Uploaded June 2026 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
In today’s episode of Friday Focus, we’ll look at “Free” Dress or: How to Force Children to Celebrate NAIDOC Week.
My primary school-aged daughter came home from school yesterday saying that today, as the last day of term, would be a so-called “free dress” day. That is, children can wear their own casual clothing instead of the standard uniform. It’s fairly standard practice, I suppose. However, as NAIDOC Week falls over the upcoming school holidays, the school, in its infinite wisdom, decided to bring forward its celebrations to today. Mind you, this comes hot on the heels of National Reconciliation Week, which we only just finished celebrating.
Now, personally, I don’t care if they want to teach children about this. Just as if they wanted to teach children about any historical or political movement, it doesn’t bother me. Knowledge is power, right?
However, for a “free dress” day that coincides with NAIDOC Week, the powers that be at the school decided to enforce a few strict rules on the students:
1. Students must wear Aboriginal colours—black, red, and yellow—to match the Aboriginal flag.
2. Children must bring a gold coin donation to “help disadvantaged Aboriginal children.”
Now, I don’t mean to be pedantic, but how is this “free dress” in any sense of the word? The students must wear specific colours? That’s not freedom; that’s compulsion.
Secondly, they must bring a gold coin “donation.” Sorry school, but a donation, by definition, is voluntary. The moment it becomes mandatory, it’s no longer a donation—it’s a levy. Or a tax. My son, who is in high school, jokingly calls it “fee dress.” Quite clever, I think.
Not to mention that the money goes exclusively to “disadvantaged Aboriginal children.” What about disadvantaged non-Indigenous children? This is blatant favouritism—if not outright racial division.
While the school claims they are teaching children about Aboriginal culture, they are in fact—and I don’t think this is too strong a word—indoctrinating them. They are, whether inadvertently or deliberately, teaching children that Aboriginal people are fundamentally different from the rest of Australians and require financial charity by default.
Case in point: I’m quite friendly with an Aboriginal mother at the school, and she is not disadvantaged in any way. She drives a Land Rover. Okay, it’s not a brand-new one, but still, they aren’t cheap. To be fair, although it’s a state school, it’s in a well-off neighbourhood. Nobody is truly disadvantaged at this school. If they are, it’s strictly a “First World” disadvantage—the “we can’t afford a second car” type of struggle.
Anyway, my daughter didn’t fall for it. I am very hands-off and objective with my children; I let them form their own opinions and don’t try to sway them. If she had wanted to wear the colours, I would have let her.
But her exact words were: “If I have to wear Aboriginal colours and make a donation, that’s not free dress.” True to her word, she chose to go to school today in her regular uniform.
But more pointedly, she added: “NAIDOC Week is boring.”
Well, I'll leave it up to you to decide whether she has a point.
MUSIC
Allégro by Emmit Fenn
In today’s episode of Friday Focus, we’ll look at “Free” Dress or: How to Force Children to Celebrate NAIDOC Week.
My primary school-aged daughter came home from school yesterday saying that today, as the last day of term, would be a so-called “free dress” day. That is, children can wear their own casual clothing instead of the standard uniform. It’s fairly standard practice, I suppose. However, as NAIDOC Week falls over the upcoming school holidays, the school, in its infinite wisdom, decided to bring forward its celebrations to today. Mind you, this comes hot on the heels of National Reconciliation Week, which we only just finished celebrating.
Now, personally, I don’t care if they want to teach children about this. Just as if they wanted to teach children about any historical or political movement, it doesn’t bother me. Knowledge is power, right?
However, for a “free dress” day that coincides with NAIDOC Week, the powers that be at the school decided to enforce a few strict rules on the students:
1. Students must wear Aboriginal colours—black, red, and yellow—to match the Aboriginal flag.
2. Children must bring a gold coin donation to “help disadvantaged Aboriginal children.”
Now, I don’t mean to be pedantic, but how is this “free dress” in any sense of the word? The students must wear specific colours? That’s not freedom; that’s compulsion.
Secondly, they must bring a gold coin “donation.” Sorry school, but a donation, by definition, is voluntary. The moment it becomes mandatory, it’s no longer a donation—it’s a levy. Or a tax. My son, who is in high school, jokingly calls it “fee dress.” Quite clever, I think.
Not to mention that the money goes exclusively to “disadvantaged Aboriginal children.” What about disadvantaged non-Indigenous children? This is blatant favouritism—if not outright racial division.
While the school claims they are teaching children about Aboriginal culture, they are in fact—and I don’t think this is too strong a word—indoctrinating them. They are, whether inadvertently or deliberately, teaching children that Aboriginal people are fundamentally different from the rest of Australians and require financial charity by default.
Case in point: I’m quite friendly with an Aboriginal mother at the school, and she is not disadvantaged in any way. She drives a Land Rover. Okay, it’s not a brand-new one, but still, they aren’t cheap. To be fair, although it’s a state school, it’s in a well-off neighbourhood. Nobody is truly disadvantaged at this school. If they are, it’s strictly a “First World” disadvantage—the “we can’t afford a second car” type of struggle.
Anyway, my daughter didn’t fall for it. I am very hands-off and objective with my children; I let them form their own opinions and don’t try to sway them. If she had wanted to wear the colours, I would have let her.
But her exact words were: “If I have to wear Aboriginal colours and make a donation, that’s not free dress.” True to her word, she chose to go to school today in her regular uniform.
But more pointedly, she added: “NAIDOC Week is boring.”
Well, I'll leave it up to you to decide whether she has a point.
MUSIC
Allégro by Emmit Fenn


![The ABC’s New Space “Race”: When Identity Trumps Engineering
I’m sure you saw or heard of the recent Artemis II mission. I found many people thought it was going to involve astronauts landing on the moon, but it turned out they just flew past it. Still, it was a great technological achievement—one that was first accomplished over 57 years ago—but a significant achievement nonetheless. However, the real story here isn’t the physics; it’s how the media attempted to transform a triumph of engineering into an exercise in identity politics.
Take, for instance, the ABC’s coverage titled “How NASA and the Artemis II crew completed the ‘perfect’ splashdown.” They show a picture of just two astronauts: Pilot Victor Glover and Mission Specialist Christina Koch. Apparently, the two white guys aren’t worthy to be at the top of the page, even though Reid Wiseman was the Mission Commander—a former Navy Captain and test pilot—and Jeremy Hansen is a Colonel in the Royal Canadian Air Force and a former fighter jet pilot. But apparently, their resumes aren’t “woke” enough to put their pictures at the top of the ABC article. One would think it was just Mr. Glover and Ms. Koch who single-handedly “completed the ‘perfect’ splashdown.”
In another massive article titled “The New Moonshot,” the ABC really goes to town. When they introduce the astronauts, they note: “Christina Koch and Victor Glover have the added weight of being the first woman and person of colour to visit our lunar neighbour.” The “weight” of being the first woman and person of colour? What weight are they talking about? Is the ABC suggesting that a pilot’s performance is hindered by the “weight” of their skin colour or gender? It’s a patronising sentiment that implies these professionals are symbols first and astronauts second, rather than focusing on the professional expertise that actually got them into the cockpit.
Obviously, we’ve come to expect this sort of nonsense from the likes of the ABC. Instead of focusing on people’s achievements and skills, or the content of their character, they focus on things like skin colour and gender instead.
And by the way: “Person of Colour”? Doesn’t that sound incredibly racist and regressive to you? It certainly does to me. I suspect that in a century’s time, people will look back at these articles and see that phrase as having the same offensive weight as the n-word. It’s a term defined entirely by what someone isn’t—namely, not Caucasian. They may as well have published an article titled “Victor Glover: The First [N-word] in Space,” because that’s exactly how it will be viewed by our future ancestors.
By obsessively highlighting race and gender in this clumsy, self-congratulatory attempt at inclusivity, outlets like the ABC aren’t fighting racism—they are entrenching it. They are so fixated on the “textbook” of modern progressivism that they’ve become blind to the fact that they are practising the very tribalism they claim to despise.
Obviously, I’m not attacking the astronauts in any way. In fact, they’ve handled the media’s obsession with identity politics with a great deal of class and perspective. Ms. Koch has previously said: “We work together as a team. And between us, and between the crew and our teams on the ground, we don’t look at gender; we don’t see it as a barrier.”
Actually, Mr. Glover was remarkably grounded regarding the narrative being built around him. While acknowledging the significance of being the first Black astronaut to journey to the Moon, he noted: “I hope we are pushing the other direction—that one day we don’t have to talk about these firsts. That one day this is just—and listen to this—that this is human history. It’s about human history. It’s the story of humanity; not black history, not women’s history… it becomes human history.”
Hear, hear. But unfortunately, according to the ABC, Pilot Victor Glover is just another “person of colour” to be used as a convenient symbol—a box for them to tick at the top of their articles to satisfy their own editorial agenda.
MUSIC
Allégro by Emmit Fenn The ABC’s New Space “Race”: When Identity Trumps Engineering](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/uXZ-6OiXZPo/mqdefault.jpg)

![Dingoes, White Colonists, and Why We Can’t Say “Indian Myna” Anymore
As Australia becomes a more progressive country, where racism and sexism are to be vanquished at all costs, the very people who are leading the charge are also the very people who can’t help but bring race and gender into everything they touch. Take for instance, the humble dingo.
Just to be clear, the dingo isn’t a native Australian animal. According to the ABC’s Deep Time project—a 65,000-year scientific (allegedly) history of Aboriginal Australia—they note that “Scientists believe the dingo arrived on the mainland around this time [3,500 years ago], becoming the continent’s first introduced species. DNA evidence suggests they came here with seafarers from Asia.” So dingoes are essentially Asian dogs. It should be noted that “Some Aboriginal groups developed a special relationship with dingoes.”
In true ABC style, they somehow brought race into the dingo debate in this article from today: “Queensland considers allowing dingoes to be kept as pets.” They interviewed a dingo genetics researcher Kylie Cairns, where they write, “Dr Cairns pointed out that dingoes had been in Australia for thousands of years, while domestic dogs mainly arrived with white colonists.” Why did they have to say “white” colonists? Couldn’t they just have said “colonists?” What does it matter what the skin colour of the colonists was?
The scientific name for dingoes is “Canis familiaris,” which is exactly the same name as domesticated dogs. Scientifically, they’re one and the same, but there is some debate around whether they should be categorised as a different species or not.
For example, in the article, they interview Alix Livingstone, Founding Director of not-for-profit Defend the Wild. She said, “Dingoes are not dogs. They are a genetically, evolutionarily, and behaviourally distinct species that play an irreplaceable ecological role as Australia’s apex land predator.” Here she is with an Aboriginal lady with paint on her face (or is that bird poo?).
Ms. Livingstone is a self-proclaimed vegan soldier who sometimes gets in the news for raiding abattoirs and piggeries and the like.
On her Defend the Wild website, surprisingly, the leadership team consists entirely of women. Not a single pesky man to be seen. Director of Cultural Heritage, Sonya Takau, as seen here hugging a dingo, they note that “To Sonya, the dingo is kin, and she has a cultural obligation to protect them from harm.” Even though, remembering, they were only introduced to Australia a few thousand years ago, so are certainly not a native Australian animal. It’s interesting that they “need protecting.”
Simon Stretton from Durong Dingo Sanctuary in the South Burnett made his views very clear: “I just tell people, ‘you cant have a dingo’—they’re not a dog, not a pet.”
Either way, the Queensland Government are planning to allow them to be kept as pets. Ms. Takau commented, “From my cultural perspective and growing up with my old people, my father and my family, the dingo is very culturally significant… ”
So yes, this wild, once-Asian, introduced canine is caught up in some sort of cultural, racial, uniquely Australian war of words.
Of course, this is not the first animal to get involved in some kind of racialised debate. What about this little fella, a bird I know as the Indian Myna? But no! You can’t call it the Indian Myna anymore, because you know, you might upset Indian people. It’s now known as the Common Myna. In this article sent in by a viewer from a couple of months ago, they show a photo of a native Noisy Miner on the left and an invasive Common Myna on the right. So obviously, when using the word “invasive,” they don’t want to associate that with Indian people. They note, “It’s easy to tell the two species apart—the Noisy Miner is mostly grey, while the Common Myna, which was introduced from India, is brown.” So the bird that comes from India, the one that you’re not allowed to refer to as Indian, is brown. Oh it’s amazing how we tie ourselves up in knots trying to avoid offending people!
Interestingly, in 2016, the ABC tended to focus more on the facts, rather than worry about who they’re going to offend. They wrote: “Invasive Indian Myna birds displacing wildlife. The chocolate brown bird has a black head and distinctive yellow beak, eye patch and legs.” It sounds like some kind of Indian pirate!
Anyway, that’s modern day Australia for you: From the very first introduced species—the dingo that is somehow culturally significant to Aboriginal people, but domestic dogs are somehow not significant because they were brought in by white colonists, to birds of Indian origin that we’re not allowed to call Indian anymore, so instead we dance around the fact by using the word “common” instead. This is modern, woke Australia. Now if you excuse me, I’m off to eat an Indian curry… Sorry, I mean, “Common” curry.
MUSIC
Allégro by Emmit Fenn Dingoes, White Colonists, and Why We Can’t Say “Indian Myna” Anymore](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/v1Iq29ILj4k/mqdefault.jpg)





