316usman/thematic2b huggingface dataset:
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697642620446.pdf (Australia)
Question on notice no.

205 Portfolio question number: AE22-205 2021-22 Additional estimates Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Home Affairs Portfolio Senator Nick McKim: asked the Australian Border Force on 14 February 2022— How many incidents of self-harm (broken down by threatened and actual) have been recorded in immigration detention facilities (over the last five years) ?

a.

Please provide a breakdown by year and facility.

Answer — Please see the attached answer.


SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS BUDGET ESTIMATES 14 FEBRUARY 2022 Home Affairs Portfolio Australian Border Force Program 3.5: Onshore Compliance and Detention AE22-205 - Immigration Detention - Incidents of Self Harm Senator Nick McKim asked: How many incidents of self-harm (broken down by threatened and actual) have been recorded in immigration detention facilities (over the last five years)?

a.
a.

Please provide a breakdown by year and facility.
Answer: Table: Self Harm Incidents (Actual and Threatened) by year (1 January 2017 to 31 December 2021) Year Self Harm - Actual Self Harm - Threatened 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total 228 200 145 201 194 968 388 366 422 522 479 2,177 Table: Self Harm Incidents (Actual and Threatened) by year and immigration detention facility (1 January 2017 to 31 December 2021) Self Harm - Actual Self Harm - Threatened 2017 Adelaide ITA Brisbane ITA Maribyrnong IDC Melbourne ITA North West Point IDC 228 <10 19 35 12 34 388 <5 18 74 24 65 Northern APOD Perth IDC Villawood IDC Yongah Hill IDC 2018 Adelaide ITA Brisbane ITA Maribyrnong IDC Melbourne ITA North West Point IDC Perth IDC Villawood IDC Yongah Hill IDC 2019 Adelaide ITA Brisbane ITA Melbourne ITA Northern APOD Perth IDC Phosphate Hill APOD Villawood IDC Yongah Hill IDC 2020 Adelaide ITA Brisbane ITA Melbourne ITA North West Point IDC Northern APOD Perth IDC Villawood IDC Yongah Hill IDC 2021 Adelaide ITA 0 <15 69 39 200 <5 <10 41 23 14 26 48 38 145 <5 21 33 <5 24 0 52 12 <5 <20 141 47 366 0 <30 37 63 31 45 113 48 422 <5 50 88 <5 37 <5 205 36 Self Harm - Actual Self Harm - Threatened 201 <15 25 34 <5 <5 35 74 19 194 <5 522 <5 69 101 <15 <10 62 210 56 479 <10 Brisbane ITA Melbourne ITA North West Point IDC Northern APOD Perth IDC Villawood IDC Yongah Hill IDC GRAND TOTAL 28 42 <5 <5 9 67 40 968 36 80 <30 <5 31 233 64 2,177
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697642629914.pdf (Australia)
Dear Australian Government, I am a citizen concerned with the harm internet pornography is causing to our children and young people and insist that the Government must enforce Internet filtering of porn at the ISP level.
Here are some of the reasons I am concerned: - Children have very easy access to smart phones, tablets and computers - Online pornography is also very easily accessed and a growing number of children are viewing it at an early age - Recent studies have shown that exposure to pornography has measurable negative effects on brain development and behavioural outcomes - Online pornography is increasingly violent in its content, particularly against women, and exposure correlates with children's acceptance of violent attitudes and beliefs - Violence against women is often linked back to early and repeated exposure to pornography - Violence towards, and abuse of, children is often linked to early and repeated exposure to pornography - Children increasingly access the Internet outside their home environment - and previous inquiries in Australia have not adequately addressed the question of children's (those under 18 years-of-age) exposure to online pornography and the harm caused because of that access.
Please enforce Internet filtering of porn at the ISP level.

Kind regards, Katie Harm being done to Australian children through access to pornography on the InternetSubmission 179
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697642644831.pdf (Australia)
Dear Committee Secretary We submit to the Senate Enquiry investigating the harm that online pornography is doing to young people and children our views on this matter for your kind consideration.

We are very concerned that children and youth under the age of 18 have easy and ready access to online pornography, especially as they are required to have tools such as laptops or iPads and access to the internet for their schooling.
Although schools may implement internet "nanny" software to prevent access to certain web sites, students find their way around these blocks, and monitoring outside of the school environment is not effective.

We believe that all should be done, wherever possible, to protect the children of our nation from the harmful effects of exposure to pornography and violence at an early age and the potential behavioural outcomes as a result of these influences.
We strongly support the proposal that the Government enforce internet filtering of pornography at the ISP level.

Thank you for your attention in this matter.

-- Yours faithfully Charles and Deborah Leonard Harm being done to Australian children through access to pornography on the InternetSubmission 183
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697642654763.pdf (Australia)
Tobacco Harm ReductionSubmission 413 I am behind this petition because I was immensely disappointed when the government tried to make vaping illegal without any consultation with the public or scientific professionals.

I believed that the attempted legislation was mates looking after mates in the tobacco industry, and still do.

I hope my submission is of benefit.

Have a great day, Tobacco Harm ReductionSubmission 413
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697642663942.pdf (Australia)
Dear Committee Secretary I am deeply concerned about the harmful effects of internet pornography on children.

I am aware of numerous academic studies and research which verifies that pornography is having an appalling measurable impact on young people and children and therefore our society in general.
More recently there was a 'Pornography and harms to children and young people Symposium' held in Sydney and The Weekend Australian had a half-page article 'Porn Makes Kids Predators' saying "doctors and child abuse experts are warning that easy and accidental access to violent pornography is turning children into copycat sexual predators, with schools and parents often oblivious to the abuse."
This is not “ rocket science” though, it is common sense that children and pornography are inherently incompatible and only harmful consequences in behavioural patterns, attitudes, and desires will result if children are exposed to pornography sites.

Online pornography is easily accessed, even beyond the control of those parents who monitor their children’s activities on the internet at home, so the significance of the problem is manifesting itself in society today.
the introduction of filtering pornography at the Internet Service Provider level to help parents in the raising of children and reduce the harm of pornography on children and our society.

Kind Regards Graeme Jones Harm being done to Australian children through access to pornography on the InternetSubmission 414
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697642720457.pdf (Australia)
Dear Sir/ Madam I am extremely concerned about the freedom of religion and speech being corroded or destroyed in our country today.

Already Christians cannot express a viewpoint against gay marriage, abortion, euthanasia etc.

without being labelled ‘homophobic’ and ‘hateful’ amongst many other venomous names.

We know the name calling is trying to silence us but we will keep speaking the truth for as long as we can.
This gay marriage issue goes way beyond changing the definition of marriage (that was instituted by God since the beginning of time) It’s about denying us the freedom of speech, and attempting to destroy the normal family unit structure.

In an already broken society, this is totally absurd.

The public have had very little confidence in our politicians for decades now, as you well know, but you want us to trust them to make a decision on our behalf on such a life changing issue?
Utterly ridiculous and un-democratic!

Allow Australians to cast a vote on this - please.

(The 98% who are NOT gay!)

Why should a 2% minority group wield such power on issues that will ultimately affect ALL of us??

It’s more than baffling.

We expect our politicians to have more intelligence than to be bullied about by gay lobbyists.

Can you honestly say that you cannot see what is really happening or going on here?

Come on!

Wake up!
Come on!

Wake up!

Sincerely (Mrs) Margaret Fusco Sent from Windows Mail Inquiry into the status of the human right to freedom of religion or beliefSubmission 122
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697642733700.pdf (Australia)
Hi.

These are concerns that I have regarding freedom of belief, religious and otherwise.

According to mainstream media, "everyone" wants same sex marriage to go ahead.

Those who don't are bigots, sexist, or any number of names.

Regardless of the truth that this is the CURRENT law, as well as the traditional stance for the history of Australia.

A vocal and sometimes militant minority are shutting down debate by name calling instead of dealing with facts or discussion.
The ABC is Australia's Tv station - it rarely provides a balanced viewpoint, and is pushing same sex strongly, even though the majority of Australians neither want it nor approve.

The same argument, shaming of anyone who opposes the progressive line, involves gender and/or queer theory.

As a teacher, I will not teach the gender falsehood that is espoused under the Safe Schools banner.
It is not a proven science - there is plenty of evidence to the contrary - it should not become something taught as fact, nor should parents be excluded from the right to know what their child is being taught.

Abortion is not an option for me because I believe life is sacred.

Doctors who pledge to uphold life should not be bound to refer patients to someone who will kill their child.
Notwithstanding the importance of individual belief, if I "believe" that I am a rock, I should not have the right to crush anyone in my path.

Sent from my iPad Inquiry into the status of the human right to freedom of religion or beliefSubmission 105
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697642741649.pdf (Australia)
To the Hon Kevin Andrews If we don't have freedom of speech what do we have?

Control I am deeply concerned that peoples freedom of religion/belief are already trying to be undermined by the introduction of 'Safe Schools' Coalition Australia program being implemented across Australia.
This program tramples the religious freedom of children & their parents with the forced indoctrination of children with a radical sexual ideology - undermining & usurps the authority of parents to raise their children according to their beliefs/religious convictions about marriage & family.

Sexual orientation anti discrimination laws have a definite impact on freedom of speech and religion.
Incrementalism leads down the road to anti discrimination laws that elevate sexual behaviour to a protected legal status.

Further elevating sexual behaviour by opening the door to same-sex marriage would exponentially expand homosexual rights and shrink the rights of those who believe in gender, in traditional marriage.
If same sex marriage is recognised it will undermine freedom of religion/belief and freedom of speech in every part of the culture, from the classroom to the courtroom,& parliament, from private affairs to business, from the family to our fundamental freedoms.

Certainly there is no constitutional, historical, or logical basis for same-sex marriage.

There is no cultural mandate.The weight of history does not come down on the side of same-sex marriage.
Denying the people of Australia a plebiscite on same-sex marriage is denying them the right to be heard.

WE DON'T want such a radical change to the' marriage act' to be made by politicians.

WE WANT THE FREEDOM TO VOTE AND BE HEARD, THE FREEDOM TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST SAME-SEX MARRIAGE WITHOUT NAME CALLING.

MORALITY IS NOT BIGOTRY.

Yours sincerely Mrs Joyce Ditton.

Inquiry into the status of the human right to freedom of religion or beliefSubmission 92
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697642772423.pdf (Australia)
Mr Ian Goodenough MHR Chairman 18c Inquiry Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights 18cinquiry@aph.gov.au 02 6277 3823 Parliamentary inquiry into freedom of speech Having only learned of this inquiry, I appreciate the closing date for submissions has closed.

However, I hope my few brief points may be admitted to the panel and considered.

Executive Summary I urge that the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 be amended and that S. 18c be revoked.
Reasons From my observations, it appears that S. 18c has become either by design or unintended consequence a mechanism whereby one group can stifle debate, public discussion, cartoons, jokes, articles and potentially academic writings and histories.

S. 18c has evolved into a power â€¦ the power to silence 'the other'.

The HRC appears to be a partisan player pushing an ideology in cases brought before it, rather than an impartial mediator.
A similar provision to S. 18c enacted in the Canadian Human Right Act 1968, S. 13(1) was repealed in 2013, because its unintended consequences violated free speech.

From the late 1950s well into the 1960s Melbourne Television station HSV 7 ran a Sunday afternoon program called Parliament of Youth, wherein two senior school teams of three speakers each debated a current affairs topic.
As a student in 1965, I represented my school as one of the three speakers; our topic was, "Is assimilation best for our Aboriginals?"

I suggest that that debate could not be held on TV today as someone would take 'offence', or the HRC would actively seek to bring a case Freedom of speech in AustraliaSubmission 239 against the TV station, the schools or even the debaters under S. 18c.
If that is so, or probable, or it means a school participating in such a debate would have to seek legal advice, it means our traditional freedoms to debate is curtailed.

In the 1960s HSV 7 also had a program Fighting Words hosted by Danny Webb wherein contentious current affairs issues were hotly debatedâ€¦ such debates would not happen today because of S. 18c.

No!

Q & A is not an equivalent debating forum.


If cartoonists like Bill Leak are subjected to an action under S. 18c for a drawing, a social commentary, then freedom of speech is under serious attack.

There were no cries of 'Je suis Bill Leak' from the HRC rather a campaign to encourage a complaint under S. 18c of the Act.

As a child growing up in Australia and now as a retired adult, I believe the famous Voltaire quote, "I disagree with what you say, but I'll defend unto death your right to say it."
S. 18c has rewritten Voltaire's dictum into "Don't say, write, joke, draw or think anything that I disagree with as I'll take offence and drag you before the HRC."

As the Roman Senator Cato the Elder (234â€“149BC) invoked the phrase at the end of his speeches 'Carthago delenda est' (Carthage must be destroyed), so do I finish with this invocation, 'S.

18c must be destroyed,' to allow freedom of speech, thought, drawings and debate to continue in Australia.
Antony O'Brien Freedom of speech in AustraliaSubmission 239
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697642783913.pdf (Australia)
I write with concern that there is an attempt to reduce the capacity of our legal system to protect our right to be dealt with in a civil and polite manner.

Section 18C protects us all from forms of racial and cultural vilification.

It is a natural development for our society and provides a solid foundation being particularly effective in protecting minority groups.
Born in 1947 I am old enough to remember the vilification that many new arrivals to Australia endured, merely on the basis of their accent or their lack of competence in the English.

While some might argue that we need no such protection on the grounds that these post war arrivals survived, survival is not enough.

The traumatic nature of migration is widely documented and hate speech or name calling is known to have formed part of the trauma that the newly arrived migrants endured.
Particularly at the outset of post WWII migration, many were coming from situations of great social and economic dislocation, some even from genocidal contexts.

Anti-semetic sentiments were quite freely expressed in the society as the first Jewish refugees began arriving after the war.

Similar discriminatory sentiments were expressed towards Italians and Greeks in particular, in those early days.

Hate speech and vilification has also been directed towards Aboriginal Australians over the years.
They, of all Australians, have endured the greatest levels of racism and of discrimination.

We live in a dynamic era when minority groups are often scapegoated for wider problems in society.

The extensive persecution of Jews in Europe through the 19th and 20th centuries is a clear example of just where such hostility and discrimination, if unchecked by a legal safety net, can lead.
I urge you to support retention of the protections in our legal system so that Australia can continue to be the world's most successful democratic, tolerant and inclusive multicultural society.

Yours sincerely, -- Russell Darnley OAM Freedom of speech in AustraliaSubmission 258
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697642845702.pdf (Australia)
Hi I have had a good look at the nearly 400 pages of the EBA.

I’ve looked at the Vic govt website, the cfa website and the ufu website, and read and heard lots of the political posturing about the issues.

It seems to me that maybe 4 lines of the 400 page EBA are bothering people, and I watch with despair the mountains that politicians are making out of the small differences, in order to score points against ‘their’ rivals.
Unfortunately at the same time destroying our volunteer commitment commitment in the process.

I have been a volunteer firefighter for over 40 years and have over 30 years with our Rural Fire Brigade, taking executive positions at times.

I attend almost all fires in our area – whenever I am called.

In 2014 I spent 3 days fighting local fire, driving the truck for over 14 hours non-stop overnight when needed.

Locally we do what we can to help.


All my life I have helped others, and in our regional community that is how we do it- we help.

Unfortunately the hate-filled invective of our politicians is now sounding like America and England, with concentration on personal insults and name-calling.

It is disgusting.

You are our elected REPRESENTATIVES, not our bosses.
And unfortunately now we see too many politicians who do NOT represent the commitment that country people make to each other and to their communities.

So I implore you to have a careful look at the EBA and the proposed ‘volunteer protection legislation’ and see how small changes reach through compromise can save the cost and inefficiency of always legislating- and the probability of unforeseen consequences as seems to happen with hasty legislation.
Personally I can see that the EBA requirement of potable water for practice/drill/training will not work – and anyway at fires in the country we use whatever water is available – but that won’t be affected by this proposed legislation anyway.

And I have a lot of questions about the levels of pay and the benefits that CFA staff have compared to volunteers – especially the total cost of emergency services, compared to the benefits and wages of continuous service like teachers and nurses.
But again that won’t be talked about here.

So please use the wise heads and negotiation skills that we elected you for.

Gil Gil Hopkins Fair Work Amendment (Respect for Emergency Services Volunteers) Bill 2016 [provisions]Submission 220
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697642856883.pdf (Australia)
The bill has three stated objectives The objects of this Act are: (a) to remove from the Marriage Act 1961 discrimination against people on the basis of their sex, sexuality or gender identity; and (b) to recognise that freedom of sexuality and gender identity are fundamental human rights; and (c) to promote acceptance and the celebration of diversity.

It is important not to discriminate against people, but how do we achieve this?
Is it sameness in everything?

Should we call all groups of people who live together for more than a certain period of time married?

Else are we not discriminating against defacto relationships?

How does sameness in title promote point (c) to promote acceptance and the celebration of diversity if the only way to achieve that is to have identicalness?

It does not make sense.

Is it discrimination to call a man a man or a woman a woman?
No we recognise and celebrate the difference – equality is not in a title.

A marriage is an agreement between a man and a women, not between a man and a man or a woman and a woman.

We managed to come up with a different title for legal identification for a man and woman who live together for a period of time.

Why can we not do so for those in a homosexual relationship?

It is important to understand what discrimination is and what it isn’t.
Where a distinction is made in favour or against someone based on their group, class or category, that is discrimination.

Calling different groups different things is not discrimination.

The fact that I am no longer a teenager and therefore can’t call myself a teenager does not mean that an age title is discrimination, what is discrimination is how I am treated according to my age.

Therefore let’s focus on discrimination not on name calling.
The stated objectives of this bill change cant be met by calling what is not marriage marriage.

Discrimination is not the name we call something but how that group is treated, thus objective A is not met.

Objective B also is not met by giving the same identification tag in fact objective B is not a valid objective in Australian society.

It is illegal to undertake many forms of sexuality by law for instance paedophilia .
And object C is plainly in contradiction of itself by calling different things by the same name.

I am objection to the changes proposed by the bill.
Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697642939603.pdf (Australia)
Dear Sir/Madam.

I am writing in relation to the Inquiry into Students with a Disability.

While I am currently not a student, I have been through the education system with some difficulty.

I am now 43 years old and I have what is called Neurofibromatosis, (NF1).

This was never picked up in all the years at school from 1964-1972.

I had trouble understanding things and also had Dyslexia.

Most teachers saw it as a lazy student,and by doing so I was always in the lowest class at school.
In the earlier days myself and our family never knew too much about NF and therefore could not really work out what was wrong.

I thought it just me and did not have any idea that it was related to NF.

With the NF came allot of name calling, making fun, which also made it hard to study.

I did overcome this area, but it took many frustrating years, without any help from the educational system.

Many doctors do not understand NF and many are not willing to learn.

Call it an unknown fear.


I hope with this letter in helping others not to go through their years as a student with out some kind of help.

A person with NF is not dumb, but needs a little extra help to see them through.

They need that extra encouragement to know they can do it.

I am free to speak more on this, you can contact me on 9476-5545 (Home) or 9805-0625 (Work) I work as a Community Educator, Level 3, for the Spastic Centre of NSW.
To find out more about N, go to www.nf.org Our association contact number in NSW is 9874-0844 Kind Regards Bradley Dowling