It was the Latin poet Catullus who wrote so rawly of his conflicted emotions: "I hate and yet love. You may wonder how I manage it. I don't know, but feel it happen, and am in torment."

The same might be said of Australia's relationship with Q&A, oscillating as it does between love and hate, admiration and disgust, dependency and disregard. After seven years, it can still attract close to a million viewers to watch politicians avoid answering questions.

And over the past week, Q&A escaped the clutches of its timeslot to become without doubt the watercooler conversation du jour. So much so that by Monday, every minute of the program's production was a news story, with conservative guests dropping like flies.

Tony Abbott's parliamentary secretary, Alan Tudge, was out. So was commentator Nick Cater. Defence Minister Kevin Andrews refused the call, as did Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull.

For a while it seemed the program might be reduced to a Tony Jones monologue. And, revelling in chaos as they do, people on the internet soon began ruling themselves out of coming to save the day.

#ICantAppearOnQandA because my tin foil hat interrupts the wireless microphones.— Writer in Residence (@MikeCullen73) June 29, 2015

#ICantAppearOnQandA because why would a LNP minister of parliament want to engage their constituents. Having dinner with the mafia instead— Jack Flack (@Jackflack67Jack) June 29, 2015

Sorry #ICantAppearOnQanda because I'm at my marriage counselling session. pic.twitter.com/KeWRYbOCuD— Sir Bushranger Esq. (@grumpyshortpant) June 29, 2015

More remarkable than the internet capitalising on misfortune is the fact that the hashtag became the top trending topic Australia-wide. That alone demonstrated the program's continued reach and relevance, at least within the politically-engaged echo chamber of Twitter.

And while most tweets simply poked fun at the big story of the day, many raised an incisive point about the debate that has raged since Zaky Mallah's appearance last week. That being: should the Q&A festival of democracy regulate its questioners? And who gets to decide the appropriateness of a question - or the person asking it?

Because my opinions haven't been pre-endorsed #ICantAppearOnQandA— Roxane (@brigadam) June 29, 2015

#ICantAppearOnQandA because citizens asking pertinent questions are too dangerous to my ideology— Jon Seymour (@jonseymour) June 29, 2015

#ICantAppearOnQandA Because well look at my twitter name, I might get deported.— HelpRefugeesOZ (@HelpRefugeesOZ) June 29, 2015

Some people also took aim at what they perceived as the show's broader flaws: an under-representation of women on the panel (and a tendency for female panellists to be spoken over or ignored), and a lack of imagination in selecting guests and topics.

#ICantAppearOnQandA because there's already a woman on the panel— Jade (@jadehawk15) June 29, 2015

#ICantAppearOnQandA cos I'm not a woman of calibre & have to do the ironing— Sheep of State (@noplaceforsheep) June 29, 2015

I'm not a political party hack, a rent seeking think tanker, a Murdoch lackey or an over-exposed barrow pusher so #ICantAppearOnQandA— Mr Denmore (@MrDenmore) June 29, 2015

With Mr Tudge unwilling to serve, and Mr Andrews on an ongoing boycott, it's clear there is a something of a resistance movement underway within the Coalition.

But it's unlikely Q&A will ever struggle to reach its quorum of conservatives - the lure of the love-hate relationship is simply too strong.

As for the audience, Monday night's meta-discussion of the Mallah controversy attracted 797,000 viewers across the five capital cities, making it the 14th most-watched program of the night. That was 66,000 fewer viewers than tuned in for the ABC's earlier Four Corners program, according to OZTAM data.

The figure is significantly higher than both the 2015 five-city average of 626,000 and 2014 five-city average of 555,000, which were confirmed by the ABC on Tuesday.