A Local-State Government Spatial Data Sharing Partnership

A Local-State Spatial Data Sharing Partnership Model to Facilitate SDI Development
Case Summaries – Part 7 Comments on Existing Partnerships and Collaborations
Case# P7 Comments
4 I don’t think the state Govt always see Councils as "customers".
LG's are not party to their strategic thinking regarding information, changes are just
announced, and may have a major impact on councils systems. for example the DCDB and
Community Titling
6 No
8 NRM&W exchange is generally OK but could have improved frequency (i.e. 1 month instead
of 3). NRM&W does very little to improve the quality of the DCDB.
Main Roads tends to be a 1 way exchange. We supply data and struggle to get 'As
Constructed' data back at the end of construction.
9 The Qld government set out to do data share arrangements but the implementation is
dependent on each council seeking independent agreements with each state gov't
department. A centralised approach would see a centralised set of what data is available
and improve the effectiveness of this programme.
10 This should be a whole of govt perspective - local govt would supply everything we have that
State Govt need, and they would supply everything they have that we need. Examples that
we would supply: address data (DNRM), tidal works (EPA). Examples that we need to do
our job: DCDB (3 monthly), Veg Mapping, Native Title, Marine Parks, Valuations, some
searches, Easements, Leases etc
15 We freely and openly share data with other Local Govts in our region including training and
knowledge sharing
16 In regards to above question: all councils have the same basic data needs. If, through data
sharing agreements these basic requirements can be satisfied, a more integrated form of
data sharing can be implemented, providing access to more non-vital data sets.
On main issue is that most data sets councils have are specific to a local government area
20 LG Authorities are always supply various major datasets to State and federal government
bodies but receive no benefit from doing that. Those bodies then place extra demands and
work on the LGA to continually supply that data. State governments should think about
providing some type of financial incentive to LGA to make it more of a benefit to council. Eg
Council supply the street address to state government via the PLI agreement in exchange
for the DCDB. State Government on sell this to other bodies such as PSMA for the GNAF
who then make money by selling the dataset to private industry. Councils should receive
royalties from this product. Without Council there would be no dataset. DCDB can be (If
need be)kept up to date by Council therefore the datasets are of no equal value because
Council makes no money from the DCDB
22 It would be good to share DCDB with neighbouring Shires. At this point in time, if we want to
see what is over our border, we have to purchase ($$) the dcdb. Not a viable option.
31 Planning, Environment & Disaster agencies seem to have a problem dealing with Loc Gov
in QLD. They seem to think their data is the only source and in some cases are duplicating
LG information for their own ends. Also there are too many sources of LG data available e.g.
Spatial link not up to date
44 A move towards making spatial information available across all government levels is one
which we strongly support. The major justification being better customer (rate/tax payers)
service. This data availability support does not necessarily extent beyond the government
arena.
46 Comments are preferred options if we shared or exchanged data.
47 Legal obligations for Council when providing data in exchange e.g. rural addressing, if the
data has inaccuracies
55 We locked ourselves into a nightmare by refusing to share data 5 yrs ago. Subsequently we
collected all our asset locations relative to our own cadastre. We now cannot easily adopt
standard and accurate State data as it would cause a spatial mismatch with many of our
own key datasets.
56 The council deals with the state as a whole. No individual department has agreements with
the state. Councils have differing standards and capabilities, hence the need to deal with
the state on an individual basis.
286