It is curious that Anthony Albanese’s bizarre contribution to the podcast Bush Deep has been allowed to fade away from public scrutiny. It might be because it is just another tasteless gaffe by a politician that does no more than debase the political currency, if it were possible to sink any lower on that measure. On the other hand, it might be that political observers do not yet appreciate its wider significance. Either way, it calls for more attention. To bring you up to date, the Prime Minister recently gave an interview to the podcast which, as its name implies, is a low-rent platform for salacious gossip presented by a so-called comedian, Nikki Osborne, also known by the charming moniker ‘Bushie’. The interview was filmed as the Prime Minister lounged around at the Lodge sharing drinks with Ms Osborne while he made a series of disparaging remarks about women, and not just in the generic sense, but by singling out several prominent women for special treatment.

Asked to rate three famous Australian women if his marriage went ‘tits up’, namely Kylie Minogue, Nicole Kidman and Rhonda Burchmore and which of them he would prefer to ‘shag, marry, date’ he obligingly chose ‘Kylie’ and gave her a rating of ‘clearly’. When asked, ‘You’d marry Kylie, and shag her, and date her?’ he replied with no hesitation and a smirk, ‘all of the above’. He agreed that he and his newly married wife were ‘bonking like rabbits’ under the stimulus of a ‘good aphrodisiac’, namely the Rabbitohs rugby league team winning a match. Asked about gifts he had received as Prime Minister, he instanced that the female Japanese Prime Minister had just come to Australia with a ‘couple of melons’, confirmed by Ms Osborne to mean, as if we needed to be told, that she had arrived in Australia ‘looking like Pamela Anderson’.

It must surely be obvious that this kiss-and-tell was a tawdry exercise that denigrated women and portrayed them as little more than sex objects who should be judged by reference to their physical features and whether men would find them sexually attractive rather than by their character. It has been, and still is, an issue of great concern to women that they are often treated in this disparaging way.

Albanese’s statement that he would like to ‘shag, marry, and date’ Kylie Minogue is clearly an assertion that he regards women as fair game for sex. His ready acceptance of Ms Osborne’s suggestion that as a newly married couple, they must be ‘bonking like rabbits’, was to the same effect. His focus on the size of the Japanese Prime Minister’s breasts and describing them as ‘melons’ was likewise crude, vulgar, and disrespectful to a woman who has succeeded in public life on her obvious merits, not on her physical features. His assertion that his own sex life as a newly married man was stimulated by the aphrodisiac of his football team winning was bad enough but was made all the worse by dragging his own wife into this disgraceful vortex. The whole interview and its demeaning content can only be described by using that favourite word of the woke left, ‘unacceptable.’

But there are deeper implications in Albanese’s remarks. They were made by the Prime Minister, in his official residence, under his imprimatur, authority and approval, and clearly intended to be spread on the internet as a prurient appeal to a section of the voting public.  He has thus put his own character in issue, and when a prime minister does this, it is political. Indeed, if his remarks had been made by anyone in the opposition, the Labor party would have attacked it remorselessly. Moreover, discrimination against women is still a live political issue. We are therefore entitled to examine the political implications of his remarks. First, they show that the Prime Minister has no judgment. He should have rejected the invitation to participate in the interview and treated it with the contempt it deserved.  Secondly, he is a hypocrite. He has been at the forefront of condemning anyone who departs in the slightest from the official line on discrimination against women, and yet here he was, willingly and cheerfully taking part in the same old denigration. Thirdly, the whole exercise shows that he will say the first thing that comes into his head and spout whatever inanities come to mind for short-term electoral appeal. Fourthly, he obviously cannot make wise decisions when put under pressure, when cornered, and it is truly a revelation that he cannot think on his feet. Fifthly, he can be forced to make an apology when cornered, even if his apology, as in the present case, was so short and so devoid of any explanation or expiation for his wrongdoing that it was obviously contrived. Sixthly, the leading women in the cabinet must be genuinely concerned at the objectification of women in which Albanese has so clearly engaged; and their muted responses and evasions show that the interview must have had some effect within its ranks as yet unspoken. They must surely wonder what sort of captain they have at the head of their team. My guess is that they have filed this concern away for future use.

In fact, for the life of me, I cannot understand why the federal opposition has not gone on the attack to bring Albanese to account for his demeaning conduct on what is potentially a major political issue, particularly for women. After all, the Labor party has unfairly attacked the opposition for years with false claims of not being strong enough on opposing discrimination. If they had any sense, now that the tables have been turned, the opposition should hammer Albanese in Question Time, tempt him to make further stupid remarks and move to censure him. Above all, they should present a private member’s bill to amend the Sex Discrimination Act to make it an offence to objectify and denigrate women in the way that Albanese has done. The Labor party would have some explaining to do if they opposed such a measure.