PETER VAN ONSELEN: Albanese’s most senior female ministers are humiliating themselves to defend his melons joke… as he resembles the oily bloke at the end of the bar
An opinion piece by political editor Peter Van Onselen accuses Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese of making a crude joke about the breasts of Japan's first female prime minister, then denying it happened despite video evidence and refusing to apologise. The column argues that senior Labor women, including cabinet ministers, have damaged their own credibility by publicly defending Albanese rather than distancing themselves from the remark.
The writer describes the video of the incident as "entirely unambiguous", suggesting there is little room for doubt about what was said or shown. The piece is highly critical in tone, likening Albanese's conduct to that of an "oily bloke at the end of the bar" and framing his refusal to apologise as more damaging than the original joke itself. The article text provided is an excerpt and does not name the specific ministers or provide further detail on their comments.
- Columnist accuses PM Albanese of a crude joke and denial
- Video evidence described as unambiguous, PM refuses to apologise
- Senior Labor women criticised for defending Albanese publicly
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Critics argue that a Prime Minister's public conduct sets a standard, and crude remarks about a colleague's body or sexual conquests are demeaning regardless of who makes them. They point to a perceived double standard: Labor figures have previously condemned similar language from conservative politicians, so consistency demands the same scrutiny be applied here. On this view, senior female ministers rushing to excuse the comments undermines the party's broader commitment to respectful workplace culture and risks normalising language many would find offensive in any other professional setting.
The case against
Defenders of the Prime Minister argue that a moment of laddish banter, likely intended as humour among colleagues, is being stripped of context and inflated into a manufactured scandal by political opponents and a hostile press eager for a scalp. They contend that judging a leader's entire character on a single off-colour joke is disproportionate, that robust humour is not inherently disrespectful, and that focusing public debate on this incident distracts from substantive policy matters that voters care about more. From this perspective, the ministers defending him are showing loyalty and proportion rather than humiliating themselves.