Government Ministers are refusing to go on Q&A, starting what could be the death of a thousand cuts. But this just proves why we need Q&A more than ever.
Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull has knocked back an invitation to appear on tonight’s episode of Q&A. So has Defence Minister Kevin Andrews. Tony Abbott’s parliamentary secretary Alan Tudge was actually scheduled to appear on the panel, but has now changed his mind.
Oh and the executive director of The Menzies Research Centre, Nick Cater, has pulled out too. (They’re a conservative think tank with ties to the Liberal Party, just so you know.)
But they are claiming that there is no conservative boycott. Turnbull has even said so: “This is not a question of a boycott but we are essentially undertaking a fact-finding mission.”
The non-boycott, follows the Coalition Government’s decision to conduct a review into the program after terrorism suspect Zaky Mallah was allowed to ask a question on last week’s episode. The results of review are due from the Communications Department tomorrow.
Tony Abbott, has said ‘heads should roll’ over the Mallah incident, so we can probably look forward to a nice impartial report.
And that, my friends, is why we need Q&A more than ever. But it’s not the only reason, so let’s list them. And let’s just call that number one.
1. It’s more balanced than most media you’ll read.
Q&A has no declared political allegiance and makes a concious effort to balance the views of its panellists each week.
In fact, it often allows voices you may not want to hear into your living room. Like Fred Niles.
2. It’s a public forum for holding politicians to account.
It is the only regular public forum we have for members of the public to actually speak to politicians; to ask them questions and be given answers.
In 2010, former Prime Minister John Howard fronted the panel solo and not only received a questioned from David Hicks (who was actually convicted of supporting a terrorist organisation) pre-recorded in Guantanamo Bay, but also a shoe to the head.
Unlike Tony Abbott (who has long claimed Howard as his ideological parent), Howard showed no contempt for the national broadcaster, rather the opposite, actually.
“Isn’t it a great country that allows this kind of exchange to occur,” he said. “This is not the sort of thing that would occur in other countries and dictatorships.
“Whatever your views about my government’s policies concerning Mr Hicks, it ought to make all of us very proud that we live in a country that allows that sort of exchange.”
The following year Prime Minister Julia Gillard also faced an uncomfortable question. Hers was from Wikileaks founder Julian Assange who was at the time fighting extradition from Sweden — and no one was calling for an inquiry then.
Just last month a student addressed Treasurer Joe Hockey and single-handedly got him to agree to a review of the tax on sanitary items.
3. It’s a platform for discussing important issues.
Q&A often dedicates whole episodes to discussing one important issue. Last Thursday a special episode was given to discuss the marriage-equality debate. Previous episodes have focussed on Indigenous issues, women’s issues and domestic violence (with varying levels of success).
The program doesn’t always generate the broad discussion many of these issues deserve, but it is better than nothing.
4. It’s entertaining.
Remember that time British actress Miriam Margoyles called Tony Abbott a tit?
What about the time a bunch of uni students brought in a giant banner to protest proposed cuts to higher education?
The show has hosted any number of inspiring and talented guests. Keep ’em coming, I say.
5. It’s really the only thing we’ve got.
Flawed as it may be Q&A’s ambitions are undeniably noble — and important.
Until someone comes up with a better forum for the public to access our politicians, it’s really the only thing we have and we need to fight for it.
Some other memorable moments from Q&A:
Miriam Margolyes calls Prime Minister Tony Abbott a ‘tit’ on Q&A.
Top Comments
Can anyone name a right-wing journo who works for the ABC?
I can name many lefties who have or currently work for The Australian (Murdoch) ... Christopher Pearson, Phillip Adams, Brendan O'Neill, Graham Richardson etc. and that's just one Murdoch paper.
This strange thing happened last week where on air, one ABC journalist asked another ABC journalist whether the ABC was biased toward the left and they both agreed that it wasn't ... it's kind of like two clansmen agreeing that racism isn't all that bad from their perspective. Sure, Q&A always has a conservative voice on it's panel .. on some rare occasions it has two conservative voices ... but I'm sure we'd all agree that there are always more left leaning voices. Why? When Q&A started in 2008, Rudd had been elected the previous year but since then Labor hasn't won a Federal Election outright (hung parliament for Gillard and then an Abbott win). Why hasn't the Q&A panel ever reflected this let alone the audience which is supposed to be split the same as the previous poll or election result?
Don't get me wrong, I love Q&A. It's one of the few places on TV where you can hear lefties and right-wingers debate issues. But there is no doubt it's biased toward the left just like the rest of the ABC news department. I wouldn't have an issue with that if it wasn't for the fact that everyone in Australia pays for the ABC. While I could stop watching the Bolt Report or stop buying The Australian if I don't like the content, the same thing doesn't stop me paying for the ABC if I switch over. So if this inquiry means that the ABC will cater it's news and current affairs toward both left and right leaning people, then it's a good thing.
What gets me is how the producers of Q&A didn't realise that it could go pear-shaped putting a guy on live TV who thought that killing ASIO officers was something he should do. Did no one from a show that loves streaming it's twitter feed across the screen, think they should do a little research into the twitter account of the guest they wanted to voice his opinions live on TV? The idea was obviously to embarrass the government just as the writer points out above, the same program had done before to Howard and Gillard. But some idiot decided it'd have more impact if it wasn't a pre-recorded question and didn't think it could go wrong?
Tim Wilson's appearance on Q&A last night was appalling. He states he is a classic liberal, but is far from it, as he was caught out on his hypocrisy regarding free speech.
If he wants to be a cheerleader for the LNP, he should resign from the HRC and run for parliament.
Tim Wilson will dispense freedom, whether you like it or not.
And yet he has failed to do so.
I was hopeful when he was first appointed to the role, but sadly he has been disappointing.
Sarcasm. A 'Freedom' commissioner is more of Ten Flag Tony trying to import the worst and least self-aware aspects of American nationalism.