Findings: data Having data and transparency is a key step to acknowledging it [racism] together. — submission from the University of Queensland, NARF project, May 2021 – April 2022 Consultation participants and those who made submissions on a national anti-racism framework provided guiding feedback that there was a need for comprehensive national data on the prevalence, nature, and impacts of racism and racial inequities to provide the groundwork for anti-racism action, and redirect focus on initiatives and programs. Data was highlighted as an important means of raising awareness about the existence, extent and severity of racism experienced by communities and individuals. It was described as an important advocacy tool, bringing visibility to experiences for the public broadly. Participants advised that data plays a major role in influencing policy and service delivery, and is critical in securing the appropriate resources and funding to address racism. Data was also seen as a powerful source of self-expression, giving negatively racialised communities and individuals autonomy in the way details about their experiences are collected and recorded. Through diverse forms of data, experiences of racism and their impacts, as well as the institutions and structures through which racism is operationalised, can be meaningfully articulated. Consultations with data experts during this initial scoping phase highlighted the importance of strengthening data infrastructure, cultural safety in data collection, and data sovereignty, as well as the need for longitudinal data, qualitative data, and data governance in relation to emerging technologies, as outlined below. Acknowledging the breadth and complexity of issues surrounding these areas of concern, it is essential that the development of data frameworks and any proposed solutions is guided by ongoing community input, if not community-determined and designed. Data infrastructure Currently, data collection for anti-racism purposes in Australia is not codified and collection is mainly facilitated by nationwide surveys conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), policy-oriented research initiatives by federal and state human rights institutions, and nongovernmental initiatives and studies such as the Islamophobia Register. The gap in comprehensive data infrastructure becomes apparent when compared to overseas jurisdictions. For instance, Canada invested C$6.2 million into increasing the collection of reliable and comparable data for anti-racism work1 and has established, through legislation, the Canadian Race Relations Foundation to facilitate long-term race-based data collection and research;2 while New Zealand’s Integrated Data Infrastructure (IDI) consolidates existing data sourced from government agencies and provides direct and public access to de-identified, individual-level data that enables public analysis of racial disparity on various issues.3 National Anti-Racism Framework Scoping Report 2022 | 86