The issue of whether Australia should use recycled water for human consumption was brought into public limelight when in a referendum Toowoomba overwhelmingly rejected a proposal to add recycled effluent to the city’s water supply. Toowoomba residents were asked to approve a plan to draw 25% of the town’s water from reclaimed effluent, but more than 60% of voters said no to the idea. This issue arose because of the major water shortage in the town. Also, in New South Wales the Pejar Dam has fallen below 9% of its capacity, a dangerously low level of water storage in a dry continent like Australia.
Recycled water is recycled effluent or sewage that is treated to a higher degree of purity required than for being discharged into a body of water such as an ocean outfall. A dual membrane process used in Singapore to recycle waste water to levels which approach that of distilled water. This system has been found to be almost totally safe, except for some chemicals which can not be removed. This produces potable water, water suitable for drinking.

The arguments for the use of recycled water are many; including that Australia must do something about the lack of potable water. Australia is the driest inhabited continent on the Earth but also uses the most water of all countries – 79% to agriculture, 9% to industry and 12% to domestic use. Conservation methods such as dishwashing in batches or using gray water from washing machines to clean cars can only work as long as there is water to use. Leigh Martin says that “Most people who balk at reusing sewage water should be educated about recycling.”

On the other hand, water could be conserved by growing fewer water-hungry crops such as rice, sugar and cotton and planting more cereal crops, fruit and vegetables. It has been claimed that the nature of Australia’s supposed water shortage has been exaggerated but with more efficient water management schemes in place, Australia could avoid the need to use recycled water.
However, Australia’s water problem is likely to grow worse because of population growth and extended periodic droughts. Also, in some areas global warming will probably impact on the water supply. Tom Gosling stated “[that the problem lies] not with the lack of water, but with the huge growth in the number of people who are demanding it.” Supporters of the use of reclaimed water, such as Toowoomba Mayor Di Thorley, say that one way to supplement the supply of water is to recycle it.
Nevertheless, the ‘yuck factor’ of using recycled water indicates the certain level of understanding by the average Australian. People seem to fear the idea of using recycled water and Toowooba is not the only Australian town to recently reject the idea. Malcolm Turnbull stated that “The majority of the Toowoomba community does not support the indirect potable reuse of recycled water.”, yet with reeducation people could be helped to accept the safety of recycled water.

Conversely, a number of chemicals which can not currently be removed, such as detergents, wetting agents and plasticizers, act like the female hormone oestrogen in the body. It is believed that the hormone itself (present from the urine that is going into the recycled water) and the chemicals can have a deleterious effect on developing males in utero. Also the use of recycled water may lead to male infertility. These serious health effects impact on the safety concerns of the public, negatively presenting recycled water.

After much discussion, Toowoomba has abandoned the plan of using recycled water as potable water, but other areas in Australia have begun to look to it as the solution to the ever-growing demands for water.

Another essay written in year 11, detailing the issue of water recycling. I also had to write a one minute oral for it.

Disputing the use of recycled water for domestic use when Australia is the driest inhabited continent on earth is just plain stupid! As Australians we must do something about the lack of water. Coming from a rural background, I have been taught by drought that every drop of water is important, even if it comes from a sewage tank. According to the WHO, recycled water is actually safer than the water usually used for human consumption. Treated sewage is released into waterways and dams that potable water is pumped from anyway. Isn’t it better to treat all the water at once and keep our environment healthy? The advanced membrane system used in Singapore could be used for implementing the use of recycled water, making everybody safer. Who wouldn’t agree to that? If we don’t take a positive stance on water recycling, some areas will be forced to purchase carted water. Australia will be left high and dry like a third-world country if this situation continues, with only disease ridden ponds left. Sensible people would agree that using recycled water is the right solution to Australia’s urgent water problems.

[1] Type in “[your name] needs” in the Google search

“Rose needs to sign up for some anger management classes”

Oh, it’s so, so true!

[2] Type in “[your name] looks like” in Google search:

“Rose looks like a porn star”

Well, I wouldn’t have said that, but that’s google.

[3] Type in “[your name] goes” or “..has gone” in Google search:

“Rose has gone from strength-to-strength and developed into a well-known professional theatre”

I wish I had strengths. And since when did I have an interest in theatre?

[4] Type in “[your name] loves” in Google search:

“Rose loves her doctor”

Scary. And I certainly do not. I think this is from Doctor Who.

5: Type in “[your name] eats” in Google search:

“Rose eats funny red pills”

Well, if I had any funny red pills, I would. But I don’t.

6: Type in “[your name] has” in Google search:

“Rose has thorns”

Well dur, Darkthorn.

7: Type in “[your name] will” in Google search:

“Rose will exercise using rubber bands”

Interesting but not accurate.

8:Type in “[your name] died” in Google Search:

“Rose died in the end”

Wow. tell me something I didn’t know.

I am writing today to put forward the issue of Legalised Euthanasia in Australia. For many years, this topic has been hotly debated by physicians, the government and the families of people who wish to have this last service to end their pain and suffering. An incident in May, 2002, involved an elderly woman, Nancy Crick, suffering from an inoperable and painful twisted bowel after undergoing surgery for cancer, committing “suicide” in front of 21 witnesses in her own home. This raises the question, what is the difference between suicide and euthanasia? Dr Philip Nitschke says that there is a clear distinction between the two. Voluntary euthanasia occurs if a rational person, suffering from a terminal illness, takes their own life, only speeding up the inevitable. Nitschke says that “suicide occurs where irrational behaviour tragically cuts short a productive life.” So essentially, it is whether the person is rational enough to understand the consequences of their decision that defines whether it is suicide or euthanasia.

Under the laws proposed by the Australian Voluntary Euthanasia Research Foundation, only those chronically suffering or who have a terminal illness, may opt for euthanasia. However, in the Netherlands, where euthanasia is already legal, the laws are open-ended, allowing people who suffer from either physical or emotional problems to choose euthanasia. The Dutch legal court legally sanctioned euthanasia as an appropriate response to depression in 1994. A grieving middle-aged woman, Hilly Bosher obsessed with being buried between her two dead children was euthanised on her own request by her psychiatrist, without any attempt made on his part to council her about her grief. The court ruled that this was acceptable because “euthanasia for emotional suffering was no different than that for physical suffering.” Shocking as this may seem to readers, euthanasia was a kinder offer to this suffering woman than suicide. As Crick said, “I don’t see why I have to die alone.” For Bosher, this meant that she could die comfortably and with the support of someone she trusted, not alone.

The main argument of those against Legalised Euthanasia is that palliative care can provide the means for a terminally ill patient to live comfortably for the rest of their, albeit shorter, lives. However, unfortunately in Australia, the number of terminally ill patients has risen in recent years, but palliative care facilities have not grown with the number of people needing their services. Many people are suffering from ill-controlled pain-killing drugs which do not deal effectively with their needs. Worse still, those patients who refuse pain-control to end their lives sooner, but suffer until the end more painfully. Wouldn’t it be a better situation if these people were given the option of legally ending their lives in a shorter and less painful period of time?

My personal view on this situation is that euthanasia should be legalised, but only under strict regulations. For example, the person opting for euthanasia must sign a document giving absolute permission for it to go ahead, witnessed by at least two doctors and 2 family members (if possible). The patient should not be under the influence of mind-altering drugs and be able to testify that they are aware of what they are doing. Specially qualified doctors should be trained for performing the procedure, just as vets are trained to deal with dying animals. Investigations should be made into the most humane death possible such as lethal injections or “suicide pills”. If these regulations, and more, were followed, I am confident that Legalised Euthanisia would be a solution to the problem of the wish for “dying with dignity”.

A letter to the editor (obviously) written in 2006, or my year 11 in high school.

I think that it is safe to say that most of you have heard about “The Cormo Express”, the Australian transport ship which in 2003 carried 57 thousand sheep destined for Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. It was turned back after local authorities claimed that more than 5 percent of the sheep had scabby mouth, a mouth-ulcer disease which can be passed on to humans. In all, the sheep suffered on board for nearly three months before being disembarked in Eri-tray-a. This cost Australian tax-payers 11 million dollars, which included paying Eri-tray-a to accept the sheep.

A less well known example is that of “The Uniceb” which burnt at sea in 1996. 67 and a half thousand sheep were left on board while the ship took eight days to sink. Being burnt to death is not a fate I’d wish on any creature! Numerous other shipments of live animals have suffered similar catastrophes.

The live export industry earns an average of 830 million dollars annually. In 2005-06 Australian live cattle exports were valued at 404 million dollars. Live cattle exports were mainly to Indonesia but also to the Middle East and other Asian countries. Live sheep exports were valued at 210 million dollars, the destination almost exclusively the Middle East. In contrast, frozen and chilled meat exports came to a grand total of 5.9 billion dollars. This shows that we have a viable alternative to live shipping.

Here in Australia, abattoirs have the facilities to humanely slaughter animals to the requirements of Muslim customers. This involves Halal slaughtering, where the animal’s throat is cut so that it bleeds to death. Conditions in our abattoirs are regulated and inspected and Animals are treated with a stun gun blow to the head to ease their pain before death.

The impact of livestock export has been the loss of an estimated 17 thousand Australian jobs, with country abattoirs closing down. Also, the opportunities to value add by processing the meats appropriately are wasted. When Australia has finally done away with the live exports we will be rightly proud of our red meat industry.

Most transport ships for cattle and sheep are not custom built and so are unsuited to the job. There is poor drainage, leading to sheep literally swimming in their own excrement. 47% of sheep that die on the ships starve to death because they are so tightly packed in pens they are unable to reach food. Other sheep are tossed into the sea while still alive because they have become ill or are unsuitable for the overseas market. Limited ventilation means that air circulation when the ship is docked is nil. Many animals die waiting to be unloaded onto trucks. The surviving animals are then crammed into the trucks and driven to feedlots where they wait to die a cruel and painful death.

Sheep and cattle traded in the live export market are horrifically mutilated before death. In some Middle Eastern abattoirs the workers cut the tendons in the panicking animals’ legs, smash in their knees and stab out their eyes in an effort to try and control them. After that, each poor animal has its throat cut without any prior stunning. Veterinary research has shown that a sheep remains conscious of its mortal pain for 30 to 40 seconds after its throat has been cut, and a cow for a minute and a half. Please think about that.

Thank you for listening to the facts and opinions I have presented to you about the livestock trade. You may think that I must be a vegetarian after hearing all that! Not so, I actually grew up on a beef cattle property, where we slaughtered our own cattle for table meat. However, I am totally against the live export trade if it means that the cattle and sheep are tortured before death.

If you feel concerned about some of the things I have spoken about, please call your local member of parliament or even send a letter directly to John Howard himself. These horrors mustn’t continue any longer.

This was a speech I wrote for a Lion’s Club Public Speaking competition, I didn’t win though.