Cadastral Surveyors Licensing Board
of New Zealand
Certificate of Competency Assessment Framework Review
1982
Update for Surveying Community – February 2024
Act
A. INTRODUCTION
1.
Background
1.1.
The Certificate of Competency Assessment Framework Consultation Document was released to the cadastral
surveying profession and key stakeholders in late July 2023. This was followed by a well-attended online
webinar to discuss the proposal in more detail on 23 August 2023, including a broadcast Q&A with a written
Information
record.
1.2.
The consultation period closed on 30 September 2023 and 19 submissions were received from a mixture of
individuals (graduates and LCSs), surveying companies, professional bodies, LINZ and academics.
1.3.
Most of the submissions supported the direction the Board was taking with the framework and the overall
Official
four-step sequential process outlined in the consultation document. The submissions were constructive and
were targeted at specific parts of the framework where we had sought feedback, or where respondents
the
wanted to make comments.
1.4.
The Board was very grateful for the valuable submissions that were made and thanks those who took the
time to respond.
under
1.5.
A sub-committee of the Board went through the submissions in detail and prepared a draft final version,
along with a document outlining the important themes and issues arising from the feedback. These
documents were considered at a full Board meeting in November 2023 and decisions confirmed.
1.6.
A second online webinar updating stakeholders was undertaken on 11 December 2023.
1.7.
The draft framework document was sent to the executive and Examinations Chair of Survey and Spatial NZ
in December 2023 for their review. Their further feedback was sought because they are the current provider
Released
of the assessment process on behalf of the Board.
2.
Final Version of the Framework
2.1.
The final version of the competency assessment framework, dated February 2024, is now available for the
surveying community and it accompanies this update. It is the best reflection of the Boards thinking at this
stage in the review process. However, the Board understands that there may be further minor amendments
to the framework once the detailed implementation is determined.
2.2.
This update seeks to inform the surveying community of the key changes to the framework from the initial
consultation document and explain the rationale behind those decisions.
B. MAIN POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
3.
Independence of Board
3.1.
Several comments were received affirming the Board’s intention to own the assessment framework and
clearly unlink it from the S+SNZ admissions process. Some submitters believed that the Board should engage
the Assessment Panel members directly without having a third-party involved. On the other hand, the S+SNZ
submissions re-affirmed their desire to be involved in the future and to provide any assistance required to
undertake the detailed implementation.
3.2.
The Board has taken steps in the final document to ensure that there are clear lines of demarcation in the
roles between the Board, Assessment Panel, and any third-party provider. The Examinations Coordinator will
be the main conduit of communication for applicants, and this role will be created and funded by the Board.
The Board has the right to confirm Assessment Panel member appointments and approve fees charged to
applicants, as well as a responsibility to undertake audits of the process. Nevertheless, the Board does not
have the resources or experience to undertake the assessment of applicants. The Board believes the option
of engaging a third-party to provide the Assessment Panel can work well for all concerned if the correct
checks and balances are utilised.
1982
4.
Register of Applicants
Act
4.1.
There was universal support for the Register of Applicants for the reasons outlined in the discussion
document. More than one respondent suggested that it could be set up immediately and independently from
the implementation of the rest of the framework, so that direct communication between the Board and
potential applicants could occur soon.
4.2.
The Board is investigating the possibility of implementing this part of the framework earlier. It is important
that information on the register can seamlessly connect to the rest of the digital infrastructure for the
framework. It will be compulsory for applicants to join the register when they wish to undertake the
Information
competency assessment journey. However, there will be benefits for applicants in joining the register earlier
so that they receive important communications about the framework. There is no intention to charge for
joining the register.
5.
Testing Competencies
Official
5.1.
Many submitters stated there needs to be more clarity around how the different stages of the framework
will test the different competencies. Some of the individual competencies in Schedule 1 of the Standards are
the
hard to demonstrate in a portfolio of experience, a challenge, or an interview.
5.2.
While the Board understands that the different stages combine to offer a wholistic assessment of the
applicant, it is aware that more detail is needed around this issue. Developing guidance material is one of the
important next steps. This will include writing the Professional Experience Guideline, establishing the format
under
of the Professional Challenge and formalising expectations for the Professional Interview. This information
will be communicated with the surveying community and potential applicants as it is developed.
6.
Regularity
6.1.
The Board sought specific feedback on how often the parts of the framework should be offered each year,
with our default position in the consultation document being “at least once a year”. Most respondents
Released
preferred twice a year if resourcing would allow or if demand required it.
6.2.
With the requirement to pass each stage sequentially, the Board believes that each stage should be offered
regularly enough so that any applicant who fails a stage does not have to wait an unreasonable period to try
again. This needs to be balanced with the workload involved for the Assessment Panel in undertaking each
stage, particularly the Professional Challenge. The compromise position stated in the final document is that
each stage is offered “at least once (preferably twice) per year”.
6.3.
The final document also requires the critical dates and locations for each stage to be clearly known and
published 12 months in advance. Having clear dates is important to enable applicants to plan their progress
through their portfolio, as well as enabling them to set aside future dates for the challenge and interview.
7.
Timeframes Between Stages
7.1.
More clarity was requested about the timeframes between the stages to allow sufficient time for the
applicant and Assessment Panel members to prepare for and complete one stage before preparing for the
next one. There are two elements to consider in the timeframes between stages.
7.2.
The first relates to when the Assessment Panel offers the next sequential stage, for example, between the
submission of the portfolio and the challenge, and then between the challenge and the interview. The Board
expects these timeframes to be a matter of months, but it is too early yet to commit to a set period. This will
become clearer as the detailed implementation is designed, but for now it is specified as “as soon as practical
(to be confirmed)”.
7.3.
The second relates to when the applicant sits the next sequential stage. The expectation of the Board is that
most applicants will want to progress through each stage reasonably quickly once they have their portfolio
accepted. However, flexibility is also required around the expectations for an applicant to complete the
overall process due to factors such as illness or having children. Some applicants may not pass a stage, such
as the challenge or interview, and so will need time to prepare for and sit a future one. The final document
therefore stipulates a maximum period of two years between the acceptance of the portfolio and passing
1982
the challenge, and another two years between passing the challenge and completing the interview, unless
there are extenuating circumstances.
Act
8.
Progressive Submission of Portfolio of Experience
8.1.
Several respondents thought this was a good idea in principle, while some were concerned about how much
extra work this might generate for the Assessment Panel.
8.2.
The Board has decided to remove this option from the final document because of the potential for extra work
for the Examinations Coordinator and Assessment Panel. Time and effort will be better spent on establishing
a guideline that provides clear direction on the experience required, while allowing flexibility for the projects
submitted to prove proficiency in the competencies. Applicants still needing clarification can contact the
Information
Examinations Coordinator.
9.
Professional Challenge
9.1.
This is the component of the framework that will potentially be the most difficult to establish with concerns
about the potential workload for the Assessment Panel. Many respondents liked the concept in principle.
Official
Some respondents saw good value in the current cadastral law exam and wanted to ensure that the future
Professional Challenge includes components that test NZ cadastral laws and the Surveyor General’s Rules.
the
9.2.
The Board understands that significant work will need to be done to craft the format of the challenge. Advice
will be sought from the current S+SNZ examiners and those in the surveying community with experience in
this area.
under
10.
Professional Interview
10.1. There was general support for this aspect of the framework as a good way of confirming the competency of
the applicants. There was also support for the different format suggested with three interviewers. Having
interviews in different locations or with different interviewers raised concerns about a consistent application
of the framework. However, this must be balanced with the needs of sharing the workload between the
Assessment Panel members and making the process accessible for applicants.
Released
10.2. The Board will engage with the current S+SNZ assessors on the detail of the interview format as it determines
how it will operate under the new framework.
11.
Assessment Panel
11.1. As indicated earlier, some respondents suggested that the Assessment Panel should be established directly
by the Board and not involve a third-party provider.
11.2. The Board has taken steps in the final document to ensure that there are clear lines of demarcation in the
roles between the Board, Assessment Panel, and any third-party provider (refer to paragraph 3.2 above).
11.3. Care needs to be taken to ensure that the roles of the Assessment Panel are not unreasonably burdensome
and that the members are appropriately recompensed for their time.
12.
Examinations Coordinator
12.1. There was strong support for the role with many submitters stating that it should be independent of the
Assessment Panel or any third party. The role should be funded and appointed by the Board. The Young
Professionals group within S+SNZ see this as an important role to improve communication with the
applicants. Comments were also made that the role should be a mix of administration and technical surveying
ability to provide guidance on the Portfolio of Experience and answer applicant questions.
12.2. The final document clarifies that this role will be created and funded by the Board. It will involve a mix of
technical surveying and administration skills and be the main conduit of communication with the applicants.
The Board sees this role as important in ensuring consistent advice is given to the applicants to minimise
confusion, and to reduce the workload for Assessment Panel members.
13.
Sponsoring Licensed Cadastral Surveyor
13.1. While there was support in principle for this role, there was also a requirement for more clarity. Many
1982
respondents questioned what implications there would be if the Assessment Panel disagreed with the
Sponsoring LCS’s subjective attestation about the proficiency of an applicant. The attestation could also
Act
create a conflict of interest if the Sponsoring LCS was a manager or employer of the applicant.
13.2. The Board decided to remove this aspect of the framework from the final document. Ultimately it is the
applicant who is being assessed for proficiency in the competencies and any attestations would only form
part of the overall evidence. The Board believes that the absence of this attestation would not make the
applicant less proficient.
13.3. The attestations from the applicants and the Supervising Licensed Cadastral Surveyor(s) that accompany the
Portfolio of Experience are still included in the final document. This is because they confirm the details of the
Information
experience gained.
14.
Costs
14.1. There was general agreement that the direct costs of the assessment should be borne by the applicants.
However, the level of those costs needs to strike the right balance between ensuring that they don’t become
Official
a barrier to the applicants, while also reimbursing the senior practitioners involved in the Assessment Panel
to a reasonable level. There were also questions during the webinar about how the funding of the indirect
the
costs of the process (e.g. Examinations Coordinator) would be done.
14.2. It is too early to state what the final fees to be charged to applicants will be for each stage of the framework,
but this will be communicated in advance once more details about the implementation are known. The Board
expects that it will carry the costs of administering the framework, which will result in an increase in the
under
licensing fees charged annually to all licensed cadastral surveyors (the main income stream for the Board).
The Board believes this is appropriate given its responsibilities under the Cadastral Survey Act 2002.
15.
Transitional Provisions
15.1. Clear communication is of course paramount for all parties, with a notice period of between 12 – 24 months
suggested by some parties. Some submitters preferred that the two frameworks do not operate in parallel
Released
but rather that the existing one would stop as the new one starts, to avoid confusion and minimise costs.
15.2. The transitional provisions do not form part of the final document. However, these will be communicated
clearly to the surveying community as the detailed implementation is designed. The Board is mindful not to
disadvantage those applicants who are well-advanced under the current framework, for example, by not
recognising a pass in the cadastral law exam as contributing towards the Professional Challenge.
16.
Confidentiality
16.1. A submission queried how the notes made by the Assessment Panel members on the applicant’s portfolio
will be managed, because they may need to be kept for some time until the applicant has passed the
Professional Interview. The Professional Challenge results may also need to be retained to help inform the
interview. This information, personal to the applicant, will need to be held confidentially and may need to be
made available to the applicant in the event of a challenge or review of any decisions made by the Assessment
Panel.
16.2. The Board treats the privacy of information held about LCSs or applicants seriously and is mindful of its
responsibilities under the Privacy Act 2020. The Board will work with their IT provider to ensure the
information is retrievable by only the appropriate parties until such time as it is not needed any more.
17.
Continuing Professional Development
17.1. Some respondents suggested that applicants undertake compulsory CPD events on topics that align with the
competencies during their period of practical experience, or perhaps mini on-line modules on cadastral law
and the Surveyor General’s Rules.
17.2. These ideas have merit, but the training of applicants is not a function of the Board specified under the
Cadastral Survey Act 2002. Collaboration with the School of Surveying or professional institutes could be
explored in the future, where these entities could create CPD or training events that are endorsed by the
Board, but this would be something outside the assessment framework.
1982
C. NEXT STEPS
Act
18.
Implementation of Competency Framework
18.1. Work can now begin on ‘fleshing out’ the details of the different stages of the framework in collaboration
with a consultant, IT provider, S+SNZ executive and the current assessors and examiners. Other people or
entities will be consulted as the need arises.
18.2. The Board will continue to provide updates to the surveying community on the progress of the new
framework. In the meantime, questions can be directed in the first instance to the Board Secretary
[email address]
Information
Official
the
under
Released