CHRISOVALANTI CHINDILAS: Each speaker may speak for eight minutes. There will be a warning bell at six minutes with two bells at eight minutes to indicate that a speaker's time has expired. A bell will be rung continuously if a speaker exceeds the maximum time by more than one minute.

The topic for today's debate is that corporations in the developing world should be allowed to hire children in return for providing them with an education.

The first affirmative speaker, Arabella De Nett, will begin the debate.

ARABELLA DE NETT: [inaudible]. The topic for this debate is that corporations in the developing world should be allowed to hire children in return for providing them with an education. We define this as corporations being major businesses, which under the Australian business definition, is one with over 200 employees in the developing world, being third world countries with low levels of human development, such as the African nations, Cambodia, Indonesia, et cetera, should be allowed to hire, meaning to employ the labour of children, school aged 6 to 18 years in return for providing them with an education.

We have defined children as 6 to 18 years as although technically you're a child from birth to 18, until you're around six years old and school aged, logistically, you're unable to be an active member to society, especially to contribute to the workforce as you haven't developed enough skills yet. And we don't feel that children under this age would be a part in this scenario as they aren't of a mature age to receive an education, even in a first world country like Australia, where kindergarten starts at six years old.

When we look at this topic as a whole, we can see that the status quo is unsatisfactory. Under the status quo, we know we have large corporations and TNCs, like Nike, Bonds, et cetera, offshoring their operations from countries like Australia to the developing world at increasing rates.

Why is this? Well, these are countries where laws aren't as strict, where governments are corrupt, and there are endless cycles of poverty and exploitation, especially of children. Endless cycles of decades upon decades of families where children have to work long hours, forgo a childhood, to provide hard and dangerous labour to greedy corporations for a pittance to support their families. And why in the 21st century do we still have these cycles occurring more and more with more and more corporations offshoring, because they have no access to an education or any opportunity to break this cycle?

This is where our model comes in. Under our model, in these developing countries, school age children being hired by large corporations must be rewarded with both a wage for their labour and an education. We deem this to be viable as these corporations' operation cost will still be significantly lower than operating in a first world country, as these multi-million dollar corporations are paying less than $1 a day, and adding a few dollars a day from these corporations to include an education will not significantly impact the profits of these corporations and will not disincentives the operation in these countries, as it is still overall cheaper than in the first world.

At the end of the day, the truth is that our model will lead to both increasing levels of education and a decreasing rate of child labour in these third world countries as these children can grow up to move on to greater careers and break the cycle for their future, which will lead to more stable governments, et cetera, and a better world as a whole, which fills the gap in the status quo where we are currently seeing the exploitation and the low levels of human well-being.

Today, I will be discussing this on the issues of the unsatisfactory level of the status quo and the benefits of education in today's debates. My second speaker will further this on the interest of the corporations, and our third speaker, Cooper, will sum up our case.

Firstly, onto my point regarding the unsatisfactory level of the status quo. Under the status quo, we have many current harms. Firstly, we have children being exploited regardless of the laws in these countries, because as we know, the governments are unstable and are unable to control the people and the riots, et cetera, happening in these countries.

This means that these children become-- and another harm, are trapped in unsafe working environments where they are forced to support their families because they don't have access to an education. And this becomes a cycle that we need to break. And they don't have a future without this education.

Another harm is they're being forced into these industries to support their families, where the cycle continues, because their parents haven't had access to an education, so they can't receive a high level job or a higher wage. And this is why the solution is under our model corporations should offer an education, because currently as we see children being exploited regardless of the laws. Therefore, the only way to get them out of the situation is to enforce laws on something that we can regulate, which are these large transnational corporations to give these children an education, as well as a wage in return for their labour.

Because at the end of the day, enforcing child labour laws doesn't work in these countries or we wouldn't have child labour. It would happen anyway, as we see.

And in the past decade, the World Health Organisation has exposed countless children caught in vicious and permanent cases of child employment. One example is the discovery of an 11-year-old boy working in a copper mine in Kenya. If this boy were to have been educated through the corporation he worked for, he could potentially break out of the cycle and seek higher employment, or even a higher skilled, higher paying job within the same corporation. And instead, he is trapped in this cycle and will most likely end up dying in the mine from unsafe working conditions, unsafe environments, because he doesn't have the education to escape to break the cycle. And then this becomes an intergenerational problem.

So another area under this point is the outcome that our model will have. Our model works to provide a solution for these harms. It provides a solution to child labour by giving them higher edu-- giving them an education. It increases education levels and improves the access to opportunities and employment that these workers-- these children workers will have.

It also reduces the harm of being trapped in this dangerous cycle, as it will improve the working standards in these countries overall. Because people can become trained in what they do and seek higher opportunities in these countries, in these corporations, which perhaps can lead them to overseas opportunities where they can become further qualified and return to their country to help set up new jobs and a safer environment where through our model this will occur.

Why other methods won't work. We can't legally enforce education or no child labour as we can see in these countries. We can't pressure the governments into enforcing this, because they can't even control their countries. They are currently unstable. And health and aid organisations, as we have tried, don't have enough power to make effective change in these. Therefore, the corporations who do have such power will be an effective avenue to pursue, as under our model, children can still support their families, but also receive an education at the same time, which will allow them to have more opportunities in the future, which steps in where current plans have failed.

And this leads me onto my second point of the benefit of education. Education is a right, and our model benefits those who can't support their children's education, which is the majority of these developing countries, which is why they are sent to work to support their families hard, long hours for the rest of their lives as they don't have the education to do anything better. This gives them the opportunity to break the status quo by them personally being able to seek higher employment where their parents have failed.

It all enables them to share their education and knowledge with their families. For instance, they will understand more ways to improve their way of life. For instance, like PD, they can learn first aid, how to properly dress a wound, or basic math to save money, how to communicate better in their language. And these kinds of skills can help to benefit the overall human well-being in these countries, improving mortality rates, improving life expectancy, et cetera.

It also has a generational effect. It provides hope for a better way of life and for these people to aspire to something more. It breaks the cycles as we've seen as these children can go into other areas and bring the knowledge to their families, and it improves the well-being of the countries in these scenarios.

It also has a global effect, reducing the world inequality, as these people who have an education can go into further roles and they can come back and work for their government, improve the governmental frameworks through new knowledge and increasing their stability.

They can also improve the living standards and the global relationships of these countries. And corporations will also have an incentive globally based on their reputation to be helping these children. And by sharing this new education to workers, as consumers, we are more likely to support these corporations, as we want to do our part to help. And by buying their products, it's giving them profit to help support the implementation of this education.

Therefore, at the end of the day, our model presents no new harms, and when implemented, the only possible outcome, if we don't do anything as negative team supports, we have no effect, and under the status quo, child labour will still exist. Therefore, our model is necessary to break the cycle and to decrease child labour as it stands.

Thank you.

CHRISOVALANTI CHINDILAS: The first speaker of the negative team, Gemma Hedayati, will begin their case.

GEMMA HEDAYATI: Ladies and gentlemen, the opposition are not solving anything through this model. Yes, children are already in child labour despite its illegality. What the opposition's model does is legitimise these companies that already use child labour, they encourage even more children to undertake child labour, and they provide these kids with a limited education in return for demanding exploitative physical labour. Companies have no right. We have to protect children.

The opposition has stood here today and presented a model that is effectively legitimising a practise we both agree is exploitative, morally wrong, and is evil. The opposition admits from the back that corporations are greedy. And on our side of the house, we see this, as there is going to be zero chance that corporations are going to be following rules, following the regulations that will be put in place with this model.

Because of this, we know that under their model, all current systems are just going to get worse. We're going to see more children getting employed. We're going to see worsening conditions of child labour. And as I will talk about in my substantive today, this is going to be a lose-lose situation for everyone involved.

The status quo does see children who are exploited, but this is regardless of the law. We agree, and we think this is why corporations are not going to follow any regulations set up by the affirmative today.

Children are exploited regardless of laws. However, offering no change in the laws is actually just legitimising this. It's justifying a practise that we all agree today is evil.

They presented in their model that this is going to allow children opportunity through education to break out of the cycle of poverty and inherently improve their own position in life and for future generations and for the development of their nation.

There are like four reasons why this is incorrect. First of all, companies are going to be exploiting children in things like manual labour, things like mining, things like manufacturing. This is going to create obviously a massive strain on little kids' bodies, six-year-olds, leading to injuries.

Second of all, we know that corporations have an incentive to not let people break out of the cycle of poverty. We know that corporations benefit from keeping people in poverty. So why would corporations want individuals to rise up?

And we think that it's very unlikely for children to be allowed to continue their education and that companies will encourage them to keep working for their education. Which leads me to the final reason why this is just totally incorrect. If an individual has been working at a place since they were six years old and the company asks them to stay, what is the likeliness that they will continue to rise up in the world? No. They're going to be stuck working at a corporation that exploits them for the rest of their life, which just enables the affirmative to keep individuals in poverty.

There's always going to be also more people doing the heavy labour positions than management. There's not going to be an opportunity for every child to rise up. And in fact, no children are going to be rising up in this model, as I've already proved.

And we think that, finally, they said that companies want to maintain a good reputation, therefore they don't want to be known for being exploitative. Well, we know for a fact that this is wrong, because literally so many corporations are in the news for using things like sweatshops for exploiting people, for paying people incredibly low wages, but individuals do not care. And they still continue to buy these products.

And because corporations are motivated by profit, we know that this is false. And companies do not care about their good reputation.

Today I'll present three points. First of all, why a child should never be forced to work for their own human right. Second of all, why child labour will rise under this model. And third of all, why free education goes down.

My second speaker will present why this awards corporations' increased power and why this is harmful.

So we know that education is a fundamental human right. And we believe that children should never be forced to work for this right. We think education is a fundamental human right, as it provides children with autonomy. It allows them to break out of this cycle of poverty. And we think that because it is such an incredibly massive power, it should always be free, and children should never be forced to have to do anything to gain this. We think that this is an inherent right that children should just have.

We think that education gives children a sense of purpose, increases their happiness, their personal development, and it is essential in having a good quality of life. This right is recognised internationally by bodies such as the UN, the Human Rights Commission, as necessary, because of the importance of education.

The opposition's model makes it such that children need to work in an exploitative, dangerous environment for a fundamental human right that everyone should have. And we think that this is just pure evil. It's exploitative. And it's just morally wrong on every single level.

Even if it benefits the child, which we've proven it doesn't, and which we'll continue to prove, the opposition is never going to be morally justified to implement this model in which kids as young as six years old are forced to work for a right that everyone should just be able to have.

Now, into my second argument of why child labour will actually rise under this model, which the affirmative has denied.

So first of all, we see that companies and corporations are always motivated by profit. Because of this, they will go to any lengths, such as sweatshops, where people work 17 hours a day, such as all the dangerous factories that have collapsed and burned down in the recent years, where hundreds of individuals died, such as like the high levels of suicide. And we see that corporations do not care about these damaging results, which ruin the lives of millions of people worldwide.

And this is the proof that corporations do not care about people. Corporations care about profit. And because you can literally see the evidence of this, why would this change under the opposition's model?

Corporations are already illegally using child labour. And the negative ramifications, such as like reputation or anything like that-- so because companies already use child labour, we think that-- illegally-- that there is not going to be an improvement for children. And it's just going to continue. And because it is legalised and justified, it's only going to become a lot worse.

And we think that because governments in developing nations don't have any control over the actions of corporations, even in the best situations of legality, this is never going to work out. Because corporations have such a high power in these nations, because they do create infrastructure, they create jobs, we think that the government has no power to say no. We think that the government cannot put in regulations for the safety of these workplaces.

And because of this massive danger that is presented, we think that this should never come into place. And we think that because the government has a very limited budget, we think that sending a child to school, they will accept this model that the opposition is presenting because they already have a stretched budget in which they cannot pay for educations for all students, which I will talk about later.

But we think that for corporations, sending a child to school, say, for 10 years is always going to be so much cheaper than paying an adult a living wage. So we think that because it's so much cheaper, of course, corporations are going to take up this opportunity. Corporations will be moving even more manufacturing centres offshore, like their first speaker said. And when this model is introduced, child labour is only going to rise because of all of these corporations moving their manufacturing centres offshore.

So we think that there's going to be a demand for more children in labour. So there's going to be more children working. And we think that this is like, first of all, horrible. But second of all, it's just going to be more children are going to be working and entering that cycle of poverty.

Corporations are never going to refuse this opportunity. And this is incredibly dangerous. We think that, finally, child labour, we know that this is bad, because children are in a greater position to be exploited, first of all, because they are not going to join a union. They don't understand their rights. And they can't consent to this work. They're in a young, precarious position. And we think that they're going to be-- at six years old, they're not going to be saying no to things.

They're going to be in bad positions-- mines, sweatshops-- working with dangerous machinery, which we know is bad for adults. How is it going to go with the child's body?

And the opposition wants to make children pay for the price of education with harmful dangerous labour, labour which can never be justified.

Onto my final point of why education, free education, will go down. We know that the government cannot provide this, and that NGOs, they will be more than happy to accept this proposition. We know that NGOs and charities, with this opposition are going to be much-- with this model-- sorry-- are going to be much less likely to invest in education because it's offered. But what price is it offered at? It's offered at an incredibly dangerous price. This means that all current effects to give free education are going to be gotten rid of, and it means that education will not be offered for free.

Under the opposition's model, they are exploiting children, and that is something we do not stand for.

CHRISOVALANTI CHINDILAS: The second affirmative speaker, Ben Nolan, will continue their case.

BEN NOLAN: The negative team today would have you believe that the status quo is better than the model we are proposing. And before I begin my case, I'd like to point out the flaws in this idea of the negative team's case.

So the first speaker of the negative team recognised that child labour does exist and its negative consequences, but could not provide an answer how to get out this cycle, unlike our first affirmative figure, who explained through education we can break the cycle of exploitative child labour, of like poverty, and these things, and improve these people's lives.

So they haven't actually argued against the benefits of education. They haven't proven that education can't break the cycle of poverty and child exploitation and these kinds of things. And therefore, our model still stands because they haven't proved that there isn't a benefit.

And they also kind of brought up the idea that education is a right, which we agree, and that you shouldn't have to work for it.

But we have two issues with this. We see kids-- in the developing world, there are two types of kids. We see the wealthier families, where the kids do have access to education and don't have to work. But then we also see the kids whose families are in poverty and cannot afford to get an education, and kids who have to work under the status quo to pay and to basically survive. And we think that these kids would not get an education under the status quo.

And as they've said, education is a right. And therefore we believe that any action we can take to ensure all kids in the developing world can have an education is essential. And therefore, these kids who work under the status quo would not get an education should have the opportunity under our model.

They've also had talked about like the idea of corporations have massive power and can't be regulated by government, and raised issues whether the corporations will actually listen to these, the proposed laws that we're proposing. We've got a few issues with this, and I'd like to further expand my model.

But we'd also like to say the fact that corporations rely on consumers. They rely on the purchasing of like people and like the government of like first world nations where they sell their products. And we think that these governments and people and consumers, as we've seen from like the outrage from Nike when it was found out they were using child labour, we think that these consumers actually have really massive influence on the corporations and can use that influence if they are not coming up to their side of the deal and providing education to actually influence the corporations to follow the law.

So we think that it is quite likely for the corporations to provide the education in line with our model because of what I will further explain, because of the influence of the consumer and their like image and reputation.

They also talked-- they've come up with the idea that this model doesn't provide an opportunity for every child to like rise up and get opportunities. And we think there are a few issues here.

Number one, we think it's a fact that if small children are getting an opportunity to an education under the affirmative side, it is infinitely better than less like on the opposition side. If they're saying that only a few kids will get the opportunity, then we think that is better than none under the current status quo.

We also think that it's better for these few kids than none under the status quo, because these kids could also spread. And if you start to break the cycle, as we've explained, this starts to like unravel the whole cycle and cause, like exponential change, which we desire.

They also talked about the government can't afford corporation and that kind of-- I mean, education. Sorry.

And we'd also like to bring up the fact that under our model, we're proposing a system where kids who are currently working and can't get an education are getting an education to the corporations. But as I explained beforehand, the kids who are wealthy who can already afford to get the education are getting an education.

At the end of the day, under our model, more kids are getting educated. And since they haven't disproved the benefits of education and the effects that education has, our model still stands.

They also talked about the fact that corporations do not care about people. I bring up here that there's two factors. One, I bring up, again, like I said before, the power of the consumer, the fact that at the end of the day, they are appealing to the consumer, and therefore it's influence and power they have.

But we'd also like to talk about like a lot of modern corporations, like Cotton On becoming more ethical and actively acting to improve their practises. And we think that, also, as I'll further explain in my speech, corporations have the best interests of their employees at heart, because the better the employees, the more effective, the more efficient, the more cost effective the workers are.

And we think that education, as my first speaker explained, provides multiple benefits to the individual, which will therefore benefit the company as they therefore have more educated, more efficient, more effective workers.

They also said that like the companies cannot pay for the education of all, like the working children, that kind of thing. We think there are two responses here.

So first of all, they currently-- we look at the minimum wage in Australia that people are paid, and then we look at like the 10, 50 cents that workers are being paid in these developing countries, and we think that they can quite easily pay for the education and still not being paid like the amount that we are in the developed world. So we think that it is actually quite fair to expect them to be paid and get the education, because we think that's not even anywhere close to what they're getting paid in the developed world. So we think that's fair.

And we think as well, what it would do is it ensures that if they then-- so there's two situations here. Either kids are getting educated. More and more kids are being educated under our side of the model, or they will stop employing kids, and reduce child labour. We see both sides of our model. And regardless of the situation, there are benefits that the negative team and the status quo cannot provide.

They also talked about like little kids getting injured and that kind of thing. And we'd like to bring up the fact that, again, they recognise that child labour is already happening, and it is not changing under the status quo.

And we think that doing-- since this is happening anyway, any action to provide education, as we've explained, that can change the cycle and break the cycle is important to take.

We can also like-- we say at the end of the day that education can only be beneficial. And as the benefits, as my first speaker explained, since there is no negative to receiving an education, it can only benefit these people and actually improve the living standards of these people and be a positive thing.

We've also like-- they talked about us legitimising exploitation. But we'd like to say that under the status quo, it already exists, and it doesn't really matter. Because if some-- we have the mentality in our society of, is it better to regulate something by legalising it? Or is it better to just to blanket make it illegal? We think that it's better and easier to monitor and to deal with things if they're legal, because you can regulate them and have better control, than trying to when things are illegal, search and actually deal with it.

And we think that-- like the status quo is not working. They haven't provided examples or shown how the status quo will improve naturally. And we think, therefore, drastic measures are needed to be taken, which is our model.

I'd now like to move on to my case. My first speaker explained the issue with the status quo and the benefits of education. I will further examine why on our side of the house corporations and society is better off.

From a business perspective, image is essential. The influence of the consumer and if a corporation is empowering and educating third world kids, its reputation with the consumer improves, and therefore, as does its sale. A consumer is much more likely to purchase with a company or a corporation that it knows is ethical, that it knows aligns with its moral values than it is an unethical corporation. A trustworthy, good moral company will do better than a corrupt evil one.

So we look at things like examples of like the modern day environmental, like straws, like those kinds of corporations, Cotton On, as I talked about before, which are gaining like influence and popularity in society because they are being ethical, because they are appealing to what society's morals and values are.

And we think if these companies are actively like educating students and doing these things, consumers will actually be more likely to purchase and engage with these companies because they connect with their moral values. If there is news getting out like we've seen of Nike exploiting kids or not educating them, we think there's less likely to be like desiring to influence or to pay these companies.

So we think there will be actually influence and reasons for these corporations to educate these kids under our side of the model.

We also think that children working in these corporations are less likely to be exploited under our side of the model, as when kids are educated, they understand their rights more. They're more likely to speak up and report or deal with exploitation.

And we also think, as my first speaker explained, they're more likely to get better jobs in their adulthood and deal, and then break the cycle for their youth. And we think as well that at the end of the day, the cycle will be broken by education.

And since they haven't disproven the benefits of education and the ability of education to break the cycle of poverty, of child exploitation, there is no reason not to implement our model.

To invest in a child's worker's education for better employees and reputation is essential for a company. So companies in the developed world already invest in like courses and education for their employees. And we think it's the same situation in the developing world.

So like education creates economic stimulation for the companies and for like the society as a whole. And we think that better educated employees means the company is more efficient. And for this reason, we are proud to affirm.

CHRISOVALANTI CHINDILAS: Negative speaker Laura Charlton will continue their case

LAURA CHARLTON: Panel, the opposition conceded from the get-go that child labour was evil and exploitative, but they said essentially that it could be legitimised if it ended the poverty cycle.

First of all, we don't think that it is possible for it to end the poverty cycle, as we'll go on to later. And second of all, even if it ended the poverty cycle for the few children who were lucky enough to be selected to rise through the company ranks or study overseas, a vast majority of those children in this poverty cycle would still go on to raise children in that country in a nation where child labour is now totally legitimised. This model is a moral travesty, and we cannot support it.

Three questions in this speech today. The first, can this model ever be morally justified? The second, will this model actually have any practical benefits to the children? And the third, why this model will award corporations' increased power, and why that's bad. That last point is the piece of substantive.

So onto this first question of whether this model can ever be morally justified. Just remember first here that right at the beginning, we told you at first that it is morally reprehensible to force a child to work for a human right that should and can be given freely and without reservation. We told you that there were ways for this to happen in the status quo via pushes from other nations, encouraging these countries to give free universal education, through NGOs, such as World Vision, going in and building schools.

We also told you at the first why that was going to end under the opposition's model. We got very little pushback from that.

But now to what the opposition actually said. So the first thing we heard is that we need to reward these children for their work with an education, which we just think is like morally horrific, because it shouldn't be a reward. It should just be something that they get.

And they also told you, second of all, that poor children don't get the opportunity to get this education. They just have to work.

But we thought that due to this organic change surrounding what is happening currently, that is NGOs like World Vision and Save the Children going in and building schools, they'll be a lot less likely to do this when they know that the corporations in that country are already offering education, regardless of how limited that education is. Therefore, it is much less likely that you are going to get educators with good, moral reasons for going in for education. Rather, you're going to get these corporations who only want to educate these kids in order to exploit them for physical labour.

The second idea under this model-- the second idea under this theme of moral justification is what we get at first, and again, pushed at second, which is that corporations want to look good so that people can buy their products. Therefore, it is very unlikely that they will treat these kids in a way that is bad. We think this is just plainly untrue, right?

They say that a trustworthy corporation will make more money because it will appeal to more morals. We think it is probably very agreeable that Apple is one of the most profitable corporations in the world. They had seven people, workers, commit suicide by jumping off the top of the Apple building in China where they were manufacturing their phones.

What was Apple's response to this? They put a net around the building, gave a one-sentence apology, and changed literally none of their practises. We know that these companies do not care about the well-being of their workers. They only care about the profits that they can get.

It will be the same for children. They'll probably give them a very limited education that just fulfils their what they need to do, because they need to make as much profit as they can, and then they will continue to make them work in mines, in textile factories, in dangerous situations in order to get as much profit off these children as they can.

And then we finally get this idea that these companies, actually, furthermore, won't be able to exploit these children, because the kids will now be educated. And so they will stand up to the corporation.

We just thought that was not true. If a company is giving you your education, you are going to be terrified of doing anything against them, because you don't want to lose that education. You don't want to get fired. You don't want get kicked out. This is why these children as young as six years old are going to be silent when they are told to work in dangerous conditions. They're going to be silent when their fingers get chopped off because they're working with machines that are under-regulation.

That is why this model could never, ever be morally justified, because you are making children work in horrific circumstances in order to give them a human right that they deserve literally by being born as a human child.

But now to the second question of whether this model will benefit the children in a more like long-term thing, whether they'll be able to go on to better things, and to break the poverty cycle. This is a big push from the affirmative team. They tell you, at first, that these children will be able to break the poverty cycle by growing up with an education. At second, they tell that it's infinitely better to have a education than no education at all.

We have a couple of responses to this. One, it is likely that these conditions, as we've proven to you, will be incredibly dangerous and taxing. This means that these kids could potentially have ongoing health problems. If they're working in a mine, they could have respiratory problems for the rest of their life. If they're working in a dangerous textile factory, they could have their limbs chopped off. It is very unlikely that if those things are happening to these children they'll be able to move on to bigger and better things, because they will be like forever affected by the way that this company has treated them.

Second of all, we think that the company will want to retain them, because since these children have worked there since they were literally six years old, these kids will probably have some sense of loyalty to this company, regardless of how badly it treated them, because it gave them an education. Therefore, they'll feel like they owe something to this company. The company will want to retain them there to keep them working for them.

And then, thirdly, the companies, we think, actually benefit from the cycle of poverty, because kids are like-- because this means that people are easier to exploit. It means that they make more of a profit from their workers means they probably don't want the cycle of poverty to end, because that would directly affect how many profits they are making.

But then we get this idea from the first affirmative that these children will be able to move up within the company because they'll get an education that works alongside that. We felt that there's actually a lot more positions in hard labour than there are in management, which means that if anyone gets to move up into like these less exploitative positions, it will not be all of them. It'll be a vast majority of-- vast minority of them, which means it will not be worth implementing.

And we think that the idea that at the end of the day more kids are getting an education simply was not strong enough when they did not prove that it would be a good education, as good as something that could be provided by World Vision or by Save the Children. And we proved to you that it was going to be massively exploitative, that children were going to die, that companies were not going to care, and people were still going to be buying their products, because at the end of the day, how many people in this audience have an iPhone right now?

Onto this idea-- onto this substantive piece why this will award corporations increased power and why that's an incredibly bad thing.

So we heard at first why corporations outsource to nations overseas, generally because it's cheaper. The workers' rights are less stringent. There's like less surveillance, less industry watchdogs, right? So because of this, we think that these corporations actually run vastly unchecked, which gives them quite a lot of power in these developing nations. Often they are the only ones putting infrastructure into these nations. Therefore, the government relies on them to a great extent, right?

So when these corporations are the ones providing the education, they're probably going to want to have-- they're going to want to be more involved in what is being taught to these children. They're going to want to be more involved in when those children are allowed to leave school and work full-time.

They're going to want to be more involved in who actually gets the education, which students are selected to go to school. They're going to be more willing, essentially, to whisper in the government's ear. And this gives them power over like essentially the entire nation, because education is the way that a nation escapes poverty. And the company can now control that.

But these companies, as I have told you earlier, don't actually want progress in these developing nations, because they are completely driven by profit. And a country that is underdeveloped and has an economy that is centred around the industry that company is from is where they are going to make the most profit, right? So this means that they don't want any kind of economic shift to commerce, to agriculture, to anywhere else, because that would fundamentally damage their position as the central industry in that country. That would mean that they would get less profits. They don't want any other opportunities to appear for their workers, because they don't want to lose any of that workforce, because they can pay them extremely bad wages and still get like maximum profit output, right?

And they want to be able to still like exploit these people without ramifications. And so we think that giving corporations the tool to essentially what could build that country into something that was more diverse in its workforce, and instead allowing them to simply take something that they benefit from and continue the status quo, except to a much worse extent, because they are literally allowed to exploit children now and it is fully legally feasible is something that will essentially mean that these countries will never develop beyond where they are today.

It will mean that the status quo, which is organic change towards a more educated, and broad-based economic system through NGOs, like Save the Children, will no longer be viable. It will mean that these children are exploited. More children will die. More children will be injured for the rest of their lives. That is what the opposition's model is today.

Stand to protect the children. We are so proud to negate.

CHRISOVALANTI CHINDILAS: The third affirmative speaker, Nilou Kedemos, will conclude their case.

COOPER GANNON: Ladies and gentlemen, today's debate was fought from the opposition in three avenues. First of all, the idea that our model is flawed in itself. Secondly, the harms that are supposedly created by our model. And thirdly, the supposed lack of benefit from our model.

Now, time and time again the negative has come out and said, Apple's suicides, sewing machine incidents, all of these different deaths and injuries. These occur under the status quo, which is what the negative is supporting.

The only changes that are occurring, which we would like to reinforce, is the fact that those who were previously in those harmful situations are provided education to get out. So the negative today is only trying to press that we have no benefits, because they stand by a status quo which injures kids.

So in terms of this idea, the concept of how our model is flawed and the idea that kids will be working in manual labour, mining, manufacturing, et cetera, they brought up these four reasons. And this is the first one.

And this is what is already happening, as the negative keeps speaking on. These are happening for kids who want to get an education, but can't afford to do so, because their parents need them to work to sustain the family. Or there is no access to a local school.

The idea that there is this omnipresent schooling education system that every family can afford and every family has the money to buy food for their family and sustain their family and education equipment from the negative is incredibly convenient, but not the case. And the negative's case, once again, continues to reinforce the idea of incidents that are occurring in work. Incidents that are occurring in work because people aren't educated to get out of those positions.

Now, continuing in this idea, the opposition then brought up the idea that it's unlikely that they'll be encouraged to pursue work even if they do get this education, pursue any other different kind of work. And that's what occurs under the status quo. There is no opportunity at all to find other work.

But through this education, there is at least that degree of opportunity, that opportunity to change the seven Apple suicides, that opportunity to change those sewing machine incidents, that opportunity for these students to receive that benefit. We are proving the benefits, and there are no supposed-- the negative continue to reinforce the idea of the negatives and the harms of the status quo, which we are aiming to remove.

Now, this idea that, similarly, corporations will not have the incentive to give these kids the education and that they're not going to follow regulation, well, obviously, this simply isn't the case. I'm going to address why they have an incentive to do this later.

But even if, say, 20%, 10%, even if 5% of corporations who are operating in these countries provide their kids with education, that is a change, a step in the direction away from the Apple suicides, which still remain in the negative case.

Now, similarly, even if it were-- even if these students were unlikely to move away from these opportunities, which I'm sure everyone is going to be unlikely to move away from suicides and machining incidents, but even if they were unlikely to move away from this sustained dangerous scenario that they're in, what about those who do want that opportunity to move forward?

Now, the opposition also struggles through the idea of how we're going to break the cycle of poverty. And we reinforce the fact that for those few-- well, under the opposition's case, even just a few who are able to exit this previous cycle that they were in, they're able to get employment in other fields, which have a higher pay.

And in this field, they'll then be able to sustain their family and not have to send their kids into child labour. Because the negative chooses to conveniently ignore the fact and suppose that we are sending kids to work for their education. That is not the case. We're providing a safety net for those students who have to go and work in the first place. There's no opportunity for education for them. Or they need to assist their parents in paying for their family's livelihoods.

So in this scenario, we're going to create individuals who are able to move away from this concept to move forward into a better future for the future generations, and actually, in fact, through doing so, increase work standards and unemployment in that specific country going forward.

There's a range of benefits in terms of intergenerational and going into the distant future. But there's also the short-term benefits of being able to move out of that child labour industry, which the negative said themselves they've been working in since the age of six. This education gives them that one chance to move away from that education-- from that job they've been working in since the age of six, the status quo that the negative seems to defend for some strange reason.

And they've reinforced time and time again that both teams stand against child labour, and that we apparently legitimise this idea. But no, we eliminate child labour.

We appreciate the fact that the negative team continues to reference concerns of children getting injured. And that is why this education provides benefits.

They, therefore, recognise that this is a concern that currently exists in the inaction of the status quo, in the injuries that are occurring in the status quo. So therefore, if our model can to any degree provide that opportunity to move away, our case stands, and that is simply what it does.

The idea that this education won't be sufficient is one that is simply illogical, providing that they're not getting any education under current standards. They don't have access to any educational facility. Any education is better than none.

Similarly, regardless of whether or not the education is being pro-- and on the point of how these individuals were supposedly working for their education, we reinforce the fact that this is not the case. And this is ignoring the fact that there are families that do need to be sustained. And we reinforce the fact that there are individuals who may not have access to schools.

And we want that education to be there. We do want those families to be able to provide for their families so that students can go into education. We do stand by that.

But in the cases where that is not available, this is when the affirmative model comes in. There's not going to be an incentive for people, for individuals to say, hey, I'm going to leave my education to work and get an education, where I could somewhat get injured. They will remain in the education that they have. But it's for those individuals who don't have opportunity for that education.

In terms of the whole concept of the lack of benefits and the idea that there is a very limited education is being provided, and obviously, we'll reinforce again that there are opportunities, that any education is better than none, and that corporations will actually be incentivized to educate these individuals to put them into better roles.

And by doing this through legal avenues, through a legitimised system, they won't have to hide it from international media. They won't have to put them into clearly quite dangerous positions, instead being able to raise them up and use this education as, in fact, a tool to say, hey, we support local peoples in finding a better education and gaining a better future.

And the whole idea that companies are infinitely cruel and they don't listen to any of their customers goes against the recent Nike pulling of the Betsy Ross shoe over concerns of colonial racism, of the whole idea of Target's review of its sources from which it gets its $7 shirts, and similarly, the review of Cotton On, in which it's moved towards much more sustainable sources.

Even if, once again, we reinforce 20%, 5%, or 10% of companies make these changes, that's 20%, 10%, 5% of people who will have a better future and who will be sustained.

There are benefits from the affirmative that are solely being argued as the negative as non-existent, because they stand by a status quo which still gets people injured. They stand by a status quo, which still means that people don't break out of the cycle, because it's unlikely that they will. This simply isn't justification to remove that education opportunity.

Under the negative side of the case, we still have child labour, injuries, and exploitation. Under affirmative, we have opportunities to move away from this.

Both sides agree that child labour is a cruel thing, but the affirmative side is one that believes in a possible solution. This was reinforced in our first speaker's concept of the idea of the status quo's flaws, and the benefits of this education. And our second speaker reinforcing that it's in a corporations' best interests, and that the solutions that are available are indeed incredibly feasible.

It's a practical solution to the issue. Simply outright banning child labour is already in force, and still has the effect that the opposition speaks of.

And we once again reinforce one final time that the affirmative is providing solutions for the issues that negative raises themselves.

CHRISOVALANTI CHINDILAS: Thank you to Cooper Gannon for concluding the affirmative team's case. The third negative speaker, Tom Behl-Shanks, will now conclude their case.

TOM BEHL-SHANKS: Forcing vulnerable children in developing countries to work in damaging, exploitative environments for their basic human rights is evil, and the opposition is unjustified in implementing such a model. We have said down the bench that there is a solution aside from what the opposition is suggesting. Through government aid, through international pressure, and through NGOs, we are giving a free education to people in developing countries at an increasing rate.

And the opposition's assertion that no children are getting an education and everyone is in child labour is flawed. And we have presented in the status quo that there is organic change. And the opposition's model gets rid of this government aid, gets rid of the international pressure, and provides no reason for the NGOs to be involved and provide this free education. So they are directly damaging this organic change and implementing a flawed and unmorally justified model.

We have two questions in this debate. The first one is, is the opposition principally justified in implementing their model? And the second one is, which side of the house creates better results for the children?

So on this first idea of, is the opposition principally justified, the opposition asserted that child labour, which we both agreed is incredibly harmful and exploitative, is a valid cost for a basic human right. They asserted that like the appropriate costs for children in poor developing countries is to have to go through potentially life-threatening work at the age of six in order to get the right that should be given to them by birth. We strongly oppose this notion that this is just fair, and this is what happens that these children have to go through this in order to get their education. And we think the opposition's model that, even if this was a successful solution, even if this was, we don't think it is fair or morally justifiable to say that children in developing nations should be forced to work for the education that should be given to them, particularly in incredibly exploitative and dangerous situations that they are working in.

Furthermore, we think that the opposition is legitimising child Labour in poor families. The only solution offered by the opposition to child Labour is to be rich. The only solution they presented is to get an education, get a job, and get out of there, because if you're poor, you're going to be in child Labour. We think in the current status quo where it is illegal, we don't think every single poor child in a developing nation has to work in child Labour. And we think there are ways to combat this, and we think it is a morally unfair claim for the opposition to make that just because you're poor, you have to work in child Labour.

So even if the solutions that they present stand, which we will show that they don't, and in fact, cause more harm, it's principally unjustified to implement the model, because no children should have to work for an education that should be given to them.

So the opposition has made the opposition's case on which side of the house creates better results for children has been relying on two mischaracterizations. The first one is that all kids are currently in child Labour. So although child Labour sort of sucks, it doesn't matter because, everyone has it. And secondly, the idea that no kids currently get an education, the only solution we can present is to give all of the children that are already in child Labour, just give them an education on top, and eventually they'll get rich and not have to.

So a couple of ideas. In the short-term on this, the opposition conceded all of the harms that come with child Labour. They have agreed down the bench that it is exploitative, it is damaging, and can cause all of these injuries and risk to children. But they've said that child Labour already happens, so the only change is that the opposition are the good guys. They're just rewarding these kids that are already in a crappy situation.

So first of all, even if the case was true that all children were already experienced in this and the child Labour rights would not change because they're already so large, we think that it is wrong to justify a practise, even if it is incredibly widespread. To make it legal or to make it justified and to make it legitimate is inherently wrong.

Secondly, we think that this practise is illegal, and it isn't like widespread to the extent that the majority of children in every developing country is practicing child Labour, because there are legitimate international bodies, as well as national bodies, that are combating child Labour to the extent that it's not happening on such a broad scale that every single child in these developing nations is working.

So what we say instead is that what the opposition's model does is create a far, far more widespread problem in that there are going to be a huge portion, as we've said, down the bench, of more and more children working in a practise that's now illegal. The opposition has conceded and agreed with us when they say that this is a cheaper price. It's obviously cheaper for a company to pay a kid from 6 to 18 to go through school, and it's obviously cheaper than paying a full-time wage in a first world country. So

We think the company body, like corporate bodies, are going to continue to be incentivized to have these children in practise. So we think it's going to be far more likely that all children are going to be working in child Labour. And we think there's going to be a significantly increased portion of children working in child Labour. And we think because both sides have agreed how harmful this is, this is an incredibly harmful result of the opposition's model. And as a result, it should not be implemented.

But the greater focus, the opposition just conceded that there's going to be all of the harms of child Labour, but it doesn't matter, because child Labour is no longer going to exist, because everyone in developing country is going to be rich soon, and they can buy their own education. So we disagree with the unrealistic notion that all children are going to be rich, so child Labour will no longer exist.

So first of all, as I've said at the start, we are the only-- the opposition's claim that they're the only side that gives an education is not true. Free education exists, and it is increasing in developing countries. And more and more children are getting the opportunity to break the poverty cycle in a way that is better for them and more effective than the opposition's model through the education sponsored by these companies.

So I'll talk about what-- the opposition's claim was reliant on the fact that these children would get better jobs. They could potentially move out of their country where child Labour is now legalised. So they won't have the risk of child Labour for the future generations. So we think that this claim that the poverty cycle is going to be broken is a flawed claim.

So first of all, we think there is a direct incentive for the government to discourage children from breaking the poverty cycle. As we've said down the bench, we think children-- we think companies are going to continue to want to use child Labour, because both sides have agreed that this is a cheaper form of Labour for them. So there's going to be much incentive for these companies to continue to discourage this breaking of the cycle.

We think what this looks like is education being discouraged in the workplace. People being encouraged to maintain in the same corporations so they won't break the cycle. People, even rich families sending their kid to the free school where their children have to work. We think there's going to be much company incentive to maintain this legal form, particularly when it's seen as morally justified, particularly when they don't have to protect their reputation, because the opposition's model makes it that this is an OK thing to do.

We think it's going to be much harder for children to break the poverty cycle, because they're going to be actively discouraged to do so, particularly since they're going to be enfranchised within these companies because they've been working for them since they were six. They've been told by this company that they've been working since they were like primary school age that this company is good.

First, we don't think that the work standards are going to change, because they're not going to recognise that child Labour is harmful if it's legalised and legitimised. So we don't think-- we think the opposition is fanciful in saying that the children are going to be able to-- they've been working for a company since they were six in order to get their education-- they're going to be able to recognise how flawed this company that's been giving them education is, and recognise that they're working in hard, legal working standards.

We don't think it's fair to assume that these children are going to get the education to recognise the damage that's been done to them. We don't think they're going to have the ability to be able to, or necessarily the intelligence to be able to break that cycle. And even if they did, we don't think the limited education, which the opposition is saying they're giving, is going to be enough for them to be able to transfer those skills into a foreign country necessarily. So we think they're not going to be able to compete outside of the developing country anyway.

So we don't think that-- even if they could rise up within the developing country, we don't think there's any position for them to move outside that country with the limited education. So they're never going to be freed from this society which is reliant upon child Labour.

And furthermore, we don't think-- we think there's also a significant risk within these places, as we've said down the bench, of serious injury to this child. We see Australian miners, the fully grown-up miners, they're getting serious life-threatening issues by working in the mines here. We don't think that a six-year-old is going to be exempt from these harms. And we think they could be potentially like life-changing harms that come from this. And we think six-year-olds are risking death working in a mine from six years old.

And we don't think that's a fair price for them to have to pay for education. And we think the fact that there's such significant health impacts impedes upon their ability to move beyond this and like go up the ladder. And we also don't think there's much room to move up the corporate ladder when there's a small amount of management and a huge amount of physical Labour.

So we don't think the opposition's idea that the poverty cycle will be will be broken is existent. And we think that even in the best of cases, what the opposition's model is doing is removing all protection for child Labour that currently exists. And they're legitimising a practise that is immoral, and claiming that you have to work in child Labour in order to get a free education, which is a human right. And we think that is morally flawed, and the opposition should be unable to implement their model.

CHRISOVALANTI CHINDILAS: A member of the adjudicating panel will now deliver the adjudication and announce the result of this debate.

THOMAS SHORTRIDGE: So hi, everyone. So on behalf of the adjudication panel, we want to, again, congratulate both teams on what was a truly excellent debate. I think we'll have another round of applause for both of them.

So the way this will work is we'll quickly say one point of constructive feedback we had for this debate, and then go into the issues, and announce the result of the debate at the end just to keep everyone in suspense.

So the one thought that the panel had after this debate that was in all other regards incredibly high quality was to say that at points teams were sometimes unclear on exactly what the power of corporations was and whether or not the status quo was improving or not in the standards that were afforded to child Labour or the standards afforded to education, and whether or not we were sufficiently able to keep corporate power in check. So having a very clear and consistent line on how that is happening would have helped both teams.

But that aside, we saw this coming down broadly into three questions. The first was whether or not it is morally justifiable to have this as a model that trades off work for education. Secondly, what were the impacts on child Labour? And what, thirdly, then were the impacts on child education?

So on whether it's morally justifiable, the negs suggested it's always morally bad to force people to work for something that otherwise would be a human right and the claim from the affirmative team in response is to say, well, that is a human right that is otherwise not afforded, and we are willing to sort of bear the moral burden of forcing people to work for an education that they otherwise would not receive.

And in that regard, this is an issue that broadly falls down to the others, whether or not that's going to be better for those kids and whether or not the benefits of education are worth trading off, but it does slightly increase the burden on the affirmative team to prove that this would be a satisfactory model in order to get over that slight moral hump of it being a bit morally dubious to do so.

The second question is then, what is the impact on child Labour? And here both teams agree that sort of child Labour broadly as it occurs now is very bad. We get a series of harms on sort of both teams, whether it's accidents or ongoing harm, such as strain on children. So it's agreed that it is a unanimously bad thing in this debate.

And the claims of the negative team here that this is something that is legitimised now, because it is kind of legal and encouraged, and people were more likely to then as kids go into child Labour when they otherwise would not, which means that more people are then exposed to the harms of child Labour. And because we sort of as a panel and both teams agreed that that child Labour was particularly bad, the fact that more people were going into it was a harm in this debate.

And the strategy of the affirmative team there was to balance it out and say, well, at least those people are then getting education. So the negative team shows that there's more people going into this child Labour and that is bad.

And the final question of this debate is then whether or not that can be traded off by those benefits to education, which is where a lot of this debate landed.

The affirmative on education gives us a series of benefits right from the first affirmative. They tell you it's able to do things like know your rights, able to move up corporate ladders, able to get different jobs in other places, and eventually perhaps able to break out of poverty cycles. And otherwise it is education that does not exist.

The negative team here does a lot to minimise these benefits. The negative team firstly suggests that, well, not that many more kids will be getting educated, because as child Labour is currently illegal, there is limited reason for corporations to give that when they're currently able to have child Labour without providing education, and they would not do so.

And this is where the clash about whether or not corporations have an incentive to appeal to consumers comes in, because the affirmative team says, well, they are likely to, because they have to ensure that they are giving education to make consumers happy. And the negative team claims, well, ultimately, the kind of bottom line is profits, and that is-- and they give you a series of examples to suggest the corporations are unwilling to care enormously about the public appeal or the provision of education.

And while there were examples on both sides, we kind of were convinced there was not sufficient incentive to encourage all companies, and perhaps the third affirmative says, this is then a model about the 5%, 10%, or 20% of companies who are willing to abide by that. So that's a way of minimising the number of kids to get educated.

It is also minimised by saying that the education itself would be substandard provided by corporations, particularly as second negative says increased by an encouraged corporate power over the education systems.

And thirdly, there's unlikely to be sufficient mobility created to overcome things like poverty cycles. And the strategy of the affirmative team in responding to that kind of mitigation is to say, well, even if this education is not perfect and not afforded to all people, there is otherwise no alternative to education. So even if it's not great, it at least gives something to kids who otherwise have nothing.

But this is where the final strategy of the negative team comes in, which is saying that there are currently a series of people who are providing education, things like NGOs or international pressure or domestic governments, who are providing education. And now in lieu of corporations providing it, instead would be encouraged to withdraw that education, which is why the education that is otherwise provided and the claim of the affirmative team that this is the only option is not true, and in fact, this detracts the capacity of education.

So because this was probably morally acceptable, because it meant more people went into child Labour, and that was bad, and there were not sufficient benefits to education, we as a panel unanimously gave this debate to the negative team. Congratulations.

CHRISOVALANTI CHINDILAS: A team member from Kirrawee High School will now congratulate the winners.

NILOU KEDEMOS: Thank you so much. My mistake. Sorry. Yeah, OK.

It was an absolute pleasure. You guys were amazing debaters. Thank you very much. A very interesting topic today. Congratulations.

Thank you very much to the audience for coming in today. Special guests, teachers, parents, it was an absolute pleasure to debate in front of you. We hope you enjoyed it. And it was just really, really great to have this experience and be here today. So thank you so much.

GRACE MAHON: Thank you guys. This marks the end of our six years of debating. And you guys gave us like a really good debate. And we really enjoyed it.

And it's so great that we both made it to the finals. So congratulations for making it to the finals with us.

And good luck for your futures and everything. Thank you.

CHRISOVALANTI CHINDILAS: I would now like to welcome to the stage Marianne Powles, principal education officer at The Arts Unit, and John Olsen from the International Churchill Society Australia, who will present on behalf of Professor David Flint, president of the New South Wales English Speaking Union.

To the runners up, Ms. Powles will present certificates. Mr. Olsen will present battalions. And Ms. Powles will present the runners-up with the Principal's Trophy.

From the affirmative team, Arabella De Nett.

Ben Nolan.

JOHN OLSEN: Congratulations.

CHRISOVALANTI CHINDILAS: Cooper Gannon.

And finally, Nilou Kedemos.

NILOU KEDEMOS: Thank you so much.

CHRISOVALANTI CHINDILAS: Ms. Powles and Mr. Olsen will now present the 2019 champ-- ah, the Principal's Trophy to the runners-up.

MARIANNE POWLES: Ah, there you go. Who's got a hand?

JOHN OLSEN: Let's see you get that in the back with someone.

ANDREW LASAITIS: And before they leave-- sorry, Chris-- I'd just like to also acknowledge and call upon the coaches from Kirrawee High School, Cathy Barden and Emma Farmer.

CHRISOVALANTI CHINDILAS: Congratulations to the runners-up in the 2019 Premiers Debating Challenge in New South Wales.

Ms. Powles and Mr. Olsen will now present the 2019 champions with certificates and medallions.

First of all, Gemma Hedayati.

JOHN OLSEN: Congratulations. Well done.

CHRISOVALANTI CHINDILAS: Tom Behl-Shanks.

JOHN OLSEN: Well done, Tom.

CHRISOVALANTI CHINDILAS: Laura Charlton.

Grace Mahon.

And their coach, Kerry Doyle.

KERRY DOYLE: Thank you so much.

CHRISOVALANTI CHINDILAS: And now Mr. Olsen will present the Hume Barber Trophy to this year's winners.

MARIANNE POWLES: Who's carrying it over? You've got to come over this way.

CHRISOVALANTI CHINDILAS: Congratulations to Smith's Hill High School.