The Australian Government is currently operating in caretaker mode. This website is hosted by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. We will continue to gather stakeholder feedback during the caretaker period to inform our future advice to government following the election.
Return to published responses
#5
(Anonymous)
16 May 2024

What stakeholder group do you represent?

Other

Refer to section 2.3. Do you agree with the proposed high priority artefacts to be developed to support interoperability?

Yes

Please provide comments (optional)

Please ensure that use of artefacts is sensitive to locational data and is easy to interpret (and share)

Refer to section 2.3.1. Do you agree with the criteria for selecting existing interoperability resources to leverage in the framework?

Yes

Refer to section 2.3.2.1. Do you agree with the criteria for selecting the most important data terms to be included in the vocabulary? 

Yes

Refer to section 2.3.2.2. Please indicate your preference from the following:

Critical Tracking Events and Key Data Elements developed by the United States based Institute of Food Technologists (IFT) should be used as the foundational traceability data terms.

Refer to section 2.3.3. Would an agricultural traceability and product data ontology be a valuable resource to support interoperability?

Yes

Refer to section 2.3.6. What other standards should be considered in the list of recommended standards to support interoperability? (optional)

Change the permission based data collection to mandatory, you either opt in (incentivised) and provide data; or opt out.

Refer to section 2.3.6.2. How can the issue of multiple location identifiers be addressed? (optional)

Ensure locational identifiers are at a Local Shire base

Refer to section 2.4.1. Do you think any parts of the framework should be mandatory to use in the development of data systems?

Yes

Please provide comments (optional)

Opt in (incentivised to participate in trial and incentivised to remain in) and therefore mandatory data. Opt out (de-incentivised) by industry bodies (eg higher membership rates ect) and banks (eg % int increase due to risks???)

Refer to section 2.4.2. Is the proposed governance structure adequate to support the development and maintenance of the framework?

No

Refer to section 3.1. How might these barriers be addressed? (optional)

Community and industry engagement; trails (incentivise opt in) for 12-24 month to allow adjustments; trained "experts" on the ground assisting with implementation; regular easy to interpret reporting to monitor progress and improvements needed, delivered by the "experts" on the ground. Use existing and trusted agencies or providers rather than creating NEW agencies to deliver. Provision of online resources will not be sufficient to roll out and encourage uptake of this national initiative.

Are there any other barriers to adoption of the framework that you can think of? (optional)

Yes, use of technology to roll out this project initially.

Refer to section 3.3. Do you agree with the roles and responsibilities listed?

No

Please provide your reasons and alternative suggestions

Community and industry engagement; trails (incentivise opt in) for 12-24 month to allow adjustments; trained "experts" on the ground assisting with implementation; regular easy to interpret reporting to monitor progress and improvements needed, delivered by the "experts" on the ground. Use existing and trusted agencies or providers rather than creating NEW agencies to deliver. Provision of online resources will not be sufficient to roll out and encourage uptake of this national initiative.