Family feud came to the ABC on Monday night - and, oh brother, it was quite a climax to an extra awkward day for a bumptious Nationals senator from Bendigo making her debut on Q&A;.
If she plays her cards right, The Adventures of Bridget McKenzie could prove as big a satirical hit as those of her movie namesake from the 1970s. She just needs a few more days like this one, which, by the time it ended in the late hours on Q&A;, could only be described as a total Barry Crocker.
More News Videos
- Video duration
- 01:16
Q&A;: Senator's awkward 'plebiscite' moment
- Video duration
- 02:11
Lindt siege police response in question
- Video duration
- 01:32
Pair arrested after recording IS inspired video
- Video duration
- 00:37
Teenager charged with planning terrorist act in prison
- Video duration
- 01:39
Detention's mind-boggling cost
- Video duration
- 03:38
'Dad's gone': MP's emotional maiden speech
- Video duration
- 01:21
Patrick Cronin's fatal hit questioned
- Video duration
- 01:58
Pauline Hanson's anti-Muslim manifesto
Q&A;: Senator's awkward 'plebiscite' moment
The gay brother of Coalition senator Bridget McKenzie questions his sisterâs views on marriage equality on live TV. Video courtesy ABC.
A shocker it was, and Barry McKenzie - whose original film adventures ended when he embarrassed his family by exposing himself on national television - would surely have sympathised with her plight. It began in the afternoon with some fumbling on the floor of the Senate, and wrapped up on the ABC with some bumbling on guns and some grumbling on gays - the latter triggered by a video question to the panel from none other than McKenzie's own brother.
Yes, just when we thought we'd seen it all on the Monday night autopsy of the national mood, along it comes with a revival of the old Jerry Springer method of conflict counselling. It was much more civilised than the Springer slugfests of old, of course, but the idea was the same: Alastair McKenzie, who is gay, beamed in on video with a question designed with ruthless reasonableness to force his older sister to declare him a second-class citizen in front of a national television audience.
The issue, unsurprisingly, was same-sex marriage and the planned plebiscite. Alastair McKenzie wanted to know: "What impact do you think the debate will have on the emotional wellbeing of gay and lesbians like me?"
Host Tony Jones: "You probably knew, I expect he told you he was sending a video in."
The senator, beaming bravely - or blithely, it was hard to tell - neither confirmed nor denied that. Awks. Awks. Awks.
It wasn't the first time the siblings have squared off in public - in 2015, Alastair dispatched a letter to the editor after his sister had declared her opposition to marriage equality, writing that he "had hoped to see a more courageous and compassionate response". But it was the first time this division had played out live, in front of a watching nation. One wonders what the nation made of it, and whether the nation twigged that it was likely just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the grisly to-and-fro the plebiscite will unleash.
But Senator McKenzie wasn't here for self-reflection. And despite the excruciating public nature of the forum, she wasn't here to save face or to bolster her brother - indeed, in the subsequent debate she didn't mention him a single time. For public consumption, she offered the now-standard government boilerplate: "I think it will only be damaging if all of us as Australians choose to actually not respect each other's views in this particular debate."
She went on: "I believe it is a conscience issue" - and we were left to deduce that there was only one winner when it came down to weighing her brother's insistence on equality against her own belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. A belief based on what, she didn't say.
But given this stand-off within her own family, it will perhaps not surprise voters that Senator McKenzie is equally prepared to ignore their views, too. Pressed on whether she would be bound by a Yes vote, she came up with a fine contortion indeed: "What I think is that there is tension for some MPs, like myself, on both sides of the aisle between our desire to respect the sovereign will of the Australian people, and our conscience in a representative democracy."
In other words: if you vote Yes, she will still vote No in the parliament - unless she is forced by law to recognise your verdict. "I'm recognising the tension and one way to address it is by having a binding plebiscite."
Translated: I have no intention of doing the right thing unless you make me do it.
Others on the panel - the Greens' Larissa Waters and Labor's Doug Cameron - scoffed, while The Spectator editor Rowan Dean was on his default setting of deathly smug. "Gay men and women of Australia, these people you think who are your friends in the Labor Party and the Greens, they are not your friends … they are playing you like mugs." For those of us harbouring the suspicion Dean can barely tie his own shoelaces - he had earlier advised that the return of Tony Abbott as PM was not merely possible but desirable - this warning sunk without trace.
Is a $160m plebiscite necessary & what impact do you think the debate will have? Our #QandA panel responds https://t.co/flpBk2EkWr
— ABC Q&A; (@QandA) September 12, 2016
And besides, who wasn't still distracted with thoughts of Bridget McKenzie?
Earlier, we'd seen her on the evening news bringing a rare brand of slapstick to the Senate. Of her party's Senate leader Nigel Scullion, she had said: "He's a deep thinker. You wouldn't think it but he actually is". And of a Nats election candidate named James Anderson, she had this to say: "Andrew, Andrew, Andrew, Andrew… it will come to me. He runs a stock-feed store in, sorry madam deputy president, in a place starting with T just down from Yea and Seymour."
All that, and Q&A; too, complete with a live stand-off with her brother. A Barry Crocker of a day indeed.