Uploaded October 2025 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
The Australian Government offers its residents something called the Child Care Subsidy (CCS). It essentially allows parents to get cheaper childcare, I guess, in order to allow both parents to work more. From a societal perspective, I’m not a big fan of the whole concept. I think it would be better if we encouraged more parents to stay at home and look after their young children, but perhaps I’m living in fairyland.
Unfortunately, in the modern world, young families are getting into more and more debt. I would argue that this is a direct result of overpriced housing caused by a chronic undersupply (thank you Federal Government for allowing far too many people into the country), which means childcare has pretty much become unavoidable for many families.
But as with most things Government-related in Australia, the Child Care Subsidy has become racialised. Can you guess how? Ordinarily, based on your family income, the government will foot a certain percentage of the bill. For example, families with less than $85,000 income will be subsidised 90% of the cost, as long as they meet the eligibility criteria, such as residency and immunisation requirements—No Jab, No Pay, which is an actual government initiative.
Well, from 5 January 2026, they’ll be introducing something called the 3 Day Guarantee, which guarantees three days of subsidised child care per week for all eligible families. Thank you to the viewer who highlighted the racial element of this. They write: “What are the changes for First Nations children?” I don’t know, please tell me!
The core difference is this: from 5 January 2026, all CCS eligible families can get at least 72 hours of subsidised child care per fortnight. However, families can get 100 hours of subsidised child care each fortnight for each child if they are caring for an Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander child. If your child is non-Aboriginal, you have to do more than 48 hours each fortnight of recognised participation, such as work or study, to even earn those extra hours.
Okay, just so we all understand, if you’re regular folk, you get 72 hours, and have to prove your work or study activity to earn extra hours, but if you’re caring for an Aboriginal child, you get 100 hours guaranteed. Why? Why give people of different ethnic backgrounds more childcare? This is absolutely what is wrong with Indigenous Affairs in Australia. It seems the unwritten rule is that if you’re Aboriginal, Uncle Albo gives you more.
Just to be 100% clear, your First Nations children are guaranteed 100 hours of subsidised childcare regardless of whether their parents work or not. They could be complete deadbeats, and the government will give their children subsidised childcare. Obviously, this doesn’t encourage anybody to go get a job, or to go out and study something. This rewards complete failure, right? Or perhaps the government sees it as helping children who come from families that have no hope.
Interestingly—you probably already noticed—you don’t actually have to be Aboriginal yourself: “Families should tell Services Australia that they have Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander children in their care.” Hmm, in this age where identity politics rules the roost, who’s to say my child isn’t Aboriginal? I can imagine the interview now...
“Thank you for coming in Mr. Graham. As you’re applying to get the 100 hours subsidised childcare for your Aboriginal child, could you please give me some evidence to show that he is indeed Aboriginal?”
“No worries, mate. As you can see, he 100% identifies as an Aboriginal baby. He loves wearing an Aboriginal beanie, and his favourite toys are the Aboriginal flag and his miniature didgeridoo.”
“Oh, that’s great. I’m glad to see he’s embracing his culture so young. Here’s your free childcare package.”
Of course, the most depressing thing about all of this is that by giving young Aboriginal children essentially free childcare—even though they probably can’t understand at that age—we’re drip-feeding them the idea that because of their ethnicity, they are entitled to free stuff from the Australian Government.
Obviously, as they grow older, it’s not just free childcare. It’s ABSTUDY to pay for school fees and travel costs, it’s cheaper or free medicines, it’s free healthcare, it’s additional grants and funding, it’s discounted tickets, not because they’re deserving of it or anything like that, but just because they’re Aboriginal. This is the one ongoing racist policy that Australia can’t seem to get right. And it doesn’t even help. All it does is instil the idea from a very young age that there’s something inherently less capable about them, requiring constant, lifelong government handouts.
MUSIC
Allégro by Emmit Fenn
The Australian Government offers its residents something called the Child Care Subsidy (CCS). It essentially allows parents to get cheaper childcare, I guess, in order to allow both parents to work more. From a societal perspective, I’m not a big fan of the whole concept. I think it would be better if we encouraged more parents to stay at home and look after their young children, but perhaps I’m living in fairyland.
Unfortunately, in the modern world, young families are getting into more and more debt. I would argue that this is a direct result of overpriced housing caused by a chronic undersupply (thank you Federal Government for allowing far too many people into the country), which means childcare has pretty much become unavoidable for many families.
But as with most things Government-related in Australia, the Child Care Subsidy has become racialised. Can you guess how? Ordinarily, based on your family income, the government will foot a certain percentage of the bill. For example, families with less than $85,000 income will be subsidised 90% of the cost, as long as they meet the eligibility criteria, such as residency and immunisation requirements—No Jab, No Pay, which is an actual government initiative.
Well, from 5 January 2026, they’ll be introducing something called the 3 Day Guarantee, which guarantees three days of subsidised child care per week for all eligible families. Thank you to the viewer who highlighted the racial element of this. They write: “What are the changes for First Nations children?” I don’t know, please tell me!
The core difference is this: from 5 January 2026, all CCS eligible families can get at least 72 hours of subsidised child care per fortnight. However, families can get 100 hours of subsidised child care each fortnight for each child if they are caring for an Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander child. If your child is non-Aboriginal, you have to do more than 48 hours each fortnight of recognised participation, such as work or study, to even earn those extra hours.
Okay, just so we all understand, if you’re regular folk, you get 72 hours, and have to prove your work or study activity to earn extra hours, but if you’re caring for an Aboriginal child, you get 100 hours guaranteed. Why? Why give people of different ethnic backgrounds more childcare? This is absolutely what is wrong with Indigenous Affairs in Australia. It seems the unwritten rule is that if you’re Aboriginal, Uncle Albo gives you more.
Just to be 100% clear, your First Nations children are guaranteed 100 hours of subsidised childcare regardless of whether their parents work or not. They could be complete deadbeats, and the government will give their children subsidised childcare. Obviously, this doesn’t encourage anybody to go get a job, or to go out and study something. This rewards complete failure, right? Or perhaps the government sees it as helping children who come from families that have no hope.
Interestingly—you probably already noticed—you don’t actually have to be Aboriginal yourself: “Families should tell Services Australia that they have Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander children in their care.” Hmm, in this age where identity politics rules the roost, who’s to say my child isn’t Aboriginal? I can imagine the interview now...
“Thank you for coming in Mr. Graham. As you’re applying to get the 100 hours subsidised childcare for your Aboriginal child, could you please give me some evidence to show that he is indeed Aboriginal?”
“No worries, mate. As you can see, he 100% identifies as an Aboriginal baby. He loves wearing an Aboriginal beanie, and his favourite toys are the Aboriginal flag and his miniature didgeridoo.”
“Oh, that’s great. I’m glad to see he’s embracing his culture so young. Here’s your free childcare package.”
Of course, the most depressing thing about all of this is that by giving young Aboriginal children essentially free childcare—even though they probably can’t understand at that age—we’re drip-feeding them the idea that because of their ethnicity, they are entitled to free stuff from the Australian Government.
Obviously, as they grow older, it’s not just free childcare. It’s ABSTUDY to pay for school fees and travel costs, it’s cheaper or free medicines, it’s free healthcare, it’s additional grants and funding, it’s discounted tickets, not because they’re deserving of it or anything like that, but just because they’re Aboriginal. This is the one ongoing racist policy that Australia can’t seem to get right. And it doesn’t even help. All it does is instil the idea from a very young age that there’s something inherently less capable about them, requiring constant, lifelong government handouts.
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)

