Video transcript
Plain English Speaking Award 2025 - National Final

[intro music]

TAYLOR DONOVAN: Welcome to this online national final of the Plain English Speaking Award for 2025. I'd like to start by acknowledging the Dharawal people who are the traditional owners of the land on which I'm speaking to you from today. I'd like to pay my respects to Elders both past and present as the ongoing teachers of knowledge, songlines, and stories, and extend that respect to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people with us here today.

My name is Taylor Donovan, and I will be your chairperson and interviewer for this, the 47th national final of the Plain English Speaking Award. This competition began in Victoria in 1977, and the following year it spread nationwide. It is supported by the Australia Britain Society and the English Speaking Union.

I'd like to introduce your adjudicators for today's final, Neva Mikulic, Ally Pitt and Aman Mohamed. Neva Mikulic graduated from Sydney Girls High School in 2022. She's in her third year of her Bachelor of Laws and Bachelor of Arts degree in philosophy at the University of Sydney. Her high school team were the grand finalists of the Premier's Debating Challenge in 2021 and won that state championship the following year in 2022. She was a top-10 adjudicator at the Australian Varsity Debating Championships in Melbourne this year, and was a breaking speaker at the 2025 Panama World University Debating Championships. Please welcome Neva Mikulic.

[applause]

Ally Pitt graduated from Sydney Girls in 2021. She is currently completing her Bachelor of Arts honours year at the Australian National University, having graduated from her Bachelor of International Security Studies degree. She was a member of the Australian Schools Debating Team in 2019 and 2020. She was a National Model UN finalist and placed third place in 2020. She was champion and best speaker at the Australian Intervarsity Debating Championships this year and grand finalist at the Australian Intervarsity Debating Championships. Please welcome Ally Pitt.

[applause]

Aman Mohamed graduated from Sydney Boys High School in 2019. He was the runner up in the prestigious Boys Public Speaking Competition, the Lawrence Campbell Award, in 2019, and a member of the Combined High Schools Debating Squad in the same year. Aman is currently one of the Combined High Schools debating coaches and has achieved great success in his university debating career, most notably his recent success at the Willem C Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot held in Vienna, where his UNSW team placed first overall out of nearly 400 teams after the initial rounds. Aman outperformed more than 2,500 international students to win third place in the Martin Domke Award for Best Individual Oralist. Aman is in his final year studying Arts/Law at UNSW and is a very valued adjudicator. Please welcome Aman Mohamed.

[applause]

We thank the panel very much for taking the time to judge the competition today. There are 3 parts to this competition. Each of the finalists will deliver a prepared speech on a topic of their choice. The speaking time is 8 minutes. Because this is an online final, a clock will be used. The clock will change colour from grey to green at 6 minutes and to orange at 8 minutes to indicate that the speakers time has expired. If the speaker exceeds the maximum time by more than a minute, the clock will turn red. But contestants are reminded to wrap up their speech as soon as possible after the 8-minute colour change.

After our finalists have delivered their prepared speeches, they will be asked a series of questions by me based on the speeches we've just heard and on the information sheets they submitted prior to today's final. This interview will be timed for 3 minutes, with time starting after I've finished asking the first question. Speakers may finish their current answer once 3 minutes has elapsed.

After the interview, everyone will be moved to the waiting room, and speakers will be brought back to the meeting one by one in their speaking order to deliver their impromptu speeches on a topic provided by the judging panel. They will have 4 minutes in which to prepare a 3-minute speech. They will prepare on screen, deliver their speech, and then go to a breakout room for feedback from the adjudicators before returning to the waiting room. We'll have some more information for you after the prepared and interview section.

The announcement of the national champion will be made at approximately 2 pm today. And we now come to the prepared speech section of our competition. Each speaker will speak for 8 minutes on a subject of the contestant's choice. Our first contestant is Saxon Miller, who is in Year 11 at All Saints Anglican School in Queensland. The subject of Saxon's speech is 'Planned without obsession: the art of living'. Please welcome Saxon.

[applause]

SAXON MILLER: 'If I could tell you the day that you were going to die-- would you want to know?' Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Now, I promise, I'm not trying to make this afternoon miserable. But predicting and planning our future is not as easy as consultants like Peter Drucker may suggest. The point of Drucker's quote, 'that the best way to predict the future is to create it', is clear. It highlights the importance of proactive and strategic thinking and action in creating the future we want. And it's hard to argue with this. Of course, we have to have some idea of what we want the future to be like. However, I would argue it actually raises 2 much more important questions. Can we consciously create and predict our futures? And secondly, do we actually want to?

The truth is, manifesting our destiny is a bit more difficult than it sounds. It's easy to set goals and have plans to achieve those goals, but in practice, things rarely work out the way we imagined. I know many in this room may have their own examples of this, plans for the future that don't work out the way we thought. I know personally by now I plan to have been a multi-billionaire and hiked Everest 3 times. But clearly, somewhere along the way something went a bit awry. Now, admittedly, my plans were tongue in cheek, but it's not out of the ordinary for plans to change or even fail. And often, it's beyond our control. A current and poignant example of this is the disruption caused by AI.

People have meticulously planned, studied, and worked to enter fields such as law, accounting, and business. But for many of these people, their job is at risk or worse, no longer exists. No amount of planning or study could predict the impact AI would have. In fact, in a study by Grey Challenger, it was found in 2025 alone, in the United States, over 10,000 jobs have already taken by artificial intelligence. For these people, they have not been able to predict their futures, let alone create them. And this leads me to my second question. Do we actually want to predict the future?

It's easy to say that we need to create the future we want for ourselves. But in a world that moves and changes so rapidly, it's almost impossible to predict that thing. But maybe that's OK. Maybe we're not meant to plan our lives to such an extent. This Taoist saying, 'A good traveller has no fixed plans and is never intent on arrival' inspires us to understand that maybe the journey matters more than the destination. Not all who wander are lost. It means moving with the natural rhythm of life, dealing with its ups and downs in the moment.

We live in a world that urges us to predict, plan, and control. Yet, philosophical, scientific, and religious movements from across the ages urge us to do otherwise. The Bhagavad Gita tells us to act with purpose but let go of the outcome. Taoism tells us to move like water, not fixated on arrival. And neuroscience says that true inner peace lies in not knowing the future but being fully present and aware in the moment. In a study by the American organisation known as the National Institute of Health, it was found that being focused on future goals or events actually activates brain regions associated with negative emotions and stress, potentially reinforcing negative thought patterns and hindering healthy coping mechanisms.

This was further supported in a study by Outreach Australia, who surveyed over 667 students between the ages of 16 and 24. The survey found that 83% of those interviewed had stress about the future and were able to say that it was negatively impacting their mental health. Of those that were future-obsessed, 66% reported changes in their mood and sleep patterns, with a further 59% saying it affected their motivation and their focus. In contrast, being able to deal with the issues as they arise is vital for maintaining good mental health, preventing disorders such as anxiety and depression through building resilience.

So should we plan our futures to ensure our goals are met or live in the moment and deal with issues as they arise? Well, in short, we need to do both. As much as I've been harping on about how we need to live in the moment, actually setting achievable goals can be beneficial for the brain. When we set a goal, our prefrontal cortex engages, focusing planning and attention. Every step we take towards achieving our goal releases the feel-good chemical dopamine, encouraging us to keep moving and keep progressing forward.

In research done by German psychology professor Peter Gollwitzer, it was found that his implementation intentions theory, more commonly referred to as 'if-then planning', actually improved goal setting but also increased the amount of neural pathways made in the brain. The theory involved making if-then statements, such as if I finish my legal studies homework by 7 pm tonight, then I can play an hour of PlayStation. In over 90 studies that incorporated the theory, it was found that goals were much more likely to be achieved because of those expanded neural pathways.

So maybe some level of planning for the future isn't unnecessary. In fact, it's been proven to be beneficial when used in moderation. But that's the key word, moderation. Left unchecked, pure ambition and focus on future goals can be detrimental. This is supported by the philosophical position of stoicism. Stoicism argues that in the grand scheme of our lives, our fates and destinies are largely out of our control. Originating from Marcus Aurelius, it says that rather than trying to master our futures in a sense we need to be OK with and accept the fact that the only thing we can control is the choices we can make right now.

Stoicism is not equivalent to nihilism. It's not saying that our decisions and choices are meaningless in the grand scheme of life. But it instead argues that rather than trying to control the uncontrollable, we instead need to be OK with the fact that we can only control so much. So to answer the rather extreme question I first asked this afternoon, would I want to know when I was going to die? I would answer no, as did 86% of people when surveyed by the British government.

I prefer to live in the moment and let life happen to me, as opposed to predicting and planning for something that might not even eventuate. I think this is best summed up by Douglas Adams in 'Hitchhiker's Guide to the

Galaxy': 'I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I've ended up where I needed to be.' So perhaps the art of living is not in forcing the path but walking it with awareness, open to surprise, grounded in presence, and trusting that even uncertainty can carry us home.

[applause]

TAYLOR DONOVAN: Well done, Saxon.

SAXON MILLER: Thank you.

TAYLOR DONOVAN: I'll let you take a seat if you'd rather answer your questions--

SAXON MILLER: Yeah, I've got a little one back here. There we go.

TAYLOR DONOVAN: You have a little perch, there you go.

SAXON MILLER: Yeah, exactly.

TAYLOR DONOVAN: All right. As a reminder, and just before I start the clock, you'll have 3 minutes now to answer 3 questions based on your speech and your speaker profile. Your time will start as soon as I've finished asking my first question, OK?

SAXON MILLER: Awesome.

TAYLOR DONOVAN: All right. My first question is about the impact of AI on jobs in the future. In your speaker profile, you explain that you hope to study journalism and international relations at university. In what ways might these areas of study lead you to jobs that are future-proofed and safe from imminent AI takeover?

SAXON MILLER: I feel like AI is-- AI is a very important tool. It's a very good tool. And what's so scary about it is how well it imitates and does such complex and seemingly-- not the purse-like, the mathematical and scientific kind of jobs. Like accounting and for something like law, it knows the entire law handbook, which would take someone years to learn, something like that. But I feel like things like the arts, drama, journalism, things that are personable, that you can only do face to face, that I feel like only really work when there's a person behind it, a person who has thoughts and feelings and emotions.

I think that's where journalism comes from. I don't think a algorithm can imitate that kind of person-to-person conversation that journalism can get. That's the same with drama and the arts. It can mimic it. It can mimic the right motions and actions towards that certain thing, such as journalism. But I don't think it'll ever be able to perfect that. And that's personally why I think journalism is safe and why I think it's future-proof.

I feel like for write-- you can write a story using AI, but you can't talk to someone, you can't interview someone with AI. As much as you'd like to try, you can't, I feel. And I feel like it's those careers that have to maintain a person-to-person interaction that are truly safe from an AI takeover because I feel like those jobs are always going to be kept just between humans. And that's why I think journalism is pretty future-proof, and that's why I'm eager to try and enter the career if I can.

TAYLOR DONOVAN: Beautiful. You say in your speech that you've planned to hike Everest 3 times by now. You've not done that yet. You do have your Bronze Duke of Ed Award. What is the most important thing that Duke of Ed's taught you?

SAXON MILLER: Look, I think Duke of Edinburgh is one of those really amazing things. When you're doing it, you feel like it sucks. You're 6 kilometres into a 12k hike, and you are dying of thirst. And you're just not having a very fun time. But I feel like that's when you really start to see who you are as a person because, I reckon, in our day-to-day lives it's easy to put on a charade and pretend to be something that you're not.

But in Duke of Ed, in those positions, where it puts you and your friends through a bit of a tough challenge, you're proud of yourself when you overcome it. You're proud of yourself when you reach the end of it. But I feel like you also gain a better understanding of yourself and what you can put yourself through. And I think that's why Duke of Ed is so important to me.

TAYLOR DONOVAN: Brilliant. Thank you, Saxon. And that's our time up. So I won't answer your third question. Very well done today.

SAXON MILLER: I'm sorry.

TAYLOR DONOVAN: No, that's fine. You're fine. Our second contestant is Fadzai Bako from St. Aloysius College representing Victoria. Fadzai is in Year 11 this year. The subject of Fadzai's speech is 'Hustle culture: friend or foe?' Please welcome Fadzai.

[applause]

FADZAI BAKO: Over the summer holidays, I visited my grandparents in Zimbabwe. Like most young people, I love my Instagram and my TikTok. So obviously, I was spending a lot of money on data. One afternoon, my grandfather, puzzled, asked me, 'Fadzai, how can you afford all this data?' With the biggest smile and full confidence, I said, 'You know me. I work. I'm a hustler.'

He burst out laughing like I had just told the funniest joke. 'You? A hustler? What do you even know about hustle?' That day, we had a fruitful conversation, and I realised that hustle meant something different to him than it did to me. And that difference matters. So today I explore and I question is hustle and its culture our friend or our foe?

But what is this hustle? Well, according to the Oxford Dictionary, to hustle is to 'obtain illicitly or forcibly'. But the legendary rapper Jay-Z says, 'To hustle is to wake up every day and do good for yourself in your society.' Two definitions, one rooted in hope and the other in manipulation. This contrast is why hustle holds such a heavy weight within our society today.

'Rise and grind.' 'Sleep is for the weak.' 'Work until your haters ask if you're hiring.' Hustle has become the thread that ties us together, not because we all chase the same dream, but because we all feel the pressure to chase something. It becomes a silent expectation stitched into our lives, to do more, be more, prove more. However, in Australia, hustle often wears the face of quiet suffering. It's our uni students working nights just to afford textbooks, our tradies with a bad back and no sick leave, and our single mothers deciding between groceries and childcare fees.

Here, hustle can seem less like ambition and more like survival in disguise. And it's not just physical, it's emotional. We have learned to smile through stress, keep going without pause, and to wear our struggle like a badge instead of a burden. To understand how hustle reached this point, we must look at where it came from. And no story captures that better than the story of my favourite genre, hip hop.

Now, these days, if you ask a rapper, what does hustle mean to you? you'll get everything from 'stacking paper' to 'buying your mama a mansion'. Some treat hustle like a spiritual journey, others like a shopping spree. But before, it was about Rolexes, Rolls-Royces, and Kendrick versus Drake. Hip hop was born from pain and oppression, created by communities who were denied opportunity, people who were silenced by the system. So they built their own sound. They built their own spaces. They built their own language. Hustle was the heartbeat.

But over time, the message shifted. The grind became about being seen rather than being free. Hustle became about escape, escaping poverty, escaping violence, escaping invisibility. Artists began chasing fame and validation. This is what I call shadow hustle, performative, loud, but hollow. And when we mistaken that for real hustle, we start building our identities around what we look like instead of what we stand for. That is when we lose ourselves. And that shadow hustle has crept its way into our society today.

In 2019, the World Health Organisation officially recognised burnout as an occupational phenomenon. And can we be surprised? A 2023 study by Beyond Blue found that 59% of young Australians feel overwhelmed by their responsibilities. Another report by ReachOut Australia found that 1 in 3 young people aged 14 to 25 experience high psychological distress. Those aren't just statistics, it's us. Somewhere along the line, we began to believe that burnout was a benchmark and exhaustion a virtue.

However, this pressure to hustle is not just a personal struggle. It's shaping a generation, our generation. In 2023, the Australian Psychological Society reported that 49% of Gen Z feels regular stress, with one of the biggest causes being uncertainty about our futures. That number isn't just a warning sign. It's a reflection of a generation standing at a crossroads with no map.

Yet, too often young people are called lazy or unmotivated. That is not the truth. We are not lazy. We are lost. We are growing up in a world that keeps shifting the goalposts, where the cost of living rises faster than our chances, and where stability feels like a privilege instead of a right.

So what can we do? We must promote healthy hustle because it gives us a reason to move again, not out of fear, but out of purpose. And what is healthy hustle? It's exactly what Jay-Z said it is. It is community-focused, purpose-driven, balanced, resilient, uplifting, compassionate, empowering, sustainable, and values-based. And in places like our beautiful Australia, we must promote the hustle that enriches our nation, to show our young people that it is possible.

In Queensland, where Indigenous musicians use melodies and truth to share culture and preserve 65,000 years of tradition. In Victoria, where aunties run small businesses that support their neighbourhoods and foster community. And across rural Northern Territory, where farmers band together and brave the heat whilst withstanding challenges. This is Australia's heartbeat. This is the hustle we must reclaim, the hustle that uplifts, that builds legacy, and brings people with us as we grow.

When we sit in silence, there is one sound that never leaves us. It's the sound of our heartbeat. It is a quiet, steady reminder that we are alive. That is what hustle is to me. Hustle is my heartbeat. Every win and every setback is guided by that rhythm, a rhythm to do better. So young person, I speak to you. Find your hustle, a reminder of strength, of vitality, of who you are. So just like I taught my grandfather a lesson about hustle, I leave you with an assignment of your own. Thank you.

[applause]

TAYLOR DONOVAN: Well done, Fadzai. I'll give you a moment. You're going to answer your questions from there? Beautiful. All right. Thank you very much for that speech. Again, I'll start the clock after I've finished asking the first question. So my first question for you today, you are a member of the multi-generational Africa Day Australia Council. It's often said that today's young people don't appreciate the value of hard work, and you speak to this generational contrast in your speech. Can you speak to this stereotype in the context of your work with older people?

FADZAI BAKO: Mm, that's a great question, Taylor. So I firstly want to say that young people work so hard, and young people do value hard work. But often, the older generation think that because we have social media and because we have AI and we have TikTok and Instagram, that our head is filled with nothing except the material things in front of us. But like I spoke about in my speech, the future for young people stresses us out extremely. And I think many people can attest to that. It stresses us out.

And it's been my mission with older people to show that young people know hard work. And so many young people out there face systemic barriers that stop them from working as hard as they would like to. And especially as a young person of colour, I think I can attest to that. Whether it's the education system, the health system, there's so many systemic barriers that suffers from working hard. But young people do work hard. And it's always my goal with older people to tell them that, hey, we hustlers, and we're all hustling and everyone's trying to do the best they can with what they have.

TAYLOR DONOVAN: Thank you. Your second question now, you currently serve on the eSafety Youth Council. What are your thoughts about the enforcement of the government's impending social media ban?

FADZAI BAKO: Very controversial.

[laughs]

My opinion on the social media ban is that it's a test to our society values regarding integrity, regarding honesty, especially amongst young people. And the other day, in the hallways at school, I heard a Year 7 talking about how their Snapchat account is going to get shut down because of the ban. And the person they were talking to said, oh, go on TikTok. Everyone knows how to get around it.

That statement stuck with me so much, and I remember that I went home and I told Mum. And I said, they are already finding a way around something that's not here. As a society, I think everything that we teach young people should be based off education and instilling values. And bans often don't work. Young people are notorious for trying to get around things. And that's what I think. I think we should always be values-based. It should be in schools. It should be the dangers. It should be about education and the dangers on social media.

TAYLOR DONOVAN: Awesome. And my last question now, which is a funny one, I think. Drake is your favourite rapper, and you're an awarded student debater. In light of the Kendrick and Drake rap beef, which do you think is the better mode of public persuasion?

FADZAI BAKO: Oh, this is really controversial. But I'll have to side with Drake. Drake speaks to the people. He speaks to me. A lot of my hustling ideology comes from Drake. He's a hustler. Kendrick's a brilliant rapper. But I feel like Drake is a regular degular guy, who talks to everyone. And I think that's what's important. And whether it's rapping or public speaking, it's always about representing people and speaking to people. So that's how he inspires me. And the winner was Drake.

[laughs]

TAYLOR DONOVAN: I disagree. Thank you so much, Fadzai. Awesome job today.

[laughs]

[applause]

All right. We'll reset now for our third contestant. Our third contestant is Olivia Wright, who is in Year 12 and attends Hurlstone Agricultural High School in NSW. The subject of Olivia's speech is 'Between two dawns'. Please welcome Olivia.

[applause]

OLIVIA WRIGHT: It's 5 am. It's cold, dark, and I'm standing in my driveway in my bright pink dressing gown, impatiently waiting for the family to go to my local dawn service. As I waited, I scrolled on my phone, sifting through the aftermath of yet another teenage party, also time-stamped at 5 am. Same time, 2 very different dawns.

As I went on to stand in silence, I looked around to see the usual abundance of poppies, albeit, not just the flowers, actual poppies, Pops, grandfathers, a sea of grey hairs and the lingering scent of Old Spice. I felt strangely out of place, not because I didn't care, but rather that I wasn't quite sure where I fit. The youngest by decades, caught somewhere between the weight of the past and the pace of my present.

Why has the divide between commemoration and young people grown so wide? They're almost like 2 trenches staring across a 'no man's land' of outdated ritual, where connection used to seem possible, but now is too dangerous or distant to cross. However, if we don't become willing to cross this space, memory doesn't just fade, it fractures. And if young people can't see themselves in our national narrative, then they simply stop telling it altogether.

Now, I've been to my fair share of Anzac Day services, enough to earn the unofficial title of 'Anzac Girl' among my friends. Sure, it's a little on the nose, but I think there are much worse nicknames out there. But I just remember whilst speaking at my school service being blindsided by the sheer amount of blank stares and restless murmurs. Halfway through, I even tried to speed up and skip a sentence or 2 purely because I felt guilty. Now, I will give some grace, considering the solemnity of the service was slightly sabotaged by a Last Post rendition, which, despite the play's efforts, sounded closer to a cockatoo being strangled than the actual tune. Yet, my guilt didn't come from a place of frustration, rather guilt that my words, sincere as they were, landed more like white noise than an invitation to reflect.

So I tried to trace the fault lines to pinpoint where this divide stems from. Firstly, there's the obvious, but less satisfying explanation. The last generation with living ties to the world wars are almost gone. The emotional bridge once built by these stories has inevitably weakened, and now history arrives to us safely second-hand, through sanitised textbooks and token speeches. The disconnect also can't be due to these wars feeling too far removed, as it's something we're living alongside now.

The horrors of war are no longer confined to grainy, black and white footage, but rather unfolding in real time. And yet, despite this immediacy, and perhaps even because of it, our collective response feels strangely hollow, scrolling past these atrocities, sandwiched between the newest ephemeral trend. This culture of constant distractions makes our current ceremonies feel slow, even obsolete. Grief gets aestheticised. Outrage becomes performative. And consequently, our ceremonies resist discomfort, venerating war and filling any liminal spaces for doubt with a stagnant script that rarely evolves.

Macquarie University agrees that this is only fostering more historical tourists. No, not the ones that wear those obscenely bright souvenir shirts, but rather those who pass through memorial spaces without realising their full context. And I'll admit, I've been an unwitting tourist myself. Since getting my P's, I've driven past a cluster of bright red poles on the M7 countless times, only recently realising these poles were a memorial for the Australian Light Horse. So if even an Anzac aficionado missed the meaning, then what chance does the average driver have? Especially when it feels more about roadside decor than reminders of sacrifice, romanticising war to the point where we forget the uncomfortable realities make commemoration necessary in the first place.

This lack of historical and social literacy makes connecting for young people that much more difficult, as if we can't contextualise what we see, that its importance becomes futile. But perhaps part of the disconnect stems from the nature of remembrance itself. See? We often treat memory as inherently virtuous without first acknowledging that not all memories are worth preserving. I've grown up hearing family war stories, stories laced with deep resentment toward some enemy nations. If I remembered only this anger, I wouldn't be honouring history, but rather inheriting their hatred. Likewise, past wars in the Balkans were fueled by centuries-old ethnic grievances, showing how remembrance, when unexamined, can instead entrench division.

This is yet another risk we run when we teach young people to remember without also helping them to critically reflect. If remembrance becomes about loyalty to the past rather than learning from it, we end up handing down prejudice instead of perspective. In doing so, we misshape the kind of nation we choose to be, the voices that we elevate, and the values that we carry forward.

So the problem isn't that young people just don't care. It's that we simply haven't been shown why we should. We need to hear stories that resonate, that spark reflection, that make us remember out of respect and not obligation. Now, I'm not going to suggest we throw students into battle with wartime reenactment 'Hunger Games' style, but rather we must branch outside the monotonous services and the contemporary highway sculptures nobody has a clue about.

During my study tour of Japan last year, I gathered some empirical evidence into what authentic remembrance should look like. Standing in the ruins of Hiroshima, I saw students offer paper cranes and bowed their heads, acts not about scripted, polished performances, but ones which offered space for vulnerability. It was quiet. It was imperfect. But it was real. And that's exactly what we need more of.

So for the next service you hopefully wake up for, don't just attend. Find a personal story to connect with. Learn their name, what they gave up. Let it be small. Appealing to youth doesn't mean dumbing things down. It means recognising how we engage, short-form and digital content that spotlight those untold wartime accounts, whether that be through TikTok shorts, Instagram Reels, or whatever Meta's latest identity crisis is. But make room for those contested histories, not just Gallipoli framed as this noble failure, but the stories that complicate how and why we remember it all, from the likes of the Frontier Wars and beyond.

If your community service feels slightly stale, then push for change. Propose more student-led ceremonies. Invite veterans not based upon their medals but rather for their truths and for their struggles. Curate a local exhibition. Host a podcast. Even propose the creation of geotagged maps that explain those memorials we drive past every day. Because ultimately someday I'm hoping I'm not the only individual being dubbed an 'Anzac girl', not because I dislike the name, but because I'd like to see more young people claim this space too.

Because the choice between the 2 dawns isn't just about staying up or waking up. Maybe the choice is whether we let commemoration be something distant and obligatory, or something we make our own. It's a choice to show up, to listen, to question even when it's uncomfortable, especially when it's uncomfortable. As if remembrance has continued to withstand the mid-service yawns and some highly dodgy bugle renditions, then it can survive practically anything.

It doesn't have to be perfect or polished or solemn in the same way it was 100 years ago. It just has to remain alive. As if we don't find new ways to connect with the past, we risk waking up in a world where the phrase 'lest we forget' rings hollow. And instead of standing in my bright pink dressing gown at dawn, I won't need to say 'lest we forget' because we will already have forgotten it ourselves. Thank you.

[applause]

TAYLOR DONOVAN: Well done, Olivia.

OLIVIA WRIGHT: Thank you.

TAYLOR DONOVAN: All right. You ready to go?

OLIVIA WRIGHT: Yep, sounds good.

TAYLOR DONOVAN: All right. I will start the clock after I've finished my first question. So in your speech, you explain that stories framed by hatred of our enemies only entrench that hatred. How do we encourage remembrance of our military history without glorifying war and conflict and emphasising respect for all people?

OLIVIA WRIGHT: Yeah, that's a really good question. I think it's really relevant at the moment as well, with all the geopolitical turmoil and controversy going on. I think, first of all, it's important to remember that stories that are perpetuated by governments and by nations and leaders are often the ones that they want to sell and that they want to share. So I think at the heart of it, it's really important to unearth and uncover those disquieted perspectives and once from the Indigenous peoples or the ones from civilians or the women or the people in military involvements that don't always get a chance to have their voices heard.

I feel like the most authentic and the most real and raw perspectives come from these individuals. And I think often at times we overlook this. We get fed with these headlines on the media and what the governments want us to believe in these curated versions of historical narratives. So I think going back and looking at some more of those untold wartime accounts is really important to ensure that all nations feel included and there's more of this transparency between military involvement and conflict. So that's definitely important.

TAYLOR DONOVAN: My second question, you write in your speaker profile that you'd like to study a double law and criminology degree after school, but also that burnout begins in a school environment. How can we best tackle burnout individually and/or systemically when we and society expect so much of ourselves?

OLIVIA WRIGHT: Yeah, that's a really great question. And I think definitely, at this point in time, going into my HSC and everything like that, it's definitely something that's been in the back of my mind. I think, first and foremost, just reaching out to individuals, whether that be your teachers, your parents, connecting with your family and friends is such a big thing. And I think that was really important for me to remember as well. Going into, yeah, a very hefty double degree next year, I think there's going to be a lot of work ahead. And I think it's important for individuals to recognise that they're not in it alone. There's lots of other individuals out there going through a similar situation as well.

And oftentimes, we get caught up with what society wants us to believe, working at this fast pace, the 4 to 9 before the 9 to 5 trend that's going on TikTok is also a really big thing as well that's pushing individuals to really do 100 things all at once, which is physically impossible. And we feel definitely this burden on our backs. But I think slowing down and resetting is also a major thing, taking a step back, realising that maybe all the studying and everything like that, just reaffirming our own goals and what we want and what we're actually getting out of the work that we're doing. If we feel like getting up at 4 am isn't really for us, even though social media might tell us to, maybe it's best that we rethink, take a step back and reaffirm our own values and what we believe is best for us.

TAYLOR DONOVAN: Awesome. My final question, you love to travel and have a deep love of history. Where is somewhere you would love to travel to and have yet to because of its historical significance?

OLIVIA WRIGHT: Oh, that's also a very good question. I think definitely coming back from my Japan trip, there's a lot of places on my bucket list I'd love to go. But I think Korea is actually one that I've really, really wanted to go to. I think they've had a really contentious military past with the Korean War, the forgotten war, and also their treatment of civilians and prisoners of war throughout World War II and everything like that. I feel like they've got a lot of rich remembrance and memorials similar to Japan in a way. So it'd be really great to experience that culture. And yeah, lots of places in Korea I'd love to visit as well, so definitely.

TAYLOR DONOVAN: Thank you, Olivia.

OLIVIA WRIGHT: No worries.

TAYLOR DONOVAN: Two of 3 sections done so far. Well done.

[applause]

Our fourth contestant today is Samantha Lee, who is in Year 12 at Iona Presentation College in Western Australia. The subject of Samantha's speech is '6174'. Just before we start, I'll just remind anyone who's joined us just to make sure that they're on mute please. Please welcome Samantha.

[applause]

SAMANTHA LEE: Would I be able to start with an Acknowledgment of Country?

TAYLOR DONOVAN: Yes, yeah.

SAMANTHA LEE: Yeah. So I just want to respectfully acknowledge the past and present traditional owners of this land on which I'm meeting on today, the Whadjuk Noongar people. And it's such a privilege to be standing here on Whadjuk Noongar country. So thank you.

Tick. Tick. Tick. Most of us only really hear the sound when the clock is about to run out, when time feels scarce and urgency is high. But what if I told you that there are other kinds of ticking patterns too, patterns that run deep within our surface, and patterns that we don't notice until something forces us to stop and listen? For me, this moment of realisation did not come from a person or an event, but instead came from a number, 6174. It seemed like a string of digits at first, but as I learned its rule, it became a reminder that even in chaos there's often a path to the same end. So on this note, welcome to the magical and mysterious world of 6174.

6174 is something called Kaprekar's constant, named after the recreational mathematician D.R. Kaprekar. And it has this one very strange property where it's not special like pi or has a deep meaning like zero. In fact, most people have never even heard of its process. The way it works is that if you take any 4-digit number, so long as the digits aren't the same, and follow the Kaprekar process, you will always arrive at the number 6174. Sounds impossible, right? We can try and give it a go.

Let's say we start with the number 6589. The first step would be to rearrange it to make the largest number possible. So 6589 rearranged gives 9865. Then we rearrange that number to get the smallest number possible. 6589 rearranged gives 5689. Then we subtract both of those digits from each other. 9865 subtract 5689, and guess what we get? 4176. Since it's not quite Kaprekar's constant yet, we repeat that same process. 4176 rearranged gives 7641 and 1467. Then we subtract both of those numbers from each other. And guess what we get this time? 6174.

There it is, the fixed constant we were always heading towards. And it seems like a magic trick at first. But for me, the more I stayed with this number, the more I began to question myself. What if we were like that too? What if, no matter how lost, scattered, or uncertain we feel, there's often a deeper constant within us all, that we all need to take away, not through shortcuts but through the right process of adding things up? And I saw this idea come to life while I was volunteering at a science museum.

You see? One day 2 young boys had come up to me, both with the same question and eager to know the answer. The first boy, he got the answer straight away, and I half expected him to take over my job. But the second boy, he stood there staring at me, confused, with question marks coming out of his brain. And so I stayed with him, ensuring that he got the answer. I kept trying and trying and trying, dancing, laughing, drawing, doing anything that was confusing anyone walking past. When eventually his eyes lit up, and his jaw dropped to the ground. And loud enough for the whole museum to hear, he shouted, 'Oh! I get it now!'

And it was in that moment where it hit me what 6174 truly means. Learning is not a race. The first boy got there first, and the second boy took a while to get there. But in the end they both arrived at the answer. The first boy was like, 4176, just one step away from reaching 6174. But the second boy was like 6589, and he needed more time. But what mattered most was that they both arrived at their own 6174.

Unfortunately, the message that our society sends is far more different to this, especially to those with learning differences. They are labelled as lazy, disruptive, or simply incapable, not because of who they are, but because of how they learn. And this belief isn't just harmful. It's unfair because it starts to form a judgement, a judgement that sticks and turns into a belief that they have nothing to offer.

And this belief only grows when these students face isolation. In fact, a report from the Australian and Young People with Disability found that these children are 2.5 times more likely to face isolation in school settings. And this is not just a reflection of who they are, but a reflection of the schooling systems that fail to account for everyone's unique way of learning.

Just like 6589, these students may have not been given the time, support, or trust to reach their own 6174. A close friend of mine, she once told me that the only reason why I keep going isn't because I have all the answers, but because my mother kept telling me that I'm not the problem. And this highlights something very essential. Not every student hears those words. And without those words of encouragement, they may start to believe that they have nothing to offer.

Yet, just like in Kaprekar's process, their destination hasn't changed. Their destination has not vanished. It's still waiting there, waiting to be revealed through the right guidance and right support. You can try adding, multiplying, rearranging digits. But until someone helps you along the way to rearrange and subtract, you will reach your own 6174 in your own time.

Take Tony Meléndez. He was born without arms. Yet, he was able to be taught to play guitar. Or Aristotle, who once said, 'We learn every day, and we learn by what we do.' And the good news is that when these students receive the accommodation that they need to their needs, outcomes improve dramatically. A report from the Australian Department of Education showed that these children, who receive tailored support, are twice as likely to complete their schooling successfully. And this just shows that investing in education is not just the smart thing to do, it's the right thing.

So in Kaprekar's process, while some numbers may take one step to reach 6174 and others 7, the destination is always the same. It's not just a mathematical truth but a truth about how we learn, grow, and navigate the world. Getting to where you're meant to be isn't about rushing to the finish line but about following a process tailored to you built on belief, trust, and the right support because every student, every person here today deserves a chance to follow their own 6174.

While society may push us to rush, the real beauty happens when we slow down and embrace the process and believe in the potential of those who are still finding their way. Just like the ticking of the clock, we will reach our own 6174, patient, slow, and unyielding. So because in the end it's not how fast we arrive but that we never stop moving forward. Thank you.

[applause]

TAYLOR DONOVAN: Well done, Samantha. You speak to the lack of support for people with learning disabilities, like dyslexia and ADHD in schools, and that individual accommodations make the difference. How can education systems better support students of all learning types to reach their potential?

SAMANTHA LEE: I think schools in investing in better education and accommodating to people's needs starts with a question to ask what people really need. When I was at a retreat, there was a couple of young girls. They all had different disabilities. There was a girl, she was autistic and she had a lot of sensory issues. But she was there. She was present. And I asked her what she needs. And I think this is something that schools need to reflect.

And I remember asking her, is there something you aspire to be? And she said, I aspire to be what I am now. I am already enough. And with support, I can get to where I want to be. So schools, all they need to do is just ask a question. What do you need to do? Because it's so easy to look at the dirt in people, but it's also easy to find the gold in others. When we ask what we need, we can get the answers that we need. So thank you.

TAYLOR DONOVAN: Thank you. My second question is, firstly, congratulations on your early offer to study law and biomedical science next year. You were also an international finalist at the Ethics Olympiad. In your opinion, what is the most pressing ethical issue in relation to global or community health today?

SAMANTHA LEE: I think the most-- it's a bit controversial. There's things like euthanasia and our own autonomy and abortion. Those are all very important debates and they're highly controversial. And it's something that's always in an ethical discussion. But I think what matters at the heart of it all is that we all need to listen to each other and hear each other out. There's so many still argument debates when we can all be straw men and just listen to each other. And that's all it takes. It's the same with 6174.

All we need to do is listen to each other because we're so stuck in our own stance. And we can never get to where we want to be if we don't have the ability to adapt or change or try to learn from others. My favourite quote from Dostoyevsky, he said that 'The darker the night, the brighter the stars.' We're in such a dark time right now with wars and people with controversial opinions and conflicting values. But the real beauty is if we just slow down and try to listen to each other. And that's how we can brighten up our stars.

TAYLOR DONOVAN: Thank you. I might jump to my lighter question to end with. You're a fencer. It's very exciting. I'm not. If you had to choose between a foil, a sabre and a epée blade, which is your favourite and why?

SAMANTHA LEE: I would say foil. I've only ever done foil. And actually, in Perth we don't have many fencing clubs. And I started just 2 years ago. And I remember when I first started out, we only had a foil club, and everyone was so good. Everyone had been fencing for years, and I was there having my first go. And I thought it would be impossible to reach my first point. But I took a while, took a couple of months. And I eventually got my first point against those who have done it for years.

But, the real beauty of foil is that it's the community that you build. It's the sweat and tears and the competition that you have with each other. Whilst my components were taller, stronger, had been done doing it for years, the real beauty was that in the end, just like 6174, I eventually made it. So I would say foil would be my preference. But if I had to have a go, I would definitely try out sabre and epée . But I'll remember that I won't get my first point straight away. It's the process that matters.

TAYLOR DONOVAN: It's the process. Thank you very much. Thank you to the fencer Aman who gets-- for giving me those blade options. Thank you very much, Samantha.

That concludes the prepared section for today. Everyone will now be moved to the waiting room, and the finalists will return one by one to give their 3-minute impromptu speech.

[applause]

SAXON MILLER: When we're born, we're taught a certain standard of what is moral, what is right, what is good? And we try and stick to that as much as we can in our early years. We know what's right, we know what's wrong. And it's very black and white to us. And we stick to that because that's what all we've been taught. That's our truth. But as we get older, we start to see that things start to blur the lines a little bit. They sit in between what is right and what is good. And you can't really decide which it is. And that's where it sits, in that moral grey area, a very contentious and topical issue that plagues the modern world. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

Now, grey areas have been present throughout history, in philosophy and religion. Throughout all of human existence, we've always been challenged with what is right and what is wrong because there's not really a universal decision of what it is. Historically, there have been multiple examples of moral grey areas. A very highly contested one of them being the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the Americans.

This was done to end the war. However, both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were technically considered civilian targets. In fact, later, the main reason for their bombing was later seen to be because of such-- because they wanted to test how effective the weapon would be. So they wanted to do it on a marginally unaffected area. However, what was later determined was that it actually saved multiple people's lives.

An Australian soldier who was interviewed by the BBC recently stated that the only reason he was able to come home and see his family again was because of the bombing. Because if the bombing hadn't have happened, the war would have gone slightly longer, meaning he possibly could have died. So it's in these moral grey areas where it actually starts to become a little bit more complicated of what is technically right and what is wrong.

We see that in our own societies, things that we societally condemned as being horrible and-- just horrible and unethical situations, in other cultures they're apathetic towards them, things such as cannibalism. In the Western world, we see it as one of the worst things you can do to another human being. However, in places like Papua New Guinea, cannibalism is, especially in the higher mountains of the area, they're apathetic towards it.

So philosophically, what is right and what is wrong is dependable on where you are located on the Earth. So it's these grey areas where you can't really decide where anything sits within them. What is right and what is morally wrong are very complicated and distinctly confusing and complicating ideas that we as a society can never get right because I feel as though they mean different things to entirely different people.

[applause]

FADZAI BAKO: My best friend is my mum. She sparked my love for literature, for music, and most importantly, for Zimbabwe. We often have conversations in Shona, my mother tongue and her mother tongue, and she loves the Shona proverbs. Her favourite proverb and her favourite philosophy in Shona is Mono Mono Nirvana. This statement means a person is a person because of another person. And this ties closely to the South African philosophy Ubuntu.

This is lived in Zimbabwe, and people value community to the greatest extent. Neighbours will often talk amongst each other, and parents will help raise their kids together because it takes a village. But now, here in Australia, I see there is a grey area. There is a lack of community, and it falls heavily on our young men. And we see it within our society today. Most boys that I know have struggles with substance abuse, engagement in school, and their mental health. And it's this lack of this philosophy of Mono Mono Nirvana that causes our young men to stray away.

Yet, at the same time, I see hope. In Australia, we value education, and we also value community. Within our schools, we can do something to help our young men. We must help them by talking to them. I think a lot of young men within our society lack the community and communication that is often had in Zimbabwe. A simple how are you? Are you OK? What's your favourite song? What's your favourite book? can help engage our young men. They are left stuck, and no one hears them. And they turn to things that will give them temporary fixes. When really it's about us. It's about you and I and helping our young men flourish.

So what I say to you is to go and have a conversation with the young men you know and ask them, do you have a mono? Do you have a person? Live out Ubuntu. I am because you are. As a community, we are so much stronger, and there's so much division in our society that we see today. We see the wars. We see the people suffering. We see the terrible things on the media. And these things can sweep us up. But it is always important to check up on our people and especially our young men. So I leave you with Mono Mono Nirvana. A person is a person because of another person. Thank you.

[applause]

OLIVIA WRIGHT: I believe it was just last month when Instagram introduced their new repost feature. Sneakily hidden amongst all the other symbols while scrolling, and unbeknownst to him, my friend posted a reel, reposting, which maybe shouldn't have been posted. Very insensitive, very controversial. And within the hour the debate started. It was like a national scandal. Whether it was accidental, whether it was intentional, there was no room for grey area. You had to pick a side, whether he was right, whether he was wrong. It was like the media and our friends and our entire friendship circle revolved around this one mistake that this individual made and made me think.

We live in this culture where it centres around a callout or cancel culture, where individuals feel the need to call out one's wrongdoings and to almost conflate critique with humiliation. See? We're told to be critical thinkers. We're told to question what we see on the internet and to ensure that everything we see and everything we believe has a clear right or wrong dichotomy. But in doing so, we neglect to think of this grey area, which has the space for new perspectives, for new voices, and for those vulnerable and marginalised individuals to be heard and seen.

Another very infamous and well-known example was the Will Smith and Chris Rock scandal, which was a couple of years back, where within an instant the media took to being the judge, the jury, and the executioner, choosing to pick a side. There was no grey area. There was no nuance. You had to pick if you were Team Will or Team Chris. And unlike these individuals, you have these vulnerable and marginalised groups in society that don't have the same access to reputation and management teams that allow this grey area to exist and allow them to bounce back from this wrongdoing.

You have these Indigenous Australians. You have LGBTQ individuals who try and use their platform and use social media to share their voice and to ensure that their voices matter in places that their perspectives need to be heard. And instead, we resort to confusing critique with cruelty, with treating empathy as optional and instantly going on the attack and the offensive. And as a result, this has real, tangible impacts. Free speech, which is a heavily contentious issue at the moment, is inherently hindered. People try to censor themselves and take away their voices in the digital space where their voices truly matter. It translates into society.

Marginalised individuals already feel that their voices aren't being heard and that this grey area is being intrinsically neglected. And as a result, they step back. They choose to one side. They step aside so that individuals don't get a chance to share their story. Brené Brown, a researcher, calls this 'common enemy intimacy'. It's where individuals group together, not over meaningful conversation and connections over new perspectives, but over viral anger, over hatred. And in doing so, one must feel righteous while doing it.

To win the moral argument, that's the basis of all this critique and backlash that we see online. And that's what's hindering the free speech and all these Indigenous and vulnerable perspectives. Because maybe to fix this, we need to maybe start calling individuals in. Calling out takes a 2-second judgement and a 2-second scroll. But calling someone in takes time. It takes emotional effort. More digital regulations on how we use a digital space is intrinsically important for ensuring that this grey area allows for all perspectives to be included and not just individuals picking a side. Thank you.

[applause]

SAMANTHA LEE: They say you never forget your first. I'm not talking about your first love or maybe even your first car. I'm talking about your first spark of creativity. In today's society, we live in such a grey world, but creativity is where our colours shine. I remember my first spark, and it started at my first speech competition. This was my first attempt at creativity. Sweaty palms, shoulders heavy and just a bit of nervousness. I said in front of my primary school cohort, and I shouted one word, unicorns. It was messy, unrealistic. But the most important part was that it's creative.

In today's society, we're losing that creativity in children. In fact, a study from NASA found that out of the 1,600 children and people that they had tested, 98% of those children scored at a level of a creative genius. But by the time that they reached 30, only 2% of those children had remained. And this is what Picasso would call, every single child is an artist.

The only problem is remaining an artist as we grow up. And today's society, we're told to colour inside the lines. But in such a grey world, we can colour outside of those lines. We don't need to follow the laws, structure, and all the answers in our education. What matters most is that we have our imagination and creativity to lead us all the way.

I had an experience while volunteering at the science museum again. You see? One time there was a young boy. He ran across all the 12 deluxe crayons, and he went to pick up this one tiny stub, a little tiny crayon. And I laughed and said, 'Don't you want a new one?' And he looked at me back and said, 'No, this crayon's faster'. And I sat with myself for a quick minute, and I questioned myself. Faster? Since when were crayons running?

But that's not the lesson. He taught me that to be creative is to use what you have. Being creative isn't about having the newest things or doing what people tell you to do. It's about thinking outside the box. We should dream big, dream as far as the moon can reach, because in the end it's where our imagination takes us. I started my first speech with unicorns. It was creative. It was unrealistic, but it was me. And it has led me to where I am. In such a grey world today, creativity is all we need. And even a broken crayon can colour our world. Thank you.

[applause]

TAYLOR DONOVAN: I'd now like to call on Neva Mikulic to announce the winner of the national final of the Plain English Speaking Award for 2025 on behalf of the adjudication panel.

NEVA MIKULIC: Thanks, Taylor. The first thing I'd like to do in this adjudication is to congratulate all of our speakers today on what the panel thought was a really great national final. It takes a lot of dedication, to be honest, a lot of courage as well to do public speaking, and I think it's a remarkable achievement to have made it this far and to have delivered a set of really thoughtful and intriguing speeches. So well done to all of our finalists, regardless of the result today.

I'll break this adjudication down into the relevant component parts of the competition. So I'll start by talking about the prepared speech section, then the impromptu, and finally, the interview section. And then at the end, I'll announce our winner. And in each part I'll talk a bit about the things the panel thought were really strong today. And then we'll talk about what better speeches did and what we valued in determining the winner.

Let's begin with the prepared speech section. A lot of things were done really excellently today. In particular, the panel thought that all of the speeches today were really well researched. So there was a lot of thought and investment that went into curating really detailed speeches. We thought there were lots of good examples that helped to concretise your arguments and to illustrate how sometimes quite abstract or broad ideas applied in reality. And we thought that was also very effective. We really liked that speakers prioritised a personal touch, so explaining how they personally connected to or viewed their topic. And we also thought that all speeches had a clear sense of taking us on a journey, so tying their ending to the central inspiration or example that began their speech.

In terms of how we differentiated between speeches in the prepared section, we thought that the better speeches today had a clear sense of clarity, focus, and cohesion, not just in the topic area they selected, but in the message and the thesis that they were arguing in their speech. And having a really clear, sustained perspective on your issue we thought was something that we valued very highly in differentiating between speakers.

The second thing that we thought the strongest prepared speeches today had was a good engagement with the relevant counterarguments, debates, and tensions about the area that they were talking about. And I think being able to connect those counterarguments and those differing perspectives to your main idea and explaining how you resolve that or how you view that as opposed to, for example, just listing the different perspectives, I think gives your speech a sense of sophistication. And it gives it a lot of depth. And we thought the strongest speeches today achieved that very well.

In terms of the impromptu section, we thought all impromptu speeches today were excellent. We thought in terms of the fluency and the manner aspect that everyone did brilliantly. And we also really liked that all of the impromptu speeches today picked a really clear example and connected it to the topic that they were discussing.

We thought the best speeches today were the ones that were able to hit the topic area the clearest, so that were able to talk about the sentiment behind the idea of grey areas. Whether that might be some kind of complexity or moral confusion or whatever the broader metaphorical meaning might be, we thought the speeches that linked most clearly to that concept were the most effective ones.

We also thought the most effective, impromptu speeches today were ones that had a lot of control over the timing and the structure of their impromptu speech. That meant they were able to leave enough time at the end to develop what a solution to the problem that they were talking about might be or to fully explain what their audience should take away from their impromptu speech.

And finally, on the interview component, we really enjoyed all of the interviews today. We thought they were really personable and really engaging. The times when we think people were the most effective in their interview answers is when they were very direct and specific in answering the question. So unlike a speech where you might build up to the key message that you're delivering, we thought the most effective responses were the ones that led with a clear answer that squarely addressed the question.

And in particular, we thought when people had a clear sense of their personal opinion, when they were able to pick a clear stance on an issue or on the question, we thought those were the clearest and most persuasive answers. Hopefully, that gives you a sense of the relevant factors that the adjudication panel considered in their deliberation, and maybe also implicitly gives you some things to think about as you move forward, hopefully into many future speech competitions, as you're all very talented and I think should keep doing public speaking.

Finally, on our winner today, our winner was someone who we thought in their prepared speech unpacked a really under-discussed topic with a clear personal voice and an attention to detail in the way in which they curated their speech, their turns of phrase and the kinds of imagery that they used. We thought this was someone who, in their impromptu speech, was able to really clearly engage with the assigned topic and someone who is able to discuss a really nuanced, contemporary issue with a lot of thoughtfulness and a good contextualisation of why the problem happened and how it developed. And on a really brilliant speech about commemorating wars and an impromptu speech about cancel culture, our winner today is Olivia Wright. So congratulations.

[applause]

But as I said, a really brilliant final and really good work from all speakers.

TAYLOR DONOVAN: Thank you, Neva. Congratulations, Olivia. Olivia will be sent her Plain English Speaking Award Shield and her gold medallion and will be invited to compete at the International Public Speaking Competition in July of next year in London. Excuse me. Thank you to our distinguished guests and to all speakers and audience members for joining us today. It's been my pleasure to speak with each of the contestants and to share this online national final today. Thank you also for supporting public speaking in our schools. And that concludes today's proceedings. Thank you, everyone.