ESTELLE STARK: We now come to the prepared section of the competition. Each speaker will speak for eight minutes on the subject of the contestant's choice. There will be a warning bell at six minutes and two bells at eight minutes. A continuous bell will be rung at nine minutes.

Our first contestant is Annabelle Richens from Pymble Ladies College. The subject of Annabelle's speech is 'The Power of Storytelling.' Please welcome Annabelle Richens.

[applause]

ANNABELLE RICHENS: So my mum tells a story. Universally, like all moms, it's one she whips out at Christmas after a few champagnes, seemingly just to embarrass me. The part that really irritates is that when she tells the story, you can tell she's enjoying herself. There's this glint in her eye as she takes in each relative hanging on her every word. She has the tipsy, bloated audience wrapped in the palm of her hand, dramatically pausing at all the right moments before delivering a final one-liner with such satisfaction that it's impossible not to feel personally attacked. She knows that her story holds power.

When my mum recounts her tale, she's employing an instinct as old as time. Humans are obsessed with story. Think campfire storytelling. Think myths and legends. Think every conversation that you've ever had with a friend. Stories make up such a large part of human existence that it's impossible for our lives not to be intimately and intrinsically connected to them. But instead, let's consider the power of telling stories and how that power can be used to manipulate the way we collectively and personally live our lives. Because here's the thing. That tale of my childhood antics that my mum loves to tell is not actually true.

The story itself is not that important. But since you're likely guessing, it's to do with a childhood doll and a certain aspiring hairdresser practicing under the covers. I think she has constructed her version of what went down because it aligned with other stories that she loved-- a favourite Peter Carey novel, in fact, centering around a mischievous protagonist who performs a transplant of sorts on her favourite dolly. But Lucinda's twisted mess of glue and horse mane tufts that my mum likes to project as my misdemeanour is quite simply not correct.

OK, there may have been a black-haired doll and, yes, a haircut. But it was not nearly as dramatic or rebellious as my mother's embellished intertextual tales suggests. But now, despite having the memory of a goldfish, my sister too claims that she was there and recalls the story exactly as my mother relates. It's a truth that she has now internalised, because she's heard it over and over again to the point where she now feels that she can describe the event. That's a scary thing to think about.

And when it comes to communicating information en masse, how storytelling intertwines with political agendas has some serious social and global consequences. To illustrate, we only have to look to our own historical narrative. Australia loves to claim the values of mateship, belonging, and the attainment of a multicultural society. Every November 11, or April 26, we're told that our heroic soldiers fought for these very ideals. 100-plus years on from our nation's global military debut, these values continue to instil our country's supposed utopian legacy. And as the repetition of our Anzac tale has increased, so too has its potency.

So time can create these stereotypes. Time can alter stories. Sometimes, more optimistic stories emerge. And sometimes, more sinister versions result. The story of egalitarian Australia is a far cry from today's nation with its cruel and antiquated immigration policies that completely fail to reflect these values.

So our nation's leaders, perhaps, are the most accomplished storytellers of all. The socioeconomic inequality of our indigenous population, for example, has long been overlooked. And suggestions for legitimate change from the referendum council or Uluru's Statement from the Heart have still not been taken up. Our leaders are fully aware of the power they hold to manipulate the beliefs and attitudes of the wider population, but they are unwilling to admit that these efforts are necessary. And thus, the current day Australia might not align with the courageous and inclusive narrative of our past.

Stories so often become tangled by hindsight, perspective, and context. Think of the way that witness statements colour legal proceedings. A red car, a blue car, half-past four, or was it five? Even the sacred institution of a federal justice system accounts for the way the perspective and prejudice can affect the details of an event. It's not even particularly difficult to abuse this storytelling power and thus promote archaic narratives.

I'm sure everyone here can recall a time that they've been complicit in the perpetuation of wrongful storytelling, even in an action as simple as a retweet or an offhand comment. Just like my sister, we can sometimes feel educated to make critical judgments or decisions if we've heard a story often enough.

And don't get me wrong. I don't think we can expect the storytellers of society to always get it right. I don't even think that we always want them to. Think of any of our beloved fairy tales or teenage fantasy classics. They don't exactly reflect reality. But that's what makes them so appealing.

My family finds it far more entertaining to hear the story of my destructive toy surgery resulting in a matted mess of glue and frizz than the scenario that has me giving my doll's hair a simple and innocent trim. But rather than an unattainable switch to exclusive truth telling, I think the moms and the storytellers of the world need to acknowledge the other half of the 'Spider-Man' quote, which is to say that if stories hold such great power, then we, the storytellers, also hold a great responsibility. And that responsibility is to do good with our stories, and to promote values that ensure we will still have a functioning world to tell stories to.

For you, this might start by simply being aware of the narratives you tell yourself, or the stories that you are told, and ensuring you become someone who critically and consciously consumes a wide variety of stories from a range of storytellers. For me, my mum will probably never admit that her version of the doll drama is false. And she may be right from her perspective. And I will adamantly insist until I go to my grave that that is not what happened. And I will also be right.

But what should you believe? The brutal, tyrannical monster around whom no doll is safe? Maybe you'd prefer a creative, inquisitive child lending her hand to a groundbreaking scientific experiment? Or, perhaps, something else entirely?

That's the beauty and the power of story. But it's up to us to choose which version we want to believe and how we let that determine what we do next. Because this contradiction is perfectly harmless when told around the dinner table once a year. But some storytellers are malevolent, and the ramifications of their tales can be far worse than my annual blush over bonbons and turkey.

[applause]

ESTELLE STARK: Our second contestant is Kristina Hua. Kristina attends Sydney Girls High School, and the subject of Kristina's speech is 'The Tea about the Ts and Cs.' Please welcome Kristina.

[applause]

KRISTINA HUA: Right now, your personal information is circulating around the internet. Your name, email address, phone number, home address, pictures, and anything you have uploaded is there. And you agreed to it. The familiar phrase, I acknowledge that I have read and agreed to the above terms and conditions, is the biggest lie on the web. And I can 100% guarantee that you have never truly read the terms and conditions and fully comprehended it-- I, myself, included.

But why? The language is too complex, and reading all of what we signed up for is next to impossible for a normal human being. And apparently, consumers are willing to accept that the worst most companies would do is to just sell their name. But this is not the end of it.

At the University of Connecticut, an experimental study was conducted by Jonathan Obar and Anne Hirsch in 2018. They wanted to assess the extent to which individuals ignore the terms and conditions when joining a fictitious social networking site called NameDrop. In the agreement, they included the disclosure that users give up their firstborn child as payment, and that anything shared just would be passed along to the National Security Agency. And a whopping 98% of 600 participants agreed.

The participants that were involved were communications students who study privacy, big data issues, and surveillance in class every day. But if communications students in training cannot be bothered to read these policies, let alone demonstrate any concern for these conditions, it's extremely likely that the general public would ignore it as well. Though this is an extreme case, it still highlights how easily consumers are willing to waive their rights.

So why aren't we reading or giving any notice to such crucial information to the point where we are willing to give up our own firstborn child? The problem is we simply don't care, and it takes a painfully long time to read such an extensive piece of text. To put this into perspective, PayPal's terms and conditions is longer than 'Hamlet,' the longest of Shakespeare's plays, and Apple iTunes' is longer than Macbeth. In class, we took three weeks to read it.

The reason for this behaviour is that it's purposefully written to be used in court, definitely not by your everyday user. With the convenience of the I Agree button laid out in front of our eyes, the urge to click on it is extremely enticing, as we can move on to the actual intent we're using the service for. But ignoring the critical step of reading the terms and conditions exposes us to the risk of companies selling your information to unknown sources.

Aren't you afraid or worried? I know I am, because digital companies are taking my information on passports, credit card numbers, text numbers, what I look like, my fingerprint, and other extremely sensitive information that will be passed on to third parties without me knowing and for free. Nothing in this world is free.

Now, let me expand on what big companies can do with your data. When you agree to use the services of Facebook, cookies are used to track your every move in other websites, and what you look like, your unique fingerprint. When you use the services of Instagram, you are agreeing to share your information with multiple third parties. And your right to sue them, gone. When you agree to use the services of YouTube, they may collect your internet protocol address, system activity, and anything that might identify your browser or your Google account.

If users don't understand the implications of what they are signing up to, they may not be aware of how much content will be given to these service providers and how much information is being mined and traded. I guess we all just have to ask ourselves the simple question of, do we actually agree? It may even sometimes pay, literally, to read the terms and conditions.

A PC Pitstop programme was released for four months and over 3,000 of them were sold. Yet one person, named Doug Heckman, decided to actually read the terms and conditions. In it he found a clause stating that he could receive financial compensation if he just emailed them. The result? A tremendous $1,000 check in his bank account and proof that people don't read the terms and conditions. The goal of this was to prove that one should always read the Ts and Cs so that people can see if a programme may be spyware. Spyware is a malicious software that is buried in the policies, infiltrating your device, and steals your internet usage data and other extremely sensitive information.

We can all see that most companies have utilised the feature of scrolling, as the user can skim over the terms and conditions, as we quickly make our way to the I Agree button, of course. But this is not effective. Digital companies like Google have weakly attempted to shorten their terms and conditions, but still, they're over 5,000 words long.

So what are the possible solutions? Condensing the information? Unfortunately not, as these terms and conditions protect these companies. And therefore, the wording must be on point and 100 pages long. But having a shorthand summary at the beginning of the terms and conditions can give the user a brief and digestible format of their main policies. This shortly summarised section placed at the top should be comprehensible to their suitable audience.

For some companies like Instagram, it should be kept in mind that their targeted audience is 13-plus years. And currently, their clauses consist of words that may not be comprehensible to such an audience. With an audience that doesn't understand what they're signing up to, it may cause them to disclose personal information online and may infringe the Ts and Cs. Suddenly, their account would be terminated.

Companies must have the inclusion of the policies that actually give away our rights and the ones that matter the most, so the public has a clear-cut idea of what they are signing up to. This also encourages a more transparent relationship between the company and consumer as the conditions are clearer.

Now, before companies add their short summary into the beginning of their terms and conditions, what we can do now is utilising the feature of keyword searching-- where we can specifically look for the words 'share,' 'collect,' 'control,' 'you must,' 'you acknowledge,' 'jurisdiction,' et cetera. With a simple search of these few keywords, you're protecting yourself and drawing attention to the only parts that matter the most. And the stuff that's in all caps, I suggest you read that too. And using these methods, just maybe, you'll be the next $1,000 winner just by looking over the Ts and Cs.

[applause]

ESTELLE STARK: Our third contestant is Himaja Dave. Himaja is in year 12 at Crestwood High School. And the subject of Himaja's speech is '#NotAllSharks.' Please welcome Himaja Dave.

[applause]

HIMAJA DAVE: Like most Australians, I enjoy a swim. Why wouldn't I, when we have access to some of the most picturesque beaches in the world? But in light of recent reports about a particularly scary predator, I would definitely draw the line at jumping into shark-infested waters. Even though I know that not all sharks will kill me, sharks like most predators are not actively defensive, and only hunt when hungry or feeling threatened. But how do I know if this is the case?

In 2018, shark attacks in the Whitsundays prompted measures to control a growing shark population that had reached plague proportions. Shark attacks on New South Wales coasts also add to the debate, with fears for Australian tourism as our beaches became danger zones. This is interesting because the Florida State Museum concluded that death by electrocution from a toaster was five times more likely to kill you than a shark. So breakfast is more dangerous than swimming.

But there's still that risk. So it seems we need to protect ourselves from sharks. And that means either wearing the cage, or staying out of their world, or perhaps the more drastic measure proposed in the face of so many attacks-- seven-- and tragic deaths-- three. And that's to cull the sharks so that humans can enjoy the ocean safely again. Bear with me while I look at a different, but I think related, scenario.

In 2006, Tarana Burke started a movement in New York to give young women the platform to fight domestic and sexual violence. Little did she know that within 10 years, the major campaign would become the catalyst for the fourth wave of feminism. But like any social media sensation, MeToo had its critics, and most prominent was viral #NotAllMen, ostensibly set up to remind us that, in case we hadn't noticed, not all men are abusers and rapists. But the defensive stance of this platform created a hurdle that blocked MeToo's progress.

For example, in 2018, the tragic rape and murder of Eurydice Dixon prompted outrage from MeToo and hostile backlash from NotAllMen supporters, who said that women need to take responsibility for where they go and when, dress appropriately, and stay out of potentially unsafe areas. In other words, the message was, stay out of shark-infested waters. Because if you do decide to jump in, even though not all sharks will kill you, you can hardly blame them if one of them does. Except that's where the analogy ends. Because last time I checked, this was not a man's world, it's a human world where men and women should have the right to walk freely.

When Eurydice Dixon was killed, she died moments after sending a message to her friend letting him know that she was safe. Because she felt safe in her own neighbourhood, where she had lived and walked hundreds of times. Preethi Reddy was also doing what she'd done hundreds of times-- commuting home from work-- before she was killed and stuffed into a suitcase by her ex-boyfriend. Gabriella Thompson simply opened her front door in Newcastle-- where she'd lived her entire life-- before being shot by her ex. And the list goes on. Women doing things they should feel safe doing. Not jumping into shark-infested waters, but walking home after a night out, or after work, or standing in their own lounge rooms.

Remember the three shark deaths I mentioned? In the past six months, 28 women have died violently in Australia, including the tragic death of Caitlin O'Brien two days ago. And many more have been attacked. Because the NotAllMen attitude breeds a culture where men feel the need to ward women out of their territory.

Take for example AFL player Tayla Harris, who is photographed in spectacular fashion kicking an incredible goal. But the reaction from trolls, who objected to her intrusion on such a male-dominated sport, was to remind her where they thought her legs should be. And last month, Erin Molan discussed the months of abuse she received while pregnant-- abuse, insisting she be raped, murdered, even her unborn child die. Her crime? Replacing a man as compere of the 'Footy Show.'

But both women fought back. Molan reported her troll, and Harris eloquently responded to her online detractors, searching them out to find that they were family men with wives and daughters of their own. If these people are doing such perverse and obscene things on a public platform, she said, what are they doing behind closed doors? Suggesting that their behaviour was the beginning of violence against women and the same behaviour MeToo aimed to end.

Unfortunately, support for MeToo has dwindled-- perhaps a victim of a steady campaign of eyerolling and insinuations that these man-haters have a radical feminist agenda that's all about culling men. So something more tangible needs to replace it, perhaps something as decisive as what happened after the shark attacks. Because then there was quick action.

A Shark Summit was held in November where Annastacia Palaszczuk released a series of long-term solutions, like shark nets and education programmes. In contrast, a more gradual approach was proposed to combat violence against women. The 12-year national plan also included education strategies and shark net-like assistance programmes for women, with the ultimate aim of reducing the number of deaths to near zero by 2022. But now, just two years from that target, over 600 women have died since the plan was released.

So why is the shark plan working and the anti-violence plan a failure? Could it be that the focus of the second, much like NotAllMen, aims at reminding women of how they can reduce the violence they may face without tackling the predator? Whereas the really effective measure to combat the sharks were the culling programmes that tackled the predator, not the victim.

Of course, I'm not suggesting a man cull. Women know that not all men, just like not all sharks, will kill them. Millions of men want to share a safe and respectful world with women. But what movements like NotAllMen do is shift the focus from the shared human responsibility to a defensive position that says, I didn't do it, so I won't help you stop it. So, perhaps, what does need culling is this NotAllMen attitude that breeds predators in our midst and creates a fertile culture that normalises violence.

And it's not as impossible as you might think. Because when young men's lives were threatened by one-punch attacks, we collectively decided to do something. Laws were passed and language changed as king hits became coward punches. And if you were seen to support a one-punch killer, you became public enemy number one. Just ask Andrew Fifita.

In short, we experienced a cultural shift. And we can again. Laws can change. Starting with Scott Morrison fulfilling his election promise to increase the maximum penalties from three to five years for people who use a carried service to harass others. And we can all, including men, play our role in shutting down these trolls that create a toxic cultural line.

Because, yes, most of us do enjoy a swim. But when we see a fin approaching, we don't just back out quietly. We raise the alarm. So if we see nasty predators circling other areas of our lives, we need to shut them down. Like Molan and Harris did, and bring them out of the shallows so we can see who they are and keep everyone safe. After all, like West Australian politician Libby Mettam said, innocent people are dying, and we need to take tough actions to protect their lives. Unfortunately, she was talking about the sharks.

[applause]

ESTELLE STARK: Our fourth contestant is Zoe Freedman from Ascham High School. The subject of Zoe's speech is 'Losing Humanity.' Please welcome Zoe Freedman.

[applause]

ZOE FREEDMAN: If you've been on a bus recently, you've probably observed a certain phenomenon-- namely, the emergence of a new species I like to call phono sapiens. Quite unaware of their surroundings, they communicate with each other via Snapchat and with outsiders by grunting. Sound familiar? I can tell you, they've well and truly colonised the 442.

There are ways in which all of you are slowly becoming less human. And I'm sorry to say, the cause of this change is in your pocket. It's your phone. Now, I'm not saying our phones are the root of all evil. There are so many brilliant technological somethings available to the everyday phono sapien-- world news at the touch of a button, books instantly downloaded to your pocket, and the ability to communicate with far corners of the world via video link.

My argument is that excessive use of screen technology, which is now typical throughout the developed world, diminishes the fundamentally human abilities which distinguish us from other animals-- specifically, our advanced cognition and the sophisticated communication, which allows us to empathise with others. This is a huge problem in a world where we now have a poor capacity for simple human engagement. There is no easy fix. But by looking at what we're losing, we may be able to gain a little back.

Let's start with cognition. What I mean by this is the ability to think about the deeper meaning of an object or circumstance beyond just the information we get about it from our senses. This enables us to comprehend abstract concepts which don't exist in the physical world, things like happiness. We can't see or touch them, and yet we all acknowledge their existence. And it's because we can use a really amazing tool called language.

Language is the only medium complex enough to support abstract thought. Consider the abstract noun graciousness. You might be able to make a picture of a gracious person, perhaps their cut scene. Someone who could already understand this concept would know what the picture represented. But a person with no idea what graciousness was, all they would see was a person doing a cut scene. That visual alone cannot convey the essence of what graciousness is. Perhaps, if they read a story about it, a definition, they might grasp its true meaning. You see, the only way to effectively convey the meaning of an abstract concept is with language.

The issue with screens is that they limit our use of language. Yes, we write texts, read news, but statistics show we spend as much time on Instagram and shopping. When you write, you practise using words to express a concept from your head. When you read, you practise converting the words on a page into a concept which has meaning to you. You gain the ability to manipulate language and use it as a tool. Viewing images on a screen is a passive process. You don't have to mentally manipulate what you see in any way in order to understand it.

This links to the idea of neuroplasticity. The neural connections and physical structure of your brain will change over time depending on the stimuli you receive. Areas of the brain involved with cognitive skills you use frequently will become more developed. Likewise, if you don't practise language skills by using them often, your ability to engage with abstract concepts will diminish.

And why do I make such a fuss about the abstract anyway? Why is it so essential to our humanity? Abstract concepts are the foundation of all higher thought-- higher mathematics, philosophy, morality, metaphysics, religion, and culture. Not only are these, in themselves, uniquely human. They create what I like to call, thought infrastructure-- a framework of laws, morals, and concepts within which society is able to function. This is why humans have complex societies, while other animals have less sophisticated social structures at best.

But not only is our ability to think properly threatened by our addiction to screens. The foundation of our very existence is at risk. The pillar of society is human relationships. What do relationships depend on? Empathy. And what in turn facilitates empathy? Good communication. Ask any marriage counsellor. Empathy requires that you feel what other people feel and to modify your actions accordingly-- an impossible task if you can't interpret the communication people give you.

Communication has multiple aspects. The words, of course, but also the non-verbal cues-- eye contact, tone, and volume of voice, body language, even pheromones. During screen interaction, there is no opportunity to practise using and interpreting these multiple aspects of communication. Excessive screen use may then account for the lack of empathy we see in increasing numbers of people on and off screen. As phono sapiens, we're an endangered species.

So how do we prevent all this? My proposition is that we all go back to using the Nokia 3310. Most people seem quite mystified by it. Yes, it's my real phone. No, I didn't steal it from an ancient civilization's exhibit. It isn't particularly entertaining, nor does it connect to the internet.

Realistically, not many people want to do what I do. Screens are pleasurable. Perhaps, then, the onus is on tech companies to make their products less addictive. Unfortunately, this is no good for business. And you alone have the power to change your behaviour.

There's no question that screens can have incredibly positive impacts. I'm all for a good doco on a Friday night, or the bliss that is knowing-- thanks to Google Maps-- you cannot get lost. What's most important to remember is that screen use can be represented by a U-curve. There is an ideal amount of screen use which allows you to reap its benefits and mitigate harms, but that amount is small.

I'm no expert, perhaps because I don't have a smartphone. But I can offer some suggestions. Download an app which monitors your screen time. Talk to friends instead of texting them. Keep up with an author rather than with the Kardashians. Or have a hit of tennis on the weekend. Because your experience of life will be decidedly more in touch with humanity. And who knows? Perhaps the next time I travel on the 442, I'll see one less phono sapien and one more human.

[applause]

ESTELLE STARK: Our fifth contestant is Kira Trahana. Kira attends Barker College, and the subject of Kira's speech is 'Alternate Medicines.' Please welcome Kira Trahana.

[applause]

KIRA TRAHANA: Picture an anti-vaxxer. Think about what they look like, where they might be from. Now, for most of us, the stereotypical image that comes to mind is probably a hippie from Byron Bay. Perhaps you know someone wearing flow yoga clothes with a crystal necklace that smells permanently like patchouli. Far, far away from the city, so we don't have to worry about it.

That stereotype exists, but it's false. Because you see, in Greater Sydney, people who are in the wealthier suburbs with the highest rates of university education are the ones who are least likely to have vaccinated their children. In fact, the Eastern Suburbs, which includes Vaucluse and Rose Bay, actually has a pretty similar rate to Byron Bay. Other suburbs include Mosman, Manly, and North Sydney. So I guess it's safe to say that we can't really relegate anti-vaxxers to the nice enclave that is Byron Bay.

For years we have understood that the anti-vaccine movement is perhaps the most successful medical movement. It's persistant and, despite scientific evidence, perpetually able to attract new followers. It's extremely harmful, so much so that the World Health Organisation has dubbed it one of the biggest threats to global health this year. When someone decides not to vaccinate their child, they decide to put not only their own family but everyone else's at risk.

Now, knowing this, we might just say, well, the easy solution is education. If only people knew how herd immunity worked, if only people knew what life was like before the polio vaccine, then we could stop the anti-vaxxers. Then we could stop the conspiracies. But that's not necessarily the issue. Because people are educated. People are smart. And people can access information.

The internet age gives us an abundance of information. And instead of humbling us in the sheer amount of stuff that we don't know, it's caused people to self-appoint themselves as medical experts. Doctors who have years of training and experience now have to deal with patients who view all their symptoms in the waiting room, and are convinced that they have x or y disease. The trend is so pervasive that there's even a term for it now-- a WebMD degree. It's also tempting, then, to simply call out the anti-vaxxers and shut down their Facebook groups.

On a government level, we've seen the introduction of measures such as Victoria's No Jab, No Play policy. But if we do this, we risk feeding into that narrative that anti-vaxxers are being oppressed by the mainstream. What we need is a more nuanced approach and an understanding of context.

Anti-vaxxers are emblematic of all medical conspiracy theorists. People get caught up in them through either grief or desperation. Their feelings are exacerbated by a lack of hard answers about the medical system, and they're suspicious, suspicious about the medical system and whether it's actually looking out for their best interests.

I argue that medical conspiracies aren't completely irrational. They're based on a frustration with what's to be seen as a cold, impersonal medical system. They've primarily taken root in the US-- a country with profoundly expensive medical care where people take alternative cures because they can't afford the real thing.

In Australia, we might be lucky to enjoy Medicare, but that doesn't mean we're immune to the soft power of American culture or the effects of fake news spreading on an international scale. This is coupled with a massive rise in populism around the world where people no longer trust their institutions, whether that's government or medicine. The alt-right movement and the election of Donald Trump are just some of the symptoms to this underlying cause. And researchers have found evidence that the same bots used by Russia in the 2016 election are now, three years later, treating both pro- and anti-vaccine content, seeking to exploit that divide, too.

So to bridge that divide, we need to look at who the anti-vaxxers really are. They're not all hippies from Byron Bay. They're not a homogeneous group. And as the general public, we need to stop treating them as characters in a cartoon, but rather as parents who ultimately just want the best for their children no matter how uninformed their decisions might be.

The first thing to remember is that anti-vaxxers exist on a spectrum of belief. We have people who are vaccine-hesitant-- about a third of the population. And then at the very end of the scale, full-on anti-vaxxers-- a far smaller group. The more important group to target, then, are the vaccine-hesitants, so they don't move along the spectrum and fall victim to false information.

The reasons that people aren't vaccinating their children also differ. In remote indigenous communities, it might simply be because access to health care is a genuine challenge. In the cities, parents might simply be too busy to send their kid to the GP at precisely 12 months for a booster shot. And then we have the people who actively make the choice not to vaccinate. And these people, like all of us, are subject to biases and flaws in their thought processes.

For example, Facebook groups are essentially a collection of people telling their stories and filled with similar beliefs. Anti-vaxxers talk about their own experiences of side effects. And when these repeated anecdotes build up, they feed into this confirmation bias people have that vaccines are harmful. Anti-vaxxers are humans, too, and they're also subject to flaws in perception. Many of us simply can't picture a measles outbreak simply because we haven't seen one for years. And that means we don't perceive them to be a massive threat.

So what can we do, then, to target such a multifaceted issue? We know that education doesn't work. And we know that these people can no longer trust doctors or Big Pharma. And this is where we need to engage, not educate. Dismissing people's worries as baseless or trying to debunk facts with research and statistics is actually extremely ineffective.

One strategy that has been shown to work is something called reactive listening. Researchers aim to listen to anti-vaxxers and follow up with questions like, why do you feel that way, or tell me about how much you love your daughter. After establishing that trust, they then showed photos of children suffering from measles and polio. People exposed to this technique were far more likely to change their minds and vaccinate their kids than the group who was simply shown mortality rates for these diseases.

And we can apply this to our own life as well, even if that simply means how we engage with anti-vaccine content in our Facebook comments. But that's not enough. For groups like anti-vaxxers, who feel marginalised, we need to show them that we're making the drive and the effort to create change in the mainstream. That looks like reforming the language around anti-vaxxers, where the public conversation is divided into either pro-vax, responsible parents, or anti-vax, irresponsible parents, therefore alienating the latter group.

It looks like making information about vaccinations more readily available. The government has recently committed to spending $7.5 million on the campaign called Get the Facts. A website and an ad campaign have been launched, including on Facebook, which will geotarget areas with low vaccination rates. But we need to take it one step further and work on a holistic approach that includes training GPs on how to deal with sceptical patients and making the medical system seem more personal.

The best option available is to look inwards at how we can rebuild trust. It means showing people how doctors get paid. No, they don't get paid extra money to vaccinate your child. It means being able to hold Big Pharma to account and to show that their researchers and sources of income aren't part of some government vaccine conspiracy. It means legislation that calls for greater transparency no matter how hard it is to get that political capital. It's only when we have transparency that we can rebuild trust in our doctors and our hospitals and ultimately tackle this dangerous trend.

We need to stop scoffing at anti-vaxxers or dismissing their concerns as unimportant, but instead focus on the root issues that matter to them. Ladies and gentlemen, if we're going to tackle anti-vaxxers, we're going to need a more nuanced approach. It's time to stop focusing on the symptoms and start looking at the cause.

[applause]

ESTELLE STARK: Our final contestant today is Bridget Cunningham from Monte Sant' Angelo Mercy College. The subject of Bridget's speech is 'Are We Dumber Than a Fish.' Please welcome Bridget Cunningham.

[applause]

BRIDGET CUNNINGHAM: To start off, I'd like to introduce you to a really dumb fish. This fish is called the Siamese fighting fish. And I say it's dumb because if you put enough food in its tank, it will eat itself to death. And that's not terribly smart, but we could say the reason for that is because it was given too much food. But if you think about it, actually lots of fish wouldn't eat themselves to death. Because, like fish in the ocean, they have a lot more food than fish in a tank. So the problem isn't too much food in the tank. The problem seems that the Siamese fish keeps on choosing to eat.

One study found was that when people were given the choice of standing still for a whole day, not allowed to do anything, or to be electrocuted, people chose the electric shock. We're hooked on activity and stimulation. It's fortunate, though, because there's a lot of it around.

In the 19th century, the world's amount of information doubled every 100 years. Mid-20th century accelerated to every 25 years. Next year, the world's amount of information will be doubling every 11 hours. And in the face of that, we feel frenetically busy. But are we really busy because there's too much to do? That fails to learn the lesson of the Siamese fish. We're actually busy because we're choosing busyness. We even brag about our busyness to our friends about the number of notifications we have or about the number of hours we studied or played sport. We also post about our busyness.

Jessica, why do you think I care that you woke up at 5:00 AM to make yourself a health shot, and then went for a 10-kilometre run before school because you're #dedicated? I don't. Even our teachers encourage us to be busy. They say, speed up, speed up. You're going too slow. Who cares if you're stressed or overwhelmed? That's just a part of life. Talk less, work more, write more, be more-- more.

Being busy is a self-imposed way to make us feel worth something. Being busy is a way to make us feel significant and productive. The phrase 'I'm just too busy' was reported on by The New York Times in 2012, and they called this response a boast disguised as a complaint. Not only do we brag about our busyness. We compete. The busier you are, the more important you are. The concept of doing more equals success. And this is the idea many people have living in a capitalist society, the goal being to make as much money as possible. And we therefore feel worthless when we're not doing anything.

Since the mid '80s, the amount of information that we have in our brains has increased five times. But the amount we are producing it in that same amount of time has increased 200 times-- 5 times more consumption, 200 times more production. Now, this only says one thing. Most of our productivity is pointless. Yet we still can't help ourselves.

To further explain, it's like going to a buffet. You're guaranteed to take more than you need each time, sending the rest back to the kitchen. Because you ask yourself, should I have that extra piece of steak? Should I have that extra scoop of ice cream? And the answer is, of course, always going to be yes for most of the food offered.

But we do the same with life. Should I join another sports team? Should I go to another extra study class after school? This is because we can't help ourselves. We want to be busy. We want to brag about our busyness. But, in fact, you actually become 40% less productive when you have too much to do. When we're too busy, our mind looks like a snow globe.

Now, this state of mind is called psychic entropy, which is a deeply unpleasant state for our mind, but it's also an exhausting one. Our mind even develops micro-habits to help us cope with our snow globes or busyness, like answering texts whilst on the bus or cooking dinner whilst reading our study notes. And while many of us would refer to this as multitasking, unfortunately it's not. In fact, many few people can do two actual tasks at once.

These micro-habits are just ways too quickly moving to and from things to make us think we are achieving something, when it's really like moving in and out of a slow lane. You were using more petrol to get to your final destination than if you just stayed in your original lane. And these micro-habits aren't good for you also. They increase stress, which can lead to anxiety or becoming too overwhelmed. But we still can't help ourselves. We not only can't help ourselves, but we also don't want to face the absence of busyness-- boredom. Our society deems being bored as the boring, as if we've made rest and laziness the same thing.

So how do we deal with this busyness when our society has evolved around the concept of busyness being a good thing? Now, the solution is not shaving bits off the things you do each day, like recording your favourite TV show so you can skip through the ads, which saves you around 8 minutes per half hour. So if you watch 2 hours of TV, around 32 minutes of time to, let's say, study. You know what would also give you 32 minutes of time to study? Not watching 2 hours of TV.

This example here shows that we try and save time, think of multiple ways to save our time, well before that moment of time hasn't even happened yet. And the solution isn't also resisting what we have to do, like resisting to not watch the TV, because we're not good at that. When a notification goes off on your phone and you think, I'm not going to look at that, your brain is already sucked away to, what was that about?

We instead need to implement good habits, not to be mistaken with micro-habits. And this would include avoiding the temptation rather than resisting it. Like the phone-- avoid the notification by putting it in another room. You will therefore achieve sustained focus on things that actually matter in your life at that point in time, which will lead to improved performance and productivity.

But these are small things we can implement in our lives. The real solution here is balance. How can we turn busy into balance? Because balance is what actually leads us to fulfilment and meaningful productivity. It allows you to have a multifaceted life-- one that isn't focused on just work or just school, but one that allows you to focus on school or work, yes, but also strengthen communication and relationships between family and friends. But most importantly, having time for yourself.

But balance is practise. You can't just add on a lunch with your friends once a week and conclude yourself as, I'm balanced. You have to practise. But what does this look like? It looks like three things-- work, play, and whitespace. We all know what work and play looks like, but it's the whitespace aspect that needs to be understood in order to become balanced.

Whitespace is allowing moments between activities, allowing for activities to complement each other, not compete with each other. And this allows time for integration. Dr. Dan Siegel, a psychiatrist/professor, has studied the importance of whitespace and the role that it plays in our development and relationships. And he explained it like a puzzle.

The puzzle is us, and the pieces are aspects of our lives. But the puzzle can only be put together if we have time to do it. This can mean 15 minutes between tasks to grab lunch, meditate, go outside, read, being able to take a family walk once a weekend, or ordering your coffee to stay rather than to go. Doing even one of these activities each day helps to increase awareness in your life and allow for meaningful productivity. We therefore still have things to do and places to be, but we aren't choosing this busyness and let it take over us, like the fish with its food.

I did, however, forget to mention something about the Siamese fish. If you give it the right amount of food, it's fine. It lives healthily and to its full lifespan. But when it's given too much food is when it chooses to be dumb. If we keep choosing this busyness, like the fish choose to keep eating the food, we don't necessarily eat ourselves to death, but we starve ourselves of actually having fulfilment and meaningful productivity in our lives. The good news, however, is the fact that we can and have the ability to implement balance in our lives. Thankfully, it makes us a lot smarter than a fish.

[applause]

ESTELLE STARK: That concludes the prepared section. The finalists will now leave the auditorium and will return to give their three-minute impromptu speeches. Each finalist will speak on the same subject after a three-minute preparation.

Thank you. We are now ready for the impromptu section. The finalists will speak in the same order as they did for their prepared speeches. There will be a warning bell at two minutes and two bells at three minutes. The subject for the impromptu section is 'The Deep End.' Our speakers should be arriving soon. Please welcome Annabelle Richens.

[applause]

ANNABELLE RICHENS: It's no secret that we're living in a rapidly advancing age of digital technology. Whether that's from something as convenient as the dishwasher or the devices in our pockets, it's safe to say that we can all enjoy the luxuries of a digital world. However, I think we might be starting to reach a tipping point, and we might be starting to get in too deep in the realm of technologies and a little in over our heads. This has become more and more apparent when examining virtual reality technology, particularly the construction of something called deep fakes. Well, what are deep fakes?

Essentially, a summary of the technology is that anyone with a photo or video footage, whether that's a headshot or CCTV, can take your image and make your face say anything that they want to, move any way they want to, essentially animating yourself. And this sounds like a scary dystopian reality, but, in fact, it's not. It's the same technology they use to create dead people in movies or sometimes they use in museums to bring your favourite historical figures to life.

However, this technology also has more sinister and threatening implications. For example, a recent video has surfaced of US President Obama saying some particularly derogatory things about current President Trump. However, it soon emerged that this was not, in fact, the President Obama we know and love, but comedian Jordan Peele, who was doing an impression of Obama that had been dubbed over a video of his face. This is a scary concept, and I don't think we're living in a world that is prepared to deal with the consequences of technology going this far.

This sparked a debate about the future of crime, and politics, and war, and what our world is going to look like if anyone can say anything at any given time. Just imagine a volatile political landscape in which any opponent can make any other contestant declare anything that serves their case, whether that's the dropping of a nuclear bomb or some accusations around a contestant's private behaviour. I don't think that we're living in a world that is prepared to deal with the consequences of deep fake technology.

Particularly considering our social news landscapes, and the way that these sort of things can spread around social media platforms before we can confirm the legitimacy of the sources, this creates a world in which the very idea of truth is contested. Anything on video may not be applicable, whether that's in the court of law or in the realm of political debate. And I don't think anyone's ready to navigate these scary waters of what is and isn't real, particularly when it comes to institutions that we trust, like the worlds of politics and law.

Technology is exciting, and its rapidly advancing means that we're living in a unique world to experience. However, I think we have to be wary of how we're going to navigate it in the future. Because with technology like deep fakes, we're starting to get way in over our heads.

[applause]

ESTELLE STARK: Please welcome Kristina Hua.

[applause]

KRISTINA HUA: The deep end. I'm sure that we've all come across this person at least one time in our lives or maybe multiple times at different locations. But nonetheless, they pester you with the same purpose. They're there waiting for you at the train station, at your local supermarket, there at Westfield, and they say, hey there, beautiful, your hair looks great today. Why don't you sponsor a child in poverty? They need your help. And this pestering, they use the guilty words of giving you compliments and trying to lure you in. Why didn't you sponsor a child today, they say.

These guys are called the chuggers. I call them the charity muggers. They take your money away, and they technically sell you something. But have we ever questioned ourselves, where does this money really go to? And are you actually sponsoring a child? They say that you are, but supposedly, this is not the case.

Why do I say this? It's because multiple people, donators of World Vision, have said that they have received the same letters every single year from the same child. We shouldn't be throwing our money into the deep end, thinking that it will just work somehow and support this child, because that really isn't the case. World Vision needs to come up with some transparency to us, and give us some closure as to where our money really is going. Because their $40 a month programme maybe just supporting the CEO of World Vision. His income is $650,000 a year. I don't need to give more money to him.

Another charity that does this is the Red Cross, where only $0.26 of every $1.00 is really going to the charity. This is a shocking fact, and I don't want to donate to a charity where none of my money is really going to work.

Let's question these charities and understand that our money shouldn't be going into the deep end. And make sure that we understand that the causes that we want to support should be supported, but with transparency. And we need to understand this. We need to do our research, in-depth research, into what is going on with these charities. Charities like the Australian Childhood Foundation support children 100% non-profit, and these are the charities that I want to support, not the ones which try to mug you. Thank you.

[applause]

ESTELLE STARK: Please welcome Himaja Dave.

[applause]

HIMAJA DAVE: When I was a little girl, my family and I moved from India in search of the Australian dream. For my dad, this was a secure job with a big house so that we could achieve our own dreams. For five-year-old Indian girl me, it was a bit different. I just wanted a big backyard where I could house my pet kangaroo. But as the housing market has gotten more unstable, it seems that my generation has been thrust into the deep end, unable to afford a house with a backyard big enough to house our pet kangaroos. So instead, we've had to look for cheaper solutions-- apartments.

Unfortunately, whilst these multi-million dollar complexes come at budgetable prices, they also come with extremely high overhead costs associated with poor material sourcing and unauthorised structural plans, which have led to residents searching in the deep ends of their pockets to accrue the savings required to save their homes.

Just look at the Opal Tower, which was evacuated on Christmas Eve last year. After the evacuation, the chief of Fire and Rescue New South Wales said that developers needed to ensure that they implemented measures to protect residents and stopped thrusting them into the deep end when it came to protecting their homes. But it seemed that developers were disinterested and instead decided to charge residents up to $50,000 on fees that were completely out of their hands-- like licencing and construction costs.

And just last week, the Mascot Towers were also evacuated after a similar issue. This time the pockets were even deeper, costing residents between $60,000 to $100,000. And as new reports come out, suggesting that these towers are now sinking, residents are further down in the deep end, unable to swim to shore and save their dreams.

And this is happening all around the country. But as developers evaporate and issuers refuse claims, residents have no choice but to agree to under-the-table contracts that restrict them from speaking out about the issue. And albeit there has been some government effort-- you could say that there's been some life vests thrown out by the government. But these are clearly not enough. Because currently, systems only suggest duty of care for developers and a 2% bond within the first two years. With the ABS concluding that most of these repairs and damages happen after the first two years, residents are once again thrust in the deep end, having to fend for themselves.

So what's the solution? Well, we can look towards the [inaudible] Report, which was released 18 months ago but has since been ignored. It basically suggests transparency between developers and residents, so residents aren't thrown into the deep end and exploited by these profit-maximising, corrupt corporations. And that's exactly what I think we need. Because, yeah, I came to the conclusion I wouldn't get a pet kangaroo. But my Australian dream still stands. I want a home where I can feel safe and secure and I'm not robbed by the people who I trusted most.

[applause]

ESTELLE STARK: Please welcome Zoe Freedman.

[applause]

ZOE FREEDMAN: On the long weekend, my family decided to go down to the South Coast. And Saturday night, my parents made a really delicious soup called Jerusalem artichoke soup. For those of you who don't know what Jerusalem artichokes are, they're a root vegetable from one of the members of the sunflower family.

Anyway, what you really need to know about Jerusalem artichokes is that they make you incredibly flatulent. Now, imagine that the fart that you do maybe every two months or so that's the worst, most potent fart in those two months, and you think, oh, how bad is this-- it's like that every 10 minutes.

[laughter]

So the next day, my family decided to go on a bushwalk. And, of course, we had to drive there, and everyone was farting on each other. The car was like a fart capsule. It was terrible.

The reason why I'm telling you this-- yes, it's unsavoury. It's uncouth, probably not for the dinner table. But it's definitely not unimportant, because for me, that bushwalk was a bit like getting thrown into the deep end. And that humour that came from the farting was one of the things that got me through it.

Because humour is one of the most powerful tools for actually getting you through hardships. And fart jokes, even though they're not very sophisticated, are one of the most accessible forms of humour. Because it doesn't matter what language you speak or anything. If you hear the 'prrt,' you're going to laugh. It's a bit funny.

[laughter]

So as I was walking-- I haven't been doing very much exercise, mostly sitting on the couch. I got a bit tired. It didn't matter. I was laughing because I was getting farted on. I got a splinter in my finger. It hurt. But you know, I didn't notice it was hurting until about two hours later.

Because there's been research done that shows laughter releases hormones which are natural pain killers. I didn't notice I was in pain because I was laughing, because my mum was farting on me. My legs got sore, and I got frustrated because I was being farted on and because it was taking such a long time to get to the top and get to the view. And I wanted lunch. And when is this going to end? But you know, I didn't really mind at the end of the day. I had a great day because I felt really light-hearted. And that's what laughter does.

When you are in a situation-- maybe your homework load is getting too intense or there's a deadline at work-- I think what we need to do is loosen up a bit. Feel connected to other people by the fact that we're laughing together. Forget our issues for just a little bit, and see the funny side of the situation. Become a bit more like children.

Because at the end of the day, when you get thrown in the deep end, that's one of the great things that's going to help you out. So even if you do have to be a bit impolite, when you get thrown into that deep end of work or school, make sure that you're farting on the way down.

[applause]

ESTELLE STARK: Please welcome Kira Trahana.

[applause]

KIRA TRAHANA: If there's anything that social media has taught us, it's that being special is good. Do something crazy, outrageous, out there, because that's the way that you get likes. Now, none of what I'm saying is particularly groundbreaking by any means. In fact, controversial acts by Instagrammers and YouTubers are pretty much what get the most likes. Well, what happens when someone decides to jump into the deep end, ignoring emotional depth, instead chasing what audiences like and enjoy?

Now, recently HBO has launched the Chernobyl programme, which has now been rated, I think, the top TV show on IMDb ever. So this show pretty much obviously outlines the tragedy of Chernobyl-- my friends are obsessed with it-- and pretty much the thousands of people who died there, the cover-up of what happened.

Now, of course, this being 2019, the first reaction for Instagram influencers was, yes, to go to Chernobyl and get those selfies. What ended up happening was that we had quite a few interesting shots here and there, including a few scantily clad bikini pics in the middle of abandoned theme parks. And pretty much ended up with Ukrainian officials begging visitors to the site to know, please don't take photos of yourselves wearing nothing but an unbuttoned lab coat. Thank you very much.

But as funny as we find this, and as insensitive as it is, we need to remember the fact that these people pretty much have ignored the tragedy of thousands of people dying there and the nuclear contamination that will go on for thousands of years to come. So, then, how did we get to this point where jumping into the deep end meant doing something perhaps terrible?

Now, of course, we can have good adventure tourism. For example, trips to North Korea, which could possibly go totally wrong but otherwise offer insight into an otherwise recluse country. On the other hand, we have things like visiting Auschwitz or concentration camps, where people hope to find some sort of depth and meaning to their visit. Or we could have visits to Chernobyl, which, by the way, after the show's launch, have spiked by 40%.

So we know, then, that tourism can go bad quickly. And jumping into the deep end-- for example, Logan Paul's terrible suicide forest video-- can go pretty badly. In which case, we need to think to ourselves, where can we find a balance between sensitivity and bringing awareness to a place, a tragedy, an event? And I think that's where we come in, here, as people today. Because ultimately, we are the consumers of this information.

When you mindlessly scroll through Chernobyl pics on the Instagram feed, which, for example, I have so far, don't double-tap those Instagram feeds. But comment. Think about what really is driving this. Are people going into the deep end for a proper reason of bringing awareness to something, or are they doing it simply for the likes? And I think that kind of translates into everyday life. Jumping into the deep end doesn't have to mean being controversial and without emotional depth. We need to combine the two to create something that's truly deep.

[applause]

ESTELLE STARK: Please welcome Bridget Cunningham.

[applause]

BRIDGET CUNNINGHAM: Only recently, I went to Chiang Mai in Thailand. And my most memorable experience there was going to a hill tribe. And the hill tribe is what we can associate with refugees in our society, who are often secluded and isolated from our society.

The tour guide did tell us, however, which was most astounding to me, that she used to live in this hill tribe but was taught English by a volunteer who came over to her hill tribe. And she was therefore able to get out of this situation, and start earning a living for herself, and make money, and get out of this community. She was able to get out of the deep end and into a better life where she now does tour guides for people who come to her country.

So what was the cause of this? The main reason why she was able to get out of this situation was because she was taught English. And there are two ideas that surround why teaching English in these poor communities allows these people to get out of the deep end. The first being, it allows them to fight against the oppression that's often faced in these countries. A lot of these developing countries have corrupt governments who often use taxpayer money for their own good rather than the good of their society, and the community, and services offered there. If English is taught to these people, they're able to get out of the deep end, and fight up against this oppression in their society, and speak up, and spread global awareness to the issue that's faced in their community.

Now, the second reason why teaching English is really important is it allows social mobility for these people, and allows them-- as the tour guide example-- allows them to get out of their situation into a better life. It allows them to have better jobs and therefore better future prospects for them. And they can therefore be hopeful of their future, instead of being confined to either a slum area or the hill tribe area, as I talked about, and able to get out of the deep end.

So what can we actually do in order to get more people in these developing countries able to speak English so they're able to achieve social mobility and fight against oppression? Now, the main thing here is education. We need more programmes of volunteers-- this could be teachers and students-- coming over to these people in these developing countries-- like the tour guide-- and able to teach them English so they're able to self-sustain and able to get out of their situation by themselves.

And to do this, we need more funding from organisations and governments so they're able to send these people over. And what a lot of organisations don't actually realise is that sending things like clothes and water over these countries, although important, actually doesn't allow that permanent, lasting impact that actually can benefit these people and get them out of the deep end. And it only allows that temporary solution in order to get them out of their situation. And the only way to fight this is through teaching English through these programmes and through this funding for the organisations so people are able to move to the shallow end and out of the deep end. Thank you.

[applause]

ESTELLE STARK: The adjudicators will now leave the auditorium to decide the winner of the Plain English Speaking Award for 2019.

I now invite Mr. Richard Nott from the Australia-Britain Society, Mr. John Olsen from the International Churchill Society of Australia to present on behalf of Professor David Flint from the English Speaking Union, and Mary Ann Powers, principal education officer at the Arts Unit from the New South Wales Department of Education.

[applause]

I will now invite each of the contestants to the stage where they will receive cheques for $100 to be presented by Mr. Nott, medallions to be presented by Mr. Olsen, and certificates to be presented by Ms. Powers. Please welcome back Annabelle Richens,

[applause]

Kristina Hua.

[applause]

Himaja Dave.

[applause]

Zoe Freedman.

[applause]

Kira Trahana.

[applause]

Bridget Cunningham.

[applause]

Thank you. If you would all kindly remain on the stage, we have a few moments for members of the audience to take photographs.

I would now like to call on Justin Lai to announce the winner of the Plain English Speaking Award for 2018.

[applause]

JUSTIN LAI: Can I just say, first of all, it's kind of weird being here after being down there last time. All right. No, cut that out of the way. All good.

Firstly, I just want to congratulate all six speakers on probably what has been a kind of gruelling season of public speaking as a whole. There are four rounds this competition. You're up against some of the most talented people in the state, and you managed to come through, and deliver some fantastic speeches here, and not buckle under pressure. That is an admirable feat, and I would just love to extend another round of congratulations to these wonderful speakers.

[applause]

Here's how this adjudication will go. I'm going to kind of cover generally what we thought speakers did well and prepared in impromptus, followed by things that we thought that they could generally improve on and just tips in the future. Then we're going into what we thought the winner did very well, and I'm going to sort of announce the winner at the end. Because it's a formality, you're going to have to stay here for a while.

So let's go to the prepared and what we generally thought as a panel. Firstly, we thought that the speakers generally did quite well in terms of using a very intellectual means of engaging with a certain topic. And that was finding a very interesting, engaging, and stimulating way to sort of find a new lens to look at something. We also thought that, as well, there were attempts to be very personable and use examples in their own lives to engage with the topic, and promote it in an empathetic sense to the audience, which we appreciated as a whole.

We also secondly appreciated the level kind of thematic motifs, and narrative devices, and structural framing devices used to almost guide the audience through a topic and not kind of leave them stranded, as it were, in the deep end. So we thought that, in general, most speeches and those exceptionally high level quality, suggested in a lot of what people tried to do with framing devices and kind of the way in which they sort of hit our topics.

To work on, we think a couple of things. First was to kind of pursue more of an intellectualism than before. Because a lot of the times we found that speakers engaged at points with very interesting ideas, but never went further than that. We wanted an intellectual complexity that was more profound and more deeper than what we heard at points today. We wanted to hear things that we hadn't heard before-- something that a person, any person in this room, would say and come away with as something they hadn't heard before, something that was new and interesting. We thought that if speakers aimed to do that-- and we know that you guys aimed to do that. The speakers actively tried to definitely go for this really challenging topics to really take people out of their comfort zones. We thought that that was something would have improved as a whole.

We think that, secondly, in terms of providing solutions to things, we wanted speakers to be a bit more challenging. A lot of the times solutions were understandable. They were logical. But we wanted solutions to be kind of out there. We wanted solutions to be very kind of challenging, and we wanted them to allow us to rethink and reconceptualize what was possible in terms of the realm of possibility in and of itself.

We think that, thirdly, being personal was something that-- although we did touch on-- we wanted for these speakers to improve on more as a whole.

Fourthly, we think that there was a kind of slight danger in assuming too many things were true. For example, we didn't want speakers to kind of just naturally say that things were bad or things were a certain way. We wanted people to question the foundations of what they were relying on as fundamental truths.

And just as a side note, we kind of like clever framing devices. We wanted to kind of promote that. We appreciated speakers who were clever in terms of how they constructed the kind of story of their speech as it went along.

In terms of the impromptu and the idea of the deep end, we kind of thought, as a panel, there were two ways to go with this. Firstly, it was the idea that, as a person, you were suddenly in a position that you were not prepared for, a la finding yourself in the deep end of a swimming pool with no way to sort out. We thought that, secondly, it was kind of a thing that you were aiming for, but you were worried that you may have been out of your depth and unable to acclimatise with. And we also debated a bunch of other things, maybe the idea that scary things lurk inside the deep end or maybe people seem or pretend to be deep and are, in fact, quite shallow. But, generally, we accepted kind of two straight definitions of what the topic generally was.

So we have a couple of points. And we think that although speakers did very well in the impromptu to engage with the topic at points, we thought that there were general things that they could improve on. Firstly, we thought a good means of doing this was to start not just with the phrase, 'the deep end,' but more to do with what the real meaning of that phrase meant. For example, maybe the idea which we had maybe described. So maybe not just to go into kind of very surface-level analogies, or things that were very easy to understand, but engaging more with what was behind the scenes and what really underlaid the topic as a whole.

We also, secondly, thought that a nice way to frame the ideas of it is that if you can name the speech your kind of topic-- if the topic of your speech could be the title, then you've done a good job. And we thought that speakers needed to do a better job of incorporating fully the full conceit of what they were trying to say, as opposed to maybe engaging with it in some forms, but not really going into it, and not going into kind of a deeper level of what that substantially meant.

And I think that, overall, there were, from all speakers, three minutes of good quality content. But the best speakers were ones that we were at the end not wondering how they went there, but we kind of could flow with the structure and could understand how they approached a message at the end of it as a result of the way they had organised their speech.

So now we get to the exciting stuff. Let's go on to our winner. So for our winner, in terms of their prepared, we thought that this was the most confident attempt out of the six to engage in both a really interesting concept and a very deep topic in terms of what they were trying to get at and what they were trying to propel us to think about. We thought it was extremely brave in the way that they attempted to talk about certain topics-- not just in that, but also to talk about very interesting things from which we could then look into.

We thought that, secondly, it was also very intellectually stimulating. We thought that we were very satisfied with how it went about engaging in certain concepts as opposed to maybe just leaving it as it were. We thought that the speech engaged on several levels how it was something that we should care about.

In terms of the impromptu, we appreciated the idea that it was entertaining and looked at a simple issue with depth. But we thought that it was very personable, which was the nicest touch to it. And we thought that there was overall, in general, although points to work on, a good engagement with the topic as a whole.

So without further ado, the winner of the 2019 Plain English Speaking Award is Himaja Dave.

[shouting]

[applause]

ESTELLE STARK: Congratulations to Himaja, who will now represent New South Wales at the National Final of the Plain English Speaking Award to be held in Brisbane on Monday, the 12th of August. Contestants from all states and territories will compete for a place in the International Final in London next year.

Distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, it has been a great pleasure to chair the 2019 Final of the Plain English Speaking Award. The official party, contestants, their parents, and coaches are invited to the lunch in the foyer.

SPEAKER 1: But we missed the presentation.

SPEAKER 2: That's OK. We'll do the presentation now. So I would like to call back Mr. Nott, Mr. Olsen, and Ms. Powers to the stage, who'll be presenting Himaja with the Australia Britain Apex Shield, the Westminster Stone, as well as a medallion certificate and prizes from the English Speaking Union and the Australia-Britain Society.

Congratulations to all speakers, of course. It was a very, very entertaining public speaking competition. Thank you to Kirrawee High School for chairing as well. And so without further ado, big round of applause, Himaja Dave.

[applause]

So as our chairperson did say, invited guests, families, and contestants, of course, we'll be having a light lunch in just in the foyer. And you can all see the adjudicators there for some other feedback as well. Once again, thank you for coming today. It's been a pleasure, and have a lovely afternoon. Thank you.

[applause]