Video transcript
Junior Secondary Speaking Award 2024 - NSW State Final

[intro music]

ELOUISE TAN: Good morning. My name is Elouise Tan, and I will be your chairperson for today's state final. I would also like to acknowledge the Gadigal people, the traditional custodians of the country on which the NSW Parliament House stands. I would like to pay my respects to Elders, past and present, and extend that respect to any Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people here today.

Before we begin, I would like to introduce our adjudication panel. Our adjudicators are Lucy Beale, Jeremiah Edagbami and James Smith.

We now come to the prepared speech section of the Junior Secondary Speaking Award State Final. In this section, each contestant may speak for 5 minutes on a topic of their own choosing. There will be a warning bell at 4 minutes and 2 bells at 5 minutes with a continuous bell should the speech exceed the maximum time by more than 30 seconds.

Our first speaker this morning is Serena Yang, who attends Wenona School. Serena's speech is called 'A waste of potential'. Please welcome Serena.

[applause]

SERENA YANG: My friend group has 12 people. And we are all vastly different in personality, each one unique and unlike the other. And we fight, like a bunch of teenage girls are bound to do. But at the end of the day, we are willing to make concessions for each other. We are willing to give up things that are in our best interest in order to reach some kind of consensus.

Now, imagine if there was one person in the group who had absolute power over what we did. Would we still be able to make concessions? Would we still be able to trust each other? Would we even work as a group? This question isn't as theoretical as it sounds. The scenario I just made up for you is very real but happens on a much larger scale than just 12 people. Have you guessed what I'm talking about yet?

I am referring to an organisation that many of you will be familiar with, the United Nations. And today, I will be talking about one of the systemic issues that stop it from reaching its full potential-- ladies and gentlemen, the veto power.

The United Nations was created after World War II with the noble intention of enforcing global peace and stability. 6 bodies were then implemented into the organisation, one of which is the UNSC, the United Nations Security Council, and the only place where the veto power exists. Unfortunately, it is also the part of the UN that is the most capable of creating change.

If you didn't catch on earlier as to what a veto power meant, we can have a little rundown here. Basically, in order to achieve their goals, the Security Council draughts things called resolutions, which are like calls to action and the policies needed in order to change a certain issue. To implement these resolutions, the council must vote.

But at any time during that vote, one of the 5 veto powers can choose to veto, meaning that that resolution would immediately be discarded. The 5 countries with this power are China, the USA, the UK, Russia and France. And the first issue we should note here is that these countries were not chosen by anyone-- no. They practically chose themselves. And that is a red flag from the start.

The second issue is that the Security Council has largely stayed the same since 79 years ago. It is therefore unsuited to dealing with recent geopolitical tensions. Back in 1945, all the veto powers were on the same side, having been allies throughout World War II. But now, they stand on different sides.

This means that a couple of extremely negative impacts come into play. Firstly, important policies and steps to change are just unable to pass if they're not in a veto power's best interest. Secondly, and less obviously, is the fact that other countries are afraid of proposing the resolutions they have in mind because they fear that they will be shot down. And that means that only neutral subjects are suggested, nothing that could actually make a difference.

The worst part is, it is the most vulnerable people who suffer, the ones caught in wars, in dictatorships, who are simply unable to escape. For instance, Russia vetoes any resolution concerning aid to Ukraine, meaning that day by day, more civilians suffer. Personally, I think the only way to resolve this issue is to shut down veto powers forever.

Perhaps it would indeed be useful for some countries to have more of a say than others, given their impact globally. But giving these leaders complete power and control is simply too much. To ensure equality and to be able to enact tangible change, the only real solution is to shut veto power down forever.

The kind of activism that is required to change such a deep-rooted system will be massive and will not occur overnight. As civilians, we must lend our support to people who are actively trying to change things, such as Dennis Francis, the leader of the United Nations General Assembly.

Just like how my friend group, when we all have an equal say, we are able to come to conclusions equally, the United Nations must do the same thing. Because if one person had the power, we wouldn't be able to even trust one another. Thank you.

[applause]

ELOUISE TAN: The second contestant today is Aditya Paul, who is a student studying at Sydney Grammar School. His speech is called 'The wrong kind of vacation'. Please welcome Aditya Paul to the stage.

[applause]

ADITYA PAUL: It's always nice to have a holiday. Whether it's the fun, games or good times, they're popular for a reason. But my last holiday revealed something different to me, far removed from the blissful times we came to enjoy. The revelation came as I dried myself with the 3-day-old towel in our bathroom. I, like so many other travellers, had heeded the sign telling my family to reuse their towels.

Though helpful to the environment, I couldn't help but wonder how sincere the request actually was. Because as I grappled with the damp and smell in my room, the hotel enjoyed lower laundry costs. That wasn't all. In reception, I shivered as the aircon constantly cooled the room. In the shower, I squeezed shampoo out of a tiny plastic bottle. And on opening the mini fridge, I found plastic bottled water, all of which is quite contrary to my hotel's eco aspirations.

So what gives? As it turns out, a dangerous new trend in eco marketing-- greenwashing. Greenwashing occurs when companies overstate or falsify the environmental benefits of their products. Based on the word 'whitewash', it happens when businesses like my hotel remedy deficiencies with a little climate cover-up. The link between greenwashing and brainwashing is apt as well. Because now that society is looking to be climate positive, our saturated minds are missing the fine print. And we're already paying the price.

Carbon credits are a prime example. They made climate change a numbers game, but the facts don't always add up. Last year, 'The Guardian' found that credit certifier Verra was selling credits that did not work, the benefits of which, in some cases, were overstated by an average of 400%, particularly significant because of Verra's use to offset big-name brands like Gucci, Shell and Disney. This proves that star power isn't everything when it comes to greenwashing.

Companies are also known to highlight only their green claims. HSBC paid the price for this in 2022 when the bank released a slew of ads highlighting their investments in climate-friendly initiatives. What wasn't mentioned was their $8.7 billion investment in new oil and gas over the preceding year, leading to the ad's prompt banning by the UK's Advertisement Standards Authority.

And there was no mercy for Mercer's Superannuation in ASIC's first greenwashing case last month. The $11.3 million scandal stemmed from their Sustainable Plus portfolio, which allegedly promised to exclude fossil fuel, gambling and alcohol investments. But someone forgot to tell BHP, Heineken and even Crown.

So greenwashing is definitely a major problem. But what about solutions? Usually, statistics like these prompt introspection. We all know the facts on some level. If all of Sydney cut their shower time by just 10 seconds, wouldn't we save 8 million litres of water daily? Greenwashing seemingly makes it even easier by outsourcing our personal climate commitment commitments to goods and services.

But when greenwashing companies claim to half your emissions, they make you the problem while, crucially, ignoring their own actions. The opportunity cost of your change versus a company's also net worsens the crisis overall. And while our vacations suffer, greenwashers can take a scrutiny-free climate holiday.

To stop this, government must first standardise the trust marks used in Australia. An ACCC sweep of 247 businesses nationwide found references to 22 different standards for cocoa, aquaculture, textiles and carbon offsets. Yet, these double standards just confuse consumers. We should also follow the EU and ban the use of ambiguous climate buzzwords like carbon neutral by 2026.

More proactive measures, like ACCC-certified climate ratings, should be coupled with a shift in policy frameworks from net zero to true zero to stop companies from passing responsibility. It's always nice to have a holiday. Whether it's the fun, games or good times, they're popular for a reason. But on my last holiday, I realised something. And it is time for all of us to take notice.

Greenwashing's inviting facade masks a world of dodgy deals, fraud and plain old lies that we are believing at our own expense. But by pressuring government, tightening regulation and cracking down on corporations, we can stop it in its tracks. Because at the end of the day, the environment is everyone's problem. And nobody can be taking the wrong kind of vacation if we really want to fix it. Thank you.

[applause]

ELOUISE TAN: Our third finalist is Hirudi Karunarathan from Hurlstone Agricultural High School with her speech entitled 'Still an innocent'. Please now welcome Hirudi.

[applause]

HIRUDI KARUNARATHAN: 'I guess you really did it this time' is likely a line many teens hear on the regular-- the next few, however, not so much. 'Left yourself in your warpath, lost your balance on a tightrope, lost your mind trying to get it back' isn't what we'd think to tell our teens who are in the middle of a time when they're meant to mess up.

But it's what teens like Ricky hear every day. Because after committing minor property offences in an act of theft when he was 10, he lost his balance on a tightrope and spent the last 4 years losing his mind trying to get it back. The lyrics that I began with just a moment ago make up the first verse to Taylor Swift's song 'Innocent' from her album 'Speak Now'. And as the name suggests, it speaks volumes about what it means to regain your innocence, the kind of innocence that Australia's youth justice system desperately needs.

In the last financial year, we as a nation have experienced a 6% rise in youth crime, the first in over a decade. But according to the numbers, less and less teens are committing crime. Instead, we're seeing rising recidivism rates, or the tendency of an individual to re-offend.

With 61% of teens like Ricky returning to detention within 6 months of their release and 80% returning within 12, it would seem very much like our nation is letting down our youth, which is significantly counterintuitive when our efforts to improve the post-crime experience sing the chorus to 'Innocent'. 'It's all right, just wait and see. Your string of lights is still bright to me. Who you are is not where you've been.'

We've implemented family support services and mentorship programs, education and vocational training, mental health treatment, rehabilitation counselling, and so much more, most of which Ricky has had access to. But his continuing turmoil speaks for itself when we ask whether it worked. So why do we remain incapable of getting the results we want for both our community and our teens?

Well, we haven't yet reached the bridge of our song, where Taylor sings, 'Time turns flames to embers. You'll have new Septembers.' The first step to improving recidivism in our youth justice system is giving our teens enough time to turn their flames to embers, allowing them a chance at new Septembers. And that's why we need a re-incarceration ban. In essence, an individual can only be incarcerated once and not again for a period of a few years, decided dependent on the individual. And there are countless reasons why this needs to happen.

Firstly, the rapidly developing adolescent brain can reach a level of maturity with the logic of the prefrontal cortex now able to balance the emotional impulsiveness of the amygdala, the lack of which likely resulted in the crime in the first place. The next lyric, 'Every one of us has messed up too', is the message we'd be sending to our teens, one that can see as tangible change by reason of the expectancy theory, which states that if teens feel as though they can't hit rock bottom, even if they mess up, they'll be more motivated to engage in the programs available in order to achieve what Ricky calls a dream come true.

The final lyrics, 'Minds change like the weather. I hope you remember, today is never too late to be brand new.' We allow our teens to experience what psychoanalyst Erik Erikson dubbed the fifth stage of psychosocial development, a period of navigating identity. A criminal isn't who they are. They can change, regain their innocence, a feat that Ricky's youth workers believe he is entirely capable of.

So, 'Time turns flames to embers. You'll have new Septembers. Every one of us has messed up too. Minds change like the weather. I hope you remember, today is never too late to be brand new' would be a great start. But it doesn't come without the dispute of, 'Aren't we putting our community in danger?' to which the answer is no, for 2 reasons.

First, we work to improve the stigma surrounding our youth offenders, meaning it's less likely they'll act out against a community trying to help them. And second, we're not letting them run completely free. Factors such as parole and wraparound services are still in place to ensure that we protect our community-- and now our youth too.

And finally, by reducing the numbers sent to detention centres, we create a better experience for those being incarcerated for the first time, demonstrating to them the consequences of their actions whilst giving them a chance to change over the next few years, balancing them as both a perpetrator and a victim.

And we can finally add our one missing line to our chorus-- 'It's all right, just wait and see. Your string of lights is still bright to me. Who you are is not where you've been. You're still an innocent'-- so that kids like Ricky will always know that even if you've lost your balance on a tightrope, it's never too late to get it back.

[applause]

ELOUISE TAN: Our fourth speaker this morning will be Divyan Gnanasivam, a student from Fort Street High School with his speech titled 'Eating away the truth'. Please welcome Divyan.

[applause]

DIVYAN GNANASIVAM: With 3 hours still left on my 14-hour flight, I groan and twitch in the cramped seat, waiting for the nightmare to end. My legs are numb, and I'm tired and awake at the same time. Having run out of stuff to keep me entertained, I could not think of anything worse. My mind, aimlessly drifting from one cloudy thought to the next, suddenly stumbled upon the news story from last January about a stranded ship off the West Australian coast carrying 15,000 live animals that had just travelled and returned from the Middle East.

Despite having undergone this horrendous 5-week journey under sweltering 40-degree temperatures, these animals are not disembarked for over 2 weeks as the owners and the government wrangled over regulatory matters. These animals, just like our pets, are sentient. That is, they can experience feelings like fear, hunger and pain. So that unspeakable suffering aboard a cramped ship for 7 weeks suddenly put the discomfort of being stuck on a long-haul flight in a whole new light.

Cocooned in the feel-good world of TV, with cows grazing on verdant pastures and chickens roaming carefree through open farmland, I was blissfully unaware of the lives of the animals that finally ended up on my plate. That was, until an ABC '7.30' program last year shook me. Based on whistleblower recordings, it detailed the cruel treatment of pigs at one of Australia's large slaughterhouses supplying Woolies and Coles.

It was heart-wrenching to watch and hear the squeals of pigs beaten and prodded into small metal cages to be sent into the gas chamber. Some were badly injured during the process, with their limbs getting stuck and ripped in the conveyor machinery. But why is the meat industry in a rich country like Australia so desensitised to animal suffering?

According to the FAO, total animal consumption in food has increased 5-fold since the '60s on the back of rising global population and wealth. To meet this demand, animals are being reared and slaughtered in increasingly cruel, mechanised processes focused on economic efficiency rather than on humane practices. So the faster an animal is fattened and slaughtered using the least amount of space possible, the more money there is to be made.

Now, I know that my bacon comes at the expense of some poor pig, but why was I unaware of some of these horrors? Is it because animal welfare laws, under the influence of powerful lobbies, are too weak or poorly enforced to have much impact? I was shocked to discover that in Australia, animals used in farming and meat production are exempt from animal cruelty prevention laws. So farm animals can be treated in ways we wouldn't dream of treating our own pets. And it's all legal.

Further, our state governments have passed laws that intentionally shield animal operations from public visibility. In NSW, for example, you could face up to 5 years in prison just for possessing film of so-called 'private activities' such as intensive farming and sorting operations. In Victoria, illegal entry into such properties-- say, to film operations-- could land you a $50,000 fine.

With such gag laws, ironically, an activist bringing light to animal cruelty is likely to face harsher punishments than the perpetrator of that cruelty. For example, using similar laws, activist Wayne Hsiung faced 3 years in gaol for trespass in trying to film a Californian factory farm and later releasing 70 ducks and chickens from the distressing conditions. Shockingly, the farm itself faced no sanction.

With our laws, sadly, such a travesty could occur here in Australia. So is there anything that we can do? We can take heart from last July's passing of a historic law banning live sheep exports, a testament to a long, tireless campaign by activists to end this cruel trade. Building on their success, we need to campaign for greater transparency in the meat industry, starting with the repeal of gag laws that shield the mistreatment of animals. The veil over our eyes needs to be removed.

At the same time, new laws that protect rather than punish whistleblowers need to be legislated. Whilst meat producers will not want activists running amok, measures like compulsory 24-hour video coverage of all processes-- monitored by regulators-- could go a long way. Simultaneously, a public register recording instances of animal maltreatment, accessible via an easy-to-use website, and a grading scale of animal product vendors with associated product labelling would help keep animal welfare at the forefront.

By naming and shaming bad actors, do you think some of the most egregious practices will continue? Surely not. The inconvenience of being stuck on a long-haul flight helped bring light to the sufferings of animals reared for food. Knowing that these creatures share many of the same emotions, like pain, anxiety and fear, just like you and me, but are unable to express it, and having uncovered the industry's darkest secrets, I feel compelled to do something. Will you join me?

[applause]

ELOUISE TAN: Our next speaker is Isabella Wait from Barrenjoey High School with her speech titled 'But I don't like netball'. Please welcome Isabella.

[applause]

ISABELLA WAIT: Netball is played by more than 20 million people in over 70 different countries all year round, but I'm not one of them. My main issue isn't with netball itself but with gender inequality in sports. When discussing women's rights, sport is often overlooked. Yet, sport is a great way to stay fit, connected to your community and, for some, a career. Women deserve equal access to these opportunities.

I am passionate about cricket. So naturally, in primary school, I wanted to play PSSA cricket. Why don't you play netball? That was the constant question from my friends. My response was always the same. I don't like netball. Luckily, netball isn't offered in summer, so all the girls had to play cricket. And suddenly, we had a girls cricket team.

Excited to begin, I arrived to my first session and watched the boys play with top-notch gear. The girls' coach, a great person but not a cricketer, came down and directed me to a rundown tennis court with cheap beginner's gear. When I asked why we couldn't play the boys, I'm met with various excuses. We lacked experience and skill. We weren't strong enough or tough enough for the real game. We can't put money towards the girls. It should go towards the boys instead, as they play better.

Joining the boys team in Year 6 was the only way I could play real cricket. This solution hid the problem rather than addressing the underlying issue. I shouldn't have had to play with a different gender to access quality cricket. Unfortunately, this issue doesn't stop at primary school. Top athletes like Ash Barty, Sam Kerr and Ellyse Perry have all reported similar challenges due to gender inequality.

In 2006, Alyssa Healy, the current Australian cricket captain, was the first girl selected for the Barker College First XIs. Her selection caused uproar. An email titled 'Save Barker School Cricket Now' attacked the selection, calling for gender segregation. It was a tough journey, but Alyssa remained a member of the team. Stories like hers shift perceptions, but one success story won't change it all. This inequality extends beyond a few female cricketers.

In her research, Mélissa Plaza, a former athlete and sports psychologist, found that professional sportswomen often get the leftover scraps from the men, their equipment not the right size nor the latest version. Female players at the FC '90s collected size 43 socks left over from the men's uniform fittings. A size 43 doesn't make sense when you actually need a size 36.

You might think the situation changes once you reach a multi-million-dollar international sporting event. But sadly, it doesn't. At the 2023 Australian Women's World Cup, access to infrastructure, accommodation, transport, medical care and outfits were inferior compared to male counterparts. 46% of female players received a pre-tournament medical examination, whereas 90% of male players received one. Consequently, women were 5 times more likely to injure themselves.

While the men were highly paid, 66% of female players had to take unpaid leave from another form of employment to be able to participate in the competition, and 29% of players weren't paid at all. The women who were paid earned $0.25 for every dollar the men earnt. So what can we do? Well, as a fan, go to games, cheer for your team and show the world women's sport is worthwhile.

As a parent, support your daughter's sporting interests and advocate for her involvement, especially if it's a sport other than netball. Encourage other girls to join in. Take up a volunteer role. I know at my cricket club, parents fill coaching and management positions all the time. If you run a business, sponsor your daughter's club. And if you're a brother, support your sister, because she will have a much tougher sports journey than you.

Ultimately, the main thing we can do is support the female athletes in your family and professionally. As former American soccer player Mia Hamm once commented, 'My coach said I ran like a girl. I said, if he could run a little faster, he could too.' I could join netball. They do have better facilities and opportunities for women. But I don't really like netball.

[applause]

ELOUISE TAN: Please welcome our next speaker, Layla Stuart from Braidwood Central School, with her speech 'Staying alive'. Please welcome Layla Stuart to the stage.

[applause]

LAYLA STUART: Bryan Johnson, an American billionaire, has been in the news recently for inspiring thousands of international supporters to follow his Blueprint protocol, an extreme regime for achieving great longevity. As a kid who's never understood the celebration of forever young, typical of many people my age, Johnson's obsession that old age should never catch up with him seems perverse at best.

In a crazy race to avoid death, this man takes frequent blood, breath and even stool measurements, along with hundreds of daily health supplements. Johnson is so determined to extend his lifespan, he's even received blood from his 17-year-old son and bone marrow from a young Swede.

And, not surprisingly, the world's most measured man's website celebrates his physical prowess and manhood, where at 46, he claims to have the maximum heart rate of a 37-year-old, the facial wrinkles of a 10-year-old, and the gum inflammation of a teenager, whatever that means.

As a bored only child, perhaps I've had so much time on my hands that I've dwelt a little too much on my own mortality. Even so, I can accept it. Although the idea of perpetual existence may sound appealing, Johnson's investment in immortality is not only wasteful but patently elitist. What gives this man the right to continue living while the rest of us perish? I hate the idea of sitting on my deathbed while Johnson's still kicking. It's simply unfair.

It's bad enough we don't all have equal access to opportunities and quality services. Wealthy people have the power to make significant changes in society. But instead, Johnson's self-righteous self-obsession with extending his own existence is paid for through selling the same idea to other people. And while he may have the money to do this for himself, his easy entice on living for longer acts as a lure for ordinary people concerned about their ageing to buy into it.

What makes this more interesting is that Johnson's online presence has spread to Australia. And here, his supporters who follow the Blueprint protocol can be seen wearing 'Don't Die' merchandise. And, not surprisingly, there are Blueprint-branded health products, including powdered vegetables and extra virgin olive oil Longevity drink mixes, which are being planned to be renamed Snake Oil as a wink to the many sceptics and a smirk about his many growing brand profits.

So the scheme blatantly preys on our inherent deep premium our society places on youth. Johnson takes advantage of our narcissistic refusal that ageing is inevitable. Johnson shows us that any neurotic with money to blow can have a shot at reversing their biological age or making more money from their followers in the process.

It's quite amusing, the most basic level in Maslow's hierarchy of needs-- physical health-- becoming the main concern for those pursuing self-actualisation. But despite seeing the irony in this behaviour, learning about Johnson sent me a clear message-- not that we should stress over fitness or meticulously count calories, but rather, take into consideration a warning that Johnson's regimen conveys.

Despite the many differences in people, death does scare us, and the Blueprint protocol offers the illusion of an escape from this fear. Perhaps the T-shirt slogan should be changed to Don't Want to Die? But the real takeaway from feeling just how fragile life is and how hard it is to get it right is to be happy with the time we have.

So while it might be understandable to want to live as long as we can, the Blueprint protocol has made me realise all the more that we don't last forever-- despite what Bryan Johnson claims-- but also, more essentially, that we don't need to carry on endlessly. What makes our existence meaningful are the contributions we make to society and that we do have a clear ending. The real challenge is not lazily taking what we have for granted.

Johnson and his followers act as the extreme end of the human obsession with mortality, where we become so obsessed with it, we forget to appreciate what we actually have. And, obviously, I think it would be far better if Johnson spent all this time and energy on something with the potential to make the short lives of many people a lot less troubled and underprivileged.

That might extend the quality of life-- or, indeed, life itself-- for those who really need it. It could create a legacy that appreciates the existence of others rather than exploiting people's innate vulnerabilities. And it could earn a form of afterlife for Johnson-- the respect for his societal contribution. Our lives are what we make them. There are better things than buying and consuming Blueprint olive oil and extra virgin olive oil Longevity drink mixes.

[applause]

ELOUISE TAN: This morning's seventh speaker is Eliza Hayes from Cambridge Park High School, and the subject of her speech is 'Sharing the crayons'. Please welcome Eliza Hayes.

[applause]

ELIZA HAYES: Family restaurant-- parents, kids, aunts, uncles, cousins, chaos-- all for my fifth birthday. Pens, pencils, paper tablecloths, colouring, but only one red crayon-- mayhem, noise, fighting, tantrum, crying-- all over one red crayon. But eventually, we grew up, moved on, and learnt to share the red crayon.

Of course, people who could have unlimited crayons are in the best position to share. The iconic and groundbreaking Taylor Swift gave a bonus of $100,000 to each of her 50 truck drivers on the American leg of the Eras Tour. The drivers gave the tour 6 months of their lives. Taylor recognised this by gifting them a life-changing sum of money for their contribution to what was the show of a lifetime for many Swifties, myself included.

Through this selfless philanthropic act, Taylor Swift has posed the question, can we all start sharing again? By definition, philanthropy is the desire to promote the welfare of others. Historically, it has been seen as a sole wealthy person giving large sums of money to those in need. But philanthropy is a word that is so far out of common usage that my dad still can't pronounce it.

The irony is that philanthropy shouldn't even be needed in an equitable society. Unfortunately, our reality is a world with a wealth gap that is ever increasing. Currently, the richest 10% of the world's population dominate an unfathomable 76% of the world's wealth, while the poorest half of our population has just 2%.

In addition, we are all living through a global inflation and cost-of-living crisis, a crisis so out of hand that the federal government has enacted a relief fund subsidising the energy bills of every household in Australia. But right now, families struggle the most, often being forced to sacrifice basic services, essentials like food or even health care.

An obvious solution would be for governments to correct the wealth gap through the levers of the tax system. However, governments are always reluctant to increase taxes. And these systems change extremely slowly. So we need people to drive change. Over time, consumers have made businesses care about environmental, cultural and ethical values. Consumer outrage incentivised Nike to correct the appalling conditions in sweatshops across east Asia. As a result, they changed their systems and practices from the very foundations.

So what should consumers be advocating for next? Philanthropy. The 'Australian Financial Review' publishes a corporate philanthropy ranking. It was reported in 2023 that Coles donated 10.4% of its profit to philanthropic causes, compared to Woolworths that donated 5.3%-- almost exactly half.

Similarly, Westpac reported a community investment of 0.6% of their annual profit-- whereas the ANZ, a paltry 0.2%. Informed consumers who choose businesses such as Coles and Westpac over their similar but less-socially-responsible equivalents actively contribute to philanthropic causes. Further, we know governments already publish information and resources so that consumers can find cheaper product alternatives.

Websites like FuelCheck and Smart Energy Saver come to mind. And yet, no resource exists to help consumers make philanthropic decisions? A government-developed website should be created for those who wish to easily access this information. And we need to go further. We know that Scores on Doors and health tick labels guide consumers at the time of purchase. Product packaging needs to incorporate a philanthropic certification label so that consumers are driven to purchase from socially responsible companies. Ultimately, businesses listen to sales figures and profits. Surely, this is the incentive we are looking for.

Now, imagine you're walking into your local shopping centre, and you consciously choose to walk past Woolworths, noticing their 2-star philanthropic rating on their front window. And instead, you choose to head to Coles, which yesterday your friend told you had a 5-star rating. Once you're inside Coles, as you're about to pick up some donuts, chips and, of course, crayons, you instead choose a different brand, noticing their philanthropic tick.

Suddenly, a concept that was so out of reach-- even unpronounceable-- is a part of the everyday shopping experience. And as we discuss these steps right now, we bring awareness and normality to philanthropy amongst the masses. In the near future, companies change their focus and give back fairly, and we could see a real decrease in the cost of living. And ultimately, through the actions of philanthropic consumers, companies and governments, we can begin to close the wealth gap.

We live in a world where major companies are both wealthier and more powerful than governments. As a society, we must speak now, demanding that companies care about their staff, their community and all of us more than just profits. It's time we use our collective power to teach big business and governments how to start sharing the crayons. Thank you.

[applause]

ELOUISE TAN: Please welcome our final speaker for the prepared section, Abby Peterson-Hampshire from Terrigal High School with her speech, which is called 'In deep'. Please welcome Abby.

[applause]

ABBY PETERSON-HAMPSHIRE: The cheerful voice rattles off a to-do list. You groggily get out of bed before turning in the paper you prompted on ChatGPT the night before. You open up your phone, only to be faced with an endless stream of messages, photos-- not just any photos-- photos of you naked, one after the other-- except these photos don't exist. They were never taken.

For thousands, this has been reality. As we've adopted artificial intelligence into our lives as a practical, helpful tool, it's been recruited for humiliation, exploitation and ruining the lives of many. Artificial intelligence deepfakes were born in 2017 and, unsurprisingly, their first use was doctoring the faces of female celebrities onto explicit videos. The technology now is far more complex and can use deep learning algorithms to remove clothing, with these algorithms typically trained for images of women.

Earlier this year, fake explicit images of 50 young girls at a Victorian grammar school-- described as mutilated and incredibly graphic-- had been circulated on social media, generated by a male student. The teen was arrested, but immense damage is already done. According to the school's principal, images of these girls had been taken from social media and manipulated with AI to create sexually-exploitative, degrading content. This is only one of many recent incidents here in Australia, including several schools.

Whilst researching this topic, I found that one of the first AI programs designed to create fake nude images was called DeepNude. It had almost 100,000 users before it was shut down. And when I googled it, I'd expected to find information on its deactivation. Instead, I found countless apps and websites labelled with some variation of undress anyone with AI, fast-generating and most realistic naked pictures.

These are the platforms, so easily accessible, free or low cost and strategically marketed, that are infiltrating our schools, workplaces and social media. Even as far back as 2019, 96% of all deepfake images on the internet were sexually explicit, and virtually all were of nonconsenting women. The objectification of women transcends time. It has only evolved throughout the years, adapting to new trends, from cutout 'Playboy' magazines to, now, complex technology.

Not only is revenge porn running rabid, but now it can happen to virtually anyone. In South Korea, explicit deepfakes are even being used as a manipulative scam tactic. This is why women feel helpless, trapped. It doesn't matter what you do or what you don't do or how cautious you are. Because now, with no more than a handheld device, you can lose your career and dignity. Almost no one is safe. If images of you exist on the internet, you could be the most completely ordinary person in the world or the most famous and still be a victim.

As a massive teenage fan, I was hyperaware of the fact that even explicit deepfakes of Taylor Swift, who has one of the most incredible legal teams, remained on X for 19 hours, garnering 47 million views on a single post. AI deepfakes are created of 12-year-old schoolkids and celebrities alike, and laws desperately need to adapt to these emerging changes.

Now, what can be done? Education early on and in depth to address misogyny and online safety within the PDHPE curriculum, expanding on existing consent and media topics. Providing educational resources to carers so that they can have this conversation with their children would be what would be widely beneficial for both the young people and the adults, particularly around the sharing and posting of images online.

Schools should review their codes of conduct, including incidents involving AI and spelling out consequences for those involved. Young people also need to step up when things like this happen. Majority of the time, images aren't being shared with parents or teachers. They remain in group chats, particularly those with disappearing messages, like Snapchat.

There is no instance where anyone should be allowed to generate nude images. AI is only becoming more advanced with voice, image and video content. It needs to be better governed and harsh restrictions to be placed on generation possibilities. Education is so vital, but we also need bans and consequences, such as prison time and large fines, both as a deterrent and retribution for victims.

And, as of just last month, a new bill regarding deepfake sexual material has been passed in government, strengthening offences targeting the creation and sharing of nonconsensual, sexually-explicit material online, including material that has been created or altered using AI technology. This is a first but impactful step in protecting us all from these new technological dangers.

So as we yell at our virtual assistants, play unbeatable bots in chess and converse with that oddly robotic sales assistant over the phone, we need to be thinking deeper about what this inevitable, increasingly advanced future means for all of us. Because if teenage girls have to live in fear of their fake nudes being plastered all across the internet, something needs to change.

[applause]

ELOUISE TAN: Welcome back to the impromptu speech section of this Junior Secondary Speaking Award state final. In this section, each speaker will have 5 minutes in which to write their speech on a topic set by the adjudication panel over morning tea. They'll then return to deliver their impromptu speech with a warning bell at one and a half minutes, 2 bells at 2 minutes, and a continuous bell if the speech exceeds 2 minutes and 30 seconds. The subject for this year's impromptu speech is 'False hope'.

SERENA YANG: If you know me, you will know that there is one fact about me which I talk about incessantly to an almost annoying level. ISDA is a debating competition for private schools. I have lost it 2 years in a row-- very, very demoralising, especially as someone whose dream has always been to win one.

And because I didn't make it clear before, I didn't just lose. I lost the grand final 2 years in a row. Ugh. I just cannot. OK. But in both times, I made one crucial mistake. I relied on false hope. Instead of spending my time preparing with my teammates, I sat on my bed, and I daydreamed about what it would be like to hold that shield and to raise it and to hear everyone cheering for me. That was hope, and it let me down.

The one thing that I have learnt is that when I try again next year, when I inevitably do go to grand finals-- because I am confident in my skill, and I am confident in my team's skill-- instead of just sitting around, waiting for it to happen, I'm going to be more proactive. I'm going to start teaching myself more things. I'm going to help my teammates improve. And I'm going to do all these things because I don't want to be let down for the third year.

If I ever met the god of false hope, I would give them a beating, but I would also thank them. Because they have taught me one lesson. They have taught me to work hard, and they have taught me that the only real way to combat false hope is by doing things yourself. You can't rely on the universe. You can only rely on your team and your skills. And that doesn't just apply for debating. It applies for everything as well. So I guess that's one thing you can take away. Thank you.

[applause]

ADITYA PAUL: Last year, the whole of this country had a vote. For the people who were concerned most, it was a rather important one. We termed it the Voice to Parliament referendum. And after years of stagnation in reconciliation for Indigenous affairs, this was a moment of hope for the people who had been campaigning for change.

Barred by disinformation, however, the yes side ultimately lost, in a moment of deep sadness for Indigenous peoples. But it's an unfortunate truth that this moment of false hope for Indigenous affairs unfortunately is not an isolated incident. Successive governments have focused on the handshakes, the big statements, the announcements in parliament. But how many people remember Kevin Rudd's apology? And how many people remember the action that resulted from it?

We hail big apologies and moments like these as statements of going forward for the country, of us being progressive. But ultimately, this hope quickly disappears, rendered almost false, as change is slow to be enacted and ultimately does not build up to anything meaningful. It's a cycle of false hope, and it's one that we have to break.

Because at the end of the day, this is an issue that resonates deeply with Indigenous peoples. And if we want Indigenous youths to think that they can do better, to think that they can get ahead in this country, we need to show that politicians care about them as well-- not just the handshake, but what follows from it.

False hope is not a substitute for real progressiveness and change to actual reconciliation. We need to continue from the announcement. Because ultimately, false hope is something that's even more destructive than nothing at all. And can we really only focus on the handshake and not what happens next?

[applause]

HIRUDI KARUNARATHAN: I'm super excited about going to university. Going there feels like it's filled with so many hopes and dreams of mine, whether that be having the freedom away from my helicopter parents looking over my shoulder or being able to skip class, going into a building so much taller than me and riding escalators that go higher and higher.

But most importantly, it's the fact that I get to see my dreams come true-- to be able to help people suffering from mental illness and to be able to live out the life that I expected I would. It's a hope, one that I know will come true if I work hard. But I didn't realise that that was a privilege that I was given purely because of the place my parents decided to settle in. We settled in the city, not a regional area. And I didn't realise that that put me at an immediate advantage.

The truth is that countless students in regional areas have to make the difficult decision between living in their family, their community, or moving to pursue a tertiary education. They live with the false hope all their lives until they realise that they're met with a crossroads, not sure which way to turn and, either way, having to make some sort of sacrifice. But that's not fair.

Why should we have to live with a false hope purely because we enjoy different living spaces and environments settled across different places in Australia? So how can we help these regional students? Well, first off, the government can help support young students with lower socioeconomic status by providing funding and subsidies.

The next step is installing university hubs across regional areas, along with mental health support. This means that they can still pursue their dreams. And whilst they may not have 50-feet-tall buildings to go into, they still get the freedom of being able to pursue their dreams and live out the life they want. They shouldn't have to live in a false hope. Because we're all kids with dreams and hopes that should and deserve to come true.

[applause]

DIVYAN GNANASIVAM: Every 3 years, we go into polling booths filled with hope to tick the box on who we want to represent us in parliament. We feel the power of our voices to make a difference. The policies we've heard echoed by our favourite candidates over recent weeks may finally become a reality. But even if our candidate become MP and our party wins the election, does the election manifesto that the party promoted become a reality? Sadly, in many cases, the voters end up disappointed. We have many times been let down by feelings of false hope by our politicians, where they say one thing and they do something completely different.

Why is that? Influential lobbyists and well-heeled political donors are increasingly swaying policies towards their interests and, in many cases, against that of a majority of our citizens. It will be hard to argue that, for example, the industry lobbyists did not have a role to play in the government's decision to cap gambling ads rather than outright ban them as recommended by their own experts and pushed for by the public.

Similarly, our lacklustre climate change policies can be attributed to the successes of those in the fossil fuels lobby. With over 705 lobbyists running around Parliament House with only 227 elected representatives, it is clear who is having the ultimate say in policy. These lobbyists have the ears of our MPs on a daily basis which, in tandem with the money donated by their patrons to the political parties, results in our voices being greatly diluted.

So what can we do so we can have real hope in our broken political system? We have some of the weakest lobbying and transparency laws in the world. We need greater public transparency and limits on interest groups' access to and funding of our politicians. Although this list is nearly exhaustive-- no, comprehensive-- it represents final steps that need to be taken before we get led more on trails of false hope by our politicians.

[applause]

ISABELLA WAIT: Imagine a world where letters on a page simply appear as squiggles. Literacy is a key that unlocks the doors to knowledge and understanding of the world around you. Literacy is more than just reading and writing. It's about empowerment. I can read, but I don't like it. If you told me to read a book, you'd have to pay me a million dollars. I do not enjoy it.

At least I can read, though. This year in NAPLAN, one in 3 Australian children didn't hit basic benchmarks. There was a lack of foundational skills displayed amongst the Australian generation. The government has tried different strategies to try and fix it, different teaching techniques. But in my opinion, I think this is simply false hope, as I don't believe we're focusing on the real cause.

In my eyes, the cause is phones. Teenagers are simply not spending enough time reading books for leisure, so we haven't got that constant practice like we used to. We need to stop this false hope. We need to implement more reading. We don't need a nation where communication such as speaking is our only option and documentation, like doctors' written notes, can't be followed because of a lack of literacy skills.

We need a nation that can flourish because they have basic, vital literacy skills. We need to stop this false hope and stop believing in something that isn't actually causing the problem.

Simply, to fix this, there can be in-class time for students to read. Parents can read to their children, so they're practising their skills. And parents can read books, so then their children are more likely to do it too. Set being a good example. We need to stop this false hope and look at the real problem. Thank you.

[applause]

LAYLA STUART: I am constantly amused by my boss at work, who casually brings up World War III and society's demise like it's just bound to happen. I find it funny-- claiming like a madman that the rest of society has false hope in the government protecting Australia.

And as I continued to hear my boss saying these funny things, I soon learnt that he wasn't alone in this thinking. And to my knowledge on the Australian doomsday preppers, these people from post-COVID trauma have learnt that perhaps Australian society isn't as functional as they once thought it was and learned survival skills to prepare for the end of society.

And I actually began to question whether I was the crazy one here. Our society does face massive threats, such as climate change, nuclear war and totalitarianism. Perhaps this form of thinking is actually reasonable. Perhaps we do need to prepare. Maybe we do have a false hope in what is to happen later on in the future. There are so many issues that are ravaging our society. I mean, look at Russia and Ukrainian war and-- yeah, heaps. There are heaps of problems that our society faces.

But coming back to why I initially thought these people were crazy-- these people are in such a race to protect themselves from what they believe is an inevitable end. And I began to learn that perhaps it's these people that have false hope in society's demise, whereas the actual solution to these problems is addressing them and facing them.

If we want to actually thrive in our society, we should actually address these issues in society, such as fixing climate change and perhaps addressing national conflicts. Thank you.

[applause]

ELIZA HAYES: What a try. We're going to lose. Tackle him. Families are heard yelling throughout every second home in NSW on sunny Sunday afternoons. In my backyard, you'll hear my dad and my uncle endlessly debating calls and penalties. It's true Aussie spirit. A try is scored.

And, of course, in a game built for TV, the ads appear. Soon enough, sport turns into odds with yet another gambling ad. And the screen flashes green with the new gambling slogan, 'You win some, you lose more.'

But we were really given false hope here. We had the high intensity of our football game all dragged down and erased by-- a gambling ad? But we should know better than this. Because the reality is that gambling and football are intrinsically linked. They are each other's biggest partners, sponsors and investors.

But there may not be much more hope for those struggling with an addiction to gambling, because the unfortunate reality is that gambling is absolutely everywhere in our society. It's in every second TV ad that we see on the screen. It's in stadium naming rights for these big stadiums that have our very own football events at. And gambling logos are on the back of players' jerseys that we encourage kids to buy and wear out and about. Talk about a struggle.

But there seems to be some false hope in our media over this improving. Because the reality is that Australians lose $1,068 per adult to gambling per year, which is the highest grossing loss per capita globally. And we were given even more false hope by the media when we changed the slogan for gambling, 'gamble responsibly', to 'you win some, you lose more' and several other half-hearted attempts at trying to educate our society on the risks with gambling and addiction.

So what's our way out, our light at the end of the tunnel, our actual hope? Well, we don't need any more gambling lines plastered everywhere we see. We don't need any more gambling ads. We just need to enjoy the football game that we pay to see or that we stream with our families on sunny Sunday afternoons. So there may be false hope now with a lack of change-- but not later, not when we do make change, not when we do decide to take action. Thank you.

[applause]

ABBY PETERSON-HAMPSHIRE: 10 years, 2 decades-- this is the time that it has been proven for trends to repeat within the media and on social media. Now, there are various examples of this, particularly within social media. But one that is very prevalent at the moment is the Victoria's Secret Fashion Show, which just last week has been shown once again after being gone for around a decade.

Now, as a lot of us know, this show and the culture around it used to be incredibly toxic, promoting unhealthy body standards, leading to the mistreatment of many models and contributing largely to the diet culture of the 2010s. Now the show has returned. Viewers were promised a more diverse and a healthier version of the show that would still bring the glamour that people enjoyed and the entertainment but wouldn't be as toxic as it was. It would be a better culture.

It turns out that this hope that we were given by the company was false hope. The diversity within the show was incredibly limited. And most concerningly, aside from the show, was the public opinion of the models and what happened there. The general consensus has been people wishing for the old models to come back. People were unhappy with the fact that there were models that weren't as slim as they used to be and that they had different hair, they didn't have the blowouts that they used to and that they weren't as skinny as they used to be.

Where we thought that there was hope and we thought that there would be progress, turns out there wasn't. This is why we need to actually make the change. We need to change this online world because this is what is preventing change from actually happening in our media space. And we need to stop glorifying the toxic beauty standards that are repeating once again from the 2010s, which turned out to be so detrimental for so many people, who then grew up with eating disorders and problems in their later life.

Otherwise, this is going to repeat in 10 more years, and our hope will once again be false hope.

[applause]

ELOUISE TAN: Please now welcome Lucy Beale to deliver the adjudication and announce the results of the 2024 Junior Secondary Speaking Award.

[applause]

LUCY BEALE: OK. First of all, I want to extend a massive congratulations to all of the speakers in today's final. As a panel, we were genuinely impressed by the wide range of topics and the genuinely interesting perspectives that you have on the world. I think on days like today, I am reminded most of how exciting our future is, because we get to hear from a wide variety of young people from across the state who have big dreams about what our future is going to be like.

I think that's important, and I think being able to listen to them is valuable. So I want to thank the Arts Unit and thank all of you for coming here today to celebrate these young people and what they had to say.

[applause]

I'm going to do a couple of things in this adjudication. I'm going to talk you through the prepared section, the impromptu section and then I'm going to reveal who is our champion and runner-up today. So on the prepared section, we valued the wide range of topics that we had today. We felt that all speakers were able to present researched and interesting speeches that took us deep into an issue so that we could gain new ideas, gain new solutions or new perspectives.

We especially appreciated when students were able to create nuance in these speeches, whether that be through their personal connection or whether it be through their research. We think that that was what differentiated good speeches from the best speeches. When you can demonstrate that you have authority in your speech, whether that be through explaining why you are uniquely capable of giving this message, explaining your personal connection to that topic-- we thought that that meant that your solutions became more persuasive and that we believed that the very next day, everyone would go out into the world and actually do what you said they should do.

So I think broadly, for the prepared section, it was in that personal connection to the topic that we could have improved. At times, we felt that speakers didn't think through their solutions. And this was as a result of us not believing that they were the, quote unquote, 'ultimate authority' on this topic. So for your next speech, I hope that you think about what topic you can best deliver to the audience. Because ultimately, that's what's the most important thing.

For the impromptu section, we thought that all speakers were successful in today's competition in considering the topic and presenting a clear speech and idea about how they interpret that topic.

We think what differentiated good impromptu speeches from the best impromptu speeches of when there was a substantial engagement with that topic so we understood clearly what the false hope was, why it was false, who was letting us down and giving this false hope to a particular group, and why it was important that we change that and explaining how we did that.

So you might notice that I'm explaining a lot of questions in how to improve, and I think that's an important structure for how we can improve our impromptu topics and speeches. That is to say that when you get a topic, you should think about the questions that emerge out of it in what you will be challenged to answer and cover in your speeches. So students who were able to do that, who were able to bring nuanced and creative approaches to the concept of false hope, were rewarded in today's competition.

So without further ado, I want to talk about our runner-up. I think that our runner-up had a clear and cohesive set of speeches today. We understood very clearly who this young person was and what they thought was important by the topics that they delivered today.

We thought there was nuance and respect in these speeches, dealing with heavy and honestly uncomfortable topics for us to think about, but explain to us why it was vital that we confronted them and considered them in detail to prevent the next trend from emerging. So without further ado, the runner-up for today's final is Abby.

[applause]

ABBY PETERSON-HAMPSHIRE: Thank you so much.

[applause]

LUCY BEALE: OK, perfect. Thank you so much, Abby. OK. Now I want to talk to you about the winner of today's Junior Secondary Speaking Award. We think that this speaker had a very clear understanding of themselves and the change that they wanted to see in the world. We thought that this speaker was humorous at times, introspective, was nuanced, was smart, and genuinely brought us topics that we were interested in and persuaded by.

I think that everyone in this audience would have felt a connection to this speaker because what they were saying was genuine. We believed what they were talking about because it was so personally connected to their experiences and their values. In their impromptu speech, we thought that they brought a creative spin on the topic that made us think about how we would interpret false hope in a new and interesting way.

For her prepared, we thought that this was the clearest and most persuasive speech today, as ultimately, it is that persuasion that encourages us to go out into the world and enact the change that this speaker cared about. I know that tomorrow, we will go out and buy a membership to our local female sports team. So, without further ado, I want to announce that the local-- sorry-- that the champion of the Junior Secondary Speaking Award is Isabella.

[applause]

Congratulations to Abby and Isabella. We are so, so proud of you, and we are so proud of all of the speakers today. Thank you so much, everyone, on behalf of the panel.

[applause]