A Local-State Government Spatial Data Sharing Partnership

A Local-State Spatial Data Sharing Partnership Model to Facilitate SDI Development
Case Summaries – Part 8 Comments on Data Sharing Partnership Overall
Case# P8 Comments
4 BCC would like to develop sharing with a whole of government approach. I don’t think the
relationships between the state govt are mature enough to allow that to occur.
The state should focus on data sharing within its own sector
9 I still see a lot of duplication of effort occurring in the sharing of data. Regional areas of
Australia are also frustrated by the irregularity of satellite updates on available data sets and
also the level of accuracy on survey data from release to release.
10 The value to us of the DCDB is not matched by the value to State Govt of our address data
(particularly for emergency services). We believe they still require the information from us as
well. We currently send the same information to 10 other organisations, like all the
emergency services, Telstra, Energex, Australia Post etc, since they do not currently get it
from DNR. We are yet to see the other datasets made available as part of this agreement,
the DCDB was supposed to be just the first.
20 Council spent over $200K of its own money to increase the accuracy of the DCDB in the
LGA area. Benefit to the state is countless $$. Council Received from the State....Nothing.
Whoopee, we got access to the survey plans and Form 6 diagrams for the duration of the
project...we already had access to that.
Councils who have undertaken such projects should now receive financial benefits from the
state...it may be in the form of royalties for each extraction of that LGA area that has been
improved or some other appropriate means.
NRM do not even maintain or improve the quality of the core survey control marks in the
LGA area. The State likes to get data from Councils, but doesn't Reciprocate in kind by
providing services to support spatial data acquisitions at the base level or provide a tangible
benefit to the LGA
47 Our council at this time does not have the knowledge, experience or funding to fully commit
to a specialist GIS Section within the council. GIS at this stage seems to be a maze of data
and no clear direction as to where it is taking us and what use we should be making of it,
and what funding should be allocated.
57 This section has been difficult to answer. Whereas some councils rely on State govt data
we, for e.g., maintain our own DCDB and on a regular basis we & the state do a check. Who
benefits most - equal. Who puts in the most work - equal.
59 New data share agreement has just been signed. Contact between council and state govt.
officers has increased significantly in last 2 to 3 months leading to improved data quality and
matching rates. New agreement will provide access to wider range of data.
60 Just for your info, this took a fair bit longer than 15-20 minutes to fill out (more like an hour).
68 Increased resources from both Government and Local Government area to maintain the
data at a more current level and audit on data integrity. Most important due to organisations
who access the data e.g. emergency services.
Need to have the resources to get the data accurate
70 The quality of the products need to keep improving to a standard that meets the
requirements of all authorities using the state map base.
81 answer to Q1g " How many full time equivalent (FTE) staff work within your GIS unit?" is 0.4.
The form wouldn't let me put in a decimal point.
90 N/A
97 We as Council put so much time, energy, resources into providing lodging/sending data to
SII. They seem to be forever doing audits and they are great at finding problems and issues
- but the rework is done by all councils.
Overall we slave away to give them the data they require and they just process it!
Frustrating at times.
The answer to QA1 is: 18,000 approx. The field will not let me enter this number in.
98 If funding was granted just for more resources to be channeled to property matching alone
within the council the state and council data would be improved at a faster rate.
290