Video transcript
Plain English Speaking Award 2020 – NSW State Final

[intro music]

[ambient bush sounds and percussive instruments]

ZIPPORAH CORSER-ANU: Kayb ngalpa, ngitha mura, which in my language means 'G'day, everyone.' My name is Zipporah Corser-Anu, and I'm a proud Torres Strait Islander woman from Saibai Island in the Torres Strait.

It gives me great pleasure to acknowledge the traditional custodians of the land on which we stand. We pay our respects to their Elders, past, present, and emerging, and extend that respect to any Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people present today. The stars are our totemic spirits. May the stars shine bright wherever you are, and guide you all.

[ambient bush sounds and percussive instruments]

JUSTINE CLARKE: Hello and welcome to the 2020 state final of the Virtual Plain English Speaking Award. My name is Justine Clarke, and I'm Speaking Competitions Officer for the Department of Education.

It has been my privilege this year to see many wonderful young speakers from across the state, culminating in the eight finalists that you'll see today. Our chairperson for the state final is Brendon Lambert. Brendon is a student at Georges River College Peakhurst Campus, and he's a fine young speaker himself. He is a former state finalist in the Legacy Junior Public Speaking Award, and this year progressed to the preliminary finals of this competition. Thank you, Brendon.

BRENDON LAMBERT: It is my great pleasure to be your chairperson this virtual state final of the Plain English Speaking Award for 2020. The Plain English Speaking Award is one of the premier events in the public speaking calendar, attracting hundreds of entries from all educational systems. This year saw some major change due to COVID-19. But perhaps more than ever it was important that students in New South Wales were given the opportunity to speak up about the issues that are important to them. And thus, the virtual competition was born.

Students were invited to record and submit prepared speeches before four preliminary finals took place via Zoom in the first week of Term 3, with the final eight speaker you're about to see chosen to represent their schools in the state final. I would now like to invite the Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning, the honourable Sarah Mitchell, to address the audience.

SARAH MITCHELL: Hi, everybody, my name's Sarah Mitchell, and I'm the Minister for Education and Early Childhood Learning in New South Wales. And I'm delighted to welcome you all to the state final for the Plain English Speaking Awards.

I want to start by congratulating our eight finalists. For all of you who have made it to this level of the competition is an incredible achievement. And you should be very proud of yourselves. And all the best for the competition today.

When I was your age, I used to do a lot of public speaking. And the confidence and the skills that I learned are something that I now use every day as an MP and as a minister. And for you, no matter what you go on to do with your lives, you will always find the skill sets through this competition beneficial, because it's so important to be able to express yourself and convey your ideas.

So again, can I wish you all the very best of luck and let you know that I'll be watching and cheering for you all. Thank you.

BRENDON LAMBERT: Thank you, Minister Mitchell. Before we get to our speakers, let me introduce you to the adjudication panel. Our three adjudicators for the final today are Lloyd Cameron, Emily Kim, and Himaja Dave.

Lloyd Cameron retired as the Public Speaking Competitions Officer of the New South Wales Department of Education in 2017. In that role, he coordinated debating and public speaking in New South Wales primary and secondary schools for over 20 years. He was National Chairperson of the Plain English Association from 2000 until 2017. He has written over 30 study guides on senior HSC English and drama texts.

Emily Kim attended North Sydney Girls High School, and was the winner of this award in 2017. She went on to win the national final held in Melbourne in the same year. She then travelled to London to represent Australia at the international final in May of 2018. She was a member of the Combined High Schools Debating Team in 2016 and in 2017, and reached the semifinals of the Australian Intervarsity Debating Championships.

Himaja Dave was the winner of this award in 2019. She attended the national final in Brisbane, where she was placed as the runner-up. Himaja attended Crestwood High School during this time, and competed in the state final of the Year 9 and 10 competition, and was a part of the champion Western Sydney representative team at the Junior State Debating Championships in 2017. She was also a member of the Combined High Schools Debating Team in 2019.

We now come to the prepared section of the competition. Each speaker will speak for eight minutes on a subject of the contestant's choice. There will be a warning bell at six minutes and two bells at eight minutes to indicate that the speaker's time has expired. A continuous bell will be rung at eight minutes and 30 seconds.

Our first contestant is Rubi Ainsworth. Rubi is in Year 10 at Armidale Secondary College. Her role model is her public speaking mentor, Ms Smee, because she didn't think that she would have made it this far if it weren't for her. Rubi's hopes for the future include one day being able to gather in large groups. And she would like to possess the power to influence time because she is a self-confessed procrastinator. Rubi's favourite saying is, 'we are all just here to be happy and kind.' The subject of Rubi's speech is HeLa. Please welcome Rubi Ainsworth.

RUBI AINSWORTH: Although it's not common knowledge, the biggest medical breakthrough of the 20th century was made unintentionally by a poor woman of colour. This discovery, named HeLa, has provided incalculable benefits to medicine. Yet despite these contributions, HeLa's discovery remains one of the most insidious exploitations in modern history. This case, rarely discussed, also presents several ethical dilemmas such as placing a monetary value on an individual's rights.

So, in 1951, a cervical biopsy was taken from a woman named Henrietta Lacks. This sample was taken, at the time, exclusively to confirm an unfortunate diagnosis of cancer. This case, seemingly cut and dried, became notable when scientist George Gey took this biopsy without Henrietta's consent and used it in medical experimentation.

While the sample labelled HeLa presented no different or unique qualities regarding visible appeal for selection, however, the fact Henrietta was a public patient meant she was at higher risk of being selected. So her socioeconomic status did play into the selection. This was because, in a time when inequality was endemic to society, it was easy to justify the concealed use of a public patient's biopsy as compensation for the free treatment they received.

So , Henrietta's cell sample, by chance, became the subject of George Gey's ongoing experiments, this being the attempt to find a cell line he could immortalise outside of the human body. The result of this experiment, if successful, would essentially be an infinite amount of human cells to test and analyse.

Unlike the no doubt multitudinous concealed donations preceding Henrietta's, her cells survived in culture against odds around one in a billion. The cultivation of this single unique biopsy led to breakthroughs such as the polio vaccine, retroviral AIDS medications, antidepressants, blood pressure medications, modern antibiotics, treatments for paediatric leukaemia, modern gene mapping, treatments for genetic illness, and modern antibiotics. Without Henrietta, these breakthroughs simply wouldn't have happened at the time that they did.

But HeLa was and is, of course, crucial medicine. However, the fact HeLa was used and made immensely profitable without so much as the patient's knowledge makes one of the most beneficial discoveries of the 1900s a flagrant breach of human rights. Bodily autonomy dictates that everyone has the right to self-governance without external coercion. It's one of our most basic human rights. And yet, when it came to Henrietta, this cognate corporeal entitlement was compromised.

Henrietta was never informed that her cells were used for anything but diagnostic purposes. And she died without knowing irreversible change she'd made to the global medical industry. This case itself is incredibly complex because it's such a multifaceted example of oppression. Henrietta was not singled out or chosen for this experiment specifically due to her race or socioeconomic status. However, most samples for Gey's experiment were taken from public patients, meaning, as aforementioned, Henrietta was more likely to be selected.

So while her position of oppression in the 1950s in the incredibly conservative social atmosphere of the time wasn't necessarily the reason she was chosen, it did make it impossible for the Lacks family to receive justice. Henrietta's family were still fighting for recognition in the 1970s. This, coincidentally, is when a similar case occurred. In 1976, a leukaemia patient by the name of John Moore signed over the full rights to his spleen to the UCLA Medical centre. This document meant any further experimentation or treatment of his spleen was fully legally justified. It also meant he no longer had any claim over the organ.

John Moore later found out that his cells were being used, and cultivated, and consequently being profitable. Almost immediately after this discovery, he began a lawsuit against the UCLA Medical centre. Moore signed over the full rights to his spleen, and his case made it to court. Henrietta didn't give any further consent to the use of her biopsy, and yet her family was still fighting to be heard whilst John was taking his case to the stand. It turned out to be easy to dispute the use of a patient's biopsy for medical research with a white male voice.

This is a clear example of how Henrietta's status in society made it impossible for her family to be heard or any justice to be received. This fight for recognition is still happening today, and has still not been won. The ethical implications of Henrietta's story are huge and intricate.

This discovery, founded on medical misconduct, presents several impossible questions. Firstly, how can we ignore the blatant disregard for Henrietta's human rights for the sake of societal benefit? Or rather, how can we place such a large value on an individual when it denies the global population such a necessary medical advancement?

It's widely argued to be impossible to place a price on an individual. But that philosophy is comparative. In a standalone sense, it is easy to dub an individual as priceless. However, that thought becomes a lot more difficult to navigate when you compare an individual to essentially everybody else.

In contemporary society, bodily integrity is heavily protected around legislation surrounding informed consent. While this wasn't the case in 1951, it certainly doesn't excuse the unethical practices that led to the cultivation of HeLa. Labelling Henrietta's unwitting sacrifice as 'worth it' for the miraculous results that it resulted in is excusing the blight in contravention of a human right. This mentality completely devalues our own human rights for the sake of potential medical benefit.

If we excuse this breach of ethics, we essentially excuse them all. For it's hypocritical and frankly arrogant to accept the commercialisation of Henrietta Lacks and then turn around and argue the inherent value of our own human rights.

To demonstrate the injustice that still exists today that resulted from this case, I'd like to share a quote from Henrietta's daughter, Deborah. 'Truth be told, I cannot get mad at science because it helps people live. And I'd be a mess without it. But I won't lie, I would like some health insurance so I don't got to pay all that money every month for drugs my mother's cells helped create.'

Henrietta was taken advantage of, monetised, and then refused recognition. And today her children struggle to afford the health care their mother was crucial in the creation of.

To once again contextualise the scope of this injustice, it should be noted that, as of 2019, over 50 million metric tonnes of HeLa cells have been produced. An unfathomable about more of Henrietta Lacks exists today than did when she was alive. She remains an immortalised miracle to research. And yet, today, she lives in an unmarked grave.

This concealed experiment led to hundreds of medical insights. And yet the deception that began almost seven decades ago is still overtly present. While we all reap the benefits of Henrietta's commoditisation, the Lacks family are still fighting for acknowledgment. So today it becomes our responsibility to at the very least say the name, Henrietta Lacks. Thank you.

BRENDON LAMBERT: Our second contestant is Breanna Craig. Breanna is in Year 12 at Elderslie High School. Her role model is Air Vice Marshal Julie Hammer, because as an engineer in the Royal Australian Air Force, she was the first woman to receive both a a one-star and two-star rank, and the first woman to command an operational unit in the RAAF. Breanna hopes to follow in these prestigious footsteps, and intends on studying aeronautical engineering at the Australian Defence Force Academy.

Her favourite saying is, 'All our dreams can come true if we have the courage to pursue them.' Breanna is also captain of the Elderslie High School Alpaca Show Team. The subject of Breanna's speech is The Lipstick Revolution. Please welcome Breanna Craig.

BREANNA CRAIG: It's what's on the inside that counts. From Disney to 'Women's Weekly,' that's what we've always heard about embracing our inner beauty. And in the 21st century, that's what we'd expect to hear, right, about putting our physical appearance second to our intelligence, personality, and in my case, amazing sense of humour.

But we're pretty lucky, living in a first-world country where women can wear whatever clothes they wish and apply whatever crazy colour of lipstick they want, even if they really shouldn't. The way that we see beauty in the Western world is about boosting self-confidence, enhancing appearance, and of course getting rid of that huge pimple on your cheek.

Fashion is seen by most as something that is just there, where we can access clothes wherever we are. It may seem that fashion doesn't make or break us or provide us with much more than a cute outfit. And as Meryl Streep's character Miranda might say, we think that this has nothing to do with us. But in other countries things are different, where freedom of expression isn't practised and where women can't wear what they want, where things like blush and eyeliner aren't just seen as necessities on the bathroom counter. Instead they're the very objects that are fueling a revolution.

You might think that I've been held a little bit too much hairspray today, but let me explain. The North Korean regime controls every aspect of citizens' lives. Survivors and escapees describe it as a prison where every aspect of subjects' lives and monitored, down to what they can wear and what haircuts they can have. And if you don't follow these rules, punishment can range from public humiliation to a sentence at a prison camp.

Although the threat is high, illegal trade has become prevalent, and citizens risk their lives daily just to have access to necessities like wood, flour, and oil, and to support their families and communities where resources are scarce. Danbi Kim, a young woman who grew up in North Korea, was only 14 when she was introduced to smuggling, accompanying her father as he traded scrap metal for rice at the Chinese border. This smuggling is an action so dangerous within itself, a cross with the wrong guard could send her straight to a prison camp without trial. Although there were risks, debts needed to be paid. And so, by 15, she was smuggling by herself, trekking to the border to obtain illegal Chinese products.

She began by bringing in DVDs and USB sticks to share with her peers and make a profit. And these carried more significance than she could have ever imagined. Many North Korean women learned about the outside world through these DVDs USBs, which carried South Korean TV shows that they would watch in secret late at night. Their eyes were opened to a whole new world where women could dress how they wanted and do their hair how they wanted. They had the ability to choose what they wore and put on their face.

This began the spark that Danbi's community needed to see how other women could look, live, and feel when they were free of the constraints of a restrictive regime. This idea was soon planted in the minds of many, and soon they were hooked on not only the DVDs but on the products themselves.

As Danbi grew older, she realised that makeup and trendy clothes were in demand, even more so than the DVDs. And so she found a niche, making a profit and serving her community. Through the clothes and makeup that she wore behind closed doors was something that they could use as a sign of resistance to begin to gain back their own freedom in a small but significant way. It wasn't that easy. Women were required to follow the rules or face punishment or humiliation. Ponytails that were too long were cut off in the street. But soon, women began to become braver, more daring, and no longer wore their clothes and makeup in the privacy of their own homes.

Danbi began to wear the clothes that she smuggled from China, and was publicly humiliated often. She recalls a time where she wore a pair of flare jeans, and was noticed by a street monitor. Her punishment for wearing them? They were cut up the leg, and she was forced to stand there in shame for six hours.

Women began to wear lipstick, eyeshadow, and blush outside of their homes, purchasing Danbi's products in greater numbers and using them, abandoning their fear of getting caught. It brought to them a sense of power, the fact that they were taking back control of their own appearance. Lipstick became a staple of freedom, of rebellion against the regime.

This world may seem so different to our own, and yet this practice still goes on every day. Women are no longer suffering in silence. Wearing a touch of lipstick or blush is the start of a rebellion, giving them the freedom to choose, that freedom that they've never had access to before, this quiet revolution that's happening in North Korea.

However, the irony that comes from this speaks in volumes as women in Western countries are beginning to step away from using beauty products altogether as they find that rather than empowering women, these products are actually beginning to drag us down. The societal expectations of women are clear. It's expected for women to wear makeup, and hide imperfections, and to look more like the women on covers of magazines and in our Instagram feeds.

Rather than freeing us, like makeup does for Danbi, makeup restricts us. And many women feel the impact of these high expectations every day. The statistics show that women feel anxious and worried when they leave the house without wearing makeup or the latest fashion trends. How will they be perceived by the people around them? Women in the workplace struggle every day with these expectations. And the vast majority feel that without makeup and trendy clothes, they won't be taken seriously.

A study done by an Australian beauty retailer reported that almost half of employers surveyed confessed that women who didn't wear makeup to a job interview would be less likely to be hired. A further 61% admitted that not wearing makeup on a regular basis would have a negative impact on a woman's promotion prospects.

It's unbelievable to think that our strides forward have come to such a screeching halt. Lipstick in Australia isn't a staple of change or revolution. It's beginning to trap women in a vicious cycle that may never be stopped. This is no longer about fashion and makeup, it's about choice. We need choice to make a change. And right now, we're restricted and unable to choose.

Danbi hasn't got a choice. She doesn't have the freedom to wear makeup when she wants to. And over here, if we wear makeup, we're perceived differently by the people around us to the extent where our employment is at risk. But it doesn't have to be this way. What we can do right here, right now, is reflect on what we're seeing, the unrealistic expectations of women permeating into every aspect of our lives.

National Lipstick Day that came this past July 29, is a celebration of wearing whatever colour lipstick you want and ignoring those who tell you otherwise. This occasion is bringing back a freedom of choice to Australian women, if only for one day a year.

But why can't this be every day? You don't have to be a politician or an activist to make a change anymore, to fight against these societal forces that are beginning to restrict our right to choose. We can all do it by contributing to the wider movement that is propelled by fashion and fueled by everyday people just like you or me.

Although we can't be there in North Korea to buy Danbi's products, we do know that these young women are making slow but steady progress when it comes to infiltrating the regime. What we can do is share her story and know that there is more hope with every swath of lipstick and every step in a high-heeled shoes, hope that they'll be given the right to choose their own path.

Beauty goes beyond the Kardashians and getting that Maybelline look. It has the power to change lives for the better. We should be aware that makeup and fashion isn't just about making our legs look skinny and our eyes look bigger. It's about providing women with the ability to choose. So we may think that fashion has nothing to do with us, but I think that it has everything to do with us. Welcome to the age of the lipstick revolution. Thank you.

BRENDON LAMBERT: Our third contestant is Amanda Lu. Amanda is in Year 12 at Presbyterian Ladies College Sydney. She likes big dogs, and would like to one day be able to perform a handstand push-up.

Her role model as her sister, and she would like to see a productive, meaningful argument about renewable energy and proper waste management. Amanda's favourite saying is 'This too shall pass.' The subject of Amanda's speech is The Opioid Epidemic. Please welcome Amanda Lu.

AMANDA LU: There is a drug 50 times stronger than morphine and 100 times stronger than heroin, a drug which causes seizures, hallucination, coma, and death. This drug is $0.50 a dose, incredibly addictive, and is taken by millions of people a year worldwide, ruining lives and destroying communities.

You might be wondering, why isn't anyone cracking down on the dealers? Well, that's a problem when the dealers are you doctors. The drug I'm talking about is fentanyl, a prescription pain relief medicine, completely legal, and one of the leading causes of the worldwide opioid crisis.

Thanks to opioids, every day in Australia, 150 people are hospitalised due to overdose. And yet the prescription rates of painkillers have doubled in the past 10 years and continue to rise. A major reason behind this is that pharmaceutical companies, in order to make that sweet, sweet profit, spend billions of dollars marketing fentanyl and the like to doctors as 'safe,' and 'the easy cure' for treating patients.

So doctors, especially doctors in rural Australia with less resources, they're persuaded into prescribing painkillers, more often for much longer and at much higher doses than they should.

But this is where the real problem begins. Because opioids don't just kill pain, they lift all your tensions and leave you euphoric and that's an experience that transforms you. I've heard it described by one user as 'exhaling from holding my breath for my whole life.'

It's so easy for someone legitimately prescribed opioids to spiral-- chasing the high, searching for cheaper or stronger versions no matter the risk, and inevitably overdosing. Painkillers hugely improve the quality of life for people who need them. And that's non-negotiable. So I think we need to focus on rehabilitation. Yet we as a nation are doing almost nothing. Although we have treatment methods for opioid addiction, less than 30% of people who need this treatment are receiving it.

And I think it boils down to stigma. Opioid addiction comes from the people you'd least expect says certified drug addiction doctor Helena Hansen. It's from groups like the elderly suffering from chronic pain, and for middle-class white-collar workers who think that legal means safe. The dialogue from these groups around drug addictions is that they're a personal failing, something below their status. Addicts, according to them, are lazy, or irresponsible, or reckless.

But by treating addiction as a personality problem, it prevents ordinary people from acknowledging their addiction, much less seeking treatment. And that traps them in a situation they don't understand.

Alarm bells should be ringing, because recently in Australia, especially around Melbourne, we've turned up supplies of fentanyl-laced heroin. The lines between illegal drugs and mostly-legal drugs, they're blurring. And one turns into a gateway for the other. And I'm terrified that, one day, someone I love will get into an innocent accident, need painkillers to cope, and end up a junkie.

Because opioid addiction is the addiction you don't ask for. It's the addiction that leaves vulnerable people even more vulnerable, people like the elderly, and cancer patients, and the chronically ill, and the injured, and sick, and hurting, people in pain, physically and mentally.

And what do we do for them? There's no question that Australia's drug policy is inflexible and unmerciful. A major majority of our anti-opioid budget goes towards policing and prisons. Like we're determined to label every case "criminal activity", and sweep it under the rug no matter the circumstances behind it. And this all goes to drive people away from the treatment they need.

But from countries like Portugal, we can see that when we redefine drug use as a health issue not related to character or crime, we have better outcomes. We see more people with treatment. We see less overdoses, less deaths. And we see the cycle of addiction gets broken.

So we need a shift in perspective. I think there's a few things we need to do. To begin with, we need to break the stranglehold that opioids have on some of our communities. There are a few groups; doctors who hand out opioids like lollies, big pharma companies offering rewards to doctors for prescribing their products, and patients who shop around to receive prescriptions that they don't need. In order to reduce this overprescription, we need to call for monitoring systems and better prescription tracking systems to hold these groups accountable. We also need to call for a rebalancing of our budget books, prioritising treatment and harm reduction over punishment. Despite the rising opioid dependence, the funding for most types of rehab treatment has not changed in the past 15 years. We need to push for mandatory treatment and therapy and less crippling penalties for illicit drug usage.

Finally, we also need to call for greater education and awareness programs. Firstly, we need to teach more people the risks of addiction with prescription opioids. Opioids are not Panadol, and should never be have been treated as lightly as they are now.

Secondly, and more importantly, we need to break down the stigma around addiction. We need to depict more realistic images of not just opioid addiction but all drug addictions and erase caricatures in order to normalise the act of seeking treatment.

The world is currently headed in a cold-hearted direction. In fact, new legislation in the United States has introduced harsher penalties for opioid users, not more compassionate ones. So we need to call on ourselves to rethink our attitudes towards drug addiction as a society. Only by viewing it through a kinder lens can we encourage people to seek treatment.

So let's reach out our hands. Let's be a new pain relief to the people suffering from this great opioid epidemic.

BRENDON LAMBERT: Our fourth contestant is Olivia Harlamb. Olivia is in Year 11 at Abbotsleigh, and she enjoys spending time with the dog, Benjy, and eating rocky road chocolate. She hopes to study law and international relations so that she can one day work overseas for the United Nations.

Her role model is Ruth Bader Ginsburg, because she admires her determination to succeed in an era where society thought she couldn't. The subject of Olivia's speech is, We Don't Need to Be Front and centre. Please welcome Olivia Harlamb.

OLIVIA HARLAMB: Being the youngest sibling comes with many advantages. I may have come last in the race to existence, but I definitely won in the long haul. I get to do everything my older sister wasn't allowed to do, blame everything on her even if it was maybe my fault. And sure, she can occasionally boss me around. But at the end of the day, I am still the cute one.

So at risk of sounding like a typical narcissistic millennial, I think it's safe to say that the world revolves around me. And why shouldn't I think that? Every day when I wake up, I visit my carefully-curated Instagram feed, and I see memes about how younger siblings are destined to rule the world and alerts from Apple News with statistics proving that younger siblings are more intelligent. But that's not exactly new information.

But then I spoke to my older sister, who seemed to be under the misconception that it was in fact older siblings who are more intellectually advanced. And she had similar opinion pieces to back it up. We were both reading so many articles that confirmed our beliefs that neither of us ever thought about the other's perspective. But this was not by our doing.

In a highly digitalised world where our news is driven by algorithms rather than value, the old-fashioned practice of simply portraying the facts of events has been eclipsed by a proliferation of opinions and articles that affirm and validate our own personal views. This goes to show that the news now really just caters to individual needs. And as a result, our opinions as individuals are at the front and centre of the news.

But trust me when I say it's not as great as it sounds. Today, many turn to social media as their daily source of news. Outlets such as Apple News and Facebook are some of the most popular choices. And both of these platforms are notorious for being curated based on stories you've read in the past, amplifying your own personal views, putting them at the front and centre of our outlets, eliminating all variety from our sources.

And this mechanism has a name; echo chambers, a vacuum that only allows you to see the opinions that validate your own in hopes that you will keep on clicking. Echo chambers have become a modern catastrophe, as they exist without us even realising, and take away one of the most valuable abilities we have as a society; discourse, the ability to engage and debate with others in order to expand our knowledge as individuals, especially political discourse, as it allows for deeper dissection of opinions and issues compared to what the mass media typically provides.

It also encourages activism, which can consequently impact polls and elections. Some even argue that echo chambers strongly impacted the results of the first Brexit referendum, as many people believed there was no way the UK would vote to leave, as the voices and opinions surrounding them all held the same beliefs and ideas, resulting in many people not even bothering to vote. The impact of this? A homogeneous society where discourse does not occur, where everyone places themselves at the front and centre of a decision that affects millions.

Meaningful discourse can set up to test and strengthen our own views or prompt a reconsideration based upon new information presented to us. When we lose the capacity to actively engage in with the intention to learn and rather than merely consume, we are either presented with lines of arguments that we agree with or we scroll frustratedly past headlines that just make us really, really angry.

This is even manifested in our human interactions, where we would rather avoid uncomfortable topics as we know we will end up fighting with someone about it. This has been profound in the Black Lives Matter movement, where discourse has been one of the many tools the movement encourages individuals to utilise in order to effect real and lasting change. However, many young people may feel too afraid to discuss racial issues with their parents because of a difference in long-held, deeply-set views.

Unfortunately, the extreme left and right have drowned out the middle ground that does exist. And as a result, stories and information that used to be considered a simple fact has been polarised by opinions and political bias that distort our perception of reality. This leaves us as consumers confused, divided, and defensive, as we all live in our own insular bubble of the news.

Throughout the course of COVID-19, debates over how best to control and handle it have constantly been thrown away, including the reopening of the economy, operation of schools, lockdown requirements, and recently, in Victoria, the mandatory use of personal protective equipment such as face masks. This has been one of the largest points of contention in the United States, and already the conversation surrounding it in Australia has left many people divided. Whilst there is an incredibly strong argument that masks significantly reduce the spread of COVID-19, with the District of Columbia in the US seeing a 2% fall in cases only after mandating face masks for two weeks, there is still a group of individuals that believe face masks are a violation of human rights, leading to some pretty intense arguments sparking online, in particular, Karen versus the world.

And depending on which echo chamber you exist in, your news feed will be strongly reinforcing your stance on face masks, further narrowing our tolerance to other opinions. Since everyone believes their truth is the truth, the other opinions suddenly becomes a lie, and arguments surrounding face masks have become hostile, disrespectful, unproductive, and frankly just bad for everyone's blood pressure.

Unfortunately, sometimes it is very difficult to detect when we are in an echo chamber, as we often assume we are just consuming the news. Therefore, it is up to us to actively seek out news from other cultures, views, and opinions, even if that means we are reading or watching something that may clash with our personal views.

Reintroducing discourse into our society is vital to finding the middle ground of the media where biases do not dictate news articles. In 2019, the BBC, 'Wall Street Journal,' and the Associated Press were voted to be the most unbiased news outlets that were free from censorship. These are just a few options.

It is important to actively seek out news programs that may not align with our personal beliefs. It is OK to disagree with what you are reading. Engage with it by utilising the comments section for respectful debate, and fact-check when you are unsure. unfoundnews.com fact-checks articles and assesses the validity of the source and author, giving individuals an insight into the accuracy of what they are consuming.

Beyond online engagement, it is vital for individuals to have political conversations with friends and family despite the taboo that surrounds the discussion. It provides a space for major current debates to become humanised rather than politicised as they are online, where discussions in our own homes have the power to highlight nuances in each argument, and encourages expression of opinions without the fear of negative connotations that may be attached to it because power is utilised in the headlines.

Therefore, if you feel you are able to have that discussion about the Black Lives Matter movement, even if, for every 10 people you talk to, only two or three can see it differently, then you have made a profound impact. Just because it may be written from a different perspective than that of your own doesn't automatically make it fake news or a lie. Just because us and our opinions can be at the front and centre of our news outlets, it doesn't mean that they should be.

So maybe I will do some research into the benefits of being an older child instead of wasting my time arguing with my sister about which sibling is more superior. Because I don't need to be at the front and centre of that headline anymore. Thank you.

BRENDON LAMBERT: Our fifth contestant is Flora Tucker. Flora is in Year 11 at Brigidine College St Ives. She likes crocheting hats for friends, travelling, and punctuality.

If Laura could influence something, it would be to ensure that we continue to close the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, and her favourite saying is, 'What's for dinner?' because she is a strong believer that we should always have something to look forward to and it's important to make the little things count. The subject of Flora's speech is Two Sides to Every Story. Please welcome Flora Tucker.

FLORA TUCKER: Many of the well-known landmarks in New South Wales have something in common-- Port Macquarie, Macquarie Street, Macquarie University, even Macquarie centre. They are all named after Lachlan Macquarie, former governor of New South Wales. He is one of the most revered and eulogised leaders of Australia's colonial time. And there's no escaping his legacy, because his name is plastered everywhere. A tectonic plate, the Macquarie Ridge, was even named after him. Now, when I die, I don't want some plaque or statue, I would like my own tectonic plate.

He did assist in changing New South Wales from a penal colony to a free settlement, and therefore has a lasting impact on Australian society today. So it's no surprise that a statue of him stands in Hyde Park. But with all of this posthumous celebration, you'd think that he was a pretty amazing guy.

204 years ago, Indigenous men and women were murdered under the orders of Lachlan Macquarie. Macquarie ordered his men, in response to conflict over agricultural land, if they encountered any Indigenous people, to terrorise them, to either capture or kill them. Conibigal and Dunell, two warriors, paid the price for the governor's orders. And now their heads, hacked off as trophies, lie in storage facilities of Edinburgh University, far away from their traditional lands.

Gandhi led the Indian independence movement, and inspired civil rights activists worldwide. And he's quoted often by people in power. Living in South Africa for over 20 years, Gandhi describes black South Africans as savages, arguing that white people should be the predominant race in South Africa. Gandhi's streak of misogyny was also very strong. When two of his female followers were raped, he cut off their hair, blaming them for inviting sexual attention. Not to mention that he also thought a woman's period came from the distortion of her soul by sexuality.

Mother Teresa, the Tiny Saint of Calcutta, Nobel Peace Prize winner, recipient of the Order of the Smile. There's no denying that she's renowned for great acts of kindness and peacemaking. But what went on behind the scenes?

Mother Teresa's missions were compared to Nazi concentration camps and in an inexcusable state considering the millions of that she had raised. Mother Teresa used the image of the poor and the suffering to push her Catholic agenda and continue to raise money.

The problem that lies with elevating individuals to such moral heights is the danger of a single story. Once people become worshipped and raised to a pedestal, they are given a platform where their voice is louder than all of those below them. This voice ensures that all of their good deeds and ethical fortitude echo throughout the world, while the voices of those who suffer under that power are drowned out.

A single story becomes told. And when that is all that is told, it becomes the truth. There's a saying that history is written by the victors, the most successful members of society. Lachlan Macquarie silenced Indigenous voices, and in doing so contributed to the intergenerational trauma which continues to impact Indigenous Australians today. Gandhi silenced the voices of black South Africans and women. Mother Teresa silenced the poor of Calcutta.

Now, this does not mean that what these people did isn't worth praise and recognition. But do they deserve the unconditional respect and reverence that we give to them? We need to give a voice to all stories, and not overlook those mistreated. We need to question the narrative that is being pushed upon us instead of just blindly accepting the norm.

I think we also need to question our own morals, considering it was society as a whole that allowed these people to be celebrated. George Orwell once said, in relation to Gandhi, that saints should be always judged as guilty until proven innocent. When we choose to worship certain historical figures, we need to be sure that they are worthy of our respect.

I became affronted when these people who I had valued, these quotes I'd seen plastered on my classroom walls were not who I thought they were. I felt that I had fallen victim to some great hoax. There was hardly a year that went by in religious education when Mother Teresa wasn't quoted or mentioned as a great figure of Catholicism. But the curriculum never seemed to address her indiscretions against the poor.

But this also raises a more complex question. Can we still remember and honour people for all the good they did despite the moral injustices that they promoted? Unfortunately, there may be no easy answer to this question. And the foundations of the issue are deeply rooted in human nature. We love to look up to people. From the beginning of time to the modern-day warning of the Kardashians, we've continually looked to something or someone above us, an image of perfection to strive towards. But in doing this, can we really be surprised when our heroes disappoint us? Despite being award-winners or commemorated with tectonic plates, they are just the same as us, human and not capable of perfection.

We are at a moral crossroad as a global community, unsure of how to proceed. Statues of colonial figures are toppling around us, and the comfortable ignorance that we have lived in for so long is no longer acceptable. What's happening is a societal evolution. As we become more aware of the past and how it impacts the present, as new information becomes available and we continue to educate ourselves, it is only natural that our values, views, and opinions should change.

We can't ignore the past or past historical figures because they are the foundations on which this society is built upon. We cannot live in a world where we do not understand how we have reached this point. But what does need to change is the way in which we believe that just because someone is written about in a history book or did important things that they are immune from committing evils against others.

History and the way that we view it cannot be stagnant. It cannot be set in stone. The way that we write about the past and the people in it cannot remain the same for all of eternity. Because we change, what we view is right and wrong changes, and therefore the way that we see the past must also change.

So we can't cancel the past, because in doing so, we deny its importance. What is actually required is a constant re-evaluation of what is written in our history books, who we name our tectonic plates after, a re-evaluation of the perspective the story is being told from, questioning whether it smothers minorities or conceals moral injustices.

It's a hard thing to admit that our heroes are flawed, but admitting it is the first step. In doing so we accept that mistakes have been made. In admitting that people are not perfect, we are taking the first steps towards rewriting the story so that everyone's voice can be heard.

JUSTINE CLARKE: Our sixth contestant today is Emily An. Emily is in Year 9 at James Ruse Agricultural High School, and is our youngest speaker today. Her role model is her mum, and she hopes one day to complete a degree in medicine and volunteer to work with the Australian Doctors for Africa organisation.

Emily likes holidays on the south coast with her family and her dog, Teddy, and she dislikes negativity. Her favourite saying is, 'Success is not final, failure is not fatal. It is the courage to continue that counts.' The subject of Emily speech is Play-Doh Please welcome Emily An.

EMILY AN: When I was little, I always enjoyed playing with Play-Doh. I even had all the little moulds and rollers to make anything I wanted. My favourite things to make were little miniature human figures. And I used to carve out their features to make them look more beautiful. As I grew older, I lost my interest in Play-Doh, but it seems that society has confused our appearances with it.

Before plastic surgery became popular in the 1980s, looking beautiful was something of luck. It was essentially winning the genetic lottery. But nowadays, looking beautiful it's a lot easier than what it was before. You simply cash in a few thousand dollars, and sign a form, and whoosh, you can fix that bump on your nose, tighten your stomach, and even reverse the signs of ageing. It's as if our exterior images are like Play-Doh that we can simply just mould to conform to the increasingly unrealistic expectations of society.

But what is so wrong with having any of those things that people are willing to risk their own lives to go under the knife to fix these so-called flaws? For so long, the media has taught us that beauty means having a lean, toned body with curves in the right places, a perfectly proportioned face, and flawless skin. The concept of beauty has become so distorted, misunderstood, and shattered by the conflicting pressures that we face today.

In a study conducted by UCLA, they found that the ideal body for a woman would be a tall, slender woman with an hourglass figure and fair skin. For a man, you have to be tall, fair-skinned, with an upside-down pyramid shape, which is essentially having broad shoulders and a small waist. These impossibly unrealistic standards have been enforced to us by the media through the representation of beauty by only those who fit the definition.

Jennifer Lawrence, an American actress, spoke out about the pressures that she received from her producers to lose weight for her films. At the beginning of her career, Lawrence was manipulated to lose weight, and was told that she would be fired if she didn't slim down, and was even told to lose six kilograms in two weeks for one of her films.

She even said that her female producer made her stand nude next to women who were much thinner than she was to use an inspiration for a diet. She was then told to use the experience as motivation to lose weight.

The added pressure from the media for her to look a certain way only heightened the pressure for her to slim down, and resulted in her lower self-esteem and negative body image.

Social media as a platform or a criticism about our bodies is so difficult to avoid, especially since anyone can so easily comment or judge another's appearance. This fosters a poisonous environment while self-esteem about our bodies and weight are so vulnerable to scrutiny.

I, like any other teenager my age, am not exempt from the pressures of social media. The high level of exposure that we have to brands and influencers who exploit our aspirations to achieve the ideal body uniquely affects us as individuals in the way that we begin to perceive ourselves. I remember scrolling through my social media accounts one day when I encountered an ad by Protein World that said, 'are you beach body ready?' alongside photos of an incredibly toned fitness model and protein powders from their weight loss collection. It was only at that moment when I paused, and I thought to myself, well, am I not allowed to go to the beach if my stomach isn't perfectly flat and toned? It was in those moments that I began to feel extremely uncomfortable about myself and the way I look.

We live in a world where any part of our body is so easily fixed. And we live in a world where going under the knife for plastic surgery procedures and injecting fillers into ourselves is a norm that people undergo to fit the definition of beauty. However, these procedures can cost tens of thousands of dollars, and isn't an accessible option for children, teenagers, and most adults, especially with the increased costs of living today.

So predatory businesses and influences have instead focused on selling us extremely harmful products, like the Fit Teas endorsed by the Kardashians under the illusion that these products will enable us to fit the ideals of beauty better. Companies manipulate us into believing that these products actually work by paying hundreds of models and celebrities to claim that they used those products to obtain the bodies and the figures that they have. And then people start believing it. This puts us in a position to believe that our external beauty is something that can be attained or even bought.

Not only is this manipulative and deceitful, it can also have disastrous hope consequences and side effects for consumers, including dizziness and insomnia, all while these companies profit off preying on our insecurities about our bodies. Studies have shown that these products rarely have any effect to weight loss, and the lack of results heightens the pressure to take more drastic measures to lose weight. And this leads to long-term health consequences such as liver damage.

Companies have essentially weaponised our desires to conform to beauty standards to make huge profits. And Fit Tea's annual revenue is now over $30 million.

We all have insecurities, but we aren't born with them. Insecurities are something that the media has conditioned us to have. Insecurities are something that we have all garnered from look at those perfect models on social media who claim that, with some diet pills, that we can all look like them, or that by buying some endorsed diet shakes or appetite-suppressing tablets that we can all magically attain their figures.

These standards that the media has real into us has bred a toxic environment where certain parts of our appearance are labelled as flaws, as undesirable. We're told that we need to either fix or hide these traits, that they are something to be ashamed of, something to apologise for.

That's why when Tess Holliday, the first plus-sized model to grace the cover of 'Cosmopolitan' was shamed and disregarded for her looks. That's why body image is a major issue for more than 30% of teenagers. And that's why 1 million Australians struggle with a eating disorder. The narrative that the media tells us that we can all change our physiques and that everyone can be beautiful by following strict diet and exercise regimes is incredibly harmful and manipulative because doing so is almost impossible. And the idea that you can buy a product that can change your entire life is incredibly dangerous.

The media have to stop defining beauty as only one size and one body type. And they have to stop pressuring us to lose weight to achieve these beauty standards. Because in no way should the numbers on the scale or the size you wear define your happiness or define your self worth as a person. We have to start acknowledging that the little differences everyone has are what make us unique, and that our appearances should not constitute who we are as people. Because who you are inside, those memories and experiences that shape who you are today, that should be your definition of beauty.

Because remember, your body is not like Play-Doh. It can't instantly change. We can't remove fat from it overnight. We can't stretch ourselves to grow taller. And we can't change our waist-to-hip ratios. Remember that your body is a casing for the confidence, the accomplishments, and the experiences that make you who you are today.

BRENDON LAMBERT: Our seventh contestant today is Nickie Tran. Nickie is in Year 10 at Sarah Redfern High School. Her role model is her older sister, because they have interesting conversations that help her to see the world from a new perspective. Nickie is a big fan of winter. She likes to write and draw, and she also enjoys horror movies.

She hopes to one day see a world where compassion isn't the second thought, but instead the first instinct, so that we can all live in a world with a greater capacity for genuine understanding, connection, and empathy. The subject of Nickie's speech is Shame-- a Soul-eating Emotion. Please welcome the contract.

NICKIE TRAN: No one likes a snitch. I'm not talking about the kind that Harry Potter grabs to win a game of quidditch, but the kind that reminds your teacher you had forgotten your homework. No one would judge you for hating them. But from a snitch's perspective, it can feel quite exhilarating, powerful, and fun. Our world is full of snitches, hidden as your neighbour, a Facebook comment, or even you, ready to police anyone who does the wrong thing.

And since COVID-19, if people are less than 1.5 metres apart, not wearing a mask, or not abiding by the lockdown rules, there will be a snitch ready to pounce. Most of the time, they come in handy. However, the problem lies when snitches evolve into a more vituperative stage-- the shamers.

In a world of social media, it's inevitable to witness the endless victims of online shaming or cancel culture, which, in a nutshell, is a boycott and humiliations of public figures and celebrities. But most notably, there's also been a rise in snitches participating in pandemic shaming. That's because online shaming has been known to bring justice to the most deserving of people, like this one Tennessee hoarder who was finally rational enough to donate his 17,700 bottles of hand sanitiser that he hoarded, according to 'The Guardian.'

However, shame can cut both ways. There's a line that needs to be drawn when good intentions transgress into destructive execution. For instance, a few days later, the Tennessee man had a man banging on his door and an email entailing, your behaviour is probably going to end up with someone killing you, your wife, and children.

You see, shame is no longer a tool, it's a weapon. And this weaponisation of shame is extremely harmful, counterproductive, and ineffective. People retweet shame so it spreads like gossip, and watch as their victims crumble, reputations are tarnished, and mental health become non-existent. You see, ladies and gentlemen, shame is a soul-eating emotion. It simply sets out to destroy.

Consider the 54-year-old Polish professor Wojciech Rokita, who had visited a car showroom while being infected with COVID-19. Public reactions progressed from concern, disgust, to slander and death threats. In the end, people got what they wished for. Wojciech Rokita had committed suicide on the 18th of March, 2020. Even though his lawyer claimed that he did not break any quarantine rules, that didn't matter anymore.

Tell me, is it worth driving people to their demise to save others? To quote the British journalist Jon Ronson, 'Our desire to show that we are compassionate led us to commit this profoundly uncompassionate act.' We were so obsessed with doing our world a favour, obsessed with being productive, and snitching, and condemning wrongdoers that, in that moment, mental health seemed to be neglected and disregarded from the online world.

Shaming also promotes the idea that the person should be identified with their wrongdoing for eternity. Once the public sows the seeds of doubt and humiliation, people have already amplified the narrative, discredited their words, and added so much fuel to the raging fire that it's impossible for any sign of growth, apology, or reform to be accepted as genuine.

This was happening way before COVID-19 too. Victor Paul Alvarez was a Boston reporter who made an offensive joke publicly. As a result, he was fired from his job. But even though he issued a sincere apology, it was too late to gain any sympathy.

If you Google his name today, the same articles reporting him are still on the front page. In other words, once on the internet, always on the internet. Which is ironic, because the nature of online shaming makes it extremely difficult for a person to outgrow their past, despite it being the original intention.

OK, so here comes the burning question. If nice people like you and I aren't being paid to shame, then why are we even doing it? Well, there's a few proposed reasons supported by the research of Dr. Lydia Woodyatt, a social sciences professor at Flinders University.

Firstly is that it gives people a feeling of nobility driven by ego. It is cathartic and schadenfreudic. To put it simply, we are satisfying our thirst for the moral high ground. Otherwise, it gives us some control during the pandemic. Mostly, though, it gives bored or lonely people a sense of community. When there's a group fighting for the same cause, you receive validation, and likes if you participate. Hence why every millennial loves jumping on what's called cancel culture, an internet phenomenon where even celebrities and public figures aren't immune to shame either.

But likewise, in practice, cancel culture goes too far. It's a no-brainer that Jaclyn Hill's defective lipsticks and R. Kelly's sexual assault crimes were not deserving of equal punishment. But they were still equally slammed.

And now shaming transcends beyond just who to unfollow on Instagram. It also influences people's decisions on who to vote out next. For instance, someone like Justin Trudeau and his blackface incident. Even though this was almost 20 years ago, cancel culture encourages a game of archaeology that positions politicians and public figures in a tight spot. Shame used cancel culture as a vessel to introduce the mentality that public figures or celebrities like Jaclyn Hill should always be right. In the end, it creates an impossible standard that forces them to a box of perfection or face boycott.

So I wonder if this fame that celebrities and public figures possess expose them to criticism purely driven by truth and authenticity, or is it momentum and mass generated by cancel culture. If it's the latter, we know that criticism is not judicial when matching punishment to crime. Then it's clear that cancel culture isn't working on people it's supposed to. People who are getting away with or are directly profiting from discrimination, exploitation, and injustice aren't being prioritised for accountability.

But really, the overall takeaway is that cancellation and shame elicits more defensiveness and anger rather than an inclination to become a better person. Many experts like Dr Woodyatt agree shame creates a gap filled with hate that pushes people away for being motivated to accept responsibility. But sure, to a degree, there is some level of societal reform, just at the small cost of people's entire careers, futures, careers, and also sanity.

You see, we've become less human in our mission to protect other humans. I believe we're better than that. Humans are capable of using more compassion to communicate what is socially acceptable behaviour, especially during the pandemic.

So what can be done? Well, it's a difficult and delicate balance between using compassion, reason, and moderation to enforce accountability whilst minimising harassment. Let's transform cancel culture into context culture, where, yes, we acknowledge past mistakes, but allow space for growth. Start asking yourself how long ago they made the mistake, are they still doing it, and what was the magnitude of the implications? It's about pausing before firing, even for a moment, to build a bigger picture.

Remember, ladies and gentlemen, humans are flawed. Humans are grey areas. Humans are capable of change. So why should we treat them any less? I hope that next time, when we willfully set out to snitch, to blame, to humiliate people for who they are and what they did, could we stop for a moment and think about the words of the American author Leigh Bardugo, who believed 'we can endure all kinds of pain, but it is a shame that eats people whole.' Thank you.

BRENDON LAMBERT: Our final speaker today is Chloe Hoang. Chloe is in Year 10 at Pymble Ladies' College. Her role model is her great-grandmother because she was extremely hardworking and always one of Chloe's greatest supporters. Chloe likes bubble tea, K-pop, and strawberries, and she would like to see inequality and access to education addressed because education is such a fundamental tool for change. Her favourite saying is, 'The most beautiful things in the world cannot be seen or touched. They are felt with the heart.' The subject of Chloe's speech is Overreaction. Please welcome Chloe Hoang.

CHLOE HOANG: I like to think of myself as a pretty tough person. Growing up with a brother almost my age meant that I had to hone my skills of strength and resilience early on. And for most of my childhood I was really proud of my ability to grin, and bear any scrape, fall, or even the occasional sibling kerfuffle.

So you can imagine my surprise and embarrassment when, one day at school, I let out a trickle of tears after falling on my wrist and spraining it, only to be told by my teacher that I was overreacting and that the pain was just shocking.

Being told that you're overreacting is a grating response at any time. But when women are told that they're overreacting to their pain, it's not just irritating, it's dangerous. In 2018, the 'Medical Journal of Australia' reported that women who suffer a serious heart attack are half as likely to receive proper treatment than men, and twice as likely to die six months after they're discharged. Identifying early heart attack symptoms is largely about recognising pain. But women's pain is all too often not taken seriously.

This is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to gender inequality in our health system. Over the past few years, we have a lot of important publicity regarding the sexual harassment in the medical profession and structural barriers faced by female doctors. But what we often ignore is that this sexism also impacts female patients. Because a misogynist medical profession will inevitably prioritise the needs of men. And we're hurting because of it.

Take the example of endometriosis, a disorder in the uterus that causes severe pelvic pain. One in 10 women have it. Given how common it is, you'd think that doctors would know how to diagnose and treat it. But it takes women on average 10 years to get a diagnosis. And treatment options are incredibly limited. The reasons for this are complex, but they all come back down to the sexism that permeates our medical industry.

Historically, most medical research was done by men, for men. Quite literally, until recent decades, women weren't even allowed to participate in most medical trials because their bodies were just seen as inferior to men, their hormones too complicated, their pesky habit of getting pregnant an inconvenience. This means the medicines developed for male trial subjects often have unexpected, dangerous side effects for women. And even though, today, certain female-specific illnesses like breast cancer attract a disproportionate amount of research funding, the legacy of sexism in our medical industry persists through our treatment of women and pain.

Indeed, there is an alarming number of studies that show that doctors across the world respond more seriously and rapidly to men reporting pain than they do to women. In the US, one study showed that women who report acute abdominal pain at an ER wait, on average, 15 to 20 minutes longer than men. In the world of emergency medical responses, 15 minutes can be an eternity. In France, one woman who reported pain so acute that she said she thought she might die was told by the emergency services operator, you'll definitely die one day, like everyone else.

But why are women being dismissed like this? It all comes down to age-old gender stereotypes. Culturally, we've been groomed to see that, when women express pain, they're overreacting, whereas men do, we accept that it must be serious. This problem is even more pronounced for women who sit at the intersection of sexism and racism. Here in Australia, Indigenous women are more than twice as likely to die in childbirth than their non-Indigenous peers. A similar statistic exists for African-American women in the US. Even millionaire tennis champion Serena Williams almost died giving birth because doctors didn't take her seriously when she alerted them to symptoms of a pulmonary embolism.

As we now learn more about the life-and-death impacts of structural racism from the Black Lives Matter movement, it's crucial for us to remember that our medical industry is not immune from the prejudices and stereotypes that affect our broader society. It's just that when you're on the operating table, the stakes are much higher. The fact that women aren't getting the treatment that they need should by itself mandate change.

But there's another less obvious harm. When women are consistently let down by the medical system, they start to lose trust in it. Recently 'The New York Times' reported that trust in the medical industry has dropped from 75% to 35% over the last 50 years. And a lot of this comes down to women who are just fed up with their doctors not taking them seriously, who have started seeking answers in the world of homoeopathy and alternative medicine. Indeed, Australia has seen an almost 300% increase in the use of alternative medicine since the 1990s.

But if coronavirus has taught us anything, it's a big public health measures only work when people trust doctors. When that trust is lost, people start panic-buying toilet paper and ignoring all sensible medical advice.

Think of the increasing number of mothers refusing to vaccinate their children, citing deep scepticism of doctors' authority. This distrust hasn't come out of nowhere. It's often directly related to mothers' own problems of being dismissed and belittled by their doctors. Given the impact this has on our collective community, it's clearly not just sick women who are hurt by our medical industry, it's all of us. But the stereotypes of women as being overemotional, hysterical, are so culturally ingrained, how can we overcome them? The answer can't just be that women need to toughen up. We have to rethink our approach to women and pain.

I was incredibly proud to see the government announce a $10 million investment into endometriosis research at the end of May. This is a fantastic and long-awaited first step towards a more female-friendly medical industry.

But we also need to invest more in policies to make medicine more welcoming to female doctors who are fundamentally more able to understand the concerns of their female patients. Luckily, the number of female medical professionals has rapidly increased in the past few decades, but complaints about sexual harassment and bullying are common.

Recently, the Royal College of Surgeons reported that nearly one in two female surgeons had experienced sexual harassment and bullying. And the medical industry is notoriously hostile to young women seeking flexible working arrangements. This is why we need more women in charge of medical departments and stronger protections of female doctors at work. But this comes in the form of quotas, flexible work rights, or more enforceable sexual harassment protections. Fighting sexism within the medical industry is key to saving other women from sexist and incompetent treatment.

Ladies and gentlemen, I'm not going to lie. It really did hurt when I sprained my wrist. And there's no reason why I should have felt the need to act tough in that situation. No matter my reaction, I deserve to be taken seriously. When women turn up at the ER, they deserve to feel safe and secure in the knowledge that their pain will be taken seriously. And I don't think it's overreacting to ask that much.

BRENDON LAMBERT: That concludes the prepared section. The finalists will now leave, and will return one by one to give their three-minute impromptu speeches. Each finalist will speak on the same subject after a three-minute preparation time. The finalists will speak in the same order as they did for the prepared speeches.

There will be a warning bell at two minutes and two bells at three minutes to indicate that the speaker's time has expired. A continuous bell will be rung if the speaker exceeds the maximum time by more than 30 seconds. The subject for the impromptu section is Glass House.

RUBI AINSWORTH: We've all heard the saying, don't throw stones when you live in a glass house. Right now, societally, I think it's fair enough to say that we're launching them with no concern. And the glass is shattering. What I mean by this is, in the society we live in, our stones are assertions. They're our opinions. The glass house is society.

Right now we are, as I said, overusing assertions and opinions. With social media, we have the ability to voice our opinion on anything at any time. While this may seem like huge progress, the fact of the matter is that it's hindering our social progress. By this I mean, whilst we're sitting in our glass house launching our opinions, whether it be about contention in politics, in social inequality, socioeconomic inequality, or anything similar, whilst we do this, the glass is breaking. The issue with this is that, right now, we're not learning what we need to about our own society and the issues it faces because we're being drowned out by the stones we throw.

In society right now, we need to start valuing listening. It's one of the most important keys to communication after all, and communication is what we need right now to solve issues, whether it be climate change, or inequity as I said.

The main issue with this, as aforementioned, is the fact that we can't keep what we need to over the sound of the shattering of the glass and our own opinions. For example, do any of you know about the Sierra Leone maternal health crisis? The fact that we, the Western world, are in constant relationship with them through their mineral trade, and yet right now, one in 16 mothers die giving birth there. No one knows about this because, right now, in regards to global poverty, all we're hearing is everyone's opinions on the matter, and we're not actually communicating a way to stop it.

So with communication being the biggest issue facing our halt to societal progress, the solution is simple. We need to take a seat in our glass house, stop throwing stones, and listen to each other. Because without that, we're going to get nowhere. After all, our house is shattering.

BREANNA CRAIG: When I say addiction, what's the first thing that comes to mind? Maybe it's drugs. Maybe it's alcohol. Or maybe even cigarettes. But what if I told you that one of the most debilitating addictions comes from something that is right in your pocket. Nomophobia, or the anxiety and worry that we feel without our phones, is something that's actually plaguing our nation. Two thirds of us are self-confessed nomophobes. And we all know the feeling of being stressed and worried when we don't have our phones.

We're trapped in a glass house right now because of that. Due to our capitalistic and consumeristic and culture of consumerism, we're trapped in a glass house when it comes to smartphone addiction, one that we are really having trouble with breaking out of.

The statistics are clear. 86% of us over the age of 14 have a smartphone. One in 10 of us risks our lives while by using phones while driving or crossing the road. And this addiction actually alters our brain chemistry, and not for the better. We found that, in recent times, especially due to the COVID-19 crisis, that we're relying on our phones more than ever, not just for entertainment, but for connection with our friends and families who might not be isolating with us.

This is a real glass house, and a problem that we are struggling with on the daily. But how can we actually break this glass house? Instead of looking around us, why don't we look to the phones themselves? There are applications that you can buy or download for free on the App Store that are actually helping us to combat this crisis every day. They do this in two different ways. The first is by setting predetermined limits on how much we actually use our phones. Most of us aren't aware, but the average Australian teenager uses their phone for more than five hours every day. Setting these pre-determined limits allows us to-- moving on to my second point-- be actually aware of how much time we're spending on our phones. As creatures of habit, we just go to our phones and check our Instagram feeds or our Facebook without really realising the actual detrimental effect that it can have on us on a daily basis.

At the end of the day, phones are altering our brain chemistry for the worse. Things like depression, anxiety, and insomnia come from these crippling addictions to our friends that we may not even be aware we have.

This consumerism in recent times is trapping us in a glass house. But the only way to break through is to actually be aware of this glass house that we're in. We may be the consumers but unless we break free from this glass house, these phones will be consuming us. Thank you.

AMANDA LU: I have a bit of a confession to make. As a teenager, I went through an unfortunate phase, a 'Twilight' phase. You see, for a while, I was obsessed with the series. But every time I mentioned it, I get a bit of disparaging comments. They'd call it trashy or meaningless.

And I think that in this world where female empowerment is so fragile, comments like this really shatter the glass house. Because when we build up on only certain parts of women's hobbies as acceptable and degrade others that are traditionally feminine, it's throwing stones at the only things that we could otherwise be preserving.

For example, let's take my 'Twilight' hobby. 'Twilight' is, in itself, a female power fantasy. It's where a woman becomes desirable, and popular, and attractive. And that appeals to teenage girls. And yet when we compare this with male power fantasies such as Marvel movies or things like that, where men become powerful and esteemed, we only put down one of these for being trashy or senseless.

And this sort of way of thinking has really led to a 'not like the other girls' movement, in which it's cool to be seen as uninterested in fashion, or interested in boys, or anything that's otherwise traditionally feminine. And it means that the very people who say they are advocating for women's rights, building up their houses of glass, pushing for women's strength, are also the ones that are pulling it down.

So what should we be doing in order to keep our glass house of women's empowerment standing? Because we all know it's incredibly fragile. What we need to do is accept women's strength and hobbies as what they are, as acceptable, even in this era where it might otherwise be seen as degrading. Because we should legitimise all hobbies for women instead of just crashing them down with the rest of our glass houses.

So next time I talk to my friends about my interest in 'Twilight,' I expect to hear raucous applause and great approval. Because we all live in glass houses, so we should all try to keep each other's hobbies standing too.

OLIVIA HARLAMB: For 12 years of my life, I lived with excruciating back pain. And coordination was so poor that I was labelled as 'that kid that always fell over at school.' My medical condition was a mystery. And it was only after years of doctors' appointments and much persistence from my mum that I was finally diagnosed with hypertonia, nerve damage, and chronic pain that would affect me for the rest of my life. It took so long for me to be diagnosed because my symptoms did not agree with my conditions in the medical journal because they were based off male bodies.

Our bodies are glass houses, and they can crack. And our health system's role is to put them back together. But our health care system is failing to put the bodies of women back together when their houses crack. It is well established that your race, class, and wealth can affect your quality of health care. But one of the less obvious ways and one which affects the most people is gender. It takes women a disproportionately longer time to be diagnosed than men. Their bodies and the conditions that primarily affect them are less likely to have been studied in clinical trials, which makes finding effective treatment difficult. If they had done that treatment, those studies, they would realise that our glass houses look different to that of men.

Even medical products that are made to only be used by women, like the oral contraceptive pill, are based off male bodies, and in the case of the pill, male hormones. This means that symptoms of conditions may present differently in female houses, resulting in going years without being treated.

For example, autism presents itself uniquely in young girls, many of whom are deemed high-functioning, but experience significant social and learning difficulties. For every four boys diagnosed with autism, only one girl is. And this isn't because autism just happens to occur more in males, but because the qualities of autism in young girls are actually seen as socially desirable traits quiet, intelligent, and observant, meaning we are not seeing the cracks in the glass houses of women's bodies.

These gender biases in our health care system can have serious and sometimes special impacts. In 2018, a woman went to the hospital after experiencing severe migraines. They put her on an IV drip thinking that it would go away. However, within the hour she had died of a stroke.

Her glass house shattered because we were not paying attention. This is why we need more research. It is time that we acknowledge the complexities and nuances of women's health care, and acknowledge that whilst all of our bodies and humanity are glass houses, women's look a bit different.

We need to stand firm in our belief that quality health care, supportive and coherent health care, is a right, not a luxury. Thank you.

FLORA TUCKER: There is a saying that people in glass houses can't throw stones. So in recent years, there's been a lot of things about the Black Lives Matter movement, specifically in America. And I've seen a lot of my friends reposting things. I've seen a lot of people speaking out about racial issues in America, which I find really interesting, because I believe Australia has an equal disparity of race within Australia.

So we're looking at America. We're saying, how bad is America. Look at them. Look at how racist they are. But really we have the same problems in Australia. Indigenous deaths in custody are a really big issue in Australia. An indigenous person is more likely to end up in prison than to graduate Year 12 of high school. Indigenous people make up 3% of the population but 28% of the prison population.

So if we're looking at America and saying, oh, look how bad the incarceration rates are for African-American people, if we take a look back at ourselves and look at the issues in our own country, then maybe we'll be able to solve it.

So recently, the Closing the Gap report was released. And it showed that we are nowhere near being able to meet the targets that we had set for ourselves in terms of health and literacy rates. And it seems that we are sort of stuck stagnant. We're refusing to make any progress on these issues.

So we are living in a glass house. It's very fragile. The Australian politicians don't really know how to proceed. The situation is fragile and delicate, and it's a very intricate situation because it involves the lives of the oldest living culture in this planet.

So the politicians don't seem to put it as a big issue when we are really disregarding our culture. There is also a lack of Indigenous perspective on the issue. And if we are going to make an active effort towards making sure that when we can look at another country and say, look how bad they are for their racism, we can have a moral high ground in being able to say that we take care of our First Nations people, we take care of Indigenous people.

And what we really need to do is involve Indigenous people in the discussion. Because we can't have these politicians who have never had an experience as an Indigenous person making the laws, deciding what happens for Indigenous people because they have no idea. And if we begin to involve Indigenous voices in the conversation, we ask them what they need, what we will be able to do is turn this glass house, this fragile situation in which, if we throw a rock, someone's going to get hurt, if we don't do anything, we're just going to live in this fragile situation, if we involve Indigenous perspectives, if we push to close the gap legitimately, we can turn the glass house into a greenhouse. We can turn Australia from a glass house into a greenhouse in which people are able to grow and thrive instead of walking around afraid and not having a proper livelihood.

EMILY AN: My school is an agricultural school. So we keep our most vulnerable plants in the glasshouse to protect them from the wind and other pests and diseases, to make sure that they are safe and that they will grow as well as they can. In society, we need to protect the most vulnerable with their own glasshouses.

In society today, the number of rape and sexual assault taken amongst women are going up and up. One in six women will be raped at least once in their life on the streets. And now the streets, which are meant to be a world for both men and women, are really catering towards men. And women are being put in this vulnerable state where they're at constant risk of being sexually assaulted or raped by others.

To combat this, instead of introducing harsher laws and penalties against these perpetrators and rapists, the government has instead rolled out the date rape products that women can use against men to protect themselves from rape and sexual assault. These products can include nail polish that changes their colour when women dip their nail into the drink to see if they have been spiked with these date rape drugs so they can essentially protect themselves from these people who might want to drug them and then rape them.

People might not see the issue of these products. But the thing is, these date rape products that women can use to protect themselves put the onus on the victim to protect themselves from rape and sexual assault, when instead the government should have been doing work to protect these most vulnerable people in our society from these rape and sexual assault people and perpetrators. Because by rolling out these new date rape products and not giving out harsher laws and penalty against these rapists, the government has essentially told these women, we know you are vulnerable. But instead of introducing more education so that you can be safe and protected on the streets, we are instead going to give you these products that you can use on your own to protect themself.

Instead of pushing a glasshouse around these women who are the most vulnerable in our streets. The government has essentially put a glasshouse against these perpetrators by instead not giving them the proper sentences that they need when they carry out these horrible crimes. They've instead told our women and the most vulnerable in our society to just protect themselves.

It's a toxic cycle that can be extremely detrimental to our women's mental health. Because these victims, instead of thinking to themselves, yes, it was the rapist's fault that I was raped or sexually assaulted on the street, they now think to themselves, oh, I could have done this better. I should have bought this product to protect myself.

The government has to learn around who that we need a glasshouse around. Because these perpetrators are the ones who are doing the wrongdoing in our society. They are not the ones that need protection, women are the ones who need protection in our society. They should be for vulnerable people in our glasshouse. We should not be protecting our rapists and perpetrators from harsher sentences. The glasshouse should instead be put around these women.

We have to ban these products that they apparently can use to protect themselves rape and sexual assault. And instead we need to roll out harsher sentences for these perpetrators and rapists. And we have to give more of an education so they know that this is the wrong thing.

See, giving a glasshouse around the most vulnerable is a thing that we can do to protect our people. But we need to be careful who we give this glasshouse to.

NICKIE TRAN: As someone who is thinking of entering into the medical field, recently I've become a bit concerned. You see, I just saw an article a week ago on ABC that workplace transmissions, when it comes to COVID-19 has been more prominent than ever before.

You see, workers who work in aged care or health care and who are either casual workers that have lower income are coming to work anyways because they cannot afford being at home. And I saw this on the news, that act sort of like a glass house to view these instances. News sources are able to act as a transparent mode where we can see a window into what is going on. And through that I have witnessed where these acts have had solutions. And workers who are currently-- who suffer these type of issues, and who suffer from these workplace transmissions, and who are very vulnerable right now, have come up with the solutions.

So the industrial tribunal has ordered a two-week pandemic paid leave for workers who do suffer from these consequences. And fortunately, it has worked in some cases. However, what I've also realised is that this pandemic leave arrangement also excludes a large portion of medical-field workers, workers who have irregular hours or workers who work in disability or in-home care are excluded from these benefits.

And we can see this finally through-- and this has been constructive because of the glass house. It's more transparent than ever. And every secret, every pore in the issue is finally exposed. We are exposing what truly lies behind this arrangement, this arrangement of a two-week paid pandemic leave is not what it seems like. Sure, it saves a good portion of workers from being exposed to the virus in the workplace. But many people are left unsupervised. And many people who are not included in these benefits are not supported by the government at all. This is because employers are the ones that have to pay for this new arrangement, for this new pandemic leave.

And on top of all the financial obligations and responsibilities, they have to have this pandemic leave in mind as well. That is why I propose that the government should be able to cover these costs and extend these benefits to workers in all fields to ensure that safety remains our priority for those who are still going to work.

It's unfair that many of them are still going to work because they can't have their bills paid or have food on the table. And our news source which acts as a glass house, has finally exposed this kind of catastrophe and has exposed this kind of issue.

Furthermore, I propose that not only the government should be paying for this. But as people who are aware of these news, we not only have to spread awareness, but also stop more mainstream conversations about these news so that our workers are safely protected.

And as someone who is thinking of entering into the medical field, I can do that with more-- I can do that safely and I can do that confidently, knowing that I am protected thanks to the government and thanks to the glass house that is provided by the world and also by news sources. Thank you.

CHLOE HOANG: I think it's safe to say that the state of activism in our world at the moment is incredibly fragile. It's like a glass house. With the challenges of COVID-19, isolation, and quarantine, the strong foundation that we could have built through face-to-face protesting has been weakened to glass.

And it seems like our only option at the moment is to rely on online activism, which seems to be an even more fragile or perhaps even weaker glass house. Because we've got the stereotype of slacktivism, online activism, not bringing any tangible change, with people only liking a comment, and then believing they've done enough when really you don't have any solutions to the problems of our world.

But don't worry, because I have a solution for you. And I really believe that this can strengthen our glass house for protesting. And that comes in my love of K-pop. No, I'm not talking about the extravagant dances, or the vocal ability, or the aesthetic music videos. I'm talking about the way in which they interact with social media and online activism.

So what exactly have they done in these dire times? And how have they strengthened the glass house of online activism and protesting. So first of all, when the Black Lives Matter movement was copping some backlash from hashtags such as #AllLivesMatter or #WhiteLivesMatter, or #BlueLivesMatter, K-pop fans were quick to flood these hashtags with their favourite videos and pictures of their celebrities, which essentially blocked out this echo chamber for hate speech and racism.

Again, when the Dallas, Texas police decided to release an app that was designed to target and also then to arrest Black Lives Matter protesters, K-pop fans again came to the rescue with more videos and more photos, which essentially crashed the app, disallowing the police from using it.

And more recently, with Trump's Tulsa rally, K-pop fans decided to buy hundreds of thousands of tickets and then not turn up on a day, essentially humiliating our favourite politician by having his on-the-day turnout being much lower than what he expected.

So why exactly do I think these solutions could actually help deal with the fragility of our activism and strengthen the impact of our glass house? So obviously these solutions aren't perfect. What I do think they do is target the creativity and innovation that we need when it comes to online activism. Hate speech and racism online has been a problem that world leaders across the world have been grappling with for years, often with very little impact or effect. Certainly nothing like what we've seen recently with the K-pop community.

So even though these solutions might not be the best solution out there, in the moment, with the world that we have and with the glass-house fragility of our activism, I do think that it hits home with the creativity that we need. And it shows us that we can listen to younger generations and the communities online, like K-pop communities, to find the solutions that we might need to strengthen our glass house.

In a world where activism is so important, and yet challenged by problems like COVID-19 and like quarantine, we can't let these challenges turn our voices into a glass house, fragile and easy to break. We have to be creative. We have to be innovative to strengthen our glass house and make sure that our voices are heard.

BRENDON LAMBERT: The adjudicators will now decide the winner of the Plain English Speaking Award for 2020. Each of the contestants will receive a bronze medallion and a certificate recognising their achievements in reaching the state final. I would like to congratulate each of the speakers on their excellent speeches today.

I would now like to call on Himaja Dave. To announce the runner-up and winner of the Plain English Speaking Award for 2020.

HIMAJA DAVE: So I just wanted to let everyone know that your speeches were fantastic today. It was great to see young people exploring a broad range of ideas, with their personal experiences, explored through them, but balanced with the analysis that we like to see to show us that young people have a voice and their voice is valid. Because all of you are very intelligent and brought very interesting takes on issues that we have all seen in society.

So a couple of pieces of generic feedback for everyone-- firstly, as you all know, our impromptu topic today was glass house. When you have a topic like glass house, it's really easy to focus on one aspect of it. So a lot of people may have focused on glass, or another person may have focused on house, or even the idiom-- people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

But it is always important to come back to the topic itself, which is glass house, and really consider how you could be using that in your speech. So strongest speeches took the phrase as it was, glass house, and started to look at different aspects of it-- foundationally, transparency, fragility of glass, all these different aspects, but ensuring that they came back to glass house itself.

We also encourage students to explore a couple of examples in depth. So of course you want to show us that you have a breadth of knowledge, but it's just as important to ensure that you have a depth of analysis to really explore your argument and make sure you've looked at it multidimensionally.

It's really easy to just say, this issue occurred, and therefore this is the conclusion. But what we want to see, from arguably some of the best speakers in the state, is that you can look beyond that, and you can then look at those different aspects and put them together to give us your personal opinion based on those different aspects that you have discussed.

And another thing is that, in your prepared, it's always great to see that you guys are listening to the news and you're trying to decide on ideas based on what you're saying within dominant discourse. But if you are taking those very contemporary ideas that are happening in the news, it is also important to ensure that you're giving us your personal take on it. Because they're things that are already being discussed in society.

So we as the panel wanted to see what your take on it was and why it was important for you to share it from that perspective. And it was really good to say that a lot of people were starting to develop that, but we would like to see more of that.

So the top two speeches from today's competition did have interesting topics with that depth of analysis, but they also were able to balance that with their personal opinion in both the prepared and the impromptu rounds. So without any further ado, our runner-up today is from Brigidine College St Ives. That's Flora Tucker, with her speech, Two Sides to Every Story.

[applause]

And our winner is Olivia Harlamb from Abbotsleigh, with her speech, We Don't Need to Be Front and centre.

[applause]

BRENDON LAMBERT: Thank you, Himaja, and your fellow adjudicators. I would now like to congratulate this year's runner-up, Flora Tucker, who will receive a silver medallion, a certificate, and a gift voucher on behalf of the Arts Unit.

Congratulations now to our state champion, Olivia Harlamb, who will receive a gold medallion certificate and book voucher on behalf of the Arts Unit, a Dymocks gift voucher on behalf of the English Speaking Union, and the Westminster Stone and Perpetual Shield to be kept at their school until the 2021 competition.

Ladies and gentlemen, it has been a great pleasure to chair the 2020 virtual state final of the Plain English Speaking Award. We hope to see many of you at next year's event, whether it be virtual or face to face.