independent of the vote tally.
3. Recommend a compromise the government could offer, and justify it using a concept from political theory.
Read the worked answer
A workable compromise is a tiered disclosure rule: the commission must table a summary of findings within 24 hours, but identifying details of complainants and witnesses are redacted until procedural fairness checks are complete, with full findings tabled within 14 days. This keeps the transparency the independents want while protecting the procedural fairness the government says it needs.
The justification draws on the liberal idea of the rule of law, specifically the principle that no one should be condemned without a hearing. Procedural fairness is not an obstacle to accountability; it is part of what makes accountability legitimate. A finding published before the subject can respond is not a finding, it is an accusation.
The compromise also reflects a pluralist view of power: the government cannot impose its preferred rule because it lacks the votes, so it must bargain. Offering a redaction window gives the independents a win they can claim publicly while giving the government a defensible principle. The risk is that the independents see redaction as a loophole; the government should therefore make the 14-day outer limit statutory, not discretionary.