In the last week, Melongate has proceeded along its sordid way. But it has now taken on a new significance. It was bad enough when it consisted solely of the Prime Minister’s vulgarities and his ham-fisted contribution to the denigration of women. But it has now become more significant by the emergence of new participants with their own vulgarities in the form of some of the Sydney Swans football team, giving rise to the question: are the foundations laid by the Prime Minster and the subsequent conduct of the footballers connected?

To recap. A few weeks ago, Anthony Albanese contributed to lowering the public debate by being reckless enough to give a video-taped interview for a salacious podcast in which he openly discussed what can only be described as his sexual proclivities. The interviewer asked him whether he would ‘shag, marry or date’ any prominent Australian women and, if so, whom. He answered that his preference would be the entertainer Kylie Minogue for ‘all of the above’. He then went on to invoke ‘a couple’ of melons that were given to him by the female Japanese Prime Minister on her recent and official visit to Australia and, while doing so, made gestures with his hands in front of his chest that clearly invoked a woman’s breasts. He added that, being a newly married man, he was naturally stimulated to have sex with his wife when under the benefit of the aphrodisiac of his favourite football team having had a win.

It should be added that this exchange was conducted in his official residence, clearly taking the interview beyond mere banter and into the realm of a considered statement made under the imprimatur of the prime ministerial office. It should also be added that this was not the first time he had made such allusions; he had earlier been foolish enough to describe the social commentator Grace Tame as being ‘difficult’, a well-worn trope for signifying that, in a man’s world, women should behave as men expect them to behave.

Standing alone, the Prime Minister’s attempt at crude humour was a clear case of objectifying women as the plaything of men, the objects of denigration and ridicule and as contributing to blatant misogyny. But what has now projected itself into the news is that some (and only some) of the Sydney Swans football team are alleged (and only alleged) to have made their own contribution to the denigration of women by their own behaviour. Although the full facts are yet to be made known, it appears that in the early hours of last Monday week the footballers concerned celebrated their winning a match the night before by enlisting some women for their entertainment in a Melbourne hotel. What seems beyond dispute is that the footballers acted as a group, the women were paid, intimacy of some sort occurred, a sexual assault is alleged to have occurred, and the women concerned were so affronted that they called the police and are now on the verge of issuing civil court proceedings against the alleged offenders.

Commentators, and not only left-wing commentators, have long put the spotlight on bad behaviour among men as contributing to the denigration of women under the guise of entertainment. We have been told that this is deeply ingrained in the male psyche, that women are often objectified and stereotyped and that this conduct has allowed the manosphere to flourish and the internet and sections of the media to present a subservient role for women.

Could it therefore be a miraculous coincidence that the footballers’ conduct should come immediately after Albanese’ remarks? Or are they connected?

It would be drawing a long bow indeed to assert that Albanese’s crude remarks have led directly to the footballers’ equally crude behaviour. But it is surely a legitimate matter of public interest to inquire if Albanese’s remarks contributed to an atmosphere where women are seen as objects of amusement and entertainment and available for hire, where salacious conduct might be encouraged and where the result may well add to the denigration and disrespect of women.

After all, Albanese’s remarks were public and were intended to be. They were laughingly made for what he knew was a public audience. They were clearly aimed at young voters who are partial to podcasts, and consisting at least in part of young men. They were made with the stamp of the prime ministerial office, being made in an official residence and cast in a net that included a reference to the official visit of an overseas dignitary. Moreover, and most tellingly, they invoked the notion of winning a football match as an aphrodisiac for sexual stimulus.

Would it therefore be a surprise if the remark attributed in one media outlet to one of the players, that he had ‘done an Albo’ with the women, should turn out to be true? When no less a person than a prime minister can openly assert that a female entertainer is the object of his desire, reveal the intimacies of his marriage, describe a woman’s breasts and invoke a football victory as an aphrodisiac, should we be surprised if his remarks encourage others to add to the denigration of women?

And at the very least, let us hope that this sordid event is a cautionary reminder that public figures should be careful to ensure that they say and do nothing to encourage an atmosphere that legitimises that same denigration.

Apart from all that, it is sad to see the touchstones of progression of the once-great Labor party down the years, from Scullin’s ‘justice and humanity demand interference whenever the weak are being crushed by the strong’, Chifley’s ‘light on the hill’, Hawke’s ‘any boss who sacks anyone for not turning up today is a bum’, Keating’s ‘the recession we had to have’, and even from Rudd’s ‘great moral challenge of our generation’, down to what might encapsulate the present incumbent, ‘Let’s do an Albo’.