Let us sum up the ordeal of Treasurer Josh Frydenberg's solo Q&A appearance on Monday night: he did his best to hold firm while spinning like a hyperactive washing machine in the face of 16 challenging questions and only one vaguely friendly one.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
"OK. Well, I really appreciate your question..."
"I hear you..."
"Well, the reality is..."
"We'll let the public work that out."
"The truth is..."
"What you're failing to understand, Tony..."
"What the Prime Minister has been very clear about..."
"I mean, we actually are doing that. I'll tell you in a few ways how we're doing that..."
"The message is we'll go back to..."
"The reason Newstart is different to the age pension or the disability support pension is it's not, necessarily, the only form of income that people have..."
If you want a sense of how the night unfolded, here's host Tony Jones' response to that last Frydenberg gambit, which referenced a certain former prime minister's support for an increase to Newstart.
Jones: "So John Howard got that one wrong, did he?"
Frydenberg: "I would never criticise John Howard, I can tell you."
Jones: "You didn't listen to him either."
This is a tough gig, so let's not underestimate it: 11/4 hours of live television with questions that were all hostile or bordering on it. "That's democracy," as Tony Jones said in closing.
And it certainly was democratic. Sixteen voters and one 16-year-old threw their views at the Treasurer and he had to respond on the spot, including to some apparent absurdities of recent government policy.
On Christmas Island, Kris Fennell wondered: "How [does the Government] justify the reopening and immediate closure of the Christmas Island detention facility, which is reportedly costing us $185 million? How are we as voters meant to trust a government which can make a decision that results in such a large waste of taxpayers' money for what seems to be cheap political points?"
Frydenberg smelled the sandwich he'd been handed, and tried as best he could with vague celebrations of various talking points, such as "the reality is that decision was imposed upon us" and "the message is..."
Jones: "What is the message now that you're committed by your policy to shut the centre down in July?"
Frydenberg: "The message is we'll go back to..."
Jones: "That's a welcome mat, is it?"
Frydenberg: "The message is..."
And so forth and so on.
Other questioners wanted to know about suggested government wastage on things such as not calling an election and carrying on spending on government advertising like drunken sailors in the meantime.
"Do you think it is fair that taxpayers are paying for free advertising and free air travel for the Prime Minister and his ministers around the country ... will you tonight, as Treasurer of the country, tell us the cost of that delay by a week?"
Well, no. He wouldn't. Such ad campaigns, the Treasurer assured us, were all a part of good government and keeping the citizenry informed of this particular government's good works.
Jones: "Can you tell us ... how much will be spent in this week?"
Frydenberg: "I can tell you, for example, that all this information about the costs will become public..."
Jones: "You're saying after the election?"
Frydenberg: "After the election..."
Jones: "Hang on a sec..."
We hung on a sec but were none the wiser.
Nor was there much joy to be had for the questioners who challenged the Treasurer on climate change action: "As a 16-year-old, I am very aware that the effects of climate change will be most harshly felt by my generation and future generations to come ... I am getting fed up with you and your party's inability to take meaningful action."
Or on criticisms that last week's budget surplus was built on number-fiddling on the back of underspending on the National Disability Insurance Scheme - or as the questioner put it, "on the backs of some of the most vulnerable members of our community".
The Treasurer battled gamely, though his light did seem to dim as the grilling went on. This was a cynical audience - perhaps reflective of a wider electorate cynical of politics and politicians in general.
It was perhaps best summed up by the questioner who cut right to the chase: "Is it reasonable now to consider that Australian federal politics is essentially post-truth?"
Frydenberg's response: "Well, the reality is..."
Exactly.
- SMH/The Age
