316usman/thematic2b huggingface dataset:
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697635454720.pdf (Australia)
QUESTION TAKEN ON NOTICE ADDITIONAL ESTIMATES HEARING : 23 February 2015 IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION PORTFOLIO (AE15/012) - RRT - Caseload - Senator Reynolds, Linda (L&CA 27) asked: Senator REYNOLDS: You also say that the RRT decisions were highest for applicants from China, India and Sri Lanka.

Have any particular trends or issues emerged for the reasons that they have focused on those three countries?

Ms Ransome: No, I do not think so.


In terms of trends it is very difficult to say why caseloads from particular countries.

The China caseload in the RRT is pretty well an onshore caseload; it is people who have arrived in Australia on another visa at some point and who later make a claim for protection.

The Sri Lanka caseload was primarily comprised of UMAs who came by boat.

Senator REYNOLDS: And India?


Ms Ransome: India—again, it is primarily an onshore caseload; people who came, for example, on a student visa in the past.

Senator REYNOLDS: So year to year would those categories change?

Obviously Sri Lanka has come about because of the UMAs.

Have you seen any trends in terms of where the applicants are from?

Ms Ransome: I may have to take that on notice, Senator— Senator REYNOLDS: Please.
Answer: There are changes from year to year in the cases that are lodged with the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT).

Table A sets out the lodgements to the RRT by source country of the applicant for the year to 31 January 2015, and the two previous years.

Unauthorised maritime arrivals in the protection visa stream are a factor in this, as are processing priorities and case outcomes at the primary decision level.
There were increases in lodgements by applicants from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Iran and Sri Lanka between 2012-13 and 2013-14 as the majority of applicants from these source countries were unauthorised maritime arrivals.

China and India are traditionally large sources of onshore review lodgements for the RRT.
Table A: Top Ten RRT lodgements by source country % of all RRT lodgements % of all RRT lodgements % of all RRT lodgements 2012-13 Sri Lanka 2013-14 Sri Lanka 17% (643 UMA, 58 non-UMA) 2014-15 to 31 January 24% (1,553 UMA, 91 non-UMA) China 17% (427 non-UMA) China 14% (610 non-UMA) China 13% (900 non-UMA) India 13% (322 non-UMA) Afghanistan 12% (503 UMA, 10 non-UMA) Afghanistan 9% (635 UMA, 16 non-UMA) Bangladesh India 10% (434 non-UMA) India 8% (1 UMA, 574 non- UMA) Pakistan 8% (133 UMA, 79 non-UMA) 8% (27 UMA, 180 non-UMA) Pakistan Iran 8% (119 UMA, 213 non-UMA) 5% (165 UMA, 67 non-UMA) Pakistan Iran 8% (230 UMA, 304 non-UMA) 7% (398 UMA, 112 non-UMA) Sri Lanka Lebanon 5% (207 non-UMA) Egypt 3% (203 non-UMA) Iran Fiji 6% (147 non-UMA) 5% (93 UMA, 33 non- UMA) 5% (92 UMA, 28 non- UMA) Nepal 3% (1 UMA, 123 non- UMA) Lebanon 3% (196 non-UMA) Lebanon 4% (104 non-UMA) Egypt 2% (103 non-UMA) Fiji 3% (186 non-UMA) Nepal 4% (7 UMA, 94 non- UMA) 10 Fiji 2% (101 non-UMA) Nepal 3% (174 non-UMA) Egypt 4% (100 non-UMA) *UMA – Unauthorised Maritime Arrival 9
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697635505164.pdf (Australia)
Adequacy of existing offences in the Commonwealth Criminal Code and of state and territory criminal laws to capturecyberbullyingSubmission 22 Adequacy of existing offences in the Commonwealth Criminal Code and of state and territory criminal laws to capturecyberbullyingSubmission 22 Adequacy of existing offences in the Commonwealth Criminal Code and of state and territory criminal laws to capturecyberbullyingSubmission 22
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697635505423.pdf (Australia)
ANNEX I EXPLANATORY NOTES 1.
The Schedule of a Party to this Annex sets out, in accordance with Article 9.7 (Non-Conforming Measures) and Article 14.14 (Non-Conforming Measures), a Party’s existing measures that are not subject to some or all of the obligations imposed by: (a) Article 9.3 (National Treatment) or Article 14.4 (National Treatment); Article 9.4 (Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment) or Article 14.5 (Most- (b) Favoured-Nation Treatment); (c) Article 9.5 (Market Access); (d) Article 9.6 (Local Presence) (e) Article 14.6 (Prohibition of Performance Requirements); or (f) Article 14.10 (Senior Management and Boards of Directors); 2.
Each Schedule entry sets out the following elements: (a) Sector refers to the sector for which the entry is made; Sub-Sector, where referenced, refers to the specific sub-sector for which (b) the entry is made; Industry Classification, where referenced, refers to the activity covered (c) by the non-conforming measure, according to the provisional CPC codes as used in the Provisional Central Product Classification (Statistical Papers Series M No.
77, Department of International Economic and Social Affairs, Statistical Office of the United Nations, New York, 1991); (d) Obligations Concerned specifies the obligations referred to in paragraph 1 that, in accordance with Article 14.14 (Non-Conforming Measures) and Article 9.7 (Non-Conforming Measures), do not apply to the listed measure(s); Level of Government indicates the level of government maintaining the (e) listed measures; Source of Measure identifies the laws, regulations or other measures for (f) which the entry is made.
A measure cited in the “Source of Measure” element: ANNEX I – EXPLANATORY NOTES – 1 of 2 means the measure as amended, continued or renewed as of the (i) date of entry into force of this Agreement, and includes any subordinate measure adopted or maintained under the (ii) authority of, and consistent with, the measure; and Description sets out the non-conforming measure for which the entry is (g) made.
A measure that is reserved against Article 9.6 (Local Presence) need not be 3. reserved against Article 9.3 (National Treatment).

4.
4.

Article 14.6 (Prohibition of Performance Requirements) and Article 14.10 (Senior Management and Board of Directors) are separate disciplines to Article 14.4 (National Treatment) and a measure that is only inconsistent with Article 14.6 (Prohibition of Performance Requirements) or Article 14.10 (Senior Management and Board of Directors) need not be reserved against Article 14.4 (National Treatment).

5.
5.

In accordance with Article 9.7 (Non-Conforming Measures) and Article 14.14 (Non-Conforming Measures), the articles of this Agreement specified in the Obligations Concerned element of an entry do not apply to the non-conforming measures identified in the description element of that entry.

ANNEX I – EXPLANATORY NOTES – 2 of 2
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697635571240.pdf (Australia)
Non-conforming building productsSubmission 163 - Response - Arconic Architectural Products SAS FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Investor Contact: Media Contact: Arconic Issues Statement on Reynobond PE NEW YORK, June 26, 2017 – Arconic Inc. (NYSE: ARNC) today issued the following statement: The loss of lives, injuries and destruction following the Grenfell Tower fire are devastating, and our deepest condolences are with everyone affected by this tragedy.
We have offered our full support to the authorities as they conduct their investigations.

While the official inquiry is continuing and all the facts concerning the causes of the fire are not yet known, we want to make sure that certain information is clear: • Arconic supplied one of our products, Reynobond PE, to our customer, a fabricator, which used the product as one component of the overall cladding system on Grenfell Tower.
The fabricator supplied its portion of the cladding system to the façade installer, who delivered it to the general contractor.

The other parts of the cladding system, including the insulation, were supplied by other parties.

We were not involved in the installation of the system, nor did we have a role in any other aspect of the building’s refurbishment or original design.
• While we provided general parameters for potential usage universally, we sold our products with the expectation that they would be used in compliance with the various and different local building codes and regulations.

Current regulations within the United States, Europe and the U.K. permit the use of aluminum composite material in various architectural applications, including in high-rise buildings depending on the cladding system and overall building design.
Our product is one component in the overall cladding system; we don’t control the overall system or its compliance.

1 Non-conforming building productsSubmission 163 - Response - Arconic Architectural Products SAS Nevertheless, in light of this tragedy, we have taken the decision to no longer provide this product in any high-rise applications, regardless of local codes and regulations.

About Arconic Arconic (NYSE: ARNC) creates breakthrough products that shape industries.
Working in close partnership with our customers, we solve complex engineering challenges to transform the way we fly, drive, build and power.

Through the ingenuity of our people and cutting-edge advanced manufacturing techniques, we deliver these products at a quality and efficiency that ensure customer success and shareholder value.

For more information: www.arconic.com.

Follow @arconic: Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, LinkedIn and YouTube.
Dissemination of Company Information Arconic intends to make future announcements regarding Company developments and financial performance through its website on www.arconic.com.

2 Non-conforming building productsSubmission 163 - Response - Arconic Architectural Products SAS
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697635574463.pdf (Australia)
89 Appendix 3 List of recommendations from the Interim report: aluminium composite cladding Recommendation 1 3.65 The committee recommends the Australian government implement a total ban on the importation, sale and use of Polyethylene core aluminium composite panels as a matter of urgency.
Recommendation 2 4.21 The committee recommends that the Commonwealth government work with state and territory governments to establish a national licensing scheme, with requirements for continued professional development for all building practitioners.

Recommendation 3 4.45 The committee recommends that the Building Minister's Forum give further consideration to introducing nationally consistent measures to increase accountability for participants across the supply chain.
Recommendation 4 4.56 The committee strongly recommends that the Commonwealth government consider making all Australian Standards and codes freely available.

Recommendation 5 the Commonwealth government consider 4.66 The committee recommends imposing a penalties regime for non-compliance with the National Construction Code such as revocation of accreditation or a ban from tendering for Commonwealth funded construction work and substantial financial penalties.
Recommendation 6 4.67 The committee recommends the Commonwealth government ensure the Federal Safety Commissioner is adequately resourced to ensure the office is able to carry out its duties in line with the new audit function and projected work flow.
90 Recommendation 7 4.74 The committee welcomes the Commonwealth government's decision to give further consideration to Director Identification Numbers and recommends that it expedites this process in order to prevent directors from engaging in illegal phoenix activity.

Recommendation 8 4.81 The committee recommends that state and territory governments work together to develop a nationally consistent statutory duty of care protection for end users in the residential strata sector.
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697635579445.pdf (Australia)
ANNEX II EXPLANATORY NOTES 1.
The Schedule of a Party to this Annex sets out, in accordance with Article 9.7 (Non-Conforming Measures) and Article 14.14 (Non-Conforming Measures), the specific sectors, sub-sectors or activities for which that Party may maintain existing, or adopt new or more restrictive, measures that do not conform with obligations imposed by: (a) Article 9.3 (National Treatment) or Article 14.4 (National Treatment); Article 9.4 (Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment) or Article 14.5 (Most- (b) Favoured-Nation Treatment); (c) Article 9.5 (Market Access); (d) Article 9.6 (Local Presence); (e) Article 14.6 (Prohibition of Performance Requirements); (f) Article 14.10 (Senior Management and Boards of Directors); 2.
Each Schedule entry sets out the following elements: (a) Sector refers to the sector for which the entry is made; Sub-Sector, where referenced, refers to the specific sub-sector for which (b) the entry is made; (c) Industry Classification, where referenced, refers to the activity covered by the non-conforming measure, according to the provisional CPC codes as used in the Provisional Central Product Classification (Statistical Papers Series M No.
77, Department of International Economic and Social Affairs, Statistical Office of the United Nations, New York, 1991); (d) Obligations Concerned specifies the obligations referred to in paragraph 1 that, in accordance with Article 14.14 (Non-Conforming Measures) and Article 9.7 (Non-Conforming Measures), do not apply to the sectors, sub-sectors or activities listed in the entry; Description sets out the scope or nature of the sectors, sub-sectors or (e) activities covered by the entry to which the reservation applies; and ANNEX II – EXPLANATORY NOTES – 1 of 2 Existing Measures, where specified, (f) transparency purposes, a non-exhaustive list of existing measures that apply to the sectors, sub- sectors or activities covered by the entry.
identifies, for In accordance with Article 9.7 (Non-Conforming Measures) and Article 14.14 3.

(Non-Conforming Measures), the articles of this Agreement specified in the Obligations Concerned element of an entry do not apply to the sectors, sub-sectors and activities identified in the Description element of that entry.

ANNEX II – EXPLANATORY NOTES – 2 of 2
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697635604372.pdf (Australia)
Nicole Miller To Members of the Committee, I write to draw the committee’s attention to my former employer’s deliberate and long running non-payment of superannuation to staff members.

The employer was Kreab Australia, formerly Kreab Gavin Anderson.

The company was placed into administration and then dissolved late last year.
The Directors of the company at the time it was placed into administration were and senior Kreab international executives, As you may be aware Kreab Australia was a government relations and strategic communications consulting firm and ironically did some work on superannuation policy in the last few years.

My role at the firm was as an administration office manager for the Melbourne office.
I started in April 2015 but I left the company in October 2016 due to its consistent failure to pay my superannuation.

Due to my administrative role, I was also aware, by the regularity of debt collectors phoning and invoices remaining outstanding, that other bills were not being paid.

Despite having left the firm prior to it dissolving, my entitlements remain outstanding.

I asked to the point of haranguing for my entitlements to be paid, however, they were ignored.
Non-payment of superannuation was not an issue exclusive to me and I am aware of several staff who are also owed money.

To my knowledge, the Australian Taxation Office has not told any staff of how it plans to recover the outstanding monies owed to ex-staff.

This is particularly concerning now that the company has gone into administration and now closed.

During my time at the firm the Managing Partner was was superannuation.
I say deliberately, because the non-payment of superannuation was an issue regularly raised by staff in office meetings.

to the company closing and I would be intrigued to learn if his entitlements were paid prior to his own departure.

.

Neither have, as yet, been compelled to explain why they deliberately did not pay staff regularly ignored calls and emails from staff.
He left the firm a few weeks prior and the company’s Chief Financial Controller What I find most disappointing in this saga is not the non-payment of superannuation per se, but the way Kreab Australia was allowed to get away with non-payment and how still no one has been held to account for this illegal act.

The company was reported previously to the ATO for this issue in 2015 by one of my colleagues, and was compelled to pay outstanding super entitlements up until 30 June 2015.
However, the company then went straight back to not paying its staff - an action taken with impunity.

It is my hope that this inquiry will lead to more stringent monitoring and enforcement of compulsory superannuation payments so that my experience is not again repeated.

I am happy to assist this inquiry further if needed.

Yours sincerely Nicole Miller Superannuation Guarantee non-paymentSubmission 60
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697635629834.pdf (Australia)
Dear Committee Secretary I understand that there is a need to regulate online content content and that the Online Safety Bill 2021 (henceforth “the Bill”) intended to protect children and adults from cyberbullying, child abuse images, and terrorism related content however part 9 represents an overstep of powers that will cause serious harm to sex workers.

I am a citizen residing in Melbourne and I have many friends who are sex workers that use the internet to advertise and sell content.
I see, watch, and repost porn online for my own enjoyment and in an attempt to support people who’s work I respect.

Part 9 of the Bill seeks to regulate online content including online pornography by giving the eSafety Commissioner the power to take down online adult content.

Part 9 threatens the free expression and the business model of many of my friends.
Part 9 does not relate to content that is abusive, violent, harmful, portrays children, constitutes cyberbullying, revenge porn, image-based abuse or terrorism related content and can only lead to the restricting of sex workers ability to work and the ability of consenting adults to consume porn.

I therefore oppose Part 9 and call on Part 9 to be removed from the Bill.

Yours sincerely Online Safety Bill 2021 and Online Safety (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021Submission 113
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697635639707.pdf (Australia)
Dear Committee Secretary, I understand the need to regulate online content so as to protect Australians from harms such as cyberbullying, child abuse images and terrorism related content.

Many parts of the Online Safety Bill 2021 help to achieve this goal.

My name is Dylan Thomas.

I am a proud transgender sex worker and adult entertainment industry advocate in the United States.

I produce online porn images/videos/artwork as an integral part of running my business as a sex worker.
Not only do I work in porn as it is currently my sole source of income during the global pandemic.

I also consume porn on a regular basis as a proud pansexual man who has been closely and responsibly following all quarantine guidelines of the United States government during the global coronavirus pandemic.

Porn has fulfilled my sexual needs in a no-risk environment during quarantine which has greatly benefited my mental health and overall wellbeing.
Porn is one of the few industries that transgender people such as myself are positively represented in and celebrated sexually.

Transgender, non-binary and gender non-conforming positive sexual representation is needed to combat ongoing global stigma that breeds hate and violence against our vulnerable and marginalized community.
Many transgender, non-binary and gender non-conforming individuals participate in sex industry and the porn and sex industry, whether it be in front of the camera, behind the scenes or in full service, as a means to generate income, as the LGBTIQ community routinely faces discrimination in many other work sectors due to social stigma.
That said, amending Part 9 would greatly and directly negatively impact transgender, non-binary and gender non-conforming individuals in addition to our beloved cisgender colleagues.

This bill is not the correct place to amend online content regulation.

It is inappropriate for any bill about online safety to amend online content regulation applying to consenting adults.
Part 9 does not relate to content that is abusive, violent, harmful, portrays children, constitutes cyberbullying, revenge porn, image-based abuse or terrorism related content.

Part 9 is an assault on freedom of expression also referred to as freedom of speech.

Part 9 will negatively and unjustly impact the sex industry and porn industry professionals.

Part 9 will disproportionately negatively impact the LGBTIQ community.
Part 9 is ill-conceived and may have broad negative unintended consequences for social media companies.

As you are already aware, a separate review (the Review of Australian classification regulation) is currently observing online content regulation and this separate review is better placed to consider modifications to the Online Content Scheme.

To be extremely clear, I Dylan Thomas I sex worker am solely commenting upon Part 9 and calling for Part 9 of the Online Safety Bill to be removed.
All the very best, Dylan Thomas Online Safety Bill 2021 and Online Safety (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021Submission 57
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697635651896.pdf (Australia)
Adequacy of existing offences in the Commonwealth Criminal Code and of state and territory criminal laws to capturecyberbullyingSubmission 18 Adequacy of existing offences in the Commonwealth Criminal Code and of state and territory criminal laws to capturecyberbullyingSubmission 18
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697635664584.pdf (Australia)
The Australian Government has espoused nuclear weapon non-proliferation.

It is most important that the rhetoric is followed up with meaningful policy implementation.

In this regard it would be useful to introduce the following steps 1. advocate for ratification of existing key treaties by as many nations as possible - particularly the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and the Nuclear Weapons Free Zone treaty by countries with existing nuclear weapons.
Leadership in this area from a non nuclear power (and as many other nation as we can get) would have greater credibility, and with enough nations on board create enough pressure to cause a shift in the position of the acknowledged nuclear states.

2. actively promote community education about disarmament and nuclear non proliferation (as per the UN Expert Group on Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Education ).
This needs to start in Australia, but a worldwide campaign would again increase pressure on the nuclear weapons states, and the use of the internet makes an Australian sourced worldwide education project more feasible 3. propose starting negotiations for a Nuclear Weapons Convention.

The International Commission on Non Proliferation and Disarmament is a good place to begin this process.

review uranium export agreements to avoid the use of Australian uranium in Nuclear Arms.
It is hypocritical to sell uranium to countries without clear agreements that uranium used is entirely for peaceful purposes, and have meaningful safeguards and realistic and accurate checks on processing.

4.

5.

Stop the use of Australian facilities for the US nuclear missile defence system.

If Australia is interested in being a leader in this field, it has to be seen as independent and not influenced by its role in the US military system.
Please notify when the hearings are in Melbourne as I would like to attend.

Thankyou Yours sincerely Dr Margaret Beavis 2 January 2009