Why do the Canberra Liberals love a no-confidence motion so much?

Next week, the Canberra Liberals will move their fifth no-confidence motion of this electoral term.

This time it will come from Deputy Opposition Leader Jeremy Hanson who is taking aim at Attorney-General Shane Rattenbury over his refusal to commit to a wide-ranging review of sentencing outcomes, bail and appointments to the judiciary.

When he does, he will likely be scolded by his counterparts across the aisle for wasting the Assembly’s time with what the Chief Minister has described as “shallow and superficial motions”.

Because while a no-confidence motion is how a parliament can remove politicians from their positions and governments from power, Mr Hanson should know his will not succeed.

The reason is twofold.

Firstly, the Opposition does not have the numbers in the chamber to have confidence in its success. It has nine votes compared to Labor and the Greens’ combined 16.

Secondly, the 2020 Parliamentary and Governing Agreement between the two governing parties essentially requires them not to vote for Opposition motions of no-confidence (and also not to move one of its own).

A party can only do so in “instances of proven corruption, conduct that threatens public confidence in the integrity of government or public administration, gross negligence, or significant and intentional non-adherence to this agreement.”

Looking back at ACT Legislative Assembly history, it’s not surprising the agreement contains such a clause.

The Territory’s first-ever chief minister Rosemary Follett was brought down by a no-confidence motion in 1989. Her successor Trevor Kaine fell to the same fate only two years later.

In 2000, Liberal chief minister Kate Carnell resigned from office before she could be voted out by the Assembly over the handling of a $27 million upgrade to Bruce Stadium.

You’d think the Canberra Liberals would have learned their lesson.

Corrections Minister Mick Gentleman faced a no-confidence motion last year after a spate of incidents at the prison, including a dramatic escape.

Education Minister Yvette Berry faced hers following the revelations of bullying and violence and the barring of students from Calwell High campus and the Opposition moved one in Skills Minister Chris Steel after the Canberra Institute of Technology contracts scandal.

They even moved a motion of no-confidence in Mr Barr after the ACT Greens indicated they would vote against one line item of the 22-23 Budget.

Opposition Leader Elizabeth Lee claimed this meant Mr Barr could no longer guarantee supply and had “lost control of his government”.

In a speech of less than a minute, delivered in a special sitting to debate the motion, the Chief Minister retorted that the claim was untrue and the Greens had not threatened to block supply nor had they lost confidence.

It turned out the Assembly needed to be given seven days’ notice.

So why are they doing it?

Government members have argued for a headline grab or a stunt.

Ms Lee said earlier this year her party didn’t have many levers available to it – simply because it didn’t have the numbers on the floor.

Mr Hanson now prepares to move a motion that can, in some cases, take up hours of the Assembly’s limited sitting time and disrupt other business.

Last year, he accused the “lazy leftie” Assembly of sitting far too infrequently for his liking – only 35 days this year (and potentially even fewer following the death of Queen Elizabeth II).

Nonetheless, the Liberals appear undeterred and prepared to continue moving their no-confidence motions.

“Are we to say nothing when we have serious, serious concerns?” Ms Lee questioned in August.

“Does the community expect the Opposition to sit there and do nothing?”

With two years left of this electoral term, the real question is: who will face the wrath of the Liberals next? Will it be Health Minister Rachel Stephen-Smith, Business Minister Tara Cheyne, Mental Health Minister Emma Davidson or Environment Minister Rebecca Vassarotti?