extent to which a government prioritises such work. Consequently, there is a lack of conversation about building, strengthening or scaling up programs addressing racism and discrimination as stakeholders face uncertainty in the sustainability of their funding in the medium to long term. Understanding the landscape Stakeholders shared that their knowledge of other work addressing anti-racism and discrimination within their jurisdictions was dependent on their own networks and ability to build partnerships, rather than any formal mechanism that brings together organisations and government to collaborate and cohesively focus on priority issues. As a result, it is difficult, despite best efforts, to ensure that work conducted by any one organisation or department does not contradict or compete with the work of another within the same jurisdiction. Without the establishment of a lead party or joint forum where organisations, community and government can collaborate on priorities and delegate areas of work, there is a risk that the small amount of available funding is consumed by duplicative or competitive efforts to address racism and discrimination. 4.2.3 Identified opportunities in the Framework Key opportunities in the Framework identified by state and territory stakeholders included: • Strengthening the federal Online Safety Act, specifically to clarify roles and responsibilities across jurisdictions • A community awareness campaign at the state/territory level to improve understandings of rights and remedies available to communities and individuals experiencing racism, and • Establishment of a collaborative forum to develop a cohesive approach to addressing racism and discrimination in different jurisdictions. 4.2.4 Limitations The 60 identified policies and programs were not evenly distributed across all states and territories, with some having few to no programs identified and others, such as South Australia, having as many as 17. This finding is not representative of the actual level of investment or quantum of work taking place in any one jurisdiction, and instead demonstrates significant inconsistency between jurisdictions regarding what information they make publicly available and what is contained in internal documentation. 32