316usman/thematic2b huggingface dataset:
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697635102092.pdf (Australia)
A Request: Plastic Border Patrol: Water Margin Rangers Australia spends an enormous amount of money trying to prevent contamination passing through our shorelines; the Australian Customs & Border Protection Service does a great job; however by comparison Australia spends very little on preventing contamination leaving our shores... especially plastic debris and litter.
The Dugong Collective requests the introduction of dedicated plastic clean-up patrols on beaches and adjacent seafront areas including paths & roads.

For this purpose, Federal funding should made available to all coastal and water-margin Councils.

Each coastal/water-margin Shire should provide a scheduled patrol that is trained and equipped to gather plastic litter before it enters our waters.
It is now essential that this contamination is not allowed to interfere with wildlife movement, feeding behaviour or become part of the natural food chain.

The issue of plastic packaging use for consumer goods is complicated and must first consider aspects of hygiene, shelf-life, contamination, storage, transport and display before any decision regarding possible restrictions can sensibly be made.
However food processing and packaging industries should now recognise the overwhelming and shocking evidence of plastic pollution in our environment, and seek alternatives, especially to purely convenience packaging at supermarkets and other retail outlets.

The use of plastic in our society is not the choice of ordinary people; it is a trend that has been artificially accelerated by the expedient of financial saving and industrialised production.
The introduction of ‘Plastic Border Patrols’ in the form of Water Margin Rangers, is a small but achievable beginning to address a massive pollution problem... it is vital we start now!

Kindest regards, Ray Gannon WMRs could be operating this year if there is a will to do so?!

Threat of marine plastic pollution in AustraliaSubmission 59
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697635111990.pdf (Australia)
Adequacy of existing offences in the Commonwealth Criminal Code and of state and territory criminal laws to capturecyberbullyingSubmission 20 Adequacy of existing offences in the Commonwealth Criminal Code and of state and territory criminal laws to capturecyberbullyingSubmission 20 Adequacy of existing offences in the Commonwealth Criminal Code and of state and territory criminal laws to capturecyberbullyingSubmission 20 Adequacy of existing offences in the Commonwealth Criminal Code and of state and territory criminal laws to capturecyberbullyingSubmission 20 Adequacy of existing offences in the Commonwealth Criminal Code and of state and territory criminal laws to capturecyberbullyingSubmission 20 Adequacy of existing offences in the Commonwealth Criminal Code and of state and territory criminal laws to capturecyberbullyingSubmission 20 Adequacy of existing offences in the Commonwealth Criminal Code and of state and territory criminal laws to capturecyberbullyingSubmission 20 Adequacy of existing offences in the Commonwealth Criminal Code and of state and territory criminal laws to capturecyberbullyingSubmission 20 Adequacy of existing offences in the Commonwealth Criminal Code and of state and territory criminal laws to capturecyberbullyingSubmission 20 Adequacy of existing offences in the Commonwealth Criminal Code and of state and territory criminal laws to capturecyberbullyingSubmission 20 Adequacy of existing offences in the Commonwealth Criminal Code and of state and territory criminal laws to capturecyberbullyingSubmission 20 Adequacy of existing offences in the Commonwealth Criminal Code and of state and territory criminal laws to capturecyberbullyingSubmission 20
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697635166960.pdf (Australia)
Senate Standing Committee on Environment and Communications Answers to Senate Estimates Questions on Notice Additional Estimates Spill-Over Hearing March 2017 Communications Portfolio Office of the Children’s eSafety Commissioner Question No: 289 Office of the Children’s eSafety Commissioner Hansard Ref: Page 39, 24/03/2017 Topic: Cyber-bullying complaints – Tier 1 & 2 resolutions Senator Urquhart, Anne asked: Senator URQUHART asked: Great.
Your annual report of 2015-16 says that the office received 186 complaints about serious cyberbullying between 1 July 2015 and 30 June 2016.

Can you tell me what proportion of those were resolved under tier 1 of the scheme and what proportion were resolved under tier 2 of the scheme?

Ms Inman-Grant: I may pass this over to Maria Vassiliadis for her input.

Ms Vassiliadis: We do not have the statistics to differentiate between the tier 1 and tier 2 resolutions.

Senator URQUHART: So you do not keep them?


Ms Vassiliadis: We certainly have them in the office.

We can take that on notice.

Senator URQUHART: Yes.

You just have not got them with you today.

If you could get back to us, that would be great.

Also in the 2016-17 reporting year to date—and you talked about the 334; is that what that figure is?

Ms Inman-Grant: That is the figure to date in the 20 months that the cyberbullying scheme has been in operation.
Senator URQUHART: Can you tell me how many of those were resolved under tier 1 and tier 2 and how many have been resolved?

Ms Inman-Grant: Yes, we will take that on notice.

I would say that to date we have largely actually exclusively used our informal powers.

We have 11 social media partners that we are working with and most recently we brought on airG and Snap.

All of these have been resolved informally so we have not had to issue an end-user notice or use our formal powers in any way.
Answer: Of the 186 complaints received in 2015-16:  137 complaints were made in relation to cyberbullying material located on a Tier 2 service.

 5 complaints were made in relation to cyberbullying material located on a Tier 1 service.

 44 complaints were made in relation to cyberbullying material located on platforms that were not participants in the tier scheme or were invalid.
Of the 334 complaints received to the end of February 2017:  241 complaints were made in relation to cyberbullying material located on a Tier 2 service.

 13 complaints were made in relation to cyberbullying material located on a Tier 1 service.

 80 complaints were made in relation to cyberbullying material located on platforms that are not participants in the tier scheme or were invalid.
All of the complaints received by the Office about cyberbullying material located on a tiered social media service have been able to be resolved informally, without the need for the Office to exercise its formal powers under the Enhancing Online Safety for Children Act 2015.

1
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697635186393.pdf (Australia)
Dear Committee Secretary, There is a vital need to prevent cyberbullying and protect the victims.

And I understand it is important to prevent the spread of child abuse imagery and terrorist imagery.

Most of the Online Security Act 2021 helps to do this.

However, Part 9 of the act is a vast overreach.

I am typically a user of the internet, and as an adult, I do consume erotica and pornography.

I also purchase video games.

And I am a LGBTIQA+ woman who uses the internet.


I write erotica with collaborators across the world, and I enjoy content created from many independent sex workers.

Part 9 ignores the rights of consenting adults, and is an attack on what consenting adults adults can do between themselves.

We are giving unrestricted control of the internet to an unelected official.

Under Part 9, I will no longer be able to write the fiction I love.
And in forcing sex workers off the internet, the act will unfairly target LGBTIQA+ people.

Much of our community overlaps with sex workers, and we find safety and knowledge in these circles.

I call on the committee to remove Part 9, and ensure this act is not used to destroy communities and threaten the safety of sex workers.

Yours sincerely, Online Safety Bill 2021 and Online Safety (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021Submission 87
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697635237359.pdf (Australia)
Senate Standing Committee on Environment and Communications Answers to Senate Estimates Questions on Notice Additional Estimates Hearings February 2015 Communications Portfolio Australian Communications and Media Authority Question No: 23 Program No.

Australian Communications and Media Authority Hansard Ref: 24/2/2014 page 45 Topic: Complaints numbers Senator Urquhart asked: Senator URQUHART: Do you have statistics on how many complaints you get?

If you need to take it on notice, do so.


Ms McNeill: Perhaps I will need to take it on notice, but may I just ask whether the complaints you are inquiring about are complaints about cyberbullying or complaints about other things?

We are one of those organisations that receive very many complaints from all sorts of people about all sorts of things.

Senator URQUHART: It is more about online bullying.
Ms McNeill: I will take the question on notice, but I think that we will not have detailed information about that.

Answer: The Australian Communications and Media Authority (the ACMA) has no legislated role receiving or investigating complaints about cyberbullying.

Accordingly, it does not keep statistics on cyberbullying complaints.

However, two of its roles do result in some cyberbullying related contacts from members of the public.
The ACMA’s Cybersmart program provides information and educational resources for schools, families and young people through the Cybersmart website some of which deals with cyberbullying.

The availability of this material means that the ACMA receives some contacts in relation to cyberbullying.

In addition, under Schedules 5 and 7 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, the ACMA operates a complaints-based scheme for offensive and illegal online content.
In assessing content under Schedules 5 and 7, the ACMA must apply the criteria set out in the National Classification Scheme, which also applies to films, publications and computer games.

In 2014, the ACMA received approximately 30 enquires relating to cyberbullying content via this complaints mechanism.
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697635259151.pdf (Australia)
Non-conforming building productsSubmission 62 - Attachment 1 Non-conforming building productsSubmission 62 - Attachment 1 Non-conforming building productsSubmission 62 - Attachment 1 Non-conforming building productsSubmission 62 - Attachment 1 Non-conforming building productsSubmission 62 - Attachment 1 Non-conforming building productsSubmission 62 - Attachment 1 Non-conforming building productsSubmission 62 - Attachment 1 Non-conforming building productsSubmission 62 - Attachment 1
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697635299780.pdf (Australia)
Adequacy of existing offences in the Commonwealth Criminal Code and of state and territory criminal laws to capturecyberbullyingSubmission 23 Adequacy of existing offences in the Commonwealth Criminal Code and of state and territory criminal laws to capturecyberbullyingSubmission 23 Adequacy of existing offences in the Commonwealth Criminal Code and of state and territory criminal laws to capturecyberbullyingSubmission 23 Adequacy of existing offences in the Commonwealth Criminal Code and of state and territory criminal laws to capturecyberbullyingSubmission 23 Adequacy of existing offences in the Commonwealth Criminal Code and of state and territory criminal laws to capturecyberbullyingSubmission 23 Adequacy of existing offences in the Commonwealth Criminal Code and of state and territory criminal laws to capturecyberbullyingSubmission 23
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697635327015.pdf (Australia)
Projects National/ACT National Museum of Australia Australian Federation Centre Australian War Memorial (ANZAC Hall) NSW Sydney Harbour Federation Trust National Marine Science Centre National Institute of Dramatic Art Holsworthy Shooting Range Centennial and Moore Parks Line of Lode, Broken Hill Australian Shearers’ Hall of Fame Australian Museum of Flight, Nowra Oddfellows Hall, Corowa VIC Shrine of Remembrance No 4 Treasury Place Walhalla Goldfields Railway Comments $25m from Federation Fund—non-Commonwealth contribution $7m $10m from Federation Fund—non-Commonwealth contribution $0.68m $1.6m from Federation Fund—non-Commonwealth contribution $1.03m $0.75m from Federation Fund—non- Commonwealth contribution $0.5m $5m from Federation Fund—non-Commonwealth contribution $2.26m $1m from Federation Fund—non-Commonwealth contribution of $0.5m 78 Projects VIC Defence lands (Portsea) St Paul’s Cathedral, Melbourne QLD Caboolture Motorway Beaudesert Railway SA Torrens Parade Ground TAS Abt Railway Source: PM&C, Submission no.
18, p. 4.

Comments $2.5m from Federation Fund for conservation of spires—other phases of the project are planned and will be funded from non-Commonwealth sources National Highway project, fully funded by Commonwealth $5m from Federation Fund—non-Commonwealth contribution $0.5m $20.45m from the Federation Fund—non- Commonwealth contribution of about $14m
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697635339370.pdf (Australia)
Non-conforming building productsSubmission 154 - Attachment 3 Non-conforming building productsSubmission 154 - Attachment 3 Non-conforming building productsSubmission 154 - Attachment 3 Non-conforming building productsSubmission 154 - Attachment 3 Non-conforming building productsSubmission 154 - Attachment 3 Non-conforming building productsSubmission 154 - Attachment 3 Non-conforming building productsSubmission 154 - Attachment 3 Non-conforming building productsSubmission 154 - Attachment 3 Non-conforming building productsSubmission 154 - Attachment 3
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697635356477.pdf (Australia)
Adequacy of existing offences in the Commonwealth Criminal Code and of state and territory criminal laws to capturecyberbullyingSubmission 12 Adequacy of existing offences in the Commonwealth Criminal Code and of state and territory criminal laws to capturecyberbullyingSubmission 12 Adequacy of existing offences in the Commonwealth Criminal Code and of state and territory criminal laws to capturecyberbullyingSubmission 12 Adequacy of existing offences in the Commonwealth Criminal Code and of state and territory criminal laws to capturecyberbullyingSubmission 12 Adequacy of existing offences in the Commonwealth Criminal Code and of state and territory criminal laws to capturecyberbullyingSubmission 12
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697635368031.pdf (Australia)
Non-conforming building productsSubmission 159 Non-conforming building productsSubmission 159 Non-conforming building productsSubmission 159 Non-conforming building productsSubmission 159 Non-conforming building productsSubmission 159 Non-conforming building productsSubmission 159
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697635392343.pdf (Australia)
Annual RFA Implementation Reports - Non-Compliance YEAR NUMBER OF NATIVE FOREST OPERATIONS NUMBER OF AUDITS CONDUCTED NON- COMPLIANCE WITH EPL CONDITIONS (a) NON- COMPLIANCE WITH TSL CONDITIONS (b) AUDIT ACTION PLAN REQUESTS PENALTY INFRINGEMENT NOTICES ISSUED WARNING LETTERS ISSUED (c) ADVISORY LETTERS ISSUED OFFICIAL CAUTIONS ISSUED CORRECTIVE ACTION / REMEDIATION NOTICES 2004-05 162 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 575 967 592 Not stated 518 2010-11 Not stated 2011-12 Not stated 12 8 12 12 11 25 28 39 2012-13 Not stated 19 (d) 145 340 225 311 163 145 245 414 127 31 52 95 339 269 192 385 188 202 - - - - - - - - - 2013-14 TOTALS Not stated 2814 (e) 21 187 26 2141 197 1950 73 73 (a) Non-compliance with EPL conditions inlude: 4091 3 2 3 4 1 5 12 10 11 2 53 5 7 9 12 10 10 8 17 4 6 88 - - - - - 3 4 5 9 10 31 - - - - - - - - 3 6 9 20 58 58 31 2 6 6 Not stated Not stated 6 187 L&E COURT ACTION $30,000 plus costs Fined $5,600 Mogo State Forest 􀂄 failure to exclude harvesting from wetlands 􀂄 administrative errors, including failure to complete planning requirements and/or the inclusion of incorrect information in planning documents 􀂄 failure to mark roads on maps 􀂄 insufficient soil stabilisation measures 􀂄 incorrect or insufficient drainage structures Australia’s faunal extinction crisisSubmission 398 - Attachment 2 􀂄 water flow issues with road drainage 􀂄 trees felled within protection zone 􀂄 incorrect marking up drainage lines and filter strips 􀂄 culvert pipe blockage 􀂄 repeated instances of administration errors, for example incorrect or incomplete planning documents 􀂄 incorrect or insufficient drainage structures including drainage feature crossings and road drainage structures 􀂄 insufficient soil stabilisation measures 􀂄 machinery entering filter strips 􀂄 insufficient maintenance of existing log dams or gully stuffers (b) Non-compliance with TSL conditions include: 􀂄 failure to protect wetlands 􀂄 failure to exclude forestry operations from rainforest areas 􀂄 damage to recruitment and habitat trees 􀂄 failure to prepare sufficient pre-logging and pre-roading reports 􀂄 no/insufficient submission of TSL non-compliances 􀂄 harvesting machinery entering area of rainforest 􀂄 insufficient retention of Riparian Habitat Protection Zones 􀂄 insufficient implementation of exclusion zones for streams and ridge and headwater habitat 􀂄 harvesting machinery entering stream exclusion zone 􀂄 insufficient wetland protection (c) Warning letters may include reference to numerous non-compliance of licence conditions or clauses in legislation from one audit.
(d) 19 planned audits and 50 investigations (e) 21 planned audits and 29 investigations This table has been compiled from EPA Annual Reports published here: https://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/your-environment/native-forestry/integrated-forestry-operations-approvals/annual-reports Australia’s faunal extinction crisisSubmission 398 - Attachment 2
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697635418764.pdf (Australia)
Adequacy of existing offences in the Commonwealth Criminal Code and of state and territory criminal laws to capturecyberbullyingSubmission 11 Adequacy of existing offences in the Commonwealth Criminal Code and of state and territory criminal laws to capturecyberbullyingSubmission 11 Adequacy of existing offences in the Commonwealth Criminal Code and of state and territory criminal laws to capturecyberbullyingSubmission 11 Adequacy of existing offences in the Commonwealth Criminal Code and of state and territory criminal laws to capturecyberbullyingSubmission 11
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697635439391.pdf (Australia)
The proposed bill allows members of the Administrative Appeals Tribunals (i.e., non-judges) and, in an emergency, executives of the police agencies grant officers award warrants.

Why should non-judicial officers have this power?

Despite the bill’s explanatory memorandum saying the law is about serious crime, why do these warrants apply to offences that can incur just three years in prison, including illegal gambling, bankruptcy, and misuse of a computer?
If an emergency order is granted by a non-judge which is then overturned by a judge, why does the Act allow to keep whatever information they gleaned from a warrant that shouldn’t have been granted?

Why can these warrants also apply to anyone who is in a “electronically linked criminal network of individuals” which could include two or more individuals in electronic communications (a.k.a.

group chats)?
group chats)?

Therefore, it is entirely possible that a non-judge could order that the police delete your account and download all your data because you were unknowingly in a group chat with someone who was suspected of tax fraud!

As the Act seeks to allow 1.

Network activity warrants allow access to networks where suspected "criminal activity" is taking place.

2.

Data disruption warrants allow for data to be added, deleted, copied, or modified.

3.
3.

Account takeover warrants mean that online accounts can be taken over and operated without the knowledge of the account owner.

These abilities are so close as to authorising the planting of evidence or the removal of people’s defence documents to obtain the conviction of any Australian who does not agree with the current government’s policies.

These actions have no place in in a constitutional democracy and MUST be struck out immediately.
Whilst its sounds like “only” criminals will be targeted, Australia has no bill of rights or rights to privacy in its constitution therefore the bill also does not safeguard any person including marginalized groups from secret surveillances by use of their social media accounts being hacked.
Review of the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020Submission 22 I note in the minister’s second reading he stated, "As a government, we are determined to provide our agencies with all reasonable powers necessary to protect the lives of children”, yet he leaves a parliamentary suppression order in place to protect alleged paedophiles.

Why?

Review of the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020Submission 22