Video transcript
Legacy Junior Public Speaking Award 2023 - NSW State Final

[intro music]

ROWAN MYERS: Good morning. I would also like to acknowledge the Gadigal people, the Traditional Custodians of the Country of which the Art Gallery of NSW stands. I would like to pay my respects to Elders past and present and extend that respect to other Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people present here today.

The Legacy Junior Public Speaking Award is one of the premier events in the public-speaking calendar, attracting hundreds of entries from all educational systems and feeding into a national competition. This year, local-area finals took place in person for the most part, with some speakers zooming in from all over the state in online finals provided to ensure equity of access.

Regional finals were also a combination of in-person and online, with 20 speakers eventually chosen to compete in the semifinals that were held at the NSW Parliament House in September. And from there, the 8 finalists we look forward to from hearing today were announced. If you refer to your program, you will see the names of winners of this competition since it began in 1995 in association with the 50th anniversary of the ending of the Second World War. It's worth noting that on 7 occasions, NSW contestants have won the national final, which, this year, will take place in Adelaide in November.

Before we get to the speakers, I need to begin by introducing the adjudication panel. Our 3 adjudicators for the final are Charlee Jane, Indigo Crosweller, and Justin Lai.

Charlee Jane had a successful school career as a public speaker and debater while studying at Crestwood High School. Her team made the state final of the Premier's Debating Challenge for Years 9 and 10 in 2017. Charlee was a state finalist in the Plain English Speaking Award in 2018 and a state and national champion of the Legacy Junior Public Speaking Award in 2015. Charlee continues to adjudicate for the Arts Unit and has been on panels for state finals for both the Plain English Speaking Award and the Legacy Junior Public Speaking Award, as well as a number of Premier's Debate Challenge state finals.

Indigo Crosweller was a member of the NSW Debating Union state team from 2016 to 2018 and a member of the Combined High Schools representative team in 2017. She was named champion of the United Nations Youth Model Tournament in 2017 and competed in a variety of public-speaking tournaments, including this competition, while attending Sydney Girls High School. Indigo is in her final year of law at the University of Sydney. She is a Combined High Schools coach and one of the Arts Unit's most experienced adjudicators.

Justin Lai was the winner of the Plain English Speaking Award in 2018 and went on to win the national final in Darwin. He travelled to London to represent Australia and was the runner up at the international final in 2019. He was a member of the 2018 Sydney Boys High School debating team, who were the state champions of the Premier's Debating Challenge for Years 11 and 12. Justin is an experienced adjudicator, officiating state finals for the Plain English Speaking Award, the Legacy Junior Public Speaking Award, and the Multicultural Perspectives Public Speaking Competition. Justin is currently studying law at the University of Sydney.

We now come to the prepared-speech section of the Legacy Junior Public 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 speaker exceed 6 minutes. Our first speech this morning-- our first speaker this morning is Murphy Xi, a student from The Kings' School. The title of Murphy's speech is 'Unlocking Financial Freedom'. Please welcome Murphy.

[applause]

MURPHY XI: Your first pit stop after leaving home in the morning is probably the local cafe. You order your cappuccino-- tap and go. Minutes later, you head to the bus stop-- tap and go. It takes you to the train station-- tap and go. Nearing school or the office, you grab a quick bite to eat from the local convenience store-- tap and go.

I got my first debit card when I was 11. The first online payment I made was days later. Now my debit card is linked to my phone, so if I ever want to buy a snack after school or make an online payment, all I need is my phone to unlock all the freedoms that living in a developed economy offers.

In Australia, capital flows as smoothly as an uninterrupted stream. It's almost hard to imagine that this is not a universal reality. Across the developing world, there is comparatively scant access to quality physical banking, and financial freedoms, especially for women, are likewise limited. Unfortunately, many women in deeply patriarchal societies still require approval from male family members to conduct financial activities. Property rights are seldom equal for men and women in these contexts.

Women are routinely underpaid for their labour relative to men. And in countries like India, despite being outlawed, exuberant dowry payments from a bride's family to a groom are still routinely paid, demonstrating the continual cultural perception of women as commodities.

In addition, the UN found that women in developing economies are 20% less likely to have an account at a formal financial institution than men. But even this statistic includes countries like Argentina and Turkey, whose economies are already somewhat advanced. The continent of Africa as a whole, women are over 70% less likely to have such formal financial inclusion than their male counterparts.

The solution? Something known as mobile money, technology that facilitates the receipt, use, and saving of money all on a mobile phone. In Australia, internet banking is largely an outpost of existing brick-and-mortar financial institutions. Think of things like the CommBank app and Osko.

But mobile money is something entirely different. There are no physical institutions and no tellers. In other words, the overheads involved in establishing a traditional bank are eliminated, making these services a viable option within the developing world, where access to traditional forms of banking can be tenuous at best.

Kenya offers a useful case study when assessing the impact of mobile-money adoption on financial inclusion for women. Over 30 million accounts registered in 2022. The transfer of money via PIN-secured SMS messages to other users has already yielded promising results for gender equality because instead of receiving payments for goods and services through formal banking outlets, which might be gate-capped by a woman's husband or father, mobile money allows women to be instantly and fairly remunerated for their goods and services.

As a result, this has stimulated greater degrees of entrepreneurship and self-employment amongst women in Kenya. In fact, over 185,000 women have consequently reduced their reliance upon working multi part-time agrarian jobs.

But how can you contribute to the broad adoption of mobile money in all developing nations? Because most of the time, when speakers take the stage to pontificate about inequality in the developing world, the solution offered is simply to donate to charity. Only, this time, your money can, both enhance gender equality in the developing world and serve your own financial interests too.

This is because many large-scale social-impact funds are helping to spur mobile money in developing economies, many of which are right by our doorstep. Indeed, the mobile-money system in Kenya was pioneered by Vodafone and Safaricom, companies that we Australians can easily invest in. These companies, with their huge pools of human capital and resources, can, therefore, oversee tangible change in these areas and maintain strong profitability.

With further investment, mobile-data services can be rapidly expanded, which can have more immediate impacts than building more expensive infrastructure like brick-and-mortar banks. And because of mobile money, you can research enterprises and purchase their goods, directly contributing to money to self-employed women without needing to navigate the bureaucracy of traditional charities because, for us, mobile money has simply made our lives a little more convenient. But in other parts of the world, it can have drastic impacts in alleviating economic and gender equality. So the next time you tap and go, let it serve as a reminder of the transformative power you hold to bring financial freedom to the rest of the world. Thank you.

[applause]

ROWAN MYERS: The second contestant today is Poppy Cheek, who is a student studying at Presbyterian Ladies' College. Her speech is called 'It's Not Easy Being Green'. Please welcome Poppy Cheek to the stage.

[applause]

POPPY CHEEK: When I look at my phone, I think, when will my friend text me back? When I see someone using an electric toothbrush, I think, oof, how can you deal with the vibrations on your teeth? When I get into my friend's Tesla, I think, wow, this is quiet. But I never think about its larger impacts and what goes into these environmentally friendly products. The answer, the blood diamond of batteries, cobalt.

Dwindling supply of cobalt and human exploitation in the industry make some green products a threat to our future. Here's the problem. Everything rechargeable could be gone in 50 years. Let me explain. With the push to wean ourselves off fossil fuels and go sustainable with renewables, lithium-ion batteries seem like a great idea, all run by cobalt. It would be physically impossible for most of us here to go even 24 hours without cobalt.

You'd think it'd be pretty plentiful if it's used in almost every rechargeable item, right? Wrong. There's only about 7 million tonnes of cobalt left, with 70% of that coming from the Congo. At the rate we're using it, that's 50 years left, max. And what happens after that? The world just stops? Apparently so.

And there's another possibly even more-pressing problem with cobalt, one that's killing people as I speak, as Western society gets ever greener. But people don't want to look behind the curtain at the flaws of this lucrative industry. It's convenient. And there's the hypocrisy of it. Cobalt is toxic-- toxic to touch, toxic to breathe.

And yet, if you were to go to the Congo, you would see hundreds of thousands of some of the poorest people in the world scraping in hand-dug pits for cobalt, no safety equipment, no protection. You'd see women digging with babies strapped to them and children as young as 6 covered in toxic filth, men in deep tunnels with no support or ventilation. This 'artisanal' cobalt mining is the only way Congolese people can earn money, $3 a day, when companies sell it for $30,000 a tonne. That's the cobalt that goes into your phone, your EV.

Now, I would like to make it clear that I'm not against going electric, and cobalt is building a greener future. But behind it is corporate greed that's fueling social and environmental catastrophe. But what can we do about it?

Well, the solution could be right on Australia's doorstep, manganese. And the Northern Territory is one of this metal's biggest suppliers. It's more stable than cobalt, way less toxic than cobalt, has a quicker charging power than cobalt. Plus, it could keep the world turning for more than just another 50 years. The only downside is its lower energy density, meaning more tests need to be done to make it into a big battery for an EV.

Now, I know what you're thinking. Your solution to digging something out of the ground is digging another thing out of the ground? This is fair, and you're right to have doubts. But until we find a way to power batteries without metals, this is the best we've got, the only sustainable metal that has a chance of replacing cobalt.

While you're still mining it, it can be mined ethically and in stable countries. And a portion of our manganese we get from recycling scrap metal.

[bell dings]

We use cobalt out of convenience. We use it because companies get it cheap and because battery technology is built around cobalt. But if we want to transition to a sustainable future, we need to move past convenience and recognise that cobalt is not the way to do this. Yes, go green as soon as possible, just without exploiting an entire country.

My generation will have to deal with the effects of fossil fuels, but we're now also going to have to recognise that by trying to change this, we supported one of the biggest and least-known humanitarian crises. We shouldn't have to look back in 20 years when we realise this can't last and say we were ignorant. So be conscious of what you buy. Challenge the ethics of cobalt-choosing companies because, in the words of Kermit the frog, it's not easy being green.

[applause]

ROWAN MYERS: Our third finalist is Benjamin Oraham from Prairiewood High School. And his speech is entitled 'Just Plane Wrong'. Please welcome Benjamin.

[applause]

BENJAMIN ORAHAM: I live in a Sydney suburb called Mount Vernon. It's semi-rural, quiet, small, mostly anonymous. I spent the last 5 years of my life in this area, and it has been simply amazing-- spacious, friendly, and it's a place where the environment and nature is appreciated.

My parents immigrated here from Iraq. And after facing countless challenges, they have finally found peace in this small haven. However, we discovered in June that my family's tranquil retreat will be no more. The preliminary flight path of the new Western Sydney Airport has been released, and my home, like so many others in Sydney's western half, is right under it. The possibility of planes flying over 24 hours a day could be our new reality.

The airport is also predicted to have between 5 and 10 million passengers annually. Noise levels of 70 decibels in the outdoors and 60 decibels indoors are predicted by 2033. This is loud enough to disturb a normal conversation. Who wants to see the underbelly of a plane flying right above your house in the middle of a family barbecue, being so loud that it extinguishes all the fun that you're having?

Furthermore, significant traffic increases will frequent the area with the redevelopment and expansion of Mamre Road into the M12. Whilst these developments are beneficial, no doubt motorists will discover shortcuts through this pristine oasis. This is not to mention the potential compromise of the World Heritage-listed delicate environment of the nearby Blue Mountains.

However, the federal government has stated its commitment to balancing the needs of the community, environment, industry, and users of greater Sydney airspace. No doubt the projected $5.8 billion generated by the project by 2063, as well as the massive employment opportunities, are all beneficial for a region in desperate need of economic rejuvenation. But at what cost?

It would appear the government is having difficulty balancing the needs of the community, environment, industry for the sake of progress. We know temperatures continue to increase each summer, and houses grow hotter. Yet, the airport development has left the West a barren wasteland of flattened dirt and woodlands.

A recent study by RMIT highlighted the importance of the tree canopy on temperature and the significant reduction of it in Western Sydney. Green space to support the lifestyle of thousands of families needs to be established now to have any real impact by the time the airport's operational. Perhaps this could help counterbalance the well-documented poor air quality of the area, especially with the increased plane traffic.

So are we getting a fair deal? These issues may be tolerable and can be dealt with as the same sort of issues happened with the construction and extension of the Kingsford-Smith Airport. The difference, however, is that Inner West residents were granted government-mandated curfews from 11:00 pm to 6:00 am, but it's confirmed these will not apply to our newest travel addition. This means that people living in suburbs like mine will often wake up in the middle of the night to the sound of planes flying overhead, while the people of inner Sydney are spared.

This is simply unfair. Is this different treatment merely because the people of Western Sydney are 'less important' due to the lower socioeconomic status of our area? Is this another example of the geographical disparity between them and us? Do we have no voice and have no say? This is easily the airport's most prominent issue, simply highlighting that Sydney is built on a social hierarchy. And the people of Western Sydney, to say it plainly, are perceived to be the lowest rung of the ladder.

To organise is to be heard. The people must be totally cognisant of the dramatic changes that this airport will have on their day-to-day lives. Unlike the inner city counterparts, where many planes fly over the sea, air traffic in the West will fly predominantly over suburbs, with hard surfaces reflecting and intensifying noise.

Deviations from flight paths will be a common occurrence due to air-traffic congestion, weather, and missed approaches, widening the area adversely affected by noise. These few hours of uninterrupted sleep will ultimately cause increased stress and raise cortisol levels, messing with the general health of the people of the west. And perhaps this untenable environment will displace my family once again.

Information presented by the authorities must be plainly conveyed, not dangled before us, wrapped up in scientific jargon and statistics. It is not that Western Sydneysiders will not understand. It is simply that they will be more likely to acknowledge the truth about the issue. The reason there is a curfew in the existing airport is because the people fall for it. They united and became one voice, and the government listened.

The inequality of the situation must be recognised. We do not want to be looked down upon or feel discriminated against by government and airport authorities. The people of Western Sydney must bond together, work together, and fight this grave injustice together.

The world is changing at a rapid rate. And I understand this change is inevitable. I know that areas like mine won't be peaceful forever. It has protected and nurtured my family since their arrival in Australia. It will continue to do so for families in the future. And ultimately, there will be good and bad impacts from the airport development.

Recognising the issue as one which can be challenged is crucial. There seems to be an expectation that the people of the West have to suffer the greatest for the sake of progress, and we must change that. We must work together to reduce the negatives, to mitigate the impacts so that places like Mount Vernon, like all Western Sydney homes, may flourish. Perhaps only then will we safeguard the peace that dwells in these small, niche havens. Thank you.

[applause]

ROWAN MYERS: Our fourth speaker this morning will be Matilda Webb, a student attending Our Lady of Mercy College. The subject of Matilda's speech is 'Money or Memories'. Please welcome Matilda.

[applause]

MATILDA WEBB: I like words. I like the word 'home'. It's such a little word but such an incredibly important concept for all of us. To me, home is stability. It is comfort. It is shelter. It is love, happiness, sunshine, beginnings, memories, family, the past, the present, and the future. It is messy kitchen benches and muddy paw prints on my rug. It is a place where I feel connected to my community, safe and secure, a place where I feel at peace.

I know I'm lucky because I know that not everyone has the same meaning for home that I do. And I know that some people don't have a meaning for home at all. The reality is that it's becoming harder and harder for many people to have a home. And part of the reason for this is that a home needs a house or an apartment. In order for the comfort, security, and shelter to actually be there, you do need the physical bricks and mortar.

And in Australia, over the past 20 years, houses have increasingly become objects of speculative investment rather than the safe spaces they were intended to be. My childhood home is a place of memories-- in my mind, a safe space. To a landlord, it's merely $800 a week.

This fundamental change in the way that we view housing didn't happen by accident. It has been a result of a deliberate policy driving Australia since before the turn of the century to only encourage us to forget the social value of housing and focus purely on its economic benefits. When the government of the time introduced new favourable tax incentives called negative gearing that allowed tax write-offs for anyone who invested in housing, it became ridiculously easy to turn houses into investments without any thought or care for the serious implications that it would have down the line.

In fact, taxpayers investing in housing doubled from 1993 to 2003, all whilst home-ownership rates continued to fall. These impacts are not affecting no one. There is a very human side to all of this. As investors chase the dollar, real people are getting hurt. Poor and middle-income families are being displaced from not only the so-called prime locations but most neighbourhoods across Australia.

Real people, like the young Bankstown resident who asked how he would find somewhere affordable for him and his pregnant wife to live, will be forced to live on the streets, he declared to the ABC. This is the sad truth. Investors have little interest in real people. What is real for them is the return on their investment.

People don't have as much value as money to them. And it seems that our governments often believe this too. Money over memories, investments over livelihoods, and, quite frankly, the rich over the poor. I'm not going to stand here and pretend that solving the housing crisis is easy. It's not. It's a complicated problem, and with that comes a solution that will need action on multiple fronts.

But there are some simple steps that could be the start of a solution. According to the 2021 census, over 10% of Australian houses are empty. That is more than 1 million empty houses across Australia without any tenants in them, a million empty houses that could be playing such a vital role in the housing market, either as homes to be bought or rented or provided as social and affordable housing if only they weren't being used selfishly as money makers.

This is exactly why we need a vacancy tax here in Australia, to make property owners with an empty property pay a levy to help disincentivise them from keeping their property off the rental market. This has been implemented in Canada, where it has shown substantial positive impacts on the housing crisis there. Why isn't it implemented here?

It's a technical policy. I'm not going to lie. But it's built on a simple premise. The place we should start is by going back to valuing houses as homes-- not assets for investment, not commodities, but homes. If you start with this premise, then it sets your moral compass right to help you work out all the other steps in this complicated solution, the complicated solution that we, as a country, so desperately need.

[double bell ring]

I like words. I like how our words can be powerful. Even a little word, like 'home', has the power to change a narrative, a narrative that ensures everyone gets to be able to think about home in the way that I do.

[applause]

ROWAN MYERS: Divyan Gnanasivam is this morning's fifth speaker. He is a student at Fort Street High School, and his speech is called 'To Believe or to Not Believe'. Please welcome Divyan.

DIVYAN GNANASIVAM: Expelliarmus, wingardium leviosa-- with a flick of my small 8-year-old fingers holding a random stick found lying in the garden, I can make anything happen-- well, at least in my imagination. I can shush my dear old brother. I could even make my teddy, hidden in a dark, dingy closet, talk. It brought me so much joy to pretend that I could wish away anything that went wrong. Make believe was my life.

Three years later, on January 6, 2021, my idealised world crashed into reality as I watched the news in horror as thousands stormed the US Capitol. This was an unruly protest. It was a full-on attack on democracy by people who thought they knew the truth. Who could have thought that a simple lie of letter by an election loser, Donald Trump, and amplified by the media could change the way people thought?

Worryingly, we are now facing a global march against the truth that is endangering not only the foundations of democratic systems but our health and way of life. The independent press, so critical to countering this torrent of misinformation, unfortunately, is failing. On one side, autocratic leaders in countries from Hungary to India are muzzling their free press to control what their citizens can see and hear.

In Hungary, for example, government-aligned entities now control over 80% of the country's media, more akin to North Korea than a democratic EU country. On the other, malevolent actors are using social media to manipulate the public with conspiracy theories. Much of this disinformation is succeeding by playing on people's deep-seated prejudices, such as racism, homophobia, and distrust of government.

Sitting here in the Domain Theatre within a successful multicultural democracy, we are not immune from these dangers. With over 60% of Australian media controlled by Lachlan Murdoch's News Corp and the rest by a few major players, we have some of the most concentrated media markets in the world. In this environment, the ideological biases and financial interests of our media moguls is often taking precedence over fair reporting.

Just as bad, our mainstream media, fearful of appearing biassed, has fallen into the lazy trap of bothsidesism, that is, report both sides of every issue as if they are equally valid. The reporting in the run-up to last Saturday's referendum on the Voice to Parliament was a perfect example of media's bothsidesism. The Voice was intended to be purely an advisory body to government on issues affecting our Indigenous peoples, how the no campaign flooded us with so much disinformation as, just as intended, confused so many.

We were told that, for example, that by voting yes, you could lose your land under Indigenous land claims or that we would have to pay reparations. No mention of how an advisory body could achieve such outcomes when Parliament would have the ultimate say. Much of this could have been critically analysed and dispatched by media. But instead, in trying to appear neutral, they just amplified it.

The steep drop in support from yes in polls from over 67% to just under 40% in the past 12 months was, in no small part, driven by the disinformation propagated through our media. Sadly, that success will only encourage such tactics in the future. Although none of you are likely to be attending a Trump rally anytime soon, you may be wondering how you can avoid being hoodwinked by such misinformation.

It will be easy for me to stand here and tell you to be a more discerning consumer of news, know your sources, understand the motivations, beware of sensational stories. But the fight against misinformation needs to start in our schools. Let's take a page from Finland and Estonia, which have embedded media literacy in their K to 12 school curriculum, where students are taught about disinformation and propaganda. As a result, Finland has now been rated the European country most resistant to fake news.

Similarly, our curriculum needs to evolve to teach skills in critical thinking and to provide the tools to differentiate between truth and falsities. For example, in maths, teach explicitly how statistics can be used to mislead; in art, how an image's meaning can be manipulated, particularly in this age of deepfakes; in history, how propaganda was used by the Nazis to brainwash their population. There's learning to be had across almost every subject.

Further, hours of civics and citizenship syllabus should be broadened to all year levels, with special focus on how misinformation can be used to undermine societal harmony and our democracy. Although it is every child's dream to cast a spell that will make their math textbooks disappear, I've learned to appreciate reality for what it is and not what others make it out to be. Hope you'll do the same.

[applause]

ROWAN MYERS: The sixth contestant this morning is Eliza Hayes, who is representing Cambridge Park High School. Her speech is titled 'For Steven'. Please welcome Eliza to the stage.

[applause]

ELIZA HAYES: We all appreciate a bouquet of flowers and the florists who create them. We all acknowledge the courage and concentration of our coaches. We all admire our teachers, who inspire innovative ideas. Yet when a dear friend is desperately short on insulin, or when we are lying helplessly on the footpath, clenching the left side of our chest, or when you're a toddler who swallows a real 2-dollar coin, wishing it was a chocolate one, like me, who do we need in these moments?

Not a florist, not a coach, not a teacher but a trained paramedic-- our front-line workers, the people who hold our social fabric together, putting themselves in harm's way in their pursuit of safety for all.

As someone who is passionate about health care, someone who was close friends chasing a career as a front-line worker, a story that has continued to resonate with me was that of Steven Tougher, the 29-year-old Australian paramedic who was tragically killed as he innocently enjoyed his lunch break, sitting in the back of his ambulance in a McDonald's parking lot. Tougher lost his life at 5:30 pm, April 14, 2023, after being stabbed multiple times by the alleged assailant, who has since been charged with murder.

This tragedy has prompted people from all pockets of Australia to unite in their grief. Aussies flocked to place tokens of remembrance at the site of Steven's death, including Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, who paid solemn tribute to Steven. Steven's story is a prime example of why some may ask, are health-care workers actually safe? A study from the National Library of Medicine showed rates of physical violence at 20.8%, verbal violence at 66.8%, and reports of sexual harassment against health-care workers at 10.5%.

The reports reflect that this violence is perpetuated by patients, their visitors, including family members or friends. In the wake of Steven's death and with the birth of his daughter, Lily-Mae Stevie Tougher, only weeks thereafter, his family came together to leave yet another legacy behind. And thus Steven's Law was born. This law aims to legislate further protection of front-line workers in Tougher's name. The law proposes mandatory prison terms for any individual who assaults a front-line worker.

I, too, would appeal for extreme penalties if I had a loved one stolen from me. However, mandatory sentencing has been shown to disproportionately harm the disadvantaged. The Law Council of Australia has stated that mandatory sentences result in harsh and unjust punishments due to the complex real-life circumstances surrounding each criminal act and that there is a paucity of evidence as to their effectiveness when it comes to their ability to deter or reduce crime.

Of course, the proposed law is merely a starting point, a work in progress that needs to be refined to broaden its inclusivity and effectiveness. When looking for solutions to any serious challenge, education is pivotal. It is imperative. It is at the very foundations.

Our school's community-engagement program involves regular visits from our police youth-liaison officer. Seeing Officer Steve interacting and explaining his vital role repairs any misconceptions and, consequently, builds rapport with young people. A similar approach adopted by all front-line workers could see a cultural shift in attitudes towards front-line staff that will later translate to better treatment.

In addition to the best prevention, protection is what is needed to keep front-line workers safe. Hospital emergency departments have security guards to keep health-care staff safe. With ambulances, essentially, mobile emergency departments, shouldn't we have protection for mobile workers to align with their hospital-based colleagues?

Further, ambulance staff currently do not wear any extensive protection. And yet, most emergency health-care procedures can be performed while wearing vests and other safety equipment. These are just 2 examples of proactive measures that could easily be adopted in the short term to help protect those who protect us. And when it comes to social issues, awareness equals action.

Jeff Tougher, Steven Tougher's father, has created an online petition. We know that in NSW, e-petitions that are signed by 20,000 or more persons are to be scheduled for debate by the members of Parliament in the legislative assembly. If you are interested in helping me support the adoption of a revised Steven's Law, go to change.org and add your name to thousands of others who wish to protect our front-line workers.

Protection, education, and awareness are strategies to move beyond mere tokens of acknowledgment and gratitude. But there is no display of thanks greater than the protection of a front-line worker's life. In the press conference following Tougher's death, his father responded to the public's offers of support in his comment. People ask me if there's anything I need.

Well, there is. I need your voice. I need you to back me in a bid to advocate for stronger laws to protect these people who serve the community with such passion and dedication. I would like to respond to Jeff Tougher and his family by standing in firm solidarity with them, by advocating for not only Steven's Law but extensive protection of our front-line workers-- for our safety, for their safety, for Steven.

[applause]

ROWAN MYERS: This morning's seventh speaker is Abby Peterson-Hampshire from Terrigal High School. And the subject of her speech is 'Standards That Kill'. Please welcome Abby.

[applause]

ABBY PETERSON-HAMPSHIRE: She stared lovingly at her soon-to-be husband, but the audience were fixated on her, how her dress clung tightly to her newly slimmed figure as she made her way down the aisle-- sharp, hollow, alarmingly small, but nonetheless a far-more attractive figure in the eyes of her guests than just a few months ago. She had shed off the weight just as she she'd told everyone she would, just as her stylist and that blog post she read soon after she got engaged had advised her. What if I told you that this woman had spent the most part preparing for what was meant to be the happiest day of her life attached to a medical tube? And each week, she took the same medication, promised to take the weight right off.

Late last year, I came across an article in the 'New York Post' stating that heroin chic is back. For those unfamiliar with the term, heroin chic refers to the trend of the '90s fashion industry that encouraged pale skin and an incredibly thin, unhealthy physique associated with the abuse of drugs such as heroin. Models would smoke and use drugs to maintain the standard that, after almost 3 decades, we will have surely left behind. Yet, somehow, we continue circling back to these trends, diminishing so much of the work done to encourage self-love and inclusivity.

Possibly most disturbing of all are some of the weight-loss methods being used that are taking life-saving medical resources from those who need it most. Inserted through the stomach or the nose, tube feeding is a therapy designed for patients who cannot get the nutrients that they need by eating. They are life-saving medical equipment for thousands of patients, many who suffer through agonising conditions. Patients often wait months or even years to receive tubes due to waiting lists and will generally go through unimaginable treatments before even reaching that stage.

Now we come to the ketogenic internal diet, an apparent holistic-wellness trend marketed largely towards brides so that they can lose weight without cheating, by being fed through a nasogastric tube, a drip of protein, fat, and water. The person is to be hooked up for 10 days, consuming 300 to 800 calories per day, an inadequate amount of energy for any grown adult by a mile. Risks include fatal starvation, infection, and severe metabolic damage.

As I mentioned, the diet is most largely targeted towards brides. This concept of shedding for the wedding is most prominently encouraged by the idea that women must change themselves to appear more attractive for a partner. There are numerous weight-loss schemes targeted towards brides, like juice cleanses, pills, and shakes, accompanied by an industry known to shame women and ask inappropriate questions around their weight.

Both, industries and the media push the narrative that you must be thin to earn love, to be good enough, and to be valued on your wedding day. Sadly, the feeding-tube diet is not the only weight-loss scheme that uses essential medical resources. Recently, there has been an influx of celebrities using the drug Ozempic, which is used to treat diabetics' blood-glucose levels. Since the Food and Health Administration approved its use for chronic obesity, we have seen this rise in its use for people's lifestyle purposes.

As a result, there is a worldwide shortage of Ozempic, and this is something that the Therapeutic Goods Administration can't control because they don't have the power to regulate the clinical decisions of health-care professionals. If diabetics are left without their medication, it can be fatal. The use of essential medical equipment for unnecessary weight loss is both incredibly disrespectful to those who do and a danger to them. And if people are willing to take life-saving resources from those who need it to fit a beauty standard, where does it end?

To quote Dr David L. Katz, an American physician and specialist in preventative medicine, 'Why not chemotherapy-induced nausea or anorexia for weight loss? If you don't need a medical condition for a nasogastric tube, why should cancer be a requirement for chemotherapy? Why not a medically induced coma or anaesthesia for weight loss?' So what are our solutions?

Late last month, the TGA advised that health-care professionals do not prescribe Ozempic to patients unless there is no suitable other option. Although, unfortunately, it has taken such extreme shortages for the change to be implemented, it's the first step in ensuring medical equity for so many patients. As for tubes, we need better government regulation of the establishments that are allowed to administer them so that only essential patients can receive tubing.

Ultimately, our best option is going to be stricter enforcement that relies on both diagnosis and prescription for both medication and equipment. This may also include more severe penalties from the TGA. Additionally, we need the further funding towards ongoing ethical training for health-care professionals so that they can make better moral judgments and decisions.

Harsher broad media guidelines around harmful content need to be put in place. And furthermore, in order to tackle body-image issues, we need to roll out more relevant and up-to-date lessons for primary- and high-school students that show the latest information around eating disorders, fads, harmful media, and cosmetic treatments.

Now, let's return to our wedding. Later that day, all eyes were on our bride once again as she was carefully guided through seemingly endless rows of perfectly presented reception tables, as graceful and dignified as one could be covered upon a rigid patient trolley. It took paramedics a little time to determine swift medical intervention for an acute case of peritonitis, a stomach infection brought on by the prolonged, unskilled, and unnecessary usage of nasogastric tubing.

Treatment? Antibiotics and, ironically, a feeding tube that just so happened to be unavailable. Thank you.

[applause]

ROWAN MYERS: That concludes the prepared-speech section of the 2023 state final.

Welcome back to the impromptu-speech section of the Legacy Junior Public 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 speeches with a warning bell at 1.5 minutes, 2 bells at 2 minutes, and a continuous bell should the speaker's speech exceed 3 minutes. The subject for this year's impromptu speeches will be 'A Vicious Cycle'. Please welcome back Murphy Xi.

[applause]

MURPHY XI: On the 17th of July in 1971, then-President Richard Nixon stepped forward onto a microphone and delivered a speech that would change the course of recent history. It was during this speech that he declared drugs public enemy-number one and declared war on them. And this is considered to be the pivotal moment where American policy and opinions toward drug use and abuse changed, shifting from demand reduction to supply reduction.

This was a big problem because by shifting views from demand reduction, which was aimed at reducing the demand of drugs, into supply reduction, which aimed to cut off the supply of drugs altogether, it left users that were currently on drugs in existing cycles that were damaging, but it kept people addicted, which caused them to lose familial connections, friends, et cetera, all whilst we know that the war on drugs hasn't had much success.

This is a huge issue because people on drugs have lots of things to lose. They lose familial connections. They lose their friends. They lose their social life. And this is something that is extremely problematic because once people start on drugs, they are often hooked into a vicious cycle that is hard to break without any rehabilitation or demand reduction measures.

This is why the solution to such an issue is simple. We need to put our focus back from supply reduction into demand reduction, where we are able to rehabilitate users on the hard effects of drugs and what they can do to break out of the cycle because it's not that drug users are any different to the rest of us. They're human, as we all are. They have flaws. But they were just raised differently in different socioeconomic statuses that caused them to go into addiction.

Therefore, the solution is to educate them, educate them that there are ways of life without drugs and without being addicted to drugs. Educate them that drugs are bad and have harmful effects on not only their own connections but their own lives because this is the only way we can break the vicious cycle of drug addiction, drug use and abuse for the better. Thank you. [applause]

ROWAN MYERS: Please welcome back Poppy Cheek.

[applause]

POPPY CHEEK: The first ad to depict menstrual blood on TV was in 2017 in the UK. The first ad in Australia was in 2019. That's almost 150 years of period ads without showing blood.

That blatant misrepresentation of periods in ads, along with more misrepresentation, causes more period stigma, which creates more ads like that, and all results in a vicious cycle. And it's not just blood that they don't show in period ads.

Periods are a time when women don't feel like doing much, with the cramps, bloating, with fatigue, everything. And yet they consistently show women doing high-intensity exercise, swimming in no pain, wearing white after just putting in a tampon. Let's face it, nothing's that leakage proof.

This vicious cycle of misrepresentation, causing more ads like this and stigma, makes women feel so horrible about their period. Imagine someone who has absolutely horrible cramps, has taken the day off work, and is watching TV only to see an ad like this come on. She may think, oh, well, if these women are doing all this, then I'm not doing enough on my period. I should just push through the pain and ignore it.

But this isn't what should be happening. We shouldn't be normalising women's pain like this. We should be acknowledging it and giving them options for help and not further stigmatising periods. We need to-- companies also need to stop taking down ads that depict blood and inappropriate language with period ads so that we can stop this vicious cycle of misrepresentation. We need to normalise periods, period.

[applause]

ROWAN MYERS: Please welcome back Benjamin Oraham.

[applause]

BENJAMIN ORAHAM: Life can sometimes be repetitive. It's filled with countless cycles and repetitions. You go to school, you take some notes, you go through 5 lessons, and you come back home. Then you do your homework, you sleep, and that cycle repeats. While these sorts of cycles can be beneficial, helping us-- can help educate us for the world, some of them aren't so good. They can be devastating and have shocking impacts.

They can be vicious, unfair, and cruel. And the only way to solve this is by intervening with these cycles. You have to work together to stop these devastating cycles. And a very good example of a very vicious cycle that's been going on for quite some time is the Matildas. Especially after the Women's World Cup, they did amazingly, gaining $480 million for the Australian economy, inspiring a generation of young girls, inspiring the entire country of Australia, turning it into a soccer nation, and beating Cathy Freeman's Australian view record on TV.

But there was one issue that the Matildas are constantly facing and are constantly fighting for that needs to be resolved now-- acknowledgment and equal pay in women's sports. This is a constant and vicious cycle that they are facing every single year and all the time. They do amazing in a World Cup, for instance, and then they fight for equal pay or acknowledgment, but then they get ignored, with Albanese recently not changing his stance on increasing women's pay in sports.

This is a massive issue. They are booking out seats in stadiums for the Olympics qualifiers. And do you really think $84 million is enough to help them progress and develop in this rapidly changing sport? This is an example of a really devastating, vicious, and cruel cycle that is unfair. They want to progress and become a better and stronger team, yet they are restricted.

So sometimes we have to intervene with these devastating cycles as they are not always good, and they are not always beneficial. They can have devastating and detrimental effects, whether it's something personal, like in school, or something major, like on the world's biggest stage. These are issues that need resolving. These are issues that vicious cycle has to end. Thank you.

[applause]

ROWAN MYERS: Please welcome back Matilda Webb.

[applause]

MATILDA WEBB: In primary school, the most-feared thing for my entire year group, not only my friend group, was a suspension. We were even more scared of getting this disciplinary action than we were missing out on a handball square at lunchtime. Days off, away from friends with punishment, was truly the worst thing in the world that we could ever imagine to happen to us. Luckily, none of my friends ever got one.

But the vicious cycle that is primary-school behavioural management affects so many students across Australia. Suspensions as the primary form of management is a vicious cycle, disproportionately affecting students with a disability, experiencing out-of-home care, or those who have simply had a suspension before. It is a cycle of punishment that, unfortunately, does not equal help being achieved for these students.

It feeds resentment against school and the entire schooling system, leading to more adverse behaviour and, therefore, disciplinary action. It goes round and round in circles for their entire schooling life-- a cycle, a vicious one. It is time that Australia recognises this cycle and those that it affects most across this country. And it's time that we make a drastic change in behavioural management for our education system.

I propose prevention but not a cure. We need the vicious cycles that is suspensions to be avoided. We need to recognise the risk markers in students, such as illiteracy delay or a lack of emotional regulation, and aim to fix these issues by providing help and support from trained professionals such as counsellors, therapists, or further learning support. We need to prevent this vicious cycle from occurring and actually recognise the students who are at risk most in our primary schools across Australia. Thank you.

[applause]

ROWAN MYERS: Please welcome back Divyan Gnanasivam.

[applause]

DIVYAN GNANASIVAM: Waking up with night sweats-- bang, bang. Can't get the horrible thoughts out of my mind-- the limbs without a body, the blank stare from a decaying corpse, the screaming child holding onto their lifeless mother. It's better to die than swimming in this pool of guilt and despair. This is the story of many a soldier that have returned from the front lines of war, like Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

Many of them have gone through a vicious cycle of glorified service, horrors that are unspeakable, and, eventually, PTSD. But do we ever talk about this? For many of us who are trapped in our suburban gardens and daily routines, these rarely enter our consciousness. The endless ADF recruitment ads and Hollywood movies portray a romanticised view of war-- muscular men with big guns shooting the bad guys and saving their victims.

But the traumas faced by many of these soldiers on return from war in the form of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, or PTSD, is seldom spoken, almost like wanting it wished away. According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, there were over 1,200 suicides among veterans from 2001 to '19, clearly, a crisis that has triggered the current Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide.

PTSD requires years of therapy, and this vicious cycle continues under our breath. It's not just the PTSD. Veterans find it hard to resettle into normal life because we simply don't know about this. So how do we crack this vicious cycle? First, we need to do whatever possible to avoid sending our soldiers into battle. As former US president Jimmy Carter once remarked, war may sometimes be a necessary evil, but no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good.

Secondly, we need to educate the public more openly about PTSD so they can be understanding and help these war heroes settle back into life. Employers should also be incentivised to employ ex-soldiers, as stable jobs can offer a therapeutic alternative to drinking, for example, which will further exacerbate their PTSD.

And third, the armed forces should invest more in psychological care within combat teams so that these soldiers can cope better rather than waiting on their return home. War has been seen as something too positive for too long. But when there are issues, these people are silent. The Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide is a step in the right direction, but we need to do more. This vicious cycle cannot go on for any longer.

[applause]

ROWAN MYERS: Please welcome back Eliza Hayes.

[applause]

ELIZA HAYES: It's harsh. It's cruel. It's constant. It's a vicious cycle. I'm sure that many over the weekend wanted to break what they deemed a vicious cycle with their vital vote in the referendum. But you know whose voice was missing from that important vote, that important decision that will affect these people the longest? Our youth. That's whose voice was missing. The simple solution to this pressing matter, lowering the voting age.

To ease the harsh reality, let's remember that the American Academy of Paediatrics showed that over the past 100 years, the onset age of puberty has decreased by 4 years to only 10 and 1/2. That's so young. Not only that, but in Australia, children can work at any age, meaning they're contributing to tax, but they don't get a say in where that money goes, what it's utilised for? No.

At the age of 14, a child is held accountable for their actions by the law, meaning that they can be convicted for a crime. At the age of 16, one can choose to become independent for their own health and safety. At the age of 17, you can drive on the road with a licence independently, meaning that you are responsible for your life and the lives of others.

Let's finally break the cycle by remembering that 50 years ago in Australia, we lowered the voting age from 21 to 18. And 15 years ago in Austria, they took it a step further and lowered the voting age to 18, meaning their voices were heard earlier.

Not only the Australian government has an Office for Youth that aims to share the voice of our youth with Parliament, meaning that they get to be heard, but that's through a filter. We need to be getting those who are politically active and those involved in school SRCs to be campaigning to the Australian government Office for Youth to lower the voting age, to get our voices heard, to finally destroy this pressing issue. So yes, it's harsh, it's cruel, and it's constant, but we can break this vicious cycle.

[applause]

ROWAN MYERS: Please welcome back Abby Peterson-Hampshire.

[applause]

ABBY PETERSON-HAMPSHIRE: Six young children, ranging from teens to babies, known famously on YouTube as the Frank family, run under their mother, Ruby Frank. It was late last month when a report came out that she had been abusing her children, both physically and psychologically. This was found out by a child who had climbed over into a neighbour's house, completely starved, begging for food after being abused by their mother.

These children had been forced to create content for their parents so that they could gain money and continue this vicious cycle of child exploitation online. The first reason that these parents are doing this and exploiting their children for views is because there is money involved. TikTok and YouTube, they often pay directly, especially in America. They pay directly for views. So it doesn't matter what kind of views they're getting. As long as they're getting views, they continue this vicious cycle of parents using their children as content to be able to make money.

There are some really horrid examples that we see in the line of child exploitation. One of the really, really horrible ones that we have seen a lot is parents using babies as content. And if you look at the saves on those kinds of videos, where there are parent-- where they're parent-run accounts of children eating fruit, in particular, the amount of saves and the people that follow them is so disturbing that you wonder, how on earth are these parents allowing this to happen to their children?

And the reason is because there is money, and there is fame for them involved. And one of the really big players in this is these YouTuber families who use these lifestyle and family tips and make it seem like they are really amazing parents and family as content. But in fact, they are continuing this vicious cycle of child exploitation online and where these kids, they now have a digital footprint that they will never be able to change, they didn't have a say in.

So what are our solutions? The first one is to get rid of the money involved and, potentially, just for content that involves children. TikTok, and YouTube, and all these other social-media platforms need to implement change where they don't pay people who use their children as content directly. And we also need to implement rules around when children are actually allowed to be online. For example, in France, if any child says that they don't want to be a part of content, the parent can't make them be in that content.

And overall, maybe we might need-- with an advanced age of technology and with all of this development, we might need to make blanket rules around, well, at this point, it is too dangerous for kids to be online; they can't be online at all. And there are plenty of other options of creators who make content around children and growing up that don't involve actually using children, which is really important. And the reason that kids are part of this and the reason that it is such a problem is that it is appealing to kids, continuing this vicious cycle.

[applause]

ROWAN MYERS: Please welcome back Gemma Hobson.

[applause]

GEMMA HOBSON: I sit in the living room, eyes transfixed on my TV, flames and smoke filling the tiny screen. I open my phone with dread for fear of getting that post, you know, the strangled sea turtle, stranded whale, landscapes devastated by floods, fires, all fueled by climate change.

It's a vicious cycle, filled with despair, depression, and hopelessness. It's called eco-anxiety. Eco-anxiety is this new mental disorder that revolves around despair or feelings of isolation about the environmental state of the planet. It can affect all people, especially those who've recently experienced traumatic climate events.

But surely it's a good thing, right? If people are anxious about something, they're more likely to help. They're more likely to get out of bed and do their bit. Right? No. Hopelessness breeds apathy. People are less likely to help solve a solution if they don't feel like it can be solved. So what can we do? How can we stop eco-anxiety?

We need more good news, positive climate news. We need to show the change, the difference that we are all making. We need to show that it isn't impossible, that, for a young generation, for all of the generations to rise together, and to help stop eco-anxiety in climate change.

For example, Europe just passed the first carbon tariff. We're closer than ever to reaching net zero. There are more electric cars on the planet. Environments are rebounding. We need to show this positive side of what we're doing, that we're making a difference, because this will have a positive effect on all of us.

Let's be eco-ignited, not eco-anxious. Let's get out of bed, turn on the telly, and see the good news that we've created by believing in ourselves and our abilities to make a change, make a difference in our world for everyone. Thank you.

[applause]

ROWAN MYERS: Ladies and gentlemen, that concludes the impromptu-speech section of today's final. Please now welcome a representative of the adjudication panel to deliver the adjudication and announce the results of the 2023 Legacy Junior Public Speaking Award.

[applause]

CHARLEE JANE: So the adjudication panel would like to extend our congratulations to all speakers on a very, very high-quality final. So just another round of applause for our fantastic speakers.

[applause]

Of course, that's to be expected. This is a state final. So very well done. I say this at every public-speaking competition when I deliver an adjudication. And I think it's important to reiterate that, really, legacy, plain English, multicultural perspectives, it's not about winning the competition. What it really is about is giving students the chance to stand up in front of an audience. And they've spoken to a very wide audience, from the local finals all the way till now.

And it's about spreading the message about important issues, and it's about changing minds. And I think that every single speaker in today's state final has done a really fantastic job persuading their audience. So very well done. So the adjudication panel, we judge speakers based on 3 basic criteria. We have manner, matter, and then method.

So a few notes on manner for today. So this was quite a difficult space in terms of the projection of voice. And I think that the hallmarks of a really good public speaker is one that can cater to their space. So just a few tips to take into future competitions is to make sure that we are not only projecting our voice but also not tapering off our sentences towards the end, because we need to be able to hear. And we need to be able to hear vowels and consonants in your sentences, so making sure that we are articulating effectively and catering to that space by not tapering off our sentences.

But manner, obviously, isn't the most important part of the public-speaking competition. Really, the crux comes to matter and method. So I'll start with matter. That's what we're speaking about.

When it comes to deciding what to speak about, speakers need to think, why should my audience care? So it's not only an informative speech about a particular issue. They have to try and make the audience empathise with the speaker and with the people that they're speaking about, so making sure we're thinking about how the audience should care about that particular issue.

It's also important to incorporate policy solutions that can involve the audience a little bit more so the audience doesn't feel as disconnected from the solution. That way, it's more persuasive than informative, and it's focused on changing people's minds because it puts that solution into the hands of the audience.

In terms of method, I think that all speakers smashed it on the method front today with some really engaging introductions that flowed nicely into the body of their speech and then some really fantastic solutions. It is always important to involve a solution in public speaking so that the audience has a takeaway from your speech and so that it doesn't sound like a lecture.

So the impromptu section is judged on the same criteria as the prepared. And it's important to note that the impromptu section is equally weighted to the prepared section. For today's topic, a vicious cycle-- and we chose a difficult one to challenge our speakers-- there were some speeches that kind of almost had a cheeky sleight of hand. They made something a vicious cycle when it really wasn't.

So if you have to jam the phrase 'vicious cycle' into the first 2 sentences of your speech to make it really obvious to the adjudicators that you're using the topic, then what you're speaking about is probably a little bit far removed from the stimulus. So you can't just top and tail your speech with the topic of the impromptu. It needs to be the title of your speech, nicely incorporated throughout, that really spoke about a vicious cycle.

So now I'll announce the runner up and the winner. I'm sure you're all very nervous. We've all been in your position before. So the runner up for today's Legacy state final provided a very well-researched topic and was really good at explaining complex technical ideas in a very accessible way.

It was also fairly impromptu. It was very well-suited to the topic and one of the best spins on the topic that we saw in today's state final about the war on drugs. So congratulations to Murphy Xi with 'Unlocking Financial Freedom'.

[applause]

And now, last but not least, the winner of today's state final. So when it comes to talking about economics, it can often be quite boring, and it's difficult to show the human side of things. But this particular speaker did a fantastic job of putting the audience into the shoes of the people that she was speaking about, really showed that human connection to the topic.

There was also a fantastic balance between that persuasive element of the speech and also the informative. And she also provided very novel and nuanced solutions to the issue. For the impromptu, it was a very smart use of the vicious cycles topic, and she provided a fantastic solution. So congratulations to our state winner, Matilda Webb, with 'Money or Memories'.

[applause]

Awesome. Thank you so much to our wonderful speakers.

[applause]

ROWAN MYERS: Once again, congratulations to both Murphy and Matilda. Both speakers will now travel to Adelaide in November in order to represent NSW at the national final.

[applause]

JUSTINE CLARKE: Thank you, everyone. And congratulations to Murphy and Matilda. As Rowan said, I think you'll be very worthy representatives of NSW at the Adelaide national final. I want to say a big thank you to Rowan and Eloise for looking after us so well today.

[applause]

And a final thank you for supporting public speaking in our schools. And with that, the 2023 final is concluded. Have a lovely afternoon.

[applause]