Docstoc

WALIS GOVERNANCE REVIEW Final report for WALIS EPC

Document Sample
WALIS GOVERNANCE REVIEW Final report for WALIS EPC Powered By Docstoc
					          WALIS
  GOVERNANCE REVIEW
Final report for WALIS EPC




         JANUARY 2010
                                   Document Change Control Log

Document storage location:
V:\Divisions\Walis\Strategic Management\WALIS Governance Review\Governance
review V006 Final
 Version      Status           Date        By     Approved         Release Notes
                                                     By
V001         Draft       May 2009        ML                  Initial draft for working group
                                                                      consideration
V002           Draft           August 2009      ML                    Proposed model for working
                                                                      group consideration
V003           Draft           September 2009   ML      WG            Release for consultation
V004           Draft           October 2009     ML                    Consultation review and
                                                                      proposed way forward for
                                                                      working group consideration
V005           Draft           November 2009    ML      SMG           Final draft report for SMG
                                                                      consideration
V006           Final draft     January 2010     ML                    Final for EPC




Governance review V006 Final.doc                                                                    Page 1
                             WALIS GOVERNANCE REVIEW
                                   FINAL REPORT FOR WALIS EPC



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A review of the governance structure of WALIS was undertaken during 2009 following the WA
State Government’s decision to disband the WALIS Advisory Committee (WAC) and to fulfil
recommendations from a post implementation review of the Shared Land Information Platform
(SLIP).

The review process included an examination of structures in other jurisdictions across Australia
and New Zealand. There was a public consultation period and a number of submissions were
presented from groups, organisations and individuals across the WALIS community.

The governance structure of WALIS was modified only marginally. The review process found
the structure and focus was generally consistent with those from other jurisdictions. The main
changes to the WALIS governance structure are:

         -        The WALIS Spatial Management Group (SMG) will be expanded to include
                  representatives from the Spatial Industries Business Association (SIBA), the
                  Surveying and Spatial Sciences Institute (SSSI) and academia.
         -        WALIS Council will be reduced in size to State and appropriate Federal
                  Government agencies only (together with a WA local government
                  representative).
         -        The WALIS associate member categories will be expanded to allow a broader
                  range of organisations join WALIS as associate members.
         -        WA GBEs will be eligible for full membership of WALIS (rather than associate
                  members as at present).
         -        Associate members will be offered opportunities to join sub-committees and
                  working groups of WALIS.



1             INTRODUCTION

A review of the WALIS governance structure was begun in May 2009 following the WA State
Government’s decision to disband the WALIS Advisory Committee (WAC) as part of a whole-of-
government program to rationalise the number of committees and boards and to fulfil
recommendations from a post implementation review of the Shared Land Information Platform
(SLIP).

WALIS has been in operation for 28 years. While its governance structure has undergone a
number of modifications, a full review of its governance structure had not been undertaken for
some time.

The review was also timely as most other Australasian jurisdictions have been undertaking
reviews of their own.

This is the sixth and final paper that has been developed during the review process, which was
overseen by a working group formed through the WALIS Spatial Management Group (SMG).


Governance review V006 Final.doc                                                          Page 2
This final report provides an overview of the steps taken during the review process and
summarises the earlier papers that were prepared as part of the review.



2             SUMMARY OF THE REVIEW PROCESS

Through the WALIS SMG, a working group was formed to undertake a review of the WALIS
governance structure. Members of the working group were:

Dave Currell               (SMG, Water Corporation)
Mike Waters                (SMG, Fire and Emergency Services Authority)
Damian Shepherd            (Council, Department of Agriculture and Food)
Paul Harris                (Former Chair, WALIS Advisory Committee)
Ray Wills                  (Former Deputy Chair, WALIS Advisory Committee)
Ian Hyde                   (Executive Director, Strategy and Reform, Landgate)
Marnie Leybourne           (Director, WALIS)

The group began by reviewing the current and proposed structures of similar bodies to WALIS
across Australia and New Zealand. Several other jurisdictions have been undertaking reviews
as well. The review also considered issues facing WA as a starting point for developing a new
structure for Western Australia.

A proposed model was formulated and considered by WALIS Council at its meeting on 26
August 2009, after which the model was refined and a consultation paper was released to the
WALIS community during September 2009.

A number of verbal and written submissions were provided. The working group considered all
submissions and refined the proposed governance model. This received further consideration
by the working group and other members of the WALIS community. Another formal submission
from SIBA was also received and considered.

During the review process, a range of options were proposed, including the creation of a new
Board, an Associate Members Consortium and an Associate Members Reference Group. The
purpose of the WALIS Executive Policy Committee (EPC) was also considered including its
relationship to the SMG and whether both groups were required.

The role of WALIS associate members, in particular their involvement with WALIS Council was
a major focus for the review, with strong support for a return to WALIS Council comprising
government representatives only.

The major issue during the review process was how best to involve the private sector and
academia in the governance of WALIS, as this was seen as a major weakness with the
disbanding of WAC.

A range of other issues were also raised, such as the creation of a membership fee (not
supported), a broadening of associate member categories (supported) and involvement in
WALIS by Federal Government agencies.

During the governance review process, the Minister for Lands directed Landgate to begin work
on a spatial vision for Western Australia. Submissions to the WALIS governance review process
(in particular from SIBA), strongly recommended that WALIS be involved in this work. On 16
November 2009, WALIS Office moved into the Strategy and Reform Division of Landgate and is
closely involved in the development of this vision statement. In line with the submissions from
SIBA, WALIS Office will have primary carriage of consultation with the WALIS community as
this work progresses.


Governance review V006 Final.doc                                                         Page 3
It was also pointed out that increased recognition of SLIP was needed within the WALIS
governance framework.



3             STRUCTURE AT THE START OF THE REVIEW PROCESS – MAY 2009

The governance structure of WALIS at the start of the review process was made up of WALIS
EPC, WALIS SMG and WALIS Council, which included representation from Associate Members
of WALIS. The WALIS Advisory Committee (WAC) had just been disbanded. WAC had
comprised 12 skill-based industry and community representatives.

Other sub-committees or working groups were set up under SMG or Council (such as the
working group for this governance review, and the WALIS Marine group) as required.



4             REVIEW OF OTHER JURISDICTIONS (SUMMARY)

The first governance review paper provided an extensive overview of the current and proposed
structures in other Australian jurisdictions and in New Zealand. This section provides a brief
summary of this review paper.

The Queensland Spatial Information Council (QSIC) is chaired by a senior executive from the
Department of Environment and Resource Management who is also Queensland’s
representative on ANZLIC. Through the Chair, QSIC is responsible for advising the Minister for
Natural Resources on spatial information issues and ensuring effective liaison with industry and
all levels of government for the development of the Queensland Spatial Information Strategy.
QSIC includes a mixture of public sector and industry representation, and it has been proposed
to transform QSIC into a Ministerial Advisory Council.

New South Wales has a similar structure of that of Queensland, with 15 members to reflect the
breadth and diversity of the NSW spatial information industry, including representation from the
Surveying and Spatial Sciences Institute and the Spatial Industries Business Association. It is
chaired by the Surveyor General of NSW (who is also the Head of the NSW Department of
Lands) and includes representation from a range of key state government agencies as well as
local government.

The Victorian model is also similar, with the Victorian Spatial Council comprising a range of
representatives from the public sector and industry. Its independent chair is appointed by the
Director General of the Department of Sustainability and Environment.

Tasmania implemented a new governance structure in 2008 headed by the Tasmanian Spatial
Information Council (TASSIC). The role of the council is to maximise opportunities for
government, industry and the community through the efficient and effective development,
maintenance and use of the Tasmanian Spatial Data Infrastructure. TASSIC’s chair is
independent, appointed by the Minister for Primary Industries and Water. It has six other
permanent member representatives covering the public sector, SSSI, SIBA and the University
of Tasmania. There is also a Tasmanian Government Spatial Committee (TGSC), whose role is
to provide effective governance arrangements for spatial information across the Tasmanian
Government. TGSC is very similar to WALIS Council.

New Zealand formed its first geospatial office in 2007 with a structure modelled extensively on
that of WALIS. The “Geospatial Executives Group” (GEG) acts as a board of directors to govern
the direction and implementation of the geospatial strategy. The GEG is collectively accountable
for the strategy although “without compromising the accountabilities or outputs of individual

Governance review V006 Final.doc                                                          Page 4
agencies”. The GEG is expected to bring a collective perspective to all that it does, and use its
collective capabilities to address cross-agency issues coherently. This group is essentially the
same as the WALIS EPC, with its membership comprising the heads of key government
agencies.

Under the GEG sits the “Geospatial Steering Committee” (GSC), which is functionally the
equivalent of WALIS Council. The GSC develops, steers and evaluates the geospatial strategy
work programme; scans for emerging issues and new information and assesses their potential
impact on the priorities, work and performance of the network.



5        ISSUES WITH THE GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE OF WALIS IN MAY 2009

The governance structure of WALIS evolved over many years. When WALIS was first formed,
the WALIS Council was the only governing body and it was made up of departmental heads. All
the departments involved with WALIS were from the WA state government and either had
statutory obligations for spatial data collection or needed to collect, manage and analyse data to
perform their legislative functions.

Over time, other agencies/departments asked to join WALIS Council as they had a keen interest
in spatial data, even though they did not collect significant amounts of data themselves. They
used data from other agencies and wished to be involved in setting standards for this data.

WALIS Council expanded in size and, gradually, its members changed. Departmental heads
began sending delegates rather than attending meetings themselves. Delegation continued until
most members of Council – or at least those attending Council – were no longer either
departmental heads or even senior executives.

The WALIS EPC was formed as a Director General/Chief Executive group to sit over WALIS
Council, while Council became more of an operational coordination group. This structure
worked for a time, however delegation at EPC also occurred. At the June 2004 EPC meeting,
there were only two agency heads and many of those present also represented their agencies
at WALIS Council.

WALIS Core Management Group was formed in 2004 as a buffer between EPC and Council,
and EPC was restructured to comprise only eight people who were heads of departments with a
significant interest in spatial data. The new EPC required that members attend in person;
delegates were not permitted. Members were able to send comments in on agenda items if they
could not attend the meeting in person.

In 2006, WALIS CMG was amalgamated with the SLIP executive committee to form the WALIS
Spatial Management Group. Since this time, there has been some turnover of membership on
WALIS SMG and the group has not taken active responsibility for setting the strategic direction
of WALIS. SMG has not functioned as effectively as it could.

The PIR of SLIP commented that the WALIS Advisory Committee (WAC) was the component of
WALIS governance that appeared to be functioning most effectively. Certainly WAC was active
and greatly assisted the WALIS community through policy position papers and reaching out to
new communities of interest.

However, the primary issue with the current governance structure of WALIS is that there are too
many layers and, despite this, it is almost impossible to get interest or involvement in WALIS at
senior levels across government.

Another significant issue, also recognised by the Victorian review, was that


Governance review V006 Final.doc                                                            Page 5
         …institutional arrangements which support state spatial data infrastructures must clearly
         identify the roles of the three sectors in the spatial information industry, namely the
         government, private and academic sectors. Quite often the role of the academic sector is
         forgotten, appropriate research and development is not carried out, and there is a poor
         commitment to education and training in the broad spatial data infrastructure area. This
         can result in a lack of capacity in establishing and maintaining the state spatial data
         infrastructure.

The WALIS governance structure has had a clear role for government through the EPC, SMG
and Council, and for the private sector through WAC. Academic representatives (from both
Curtin University of Technology and the CRC for Spatial Information) have sat on WAC,
however this has been more serendipitous rather than planned.

WALIS has been founded on the principle of cooperation and currently has no legislative or
regulatory underpinning to any of its work. There is limited requirement by any member agency
to comply with policies or positions developed through WALIS.

Therefore, none of the bodies currently forming part of the governance structure of WALIS has
any significant decision-making powers. The EPC (and to a lesser extent the SMG) may make
decisions on priorities for the WALIS community; they may set policy directions and recommend
policies for endorsement by the government. However, the roles of all of the governance
bodies, and WAC in particular, have been purely advisory.

This approach remains consistent with the general governance structures of other jurisdictions.
In Queensland, the Spatial Information Council provides a high level forum for the strategic
coordination and management of policy and direction. Queensland is considering a
transformation into a Ministerial Advisory Council. The Tasmanian Spatial Information Council
covers communication and coordination, partnerships and collaborative initiatives.

In Victoria, the Spatial Information Coordinating Council is “only concerned with policy matters”
and is “separate but mutually responsive to operational groups and not regulatory”. During the
Victorian review, some stakeholders called for a regulatory body to be created, however the
review panel considered such an approach would be overly prescriptive and lead to a
“compliance mentality”.

Interestingly, the general approach in other jurisdictions has been to have a mixture of public
and private sector representatives on the peak council. This has a tendency to make the council
more advisory, as the private sector cannot regulate or be seen to actively influence
government. However, jurisdictions do tend to have a “government only” body as well
(essentially what the current WALIS Council is) in order to coordinate across government. In
WA, the means for WALIS Council to have this role has been weakened with the addition of the
WALIS associate members and their ability to sit on WALIS Council.

The structure of associate membership has also caused some problems, as the criteria are
considered to be too restrictive. At present, associate members include WA government
business enterprises, federal government agencies, associations and private sector companies.
Some of these associate members maintain and provide government data and may need to be
considered as a separate category.

The summary of issues to be considered is as follows:

         -        Senior level representation is vital to ensure the appropriate level of decision-
                  making and contribution is made, however it has always been difficult to get buy-
                  in from senior levels.
         -        Spatial data needs to be recognised as an infrastructure asset.
         -        The roles of government, private and academic sectors must be clearly identified.


Governance review V006 Final.doc                                                             Page 6
         -        The decision-making powers of any part of the structure must be carefully
                  considered.
         -        Whether the overarching governance body should comprise government-only
                  members (like the EPC) or a mixture of public and private sector representatives
                  (like Councils in most other jurisdictions) should be considered.
         -        The role and contribution from WALIS associate members should be carefully
                  considered. The criteria for recognition of associate members may need to be
                  revised.



6        SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS

The third governance review document was released for public consultation in September 2009,
and the submissions were considered by the working group and released through the fourth
document after the submission period closed.

WALIS was lauded in the submissions, with SIBA’s submission stating that the work of WALIS,
over a long period of years, had been of considerable benefit to Western Australia’s
development and its economy. WALIS’ existence and its work were considered valuable to the
efficiency and success of government’s ability to handle WA’s development.

The proposed restructure whereby WALIS Council returns to a “government member” council
was supported by most of the submissions, including SIBA’s that has had a large degree of
private sector input. However, SIBA also stated that the Director of WALIS would need to
ensure that the Council dealt only with subjects affecting government, and that matters affecting
the wider community needed to be dealt with by another appropriate group.

Input from the business community had been curtailed with the loss of WAC. However, one
submission suggested that this could be addressed somewhere else through WALIS, accepting
it would be a challenge given the reality of smaller government and a smaller WALIS Office.
This submission proposed exploiting opportunities available through a growing Surveying and
Spatial Sciences Institute (SSSI) as well as SIBA and the CRCSI, as these groups had a major
interest in promoting the use and efficient management of spatial information to the business
community which they serve. This would essentially be an extension of the current Nexus model
to include the role formerly undertaken by WAC.

It was pointed out that there was no recognition of SLIP within the proposed structure. If SLIP is
to be the underpinning framework from which future opportunities are to be realised, then the
WALIS governance framework should acknowledge this. To date there hasn’t been any
effective monitoring or coordination of SLIP across government for its delivery or development.
The intention is to address this particular issue through the terms of reference of the governing
bodies of WALIS.

One submission proposed that, if sectors (such as natural resource management, emergency
management, etc) have a positive representative model then this should be a factor in
identifying representation on the governing bodies when full representation is not available.

The WALIS Spatial Management Group is currently made up of sector representatives,
although this is not generally recognised. It is contained in the terms of reference for the WALIS
SMG, however SMG membership has fluctuated to the degree that this has, to some degree,
been lost.

It was recognised in the submissions that senior level representation in any governance model
would remain a challenge as government gets smaller and there are more time demands on
Executives. There needed to be a simpler, clearer focus for the group – establishing and
supporting champions “for the cause” at senior and Ministerial level.

Governance review V006 Final.doc                                                            Page 7
Several submissions highlighted that spatial information is not yet recognised as an
infrastructure asset.

Therefore, spatial information requirements need to be integrated into the business of individual
WALIS member agencies and be independent of personalities, change of executives, and so
on. The alternative is for WALIS to become a very large, independent agency of its own,
however that is not going to happen and would not guarantee better cooperation than WALIS
already enjoys.

Therefore, until there is a shared and agreed strategic vision and plan, one continues to have a
mish-mash of disconnected activities that will struggle to deliver what they are trying to achieve,
regardless of all the good intent and hard work of the people involved.

         Similarly with the WALIS Governance, no matter the hard work and good intention of all
         those concerned with the WALIS community, collaboration and cooperation can only
         take you so far and without a legislative framework there’s always going to be a degree
         of uncertainty over what we can/can’t achieve. Somehow or rather, we need to get buy
         in and acknowledgement of our role by the State Government (quote from one
         submission, October 2009).

The problem of not having legislative backing was mentioned by other submissions as well. One
submission said that one important function of WALIS was to undertake “functions” within
(across) government “but for that it has to negotiate the voluntary cooperation of multiple
government bodies, mainly to ensure the better collection, use and distribution of spatial
information”, as WALIS doesn’t have the “usual legislative backing”.

This will have a strong bearing on the nature of governance that will work best for WALIS. The
governance structure would need to accommodate the particular features of WALIS, for
example the significant percentage of its work which is with and for the wider community; and
the need to achieve many tasks by voluntary cooperation, without legislative authority.

Another submission stated that information sharing participation in WALIS should be in the form
of custodial responsibility for fundamental data/information, usage and/or value-adding of key
data/information or both. It was felt that the level and performance of activity in delivering as a
custodian should be taken into account when considering suitability for a seat at the table.

There were several comments, both in submissions and in discussions at WALIS Council and
SMG meetings, that the current WA State Government would be unlikely to approve a new
governance structure that created a new Board (or formal advisory group). WAC was disbanded
through the “red tape” reduction process of the government, and current government policy was
to reduce the number of boards and committees.

However, this was not seen as a difficulty by those commenting on this point, except that it
pointed to a need to completely rethink the proposed governance model contained in document
three of this review process. Rather than looking to form a WALIS Board (despite the fact that
the Board would essentially be replacing WALIS EPC, SMG and to some degree WAC), the
WALIS community should consider alternative governance models. In fact, the lack of ability to
simply create yet another governance group (essentially repeating similar attempts in the past
that had not necessarily worked well), was an opportunity to come up with an entirely new
model.

There were also specific comments on aspects of the initial proposed model, such as:

    -        Involvement by Federal Government Agencies. Participation in WALIS should be
             based on the contribution provided, in the form of custodial responsibility for


Governance review V006 Final.doc                                                             Page 8
             fundamental data/information. Therefore, the question should not be constrained to
             the Federal Government.

             Most submissions supported full involvement by the Federal Government.

    -        Membership fees. These were not supported – it was felt that they could distract
             potential members from active engagement, particularly where fiscal constraints are
             an issue.

    -        Associate member categories – proposed changes to these (to make them
             broader) was supported.



7        REDESIGNED NEW GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE

Given the submissions and discussions, the governance structure has now been redesigned, as
follows:

    -    WALIS Executive Policy Committee

    The role of the EPC will be to consider and endorse high level, strategic policy issues.
    Examples include the custodianship, pricing or SLICP policies, all of which end up as either
    Cabinet-endorsed policies or Premier’s circulars. The EPC would meet on an ad hoc basis
    as required.

    The EPC will also ensure that the WALIS program is aligned with the spatial strategy for
    WA, to be agreed to by Cabinet. This will place ownership and responsibility for the delivery
    of outcomes to lead departments/agencies.

    -    WALIS SMG

    WALIS SMG will be expanded beyond the “current” senior executive level representation
    from key WALIS sectors. to include representation from SIBA (industry), SSSI (professional)
    and the CRCSI/Academia. This will ensure input to WALIS from non-government sources.
    The representatives would be expected to consult with their parent organisations on WALIS-
    related issues.

    -    WALIS Council

    Council will be made up of representatives from all the WALIS member agencies (WA State
    Government departments/agencies, WA GBEs, statutory authorities and a Local
    Government representative). Its primary function will be to coordinate operational aspects of
    WALIS; manage stakeholder relations; and provide direction and advice on policy, technical
    and operational aspects of WALIS. It will no longer include Associate Members of WALIS,
    but will include Federal Government Agencies that contribute to WALIS through custodial
    responsibility for fundamental data/information.

    -    Associate Members

    Associate Member categories are to be broadened to allow greater participation and
    associate member forums held (in partnership with SIBA and/or SSSI), together with an
    open opportunity for associate members to participate in standing committees or ad hoc
    working groups of WALIS.




Governance review V006 Final.doc                                                           Page 9
    -    Working groups

    Either standing committees or ad hoc committees set up for specific issues under direction
    from WALIS EPC, SMG or Council. The committees would be made up of appropriate
    representatives from WALIS member agencies and/or associate members.



8        HAVE ISSUES WITH THE STRUCTURE BEEN ADDRESSED

The issues and review document released earlier by the working group highlighted a number of
issues with the government structure. This section works through those issues to ensure that
each has been addressed by the new structure.

    -        As highlighted in the review paper, the evolution of the WALIS governance structure
             essentially occurred due to a delegation, over time, from senior executive-level
             representation at WALIS Council to more and more junior levels. This created a
             multi-tiered structure (WALIS EPC, WALIS SMG and WALIS Council) with limited
             interaction and did not adequately address the problem of appropriate
             representation.

             The new governance structure will not really address the issue of appropriate
             representation. In reality, it is not possible to oblige departments to send senior
             executives to meetings: it is more appropriate to ensure that those that attend the
             meetings have the ability to contribute and to make commitments on behalf of their
             organisations or sectors.

             However, with appropriate terms of reference and the shift in focus of WALIS Council
             back to matters that are purely government in nature and the expansion of the SMG
             to include industry representation, some levels of integration will be addressed.

    -        Private sector involvement. The PIR of SLIP commented that the WALIS Advisory
             Committee appeared to be functioning most effectively, and a review in Victoria
             pointed out that institutional arrangements that support state spatial data
             infrastructures must clearly identify the roles of the three sectors in the spatial
             information industry – government, private and academic sectors.

             The new governance structure now includes formal representation, on WALIS SMG,
             of SIBA, SSSI and academic interests. WALIS Office will work with each of these
             areas to ensure that WALIS issues are dealt with through the appropriate
             mechanisms of each of those organisations. In addition, regular events for WALIS
             associate members will be scheduled into the WALIS calendar.

    -        Lack of legislative backing. As the review document commented, WALIS has been
             founded on the principle of cooperation and currently has no legislative or regulatory
             underpinning to any of its work. There is limited requirement by any member agency
             to comply with policies or positions developed through WALIS. None of the bodies
             currently forming part of the governance structure of WALIS has any significant
             decision-making powers.

             The new governance structure does not address this, however at this stage it is not
             presumed to be needed. WALIS has managed to function relatively well through the
             collaborative approach, and certainly no other jurisdiction is planning to introduce
             legislation or regulation for its spatial councils.

    -        Ability for government to deal with government business. Over the past couple of
             years, WALIS Council meetings have been opened to associate members. This has

Governance review V006 Final.doc                                                            Page 10
             made the meetings more dynamic, however it has been a little more difficult to deal
             with pure government business (at times, associate members have had to be asked
             to leave). The new structure, returning WALIS Council to be primarily government,
             will address this. The proposed events for members of the WALIS community and
             associate members will ensure that the advantages of the combined meetings are
             not lost.

    -        Associate member categories. It is recognised that the categories of associate
             members will require modification, and the proposed structure identifies associate
             members in expanded categories.

    -        The Federal Government. It is proposed that Federal Government agencies with a
             strong involvement in data used or provided by the WA Government, while being
             recognised as Associate Members, will continue to be represented on the WALIS
             Council.

    -        Full members of WALIS (and with seats on WALIS Council) will include WA State
             Government departments/agencies, WA GBEs and statutory authorities. A Local
             Government representative will also sit on WALIS Council. The Council’s primary
             function will be to coordinate operational aspects of WALIS; manage stakeholder
             relations; and provide direction and advice on policy, technical and operational
             aspects of WALIS.


9        CONCLUSIONS

The new governance structure of WALIS has not changed very much: the major amendments
have been an expansion to the SMG with representation from SIBA, SSSI and academia and
the refocus of WALIS Council onto government business only. However, through the review
process, it became clear that the structure of WALIS governance is quite consistent with
structures in other Australasian jurisdictions. There wasn’t much wrong with the WALIS
governance structure to begin with, and the review process has allowed modifications where the
WALIS community considered appropriate.

The new governance structure is proposed to be implemented from 1 March 2010.




Governance review V006 Final.doc                                                          Page 11
ANNEX 1 – MEMBERSHIP OF WALIS EPC AND SMG


WALIS Executive Policy Committee
Department of Agriculture and Food
Department of Environment and Conservation
Department of Housing
Department of Mines and Petroleum
Department of Planning
Department of Premier and Cabinet
Department of Water
Fire and Emergency Services Authority
Landgate


WALIS Spatial Management Group

CRC for Spatial Information/Curtin University Department of Spatial Sciences
Department of Agriculture and Food
Department of Health
Department of Mines and Petroleum
Department of Planning
Department of State Development
Department of Treasury and Finance
Department of Water
Fire and Emergency Services Authority
Landgate
Public Sector Commission
Spatial Industries Business Association (SIBA)
Surveying and Spatial Sciences Institute (SSSI)
Water Corporation
Western Australian Local Government Association




Governance review V006 Final.doc                                               Page 12

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:9
posted:4/23/2010
language:English
pages:13
Description: WALIS GOVERNANCE REVIEW Final report for WALIS EPC