A Local-State Government Spatial Data Sharing Partnership

A Local-State Spatial Data Sharing Partnership Model to Facilitate SDI Development
the Queensland Valuation Assessment System (QVAS) which had deteriorated both in
quality and currency since the Department changed from annual property appraisals to a
mass appraisal system due to declining Departmental resources. To improve the quality of
the property addresses within QVAS, the Local Government Interface Project was initiated
to collect data from the LGA property databases. Another motivation for the project was
the need to collect address data for the State Government’s contribution to the
development of a geocoded national address file (G-NAF). In order to achieve progress in
these initiatives, it was recognised that more formal arrangements for acquiring the data
from local governments were required.
5.3.3 Establishment and Direction Setting
Goal
From interviews with senior and operational staff and the examination of a number of
internal documents, it was concluded that the goals of the Property Location Index project
were far from clear. Although a key goal of the project was to provide a single
authoritative index of land parcels and street address, it was not clear how this new
authoritative database was to be utilised. Unlike the Victorian case study, which was
driven by the need to establish a digital mapbase to support critical business activities,
there was not a critical need for the dataset in the Department of Natural Resources. This
lack of a clear goal and business need meant that the project was not seen as a critical to
the Department’s mission, and therefore obtained limited funding and priority.
Negotiation Phase
During late 1997 and early 1998, the PLI policies for access and pricing were developed
and negotiations began with the LGAs in 1998 to explain the project and to seek their
support. Unfortunately, these negotiations appeared to lack coordination and the package
offered to LGAs did not provide them with any real incentive to sign. Apart from a small
monetary incentive, the State Government did not offer to exchange any data of value to
the LGAs. In fact, the access and pricing policy still required the LGAs to purchase the
digital mapbase at a significant cost. Therefore, the take-up rate of LGAs signing the PLI
agreement was low, and by 2000 only 20 LGAs had signed up to the PLI project.
In the heavily populated south-eastern corner of the state, the LGAs refused to participate
in the PLI project because they believed that they were not receiving fair and just
compensation for their contribution of data. Of the LGAs who signed up to the PLI
agreement in the early stages, the majority were small rural or regional LGAs who
represented perhaps less than 10-15% of the State’s population. In 2000, two part time
liaison officers were employed to assist in the process of negotiation. By May 2002, 35
134