Uploaded October 2025 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
In Jacinta Allan’s Victoria, identity politics reigns supreme. Your identity—as long as you’re not a heterosexual white male—is your most important attribute. However, the identity that trumps all is your Aboriginality. If you identify as Aboriginal, the Victorian Government wants to treat you more favourably. Yes, it’s divisive; yes, it’s immoral; but the government just doesn’t seem to care.
Take, for example, the recent policy in St Vincent’s Hospital Melbourne giving Aboriginal patients priority treatment in emergency departments. If you’re Aboriginal, you will automatically be triaged as at least Category Three, no matter how minor your affliction, potentially placing non-Indigenous people who have more serious clinical concerns behind you in the queue. In my opinion, that simply isn’t ethical.
But now Ambulance Victoria is in on it, too. (Thank you to the viewer who sent this in.) The ABC ran a piece titled, “Ambulance Victoria to start asking patients if they are Aboriginal.” The first question that comes to mind is: Why? Why does it matter? If you’re Aboriginal or Asian or anything else, don’t all our bodies work the same? Do some treatments only work on certain ethnic groups? “Oh, Mr. Robinson, because you’re Aboriginal, here’s some witchetty grub paste to put on your burns. We keep the real medicine for non-Aboriginal people.” And yes, witchetty grub paste was an actual treatment for burns used by some Aboriginal tribes.
Ambulance Victoria published news recently about Sissy Austin, a proud Aboriginal woman (shown in the middle here with the paramedics who helped her), who was brutally attacked while out running in a state forest. It was a terrible crime—I’m not here to take anything away from that—but her statement is interesting. The article reported: “In a moment that would become pivotal in her healing journey, she asked paramedics Jack Shaw and Jordan Douglas if they knew whose Country they were on. Their immediate and respectful acknowledgement of Wadawurrung Country gave her a sense of cultural safety and comfort. ‘That moment was incredibly healing and comforting for me,’ Sissy said. ‘When Jack and Jordan acknowledged the Country we were on, I knew I was safe in their care.’”
Quite frankly, if I were an Aboriginal person and in need of immediate medical attention, seeing a paramedic approaching, I would immediately know I was safe in their care. I surely don’t need them to verify if they know which Aboriginal tribal lands they are on in order to make me feel safe. As long as they know how to treat my injury, that’s all I should really worry about. Surely this “cultural safety” BS is of no consequence when your life is on the line?
Furthermore, if I were a paramedic and somebody asked me what country we’re on, I would surely answer “Australia,” because that’s a legal and geographical fact. In what world is it the duty of a paramedic—whose primary goal is to look after sick and injured people and transport them safely to a medical facility—to learn all about traditional Aboriginal place names? Surely, if they save the patient from further injury or death, then they’ve done their job, and done it well.
In the article, they also note that “In February 2025, Sissy launched Take Back the Track, a national movement and annual day of recognition for women and gender-diverse runners who have experienced violence.” What about male runners? Do they never experience violence? Well, here’s one: 9News: “Man stabbed while jogging in Melbourne’s north.” It’s always Victoria, isn’t it?
Of course, Ambulance Victoria have a Gender Equality Action Plan (as if female and male paramedics aren’t paid exactly the same), a Reconciliation Action Plan, and my personal favourite, their Inclusive Language Guide. Oh, it’s a goldmine of woke nonsense.
For example, in your paramedic report, you should write, “I encountered a person of colour, Australian hearing person with vision diversity with their penis stuck in the door jamb, assigned or presumed male, caregiver of three Australian young people between 12 and 18 years using their people power to try to remove said penis from the door jamb. Penis was amputated, resulting in immediate gender affirmation.”
And that’s how Ambulance Victoria went woke.
MUSIC
Allégro by Emmit Fenn
In Jacinta Allan’s Victoria, identity politics reigns supreme. Your identity—as long as you’re not a heterosexual white male—is your most important attribute. However, the identity that trumps all is your Aboriginality. If you identify as Aboriginal, the Victorian Government wants to treat you more favourably. Yes, it’s divisive; yes, it’s immoral; but the government just doesn’t seem to care.
Take, for example, the recent policy in St Vincent’s Hospital Melbourne giving Aboriginal patients priority treatment in emergency departments. If you’re Aboriginal, you will automatically be triaged as at least Category Three, no matter how minor your affliction, potentially placing non-Indigenous people who have more serious clinical concerns behind you in the queue. In my opinion, that simply isn’t ethical.
But now Ambulance Victoria is in on it, too. (Thank you to the viewer who sent this in.) The ABC ran a piece titled, “Ambulance Victoria to start asking patients if they are Aboriginal.” The first question that comes to mind is: Why? Why does it matter? If you’re Aboriginal or Asian or anything else, don’t all our bodies work the same? Do some treatments only work on certain ethnic groups? “Oh, Mr. Robinson, because you’re Aboriginal, here’s some witchetty grub paste to put on your burns. We keep the real medicine for non-Aboriginal people.” And yes, witchetty grub paste was an actual treatment for burns used by some Aboriginal tribes.
Ambulance Victoria published news recently about Sissy Austin, a proud Aboriginal woman (shown in the middle here with the paramedics who helped her), who was brutally attacked while out running in a state forest. It was a terrible crime—I’m not here to take anything away from that—but her statement is interesting. The article reported: “In a moment that would become pivotal in her healing journey, she asked paramedics Jack Shaw and Jordan Douglas if they knew whose Country they were on. Their immediate and respectful acknowledgement of Wadawurrung Country gave her a sense of cultural safety and comfort. ‘That moment was incredibly healing and comforting for me,’ Sissy said. ‘When Jack and Jordan acknowledged the Country we were on, I knew I was safe in their care.’”
Quite frankly, if I were an Aboriginal person and in need of immediate medical attention, seeing a paramedic approaching, I would immediately know I was safe in their care. I surely don’t need them to verify if they know which Aboriginal tribal lands they are on in order to make me feel safe. As long as they know how to treat my injury, that’s all I should really worry about. Surely this “cultural safety” BS is of no consequence when your life is on the line?
Furthermore, if I were a paramedic and somebody asked me what country we’re on, I would surely answer “Australia,” because that’s a legal and geographical fact. In what world is it the duty of a paramedic—whose primary goal is to look after sick and injured people and transport them safely to a medical facility—to learn all about traditional Aboriginal place names? Surely, if they save the patient from further injury or death, then they’ve done their job, and done it well.
In the article, they also note that “In February 2025, Sissy launched Take Back the Track, a national movement and annual day of recognition for women and gender-diverse runners who have experienced violence.” What about male runners? Do they never experience violence? Well, here’s one: 9News: “Man stabbed while jogging in Melbourne’s north.” It’s always Victoria, isn’t it?
Of course, Ambulance Victoria have a Gender Equality Action Plan (as if female and male paramedics aren’t paid exactly the same), a Reconciliation Action Plan, and my personal favourite, their Inclusive Language Guide. Oh, it’s a goldmine of woke nonsense.
For example, in your paramedic report, you should write, “I encountered a person of colour, Australian hearing person with vision diversity with their penis stuck in the door jamb, assigned or presumed male, caregiver of three Australian young people between 12 and 18 years using their people power to try to remove said penis from the door jamb. Penis was amputated, resulting in immediate gender affirmation.”
And that’s how Ambulance Victoria went woke.
MUSIC
Allégro by Emmit Fenn







![The ABC’s Hilarious Defence of Anthony Albanese
We all know that politicians belong to one of the most trustworthy professions in Australia. I mean, how could you possibly lie when you’re constantly under the public spotlight? It doesn’t even seem humanly possible.
So, it comes as a bit of a surprise that One Nation has launched a campaign targeting Prime Minister Anthony Albanese called “Fire the Liar”—which, in just two weeks, has managed to rake in over $4.8 million. They claim the PM has lied about everything from immigration levels and ISIS brides to electricity prices and… falling off a stage.
Now, to be fair to Albo, he didn’t fall off the stage. He was simply sitting down and having a rest in an incredibly awkward, floor-dwelling position. Hey, don’t judge—it’s exhausting work being on the campaign trail.
Thankfully, The Guardian was on standby to publish an entire piece explaining the nuanced differences between “falling, stumbling, and stepping off,” just to ensure you plebeians didn’t get the wrong idea.
But leaving aside that hard-hitting piece of investigative journalism, One Nation’s campaign is well underway. The real question is: did the PM honestly lie? (Excuse the oxymoron). Well, you might be surprised to learn that the ABC says: technically, no, he didn’t.
Here’s the article in question: “‘Broken promise’ or not, Anthony Albanese’s tax decision has helped One Nation.” First of all, a quick shout-out and thank you to the viewer who sent this one in. Now, to be entirely fair, this piece was originally published on The Conversation by Michelle Grattan—but nonetheless, the ABC happily chose to run it on their own platform.
The tax changes Michelle Grattan is referring to are, of course, the ones regarding negative gearing and capital gains. Now, what exactly did Albanese say about this before the election? Well, to give you just one example, during a press conference on the campaign trail last year, a journalist asked him directly: “Can you rule out any changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax settings if re-elected?” To which he snapped: “Yes. How hard is it? For the 50th time.”
Now, you would think that flatly ruling it out fifty times in his own words—only to turn around and introduce those exact changes anyway—would be definitive proof that he lied, right?
Well, not according to this ABC article.
Naturally, the article kicks off by focusing on the ABC’s perennial favourite villain, Pauline Hanson, and her “Fire the Liar” campaign. They immediately pivot to casting doubt on the fundraising numbers, noting: “By evening, it claimed to have raised more than $1 million, rising fast. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese cast doubt on the numbers.”
Because, of course, if there’s anyone whose judgement we should trust on the absolute, unvarnished truth… it’s the guy who just flat-out broke a major election promise. Good to see he’s keeping an eye on everyone else’s integrity.
The article features plenty of creative terms to describe Albanese’s bending of the truth. For instance, it refers to the “budget’s broken promises” before pointedly asking: “Does breaking your word in politics matter?”
It goes on to say: “But by changing the tax arrangements in the budget, he was certainly breaking his word, breaching faith with voters. It doesn’t help that when tackled about this, the prime minister pushed back by endlessly repeating the phrase, ‘We changed our position’.”
Yes, you’ve probably heard that exact phrase about a hundred times by now. Because apparently, in modern political speak, “we changed our position” is the new elegant euphemism for “we completely lied to your face.”
Speaking of lying, does the article actually mention the “L” word? Yes, it does! Buried in the text, they drop this incredible piece of semantic acrobatics:
“We can’t assume Albanese ‘lied’ in the campaign. To lie is, in a dictionary definition, ‘to say […] something that is not true in order to deceive someone’. We don’t know (beyond reasonable doubt) whether, when Albanese before the election flatly ruled out changing negative gearing and capital gains tax, he was saying one thing and intending (if conditions suited) to do another.”
Ah, well, it’s all settled then! If we can’t prove in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt that he was actively plotting to deceive us at the exact moment he said it, then it wasn’t a lie.
Perhaps that kind of elite dictionary-defending flies down at the ABC, but I reckon if you asked most Aussies down at the local pub, they’d call absolute BS on that explanation.
So, what is it? “Fire the person who may have technically changed his position and broken his word”? Or is it “Fire the Liar”?
I’ll let you decide.
MUSIC
Allégro by Emmit Fenn The ABC’s Hilarious Defence of Anthony Albanese](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/XtiOY-SNfuc/mqdefault.jpg)


