It has now been 1,043 days since Tony Abbott has appeared on Q&A. He last attended on 16 August 2010, a week before the election.

Abbott is, of course, not obligated to appear on the show; he is a free citizen and can opt not to be sat down in front of Australian voters and answer their questions. But he did say “I am trying to be as open and as accessible to the Australian people as I possibly can be and I suggest the prime minister should do the same.” So it happens, openness and accessibility can be measured – and I would rate a 1,043 day absence quite poor in terms of accessibility (since the last election, Julia Gillard has made four appearances).

His absence is not for the lack of ABC initiative, either. A Freedom of Information request has revealed that between Abbott’s last appearance and this February, 26 emails requesting his attendance were exchanged between the ABC and Abbott’s office.

We have seen and heard a fair amount of Abbott in recent months. But the contract that Paddy Manning described in Crikey between the Australian Financial Review and business applies to contemporary politics. Manning wrote: “the AFR’s business journalism is built on a fundamental contract between company and reporter: high-level access in exchange for soft coverage.”

Abbott appears on Seven’s Sunrise and similar calibred programmes with regularity. The primary way he communicates is by doing doorstops to get his one liners out and turned into the sound bites so cherished by the media cycle. Doorstops tend not to be done by journalists with much experience in federal politics. Experienced political journalists are typically in Canberra, close to the ministerial wing.

But when a journalist decides to probe, it can get messy for Abbott. When Leigh Sales interviewed him in August last year, the result was disastrous for his image – so much so that Sales was accused of media bias. She was later cleared, and Abbott waited 246 days to be interviewed by her again. Sales was arguably comparatively softer on Abbott than during her previous interview.

Abbott’s Q&A absence could be part of a conscious election strategy to avoid both the articulation of his policies and scrutiny, thus avoiding being burnt by an audience’s piercing questions. Being held into account for an hour is not fun when you’re trying to take the Lodge by stealthy silence. There are enough pesky YouTube videos that follow him about, and he probably does not want anymore.

Abbott’s absences from Q&A and other probing media have given the alternative policy starved media no option but to focus on internal Labor party dynamics and perceived problems of governance. There is no chatter about how Abbott’s alternative government would address the issues he raises.

Concern for Australian democracy is warranted. How can a lack of involvement in the political conversation bring electoral dividends? People should not rewarded for avoiding thorny questioning; especially in the unique position of being the opposition leader asking for a democratic mandate to rule.

If politicians do not clearly articulate their intention on how to govern before an election, we can't judge their performance or even hold the government accountable if elected, as there is no point of reference to hold them accountable to.

But after 1,043 days, Australians have a fair amount of questions for Abbott.