Albanese begins dangerous task of taming the House that bites

Two decisions in Parliament House over the past few days offer a hint at a change in thinking that might one day lead to something Anthony Albanese promised in the weeks before he became prime minister – to change the way politics operates.

First, Albanese halted a dud idea dreamt up by people around Governor-General David Hurley to give $18 million to a new foundation and guarantee $4 million every year in perpetuity so it could do vague work on training future leaders.

Illustration: Andrew DysonCredit:

Second, the prime minister agreed to a small but significant change to question time after independent MPs demanded a bigger voice in the most important business of the day. Victorian independent Zoe Daniel lined up the vote on Tuesday and gained what she and her colleagues wanted – a better chance to ask at least three questions in each question time.

Before going into the details, it is important to point out that these are only early changes in the life of a new government and the workings of a new parliament where all sides are yet to settle into their new positions. Labor has just reached 111 days in power – as of Friday – and Albanese knows the big calls are still to come.

History shows the very early phase of a government passes quickly and is remembered only fleetingly. Tony Abbott came to power in September 2013 and took eight months to make the decisions that defined his time as prime minister. Only when he received a commission of audit into public finances, and then oversaw a budget of unpopular spending cuts in May 2014, did the political contest really begin in earnest.

The defining questions for the Albanese era cannot be answered when the political contest over his government is only warming up. The October 25 budget will be merely five months after the election. Even then, some of the seismic decisions might have to wait until the subsequent budget in May.

At this early stage, however, it is clear that Albanese knows how to use his power and is quick to cancel bad ideas. That is what he has done with the $18 million leadership grant.

Albanese has made no criticism of Hurley over the Governor-General’s decision to sign the papers that allowed Scott Morrison to expand his power as prime minister by gaining ministerial authority over treasury, finance, health, resources and industry. What went on with those decisions is subject to an inquiry by former High Court judge Virginia Bell. There is real discontent with Hurley in the Labor caucus – lead critic: Julian Hill – but MPs may hold fire until Bell delivers her verdict.

The prime minister’s cancellation of the grant is an interim assessment of the Governor-General’s judgment. The government has decided it was a bad idea for Morrison to support Hurley’s request for funding for a foundation that had no track record on leadership issues and never went through the usual hoops for grant applications.

So the decision is like a building notice on the front gates of Government House. It is too early to know the scale of the renovation work. There is certainly a view that Hurley was poorly advised by those around him.

The concern over Hurley’s support for the leadership grant began in April when Labor’s Senator Tim Ayres questioned officials about the grant at Senate estimates and they confirmed there had been no tender process and the foundation did not seem to have any office, website or staff. ABC political reporter Stephanie Borys reported this on April 5 and followed it on April 7 with a report on Morrison’s early support for the grant.

This was a hectic time between the March 29 budget and the start of the formal election campaign on April 10 and the media’s attention was on bigger spending programs elsewhere. Months after Labor took power, however, the scheme turned up in audits of grants by the former government. It gained attention from news site Michael West Media on August 24 and Twitter account Ronni Salt a few days later, then more in-depth reporting by Karen Middleton in The Saturday Paper last weekend.

The Greens and the Jacqui Lambie Network wanted to try to disallow the grant with a formal motion in the Senate, but Albanese did not have to be convinced.

The grant had rung alarm bells within Labor. The government informed Hurley the funding would be halted.

This was just one grant from a government that was addicted to secretive funding schemes that were shaped by political objectives – like those revealed in these pages, such as the $828 million for industry projects and the forensic work by Shane Wright and Katina Curtis last November on the favouritism to Liberal and Nationals electorates in $2.8 billion in grants.

Albanese supports the system that gives ministers the power to award grants but promises better decisions and governance. This is a good start. But how will his ministers use their discretion over grants? The real test comes later.

The changes to question time are also a first instalment on what might become a more significant change. Albanese agreed to changes sought by the crossbench in the lower house to make sure they could be more confident of getting three questions. The problem? They blamed interjections from the Coalition for slowing the proceedings to the point where everyone ran out of time, which meant the crossbenchers did not get their third question.

Daniel, the member for Goldstein in Melbourne, negotiated this with Albanese and several on the Coalition side, including Paul Fletcher, the manager of opposition business in the House. The outcome is that the crossbench MPs will ask questions No. 5, 13 and 17 each day. (It had been questions 5, 13 and 21). This is a win for the independents at the expense of the Coalition, which is likely to lose at least one question when the session drags on too long.

Independents will be seeking more changes to parliament. Kylea Tink, the member for North Sydney, is already fed up with the “performative” features of question time and Kate Chaney, the member for Curtin in Perth, wants changes that put a greater onus on ministers to answer the question.

Will Albanese agree to rules that might put a little more pressure on his ministers, and perhaps on himself? This is another test of whether a new government can offer a new approach to politics.

The Opinion newsletter is a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform your own. Sign up here.