[
  {
    "filename": "Academic_Outputs_Policy_PDF_65_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Academic Outputs Policy",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "65 KB",
      "creation_date": "2014-06-04T13:03:05",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220101718+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " \nMassey University Policy Guide \n \nACADEMIC OUTPUTS  POLICY  \n \n \n \n \n   \n  \n \n \n  \n \nPurpose :  \nThe purpose of this policy is to define roles and requir ements associated with the collection, recording and reporting \nof academic outputs.  \nDefinition of Academic Outputs:  \nAcademic outputs include evidence of any Scholarly Work or Artistic Work  produced by a staff member  in the course \nof his or her employment at the University.  \nScholarly work means all literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works, software, sound recordings, films or \ncommunication works produced by a Staff member and includes in relation to a Staff member’s research activities, \nany scholarly pu blications including books, text books, articles in scholarly journals research reports or conference \nproceedings.  \nArtistic work means a Scholarly work that has an artistic quality and may include: paint ings; design ; photography;  \ndrawings ; sculptures;  literature;  poetry;  performances; musical works, dramatic works or films that have any artistic \nquality.  \nBackground:  \nThe Office of the Assistant Vice Chancellor Research,  Academic and Enterprise is responsible for establishing and \nmaintaining a single, Univers ity-wide repository for academic outputs for funding and archival purposes. However, the \nrepository also has to meet the needs of internal University stakeholders (staff for PRPs, Colleges for departmental \npurposes, Assistant Vice-Chancellor  (Research,  Academic and Enterprise)  for institutional benchmarking and public \ndissemination as required).  \nThe intent of the policy below recognises the need to give a high priority to the requirements of funding agents, while \nalso allowing for the needs of all Universi ty stakeholders to the fullest extent possible within this context.  Section  Research  \nContact AVC Research,  Academic and Enterprise  \nLast Review  April 2014  \nNext Review  April 2017   \nApproval  AB14/52 - June: 3.1.2  \nEffective Date  16 April  2014  \n© This Policy is the property of M assey University  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide \nAcademic Outputs Policy  – Page 2  \n \nPolicy:  \nNominated Massey University staff members (or their delegates ) are required to enter details of academic outputs to \nthe designated repository on a regular basis. To this end, they  are expected to keep full copies of all academic \noutputs and have these readily accessible. These need to be made available for internal and external audit . \n \nNominated staff will normally be those in a lead research position and those in the range of lect urer through professor.  \n \nThe timing of the request for evidence, the evidential requirements, publications categories and cover sheets for \nacademic outputs and categories of affected staff will be established by the Office of the Assistant Vice-Chancellor \n(Research,  Academic and Enterprise), in consultation with Colleges, in light of the following principles:  \n \ni) Consistency with reporting requirements from external funding bodies;  \nii) Consistency of approach across the University;  \niii) Consistency with international c onventions;  \niv) Efficiency of administration;  \nv) Addressing the needs of Colleges.  \n While all attempts will be made to meet the needs of Colleges, the requirements of funding agents will prevail in the \nevent that mutually incompatible requirements arise. Reporting requirements may be adjust ed from time to time to \nensure consistency with the principles. Where changes are of a material nature, the Assistant Vice-Chancellor \n(Research,  Academic and Enterprise) will consult with Colleges in regard to these changes.  \n \nAudience:  \nMassey U niversity Academic and Research Staff.  \n \nRelevant legislation:  \n \n Legal compliance:  \n \nRelated policies and procedures:  \nStrategic Research Capability Policy  \nResearch Practice Policy  (Responsible Research Conduct)  \nCode of Responsible Research Conduct and Procedures for dealing with Research Mis conduct  \nDocument management control : \nPrepared by:  Research Strategy and Policy Manager  \nOwned by:   Assistant Vice -Chancellor (Research, Academic  and Enterprise)  \nApproved by:  Academic Board  \nDate Issued:  October 2006  \nLast review:  April 2014  \nNext review:   April 2017  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Animals_on_Campus_Procedure_PDF_135_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Animals on Campus Procedure PDF 135 KB",
      "policy_type": "Procedure",
      "file_size": "135 KB",
      "author": "Banner, Jodie",
      "creation_date": "2024-06-12T09:03:03",
      "modification_date": "D:20240612093325+12'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n \n \n \n \n   \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n \n ENTER PROCEDURE  \n \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \nANIMALS ON CAMPUS PROCEDURE  \n \nSection  University Services  \nContact  Director  Occupational Health & Safety, Wellbeing  \nLast Review  November  2023  \nNext Review  November  2025  \nApproval  Director Occupational Health & Safety, Wellbeing  \n \n \nPurpose:  \n \n• That domesticated animals do not cause a nuisance or hazard on University property to any \nperson, stock, poultry, domestic animal or protected flora and fauna,  \n• The potential benefits to well -being of animal companionship to an individual are considered.  \n• Consider potential disruption to the university’s operations,  \n• To consider allergies & phobias relating to animals,  \n• Consider aggressive behaviour of animals to an individual.  \n• The university’s duty of care under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015  \n \nFor the avoidance of doubt, access of domesticated animals on campus, (unless provided for by law) is \nto be avoided at any time.  \n \nIn the event that an animal is brought on campus, it must be under direct control of the person \nresponsible for the animal at all times. Voice command is not regarded as direct control.  \n \nCampus Security can require any person responsible for an uncontrolled animal to immediately remove \nit from the campus.  \n \n \nScope : \n \nAll Massey University staff, students,  and visitors to a Campus .  \n \n \nProcedure : \n \nPermission is required for animals to be brought onto a Massey University Campus site. Permission \nmaybe granted by a person’s Head of School/Department, or SLT member if required, or where an \nevent with animals is planned, the event manager/organiser . Any decision to consider animals on \ncampus must be accompanied with a hazard risk assessment that is signed off by a Campus \nOccupational Health and Safety Advisor before permission can be granted.  \nPermission for animals to be on campus is not required in the following situations .  \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nAnimals on Campus  Procedure – Page 2 \n \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University    \ni. Animals which are used for teaching and research with appropriate Massey University \nAnimal Ethics approval.  \nii. Animals which are used for teaching, farm, dairy and other activities related to the \ncommercial enterprise of the university not covered by point (i)  \niii. Disability Assistance Dogs  \niv. Animals who are patients of the Veterinary Teaching Hospital, Companion Animal \nHospital, Equine Veterinary Clinic, Farm Services Clinic, and Wildbase.  \n \n \nDefinitions : \n \n“Disability assist dog” means a dog certified by 1 of the following organisations as being a dog \ntrained to assist (or as being a dog in training to assist) a person with a disability.   \n \na) Hearing Dogs for Deaf People New Zealand:  \nb) Mobility Assistance Dogs Trust:  \nc) New Zealand Epilepsy Assist Dogs Trust:  \nd) Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind:  \ne) Top Dog Companion Trust:  \nf) Hearing Dogs for Deaf People New Zealand  \ng) an organisation specified in the Dog Control Act 1996  \nh) All Massey University staff, students, contractors,  and visitors to Campuses.  \n \n \nRelated documents :  \nRelevant Legislation  \n• Dog Control Act 1996  \nLegal Compliance  \n• Palmerston North City Council Bylaws   \n• Wellington City Council Bylaws  \n• Auckland City Council Bylaws  \nRelated Procedures  \n• None  \n \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Appointment_to_Supernumerary_Academic_Positions_Policy_PDF_194_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Appointment to Supernumerary Academic Positions Policy PDF 194 KB",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "194 KB",
      "author": "Banner, Jodie",
      "creation_date": "2020-01-29T11:05:08",
      "modification_date": "D:20200129115908+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n Massey University Policy Guide  \n \nAPPOINTMENT TO SUPERN UMERARY ACADEMIC POS ITIONS PO LICY  \n \n \n \n \n \nPurpose  \nTo provide limited -tenure employment opportunities for prosp ective career academics in employee \ncategories which are considered by the University to be under -repres ented in the University’s academic \nworkforce  in the relevant school or institute , e.g. women, Maori, Pacific Islander, and people with disabilities. \nSuch employment will enable individuals to : \n(a) complete post -graduate qualifications at Massey University and gain experience working in a  fixed -\nterm  academic role, creating opportunities for those individuals to develop an academic career.  \n(b) secure early career  academic experience after completing a doctoral degree, through a fixed -term \nacademic appointment.  \nDuring such engagements the employee may seek career opportunities by applying for appropriate vacant \npositions within the University. In this event, any central salary subsidy shall cease .  \nPolicy  \nThe University shall, from time to time, appoint to limite d-tenure supernumerary positions at the Lecturer, \nAssistant Lecturer or Graduate Assistant levels, persons in employee categories that are considered by  the \nUniversity to be under -represented in the University’s workforce  in the relevant school or institut e. This may \ninclude women, Maori, Pacific Islander, and people with disabilities.  \nAcademic departments, schools and institutes are able to establish sup ernumerary positions from within \ntheir budgets. Additional University funds (up to 50 percent of the emp loyee’s salary), wh ich are managed \ncentrally , may be provided within available central funding, upon application by the relevant Pro V ice-\nChancellor to the Deputy Vice -Chancellor (People  and Culture) . Funding through the central supernumerary \nbudget is limited.  \nAcademic Departments should  identify promising Massey post -graduate students who meet the employee \nunder -representatio n criteria, and/or may advertise such opportunities within the department in order to \nattract suitable interest.  Section  People and Cultur e  \nContact  People and Culture  \nLast Review  June 2019  \nNext Review  June 2024  \nApproval  SLT 19/12/2 10 \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nAppointment to Supernumerary Academic Positions P olicy \n– Page 2 \n \n \nAppointments will normally be for up to three (3) years except that for Graduate Assistantships appointments \nwill be for one (1 ) to three (3) years depending on the study to be undertaken i.e. pursuit of a Bachelor \nHonours degree w ould be up to one (1) year; Masters degree up to two (2) years; PhD degree up to three (3) \nyears.  \nProcedure:  \nHeads of Department (or equivalent) will pr ovide the following information in an application for establishing \na supernumerary position to their Pro  Vice -Chancellor. This should include:  \n \n     1.   Academic record of candidate  \n     2.   Current curriculum vitae of candidate  \n     3.   Plan of academi c study/qualification to be completed  \n     4.   Proposed job profile  \n     5.   Plan for mentoring suppor t. \nApproval Process:  \n1. Application is prepared by Head of Department (or equivalent) and sent to Pro Vice -Chancellor  for \napproval . \n2. If a request for fundi ng from the central budget is to be made, Pro Vice -Chancellor p rovides a \nsupporting memorandum and reques t for approval to the Deputy  Vice -Chancellor (People and  \nCulture ). \nAudience:  \nPro Vice -Chancellors  \nHeads of Schools/Institutes/Departments  \nRelevant le gislation:  \nState Sector Act 1988 and Amendments  \nEmployment Relations Act 2000  \nHuman Rights Act 1983  \nLegal compliance:  \nPart 7A (Personnel provisions in relation to the education service) of the State Sector Act 1998, requires  in \nS77A  (General principles)  that ( 1) every employer in the education service must operate a personnel policy \nthat complies with  the principle of being a good employer, which ... ( 2) requires:  \n \n[Excerpt from S2 ]: \n \n   “(d) recognition of  -  \n(i) the aims and aspirations of the Maori people ; and  \n(ii) the employment requirements of the Maori people; and  \n(iii) the need for greater involvement of the Maori people in the education service; and  \n \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nAppointment to Supernumerary Academic Positions P olicy \n– Page 3 \n \n \n    (e) opportunities for the enhancement of the abilities of individual employees; and  \n    (f) recognition of th e aims and aspirations  and employment requirements , and the cultural differences, of \nethnic or minority  groups; and  \n    (g) recognition of the employment requirements of women; and  \n \n    (h) recognition of the employment requirements of persons with d isabilities ”. \nRelated procedures / documents:  \nEqual Employment Opportunities Policy  \nDocumen t Management Control:  \nPrepared by: Manager Staff Recruitment  \nAuthorised by: DVC  People & Culture   \nApprove d by :  SLT 19/12/210  \nLast review:    June 2019   \nNext review:   June 2024  \n \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "All_Terrain_Vehicle_ATV_and_Motorbikes_Procedure_PDF_138_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "All Terrain Vehicle ATV and Motorbikes Procedure PDF 138 KB",
      "policy_type": "Procedure",
      "file_size": "138 KB",
      "author": "Banner, Jodie",
      "creation_date": "2024-04-24T12:05:06",
      "modification_date": "D:20240424125602+12'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n \n \n \n \n   \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n \n ENTER PROCEDURE  \n \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n ALLTERRAIN VEHICLE  (ATV)  AND MOTORBIKE S PROCEDURE   \n \nSection  University Services  \nContact  Director  Occupational Health & Safety, Wellbeing  \nLast Review  November  2023  \nNext Review  November  2025  \nApproval  Director Occupational Health & Safety, Wellbeing  \n \nPurpose:  \n \nThis procedure details the steps required for safe use of ATVs  and motorbikes at Massey University.  \n \n \nScope  \n \nThis procedure applies to all University staff, students and visitors who use or authorise the use of ATVs  \nor motorbikes. This procedure has particular relevance to the following situations:  \n• University farm or horticultural unit operation or visits  \n• Field or research activity in rural or off -road remote locations.  \n \nThe procedure is consistent with the recommendations of Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency. As the \nprocedure has demonstrably saved serious injury within the University, any contravention may result in \ndisciplinary action.  \n \n \nProcedure  \n \nRequirements for Safe use of ATVs and Motorbikes  \nPersonal Protective Equipment  \nHelmets  \n• A helmet is required to be worn at all times  when an ATV or motorbike is being ridden on Massey \nUniversity property or whilst engaged on Massey University business.  \n• Helmets are also required to be worn by passengers.  \n• The helmet must be approved to NZ standard 8600 or equivalent.  \n• Helmets are to be provided by the unit that owns the motorbike or ATV.  \nFootwear  \n• Appropriate footwear should be worn. Open toed shoes (such as flip -flops, jandals, thongs, \nsandals etc) and bare feet are prohibited.  \nVisibility  \n• Persons riding on roads shall wear a high visibility vest or jacket.  \n \nAge, Licensing and Competency  \n• All persons riding have to be over the age of 16 years old.  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nAll Terrain  Vehicle  (ATV) and Motorbike s Procedure  – Page 2 \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University    \n• The driver must hold a current class 1 (car) or class 6 (motorbike) drivers’  licence.  \n• Only Massey University staff or authorised persons are allowed to ride an ATV or motorbike.  \n• Farm Managers, Team Leaders, Supervisor,  or equivalent must authorise users.  \n• The driver of the ATV or motorbike should be assessed as competent in the operation of the \nvehicle.  \n• Inexperienced users are to be given training or supervision and assessed prior to independent \nuse of ATVs  or motorbike.  \n \nSpeed Limit  \n• The maximum speed limit for ATVs  or motorbikes is 30 km per hour.  \n \nPassengers  \n• Passengers are only allowed on the ATV or motorbike if  the following conditions are met:  \na) The driver must be familiar with the motorbike or ATV and the terrain/surroundings.  \nb) The driver has been assessed as competent to carry passengers and is authorised by the \nSupervisor, Farm Manager, Team Leader or equivalent.  \nc) The driver must avoid steep terrain and require passengers to get off and walk if the terrain \nposes a significant risk.  \n \nATV and Motorbike Maintenance  \n• The ATV or motorbike shall undergo regular inspections, including items required for safe \noperation (Refer to Appendix A below).  \n• A record of inspections shall be kept by the unit owning the ATV or motorbike.  \n \nRegistration, Warrant of Fitness  \n• ATVs must be registere d and operated with the requirements of Waka Kotahi NZ Transport \nAgency specifications for exempt farm (EA) use.  \n• Motorbikes must be registered.  \n• If the Motorbike or ATV is used on the road, a current Warrant of Fitness is also required.  \n \n \n \nDefinitions:  \nATV (All-Terrain Vehicle) means a special purpose vehicle designed for off road use, with three or more \nwheels, an engine capacity of more than 50 ml and gross weight less than 1000kg. The gross weight \nincludes the load and accessories that may be fitted to t he ATV or motorbike.  \n \nDriver  means the person operating the vehicle.  \nAudience:  \n \n \nRelated documents  \nRelevant Legislation  \n• Health & Safety at Work Act 2015  \n• Health & Safety at Work Regulations 2016  \n• Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency Requirements and Recommendations  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nAll Terrain  Vehicle  (ATV) and Motorbike s Procedure  – Page 3 \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University    \nRelated procedures  \n• Critical Risk – Driving  \n• Critical Risk – Campus Traffic  \n \nAppendix: ATV and Motorbike Maintenance Checklist  \n \nTo be completed either weekly or every 10 hours (whichever occurs the later).  \n \n \n \nUnit:  \nChecked By:  \nDate Checked:  \nHours or Km:  \nBike or ATV:    Make:    Model:    CC:  \nIdentifier on Bike (e.g., Colour, Registration Number or Asset Number):  \nForm sighted by Farm Manager, Supervisor or Team Leader:  \n \nComponent  Check  Competed \nTick \nTyres  Check condition and pressure   \nOil tanks  Check oil levels   \nBrakes  Check operation, adjustment and fluid level (includes \nauxiliary brake if fitted).   \nThrottle  Check for free operation and closing   \nHeadlight/Taillight/Brake \nlight  Check operation of all indicator lights and switches.   \nEngine stop switch  Check for proper function   \nWheels  Check for tightness of wheel nuts and axle nuts; check that \naxle nuts are secured   \nAir cleaner element  Check for dirt; clean or replace   \nSteering  Check for free operation, noting any unusual looseness in \nany area   \nLoose parts  Visually inspect vehicle for any damaged components or \nloose nuts/bolts or fasteners   \nGuards  All manufacturers’  guards to be in place and firmly attached   \nCleaning  The vehicle shall be cleaned on a regular basis to limit \nundue corrosion or wear on vehicle parts   \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Business_Case_Assessment_Criteria__Risk_Profile_Assessment_PDF_140_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Business Case Assessment Criteria  Risk Profile Assessment PDF 140 KB",
      "policy_type": "Unknown",
      "file_size": "140 KB",
      "author": "ItsAcc",
      "creation_date": "2020-11-27T10:00:03",
      "modification_date": "D:20201127100300+13'00'"
    },
    "content": "RISK PROFILE ASSESSMENT: BUSINESS CASE  ASSESSMENT CRITERIA  \n \n \nINSTRUCTIONS: (1) Assign a risk value for each criteria in  the table to \nthe left. Total all rows for Risk Score. Use the matrix above to plot the \nRisk Score against the  Value  of the initiative  to find the Risk Rating \n(L/M/H/ VH), then use this to determine  which  business case template \nto use from the  table below.  \nFor final determination, please discuss with the Strategic Project \nManagement Office. Note: Projects greater than $10M in total project  \ncost are automatically Very High risk and where you are working on \ninterconnected cases with common benefits you may be required to \nuse the Programme Business Case template   (Print the completed RPA               \nform and attach with the business case) . RISK \nVALUE  STRATEGIC \nCONTEXT  STAKEHOLDERS  JURISDICTION  SCOPE  COMPLEXITY  CAPABILITY AND \nCAPACITY  \n5 Explicitly stated \nin University \nstrategy. A \ncritical initiative \nto achieve \ngoals . Major Impact. \nMultiple stakeholders \ninvolved or impacted. \nInvolves Stakeholders \nacross all University \nColleges and Shared \nServices, all students, \nRegulatory authorities.  Involves \ncomplete \ndelivery of \nservices off -\nshore . Impacts all University, and \ncritical stakeholders (e.g. \nCommunity, Industry). \nMulti -year programme of \nwork, with multiple \nworkstreams/projects . Novel and innovative. \nMission critical system, \nextensive links to other \nsystems. Significant \ncustomisation of elements. \nNew construction, \ngreenfields development, \ncomplex heritage, complex \nand pro tracted procurement \nprocess.  Requires dedicated project \nspecific resourcing. High \ndemand on both internal \nand external (contracted) \nresourcing, critical \ndependency on lead \ncontractor/supplier.  \n4 Implied in \nUniversity \nStrategy.  Significant Impact. \nMultiple stakeholders \ninvolved or impacted. \nImpacts all Colleges \nand Shared Services. \nMay include \nstakeholders in NZ and \noff-shore.  Involves \ninternational \ncollaboration \nand partial \ndelivery of \nservices off -\nshore . Directly impacts all \nUniversity services. \nProject duration greater \nthan 12 months, project \nteam greater than 15, and \nmultiple workstreams, or \nsub-projects exist.  Stable technology, new \napplication.  Some \ncustomisation. New or \nexisting n on-standard \nconstruction, and/or some \nheritage sensitivities. \nStandard procurement \nprocess.  Limited internal capability \nto undertake project, \nSignificant outsourcing of \nexternal support and/or \nservices. Dependent on \nlead contractor/supplier.  \n3 Enables \nUniversity \nstrategy.  Moderate Impact. \nMultiple stakeholders, \nproject involves \nmultiple Colleges \nand/or Shared \nServices.  Involves \ninternational \nresearch \ncollaboration . Indirectly impacts all \nUniversity services. \nProject duration greater \nthan 12 mon ths, project \nteam greater than 15.  Stable technology, new \napplication. Routine data \nmigration required. \nStandard configuration. New \nor existing facility non -\nstandard construction. \nStandard procurement \nprocess . Moderate experience on \nmedium scale projects \nusing external support to \nsupplement internal \ncapability, but largely \ndelivered by internal \nresourcing.  \n2 Supports \nUniversity \nStrategy, \nidentified as key \nstrategic \ninitiative in \nDivision/College \nPlan.  Some impact. \nStakeholders confined \nto one College, or one \nShared Service . Involves in -\nbound \ninternational \nstudents. No \njurisdiction \nissues.  Some impact across \nmultiple Colleges or \nShared Services. Project \nduration less than \n12mths, and project team \nless than 15.  Stable proven technology. \nStandard configuration. New \nor existing standard \nconstruction. Standard \nprocurement process.  Proven track record on \nsmall scale projects. Single \nsupplier.  \n1 Links to \nDepartmental \nstrategy  No material impact, \nstakeholders confined \nto departmental user . New Zealand \nbased only . No significant impact on \norganisational services \nbeyond immediate work \ngroup. Project timeline \nless than 6mths and \nproject team less than 5.  No technology impact. No \ninfrastructure impacts . Managed by in -house staff. \nNo external resour ces or \nsupplier support required.  \n \n      TO CALCULATE RISK SCORE  \nHIT F9 ONCE COMPLETE  \nTOTAL  0 0 0 0 0 0 \n0 Value  >$300k >= $1M  >= $5M  >= $10M  Score  \n<=30  L  H VH VH \n<=24  L H VH VH \n<=18  L M H VH \n<=12  L M H H \n=6 L M H H \nRISK RATING  BUSINESS CASE TEMPLATE REQUIREMENT  \nVery High  Single Stage or Two Stage  \nHigh  Single Stage or Two Stage  \nModerate  Single Stage  (Light)  or Single Stage  \nLow Short Form or Single Stage (Light)   \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Articulation_Policy_PDF_87_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Articulation Policy PDF 87 KB",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "87 KB",
      "author": "mamacken",
      "creation_date": "2024-06-20T11:03:00",
      "modification_date": "D:20240620113020+12'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n Massey University Policy Guide  \n \nARTICULATION POLICY  \n \n © This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nPurpose  \nThe Articulation Policy sets out the purpose, scope, and values that underpin articulation pathways at \nMassey University including the principles that underpin the development and application of an Articulation \nRegister.  \nIntroduction  \nArticulation describes the transition of students into, between, and from qualifications, and is strongly \nassociated with the notion of portability of qualifications and their composite parts, as defined in the Massey \nUniversity Qualification Policy.  \nThe objectives of the Articulation policy are to support and guide:  \n \n• The appropriate placement of students within a programme  \n• Recognition of prior learning  \n• Formation of articulation partnerships  \n• Clarification of progression routes between, and exit routes from, qualifications  \n• Recruitment of students and marketing of qualifications  \nPolicy  \nMassey University is committed to enhancing the portability of qualifications through the use of articulation \ndecisions and agreements, ensuring that students can be admitted to, progress through, and exit from, \nqualifications in an efficient manner, through appropriate recognition of prior learning.  \n \nArticulation at Massey University will be accommodated in accordance with the following principles:  \n \nI. Equity  \nArticulation decisions and agreements will be based on assessment of:  \n• content, nature, focus, level, and currency of completed qualifications and components;  \n• status and recognition of the awarding institution;  Section  Academic  \nContact  Assistant Vice -Chancellor (Academic & \nInternational)  \nLast Review  July 2013  \nNext Review  July 2016  \nApproval  AB13/76  \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nArticulation Policy  – Page 2 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n• achievement and experience of individuals;  \n• relevance to the qualification or paper;  \n• accreditation requirements;  \n• efficacy of similar decisions.  \n  \nII. Integrity of Qualifications  \nArticulation decisions and agreements will preserve the integrity of qualifications with regard to \nminima credit value and core components being completed at Massey University, as well as \nadhering to qualification composition and requirements as defined by  qualification regulations \nand schedules.  \n \nIII. Credible  \nArticulation decisions and agreements will be defensible, based on evidence available, comply \nwith sector norms and best -practice, reviewed regularly, and uphold the autonomy of Massey \nUniversity.  \n \nIV. Transparent  \nWhere practicable, articulation decisions and agreements will be codified, so they may be made \nvisible to potential students and partners.  \n \nDefinitions  \nArticulation Pathway – a formally approved admission, progression, or exit route, for a student or graduate \nof another institution into a qualification at Massey University, or for a student or graduate of Massey \nUniversity into another institution, or for a student of Massey University which may include credit recognition \nfor prior learning.  \n \nArticulation Decision – an exercise of authority in accordance with the AES Admission with Equivalent \nStatus/ Ad Eundem Statum  regulations or the RPL Recognition of Prior Learning regulations.  \n \nArticulation Partnership – a relationship between Massey University and another institution which underpins \nan articulation pathway, which may be formalised through an Articulation Agreement, or which may be \nwritten into regulations, or which may be inform ally enacted through an articulation decision.    \n \nArticulation Agreement – an agreement between Massey University and another institution that formalises \nan articulation pathway.  \n \nOther definitions are located in the University Calendar.  \nAudience  \nAll staff and students  \nRelevant legislation  \nNone  \nLegal compliance  \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nArticulation Policy  – Page 3 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nN/A \nRelated procedures / documents:  \nInternal:  \nMassey University Qualification Policy   \nMassey University Qualifications  Framework  \nAward of Alternative Qualification Procedures  \nInternational Student Fee Scholarships and Discount Policy  \nReciprocal Student Exchange Programme  Policy  \nReciprocal Student Exchange Programme  Procedures  \nStudy Abroad Programme Policy  \nStudy Abroad Programme  Procedures  \nThe Statutes and Regulations section of the Calendar contains regulations that apply to all qualifications \nand study at Massey University,  \n \nExternal:  \nCommittee on University Academic Programmes Terms of Reference, which state:  \n“1. To act for Universities New Zealand and on behalf of the New Zealand community of universities \nby:   (d)    encouraging the development of courses of study within the New Zealand university system \nthat will facilitate the transfer of students between programmes and institutions.”1 \n \n \nEducation (Pastoral care of Tertiary and International Learners) Code of Practice 2021  \nDocument Management Control:  \nPrepared by: Academic Policy and Regulations Unit  \nAuthorised by: Assistant Vice Chancellor (Academic & International)  \nApproved by: Academic Board  \nDate issued: July 2013  \n \n \n \n  \n \n  \n \n1 http://www.universitiesnz.ac.nz/aboutus/sc/cuap/functions -and-procedures#2.2 Terms of Reference.  \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Asset_Disposal_and_Write_Down_Policy_PDF_158_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Asset Disposal and Write Down Policy",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "158 KB",
      "author": "jmlochhe",
      "creation_date": "2024-07-01T10:04:03",
      "modification_date": "D:20240821110506+12'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n \nASSET DISPOSAL  AND WRITE DOWN  POLICY  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \nPurpose :  \nThe purpose of this policy is:  \n• To ensure assets are sold at a fair market price and  the disposal of assets is conducted in an efficient, effective, \ntransparent,  and adequately documented and approved manner  that is compliant with legislation . \n• To ensure assets sold or otherwise disposed of are correctly removed from the fixed assets re gister , balance \nsheet and insurance schedules .  \n• To ensure that any write downs are in accordance with accounting policies and are adequately authorised.  \nDefinitions : \nAsset: includes, but may not be limited to  equity investments , equipment, furniture and fittings, library collections , \nartworks , software, intangibles, vehicles, consumables, land,  and buildings for which the University may have legal \ntitle. Assets also include Crown owned land and buildings used by Massey University.  \nFor this policy, Assets specifically exclude cash and cash equivalents and debtors.  \n \nDisposal: the sale, demolition , alienating, gifting,  or recycling of assets owned by the University,  or the disposal of \nassets declared surplus to university  requirements . Disposal includes the taking of assets by a staff member when \nleaving employment with Massey.  \n \nWrite down:  Refers to a situation where an asset’s carrying amount in the balance sheet is considered to be higher \nthan its recoverable amount  and therefore  needs to be written down to its recoverable amount.  \n \nPolicy : \nThe following applies:  \n• To ensure compliance with university  accounting policies and financial reporting standards :  \no Finance must be advised of all asset disposals  where the original purchase cost of the asset \nexceed ed $2,000 or the asset is recorded on the University ’s central fixed assets register .  \n \no Proceeds from the sales of assets must be correctly and expediently recorded in the University’s \nfinance system ( Ci Anywhere ). The gain or loss on sale will be transferred to the budget centre that \nincurred the depreciation charge , with the exception of: Section  University Services  \nContact  CFO, Finance  \nLast Review  June  2024  \nNext Review  June  2029 \nApproval  FAC 24/21  \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nAsset Disposal and Write Down  Policy  – Page 2  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \na. a budget centre that recovers the depreciation charge via a re -charge. In this case the gain or \nloss on sale will be transferred to a central budget centre ; or \nb. Where the gain or loss is greater than $50,000. In this case the treatment of the gain or loss \non disposal will be determined by the DVC University Services.  \n \n \n• Any write downs must comply with the University’s accounting policies. Contact the Chief Financial Officer (or \ndelegates) for further information in this regard.  \n \n• Budget centres disposing of assets should consult the Asset Financial Procedures or contact the ir Finance \nBusiness Partner  for guidance on the financial requirements of the  disposal process.  \n \n• University property that is declared surplus to requirements must be disposed of in accordance with current \nlaw and regulations stipulated by the Secretary of Education.   This approval process must  be undertaken \nthrough consultation with the Financ ial Planning and Analysis team in Finance.  \n \n• Approval of any  sale, write down  and/or disposal of must be obtained through the Asset Disposal Form  (refer  \nto Finance Sharepoint site ). Approval thresholds are as follows:  \n \no All assets with a book value of $50,000 or less – Chief Financial Officer.  \no All assets with a book value between $50,000 and $300,000  – DVC University Services  \no All assets with a book value between $ 300,000 and $1,000,000  – Vice Chancellor  \no All assets with a book value over $1,000,000  – University Council   \n \n• Prior to being offered to the market for sale, p roperty assets sho uld be independently valued as follows:  \n \no by one  registered valuer  where  the disposal value is  expected to be $10 million or less. \no by one registered valuer  where the disposal value is expected to be  between $10 million and $20 \nmillion as long as the potential purchaser(s) has also obtained an independent valuation from a \nregistered valuer;  and the potential purchaser(s) is willing to share that valuation . If the purchaser is \nnot willing to share the valuation, Massey is to obtain a second valuation. If it is not possible, or is not \npractical to obtain a second valuation, SLT may approve the waiving of the requirement of a second \nvaluat ion; and \no or by two registered valuers if the disposal value is expected to be over $20 million . If it is not \npossible, or is not practical to obtain a second valuation, the DVC University Services or Vice -\nChancellor  may approve the waiving of the requirement of a second valuation.  \n \n \n• Assets that are declared surplus must be disposed of by public tender, auction, or by other such means as to \nensure a transparent and competitive process is undertaken.  \n \n• The division or splitting of assets to avoid the requirements of this policy is not permitted . \n \n \n \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nAsset Disposal and Write Down  Policy  – Page 3  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nAudience: \nAll staff  \nRelevant Legislation:  \nEducation and Training Act 2020  and amendments  \nPublic Finance Act 1989  \nCrown Entities Act 2004  \nRelated Procedures:  \nEquipment Disposal Process and Procedures  (Link - Disposing and Reallocating Equipment ) \nDelegations  of Authority Document  (Link - Delegations of Authority Policy)  \nAsset Financial  Procedure s (Link - Asset Financial Procedure ) \n \nDocument Management Control : \nPrepared by:  CFO, Finance  \nOwned by:  DVC  University Services  \nAuthorised by:  TBC \nDate Issued:   30 November 2003  \nLast reviewed: June  2024  \nNext Review:   June  2029 \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Award_of_Alternative_Qualification_Procedure_PDF_87_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Award of Alternative Qualification Procedure",
      "policy_type": "Procedure",
      "file_size": "87 KB",
      "creation_date": "2024-06-20T11:05:08",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220101509+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n \nAWARD OF ALTERNATIVE QUALIFICATION PROCEDURES  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nSection  Student Management  \nContact  Academic Policy and Regulations Unit  \nLast Review  June  2014  \nNext  Review  June  2017  \nApproval  AC14/06/157  Rev1  \n \nPurpose:  \n \nThe procedures describe the circumstances and conditions under which a Massey University qualification or  \nspecialisation,  that is alternative to the qualification or  specialisation in which the student  was enrolled, may be \nawarded.  \n \nPrinciples guiding the award of alternative qualifications are  found in the section on Qualification Articulation Pathways in \nthe Massey University  Qualification Framework.   \n \nDefinitions:  \n \nAlternative qualification:   A qualification that may be awarded to a student, provided that admission  and regulatory  \ncriteria are met, although  the student has not been  formally enrolled in the qualification that \nis awarded.  \n \nAlternative  specialisation:  A specialisation within  a qualification that may be awarded to a student, provided that  \nadmission and regulatory criteria are met, although the student has not been formally enrolled  \nin the specialisation that is awarded.  \n \nConferral:  The award of a qualification  to a student.  \n \nEnrolled qualification:  The qualification(s) in which the student has been formally enrolled during their  study \nat Massey University.  \n \nExit qualification:  The use of a qualification, which is generally of a lesser  credit value or at a lower level on the \nNZQF,  as an award where a student is  unable to, or who may choose not to, meet the  \ncompletion requirements for the qualification in which they are, or have been, formally  \nenrolled.   \n \nGraduation:  The process  by which  a qualification is  conferred on a student.  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nAward of Alternative Qualification Procedures  – Page 2  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nProcess for Application for the Award of an Alternative Qualification:  \nThe process  for the award of an alternative qualification can be initiated  in one of two ways:   \nEither  (a)   The student applies to graduate with an alternative qualification/ specialisation  \nOr (b)   The University recommends that the student be conferred  with an  exit qualification/ specialisation,  and \n notifies  the student of its intent to award  such.  \n \nPROCEDURES:  \n1. Student Administration will undertake an assessment to ensure  that: \n \n(a) The candidate has met the admission  criteria for the alternative qualification/ specialisation, including  \nwhere relevant, selection, and/or eligibility  criteria  for professional  registration,  and; \n(b) Papers  passed towards  the enrolled qualification/ specialisation  are available  for use in the alternative \nqualification/ specialisation (i.e. have not been transferred to another qualification or  institution),  and \n(c) The requirements of the alternative qualification/ specialisation as specified in the regulations  are \nsatisfied, or a Personal Course Variation has been approved, and; \n(d) The approved  commencement  date for teaching the alternative  qualification/ specialisation has passed;  \ngenerally award  of a new or amended qualification can only occur in the year following  CUAP  and/or  \nother approval,  and; \n(e) The alternative qualification/specialisation is one that Student Administration has delegated authority \nto confirm eligibility, and; \n(f) Such action  would not place the University in breach  of any other regulatory or  compliance  requirements.  \n \n2. If all of the above conditions are met Student Administration will notify the student of the University’s intent \nto award the qualification and/or complete the clearance process for the award of an alternative \nqualification.  \n \n3. If any of the above conditions are not met, Student  Administration will refer to:  \n \n(a) Undergraduate  and Postgraduate qualifications  – The College Pro Vice Chancellor or nominee.  \n(b) Doctoral Qualifications – The College Pro Vice Chancellor or nominee who will investigate and confirm \neligibility for the award of an Alternative Qualification in association with the Main Supervisor and \nDoctoral Research Committee who will oversee the withdrawal from the Doctora l degree.  \n \n4. In the case of a College recommendation to award an Alternative Qualification, Student Administration will \nensure that : \n \n(a) Eligibility for the award of the alternative qualification/ specialisation  is recorded on the student’s official  \ntranscript;  \n(b) Any Personal Course Variations are recorded on the student record;  \n(c) The linking of papers from the enrolled qualification to the alternative qualification/specialisation is \nrecorded on the student’s record (paper consumption);  \n(d) The management  of the graduation application follows established  procedures.  \n \n5. If the award of an alternative qualification is not recommended the College will advise the student and \nrecommend a study pathway to completion.  \n \n6. In the case of a University -initiated exit award, Student Administration will advise the  student that:  \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nAward of Alternative Qualification Procedures  – Page 3  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n(a) The student has 30 days to  respond to the notification  of intent to award the qualification; or they will be \nrecommended for an award ‘in Council’ at the next opportunity;  \n(b) In accordance  with the Recognition of Formal and Informal Prior Learning regulations  governing the \nsurrender  of qualifications, the alternative qualification/ specialisation  may later be  surrendered towards \nanother qualification at Massey University, should the criteria for surrender be met.  \nAudience:  \nAll staff and students.   \n \nRelevant legislation:  \nNone.  \n \nLegal compliance:  \nNone.  \n \nRelated procedures / documents:  \nMassey  University Calendar  \nMassey University Qualifications Policy   \nMassey University Qualifications Framework  \nDescriptors, Definitions and Funding - A Resource to guide Academic Staff (March 2014)  \nRecognition of Formal and Information Prior Learning Regul ations  \n \nDocument Management Control:  \nPrepared by:  Academic Regulations and Policy Unit  \nAuthorised by:    Academic  Committee  Approved by:  Academic Committee  \nDate issued:  September 2011  \nLast review:  June 2014  \nNext review:  June 2017  \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Advising_and_Communications_Privacy_Guidelines_PDF_15_MB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "National Student Relations",
      "policy_type": "Guideline",
      "file_size": null,
      "author": "tnhillia",
      "creation_date": "2023-04-03T09:05:06",
      "modification_date": "D:20230419082611+12'00'"
    },
    "content": "Massey University - Advising and Communications Page 1 of 24\nPrivacy Guidelines Version 3.6\nAdvising and Communications\nPrivacy Guidelines\nApril 2023\n1. Purpose\nThe purpose of this document is to establish guidelines for staff in response to requests were\naccess to personal information is received.\nWe provide a range of services, from a prospective student initial inquiry through to their\ngraduation and beyond.  For this reason, staff have access to a large amount of personal\ninformation.\nThe Privacy Act 2020 and the EU General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) provide the\nlegislative context for the protection and use of personal information. The following guidelines are\nintended to interpret the legislation in the context of the role and responsibilities of staff, to assist\nthem to provide adequate security for this information.\n2. Policy\nRefer to the Massey University Privacy Policy in Appendix 1 or see\nhttps://masseyuni.sharepoint.com/sites/RiskAssurancePoliciesProcedures/Shared\nDocuments/Forms/AllItems.aspx?id=%2Fsites%2FRiskAssurancePoliciesProcedures%2FS\nhared\nDocuments%2FPrivacy_Policy%2Epdf&parent=%2Fsites%2FRiskAssurancePoliciesProce\ndures%2FShared Documents&p=true&ga=1\n3. Audience\nAll staff within Advising and Communications at Massey University.\n4. Personal Information Access and Correction Requests\nStaff have access to a large amount of personal information to provide a complete and accurate\nservice to Massey University students.  Personal information is usually stored and retrieved with\nthe use of an ID number or any of the contact methods used, for example personal information\ncan be stored in various media either electronically including voice and screen recordings, text\nmessages, email message, chat transcripts, social media messages, facsimile, notes entered in\nthe Customer Relationship Management (CRM) system and the like, or via more traditional\nmethods such as written correspondence.\nSubject to some exceptions, any information that is classified as personal is only able to be\naccessed or maintained either by the individual themselves, or by an authorised agent. In this\ncase the individual is a Massey student and the authorised agent is a person employed or\notherwise bound to Massey University and who is specifically authorised to access that\ninformation or an authorised agent of the student themselves.\nRequests for access to or correction of private information can be either verbal or written.  A\nrequest does not have to be in writing.  Staff are agents of the University and can release or\ncorrect personal information instantaneously (including live playback of voice recordings to callers)\nonce the identity and procedures in Section 5 have been confirmed.  If further assistance is\nrequired, staff are to seek the assistance of their line manager or direct the enquiry to the\nUniversity’s Privacy Officer in Section 14 of this guideline (you may be able to withhold information\nMassey University - Advising and Communications Page 2 of 24\nPrivacy Guidelines Version 3.6in certain situations).  A request for access to or correction of personal information made under\nPrinciple 6 or 7 of the Privacy Act must be responded to as soon as possible and within 20\nworking days and if the information should be provided then this must be provided without undue\ndelay.\nHowever, different timelines and requirements may apply if the request received relates to\ninformation that Massey University processed while the student was physically present in the EU\nas the request may be covered by the requirement of the GDPR.\n4B. GDPR Requests\nThe GDPR regulations specify 11 specific rights an individual has in regard to personal\ninformation collected and stored about them (including the right of access and correction) as\nfollows:\nI. Right to basic information\nII. Right of access\nIII. Right of rectification\nIV. Right of erasure (“Right to be Forgotten”)\nV. Right to restrict processing\nVI. Right to data portability\nVII. Right to object to processing\nVIII. Rights related to automated decision making and profiling\nIX. Right to breach notification\nX. Right to lodge a complaint\nXI. Right to compensation\nThe processes for ensuring Massey complies with the GDPR are still under development. If a staff\nmember is advised or has any reason to suspect that a caller’s or requestor’s enquiry or request is\ncovered by the GDPR they should escalate the request to their line manager who may in turn\nneed to review the request with the Governance and Assurance Office.\nExamples of where this may be applicable are:\n The caller or requestor may make reference to the GDPR or the rights the regulations\nprovide them with\n The caller or requestor advises that they are studying by distance or onshore from a\ncountry in the EU\n The staff member ascertains that the caller or requestors current address or country of\ndomicile is within the EU\n The caller or requestor may be calling from a country from within the EU\n The requestor may be emailing Massey University from an EU email address\n The caller or requestor may phrase their request in language that leads the staff member\nto suspect that the request could be subject to the regulations for example they may for\nexample use the term “erasure’ or “right to be forgotten” etc.\n5. Guideline for Releasing Information to Individuals\nInformation is collected for the purposes of studying at Massey University and/or as set out in the\nUniversity’s privacy statements https://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/privacy.cfm . Staff must ensure\nthat information is only released to the student to whom it belongs, (with some exceptions as\ncontained within the Privacy Act and the GDPR) and that only the student makes changes to\nexisting information. This responsibility is carried out by performing a suitable check on the\nidentity of a customer before releasing or altering any personal information.\nA suitable check is defined as obtaining a correct response from the student directly to confirm\ntheir identification number (if known) and all of the following:\nMassey University - Advising and Communications Page 3 of 24\nPrivacy Guidelines Version 3.6 Current Address or Email Address\n Date of Birth\n Full Name (as shown on the birth certificate or passport).\nIf providing face to face assistance, photo identification is acceptable. If staff are in doubt about\nthe photo ID on file matching the student, the above questions should also be asked.\n(Note: It is advisable to obtain an ID number from the student, rather than searching for it via CRM\nand the student portal because the number of identifiers available is reduced.)\nIf staff are in any doubt as to the identity of the customer, including if they are unsure about the\nphoto ID, other questions should be used, possibly drawn from their academic details: for\nexample, the numbers/titles of the last three courses that the student was registered in.\nIf doubt still exists, do not release the information.\nStaff can assume, having performed this check on the identity of the caller, that the caller is being\ntruthful about their identity. In other words, staff will not be considered negligent in discharging\ntheir responsibility for protecting the information if they are dealing with a person who has\nanswered all questions correctly.\n6. Receiving and uploading and sending documents\nThe current practice for accepting and uploading documents is based the ID number if it is\nprovided, or if we can locate the student record via their email address, full name and date of birth,\nthis is sufficient for uploading a document or sending it on to the appropriate department.\nDocuments can be received by a student or third party and uploaded if the correct student file can\nbe located by the above practice.\nWhen sending a document to a customer we need to ensure that we clearly label these\ndocuments using the students name, identification number and the document type e.g., Jane\nSmith ID 12345678 Academic Record.  Where there maybe more than one Academic Record\ndocument you will add a 1, 2, 3 etc. to the end of the document type, for example Academic\nRecord1.\nA check must be done when reviewing your final content, make sure the name and ID of the\nattachment match your intended recipient.\nThese documents can be saved to your desktop.\nAfter every interaction, staff will:\na) Clear all systems holding student data: Client, Student Portal, and CRM\nb) Clear all Clipboard data, see instructions – Staff Guidelines — Create shortcut to clear\nClipboard\nc) Delete any data from their desktop/shared drive/home drive folder of attached\ndocuments to the student\n7. Guideline for Disclosure to Third Party – Parents/Partners/Family Members/Employer\nStaff should not release information about a student to parents, partners, or other family members,\nunless the requestor is an authorised agent (see Agent Authorisation, section 9 below).\nStaff may accept credit card payment of fees from a third party if the caller provides core\ninformation such as the student ID number and amount paid.  Under no circumstances are staff to\nconfirm or release any personal information held about individuals.\nPayment of tuition fees by a third party does not entitle them to be given any personal information\nabout the student. It is important to note that the student owns this information and has not\nauthorised us to release it to their parents.  This also applies when the third party is an employer.\nMassey University - Advising and Communications Page 4 of 24\nPrivacy Guidelines Version 3.68. Incapacitation or Death of Individuals\nCallers with information on incapacitation or death of a student must be advised that they need to\nwrite to Student Registry, providing evidence of incapacitation or death of a student so that the\nappropriate action can be taken.   Staff should not release information about a student to a third\nparty unless the requestor is an authorised agent (see Agent Authorisation, section 9 below).\nStaff must follow the Deceased Student Procedure  detailed in the internal Assyst FAQ system\nincluding internal notifications required to invoke Not for Outbounding and deceased status\nprocedures.\n9. Agent Authorisation\nA student can nominate an agent to make inquiries on their behalf, by advising the University in\nwriting using the Agent Authorisation form. A sample copy is attached in Appendix 2.\nIf a caller states that they are an approved agent for a student, staff must:\n Find the scanned copy of the Agent Authorisation form in SITS Client\n Confirm all of the key identifiers for the Agent against the authorisation form in SITS Client\na) Agent full name (as shown on Agent Authorisation form)\nb) Agent date of birth (as shown on Agent Authorisation form)\nc) Current address/email address (as shown on Agent Authorisation form)\n Confirm all of all the key identifiers of the student with the Agent:\na) Student full name\nb) Student date of birth\nc) Student current address or email address\n Proceed with the student look up when identification has been confirmed. Make the\nappropriate call history notes.\nInternational Agents\nSeveral international students will use the services of a Registered International Agent. You can\nview a list of Registered Agents  on our website.\nAs part of the admission process, the international student along with the Agent will complete an\nAgent Authorisation Form and upload this with their Admission application.\nIf you receive a query from an Agent, please check the Agent Authorisation Form in the student\nportal under the Admission or Qualifications and courses tab under ACD Documents to confirm\nthe agent's details\n Named Agent - we can only communicate with that one person, also ask for agency name\nand phone number and address from the form as well as standard verifiers for the\nstudent.\n Agency Listed only - we can communicate with anyone from the agency, check Agency\nand Phone number or Address, along with the student's standard verification details\nbefore releasing any information.\nIf you are unsure or unable to answer the Agents query, please contact the Admissions team, or\nforward to [email protected] .\nDo not  release any information if there are unsatisfactory responses to the identifiers.\n10. Power of Attorney\nWhen a student gives someone (or a company) power of attorney, they give them the legal right to\nact on their behalf with one of two types of power of attorney, either an Ordinary Power of Attorney\nor an Enduring Power of Attorney.  Students can provide a verified copy of a Power of Attorney in\nMassey University - Advising and Communications Page 5 of 24\nPrivacy Guidelines Version 3.6lieu of an Agent Authorisation as this is a Legal Document and the same procedures above\napplied for Agent Authorisation are to be followed.\n11. Guideline for Disclosure to Police\nThere is no legal requirement for staff to release student information when requested by the Police\nwithout further validation of the request.\nThe correct guideline when dealing with such a query is to:\n inform the requester to submit a document, such as search warrant or formal letter, with\nexact details of information requested and why; and\n direct the caller/requestor to the Governance and Assurance Office.\nNote: if the police have no documentation but indicate the situation is urgent you can bypass step\n1 and direct the caller/requestor through to the Governance and Assurance Office.\n12. Guideline for Disclosure to Massey University Staff\nIn situations where a Massey University staff member is requesting student details, or changes to\nthis information,  the Massey University Privacy Policy still applies .\n Academic staff requesting information or changes are to be advised that they will need to\ncontact their School/Departmental Secretary or School/Department Head.\n General staff, particularly library staff and Student Recruitment Advisors who are initiating\na change to student details will need to either access this information themselves, contact\ntheir administrator, advise the student to call personally or to send the relevant paperwork\nto Student Registration.\n13. Guideline for Refusing a Request for Information\nIn the event that the caller is a third party and information will be withheld, staff should inform the\ncaller that they are withholding the information and the reason they are withholding the\ninformation.\nExplain that:\n Release of information to an unauthorised third party is in breach of the Massey University\nPrivacy Policy\n The student themselves may call to obtain or change their information or may authorise\nthe third party to receive or change information provided that this is done in writing.\n If they are not satisfied with this response, they may redirect their request to the Privacy\nOfficer at Massey ( [email protected] ).\n14. Guideline for Handling Difficult Callers\nSometimes, where a refusal to release or change information has been made, a caller can\nbecome difficult.  After the best possible effort has been made, the staff should refer the caller to\ntheir line manager who may in turn need to escalate the matter to Massey University Privacy\nOfficer.\n15. Notifying of a Data Breach at Massey\nA privacy breach is where there has been any unauthorised or accidental access to, or disclosure,\nalteration, loss, or destruction of personal information.\nIf you become aware of a privacy breach, please report it to you line manager straight away. Your\nline manager will follow the recommendations outlined in this Breach Notifications  information\nsheet.\nMassey University - Advising and Communications Page 6 of 24\nPrivacy Guidelines Version 3.616. Privacy Officer\nThe Massey University Privacy Officer is:\nJodie Banner\nDirector Governance and Assurance\nMassey University\nPrivate Bag 11222\nManawatu Mail Centre\nPalmerston North 4442\nNew Zealand\n17. Request for Information under Official Information Act 1982\nAll requests for information under the Official Information Act 1982 should be directed to\[email protected] .\n18. Privacy Complaints from Student/Staff\nPlease refer to your line manager.\nMassey University - Advising and Communications Page 7 of 24\nPrivacy Guidelines Version 3.619. Version Control\nFile Name: Te Paepoto Privacy Guidelines\nDate Status Version Updated by Reason for Update\n12/09/2006 Draft 1.0 Tina Hilliam New guidelines document established.  Sent to Anne Walker, Risk Manager\nand June Dallinger Director Human Resources for comment\n15/09/2006 Final 1.1 Tina Hilliam Document approved by Risk Manager and Director Human Resources.\nIssued to National Contact Centre staff.\n02/10/2007 Review 1.2 Tina Hilliam Annual review of guidelines.  Document sent to Anne Walker, Risk Manager\nand June Dallinger Director Human Resources for comment\n12/11/2007 Final 1.3 Tina Hilliam Replaced Risk Manager with Registrar in Section 14 at request of Anne\nWalker.  Document issued to staff.\n5/09/2008 Review 1.4 Tina Hilliam Updated section 4 to include clarification that personal information is stored\nin all media types and can be released instantaneously by staff once\nidentifiers are checked.  Updated Section 15 replaced June Dallinger with\nMichelle Ryan, Employment Relations Manager. Updated Appendix 1 & 2,\nMU Privacy Policy, Next Review: May 2010. Sent to Anne Walker, Risk Mgr\nand Michelle Ryan ER Mgr for review\n18/09/08 Final 1.5 Tina Hilliam Feedback received, document updated and issued to staff\n20/11/09 Review 1.6 Tina Hilliam Updated section 8 to include procedure for Agent Authorisation forms in\nexceptional or urgent circumstances.  Updated Section 15 contact from\nMichelle Ryan to Angela van Welie. Full document sent for review to Anne\nWalker, Risk Mgr and Jenni Ward HR Adviser ER for review\n30/11/09 Final 1.7 Tina Hilliam Add new postal code format.  Document approved.  Issued to National\nContact Centre staff.\n16/11/11 Updated 1.8 Tina Rowland Inserted Power of Attorney section, Updated Employment Relations\nManager and AVC-UR Title, Updated Appendix 1-3 with latest versions.\nDistributed to Anne Walker, Risk Mgr, Fiona McMorran ER Mgr, Office of\nAVC-UR and all National Contact Centre staff.\n19/09/13 Updated 1.9 Tina Rowland Updated University postal address, updated HR to POD, NSATS/\nEnrolment to Student Administration, updated Appendix 1-3 with latest\nversions.  Biannual review of guidelines.  Distributed to Anne Walker, Risk\nMgr, Fiona McMorran ER Mgr, Office of AVC-UR and all National Contact\nCentre staff.\n12/12/2013 Updated 2.0 Amanda Seymour-East Replaced reference to the Privacy Act being quoted to callers. This was\nreplaced with ‘Massey University Privacy Policy’\n28/10/2014 Updated 2.1 Amanda Seymour-East Updated Appendix 1-3 with latest versions. Biannual review of guidelines.\n29/01/2015 Updated 2.1 Melissa Eveleigh Updated section 15 – Updated wording to clarify correct process.\n22/009/2015 Updated 2.1 Melissa Eveleigh Updated Privacy Officer from Anne Walker to Jodie Banner\n4/10/2017 Updated 2.2 Amanda Mackrow Updated\nSection 5. Guideline for Releasing Information to Individuals to include\nemail as a form to identify a student\nSection 7. Incapacitation or Death of Individuals. Changed NOUT to not for\noutbounding\nSection 8. Changed SilentOne to Client\nSection 16. Changed the contacts to National Contact Centre Team\nLeaders\n13/11/2018 Updated 2.3 Amanda Mackrow Updated section 4: Added Social Media as a channel and added CRM as\nthe system to record contact history.\nAdded into section 5: How to label a document and how to clear data from\nsystems and clipboard.\nUpdated Appendix 1: Massey University Privacy Policy\n7/12/2018 Updated 2.4 Frances Mullan/Jodie\nBannerRemoval of Procedures from Appendix 2 and renaming of Appendix 3 to 2\nRemoval of Procedures reference from Paragraph 2\nInclusion of GDPR references, rights and escalation processes\nClarification of Agency relationships\nExtension of Access Request section to include rectification requests under\nPrinciple 7\nRevision of Police Request and Escalation processes\nAddition of Privacy Officer escalation processes for request denials and\ndifficult callers\nAddition of Info Request email to OIA section\n14/05/2019 Updated 2.5 Amanda Mackrow Updated the Privacy Office, page 5 to Jodie Banner\nMassey University - Advising and Communications Page 8 of 24\nPrivacy Guidelines Version 3.616/07/2019 Updated 2.6 Amanda Mackrow Updated the document naming conventions in section 5.\n8/06/2020 Updated 2.7 Amanda Mackrow Updated National Contact Centre to Te Paepoto. Changed the email\naddress for the privacy officer from [email protected]  to\[email protected] .\n9//09/2020 Updated 2.8 Amanda Mackrow Updated the Office Information Act contact information in section 15.\nUpdated section 8. Agent Authorisation, to make the identification process\nclearer.\n3.11.2020 Updated 2.9 Amanda Mackrow Corrected a link in section 5 to an FAQ on how to clear a clip board\n14.12.2020 Updated 3.0 Amanda Mackrow Slight update in the wording of section 5 to make the instruction of obtaining\nidentification clearer.\n17.05.2021 Updated 3.1 Amanda Mackrow Added photo identification as appropriate for face to face assistance when\ncompleting identity checks.\n13.08.2021 Updated 3.2 Amanda Mackrow Updated Contact Relationship Manager to Customer Relationship Manager.\nUpdated caller to customer in guideline 5.\nAdded section 6. Receiving and uploading and sending documents\nUpdated DIED to deceased in section 8.\nUpdated Student Administration to Student Registry in section 9 and 12.\nUpdated the Risk and Assurance Office to Risk Management in section 11.\nUpdated his/her to themselves in section 13.\nChanged the reference from student to student\n17.09.2021 Updated 3.3 Amanda Mackrow Updated section 1 to refer to the Privacy Act 2020\n12.05.2022 Updated 3.4 Amanda Mackrow Updated the document name by removing Te Paepoto and adding Advising\nand Communication\nRemoved Te Paepoto throughout the document.\nUpdate section 9 Agent Authorisation content due to a process change.\nChanged Team Leader to line manager throughout the document.\n22.03.2023 Updated 3.5 Amanda Mackrow Added a new section 15. Notifying of a Data Breach at Massey. Updated\nthe word tauira to student until the university advises of the correct\nalternative.\n3.04.2023 Updated 3.6 Amanda Mackrow Removed link to International Agent FAQ and copied the actual information\ninto this document. Replaced Risk and Assurance with Governance and\nAssurance\nAPPENDIX 1:  Massey University Privacy Policy\nMassey University - Advising and Communications Page 9 of 24\nPrivacy Guidelines Version 3.6\n\nAPPENDIX 1:  Massey University Privacy Policy\nMassey University - Advising and Communications Page 10 of 24\nPrivacy Guidelines Version 3.6\n\nAPPENDIX 1:  Massey University Privacy Policy\nMassey University - Advising and Communications Page 11 of 24\nPrivacy Guidelines Version 3.6\n\nAPPENDIX 1:  Massey University Privacy Policy\nMassey University - Advising and Communications Page 12 of 24\nPrivacy Guidelines Version 3.6\n\nAPPENDIX 1:  Massey University Privacy Policy\nMassey University - Advising and Communications Page 13 of 24\nPrivacy Guidelines Version 3.6\n\nAPPENDIX 1:  Massey University Privacy Policy\nMassey University - Advising and Communications Page 14 of 24\nPrivacy Guidelines Version 3.6\n\nMassey University - Advising and Communications Page 15 of 24\nPrivacy Guidelines Version 3.6\n\nMassey University - Advising and Communications Page 16 of 24\nPrivacy Guidelines Version 3.6\n\nMassey University - Advising and Communications Page 17 of 24\nPrivacy Guidelines Version 3.6\n\nMassey University - Advising and Communications Page 18 of 24\nPrivacy Guidelines Version 3.6\n\nMassey University - Advising and Communications Page 19 of 24\nPrivacy Guidelines Version 3.6\n\nMassey University - Advising and Communications Page 20 of 24\nPrivacy Guidelines Version 3.6\n\nMassey University - Advising and Communications Page 21 of 24\nPrivacy Guidelines Version 3.6\n\nMassey University - Advising and Communications Page 22 of 24\nPrivacy Guidelines Version 3.6\n\nMassey University - Advising and Communications Page 23 of 24\nPrivacy Guidelines Version 3.6\n\nAPPENDIX 2:  Agent Authorisation Form\nMassey University - Advising and Communications Page 24 of 24\nPrivacy Guidelines Version 3.6\n\n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Academic_Progression_Policy_PDF_404_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Academic Progression Policy PDF 404 KB",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "404 KB",
      "author": "Banner, Jodie",
      "creation_date": "2022-06-08T16:00:04",
      "modification_date": "D:20220927093139+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n Massey University Policy Guide  \n \nACADEMIC PROGRESSION POLICY  \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \n \nPurpose :  \nThis policy describes the requirements and principles governing student academic performance, academic \nexcellence, and student progression within Massey University Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa.  \nPolicy : \nAll students are expected to achieve at least satisfactory  academic progress in each enrolment period.  \n \nMassey is committed to providing a learning environment which facilitates students achieving to their fullest \npotential.  Massey is committed to actively managing student academic performance and providing supp ort where \nnecessary for students who are motivated to achieve in their studies, and fairly managing the availability of places \nfor students.  \n \nMassey acknowledges there exists a reciprocity of responsibilities and rights between the University and students in \nmatters of academic performance. Massey acknowledges it has a responsibility to provide a supportive and quality \nlearning environment and targeted personalised support; and in turn, students are expected to exert genuine effort \nand energy to achieve aca demically.  \nScope : \nThis policy is universal and applies to all students in all qualifications and Certificates of Proficiency offered by \nMassey.  For the avoidance of doubt, the policy applies to:  \n• taught and research qualifications;  \n• professionally accredited and licenced qualifications;  \n• Massey University College qualifications;  \n• qualifications taught in educational partnerships where Massey University Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa  credits \nand awards are given, including both those within New  Zealand and overseas.  \n \nThis policy does not apply to learning or training via short courses, whether or not this learning results in micro -\ncredentials or non -credit bearing awards.   Section Academic\nContact Office of the Provost \nLast Review     November 2021\nNext Review June 202 7\nApproval     C22/ 48 10/06/2022 \nEffective date      10 June 2022\n  \n Massey University  Policy Guide   \nAcademic Progression Policy  – Page 2 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \nWhile this policy does not directly address matters of student discipli ne and misconduct, matters of student \ncomplaint and grievance, or fitness for study, it is acknowledged that students with complex experiences may have \nrecords which cross these policy boundaries and at times the application of this policy will require an holistic \napproach, with due consideration of the student’s broader context of learning.  \n \nThis policy should be read in conjunction with the Academic Progress Regulations and Academic Progress \nProcedures, and the Student Achievement Support Intervention Fra mework and Services.  \n \nThe Education and Training Act 2020 section 255 (5)d allows for universities to evaluate if a student has made \ninsufficient progress in their study, and to refuse or cancel the enrolment of a student if the student’s progress has \nbeen  insufficient . \nPrinciples and Philosophy : \nThe Academic Progress Process is based on the following principles, informed by the values of Paerangi . \n1. Student achievement occurs through a reciprocal relationship of learning between the University staff and \nstudents, supported by effort on both sides (Pae Ako). Students and staff form a community, working \ntogether for mutual benefits with mutual responsibilities (Pae Whānau).  \n2. Massey has a guardianship role in terms of the meaning and value of qualifications and awards, as well as in \ncaring for our students, enabling positive student experiences, development, and success (Pae Tiaki).  \n3. Through the Academic Progress processes, Massey aims to encourage excellence, acknowledge progress, \nand celebrate success (Pae R awe, Pae Mātau).  \n4. The Academic Progress processes are designed to monitor student progress, identify successes or problems, \nand implement actions that provide opportunities for students to maximise their achievement (Pae \nWhakahaere).  \n5. The Academic Progress p rocesses are honest, fair, equitable, and respectful (Pae Tika). To achieve this, they \nare: \na. simple and understandable;  \nb. clearly communicated and timely in conveying expectations of both parties;  \nc. respectful and free from judgmental language;  \nd. consistent with common law rights and principles, including the right to be heard, the right to \nimpartial decision making, the right to equity and fairness in treatment, and the right to appeal.  \n6. The Academic Progress processes reflect Massey’s commitment to humility, resp ect, generosity, \nresponsibility, pastoral care, and support of others (Pae Manaaki). To achieve this, they are designed to:  \na. enable Massey to identify when its actions or inactions have contributed to cases where the learning \npartnership is not working well  and adjust its actions accordingly;  \nb. enable students to adjust their behaviours and access support where this is necessary, encouraging \nand facilitating greater achievement where possible;  \nc. offer students opportunities for support to maximise their achievem ent, which are tailored to the \nstudent needs.  \n \nAcademic Progress  Committee’s Main Frameworks : \n  \n Massey University  Policy Guide   \nAcademic Progression Policy  – Page 3 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n1. The Academic Progress Committee (APC) will oversee processes for considering student academic performance \nand success and will conduct the Evaluating Student Academic Progress (ESAP) processes for all current students \nat regular intervals throughout the academic year, usually once per semester.  \n2. The Academic Progress Committee will also manage the evaluation of student progress on those qualifications \nwhich have specific performance and competence requirements within their Programme Regulations. This \nprocess will be operationalised by subcommittees of the Academic Progress Committee which will conduct \nPerformance on Professional and Accredited Qualificati ons (P -PAQ) evaluation processes.   \n \n5.1 ESAP Thresholds  \n \nMinimum (‘Satisfactory’) Threshold  \n• During 2021 and 2022, students are required to complete periods of enrolment having gained academic \ncredit for at least one course they were enrolled in, in each p eriod of enrolment. Grades and notations of D, \nE, F, DC and WD will all count as conveying no academic credit.  \n• In 2023 and beyond it is anticipated that the minimum thresholds will become more stringent as support \nmechanisms raise the levels of achievement and expectations for performance.  \nExcelling Thresholds  \n• Students will have passed 100% of their credits in the most recent enrolment period, with a Grade Point \nAverage for the period of 7 or above.  \n \n5.2 Defining Restrictions and/or Exclusions  \n• Restrictions and/or exclusions may be applied in cases where a student is on their third instance of having a \nStatus of Concern  through ESAP evaluations, or where the P -PAQ process has highlighted an issue of non -\ncompliance with a programme regulation.  \n• For E SAP and P -PAQ processes, the main restriction will be short term exclusion i.e. a student is not permitted to \nenrol at Massey for a minimum of 12 months.  \n• In ESAP and P -PAQ processes where a student has previously experienced short -term exclusion (arising f rom \nESAP, P -PAQ, or Academic Standing processes), a long -term exclusion may be applied i.e. the student would not \nbe permitted to enrol at Massey for a minimum of three years, and must apply for readmission.  \n• Where P -PAQ processes result in an evaluation th at the student will not be able to be endorsed as suitable for \nregistration or professional accreditation, the Academic Progress Committee may permanently exclude the \nstudent from that qualification.  In such instances the student will be assisted wherever  possible to transfer to \nan alternative qualification (and will be supported in their learning), or, if they prefer, they will be exited from \nstudy.  \n \n5.3 Defining Concomitant Situations  \n• Students with academic performance evaluated as being below threshold for the period considered will have a \nStatus of Concern  recorded on their student record but this will not appear on the student Academic Record \n(transcript).  Those Statuses of Concern  will be deactivated and become background records when a student has \nsuccessfully completed the associated qualification or when the Status of Concern  has otherwise expired, as per \nbelow.  \n• If a student transfers between qualifications at the same academic level, any Status of Concern and associated PSOs \nand Case Management ar rangements will remain active until the student has either successfully completed the new \nqualification, or until the Statuses have otherwise expired.  \n  \n Massey University  Policy Guide   \nAcademic Progression Policy  – Page 4 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n• The oldest Status of Concern  on a student’s record from a concomitant situation will expire if a student has three \nsuccessive periods of enrolment achieving satisfactory  performance.  \n \n5.4 Professional and Accredited Qualifications (P -PAQ)  \nThe following list of qualifications have specific performance and competence requirements within their Programme \nRegulat ions, referred to in clause 5.0 sub point 2.  \n• Te Aho Tātairangi: Bachelor of Education Teaching Māori Medium/ Diploma in Māori Education/ Te Aho \nTātairangi: Bachelor of Teaching and Learning Kura Kaupapa Māori / Te Aho Paerewa: Postgraduate Diploma \nTeachin g and Learning in Māori Medium  \n• Graduate Diploma of Teaching (Early Childhood Education), Graduate Diploma of Teaching (Primary)/ \nGraduate Diploma of Teaching (Secondary)/Graduate Diploma of Learning and Teaching/ Postgraduate \nCertificate in Specialist Teac hing / Postgraduate Diploma in Specialist Teaching  \n• Bachelor of Veterinary Science  \n• Bachelor of Nursing/ Bachelor of Social Work/ Master of Applied Social Work / Master of Clinical Practice \n(Nursing)  \n• Bachelor of Aviation – Air Transport Pilot major  \n• Bachelor of Speech and Language Therapy /Bachelor of Speech and Language Therapy with Honours  \n• Master of Clinical Psychology  \n• Degree of Doctor of Business and Administration/ Degree of Doctor of Clinical Psychology / Degree of Doctor \nof Education / Degree of Doctor o f Philosophy / Degree of Doctor of Social Work  \n \n \nAppeals:  \n \n• Appeals will be heard by the Provost or Nominee (and must always be a person neutral from involvement in \nprevious decisions impacting the student in relation to the determination being appealed).  Students may \nappeal any determinations made by the Academic Progress Committee (arising from ESAP or P -PAQ, and \nincluding ESAP excelling outcomes).  Appeals will only be considered valid if a student can show they have \nsuffered actual disadvant age, and  \na) The student can demonstrate that the determination was incorrect, and/or  \nb) New evidence that was not known or available at the time of the original Academic Progress \nCommittee determination is now available and could have affected the determination.  \n• Appeals must be lodged in writing in the format and within the timeframe advised by the Provost or \nNominee.  \n• The Provost or Nominee will have the power to determine a process for pre -sifting appeal submissions and \ndeclining, without substantive considerati on, any appeal that does not meet the outlined validity criteria.  \n \nAppeal Remediations  \nIn instances where an appeal is upheld, the Provost or Nominee will utilise the following remediations:  \n• Direct the Academic Progress Committee and/or P -PAQ sub -committee  to reconsider a case utilising any \nnew submission or evidence; and/or  \n• Remove any Status of Concern  or restrictions or reverse any exclusion, and draw the change in decision to \nthe attention of support services and other relevant parties; and/or  \n• Direct the  Academic Progress Committee and/or P -PAQ subcommittee to consider the implications of the \ncase as it applies to the future handling of similar cases.  \n  \n Massey University  Policy Guide   \nAcademic Progression Policy  – Page 5 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n• Record an Excelling Status  on a student’s record and instate any of the benefits or opportunities that en sue. \n \nAudience:  \n \nThis policy’s audience is all staff, students and external bodies within the university community.  \n \nRelevant Legislation  / Regulation : \n \nPrivacy Act 1983  \nEducation and Training Act 2020  \nHuman Rights Act 1993  \nNew Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990  \nThe Education (Pastoral Care of Tertiary and International Learners) Code of Practice 2021  \n \nLegal Compliance : \n \nUnder Part 4 of the Education and Training Act 2020, the University must provide services and support to students \nthat:  \na) provide them wit h the skills, knowledge, and capabilities that they need to fully participate in the labour \nmarket, society, and their communities; and  \nb) support their health, safety, and well -being; and  \nc) assure the quality of the education provided and the institutions and educators that provide and support it; \nand  \nd) honour Te Tiriti o Waitangi and support Māori -Crown relationships.  \nThe University must comply with the Education (Pastoral Care of Tertiary and International Learners) Code of \nPractice 2021 by ensuring the learni ng environment and the University’s accommodation is safe, inclusive, \nsupportive and accessible. The Code also requires the University to respond to the distinct wellbeing and safety \nneeds of international tertiary learners . \n \nRelated procedures  / documents : \n \n• Code of Student Conduct  \n• Student Contract  \n• Student Disciplinary Regulations  \n• University Workloads Policy and Procedures  \n• Academic Integrity Policy and Procedures  \n• Health and Wellbeing Charter  \n• Health, Safety and Wellbeing Policy  \n• The Education (Pastoral Care of Tertiary and International learners) Code of  Practice 2021  \n• Assessment and Examination Regulations  \n  \n  \n Massey University  Policy Guide   \nAcademic Progression Policy  – Page 6 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nDocument Management Control:\nPrepared by:  Office of the Provost \nAuthorised by: Provost\nApproved by:    C22/48 \nDate issued:      10 June 2022\nLast review:  November 2021\nNext review:  June 2027 \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Asset_Investment_Policy_PDF_128_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Asset Investment Policy",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "128 KB",
      "creation_date": "2022-03-04T14:03:03",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220101546+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " \nMassey University Policy  Guid e \n \n \nSection  Finance  \nContact  Senior Capital Planner / Accountant  \nLast Review  November 20 21 \nNext Review  November 202 5 \nApproval  Council C21/142\n \nPurpose:  \n \nThe purpose of this policy to articulate the framework for how assets investment decisions will be planned and prioritised at  \nMassey University (the University).  \n \nPolicy:  \n \nThe University will:  \n1. Identify as early as possible all significant capital intentio ns in multi -year plans and in its reporting  processes.  \n2. Assess and prioritise investments.  \n3. Make investment decisions that create the best value  for the University . \n4. Monitor and control the implementation of an  investment.  \n5. Review the performance of specific investments against  expectations.  \n6. Continually review asset benefits and performance in relation to current and emerging  needs.  \n \n \nTen Year Capital Plan  \n \nThe planning process, as represented in the Ten Year Capital Plan (TYCP) , is the process the Un iversity \nundertakes to ensure asset investment is targeted to meet business needs and assets are appropriately renewed. \nIt also identifies if the asset investment programme is within the overall affordability of the University, compliant \nwith borrowing co nsents . \n \nCapital intentions are included in the TYCP through the following channels:  \n \n1. Major asset investment proposals (exceeding $300,000 in Total Project Cost  (TPC) ) \n• Funding proposals that have received SLT approval -in-principle to proceed to business cas e (based \non the University’s business case requirements), and are able to be funded within capital plan \naffordability, are included as group three; approval in principle  projects.  \n• Proposals that are able to be fully externally funded, from sources over and  above capital plan \naffordability, are included as group four; externally funded  projects.  \n• Other  major  asset  investment  proposals  can be submitted  for inclusion  as High Profile Unfunded  projects.  \n \n2. Minor asset investment proposals ($2,000 - $300,000 TPC)  \n• Proposals can be funded through one of the existing recurrent  programmes.  \n \nIn addition, the Vice -Chancellor and Deputy Vice Chancellor University Services  (DVC US) can approve \ninvestment in fixed assets which are not budgeted in the TYCP subject to th eir respective delegations in the \nDelegations of Authority Policy.  \n \nMajor Asset Investment Project Proposal and Approval  Process   \nASSET  INVESTMENT POLICY  \n \n \nMajor asset investment projects are individual new development, renewal and refurbishment projects over $300,000 \nTPC, as liste d in the approved TYCP.  \n \nMajor asset investment proposals require a business case that is to adhere to  the University’s Business Case Policy  \nand Framework . \n \nAll approval s are conditional on funding sources being confirmed: either funding from within TYCP a ffordability, or \nfrom external sources.  \n \nMinor Asset Request and Approval  Process  \n \nMinor asset requests are individual new development, renewal and refurbishment projects that have an individual \nvalue between $2,000 and $300,000 and are within the annually approved capital programmes. They include, but  are \nnot limited to recurrent progra mme funding lines for campus infrastructure, minor capital works, building renewal, \ninformation technology refresh and infrastructure programmes, library books, the Capital Equipment Round (CER) \nprocess , and minor equipment.  \n \nRecurrent programme funding po ols also exist for a range of minor equipment categories, including aircraft, \nfarm equipment and utility vehicles.  \n \nSLT Members with responsibility for group one programmes will prioritise the annual requests for their portfolio within \nthe Council approved  funding budgeted in the TYCP. The SLT Member will ensure these programmes align with \nUniversity strategy and the plans listed in this policy. To release the funding SLT members will submit an itemised \nschedule of projects via the RFA process to Finance fo r project financial establishment, cash flow management and \nto ensure compliance with the accounting standards and University accounting policies.  \n \nSLT members have responsibility for management of equipment portfolios with in their reporting line. The DVC US (or \ndelegate)  will issue a memorandum annually, allocating the minor equipment budgets to reporting lines incorporating \nguidance and any associated conditions. SLT members should prioritise new equipment purchas ing request s for the \neffective management of their equipment portfolios. Capital funding may be used to purchase equipment with a value \nover $2,000 in accordance with the Asset Financial Procedures.  \n \nCapital Equipment Round  \n \nThe University Equipment Advisory Group (T he Group) recommends  the annual allocation of two funding streams of \ncapital equipment for values between $20,000 to $300,000 and major items over $300k . A prioritised list is received \nfrom each reporting line (approved by the respective PVC, DVC or Provos t). The Group assesses each item and \nconsolidates a recommended list of investments. The recommended investment is submitted to the DVC US (or \ndelegate) for approval.  This process is defined in  its terms of reference.  \n \nPlanning, Procurement and Financial M anagement  \n \nAsset investment shall be planned, procured and financially managed in accordance with the ‘related procedures and \ndocuments’ listed in this policy. Any p rocurement in excess of $100k is required to be submitted to the Procurement \nand Contracts Governance Board for approval  (although there is discretion for items between $100k and $250k) , prior \nto purchase.  \n \nIn particular, where the investment is in any plant or structure asset, health and safety is to be included in any \nplanning and procurement processes in accordance with both legislative requirements and University policy.  \n \nAsset Investment funded projects will be guided and supported by the Procurement Office and the Strategic Project \nManagement Office (SPMO).  \n \nFinancial Authority  \n \n \nNo financial activity of any kind (planning, construction or procurement) is to commence against a project or work \nwithout an a pproved Request for Financial Authority (RFA). Financial authority documentation is to be completed in \naccordance with Capital Planning Framework and Procedures, Request for Financial Authority (RFA) Procedure and \nthe Delegations of Authority Policy.  \n \nIndependent Cost Consultant  \n \nRefer to Project Management Policy for policy around using independent Cost Consultants . \n \nReporting to University Council . Refer to Project Management Policy for reporting requirements.  \n \nDefinitions:  \n \nAsset investment plan affordab ility \n \nThe ability to finance the proposed asset investment programme from the University’s funding sources:  net surplus, \nannual depreciation, unallocated reserves, property sales, external funding partnerships and external borrowing \n(subject to the University’s debt capacity and borrowing consent conditions).  \n \nRecurrent programmes  \n \nRecurrent funded asset investment programmes are those which require annual approval and funding. Funding \nallocated in any one year must be spent in the year it is allocated and is not intended to be carried over to the next \nyear.  \n \nCommitted/approved projects  \n \nThese are projects  with a TPC over $300,000 where a formal business case has been approved by SLT or by \nUniversity Council, consistent with the delegations policy and procedures.  \n \nProjects approved in principle  \n \nThese are projects with a TPC over $300,000 that have received  SLT approval -in-principle to proceed to business \ncase, consistent with the delegations policy and procedures. Project approval is subject to capital plan affordability.  \nThese projects will require completion of a business case, in accordance with the Univ ersity’s Business Case Policy.  \n \nExternally funded projects  \n \nThese are projects that are fully externally funded. They require completion of a business case in accordance with \nthe University’s Business Case Policy .  \n \nHigh Profile Unfunded projects  \n \n \nAn asset investment proposal or intention ( either over $300,000 in TPC  or of strategic importance ) in the early \nstages of development  is considered High Profile Unfunded (HPU) . A business need has been identified and there \nhas been an initial high -level estimate of scale and cost, but one or more of the following steps have yet to be \ncompleted:  \n• Business case strategic  assessment  \n• SLT approval -in-principle  \nGenerally minor asset investment proposals are expected to be funded fr om existing recurrent programmes and \nwould not be separately noted on the  HPU  list. \n \nIndependent cost consultant  \nThe purpose of an independent cost consultant is to critically assess the financial value of work completed, including \n \nvariations to the contra ct, prior to payment being made. This ensures there are no advanced payments, should the \nmain contractor face financial difficulties and be unable to complete the project.  \n \n• “Independent” means the appointment of a company or person, who  shall;  \no Be a suitably qualified and experienced quantity surveyor, or ICT  estimator ; \no Not be an employee of the University ; and  \no Not be a company or person that is the main contractor, a design build contractor, project managers, \narchitects or software vendor, to the pro ject for which payments are being  made.  \n \nInvestment  \nThe commitment of resources to the delivery of services with the expectation of receiving future benefits. Resources \nare typically committed through projects or programmes or portfolios.  \nPre-project opera ting costs  \nA cost that is incurred during the feasibility and scoping stages of a proposal, before a business case is approved, is a \npre-project operating cost and is not included in TPC. These costs are typically identified during the Strategic \nAssessment  stage, prior to the project receiving approval -in-principle to proceed to business case. SLT approval -in-\nprinciple can also include one -off approval for an operating budget allocation to cover these costs.  \nTotal project cost  (TPC)  \nThe financial value of a ll works and fees related to the implementation and completion of an approved project, \nincluding but not limited to, design, contract documentation, procurement, consents, development contributions, \nconstruction, software, configuration, implementation and  training. TPC include s both operating and capital costs \nand is used to determine if the project can be approved by SLT or requires University Council approval.  \nCapital Costs  \nCosts can be included in capital value where the goods or services being supplied materially add to the fair market \nvalue of an asset (either as an addition to an existing asset or in the establishment of a new asset). Costs that do not \nmeet this test must  be treated as operating expenses. Refer to Asset Financial Procedures for examples of project \ncapital or operating expenses.  \n \n \nAudience:  \n \nAll Staff  \n \n \nRelevant Legislation:  \n \nCrown Entities Act 2004 and amendments Public Finance Act 1989 and amendments  \nEduc ation and Training Act 2020 and amendments  \nFinancial Reporting Act 1993 and amendments  \nFinancial Transactions Reporting Act  1996  \nConstruction Contracts Act 2002 and amendments and regulations  \nHealth and Safety at Work Act 2015  \n \n \n \n \n \n \nRelated Procedures and Documents:  \n \nInvestment Management and Asset Performance in the State Services, CO (15) 5  \n \nMinistry of Education Consent to Borrow under s 282 (4) (d) and (7) of the Education and Training Act 2020  \n(expiry on 31 December 2024) \nCapital Asset Man agement (CAM) Policy  \nAsset Planning Framework and Procedures  \nTreasury Policy and Framework  \nRisk Management Policy and Framework \nBusiness Case Policy, Framework and Procedures \nProject Management Policy and Framework \nRequest for Financial Authority (RFA) Pro cedure \nCapital Equipment Committee Terms of Reference \nCapital Budget Carry Forward Procedure \nProcurement Policy and  Procedures  \nProcurement and Contracts Governance Board Terms of Reference and Procedure \nDelegations of Authority Policy and Documents  \nContrac ts Management Policy and Procedures \nHealth and Safety Policy  \nCapital Development Post Completion Review Policy \nFinancial Monitoring and Control Policy  \nAsset Financial Procedures  \nAsset Disposal and Write Down  Policy \nUniversity Campus Development Plans \nInformation Services Strategic Plan  \n \nDocument Management Control:  \n \nPrepared by: Senior Capital  Planner / Accountant  for the Chief Financial Officer  \n \nAuthorised by: Deputy Vice -Chancellor, University Services   \nApproved by: Senior Capital Planner / Accountant  \nLast review: November 20 21 \nNext review: November 202 5 \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Acceptable_Use_of_Technology_Policy_PDF_131_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Acceptable Use of Technology Policy",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "131 KB",
      "creation_date": "2021-10-18T10:00:09",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220101707+13'00'"
    },
    "content": "    \n Acceptable Us e of Technology Policy   \n \nACCEPTABLE USE OF TEC HNOLOGY POLICY  \n \n© This Policy is the pr operty of Massey University   P a g e | 1  \n \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \nPurpose :  \nMassey University provides many  business tools to its staff to en hance  their productivi ty and jobs.  We require these \nsystems to be used in a responsible way, ethically, and in compliance with all legislation and Massey University \npolicies.  Non -compliance could have a severe, negative impact on the University and its employee s and  clients.  \n \nKey success factors:  \n \nStaff understand how to use technology responsibly so that University  information and people are protected . \nAudience:  \nAll users or anyone  using  technolog ies or systems to  access , transf er or store Un iversity inf ormatio n. Users include \nUniversity staff or anyone performing work on behalf of  the University (inc luding  contractors, consultants and \nvolunteers) . \nPolicy:  \nAll use of technology to store or trans fer University  information or conduct University business com plies with our \npolicy on Staff Conduct  and all r elevant laws, regulations, polic ies and standards . Staff are required to  take particular \ncare when handling student  or classified  information to ke ep it safe fro m unauthorised  access, loss , or misuse , and \nincludes a ny te chnolog y on which it is held or tran sferred.  To meet the University’ s policy on Staff Conduct,  users : \n• must keep personal use of University technology (including emails or interne t use) within reasonable limits, \nmaking sure it does not interfere  with y our w ork or University business  \n• must  never use University information or techn ology for anything illegal or which may bring Massey University \ninto disrepute; including infringement of  copyright, or  harassing or sharing offensive material with co -workers, \nour pa rtners, or our students  \n• must be mindful of the effect on University (and perso nal) reputation in relation  to any use of  social media \nwhether personal or work -related. Soci al medi a leaves a per manent record  and electronic footprint. Using \nsocial  media in su ch a way as could bring the Uni versity  into disrepute will be actionable as a disciplinary \nmatter.  \n• right of access  to University technolog y to store  or transfer  Massey  informatio n (including email)  ceases  with \nthe termination of em ployment . Section  Information Technology Servic es \nContact  Chief Information Officer  \nLast Review  N/A \nNext Review  January 2024  \nApproval  SLT 21/01/05  \nEffective Date  January 202 1 \n \n Acceptable Use of  Technolo gy Po licy \n \n \n© This p olicy is the pro perty of Massey University      P a g e  | 2 Roles and respo nsibilities : \nThe In format ion Technology Services department is responsib le for:  \n• proactively monitoring  the use  of technology to keep  information and people safe and m anage any impact on \nUniversity  reputa tion or  functio ns.  Where necessary this will include : \no monitoring privat e and personal use of both Massey University -owned ha rdware and networks  \no the removal of information where it is offensive or illegal or impacts University business  \no the removal o f University -owned equ ipment  as part of discipli nary or  criminal investig ations .      \nStaff are responsible for:  \n• only using devices/ software provided for you by the U niversity.  If you choose to use other software/devices \nnot sanctioned by the University, y ou are persona lly resp onsible for ensuring the s ecurity  and licensing of \nthese items and ensuring that the loss or misuse of Univers ity information does not occur as a result  \n• protect ing technology and information fr om loss and misuse by following Massey  University policies and \nguidelines for use and pro tection  of: \no University pa ssword s and smartcards , as they pr otect access to our infor mation . See Massey University  \nInformation Security Manual for guidelines on how to select a secure password  \no any device used to handle Univ ersity i nformation; including lapt ops, de sktop s, tablets  mobiles , and any \nform of mobile storage device . Ensure devic es have up to date and patched operating system s and active \nanti-virus protection . See Devices definition, this policy  \n• reporting the  loss or breac h of University -owned  technology  as so on as  you bec ome aw are of  it to Massey \nUniversity  Service D esk and your Manager  \n• only sharing  University or student  information where it is explicitly authorised  and required , and ensure that \nyou h ave followed t he requi red information sharing pr ocedure  for the informati on bei ng han dled \n• keeping  University  information safe by using the Massey provided email acc ount for undertaking University \nwork .  Personal email accounts  must not be used  for conduct ing University  business . Some exceptions do \napply  for instanc e, a personal email account used during  the recruitment process    \n• only install ing software or te chnology on Univer sity devices  where sanctioned  and following rela ted \nprocesses. Work -related a pplications  may be downloaded on to University mobile  devices f rom official or \napproved ap plication  stores   \n• keeping safe from malicious attacks (such as suspicio us phishing emails , texts or website links) and quickly \nseek ing advice from the Massey University  Service Desk for any suspected information loss .  (For examp le, if \nyou have been tricke d into sharing y our password or sent University inform ation to an incor rect recipie nt). See \nthe Information Security Manual for guideline s on how t o best protect your information . \nDefinitions : \nClassified Information  consists of confidential  information whi ch has been clas sified using the University’s \nInformation Security Classification Frame work.  \n \n Acceptable Use of  Technolo gy Po licy \n \n \n© This p olicy is the pro perty of Massey University      P a g e  | 3 • IN CON FIDENC E information consists of information which if c ompromised would be likely to impede the \neffective operation of Ma ssey University or adverse ly affect the privacy of it s students or st aff \n• SENSITIVE  information consists of information which  if compromi sed wo uld be likely to seriously damage the \nreputation  of Massey University or endanger the safety of its students or st aff. \nDevices  include, but are not limited to laptop c omputers and net books, tablet  devices, smartphones, po rtable storage \nsuch as remova ble ha rd drives, USB memory sticks and data cards, portable audio visual equipment including data \nprojectors, cameras et c. \nPersonally ow ned device s means any device that is held personally by an individ ual in a private capacity . \nUniversity issu ed device means an y device that has been purchased, is owned or  leased by the University \n(regar dless of the source of funding).  \nUniv ersity informati on means i nformation relating to or c onnected with th e University’ s business or  affairs.  \nRelevant legislatio n: \nCopyright  Act 1 994 \nFilms, Videos, and Publications Classificati on Act 1993  \nHarmful Digital Communications Act 2015  \nHuman Ri ghts A ct 1993  \nPrivacy Act 1993  \nLegal compliance : \nCopyright Act 1994  \nEmail and the Inter net make it very easy to copy t he work of others. Howe ver, t he C opyright Act 1994 makes it illegal \nto make o r distribute copyright material without specific authorisation fro m the copyright owne r. The  University \nabsolutely forb ids the use of i ts computer a nd network facilities for  a pur pose which constitutes an inf ringement of \ncopyright.  \n \n• No material is to be u sed without the written permission of the copyright owner.  \n• Copyri ght information is provide d at the following intranet  address: http://copyrigh t.massey.ac. nz/ \n \nNote  that the legal ownership of messages may no t reside with the originator. For example, the ownership of \nintellectual property in the mes sages may rest with the Uni versity or other  parties, dep ending on contracts, stat utes \nand policies  outside thi s docu ment .  \n \n \nFilms, Videos, and Publications Classif ication Act 1993  \nThis Act classifies (i.e. censors) publications.  It is illegal t o possess,  own, sell, hire, give or b uy an objectiona ble \npublicati on. Therefore, users shou ld not  intentiona lly access, send o r download objectionable material by Email or \nthrough the Internet.  \n \nSection 3 of the act states that material is  \"objectionable\"  if it des cribes, depicts, expresses,  or otherwise de als with \nmatters such as sex, horror, crime,  cruelty, o r violence i n such  a manner that the availability of the publicati on is likely \nto be injurious to the public good\".  \n \n \n \n \n Acceptable Use of  Technolo gy Po licy \n \n \n© This p olicy is the pro perty of Massey University      P a g e  | 4 Harmful Digi tal Communicatio ns Act 2015  \nThis Act aims to deter, pre vent and lesse n harmful dig ital communications.   Harmful digital comm unications i nclude  \ncyber bullying and harassment, eg: sending or p ublishing threatening or offensive material  or spreading damaging \nrumours . \n \nHuman Righ ts Act 1993 \nThe Human Rights Act 1 993 prohibits M assey Univers ity from discriminating against any employ ee or contr actor o n \nthe grounds of sex, marital status, colour, ra ce, ethnic or national origin, religious belief, disability, age, political \nopinio n, employme nt status, family status or  sexual orienta tion.   It is unlawful to discriminat e or to treat peop le \nunequall y or le ss favourably on the grounds set out in the Act.   \n \nPrivacy Act 1993  \nEmail communications and web activity may be monitored from t ime to time  to support operational, ma intenance, \nauditing, securit y and investigative acti vities. The Privac y Act 1993 governs  the collection and use of information held \nby the University for the purposes of its management and administratio n. Personal info rmation hel d for these \npurposes must n ot be used for other purpose s. Release of personal i nformation otherwi se than in accorda nce with the \nterms of the Privacy Act is strictl y prohibited.  \nRelated procedures / documents : \nInformation Securit y Classification Policy  \nInformation & Technology Security Policy  \nMassey U niversity C ollective and Individual Em ployment Agreem ents \nMassey U niversity  Information Se curity Manual  \nPolicy on Staff  Conduc t \nElectronic Password Policy  \nStudent Academic In tegrity Policy \nIntellectual Property Policy  \nDeskto p Hardware and Software  Policy  \n \nDocu ment Ma nagement Control:  \nPrepared by:  Chief Info rmation  Officer  \nAuthorised by:  Depu ty Vice -Chancellor , Finance a nd Tech nology \nApproved by:  SLT 21/01/05  \nDate issued:  November  2019  \nNext review:  January 2024  \n \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Children_on_Campus_Procedure_PDF_130_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Children on Campus Procedure PDF 130 KB",
      "policy_type": "Procedure",
      "file_size": "130 KB",
      "author": "Banner, Jodie",
      "creation_date": "2024-04-24T12:05:01",
      "modification_date": "D:20240424125142+12'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n \n \n \n \n   \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n \n ENTER PROCEDURE  \n \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n  CHILDREN ON CAMPUS PROCEDURE   \n \nSection  University Services  \nContact  Director  Occupational Health & Safety, Wellbeing  \nLast Review  November  2023  \nNext Review  November  2025  \nApproval  Director Occupational Health & Safety, Wellbeing  \n \n \nPurpose:  \n \nThe purpose of this procedure is to ensure the safety of children while on Campuses of the University.   \n \n \nScope : \n \nAll Massey University staff, students,  and visitors to a Campus.   \n \n \nProcedure : \n \nChildren of employees or students at the university are welcome to attend the Crèches or After School \nCare Centres, and other facilities which have been designed for children.  These facilities may not be \navailable on all Campuses.   \n  \nThe rest of the University buildings have not been designed for use by children.  They have physical \nhazards such as stairwells, balconies etc., in addition to laboratories, farms and workshops which are \nunsafe for children of all ages. Therefore, it is no t advisable to bring children on to a campus, except for \nvery young immobile babies who are being nursed.   \n  \nWhen children are brought into university  buildings they must be accompanied and appropriately \nsupervised by an adult at all times.  \n• For young and mobile children, close supervision must be continuously attentive.  \n• For older children, depending upon the surrounding hazards, more discretion may be exercised.   \n  \nOther than by invitation of the University, (e.g., open days, organised visits), children must not to be \ntaken into laboratories, workshops, studios or related facilities, farms,  and other specially designated \nareas.   \n  \nIf staff members observe children who are not appropriately supervised, they must immediately take \nsteps to prevent accidental injury and report this to the Head of School / Department (or equivalent).   \n  \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nChildren on Campus Procedure  – Page 2 \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University    \nIt is important that children do not interrupt student learning and delivery of lectures. We recommend \nthat alternative arrangements for childcare be made during lecture times.  \n \nRelated documents :  \nProcedures  \n• Health and Safety at Work Act (2015)  \n• Education and Training Act (2020)  \n \nRelated Procedures  \n• None  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Cash_Passport_Card_Policy_PDF_82_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Cash Passport Card Policy",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "82 KB",
      "creation_date": "2022-04-26T12:00:02",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220101427+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " Massey University Policy Guide  \n \nCASH PASSPORT CARD POLICY  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \n \nPurpose :  \nThe objective of this policy  is to provide guidance on the use of Multi -Curre ncy Cash Passpor t card s (passport cards) \nissued to authorised staff while travelling overseas on Massey U niversity (University) business.  \n \nPolicy:  \nPassport cards are for staff members who are travelling overseas on University business , mainly  to countries that do \nnot recognise credit cards and/or have any banking facilities . Examples of countries include Iran, South East Asia, \nremote regions of China, and developing  countries.  \n \nThe person to whom the card is issued is the only person authorised to use their  passport card. The use of the card \nby others is not permitted and on no occasion may a c ard holder disclose their card’s Personal Identification N umber \n(PIN) to others.  \n \nRequests  for passport  cards  must be included in the staff members ’ approved leave app lication. Th e request must \ninclude the reason  as to why the card is required  and what it is intended to be used for.  \n \nThe Head of Department/Institute/School or Director (HOD/I/S) , or SLT member to whom the staff member reports , \nwill approve issuance of Pa ssport cards . \n \nCards  can be loaded up to a maximum amount of NZD$5,000  (the University’s insurance limit) . \n \nCash passports are not available for Contractors or casual staff.  \nAudience : \nAll staff . \n \nRelated Procedures/D ocuments : \nDiscretionary Expenditure and Gifts Policy  (and Procedures)  \nReimbursement of Expenses Policy  (and Procedures)  \nTravel Policy  (and Procedures)  \nCredit Card Policy  (and Procedures)  Section  Finance  \nContact  Chief Financial Officer  \nLast Review  February 2017  \nNext Review  February 202 7 \nApproval  SLT 15/07/125  \nEffective Date  February 2017  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nCash Pass port Card Policy – Page 2 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  Delegations of Authority Document  \nCash Passport Card Procedures  \n \nDocument Management Control:  \nPrepared by:  Accounts Pay able Team Leader  \nAuthorised by:  Chief Financial Officer  \nApproved by:  AVC Strategy, Finance, IT and Commercial Operations  \nDate issued:  May 2015  \nLast review:  February 2017  \nNext review:  February 202 7 \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Amelioration_Procedure_PDF_245_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Amelioration Procedure PDF 245 KB",
      "policy_type": "Procedure",
      "file_size": "245 KB",
      "author": "Cullinane, Jo",
      "creation_date": "2022-11-15T09:05:08",
      "modification_date": "D:20221115095859+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n \nAMELIORATION PROCEDURE  \n \n \n \nSection  Academic  \nContact  Office of Academic Quality, Reporting and Assurance  \nLast Review  NEW  \nNext Review  September 2027  \nApproval  AC22/09/255  \n \nProcedures:  \nThis procedure  shall have standing in cases in which an emergency, crisis or other threat or operational disruption \nresults in Massey University initiating responses to ensure the continuity of teaching and learning that may be  required \nconsidering  the disruptions exper ienced or anticipated .  The procedure aims to outline a possible range of amendments \nand/or suspensions of procedures, practices and regulations in matters related to teaching and learning  to facilitate the \nadjustments in light of the disruption .  These adjustments are named/denoted “ameliorations” in Massey so that their \nspecial status as agreed amendments are highlighted through specific nomenclature.  \n \nThe table below has been constructed  as a series of rows identifying areas of adjustment to teaching and learning that \nare potentially applicable as ameliorations .  Within each row there are two or three cells which outline potential \nUniversity -wide positions  in relation to that area of adj ustment.  The cells are laid out as a continuum with the more \nstatus quo positions  situated on the left of the continuum and the maximally accommodating positions  situated on the \nright.  As was mentioned above, the list that follows is anticipated to be en compassing of areas that might need to be \nconsidered, but the list is not intended to be read as exclusive - other solutions more appropriate to the specific context \nand situation are able to be offered by stakeholder representatives through this process.  \nPractice:   \n1. On occasions where Massey University  has a situation that creates or has the potential to create disruption to the \ncontinuity of teaching and learning ,  the Provost  shall seek contributions from key internal stakeholder \nrepresentatives1 on adjustments required in light of the disruptions experienced or anticipated.   \n \n2. Wherever possible, and where it does not unduly delay a quick effective decision, the key internal stakeholder \nrepresentatives shall enter the discussions having already garner ed views on possible ameliorations from the \ngroups they represent (including bot h staff and students).   \n \n3. These key internal stakeholder representatives shall then work together to identify the preferred ameliorations \neither from the table below, or by suggesting alternatives which they add to the list below.  \n \n4. In reaching their recomm endations the internal stakeholder representatives will consider the current situation and \navailable responses by balancing a commitment to minimising student detriment, with academic and quality \nassurance expectations.  Recommendations must also be inform ed by risk management and operational \npracticability.  \n \n5. The internal stakeholder representatives will complete the table as follows:  \na. They shall recommend positions  in each row by highlighting the preferred cell in each row  and strike \nthrough those that don’t apply .   \n \n1 It is anticipated that at the minimum , this would include representatives of all the impacted Colleges and all the main service units.  \n  Massey University Policy Guide  \n         Amelioration Procedures – Page 2 \n \nb. They may add further rows with recommendations on adjustments, durations and any concerns or \ncaveats, but to avoid confusion of intent, they shall not otherwise alter the detailed definition in the \npositions al ready defined below.  \nc. If a row is not relevant to the situation at all it may be crossed through.   \nd. They should seek to reach consensus between themselves on recommended positions  (see 6) . \n \n6. There is strong value , for the sake of clarity of communication and  certainty , that all the internal stakeholder \nrepresentatives agree on a single accommodation position  for each row, if this is possible , but it is important to \nnote that if a single position is not possible because of the contingent situation, the consensus may also be \nreached that different solutions should be offered for different groups , and in this situation the ‘Internal \nStakeholder Representatives’ Recorded Recommendations’ list at the end of this document will clarify the \nrecommend ed position  for the differen t groups .   \n \n7. The internal stakeholder representatives’ recommendations would then be considered by the body managing \nthe disruption, as appropriate (such as the Crisis Management Team if this is activated, or where not activated \nvia normal decision -making  authorities ) and that body shall adjust as necessary and then issue a “standing \norder ” which details which amelioration s hall be applied, to which students and the duration  of the decision . \na. The “standing order” shall be reported to Academic Committee and Academic Board for noting.  \n \n8. The ownership of this procedure including any future need to update the table shall be within the remit of \nAcademic Committee.  \n Massey University Policy Guide  \n  Amelioration Procedures – Page 3   \nLIORATION PROCEDUR  \nThe Table – the Range of possible amelioration  positions2: \n \n  \n \n2 Where “College” is used in this document refer s to Colleges and MUC.  The term implies coordination within  the Colleg e that need not be specifically regulated by this document.  \n3 Assessment and Examination Regulation 13 m) permitting Not Finalised (NF) grades to be recorded through until the next offeri ng (at the latest) would remain in place but  should be relied on \nrarely /only in limited circumstances and only where other assessments have been passed and the student has completed less than 60% of the weighting of the course.  \n  Position  range  \n \n \nMinimum Adjustment/ Status Quo \nPosition  Midline Position  Maximal Adjustment Position  Exam s 1.0 Exams shall continue to be offered in \nvenue or online in accordance with \nprevailing university approved exam practice \nprior to the emergency.  1.1 Colleges shall determine for each relevant course (via College Boards and noted by Academic \nCommittee (AC)) whether to remove some examinations entirely and re -weight, replace with al ternative \nassessments, move some to online only, or have some in -venue.  Missed \nAssessmen t3 \n2.1 Students who miss their assessment /s \nwould be subject to standard Aegrotat \n(AG)/Impaired Performance (IP) and \nassessment failure practices.  2.2 Students who have not undertaken or completed assessment /s may apply for AG . Colleges may \nalso permit students to undertake replacement assessments and/or to have fixed time and place \nassessments reopened . Approved \nAssessment  \n3.1 Assessments shall be set as per the \napproved course specifications.  3.2 Colleges will review assessments for each course and propose temporary adjustments if \nappropriate.  Proposals will be considered by the College Boards and will be evaluated based on the \nneed to set assessment patterns that are both: as enabling as possible ; and which also respect \nacademic quality assurance standards. Any changes approved by College Boards will be noted by AC.  Assessment Sub \nminima  4.1 All course assessment item sub -minima \n(i.e. achieving a minimum grade in a specific \nassessment) outlined in course \nspecifications are in place as standard , \nexcept for attendance which will be adjusted \nunless subject to regulatory, professional \nbody or external obligations . 4.2 Colleges will determine for each relevant \ncourse (via College Boards and noted by AC) \nwhat course assessment item sub -minima will \nremain in force.   Evaluation of whether a student \nhas passed will be based on their grade . 4.3 Course assessment item sub -minima are \nsuspended  unless the item is subject to \nregulatory, professional body or external \nobligations.   Evaluation of whether a student has \npassed the course shall be based on their grade . \n  Massey University Policy Guide  \n         Amelioration Procedures – Page 4 \n \n  \n \n4 Assessment and Examination Regulation 13 m) permitting NF based extensions to be recorded through until the next offering (at  the latest) is still in place but  should be relied on rarely /only in \nlimited circumstances (and only where other assessments ha ve been passed and the student has completed less than 60% of the weighting of the course).  \n5 These to be logged at Course Publication as a Not Finalised grade (NF) with minutes in the SMS record for each student with a  NF which states the extension deadli ne.  The NF must be \noverridden with a non -completion or actual grade within 10 days of the extended date.  Note that long extensions for individual students may not pr event timely release of results for students \nmeeting deadlines.   Position range  \n \n \nMinimum Adjustment/ Status Quo Position  Midline Position  Maximal Adjustment Position  Compulsory \nAssessment  5.1 All compulsory assessments ( i.e., undertaking a \nspecific assessment) are as standard except for \nattendance which will be adjusted unless regulatory, \nprofessional body or external obligations  apply . 5.2 Colleges to determine for each relevant \ncourse (via College Boards and noted by AC) \nwhat compulsory assessment requirements will \nremain in force.  5.1 Compulsory assessment rules are suspended \nunless that item is subject to regulatory , \nprofessional body or external obligations.  Other \nAssessment \nRules  6.1 Any other completion rules ( i.e., specified \nconditions that must be completed) are as standard, \nexcept for attendance , which will be adjusted, unless \nsubject to regulatory, professional body or external \nobligations.  6.2 Colleges to determine for each relevant \ncourse (via College Boards and noted by AC) \nwhat other completion rules will remain in force.  6.3 Any other comple tion rules are suspended \nunless that item is subject to regulatory, \nprofessional body or other external obligations.  Assessment \nExtensions4 \n7.1 The College, School or Unit standard extension \npolicy or prevailing practices shall apply to each \ncourse.  7.2 Where a non -research student encounters difficulties with completing assessment, extensions may \nbe given as follows:  \na) Short – up to 10 working days longer shall be approved without demur or objection.  \nb) Medium - complet ed by the initial grade publication date , to be approved as appropriate to  \ncircumstanc e. \nc) Long - within 4 months of the initial course publication date, may be granted by the College DTL or \nequivalent as appropriate to circumstance .5 AG/ IP  \n8.1 The University’s standard AG/ IP regulations, \npolicy and procedures shall apply.  8.2 Emergency rules shall apply to AG and IP and \nthe application form shall state that it may be \nbeneficial to the application to supply supporting \nevidence. Evidence may or may not be required \ndepending upon the circumstances.  8.3 Emergency rules shall apply to AG and IP, \nsuspending the absolute requirement to provide \nevidence of a claim.  Blanket \nIP 9.1 The College’s standard moderation processes shall \nbe applied.  9.2 Colleges shall consider the performance of student cohorts where the majority of students are likely \nto be impacted by the emergency situation and compare it to performance of prior cohorts, and may \ndetermine whether to make adjustments to the impacted cohort’s grades if there is a significant drop in \nperformance.  \n  Massey University Policy Guide  \n         Amelioration Procedures – Page 5 \n \nNon-PhD \nResearch \nStudents  10.1 The University’s standard procedures \nand expectations for non -PhD Research \nStudents’ extension applications shall \napply.  10.2 Non-PhD Research Students’ extension applications for final project/ report/ thesis shall be \naddressed through the standard proce dures, without financial penalty (e.g. additional fees) but with an \nexpectation that any reasonable accommodation will be made when appropriate relative to the likely \nimpact of the emergency situation.  NFs and \nPre-\nrequisites  11.1 Course pre -requisite rules shall be as \nper standard prevailing practices including \nstudents being able to make individual \napplications for entry through special \npermission.  11.2 Where a student has a published NF on a course pre -requisite to one, they wish to study, they \nmay apply for special permission to enrol in the next course. If the student then subsequentially passes \nthe higher course and fails the lower course, the pas sed credits will be unaffected but the failed course \n(or equivalent ) will need to be successfully completed.   Students will be advised that they are \nproceeding with the higher course at their own risk . Fee \nAppeals  \n12.1 The University’s standard fee appeal \npolicy, rules and procedures shall apply  12.2 Where a student lodges a fee appeal \nbecause of the emergency this shall be approved \nas far as is reasonable.  Evidence may or may not \nbe required depending upon the circums tances.  12.3 Where a student lodges a fee appeal \nbecause of the emergency situation, this shall be \napproved wherever possible and with the same \nevidence standard as is being used for AG/ IP.  Inability to complete planned \nteaching / learning  13.1 Where con tingencies mean that \ncourse offerings are judged to be unlikely \nto complete core teaching and learning \nactivity within 15 working days of the \npublished end date for a course, the \nofferings impacted will have extended end \ndates (carrying forward grades) to permit \ncompleting the requirements in the \nfollowing semester.  \nAny student who is unable to continue \nwith the decision reached for the offering \nwill be given a without penalty refund if \nthey can demonstrate their circumstances \nwill make continuation untenab le.6 13.2 Where contingencies mean that a course offering is judged to be unlikely to complete core \nteaching and learning activity no later than 15 working days after the course’s previously published end \ndate Colleges will review impacted offerings and make proposals to their College Board (any changes \nnoted by AC) . Options available:  \na) If less than 50% of the offering’s teaching and learning has been completed and/or if the cohort’s \ncompletion of the core learning outcomes cannot be assured, the offerings impacted will have extended \nend dates (carrying forward grades) to permit comple ting the requirements in the following semester: \nthis will not require a student to re -enrol in a course’s next offering.  \nb) If more than 50% of the offering’s teaching and learning has been completed; and if the cohort’s \ncompletion of the core learning ou tcomes can be assured, the offerings impacted may be curtailed and \ngrades awarded using recorded performance or close approximations.7 \nAny student who is unable to continue (if that is the decision reached for the offering), will be given a \nwithout penalt y refund if they can demonstrate their circumstances will make continuation untenable.  \n  \n \n6 Evaluation of such case s shall be undertaken by the College DTL (or equivalent)  \n7 Subject to regulatory, professional body or other external obligations.   Position range  \n \n \nMinimum Adjustment/ Status Quo Position  Midline Position  Maximal Adjustment Position  \n  Massey University Policy Guide  \n         Amelioration Procedures – Page 6 \n \nAdditional \nArea \n   \n \nInternal Stakeholder Representatives’ Recorded Recommendations:  \n \n• Additional to the areas identified in the table above, the internal stakeholders wish to offer the following suggestions for ameliorations that seem appropriate to the \nspecifics of this situa tion/ disruption:  \n  \n  \n \n• It is recommended that the duration of the decision be (delete those that do not apply)  \nThe whole of the current semester (preferred)  \n Until xxx date  and then reviewed  \n \n \n• The suggested application of this decision is  (delete those that do not apply) : \nAll students, all courses, all offerings  All students and all offerings excluding those taught solely to a trans -national \neducation cohort overseas (preferred)  \nStudents on xxx programme  \n Students studying at xxx location  \n \n• The internal stakeholder representative group wishes to highlight these issues or concerns  or caveats relevant to their advice : \n \n \n \n• Completed by/ Date:  \n \n \n  Position range  \n \n \nMinimum Adjustment/ Status Quo Position  Midline Position  Maximal Adjustment Position  \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Academic_Progression_Procedures_PDF_275_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Academic Progression Procedures",
      "policy_type": "Procedure",
      "file_size": "275 KB",
      "author": "Walker Anne",
      "creation_date": "2022-06-08T16:00:06",
      "modification_date": "D:20230726090357+12'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n Massey University  Policy Guide  \n \nACADEMIC PROGRESSION P ROCEDURES  \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \n \nPurpose :  \nThese Procedures detail the specific arrangements for managing Academic Progress at Massey University Te \nKunenga ki Pūrehuroa . \n \nThis document is intended to be read in conjunction with the University Academic Progress Regulations and the \nAcademic Progress Policy.  \nProcedure Overview : \nCommittees and Subcommittees  \n \nAcademic Progress Committee (APC) Membership  \n• Chair (a senior academic nominated by the Provost)  \n• Representative of each College and Massey University College (MUC), appointed by the respective PVC or \nequivalent  \n• Student Experience nominee  \n• Student Registry nominee  \nIn attendance:  \no Office of Academic Quality, Reporting and Assurance nominee  \no Committee Secretary provided by Student Registry  \no Director, Centre for Learner Success  \n \nPerformance o n Professional and Accredited Qualifications (P -PAQ) Sub -Committee Membership  \n• Chair (a senior academic from another academic unit appointed by the Academic Progress Committee Chair)  \n• Three representatives of the programme team including the programme direct or or accreditation manager \nappointed by the relevant PVC or equivalent  \n• Student Experience nominee  \n• Student Registry nominee  \nIn attendance:  Section Academic\nContact Office of the Provost \nLast Review     November 2021\nNext Review     June  2027\nApproval     Council 10/06/2022 \nEffective date    June 2022\n  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nAcademic Progression P rocedures  – Page 2 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \no Office of Academic Quality, Reporting and Assurance nominee  \no Committee Secretary provided by the relevant College (or equivalent)  \n \n3.2 Evaluating Student Academic Progress  \n1. A process entitled Evaluating Student Academic Progress (ESAP) will be conducted at regular intervals \nthroughout the academic year using published results from those courses completed in the  immediately \npreceding enrolment period.  \n2. The Academic Progress Committee will be the guardians of the ESAP and related processes.  \na) The Committee’s work will be supported by Student Registry whose role will include providing the \nAcademic Progress Committee ’s secretariat, managing data derived from SMS (the primary source \nof data), plus managing records, enrolment statuses and correspondence.   \nb) The Committee will also be supported by the Office of Student Experience whose role will include \nadvising on any rel evant university information and data about a student which is not stored in SMS.  \nOutside of the Committee process, the Office of Student Experience will be responsible for initiating \nand coordinating case -management and Provision of Support Offers (PSOs)  for each student with \nStatuses of Concern .  This may involve either direct support or formal referrals to support situated \noutside Student Experience (See Section 4.0).  \nc) The Committee will also be supported in its work by designated College Officers and/ o r qualification \nleads in order to evaluate any progress criteria not reflected in academic results, for example failure \nto make progress in a research thesis.  \n3. Academic Progress Committee conducting ESAP on behalf of Massey will utilise published course res ults \nfrom students’ recent periods of enrolment.  Those results will be evaluated against expectations \nthresholds. See Section 5.1 of the Academic Progress Policy (Thresholds).  \n4. The evaluation will identify students whose performance is below the minimum ex pectation thresholds \n(Status of Concern ), students whose performance is considered to be excelling ( Excelling Status ) and those \nhaving Satisfactory  performance.  \n5. Academic Progress Committee will invite written submissions from those students whose course re sults \nindicate their performance is below the expectations thresholds, prior to making any determinations.  The \nopportunity to make a written submission is limited in scope and timing.  Students are required to make \ntheir submission through a portal or oth er system designated by the Academic Progress Committee. \nStudents making submissions are required to comply with the deadline designated by the Academic \nProgress Committee.  \n6. Academic Progress Committee will make determinations in hearings processes.  \na) APC wil l determine whether a student’s performance in the most recent period was below \nexpectations thresholds and should be flagged highlighted with a Status of Concern ; or if the \nstudent’s performance was satisfactory ; or if the student’s performance was above expectation \nthresholds and should be flagged with an Excelling Status . \nb) Determinations related to Status of Concern  will be based on students’ most recent published \ncourse results, any written submissions, and any other relevant records including support al ready in \nplace.   \nc) Determinations related to Satisfactory  Performance will be based on students’ most recent \npublished course results.  \nd) Determinations related to Excelling Statuses  will be based on students’ most recent published \ncourse results.  \ne) If an APC determination results in a student’s performance being flagged with an Excelling Status , \nthat status will remain on the student’s record in association with that period of study an d will not \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nAcademic Progression P rocedures  – Page 3 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nbe impacted by performance in later periods of study.  However, reversal of Excelling Status  may \noccur in instances of later proven academic integrity breaches related to those course results.  \nf) In instances where a student’s performance has previ ously been flagged with a Status of Concern  for \ntheir current qualification or in a concomitant situation, the hearing will also determine if the \nstudent is on their third instance of receiving such a status and whether any restrictions should be \napplied. See Section 5.2 of the Academic Progress Policy (Restrictions able to be applied by the APC).  \ng) Where a student’s performance has been flagged as Excelling , Massey will add a note on the \nstudent’s Academic Record (transcript) and may send a letter of acknowl edgement from the Vice -\nChancellor or Provost or Nominee, and/or publish the names and accomplishments (with a student’s \npermission), and/or refer students to appropriate opportunities.  \n7. The Academic Progress Committee will work with Student Registry as requ ired to record appropriate SMS \nand CRM notes, change student statuses, and send formal notification/ correspondence to students.  \n8. The Student Experience team will work in support of the Academic Progress Committee to:  \na) Initiate and coordinate personal contac t and follow up with students.  \nb) Initiate and coordinate Case Management systems.  \nc) Work with Qualification and/ or College leads to inform and consult on the situation and agree plans \nfor support as relevant.  \nd) Initiate and coordinate formal Provision of Support Offers (PSOs) as relevant.  \ne) Initiate and coordinate processes to instate any of the benefits or opportunities that ensue from \nExcelling Status . \nf) Plan a timed supported return to study plan where a student has had an exclusion and/or \nenrollment restri ction applied.  \n9. Where a student provides information in the submission process such that course design and/or teaching \nissues are identified to be contributing factors to their progress or lack thereof, the matter will be raised \nwith the College Director of  Teaching and Learning, or equivalent, or Chief Examiner for advice.   \n10. On each occasion when the Academic Progress Committee makes a determination on a student’s \nperformance, that student will have the right to appeal (on limited grounds).  Appeals are cons idered by the \nProvost or Nominee.  The grounds for appeal are limited in scope and timing and students are required to \nmake their submission through a portal or other system designated .  See Section 6.0 of the Academic \nProgress Policy (Appeals).  \n11. If the Pro vost or Nominee determines that an appeal should be upheld, remediation will be applied.  See \nSection 6.1 of the Academic Progress Policy (Appeal Remediation).  \n \n3.3 Evaluating Performance on Professional and Accredited Qualifications  \n1. In parallel to a gener al ESAP process, a small number of programmes also have specific performance and \ncompetence requirements outlined in their Programme Regulations that must be evaluated.  APC will \nconsider the progress of students on these specific programmes throughout an academic year using a \nPerformance on Professional and Accredited Qualifications (P -PAQ) process . \n2. The Academic Progress Committee will be the guardians of the P -PAQ processes, but they will delegate \ndetailed consideration of performance on these specific qu alifications to appropriately constituted P -PAQ \nsubcommittees. See Section 5.4 of the Academic Progress Policy.  \n3. P-PAQ processes will mirror the Academic Progress Committee processes with regard to invitations for \nwritten submissions from students, hearings  considering data and submissions, and deliberations following \nthe principles of natural justice.  \na) P-PAQ processes may result in a recommendation to the Academic Progress Committee that the \nstudent’s Status was Satisfactory , or a Status of Concern .  Where p erformance is flagged as a Status \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nAcademic Progression P rocedures  – Page 4 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nof Concern,  a Provision of Support Offer (PSO) and/or an exclusion and/or enrolment restriction \nmight be recommended by the P -PAQ subcommittee.  \nb) The Academic Progress Committee will consider the recommendation/s and determ ine whether the \nP-PAQ recommendation/s should be implemented.  \n4. P-PAQ considerations and recommendations will rely upon the additional requirements specified in the \nrelevant Programme Regulations.  These require strict compliance, and therefore may result in  \nrecommendations for restrictions and exclusion that do not require two prior concomitant Status of Concern  \nrecords.  \n5. The Academic Progress Committee will work with Student Registry to record appropriate SMS and CRM \nrecord notes and to send appropriate corr espondence to students.  \n6. The Academic Progress Committee will refer relevant cases to Student Experience to initiate and coordinate \nCase Management support, PSOs, and referrals.  \n7. The determination made by the Academic Progress Committee in relation to P-PAQ recommendations will \nbe open to appeal in the same manner as the general ESAP procedures.  \n \n3.4 Timing of Processes  \n• Some ESAP and P -PAQ evaluation processes at the end of a period of enrolment might potentially result in \nrestrictions to, and/or exclus ion from, enrolment in the immediately subsequent period of enrolment.  \n• The main ESAP and P -PAQ results will be calculated once per enrolment period, usually after the last day for \ngrade publication. Where a student is in a cohort which does not follow stan dard semester dates, that \ncohort will have a different planned calculation day.  \n• Changes to grades after ESAP and P -PAQ calculations have been run will be managed on a case -by-case \nbasis.  \n• In these circumstances a student will normally be notified of a conce rn and be invited to make a written \nsubmission for a Hearing prior to the closure of enrolments in the next period.  \n• Students will still be permitted to continue studying at their own risk while they await the result of the \nHearing, and every effort will be  made to reach an ESAP or P -PAQ determination prior to the next period’s \ndate for withdrawal or withdrawal without financial penalty.  \n• Where it is not possible to complete processes prior to the date for withdrawal or withdrawal without \nfinancial penalty and where a determination of exclusion is recommended, a student will be treated as if \nhaving completed an on -time withdrawal.  \n• Students  may not continue studying in the given period if they have an exclusion determination from a \nHearing and while a student may intend to lodge an appeal against an exclusion outcome, a pending appeal \ndoes not entitle them to continue studying.   \n• If the appe al outcome is successful, the result will be permission to enrol into any courses relevant to the \nstudent’s study in those courses’ next  available offering.  \nTypes of Student and Academic Support Available at Massey : \nMassey recognises that students will exp erience challenges in life that impact their academic performances, which \nare often complex and arise from a mixture of academic and non -academic causes.   \n \nTherefore, Massey will use a Case -Management approach to seek to tailor support for students with a cademic \nperformance issues according to their circumstances.  Where a student has been assessed to be in need of support, \naccess to that support will be underpinned by a formal Provision of Support Offer (PSO). A Case -Management \napproach will be coordinate d by the Office of Student Experience and may involve staff from the following areas:  \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nAcademic Progression P rocedures  – Page 5 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n• Centre for Learner Success  \n• College and MUC Course Coordinators  \n• College and MUC Programme Directors  \n• Counselling services  \n• Disability Support Services  \n• Graduate Research Scho ol \n• International Student Support Team  \n• Māori student support including Te Rau Tauawhi centres  \n• Massey Career Centre  \n• Pacific Student Success Advisers  \n• Pacific Student Teaching Support  \n• Spiritual Wellbeing, and Chaplaincy Service  \n• Student Associations  \n• Student Hea lth Centres  \n• Student Success Adviser  \n• Library and Subject Librarians  \nCommunication : \nThis procedure will be supported by student -facing information on the university website.  \n \nAudience : \nThis procedure’s audience is all staff, students and within the university community and other interested parties \nexternal to Massey  \n \nRelated procedures  / documents : \n \n• Code of Student Conduct  \n• Student Contract  \n• Student Disciplinary Regulations  \n• University Workloads Policy and Procedures  \n• Academic Integrity Policy and Procedures  \n• Health and Wellbeing Charter  \n• Health, Safety and Wellbeing Policy  \n• The Education (Pastoral Care of Tertiary and International learners) Code of Practice 2021  \n• Assessment and Examination Regulations  \n \nDefinitions  \n \nAcademic Progress \nCommittee (APC)  A Committee of the University with responsibilit y for the oversight \nand enactment of matters related to Academic Progress, including, \nbut not limited to the Academic Regulations, Programme Regulations, \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nAcademic Progression P rocedures  – Page 6 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \npolicy and procedures, and with a coordinating role in related records \nand support activities.  APC wi ll report to Academic Committee.  \n \nCase Management  A systematic method adopted by Massey University Te Kunenga ki \nPūrehuroa  to provide personalised and tailored support to students.  \nOften led by the Office of Student Experience, the system includes the \nprovision of a main point of contact and facilitation of access to \nspecific support.  \n \nConcomitant situation  A ‘concomitant situation’ describes arrangements when a student \nchanges qualifications.  In these cases, any Statuses of Concern  and \nassociated Provision of Support Offers (PSOs) and Case Management \narrangements will remain active until the student has either \nsuccessfully completed the new qualification or until the Status of \nConcern  has otherwise expired.  \n \nCustomer Relationship \nManagem ent (CRM)  System utilised to store interactions and communication the \nuniversity has with students.  A central repository is used to aid a \ncoordinated approach and one source of truth.  The CRM is expected \nto hold Case Management information (in a secure/r estricted access \narrangement for use by designated staff).  \n \nEvaluating Student \nAcademic Progress \n(ESAP)  A process completed at the end of each enrolment period where a \nstudent’s published results (in all enrolled courses) are evaluated to \ndetermine whether a student’s academic performance is excelling , \nsatisfactory , or, of concern . \n \nExcelling  Thresholds  The performance level which APC will use in the ESAP processes to \ndetermine whether a student’s performance in the most recent \nenrolment period has been above expectation/ excelling .  See \nAcademic Progress Policy Section 5.1 of the Academic Progress Policy.  \n \nGrade Point Average \n(GPA)  \n GPA is used in estimating if a student’s performance is evaluated as \nExcelling Status . \n \nGPA is calculated according to the sum of the weighted grade point \ncredit value divided by the sum of the credit values of all courses \nenrolled in for the relevant period of consideration (normally a \nsemester).  \nGPA =  Sum (credits completed x GPA value of  grade)  \n Sum of credits completed  \nWhere the GPA value of each grade is assigned for this as follows:  \nD, E, F, DC/DNC = 0  \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nAcademic Progression P rocedures  – Page 7 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nC- = 1;  C =2;  C+ =3  \nB- =4;  B =5;  B+ 6  \nA- +7;  A=8;  A+ =9  \nP (Pass), AEG (Aegrotat pass), NF (Not Finalised), CT (Continuing \nenrolment) and WD (Withdrawn) are deemed neutral and will not \nnormally be considered in the GPA calculations (numerator or \ndenominator) unless this is of benefit to the student.  \n \nLong -term Exclusion  Where a student has already experienced previous short -term \nexclusion arising from ESAP, P -PAQ and/or Academic Standing, a long -\nterm exclusion may be applied i.e. the student would not be \npermitted to enrol at Massey University Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa  for \na minimum of three years and must apply for readmission.  In such \ninstances the university will support the student when they re -enter \nstudy.  \n \nMinimum Thresholds  The performance level which APC will use in the ESAP process to \ndetermine whether a student’s performance in the most recent \nenrolment period has been above or below threshold expectations/ of \nconcern.  See Section 5.1 of the Academic Progress Policy.  \n \nPerformance on \nProfessional and \nAccredited \nQualifications (P -PAQ)  For the small number of programmes with specific performance and \ncompetence requir ements listed in the Pr ogramme Regulations, \nstudent progress will be evaluated to determine compliance with the \nspecific performance and competence requirements .  If a student’s \nprogress is not in line with those specific performance and \ncompetence require ments, a potential Status of Concern  will be \nconsidered by the relevant P -PAQ subcommittee in a Hearing.  If the \nP-PAQ subcommittee agrees a Status of Concern  should be recorded, \nthey will recommend this to Academic Progress Committee, including \nrecommenda tions for referrals and/or restrictions or qualification \nexclusions.  \n \nPermanent Programme \nor Qualification \nExclusion  Where P -PAQ processes result in an evaluation such that the student \nwill not be able to be endorsed as suitable for registration or \nprofes sional accreditation, the APC may permanently exclude the \nstudent from that qualification.  In such instances the student will be \nassisted to transfer to an alternative qualification (and will be \nsupported in their learning) or, if they prefer, they will b e exited from \nstudy.  \n \nProvision of Support \nOffers (PSO)  A formal referral process arising from the Academic Progress \nCommittee ESAP and P -PAQ processes, where students have a Status \nof Concern . The Office of Student Experience will be responsible for \ninitiating and coordinating PSOs. These take the form of a statement \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nAcademic Progression P rocedures  – Page 8 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nof entitlement and expectation which is offered and tracked by the \nkey contact in the Case Management system.  \n \nShort -term Exclusion  Arising from determinations made by the Academic Progress  \nCommittee in relation to ESAP and P -PAQ processes, a short -term \nexclusion results in a student not being permitted to enrol at Massey \nUniversity Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa  for a minimum of 12 months. In \nsuch instances the university will offer support to stu dents which they \ncan access when they re -enter study at a time negotiated with their \nCase Manager, but the students are not required to apply for \nreadmission.  \n \nStudent Management \nSystem (SMS)  The application software and related records that maintain Massey \nUniversity Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa  student, course and programme \nachievement records. This includes the student interface for the \nrecords called the portal.  \n \nSupport  The provision of guida nce, support and advice to assist students to \nmeet the academic standards for their programme of study.  \n \nThreshold  A level of performance against which students’ outcomes are \nevaluated.  These include a Minimum Threshold for the lower end of \nthe academic progress evaluation process and Excelling  Thresholds for \nthe upper end of the academic progress evaluation process.  \n \nTermination of \nenrolment  Used in relation to specific Programme Regulations to denote a \nPermanent Programme or Qualification Exclusion.  \n \nWD Withdrawn from a course after the date where there is no financial \npenalty.  \n \nWMAR  Last day to withdraw from courses without financial penalty.  \n \n \n \n  \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nAcademic Progression P rocedures  – Page 9 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nDocument Management Control:\nPrepared by:  Office of the Provost \nAuthorised by: Provost\nApproved by: Council 10/06/2022 \nDate issued: June 2022\nLast review:  November 2021\nNext review:  June 2027 \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Charging_for_Official_Information_Policy_PDF_201_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Charging for Official Information",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "201 KB",
      "author": "jmlochhe",
      "creation_date": "2025-02-17T12:03:00",
      "modification_date": "D:20250217123032+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n Massey University Policy Guide  \n \nPOLICY ON CHARGING FOR OFFICIAL INFORMATION  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \nPurpose:  \nThe Official Information Act 1982 (“OIA”) provides for the University to impose a reasonable charge — subject to \nexternal review by the Ombudsman , to recover some of the costs of making information requested available. This \nPolicy sets out how and when the University will apply a charge to requests  for official information . \nPolicy:  \nInformation which an officer, employee or member of the University holds in their official capacity is deemed to be \nheld by the University and is therefore subject to the OIA. This also extends to independent contractors, \norganisations or companies that are undertaking work on the University’s behalf.  \n \nWhere a request for official information is made or transferred to the University, the decision to charge will be made \non a case -case basis by the Director Governance and Assurance.  \n \nCharges  \nCharges may be levied for OIA requests where:  \n• A decision has been made to release the information in full, or in part ; and  \n• Requests involve more than one hour of chargeable1 work ; and/or  \n• The requestor has recently made a large volume of time consuming requests  in a short period ; and/or  \n• Where the information is of commercial value to the requestor  \n \nIn assessing whether to c harge, th e University will adhere to the g uidelines and charges as recommended by the \nMinistry of Justice, and consider whether a charge is appropriate in the circumstances. If it is not  appropriate to \ncharge, then the r equest will be processed as per the University’s internal  process.  \n \n \n1 Chargeable work includes labour (search and retrieval, editing, peer review, scanning etc), materials and other actual and \ndirect costs such as retrieval from off -site storage. Activities that cannot be charged for include: decision -making on the request, \ntime spent estimating the charge, other general overhead costs.  Section  Organisational Management and Governance  \nContact  Governance and Assurance  \nLast Review  3rd April 2019  \nNext Review  March 2023  \nApproval  SLT 19/04 /53 \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nCharging for Official Information Policy  – Page 2 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  Where a charge is appropriate, this will be calculated with the first one hour of time spent on the request being  free; \nand then all additional time to be charged at $38  per half hour.  \n \nPhotocopying or printing on standard A4 paper where the total number of pages is in excess of 20 pages will be \ncharged at a rate of 20c for each page.  \n \nAll other costs incurred will be charged at an amount that recovers the actual costs involved. This could include:  \n• Provision of information on discs  \n• Retrieval of information from off -site storage  \n• Providing a copy of any document larger than A4 size \n• Actual rate o f pay where specialist staff are required to pro cess the request  \n \nWhere the threshold to provide the information for free (1 hour) is only slightly exceed, the University will at its \ndiscretion decide whether any charge is payable or not.  \n \nAll charges specified in this policy are inclusive of GST.  \n  \nRemission of charges  \nThe University reserves the right to reduce or waive any charge, having regard to the particular circumstances of any \nrequest. Such considerations could  include h ardship , to assist another department or agency in its work , or where \nthere is a significant public interest.  \n \nPayment  \nWhere a charge is to be applied, the University will communicate with the requestor advising of: the decision to \nrelease all or part of the information; the estimated total amount of the charge and the basis for this estimate, and; \ndetails of how to complete  the transaction.  \n \nIn all cases the University will require that the requestor deposit the full amount into the specified account, prior to \nany resources being deployed to proces s the request.   \n \nIf further steps are available to the requester to reduce or remove the charge (e.g. further refinement of the \nrequest’s scope), then this will also be communicated to the  requester at this time.  \n \nWork on the request will be suspended pending receipt of the payment.  \nDefinitions  \nOfficial information  means any information held  by an agency subject to the OIA. For the purposes of the Act, \nMassey is an agency.  \n \nOfficial information is not limited to documentary material, and includes material held in any format such as:  \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nCharging for Official Information Policy  – Page 3 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  • written documents, reports, memoranda, letters, notes, emails and draft documents;  \n• non-written documentary information, such as material stored on or generated by computers, including \ndatabases, video or tape recordings;  \n• information which is known to an agency, but which has not yet been recorded in writing or otherwise \n(including knowledge of a particular matter held by an officer, employee or member of an agency in their \nofficial capacity);  \n• documents and manuals which set out the policies, principles, rules or guidelines for decision making by an \nagency;  and  \n• the reasons for any decisions that have been made about a person.  \n \n An Agency  includes those entities  listed or described in Part 1 or Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the Ombudsmen Act 1975 \n(OA), or in Schedule 1 of  the OIA, and includes:  \n• Ministers of the Crown in their official capacity;  \n• government departments and organisations, including the Police;  \n• crown entities and some state owned enterprises;  \n• district health boards;  \n• universities, polytechnics, colleges of education, wananga and other tertiary education institutions (but not \nprivate training establishments); and  \n• boards of trustees of state schools  \n \nAudience:  \nThis policy applies to all officers  and employees of the University, including contracted individuals, organisations and \ncompanies undertaking work on the University’s behalf.  \nRelevant Legislation:  \nThe Official Information Act 1982 : The purposes of the Act include the promotion of good government and the \nenhancement of respect for the law by increasing the availability of official information progressively, in order to \nenable more effective public participation in the making and administration of laws and policies , and; to promote the \naccountability of Ministers and officials . The guiding principle of the Act is that information should be made available \nunless there is good reason for withholding it . The Act provides for an Agency to charge for the provision of such \ninformation.  \nRelated Procedures /Documents : \nOfficial Information Act Charging Guidelines  (Ministry of Justice)  \nResearch Data Management Policy  \nDocument Management and Control:  \nPrepared  by: Director Governance and Assurance  \nAuthorised  by: SLT \nDate  issued:  3rd April 2019  \nLast review:  New  \nNext  review : March 2023  \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Business_Case_Policy_PDF_339_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Section",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "339 KB",
      "author": "jmlochhe",
      "creation_date": "2025-02-27T09:03:02",
      "modification_date": "D:20250227093251+13'00'"
    },
    "content": "                                                                                \n                                                                                     BUSINESS CASE POLICY  \n                                               Massey University Policy Guide  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nPurpose   \nThe purpose of this policy is to define the business case require ments of  Massey University.   For more information on \nhow the policy is applied, please refer to the Business Case Framework and Procedures.  \nPolicy  \nMassey University has adopted the Better Business Case s (BBC)  methodology  to provide a framework for effective \nbusiness planning and to ensure quality assurance for better business outcomes .   \n \n1. The Senior Leadership Team  (SLT)  has responsibility for determining the merits and priority of change and \ninvestment proposals  for Massey University.  \n \n2. Endorsement by the respective SLT sponsor of the Strategic Assessment or Business Case is required prior to \ncommencing drafting of the Strategic Assessment or Business Case.  \n \n3. The next step is to prepare a  Strategic Assessment , for SLT approval . Once this is approved, a Business Case \ncan be developed. See Business Case Framework and  Procedures for the detailed steps in the process.  \n \n4. Business  case  templates will be based on  the level of risk and financial value assessed in accordance with the \nRisk Profile Assessment (see Appendix A).  \n \n5. The Vice Chancellor (VC) or the DVC U niversity Services (DVC US) may authorise that the Strategic Assessment \nprocess is bypassed to proceed straight to a Business Case. This does not negate the need for item 2 above.   \n \n6. Strategic Assessments and Business Cases are required to be endorsed by the Estates and Infrastructure \nAdvisory Committee (EIAC) prior to being presented to SLT.  \n \n7. The BBC  methodology  and fit for purpose templates will be used for all business cases presented to SLT and \nUniversity Council.  The business case will also undergo a quality assurance review before submission to SLT.  \n \n8. Business cases will comply with the  Business Case Framework and Procedures aligned to this policy .  This \ndocument  referenc es the Better Business Case s guidelines detailed on the New Zealand Treasury website,  \nBetter Business Cases (BBC) .  \n Section  DVC University Services  \nContact  Manager – Financial Planning and \nAnalysis  \nLast Review  February  2025 \nNext Review  February  2028 \nApproval  FAC 25/03  \nEffective Date  February  2025 \n \n                                         Massey University Policy Guide  \nBusiness Case Policy  – Page 2  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n9. The DVC US  is the business case process owner and business cases will comply with any advisory requirements \nthat the  DVC US may request.  \n \n10. A business c ase is required for any funding request exceeding a total project cost (TPC) of $300,000  (see \ndefinition)  or recurr ent funding of $1 00,000 per annum or above .  The type of business case will be determined by \nthe Massey University Risk Profi le Assessment tool (Appendix A), and in consultation with Finance . \n \n11. The business case shall evaluate the whole of life (WOL) cost impacts of the investment including all operating \nand capital costs over the life of the investment.  \n \n12. Business cases and Strategic Assessments will be formally presented to SLT for approval at a scheduled  SLT \nbusiness case meeting , currently twice a year . \n \n13. Prior to the business case being submitted to Finance, in accordance with the deadlines communicated by \nFinance, the Business Case or Strategic Assessment is to be reviewed and supported by the Sponsor.  \n \n14. Quality Assurance Review  \nA business case Quality Assurance Review is a planned and systematic review of the proposal s’ ability to meet \nstakeholder expectations, i.e. will the proposal achieve the stated outcomes, in terms of benefits, cost, time, \nviability, affordability, sustainability, risk and reputation. Business case quality assurance reviews will be completed \nby a panel of specialists  prior to submitting the business case to EIAC and then SLT. It will be circulated by \nFinance for review and will consist of representatives from core operational and services groups and  augmented \nand supported by specialists consistent with the type and content of the business case  being reviewed.  \n \n15. Finance  will provide commentary on the business case quality assurance review , and this commentary  must be \nincluded  in the SLT committee paper .  \n \n16. Business cases must be approved through the established University planning an d executive approval \nprocedures , including SLT and  University Council . Approval of b usiness cases  are in line with the Delegations of \nAuthority Policy as follows:  \n \na. Capital  and Operating costs  - Whole of life costs up to $5m are approved by SLT  or the Vice Chancellor , \nwhile business cases of more than $5m whole of life cost are approved by Council.  \n \nDefinitions  \n \nStrategic Assessment  \nThe strategic assessment phase of the BBC demonstrates alignment with strategy, estimate of cost and  identifies  \nstrategic risks.  Refer to Business C ase Framework and Procedure s. \n \nCapital Cost  \nThe fixed, one -time expenses incurred on the purchase of land, buildings, construction , and equipment . It is the \ntotal cost needed to bring a project to a commercially operable status.  \n \nTotal Project Cost (TPC)  \nThe financial value of all works and fees related to the implementation and completion of an approved project; \nincluding but not limited to, design, contract documentation, procureme nt, consents, development contributions, \nconstruction, software, configuration, implementation and training. Total project cost can include bot h operating \nand capital cost and is used to determine if the project can be approved by SLT or requires University Council \napproval.  \n \n \n                                         Massey University Policy Guide  \nBusiness Case Policy  – Page 3  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nWhole -of-Life (WOL)  Cost \nA calculation of the financial costs associated with buying and using a good or service. WOL is also referred to as \nTotal Cost of Ownership (TCO), Life Cycle Costs (LCC) or Maximum Total Estimated Value (MTEV).  Rather than \njust looking at the initial purch ase price, WOL looks at the complete cost from purchase to disposal. WOL value \nincludes every phase of ownership and adds to the initial purchase price other costs expected to be incurred \nduring the life of the product such as subsequent consumables, main tenance, design costs, operating costs, \nassociated financing costs, depreciation, implementation, training, and disposal of assets.      \nAudience  \nAll staff preparing business cases . \n \nRelevant legislation  \nEducation Act 1989 Section 192 Powers of Institutions  \n \nLegal compliance  \nProjects may need to seek  Tertiary Education Commission (T EC), or Crown  approval , which will be required to  be \nsubmitted in BBC format.  \n \nRelated procedures / documents  \n \nAsset Financial Procedure  \nAsset Investment Policy    \nBusiness Case Framework and Procedures  \nCapital Asset Management Policy  \nCapital Budget Carry Forward Procedure  \nDelegations of Authority Policy   \nInformation and Records Management Policy   \nProgramme and Proj ect Management Policy \nProject Post Completion Review Policy    \nProgressive Procurement Policy   \nRisk Management Framework   \nRisk Management Policy   \n \nDocument Management Control  \nPrepared by:  Barry Harlen : Manager – Financial Planning  and Analysis  \nAuthorised by:  Deputy Vice Chancellor University Services  \nApproved by:  FAC 25/03  \nDate issued:  February  2025  \nLast review:  February  2025  \nNext review:  February  2028  \n \n \nAppendix A  \n \nMassey University Risk Profile Assessment for business cases  (see next page)  \nAPPENDIX A: RISK PROFILE ASSESSMENT: BUSINESS CASE ASSESSMENT CRITERIA  \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n\n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Business_Continuity_Policy_PDF_164_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Business Continuity Policy",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "164 KB",
      "author": "jmlochhe",
      "creation_date": "2019-01-17T10:04:01",
      "modification_date": "D:20190117104121+13'00'"
    },
    "content": "  \nMassey University Polic y Guide  \nU \nBUSINESS CONTINUITY POLICY  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \n \nPurpose   \n \nMassey University is committed, t hrough the adoption of Business Continuity Management best practices, to achieve \nits business continuity aim of responding to disruptions from internal or external events in a way that ensures essential  \nservices/ functions are maintained or restored in a timely fashion, whilst minimising the impact to staff, s tudents, other \ncritical stakeholders , the University’s reputation and the wider  community.  \n \nMassey University  recognises that some events may exceed the capacity of business as usual  management \nprocesses  and structure s. This policy and associated documents  aim to provide a mechanism for the identification of \nessential services and development of  contingency plans that will enable management to focus on maintaining and \nresuming the University’s essential  services/ functions and  eventual full restoration of  University  operations  and \nservices . \n \nThe Business Continuity  Policy  is aligned to AS/NZS 5050 :2010 Business continuity -Managing disruption -related risk . \n \nScope  \n \nThis policy applies to  all essential business services/ functions  of the University and to all m embers of the University \ncommunity involved in the delivery of these services  including staff, students, visitors and contractors.  \n \nThe operations and  services  of the University’s controlled entities are excluded from the scope of this policy.  \nPolicy  Objec tives   \nThe Business Continuity Management Policy seeks to:  \n \n Ensure the identification and continuity of essential  business  services/  functions;  \n \n Allocate BCM roles and responsibilities to staff in the event of a  major disruptive event,  emergency or crisis  \nsituation ; \n \n Allocate management responsibility for the implementation, monitoring and review of BCM documentation;  \n \n Provide a consistent approach to BCM aligned to the Standards Australia AS/NZ 5050:2010 - Business \nContinuity – Managing Disruption -Related Risk; and  \n Section  Risk Management  \nContact  Director Risk & Assurance  \nLast Review  June 2018 \nNext Review  June  2021 \nApproval  SLT 18/08/91  \nEffective Date  August  2018  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nBusiness Continuity Policy  – Page 2 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   Integrate  BCM within the University’s Risk Management Framework, Crisis  Management, IT  Disaster \nRecovery and Emergency Procedures.  \n \nMassey University will \n \n Establish Business Continuity Plans  (BCP) , to ensure business continuity for University Shared Services, and \nCollege s.  \n \n- Business Continuity Plan s will address the general management aspects of the continuity process;  \nidentify essential  resources,  IT and other  infrastructure , and key dependencies.  \n \n- Business Continuity Plan s will include actio ns for the reactivation of all essential University services, and \nwill include provision for loss of supply of services by those external agents upon which the University is \ncritically dependant.  \n \n Periodically  review the University level  Business Impact An alysis  (BIA) , which identifies essential University \nservices and operations . \n \n Ensure  Business Continuity Plans are  reviewed at least annually to ensure currency of information, and \nresponse strategies. The plan s will be reviewed for possible updating withi n 30 days of any major operational \nor system changes that will have a material effect on the contingency strategy of any \nCollege/ Department /Section.  \n \n Undertake exercises for training and evaluation purposes of Business Continuity Plan s annually  or within 3 \nmonths  of any major operational or system changes that will have a material effect on the contingency \nstrategy of any College/  Shared Service . \n \nResponsibilities  \n \n The Senior Leadership Team , on the advice of the University Emergency Management Committee,  will \napprove  the University’s Business C ontinuity Policy  \n \n The University Emergency Management Committee is responsible for providing oversight of the \npreparedness of business continuity plans, disaster recovery plans , emergency  and crisis  management \nproces ses to ensure reliability and the mitigation of operational risk.  \n \n The Risk Management Office is responsible for  periodically reviewing the University level BIA, and for  the \nimplementation of business continuity man agement including the development of app ropriate business \ncontinuity templates , training, facilitating testing and monitoring of the BCM program.  \n \n BCM Sponsor: DVCs/PVCs are Sponsors of all BCPs that sit within their College/ Shared Service.  Plan \nSponsors are responsible for  ensuring overall b usiness continuity readiness, providing  support for the \nplanning process and embedding a BCM culture.  \n \n BCM Plan Owners: Heads of Department (HoD) are business continuity plan owners, and will use all \nreasonable endeavours to ensure that the essential serv ices / functions, for which they have responsibility, \nare able to continue through, or resume soon after a major disruptive event, and that arrangements are in \nplace to achieve this. This requires the proactive devolution of business continuity planning wi thin their areas \nof responsibility to function owners, to ensure the development, resourcing, maintenance, testing and review \nof business continuity plans takes place on schedule. HoDs/ University Managers are expected to encourage \nthe active participation  of staff in business continuity issues, and must ensure that key personnel are able to \nperform competently during a major disruptive event.  \n \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nBusiness Continuity Policy  – Page 3 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   Function Owners: Each essential  service/ function noted  within the  departmental  BCP has an appointed  \nfunction owner. Function owners are those staff members responsible for the management of the  service/ \nfunction during times of BAU. They are  responsible  for the execution  of continuity  arrangements  for the \nspecific  essential  function/s  should they  be interrupted.  \n \n All staff  should familiarise themselves with their relevant BCP and support  processes that will appropriately \nmanage a significant  disruption to University operations and services . \nDefinitions:  \nBusiness Continuity : Business continuity is “the uninterrupted a vailability of all key resources supporting essential \nbusiness functions” (Australian National Audit Office, 2000)  \n \nBusiness Continuity Plans : A collection of procedures and information that is developed , compiled and maintained \nin readiness for use  to hel p ensure that business processes can continue, or resume quickly following a major \ndisruptive event . (Associated terms: Business Recovery Plan, Disaster Recovery Plan, and Recovery Plan)  \n \nBusiness Continuity Management : Business Continuity Management provi des for the availability of processes and \nresources in order to ensure the continued achievement of critical objectives.  \n \nBusiness Impact Analysis:  Detailed risk analysis that examine the nature and extent of disruptions and the \nlikelihood of the resulting  consequences. May include consideration of the University’s business functions, people, \nprocesses, infrastructure, resources, information, interdependencies and the nature and extent of capability loss over \ntime.  \n \nEssential Service/ Function:  An essential  service or function  is an activity that is critical to the core mission of the \nUniversity and one that must be continued through, or resumed soon after, a major disruptive event, to ensure the \nviability of the University  is maintained , and its ability to continue to serve its key stakeholders. (Associated terms \n“critical functions/ services”)  \n \nMajor disruptive event:  May be Natural (e.g. flood, hurricane, earthquake), Accidental  (e.g. fire, contamination), \nCommercial (e.g. loss of supply of critical servic es) or Wilful (e.g. sabotage, vandalism, arson, terrorism). Associated \nterms: “major crisis’, ‘disaster’.  \n \nStakeholders:  Those people and organisations that may affect, or be affected by, or perceive themselves to be \naffected by, a decision or activity.  \n \nAudience : \nAll staff  \nRelevant Legislation:  \nNone  \nLegal compliance : \nNone  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nBusiness Continuity Policy  – Page 4 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  Related documents and procedures:  \nAS/NZS 5050:2010  Business Continuity – Managing disruption -related risk  Standards Australia/Standards New \nZealand  \nISO31000; Risk Management Principles a nd Guidelines  \nEmergency Management Policy  \nStrategic Emergency Management Framework  \nRisk Management Policy  \nRisk Management Framework  \nDocument management co ntrol:  \nPrepared by: Director, Risk and Assurance  \nAuthorised by: DVC Operations  \nApproved by: SLT 18/08/91  \nDate issued  1 December 2005  \nLast review: June 2018  \nNext review: June 2021  \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Cash_Passport_Card_Procedure_PDF_133_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Cash Passport Card Procedure",
      "policy_type": "Procedure",
      "file_size": "133 KB",
      "creation_date": "2022-04-26T12:00:01",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220101348+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " Massey University Policy Guide  \n \nCASH PASSPORT CARD PROCEDURES  \n     \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \n \nScope:  \nThe objective of this document is to ensure a clear and consistent understandin g of the procedures for issuing Multi -\nCurrency Cash Passport  Cards (passport cards) to staff while travelling overseas on Massey University  (University)  \nbusiness . \nProcedures:  \n1. Information for Applicants  \n \nAn information booklet is provided  to staff member s including the terms and conditions  of passport cards , and \nprocedures for reporting lost or stolen passport cards.  \n \n2. Use of Passport Card  \n \nAll expenditure is to be used for University business only and University policies and procedures will apply.  \n \nUse of Pa ssport Cards must comply with Massey University financial policies and procedures at all times, and \nmisuse of the cards will be treated in accordance with the Fraud Prevention Policy.  \n \n3. Staff Responsibilities  \n \nIt is the s taff member ’s responsibility to: \n• Sign a declaration upon receiving and returning the  passport  cards. \n• Liaise with the card administrator to ensure correct GL/PR/RM coding of all charges on the card. \n• Provide original receipts, including receipts for any cash withdrawals . \n \n4. Application Forms  \n \nPlease contact Accounts Payable to request an application form for a passport  card – email \[email protected]  \n \nThe staff member needs to complete a “ Cash Passport Form”  including card holder detai ls, the reason  passport  \ncard is required , and the amount approved ( up to a maximum of NZD $5,000) . \n \nFor identification purposes t he following documentation needs to be attached to the form:  \n• Approved leave application ; and Section  Finance  \nContact  Chief Financial Officer  \nLast Review  February 2017  \nNext Review  February 202 7 \nApproval  SLT 15/07/125  \nEffective as at  February 2017  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nCash Passport Card Procedures  – Page 2 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  • Copy of passport  or New Zealand Dr iver’s Licence . \nPlus \n• Proof of address details ( e.g. gas/power/phone statement) ; \n• Mother’s maiden name ; and \n• An answ er to one multi -choice question  (e.g. what is your pet’s name? ). \n \nAll forms are to be completed by the staff member trave lling, checked by an a dministrator and appr oved by the \nstaff member’s Level 4 Manager . \n \n5. Reconciliation  \n \nA statement is printed from the website by Accounts Payable and forwarded to  the card administrator who is \nrequired to sign and reconcile all receipts received from the card holder . The expenditure must be signed by the \nadministrator and Level 4 manager . For all missing receipts , a Credit Card – Missing Receipt Approval form must \nbe completed.  \n \nThe signed reconciliation showing statements, receipts , and the passport cards must  be returned to Accounts \nPayable within ten working  days of the travellers return. For auditing purposes , original documentation should be \nsent by internal mail to Accounts Payable , PN902.  \n \n6. Security  \nThe person to whom the card is issued is the only person authorised to use their passport card and on no \noccasion may a c ard holder disclose their card’s Personal Identification Number (PIN)  to others.  \n \nAccounts Payable is responsible for the storage and security of the passport cards.  The cards will stay active  for \nthree years, and can be re -loaded with currency as required.  \n \nPalmerston North s taff are to visit Accounts Payable to obtain the passport card. Before the card is issued , the \ncard holder is required to complete a declaration form. On return to New Zea land the card must be returned in \nperson to Accounts Payable  along with any leftover cash  within ten working days of the travellers return . Accounts \nPayable will bank the cash and generate the journal crediting the leftover cash amount back to the account code \non the original application form.  \n \nStaff on the Wellington and Albany campus es will be emailed a declaration  form. On completion of the form , \npassport cards will be couriered to the card holder . A signature will be required on delivery . On return to N ew \nZealand , the card must be couriered back to Accounts Payable.  \n \nIf the passport card is stolen or lost, this event must be immediately report ed to Card Services , phone ( 0800 ) 444 -\n691 or online at www.cashpassp ort.co.nz . The card administrator and Accounts Payable  must also be advised.  \n \nAudience : \nAll staff  \n \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nCash Passport Card Procedures  – Page 3 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \nRelated Procedures/D ocuments : \n \nCash Passport Card Policy  \nDiscretionary Expenditure and Gifts Policy  (and Procedures)  \nFraud Prevention Policy  \nReimbursement of Expenses Policy  (and Procedures)  \nTravel Policy  (and Procedures)  \nCredit Card Policy  (and Procedures)  \nDelegations of Authority  Document  \n \nDocument Management Control:  \nPrepared by: Accounts Payable Team Leader  \nAuthorised by: Chief Financial Officer  \nApproved by: AVC Strategy, Finance, IT and Commercial Operations  \nDate issued: 01 May 2015  \nLast review: February 2017  \nNext review: February 202 7 \n \n \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Capital_Asset_Management_Policy_PDF_196_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Capital Asset Management Policy PDF 196 KB",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "196 KB",
      "author": "Ferguson, Rachel",
      "creation_date": "2021-03-17T11:04:08",
      "modification_date": "D:20210317114852+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide   \n \nCAPITAL ASS ET MANAG EMENT (C AM) POLICY   \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nPurpose:   \nThrough effective capital asset planning and management, Massey Universi ty (the University) wil l ensure the best   \nfacilities, tech nology and i nfrastructur e affordable ar e available  to give the  University t he greatest flexib ility in  \nmeeting the changing needs of teaching, learning, research, administration and engagemen t with communities.   \nThis Policy s ets out the pri nciples by which t he Univer sity will acquire and maintain Capital Assets . Note  that Asset   \ndisposals are deal t with in the “Asset Dis posal and Write  Down Policy”.   \nAny Capital As set Manag ement (CAM) per formed by the Universi ty will be to better en able the Uni versity to achi eve \nits strategic goals, being:   \n• Researc h– NgāKete O T e Wānanga   \n• Learning and Teachin g –Te Ako   \n• Civic Leadershi p– Hei A rataki   \n• Enabling Excellenc e –Te Pae O Ang itu  \n \n \nPolicy:   \nThe followin g Policies are  adopted by the Un iversity:   \n \n1.1. Prioritisation  of Capital Inves tmen t is to be based  on the following dr ivers:   \n• Strategy En abling ; Invest ment clearly e nables and su pports our strate gy and sub -strategies.   \n• Deman d Driven ; Investment is driven  by client demand for research, learning and teaching, nationally   \nand globally.   \n• Risk Mitiga ting; Inv estme nt effectivel y manages risk exposure to our stakeholders and for our   \nUniversity .This includes any health and safety standards.   \n• Transformat ive; we inve st in solut ions allowing  Massey Universi ty to be flexibl e, ada ptable and   \ninnovative.   \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   Section   DVC– Finance and Technology   \nContact   Senio r Capital Planne r / Accountant   \nLast Review   New   \nNext Review   January 2024   \nApproval   SLT 20/12/196  \nEffective Date   Decembe r 2019   \n\n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nCAM POLIC Y – Page2  \n \n \n• Excellence Foc used; investmen t enable s levels of ex cellence and quality that  meet the ex pectations of   \nour students, staff, partners and community.   \n• Leading S ustainabili ty and  Responsib ility; the investment act ively embra ces Kait iakitanga val ues and   \nengageme nt with our c ommunities.   \n• Effective an dEfficient ; supporting effective and efficient utilisation of our resources, delivering   \nsustainable financial performance.   \n1.2. Establish the long term plan for each existing asset.   \nIf it is established  that the  asset is critical o r economically beneficial to keep, it should b eplanne dto ensure   \nthat the life  of the asset i s maximised.   \nIf the as set is no n-critical  or non-economica l to keep, it should be es tablished w hether it is wo rth disposing  of  \nthe asset.   \n \n1.3. Develop and maintain a Capital Asset Management Strategy.   \n \n1.4. Develop and maintain a Capital Asset Managemen t Impr ovemen tPlan.  \n \n1.5. Assign roles, res ponsibilities an d accountabilit y to staff within th e Universi ty to enact this Policy.   \n \n1.6. Integrate C AM with t he Universi ty’s risk mana gement  practices.   \n1.7. Ensure that all C AM activity compl ies with Stat utory Regu lations.   \n \nDefinitions:   \nCapital Assets Covered by this Policy inclu de:  \n• Land & Buildings   \n• Work in Progr ess  \n• ICT Equipme nt and Infrast ructure   \n• Library Collection   \n• Research Equ ipment   \n• General Equipment   \n• Vehicles   \n• Intangible Assets (including Software)   \n \nAudience:   \nThisPolicy app lies to all a pplicable stakeholde rs of the Uni versity and thi sappli es to all Assets as defined a bove \nwithin the Un iversity.   \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nRelevant legislation:   \n• Building Act 2004   \n• Hazardous Su bstances and  New Organi sms Act 1996   \n• Acts Coverin g Biological R esearch   \n• Resource Mana gement Ac t 1991   \n• Sale of Liquor Act  1989   \n• Smoke Free E nvironments  Act 1990   \n• Fire Service A ct 1975   \n• Health and Safe ty in Emp loyment A ct 1992   \n• Education Act 1989   \nLegal compliance:   \nThe legislation a bove sets out the University’s obligations for legal compliance.    \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nCAM POLIC Y – Page3 \n \n \nRelated procedures / documents:   \n• Asset Manag ement Strate gy (To be compi led)  \n• Risk Management Policy and Risk Management Framework   \n• Asset Disposal a nd Write  Down Policy (Previousl y Asset Disposal an d Writ eOff Policy)   \n• Asset Inves tment Policy   \n• Asset Financial  Procedure   \n• Capital Asset Management Plan (To be compiled)   \n \nDocument Management Control:   \n \nPrepared by:  Barry Harle n– Senio r Capital Planne r / Accountant  \nAuthorised by:  CFO –Carolyn Dimond   \nApproved by:  DVC – Finance and Technology  \nDate issued:  December 2019  \nLast review:  New \nNext review:  January 2024  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \n\n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "CoCA_Retrieval_Policy_PDF_32_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Procedures for Withholding Grades for Undergraduate and Taught Postgraduate Papers",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "32 KB",
      "author": "cschrade",
      "creation_date": "2015-03-24T14:05:09",
      "modification_date": "D:20150324145941+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " Massey University Policy Guide \n \nCOCA RETRIEVAL POLIC Y  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n \n   \n  \n \nCONTEXT  \nThis policy  relates  to a broader  Massey  University  aim to enhance student  retention and completions.  \nGUIDING  PRINCIPLES  \nThe CoCA  Retrieval  Policy  is designed to facilitate  timely  progression for students  through our qualifications  in a \nway that does  not burden students  with extra  financial  costs or disproportionate  time penalties.  It ensures  that \nacademic  standards  are maintained,  fairness  and transparency  are achieved and a consistent  set of practices  \noccur  College- wide.  This is further  to be done with a minimum of extra  workload for academic  and administrative \nstaff.  \nRETRIEVAL  GUIDELINES  \nInform ation  provided to students  in the document General  and Assessment  Information 2012:  \n \n Students  who receive an overall  mark  of 45-49% in their paper  and, where  there is more  than one \nassessment,  have passed at least  one individual  assessment,  may be offered  the opportunity  to retrieve this \nin order  to pass  the paper.  Students  who receive  a final grade of DNC are not eligible  for retrieval.  \n Retrieval  will occur  after the final assessment  of the paper,  and a student  identified as qualifying for retrieval \nwill be offered up to one half hour tutorial  session with an academic  staff member.  They  will be given  an \nassessment  task to complete within  a given timeframe  (maximum  of two weeks).  No further  tutorial  \nassistance  will be given.  Opportunity  to retrieve does  not guarantee an automatic  pass  – the learning  \noutcomes  for the paper  must  be successfully  achieved.  \n If retrieval  is successful,  then the student  will receive a 50% or C final grade.  If retrieval  is unsuccessful,  or \nthe student  does  not complete the task within  the allotted timeframe,  the mark  and grade remain  unchanged  \n(i.e. a D grade).  \n \n Students  may enter  into the retrieval  process  in one paper  each year (eligibility  of students  studying  part-\ntime will be assessed  on a pro-rata basis).  \n \nAdditional  information  for academic  staff:  \n \n1. The Paper  Coordinator  is responsible for managing the retrieval  process  within  their paper.  Academic  staff \ncontributing to the paper  will liaise  with the paper  coordinator  to ensure that all applications  are treated  \nequivalent ly. Section  Teaching & Learning Office \nContact Director Teaching & Learning  \nLast Review  March 2012  \nNext Review  February 2013  \nApproval  College Board  \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nCoCA Retrieval Policy  – Page 2 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Mass ey University  2. The retrieval  process  is outlined on the Retrieval  Procedure Form.  \n3. The assessment  task should relate directly  to the missing  component  of the unachieved learning \noutcome(s),  and is designed to “retrieve”  that portion  only.  In some  cases  this may involv e resubmitting \namended work.  In other  cases it may necessitate a “special”  assessment.  \n4. In considering the completed assessment  task,  academic  staff must  be satisfied  that the student  has \nsuccessfully  achieved the learning outcomes  for the paper  and is cons equently  sufficiently  prepared to \nprogress.  It is the academic  staff member’s  responsibility  to ensure that the appropriate  academic  \nstandards  have been  met in considering the retrieval  assessment.  \n5. All retrieval  results  will be approved by a special  QEC  meeting prior to the commencement  of the following  \nsemester.  \nAUDIENCE  \nAll CoCA  teaching staff.  \nRELATED  DOCUMENTS  \nCoCA  General  and Assessment  Information  2012  \nRetrieval  Procedure  Form  \nBoth documents  are available  from Stream/CoCA  Teaching & Learning/Resources  for Teaching & Learning.  \nDOCUMENT  MANAGEMENT  CONTROL  \nPrepared  by: Teaching & Learning Administrator   \nAuthorised by: Director  Teaching & Learning   \nConsultation & Approval:  Approved by College Board   \nDate issued:  25 May 2012  \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Assessment_Policy_PDF_251_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Assessment Policy PDF 251 KB",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "251 KB",
      "creation_date": "2025-04-10T15:00:02",
      "modification_date": "D:20250625105659+12'00'"
    },
    "content": "Massey University Policy Guide\nASSESSMENT POLICY\n© This Policy is the property of Massey University\nPurpose :\nThe Assessment Policy articulates the values and principles that govern assessment principles and practice at Te\nKunenga Ki P ūrehuroa Massey University (hereafter Massey) .This Assessment Policy is designed to be aligned with\nTreaty of Waitangi: Kaupapa Here Tiriti o Waitangi –Tiriti o Waitangi Policy ,Paerangi: Massey University Learning\nand Teaching Plan ,andthe University Graduate Profile . Taken together, these documents provide general principles\nto guide assessment activities and to enable valid, reliable, relevant, and fair assessment interpretations and\ndecisions .\nRationale :\nAssessment is an integral component of learning and teaching that serves a number of important purposes for both\nthe individuals and the university.\nAssessment practice(s) and assessment of learning outcomes affect the lives of students and have important\nimplications for the university and wider society. The university takes seriously its responsibility to ensure assessment\npractice has integrity, such that assessment meaningfully supports the purpose(s) to which it is put, and unintended\nconsequences are minimised .Enactment of this responsibility ensures that students, staff, the university , employers,\nprofessional bodies, and the wider community can have confidence in the meaning of feedback and grades and\nawards, to support the multiple purposes of assessment .\nPurpose sofAssessment :\n1.To support teaching and learning of individual students, by assessing progress and providing feedback for,\nandonlearning.\n2.To inform teaching practices and curriculum design, by assessing the progress of groups of students and\nproviding feedback on the quality of instruction and the support needs of particular groups of students.\n3.Todraw conclusions about outcomes achieved by individual students to document, attest and certify learning.\n4.To inform decisions about individual students such as admission to, progression within, and attainment of\nqualifications; andachievement of awards, prizes and scholarships .\nAssessment Values andPrinciples :\nLearning and teaching at Massey, and the accompanying assessment principles (Table 1) andprocesses, are aligned\nwithAnga Paerangi, the values framework which underpins Paerangi :Massey University Learning and Teaching Plan.\nThis means that:\nMassey holds guardianship of qualifications and awards, as well as a role in caring for our students, enabling\npositive student experiences, development, and success.Section Academic\nContact Office of the Provost\nLast Review New\nNext Review         November 2029 \nApproval               AB25/25\nEffective Date       June 2025\nMassey University Policy Guide\nAssessment Policy –Page 2\n© This Policy is the property of Massey University\nMassey encourages excellence, acknowledges progress, and celebrates success through scaffolded\nlearning, teaching and supervision,\nAssessment processes reflect Massey’s commitment to respect, care, and support of others.\nAssessments are ethical, relevant ,fairand inclusive .\nAssessments support academic integrity.\nAssessments support student agency and develop students’ abilities to self -assess, self -monitor, and self -\nevaluate.\nProcesses are designed to monitor student progress, identify successes or challenges, and implement\nactions that provide opportunities for students to grow and develop and maximise their achievement.\nAssessment practices used in the university and by teaching staff are informed by research, reflective\npractice, and feedback from the assessment process.\nThe principles which uphold these values are interconnected and as such, there is some level of overl apin the ir\nexplanations .All principles apply but the emphasis of each may differ depending on the context. Principles need to be\nbalanced, and a decision needs to be made about an appropriate balance of those principles for the context. For\nexample, the principle of ‘support every student to perform their best ’ might indicate that offering a student an\nextension is an appropriate response. However, context -specific considerations may limit the extent to which an\nextension is feasible in the light oftheprinciple ,‘ensure manage able workload s’.\nDiscipline and contextual considerations:\nIn alignment with the above values, it is recognised that assessment practice also needs to reflect discipline -specific\nand contextual considerations which may differ across the university, including:\nDiscipline -specific perspectives on what it is to know (ontologies ), and the way knowledge and skills are\nacquired (epistemologies ), how to motivate students to succeed, the ways progress against desired outcomes\nis evaluated, and the quality frameworks applicable.\nProfessional practice dispositions that influence pedagogy and assessment practice.\nDifferences in the main purpose (e.g., primarily formative) or context (e.g., timing, weighting) of particular\nassessments which affect the relative importance of quality assurance practices (e.g., moderation, double\nmarking) .\nFeasibility ofcertain types of assessment approaches (e.g., oral assessment in large classes) .\nTable 1: Assessment Principles\nPrinciple Explanation Examples of application\n1.Assess important\nlearningTo focus on assessing what is important and\nmeaningful ,we consider the desired learning\noutcomes that build towards a coherent graduate\nprofile, our expectations for what learning will\noccur, and how that learning may be achieved.\nAssessment is designed to align student activity\nappropriately towards desired learning outcomes\nand is therefore relevant, eng aging, and, where\nappropriate, authentic. Assessment is designed to\nminimise the effect on the grade awarded of\nlearning or factors that are not important to the\nachievement of learning outcomesAlignment with learning outcomes ,\nandgraduate profile; meaningful\n(relevant/authentic) assessment\nactivities; construct relevance;\nsurfacing hidden curriculum .\n2.Develop student\nevaluative\njudgement (HelpAssessment practices are designed to build\nstudent skills in self-evaluation to support lifelong\nlearning. We make clear the criteria on which\nstudents will be evaluated and the standard ofDevelop student understanding of\nquality standards and\ncontextualised discipline\nexpectations; self -assessment;\nMassey University Policy Guide\nAssessment Policy –Page 3\n© This Policy is the property of Massey University\nPrinciple Explanation Examples of application\nstudents learn what\n‘quality’ looks like)attainment expected at different grade levels. We\nprovide instruction, feedback, and opportunities for\nself-evaluation that help students understand what\nthese criteria mean and how to demonstrate\nperformance at different standards.peer evaluation; feedback; rubrics;\nexemplars ;engaging students in\nconversations about quality .\n3.Convey discipline\nexpectationsAssessment activities help students become\nmembers of the discipline and profession they are\nstudying in, through their alignment with discipline -\nspecific ways of thinking and working and\ndiscipline expectations, including expectations for\nbehaviour, perfo rmance, and quality. This\nalignment is demonstrated both in the type of\nassessment activity and the evaluation frameworks\nused.Foster active learning through\nassessment activities that embody\ndisciplinary perspectives and\nvalues in the context of\nassessment; relevant and/or\nauthentic assessment activities ;\nincorporate discipline -specific\nrequirements for example, the\nmanagement of deadlines.\n4.Ensure manageable\nworkloadsAssessment is designed to engage students in\nrelevant activity for sufficient time to promote\nlearning while keeping within the time allowance\nfor the course when all learning activity is taken\ninto account (10 hours per credit). We consider\nboth the time required for students to develop skills\nto do quality work, and the time required to\nassimilate and learn from feedback received. As\nfar as possible, assessment activity is balanced\nwith other learning activity to distribute time for\nlearning evenly across the duration of the course.\nAssessment is also designed to ensure there is\nsufficient time for quality evaluation practices by\nstaff.Manageable workloads for students\nand staff. Time to do the\nassessments; avoiding assessment\nclash es;balancing student time\nrequired for summative assessment\nwith other learning tasks ;time to\nrespond to feedback in subsequent\ntasks (i.e., learning and growth\ninform assessment) ; assessments\nare spaced to avoid overload .\nMinimising time spent doing\nirrelevant or unimportant activities\n(busywork)\n5.Support every\nstudent to perform\ntheir bestAssessment practice is an integral part of, and\naligned with, teaching practice that supports\nstudent self -efficacy, motivation, and active\nengagement ,regardless of ability and background,\nwithin each course and along the path of a\nstudent’s educational journey. We recognise that\nfactors outside the learning environment can help\nand hinder student learning and performance. We\nwork to enhance helpful and minimise unhelpful\neffects so that students can do their best learning\nand demonstrate their best achievementA range of possible practices that\ninclude culturally appropriate\nassessment , including submission\nof assessments in Te Reo M āori\nand NZSL, inclusive assessments ,\nuniversal design for learning; clarity\nof assessment instructions/\nrequirements/expectations to\nensure the purpose of the\nassessment is clearly articulated\nand identifiable to students ;\nscaffolded assessment that\nsupports students to learn; variety\nof assessment approaches;\nenabli ngstudents to have some\nchoice in assessment; consistency\nof expectations with clarity about\nwhen and which expectations may\nbe different in a particular context;\naccommodations including\nextensions where appropriate;\nstudent agency and participation in\nassessment design, evaluation and\nMassey University Policy Guide\nAssessment Policy –Page 4\n© This Policy is the property of Massey University\nPrinciple Explanation Examples of application\nfeedback; supplementary and\ndeferred assessment options where\npossible ;diverse student\nbackgrounds recognised and\nsupported .\n6.Apply judgement\nfairlyAssessment practice supports the credibility and\nvalidity of feedback and grades through processes\nthat (1) align assessment scope and demand with\nthe learning domain through peer review of\nassessment and marking scheme designs; (2)\ncalibrate marking to ensure judgement against an\nagreed standard and effectively discriminate levels\nof achievement through peer moderation; and (3)\nsupport the consistency of judgements between\nstudents, cohorts, occasions, and markers through\nmarker training, use of marking schemes, and\nstatistical review.Practices to ensure credibility and\nvalidity of assessment judgements\nincluding moderation of\nassessment design and content;\npeer review , task requirements and\nmarking schemes; moderation and\ncalibration of marking; use of\nrubrics; clear articulation of\nstandards (for different grade\nbands); blind marking where\nappropriate; quality assurance\nsteps; use of external examiners\n(where appropri ate).\n7.Provide (for)\nmeaningful\nevaluationsEvaluations of student performance, as\ncommunicated by feedback and grades, are\nrelated to the quality of student work and learning\nachieved ,such that feedback and grades provide\nmeaningful information to inform the purposes of\nassessment. To achieve this there is attention to all\naspects contributing to evaluation :determining\nwhat is assessed, how grading is done, how\nstandards are determined, how fair judgments are\nensured, and what the consequences of\nassessment are for learners. Assessment practices\nemphasise authenticity and relevance to real -world\nproblems as well as to the learning outcomes;\ninclude a mix of assessment types to allow\nstudents to demonstrate their knowledge in\ndifferent ways; and provide opportunities for\nfeedback on the learning pro cess so that students\ncan clarify their goals, develop their critical thinking\nand reflection processes, and prepare for\nsubsequent parts of a course or program.Meaningful to the student (i.e.,\nfeedback that focuses on learning,\nis timely so it can be acted upon, is\ntransparently linked to assessment\ncriteria and learning outcomes, is\nstrengths -based, makes sense to\nstudents, encourages self -\nassessment and reflect ion,uses a\nvariety of assessments, and has\npositive motivational benefits );is\nmeaningful to the world (i.e., valid\ngrades, aligned with standards);\ncontributes to students' current and\nfuture learning ;self, peer and\nteacher evaluation and feedback.\n8.Adapt assessment\npractice based on\nreflection and\nevaluationAssessment practice includes a regular cycle of\nreflection, evaluation and adjustment of\nassessments to improve their effectiveness.\nResearch, moderation (of task andof grades) ,and\nstudent performance and outcomes are used to\nidentify trends and support changes in assessment\ntypes, rubrics, or formats to better meet student\nneeds.Research -, feedback -and\nreflection -informed assessment\npractice; is responsive to\ndevelopments in the field of\nstudy/discipline and contemporary\nways of assessing; incorporates\nsupportive development process\n(e.g., peer support); deliberately\ngathering feedback and evidence to\ninform our reflections about the\nquality of assessment and then\nmaking plans for continuous\nMassey University Policy Guide\nAssessment Policy –Page 5\n© This Policy is the property of Massey University\nPolicy :\n1.College Boards will establish processes ,procedures and rules (see Appendix 1)through which to ensure that:\na.The principles of assessment are adhered to and reflected in all assessment offered in courses\nmanaged by the College.\nb.Calendar rules regarding Assessment and all other University Policies ,Procedures andprocesses\nthat relate to assessment are adhered to, including the Equivalence Policy, Academic Integrity Policy ,\nSpecific Circumstances Framework, Use of Artificial Intelligence in Assessment Policy etc . See\nrelated P rocedures/ documents section.\nc.There is consistent assessment practice across the College achieved through collaborative academic\ndecision making, and that, where differences occur, that these are well-justified and are clearly\nidentified and explained to students on course Stream sites.\nd.Cultural values are respected and, where possible, able to be reflected in either the design or content\nof the assessment, providing that the validity or reliability of the assessment is not compromised.\ne.Authority for assessment decision making and ratification of results is delegated to appropriately\nexperienced and qualified academic staff, including the duties of (as relevant) offering coordinators,\ncourse coordinators, grade reviewers, examination commi ttees, and chief examiners.\nf.There is regular monitoring of thequality of assessment practice (including regular moderation and\npeer-review of assessment practices )and reflective, evidence -and research -based approaches to\ncontinuous improvement, with regular reporting to College Board by chief examiners.\ng.There isregular professional development of teaching staff in relation to effective assessment\npractices, as well as policies, procedures, and rules.\n2.Academic Committee will establish rules and procedures for the operation of Centrally Administered final\nexaminations.\n3.The Learning and Teaching Committee, as a sub -committee of the Academic Committee, will provide advice\non whole -of-university issues related to assessment.\n4.This Policy applies to all courses including student research supervision courses and micro -credentials.Principle Explanation Examples of application\nimprovement based on what we\nhave found .\n9.Uphold ethical\npracticeAssessment practices ensure fairness, integrity,\nand respect for all students. Assessments are\nframed by clear expectations and criteria and\naccommodate student diversity. They recognise\nthe importance of privacy and the responsible use\nof student data, provide constructive feedback, and\nminimise the potential for bias (in both the\nassessment content and marking). Assessment\npractices facilitate integrity and ethical student\nbehaviours.Ensure transparency via clear\nconnections to learning outcomes,\nclear instructions, rubrics etc;\nmodel and promote academic\nintegrity in designing and\nundertaking assessment.\nMassey University Policy Guide\nAssessment Policy –Page 6\n© This Policy is the property of Massey University\nDefinitions :\nAssessment :The process of judging how effectively learning is occurring through a process of generating and\ncollecting evidence of a student’s attainment of knowledge and skills and comparing that evidence against the\nassessment criteria.\nAssessment criteria Refers to different dimensions of performance that may be assessed .\nAssessment for learning :The process of seeking and interpreting evidence of a student’s performance for use\nbystudents and their teachers to identify where the students are in their learning, where their next learning\ngoals are, and what they need to do to achieve them.\nAssessment Standards :Refers to different levels of quality of the performance on a given criterion . Generic\nuniversity assessment standards for each grade band are given in Appendix 2 Tables 2and 3.\nConstruct relevance: How well the knowledge and skills being assessed reflect the knowledge and skills an\nassessment is intended to evaluate .\nCredibility : Assessment credibility refers to the trustworthiness and reliability of the methods and outcomes used\nto evaluate student performance.\nFeedback :Qualitative information about their performance given to students during a course and typically after an\nassessment. Unlike a mark, feedback is explicitly developmental, i.e., oriented towards further progress on the part\nof the student.\nFormative assessment :Assessment that provides developmental feedback to a student so that they can adjust\ntheir plan for future learning. Formative assessment is often called ‘Assessment for learning’.\nGrade :A code, often a letter, given to describe the level of achievement. Possible grades are reported in the\nGlossary of the University Calendar.\nLearning outcomes :Statements of the knowledge, skills and attitudes that students are expected to demonstrate\nasa result of successfully completing a course of learning. Learning outcomes are usually stated in terms of\nobservable and/or measurable behaviour.\nModeration of assessment :The process of establishing comparability of standards between assessors to ensure\nthevalidity, reliability and practicality of an assessment. Moderation involves peer review and should occur in\nrelation to the assessment design before implementation and to the application of marking after implementation .\nPeer assessment :Assessment of a student by a fellow student or students. Peer assessors apply criteria and\nstandards of judgment as other assessors do.\nReliability :In assessment, the extent to which assessment results are repeatable between students, cohorts,\noccasions, and markers .\nRubric :A guide listing specific criteria thatspecify the qualities required for each level of achievement .\nSelf-assessment :A judgment a student makes about his/her work or level of attainment in relation to the\nassessment criteria or learning outcomes for an activity. Self -assessment is generally used to develop the\nindividual’s ability to think critically about his/her learning.\nSummative assessment :Assessment, typically undertaken at the end of a learning activity or course , which is\nused to make a judgment about the student’s overall attainment. A key purpose of summative assessment is\ntypically to record the student’s performance in relation to the stated learning outcomes.\nMassey University Policy Guide\nAssessment Policy –Page 7\n© This Policy is the property of Massey University\nValidity :How well the outcomes of assessment, such as grades, are supported, whether the meaning attributed to\nthem and their use for a particular purpose is credible, and whether the social consequences of their use is\njustified.\nAudience :\nAll staff and students\nRelevant legislation :\nEducation Act and Training Act 2020, especially section 4 and 453(3) (a) and s34\nHuman Rights Act 1993\nNew Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990\nNew Zealand Sign Language Act 2006\nMāori Language Act 2016\nPrivacy Act 2020\nOfficial Information Act 1982\nConsumer Guarantees Act 1993 especially section 29\nFair Trading Act 1986 especially section 13\nLegal compliance :\nNZQA Programme Approval, Recognition and Accreditation Rules 2022 (New Zealand Gazette)\nCUAP Handbook\nThe Education (Pastoral Care of Tertiary and International Learners) Code of Practice 2021\nKia Ōrite: The New Zealand Code of Practice for an Inclusive Tertiary Education Environment for Students with\nImpairments\nHealth Information Privacy Code 2020\nRelated procedures / documents :\nAcademic Progression Policy and Procedures\nAdvising and Communications Privacy Guidelines\nAmelioration Procedure\nApproval Pathways and Quality Assurance Guidelines for Domestic and International Subcontracting of Teaching\nActivity\nBVSc Supplementary Assessment Policy\nCoCA Retrieval Policy\nConflict of Commitment and Interest Policy\nData Management Policy\nDelegations of Authority Policy\nEquity of Access to Educational Opportunities Policy\nGenerative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) Usage Guidelines for Staff\nInformation and Records Management Policy\nMassey University Calendar\nMassey University Qualifications Framework\nMassey University Qualifications Policy\nMatua Kaupapa Reo –Māori Language Policy\nPaerangi: Massey University Learning and Teaching Plan\nPolicy on Paper Information and Study Resources\nPrivacy Policy\nProcedure for Managing Breaches of Academic Integrity\nQualification Review Policy and Procedures\nRecording of Scholarly Work and Student Work Policy and Framework\nMassey University Policy Guide\nAssessment Policy –Page 8\n© This Policy is the property of Massey University\nReport of the 2023 academic audit of Massey University Te Kunenga ki P ūrehuroa \nSpecific Circumstances Framework\nStudent Academic Integrity Policy\nStudent Complaints and Grievance Procedures\nSubcontracting of Teaching Activity Policy\nTe Kunenga Ki P ūrehuroa – Massey University Strategy 2022–2027\nTeaching and Learning Framework\nTeaching and Learning Policy\nTreaty of Waitangi: Kaupapa Here Tiriti o Waitangi – Tiriti o Waitangi Policy\nUse of Artificial Intelligence in Assessment Policy\nReplaces:\nMassey University Assessment Strategy Principles and Guidelines\nDocument Management Control:\nPrepared by: Learning and Teaching Committee \nAuthorised by: Provost\nApproved by: AB25/25\nDate issued:      June 2025\nLast review: New\nNext review: November 2029\nAppendix 1\nWithin Colleges, programmes must have clear rules for the following :\n1. The timing of assessment events throughout courses including the exam period\n2. The spread of assessment workload.\n3. The provision of assessment information at the start of the course.\n4. Use of Turnitin etc. for academic integrity\n5. How work will be marked (e.g. against criteria linked to learning outcomes)\n6. Expectations around the provision of feedback.\n7. Assessment of group work.\n8. Participation-based assessment\n9. Return of marked work\n10. Moderation of marking/grading of students’ work\n11. Moderation of assessment tasks\n12. Scaling\n13. Extensions\n14. Late assignments\n15. Reassessment/resubmission opportunities\nMassey University Policy Guide\nAssessment Policy –Page 9\nAppendix 2\nTable 2.Massey University grading system –Passing grades withband descriptors\nGrade Mark Band descriptor –Passing Grades\nA+ 90-100Exceptional, Outstanding (greatly exceeds satisfactory -level response)\nEvidence ofahigh level ofattainment oflearning outcomes. Asapplicable, thismay include:\nconsistent evidence ofdeep andcritical understanding, withoutstanding students evidencing theintegration, application, andevaluation ofcritical\nideas, principles, concepts, and theories in the field of study\ncritical evaluation andanalysis ofproblems, solutions, andimplications ofsolutions\nconsistent evidence ofability to appropriately place concepts, principles, andtheories inthecontext ofthediscipline andbroad community, including\nthe ability to evaluate and determine the validity and soundness of claims and theories within a discipline and popular media\nsubstantial insight, creativity, andoriginality inidentifying, generating, andcommunicating competing arguments, perspectives, orproblem -solving approaches\nfluent, thorough, andsophisticated communication ofinformation andideas interms oftheconventions ofthediscipline\nidentification andmastery ofappropriate skills, techniques, methods, andconcepts withsuperior tooutstanding levels ofprecision andaccuracyA 85-89.99\nA- 80-84.99\nB+ 75-79.99Very Good, Good (exceeds satisfactory -level response)\nEvidence oflearning thatgoes beyond replication ofcontent knowledge orskills relevant tothelearning outcomes. Asapplicable, thismay include:\nsolid understanding offundamental concepts inthefieldofstudy, withfewomissions orinaccuracies\nability toapply concepts, principles, andtheories inavariety ofcontexts relevant tothediscipline andlevel ofstudy\nuseofconvincing arguments withappropriate coherent andlogical reasoning\nclear communication ofinformation andideas interms oftheconventions ofthediscipline andfluency indiscipline -specific terminology\nconfident andcompetent application ofappropriate skills, techniques, andmethods withmostly consistent precision andaccuracyB 70-74.99\nB- 65-69.99\nC+ 60-64.99Satisfactory, Adequate (satisfactory -level response)\nEvidence ofsufficient achievement oflearning outcomes. Asapplicable, thismay include:\nreplication ofcontent knowledge orskills relevant tothelearning outcomes, understanding, andapplication of fundamental concepts oftheprogramme,\nwith some noncritical omissions or inaccuracies\ndiscernible argumentation andanalysis, withacceptable reasoning andjustification, butlimited orlacking coherence\nadequate communication ofinformation andideas interms oftheconventions ofthediscipline\nideas conveyed withreasonable fluency oflanguage, appropriate syntax, andgenerally correct grammar, butwithsome awkwardness orsome errors\nability toapply appropriate skills, techniques, andmethods withsatisfactory levels ofprecision andaccuracy\nNote: competency istheminimum standard tobeachieved inorder forastudent topass; aCminus grade would indicate astudent iscompetentC 55-59.99\nC- 50–54.99\nMassey University Policy Guide\nAssessment Policy –Page 10\nPUngraded Pass (individual assessment item)\nTobeawarded when astudent demonstrates achievement ofthelearning\noutcomes at an acceptable standard on an assessment where student\nachievement ismeasured asapass orfailonly (without amark).Ungraded Pass (final course grade)\nTo be awarded when a student demonstrates the learning outcomes at an\nacceptable standard inacourse where student achievement ismeasured as\npass or failonly.\nAGAegrotat Pass (individual assessment item)\nTobeawarded when astudent, who isunable toattend acompulsory fixed\ntime and place assessment, submits a valid Aegrotat application, and the\ncourse coordinator deems a pass appropriate, but there is insufficient\nevidence toassign aletter grade.Aegrotat Pass (final course grade)\nIf an Aegrotat pass has been awarded for an individual assessment, the final\ncourse grade would subsequently be AG (unless there is sufficient evidence\nto award afinal letter grade, inwhich case thecourse coordinator canagree a\nfinal mark andassociated letter grade).\nTable 3.Massey University grading system –failing grades withband descriptors\nGrade Mark Band descriptor –Failing Grades\nD 40-49.99 Fail(falls short oflevel required topass)\nEvidence oflackofattainment oflearning outcomes, orinsufficient evidence ofachievement oflearning outcomes. Asapplicable, thismay include:\nmissing, partial, superficial, orfaulty understanding andapplication ofthefundamental concepts inthediscipline\nmissing, undeveloped, inappropriate, orconfusing argumentation\nlargely irrelevant material orincoherent structure orlackoflogical development foranalysis andargumentation\ninsufficient evidence ofcritical awareness, insight, orindependent thought\nunclear orimprecise organisation andaccuracy oflanguage andexpression\nweakness orsubstantial errors insyntax, grammar, andspelling\nlackofability toapply appropriate skills, techniques, andmethods withsatisfactory levels ofprecision andaccuracy\nlittleevidence used foranalysis andargumentation orserious misinterpretation ofevidence\nincomplete, confusing, orlacking communication ofideas inways thatgivelittleattention totheconventions ofthediscipline\nE 0-39.99 Low Fail(falls very short oflevel required topass)\nEvidence oflackofattainment oflearning outcomes, orinsufficient evidence ofachievement oflearning outcomes. Asapplicable, thismay include:\nseriously inadequate knowledge and understanding, withlittleornocommand ofmaterial orawareness ofrelevant literature andmajor issues surrounding\natopic\nmajor omissions, misinterpretations, orinaccuracies withrespect toanalysing evidence orapplying fundamental concepts inthediscipline\nwholly irrelevant material orincoherent structure orlackoflogical development foranalysis andargumentation\nunclear orimprecise organisation andaccuracy oflanguage andexpression\nserious weakness orsubstantial errors insyntax, grammar, andspelling\nnear orcomplete absence ofability toapply appropriate skills, techniques, andmethods withsatisfactory levels ofprecision andaccuracy\nMassey University Policy Guide\nAssessment Policy –Page 11\nnear orcomplete absence ofattention totheconventions ofthediscipline, critical awareness orinsight, orindependent thought\nF Ungraded Fail(individual assessment)\nTo be awarded when there is evidence of lack of attainment of learning\noutcomes, orinsufficient evidence ofachievement of learning outcomes for\nan assessment task, where student\nachievement ismeasured aspass orfailonly (without amark).Ungraded Fail(final course grade)\nTobeawarded when astudent, who hasmarks forsubmitted assessments\ntotalling 50% or more, has failed to meet the required marks for a compulsory\ncourse requirement.\nDC DidNotComplete (individual assessment)\nTo be awarded when a student does not submit an assessment (including a\nfinal examination) orisnotgranted an Aegrotat pass.DidNotComplete (final course grade)\nTobeawarded when astudent:\ndoes notsubmit ormeet theminimum requirements ofacompulsory\nassessment (including a compulsory final examination), or\nisnotgranted anAegrotat pass foracompulsory assessment (including\nafinal examination) following the submission of an Aegrotat application,\nor\nwithdraws from acourse after thespecified date forwithdrawing without\nacademic penalty.\n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Conflict_of_Commitment_and_Interest_Policy_Manager_Guidelines_PDF_151_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Conflict of Commitment and Interest Policy Manager Guidelines",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "151 KB",
      "author": "jmlochhe",
      "creation_date": "2019-06-19T10:04:02",
      "modification_date": "D:20190619104243+12'00'"
    },
    "content": "       \nMassey University Policy Guide \n \nCONFLICT OF COMMITME NT AND INTEREST POLICY –  GUIDELINES FOR \nMANAGERS  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  Purpose  \nAll Massey University staff must comply with the Conflict of Commitment and Interest Policy  which provides clear \nguidelines to help staff avoid both conflict of commitment and conflict of interest as they carry out their employment \nobligations. The purpose of this information is to assist managers administer the policy within their area of \nresponsibility and influence.  \nAs a Manager what are you required to do \nIt is important to remember that responsibility for disclosure of Conflicts of Commitment and \nInterest resides with the individual with the conflict.  \nAs a manager of staff, your responsibilit ies in respect to the policy are to:  \n- Familiarise yourself with the policy and fully understand it;  \n- Communicate the policy to your staff and ensure they understand what is expected of them;  \n- Actively manage any conflicts as they arise within your areas of r esponsibility and influence; including taking \nany required actions  in accordance with the policy  when disclosures are made or in the event of any dispute \narising ; \n- Utilise the Disclos ure Form to record the conflict, and  \n- Review all disclosed conflicts on an annual basis to ascertain whether the conflict is still current. An ideal time \nto do this is in conjunction with annual Performance Review and Planning (PRP).  \nNote: Should you require any assistance in ascertaining whether or not a conflict does in fact ex ist, or in the event that \nany dispute does arise, please contact your HR Advisor as soon as possible.  \nCommon Examples Managers may Encounter  \nAs a manager, some common examples you may encounter are as follows:  \n- A staff member having an ownership or other interest in a company, trust, or business supplying, or seeking \nto supply, goods or services to Massey University;  \n- A staff member having an ownership or other interest in a company, trust,  or business supplying, or seeking \nto supply, goods or services in di rect competition with Massey University;  \n- Staff manager being responsible for the recruitment, direct supervision, performance appraisal, expense \napproval or leave authorisation process of a family member or close personal friend;  \n- A staff member having or forming a close personal relationship (whether of a family, friend or intimate nature) with a student they are supervising, teaching, assessing, mentoring or coaching; or  \n- A fulltime staff member also employed in any capacity  at another organisation.   \n \nIssue Date: 13 December 2012\n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Academic_Freedom_Policy_PDF_217_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Academic Freedom Policy PDF 217 KB",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "217 KB",
      "creation_date": "2023-09-14T15:03:05",
      "modification_date": "D:20231010130138+13'00'"
    },
    "content": "Massey University Policy GuideSection\n University Management\nContact Provost\nLast Review September 2023\nNext Review September 2026\nApproval C23/103\nEffective Date 22 September 2023\nPurpose\nFundamental to delivering on our mission as academic and professional staff at Massey University Te\nKunenga ki P ūrehuroa is a commitment to thevalues ofacademic freedom, in the context of the freedom of\nspeech, and the freedom ofexpression. These sitalongside ourcommitment toencourage and model\nrespectful dialogue, and ourbelief that such exchanges should notsilence, disparage, marginalise,\nstigmatise orincite hostility towards others, especially vulnerable groups with particular attention to those\nwho have been subject to or disproportionately impacted by historical injustices .\nAt the heart of the tradition of a university are certain privileges and rights exercised by staff and students:\nthe freedom of expression, the freedom of speech and the freedom to associate are central to academic\ninquiry, as is the free and frank exchange of ideas. As a university that encompasses a range of disciplines\nand approaches to teaching, learning and research, these freedoms are central to the u niversity’s mission\nanddo not privilege one type ofdiscipline or approach over another.\nThis policy defines the core principles of academic freedom , in the context of free speech /freedom of\nexpression within the academy and atMassey University Te Kunenga ki P ūrehuroa .It presents these\nprinciples as different, but complementary freedoms. It also outlines the responsibilities of staff andstudents ,\nthe obligation supon the Universi ty to protect academic and professional staff in exercising academic\nfreedom , and the interdependencies and tensions with relevant legislation and Te Tiriti o Waitangi/ the Treaty\nof Waitangi.\nAll staff and students should expect to safely exercise their work -related responsibilities regarding academic\nfreedom at their place of employment, within a context of mana -enhancing civility and without fear of abuse,\nvictimisation, and bullying. It is recognised toothat all scholarly discourse in t he context of the university is\nsubject to critical examination and disagreement, and that such disagreement, in itself, does not constitute a\nbreach of this policy, provided it is civil and respectful in its delivery and reasonably supported by existing\nscholarship or verifiable evidence. Finally, a strong research infrastructure must offer the necessary\nprotections to academic staff and students in pursuing impactful public scholarship when that public\nscholarship is subject to organised disinformation ca mpaigns.\nACADEMIC FREEDOM POLICY\nMassey University Policy Guide\nPolicy onAcademic Freedom –Page 2\n©This Policy istheproperty ofMassey UniversityPrinciples\nThis Policy is informed by the following principles:\n-This Policy is not intended to create a culture of censorship at our university; rather, it seeks to create\nsafe spaces for the open and honest discussion of ideas. We are inspired by the notion that ‘the purpose\nof the university is to make students safe for ideas –not ideas safe for students’ (Professor Clark Kerr,\nChancellor of the University of California, Berkeley, 1958 -67).\n-This Policy is informed by our university’s commitment to honouring Te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of\nWaitangi . This means that the Te Tiriti principles of partnership, protection and participation guide our\noperating context andtheexercise of academic freedom .\n-This Policy takesa justice -based approach to the exercise of academic freedom. This means recognising\nthebroader context in which we operate, including acknowledging the history of Aotearoa New Zealand\nand the role of place , and paying attention to vulnerability, especially for historically marginalised groups.\nA justice -based approach to supporting academic f reedom also responds to the intersecting contexts of\ncolonisation, racism, patriarchy, and cis -normativity and calls attention to the power imbalances that have\nhistorically silenced academic inquiry. It means attending to unequal power structures, reducin g inequities\nand challenging unjust power and social relations.\n-This Policy has implications for individual and collective responsibilities ; while both are referenced\nthroughout , they may from time to time sit in tension with one another.\n-This Policy should be read as a living document and as such itwill be subject to ongoing review.\nDefinitions\nMana -enhancing :\nThis expression refers to tikanga (actions, practices and behaviours) that give authentic expression to the\nguiding principle (or kaupapa) of manaakitanga, that is the capacity to demonstrate compassion, care,\ngenerosity, hospitality, altruism and benevolence. Mana -enhancing prioritises thewelfare ofothers and\nlaysthefoundation forpositive and enduring relationships to befostered and nourished over time.\nSpeak truth to power :\nTo ‘speak truth to power’ means to speak without fear of retribution tothose in authority and demand a well -\nconsidered response to a problem or question, rather than relying on or accepting an expedient, easy or\nconvenient response. The phrase carries with it the implication of courage, of risking or defending either the\nstatus quo, one’s reputation or livelihood, or the wrath of theperson orsource oneisconfronting.\nAcademic Freedom:\nThe academic freedom of academic staff and students contributes to the university’s role as ‘critic and\nconscience of society ’,mandated under the Education and Training Act 2020. Academic freedom is clearly\ndefined in section 267 of the Act as ‘the freedom of academic staff and students, within the law, to question\nand test received wisdom, to put forward new ideas and to state co ntroversial or unpopular opinions.’ This\nincludes the freedom of academic staff and students to engage in research, the freedom of the institution and\nits staff to regulate the subject matter of courses taught at the institution, and the freedom of the ins titution\nand its staff to teach and assess students in the manner that they consider best promotes learning. Academic\nfreedom includes research dissemination and challenges to research through both formal and informal\nMassey University Policy Guide\nPolicy onAcademic Freedom –Page 3\n©This Policy istheproperty ofMassey Universitychannels and mediums , including peer-re viewed published papers through to social media posts and other  \npublic platforms (but does not include general comments on social media). The Massey University Social  \nMedia Guidelines for Staff give staff members who use social media in a personal capacity an overview of  \nhow to engage on these channels appropriately .\nFree Speech/ Freedom of Expression:\nEveryone has the right to free speech/ freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and \nimpart information and opini ons of any k ind in any form. Free s peec h/freedom of expres sion is part of the \nwider societal context in which academic freedom is exercised  and is fundamental to supporting this freedom.\nPolicy\n1. Universities fulfil an important role in encouraging debate and discussion in a democratic society ; they \nprovide an environment where new ideas c an be explored and c hallenged and where old ideas can be  \ntested and challenged. As a university , we value independent thinking and consider that the right to \nexpress  a range of views, both within the university and in public is central to developing and extending  \nscholarship and critical to our role in contributing to the advancement of knowledge, noting the  \ncomplementarity and interdependence of the concepts of academic freedom and free speech/freedom  \nof expression.\n2. New Zealand’s  universities are defined both by their ‘teaching-r esearch nexus’ – the idea that teaching  \nis informed by research and that most teaching is conducted by those who are active in research  – and \nthe ability of academic staff to engage in their profess ional work, their employment  and with society  \nfrom a position of autonomy and independence. Universities and their staff have the ability  and right,  \ntogether with  the associated responsibilities , to ‘speak truth to power’.\n3. The essenc e of a univers ity is contingent upon its autonomy. The political, cultural, and social  \nindependence of universities and their staff is crucial if they are to continue to c hallenge the status quo \nand prepare s tudents to operate as active citizens in and c ontributors to the communities we serve.  In  \nshort, the plurality of views and the ability  to express these views c haracterises universities. However,  \nthis policy should not preclude the critical scholarly examination, for the purposes of teaching and  \nresearch, of opinions of the kind that might otherwise be in breac h of this policy.\n4. Massey University Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa considers that all staff should be affirmed and \nencouraged in exercising  academic freedom; as  teachers, researchers,  professional s taff and  \nmanagers,  and as public intellectuals.\n5. At our univers ity, the c ulture of freedom of research, research-i nformed public engagement, teaching, \nand the expression of views is strongly defended. Our students join with our staff in a community of \nscholarship, research  and learning; we believe thata university is a plac e where contentious ideas can  \nbe debated, tested and challenged. A quality  university education emphasises the careful examination  \nof facts and opinion and encourages arguments based on evidenc e.\n6. Academic research plays a role in addressing contemporary global c hallenges, s uch as those outlined  \nin the Sus tainable Development Goals (SDGs), and much of this research is public facing. At our  \nuniversity, a commitment to addressing these SDGs translates into support for public facing, engaged  \nscholarship seeking to generate social impac t.\nMassey University Policy Guide\nPolicy onAcademic Freedom –Page 4\n©This Policy istheproperty ofMassey University7. We note that o rganised efforts to suppress inquiry and silence critical discussions threaten the role of\nacademic staff and students as ‘critic and conscience’ of society, undermining the purpose and mission\nofauniversity. Accordingly, t heuniversity is aware of the role of digital platforms and organised\ncampaigns in attacking academic freedom and will offer thenecessary safeguards toacademic staff\nand students toallow them to pursue their scholarship without fear. This may include providing\ntechnology -based , monitoring ,security, communication, legal and socio -psychological support to\nacademic scholars atrisk. Further guidance on this is provided in the ‘[Staff Safety and Security]\nGuidelines’.\n8. As a u niversity community, we recognis ethat key processes of accountability established to support\nthe effective functioning of the institution are often the tar gets of digital disinformation campaigns to\nattack academic freedom. The university will therefore put in place processes and structures to monitor\nand filter vexatious complaints, including pursuing options available to the university to effectively\naddress such complaints.\n9. It is generally recognised that all scholarly discourse in the context of the university is subject to critical\nexamination and sometimes disagreement, and that such disagreement, in itself, does not constitute a\nbreac h of this policy, provided it is within the law and reasonably supported by evidence and\nscholarship.\n10. It follows then that academic staff should not be prevented from including in their teaching materials\nitems or content on the grounds that it may offend or shock any student/s, on the basis that this material\nisacademically quality assured. Indeed, theuniversity asserts that students need tobeopen to\ndiscovering within their teaching and learning materials diverse or radical perspectives they may not\nhave previously considered; thisispartoftheoverall university learning experience.\n11. Theuniversity has a duty of care towards students and staff of the university and this includes ensuring\nequal access to the right to free speech, providing an environment, spaces, opportunities and platforms\nwhere allvoices canbeheard and, where appropriate, providing access to security and protection.\nSome individuals may be disadvantaged by factors of inequality ;for example ,access, resourcing,\nstatus, or other issues that are disabling of their opportunity to engage. It follows then that in such\ncircumstances the university may provide support to staff and students who are excluded from\nconversations advanced by defenders of free speech ,those who are not accustomed to debating ideas\nin an orthodox Western fashion, and those who have less power than people with acces s to public\nplatforms. This includes students and staff who may be subject to the work of external parties and state\nactors who seek to limit academic freedom.\n12. The freedoms affirmed inthisPolicy arealso asserted insection 14oftheNew Zealand Billof\nRights (‘the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form’),\nalthough these freedoms arenotunconditional.\n13. In line with the legal definitions of academic freedom andfree speech /freedom of expression set out\nabove , we note that all freedoms come with responsibilities.\n14. Theright to freely express views should be exercised in a way that facilitates andenhances dialogue\nandprovides anopportunity formeaningful discussion andinteraction; ev en if those participating do\nnot ultimately agree with one another. At the core of this dialogue is the right to express opinions in a\nrobust and open way, andin a manner that encourages learning and recognises that others might hold\nMassey University Policy Guide\nPolicy onAcademic Freedom –Page 5\n©This Policy istheproperty ofMassey Universityvery different views.\n15. As an academic and professional community, we seek to affirm the dignity of our fellow human beings  \nin a way that encourages the recognition of difference and enhances inclusiveness. In our interactions,  \nwe should model civility and permit a range of voices  to be heard in a safe and respec tful manner.  \nThis is  especially relevant in our context where Māori, as Ma na Wh enua and Ta ngata Wh enua, have  \nparticular rights and the Crown has responsibilities  to enact as per Te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of \nWaita ngi and the United Nations  Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 2007.\n16. As part of the wider context in which academic freedom is enacted, the freedom of ex pression and the  \nexchange of views are critical to who we are.  As a university, it is integral to our identity  and mandate, \nas statutorily defined, that we c ritique ideas, practices and structures. But we must also be aware of  \nthe impacts of speech that might silenc e, stigmatise and v ictimise, especially in relation to ethnic ity, \ncultural differences, ’race’, gender, and gender and sexual diversity , religion, national origin, ability  or \nage, or other identities  (as appropriate). We should not, therefore, limit the freedom of others through  \nintimidation,  fear or suppression.\n17. As part of the wider context in whic h academic freedom is enacted, the right to free s peech is  \nnecessarily constrained by legal and other limitations, especially in relati on to the way in which a \nviewpoint is expressed or broadcast. The Human  Rights Act section 61(1) provides  some guidance  \nwhen it deems, as unacceptable, words that are ‘threatening, abusive or insulting … words likely to  \nexcite hostility against or bring into contempt any group of persons  … on the grounds of colour, race,  \nor ethnic or national origins of that group  of persons.’\n18. Inevitably, at times, there is a fine line between speech that contributes to robus t debate and that which  \nmay unlawfully stigmatise or silence. We need to reflect the diversity of the communities we serve as \na public institution, and it is important that all members of those communities feel welcomed by our \nuniversity, and that they can contribute to the learning process – theirs and that of others  – in a way  \nthat encourages participation and success, rather than silencing or marginalising them.\n19. Therefore, we affirm the c entrality of certain freedoms – of speech and expres sion, and of association\n–as central to our un iversity. We also affirm that these freedoms are contingent on ensuring that \ndialogue is within the law. As noted abov e, these freedoms  ought not to contravene, undermine, or  \ndiminish the rights and responsibilities in Te Tiriti o Wait angi/the Treaty of Waitangi and the status  of \nMāori as Mana Whenua and Tangata Whenua.\n20. It is critical that an understanding of the impacts on groups, particularly those such as Tangata  \nWhenua who have not been historic ally well-r epresented in academic institutions, is understood and \nmoderated.  Accordingly, it is appropriate to reference the key commitments in the Massey  University  \nTe Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa  Strategy 2022-2 027:\nAs a Tiriti -led University we are committed to demonstrating authentic leadership in\ncontemporary Aotearoa New Zealand as we uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the founding\ndocument of our nation, and its principles through our practice. We see this as a critical\nrequirement to advance more incl usive and socially progressive outcomes for Aotearoa New\nZealand.\nMassey University Policy Guide\nPolicy onAcademic Freedom –Page 6\n©This Policy istheproperty ofMassey University21. In addition to affirming the university’s commitment to promoting academic freedom and free\nspeech/ freedom of expression within thelaw,thispolicy also outlines circumstances in which academic\nfreedom andfree speech/freedom of expression might properly be restricted.\n22. Theuniversity may itself apply restrictions in circumstances where they are necessary for the\nuniversity :\na. todischarge itsobligations under TheHuman Rights Act s61(1); or\nb. to safeguard the safety, health and welfare of its students, employees and other persons\nlawfully upon thepremises orengaged in activities associated with theUniversity\n(pursuant to its obligations under the Health and S afety at Work Act 2015) ;or\nc. to enable use of the University’s premises to be consistent with maintaining and promoting the\nefficient conduct andadministration oftheUniversity’s functions.\n23. Theuniversity is an owner and occupier of its physical premises with rights under the Property Law\nAct 2007 to remove material posted on campus (notice boards or elsewhere). Therefore, the university\nretains the right to remove materials (such as posters or le aflets) found on campus that contravene\nthis policy.\n24. The university, through the auspices of the Vice -Chancellor or delegate, retains the right to refuse\npermission for invited speakers to speak on campus for health and safety reasons or when their\nremarks are likely to be unlawful or tomake nomeaningful contribution toscholarly activity and\ndebate. Further guidance on this is provided in the ‘External Speaker Guidelines’.\n25. In the event of acomplaint in relation to the application or enforcement of this Policy , or in relation to\na purported breach of this Policy :\n(a)Complaints should be made in writing tothe Provost and should clearly set out the facts of the\ncomplaint and the outcome/s sought .\n(b)The Provost will either consider the complaint themselves, or if they consider it appropriate to do\nso, they may appoint a panel (of at least three academic staff members , whi ch may or may not\ninclude the Provost ) to consider the complaint. As part of their consideration of the complaint, the\nProvost or panel may seek further information or responses from the complainant /sand/or other\npersons . Given that the university is a pl ace of learning and research, arbitration may also take a\npedagogical, educative and /orrestorative approach in order to resolve a complaint .\n(c)The Provost or panel willmake recommendations to the V ice-Chancellor and the Vice -Chancellor\nwill make a final determination in relation to the complaint .\nAudience:\nAllstaff, students, andvisitors to the university community andexternal bodies.\nRelevant legislation includes (but is not limited to) :\nCEDAW (The Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination against Women), 1979\nNew Zealand BillofRights Act1990\nDefamation Act 1992\nMassey University Policy Guide\nPolicy onAcademic Freedom –Page 7\n©This Policy istheproperty ofMassey UniversityHuman Rights Act1993\nCRPD (The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) 2006\nUNDRIP (United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples), 2007\nProperty Law Act 2007\nHarmful Digital Communications Act 2015\nHealth andSafety atWork Act2015\nEducation and Training Act2020\nLegal compliance:T\nhe Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 requires Massey University Te Kunenga ki P ūrehuroa to ensure, so\nfar as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety of its workers while at work and the health and safety\nof workers whose activities in carrying out work are influenced or directed by the university while at work. It\nmust also ensure that the health and safety of other persons is not put at risk from work carried out as part\nof the conduct of the university. Accordingly, the university has a duty of care to staff, contractors, students\nand visitors taking part in any event on our campus.\nRelated procedures / documents:\n•Student  Disciplinary  Regulations\n•Event Management  Policy\n•Risk Management Policy\n•Internet  Use and Digital  Communications  Policy \n•Emergency  Management  Policy\n•Policy  on Staff Conduct\n•Health,  Safety  and Wellbeing  Policy\n•Social Media Policy  and Guidelines\nDocument Management Control:\nPrepared  by: Provost \nAuthorised  by: Provost\nDate issued:  September 2023 \nNext review:  September  2026\nMassey University Policy Guide\nEXTERNAL SPEAKER GUIDELINES\n© This Policy is the property of Massey University\nPurpose\nMassey University Te Kunenga ki P ūrehuroa has a legal duty to promote academic freedom, free\nspeech/freedom of expression within the law. Theuniversity also has obligation sunder the Health and Safety\nat Work Act 2015 to ensure the physical and mental health and safety of students, staff and visitors .\nTheuniversity ’sPolicy on Academic Freedom , Free Speech and Freedom of Expression (henceforth known\nasthePolicy on Academic Freedom or‘the Policy’), affirms the university’s commitment to promoting such\nfreedoms within the law, as well as specifying the responsibilities of exercising these freedoms .\nExternal speakers play a key role in the life of the u niversity, providing staff and students with opportunit ies\nto access a broad range of views and beliefs and encouraging students to develop their own informed\nopinions. Th eseExternal Speaker Guidelines (henceforth known as ‘the Guidelines’) provide guidance for\nstaff and students at theuniversity t oensure that external speakers who wish to speak on campus (including\nvirtual platforms hosted or owned by the university) or who are invited to speak on campus are aware of the\nexpectation sregarding the promotion of academic freedom, free speech/freedom of expression , and that any\nspeakers remain within the law.\nThese Guidelines apply to all external speakers who have been invited to speak on campus orhave requested\nauniversity -owned and operated venue to deliver an event ,as well as any event that utilises the university’s\nname away from the university and their Students’ Association premises. TheseGuidelines should be read\nin conjunction with the Policy, the Massey University Strategy 2022 -2027 ,theVenue and Space Use Te rms\nof Agreement and the Massey University Event Management Policy .\nTheseGuidelines should therefor ebeconsidered by all staff and student satMassey University Te Kunenga\nki Pūrehuroa as well as external parties .\nStaff and students have personal obligations under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 to take\nreasonable care for their own health and safety and to take reasonable care that their acts and omissions do\nnot adversely affect the health and safety of oth er persons. Academic staff and students are expected toSection University Management\nContact Provost\nLast Review September 2022\nNext Review September 2025\nApproval C22/84\nEffective Date 22 September 2022\nMassey University Policy Guide\nExternal Speaker Guidelines –Page 2\n© This Policy is the property of Massey University\nexercise their academic freedom in a manner that is consistent with these legal obligations.\nTheuniversity, through the auspices of the Vice -Chancellor or delegate has the right to withdraw any prio r\napproval given to an external speaker considering new information that leads the university to reasonably\nbelieve that the external speaker might contravene its policies or the law.\nExternal Speaker Notifications\nIt is expected thatthe event organiser willundertake a preliminary risk assessment for all external speakers.\nWhere the risk assessment is medium or high it is recommended the relevant university officer is contacted\nso that they can either be advised and/or provide advice at least t wo weeks prior to the speaker’s\nengagement.\nThe risk assessment should consider and address at least the following:\n•Will the event be open to the public?\n•Will the event be broadcast, streamed, or offered for download by the organisers and be available to \nthe public?\n•Does the proposed title or theme of the event present a potential risk where  views or opinions  \nexpres sed by  speakers may be in breach of the university’s policies?\n•Will the event contravene, undermine, or diminish the rights and responsibilities or the University’s  \ncommitment to upholding the Te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of Waitangi and the status of Māori as \nMana Whenua and Tangata Whenua?\n•Has the s peaker previously been prevented from speaking at Massey Univers ity or another university  \nor similar establishment, or previously been known to express views that may be in breach of Massey  \nUniversity policies?\n•Is the subject matter or the speak er likely  to attract protest, negativ e media coverage or otherwise  \nbe a potential threat to the reputation of the university?\n•Is there any pos sibility of a situation arising in which people might experience harassment,  \nintimidation, verbal  abus e, or violence, or that those in attendance might be incited to engage in  \nharass ment, intimidation, verbal abuse, or violence directed at others, as defined within law and  \nwithin the  university’s policies governing bully ing and haras sment and those of New Zealand?\nWhile it is the responsibility of the event organiser to assess and address risks, generally:\nif the answer to all the questions above is NO, it is considered to indicate a LOW RISK.\nif the answer to any of the questions is unclear, or the answer to any of thefirst three q uestions\nabove is YES , it is considered to indicate a MEDIUM RISK .\nif the answer to one or more of the last three q uestions above is YES , it is considered t oindicate a\nHIGH RISK.\nMassey University Policy Guide\nExternal Speaker Guidelines –Page 3\n© This Policy is the property of Massey University\nThe event organiser should indicate clearly that:\nthey have provided the correct information to the University so that the relevant university officer\ncan fully consider possible risks associated with having th espeaker at an event. Consideration\nshould be given, amongst others, tophysical, reputational ,andmental harm to students, staff and/or\nvisitors; and\nthey have read both these Guidelines and the Policy and confirmed that they will share these with\ntheir external speaker(s) prior to arrival at the event so that both the event organiser and the speaker\nare aware of theuniversity’s policies and expectations ;and\nif there is a change of topic or should the speaker have been replaced or isno longer able to attend\nthe event, they will notify the relevant university officer .\nThe relevant university officer, and if required  in consultation with the Deputy Vice-C hancellor University  \nServices, will c onsider possible risks assoc iated with the speaker, including physical, reputational and mental  \nharm to students, staff and visitors, and the risk that the external speaker could contravene  university polic y \nor the  law, before making a decision . If there are concerns regarding the physical, reputational and mental \nharms to students, staff and visitors , further advice may be sought from t he Director, Governance and \nAssurance and/or the ev ent organis er.\nShould the matter need to be esc alated beyond the relevant university officer, and the Director, Governance \nand Assurance conclude s that the external speaker poses a significant risk to health and safety and  other \nconsiderations noted in the Policy , the matter should be ref erred  to the Incident G roup, who will  determine if  \nthe event should proceed .\nAn event organiser may appeal the o utcome of a decision if they  believe the decision was reached unfairly. \nIn such case the event organiser should submit a detailed explan ation of the grounds of any appeal by email \ndirectly to the Vice- Chancellor.\nConsiderations in preparation for the event\nGuidanc e in relation to preparing and assessing a request may vary depending on whether the event \norganiser is a staff member or student, or whether the event relates to an internal or external booking .\nAn external speaker considered medium or high risk should not be confirmed until the event orga niser has \ndiscussed this with the relevant university officer.\nThe university understands that circumstances relating to an external speaker notification may change, even \nat the last minute. In this case, it is the responsibility of the event organiser to inform the University, via the \nrelevant university officer , or the relevant member of Stud ents’ Association staff, immediately if there is:\na change in the arrangements which may l ead to the contravention of university policy or the law ;\nor\na change in external speaker or their topic.\nMassey University Policy Guide\nExternal Speaker Guidelines –Page 4\n© This Policy is the property of Massey University\nIf the University considers there to be a significant change in the attendant risks, the decision approving the \nevent may be revised.\nDuring an event\nIf, during the event, the event organiser or an attendee c onsiders  that the external speaker is  contravening \nuniversity policies or the law, or if there is a physical threat to those attending the event, they should inform \nUniversity Secu rity immediately.\nAfter an event\nIf, after an event, it c omes to light that the external speaker contravened university policies or the law, or if \nthere was a s ignific ant risk to the university, its  members or guests, then the relevant  university officer who \nconsidered the possible risks assoc iated with the event, and if required in consultation with the Deputy Vice-\nChancellor Univers ity Servic es, may conduct a post-e vent review, the outcome of which may result in the \nuniversity taking such action as may  be appropriate in the circumstances.\nDefinitions:\nAn‘external speaker’ is any individual (or organisation) who is not a student or staff member of\nMassey University.\n‘The relevant university officer ’in the context of this document refers to any member of the\nuniversity’s Senior Leadership Team (SLT) .\nAn‘event’ in the context of this policy i sconsidered asa major university event; that is, anypublicly -\nadvertised meeting or activity organised by a staff or student member of Massey University or an\nexternal party thatis considered by the university nottobeassociated with formal research or learning\noutcomes ordoes notform part of (or directly support) acredit -bearing programme of study offered\nby the university andis expected to attract a significantly large public audience andrequire sa central\nroom or space booking .\nAn‘event organiser’ in the context of this policy is the staff or student member or external party who\norganises an event.\nThe ‘ incident group’ for the purposes of this document includes the Provost, the Director Governance\n& Assurance, and the Executive Director Marketing & Co mmunications .\nThe‘review ’ is the process by which the university will consider possible risks posed by an external\nspeaker and mitigating actions that may be required in order to reduce the level of risk. The outcome\nof this review will be communicated to the event organiser who may appeal the decision. It is extremely\nMassey University Policy Guide\nExternal Speaker Guidelines –Page 5\n© This Policy is the property of Massey University\nunusual for the university to refuse a request for a speaker, but there are occasions on which\nmeasures need to be taken to ensure that the event can take place safely and within appropriate\nconditions .\nAudience :\nAllstaff, students ,visitors and external bodies within the university community.\nRelevant legislation :\nNew Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990\nHuman Rights Act 1993\nAmendments Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation Compensation Act 2001\nHealth and Safety at Work Act 2015\nHarmful Digital Communications Act 2015\nEducation and Training Act2020\nLegal compliance :\nTheHealth and Safety at Work Act 2015 requires Massey University Te Kunenga ki P ūrehuroa to take all\npracticable steps to identify hazards in the workplace and to ensure that people working or visiting the\nuniversity premises are not harmed from any hazard in or arising in the workplace. Accordingly, theuniversity\nhas a duty of care to staff, contractors and visitors taking part in any event on our campus.\nRelated procedures / documents :\nPolicy on Academic Freedom\nStudent Disciplinary Regulations\nEvent Management Policy\nRisk Management Policy\nInternet Use and Digital Communications Policy\nEmergency Management Policy\nPolicy on Staff Conduct\nHealth, Safety and Wellbeing Policy\nDocument Management Control:\nPrepared by: Provost\nMassey University Policy Guide\nExternal Speaker Guidelines –Page 6\n© This Policy is the property of Massey University\nAuthorised by: Provost\nApproved by: Council\nDate issued: September 2022\nNext review: September 2025\n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Class-Qualification_Representative_Guidelines_PDF_159_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Section",
      "policy_type": "Guideline",
      "file_size": "159 KB",
      "author": "jmlochhe",
      "creation_date": "2024-06-21T13:01:02",
      "modification_date": "D:20240621131202+12'00'"
    },
    "content": " Massey University Policy Guide  \n \nCLASS/QUALIFICATION REPRESENTATIVE GUIDELINES  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \nPurpose:  \nTo provide key principles and guidelines for the implementation and management of the class/qualification  \nrepresentative system . \nPrinciples:  \n• Every class and/or qualification  will have the opportunity enabled for student representation.   For \nqualifications with cohorts of students it may be more appropriate for a qualification representative to be \nused.  \n \n• Large classes/qualifications may have more than one representative.  \n \n• Where a representative is not elected/selected in a small class/qualification, course or qualification \ncoordinators must advise students of alternative mechanisms by which they can provide feedback and \nraise issues of concern during the class or qualificat ion. \n \n• There will be at least one occasion each semester for staff and students to meet together either face -\nto-face or online as appropriate to the class /qualification to discuss issues arising and ways to address \nthem.    \n \n• There will be a feedback loop to students advising what action has been taken on matters raised.  \n \n• There will be a feedback loop at both College and University level with a summary of the year’s activities.  \n \n• Written documentation on the class/qualification  representation process to be held by each academic \nunit/qualification  to ensure clarity.  \nGuidelines:  \n1. The class/qualification  representative system is to support a learning and teaching partnership between \nstaff members and students that:  \n• enables and encourages students to participate with staff members in the direction and activities \nof the University with a view to enhancing the student academic, and  \n• identifies and address es issues and areas of concern for students . Section  Academic  \nContact  Office of Academic Assurance  \nLast Review  New 2019  \nNext Review  February 2021  \nApproval  AB19/02/16  \nEffective Date  February 2019  \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nClass/Qualification Representative Guidelines – Page \n2 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n2. The Massey University students’ associations on each campus and the Extramural Students ’ \nAssociation  will operate the class/qualification  representative system throughout the Universit y and \nprovide training for the representatives.  \n3. Colleges and academic units can adopt an approach that best works for their context, providing all the \nprinciples and outcomes listed here are met.  \n4. The class /qualification representative will be elected/selected by their peers within the first two weeks \nof the semester . \n5. If there are no candidates the lecturer will advise the relevant Massey University student association \nClass  Representative Coordinator . The Coordinator will liaise with the class  and assist with the selection \nof a class  or qualification representative, where possible . \nRoles and Respons ibilities:  \nInformation on the role of class /qualification representative  \n• Information for students on the importance of the class  representative system, and the benefits and \nresponsibilities of the role, will be available in orientation resources, on the University website and on \nthe Massey University student associations’ websites.  \n• Massey University student associations will provide training for class /qualification representatives in \neach semester, and maintain an online Representative Handbook  \n• Class /qualification representatives may be eligible for recognition through the University’s service \nrecognition programmes.  \nThe role of the class/qualification  representatives  \n• Class/qualification  representatives provide a link between staff and students and can be a first point of \ncontact for students. They are expected to listen and to refer issues, where necessary, appropriately \nand sensitively.  \n• Class/qualification representatives represent the collective views of a class  or qualification.  \n• Class/qualification  representatives should make themselves known to students as appropriate to the \ndelivery of the class, for example, in person in class or online ,  \nThe role of the academic staff member  \n• At the earliest opportunity and within two weeks of the start of semester, explain why Massey \nUniversity has class/qualification  representation and facilitate the process of election/selection.   \n• Course coordinators will ensure contact details  of the class/qualification representative  are provided \non Stream  course pages.  \n• Ensure class /qualification  representatives are connected to the relevant student association training.  \n• Facilitate opportunities throughout the semester/year for feedback.  \nThe role of the academic unit/college  \n• Explain why Massey University has class /qualification  representatives to work with academic staff to \nfacilitate the best learning environment for both students and staff.  \n• Support academic staff through the process of electing/selecting class /qualification  representation.  \n• Create at least one opportunity per semester for staff and class /qualification  representatives to meet \nto discuss issues and resolve them.  \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nClass/Qualification Representative Guidelines – Page \n3 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n• Provide an annual summary report to the College Learning & Teaching Committee and/or College \nBoard providing information on how many classes/qualifications have representatives, the number of \nmeetings held, key issues identified, how these were resolved , changes made as a result of feedback, \nhow students were informed off resolutions and/or changes  and identifying any outstanding matters . \n• College Directors of Teaching and Learning will present an annual high level College summary of \nclass/qualification representation activities and outcomes to the University Teaching and Learning \nCommittee.  \nDefinitions : \nAcademic unit means institute , school  or centre  \nClass/qualification  representative means a student enrolled in a class,  within a course, or qualification  who \nis selected by students in that class  or qualification  to facilitate communication between staff and students \nenrolled in that class  or qualification.  \nClass/course differentiation, a course may be delivered in different modes ie distance, internal, block and \non different campuses.  Where this is the case, representatives may be appointed within each offering, referred \nto as a class.  This allows for different delivery modes and locations to have their own representation as issues \nmay differ.  \nStaff member  refers to an individual employed by the University on a full or part time basis . \nAudience:  \nAll staff and students . \nRelated procedures / documents:  \n• Kaupapa Here Aratohu Code of Student Conduct   \n• Code  of Responsible Research Conduct  \n• Code of Ethical Conduct  for Research, Teaching and Evaluations Involving Human Participants  \n• Code of Ethical Conduct for the Use of Animals for Research, Testing and Teaching   \n• Learning and Teaching Policy  \n• Learning and Teaching Framework   \n• Student Survey Policy  \nDocument Management Control:  \nPrepared by: Office of Academic Assurance  \nAuthorised by: Provost  \nApproved by:   Academic Board  AB19/02/16  \nDate issued: February 2019  \nNext review: February 2021  \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Business_Case_Framework_and_Procedures_PDF_224_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Section",
      "policy_type": "Procedure",
      "file_size": "224 KB",
      "author": "mladams",
      "creation_date": "2025-05-08T13:01:01",
      "modification_date": "D:20250508131146+12'00'"
    },
    "content": " \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n \nBUSINESS CASE FRAMEWORK AND PROCEDURES  \n \n \n© This procedure is for the exclusive use  of Massey University  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \n \nIntroduction  \n \nA Business Case (BC) sets out the purpose of and justification for a project and supports leaders to make informed \nand transparent investment decisions.  A BC ultimately acts as the basis  for the Go/No -go decision to invest or not in a \nparticular initiative.  These procedures  should be read in conjunction with the B C. \n \n \nPurpose  \n \nThese procedures and the related B C Policy, provide an overview of the university Business Case process integrated \nwith Treasury’s Better BCsTM (BBC)  methodology . It advises which Business Case process is required at different risk \nand financial thresholds and  provides a brief interpretation of the Treasury g uidelines a nd templates.  \n \nThese procedure s identify  the application of the Business Case process within the Massey University (the university ) \ncontext.  \n \n \nAim of Better BCs \n \nBusiness Cases are a critical element of the university’s planning and investment decision making . \n \nPolicies, strategies, programmes and projects will only achieve their objectives and deliver benefits if they have been \nscoped robustly and planned realistically, and associated risks have been considered and taken into account.  \nA Business Case provides a framework for ‘thinking’ how an initiative or project can be delivered, by providing \nanswers to basic questions, such as:  \n• Where are we now?  \n• Where do we want to be?  \n• What are our options?  \n• Which option is likely to provide the best value for money?  Section  DVC University Services  \nContact  Manager – Financial Planning  and Analysis  \nLast Review  January 2025  \nNext Review  January 20 30 \nApproval  DVC University Services  \nEffective Date  January 2025  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nBusiness Case Framework & Procedure – Page 2  \n \nThis P rocedure is for the exclusive use of Massey University  \n• How will we get there?  \n \nBetter BCs (BBC) are  fundamentally about planning and managin g for success. Providing a robust and consistent \nmethodology that leads to : \n• Better informed decisions  \n• Better value for money   \n• Achievement of better outcomes  \n \nBBC is international good practice that provides :  \n• A structured way of thinking  \n• A step-by-step approach  \n• A way of working together  \n• A way to bring convergence, coherence  and cohesion across the organisation.  \n \n \nBC Framework  \nRefer to  the Better BCsTM (BBC) methodology  for a framework and methodology  relating to the Business Case \nprocess  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nBusiness Case Framework & Procedure – Page 3  \n \nThis P rocedure is for the exclusive use of Massey University  \nOverview of the BC Process:  \n \n  \n \n\n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nBusiness Case Framework & Procedure – Page 4  \n \nThis P rocedure is for the exclusive use of Massey University  \n \n1. Idea Generation  \nIdeas, innovations and improvements  are generated within Senior Leadership Team (SLT) portfolios . To \nproceed to a Strategic Assessment  (SA), the relevant SLT member (acting as the sponsor to the initiative) is \nto support the initiative . \n2. Sponsor  Approval  \nPrior to any S A or BC (BC) being submitted, The SLT sponsor is to approve the respective SA or BV . \n  \n3. Risk Profile assessment  and scoping  \nThe risk profile assessment is completed to determine wh ich template to use  for the SA. \n  \n4. BBC SA \nA scalable Strategic Assessment template is completed . The Strategic Assessment is completed at the \nbeginning of the Business Case process and:  \na. Demonstrates the proposal is well aligned to university  strategy  and responds to a true business \nneed and links to required outcomes and benefits.  \nb. Indicates the level of effort and risk.  \nc. An indicative budget requirement  for a range of options . \nd. This assessment becomes part of the full Business Case with little or no rework.  \nSmall investment proposals which are not funded,  and which do not meet the threshold for a Business \nCase, require approval based on the Delegations of Authority Policy . \n \n5. Quality assurance review and stakeholder consultation  \nThe SA is sent for quality assurance review and stakeholder consultation. Feedback from this is to be \nincorporated into the SA. \n \n6. Endorsement by Estates and Infrastructure Advisory Committee (EIAC) , and thereafter seek approval by SLT  \nThe EIAC is an advisory committee reporting to the Vice -Chancellor and the SLT.  The focus is on improving \ncoordination and oversight of estate and technology development, investment and delivery , ensuring \nalignment to strategic direction and plans . Once endorsement is received from EIAC the BC Strategic \nAssessment  developer will proceed to seek SLT approval /endorsement . \n \n7. Planning process  \nOnce the SA has been endorsed by EIAC it will be incorporated into the capital and operating planning where \napplicable.  \n \n8. After completion of the SA process, it moves to the BC process.  \n \n9. Sponsor Approval  \nPrior to any BC being developed , The SLT sponsor is to approve prior to development of the BC . \n10. Risk Profile assessment and scoping  \nThe risk profile assessment and scoping is completed to determine which template to use  for the BC. \n \n11. BBC  \nThe development of the Business Case can begin . This is to be completed using the BBC  methodology.  \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nBusiness Case Framework & Procedure – Page 5  \n \nThis P rocedure is for the exclusive use of Massey University  \n12. Quality assurance review and stakeholder consultation  \nThe BC is sent for quality assurance review and stakeholder consultation. Feedback from this is to be \nincorporated into the BC. \n \n13. Endorsement by EIAC  \nThe EIAC is an advisory committee reporting to the Vice -Chancellor and the SLT.  The focus is on improving \ncoordination and oversight of estate and technology development, investment and delivery, ensuring \nalignment to strategic direction and plans. Once en dorsement is received from EIAC the BC developer will \nproceed to seek SLT approval/endorsement.  \n \n14. SLT submission  and Council submission if required  \nThe BC will be considered by SLT and approved if within SLT delegation limits. Approval of BCs are in \nline with the Delegations of Authority Policy as follows:  \n \n• Capital and Operating costs - Whole of life costs up to $5m are approved by SLT or the Vice \nChancellor, while BCs of more than $5m whole of life costs are approved by Council.  \n \n15. Post Completion Reviews (PCR)  \nAn Independent PCR will be completed for projects in line with the Project Post Completion Review \nPolicy or if the project has specific requirements for review as determined by Finance or Risk \nManagement sections. Provision for expenses associated with a P ost Completion Review should be \nincluded in the BC financials.   \n \nOther items to note:  \n \n• Financial  Capital/Operational  process  \nOnce the BC has been approved, it will be incorporated  into the operational budget or capital budgeting \nand planning process.  \n \n• Timing and deadlines  \nDue to the thorough review of BCs and SAs, Finance will publish a timeline relating to submission \ndates.  Currently , there are two SLT meetings per year where BCs and SAs can be presented  (April and \nOctober) .  \n \n• BC Templates  \nThe risk profile assessment determines the template to use for the BC development. See Appendix A of \nthe BC Policy.  \n \n• Stakeholder engagement  \nAs part of the development of the SA or BC, all relevant stakeholders should be consulted. These  can \ninclude, but are not limited to, Finance, Estates, ITS and Procurement.  \n \n \n \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nBusiness Case Framework & Procedure – Page 6  \n \nThis P rocedure is for the exclusive use of Massey University  \n \nBC Support  \n16. Guidance  and Templates  \nBC information is published on OneMassey (intranet) to provide a repository for Business Case \ninformation includ ing guidance, templates, links, exemplars and support contacts. See One Massey \nSharePoint:  Support Services/Finance/Business Cases : \nhttps://masseyuni.sharepoint.com/sites/SupportServices/SitePages/Business -Case.aspx  \n \n17. Finance Support  \nFinanc e Business Partners  provide guidance and support for the preparation of Strategic \nAssessments and Business Cases. Early engagement with finance, as a key stakeholder, is \nessential for resource planning and to avoid wasted effort.  \n \n18. BBC Training  \nContact ‘Manager – Financial Planning and Analysis ’ within Finance for assistance in developing \nSAs and BCs.  \n \n \nApplying the  BC Process  \nAll funding proposals w ith the following criteria must complete a BC: \n \n• A Business Case is required for any funding request exceeding a total project cost (TPC) of $300,000  \n(see definition) or recurrent funding of $100,000 per annum or above. See BC Policy.  \n \nThe BBC process provides a comprehensive suite of guidelines and templates to accommodate low risk and small -\nscale  projects through to high risk and large -scale  projects.  Templates are scalable and the level of effort required \nwill be consistent with risk and scale. The Massey University Risk Profile Assessment tool is used to determine \nwhich Business Case template is appropriate for an investment proposal.  \n \n \n \n \nWhat is included in a g ood Business Case \n \nA good Business Case is the foundation planning document for a project or programme that demonstrates:  \n \n• The stated outcomes and how they will deliver on specific aspects of the organisation’s  strategy.  \n• A full range of options and market analysis are considered to maximise value for money with an assessment \nof risk and uncertainty. Including in -house delivery,  mixed/hybrid delivery,  ownership, leasing, partnerships \nand outsourcing.   \n• The procurement strategy, service requirements, risk allocation and payment methods are defined.  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nBusiness Case Framework & Procedure – Page 7  \n \nThis P rocedure is for the exclusive use of Massey University  \n• The current and future, capital and operational funding requirements for sustainable financial planning.  Is \nthis affordable? What are the costs/ benefits? When will the costs be incurred and financial benefits \nrealised?  \n• Evidential project planning, resources management, quality assurance processes, risk management and \nmitigation planning, post implementation management and post completion review.  \n \nA good Business Case will : \n• Have SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Time -bound) objectives , setting and \nmanaging expectations.  \n• Clear the way forward with decision making, removing ambiguity and providing greater certainty of success.  \n• Have demonstrated project planning and detailed management  structures . \n• Provide effective change management and quality assurance, providing high levels of confidence.  \n• Define responsibilities and resource requirements  agreed with stakeholders .  \n• Become a reference document for the project.  \n \n \nDocuments an d Tools to assist in Business Case preparation  \n \nhttps://one.massey.ac.nz/professional -services/finance -and-procurement/business -case -development  \nGuidelines for BCs \nTemplates  \nRelated Guidance  BBC guidance | The Treasury New Zealand  \n \n \nMassey University Risk Profile Assessment  \n \nInvestment Logic Mapping   \nhttp://www.treasury.govt.nz/statesector/investmentmanagement/plan/bbc/methods/investmentlogicmapping  \n \nCost Benefit Analysis Tool  \nhttp://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/guidance/planning/costbenefitanalysis  \n \nPublic Sector Discount Rates  \nhttp://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/guidance/planning/costbenefitanalysis/currentdiscountrates  \n \nGateway Reviews  \nhttp://www.treasury.govt.nz/statesector/investmentmanagement/review/gateway  \n \nDefinitions  \n \nKey Stakeholders  - have an interest in the expected outcomes or can influence the investment proposal.  \nKey stakeholders who can assist in the process should be identified and engaged at an early stage of the BC \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nBusiness Case Framework & Procedure – Page 8  \n \nThis P rocedure is for the exclusive use of Massey University  \ndevelopment process.  Key stakeholders do the BBC thinking together and can be highly influential and highly \nimpacted.  They include writers, reviewers, approvers, senior clients and major interest groups.  \n \nResourcing  - for scoping, SA preparation  and BC development includes internal staff time (pre -agreed with \nstaff), backfilling of staff, operational funding for feasibility studies and concepts, funding for external \nfacilitators, contractors, consultants and quality assurance.  \n \nTotal Project Cost (TPC)  - the financial value of all works and fees related to the implementation and \ncompletion of an approved project; including but not limited to, design, contract documentation, procurement, \nconsents, development contributions, construction, software, configurat ion, implementation and training. Total \nproject cost can include bot h operating and capital cost and is used to determine if the project can be \napproved by SLT or requires University Council approval.  \n \nWhole -of-Life (WOL)  cost - the net present value of cash costs over the lifecycle of the proposal under \nconsideration. Cash costs include the initial capital or operating costs, plus the operating costs for the \nexpected life of the asset, discounted using Public Sector Discount Rates.  Operating costs should include \nessential personnel costs and excludes depreciation expen ses. \n \nQuality Assurance  Review  - a planned and systematic review of the proposals’ ability to meet stakeholder  \nexpectations, i.e. will the proposal achieve  the stated outcomes, in terms of benefits, cost, time, viability, \naffordability, sustainability, risk and reputation.  \n  \nSponsor  – The SLT member who is supporting the development of the SA or BC.  Each SA and BC must \nhave  a sponsor for the paper.  \n \nEIAC – Estates and Infrastructure Advisory Committee  \n \nAudience  \nAll university s taff preparing Business Cases . \n \nRelated Procedures  and Do cuments  \nAsset Financial Procedure s \nBC Policy   \nCapital Asset Management (CAM)  Policy  \nDelegations of Authority Policy   \nHealth  and Safety Procurement Procedures   \nInformation and Records Management Policy   \nProgressive Procurement Policy   \nProject Management Policy   \nProject Post Completion Review Policy    \nRisk Management Policy   \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nBusiness Case Framework & Procedure – Page 9  \n \nThis P rocedure is for the exclusive use of Massey University  \nhttp://www.treasury.govt.nz/statesector/investmentmanagement/plan/bbc  \nhttps://treasury.govt.nz/information -and-services/state -sector -leadership/investment -management/better -business -\ncases -bbc \nhttp://www.tec.govt.nz/Tertiary -Sector/Crown -Interest/Business -Cases  \n \nDocument Management Control  \n \nPrepared by:  Manager  – Financial Planning and Analysis  \nAuthorised by:  Deputy Vice -Chancellor University Services   \nApproved by:  Deputy Vice -Chancellor University Services   \nLast review :  January  2025   \nNext review:  January  2030    \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Common_Seal_Statute_PDF_204_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Common Seal Statute PDF 204 KB",
      "policy_type": "Statute",
      "file_size": "204 KB",
      "author": "Nicol, Paddy",
      "creation_date": "2025-03-17T11:02:07",
      "modification_date": "D:20250317112745+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " Approved: Council – 6 March 2025    Page 1 of 3  \n    \n  \n \n  \n  \n  \nMASSEY UNIVERSITY COMMON SEAL STATUTE 2025  \n  \nBy resolution of Council and pursuant to section s 273 and 284  of the Education  and Training  \nAct 2020 ( “Act”), the Council adopts a Common Seal by way of this Common Seal Statute \n2025.  \n  \n 1. Title and Commencement and Amendment  \n  \nThis Statute may be known as the Common Seal Statute 2025. This Statute comes  \ninto force on 6 March 2025 .  \n \nThis Statute may be amended from time to time. The amendments are  affected  once \napproved by Council .  \n  \n 2.  Purpose  \n  \nThe purpose of this Statute is to:  \n  \n(a) Adopt a Common Seal;  \n(b) Establish authorised purposes for affixing the University’s Common Seal to a \ndocument;  \n(c) Establish authorities for affixing the Common Seal to a document; and   \n(d) Establish authorities for countersigning the Common Seal.  \n  \n 3.  Definitions  \n  \nThe Massey University Common Seal (‘the Seal’) means the emblem of the University \nthat represents the signature of the Council of Massey University.  \n  \n 4.  Purpose of the Seal  \n  \nThe presence of the Seal on a document, countersigned by authorised persons, is \nconclusive proof of an act or undertaking on behalf of Massey University.  \n\n Approved: Council – 6 March 2025    Page 2 of 3  \n    \n \n 5.   Types and classes of documents to be executed under Seal  \n  \nThe following documents may be executed by affixing the  University’s Common Seal:  \n  \n1) Academic qualifications and honorary award s;  \n2) Leases and licenses for land and buildings where the term exceeds five years,  or \nthe transaction value is greater than $1m per annum;   \n3) Sale, purchase or ownership transfer of land and/or buildings;  \n4) Any deeds or documents where execution under Seal is required by law or by \nother parties;  \n5) Documents where other parties specifically request it.  \n  \n 6.  Authority to countersign under Seal  \n  \nThe Seal has no authority unless it is countersigned by the relevant authorised \nsignatories.  \n  \nIn the case of academic qualifications and honorary awards, the Seal must be \ncountersigned by the Vice -Chancellor.  \n  \nIn all cases, the Seal must be countersigned by at least two of the following \nauthorised signatories:  \n  \n• The Chancellor  \n• The Vice -Chancellor  \n• The University Registrar ( Deputy Vice-Chancellor  Student s and Global \nEngagement ) \n  \nThe Chancellor or Vice -Chancellor may authorise the attachment and countersigning \nof the Seal where other parties specifically request this, for purposes other than \nthose specified in Part 5 of this Statute.  \n  \n 7.  Responsibilities for custodianship of the seal  \n  \nResponsibility for the safe custody and appropriate use of the Seal rests with the \nDirector Governance and Assurance.   \n  \nThe Director Governance and Assurance is responsible for ensuring that a register is \nmaintained, recording the date and purpose of each occasion on which the Seal is \naffixed.  \n  \n Approved: Council – 6 March 2025    Page 3 of 3  \n  The Director Governance and Assurance is responsible for monitoring compliance \nwith this statute and reporting any breaches to Council.  \n  \n 8.  Waivers and variations  \n  \nOnly the Chancellor or the Vice -Chancellor may waive or vary the provisions of this \nstatute in individual extraordinary cases. Any such waivers or variations must be \nreported to Council at the next available opportunity.  \n  \n 9.  Relevant Legislation  \n  \nThis Statue has been prepared in accordance with the following legislative \nrequirements:   \nSection 3 (3)  Massey University Act 1963.   \nSection 273  Education and Training Act 2020  \nSection 284  Education and Training Act 2020  \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Capital_Budget_Carry_Forward_Procedure_PDF_135_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Capital Budget Carry Forward Procedure",
      "policy_type": "Procedure",
      "file_size": "135 KB",
      "creation_date": "2022-10-27T10:02:07",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220101440+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n \n \nCAPITAL BUDGET CARRY FORWARD PROCEDURES  \n \n \n© Th ese Procedures are  the property of Massey University  \n \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \nPurpose :  \nThis procedure  outline s the rationale for sustainable management of the University ’s financial  assets committed to  \ncapital programmes  including the process for carrying forward of capital budgets from one financial year to the \nfollowing year.    \nRationale : \nMassey University’s capital plans are funded from net surpluses, debt, depreciation, and asset sales.  The level of \nfunding available from these sources is directly aligned with annual budgeted operating revenue and expenses (which \ncan vary as environmenta l conditions change).   The timing of project cash flows and new approved capital projects \nalso affects the management of cash flow and total commitments.  \nTo manage the variability of capital funding, commitments and timing of expenditure, the University must adjust its \ntotal commitments and retime projects to meet minimum liquidity requirements and financial performance metrics \nagreed with external agencies . \nThis document  outlines  the underlying principles and procedure s for the carry forward of capital b udgets  to support  \nsustainable financial management of capital at Massey University.  \nProcedure s: \n1. Underlying Principles  \nThe underlying principles  for carry forward of unspent capital funding from one year to the next are: \na. Funding allocated to a  capital project and unspent in any financial year  will be  retained and carried forward \ninto the subsequent financial year.   There are restrictions on the carry forward of funding for Group One \nrecurrent programmes and these are outlined in Procedure 2 bel ow.  \nb. Funding allocated to approved projects  will not be reallocated for some other purpose  without consent  in line \nwith the Delegations Policy.   \nc. New un -budgeted capital commitments or over -budget spending  on any programme  or project  may result in \nbudget reductions to Group One discretionary  programmes to sustainably manage the University ’s financial \nresources.  A ny budget reduction or transfer  require s approval in line with the Delegations Policy . \nd. If the primary sources of capital funding  are not achieved  in any one year , carry forward of unspent budget \nmight be restricted.  This will ensure the University does not  commit more capital each year  than is prudently \navailable .  Section  Finance  \nContact  Chief Financial Officer  \nLast Review  October 202 2 \nNext Review  January 202 8 \nApproval  October 2022  \nEffective Date  October 2022  \n \n \nCapital Budget Carry Forward Procedure  – Page 2  \n \n© Th ese Procedures are  the property of Massey University  \n \ne. If at any time  the Univers ity’s available capital funding resources are found to be insufficient to fund the \napproved Ten-Year  Capital Plan  (TYCP) , reforecasting the TYCP  and deferral of some projects might be \nnecessary.  \nf. The Capital Budget Carry Forward Procedure forms part of the Asset  Investment Policy . \n \n2. No C arry Forward of Funding for Group One Recurrent Programmes  \nThe Asset  Investment  Policy states in relation to Group One projects that; “funding allocated in any one year \nmust be spent in the year it is allocated and is not intended to  be carried over to the next year ”.  The DVC US \nmay at their discretion allow the carry forward of Group One budgets.  The rationale for restricting the carry \nforward of recurrent programme funding is:  \na. Restricting the carry forward of prior years’ funding does not restrict the completion of any work in \nprogress  as projects  can continue across financial years . However,  portfolio owners  must  operate within \nthe funding envelope  allocated for the current financial year  (i.e., the total amount spent on  any Group \nOne programme  in any financial year  must not exceed the annual  approved  budget ).  This is regardless \nof prior year project budget alloca tions or the year the project commenced.   \nb. Restricting carry forward of Group One funding limits the uncontrolled growth of an uncommitted fund and \nprovides an incentive to plan and achieve annual objectives .  \nc. Unspent Group One funding will not be automatically  carried forward.   The retained funding may be \nreallocated to other project /s that are better aligned with the University’s strategic direction , and or give \nthe flexibility to address funding shortfalls in other areas.  \n \n3. The P rocedure s \na. In January of each year, after completion of year end accounting, the University finalises  the previous \nyear’s  project expenditure to date, new capital commitments and capital funding sources including net \nsurplus, depreciation, asset sales and external reven ue sources against budget.  \nb. This confirms the amount of budget available to carry forward  for projects and programmes . Unspent \nfunding in any year for approved Group Two, Three  and Four projects will be carried forward, subject to  \nconstraints with available funding  that may arise.  Funding may be brought forward into the current \nfinancial year or re -phased into out years, consistent with contractual obligations, project milestones and \navailable financial resources .  \nc. Group Three  and Four projects that are not fully approved are subject to reforecasting, rather than \naccumulating carry forward budgets.  \nd. External funding provided for specific Group Four projects will only be used for those projects and will not \nbe reassigned.  \ne. Delays in d elivery/cash flow of Group Two and Three  projects  may allow other programs in subsequent \nyears to be brought forward : this is achieved by  reforecasting  the Ten-Year  Capital Plan rather than the \ncarry  forward of budgets.  \nf. Annual expenditure and total expendi ture to date is compared with annual and project  budgets and out -\nyear forecast s.  This process determines the balance of any unspent prior year’s budget to be carried \nforward.  \ng. A carry forward budget proposal  is prepared for  the Chief Financial Officer  and sent to the DVC US for \napproval . Once approved this is  distributed to sponsors, directors,  and project managers.  \nh. Capital r eport s including any carry forward budgets are updated from the February month end report to \nSLT and Council, and during the remainder of the financial year.  \n \n \nCapital Budget Carry Forward Procedure  – Page 3  \n \n© Th ese Procedures are  the property of Massey University  \n \nDefinitions : \nAnnual Expenditure  \nThe financial amount spent on a project within one financial year. The amount spent is prepared on an accrual’s  \nbasis . \n \nAccrual s Basis  \nFinancial reporting and transactions are recorded when the expense is incurred  and is required under PBE IPSAS.  \n \nCash Basis  \nFinancial reporting and transactions are recorded when payment occurs from the University bank account to the \ncreditors acco unt.  This is u sed for university  cash flow reporting , forecasting  and treasury m anagement . \n \nCarry Forward Budget  \nThe amount of unspent capital budget in a financial year, that transfers to the following financial year. As determined \nby the procedure above . \n \nGroup One – Recurrent Projects  \nRecurrent capital projects are those which require annual approval and funding. Funding allocated in any one year \nmust be spent in the year it is allocated and is not intended to  be carried over to the next year.  \n \nGroup Two – Carry Forward/Committed/Approved Projects  \nThese are capital projects where  a formal  Business Case has been approved by SLT  or by University Council, \nconsistent with  the delegation’s  policy and procedures.  \n \nGroup Three – Projects Approved in Principle  \nThese are capital projects that have received SLT app roval -in-principle to proceed to business case, consistent with \nthe delegation’s  policy. Group Three project approval is subject to capital plan affordability. The projects will require \ncompletion of a business case, in accordance with the University’s Business Case Policy.  \n \nGroup Four – Externally  Funded Projects  \nGroup 4 covers  capital  projects that are fully externally funded. They  require completion of comprehensive  business \ncases in accordance with  the University’s  Business Case Policy  and they may also require Ministry of Education and \nTEC approval  for external borrowing  where funding requirements exceed the current approved borrowing consent . \n \nAudience : \n• Massey University Senior Leadership Team  \n• Capital Programme and Project Managers  \n• Budget Centre Man agers  \nRelevant legislation : \nPublic Benefit Entities’ International Public Sector Accounting Standard s (PBE IPSAS)  \n \n \nLegal compliance : \nNil in relation to this procedure   \n \n \nCapital Budget Carry Forward Procedure  – Page 4  \n \n© Th ese Procedures are  the property of Massey University  \n \nRelated procedures / documents : \nUniversity Accounting Policie s \nAsset  Investment  Policy  \nBusiness Case Policy  \nDelegations of Authority  Policy  \nFinancial Monitoring and Control Policy  \nDocument Management Control:  \nPrepared by: Chief Financial Officer  \nAuthorised by: DVC University Services  \nDate issued: Octob er 2022  \nLast review: October 2022  \nNext review:  January 202 8 \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Conflict_of_Commitment_and_Interest_Disclosure_Form_PDF_190_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Conflict of Commitment and Interest Disclosure Form",
      "policy_type": "Unknown",
      "file_size": "190 KB",
      "creation_date": "2019-06-19T10:04:04",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220101241+13'00'"
    },
    "content": "   \nConflict of Commitment and Interest Disclosure Form  \nFLICT OF COMMITMENT AND INTEREST –  DISCLOSURE FORM  \n1 In appropriate cases Head of Department should read Head of Unit, Centre, School, Institute or College  Page 1 of 2 \n \n.  \n \n    \nDISCLOSURE STATEMENT  \nThis disclosure is made in accordance with the Conflict of Commitment  and Interest Policy . This form should  be \nprepared and given to your Head of Department. The form must be re -submitted on an annual basis , for as  long as \nthe conflict of commitment and interest exists.  \n \n1. Describe the actual , perceived or potential conflict of commitment or interest  \n \n2. Describe how the situation might affect or be seen to potentia lly affect you or the University  \n \n3. Explain how you propose to manage this conflict  \n Instructions  \n1. Complete this form on -line. When complete, save a copy to your computer for your records  \n2. Print the completed form, sign and give to your Head of Department1 or SLT member  \n3. Your Head of Department/SLT member will discuss the disclosure with you in a timely manner, and will exercise his or her \njudgement in determining the appropriate way of managing the conflict in accordance with the Conflict of Commitment \nand Interest Policy. After first advising you of their intention, it may be necessary for the Head of Department to seek \nfurther  advice from People and Organisational Development  or the Director Risk and Assurance.  \n   \nConflict of Commitment and Interest Disclosure Form  \n \nPage 2 of 2 \n \n \n4. Please append further information if necessary , listing attachments below.  \n \n \n CERTIFICATION  \nI have disclosed all relevant matters to the Head of Department (or equivalent) , and will continue to do so on an \nannual basis while the conflict of commitment and interest exists.  \nI have agreed to implement the management plan summarised above.  \n \nName of the p erson disclosing:  \nSignature of the p erson disclosing:    Date: \n Staff ID number:  \nSchool/Institute/Section : \n Name of H ead of Department (or equivalent) : \nSignature of H ead of Department :   Date : \n \nHead of Department signature confirms they are aware of the real or perceived conflict of commitment and interest \nand intend to manage it in accordance with the proposed management plan . Managers should also consider whether \nit is appropriate that the disclosure and management plan are notified to the relevant SLT member.  \n \nAction  Tick \n1. Disclosure Form prepared and signed by staff member and HoD or equivalent   \n2. Disclosure Form sent to P OD for filing on personnel file   \n3. POD: Send copy to Director Risk and Assurance   \n4. Director Risk and Assurance enters disclosure into the Disclosures Register   \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Academic_Integrity_Policy_PDF_217_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Academic Integrity Policy PDF 217 KB",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "217 KB",
      "author": "Riley, Tracy",
      "creation_date": "2024-07-02T12:01:06",
      "modification_date": "D:20240705152954+12'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nPurpose  \n \nMassey University is committed to pursuing and upholding academic integrity as a core academic value of the \nUniversity. This Policy  sets out the principles, responsibilities, and practices that underpin the University’s \ncommitment to academic integrity.  The Policy  encourage s an educative approach  towards establishing a  culture  of \nintegrity  and a learning community at the University  in which our staff and students  conduct themselves with integrity, \nhonest y, trust, responsibility, and respect.  This Policy should be read together with Paerangi : Massey University  \nLearning and Teaching Plan, which puts the student at the centre of a framework of aspirational goals and values.  \nScope  \n \nThis Policy applies to all Massey University staff and students . \n \nAcademic Integrity  Statement  \n \nThe University expects that staff and students will conduct themselves in an honest and ethical manner, and respect \nthe intellectual work produced by themselves and others. Academic integrity , as a core University value , ensures \nrespect for the academic reputation of the University, its students, staff, and the qualifications  it confers. Academic \nintegrity is a fundamental  principle of learning  and teaching , and also  an assurance that others’ intellectual work is \ntreated honestly.  Therefore,  all academic work produced and submitted by staff and students , whether tangible or \nnot, must  be their own work , and a ll sources of information drawn upon must be  appropriately acknowledged. Most \ncommonly, this means :  \n• citing the sources of any text , data, ideas , or material  include d in scholarly and student works . \n• collaborating with other s, including artificial intelligence,  only in ways that are explicitly allowed  and \nacknowledged . \n• complying with  relevant  instructions ethically, responsibly, and in line with policy and other obligations . \n• never using  unauthorised external assistance in the creation of academic work , including from other persons \nor commercial  services, or through generative artificial intelligence . \n \nIt is the responsibility of staff and students to act with integrity, and to seek  advice  about anything that is not  clear.  \nAppendix 1 provides some examples, as contextual guidance for staff and students of behaviours that may typically \nbe regarded as breaches of academic integrity . \n \n \n Section  Academic  \nContact  Provost  \nLast Review  April 2024  \nNext  Review  April 2027 \nApproval  AB24 -05-71 \nEffective  from  May 2024  \n \n ACADEMIC INTEGRITY  POLICY  \n \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nAcademic Integrity Policy  – Page  2  \n \nAcademic Integrity Principles  \n \n1. The University is committed to  excellence of learning experiences and outcomes for staff and students  and to \nmaintaining  high academic standards and  expects students  and staff  to conduct themselves in a manner which \nis consistent with the values and principles of academic integrity, particularly when undertaking assessment and \nresearch.  \n2. The University aims to provide a learning environment  that instils a culture of academic integrity , and to that end \nwill provide  educative resources, support, and guidance  for students and staff.  \n3. The University recogni ses that  responsibility for maintaining academic integrity  is shared by all members  of the \nUniversity  community, including all st aff and all s tudents . \n4. The University supports a  proactive educative approach to ensuring and managing academic integrity where such \nan approach  is appropriate and possible but  recogni ses that a disciplinary response  may be required in some \ninstances . \nFramework  \nThe University ’s commit ment  to the development of a culture of academic integrity  is expressed through an educative \napproach which seeks to teach students skills and practices related to information literac ies, ethic al behaviour , and \nacademic integrity, and to develop staff’s ability to  integrate the principles of academic integrity and information \nliteracy into their teaching.  The academic integrity framework  that underpins this commitme nt is based on five  focus \nareas : \n1. Education  \n \nEducation about the value  of academic integrity for the University and for  its staff and students , and the skills  and \nbehaviours  required to uphold  academic integrity,  continues throughout a student ’s studies . This occurs  via several  \nchannels, including the University’s  webpage, integrated and embedded course activities and materials, and other \navailable resources , such as  those  available through the library  and student academic support services. \nCommunication related to academic integrity  issues  occurs  for staff primarily through the Academic Integrity Officers  \n(AIOs)  and through online communication portals . A range of resources, academic workshops and tutorials are \navailable to staff and students  to assist them with understanding the conventions of academic writing, in formation \nliteracy and academic integrity, and the development of appropriate skills and values  in accordance with the \nUniversity ’s Graduate Profile.  \n2. Prevention  \n \nThe University supports a preventative approach that proactively reduces opportunities for breaches of academic \nintegrity . Broadly, this may be  done as far as is reasonably possible through  monitoring and restricting  access to \nknown sources of academic cheating ; providing appropriate assessment design ; communicati ng expectations \n(including for referencing, in assessment rubrics and/or marking guides) ; provi ding information around possible \nconsequences  for breaching academic integrity ; and limiting the recycling of assessments . \n3. Detection  \n \nThe University  is committed to strengthen ing the ability  of its staff to detect breaches of academic integrity.  This \nincludes  creating detection and proctoring capacity  and techniques , using staff’s professional judgement, and \nproviding staff access to  appropriate tools , including t ext-matching software and other digital cheating detection  tools.  \n \n \n \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nAcademic Integrity Policy  – Page  3  \n \n4. Governance  \n \nIn order to maintain  a culture of academic integrity and a n environment within which suspected  breaches of academic \nintegrity  are managed  proactively, educatively, fairly, and consistent ly, the University publishes relevant policies, \nprocedures , regulations,  and guidelines . The University also records and reports  on confirmed breaches  of academic \nintegrity , but does so while upholding  relevant rights to privacy , confidentiality , and natural justice . \n5. Administration  \n \nAcademic Integrity Officer s (AIO) : All staff have access to AIOs for guidance and support in matters pertaining to \nacademic integrity.  The University will provide  capacity, resources, guidance , and initiatives to support AIOs and staff  \nin respect of  academic integrity and the manag ement  of suspected  breaches of academic integrity.  \nRegisters:  The University will record  information relating to all cases where students have been found to have \ncommitted a Minor Breach or Academic Misconduct in a Misconduct Register . \nReporting:  The University will periodically  report  internally  on academic integrity and  may use information recorded \nin the Misconduct Register  for this purpose. Where information from th is register is used for reporting , the information \nwill be aggregate d in such a way that it will not  include any personally identifiable information of any student.  The \nUniversity may in some instances  be required to disclose personal  informatio n relating to a student  from those \nregisters , where lawfully required to do so or where the student consents to disclosure to a third party.   \nPolicy  \n \n1. Staff and students are required to uphold the principles and values of academic integrity as a shared responsibility \nacross all learning , teaching,  and research  activities  at the University . \n2. Where appropriate and possible, staff and students should always s eek an educative approach to dealing with \nconcerns around academic integrity.  However, it is acknowledged that in some cases  it may be appropriate or \nnecessary  to impose  a disciplinary  response . \n3. All work submitted by students for assessment purposes must be their own independent work or, where approved , \nof groups of students, to demonstrate their proficiency in course and programme  objectives and their achievement \nof learning outcomes.  Asses sment of  those works must be done based on evidence of learning  related to  those \nobjectives and outcomes.  \n4. The University will provide clear guidance and assistance to staff and students to ensure that they understand the \nrequirement to maintain academic integrity , and that they are aware of the possible consequences of failure to \nmaintain academic integrity.  \n5. The Academic Integrity:  Procedures  for Managing Student Breaches  sets out the procedures to be followed where \na breach of academic integrity by a student is suspected.   \n6. The Code of Responsible Research Conduct  articulates the principles, standards and responsibilities  that \nunderpin  research integrity at the University and  sets out the procedures to be followed where  research practices \ndo not comply  with the standards expected of  researchers at the University.  That Code  should be read with this \nPolicy  and t he Procedures , as well as the Code of Ethical Conduct for Research, Teaching and Evaluations \nInvolving Human Participants and the Code of Ethical Conduct for the Use of Animals for Research, Testing and \nTeaching . \n7. Processes that deal with suspected  breaches of academic integrity must be fair, transparent, respectful, and \nconform to the rules of natural justice and procedural fairness and  must respect the privacy of all parties .  \n \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nAcademic Integrity Policy  – Page  4  \n \n8. The University provides staff and  students who make an allegation of a breach of academic integrity , or about \nwhom an allegation is made, the opportunity to formally present their cases. The University wil l not tolerate  any \ndiscrimination , harassment,  or victimisation as a result of raising an allegation in good faith.  \n9. Suspected  breach es of academic integrity  by students must be dealt with , in accordance with the Procedures , as \nPoor Academic Practice , Minor Breach , or Academic Misconduc t.  \n10. Suspected  breaches of academic integrity by staff who are not students must be dealt with  under the provisions \nof the  relevant staff member’s employment agreement . To the extent that it may be reasonable and feasible, and \nin alignment with applicable employment agreements, the criteria for determining the applicable category of a \nsuspected breach as applies to students may be used for staff.  \n11. In order to determin e the applicable category  of a suspected  breach  and the applicable process to be followed , \nthe experience of the student, the nature of the breach, and the extent of the breach , must be considered . \nResponsibilities   \nThe University  \nThe University , including the Colleges,  has a responsibility to:   \na)  provide guidance and resources to staff and students, including training  opportunities , primarily to facilitate \nand assess learning , and to support broad understanding of academic integrity and the behaviours that might \nimpact on it,  but also where appropriate  to deter , detect , and manage  breaches of a cademic integrity . \nb)  take proactive action to  educate, prevent, and  mitigate against  risks to academic integrity . \nc)  take steps to ensure timely investigation of suspected  breaches of academic integrity . \nd)  provide students with access to an appeal process for decisions involving academic misconduct . \ne)  maintain, monitor,  and act on academic integrity data for the purpose of quality assurance and improvement .  \nStaff \nStaff have a responsibility to:   \na)  uphold  the University’s policies and procedures in relation to academic integrity . \nb)  engage with professional development opportunities supporting academic integrity in learning and teaching . \nc)  model academic integrity in their professional practice . \nd)  provide instructions to students about expectations of academic integrity . \ne)  provide students with learning opportunities, guidance,  and feedback on academic integrity, including \nopportunities to engage in active learning about academic integrity rather than relying on passive discovery . \nf)  design assessment tasks that minimise the potential for breaches of academic integrity . \ng)  report suspected breaches of academic integrity consistently and in accordance with this Policy. \nh)  undertake research which meets the requirements of academic integrity . \ni) provide clear assessment instructions, including in relation to the use of generative artificial intelligence.  \nStudents  \nStudents have a responsibility to:   \na)  familiarise themselves with the University’s academic integrity policies, procedures,  and expectations, and in \nparticular with the instructions and expectations  relevant to specific program mes, courses,  and assessments . \nb)  meet any University requirements for students to undertake academic integrity education or training .  \nc)  submit work for assessment which meets the requirements of academic integrit y. \nd)  act in accordance with the values and principles of academic integrity and  avoid a ny acts which could  be \nconsidered a breach of academic integrity .   \ne) actively participate in course activities and learning opportunities offered to them . \n \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nAcademic Integrity Policy  – Page  5  \n \nDefinitions  \n \nAcademic integrity : a guiding principle of academic life, which  refers to acting with  the values of  honesty, respect, \ntrust,  responsibility and fairness in all academic activity, outputs , and relations with others.  \nAcademic Integrity Officer  (AIO) : Staff who are appointed by their respective Pro Vice -Chancellor  or the Dean : \nResearch , with delegated authority to manage suspected  breaches of academic integrity, support staff with  advice \nand assistance in all matters pertaining to academic integrity and  ensure that rules pertaining to academic integrity \nare applied consistently and fairly.  \nAcademic Misconduct :  a breach of academic integrity when :  \n• any one or more of the criteria used to categorise the breach, namely the experience of the student, the \nnature of the breach or the extent of the breach, is higher than in the case of a Minor Breach ; or \n• none of the  criteria used to categorise the breach is higher than in the case of a Minor Breach, but the \ncumulative impact of a combination of any of th ose three criteria are considered to be higher than a Minor \nBreach.  \nAllegation : refers to a stated concern that a student  or staff member  has possibly breached academic integrity.  \nAny reference to the Policy  means the Academic Integrity Policy .  \nAny reference to the Procedures means the Academic Integrity: P rocedures for Managing Student Breaches .  \nAny reference to the Regulations  refers to the Student Disciplinary Regulations . \nArtificial intelligence : refers to the simulation of human intelligence processed by machines or computer systems. It \nincludes the ability of a computer, or a robot or software controlled by a computer, to do tasks that are usually done \nby humans because they require human intel ligence and discernment, such as the ability to reason, discover \nmeaning, generali se, or learn from past experiences.  \nBalance of Probabilit ies refers to the standard of proof used to determine whether an alleged breach of academic \nintegrity has occurred. It means that the decision -maker must be satisfied, on the evidence, that the alleged behaviour \nor event was more likely than not to have occurred . \nContract Cheating  involves students outsourcing their academic work (e.g. coursework, assessments, tests, exams) \nto a third party, whether that is a commercial provider, current or former student, family member or acquaintance, to \ncomplete on their behalf (in whole or in p art), and which they then submit as if they created it themselves. It includes \nunauthorised use of file -sharing sites and  arranging for  another person to take an examination for the student.  \nGenerative artificial intelligence : a non -human  adaptive tool or mechanism that can autonomously generate text, \nimages, audio, video, or anything else that resembles human created content . \nInvestigation : means the process  of identification,  collection , and analysis  of relevant evidence to assess  whether a \nbreach of academic integrity may have occurred, and to inform appropriate next steps . \nMinor Breach :  a breach of academic integrity when any of the criteria used to categorise the breach, namely the \nexperience of the student, the nature of the breach or the extent of the breach, is higher than in the case of Poor \nAcademic Practice but none reach the threshold of Academic  Misconduct  as set out in  the Procedures . \n \n \n \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nAcademic Integrity Policy  – Page  6  \n \nMisconduct Register : a centrally held , confidential register of all cases where students have been found to have \ncommitted a Minor Breach, A cademic Misconduct , or Non -academic Misconduct . Access to the Misconduct Register \nis restricted to authorised staff only, who will provide specific information to an AIO or the University Proctor, upon \nrequest, regarding any record in respect of a particular student who has been found to have committed a Minor \nBreach, Academic Misconduct, or Non -academic Misconduct, in order for the AIO or University Proctor to take that \nrecord into account when determining an appropriate outcome in the subsequent case.  \nPoor Academic Practic e: an inadvertent and minor deviation from appropriate  academic integrity practice or \nconvention, below the level of Minor Breach or Academic Misconduct , where there is no  or little  discernible intention \nto deceive  or derive an unfair advantage , and which could be  suitably addressed through an educative intervention , \nincluding an adjustment to the assigned marks for the applicable  assessment . \nStaff or staff member  includes any person who is engaged by Massey  University as an employee or worker and/or \nwho holds a  university  office or post, as well as any person to whom the University makes available any of the \nprivileges or facilities normally afforded to its employees.  This include s academic visitors and other classes of \ntemporary, honorary,  and volunteer staff , and applies to graduate students, whether paid or unpaid, when teaching \nor undertaking teaching -related duties  at the University . \n \nStudent  in this policy refers to:  \na)   a person who is enrolled in a  programme of study (including courses, specialisation, qualifications, short \ncourses,  and micro -credentials ) at the University.  \nb)   a person who was a student at the time of any alleged breach of academic integrity . \nc)   a person who is seeking admission or enrolment at the University.  \nd)   a person who became a student after having allegedly done so by misleading or false means.  \n \n \ne)   a person who has consented in writing to be subject to the statutes, regulations,  and policies of the University \nas a student.  \nf)   a person who is on suspension or leave of absence from or who has deferred enrolment in a programme of \nstudy (including courses, specialisation, qualifications, short courses,  and micro -credentials ) at the University.  \nUniversity Proctor :  the person who is designated by the University to provide advice and support to staff in relation \nto Academic Misconduct  and Non -academic Misconduct , and to investigate cases of possible  Academic Misconduct  \nor Non -academic Misconduct when  such an Investigation is referred to the University Proctor .  \nProcedures  \nThe Academic Integrity: P rocedures  for Managing Student Breaches , set out , amongst others:  \n• Criteria for determining the category of a  suspected  breach of academic integrity , being:  \no the experience of the student.   \no the nature of the breach ; and   \no the extent of the breach  \n• Procedures to be followed in relation to:  \no Poor Academic Practice  \no Minor Breach  \no Academic Misconduct  \n• Possible outcomes, including the process for appeals.  \n• Record keeping  requirements . \n \n \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nAcademic Integrity Policy  – Page  7  \n \nAudience : \n \nAll staff and students  \n \nRelevant legislation:  \n \nOfficial Information Act 1982  \nPrivacy Act 2020  \nPublic Records Act 2005  \n \nRelated policies and procedures:  \n \nCode of Ethical Conduct  for Research, Teaching  and Evaluations Involving Human Participants  \nCode of Ethical Conduct for  the Use of Animals  for Research, Testing and Teaching  \nCode of Responsible Research Conduct  \nIntellectual Property Policy  \nKaupapa Here Aratohu/Code of Student Conduct  \nPaerangi: Massey University Learning and Teaching Plan \nAcademic Integrity: Procedures for Managing Student Breaches  \nStudent Disciplinary Regulations  \nTā te Tauira Kirimana/Student Contract  \nUniversity Graduate Profile  \nUse of Artificial Intelligence in Assessment Policy  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nAcademic Integrity Policy  – Page  8  \n \nAppendix 1: Examples  of breaches of academic integrity  \n \nExamples of breaches include but are not limited to:  \n• Plagiarism. This is defined by the University as:   \no Copying of sentences, paragraphs, computer files, research data, and/or creative products that are the \nworks of other persons or sources, without appropriate acknowledgement.  \no Closely paraphrasing sentences, paragraphs,  or themes without appropriate acknowledgement.  \no Submitting one’s own previously assessed or published work for assessment or publication elsewhere, \nwithout appropriate acknowledgement and approval.  \no Submitting material obtained from internet -based essay depositories, ‘homework’ and file-sharing websites  \nor other similar sources  when not permitted . \no Submission of work overly reliant on model answers or sample solutions provided in the course materials.  \n• Cheating in any examination or test. For example, unauthorised use of crib cards, electronic devices, cell \nphones, or study notes, or uploading or otherwise sharing questions to online and/or social media communities, \nseeking unauthorised assistance with answering, using translation software/devices when not permitted .  \n• Submitting work as one’s  own for assessment, which work has been done in whole or in part by someone \nother than the student  or which has been created artificially, for example by a machine or through generative \nartificial intelligence. This includes work completed for a student by a peer, family member or friend or which \nhas been produced, commercially or otherwise, by a third party (e.g. Contract Cheating or ghost writing). It \nalso includes submitting all or part of an assessment item which has been produced using generative artificial \nintelligence and  claiming it as the student’s own work.  \n• Citing references that have not been read or reviewed, or  that have been falsified , to give credibility to the \nassignment or show evidence of research.  \n• Presenting data with respect to laboratory work, clinical placements, practica, field trips or other work , that has \nbeen copied or falsified.  \n• In the case of collaborative projects, falsely representing the individual contributions of the collaborative \npartners.   \n• Presenting data obtained improperly (e.g. data collected without prior approval of the relevant ethics committee \nor ethical considerations ).  \n• Any misrepresentation in relation to authorship, academic achievement,  or records.  \n• Any inappropriate assistance given to a current student to be dishonest or fraudulent with academic \nassessment, including selling or providing previously completed assignments to a current student.  \n• Sharing  or assigning  student works or scholarly works in which the University owns  Intellectual Property  in a \nway that does not  comply with  the University’s Intellectual Property Policy  (e.g. inappropriately sharing  \nassessments or course material ). \n• Any breach of the Code of Responsible Research Conduct . \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Assessment_Strategy_Principles_and_Guidelines_PDF_261_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Assessment Strategy, Principles and Guidelines",
      "policy_type": "Guideline",
      "file_size": "261 KB",
      "author": "jmlochhe",
      "creation_date": "2016-04-07T11:05:02",
      "modification_date": "D:20160407115215+12'00'"
    },
    "content": " \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n \n ASSESSMENT STRATEGY,  PRINCIPLES & GUIDELI NES \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \n \nPurpose  \n \nThe University’s Assessment Strategy, Principles and Guidelines provides a three -tiered approach to assessment \npolicy and procedures comprising an assessment strategy applied at University Level, principles of assessment that \nrelate to qualifications and/or specialisations, and question -based guidelines that can be used by lecturers and paper \ncoordinators for self- and peer -review of  their assessment design.   \n \n \nDefinitions  \n \nA Glossary of Commonly Us ed Assessment Terms is provided  in Appendix 1 of th is document . \n \n \nIntroduction  \n \nAssessment is an integral component of a coherent educational experience and central to t he overall quality of \nteaching and learning.  It has two purposes:   \n \n assessment of learning (primarily associated with summative assessment)  \n assessment for learning (primarily associated with formative assessment)  \n \nand within these strands are a number of  objectives including:  \n \n provision of constructive feedback to support a student ’s progress toward achievement of the learning \noutcomes for the paper and for their selected programme of study;  \n differentiating between students in a way that provides an indic ation of to what extent an individual has met or \nexceeded the learning outcomes and, where relevant, any other competencies or requirements associated \nwith professional practice; and  \n provision of constructive feedback to the teacher regarding the effective ness of the assessment design and \nthe teaching and learning methods.  \n \nThese purposes and objectives of assessment are advanced in the University’s Assessment Strategy which identifies \na general approach to assessment , and provides a basis for the design, d evelopment and deployment of resources to \nsupport implementation of the associated Principles and Guidelines at programme and paper levels.  \n \n \nThe Assessment Strategy, Principles & Guidelines  Section  Academic  \nContact  Academic Strategy Manager  \nLast Review  March  2012  \nNext Review  March  2015  \nApproval  AB12/24 -March  \n  Massey University Policy Guide  \nAssessment Strategy, Principles & Guidelines  – Page 2 \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \nUniversity Strategy  The P rinciples of assessment design to be a pplied \nat qualification and/or specialisation level  Questions for lecturers and paper coordinators to Guide a ssessment design at paper \nlevel  \nEncourage collective ownership, collaboration and \nteamwork to drive assessment design  \n \nAssessment design should ev olve according to \nquestions from the academic staff about how their \ncontributions shape the achievement of the graduate \nprofile.  This emphasis may involve addressing \ndifferences between an individual staff member's \npersonal goals for their paper and the c ollective goals of \nthe programme as articulated in the graduate profile.  \nAcademic staff must agree on the assessment goals \nand may have to rise to a higher level of collaboration \nthan may have been traditionally practiced within and \nacross academic units.  Assessment should be moderated, that is, subject \nto peer review amongst programme or disciplinary \ngroups  \n \nCollaboration within and across academic units \nand with professional staff at the University will \nfacilitate the best outcomes from assessment \ndesign .  All constituents should recognise that \nassessment skills must be developed, and that \ncolleagues can assist each other by sharing \npractices and strategies.  Have there been any discussions regarding how the paper contributes to the \nprogramme(s) it serves?  \nA shared understanding about the purposes of the paper in relation to the programme(s) \nis likely to enhance the clarity of the expected outcomes both for students and for staff.  \n \nHas the assessment design been peer -reviewed?  \n‘Peer -review’ of assessment s hould be broadly interpreted to include discussions with \ncolleagues about the assessment design informed by these principles and guidelines.  \nExternal examiners, moderation processes, and team -teaching can also contribute \npositively to ‘peer -review’ of the  assessment design.  \nClarify the purposes of assessment  \n \nAssessment serves dual purposes of promoting student \nlearning (assessment for learning) and providing \ninformation to students and teachers about \nachievement of learning outcomes (assessment of \nlearni ng).  Wherever possible, students should \nexperience a direct, positive benefit from their \nparticipation in assessment activities.  \n \nSupport the alignment of assessment design with the \ngraduate profile and the strategic directions of the \nUniversity  \n \nWell-designed and properly implemented assessment \nprovides a critical link between teaching activities, \nstudent learning, the graduate profile and the strategic \ndirections of the University.  Assessment should support student achievement \nof the paper learning outc omes and progress \ntoward the graduate profile including, where \nrelevant, competencies and attributes required for \nprofessional practice  Is there a clear link between the paper learning outcomes and the overall graduate \nprofile or learning goals of the prog ramme(s) served by the paper?  \n \nHas thought been given to the range of assessment tasks across other papers and how \nthe paper contributes to the graduate profile?  \nIt should be evident that there is a link between the paper assessment strategy and that of \nthe programme(s) it serves.  \n \nIs the nature of the assessment task(s) such that it/they will enable differentiation \nbetween students’ achievement of the learning outcomes?  \nAssessment tasks and marking criteria should be designed to use a wide range of marks,  \nand should enable individual students achievement of the learning outcomes to be \ndetermined.   \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nAssess ment Strategy, Principles & Guidelines  – Page 3 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  University Strategy  The P rinciples of assessment design to be a pplied \nat qualification and/or specialisation level  Questions for lecturers and paper coordinators to Guide a ssessment design at paper \nlevel  \nEnsure that assessment design is valid, clear, measurable, \nand supportive of student learning  \n \nExplicit identification of graduate profiles, learning \ngoals and /or learning outcomes facilitates coherence \nin the assessment design.  Sharing those \nexpectations explicitly with students provides clarity \nand purpose for student learning.  Assessments should be valid, fair, consistent, and \nbeneficial to the learning pro cess  Are the paper learning outcomes clearly articulated?  \nStudents must be able to demonstrate achievement of all the stated learning outcomes.  \n \nAre the learning outcomes expressed at the appropriate level for the paper?  \nThe learning outcomes (and hence th e assessment activities) must be appropriate for the \nlevel of the paper.  \n \nAre there too many learning outcomes?  How are they assessed?  \nFor example, a 15 credit paper should typically have about 5 learning outcomes (and no \nmore than 8) which are assessed  in as valid a way as practical.  The idea that ‘sufficient \nevidence’ is required for the assessment of the learning outcomes should guide the \nassessment design so that the attainment of learning outcomes is assured without over -\nassessing the students.  \n \nAre the linkages between the assessment and the stated paper learning outcomes \nclear?  \nThe purpose of the assessment(s) in allowing students to demonstrate mastery of the \nlearning outcomes must be clear so that valid assessment is supported.  \n \nHow is equivale nce between the assessment activities and marking criteria used in \ndifferent offerings of the same paper assured?  \nEquivalence requires a collaborative effort amongst the teaching staff to ensure that different \nstudent cohorts are assessed fairly and consis tently.  All staff teaching the paper need to \nagree on the assessment design and the variations in assessment that might be made to \nreflect the needs of particular student cohorts.  \nEnsure that assessment tasks are diverse and varied as \nresources allow  \n \nEffective assessment occurs when supported with \nappropriate time, money, and recognition for good \nwork.  The use of different assessment approaches \nand types, including digital media, will depend on \nthose resources.  As resources permit, additional \nmeasures can be added to the assessment design.   There should be a range of assessment tasks \nconsistent with the use of multiple measures and \nsources  \n \nA range of evidence drawn from multiple sources \nwill enable greater accuracy in the assessment of \nstudent learnin g. Is there a variety of appropriate assessment methods?  \nA variety of assessment enables students to demonstrate their individual capabilities and \nsustain their motivation, and can reduce opportunities for plagiarism.  However, care should \nbe taken to ensu re that within an individual paper students are not subject to assessment \noverload with too many different assessment methods.  If the answer to this question is not \nevident at the paper design stage, it should be addressed at the qualification/ specialisa tion \nlevel where a wider perspective of the papers serving a programme(s) can be observed.  \n \nAre there any problems that particular students or groups of students may face when \nattempting the assessments?  \nAn example would be making ‘reasonable adjustments’ for students with disabilities or \naddressing issues of cultural diversity.  There may be particular issues with the completion \nof practical and/or field work and these will need to be examined on a case -by-case basis.  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nAssess ment Strategy, Principles & Guidelines  – Page 4 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  University Strategy  The P rinciples of assessment design to be a pplied \nat qualification and/or specialisation level  Questions for lecturers and paper coordinators to Guide a ssessment design at paper \nlevel  \nEnsure that expectations for student and staff workloads \nare manageable  \n \nThe numbers and proportions of assessment \nactivities should encourage the attainment of deep \nrather than superficial learning and take account of \nthe time required for marking.  This requires a \nbalanced assessment design  whereby students are \nnot pushed into shallow rote learning in order to \ncomplete assessment requirements, and staff have \ntime to provide timely and useful feedback.  Expectations regarding the time students spend \non assessment and the marking requirements \nshould be realistic and enable effective student \nlearning  \n \nStudents benefit from early formative assessment \nand feedback —especially at 100 level.  Effective \nassessment includes spreading assessment \nactivity within and across years rather than \nconducting a marathon short -term assessment \neffort in a single year.  Is there a reasonable correlation between the effort required for each assessment \nactivity and the weighting that it contributes to the overall grade for the paper?  \nThere should be a realistic correla tion between the time expected to be spent on each \nassessment activity (including all aspects of preparation and study) and the weighting of the \nactivity in relation to the final grade.  \n \nIs it evident that the time taken for an ‘average’ student to complet e the assessment \ntask(s) is realistic within the overall timescale of the paper?  \nThe overall ‘student effort’ for a 15 credit paper is 150 hours including all aspects of \nteaching, learning and assessment.  Excessive assessment loads will de -motivate, \ndisco urage and dis -engage students – there must be time for study and reflection.  To \nestablish whether the workload is appropriate, staff are encouraged to use the Student \nWorkload Calculator . \n \nIs it evident that the assessment design has realistically taken into account the available \nstaff resources?  \nThere has to be a  balance between the need for assessment and staff resources available \nfor marking and other assessment related tasks.  The turnaround time for assignments and \nfeedback should be as quick as possible, normally no later than 15 working days  from the \ndue dat e.  Has consideration been given to computer -aided assessment which might \nminimise marking effort, or the use of other innovative assessment methods?  \n \nAre there opportunities for early formative assessment and feedback?  \nStudents will be more successful if they can benefit from feedback before completing the \nmajor part of the assessment task(s).  There should be an indication of how formative \nassessment and feedback will be incorporated into the assessment design although such \nformative assessment does not h ave to be linked directly to the learning outcomes.  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nAssess ment Strategy, Principles & Guidelines  – Page 5 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  University Strategy  The P rinciples of assessment design to be a pplied \nat qualification and/or specialisation level  Questions for lecturers and paper coordinators to Guide a ssessment design at paper \nlevel  \nHelp students succeed on assessment tasks  \n \nStudents are more likely to perform at their best when \nsufficient information is provided about the purposes \nof the assessment and the expected outcomes (which \nmay include a variety of samples or models of \nsuccessful performance).  Students will also benefit \nmost when there are opportunities to practice prior to \nsummative assessment of their learning and when \nthey are given timely feedback about their \nperformance . Implement continuous assessment with clear, \nmanageable timelines  Is the purpose of the assessment tasks clear to students?  \n \nIs the assessment design ‘h azardous’ or ‘high risk ’? \nFor example, a single assessment at the end of the paper is a ‘high risk’ app roach.  A \nnumber of smaller tasks spread over the paper and escalating in terms of difficulty are much \nmore likely to result in students being successful and engaging with their studies.  For a 15 \ncredit paper multiple summative assessment tasks are recomm ended with the first having a \nstrong developmental, formative component.  Care should be taken, however, not to \noverload students with too many minor tasks that might create an impression of superficial \nassessment or assessment overload.  \n \nIs the timing of the assessment tasks evident and appropriate for students to gain \nmaximum benefit?  \nThought should be given to the scheduling of the assessment during the paper and all \ninformation on assessments must be available to students at the start of the paper.  \n \nAre there opportunities for students to develop understandings through discussing \nideas with others?  \n \nAre there opportunities, where appropriate, for students to use the knowledge they are \nacquiring?  \nMaintain integrity of the assessment process  Assessment sh ould be based on appropriate \nacademic standards  \n \nAssessment activities should align with effective \npractices in the discipline.  How are the assessment standards identified?  Do the assessment practices reflect \nthose established within the discipline?  \nThe a ssessment design should be guided by established practices in the discipline, with a \nview to extending those practices in innovative ways to enhance student learning.  \n \nAre the assessment tasks appropriate to, and clearly measuring, the stated learning \noutc omes?  \nValid assessment requires that the nature and detail of the assessment task must be \nappropriate to the level of understanding and performance being assessed.  \n \nHave the assessment tasks been designed taking into account the need to minimise the \nopport unities for plagiarism or other forms of cheating?  \nHas thought been given to this problematic issue?  For example, the writing of an essay with \na title that is repeated year -on-year is an open invitation for plagiarism.  Consideration \nshould be given to ma king regular changes to the assessment activities such as using \ndifferent examples or different contexts.  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nAssess ment Strategy, Principles & Guidelines  – Page 6 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  University Strategy  The P rinciples of assessment design to be a pplied \nat qualification and/or specialisation level  Questions for lecturers and paper coordinators to Guide a ssessment design at paper \nlevel  \nEvaluate assessment practices  \n \nResults from assessment activities should be evaluated \nto address their validity, reliability, and utility.  Poor \nstudent performance can reflect limited learning or an \nill-designed assessment process.  Examining how \neffectively the assessment design meets the intended \npurposes of assessment, aligns with the learning \noutcomes for the paper, and contributes to the \nachieve ment of the graduate profile is critical.  These \nprinciples and guidelines for assessment are provided \nto support the evaluation and improvement of \nassessment practices at Massey University.  The assessment should be valid, reliable and \neffective  How do the  results of assessment provide feedback to the teacher regarding the \neffectiveness of the assessment design and the teaching and learning methods?  \n \nHas the assessment design taken into account student feedback and views?  \nThe results of previous paper evalu ations, student feedback received during the paper, \nhistoric performance data, and views sought in other ways such peer review, should inform \nthe appropriateness of the assessment design.  There could be value in engaging students \nin the design of assessme nt tasks.  \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nAssessment Strategy, Principles & Guidelines  – Page 7 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  Responsibilities  \n \nThe University  will provide access to teaching and learning resources which support staff and student learning and the \nachievement of paper and programme outcomes.  \n \nAcademic staff will ensure that : \n \n assess ment designs are self -assessed against the Guidelines for every offering of a paper.  \n assessment designs are peer -reviewed at least once per year  \n their best professional judgement i s used i n the allocation of marks and/or grades to students’ work, and any \ndocumentary evidence and/or critical personal circumstances are considered where these are relevant to the \nallocation of marks and/or grades (this could include statements from a health professional, employer, \ncounsellor or independent member of the community as appropriate).  \n all results have been correctly recorded and marking/grading has been duly and accurately performed.  \n the Paper Guide includes statements describing the requirements to complete individual assessment items \nsatisfactorily, the requirements for a student to b e awarded a passing grade for the paper, and the method of \ncombining marks or grades for individual assessment items into a final grade  \n \nHeads of Schools, Institutes or Departments [or in some cases Programme Directors (or equivalent) ] are responsible \nfor ensuring that the assessment of students is undertaken in a manner consistent with the Strategy and Principles . \n \nStudents  are expected to accept responsibility for their learning in the papers in which they are enrolled.  In relation to \nassessment t his inc ludes:  \n \n accessing the learning resources provided by the University  and for the paper,  and engaging in learning \nactivities;  \n behaving honestly and ethically in completing pieces of assessment  \n adhering to the assessment requirements presented in the Paper Gu ide (e.g., submission via electronic \nand/or hard copy, referencing techniques to be used , applying for a n extension to the due date for an \nassignment when circumstances require it)   \n avoiding any form of academic misconduct  (refer to the Student Academic In tegrity Policy & related \nProcedures) . \n \n \nAudience  \n \nAll staff and students  \n \n \nRelevant Legislation  \n \nNone  \n \n \nLegal Compliance  \n \nNone  \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nAssess ment Strategy, Principles & Guidelines  – Page 8 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  Related Procedures/Documents:  \n \n Massey University Calendar  \n Teaching and Learning Policy  \n Equivalence Policy  \n Withholding Grades  for Undergraduate and Taught Postgraduate Papers Procedure  \n Student Academic Integrity Policy  \n Procedure for Managing Breaches of Academic Integrity  \n Guidelines for Graduate Profiles ( to be developed in 2012 ) \n Peer Assistance and Review of Teaching Framework and related resources  \n Curriculum Mapping Resources ( to be developed in 2012 ) \n Student Workload Calculator s (Rowatt , Kehrwald ) \n \nDocument Management Control  \n \nPrepared by: Teaching & Learning Committee  \nAuthorised by: Academic B oard \nApproved by: AB12/24 -March  \nDate issued: 21 March 2012  \nLast review: March 2012  \nNext review: March 2015  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  Appendix 1:  Glossary of Some Commonly Used Assessment Terms  \n \n \nAssessment  The process of judging how effectively learning is occurring through a p rocess of generating and \ncollecting evidence of a student’s attainment of knowledge and skills and comparing that evidence against \nthe assessment criteria.  \n \nAssessment criteria  Statements that describe how student performance in relation to the stated lea rning outcomes \nwill be recognised.  \n \nAssessment for learning   The process of seeking and interpreting evidence of a student’s performance for use by \nstudents and their teachers to identify where the students are in their learning, where their next learning  \ngoals are, and what they need to do to achieve them.  \n \nCriterion referenced assessment  A form of assessment which measures what students can do against assessment \ncriteria, rather than on their performance relative to other learners  \n \nE-portfolio   An electr onic portfolio, i.e., a file store and information management system that is modeled on the \nworking method used for paper portfolios, but which takes advantage of the capabilities of information and \ncommunications technologies, notably allowing students to  store digital artefacts, and streamlining the \nprocess of review and moderation for students, teachers, and others.  \n \nEvidence  Materials provided by a student as proof of his or her competence against specified learning outcomes.  \n \nFeedback  Qualitative in formation about their performance given to students during a paper and typically after an \nassessment.  Unlike a mark, feedback is explicitly developmental, i.e., oriented towards further progress \non the part of the student.   \n \nFormative assessment Assessme nt that provides developmental feedback to a student so that they can adjust their \nplan for future learning.  Formative assessment is often called ‘Assessment for learning’.  \n \nGrade   A code, often a letter, given to describe the level of achievement. Possi ble grades are reported in the \nGlossary of the University Calendar.  \n \nGraduate Profile  A statement of the intended capabilities of graduates from a particular qualification and/or \nspecialisation.  The profile includes descriptions of the generic and specifi c attributes that graduates are \nexpected to possess including the body of knowledge attained.  \n \nLearning outcomes  Statements of the knowledge, skills and attitudes that students are expected to demonstrate as \na result of successfully completing a course of learning.  Learning outcomes are usually stated in terms of \nobservable and/or measurable behaviour.  \n \nModeration of assessment  The process of establishing comparability of standards between assessors to ensure the \nvalidity, reliability and practicality of a n assessment.  Moderation can also occur in relation to the \nassessment design pre and post implementation.  \n \nNorm referenced assessment  A form of assessment which compares students’ performance with those of other \nstudents rather than with the assessment cr iteria.  \n \nPeer assessment  Assessment of a student by a fellow student or students.  Peer assessors apply criteria and \nstandards of judgment as other assessors do.  \n \nPerformance Standards  Statements that describe the level to be achieved in relation to the as sessment criteria.   \n \nReliability  In assessment, the extent to which a test’s results are repeatable and fair from one student to the next, \nand from one occasion to the next (for example with a different group of students).  Many factors affect the \nreliabi lity of an assessment. Ambiguous instructions to students can make an assessment unreliable since \nthey may be unclear about what they are required to do.  Vague marking criteria may result in different \nmarkers awarding marks for different reasons or the sa me marker awarding marks inconsistently between \nstudents.  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  Self-assessment  A judgment a student makes about his/her work or level of attainment in relation to the assessment \ncriteria or learning outcomes for an  activity.  Self -assessment is generally used to develop the individual’s \nability to think critically about his/her learning.  \n \nSummative assessment  Assessment, typically undertaken at the end of a learning activity or paper, which is used to \nmake a judgment about the student’s overall attainment.  A k ey purpose of summative assessment is \ntypically to record the student’s performance in relation to the stated learning outcomes of a paper.  \n \nValidity  The extent to which an assessment tests the actual abilities that it is supposed to test.  The \nappropriat eness of the interpretation and use of the results for any assessment instrument (e.g., a driving \ntest where a candidate is observed driving is highly valid.  A test where a candidate describes how they \nwould drive is not valid).  There are many different measures of validity.  \n \nUseful Links  \n \nA compendium of extracts on assessment (Ph il Race) can be retrieved from http://phil -race.co.uk/most -popular -\ndownloads/   This includes explanations of conce pts such as reliability, transparency and authenticity in assessment \nand an extensive list of assessment techniques including their advantages and disadvantages.   \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Contractors_Academic_and_General_Staff_Duties_Procedures_PDF_176_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Contractors Procedures",
      "policy_type": "Procedure",
      "file_size": "176 KB",
      "author": "Chris Schraders",
      "creation_date": "2013-04-25T12:00:08",
      "modification_date": "D:20130425120835+12'00'"
    },
    "content": " \nMassey University Policy Guide \n \nCONTRACTORS (ACADEMIC & GENERAL STAFF DUTIES) PROCEDURE S \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n \n   \n  \n \nPurpose :  \nTo provide Managers with a procedure for concluding contracts with  Contractors to the  University.  In particular the \nprocedures provide :  \n(a) a mechanism for identifying whether a person is a Contractor or an Employee in order that the person \nthat is to be engaged as a contractor meets the legal tests applicable to Contractors;  \n(b) a mechanism that  enables managers to appropriately assess whether the appropriate contractual \narrangement is applied before engaging a person as a Contractor ; and  \n(c) procedures for concluding agreements on behalf of the University with Contractors ; and  \n(d) a template contract (f or services to a maximum of $50,000) that is to be used when engaging third \nparties provided the legal tests are met.  \nProcedures:  \nAuthorisation  \nNo person shall negotiate and conclude a contract or  agreement with a third party on behalf of Massey University  \nwithout the requisite authority in accordance with Delegations of Authority Document .  Consideration must also be \ngiven to any conflict of c ommitment and/or interest as set out in the Conflict of Commitment and Interest Policy . Any \nand all conf licts must be disclosed prior to the conclusion of the contract process.  \nDetermination of status of Third Party  \nBefore any contract or agreement may be concluded with any third party/person on behalf of the University for the \nprovision of services to the U niversity, a determination must be made as to whether the t hird party/person will \nconstitute an Employee or a Contractor under Schedule 1 of this Policy.  \nProvision of services by an Employee  \nAny agreement for the provision of service by an Employee must be entered into in accordance with the Delegations \nof Authority (provided in the Delegations of Authority Document) for recruitment and appointment of staff, and in line \nwith the information regarding recruitment of employees, available through the People and Organisational \nDevelopment website at http://pod.massey.ac.nz .  This Contractors procedure will not apply.  \n Section  AVC and University Registrar  \nContact AVC and University Registrar  \nLast Review  February 2012  \nNext Review  February 2014  \nApproval  SLT 12/04/91  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide \nContractors Procedures –  Page 2  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  Provision of services by a Contractor  \n1.1 Any contract for services (for services to a maximum of $50,000) negot iated by a Manager with the appropriate \nauthority with a t hird party/person who can be defined as a Contractor m ust be in the form of the Template  \nContract  as provided in Schedule 2 of this policy.   All applicable details on the cover page and page 1 of th e \nTemplate Contract must be completed.  Relevant details must be inserted into the schedules of the Template  \nContract and must specify the services which will be provided by the Contractor, the fee that will be charged to \nthe University by the Contractor and all other required details as applicable.  \n1.2 Notwithstanding paragraph  1.1 above, if the Contractor would be providing research services to the University, \nthe Manager negotiating the contract must liaise with the Team Leader -  Contracts  of Research Manage ment \nServices to determine whether it is appropriate to proceed with the contract for research consultancy services under this Procedure or under the Massey University Policy on Research Contracts.  The assessment of the \nTeam Leader -  Contracts  of Research Management Services shall be determinative in this regard.  \n1.3 In accordance with the Contractor’s Health and Safety Policy, the contract must also contain particular health and \nsafety statements to ensure communication of significant hazards, particularly th ose that the Contractor may bring \non to the University’s premises, occurs, as well as to identify who is responsible for the control of hazards.  If \nfurther information is required or you need assistance with this section of the contract contact the health  and \nSafety officer.  \nManagement of a contract with a Contractor  \n1.4 When a contract has been agreed and signed with a Contractor on behalf of the University, the Manager should hold the original signed contract  on behalf of the University and forward a copy t o the Contractor.  The Manager \nmust also register the contract in the Massey University Contract Management System.  \n1.5 All invoices for contractors must be sent to the Accounts Payable Office.  Where there are activities that are \nsubject to Withholding tax ( as detailed in: Tax Procedures Manual ) the Contractor will also need to submit either a \ncompleted IR330 Tax Code Declaration or a Tax Exemption Certificate. If withholding tax is not applicable the \ninvoice must be  supported by an approved # Purchasing, Massey number.  \n1.6 Prior to the Contractor providing any services to the University, the Contractor must be inducted into appropriate \nhealth and safety procedures relevant to the provision of the services.   No services may be provided to the \nUniversity by the Contractor until such induction has been completed.  \n \nAudience : \nAll Mana gers \n \nRelated procedures / documents : \n \nContract Management Policy  \n \nDocument Management Control:  \nPrepared by: Employm ent Relations Manager  \nAuthorised by : Assistant Vice -Chancellor and University Registrar  \nApproved by : SLT 12/04/91   \nDate issued: 16 April 2012  \nLast review: F ebruary 2012  \nNext Review: February 2014 \n \nMassey University Policy Guide \nContractors Procedures –  Page 3  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \nSCHEDULE 1  \n1. Determination of Status of Third Party  \n1.1 Although there is no single test or exhaustive list to determine the status of a Third party/person, the five \nbroad tests which follow are useful in determining this status.  To ensure the status of a third party/person is \ncorrectly determined as either an Employee or a Contractor, the relevant Manager must answer the \nquestions in t ables A -  E below.  \n1.2 If all of the responses to the questions in tables A  - E are in c olumn A, then the Third p arty/person  is a \nContractor.  \n1.3 If one or more on the responses to the questions in t ables A  - E are in column B, or if the Manager is not \ncertain of whether a Third party/person is a Contractor, then the M anager answering the questions must \ncontact their Human Resources Advisor for assistance in determining whether the Third party/person is an \nEmployee or C ontractor.  \n \n \nTABLE A -- CONTROL TEST  \nThe control test looks at the degree of control the University seek s to have over the \nwork of the T hird party/person and the manner in which this work is to be undertaken. \nThe greater the extent to which the University controls the work of a Third \nparty/person the more likely it is that the Third party/person will be an Employee.   A B \nDoes the t hird party/person have control over how, where and when the \nservices are performed (wi thin practicality)?  Yes No \nIs the t hird party/person responsible for the quality and pricing of the \nservices to be provided?  Yes No \nWill the t hird party/person supervise the provision of services and can the \nThird party/person hire other people to perfor m some or all of the services?  Yes No \nCan the t hird party/person negotiate the price to be paid by the University for \nthe provision of the services? Yes No \n \n \n \n  \n \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide \nContractors Procedures –  Page 4  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \nTABLE B -- INTEGRATION TEST  \nThe integration test looks at whether the T hird party/person is ‘part and parcel’ of the \nUniversity.  The work is likely to be undertaken by an E mployee if the work is; \nintegral to the core business of the University, is work commonly done by \nEmployees, is continuous, and is for the benefit of the University rather than the \nThird party/person.  A B \nAre the services to be provided by the Third party/person different from work \nusually performed by Employees of the University?  Yes No \nWill the Third p arty/person pay for any expenditure incurred in performing \nthe services?  Yes No \nWill the Third p arty/person invoice the University for the price of the \nservices?  Yes No \nWill the Third p arty/person be paid only as the services are performed as \nopposed to a regular salary payment?  Yes No \nAre the services to be performed by the Third party/person ‘one- off’ as \nopposed to there being a continuous need for the services?  Yes No \n \nTABLE C --INDEPENDENCE TEST  \nThis is the converse of the control test (Table A).  A high level of independence \nindicates the work is likely to be undertaken by a Contractor.  Indicators of a high level \nof independence include; work for other people or clients, supply the equipment, \npremises, and materials used, advertise and invoice for the work.   A B \nWill the Third p arty/person supply the necessary  tools, vehicles, office, \nphone, computer etc to perform the services?  Yes No \nWill the Third p arty/person be providing consultancy advice?  Yes No \nIs the Third p arty/person free to work for other organi sations?  Yes No \nDoes the Third p arty/person have the ir own client base?  Yes No \nDoes the Third p arty/person advertise their services?  Yes No \nWould the University be required to pay GST in addition to any payment for \nthe services performed by the Third p arty/person?  Yes No \nDoes the Third p arty/person pay t ax, ACC and insurance directly?  Yes No \nIs the Third party responsible for arranging any cover in the event that they are sick or absent?   Yes No \n \nMassey University Policy Guide \nContractors Procedures –  Page 5  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  Does the Third p arty/person have s taff ID c ard No Yes \n \n \nTABLE D -- ECONOMIC REALITY /FUNDAMENTAL  TEST  \nThis t est co nsiders the extent to which the T hird party/person is in business on their \nown account.  If in business on their own account, they  are likely to be a  contractor.  A B \nWill the t hird party/person keep for themselves any loss or profit resulting \nfrom t he provision of the services?  Yes No \nWould the third party/person be exposed to normal business risks in the \nprovision of the services to the University?  Yes No \nWould the third party/person be liable for correcting sub- standard work? Yes No \n  \nTABLE E -- INTENTION TEST  \nThis test looks at the intentions of the parties regarding the nature of the relationship.  \nThe description of the relationship (in the contract) is a strong but not conclusive \nindication of the type of relationship that exists.   A B \nWoul d the third party/person be performing services which had been \nperformed by independent contractors?  Yes No \nCould the University sue the t hird party/person for loss resulting from the \nprovision of services?  Yes No \nIf the services were not performed to t he standard specified in the proposed \nagreement with the t hird party/person, could the University withhold \npayment?  Yes No \nHas the third party/person specifically stated that they want to provide \nservices to the University as an independent contractor? Yes No \nHas the third party/person always worked with the University as an \nindependent contractor?  Yes No \n \n    \n \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Council_Elections_Chancellor_and_Pro_Chancellor_Statute_PDF_158_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Council Elections Chancellor and Pro Chancellor Statute PDF 158 KB",
      "policy_type": "Statute",
      "file_size": "158 KB",
      "author": "Nicol, Paddy",
      "creation_date": "2022-03-04T11:03:05",
      "modification_date": "D:20220307124140+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n \n \n Page 1 of 2  \n \n \nMASSEY UNIVERSITY  \nCOUNCIL ELECTIONS ( CHANCELLOR AND PRO -CHANCELLOR ) STATUTE  \nPursuant to  schedule 11(15) of Education and Training Act 2020  \n \n1. Title and Commencement  \n \nThis Statut e may be cited as the Council Elections (Chancellor and Pro -Chancellor) Statute \nand comes into force on 1 December 2021 .  \n \n2. Application  \n \nThis Statute applies to the University Council and its members .  \n \n3. Purpose  \n \nThe purpose of this Statute is to govern the election  of Chancellor and Pro -Chancellor of the \nMassey University Council .  \n \n4. Statute  \n \nFor the purposes of electing one member of the Massey University Council as Chancellor and \none member of the Massey University Council as Pro-Chancellor in accord with the provisions \nof schedule 11 (15)  of the Education and Training Act 2020 .  \n \na. The election of Chancellor and Pro -Chancellor will be held annually subject to the \nprovisions of this Statute.  \n \nb. Prior to the meeting of Council preceding the end of the annual term of each of \nChancellor and Pro -Chancellor the  Returnin g Officer  should contact each member \nof Council eligible to stand in the election for Chancellor and Pro -Chancellor to \nrequest a declaration of preparedness to stand for the position or positions to \nbecome vacant .  \n \nc. Where there is one candidate for Chancellor , that candidate will be declared \nChancellor.  \n \nd. Where there is one candidate for Pro -Chancellor , that candidate will be declared \nPro-Chancellor.  \n \ne. Where there is more than one candidate for either position the  Returning Officer  \nwill conduct an election  electronically  with the results  to be returned in sufficient \ntime to enable the declaration of the result at the December Council Meeting.  \n \nf. A first past the post voting system will be employed.  \n\n \n \n \n Page 2 of 2 g. The Returning Officer  will count the votes  for the candidates for Chancellor and the \ncandidate with the highest score will be declared Chancellor.  Where there is an \neven score a secret ballot will be held at the December Council Meeting.  \n \nh. The process in (g) will then be repeated for Pro -Chancellor , if required.  \n \ni. The Office of Chancellor and Pro -Chancellor will, subject to the provision of the \nEducation and Training Act, be held for one year usually commencing December \neach year.  \n \nj. If a vacancy arises in the Office of Chancellor and/or Pro -Chancellor  before \nDecember in any year then the Council shall by resolution, as soon as practicable \nthereafter, instruct the  Returning Officer  to commence the election for the \nsuccessor in terms of this Statute.  The person(s) so elected shall hold office for a \nstated period (not exceeding the term of the member’s current term as a member \nof the council).  \n \nk. Each Chancellor and Pro -Chancellor is el igible for re -election as Chancellor and \nPro-Chancellor as the case may be.  \n \nl. Whenever a person is elected to the Office of Chancellor or Pro -Chancellor \npursuant to section (j ) of this Statute then the reference to December in this Statute \nis deemed amended  accordingly so that the person holds office for a stated period \n(not exceeding the term of the member’s current term as a member of the Council).   \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Conflict_of_Commitment_and_Interest_Policy_PDF_223_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Conflict of Commitment and Interest Policy",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "223 KB",
      "creation_date": "2012-12-21T11:01:00",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220101228+13'00'"
    },
    "content": "       \nMassey University Policy Guide \n \nCONFLICT OF COMMITME NT AND INTEREST POLI CY \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n \n   \n  \n  \nPurpose :  \nThe Education Amendment Act 1990 expressly requires universities to establish and maintain standards of conduct \nfor their staff1. In addition, the Office of Auditor General provides good practice guidelines, on managing conflict of \ninterest for public entities.  Accordingly, Massey University has the duty to act in a manner that promotes the public \ninterest and enhances public confidence in the integrity of the University in its pursuit and dissemination of knowledge.  \n  \nMassey University has a growing variety of external relationships, which benefit the public as well as the institution, staff and students.  At the same time, these wider relationships have the potential to create situations where conflicts \nof commitment and interest may arise.  (See D efinitions of conflict of commitment and conflict of interest.)  \n \n \nMassey University has policies on intell ectual property and consultancy that are designed to promote partnerships \nand collaboration with external agencies in a positive and structured environment.  These policies, however, do not cover some other possible interactions between staff and the wider  community.  It is important to both the University \nand its staff that these interactions are governed by clear guidelines that are consistent with institutional responsibilities while fostering a full range of opportunities and developments that have the potential to benefit the \nUniversity.  \nThe aim of this policy is to define an operating environment in which staff can interact as freely as possible with the \nwider community in a manner consistent with institutional responsibilities and the public interest.  \nThe specific objective of this policy is to provide clear guidelines to assist staff to avoid both conflict of commitment \nand conflict of interest as they carry out their employment obligations.\n \nPolicy:  \nStatement of Principle:  \nThe University values the integrity of its staff and their commitment to the interest of the University and it relies on staff \nmembers acting at all times, inside and outside the University, in an open and honest manner and in a way that does \nnot interfere or conflict with their empl oyment obligations.  \n                                                 \n1 Education Amendment Act 1990, Clause 161(3) states: “In exercising their academic freedom and autonomy, institutions shall act in a manner that is \nconsistent with: (a) the need for the maintenance by institutions of the highest ethical standards and the need to permit public scrutiny to ensure the \nmaintenance of those standards”.  \n Section  AVC and University Registrar  \nContact Risk Manager  \nLast Review  November  2012  \nNext Review  November  2014  \nApproval  SLT 12/11/241  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide \nConflict of Commitment and Interest Policy  – Page 2  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  Staff members must ensure that there is no actual, or perceived, conflict between their personal interests and their \nUniversity duties and responsibilities.  \nConflicts of commitment and interest are assessed in terms of the likelihood th at a staff member possessing a \nparticular interest could be, or could appear to be, improperly influenced in the performance of their duties.  \nIf any staff member considers that a conflict of interest does, or may, exist they must follow the operational gui delines \nbelow, and disclose the matter in detail . \nOperational Guidelines : \nIt is recognised that the dividing lines between staff members’ obligations to the University and their private interest \nmight not be clearly apparent.  This policy assists staff to interpret and implement the S tatement of Principle in their \nrelationships with industry and other outside parties.  For example, but not limited to;  \n1. Discharge of Duties as a Professional  \n1.2  Should staff members consider that an instruction of the Univ ersity would place them in conflict with \nthe code of ethics or code of conduct of their profession, they retain the right to question the \ninstruction given without prejudice to their standing and career in the University.  \n \n2. Company Directorships and Comm ercial Relationships  \n2.1  Staff are required to seek permission from the Vice- Chancellor when they wish to become directors of \nany public or private companies, including University spin- out companies, or to become partners or \nprincipals in commercial firms  or partnerships, or to become retained advisers to commercial \norganisations, where that involvement has the potential to create or to be perceived to create a \nconflict of interest with the staff member’s employment obligations or the University’s wider interests.  \nPermission will be granted if the Vice- Chancellor is satisfied that sufficient measures are in place to \nadequately avoid or remove any actual or perceived conflict.  Permission to hold such positions will \nbe reviewed every two years and whenever the commercial appointment is renewed or reviewed.  \n \n3. Appointment to Public Boards, Professional Bodies or Committees  \n3.1 Staff accepting appointment (whether paid or unpaid) to any public board, committee or professional \nbody in fields related to their t eaching, research, or other specialist area of their work at the University \nshall inform their Head of Department2.  Should the involvement required impinge on their \nemployment obligations, permission shall be sought from the Head of Department in advance of acceptance.  Equally, if the duties attached to the position increase at a later stage, after acceptance, \nthe matter shall be reviewed with the Head of Department.  \n  \n3.2  The Vice- Chancellor may approve requests from governments or scientific or profess ional bodies for \nstaff members to be permitted to accept appointments (whether paid or unpaid) as members of, or \nadvisors to public boards, bodies or committees.  \n \n 4. Appointment to Advisory Boards, Councils and Committees of other Tertiary Institutions  \n4.1  In the interests of maintaining close links between the University and other tertiary institutions, the \nVice-Chancellor may grant permission for staff members to advise, become members of the Council \n                                                 \n2 In appropriate cases Head of Department should read Head of Unit, Centre, School, Institute,  College, or Section.  \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide \nConflict of Commitment and Interest Policy  – Page 3  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  of, or hold paid or unpaid positions in, other tertiary institutions.  Staff must seek the Vice- Chancellor’s \napproval before accepting such appointments.  \n \n5. Teaching Services for other Institutions  \n5.1 Staff who are responsible for the creation, delivery and/or examination of any paper taught at the \nUnivers ity shall not give tuition in the same subject under the auspices of another education provider, \nexcept where an agreement has been entered into between the University and that education \nprovider.  Examination and assessment duties, together with arrangements approved by the \nUniversity in connection with university duties overseas, are exempt from this provision.  \n \n6. Relationships with External Agencies Supplying Goods and Services to the University  \n6.1 Staff who are in the position to influence any decision relating to the supply of goods and services to \nthe University shall immediately notify their Head of Department if they hold any financial or other interest in an external agency negotiating with the University for such supply of goods or services.  \nSimilarly, staff shall not recommend to the University such an external agency as a potential supplier \nwithout disclosing the interest held.  \n \n6.2 Staff shall not personally accept inducements or gifts from suppliers of goods and services to the \nUniversity if the offer is related to any contractual relationship between the supplier and the University.  \n \n6.3  Staff shall not use confidential information pertaining to the University and acquired during their employment to help any potential supplier to the University of goods and services, achieve advantage \nover other potential suppliers.  \n \n7. Relatives of Staff Members \n7.1 All applications for vacant positions in the University are considered in accordance with the principle \nthat all University appointments shall be made solely on merit.  \n7.2 Where a relative\n3 of a staff member applies for a position at the University in respect of which that \nstaff member has recruitment authority or an associated advisory role, the staff member shall declare \ntheir interest and take no f urther part in the recruitment process.  \n \n7.3  A staff member in a position to influence the management or promotion of another staff member who is a relative, or close personal friend,  shall disclose the situation to their Head of Department, who \nshall tak e steps to ensure that no conflict of interest arises.  \n \n7.4   A staff member in a position to supervise, teach and/or assess the academic performance of a \nstudent or who has a mentoring and/or coaching role with a student with whom they develop a close \npersonal relationship or is a personal friend shall disclose the situation to their Head of Department, \nwho shall take steps to ensure that no conflict of interest arises.  \n \n8.  Other Relationships  (Staff and Students):  \n \n                                                 \n3 A relative in this context means someone who is related to the staff member by blood, marriage, affinity or adoption, or who is wholly dependent on the staff \nmember, or is a member of the staff member’s household  \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide \nConflict of Commitment and Interest Policy  – Page 4  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  8.1  The University strongly discourages intimate personal relationships between staff and students and \nstaff should avoid entering into an intimate personal relationship with a student at the University, \nparticularly a student for whom they have responsibility.   Such a relationship risks taking advantage of \nthe intrinsic trust, power and status differential implicit in the staff -to-student relationship.   Should \nsuch a relationship arise, it is the staff member’s responsibility to disclose the situation to their Head \nof Department immediately.  \n \nRequirements of Disclosure: \n1.  Where a staff member considers a conflict of commitment or interest may exist, they must \nimmediately disclose this, and in writing, to their Head of Department4.  \n2. Where the Head of Department determines that a conflict of  commitment or interest exists, or is \nperceived to exist, the Head of Department will acknowledge the perceived conflict of interest and:  \n(a) Authorise the staff member in writing to continue in his/her current duties or  \n(b) Put in place additional process es to ensure that impartiality of the staff member in performing \ntheir duties or  \n(c) Re-organise the duties of the staff member to remove the conflict of interest or  \n(d) Report the matter to the senior manager (PVC/DVC/AVC) for determination of appropriate \naction , and  \n3.  The Head of Department will record the disclosure and action agreed in writing. All documentation relating to disclosure under this policy must  be filed in the staff member’s personal file held with \nPeople and Organisational Development . \n \n4. People and Organisational Development  must  advise the Assistant Vice -Chancellor and University \nRegistrar of all disclosures of conflict of interest a nd commitment immediately upon receipt of \nnotification, and details must  be added to the Disclosure of Conflict of Commitment and Interest  \nRegister held in the Office of the Assistant Vice -Chancellor and University Registrar.  \n \n5. Disclosures of Conflict of Commitment and interest  must be reviewed annually by the Staff member, \nat the University’s request. If the conflict no longer exists, a memo noting the change signed by both \nthe staff member and the relevant Head of Department  must be appended to the staff members \npersonal file held with People and organisational Development.  \n 6. Special purpose Interest Registers will be maintained and updated annually for the University, \nCouncil,  Senior Management Team , and on an on- going basis, for the Tenders Board.  \n   \n7, Failure to declare conflicts of commitment and interest, and to comply with this policy, including t hese \ndisclosure requirements, may constitute serious misconduct.  \nDisputes Procedure:  \nIn the event of a dispute arising between persons or organisations (including the University itself) having an interest in decisions or processes relating to this policy, resolution shall be sought in accordance with the following procedure:  \n \n                                                 \n4 A Disclosure of Commitment and Interest Form is available of the Policy Guide  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide \nConflict of Commitment and Interest Policy  – Page 5  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  (i) The aggrieved person(s) shall immediately inform the University, in writing, of their grievance and \ninvite the University to either remedy the matter complained of or to respond to the grievance within \nfourteen (14) days.  \n \n(ii) Should the dispute remain unresolved thereafter, the parties shall then seek to settle the matter \ninformally through discussion or negotiation, which may include mediation.  \n \n(iii) If no such informal resolution can be reached within thirty (30) days, then any party may refer the \nmatter to arbitration in accordance with and subject to the Arbitration Act 1996 and amendments.  The \narbitrator or arbitrators should be agreed upon by the parties and, failing agreement, shall be \nnominated by the President of the Arbitrators’ and Mediators’ Institute of New Zealand Inc.  Such \narbitration shall be regarded as final and binding.  \nBreach : \nAny breach of this Policy by a Massey University Staff member will constitute a breach of that staf f member’s \nemployment agreement and may invoke the performance or disciplinary procedures of the University.  \nAudience:  \nAll staff  \nDefinitions:  \nConflict of Commitment \nConflict of commitment is defined as a situation in which the activities of a staff member interfere with that staff \nmember’s fulfilment of those obligations.  \n \nConflict of Interest  \nConflict of interest is defined as a situation in which the activities of a staff member outside their employment \nobligations to the University lead to material personal  benefit  to the staff member concerned, either directly or \nindirectly (e .g. through a family member, associated entity, or external agency), to the detriment of the University.  \n \nRelevant Legislation : \nEducation Act Amendment 1990  \nLocal Authorities (Members Interests) Act 1968  \n \nLegal Compliance : \nEducation Amendment Act 1990,  Clause 161(3) states: “In exercising their academic freedom and autonomy, \ninstitutions shall act in a manner that is consistent with: (a) the need for the maintenance by institutions of the highest \nethical standards and the need to permit public scrutiny to ensure the maintenance of those standards”.  \n \nLocal Authoriti es (Members Interests) Act 1968 applies to the Council of Massey University. Section 6 precludes \nany member discuss or voting on a question in which s/he has a pecuniary interest.  This obligation also applies to \ncontrolled entities and committees of the University.  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide \nConflict of Commitment and Interest Policy  – Page 6  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \nRelated Procedures/documents:  \nDisclosure of Conflict of Commitment and Interest  Form \nConflict of Commitment and Interest Policy Manager Guidelines  \nAccounting and Auditing Standards SAP -22 and AS -510 \nManaging Conflicts of Interest: Guidance for public entities, Office of the Auditor General  \n \nDocument Management Control:  \nPrepared by :  Risk Manager  \nAuthorised by:   AVC and University Registrar  \nApproved by:   SLT 12/11/241  \nDate issued:  1 May 2004  \nLast reviewed:  November  2012  \nNext review:  November  2014  \n \n \n \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Council_Graduation_Statute_PDF_78_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Council Graduation Statute",
      "policy_type": "Statute",
      "file_size": "78 KB",
      "author": "Massey University",
      "creation_date": "2025-03-17T13:00:09",
      "modification_date": "D:20250317145109+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " Approv al: Council – 6 March 2025    Page 1 of 3  \n  \n \n  \n  \n  \n \n \nMASSEY UNIVERSITY C OUNCIL GRADUATION STATUTE  2025  \n  \n1. Title and Commencement  \n1.1 The Council of Massey University makes this Statute under section  283 of the Act.  \n1.2 This Statute may be cited as the Council Graduation  Statute.  \n1.3 This Statute comes into force on 6 March 2025 .  \n1.4 The Previous Graduation  Statute is repealed from the date that this Statute comes into \nforce.  \n2. Application  \n2.1 This Statute applies to:  \n(a) all staff; and  \n(b) all graduating students within the university community.   \n3. Purpose  of this Statute  \nTe Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa Massey University’s commitment to excellence in research \nand learning is publicly acknowledged and celebrated at its graduation ceremonies and \nthrough publication of its graduates on the Massey University website. Compliance with \nthe principles of sound corporate governance ensures the integrity of the graduation \nprocesses.   \nThe Council of Massey University is empowered through the Education and Training Act \n2020 to make awards. The Council confers degrees and awards diplomas and \ncertificates at graduation ceremonies or ‘in Council’.  \n4. Graduation Ceremonies   \nAt a graduation ceremony, the Chancellor, Pro -Chancellor, or Council nominee has the \ndelegated authority of Council to confer degrees and award diplomas and certificates \non those to be presented in person or listed as ‘in absentia’ in each Graduation \nProgr amme. In the first instance of the Chancellor’s absence the Pro -Chancellor would \nofficiate followed by a Council nominee, Vice -Chancellor, University Registrar (DVC \nStudents and Global Engagement) then Provost. With the University Registrar and \nProvost to subsequently fill the Vice -Chancellor and University Registrar roles \nrespectively should the need arise.   \n \nMassey University Graduation  Statute  \n \n Approv al: Council – 6 March 2025    Page 2 of 3  \n  5. ‘In Council’ Graduation  \n‘In Council’ graduations normally take place at Academic Board meetings, where the \nAcademic Board, under the delegated authority of Council, confer degrees and award \ndiplomas and certificates to those so listed. Council itself can also confer degrees and \naward diplomas and certificates to those so listed, as and when required.   \n \n6. Chancellor Delegated Authority  \nCouncil have also resolved that the Chancellor, or their nominee, has the delegated \nauthority of Council to confer degrees and award diplomas and certificates outside of \nthe University Graduation Ceremonies or ‘In Council’ process to those students \nreporte d as having successfully completed the prescribed courses of study for the \nrelevant year as and when required.   \n \n7. Further Provisions  \nThe Massey University Council Graduation Statute, and its Procedures and Guidelines \nreflect the tenets of risk management regarding the integrity of the graduation \nprocesses, including generally accepted principles of good governance; uniformity of \nprocesses across all campuses responsible for the management of the graduation \nprocesses; accountability; and attestation processes confirming the identity and \neligibility of those graduating.  \nThe Massey University Council Graduation Statute, and relevant Procedures and \nGuidelines, are applicable to all graduation ceremonies, ‘in Council’ graduations and \noccasions where the Chancellor’s delegated authority to confer degrees and award \ndiplomas and certificates is exercised.  \nGraduations generally take place in New Zealand but can upon Council agreement take \nplace overseas or online on the recommendation of the Vice -Chancellor or Deputy Vice -\nChancellor Students and Global Engagement.  \nThe Massey University Council Graduation Statute, and relevant Procedures and \nGuidelines, are also applicable to all participants and associated service providers \ninvolved in any graduation function or allied event.  \n \nDefinitions  \n \nIn Council graduation: where the graduate has chosen to graduate at a time other than a \ngraduation ceremony. The dates are declared by the university and will be the dates of the \nAcademic Board meetings, and Council meetings as required.  \nIn absentia graduation: where a graduate chooses to be listed in a graduation ceremony \nprogramme but not attend the ceremony. The graduate is listed as ‘in absentia’.  \nMassey University Graduation  Statute  \n \n Approv al: Council – 6 March 2025    Page 3 of 3  \n   \nContent Manager   Office of the DVC Students and Global Engagement  \nApproved By    Council  \nDate approved     6 March 2025  \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Compliance_Policy_PDF_327_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Compliance Policy",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "327 KB",
      "author": "Chris Schraders",
      "creation_date": "2018-03-29T12:03:08",
      "modification_date": "D:20180329123805+13'00'",
      "effective_date": "13th july 2016"
    },
    "content": " Massey University  Policy Guide  \n \nCOMPLIANCE POLICY  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \n \n1. Purpo se: \n \n1.1 Massey University is committed to ensuring compliance with all legislative requirements relating to the \noperations an d governance of the University, and to the University’s own Policy Framework.  \n \n1.2 The purpose of this policy is to affirm that commitment, and to ensure a positive compliance culture through \nadopting the highest standards of probity and accountability in all areas of operation.  \n \n2. Policy: \n \n2.1 An effective compliance system is fundamental to the achievement of Massey  University's strategic goals. It is a \nprerequisite for financial sustainability , sound corporate governance and an essential element in the University’s  \noverall framework  to manage risk .  \n2.2 The University will adopt a  compliance regime, aligned with  the principles described in AS/NZS3806:2006 \nCompliance Programmes , in order to foster a culture which supports effective compliance outcomes. The \ncompliance regime will encompass  the following principles : \na) Commitment : the University community will act ethically and with integrity. Behaviours that create and support \ncompliance will be encouraged and behaviours that compromise compliance will be unacceptable.  \n \nb) Transparency:  Compliance related concerns , and opportunities for improvement, will be communicated to the \nrelevant persons. Council, SLT and managers will encourage proactive reporting of compliance concerns and \ntake appropriate action to mitigate compliance risk and continually improve the compl iance system.  \n \nc) Capability and competency:  The University will support staff to comply with all relevant compliance \nrequirements associated to their role. Where a position has significant responsibility for compliance with \nlegislation, or oversight thereof, this will be incorporated into the job d escription for that role, with performance \nand commitment to compliant outcomes monitored as part of the PDP process.  \n \nd) Positive action:  Ownership and accountability for compliance obligations and management of compliance risk \nis understood by the Universit y community, along with consequences for disregarding these compliance Section AVC Operations, International and \nUniversity Registrar  \nContact Risk Manage ment \nLast Review June 2016  \nNext  Review June 2019  \nApproval A&R16/30  \nEffective Date 13th July 2016  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nCompliance Policy  – Page 2 \n \nobligations.  \n \n2.3 University policies, associated procedures, guidelines and processes must reflect not only legislative compliance \nrequirements, but a lso compliance requirements applicable in respect of mandato ry or voluntary codes or sector \nstandards. \n \n2.4 Appropriate due diligence must be undertaken  to ensure that the University’s standards and commitment t o \ncompliance is not compromised when entering into contract agreements and outsourcing arrangements with third \nparties.  \n \n2.5 All University staff, students and associates have a responsibility to ensure that their activities, on behalf of the \nUniversity, comply with applicable law and any related University policies and procedures. F ailure to meet this \nresponsibility may lead to disciplinary action.  \n \n \n3. Roles and responsibility  \n \n3.1 Council: The Council of Massey University has all powers, under provisions of the Education Act 1989, and \nAmendments, reasonably necessary to enable it to perform its function efficiently and effectively. The Council may \nelect to appoint committees and to delegate such powers. The Council of Massey University, through its Audit and \nRisk Committee, is responsible for approving the Compliance Policy, and ov erseeing the University’s compliance \nwith laws and regulations, reporting obligations and Council approved regulations and policies. The University \nCouncil will set the tone and lead the University in adopting a positive compliance culture by requiring the  highest \nstandards of probity and accountability from the operations of the University.  \n \n3.2 Vice -Chancellor: The Vice -Chancellor has responsibility for the management of academic and administrative affairs \nof the University, and is responsible to Council for the management of the University’s compliance obligations. The \nVice -Chancellor  has responsibility for recommending for approval the University’s Compliance Policy and,  \nensuring that this supports Massey’s strategic and operational goals. As the most senior executive of the \ninstitution, the Vice -Chancellor will lead commitment to the compliance principles, ensuring the highest standards \nof probity and accountability from the operations of the University.  \n \n3.3 Senior Leadership Team: The Senior Leaders hip Team will actively demonstrate commitment to the compliance \nprinciples, and along with the VC, ensure the highest standards of probity and accountability from the operations \nof the University. SLT will uphold and monitor compliance within their respect ive areas and support staff, students \nand associates to report and/or escalate compliance concerns, issues, compliance failures and opportunities for \nimprovement, support ing a positive compliance culture. SLT must ensure that sufficient resources are commi tted \nto support university staff in meeting all compliance obligations.  \n \n3.4 Managers: Managers have a duty to uphold and monitor compliance within their area of responsibility, and ensure \nthat their workers receive adequate training and instruction to keep them up to date with their legislative \nobligations.  \n \n3.5 All University st aff, students and associates have a responsibility to ensure that their activities, on behalf of the \nUniversity, comply with applicable law and any related University policies and procedures. They shall report and/or \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nCompliance Policy  – Page 3 \n \nescalate compliance concerns, issues, c ompliance failures and opportunities for improvement.  \n \n3.6 The Director Risk and Assurance, in association with compliance specialists across the University, is responsible for \nreporting  on non -compliance and remedial action to the Senior Leadership Team, and Council; for escalating \ncompliance issues, and; supporting compliance with applicable legislation, policies, contractual commitments, and \ncodes of practice.  The Director Risk and Assurance will keep informed of legislative change and ensure this \ninform ation is disseminated to the appropriate organisational areas and managers.  \n \n \nDefinitions: \n \nComp liance: Adhering to the requirements of laws, industry and organisational standa rds and codes, principles of \ngood  governance and accepted  community and ethical standa rds. \n \nComp liance Culture: The values, ethics and beliefs that exist throughout an organisation and interact with the \norganisation’s structures and control systems to produce behavioural norms that is condu cive to compliance \noutcomes. \n \nComp liance Failure: An act or omission whereby an organisation has not met its compliance obligations, processes \nor behavioural obligations. \n \nComp liance Programme: A series of activities that when  combined are intended to achieve compliance. \nLegislation:  Statutes enacted  by the New Zealand Parliament and Statutory Regulations made pursuant \nto those Statutes, and enforced by law.  \n \nPolicy Framework:  The Policies, Procedures, Guidelines, and Codes of Practice of Massey University.  \n \n \nAudience: \n \nThis policy applies to all members of the University community , includ ing Council members, students, staff, controlled \nentities, and all persons engaged  in University business or activities . \n \nRelevant legislation: \n \nAs detailed at www. legislation.govt.nz \n \nLegal compliance: \n \nMassey University, , is obliged to comply with all New Zealand legislation. \n \nRelated pro cedures / documents: \n \nAll University Policies, procedures, guidelines and code of practice, as detailed at www.policyguide.massey.ac.nz  \n \n \nPolicy on Staff Conduct  \nEmployment Agreements  \nHealth and Safety Policy  \nContractor Policy  \n \n \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nCompliance Policy  – Page 4 \n \nDocument Management Con trol: \n \nPrepared by: Director Risk and Assurance  \nAuthorised by: AVC Operations, International and University Registrar \nApproved by: A&R16/30  \nDate  issued: 2 March 2012 \nLast review: June 2016  \nNext review: June 2019  \nEffective date: 13th July 2016  \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Court_of_Convocation_Statute_PDF_233_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Court of Convocation Statute PDF 233 KB",
      "policy_type": "Statute",
      "file_size": "233 KB",
      "author": "Nicol, Paddy",
      "creation_date": "2022-11-03T11:02:01",
      "modification_date": "D:20221103112152+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " \nApproved: Council – 22 September 2022   Page 1 of 3 \n  \n \n \nMASSEY UNIVERSITY  COURT OF CONVOCATION STATUTE 2022  \n \nThis statute is made under section 4(4) of the Massey University Act 1963 and under \nsection 284 of the Education and Training Act 2020. The Council hereby resolves to adopt \nthe attached Court of Convocation Statute 2022 . \n \n \n Signatures  \n \n   ……………………………  Date  22 September 2022  \n   (Chancellor, Massey University Council)  \n \n \n \n \n   ……………………………  Date  22 September 2022  \n   (Pro Chancellor, Massey University Council)  \n \n \n \n \n   ……………………………  Date  22 September 2022  \n   (Vice -Chancellor, Massey University)  \n \n \n  \n\n \nApproved: Council – 22 September 2022   Page 2 of 3 \n  \n \nMASSEY UNIVERSITY C OURT OF CONVOCATION STATUTE 2022  \n \n \n1. TITLE AND COMMENCEMENT  \n \n(1) This statute is made under section 4(4) of the Massey University Act 1963 and \nunder section 284 of the Education and Training Act 2020.  \n \n(2) This statute is the Massey University Court of Convocation Statute 2022.   \n \n(3) This statute comes into force the day after  the Council of Massey University \nresolves to pass it.  \n \n(4) This statute repeals and replaces the Massey University Court of Convocation \nStatute 2002.  \n \n2. PURPOSE OF THIS STATUTE  \n \n(1) The Massey University Act requires a Court of Convocation at Massey University. \nThat Court of Convocation is to consist of people whose names are enrolled on a \nregister.  \n \n(2) This purpose of this statute is to provide for that register.  \n \n3. INTERPRETATION  \n \nUnless the context otherwise requires the following words have the corresponding \nmeanings in this statute:  \n \nCouncil means the governing body of the university constituted in accordance with the \nEducation and Training Act 2020.  \n \nGraduate means a person who has graduated from Massey University.  \n \nRegister means the list of m embers of the Court of Convocation.  \n \nRegistrar means that person being a member of the staff of the university holding the \nposition of University Registrar or if that position is vacant a person being a staff \nmember of the university and nominated by the Vice -Chancellor from time to time to \nbe the Acting Registrar.  \n \n\n \nApproved: Council – 22 September 2022   Page 3 of 3 \n University means Massey University.  \n \n4. REGISTER  \n \n(1) There is a Register of members of the Court of Convocation at Massey University.  \n \n(2) That Register is deemed to include the names of persons who satisfy one or more \nof the following criteria:  \n \n(a) they are graduates of the university.  \n(b) they were graduates of the Massey University College of Manawat ū. \n(c) they are graduates of the former Palmerston North College of Education . \n(d) they are graduates of the former Wellington Polytechnic . \n(e) they are entered on the Alumni register of the university . \n(f) the Registrar consents to enrolment on the Register under section 5 of this \nstatute.  \n(g) They are otherwise entitled to be entered on the Regis ter under statutes made \nby the Council of the university.  \n \n(3) The Register may be maintained in such format(s) as the Registrar decides and may \nalso contain, subject to the Privacy Act 2020, the last known contact details of the \nindividuals enrolled on the Re gister. The Register from time to time may simply \ncomprise information relevant to section 4 (2) held by different Schools, Colleges, \nInstitutes,  and departments of the University as directed by the Registrar.  \n \n5. CONSENT TO ENROLMENT  \n \n(1) Any person who is a graduate of a university other than a university in New \nZealand and who is resident in New Zealand can apply to the Registrar to be \nenrolled on the Register. That applicant must satisfy the Registrar that they are a \ngraduate from an overseas university and  that they are resident in New Zealand. \nIf the Registrar is so satisfied the Registrar will consent to that person’s enrolment \non the Register.  \n \n6.  BUSINESS OF THE COURT OF CONVOCATION  \n \n(1) Except as may be prohibited by law the Court of Convocation has the powe r to \nmake such rules for the conduct of its business as it thinks fit . Unless rules \ngoverning its meetings have been made it shall meet at such times and places as \nCouncil determines.  \n \n(2) The Court of Convocation may make representations to the Council concerning the \ninterests of the university.  \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Contractor_Health_and_Safety_Induction_Check_List_PDF_90_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Contractor Health and Safety Induction Check List",
      "policy_type": "Unknown",
      "file_size": "90 KB",
      "creation_date": "2015-02-09T15:01:06",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220101144+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " Massey University Policy Guide \n \nCONTRACTOR HEALTH AND  SAFETY INDUCTION CHE CK LIST \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n \n   \n  \n  \nGuideline :  \nInduction of contractors to the campus will vary according to the nature of the work to be performed and the areas in \nwhich they will be working. University Staff inducting contractors may vary the areas to be covered where applicable; \nhowever these changes must be noted on this induction checklist accordingly. Se ctions not relevant may be marked \nwith ‘N/A’.  \n \nA copy of this induction is to be provided to the Contractor either at the time of induction, or via e- mail within 24 hours \nof the induction.  \n \nAn alternative to the check list below is to use a contractors handbook (provided it cover the same information needs) \nthat is retained by the inductee for daily reference.  \n This check list may be super seded by web based induction.  \n \n Section  Health and Safety  \nContact People and Organisational Development  \nLast Review  August  2014  \nNext Review  December 2017  \nApproval  University Health and Safety Manager  \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nContractor Health and Safety Induction Check List  – Page 2 \n  \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  CONTRACTOR DETAILS  \nName of Contractor/Company:  \nContractor/Representative:  Ph: \nEmail Address:  \n \nContract Details:  \n \n \nINDUCTION DETAILS  \nDate:  Site to be Inducted:  \nInformation to be covered:   \nExplained  \n Comments  \n \n \n1. Massey University Health & Safety Policy \n ٭ Copy to be provided, highlighting applicable sections.    \n  YES  \n \n2. Site Sp ecific Emergency Procedures  \n ٭ Copy of Campus map to be provided, detailing evacuation  \n    areas as applicable  \n      \n    Security:  0800 Mass 50  \n    Facilities Management Helpdesk:   \n  \n YES \n \n \n  \n \n3.  Campus Security  \n \n     \n     3.1  Sign in/ sign out regis ter \n     All contractors and their employees must  record their  \n     presence on site by filling in the Visitor Control Register  \n     at the Facilities Management Helpdesk upon entering &  \n     leaving the Campus.   \n     Contractors called on to Campus outs ide normal working  \n     hours must advise Campus Security when entering &  \n     leaving the Campus.  \n  YES  \n     \n     3.2   Identification  \n     Contractors are required to carry their Massey contractor  \n     ID at all times whilst working on Massey Universi ty \n     property.   \n  YES  \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nContractor Health and Safety Induction Check List  – Page 3 \n  \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University       3.3  Keys & swipe cards  YES \n N/A  \n \n   4.  Area Access  \n \n  \n    4.1 General Areas  \n    Keys to access buildings, plant rooms, switchboards can  \n    be obtained from the Facilities Helpdesk upon signing  in  \n  YES \n N/A  \n   \n    4.2 Restricted Access Areas  \n    Permission must  be sought from Facilities Management    \n    prior to entering any restricted area.  \n  YES \n N/A  \n   \n     4.3.  Roof Access  \n     Permission must  be sought from Facilities Management  \n     prior to gaining access to r oof space  \n  YES \n N/A  \n  \n     4.4 Laboratories  \n     No contractor must enter any laboratory without  \n     permission & induction from the Laboratory Manager  \n  YES \n N/A  \n   \n 5.  Permits to Work  \n \n      \n      5.1 Isolation of  fire detection systems  \n      Permi ssion must  be sought from Facilities Management  \n      prior to isolation, giving a minimum  of 24 hours notice.  \n      Contractor is  to ensure that any work undertaken does  \n      not activate fire detection systems and must protect    \n      detectors agai nst dust and debris.  \n  YES \n N/A  \n     \n      5.2  Hot Work  \n      A hot work permit must be obtained from Facilities  \n      Management. Requirements and precautions listed on  \n      this permit must  be adhered to at all times.  \n  YES \n N/A  \n       \n     5.3 Disco nnection of Utilities (Water, Gas, Electrical)  \n     Permission must be sought from Facilities Management  \n     prior to any utility service being disconnected.  \n  YES \n N/A  \n       5.4  Confined Spaces  \n  YES \n N/A  \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nContractor Health and Safety Induction Check List  – Page 4 \n  \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n6. Notifiable Work  \n     The contractor is res ponsible for reporting any notifiable work to the Department of Labour, giving a    \n     minimum of 24 hours notice before the commencement of such work is intended. The contractor shall  \n     provide a copy of the notification to Facilities Management pri or to the commencement of such work.  \n \n     \n     6.1  Asbestos removal  \n    The Contractor must fully comply with Department of  \n     Labour guidelines, relevant legislation & Standards when  \n     undertaking the removal of Asbestos.  \n  YES \n N/A  \n   \n     6.2  Excavations \n     The Contractor is to ensure that the position of all  \n     underground services including power cables, telephone,  \n     computer cables, water, natural gas and drainage.   \n     systems are identified before  excavation commences.  \n     The University can provide underground service drawings  \n     but cannot guarantee their accuracy.  \n  YES \n N/A  \n     \n     6.3  Working at heights  \n     Contractors are expected to take all practicable steps to  \n     ensure full compliance with health & safety regul ations  \n     & Department of Labour requirements when working at  \n     heights.  \n  YES \n N/A  \n      \n     6.4 Scaffolding  \n     Further to the requirements of the Department of Labour,  \n     the Contractor shall make available the onsite scaffold  \n     register f or inspection upon request.  \n  YES \n N/A  \n \n 7.  Accident/ Incident Reporting  \n      The Contractor shall complete an accident report form  \n      for all accidents or incidents, providing a copy of this to       Facilities Management in a timely fashion. Serious  harm  \n      accidents are to be reported to the Department of Labour  \n      as per legislative requirements, and Facilities  \n      Management are to be advised of any such event  \n      without delay.  \n  YES  \n \n8.  Hazard Identification  \n      The contractor is expected to inform Facilities  \n      Management of any new hazard arising or  \n      identified during the contract, and will take all  \n      practicable steps to avoid harm being caused to any  \n      person as a result of such hazards.  \n  YES  \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nContractor Health and Safety Induction Check List  – Page 5 \n  \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n 9. Personal Pr otective Equipment (PPE) \n     Contractors must  use the appropriate PPE for the work  \n      being undertaken at all times. Contractors are  \n      responsible for issuing their employees with, & ensuring  \n      the correct use of, PPE.  \n  \n YES \n  \n  \n 10. Plant & Equipment  \n      The contractor is to supply all tools and equipment to  \n       carry out the work, including all necessary PPE.  \n \n      Electrical equipment used must be tested and tagged in  \n      compliance with AS/NZS 3760:2010 before use on site.  \n  YES \n  \n  \n11. Barricades & Fencing  \n      The work site shall be clearly marked and whenever  \n        possible cordoned off by the contractor to prevent entry  \n        of unauthorised personnel. Contractors shall provide  \n        adequate safety barriers &  warning signs/ hazard  \n        boards as appropriate.  \n  \n YES \n  \n \n12. Dust, Fume & Noise Control  \n      The Contractor must ensure adequate measures are in  \n       place to control dust & fumes  \n \n       Noise must be kept to a minimum when working near   \n       teac hing areas. The Contractor is provide Facilities  \n       Management with a schedule of work if excessive noise  \n       is necessary e.g. concrete cutting.  \n  YES \n N/A  \n \n13. Hazardous Substances \n      The contractor must store & use all hazardous  \n        subst ances in accordance with the product safety data  \n        sheet and in compliance with the Hazardous   \n        Substances & New Organisms Act, associated  \n        regulations and relevant codes of practice.  \n  YES \n N/A  \n \n 14. Housekeeping  \n       Good housek eeping standards are to be observed  \n         throughout the period of work. The site shall be  \n         maintained at all times to avoid any potential fire  \n         risk, blocking of access/egress and any trip/slip  \n         hazards.  \n  YES \n  \n   \n15. General  \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nContractor Health and Safety Induction Check List  – Page 6 \n  \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University          \n       15.1  Site Amenities  \n       Contractors may use the toilet and washing  \n        facilities designated by Facilities Management or  \n        the departmental contact.  \n  YES \n  \n         \n       15.2  Parking  \n       ٭ Copy of Campus map to be provided, detailing parking \n        areas as applicable  \n \n        Vehicles are not to exceed Campus speed limit of 10km.  \n  YES \n  \n        \n       15.3  Behaviour  \n       The Contractor shall exercise appropriate control over  \n         all workers and persons on site for the purpose of this  \n         agreement.  Any use of language and/or gestures  \n         towards staff, students or visitors on University  \n         premises that may be of an objectionable nature will  \n         not be tolerated.  \n  YES \n  \n        \n       15.4  No Smoking Policy  \n      ٭ Copy of Campus map to be provided, detailing  \n        designated smoking areas as applicable  \n  YES \n  \n       \n      15. 5  Alcohol & Drugs  \n       Alcohol & illegal drugs must not be brought on site. The \n       University reserves the right to inform the appropriate  \n       authorities of any breaches of these requirements &  \n       immediate cancellation of the contract.  \n  YES \n  \n        \n       15. 6  Children on Campus  \n       Contractors must not bring any child on Campus, nor  \n        allow young persons under the age of 16 to work on  \n        site.  \n  YES \n  \n       \n       15. 7  Disposal Considerations  \n        It is expected that the Contractor will dispose of any by - \n        product of the construction/ building/works process with  \n        environmental sensitiv ity & (where applicable )within  \n        the legal requirements of the local territorial authority.  \n  YES \n  \n        \n       15. 8  Traffic Management  \n       Traffic management plans, when requested, are to be  \n        submitted to Facilities Management at leas t 5 working \n        days prior to the commencement of work, for approval.  \n  YES \n  \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nContractor Health and Safety Induction Check List  – Page 7 \n  \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \nIDENTIFIED CAMPUS / SITE SPECIFIC HAZARDS  \nAsbestos  \nThe Contractor shall advise the University of any material suspected of containing asbestos, for inspection and appropri ate action.  Should any asbestos be discovered during the course of work the Contractor will \nadvise Facilities Management.   \n \nAn Asbestos Register is available to the Contractor but may not list all asbestos on Campus. The \nContractor is to take all necessary precautions with any material suspected of containing asbestos.  \n \n٭Asbestos information (where available) that is directly related to the area(s) the Contractor is working is \nto be provided to the Contractor prior to commencing work.  \n \n  \nOther Contractors/Works Onsite  \n(Where directly applicable, provide Contractor with details of other work being undertaken and/or \ncontractors on site in the areas they will be working)  \n \n \n(Other campus specific examples may include: )  \n \nAnimals (likely to be for Turitea Campus only)  \n \nAthletics track lighting access (likely to be for Turitea C ampus only)  \n Tunnel System (for Turitea Campus only)  \nAny Contractors required to access the University’s tunnel system must record their presence on the \nTunnel Safety Board located at the Facilities Management Help Desk.  If Contractors are required to wor k \nin the tunnel system outside normal working hours Security must be advised of all staff entering and leaving the tunnel system.   \n \nAll contractors must provide their staff training in confined space entry and proof of qualification provided.  \n \n٭Copy of “ Tunnel Hazard Sheet” to be provided where applicable.  \n \n \n \nContractor _________________________________________________________ \n                        (Signature)  \nInducted by: ________________________________________________________  \n          (Signature)  \n \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nContractor Health and Safety Induction Check List  – Page 8 \n  \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  Audience : \nEvery staff member who engages contractors  \nRelated procedures / documents : \nACC Workplace Safety Management Practices S tandards  \nCampus Regional Facilities Contractor Hand books, A greements, or P rocedures  \nPost Completion Review P rocess  \nSite S afe Protocol Heads of Agreement  \nProcedures for Selection, Induction and Monitoring of Health a nd Safety during contracts  \nDocument Management Control:  \nPrepared by: University Health and Safety Manager  \nAuthorised by: AVC – People and Organisational Develop ment  \nApproved by: University Health and Safety Manager  \nDate issued: 16 April 2012  \nLast review: August  2014 \nNext review: December  2017  \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Approval_Pathways_Quality_Assurance_Guidelines_for_Domestic_and_International_Subcontracting_of_Teac.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Approval Pathways and Quality Assurance Guidelines for Domestic and International Subcontracting of Teaching Activity",
      "policy_type": "Guideline",
      "file_size": null,
      "author": "cschrade",
      "creation_date": "2024-06-20T11:01:09",
      "modification_date": "D:20240620111907+12'00'"
    },
    "content": " \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n \n APPROVAL PATHWAYS AND QUALITY ASSURANCE GUIDELINES  \nFOR DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL SUBCONTRACTING  \nOF TEACHING ACTIVITY  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \nPurpose:  \nThe Approval Pathways and Quality Assurance Guidelines for Domestic and International Subcontracting of Teaching \nActivity ensure that Massey University manages the risk associated with teaching subcontracting, undertaking such \nactivities in a manner consistent with the maintenance of academic standards and the safeguarding of student \ninterests.  \nDefinitions:  \nSubcontracting : refers to situations where another provider offers all or part of a Massey University qualification \nthrough a contractual arrangement such as a memorandum of understanding, articulation or twinning agreem ent, or \nfranchise arrangement. A ‘provider’ can include any other education organization.  \n \nThis definition of subcontracting specifically excludes: teaching activity contracted to individuals; learning that occurs \nwithin vocational placements such as workplace placements; research activities; and student and staff exchange \nagreements.  \n \nLow Risk Subcontracting Arrangements  are those where all of the following apply:  \na) The subcontractor is an NZQA registered provider ( http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/providers/index.do ) \nb) The course is not  funded as Adult and Community Education  \nc) Less than 25% of the total qualification will be subcontracted  \nd) The arrangement is less than $150,000 per annum in total value  \ne) The arrangement is not  with an international provider  \n \nHigh Risk Subcontracting Arrangements  are those where any of the following apply:  \na) The subcontractor is not an NZQA registered provider ( http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/providers/index.do ) \nb) The course is funded as Adult and Community Education  \nc) Greater than or equal to 25% of the total qualification will be subcontracted  \nd) The arrangement is greater than or equal to $150,000 per annum in total value  \ne) The arrangement is with an international provider  \nIntroduction:  \nSubcontracting arrangements most likely to be of benefit to students, staff and education providers are those where \nacademic, resourcing, administrative and management considerations are examined during the initial planning stages \nand accounted for in the final arrangement. Relevant international practices have identified ten areas that are critical Section  Academic  \nContact  Academic Strategy Manager  \nLast Review  August 2011  \nNext Review  August 2014  \nApproval  AB11/110 -October: 3.2.2.1  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n Approval Pathways and Quality Assurance Guidelines for Domestic and International \nSubcontracting of Teaching Activity – Page 2  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  to the successful development, delivery and ongoing monitoring and improvement of courses delivered by partner \nproviders on and offshore:  \n \n1. Partner Selection  \n2. Development of Business Plans  \n3. Management & Coordination  \n4. Resourcing  \n5. Promotion & Marketing  \n6. Staff Quality, Support & Development  \n7. Admissions Standards & Procedures  \n8. Assessment & Student Learning  \n9. Student Support, Records & Administration  \n10. Course Monitoring & Improvement  \n \nFor each of these areas, a set of guidelines is presented to assist academic, management and administrative staff in \nthe fulfilment of their responsibilities for the development, review and endorsement of subcontracting arrangements.  \nThe guidelines are comprehensive and may not need to be applied in totality to every arrangement.  However, staff \nare encouraged to consider the relevance and applicability of each guideline in every case.  \nDEVELOPMENT OF SUBCONTRACTING ARRANGEMENTS  \nSubcontracting arrangements are generally initiated from one of three sources:  \na. academic staff initiatives based upon personal and professional interests, interactions and research with \ninternational colleagues;  or \nb. internationalisation initiatives involving multiple departments or Colleges that contribute to the enhancement \nof programmes and economic development of the University; or  \nc. opportunities based upon a desire to establish relationships to meet a specific need or opportunity for which \ncollaborators are sought, this includes courses offered by the Centre for Professional and Continuing \nEducation (PaCE).  \nAPPROVAL PATHWAY AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR LOW RISK SUBCONTRACTING ARRANGEMENTS  \nFigures 1 and 2 below show the formal approval pathway for all subcontracting arrangements classified as low -risk \naccording to the definitions presented previously:  \n \n \n \n\n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n Approval Pathways and Quality Assurance Guidelines for Domestic and International \nSubcontracting of Teaching Activity – Page 3  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  Figure 1:  Approval pathway for subcontracting arrangements \nwithin Colleges  Figure 2:  Approval pathway for PACE \nsubcontracting arrangements  \n \nThe responsibilities for each person or group are summarised in Table 1.  \n \nPerson or \nGroup  Responsibilities  Relevant Guidelines  \nInitiator  • Identifies the need for subcontracting teaching.  \n• Liaises with appropriate departmental and support staff regarding the \nestablishment of a subcontracting arrangement and the development \nof a business plan.  \n• Contacts the Risk Management Section for the appropriate contractual \ntemplate.  \n• Forwards copy of the contract and business plan to the relevant Head \nof Department/s, Institute/s or School/s (or Director PaCE) for review \nand endorsement.  Guideline 1:  Partner Selection  \nGuideline 2:  Development of \nBusiness Plans  \nGuideline 3:  Management & \nCoordination  \nGuideline 4:  Resourcing  \nGuideline 5:  Promotion & \nMarketing  \nGuideline 6:  Staff Quality, Support \n& Development  \nGuideline 7:  Admissions \nStandards and Procedures  \nGuideline 8:  Assessment & \nStudent Learning  \nGuideline 9:  Student Support, \nRecords & Administration  \nGuideline 10:  Course Monitoring & \nImprovement  Head of \nDepartment, \nInstitute or \nSchool  / \nDirector \nPACE  • Reviews the sub -contracting arrangement to ensure consistency with \nthe department’s strategic direction and resource capacity.  \n• Ensures that any existing or proposed departmental structures and \nsupports for the arrangement are accounted for in the business plan.  \n• Takes the agreement to the College Executive  (or Assistant Vice -\nChancellor Academic & International (AVCAI) for Pa CE course s) for \nreview and endorsement.  \n• Forwards the agreement to the relevant College Board for \nendorsement of the academic quality assurance arrangements.  \nCollege \nExecutive  \n(or delegate)  \n \nAVCAI for \nPaCE courses  • Advises the Pro Vice -Chancellor on the adequacy of the managerial, \nresourcing  and relevant administrative considerations —this function \nmay be delegated to another person or group as appropriate.  \n• In the case of PaCE courses, the responsibilities of the College \nExecutive are assumed by the AVCAI  Guidelines 1 -6 \nCollege Board  \n(or delegate)  • Reviews the sub -contracting arrangements to ensure consistency with \nthe academic aspirations of the College.  \n• Advises the Pro Vice -Chancellor  (or AVCAI for Pa CE courses)  on the \nadequacy of the relevant academic considerationsNOTE1—this function \nmay be delegated to another person or group as appropriate.  Guidelines 3, 7 -10 \nPro Vice -\nChancellor  / \nAVCAI for \nPaCE courses  • Responsible for the final approval, or otherwise, of the subcontracting \narrangement.  \n• Forwards the final agreement to the Risk Management Section for \ninput to the University’s subcontracting register and safe -keeping of \nthe final original agreement.  \n• Assumes overall accountability for the management of the quality of \nthe course(s) delivered via the sub -contracting arrangement.  Guidelines 1 -10 \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n Approval Pathways and Quality Assurance Guidelines for Domestic and International \nSubcontracting of Teaching Activity – Page 4  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  Table 1:  Responsibilities for each of the persons or groups in the development and approval of low -risk subcontracting arrangements.  \nNOTE 1:  In all cases where the subcontracting arrangement forms part of the introduction of a new subject or a new \nacademic qualification, OR represents a substantial structural change to an existing programme including name or \ntitle changes, or changes to entry requirements, admission regulations, or credit transfer arrangements, the proposal \nmust be forwarded from the College Board to Academic Committee and CUAP.  \nAPPROVAL PATHWAY AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR HIGH RISK SUBCONTRACTING \nARRANGEMENTS:  \nThe diagram below shows the formal approval pathway for all subcontracting arrangements classified as \nhigh-risk according to the definitions presented previously:  \n \n \n \nThe responsibilities for each person or group are summarised in Table 2.  \n \nPerson or \nGroup  Responsibilities  Relevant Guidelines  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n Approval Pathways and Quality Assurance Guidelines for Domestic and International \nSubcontracting of Teaching Activity – Page 5  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  Initiator  • Identifies the need for subcontracting teaching.  \n• Liaises with appropriate departmental and support staff (local and \nexternal) regarding the establishment of a subcontracting arrangement \nand the development of a business plan.  \n• Contacts the Risk Management Section for the appropriate contractual \ntemplate.  In the case of international arrangements, the initiator will \nalso need to contact the International Office for assistance with \nfulfilling the appropriate domestic and international requirements.  \n• Forwards copy of the contract and business plan to the relevant Head \nof Department/s, Institute/s or School/s or Director PaCE for review \nand endorsement.  Guideline 1:  Partner Selection  \nGuideline 2:  Development of \nBusiness Plans  \nGuideline 3:  Management & \nCoordination  \nGuideline 4:  Resourcing  \nGuideline 5:  Promotion & \nMarketing  \nGuideline 6:  Staff Quality, \nSupport & Development  \nGuideline 7:  Admissions \nStandards and Procedures  \nGuideline 8:  Assessment & \nStudent Learning  \nGuideline 9:  Student Support, \nRecords & Administration  \nGuideline 10:  Course Monitoring \n& Improvement  International \nOffice  • In the case of international arrangements, advises on arrangements \nwith partners offshore.  \nHead of \nDepartment, \nInstitute or \nSchool / \nDirector PaCE  • Reviews the sub -contracting arrangement to ensure consistency with \nthe department’s strategic direction and resource capability.  \n• Ensures that any existing or proposed departmental structures and \nsupports for the arrangement are accounted for in the business plan.  \n• Takes the agreement to the College Executive (or AVCAI for PaCE \ncourses) for review and endorsement  \n• Forwards the agreement to the relevant College Board for \nendorsement of the academic quality assurance arrangements.  \nCollege \nExecutive  \n \nAVCAI for \nPaCE courses  • Advises the Pro Vice -Chancellor on the adequacy of the managerial, \nresourcing and relevant administrative considerations.  \n• In the case of PaCE courses, the responsibilities of the College \nExecutive are assumed by the AVCAI  Guidelines 1 -6 \nCollege Board  • Reviews the sub -contracting arrangements to ensure consistency with \nthe academic aspirations of the College.  \n• Advises the Pro Vice -Chancellor (or AVCAI for PaCE courses) on the \nadequacy of the relevant academic considerationsNOTE1. \n• Forwards the arrangement to Academic Committee for review and \napproval of the academic quality assurance arrangements.  Guidelines 7 -10 \nAcademic \nCommittee  • Reviews the subcontracting arrangement to ensure that the relevant \nacademic quality assurance considerations have been made and are \nappropriately reflected in the arrangement.  \n• Approves, or otherwise, the academic quality assurance arrangements \nand provides any feedback or suggestions for changes to the relevant \nPro Vice -Chancellor  / AVCAI . Guidelines 3, 7 -10 \nAcademic \nBoard  • Receives information regarding subcontracting arrangements via the \nMinutes of Academic Committee  \nPro Vice -\nChancellor  / \nAVCAI (for \nPaCE courses)  • Reviews the subcontracting arrangement to ensure all academic, \nmanagerial, administrative and resourcing considerations have been \nmade.  \n• Reviews feedback from Academic Committee and ensures that \nappropriate changes are made.  \n• Forwards the final agreement to the Vice -Chancellor for final approval.  \nIf the agreement is with an international provider, a copy must also be \nforwarded to the Assistant Vice -Chancellor (Academic & International) \nfor review.  \n• Assumes overall accountability for the management of the quality of \nthe course(s) delivered via the sub -contracting arrangement and \nfacilitates links between the College, Regional and National Shared \nServices as required for effective implementation of the agreement.  Guidelines 1 -10 \nAssistant Vice -\nChancellor \n(Academic & • In cases where the agreement is with an international provider, the \nAssistant Vice -Chancellor (Academic & International) advises the Vice -\nChancellor on the adequacy of arrangements associated with the  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n Approval Pathways and Quality Assurance Guidelines for Domestic and International \nSubcontracting of Teaching Activity – Page 6  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  International)  agreement.  \nVice-\nChancellor  • Responsible for the final approval, or otherwise, of the subcontracting \narrangement.  \n• Forwards the final agreement to the Risk Management Section for \ninput on the University’s subcontracting register and safe -keeping of \nthe final original agreement.   \n \nNOTE 1:  In all cases where the subcontracting arrangement forms part of the introduction of a new subject or a new \nacademic qualification  OR represents a substantial structural change to an existing programme including name or title \nchanges, or changes to entry requirements, admission regulations, or credit transfer arrangements, the proposal must \nbe forwarded from the College Board to Academic Committee and CUAP.   \nQUALITY ASSURANCE GUIDELINES FOR SUBCONTRACTING ARRANGEMENTS:  \nGUIDELINE 1:  PARTNER SELECTION  \nItems for Consideration  \n1.1 Commercial viability of the partner institution and reputation as a quality education provider  \n1.2 Relevant experience of the partner institution in the delivery of related qualifications at similar levels  \n1.3 Ability to register MU courses with appropriate authorities in the host country/ies.  \n1.4 Agreements do not compromise existing or anticipated agreements with other providers in the host country/ies with due \nconsideration given to existing or anticipated agreements in other departments and Colleges at MU.  \n1.5 All financial, legal, educational and other arrangements with the partner institution are signed off in a contract approved \nby the appropriate MU delegate as specified in the Delegations of Authority Document.  \n1.6 A clear, agreed schedule, defining both partner’s responsibilities and accountabilities for course recruitment, support, \nstaffing, resourcing, delivery, monitoring and improvement is present in the agreement.  \n1.7 The partner is able to provide professional and academic staff to support the delivery of MU courses.  \n1.8 The partner is able to provide appropriately located, suitable and safe student facilities and support services (premises, \nadministrative support, teaching equipment, library and computing facilities) at multiple locations if applicable.  \n1.9 The partner institution agrees to formalized procedures for course development and approval in line with the CUAP \nprocedures for qualification approval and accreditation, and MU’s internal approval processes.  \n \nWhere relevant, appropriate documentary evidence of the above processes might include:  \n• Contracts, Memoranda of Understanding, Articulation Agreements or Franchise Arrangements  \n• Feasibility studies  \n• Business plans  \n• Annual reports  \nGUIDELINE 2:  DEVELOPMENT OF BUSINESS PLANS  \nItems for Consideration  \n2.1 Executive summary outlining the course offered, location/s, purpose, feasibility and those involved.  \n2.2 Rationale and broad objectives for the course that clearly demonstrate the expected outcomes and benefits to the \nCollege and University.  \n2.3 Market analysis including the market profile, client base and an assessment of competition (current and future).  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n Approval Pathways and Quality Assurance Guidelines for Domestic and International \nSubcontracting of Teaching Activity – Page 7  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  2.4 Process and procedures for how the course will be promoted.  \n2.5 Identification of who will promote and market the courses and who will pay for this.  \n2.6 Measures for monitoring and evaluating marketing efforts are established.  \n2.7 Details of the respective roles and responsibilities of MU and the partner institution.  \n2.8 Detailed assessment of the risks, their potential impact and how they will be managed.   \n2.9 Identification of the resources required for the delivery of the course (human and non human) and the impact (including \nfinancial) of the course on staffing, support services, infrastructure, equipment (including library and IT).   \n2.10 Assessment of the financial viability of the programme demonstrating it can generate a positive net income and \nspecifying the minimum number of students required to sustain the programme financially.  \n2.11 Course fees and other income can be repatriated to MU and issues such as relevant taxation liabilities have been \nchecked.  \n2.12 Fees for individual courses are set by Massey University in consultation with the partner institution and revised annually \nto include income splits between MU and the partner institution.  \n2.13 All financial arrangements and disbursements have been agreed to, documented and signed off by the appropriate MU \ndelegate as specified in the Delegations of Authority Document and partner institution equivalent.  \n2.14 Quality assurance procedures to ensure the courses delivered by the partner institution are equivalent to courses \ndelivered by MU leading to the same qualification.  \n2.15 An exit strategy has been identified and documented for each programme which identifies the performance \nrequirements that, if not met, will trigger MU withdrawal from the arrangement.  \n \nWhere relevant, appropriate documentary evidence of the above processes might include:  \n• Completed business plans  \n• Approvals —commercial  \n• Approvals —course approval and accreditation (including any course changes and approvals for these)  \n• Marketing plans  \n• Promotional and marketing materials  \n• Cost / benefit analyses  \n \nA Business Plan Template (including a risk assessment guideline) is available on the Massey Website:  \nhttp://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/staffroom/policy -guide/university -templates/university -templates_home.cfm  \nGUIDELINE 3:  MANAGEMENT AND COORDINATION  \nItems for Consideration  \n3.1 Overall accountability for the management of the quality of the course(s) delivered by the partner institution to rest with t he \nPro Vice -Chancellor of the relevant College.  \n3.2 Responsibilities, roles  and accountabilities of relevant staff members are communicated in writing to all members of the \npartner institution teams and other interested parties.   \n3.3 Clear lines of accountability and supervision are established within each arrangement for MU and partner institution staff at  \nacademic, administrative and operational levels.  \n3.4 Regular channels of communication are established and agreed between the partner institution administrative, coordination \nand academic staff.  \n3.5 Individual courses, subjects and qualifications are approved by MU and/or CUAP in accordance with procedures for course \napproval and accreditation.  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n Approval Pathways and Quality Assurance Guidelines for Domestic and International \nSubcontracting of Teaching Activity – Page 8  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  3.6 Individual courses comply with the University’s Teaching & Learning Policies including the Equivalence Policy.  \n3.7 Where necessary, the MU course has been recognized by the relevant in -country professional associations and/or \nstatutory authorities.  \n \nWhere relevant, appropriate documentary evidence of the above processes might include:  \n• Person and accountability statements for all staff involved in the subcontracting arrangement  \n• Diagrammatic representation of roles, lines of responsibility and accountabilities for MU and the partner \ninstitution  \n• Business plans  \n• Course approval documentation  \nGUIDELINE 4:  RESOURCING  \nItems for Consideration  \n4.1 Identification of appropriately qualified and experienced teaching staff available and committed to deliver the courses \naccording to agreed selection criteria both at MU and within the partner institution.  \n4.2 Administrative staff appointed by the partner institution to assist in the delivery of MU courses are approved by MU and \nhave been inducted.  \n4.3 MU has available appropriate administrative staff with adequate time and resources to service the administration needs of \nthe sub -contracted course, and are fully briefed on the processes/procedures and channels of communication.  \n4.4 All non -human resources, services and facilities at the partner institution meet appropriate standards as approved by MU \nand the partner institution.  \n4.5 The partner institution is able to provide safe, clean, ventilated premises suitable to the conduct of a MU undergraduate or \npostgraduate qualification.  \n4.6 Consultations have been held and agreement reached with the University Librarian and Director of Information \nTechnology Services regarding requirements and costings for provision of services to students and staff at the partner \ninstitution.  \n4.7 Where a qualification includes a MU campus -based study component, this component is fully documented including the \nresources required for delivery.  \n4.8 A timetable and programme of visits to the partner institution by MU teaching and coordinating staff is agreed prior to \neach semester, resourced appropriately and factored into staff workload allocations.  \n \nWhere relevant, appropriate documentary evidence of the above processes might include:  \n• Person and accountability statements for all staff involved in the subcontracting arrangement  \n• Reports on partner institution resources and facilities  \n• Library and IT resource statements  \n• Programme of visits to the partner institution  \nGUIDELINE 5:  PROMOTION & MARKETING  \nItems for Consideration  \n5.1 The nature of the award, who grants it and the MU regulations pertaining to this are agreed to by the partner institution \nand are made clear in all marketing and promotional documents.  \n5.2 Rules for advertising the programme (such as the partner institution: only being able to advertise the course with the \nwritten permission of MU; identifying MU as the registered provider in all materials; not promoting the course until it has \nbeen approved and accredited as required) are articulated including regulation of the use of each other’s name or logo \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n Approval Pathways and Quality Assurance Guidelines for Domestic and International \nSubcontracting of Teaching Activity – Page 9  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  and responsibilities for dealing with media.  \n5.3 Information to be delivered to all intending students prior to enrolment to include: a written description of course, the \ncontent and the delivery mode(s); qualification to be conferred on completion; qualification duration; teaching and \nassessment methods; details of any arrangements for credit transfer and recognition of prior learning; information about \nentry requirements; and a general description of facilities, equipment and learning resources available to students.  \n5.4 All promotional materials to include an itemized list of fees payable and the fee refunds policy.  \n5.5 A marketing and recruitment plan is developed and agreed with the partner institution.  \n5.6 Measures for monitoring and evaluating marketing efforts are established and agreed with the partner institution.  \n5.7 Arrangements are made for the sharing of tangible documentary evidence (e.g. certificates, photographs of joint \nceremonies etc) of the association between MU and the partner institution for public display in offices, exhibitions etc.  \n \nWhere relevant, appropriate documentary evidence of the above processes might include:  \n• Marketing and recruitment plans  \n• Promotional and marketing materials  \n• Student handbook or equivalent  \nGUIDELINE 6:  STAFF QUALITY, SUPPORT & DEVELOPMENT  \nItems for Consideration  \n6.1 Procedures and criteria for ensuring appropriate staff appointment, performance review and support are in place and \ncomply with MU requirements.  \n6.2 All staff (MU or partner institution) have appropriate qualifications and demonstrated experience in teaching the subject(s) \nto which they are allocated.  \n6.3 All staff have a clear understanding of their responsibilities in supporting students and are available for student \nconsultation by phone, fax or email as required.  \n6.4 MU staff are fully briefed on the relevant educational, social, economic, cultural and historical context of the partner \ninstitution prior to commencement of teaching and are aware of resources and support available to them at MU.  \n6.5 Staff in the partner institution are fully briefed on all relevant aspects of MU’s institutional culture and the MU teaching and \nassessment standards prior to commencement of teaching.  \n6.6 If the course is to be taught offshore, appropriate work visas and permits are organized for MU staff before programmes \ncommence.  \n \nWhere relevant, appropriate documentary evidence of the above processes might include:  \n• Recruitment procedures and job/person specifications (consistent with MU procedures and standards for staff \nrecruitment)  \n• List of all staff currently involved in sub -contracted course delivery with roles, responsibilities and lines of \naccountability  \n• Outlines of staff induction programmes at MU and the partner institution  \n• Process for formal and informal interactions between MU and partner institution staff  \nGUIDELINE 7:  ADMISSIONS STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES  \nItems for Consideration  \n7.1 Criteria or tests used for admission to partner institutions are equivalent to those used by MU.  \n7.2 Students admitted to subcontracted courses have appropriate language proficiency as specified in the MU Calendar or \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n Approval Pathways and Quality Assurance Guidelines for Domestic and International \nSubcontracting of Teaching Activity – Page 10  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  where relevant, the qualification regulations.  \n7.3 Assessment of all applicants’ qualifications is undertaken when these are a requirement for admission.  \n7.4 MU and the partner institution agree to a minimum and maximum number of commencing students for a cohort to be \nfinancially viable.  \n7.5 Procedures and timelines for the transfer and processing of enrolment applications are agreed by MU and the partner \ninstitution.  The following items will need to be address:  \n• Printing, transfer and the nature of the application forms  \n• Clear delegations for the completion of application forms by MU staff and partner institution staff where appropriate \nto include the collection and certification of evidence of academic qualifications, work experience and English \nproficiency  \n• Delegations for course approval  \n• Procedures for application, review and approval of RPL and credit transfer requests  \n• Procedures for the preparation and posting to students of information relating to their enrolment status; and \nnotification to MU or the partner institution (as appropriate) of this information  \n• Procedures for changes to the student’s enrolment including withdrawal procedures and procedures for re -\nenrolment  \n• Details of the collection of fees including receipt and handling of fee payments and the communication of an agreed \nfee refunds policy  \n• Graduation procedures  \n \nWhere relevant, appropriate documentary evidence of the above processes might include:  \n• Processes and timelines for managing admissions, enrolment etc  \n• Admission criteria  \n• Guidelines and procedures for RPL and credit transfer  \n• Enrolment and re -enrolment materials sent to students  \n• Student information and publications  \nGUIDELINE 8:  ASSESSMENT AND STUDENT LEARNING  \nItems for Consideration  \n8.1 Paper outlines and study guides include details of learning objectives, course content, course duration, contact details for \nstaff at the partner institution and MU, credit transfer arrangements, facilities, expected equipment levels, support and \nlearning resources, methods of study, fees, refund procedures, relevant attendance and assessment requirements, \nadvice to students on good academic practice and other such information regarding conduct and the University’s student \ngrievance procedures.  \n8.2 Teaching and learning materials are appropriate to the specific course and equivalent to those provided in the same MU \nqualification delivered at its campuses or extramurally, taking into consideration the particular needs of the contexts of \nstudents in the partner institution.  \n8.3 There is an explicit assessment and moderation policy, and procedures for ensuring the equivalence of course offerings.  \n8.4 Assessment task types, weightings and support materials are appropriate to each course.  \n8.5 Where appropriate, appointment and approval of external examiners or moderators is undertaken by MU.  \n8.6 Approval of student results is given by MU.  \n8.7 Appropriate security arrangements are made with the partner institution for ensuring correct supervision of examinations \nand assuring the security of papers, assignments and results.  \n8.8 English language academic literacy support is provided to students as appropriate.  \n \nWhere relevant, appropriate documentary evidence of the above processes might include:  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n Approval Pathways and Quality Assurance Guidelines for Domestic and International \nSubcontracting of Teaching Activity – Page 11  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  • Paper outlines  \n• Assessment and moderation procedures  \n• Documentation to show equivalency between MU and sub -contracted courses  \nGUIDELINE 9:  STUDENT SUPPORT, RECORDS AND ADMINISTRATION  \nItems for Consideration  \n9.1 Relevant course orientation and advice is planned and delivered to students enrolled for sub -contracted courses.  This \nshould cover the goals and objectives of the course, attendance and assessment requirements, delivery approaches, \nroles and obligations of MU and the partner institution, an overview of resources and access procedures, grievance \nprocedures, student obligations, assessment requirements, RPL and fee refund processes, identification of course \ncontacts and clarification of how and when course staff can be accessed.  \n9.2 Relevant MU regulations, policies and procedures are made available to students in hard copy or online.  \n9.3 Student satisfaction with the sub -contracted courses is tracked using appropriate methods and measures.  \n9.4 Students are notified of the nature and levels of access they can expect of staff, supervisors and support systems.  \n9.5 Responsibility for the provision of Student ID cards is identified and mechanisms are established to allow prompt, up to \ndate and accurate information to be uploaded to SMS.  \n9.6 Procedures for records management and the release of student results are established and agreed between MU and the \npartner institution.  \n9.7 Adequate remote access to MU library services and resources is provided including databases.  \n9.8 Students are advised of the administrative arrangements for transferring from a programme in the partner institution to the \nsame programme delivered at MU.  \n \nWhere relevant, appropriate documentary evidence of the above processes might include:  \n• Student handbook or equivalent  \n• Student records  \n• Guidelines and procedures for RPL and credit transfer  \n• Enrolment and re -enrolment materials  \n• Course orientation outlines and copies of all materials distributed to students  \n• Results of student satisfaction surveys  \nGUIDELINE 10:  COURSE MONITORING AND IMPROVEMENT  \n10.1 Partner institution has an agreed implementation tracking and improvement plan which meets MU requirements and \nshows the following indicators: demand, retention, pass and graduation rates for each year; student satisfaction data; \nand student progress reports for research degrees.  \n10.2 Responsibility for generating data on the indicators above, and developing improvement strategies is allocated.  \n10.3 Appropriate approvals and accreditation for delivering a new or revised course is gained from the appropriate bodies.  \n10.4 Procedures for course / qualification review are present and compliant with MU procedures.  \n \nWhere relevant, appropriate documentary evidence of the above processes might include:  \n• Results of student satisfaction surveys  \n• Collection and submission of performance data by MU and the partner institution on course demand, pass \nand completion rates  \n• Course income  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n Approval Pathways and Quality Assurance Guidelines for Domestic and International \nSubcontracting of Teaching Activity – Page 12  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  • Review reports  \nAudience:  \nAll University Staff  \nRelevant Legislation:  \nNone.  \nLegal Compliance  \nNil \nRelated Procedures/Documents:  \nBusiness Plan Template  \nCUAP Handbook  \nDelegations of Authority Policy  \nSubcontracting of Teaching Activity Policy  \nTeaching and Learning Policy  \nDocument Management Control:  \nPrepared by: Academic Strategy Manager  \nAuthorised by: Vice-Chancellor  \nApproved by: AB11/110 -October: 3.2.2.1  \nDate issued: 16 March 2005  \nLast review: August 2011  \nNext review: August 2014  \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Credit_Card_Policy_PDF_165_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Credit Card Policy",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "165 KB",
      "author": "Magiannis, Cathy",
      "creation_date": "2024-10-08T11:03:00",
      "modification_date": "D:20241008131753+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n \nCREDIT CARD POLICY  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \nPurpose:   \nTo define the policies  governing the use of credit cards for Massey University  (the University).  \nIntroduction:  \nUniversity procurement costs can be minimised by placing both the authority to buy and the means to pay for low value \ngoods or services or capital purchases with authorised employees. This expedites small value purchases, reduces the \nreliance on staff reimbursements and reduces the number of small payment transactions processed through the \nAccounts Payable office.  \nPolicy:  \nCredit cards can only be issued by the University’s approved credit card supplier.  \n• Staff applying for a credit card must hold a Delegation of Financial Authority (DFA) band E or higher for the relevant \nbudget centre , as stated in the Delegation Framework,  before a card is issued. Staff must be directly involved in \npurchasing  on behalf of the University  or be required to travel o verseas in the course of their duties. Staff who apply \nfor a credit card are required  to complete online training and an employee declaration . Line M anagers  are \nresponsible for ensuring staff complete this training and declaration prior to a card being issued.  \n• Credit cards will  only be issued to staff  who are permanently employed or on a fixed term contract of at least six \nmonth s. While consideration may be given to contractors, discretion for this lies solely with the Deputy Vice \nChancellor University Services  or her/his delegate , following provision of a delegated authority in line with the \nrequirements of the Delegations of Authority Policy.  \n• Resources, including how to apply for a Massey credit card, are available online  \n• For cardholders whose mont hly credit limit is up to $15,000 , the per transaction limit is the same as the monthly \ncredit limit.  For cardholders with a monthly credit limit over $15,000, the  per transaction  limit is $15,000 . \n• Subject to a known or expected need, a credit card may be requested for new employees prior to their first day. \nThe card will not be issued until the employee commences duty, has the required DFA , has undertaken training , \nand completed the employee declaration.   \n• Credit cards are to be cancelled when the cardholder is no longer employed by the University. Credit cards that  \nhave not been used for a period of six months will be reviewed for continuation  by the Review Team in consultation \nwith the CFO.  Section  Finance  \nContact  Chief Financial Officer  \nLast Review  September 2024  \nNext Review  December  2025 \nApproval  SLT 2 4/09/105  \n  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nCredit Card Policy  – Page 2  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n• The cardholder is the only person authorised to use their card. The use of the card by others is not permitte d and \nunder  no circumstance s may a card holder disclose their card  details (i.e. card number, expiry date, PIN or 3-digit \nnumber  on reverse of card ). \n• Transactions must be coded by the cardholder and approved by the approving manager.  Approvals must not be \nmade to any transactions not coded and it is the approving managers responsibility to ensure that coding is \ncompleted on time  \n• Credit cards are supplied for genuine business expenditure only and are not to be used for personal purchases.  \n• The University has arrangements with preferred suppliers  for: \n- Travel  – flights, accommodation , rental cars  – through FCM – Please note that in some instances payment for \nthe travel arrangements, particularly overseas accommodation and car hire, will need to be paid for by the \ntraveller.  This is due to some international providers  not accepting virtual credit cards or cha rgeback facilities.  \n- Computing  equipment  –to be ordered through TechOne  \n- Stationery  – to be ordered through TechOne ( OfficeMax ) \n- Fleet  vehicle fuel  – use fuel card provided in car. \nAll p urchases relating to such expenditure must  be made in accordance with those arrangements (to secure \ndiscounted rates) and not paid by other means .  Any exceptions need clearance from the relevant policy owner (i.e. \nProcurement clearance for travel/stationery , Estates for fuel and ITS for computing equipment, etc).  \n• Any purchases which attract Withholding Tax such as payment for time worked  or services , are not to be made on \na Massey Credit Card. These are to  be paid on an invoice basis with invoice and IR330C declaration  uploaded to \nCIA using invoice format APWHT. Accounts payable will then process the payment to the contractor.  Please refer \nto the Sensitive Expenditure and Gifts Procedures for further information.    \n• Authorised staff from Finance will undertake reviews of cardholder purchases on a systematic basis in ac cordance \nwith financial policies and procedures . In addition, audits will be carried out from time to time .  \n• Persons found to be in breach of this policy or  found using a University credit card to breach  related policies (such \nas Sensitive E xpenditure and Gifts Policy), may have their card cancelled , be subject to disciplinary action (including \npossible dismissal) and in the event of serious and wilful misuse  Police  may be notified.  In all cases of misuse, the \nUniversity reserves the right to recover any monies from the cardholder by appropriate legal means including \ndeduction from salary/wages. Suspected misuse will be reported to the cardholder’s manager and the CFO. Where \nserious and wilful misuse is suspected, the Director Risk and Assurance will also be notified.   \n• There  are three levels of approval in the expense management system (EMS) – BNZ FlexiPurchase :  \n- Manager 1 – responsible for approving staff reimbursement s up to and including  $5,000  \n- Manager 2 – responsible for approving credit card transactions up to and including $5,000  \n- Manager 3 – responsible for approving credit card transactions and staff reimbursement s over $5,000  \nNote : These Manager levels are specific to the EMS and may differ to other delegation levels as specified in the \nUniversity’s  Delegations of Authority Policy.  \nIf the expense is $ 200 or over, for any supplier registered for New Zealand GST, there must be an itemised GST \ninvoice/receipt. EFTPOS slips and copies of credit card statements do not meet the GST tax invoice requirements \nand are therefore not acceptable. If no GST invoice/rec eipt is obtained, reimbursement will not be paid. There is an \nexception for mileage claims where evidence of the reason for the journey is required.  \n  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nCredit Card Policy  – Page 3  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n• Internet Purchases using Credit Cards.   Credit card payments made on the internet need to reflect good \nsecurity practice, such as purchasing only from reputable companies known to the University.  The card holder \nneeds to keep a copy of any online order forms completed when making purchases.  The practice also needs to \nbe consistent with the University’s normal purchasing controls.  \n \n \nAudience:  \n \nAll Staff  \nRelevant Legislation:  \nNone  \n \nRelated Procedures and Documents:  \nCredit Card  Security Policy  \nDelegations of Authority Policy  \nSensitive Expenditure and Gifts Policy  \nSensitive Expenditure and Gifts Procedures  \nProcurement Policy  \nAsset Financial Procedures  \nFraud and Corruption Policy  \nDocument Management Control:   \nPrepared by:  Chief Financial Officer  \nOwned by:  DVC University Services  \nApproved by:  SLT 24/09/105  \nDate issued:  December  2020 \nLast review:  September 2024  \nNext review:   December  2025 \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Academic_Integrity_Procedures_for_Managing_Student_Breaches_PDF_217_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Academic Integrity Procedures for Managing Student Breaches",
      "policy_type": "Procedure",
      "file_size": "217 KB",
      "author": "Fiona Coote",
      "creation_date": "2024-08-22T09:02:00",
      "modification_date": "D:20240823141021+12'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n_____________________________________________________________________________  \n \nACADEMIC INTEGRITY  PROCEDURES  FOR MANAGING STUDENT BREACHES  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nPurpose  \nThese Procedures describe the way the University  manage s instances where  academic integrity  may have been \nbreached . The Procedures  seek to balanc e a primarily  educative approach to correct behaviour that is inconsistent \nwith academic integrity  standards , with a  disciplinary approach which  is transparent, fair, and equitable.  The \nProcedures support the Academic Integrity Policy  and should be read alongside that Policy.  \nScope  \nThese Procedures apply to all types and categories of suspected or alleged breaches of academic integrity , and to \nall students of Massey University and  impose responsibilities on Massey  University staff . Under the Code of \nResponsible Research Conduct , these Procedures also apply to  Minor Breaches of research  integrity and Research \nMisconduct  by Students . \nDefinitions  \nAcademic integrity : a guiding principle of academic life, which refers to acting with the values of honesty, respect, \ntrust, responsibility and fairness in all academic activity, outputs, and relations with others.  \nAcademic Integrity Officer (AIO) : Staff who are appointed by their respective Pro Vice -Chancellor or the Dean: \nResearch, with delegated authority to manage suspected breaches of academic integrity, support staff with  advice \nand assistance in all matters pertaining to academic integrity, and ensure that rules pertaining to academic integrity \nare applied consistently and fairly.  \nAcademic Misconduct :  a breach of academic integrity when :  \n• any one or more of the criteria used to categorise the breach, namely the experience of the student, the \nnature of the breach or the extent of the breach, is higher than in the case of a Minor Breach ; or \n• none of the criteria used to categorise the breach is higher than in the case of a Minor Breach, but the \ncumulative impact of a combination of any of those three criteria are considered to be higher than a Minor \nBreach.  \nAllegation : refers to a stated concern that a student or staff member has possibly breached academic integrity.  \nAny reference to the Policy  means the Academic Integrity Policy .  \nAny reference to the Procedures means the Academic Integrity: P rocedures for Managing Student Breache s.  \nAny reference to the Regulations  refers to the Student Disciplinary Regulations . Section  Academic   \nContact  Provost  \nLast Review  April 2024  \nNext Review  April 2027 \nApproval  AB24 -05-71 \nEffective from  May 2024  \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nAcademic Integrity: Procedures for Managing Student Breaches – Page 2 \n____________________________________________________________________________  \n \nArtificial intelligence : refers to the simulation of human intelligence processed by machines or computer systems. It \nincludes the ability of a computer, or a robot or software controlled by a computer, to do tasks that are usually done \nby humans because they require human intel ligence and discernment, such as the ability to reason, discover \nmeaning, generalise, or learn from past experiences.  \nBalance of Probabilit ies refers to the standard of proof used to determine whether an alleged breach of academic \nintegrity has occurred. It means that the decision -maker must be satisfied, on the evidence, that the alleged behaviour \nor event was more likely than not to have occurred . \nContract Cheating : involves students outsourcing their academic work (e.g. coursework, assessments, tests, exams) \nto a third party, whether that is a commercial provider, current or former student, family member or acquaintance, to \ncomplete on their behalf (in whole or in part), and which they then submit as if they created it themselves. It includes \nunauthorised use of file -sharing sites and  arranging for another person to take an examination for the student.  \nGenerative artificial intelligence : a non -human adaptive tool or mechanism that can autonomously generate text, \nimages, audio, video , or anything else that resembles human created content.  \nInvestigation : means the process of identification,  collection , and analysis  of relevant evidence to assess whether a \nbreach of academic integrity may have occurred, and to inform next steps . \nMinor Breach :  a breach of academic integrity when any of the criteria used to categorise the breach, namely the \nexperience of the student, the nature of the breach or the extent of the breach, is higher than in the case of Poor \nAcademic Practice but none reach the threshold of Academic Misconduct as set out in the Procedures . \nMisconduct Register : a centrally held , confidential register of all cases where students have been found to have \ncommitted a Minor Breach, Academic Misconduct, or Non -academic Misconduct. Access to the Misconduct Register \nis restricted to authorised staff only, who will provide specific information to an AIO or the University Pro ctor, upon \nrequest, regarding any record in respect of a particular student who has been found to have committed a Minor \nBreach, Academic Misconduct, or Non -academic Misconduct, in order for the AIO or University Proct or to take that \nrecord into account when determining an appropriate outcome in the subsequent case.  \nPoor Academic Practice : an inadvertent and minor deviation from appropriate academic integrity practice or \nconvention, below the level of Minor Breach or Academic Misconduct, where there is no  or little  discernible intention \nto deceive or derive an unfair advantage, and which could be suitably addressed through an educative intervention, \nincluding an adjustment to the assigned marks for the applicable assessment.  \nStaff or staff member  includes any person who is engaged by Massey University as an employee or worker and/or \nwho holds a university  office or post, as well as any person to whom the University makes available any of the \nprivileges or facilities normally afforded to its employees. This includes academic visitors and other classes of \ntemporary, honorary,  and volunteer staff, and applies to graduate students, whether paid or unpaid, when teaching \nor undertaking teaching -related duties at the University.  \nStudent  in this policy refers to:  \na)   a person who is enrolled in a programme of study (including courses, specialisation, qualifications, short \ncourses,  and micro -credentials) at the University.  \nb)   a person who was a student at the time of any alleged breach of academic integrity.  \nc)   a person who is seeking admission or enrolment at the University.  \nd)   a person who became a student after having allegedly done so by misleading or false means.  \ne)   a person who has consented in writing to be subject to the statutes, regulations,  and policies of the University \nas a student.  \nf)   a person who is on suspension or leave of absence from or who has deferred enrolment in a programme of \nstudy (including courses, specialisation, qualifications, short courses,  and micro -credentials) at the \nUniversity.  \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nAcademic Integrity: Procedures for Managing Student Breaches – Page 3 \n_____________________________________________________________________________  \nUniversity Proctor :  the person who is designated by the University to provide advice and support to staff in relation \nto Academic Misconduct  and Non -academic Misconduct , and to investigate cases of possible  Academic Misconduct \nor Non -academic Misconduct when such an Investigation is referred to the University Proctor.  \nDetecting possible breaches of academic integrity  \nStaff or examination invigilators may use different detection strategies to  identify po ssible  breaches of academic \nintegrity. Those  include:  \n• noting clear evidence of possible breaches of academic integrity.  \n• using their professional judgement.  \n• comparing a student’s work against previous works submitted by that student.  \n• using search engine(s) to check  phrase s or references.  \n• making use of content matching , detection,  or authenticity soft ware.  \nTo assist in the verification process to determine whether a  breach  of academic integrity has occurred or not , \nstudents may be required to:  \n• discuss or explain components of their assessment tasks . \n• authenticate their work  on the assessment task, for example, by showing notes/drafts/resource materials \nused in the preparation of the task , or prompts/interactions with artificial intelligence software.  \nCriteria for determining the category  of an alleged breach of academic integrity.  \nThere are three categories within which breaches of academic integrity could fall, namely Poor Academic Practice, \nMinor Breach, and Academic Misconduct. T he category determines the process to be followed.  \nThere are three criteria for determining the category of an alleged breach of academic integrity, namely the \nexperience of the student, the nature of the breach, and the extent of the breach.  Categorisation often requires \nqualitative judgement which takes context and situational factors into account . Notwithstanding,  the table in \nAppendix 1  provides guidance for determining the applicable criteria and category in respect of each allegation . \n1. Experience of the student  \nExperience  refers  to students ’ length of time at Massey University ( and/or at another university) , and any \nengagement, training,  or other exposure they may have had with academic integrity.  A student’s experience  \nmay reasonably be expected to inform their understanding of academic integrity and the required academic \nintegrit y conventions  they are expected to comply with . \n2. Nature of the breach  \nThe nature of the breach refers to the type  of student activity or behaviour that does not conform to acceptable \nacademic integrity standards, and whether it involves mistake, carelessness, negligence, disregard,  or wilful \nintent. The nature of the breach  also refers to whether the  breach  occur s in an assignment, test, examination, \nor other form of assessment, or in research. Generally, efforts  to deceive will be considered to indicate a higher \nlevel or more serious breach of academic integrity, whereas unintentional or careless mistake (s) would, in \nmany  cases, be considered lower in level or seriousness.  \n3. Extent of the breach  \nThe extent of the breach relates  to the scale, degree,  or impact of the alleged breach of academic integrity on \nthe integrity of the work or the interests of someone else or the University. The extent of a breach may depend \non the context, convention , or expectations that may apply  in a particular  situation. For that reason,\n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nAcademic Integrity: Procedures for Managing Student Breaches – Page 4  \n_____________________________________________________________________________  \nprofessional judgement is often required to determine the extent of a breach. Staff may use s imilarity index score s \nfrom suitable software, or other suitable detection techniques to support their judgement.   \nReporting possible breaches of academic integrity  \nWhere an allegation is made that a breach of academic integrity is suspected or has occurred, the matter must be \nreported in the first instance to the applicable course coordinator for the course in which the breach is alleged to have \noccurred or is suspec ted. Where an allegation is made later than one year after the occurrence of the alleged \nAcademic Misconduct, the allegation may only be considered with the consent of the applicable Pro Vice -Chancellor.  \nWhen dealing with allegations of breaches of academic integrity, the course coordinator must determine whether the \ncase may be considered Poor Academic Practice, and if so, deal with the case as directed in these Procedures.  \nWhere the course coordinator is of the opinion that the matter ought to be dealt with as either a Minor Breach or \nAcademic Misconduct, the matter must be referred to the AIO of the College or Unit within which the  applicable \ncourse is being offered. The AIO will in that case determine whether the matter should be dealt with as either Poor \nAcademic Practice, Minor Breach, or Academic Misconduct.  \nWhere any report or allegation is under investigation at the time of approval of these Procedures , and in the absence \nof an agreement between the parties to follow the procedures set out in these Procedures , the procedures as set out \nin the previously approved version of the Procedures  in effect at the time when the report or allegation was made, \nwill be followed.  \nProcedural fairness  \nThe principles of procedural fairness (also referred to as natural justice) apply to managing and investigating po ssible  \nbreaches of academic integrity . These principles encapsulate the hearing rule ( providing  an opportunity to be heard), \nthe rule against bias (decision -makers  are impartial, unbiased, and ha ve not made a ny predetermination ) and the \nevidence rule (decisions are based on evidence). It is expected that staff consider , investigate,  and deal with possible  \nbreaches of academic integrity  in a timely, accessible, culturally safe, and competent manner , and in a way that  is: \n• Proportional : Investigations and subsequent actions , including the outcome imposed,  need to be proportional \nto the alleged breach.  In determining  that a breach of academic integrity or  academic misconduct occurred, \nthe finding must be based on the evidence  considered, and on a Balance of Probabilit ies. \n• Fair: Investigations need to afford procedural fairness to students and, where appropriate, staff and others who \nmay be adversely affected by any investigation. Students must  be advised of their right to be represent ed and \nsupport ed by a person or persons of their choice  during the process . \n• Impartial : Investigators and decision -makers must  be impartial and must therefore  not have any prior \nknowledge or  any interests that do, may, or may  be perceived to jeopardise their impartiality. They must also \nact in a way that  upholds specific individual and cultural needs or circumstances of the parties . \n• Timely : Investigations into po ssible  breaches should be conducted in a timely manner to avoid undue delays , \nand to mitigate the impact on those involved .  \n• Transparent : Information about  the complaint(s) , evidence  and p rocess must  be provided to students , staff, \nand any other persons impacted  by an allegation , and they must be afforded a  reasonable  opportunity to  \nrespond to the allegation(s) . Accurate records are to be maintained for all parts of the process, in accordance \nwith the University’s  record keeping system (as defined in the Information Records Management Policy ).  \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nAcademic Integrity: Procedures for Managing Student Breaches – Page 5  \n_____________________________________________________________________________  \n• Confidential : Information will be treated as confidential and will only be disclosed:  \no when required by law, regulation, or legal process . \no to university staff who may have a legitimate need to know such information for the purpose of fulfilling \ntheir duties ; or \no when the student consents to disclosure  \n \nPoor Academic Practice  \nOn receiving a report  or allegation  of a suspected breach of academic integrity , a course coordinator  may, after \nconsideration of all available evidence,  determine whether  the student has engaged in Poor Academic Practice . The \ncourse coordinator may seek advice from the A IO if necessary.  \nThe following examples (which are not exhaustive) may generally be regarded as Poor Academic Practice , where \nnone of the criteria reach the threshold to be classified as  either Minor Breach or  Academic Misconduct : \n• Minor amounts of inadequate paraphrasing .  \n• Mistake s or carelessness with regard to referencing , copying, or crediting . \n• Actions regarded as unintentional or naïve . \n• Flawed attempt to demonstrate academic integrity . \n• Over -reliance on model or sample answers . \nWhere the course coordinator determines that the student has engaged  in Poor Academic Practice, the course \ncoordinator must :  \n• provide the student in writing with:  \no details of the  Poor Academic Practice.  \no copies of all available evidence relating to the alleged Poor Academic Practice.  \no educative feedback for learning, in order that the  student  can correct their behaviour in future ; and \no an outcome determined by the course coordinator in accordance with Appendix 2.  \n• communicate the  outcome  to any additional relevant staff for action as required.   \n \nThere is no appeal against a n outcome managed as Poor Academic Practice. Any student who wishes to challenge \nsuch a decision must use the  mechanisms for reconsideration of assessed grades , or the process  for student \ncomplaints and grievances set out in the Student Complaint s and Grievance Procedures .  \n \nCopies of t he notice of an y meeting  with the student , all relevant evidence collected , all correspondence , and the \nletter  informing the student of the outcome  must be kept in accordance with the requirements set out in  the \nUniversity’s Information Records Management P olicy. \nMinor Breach  \nA Minor Breach  refers to a breach of academic integrity that is more  significant than Poor Academic Practice  based \non the criteria outlined above , and which do es not reach the threshold for Academic M isconduct.  \nThe following examples (which are not exhaustive ) may generally be regar ded as Minor Breaches , where none of \nthe criteria  reach the threshold to be classified as Academic Misconduct :  \n• Minor disregard or negligence in appropriate paraphrasing or referencing.  \n• A minor but noteworthy portion of an assignment or assessment is compromised.  \n• Minor use of generative artificial intelligence  without proper disclosure . \n• Minor disregard of assessment instructions.  \n• Evidence of the breach relies mainly on the testimony of another person (a witness).\n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nAcademic Integrity: Procedures for Managing Student Breaches – Page 6  \n_____________________________________________________________________________  \nCases involving a Minor Breach  are managed by the AIO at the applicable College  or academic unit  within which the  \ncourse or program in which the alleged Minor Breach occurred  was offered . In cases involving more than one College \nor academic unit, where practicable, the applicable AIOs will consult one another to determine  whether it is practical \nand fair for all matters to be resolved through a single process, and if so, wh ich AIO  will be assigned to manage that \nprocess , or to  resolve the respective cases separately . \nWhen a  course coordinator notifies the AIO of an alleged breach  of academic integrity which is in their view more \nserious than Poor Academic Practice , and provides any evidence they have found in relation to the alleged breach , \nthe A IO consider s the allegation, evidence, the nature and extent of the alleged breach, and the experience of the \nstudent, and determine s whether:  \n• the case should be managed as Poor Academic Practice, in which case it should  be referred back to the course \ncoordinator for management as such, with advice if required ,  \n• the case should be managed as a Minor Breach.  \n• the case should be managed as Academic Misconduct.  \nWhere the AIO determines that the case shall be managed as a Minor Breach, the AIO must complete any further \ninvestigation that may be required. Once the AIO is satisfied that the evidence that has been collected su pports  a \npossible Minor Breach, the AIO must:  \n• notify the student in writing . \n• provide the student with details of the allegation and copies of all evidence collected during the investigation \nin relation to the allegation . \n• invite the student to a virtual or in -person meeting with the AIO to discuss the Minor Breach which is alleged \nor suspected to have occurred ; and  \n• inform the student of the principles of procedural fairness that will apply , including their right to have  a support \nperson (s) of their choice at the meeting . \nThe aim of the meeting is to discuss  the allegation, evidence, process,  and possible outcomes with the student, and \nto allow the student to respond to it  if they wish to do so . The AIO may need to investigate further if the student has \nbrought new evidence during this discussion . The AIO should also use  the meeting to help the student identify gaps \nin their skills or knowledge that may have led to the Minor Breach , and to then impose (after considering all the \nevidence) an educative outcome that will facilitate learning and appropriate academic integrity behaviour by the \nstudent in the future.   \nThe AIO may only find that a Minor Breach occurred where the evidence substantiates the allegation on a Balance \nof Probabilit ies. \nWhere the student does not respond to the allegation, does not attend the meeting, or does not provide any \nrepresentations or evidence, the AIO must determine a finding and outcome on the available evidence.  \nThe AIO may, only after they have made a finding that a Minor Breach had occurred, verify from the Misconduct \nRegister  whether the student has been found to have  committed a breach of academic integrity  before , and this \ninformation may be taken into account when determining an appropriate outcome in that case.  \nWhere the AIO finds that the evidence substantiates a Minor Breach, details of the case including the finding and \noutcome must be recorded in Misconduct  Register.  The AIO must also inform the student in writing of the finding and \noutcome, as well as their right to appeal.  \nIf the AIO finds that the evidence does not substantiate a Minor Breach, the AIO must inform the student accordingly \nin writing. Such a case will not be recorded in the Misconduct  Register.\n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nAcademic Integrity: Procedures for Managing Student Breaches – Page 7  \n_____________________________________________________________________________  \nCopies of the notice of any meeting with the student, all relevant evidence collected , and all correspondence  including  \nthe letter informing the student of the outcome, must be kept in accordance with the requirements under the \nUniversity’s Information Records Management Policy . \nThe AIO must advise applicable staff of the outcome, in order for it to be actioned . \n \nAppeals against a Minor Breach finding and/or outcome.  \nA student who was found to have committed a Minor Breach may appeal against the finding and/or outcome of that \ndecision, in writing, and within ten (10) working days of the date of the decision. The appeal against a decision by \nthe AIO must be made to the Pro Vice -Chancellor  or equivalent  of the relevant College, or to the Dean: Research in \nthe case of doctoral students.  \nAn appeal may only be made on one or more of the following grounds , and is not intended to allow a mere \nreconsideration of the case by a different decision -making entity:  \na) that the process for investigating  the allegation  and/or determining the outcome  was procedurally unfair.  \nb) that the finding could not be reasonably sustained on the evidence , on a balance of probabilities . \nc) that the outcome imposed is disproportionate to the Minor Breach.  \nd) that significant new evidence, which was not reasonably available before, has become available since the \ndecision  that is being appealed against , and which could  reasonably be expected to have a material effect \non the finding or outcome.  \nDecisions on appeals will be based exclusively on the consideration of written submissions and supporting evidence \nprovided to the relevant Pro Vice -Chancellor  or equivalent  by or on behalf of the student making the appeal , and the \nUniversity. Oral submissions will not be permitted unless in exceptional cases. To initiate an appeal, a student must \nsubmit a written appeal which includes a n explanation of the grounds for appeal, along with any supporting evidence.  \nWhere the relevant Pro Vice -Chancellor  or equivalent  or Dean: Research has prior knowledge of the case, they shall \nnot adjudicate the appeal, and the appeal shall in such a case be referred to the Pro Vice -Chancellor in a different \nCollege, who does not have prior knowledge or interest in the case, to adjud icate.  \nThe Pro Vice -Chancellor or equivalent or Dean: Research adjudicating the appeal may:  \na) determine that the grounds for appeal are not met, and dismiss the appeal, or  \nb) determine that the grounds for appeal are met, and:  \ni. uphold  the appeal and set aside the AIOs decision.  \nii. dismiss the appeal and uphold the AIOs decision.  \niii. vary the AIO’s decision; or  \niv. vary the outcome to any of the possible outcomes relating to a Minor Breach outlined in Appendix 2.  \nThe decision of the Pro Vice -Chancellor or equivalent or Dean: Research shall be the final decision and  shall be \nnotified to the student in writing.  \nAcademic Misconduct  \nAcademic Misconduct refers to a breach of academic integrity when any of the three criteria used to categorise \nacademic integrity breaches (namely the experience of the student, the nature of the breach, and the extent of the \nbreach ), or a combination of any of the three , are higher than a Minor Breach. Appendix 1 provides guidelines for \nmaking such a determination.  \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nAcademic Integrity: Procedures for Managing Student Breaches – Page 8  \n_____________________________________________________________________________  \nThe following examples (which are not exhaustive ) may  generally be regarded as  Academic Misconduct , where any \nof the criteria reach the threshold to be classified as Academic Misconduct : \n• intention to deceive . \n• deliberate dishonesty . \n• any form of contract cheating . \n• plagiarism that is not minor in terms of its nature or extent . \n• postgraduate or doctoral research misconduct.  \n• falsification or fabrication of data.  \nAcademic Misconduct , including appeals relating to Academic Misconduct,  is managed in accordance with the \nprocess described in the Student Disciplinary Regulations , which has precedence in case of  inconsistencies between \nthe Procedures  and the Student Disciplinary Regulation s.  \nWhere an AIO determines that a n alleged  breach of academic integrity may meet the criteria for Academic \nMisconduct, the AIO may contact the University Proctor for support and guidance. The AIO may either manage the \ncase themselves, or may refer the case to the University Proctor for investigation and management where:  \n• the case may involve procedural or substantive complexities; or  \n• the commission of a crime is alleged; or  \n• the allegation is made against a doctoral candidate . \nRecord keeping   \nRecords of all documents relating to cases managed as Poor Academic Practice, Minor Breach, or Academic \nMisconduct must be kept securely and confidentially in accordance with the requirements set out in the University’s \nInformation Records Management Policy . This includes:  \n• copies of the notice of any allegation(s)  \n• record of any  meeting (s) with the student . \n• all relevant evidence collected , and correspondence . \n• any documents provided by the student in response to allegations and evidence.  \n• the letter (s) informing the student of the finding and outcome . \n• all documents relating to an appeal.  \nThose records will be disposed of in accordance with the General Disposal Authority  for New Zealand Universities . \nInformation relating to  all cases where students have been found to have committed a Minor Breach or Academic \nMisconduct will be recorded in the Misconduct Register. The Misconduct Register will be centrally managed, and \naccess to it will be restricted to authorised staff only. AIOs and the University Proctor must, at the time when the \nstudent is notified of the outcome , provide details of every case to be recorded in the Misconduct Register to the staff \nmember authorised to manage the Misconduct Register.  \nAudience  \n \nAll staff and students  \n \nRelevant legislation  \n \nOfficial Information Act 1982  \nPrivacy Act 2020  \nPublic Records Act 2005\n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nAcademic Integrity: Procedures for Managing Student Breaches – Page 9  \n_____________________________________________________________________________  \nRelated policies and procedures  \n \nAcademic Integrity Policy  \nCode of Ethical Conduct for Research, Teaching and Evaluations Involving Human Participants  \nCode of Ethical Conduct for the Use of Animals for Research, Testing and Teaching  \nCode of Responsible Research Conduct  \nGeneral Disposal Authority for New Zealand Universities  \nInformation Records Management Policy  \nIntellectual Property Policy  \nKaupapa Here Aratohu/Code of Student Conduct  \nPaerangi: Massey University Learning and Teaching Plan \nStudent Disciplinary Regulations  \nTā te Tauira Kirimana/Student Contract  \n \n \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nAcademic Integrity: Procedures for Managing Student  Breaches – Page 10 \n____________________________________________________________________________  \n \nAppendix 1:  Determining the Category of Breach   \nThe table below provides  broad guidance for determining  the category of an alleged breach of academic integrity. \nStaff determining the appropriate  category of breach are required to exercise their own judgement  based on the \nspecific circumstances of the case under consideration  and the guidance provided in this  table.   \n \n Poor Academic Practice  Minor Breach  Academic Misconduct  \n \n \n \nExperience  \nof the  \nStudent  • Pre-degree or \nundergraduate students in \ntheir first year of study, or \npostgraduate students in \ntheir first semester of study \nin New Zealand  \n• No prior instructions or \nguidance received.  \n• Lack of understanding of \nacceptable academic \npractice  • Pre-degree  or \nundergraduate student not in \nfirst year of study, or \npostgraduate student not in \nfirst semester of study  in \nNew Zealand  \n• Student could reasonably be \nexpected to understand \nacceptable academic \npractice – e.g. received \ninstructions/guidance/support  • Pre-degree or \nundergraduate student not in \nfirst year of study, or \npostgraduate student not in \nfirst semester of study  in \nNew Zealand  \n• Doctoral candidates  \n• Master’s  thesis or \npostgraduate research report \nstudents  \n \n \n \nNature  \nof the  \nBreach  \n \n \n \n • Coursework or assignment  \n• Mistake or carelessness \nwith regard to referencing, \ncopying, paraphrasing,  or \ncrediting.  \n• Actions regarded as \nunintentional or naïve.  \n• Flawed attempt to \ndemonstrate academic \nintegrity.  \n• Over -reliance on model or \nsample answers  • Coursework , assignment , \ntest, or exam  \n• Negligence or disregard in \napplying acceptable \nacademic practice  or \ninstructions , including \nreferencing, copying, \nparaphrasing, crediting , or \nuse of artificial intelligence.   \n• Unauthorised collaboration  \n• Duplicating existing work \nwithout acknowledgement  \n• Unfair advantage over other \nstudents  • Coursework, assignment, \ntest, or exam  \n• Intent to deceive, or \ndeliberate dishonesty.  \n• Presenting data obtained \nimproperly.  \n• Research Misconduct  \n• Misrepresenting academic \nrecords or achievements  \n• Commission of a crime  \n• Falsification or fabrication of \ndata \n• Submitting work done (in part \nor whole) by someone else or \nby technology or software \n(e.g. contract cheating; \nartificial intelligence)  when \nthis was not permitted  \n \n \n \nExtent  \nof the  \nBreach  \n \n \n \n • Little impact on integrity of \nthe work  \n• Minor portion of the  \nassessment involved.  \n• No impact on i nterests of \nothers  \n• Minor d eviation from \nacademic conventions or  \nassessment instructions  • Moderate  portion of the \nassessment involved.  \n• Moderate  impact on integrity \nof the work  \n• Minor impact on interests of \nothers  \n• The work does not represent \na fair reflection of the \nstudent’s learning  • Involves more than one \nassessment or a major \nportion of a single \nassessment, or an \nassessment that contributes \nsignificantly to a qualification \n(e.g. thesis , high % value ) \n• Major impact on the integrity \nof the work  \n• Legitimate interests of others \nmay be impacted.  \n• Student’s actions are \ndeserving of disciplinary \nsanction  rather than or in \naddition to  an educative \noutcome.  \n• Reputation of the University, \nCollege or Unit may be \nimpacted  \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nAcademic Integrity: Procedures for Managing Student Breaches – Page 11 \n____________________________________________________________________________________________  \n \n Appendix 2:  Determining the Outcome  \nThe possible outcome s available  for each  category  of academic integrity breach  are shown in the diagram  below. \nThe options  increase in severity in line with the increase in breach category.   \nThe outcome should seek to balance a primarily educative approach to correct behaviour that is inconsistent with \nacademic integrity standards, with a disciplinary approach which is transparent, fair, and equitable . \n \nExclusion from the University  \nAcademic  Misconduct :  \nAcademic Integrity Officer  or University Proctor  Period of suspension from the University  \nFail the course  in which the breach occurred  \nMinor Breach  \nAcademic Integrity Officer  or University Proctor  Zero for the whole assess ment  in which the breach occurred  \nReduced mark (up to  zero) for the assessment component  in \nwhich the breach occurred , or for a whole  assessment  where \nthe assessment makes out less than 5% of the course mark.  \n(This outcome may not be given on compulsory assessment items where a fail \ngrade or a zero mark would effectively result in the student failing the whole \ncourse)  \nPoor Academic Practice  \nCourse coordinator  Repeat the assessment (in whole or in  part) with or without  a \nreduced maximum mark  \nRecommendation to undertake an appropriate learning support \nactivity  \nRemedial/educative advice  \nWarning  \nDismiss  the allegation as not proved, or for being trivial or \nvexatious  \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Contract_Management_Procedures_PDF_240_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Contract Management Procedures",
      "policy_type": "Procedure",
      "file_size": "240 KB",
      "creation_date": "2022-04-27T09:04:09",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220101207+13'00'"
    },
    "content": "Massey University Policy  Guide  \nContract Management P rocedures  – Page  1 \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n \n \nSection  Procurement and Contract s Group  \nContact  Strategic Sourcing Manager  \nLast Review  July 2019  \nNext Review  December  2022  \nApproval  SLT 19/07/113  \nScope  \nThe following are excluded from th ese Procedures : \n• Construction contracts that are managed through tiered supplier panels (these contracts incorporate \nKPIs and performance management in accordance with a Performance Evaluation Framework  through \nProject Governance ); \n• Employment contracts;  \n• Researc h contracts;  \n• Non-binding Memoranda of Understanding  (NB – advice should be sort from the Procurement and \nContracts Group if there is uncertainty as to the  legal status of the Memoranda).  \n \nOther than listed above, these procedures  applies to all contracts, and other documents, which create legally \nbinding obligations on Massey University (Massey) including, but not limited to, procurement contracts for the \nsupply of goods and services.  This Policy will apply to a contract until co ntractual obligations have concluded.  \n \nThese procedures relate to a subset of the M assey  Procurement Guidelines documented in the Procurement \nand Contracts Governance Board’s Terms of Reference .  They relate to the “Manage” Sections 7 - Manage \nContract and  Relationships, and 8 - Review . \n \nThe Procurement Lifecycle  \nThis quick reference guide is based on the procurement lifecycle which separates procurement \ninto three phases: planning, sourcing and managing. These phases are further divided into eight \ndistinc t, but interrelated stages which  are: \n1. Initiate  project  \n2. Identify needs and analyse the  market  \n3. Specify  requirements  \n4. Plan approach to market and  evaluation  \n5. Approach market and select  supplier  \n6. Negotiate and award  contract  \n7. Manage contract and  relationships  \n8. Review  \n   \nCONTRACT MANAGEMENT P ROCEDURES  \n\nMassey University Policy  Guide  \nContract Management P rocedures  – Page  2 \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n Process  \nThe process for these procedures is documented in the following diagram.  \n \n \n \nSigned Contract  \nThese procedures commence once a contract has been signed.  The contract is to be recorded in the \nMassey  contracts register.  \n \nScope  \nThese procedures come into force once a new contract (within the scope of Massey’s  Contract \nManagement Policy ) has been signed.  In addition, existing contracts that have been in operation prior \nto these procedures coming into f orce, become subject to them at the first contract review.  \n \nContract Management Plan  \nA high -level Contract Management Plan must be created to guide focus and activity for the life of the \ncontract.  A Contract Management Plan enables the Contract Manager  to: \n• Ensure continuity of the supply or services . \n• Develop a good understanding of the contract and the responsibilities of  the parties involved . \n• Understand key risks and their management . \n• Understand the framework in which the performance of both parties will be monitored.  \n \nThe level of detail included in your Contract Management Plan will vary, depending on the nature of the \ngoods or services being purchased.  It is expected many of the required aspects will have been identified \nas part of the procurement process.  A template to assist the planning is available on the Procurement \nand Contracts Intranet site .  \n \nMonitoring  and R eporting  \nMonitoring of service delivery ensures that the service is being delivered as agreed, to the required level \nof performance and quality.  \n• The Contract Manager  and the Other Party  must agree a timeline and process for implementation / \ndelivery  and review.  This is important for  large and complex contracts.  The process may be set \nout in the contract itself, or in the Contract Management Plan.  \n• The Contract Manager  must note key performance indicators and arrange  to ensure that \nperformance is being  measured and monitored.   All meetings should be minuted.  \n  \n\nMassey University Policy  Guide  \nContract Management P rocedures  – Page  3 \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n • Conside rations should/may also include : \n- Deliverables against specification ; \n- Charges against contract price ; \n- Quality again st KPIs and/or agreed standards ; \n- Identifying opportuniti es for cost or efficiency gains ; \n- Supplier’s overall performance ; \n- Identification of lessons learned ; \n- Massey’s performance in meeting its obligations under the contract.  \n \nContract Manager s will be required to report annually on contract performance for contracts valued at \ngreater than $100,000 per annum to the  Procurement and Contracts Governance Board ( PCGB ).  \nStandardised reports will be supplied to facilitate this activity.  \n \nAnnual Review , Contract Renewal or Variation  \nThe Contract Manager  is responsible for ensuring an annual review of the contract is carried out.   It is \nrecognised these reviews may lead to a contract renewal or variation.  \n \nWhere contracts are registered as critical, the Contract Manager  must seek guidance from the relevan t \nContract Specialist assigned from the Procurement and Contracts Group .  \n \nThis is advisably done as a two -step process:  \n• Initial review conducted internally with key stakeholders.   This allows the Contract Manager  to \ngain an appreciation for contract deliv ery, contract performance and opportunities for contract \nenhancement.  \n• Formal review with the Contracted Party.  This is a key part of the Contract Management \nProcedure s and the opportunity to ensure the core focus areas of the Massey  contract framework \ncan be discussed and advanced.  \no Value for money - Contracts supply value for money for Massey.  \no Win/win  - Contract management is win/win fostering mutually beneficial long -term \nrelationships with suppliers.  \no Effective management - Contracts are managed effectively.  \n \nClose Out  \nIf a contract is being terminated  or been completed  a contract close out process is to be followed.   The \nContract Manager  performs this process and the close out process needs to be commensurate with the \nnature (size, criticality)  of the contract.  A formal record should be kept.  Key aspects that should be \nchecked include:  \n• Have all the required contract outcomes and obligations been delivered?  \n• Have Massey’s  material s, equipment or other resources used or generated duri ng the life of the \ncontract been returned?  \n• Have access arrangements been terminated?  \n• Has an evaluation of the contract been undertaken and any lessons learned documented and \nshared?  \n• Has the contractor’s performance been evaluated, properly documented and f eedback provided \nto the contractor?  \n \nMassey University Policy  Guide  \nContract Management P rocedures  – Page  4 \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n Relationship Management  \nThe Contract Manager  is responsible for building an effective relationship with the contracted party.  The \nContract Manager  may appoint a liaison person to act as their delegate.  \n \nContract Manage rs’ should ensure they hold regular meetings with the Other Party  to discuss overall  \nperformance,  achievement of objectives and key performance indicators and each party’s adherence to \nthe contractual terms.  The format, frequency and venue of these meetin gs will be dependent upon the \nnature of  the contract and should be d ocumented in the Contract Management Plan .  Minutes and file \nnotes of such meetings must  be kept and added to the c ontract file.  \n \nIf a material issue arises that has potential to create ri sk of any type for Massey, the Contract Manager  \nmust advise their manager and review the matter with the applicable Responsible Area to ascertain what \naction (if any) needs to be taken.  \n \nIf disputes arise,  they should be dealt with proactively and in accor dance with the dispute resolution \nclauses  included in the contract. The initial responsibility for dispute resolution is with the Contract \nManager  and the  appointed representative of the Other Party .  If resolution is not possible and a disp ute \nis likely to escalate, this must be advised immediately  to the Contract Owner .  The Director of Risk and \nAssurance must be  advised of any contract dispute that may involve the chance of legal action between \nthe parties as soon as this  is considered a p ossibility.  \n \nRecords Management  \nContracts and all associated documents are classified as Vital Records.  Storage, archival and retention \nof contracts and associated documents  must be in accordance with the record keeping requirements of \nMassey, as detailed in the Records Management intranet site . \n \nDisposal of Contracts and Contract related records must be undertaken in accordance with Massey’s  \nGeneral Disposal Authority  (GDA).   See the Records Management intranet site for specific information.  \n \nGeneral Contract Management Guidelines  \nIt is recognised that each contract and its management is idiosyncratic and it is not pos sible, or desirable, to \ncreate procedures that can be blindly followed.  It is expected that Contract Owners, Contract Manager s and \nContract Specialists exercise professional judgement , allowing M assey  to reap the intended benefits from \nmanaging contracts well.  \n \nThe following ar e guidelines  \n• Do not make any verbal agreements with suppliers.  Only written contracts should be entered into.  \n• Contracts can be complex and raise different issues, therefore  it is important that staff seek advice \nand help where needed.  \n• Do not assume that there is a shared understanding after a discussion.  It is always best to discuss \nand back it up in writing to confirm.  \n• Formal directions, approvals, requests for variation etc., should be in writing to create a physical trail.  \n• Commence contract management  in a formal manner with the Contracted Party.  It is easier to allow \na level of informality if a win -win relationship is developed based on high performance.  \n• Address concerns or performance issues as soon as they are known.  Make formal notes for \ndiscussi on and recordkeeping purposes.  \n  \nMassey University Policy  Guide  \nContract Management P rocedures  – Page  5 \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n • Contract Manager s should be suitably experienced. Formal qualifications are not essential but \nManagers of Contract Manager s should ensure training is provided to Contract Manager s to ensure \ntheir knowledge and skills are up  to date and commensurate with the level of contract being managed.  \n• All pertinent Massey  policies must be complied with.  Contract Manager s should be familiar with all \nrelevant Massey  policies.  \n \nIndexes  \n \nA. Related Policy and Procedures  Compliance  \n• All Contracts must be managed in accordance with the Contract Management Procedure s.  \nOperational monitoring of contracts is vested in the appointed Contract Manager ; both for the \npurposes of compliance and for making business decisions based on the performance of contracts.  \n• Contracts for research and consultancy must comply with the Research and Consultancy Contracts  \nPolicy.  \n• Contracts for teaching activity must comply with the Subcontracting of Teaching Activity Policy . \n• Contracts for procurement must comply with the Procurement Policy . \n• Conflicts of Interest arising in the contracting process will be managed in accordance with the  \nConflict of  Commitment and Interest Policy.  \n• Contracts and MOU’s with international institutions must follow the Procedures for Establishing a  \nMemorandum of Unders tanding and/or International Partnership Agreement.  \n• Contractors Procedur es are to be followed in respect to making the Contractor vs. Employee \nassessment and for establishing contracts with contractors to  Massey . \n• Contracts for sponsorship must comply with the Sponsorship Policy . \n \nB. Audit  \nThe Contract Management process may be periodically audited to ensure compliance with Massey ’s policies \nand procedures.  \n \nAs required, all Contract Manager s will be required to report on contract performance for contracts valued at \ngreater than $100,000 per annum to the PCGB.  Standardised repor ts will be supplied to facilitate this activity.  \n \nC. Standard Definitions  \n• Confidentiality Agreement: means an agreement designed to prevent disclosure of commercially \nsensitive information to a third party, or into the public  domain;  \n• Contract: means an agreement that commits Massey in legal or financial terms and for the purposes \nof this policy includes Pre-contractual Agreements not intended to be legally binding;  \n• Contract Manager : the Massey staff member with responsibility for ensuring that t he rights and \nobligations under the contract are met;  \n• Contract Register: the centralised online, digital repository holding all Massey contracts.  \n• Pre-contractual Agreements ; written agreements not intended to be legally binding which may \ninclude letters of  intent, memorandums of understanding (MOU), or other similar documents;  \n \n \nMassey University Policy  Guide  \nContract Management P rocedures  – Page  6 \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n D. Audience  \nAll Staff . \n \nE. Relevant Legislation  \n• Public Records Act 2005 : Provides for the selection of public records and archives for creation, \nmaintenance and retention. The Act directs  that public records and archives can only be destroyed \nand disposed of with the authority of the Chief Archivist. Contracts are deemed Vital Records under \nthe Act.  \n• Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 . \n• Employment Relations Act 2000 : Defines “employee” and  “employment contract”.   Should a contractor \nbe deemed to be an employee then the employer will be liable to provide and pay for any benefits \nassociated with being an employee e.g. sick leave, holiday pay, redundancy payments for unjustifiable \ndismissals o r disadvantage.  \n \nF. Related Documents and Procedures  \n• Contractors Procedures  \n• Contract Management Procedure s Contract Templates  \n• Delegations Document  Procurement Policy  \n• Procurement Procedure s (including Massey’s Tender Process)   \n• Subcontracting of Teaching Activity Policy  \n• Research and Consultancy Activity Policy  Records Management Policy  \n• Records Management Procedure  \n• Procedures for Establishing a Memorandum of Understanding and/or International Partnership \nAgree ment  \n \nG. Document Management Control  \nPrepared by:  Strategic Sourcing Manager  \nOwned by:  Deputy Vice Chancellor , Finance and Technology  \nDate issued:  August 2019  \nLast review:  July 2019  \nNext review:  December 2022  \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Contract_Management_Policy_PDF_183_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Contract Management Policy",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "183 KB",
      "creation_date": "2022-04-27T09:04:04",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220101216+13'00'"
    },
    "content": "Massey University Policy  Guide  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n  \nSection  Procurement and Contract s Group  \nContact  Strategic Sourcing Manager  \nLast Review  July 2019  \nNext Review  December  2022  \nApproval  SLT 19/07/113  \n \nScope  \nThe following are excluded from this Policy:  \n• Construction contracts that are managed through tiered supplier panels (these contracts incorporate \nKPIs and performance management in accordance with a Performance Evaluation Framework  through \nProject Governance ); \n• Employment contracts;  \n• Research contracts;  \n• Non-binding Memoranda of Understanding . \n \nOther than listed above, t his Policy applies to all contracts, and other documents, which create legally binding \nobligations on Massey University  (Massey ) including, but not limited to, procureme nt contracts for the supply \nof goods and services. This Policy will apply to a contract until contractual obligations have concluded.  \n \nPurpose  \nThe purpose of this Policy is to establish a Massey  governance and operational structure for managing \ncontracts a nd other legally binding documents with third parties.  \n \nThe goals of the C ontract Management Policy are:  \n• Value for money - Contracts supply value for money for M assey  without compromising Massey’s \ncommitment to environmental sustainability and a pathway to carbon neutrality . \n• Win/win - Contract management foster s mutually beneficial long -term relationships with suppliers.  \n• Effective management - Contracts are managed eff ectively and have line of sight at the SLT.  \n• Internal expertise - Contract management expertise is developed internally (where practical).  \n• System support processes - Contract management systems support M assey  processes.  \n \n   \nCONTRACT MANAGEMENT POLICY  \nMassey University Policy  Guide  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n The Policy aims to ensure:  \n• A standard approach and framework is adopted across Massey  in the management of contracts.  \n• Massey  enters into and manages contracts in a manner that  facilitates Massey  operations, delivers \nthe required goals and  minimises risk.  \n• Massey  staff understand  their responsibilities about  the management of contract s and are adequately \nexperienced and trained to do so.  \n• Contracts are managed and reported to ensure quality performance and value for money are achieved \nin line with individual contract expectations.  \n• Maximised supplier and industry engagement to ensure a competitive and willing market exist s to \nsupport Massey . \n• Massey  receives the  full benefit of the contract.  \n \n \nContract Management will be guided by the following framework.  \n \n \n \n  \n\nMassey University Policy  Guide  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n 1. Members of  Massey ’s SLT are ultimately responsible for the management of all contracts. The table \nidentifies the broad areas of responsibility . \n \nTable 1: Responsibility for Contract Areas  \n \nContract area  Responsible Area  \nConstruction/Buildings and Leases of Land  DVC Operations  \nProcurement of Equipment, Consumables and Services (including \nbut not limited to IT Services, and leases relating to Equipment \nincluding those pertaining to installation, supply or fabrication of \nequipment), non -research consulting, commercial contracts  DVC Finance and \nTechnology  and Deputy  \nVice-Chancellors/  \nPro Vice -Chancellors  \nTeaching Agreements (including sub -contracting of teaching, \ndomestic articulation and pathway agreements, licensing and \nfranchising agreements (for Teaching) and MOU’s with Schools)  Office of PROVOST  \nInternships , student placements and volunteer agreements  Pro Vice -Chancellors and \nOffice of PROVOST  \nResearch and Consultancy (and Commercialisation of IP)  Office of PROVOST  \nInternational (including offshore)  DVC Operations  \nVenue and Sponsorship Agreements  Office of the Vice Chancellor  \nNote:  If it is unclear which is the responsible area for the proposed contract; staff must co ntact Procurement \nand Contracts for clarification and advice.  \n \n2. The Procurements and Contracts Governance Board (PCGB) provides the governance function for \ncontract management activities  at Massey .  Contract r eporting is via the PCGB who report directly to the \nSLT.  \n3. All contracts will have an identified Contract Manager , which will be, typically, an internal Massey  position.  \n4. Contracts that are deemed critical (through their value, risk or strategic importance) will have an assigned \nContract Specialist  from the Procurement and Contracts Group  to support the Contract Manager  (see \nContract Criticality Assessment Guidelines ). The Contract Specialist  will provide support and advice but \ncontract management responsibility remains with the appointed Contract Manager .  \n5. Contracts deemed standard (i.e. not assess ed as critical) will be managed by appointed Contract \nManager s. Advice, training and support will be available for Contract Manager s and for specific contract \nissues.  \n6. Where there is uncertainty in regards to th e legal obligations of a contract or memorandum of \nunderstanding, advice from the Procurement and Contract s Group should be obtained.  \n7. It is expected a ll Massey  Contract Manager s are trained , giving them the knowledge required to manage \ncontracts competently. It is  recognised that knowledge becomes effective when it is put into practice \n(creating experience) and on -going support for Contract Manager s will be available.  \n8. Massey  procurement polic ies must be adhered to at all time s in the development of contractual \nrelationships.  \n  \nMassey University Policy  Guide  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n Financial Authority and Signing Delegation  \nMassey  staff member s can sign a legal agreement (contract) on behalf of Massey  as long as they have the \nrequired authority as set out in  Contract Signing Delegations - Section 2:  Delegations of Authority Document  \n \nPrivacy and Confidentiality  \nAll commercial information provided is to be treated as confidential.  Confidential government, user, client \nand supplier information is to be handled appropriately throughout the contract management process in \naccordance with confidentiality and privacy c lauses contained in the contract and in accordance with \naccepted business practice.  \n \nProbity, Ethical Behaviour, Accountability and Transparency  \nAll interactions must be  honest and fair in commercial dealings, and behave in accordance with the highest \nethical standards. Practices and actions that strengthen probity, ethical behaviour, accountability and \ntransparency include:  \n• Maintaining a written record of all decisions, contract management meeting outcomes, key discussions \nwith suppliers and significant c ontract management issues including approvals and t he rationale for \ndecisions made . \n• Undertaking supplier audits and accessing suppl ier information where necessary . \n• Undertaking site visits to verify con tract undertakings and outcomes . \n• Establishing processes  for identifying, declaring and  managing conflicts of interest . \n• Providing regular reports on supplier performance to senior mana gement and oversight committees . \n• The use of a gift register  to record all items provided by suppliers outside the contract deliverables .  \n \nContract and Information Management  \nMassey  seeks to have a consistent approach to the management of contracts.  To this end, it is expected that \nthe following points will be adhered to:  \n• Massey  policies and procedures will be followed at all times . \n• All contracts are to be managed in line with Massey’s  Contract Management Procedures   \n• Where possible, Massey’s standard terms and conditions as provided for in the contract templates \nshould be used for all contracts.  The contract owner must seek advice if M assey ’s standard terms \nand conditions require variation, or if the use of a non -standard contract developed by a third party is \nproposed.   \n• Standard contracts  are/will be made  available on the Procurement and Contracts intranet site. \n• Each M assey  Area (e.g. college, school, department)  is responsible for maintaining its own contract \ndocumentation to enable the effective planning, management and r eporting of contracts. The \ninformation required to be maintained and associated processes are documented in the Contract \nManagement Procedures .  \n• All contracts must /will be entered into Massey ’s Contract Register . The responsibility for this r ests with \nthe Contract Manager . \n• All contracts are deemed vital and original documents must be securely stored in accordance with the \nRecords Management Procedures.  \n \n \n  \nMassey University Policy  Guide  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n Indexes  \n \nTemplates and standard contrac ts \nThe following table , documents the standard templates and contracts available.  \nNB – These are in develop ment , check the Procurement and Contracts intranet site . \nNB – These templates are a guide and not a substitute for contract management.  \n \nTemplates  \n• Contract Management Plan  \n• Annual review – internal  \n• Annual review – external /report  \n• Annual review - report  \n• Contract close out  Standard Contracts  \n• Contractor Engagement  \n• Contract for Services  \n• Contract for Goods  \n• NZS 3910:2013 Conditions of contract for building and civil \nengineering construction  \n• NZS 3915:2005 Conditions of contract for building and civil \nengineering construction (where no person is appointed to a ct as \nengineer to the contract)  \n• NZS 3916: Conditions of contract for building and civil engineering \n- Design and Construct  \n• NZS 3917:2013 Conditions of contract for building and civil \nengineering - Fixed Term  \n \nRelated Policy and Procedures  Compliance  \n• All Contracts must be managed in accordance with the  Contract Management Procedures   \n• Operational monitoring of contra cts is vested in the appointed Contract Manager ; both for the \npurposes of compliance and for making business decisions based on the performance of contracts.  \n• Contracts for research and consultancy must comply with the Research and Consultancy Contracts \nPolicy . \n•  \n• Contracts for teaching activity must comply with the  Subcontracting of Teaching Activity Policy  \n• Contracts for procurem ent must comply with the Procurement Policy . \n• Conflicts of Interest arising in the contracting process will be managed in accordance with the  \nConflict of  Commitment and Interest P olicy \n• Contracts and MOU’s with international institutions must follow the Procedures for Establishing a  \nMemorandum of Understanding and/or International Partnership Agreement.  \n• Contractors Procedures  are to be followed i n respect to making the Contractor vs. Employee \nassessment and for establishing contracts with contractors to  Massey . \n• Contracts for sponsorship must comply with the Sponsorship Policy . \n \nAudit  \nThe Contract Management process may be periodically audited to ensure compliance with M assey ’s policies \nand procedures.  \n \nAs required, all Contract Manager s will be required to report on contract performance for contracts valued at \ngreater than $100,000  per annum  to the P CGB .  Standardised reports will be supplied to facilitate this activity . \nMassey University Policy  Guide  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n Standard Definitions  \n• Confidentiality Agreement: means an agreement designed to prevent disclosure of commercially \nsensitive information to a third party, or into the public  domain;  \n• Contract: means an agreement that commits Massey in legal or financial terms and for the purposes \nof this Policy includes Pre-contra ctual Agreements not intended to be legally binding;  \n• Contract Manager : The Massey staff member with responsibility for ensuring that the rights and \nobligations under the Contract are met;  \n• Contract Register: The centralised online, digital repository holdin g all Massey ’s Contracts.  \n• Pre-contractual Agreements : written agreements not intended to be legally binding which may \ninclude letters of intent, memorandums of understanding (MOU), or other similar documents;  \n• Responsible Area : means the applicable area set  out in the Table in this Policy. It logically includes, \nas required, the internal contract or procurement team tha t provides support to that area.  \n \nAudience  \nAll Staff  \n \nRelevant Legislation  \n• Public Records Act 2005 : provides for the selection of public reco rds and archives for creation, \nmaintenance and retention. The Act directs that public records and archives can only be destroyed \nand disposed of with the authority of the Chief Archivist.  Contracts are deemed Vital Records under \nthe Act.  \n• Contract and Comm ercial Law Act 2017 . \n• Employment Relations Act 2000 : defines “employee” and “employment contract”.  Should a contractor \nbe deemed to be an employee then the employer will be liable to provide and pay for any benefits \nassociated with being an employee e.g. s ick leave, holiday pay, redundancy payments for unjustifiable \ndismissals or disadvantage.  \n \nRelated Documents and Procedures  \n• Contractors Procedures  \n• Contract Management Procedure s  \n• Contract Templates  \n• Delegation s of Authority Policy   \n• Procurement Policy  \n• Procurement Procedures  \n• Subcontracting of Teaching Activity Policy  \n• Research and Consultancy Activity Policy  \n• Information and Records Management Policy  \n• Procedures for Establishing a Memorandum of Understanding and/or International Partnership \nAgreemen t \n \nDocument Management Control  \nPrepared  by: Strategic Sourcing Manager  \nOwned  by: Deputy Vice Chancellor,  Finance and Technology  \nDate  issued:  August 2019  \nMassey University Policy  Guide  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n Last review:  July 2019  \nNext review:  December  2022  \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Controlled_Entities_Governance_Framework_Policy_PDF_131_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Controlled Entities Governance Framework Policy",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "131 KB",
      "author": "cschrade",
      "creation_date": "2021-03-22T10:00:00",
      "modification_date": "D:20210322100043+13'00'"
    },
    "content": "    \n Massey University Policy Guide  \n \nCONTROLLED ENTITIES GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK POLICY  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \n \nPurpose :  \nThis policy establishes a governance framework to assist  Council and University Management to discharge their \nresponsibilities  effectively in relation to controlled entities.  \nIntroduction  \nMassey University is empowered under Section 282(2) of the Education  and Training  Act 2020  to establish entities to \nperform functions characteristic of a University, or functions that are of a kind that, in the opinion of the University \nCouncil:  \n  \n(i) may conveniently, and without disadvantage to the performance of those characteristic functions, be \nperformed in association with those functions; and  \n \n(ii) are appropriate for institutions of the class to which the institution belongs or, in the case of an institution \nthat incorporates another institution or other institutio ns under section 164(4), are appropriate for institutions \nof the classes represented in the institution.  \n \nUniversity controlled entities are separate entities to the University, but  are characterized by the University having \ncontrol through its capacity to dominate decision making, directly or indirectly, in relation to financial and operating \npolicies of the entity. Such entities may be companies, trusts,  incorporated societies  or partnerships .  \n \nMassey University also has a number of Associated Entities where investment is significant, but is not significant \nenough to enable the University to directly control the financial and operating policies of the entity. Such entities are \nnot within the scope of this policy.  \nPolicy  \n1.0 The Massey Univer sity Council is responsible for:  \n \n1.1. Approving establishment, or acquisition, and authorising the participation of the University in Controlled \nEntities ;  \n \n1.2. Approving the Constitution of a controlled entity, which establishe s the systems of control and accountability \nof that entity to the University ; Section  Organisational Management and Governance  \nContact  Office of Governance and Assurance  \nLast Review  January 2021  \nNext Review  January 202 6 \nApproval  C21/15  \nEffective Date  10 March 20 21 \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nControlled Entities Governance Framework Policy – Page 2 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n1.3. Approving the Statement of Corporate Intent of Controlled Entities , and monitoring performance and activities \nof the entity , unless otherwise delegated to the Vice -Chancellor ;  \n \n1.4. Disposal , disestablishment  or divestment of Controlled Entities . \n \n2.0 Establishment and Disestablishment of Controlled Entities  \n \n2.1 Council must approve the establishment or acquisition  of, and participation in,  a controlled entity, as well as \nthe disestablishment, exit, or divestment of University interests in a controlled entity.  \n \n2.2 On deciding that a suitable case has been made to establish a controlled entity  or particip ate in a controlled \nentity , the Vice -Chancellor will provide to Council a preliminary proposal  for endorsement .  \n \n2.3 If endorsed , the Vice -Chancellor will undertake  to complete a full proposal, which  will include:  \n• required due diligence ; \n• a draft Constitution ; \n• details of available options and pathways for the University to initiate an exit strategy in order to \ndisestablish or dissolve the entity, or to remove the University’s interest in that entity ; \n• the circumstances in which the exit strategy sho uld be considered (i.e. minimum performance levels, \nnumber of benefits realised, useful lifetime) ; \n• Details of the internal control systems to be adopted/implemented ; \n• Any specific requirements as requested by Council . \n \n2.4 The full proposal will be considered by the Finance and Assurance Committee in the first instance. The \nFinance and Assurance Committee  may seek advice from any senior University staff, as appropriate, in \nrelation to risk management, the constitutional provision , and/or legal and financial aspects of the business \nplan and/or constitution. Once satisfied with the recommendations of managem ent, the Finance and \nAssurance  Committee will make a recommendation to Council.  \n \n2.5 Subject to the requirements of this policy the Controlled Entity will operate independently of the University and \nwill maintain and manage its own operations in accordance  with relevant legislation, its constitution, and \nwhere applicable any agreement with the University .  \n \n3.0 Governance  \n \n3.1 Controlled entities of the University must operate high standards of governance in order to meet stakeholder \nexpectations, and to meet legal obligations. The Board of the controlled entity is responsible for the \ngovernance of the entity in line with its constitution, which must be consistent with the objects and functions of \nthe University, and must not exceed the powers of the University as set out in the Education  and Training  Act \n2020 . \n \n3.2 The constitution  or trust deed  of a controlled entity must comply  with any obligations imposed by law , and \nunless explicitly excluded by the entities’  constitution  or trust deed, and accepted by Council  , will include : \n• A requirement that a ctivities must be appropriate for Universities and undertaken without disadvantage to \nthe core activities of the University ; \n• A requirement (explicit or implicit) not to : \no borrow or otherwise rais e funds other than from the University ; \no issue shares, or optio ns to acquire shares to other parties ;  \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nControlled Entities Governance Framework Policy – Page 3 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \no act as an agent of the University, or mak e warranties or representations on the part of the \nUniversity without authority ; \no commit  University resources into contractual obligations with other parties without University  \nauthority ; \no enter into joint ventures without prior University permission ; \no provid e loans or benefits to directors  or trustees , other than director fees (if any) ; \no invest funds except in accordance with University policy; \no mortgag e or charg e assets without University consent ; \no dispose of intangible assets without University consent  \n• Restrictions or special requirements apply relating to the disposal of assets ; \n• Where the entity is a company and has University employees  or council members  as company d irectors, \nthe constitution should allow for an exception to the best interests rule of the Companies Act 1993, and \ninclude explicit permission for directors to , if and when the need arises, act in a manner  which they \nbelieve is in the best interests of the University.  \n• A requirement for the constitution  of a company which is a controlled entity to be reviewed and \nreapproved by Council at least every 5 years.  \n• Such other matters as may be determined by Council . \n \n3.3 Where University authority , permission  or consent is required for any s pecific activity listed in section 3.2 \nabove, such authority , permission or consent  must  be approv ed by Council  \n \n3.4 Appointment of directors of controlled entities will be made by the Vice -Chancellor, unless otherwise directed \nby Council  or in circumstances where the Vice -Chancellor is likely to be appointed into such roles.   \n \n3.5 Once the establishment and constitution of the controlled entit y has been approved by Council, the Board \nmust ensure that the controlled entity operates within a system of internal control that ensures the highest \nstandard of decision -making  and management.  \n \n4.0  Reporting  \n \n4.1 Each controlled entity must report annually  to Council , whether independently or within the consolidated \nreporting of their parent entity, as applicable.  The report must include:  \na) An account of the previous year’s performance against targets and objectives set ; \nb) An ou tline of the entity’s activities and intentions for the next three years ; \nc) Performance objectives and targets for the year ahead ; and a  \nd) Statement regarding the entity’s legislative compliance review outcomes . \n \nDefinitions : \nAssociated entity:  means an entity over which the University has influence (but not control) by virtue of investment  \nor decision -making ability .  \nBoard : means the Board of a Massey University  controlled entity. \n \nCompany : means a legal entity established  in New Zealand  under the Companies Act 19 93. \n \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nControlled Entities Governance Framework Policy – Page 4 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nConstitution:  means the company constitution of the Controlled Entity . Alternatively, it mean s the founding document \nsuch as a Trust Deed (in case of a Trust) , Rules  (in the ca se of an Incorporated Society) or Partnership  Agreement . \n \nControlled E ntity: means organisations which are separate entities to the University, but  are characterized by the \nUniversity having control through its capacity to dominate decision making, directly or indirectly, in relation to financial \nand operating policies of the entity. Such entities may be companies , trusts,  incorporated societies   or partnerships .  \n \nCouncil:  means the Council of Massey University . \n \nDirector:  means a person who has capacity to influence in a material way the financial, operational and/or policy \ndirection of the controlled entity whether appointed to a position of director of a company, a trustee of a trust, or a \npartner of a partnership, or office bearer of an association whether incorporated or not.  \n \n \nStatement of Corporate Intent : in relation to a controlled entity means the agreement between the Council and the \ncontrolled entity in relation to performance against planned strategy.  \nAudience : \nCouncil , University management  and boards /governance bodies  of University controlled entities.  \nRelevant legislation : \nCompanies Act 1993  \nCharities Act 2005  \nEducation  and Training  Act 2020  \nTrusts Act 2019  \nLegal compliance : \nCompanies Act 1993 : Obligations  of the Companies Act will apply to companies , in particular Section 208 , which  \nrequires the Board to prepare and annual  report, within 5 monthly after the balance date of the company; Section 209 \nwhich requires an annual report to be sent to every shareholder : Section 214 requires filing of an Annual Return with \nthe Companies Officer Registrar.  \n \nCharities Act 2005:  Organis ation s registered on the Charities Register are required under Section 40 to notify \nchanges of business details and officers, and under Section 41 to prepare and lodge an  annual return with the \nCharities Commission within 6 months of balance date \n \nEducation  and Training Act 2020 : Stipulates the powers and functions of the University.  In particular, it limits the \nnature of the activities that the University may undertake (Section 282(2)) and it limits the exercise of powers in \nrespect of those permi tted activities (Section 282(4. \n \nTrusts Act 2019 : Sets out the legislative  requirements and  obligations relating to Trusts, including administrative \nrules and  Trustees duties, powers and indemnities.  \n \n \nRelated procedures / documents : \nEstablishment and Operation of Research and Specialist Centres Policy  \n Conflict of Interest Policy  \nFormation of Spin -out Companies Policy  \nAsset Disposal and Write Down  Policy  \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nControlled Entities Governance Framework Policy – Page 5 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nInsurance Policy  \nDocument Management Cont rol: \nPrepared by:  Director Governance and Assurance  \nApproved by:  Council – C21/15  \nLast review:   January 2021  \nNext review:   January 2026  \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Credit_Card_Security_Policy_PDF_145_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Credit Card Security Policy",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "145 KB",
      "creation_date": "2022-07-28T12:00:02",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220101103+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n \nCREDIT CARD SECURITY POLICY  – RECEIVING PAYMENTS  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \n  \nPurpose :  \nTo ensure all credit card payments received on behalf of Massey University adhere to the requirements of the \nPayment Card Industry Data Security Standards (PCI DSS).  \n \nIntroduction : \n• Credit cards are one of the preferred method s of payment for many students paying for tuition and non -tuition \nfees, and for other external parties  paying for a variety of goods and services.   \n \n• Online credit card payments must  only be processed through the University Online Payment Gateway . This \nintegrates with the University’s bank solution provider to provide a secure online credit card payment solution \nintegrated into the University’s finance system.  This provide s a secure environment for the capture of credit card \ndetails and  the processing of  payments directly into the University bank account.  \n \n• Students can pay fees with their credit card by logging into the student portal or by paying in person at any \nregional Cashier’s office (“card present”). Card present payments are processed through the University’s \nEFTPOS terminals.  \nPolicy : \n• All University m anagers operating b udget centres where credit card  transactions are utilised for the purpose of \nreceiving payment for goods and services , must comply with this policy. No alternative credit card facili ty is to be \nused.  \n• Budget centres running conferences or selling goods and services who wish to accept payment by credit card , \nmust first apply to  Massey University’s I nformation Technology Services Department ( ITS) by contacting  \[email protected]  in the first instance for access to the Credit Card Online Payment Facility . A “Store” \nID must be issued by the Treasury  team in Financ ial Operations . \n• ITS is responsible for all network security and the provision of the University Online Payment Gateway . \n• Online credit card refunds must  only be processed by  the Accounts Receivable or Treasury team s. \n• The Treasury team  must reconcile all online credit card payments to the University bank account and will audit / \nreview any refunds that are processed through EFTPOS terminals.  Section  Treasury – Finance  \nContact  Chief Financ e Officer  \nLast Review  August 20 22 \nNext Review  August 2027  \nApproval  SLT 16/08/164  \nEffective Date  August 20 22 \n \nMassey University  Policy Guide  \nCredit Card Security Policy  – Receiving Payments  – Page 2  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n• The Treasury team  are responsibl e for the disposal of any miscellaneous manual credit card details received by \nemail in accordance with the PCI DSS.  \n• Sensitive card information must not be held by Massey University  but must be held on a secure server operated \nby the bank’s solution p rovider.  \n• Credit/debit card details entered by Accounts Receivable or Te Paepoto  on behalf of students , should only be \nkeyed directly into the payment screen in the student portal , and must never be written down.  \nAudience : \nAll staff.  \n \nRelevant Legislation:  \nN/A \n \nLegal Compliance:  \nPayment Card Industry Data Security Standards (PCI DSS) requires merchants ( i.e., Massey  University) and service \nproviders that store, process and transmit credit card information to comply with a set of security standard s \nestablished to prevent loss, fraud and misuse,  \n \nRelated P rocedures/Documents:  \nCredit Card Security and Compliance Procedures – Managing Income  \nPayment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS)  \nDocument Management Control:  \nPrepared by: Chief Finance Officer  \nAuthorised by: Deputy  Vice-Chancellor – University Services  \nDate issued: August 20 22 \nLast review: August 2022  \nNext review: August 2027  \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Critical_Risk_Standard__Working_with_Animals_PDF_574_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Critical Risk Standard  Working with Animals PDF 574 KB",
      "policy_type": "Standard",
      "file_size": "574 KB",
      "author": "Robertson, Paul",
      "creation_date": "2020-09-09T13:04:06",
      "modification_date": "D:20200910075457+12'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n \n \n \n \n \nINTRODUCTION  \nWorking with livestock and animals  is a key part of the Universities teaching and research \nactivities.  Handling animals such a cattle, sheep and horses , if not managed correctly , carry a \nrisk of fatal or serious injury and illness .  \nThis critical r isk standard has been developed to provide information to our people about the \nway the risk of working with animals  is managed at Massey University. It applies to all our \npeople (staff , students or others) who interact with animals for  Massey University bu siness \npurposes.   \nThis standard should be read as the minimum standards that apply when working with animals at Massey University . It is \nacceptable to add controls at a local level, beyond what is prescribed here – however at no point may controls be remov ed \nor substituted without the express written permission of the relevant SLT member and the Director Health, Safety and \nWellbeing.  \n \nCRITICAL RISK SCENARIOS  \nThe following scenarios have been identified for this critical risk:  \n• Impact from  animal   \n• Animal bites  \n• Crush  by animal  \n• Exposure to zoonotic diseases  \n \nMINIMUM  CONTROL  REQUIREMENTS   \nAnimal Selection  \nBefore selecting an animal for teaching and/or r esearch purposes  an assessment must be complete d that \nconsiders : \n \no Temperament with people and other animals  \no Environmen t and surroundings  the activities  will be performed in  \no Animal health status  \no Ease of handling  \n Ma\nssey University shall ensure that an animal vaccination and parasite control programme is in place to \nminimise the risk of transmission of zoonotic diseases.\n \nMassey University shall ensure there are processes and procedures in place to vaccinate stock by a Veterinarian \nor a person trained and deemed competent in vaccination techniques.  \n \nAny p erson handling animals should be up to date with recommended vaccines for  protection against  animal \ndiseases . \n \n \n \n \n \n \nCRITICAL RISK STANDARD | WORKING WITH ANIMALS  \n \n \nThis icon is used \nthroughout this \nstandard to identify \nany Critical Controls.  \n \nVersion 1 .0 | Issued September  2020 \nReview Due: September  2022 \n\nAnimal Welfare  \nMassey University shall ensure that all animals are treated and cared for in accordance to the Animal Welfare \n(AW) Act, Anima l Welfare (Care and Procedures) Regulations and the Massey University Animal Ethics \nCommittee provisions.  \nMassey University shall have processes and procedures to identify and assess unmanageable, injured or ill \nanimals.  Animals should be isolated and/or removed in a safe and ethical manner.  \nMassey University shall have processes and procedures in place to prevent and control animal illness, injury \nand control infection s.   \n \nMeasures to prevent and control  animal  illness, injury and infection should include at a minimum:  \no Hand hygiene  practices  \no Animal hygiene  practices  \no Maintenance and sanitisation of medical equipment and instruments  \no Cleaning and disinfection of surfaces  \no Cleaning animal enclosures and bedding  \no Effective b iological waste and effluent disposal  processes  \no Safe isolation and animal handling methods  \no Maintain vaccination and parasite control programme  \no Free from noise sources that could distract or adversely affect animal behaviour  \no Provide suita ble shelter from weather  \nMassey University shall ensure that any animal treatment administered are done by persons with the \nappropriate qualifi cations, skill and experience or by competent people under supervision and dosages must \nbe recorded.  Routine pre ventative health treatments are regularly administered, monitored and recorded.  \nWhere c hemical restraint methods are used, this shall be determined and administered by or under the \ndirection of a V eterinarian . \nAnimal Facilities  and Equipment  \nMassey University shall ensure that professional design advice along with worker input when planning \nimprovements for  new and/or modified animal handling facilities .   \nThe facility, plant and equipment must be maintained in a safe condition for use.  Where third party facilities or \nfarms will be used for research or teaching purposes, an assessment of the suitability of those facilities shall be \nundertaken prior to that location being approved.  \nA well -designed facility should be structurally sound and:  \n o Be fit for purpose to the type of animal using it , and considers ergonomic  design principles for all users  \no Personal protective equipment  and clothing (PPE/PPC)  necessary to protect personnel should be available.  \no Appropriate areas for the storage of hazardous substances, chemicals and animal treatments and personal \nprotective equipment and clothing  \no Provide s protection in the working area from adverse weather  for animals and users  \no Include  fit for purpose restraint systems to enable safe handling, restrict, or control movement or \nbehaviour of the animal  \no Be ventilated and have good lighting  \no Prevent s accidental/unauthorised access to infectious animals  \no Appropriate flooring surfaces  \n \no Have en closures that provides easy access to support safe handling, protects from being hit by an animal \nand enables prompt exit in an emergency  \no Have access to clean water, toilet facilities and a se parate area for eating and rest  \no Adequate drainage and effluent management system to ensure that faeces and urine do not accumulate \nPlant and equipment used to restrain, control or house animals must be inspected to detect suitability for use  \nbefore using.   Defective plant and equipment shall be isolated  such that it c annot be used.  \n \n \n \n\n \nAnimal Handling  Training and Competency  \nStaff Selection  \nA list of minimum skills, knowledge and competency standards an individual needs to possess to work \nsafely with animals is referenced when employing new staff.  Pre- employment health checks relevant to \nthe risk profile should also be considered.  \nAny person who is aware of a medical condition that may impact on their health and safety while working with any animal, plant or equipment must disclose the medical condition before starting work.   \n \nVaccinations requirements shall be  identified and an appropriate vaccination programme is implemented.  \n Training  \nAn individual  working with animals shall receive an  induction prior to commencing work activities.  \nMassey University  shall ensure there are processes and procedures in place to ensure anyone working \nwith animals is trained or is under the direct supervision of an experienced animal handler .   \nLive animal training shall be conducted by an experienced  animal handler i.e. qualified veterinarian, \nanimal technician  or farm staff.  \nTraining may  include the following:  \no Animal handling techniques including appropriate restraint methods , loading and unlo ading   \no Isolation systems  and physical containment  \no Safe operation of the facility, plant and equipment  \no How to respond to animals presenting with unmanageable/aggressive behaviour   \no Animal emergency response procedures  \no Manual handling techniques i.e. lifting  \no Basic animal husbandry , health and hygiene practices  \no Use of PPC and PPE including maintenance and storage  \no Use of hazardous substances and Agrichemical handling including disposal  \no Emergency response procedure  \nCompetency  \nMassey University shall ensur e that anyone handling animals for Massey University purposes will be \nassessed by an appropriate person.  Supervision will remain in place until an individual is deemed \ncompetent to safely handle the animal, is familiar with Massey University  processes and procedures and \nis able to operate any plant and/or equipment to a satisfactory standard.  \n The Competency  assessments may  be recorded . \n \nWorking Safely with Animals  \n \nMassey University shall ensure that all e nclosures/confined spaces are fitted with an appropriate mechanism \nthat enables safe evacuation, or prompt retrieval of an injured/unresponsive person or a nimal.      \no Plan an escape route in advance when working with animals . \no There  is an appropriate action plan to recover  escaped animal s.  \nMassey University  shall ensure that it has effective processes and procedures in place to manage working after -\nhours , remote and/ or lone worker situations.  \nIncident Management Procedures  \nCampus security sh all be notified if emergency services are called so they can meet at an entrance and guide \nthem to the scene.  Massey University shall ensure that access ways are kept clear for emergency vehicles  using \nsignage  and have processes in place to monitor.  \nMassey  University shall ensure there are processes to manage incidents on campus  and the rehabilitation of staff \nand a sufficient  number of  trained first aiders are present at all campuses .  This includes appropriate support for \nthose involved in and/or witnessing an incident that may have a psychological impact.  \n \n\nEmergency Response  \nEmergency equipment must be available at strategic locations so \nthat users can prevent further harm or environmental damage e.g.  \n \no First aid kits  \no Suitable fire control equipment  \no Containment equipment (spill kits)  \nEmergency equipment must be up- to-date and maintained, and \nchecked at intervals recommended by the equipment \nmanufacturers . \nMassey University shall ensure that a nimal  emergency response \nprocedures are in place and tested  at least annually.   Emergency \nresponse procedures in these area should consider:  \no Escaped animals  \no Trapped animals  \no Animals in surgery during an emergency  \no Rescue from buildings  \n \nReporting  \nAll incidents involving animals and people must be reported using \nthe University’s online  health and safety reporting system, regardless \nof severity . \nIncidents may require reporting to Regulators (for example WorkSafe New Zealand  WSNZ or Ministry of Health ( MoH )) in these cases \nMassey University  will ensure there are processes and procedures in \nplace to manage these incidents.  \nProperty and infrastructure damages must be reported.  \n \nInsurance and Legal  \nMassey University shall ensure there is appropriate insurance to cover \nproperty and infrastructure damage.  \nMassey University  shall ensure that there is a process in place should \nlegal advice be required.  \n \nRELEVANT LEGISLATION OR POLICY  \no Health and Safety at Work Act ( 2015).  \no Animal Welfare Act (1999) . \no Animal Welfare (Care and Procedures) Regulations 2018.  \no Massey University Heal th, Safety and Wellbeing Policy.  \n \nOTHER REFERENCES  \no WorkSafe New Zealand Good Practice Guidelines : \n Preventing manual handling injuries on farms . \n Safe sheep handling . \n Safe cattle handling . \n Staying safe in and around farm  dairies . \n Preventing slips, trips and fall on farms . \n \no Massey University Code of Ethical Conduct  – for the use of animals for research, testing and teaching.  \n \nDEFINITIONS  \nAnimal: Any live member of the animal \nkingdom as defined by the Animal \nWelfare Act 1999.   \nCritical Risk: Any risk that carries the \npotential for a fatal or serious, life -\nalteri ng injury.  \nCritical Control: A control that is crucial \nto preventing the event or mitigating the \nconsequences of the event.  The absence \nor failure of a critical control would \nsignificantly increase the risk despite the \nexistence of the other controls.  In \naddition, a control that prevents more \nthan one unwanted event, or mitigates \nmore than once consequence may be \nconsidered a critical control . \nCompetency: To demonstrate \ncompetence, an individual must be able \nto perform certain tasks with a required \nlevel of proficiency , have the \nknowledge, experience and skill to be \nable to perform a specific task . \nRemote work: more than 30 mins walk \nfrom communication device or \nassistance  \nZoonotic disease:  an infectious disease  \ncaused by bac teria, viruses and \nparasites that spread from an animal  to \npeople i.e. leptospirosis, listeriosis and \ncampylobacter.   \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Critical_Risk_Standard__Driving_PDF_491_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Critical Risk Standard  Driving PDF 491 KB",
      "policy_type": "Standard",
      "file_size": "491 KB",
      "author": "Robertson, Paul",
      "creation_date": "2019-08-07T09:03:09",
      "modification_date": "D:20190814112437+12'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n \n \n \n  \nINTRODUCTION  \nDriving a vehicle is an activity which is common, yet carries a risk of fatal or serious \nincidents. This critical risk standard has been developed to provide information to our \npeople about the way that the risk of driving is managed at Massey University. It applies to \nall our people (staff , students or others) who drive for Massey University business purposes.   \nThis standard should be read as the minimum standards that apply when driving a  light  \nvehicle  in New Zealand . It is acceptable to add controls at a local level, beyond what is \nprescribed here –  however at no point may controls be removed or substituted without the \nexpress written permission of the relevant SLT member and the Director Healt h, Safety and Wellbeing.  \n \nCRITICAL RISK SCENARIOS  \nThe following scenarios have been identified for this critical risk:  \n• Loss of control of vehicle  \n \nMINIMUM CONTROL  REQUIREMENTS   \nVehicle Selection  \nVehicles used for Massey University purposes must be fit -for purpose considering \nthe driver, the tasks to be undertaken, and the driving environment (e.g. off -road) . \nThis includes any personal vehicle used for Massey purposes  \n \nBefore selecting a vehicle for lease or purchase by Massey University, an \nassessment must be completed  that considers:  \no Active and passive safety featu res \no Vehicle ergonomics and driving characteristics  \no Access and Egress  \no Visibility  \no ANCAP Safety Ratings  \n \nAll vehicles that are purchased or leased by Massey University must be selected with a preference for the \ninclusion of the following safety features, wher ever appropriate for the type of vehicle:  \no Electronic Stability Control  \no Traction Control  \no Anti- lock braking system  \no Adaptive Cruise Control  \no Reversing Cameras and Parking Sensors  \no Pre-tensioned seatbelts for all passengers  \no Airbags  \no Crumple zones and pedestrian i mpact protection  \no Load restraint systems  \nVehicles that are leased or purchased by Massey University shall have daytime running lights fitted that \noperate whenever the vehicle is in use (except where this int erferes with normal headlights)  \nCRITICAL RISK STANDARD | DRIVING  \n \n \nThis icon is used \nthroughout this \nstandard to identify \nany Critical Controls.  \n \nVersion 1.0 | Issued August  2019 \nReview Due: August  2021  \nVehicles shall be assessed prior to selection with consideration to ergonomic and human factors elemen ts. \nThis should consider, at a minimum:  \no Driving position, comfort, and variability of seating position  \no Visibility and presence of blind spots  \no Steering wheel position adjust ment  \no Design of physical controls, including headlights, wipers, climate control etc.  \no Design of navigation and software elements (dashboard and entertainment system ease of use and \ncontrols)  \no Bluetooth setup and configuration ease  \no Integrated navigation syste ms \n \nGPS Monitoring  \nMassey University fleet vehicles are to be fitted with GPS monitoring to provide data on the use and location \nof vehicles.  This information shall be used for the following purposes:  \n1. Locate any vehicle which is overdue to ensure safety, or identify location where vehicles may have \nbeen stolen or used inappropriately;  \n2. Monitor any unsafe driving behaviours such as speeding, heavy braking and acceleration, or unsafe \ncornering;  \n3. Provide data on usage, fuel usage, destinations, and distances to  assist fleet services in planning and \nmanagement of fleet assets  \nVehicle Condition  \nAll vehicles used for Massey University must be maintained and in a safe condition for driving.  \nMassey University is to maintain a regular maintenance programme for all vehicles owned or leased, and \nensure that any faulty vehicle is removed from service pending repairs.  \nAll vehicles used for Massey University purposes (including personal vehicles) must have a valid Warrant of \nFitness  (WOF), or Certificate of Fitness  (COF) , issued by an approved authority. The vehicle should not be \ndriven if any issues are known to exist with the vehicle that would not meet the conditions of the WOF or \nCOF, even if current  \nBefore starting  any journey, the driver must undertake a brief pre -start check that the vehicle is in a safe \ncondition to drive . A vehicle inspection checklist will be provided with every Massey Fleet Vehicle to act as a \nprompt and provide guidance on how to complete this. If issues with the vehicle are found, alternative transport should be arranged, and any faults advised to Massey Fleet Services (if using a Massey vehicle)  \nMassey University Fleet Services shall ensure that all vehicles are regularly checked and maintained as per the manufacturers recommendations  \nIn the event of a breakdown involving a fleet vehicle, drivers shall call the 0800 number provided for assistance  \nDriver Competency  \nAnyone driving a vehicle for Massey University purposes must hold and maintain a current and appropriate \nclass of drivers licence. This licence must be checked and verified by Massey Fleet Services, prior to the first use of a Massey Fleet Vehicle. Managers are responsible for ensuring that any of their team driving personal vehicles for work hold an appropriate licence.  \nIf a driver’s  licence has been suspended or cancelled, the driver must not operate any vehicle (including \npersonal vehicles for work purposes), including off road or on campus  \nBefore any driver uses  a Massey University Fleet Vehicle for the first time, they must be pro vided with \ninformation about the vehicle and the location of key controls and safety equipment, and expected safe driving behaviours  \nBefore any driver undertakes any high- risk driving an assessment shall be completed  to determine the \ncompetency of the driv er to drive in those conditions. This assessment shall be undertaken by a person who \nhas been deemed competent and experienced in those conditions by Fleet Services  \n\nFitness to Drive  \nAny person driving a vehicle for Massey University purposes is responsible for ensuring that they are fit to \ndrive, and free from impairment  \nDrivers must not drive while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, including any medication that may cause \nimpairment  \nWhere a person is anticipated to be driving long dis tanc es, the  combined work -related travel and work time is \ngreater than 10 hours, or they are driving for over 4 hours in one trip, consideration as to how fatigue will be \nmanaged must be discussed wit h the manager  before leaving  \no Long journeys should be avoided in preference of air travel where appropriate  \no Consideration as to whether the driver  should stay overnight instead of driving further  \no How the driver  will manage sleep to ensure that they are rested  \no Consideration of carpooling or shared driving arrangement s \n \nAny person who is aware of any medical condition that they have which may impact on their safety while \ndriving must disclose this to their manager before driving for Massey University purposes. If the persons \ndrivers licence has been suspended for medic al reasons (for example, after a seizure), then the person must \nnot drive for work purposes  \n \nUse of Mobile Phones  \nIt is recommended that drivers have a mobile phone with them for use in emergency situations,  however \nmobile phones should be switched off, o r placed where the driver cannot access them while driving (such as \nthe boot,  or in a bag in the back seat)  \n \nDrivers  should pull over to a safe location to make or  receive calls . Where calls are time -sensitive or urgent, \nthe vehicles Bluetooth system (preference), or via an alternative hands -free function  may be used  \n \nAt no time should text messaging, or other functions be used while driving  \n \nSafe Driving  \nBefore starting  any journey, consider whether there will be any requirement to drive:  \n \no In hazardous  conditions, such as storm events or through snow/ice conditions  \no On hazardous roads or tracks, such as unsealed roads or off -road tracks  \n If any of the above hazardous conditions will be experienced, assess w hether driving can be reasonably \navoided  \n Anyo ne driving for Massey University purposes must drive in a safe and responsible manner, with respect to \nall legislation, signage and requirements of the New  Zealand Road Code at all times  \n \nSafe following distances (minimum of 2 seconds in normal conditions,  and increased to 4 seconds in \nhazardous conditions, or if towing a trailer) must be maintained at all times . \n \nSpeed is to be maintained to the legal limits (including through temporary traffic management areas, such as \nroadworks), and appropriately m odera ted to the road conditions  \n \nSeatbelts (where fitted) must be worn at all times while driving. It is the responsibility of each passenger to \nalso wear a seatbelt while the vehicle is in motion  \n \nHeavy braking, acceleration and high -speed cornering all may im pact on a vehicles safe operation, and is to \nbe avoided where possible  \n \nAll loose or heavy objects should be secured, placed in the boot, or behind an approved cargo barrier  \n \n\nEmergency Equipment  \nA First Aid Kit must be provided with every Massey \nUniversity fleet vehicle. Th is kit must be up- to-date and \nmaintai ned, and checked every 2 months  \n A device for cutting seatbelts and breaking glass is to be \navailable, and readily accessible by the driver of the \nvehic le in the event of an emergency  \n \nReporting  \nAll incidents involving a vehicle must be reported using \nthe University’s online safety reporting system, regardless \nof severity  \n \nMassey University vehicles shall be branded appropriately \nwith the logo and contact information . A process for \nreporting dangerous driving, particular ly in Massey \nUniversity branded vehicles, shall be in place and any \nreports monitored  and followed up by the Fleet Services \nand Health & Safety teams and compared to GPS \nmonitoring data to determine whether further action or \nintervention is required  \n \nInsurance  \nAll Massey University vehicles must be fully insured at all \ntimes .  \n \nDrivers of Massey University vehicles must be approved \nby Fleet Services, and have their name listed on the \nbooking  \n \nAnyone driving a personal vehicle for Massey University \nwork purposes (beyond commuting) is advised to check \nwith their insurer as to coverage  \n \nRELEVANT LEGISLATION OR POLICY  \no Land Transport Act 1998  \no Health and Safety at Work Act 2015  \no Massey University Travel Policy  \no Massey University Health, Safety and Wellbeing  Policy  \nDEFINITIONS  \nActive Safety Feature:  A safety device fitted \nto a vehicle that works to prevent an incident \nfrom occurring (e.g. traction cont rol) \nCritical Risk: Any risk that carries the potential \nfor a fatal or serious, life -altering injury  \nCritical Control: Any control which is essential \nfor the prevention or mitigation of a critical \nrisk \nHigh -Risk Driving: Driving which involves any \nof the following:  \n• \nOff-road driving  \n• \nDriving in snow and icy conditions  \n• \nTowing a trailer  \n \nLight Vehicle: Any car, van, utility vehicle or \nATV that can be driven on a Class 1 NZ Drivers \nlicence  \nMobile Phone:  Any telecommunications \ndevice that has a transmitting function, \nincluding cellphones, Personal Digital \nAssistances, email devices etc. Excludes two -\nway radio.  \nPassive Safety Features:  A safety device that \ndoes not become active until an accident is \noccurring (e.g. airbags)  \n \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Desktop_Hardware_and_Software_Acquisition_Policy_PDF_161_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Desktop Hardware and Software Acquisition Policy PDF 161 KB",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "161 KB",
      "author": "Johnston, Jane",
      "creation_date": "2019-11-08T12:01:09",
      "modification_date": "D:20191108121919+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " Massey University Policy Guide \nDesktop Hardware and Software Acquisition Policy   \nPage 1 \n  \n \nDESKTOP HARDWARE AND S OFTWARE A CQUISITION POLICY  \n  \n \n  \n \n \n \n \nSection   Information Technology Servic es \nContact  Chief Information Officer  \nLast Review  November 2019  \nNext Review  November 2022  \nAppro val  SLT 19/08/141  \n  \n \nPurpose:  \n \nMassey University is committed to providing desktop hardware and software infrastructure that are responsive to the \nneeds of students and staff. University hardware and software support and enable learning and teaching, academic \nenquiry and research, as well as the University’s administrative and service functions.  This policy outlines Massey \nUniversity’s provision and support of hardware and software to staff and students.  \n \nKey success factors:  \n \nHardware and software installations , provisions and support  are planned and coordinated centrally by experienced \nInformation and Technology Services (ITS)  staff. \n \nAudience:  \n \nAll users of University procured Information and Communications Technology ( ICT) hardware , software and electronic \ndevices.  Users include Massey  University  staff and students  (including contractors, consultants and volunteers) . \n \nPolic y: \n \nMassey University is committed to providing desktop hardware and software that contributes to the best possible \nstaff and student experience through innovative selection of leading edge technology.  The University entrusts \nthe management associated with th e purchase of desktop hardware and software to ITS  – experienced leaders \nin desktop hardware and software tool selection and infrastructure.  \n \nDesktop Hardware: \n \n1. Desktop hardware will be purchased as a co mplete unit. Building of comp uter s ystems  from individ ual \ncomponents is strictly prohibited.  \n \n2. Should the standard hardware products offered not meet University business or  research needs , staff should \ndetermine these requirements and forward them , with justifications for the proposed purchase, to ITS for \napproval  via the  Configure To Order ( CTO ) process . \n \n3. All desktop hardware will be dispos ed of in a ccordance wi th the University guidelines and policies for : \n \n• IT equipment disposal  \n• University asset disposal.  \n \n4. All authorised users of I CT resources are accountable for their use and will use desktop hardware in an \nappropriate and responsible manner in line with the Appropriate Use Policy.  \n \n Massey University Policy Guide \nDesktop Hardware and Software Acquisition Policy   \nPage 2 \n  \nDesktop Software : \n1. Department s must purchase all d esktop software in accordance with the University’s procurement policy, and \nInformation Technology Services’ catalogue,  and associated  procedures.  \n \n2. The use of unauthorised versions of  commercial  software is s trictly prohibited  on Massey  University  owned \ndesktop hardware .  A large number of software providers have different licensing rules when it comes to \npersonal use and commercial use, and often the license purchased for personal use is not applicable for use \nin a work environment. This licensing variati on can expose the University to legal challenges and unexpected \nadditional licensing costs.   \n \n3. All software purchases not provisioned by ITS must be advised to ITS, for recording in a central software database and to ensure appropriate licencing of products .  \n \n4. ITS may require desktop software to be upgraded from an old version of software in order to continue to be \nsupported and to maintain security .  \n \n5. \nAll authorised users of I CT resources are accountable for their use and will use desktop soft ware in an \nappropriate and responsible manner in line with the Appropriate Use Policy.  \n \n \nDefinitions:  \n \nCTO:  Configure to Order hardware purchasing  \n \nDepartment  is a Unit or School, Institution etc. that controls its own budget  \n \nDesktop Hardware means Massey -owned computer workstation equipment, including all internal \ncomponentry (hard drive, RAM, graphics card, etc.)  This includes CTOs, laptops, and Windows or Apple computers  \n Desktop Software means all software and applications installed on Massey ow ned Desktop Hardwar e \nDevices include, but are not limited to laptop computers and netbooks, tablet devices, smartphones, portable storage \nsuch as removable hard drives, USB memory sticks and data cards, portable audio visual equipment including data \nprojectors, cameras etc.  \nITS:  Inf ormation Technology Services  \nNon-Standard Hardware / Software:  Any ICT equipment and components that are not part of the Massey SOE  \nSOE:  Standard Operating Environment as per guidelines  \nRelevant Legislation : \n \nCopyright Act 1994  \n \nLegal compliance:  \n \nCopyr ight Act 1994:  \n The usage of  a softw are product is gov erned by the terms of the licence agreem ent and by c opyright law  \nUnder the C opyright Act 1 994 it is illegal  to make o r distribute copyright material (whi ch include s comput er progr ams) \nwithout spe cific auth orisation from the copyright o wner. \n \n \n Massey University Policy Guide \nDesktop Hardware and Software Acquisition Policy   \nPage 3 \n  \nRelated procedures / documents:   \n \nAcceptable Use Policy  \nAsset Disposal and Write Down Policy  \nConfigure to Order Process   \nITS Endpoint Security Policy  \nITS Equipment Disposal  \nITS Website – Purchase hardware and software  \nPolicy  on Staff Conduct   \nProcurement Policy  and Procedure  \nTelecommunications Policy  \nSOE Guidelines  \n \n \nDocument  management control:  \n \nPrep ared by:  Data Management Specialist, on behalf of the Chief Infor mation Officer  \nAuthor ised by: Deputy  Vice Chancellor , Finance and Technology  \nApproved by:  SLT 19/08/141  \nDate iss ued: September 2014  \nLast revi ew: Novem ber 2019 \nNext review:  November  2022 \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Council_Statute_on_Policy_Development_and_Review_PDF_158_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Council Statute on Definition and Establishment of a Policy",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "158 KB",
      "author": "jmlochhe",
      "creation_date": "2017-10-27T13:00:07",
      "modification_date": "D:20171027130756+13'00'",
      "effective_date": "1 december 2016"
    },
    "content": " \n Massey University Policy Guide \n \nCOUNCIL STATUTE ON P OLICY DEVELOPMENT AND REVI EW \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \nPurpose :  \nThe purpose of this Statute  is to ensure that University policies are developed and maintained in an appropriate and \nconsistent manner.  \nPolicy:   \nAll policies at Massey University are to be established and reviewed in accordance with this Statute.  \nA Policy  is a written statement, which articulates the principles , values, statements of intent and compliance \nrequirements of the University  \n \nA policy is not a Council statute, procedure, guideline, framework or a regulation which are defined in Appendix 6.   \n \n \nPolicy Development  \n \nWhile any member of the University c ommunity may consider there is a need for the creation of a new University \npolicy, any development must be undertaken with the express authorisation of the intended policy owner.  \n \nIn considering the development of a new policy, the policy owner will assess the need, and may consider whether or \nnot the intended policy will : address an existing risk, shortfall or gap in current operations; will describe a new process \nwhich must be com plied with ; will provide  clarity  of process and ensure consistent application of the required \nprinciples; be sufficiently different in content and purpose to an existing policy which could otherwise be amended.  \n \nDue consideration must also be applied to t he cost and resourcing implications of implementing and ensuring \ncompliance to the policy.   \n \nPolicies must  \n• Comply with relevant legislation and University regulations.  \n• Be consistent with University delegations.  \n• Consider strategic implications as well as risk.  \n• Consider the effect on staff.  \n• Consider the effect on students.  \n• Be feasible to implement.  \n• Align with the University’s Strategy and  Investment Plan.  \n Section  University Management  \nContact Risk and Assurance  \nLast Review  October  2016  \nNext Review  October  2021  \nApproval  A&R16/46  \nEffective Date  1 December 2016   \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nCouncil Statute on Policy Development and Review  – Page 2 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nAll policies must be set out as directed in the policy template provided –  Refer  to the Policy Template – Appendix \nOne.  \n \nThe policy owner must specify  a review period of either 3 or 5 years as the policy is developed or reviewed. If the \ncontent of the policy is static in nature and not likely to change significantl y in the short to medium term, then a review \nperiod of 5 years may be appropriate. A review period of 3 years should be specified where changes in process, \nlegislation or operational practice are likely to occur within that time.  \n \nRegardless of the date specified for the next review, the policy owner may choose to review the policy at any time, \nand should do so where substantive revisions are required to align with internal processes or changes  to legislation.  \n \nWording of policy doc uments is critical  and needs to c larify the “must” inherent to the policy.  It is the “must” that will \nconstitute the obligations that are central to the policy  \n \nWhere policies have an impact on the terms and conditions of employment of staff , the designat ed policy owner will \nbe required to consult appropriately , and as outlined in the relevant employment agreements , with all SLT members, \nstaff, and staff representative groups through the People and Organisational Development s ection, before seeking \nVice-Chancellor approval .  Similarly where policies impact on other key stakeholders ( e.g. students/Iwi ) the \ndesignated policy owner will be expected to consult with such stakeholders before seeking Council, Vice- Chancellor \nand/or Academic Board approval.  \n \nOther considerations are:  \n• Who will be responsible for implementation, day -to-day operation of the policy and monitoring for compliance? \n• Proximity – is the policy responsibility related to accountability of function?  \n• Indicators – what are the mechanisms that indicate the policy is effective?  \n• Feedback – what are the processes for reviewing and updating the policy?  \n• Externality – does this policy represent ‘best practice’?  \n• Clarity and Transparency – Is the policy easily understood and clear in intent?  \n• Access – e.g. via the web for staff and students  \n• Consistency – with other University policies  \n• Review period –  is the policy content static or does it require updating more frequently?  \n \nRefer Appendix Two for the Policy Development Process Flow Chart  \n \nPolicy Approval  \n \nUnder the Education Act 1989 (Section 180 (1) (c) (d)), the University Council has legislated delegations  to: \n1. Determine policies to implement Massey University’s funding t plan ; and  \n \n2. Determine (subject to the State Sector Act) , the policies of Massey University in  relation to the management \nof its affairs .  \n \nAs permitted, the University Council has discretion to delegate all or part of these authorities , to the Vice-\nChancellor, Academic Board or the Audit and Risk Committee (as specified in Schedule B of the Massey \nUniversity Council Delegations Statute).  Council Secretary maintains a schedule of all policies that require \nUniversity Council approval.  \n \nFor all other policies:  \n \n•  Approval of academic policies is delegated by the University Council to the Academic Board.  \n \n• Approval for policies related to the management of the Universities affairs is delegated by the University \nCouncil to the Vice- Chancellor who, after endorsement by the Senior Leadership Team (SLT) or other \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nCouncil Statute on Policy Development and Review  – Page 3 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nbodies/positions so delegated,  will approve those management policies (includes: Finance, Human \nResources , Research M anagement, Academic M anagement and Asset related policies).   \n \n \nResponsibility  \n \nThe policy owner  is responsible for carrying out the development and review process , and  for obtaining policy \napprova l when required, in accordance with this Statute.  The policy owner  has responsibility for communication and \nimplementation of the Policy.   \n \nResearch and Academic Policies  \nThe Assistant Vice -Chancellor Research,  Academic  and  Enterprise is policy owner for the University’s \nresearch and a cademic policies and is responsible for oversight of the comprehensive approval processes for \nsuch policies  and associated procedures , through  consideration by relevant committees  including  College \nBoards, Academic Committee, Teaching and Learning Committee, Academic Board and Council (where \nappropriate).  \n \nFinance Policies; Information Technology Policies  \nThe Assistant Vice -Chancellor Strategy, Finance, IT and Commercial Operations  is the policy owner for a \nnumber of administrative policies including a sset-related,  finance,  and IT policies.  \n \nCampus Management  and International  \nThe Assistant Vice -Chancellor Operations , International  and University  Registrar is the policy owner for a \nnumber of administrative policies including those relating to c ampus management,  facilities,  and international.  \n \nPeople and Organisational Development Policies , and Health and Safety Policies  \nThe Assistant Vice-Chancellor People and Organisational Development  is policy owner for Human Resource \nand Health and Safety related policies.  \n \nUniversity Management Policies  \nOwners of each University Management policy will be the Assistant Vice -Chancellors  who have  functional \nresponsibility for implementation and accountability in the area covered by the policy .  \n \nGovernance Policies  \nThe Chair of Council is the Policy Owner of all Governance related policies.  \n \nApproval pathways for all policy  types are included as appendices to this Statute.   \n \nReview and Revision  \n \nThe policy owner  has responsibility for reviewing  and/or updating those U niversity policies within  their area of \nresponsibility . \n \nA review  of the policy must be undertaken every 3 or 5 years, dependant on the nature of the policy,  to ensure that \nthe content remains current and appropriate within the operating context .  \n \nMajor or substantive revisions to an existing policy must be treated the same as a new polic y, and undergo the \ndevelopment and approval process described in Appendix Two . \n \nIf no changes are required when a policy is reviewed, the policy owner should notify the Risk Management Office and \nspecify the next review date.  \n \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nCouncil Statute on Policy Development and Review  – Page 4 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nThe policy owner can make minor revisions that do not change the substance of a policy without completing the \nformal approval process described in Appendix  Two.  \n \nProcedures should be reviewed by the relevant section alongside the revision of any overarching Policy, or at \nintervals of no greater than 5 years ,  \n \nFor purposes of clarity it should be noted that policies published in the Policy Library remain valid and in force, \nirrespective of whether the review date has passed.  \nPolicy Library  \nThe Massey University Policy Library  is the authorised and definitive catalogue of approved policies within Massey \nUniversity. Policies will be added or updated on the Policy Library  once formally approved, and upon the instructions \nof the p olicy owner. All policies will include confirmation of approval (i.e. the relevant meeting minute reference \nnumber).  \n \nThe Policy Library  is maintained by the Risk Management Office. Policies are deemed Vital Records and will be \nmanaged in accordance with the  Records Management Policy.  \n \nPolicies are public documents. Procedures and related documents may be  restricted to Massey University staff only, if \nspecified by the policy owner.  \n \nAudience : \nAll staff, students and external stakeholders .  \nRelevant legislation : \nUniversity Regulations  (as contained in the Massey University Calendar)  \nNew Zealand Law ( www.legislation.govt.nz ) \nLegal compliance : \nPolicies must comply with University Regulations  and New Zealand law.  \nRelated procedures / documents : \nRecords Management Policy  \nDocument Management Control:  \nPrepared by:  Director Risk and Assurance \nAuthorised by:  AVC Operations, International and University Registrar  \nApproved by:  Council TBC  \nDate issued:  1 December 2004  \nLast review:  October 2016  \nNext review:  October 2021 \nEffective Date: 1 December 2016  \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nCouncil Statute on Policy Development and Review  – Page 5 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nAPPENDIX ONE –  POLICY TEMPLATE  \n \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \n \nPurpose :  \nA statement indicating the reason for the document’s existence and importance.  It should be brief and one sentence \nonly.  \nPolicy:  \nStatement of specific policy  \n• Use one- sentence statements only.  \n• Always word the statements concisely and avoid ambiguity.  \n• There may be more than one policy statement in a policy document.  If so list them down the page.  \nDefinitions : \n(Optional)  Some policies may require a definition section.  The purpose of this section is to define areas that may \nneed clarification.  \nAudience:  \nEach policy should identify who the audience is in terms of staff, students and external bodies within the univ ersity \ncommunity.  \nRelevant legislation:  \nState the relevant legislation this policy must comply with or is referenced to.  \nLegal compliance:  \nIf this policy has obligations for legal compliance these should be explained briefly.  \nRelated policies and procedure s: \nIf any policy has a number of procedures and/or documents associated with it, these should be listed in this section of \nthe policy statement.  Links to external references, forms or websites shoul d not be listed here.  \n \n \n Section  Choose appropriate policy section  \nContact Dept to be contacted with any queries  \nLast Review  Month and year  \nNext Review  Month and year  (3 or 5 years from last review)  \nApproval  E.g.:  SLT Minute reference  \nEffective Date  Date upon which the policy commences  \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nCouncil Statute on Policy Development and Review  – Page 6 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nAPPENDIX T WO: POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS  \nA process flowchart for policy development, approval and implementation  \nSTEP ONE  \nIdentify policy need and initiate action  - Any person in \nMassey University may identify a need for a new policy, or \nrevision of existing policy.  (This may be due to changing \nacademic, business or legal requirements) . Agreement must \nbe obtained from relevant policy owner to proceed to Step \nTwo \n \nSTEP TWO  \nDraft policy (by Policy Owner) –This involves \nconsiderations within this document, and use of Policy \nTemplate  \n \nSTEP THREE \nConsultation  (by Policy Owner) - \nConsult relevant members of the \nUniversity community as appropriate.  \nFor example: academic staff; \nprofessional  staff; students; iwi staff \nunions; committees and groups; \nexternal agencies etc . a mininimum of \none month is required where \nsubstantive changes required.  \n STEP FOUR  \nEndorsement Process (by Policy \nOwner)  - with committees, e.g. \nSLT, Academic Committee  \n  \nThere may be the \nneed for iteration \nof a draft policy to \nrefine \nappropriately     \nbefore \nendorsement  \n \nSTEP FIVE  \nApproval Process – Policy needs to be approved in \naccordance with University delegations. i.e. SLT/Council \nusing the approved templates for decision papers. This step \nis managed by the Policy Owner.  \n \nSTEP SIX \nPublishing process (by Policy Owner)  – This involves \nensuring placement of  the policy on Policy Library web site \nupon formal approval , and notification to staff.   \n \nSTEP SEVEN  \nImplementation (by Policy Owner) –  Ensure \nimplementation, training ne eds and non- compliance issues \nare addressed  \n \nSTEP EIGHT  \nPeriodic Review (by Policy Owner) – .  During review \nperiod the current policy is deemed to be unchanged  \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nCouncil Statute on Policy Development and Review  – Page 7 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nAPPENDIX THREE: ACADEMIC POLICY  APPROVAL  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n  \nCOUNCI L \n \nPolicy Making \nProcess (including \nconsultation)  \n \nCollege Academic \nBoards  \n \nRelevant Academic \nBoard Sub- Committee  \n \nACADEMIC BOARD  \n(under delegation)  \nSLT endorsement if \nappropriate  \n For academic policies \nrequiring Council \nendorsement  \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nCouncil Statute on Policy Development and Review  – Page 8 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nAPPENDIX FOUR:  MANAGEMENT POLICY APPROVAL  \n \n \n \n \n \nVice-Chancellor  \n \nPolicy making \nprocess (including \nconsultation)  \n \nRelevant SLT \nSub- Committee  \n \nSenior Leadership \nTeam  (SLT)  \nIf not approved for \nsubmission to SLT \nCOUNCIL  \n \nFor management policies \nrequiring Council \nendorsement  \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nCouncil Statute on Policy Development and Review  – Page 9 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nAPPENDIX FIVE: GOVERNANCE POLIC Y APPROVAL  \n \n \nVice-Chancellor  \n \nPolicy making \nprocess (including \nconsultation)  \n \nRelevant SLT \nSub- Committee  \n \nSenior Leadership \nTeam  (SLT)  \nIf not approved for  \nsubmission to SLT \nCOUNCIL  \n \nCouncil Sub -\nCommittees  \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nCouncil Statute on Definition and Establishment  \n of a Policy  – Page 10 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nAPPENDIX SIX: GUIDE TO POLICY DEFINITIONS  \n \nTerm  Definition  Example s Approval Body  Audience  \nFrameworks  A structure that outlines the way a Policy \nwill be implemented within the \nUniversity environment and describes \nvarious elements and their inter -\nrelationships. Frameworks draw together \ninformation from various sources \nincluding, but not limited to, Strategies, \nPolicies and Procedures.  Qualification Framework  \nTeaching and Learning \nFramework \nCompliance F ramework  \nRisk Management Framework  Academic Board or \nrelevant \nsubcommittee in \nrelation to Academic \nmatters  Staff  \nGuidelines  A series of steps, factors, or \nconsiderations that should be worked \nthrough when making decisions or \ncoming to conclusions on matters that \nare subjective in nature or have complex \nlegal requirements to be met. Guidelines \nassist and guide people to achieve tasks \nusing a recommended course of action or \nin consideration of an agreed set of \nprinciples . Guidelines for International \nAssessors for AES  \nGuidelines for Distance \nEducation Offerings to \nInternational Students Overseas  \nGuidelines on Change  \nManagement  Relevant Academic \nBoard Subcommittee \n(when related to a \nnew or established \nPolicy or Procedure).  \n \nRelevant Line \nManager for other \nGuidelines.  Individual \nStaff  \nPolicies  A written statement which articulates \nthe principles, values, and statements of \nintent and compliance requirements of \nthe University.  Qualification Policy  \nHealth and Safety Policy  SLT, or Council or \nAcademic Board (in \nrelation to Academic \nmatters)  Staff, \nStudents, \nPublic  \nPowers  Authority conferred upon the University \nunder the Education Act 1989 and \nsubsequent amendments.   Powers to establish and quality \nassure programmes, enrol and \nexclude students (including \nInternational students), and \ncharge and collect fees.    \nNZ Government  University  \nProcedures  Established steps or methods that must \nbe performed to obtain a specified \noutcome or output. Establishes the \npurpose of the activity and who is \nresponsible for the action. \nCommunicates acceptable practice and \nsets boundaries.   Award of Alternative \nQualification Procedures  \nProcurement Procedures  \n \n Relevant Committee \nor Policy Owner  Staff  \nProcesses  Workflows which may involve a number \nof steps and hand- offs between various \nparties. Processes support large volume \nworkflows and may be expressed at a \nbroad or detailed level. Participants may \nbe within or without the institution.  Enrolments Process  \nBusiness Case Process  \n N/A Staff, \nStudents   \nRegulations  Define how the University will exercise \nthe powers conferred under the \nEducation Act 1989 as they relate to \nstudents, and educational offerings.   Unsatisfactory Academic \nProgress Regulations, \nQualification Regulations  Academic \nCommittee  Students, \nStaff  \nRules  Statements of expectations and \nrestrictions that relate to a regulation.  Examination Rules  Academic \nCommittee or \ndelegate  Students   \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nCouncil Statute on Definition and Establishment  \n of a Policy  – Page 11 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nCouncil \nStatute  A ratified Council Policy  consistent with \nthe Education Act 1989 or the State \nSector Act 1988.  Specific examples include; \nDelegations Statute, Council \nStatute o n Policy Development \nand Review . Council  Governance \nBoards, \nUniversity, \nStaff  \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Critical_Risk_Standard__Mechanical_Equipment_PDF_485_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Critical Risk Standard  Mechanical Equipment PDF 485 KB",
      "policy_type": "Standard",
      "file_size": "485 KB",
      "author": "Robertson, Paul",
      "creation_date": "2020-09-03T12:00:06",
      "modification_date": "D:20200904083350+12'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n \n \n \n \n  \nINTRODUCTION  \nUse of mechanical plant  is a common activity, which  has a number of associated mechanical \nand non- mechanical hazards and therefore carries a potential risk of serious incidents and life \nchanging harm .  \nThis critical risk standard  has been developed to provide information to our people about the \nway that the risk of using mechanical plant  is managed at Massey University  (MU) . It applies \nto all our people (staff , students or others) who have any involvement using mechanical \nequipmen t for  Massey University business purposes.   \nThis standard should be read as the minimum standards that apply when operating mechanical plant at Massey University  \nor on university business . It is acceptable to add controls at a local level, beyond what is p rescribed here –  however at no \npoint may controls be removed or substituted without the express written permission of the relevant SLT member and the \nDirector Health, Safety and Wellbeing.  \n \nCRITICAL RISK SCENARIOS \nThe following scenarios have been identifi ed for this critical risk:  \n• Loss of control of plant leading to f ire \n• Loss of control of plant causing acute  harm  \n• Exposure to non- mechanical  harm  \n \nMINIMUM CONTROL  REQUIREMENTS   \nSelection  of Mechanical Plant  \nMassey University shall ensure that all mechanical plant shall be soundly constructed \nand meet or exceed relevant New Zealand and International standards  i.e. AS/NZ 4024 \nSafety of Machinery Series  the principles of Health and Safety in Design (HSiD)  and the \nduties in outlined in the Health and Safety at Work Act (HSWA) 2015 . \nMassey University shall ensure the  procurement process in place includes an a ssessment  \nof the health and safety risk s for the mechanical plant considered.   The selection of  \nmechanical plant must take into consideration the physical dimensions, reach and \ncognitive capabilities of users  along with compatibility with existing plant and \nequipment, av ailable space and personal protective equipment (PPE) .  This assessment \nshould include involvement of the health and safety represent ative (HSR) for the affected \narea.  \nIn addition, non- mechanical hazards such a noise  and dust  generation should have effective controls to eliminate \nor reduce potential for harm  and comply with HSWA and HSWA/ HSE Regulations . \n \n \n \n \nCRITICAL RISK STANDARD | MECHANICAL PLANT  \n \n \nThis icon is used \nthroughout this \nstandard to identify \nany Critical Controls.  \n \nVersion 1.0 | Issued August 2020  \nReview Due: August 2022  \n\n  \n \nWorking with Mechanical Equipment  \nMassey University must  ensure there is a process in place to check  mechanical plant  is in a safe condition to use .  \nThe process es shall cover the management of any d efective equipment , repair, replacement  and disposal.   \nElectrical plant connected to mains supply shall comply with the Electric ity (Safety)  Regulations 2010 and AS/NZS \n3760:2010 and must be tested and tagged prior to first operation and thereafter as and when required.   Portable \nhand held equipment that is powered by electric current must be connected  an isolating transformer or Residual \nCurrent Device (RCD)  system . \n \nMassey University shall ensure that when unable to eliminate the hazard that minimisation controls will complete \na risk assessment that will consider and select the most effective controls (i.e. engineering and isolation \nsafeguards) to p revent contact  of any body part with dangerous parts  and exposure to harm affecting health.   \n  \no Where guards and barriers provide isolation, these sh all be designed so that people cannot reach over, \nunder, around or through them and come into contact with the dangerous parts of the machinery,   \nguarding must perform to or exceed standards detailed in AS/NZ 4024 Safety of Machinery Series  and \nnot be easily removed.  \n \no Where safety is reliant on an operator turning off equipment quickly to prevent harm, or where a person \nmay become entangled or otherwise caught in mechanical equipment, a suitable e -stop device must be \ninstalled in a location near the controls or any place where a worker may become caught.  \n \no Preference shall be given to ensuring that guarding is interlocked and prevents the operation of \nmachinery with guards removed . \n \nMassey University shall ensure that t here are protective devices or apparatus for woodworking or abrasive grinding \nmachinery  for example:  \no Push sticks  \no Anti- kickback devices  \no Jig or an automatic feeding device  \n \nMassey University must have policy in place to monitor non mechanical hazards (i.e. noise, dust and vibration).  This includes a p rocess and procedure to monitor  the exposure levels in the work environment to ensure that no \nperson is exposed  to process inputs and outputs:  \no Noise levels over  85 decibels  (dB) averaged over 8 hours or a peak noise level over  140 d B. \no Toxic or hazardous substances that exceed Workplace Exposure Standards (WES)  and/or Biological \nExposure Indices (BEI) . \nWhen  personal protective equipment is provided Massey University must  have a process and procedure in place \nfor health monitorin g related to the risk profile of the work undertaken . \n Workplace signs used to communication danger, warning or caution and inform of notices and safety instructions \nare set out in accordance to NZS/AS 1319:1994 Standard.  \n \n \nAnyone under the age of 15 year s old is prohibited from working or helping with work with machinery .  \n \nOperator Selection  \nA list of minimum skills, knowledge and competency standards an individual needs to possess to work safely with \nmechanical equipment is referenced when employing new staff.  Pre- employment health checks relevant to the \nrisk profile should also be considered  when recruiting  staff . \n\n Any person who is aware of a medical condition or any other condition (i.e. fatigue) that may affect their health \nand safety while working with any mechanical  plant or equipment must disclose the medical condition before \nstarting work . \nOperator Training  and Supervision  \n Training  \nMassey University shall ensure that there is a system in place that identifies who has been trained to operate \nmechanical plant used for Massey University purposes and the individual competency levels  attained.  \nIndividuals operating mechanical equipment shall be inducted to the work area and tasks.  Individuals shall receive \ntraining and supervision provided by a competent person with experience in the task being demonstrated.  \nTraining shall  include a  practical and ‘hands on’ component  and ensure refresher training provided . \nTraining may include the following:  \no information on the correct use of the plant and components attached  \no how to install , adjust and basic operation and non -routine activities like maintenance, repair and cleaning  \no the actual and potential hazards  and precautions in relation to these  \no safe manual  handling  \no housekeeping  \no how  to respond to a n emergency  \no incident reporting  \nSupervision \nUsers  shall be supervised by a competent person.  Supervision should be provided during the course of all training \nstages  and remain in place until person is deemed competent . \n \nSafe Systems of Work  \nMassey University shall ensure there is an effective system for identifying hazards, assessing risk and resolving \nmachinery faults.  In addition, Massey University  shall ensure s afe systems  of work procedures are established and \nfollowed.  Key factors that should be considered when develo ping a safe system of work include:  \n \no Correct use of tools and plant  \no Manufacturers specifications and recommendations  \no Conducting pre use checks/inspection  \no Working  environment  (i.e. lighting, ventilation and temperature).  \no People management  \no Training and supe rvision requirements  \no Emergency management  procedures  \no Signage  \no Human factors  \no Administrative controls like in house SOP/JSA/SWMS/PTW/LOTO  \no Regulations, Code of Practice and Industry Standards  \no Non routine activities like maintenance and cleaning \no Handling of hazardous substances and chemical s \no Health monitoring requirements that are relevant to the risk  \nA Job Safety Analysis (JSA)  should be completed when normal safeguards cannot be used or where new hazards \nare introduced by the work, during maintenance activities.  \nIsolating  plant or processes from sources o f energy must follow the Massey University Isolation and Lock Out Tag \nOut (LOTO)  procedure.  \n \n \n  \nCleaning, Maintenance , or Repair of Machinery  \nPrior to undertaking cleaning, maintenance or repair work, e very part of the machinery, including any extensions \nor attachment must be secured against movement, including inadvertent movement and every control device \nhas been secured as inoperable in accordance to the Massey University  Isolation  Lock  Out Tag Out (LOTO)  \nProcedure . \no A procedure should be established for carrying out of the cleaning, maintenance, or repair in a safe \nmanner; and \no Only individuals who are competent or who are under the direct supervision of a competent person shall \ncarry out the cleaning, maintenance, or repair  work.  \no Where it is essential that a part of the machinery remains moving, only that part shall be set in motion; \nThe procedure is followed on every occasion to which it applies.  \nMechanical equipment must be maintained according to manufacturer’s instructions.  \nMechanical equipment is located in spaces that supports safe operation, cleaning, maintenance, inspection and \nemergency response/evacuation.  \n An inventory record listing mechanical equipment and tracks planned maintenance, breakdowns and repairs \nshould be in place.  \n \nAccess Control , Lone worker and After Hours Work  \nRestricted areas must be easily identified with unauthorised access controlled at all times . \n \no A risk assessment must be undertaken, signed off and appropriate controls put in place before  after -hours \nor in lone worker situations involving use of mechanical plan t. \no Personnel  and contractors must be authorised to  access the mechanical workshop unsupervised , by the \nHead of School  or equivalent.  \n \nIncident Management Procedures  \nCampu s security s hall be notified if emergency services are called so they can meet at an entrance a nd guide them \nto the scene.  Massey University  shall ensure that access ways are kept clear for emergency vehicles using signage \nand have processes in place to monitor.  \nMass ey University  shall ensure there are processes to manage incidents on campus and for the rehabilitation of \nstaff and a sufficient  number of trained first aiders present at all camp uses .  This includes appropriate support to \nthose  involved in and/ or witness ing an incident that may have  a psychological impact.  \n \nEmergency Response  \nMassey University will  ensure that there is an effective emergency response plan and that the  processes and \nprocedures are tested.   \n \nMassey University  shall ensure that it has adequate fire detection and suppressions mechanisms in pace and that \nthese are regularly tested.  \n \nMassey University shall ensure there is a bu siness continuity plan  that covers disruption to utilities such as \nelectricity supply (i .e. back up equipment like generators) and operation of mechanical plant.  \nMassey University shall have in place communications processes and procedures in the event of an emergency.   \n \n\n Emergency Equipment  \nEmergency equipment must be  available at strategic locations around \ncampus so that trained users can prevent further harm or \nenvironmental damage for e.g.   \n \no First aid and spill kits  \no AED located in key locations  \no Suitable fire suppression and control equipment  \nEmergency equipment mus t be fit for purpose, up- to-date and \nmaintained, and checked at intervals recommended by the equipment \nmanufacturers.  \nReporting  \nAll incidents involving plant  must be reported using the University’s \nonline safety reporting system, regardless of severity.  \nIncidents may require reporting to t he Regulators (i.e. WorkSafe  New \nZealand) in these situations  Massey University will ensure there are \nprocesses and procedures in place to manage the regulatory requirements . \nProperty and infrastructure damage must also be reported.  \n \n \nInsurance and Legal  \nMassey University shall ensure that there is appropriate insurance to \ncover property and infrastructure damage.  \nMassey University shall ensure that there is a process in place should \nlegal advice be required.  \n \nRELEVANT LEGISLATION OR POLICY  \no Health and Safety at Work Act 2015   \no Health and Safety at Work (General Risk and Workplace Management)  Regulations  2016  \no Health and Safety in Employment Regulations 1995  \no Health and Safety in Employment (PECPR) Regulations 1999  \no Health and Safety at Work (General Risk and Workplace Management) Regulations 2016  \no Electricity (Safety) Regulations 2010 \no Massey University  Health, Safety and Wellbeing Policy.  \no Massey University  Procurement Policy  \no Massey University  Health and Safety Procurement Procedures  \no Masse y University  Contract Management Policy   \no Massey University  Contractors (Academic and General Staff Duties) Procedure . \no Massey University  Isolation and Lock- Out Tag -Out (LOTO) Procedure  \n \nOTHER REFERENCES  \no WorkSafe New Zealand .  Good Practice Guidelines : Safe Use of Machinery . \no WorkSafe New Zealand. Special Guide –  Workplace Exposure Standards and Biological Exposure Indices  \no AS/NZ S 4024.1:2014 Safety of Machinery Series  \no AS/NZS 1319:1994 Safety  Signs for the Occupational Environment.  \no AS/NZS 3760:2010 In -Service Insp ection and Testing of Ele ctrical Equipment  \no MBIE: Ergonomics of Machine Guarding Guide . \n \nDEFINITIONS  \nCritical Risk: Any risk that carries the \npotential for a fatal or serious, life -\naltering injury.  \nCritical Control: A control that is \ncrucial to preventing the event or \nmitigating the consequences of the \nevent.   \nLock -Out-Tag-out (LOTO ):  an \nadministrative prevention control.  \nPlant : is referring to any machinery, \nequipment appliance, container, \nimpl ement or tool and any \ncomponent of those things and \nanything fitted or connected to those \nthings.  \nSafe Systems of Work  (SSOW) : A \nformal procedure which results from \na systematic examination of a task in \norder to ident ify the hazards.  It \ndefines safe methods and assigns \ncontrols to ensure hazards are \neliminated and risk reduced.  \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Electric_Vehicles_Scooters_and_Other_Motorised_Transportation_Devices_Guideline_PDF_90_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Electric vehicles, scooters and other motorised transportation devices",
      "policy_type": "Guideline",
      "file_size": "90 KB",
      "creation_date": "2023-08-15T11:00:02",
      "modification_date": "D:20231011112454+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " Massey University Policy Guide  \n \nELECTRIC VEHICLE S, SCOOTERS  AND OTHER MOTORISED TRANSPORTATION DEVICES GUIDELINE  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \n \n \n \n \n  \n  \nPurpose:  \nThis document outlines the procedure for riding, parking,  and using electric vehicles, scooters,  and other motorised \ntransportation devices on campus.  \nGuideline:  \nOperating an E -Vehicle, E -Scooter & Other Motori sed Transportation Devices  \n \nElectric scooters and other motori sed transportation devices are allowed on Massey University campuses. They must \nbe used on the road or footpaths and not indoors – excluding electric wheelchairs and similar mobility devices.  \n \nPlease always follow the New Zealand Ro ad Code, and rules and regulations on public streets, private roadways, \nwalkways,  and campus property, where permitted.  \n \nWhen on an E -Scooter:  \n• Wearing a properly fitted and fastened helmet is recommended . \n• Follow all the traffic rules applicable to a driver of a motor vehicle, including traffic lights, signs,  and ride with \nthe direction of the traffic.  \n• Yield the right -of-way to pedestrians and give an audible signal before passing a pedestrian or cyclist.  \n• Do not use earbuds or headphones on/in bot h ears.  \n• Individuals cannot ride at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions.  \n• A device should not be operated with more than one person on it. \n• When riding in the dark or dusk, an electric scooter must have a visible front -facing light, rear -facing red \nreflector or red light and reflective material.  \n• Please be aware of your surroundings. Uneven pavement, potholes and unexpected items can cause you to \nlose control of the device and it may be harder for vehicles to see you.  \n \nParking of E -Vehicles  \n \nMassey fleet E -Vehicles are to be parked at designated campus car parks. Contact Estates Management for \nconfirmation of the se locations.  \n \nParking of E -Scooters  \n \nElectric scooters need to be parked upright at or near a bike rack, out of the way of pedestrian or vehicle traffic. \nRented scooters, like those from Flamingo , Lime,  or Beam, need to be parked in a designated parking location \nindicated in the scooter operator’s  app or Estates Management  can be contacted  for confirmation of these locations.  \n \n  Section  Occupational Health and Safety  \nContact  Occupational Health, Safety and Wellbeing Team  \nLast Review  August 2023  \nNext Review  July 2026  \nApproval  Director, Occupational Health, Safety and \nWellbeing  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nElectric Vehicles, Scooters and Other Moto rised \nTransportation Devices Gui deline  – Page 2 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nParking of E -Motori sed Transport  \n \nAll other smaller motori sed transportation devices, including electric skateboards, also need to be parked in a manner \nthat also does not pose any tripping hazards. This includes keeping footpaths, pathways, ramps, stairs, and \naccessible entrances clear.  \n \nCharging  \n \nDue to fire and electrical safety hazards, personal motori sed transportation devices cannot be charged on university  \nproperty, including academic buildings and halls of residence, unless charging areas have been approved by Estates \nManagement.  \n \nFleet E -Vehicles are to be charged at designated campus charge ports that are available on a first -come, first -served \nbasis for all staff through Fleet Bookings https://bookit.eroad.com/  - contact Fleet  Management for these locations. \nWhen the charge of an E-Vehicle is complete, move the vehicle so other employees may use the charging station .  \nAudience:  \nAll Massey University staff, students, contractors,  and visitors to Campus . \nRelevant Legislation:  \nWaka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency – General Road Code  \nRelated Procedures:  \nNone  \nDocument Management Control : \nPrepared by: Director Occupational Healt h, Safety and Wellbeing   \nOwned by: Director Occupational Health , Safety and Wellbeing  \nAuthorised by: Director Occupational Health , Safety and Wellbeing  \nDate Issued: August 2023   \nLast reviewed: August 2023   \nNext review: July 2026   \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Data_Management_Policy_PDF_137_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Data Management Policy",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "137 KB",
      "creation_date": "2024-12-03T13:00:02",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220101052+13'00'"
    },
    "content": "  \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nData Management Policy  \n \nSection  Information Technology Services  \nContact  Chief Information Officer  \nLast Review  September  2022  \nNext Review  September  2025  \nApproval  SLT 22/09/124  \nEffective Date  September 2022   \n \nPurpose:    \nTo establish uniform data  management  standards and identify the roles  accountable and  responsib le for the \nmanagement of the data so that it efficiently and effectively serves the needs of the  University.  Massey University \nvalues access to, and the timeliness, accuracy, and consistency of data, so that decision -makers have confidence \nand trust in the information they rely on.   \nScope:  \nThis policy applies to all institutional data, including data out side of Massey University stored in a cloud service.  It \napplies to creators and/or users of such data and also applies to third parties who access and use University systems \nand IT equipment or who create, process, or store data owned by the University.   \nPolicy Statements:   \n1. The University asserts its rights in respect of all institutional data that is created and captured during the operation \nof the University . Institutional data are the property of the University  and are to be managed as a key asset.  \n \n2. In accordance with the Information Security Classification Policy and Framework  all sources of data must be  \nidentified, documented,  and classified commensurate with its sensitivity and value to ensure appropriate \nprotection throughout its lifecycle.   \n \n3. Sharing data between University departments is facilitated where appropriate.  Personally Identifiable Information \n(PII) will be deidentified wherever possible prior to such sharing unless the department has a genuine need to \naccess the data in an identifiable manner.  Under no circumstances will sharing data cause confidential data to be \ncompromised  generating a Privacy Breach . \n \n4. Data must be safeguarded and managed at all points and across all systems, from creation, to use, to archive, \nthrough coordinated efforts and shared responsibilities to ensure its accuracy. Each functional area will develop \nand implement processes for identifying and c orrecting erroneous or inconsistent data. When and if erroneous  or \ninconsistent data has been identified, the Data Steward from the corresponding functional area shall either correct \nthe data or escalate the issue to the appropriate Data Custodian.  All Da ta Breaches must be notified to the \nuniversity’s Privacy Officer.  \n  \n  \n  \n DATA MANAGEMENT POLICY  \n  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n  \n \nData Management Policy  \n  \n– \n  \nPage  \n2 \n  \n  \n5. Access to data is on the basis of the business  needs of the  University to enable the U niversity to achieve its \nmission. Employees will have  access to the data needed to perform their responsibilities. Access  to Personally \nIdentifiable Information (PII) will have all required access controls applied and managed.  Access  does not mean \nprivileges to modify or disclose the data.  \n \n6. The University’s institutional data may often reside in university records or may of itself be a university record. The \nretention and disposal of this type of institutional data must be managed in accordance with the Records \nManagement Policy and the approved Retention and Disposal schedule. Before decisions are made concerning \ndata retention and data archiving, the appropriate Data Stewards must be consulted.  \n \n7. All institutional data must be managed and as such must have representation by all the groups mentioned below.  \nThese are delegated responsibilities.  \n \nData Leaders are representative of the University’s Senior Leadership Team (SLT) and are accountable and \nresponsible for:  \n• providing strategic guidance for the  institutional  data in their area of responsibility  \n• acting as a champion for data management and data -related initiatives  \n• approving the policies associated with managing the University’s data specific to a functional area  \n• assigning Data Custodians.  \n \nThe Data Custodian  is the authoritative  head of the respective Faculty, School, Division or Unit within the University \nand is  accountable and responsible for:  \n• assigning Data Stewards for data in their area of responsibility and allowing time for them to complete \nrelevant tasks  \n• the business use of the data asset, and is given the authority to collect, create, retain, and maintain the \ndata within their assigned area of control, coupled with the responsibility to protect it on behalf of the \nUniversity  \n• authorising and reviewing the security classification of Information  \n• authorising access to assigned data and its usage in other systems  \n• identifying and registering Personally Identifiable Information (PII) contained in data sources  \n• ensuring that data is fit -for-purpose including defining data quality levels, metrics, business rules and \nfacilitating data integration.  \n \nThe Data Steward (s) are individuals responsible for the day -to-day management of the data, including  operational \nrequirements of data quality, data definitions, compliance with requirements, conformance to policies and \nstandards, security controls, and identifying and resolving data issues.  The Data Steward is required to:  \n• provide direction regarding the quality, security, integrity, accuracy, consistency, privacy confidentiality, \nand accessibility of information across its lifecycle  \n• assign an appropriate information  classification  \n• implement , monitor  and authorise  access to the data in accordance to approved business rules and \nprocesses  \n• specify any additional handling controls needed to ensure the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of \nthe data  \n• communicate the control requirements to the Data Custodian and to users of the data.  \n  \n  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n  \n \nData Management Policy  \n  \n– \n  \nPage  \n3 \n  \n  \nThe IT Services department is responsible for:  \n• providing a sustained data administration function that will review  data models and reinforce a set of \ndefinitions for commonly consumed data, with the understanding that there may be multiple valid \ndefinitions.  The definitions shall be a vailable  to all data users  \n• approving and applying the data architecture  and en suring integration across the University is supported  \nto foster data accuracy and uniformity, and demonstrate an understanding of the University’s institutional \ncomplexity, various data systems, and differing data formats  \n• ensuring data is safeguarded to maintain the confidentiality and privacy of Personally Identifiable \nInformation  (PII).  Data sources containing personally identifiable information and/or private information \nmust be inventoried.  \n \n        Users are responsible for:  \n• complying with data management policies, processes, and standards   \n• ensuring that all data access and usage is relevant and appropriate to the work being undertaken  \n• observing any access controls or security restrictions that apply to the data to which they have access, \nand only working within the data access boundaries that they have been permitted  \n• preventing any unauthorised access to data to which they have access rights and ensuring that \nconfidential or restricted data is always protected without disclosure to any unauthorised persons.  \n \nDefinitions:  \nData management  is the function that develops, manages,  and executes policies, processes, standards and \nframeworks that collect, protect, deliver, and enhance the value of data and information assets to meet the data \navailability, quality and security needs of the University.    \nData quality includes accuracy, completeness, timeliness, trustworthiness, business rules compliance, consistency,  \nand ability to integrate.  \n \nInformation  is data that has been interpreted so that it has meaning for the user.  \nInstitutional Data  is defined as all data created, captured, or managed by the University during its course of \noperation. It includes data used for planning, managing, operating, or auditing an administrative function of the \nUniversity  but does not include research data .  \nPersonally Identifiable Information (PII)  is data contained in University systems that is private information as \ndefined by the Privacy Act.  \nPrivacy Breach in relation to Personally Identifiable Information (PII) held at the University:  \n(i) means unauthorised or accidental access to, or disclosure, alteration, loss, or destruction of, the personal \ninformation ; or \n(ii) an action that prevents the university from accessing the information on either a temporary or permanent basis.  \nRecord means information, in its original form or otherwise, including (without limitation) documents, signatures, \nseals, text, images, sound, speech, or data created, received and/or maintained by, or on behalf of, Massey \nUniversity in the conduct of its affairs . Records can be compiled, recorded or stored in written form on any material, \nincluding film, negative, tape, or any other reproducible medium, or by means of recording devices, computers or any \nother electronic device or process which makes them machine -readable.  \n  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n  \n \nData Management Policy  \n  \n– \n  \nPage  \n4 \n  \n  \nRelevant legislation:  \n• Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017  \n• Privacy Act 2020  \n• Public Records Act 2005  \n• Official Information Act 1982  \n• Public Finance Act 1989  \n• Copyright Act 1994  \nRelated procedures / documents:  \n• Information Security Classification Policy and Framework  \n• Information and Records Management Policy   \n• Official Information Policy   \n• Privacy Policy   \n• Research Data Management Policy  \n \nDocument Management Control:  \nPrepared by: Chief Information Officer   \nAuthorised by: Deputy Vice -Chancellor, University Services   \nApproved by:  SLT 22/09/124  \nDate issued: November 2014  \nLast review:   September  2022  \nNext review:  September  2025  \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Digital_Plus_Policy_PDF_196_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Digital Plus Policy",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "196 KB",
      "creation_date": "2023-07-28T14:01:00",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220101032+13'00'"
    },
    "content": "    \n Massey University Policy Guide  \n \nDIGITAL PLUS  POLICY  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \nPurpose :  \nDigital Plus is our agreed strategic approach to the consolidation of our qualification portfolio (academic profile), \nremoval of unnecessary curriculum duplication, and ongoing acceleration of the University’s development of our \nonline learning and teaching. The objective of Digital Plus is for each discipline to consolidate tea ching on one \nphysical campus (in -person and face -to-face), ‘plus’ a digitally excellent offer.  \nIntroduction:  \n \nThe University Strategy 2022 -2027 sets a clear direction for teaching and learning at Massey University Te Kunenga \nki Pūrehuroa noting that,  \nOur point of difference is our flexible and wide -reaching learning and teaching opportunities, informed by \nworld -leading research, and conducted in partnership with community, other universities, research partners, \nentities,  and industry.  By strategically investing in boosting digital capability, added -value face to face \neducational opportunities, and disciplinary research excellence, we will strengthen the relationship between \nresearch and teaching for national and international impact . (Mass ey University Strategy 2022 -2027, p.6)  \n \nFurthermore, the Strategy commits us to ‘ high-quality teaching’ which is  ‘digitally enabled and accessible to all \nstudents and which is an ‘ excellent, contemporary and equitable learning experience, regardless of the ir location in \nAotearoa New Zealand or globally, or their study mode, face to face or online  (p.11).’ This commitment to digitally \nenabled excellence, irrespective of location or mode, sets an imperative for continuing to embrace flexibility in a \nCOVID -19 informed operating environment.  \n \nDigital Plus is a strategic concept designed to help Massey consolidate its academic profile and remove unnecessary \nduplication, while focusing on accelerating the University’s development of our online learning and teachin g, noting \nthe work achieved to date. It is also designed to ensure that our academic profile remains high -quality, well-planned,  \nand academically robust. This strategic approach is necessary to ‘future proof’ our academic profile and ensure that \nwe remain competitive and sustainable in a rapidly changing context.  \n \nWhile the notion of Digital Plus was agreed by Council and SLT, and socialised prior to the disruption of COVID -19, \nthe ‘new normal’ of the post -COVID era and its impact on universities provides clear evidence of the urgency of \ndetermining how we can maintain our competitive edge in distance education. This must be by leveraging our online \ncapability to deliver high -quality teaching and learning across a broad range of disciplines in a sustainable  manner \nwhich anticipates future economic shocks.  \nImplementing Digital Plus will lead to better utilization of our publicly funded resources and existing infrastructure, an \nincreased concentration and clustering of academic teams to better concentrate gro ups of researchers and align the \nUniversity’s teaching -research nexus, and an enhanced, more consistent and coordinated student learning \nexperience.  \n Section  Academic  \nContact  Provost  \nLast Review  June 2023  \nNext Review  June 202 6 \nApproval  SLT 23/07/69  \nEffective Date  June 2023  \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nDigital Plus  Policy  – Page 2 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  The Digital Plus strategic approach includes Five Principles of Transformation:  \n \ni. Planned and purposeful cu rriculum consolidation.  \nii. Coordinated and accelerated rationalisation of our academic profile.  \niii. Rationalisation of academic infrastructure and research facilities and reducing unnecessary \nduplication of infrastructure across campuses.  \niv. Enhanced digitisation of all our programmes.  \nv. Development of online distance and on -campus (in -person and face -to-face) delivery models.  \n \nThe objective of this approach is to improve our use of existing infrastructure and to consolidate academic teams as \nwell as tea ching delivery. This approach includes consolidating programmes onto one campus wherever possible to \nlimit duplication of teaching and research facilities and resources (including teaching teams); limiting internal delivery \nof courses to one campus (with o nline delivery alongside this); and/or opting for online distance delivery where one \ndelivery mode can serve our students (or where only one delivery option is feasible).  \n \nIn the context of our Te Tiriti o Waitangi commitments, programmes of significance f or Māori will be carefully \nconsidered regarding the application of this policy.  \n \nPolicy:  \n1. On-campus delivery of disciplines is consolidated to one campus and may be extended by a high -quality \n‘designed for distance’ online delivery.  \nSpecifically, this means that:  \ni. For each discipline, where on -campus delivery is undertaken, there is one ‘physic al’ campus for on -\ncampus delivery, curriculum and course leadership, and research, ‘plus’ or supported by excellent \nonline delivery and support.  \n \nii. For each discipline, there is no duplication of the on -campus academic offerings across more than one \ncampus unless:  \na) Colleges can financially justify delivery to more than one physical location, plus a digitally \nsupported online offer; and/or   \nb) Delivery of an on -campus offering must comply on one or more campuses with the \nrequirements and thresholds set out in the No and Low Enrolments Policy. That is, student \nenrolments must justify a continued on -campus delivery unless an approved exception is \ngranted based on the criteria for exceptions set out in the No and Low Enrolment Policy.  \n2. A single online delivery appr oach will be utilised where delivery must support more than one campus/site/student \ncohort and student numbers in individual offerings do not justify an on -campus plus an online delivery.  \nImplementation:  \nImplementation of this policy will be guided by the  Office of the Provost working in partnership with colleges and \nguided by the specific commitments of the University Strategy 2022 -2027 .  \n \nAudience : \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nDigital Plus  Policy  – Page 3 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  Massey University Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa Council, staff, students, external stakeholders including mana whenua, \niwi, hapū and whānau associated with the University.  \nRelevant legislation : \nEducation and Training Act 2020  \nTreaty of Waitangi Act 1975  \nRelated  procedures / documents : \nMassey University Strategy 2022 – 2027   \nNo and Low Enrolments Policy  \nNo and Low Enrolments Procedures  \nDocument Management Control:  \nPrepared by:  Office of the Provost  \nAuthorised by:  Provost  \nApproved by:  SLT 23/07/69.  \nDate issued:  June 2023    \nLast review:  June 2023  \nNext review:  June 2025  \n \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Critical_Risk_Standard__Campus_Traffic_PDF_466_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Critical Risk Standard  Campus Traffic PDF 466 KB",
      "policy_type": "Standard",
      "file_size": "466 KB",
      "author": "Robertson, Paul",
      "creation_date": "2020-08-03T15:05:05",
      "modification_date": "D:20200803155554+12'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n \n \n \n  \nINTRODUCTION  \nPeople enter and move around our campuses  in different ways .  Whe re there are vehicles like \ncars, trucks or bikes there is a chance  they may  collide with each other and /or pedestrians  \nwith a potential risk of fatal or serious life changing harm .  \nPeople who work near or share access ways  and roads  are most at risk, visitors and \nmembers of the public may also be at risk.   \nThis critical risk standard has been developed to provide information to our people \nabout how we plan and manage  the risk associated with pedestrians , plant and vehicle \ninteractio n at Massey University. It applies to all our people (staff, students and others) who access Massey University \npremises.   \nThis standard should be read as the minimum standards that apply for campus traffic  and pedestrian management . It is \nacceptable to add  controls at a local level, beyond what is prescribed here – however at no point may controls be \nremoved or substituted without the express written permission of the relevant SLT member and the Director Health, \nSafety and Wellbeing.  \n \nCRITICAL RISK SCENARIO S \nThe following scenarios have been identified for this critical risk:  \n• Collision (vehicles vs. people vs. buses vs. cyclists vs. animals)  \n \nMINIMUM CONTROL REQUIREMENTS  \nPlanning and Design  \nMassey University shall ensure that there is  a safe and effective Campus Traffic and \nPedestrian M anagement Plan (CTMP) , location map s and Apps  in place that  show : \no Access  and exit  points  for all users  \no Shared spaces  \no Cycling routes   \no Traffic flow and direction  \no Traffic calming controls  \no Parking including disability parking \no Delivery  and service loading and unloading areas ,  \no Emergency service routes  \no Layout changes  \no Exclusion zones  \n \nCTMP’s shall be reviewed regularly  and specifically when  traffic/ user  volumes concern s are notified , when major \nconstruction work alters the CTMP and/or immediately following a  traffic incident.  \nWhen designing any new or modified traffic areas on campus:  \no The principles of health and safety in  design  (HSiD) shall  be incorporated,    \no Wherever possible physically separate vehicles and pedestrian spaces,  \nCRITICAL RISK STANDARD   \nCAMPUS TRAFFIC  MANAGEMENT  \n \n \nThis icon is used \nthroughout this \nstandard to identify \nany Critical Controls.  \n \nVersion 1.0 | Issued August  2020 \nReview Due:  August  2022  \n\no Traffic and pedestrian flow analysis shall b e undertaken to identify peak times, congested areas, and how \nthe spaces are being used.  \no Shared spaces  should be easily identifiable using signage, surface material changes, or other means so that \nusers are aware they have entered a shared space.  \no Where poss ible, one way systems  shall be used  to reduce the need for vehicles to reverse on site, or include \nreversing/turn -around areas /mirrors on blind spots , \no Accessibility for large vehicles and emergency vehicles shall be provided fo r, \no Security cameras and speed detector placement , \no Campus roadways  must be of sufficient width for  delivery, service, and emergency services vehicles , \no Temporary control of access to shared space areas may be required at times i.e. construction activity \nrequiring pedestrian exclusi on,  \no Drainage should be incorporated  to prevent flooding, erosion, and slippery surfaces , \no Avoidance or management of trenching or other works that may impact the roots of existing trees, which could weaken them  \no Alternative options involving vehicle use con sidered , \no Communication, consultation and co -ordination with key stakeholders planned.  \n \n \nTraffic calming, marking and signage  \nTraffic calming devices sh all be used to separate  and direct traffic and pedestrian  interfaces these, may include \nthe use of the following ; \n \no Road narrowing  \no Traffic islands  or chicanes  \no Speed humps  or cushions  \no Barriers  \no Bollards  \no Crossings  \no Road markings  and rumble strips  \no Vehicle restrictions or access controls  \nCampus entrances and exits must be clearly signposted to assist users and emergency services in locating \nspecified entrances. Signage shall be used to give clear, advanced warning/instructions to all users.  \nProvision shall be made for extra signage to promote clear way finding following changes in traffic and \npedestrian areas to assist u sers to navigate the new layout and  during extreme weather conditions . \nTraffic controls selected for use in pedestrian areas must  be suitable for people with  physical  disab ilities .  \n \nInfrastructure Maintenance  \nAll Massey University campus traffic and pedestrian infrastructure  shall  be maintained .  \nMassey University must have a system to ensure a  regular monitoring and maintenance programme for all \ncampus traffic and pedestrian areas.  \nMassey University shall maintain procedures and systems to ensure that all campus traffic  and pedestrian areas \nare regularly checked and maintained for example : \n \no road , footpath  and cycle lanes surface conditions  \no user visibility at entrances  and exit points  \no tree and vegetation management  \no fencing, particularly where there is potential  of animals/stock to acce ss the campus grounds  \no drainage and flooding  \no lighting levels and visibility  \no signage and surface markings in good condition  \n\nCampus Traffic and Pedestrian Monitoring  \nRegular o bservation and monitoring of user  behaviour shall be undertaken.  The monitoring  data analysis may be \nused for : \no General ‘all staff and student’ reminders on expected behaviour,  \no Information and training  needs analysis,  \no Disciplinary procedures , \no Make evidence based c hanges to the CTMP , \no Enforcement activities i.e. controlling  speeding  and unsafe parking or blocking thoroughfares ,  \no Support the provision of a dditional  infrastructure and equipment i.e.  signage and traffic calming devices.  \nTemporary Traffic Management  \nTemporary mechanisms should be in place for restricting areas to just one user group when hazardous work or \nother activities are being undertaken e.g. loading/unloading, before/during/after events , construction activity , \nand stock movement . \n \nAll activities that  affect  campus traffic or pedestrian fl ow shall  be set up and operated in accordance with the \nCode of Practice in Temporary Traffic Management (COPTTM ). \nTraffic management/ minimisation options should be covered as part of event planning  process  (i.e. park n ride) .  \nCosts for traffic and pedestrian management must be allowed for and included in the tender/contract process \nfor all work impacting pedestrians or traffic.   \nRegular reviews of the Temporary Traffic Management Plan (T TMP ) must be carried out during construct ion \nwork that affects  campus traffic  and pedestrian access and flow . \nCollaboration among all stakeholders is required to ensure TTMP’s are fit for purpose and adhered to during \nconstruction and/or events.  Each campus operations team must have a process for  approval of TTMP’s.  \nMassey University shall ensure there are processes in place to manage stock  crossing roads and shared spaces \nand farm fencing in these areas is secure and maintained.  \nWhere possible deliveries  should be scheduled to avoid peak times. If this is not possible, consider isolating the \narea with temporary traffic management equipment, or using a spotter to guide the delivery truck safely around \nother traffic/people, particularly when reversing . \n \nIncident  Management  Procedures  \nCampus security sh all be notified if emergency services are called so they can meet at an entrance and guide \nthem to the scene.  Massey University shall ensure that access ways are kept clear for emergency vehicles  using \nsignage  and have processes in place to monitor.  \nMassey University shall ensure there are processes to manage incidents on campus  and the rehabilitation of staff \nand sufficient t rained first aiders present at all campuses . \n \nEmergency Equipment  \nEmergency equipment must be available at strategic locations around campus traffic and pedestrian areas so that \nusers can prevent further harm or environmental damage e.g.  \n \no Temporary traffic and pedestrian management equipment (barriers and bollards)  \no First aid kits  \no Suitable fire control equipment  \no Containment equipment (spill kits)  \nEmergency equipment must be up- to-date and maintained, and checked at intervals recommended b y the \nequipment manufacturers . \n\nReporting  \nAll incidents involving traffic and pedestrians must be reported using the \nUniversity’s online  health and  safety reporting system, regardless of \nseverity . \nConcerns about campus traffic  and pedestrian areas must be reported to \nthe campus Facilities Services  team.  \nProperty and infrastructure damages must be reported.  \n \nInsurance  \nMassey University shall ensure there is appropriate insurance to cover \nproperty and infrastructure damage.   \n \nRELEVANT LEGISLATION OR POLICY  \no Land Transport Act 1998 \no Health and Safety at Work Act 2015  \no Massey University Health, Safety and Wellbeing Policy . \n \nOTHER REFERENCES  \no Code of Practice for Temporary Traffic Management (COPTTM): \nPart 8 of the Traffic Control Devices Manual (TCD).  \no NZTA Health and Safety in Design Minimum Standa rd. \n \n \nDEFINITIONS  \nCode of Practice in Temporary Traffic \nManagement (CoPTTM ).  Is the \nstandard reference for all temporary traffic management  on stat e highways \nand local roads. \n \nCritical Risk: Any risk that carries the \npotential for a fatal or serious, life -\naltering injury.  \nCritical Control: Any control which is \nessential for the prevention or \nmitigation of a critical risk.  \nHealth and Safety in Design (HSiD): is a \nprocess that integrates hazard \nidentification and risk assessment \nmethods early in the design process.  \nShared spaces: are where pedestrians \nhave legal priority over other traffic  \nTraffic: Includes any person or vehicle \nthat is moving through campus.  \nUsers: All people using (stationary or \nmoving) campus traffic areas e.g. \npedestrians, cyclists, buses, drivers, \nanimal herders, scooter riders etc.  \n \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Establishment_and_Operation_of_Commercial_Centres_Policy_PDF_55_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Establishment and Operation of Commercial Centres Policy",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "55 KB",
      "author": "jmlochhe",
      "creation_date": "2009-03-30T12:01:01",
      "modification_date": "D:20111214111722+13'00'",
      "review_date": "november 2008"
    },
    "content": " \nMassey University Policy Guide \n \nESTABLISHMENT AND OPER ATION OF COMMERCIAL CENTRES POLICY \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  Section Research \nContact Office of AVC Research \nLast Review November 2006 \nNext Review November 2008 \nApproval VCEC 07/02/23  \n \n \n \n  \n \n \nPurpose:  \n• To specify the terms of reference for Commercial Centres wh ich will be used as guidelines for establishment \nand formulation of agreements between the University, the Commercial Cent re and its parent College, Region \nor Division. \n• To provide operational guidelines for Commercial Centre s with reference to existing University policies and \nprocedures. \n• To ensure that the financial operations of Comme rcial Centres are transparent for all parties. \n• A Commercial Centre excludes any Research Centres, University subsidiary company or associated Trust or \nother independent legal constituted organisation. \nDefinitions: \n• A Commercial Centre  is defined as a department whose principal purpose is to undertake commercial or \ntrading activities.  \n• A Commercial Centre Agreement  outlines the objectives and operating requirements for the Centre. \n• Board  refers to a board associated with the Commercial  Centre, such as a Management Board or Advisory \nBoard or similar. \nPolicy: \nGeneral \n \n• This policy must be read in conjunction with any gener al terms of reference issued by the Vice-Chancellor \nand/or his/her delegate, and/or any sp ecific contract agreement already entered into between the University \nand the Commercial Centre. \n• A Commercial Centre can only be established, or disest ablished, with the approval of the Vice-Chancellor (or \ndelegate), on the recommendation of the General Manager, Strategy and Finance. \n• The Vice-Chancellor reserves the right to review the terms and conditions of a Commercial Centre agreement \nat any time. \n• The objective of a Commercial Centre is to undertake a par ticular business or trading activity which is related \nto and enhances the business of the University in some way. Generally, a Commercial Centre will exist as an \nextension or enhancement to a core activity of the University. It will add value to the University through \nprovision of a service or activity on a commercial basis that is not funded via other methods and would \notherwise not be available to the University.  \n• Activities could include: \no the provision of a range of services by the Univ ersity that enhance its core teaching and research \nactivities in some way, \no provision of specialised technical or consulting servic es that are not otherwise readily available within \nthe market place, \n \nMassey University Policy Guide \nEstablishment and Operation of Commercial Centres Policy  – Page 2  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University o services and products that enha nce the reputation and relationsh ip between the University, its \nstudents, staff and the wider community. \n• All activities of Commercial Centres will be undertaken on a bu siness like basis with a view to producing a \nsurplus which will contribute to the Univ ersity’s overall financial performance. \n• No unit within the University may call itself a Comme rcial Centre unless it is an approved Commercial Centre \nsupported by a Commercial Centre Agreement. \n• Commercial Centres must comply with all Massey Un iversity policies and procedures, available on-line at \nhttp://policyguide.massey.ac.nz   \n \nEstablishment \n \n• A formal proposal must be submitted to the General Manag er, Strategy and Finance. This will take the form of \na business plan, utilising the Massey Un iversity Business Plan template.  \n• Establishment (or disestablishment) of a Commercial  Centre must be approved by the Vice-Chancellor, on \nthe recommendation of the General Manager, Strategy and Finance. The proposal must be endorsed by the \nLevel 3 Manager responsible for the Commercial Centre. \n• Commercial Centres will pay the full assessed cost of support services provided by  the University and may be \nrequired to meet specified levels of return on asse t to the University as determined in the individual \nCommercial Centre Agreement. \n \nManagement and Administration \n• A formal Commercial Centre Agreement (including schedules) will be prepared for each Commercial Centre \n• The Commercial Activities Group (C AG) will monitor the financial performance and risk profile of each \nCommercial Centre in accordance with the Risk Ma nagement Policy of the University and its own Terms of \nReference. \n \n \nFinancial Requirements \n• Commercial Centre planned operating and capital expenditure must be in accordance with the annual \nuniversity planning and budgeting process. \n• The Commercial Centre will meet the as sessed costs of all servic es provided to it by the University. This may \ninclude: rent, building maintenance, insurance, infrastr ucture costs, depreciation, telecommunications, vehicle \nhire, accounting, legal and business support. \n• Funding for new ventures, expansions etc. will be subjec t to funding availability, and a robust business case \nclearly identifying the financial and non-f inancial benefits to the University. \nAudience: \nAll relevant University staff \nRelevant Legislation: \nNil \nLegal Compliance: \nNil \n \nMassey University Policy Guide \nEstablishment and Operation of Commercial Centres Policy  – Page 3  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University Related Procedures: \nDelegations Document\nRisk Management Policy\nPerformance & Risk Reporting Policy\nCommercial Centre Agreement – available through the O ffice of the AVC Finance, IT, Strategy and Commercial \nBusiness Plan Template\nDocument Management Control: \nPrepared by: Finance Operations \nAuthorised by: AVC – Finance, IT, Strategy and Commercial \nApproved by: VCEC 07/02/23 \nDate issued: 27 November 2006 \nReview Date: November 2008 \n \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Device_Security_Policy_PDF_121_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Device Security Policy",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "121 KB",
      "creation_date": "2024-12-05T12:05:05",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220101041+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " \nDevice Security Policy  \n \nDEVICE SECURITY POLICY  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University    P a g e  | 1  \n \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \n \nPurpose :  \nThis document specifies the University policy  for the use, management and security of all  devices  that ma y hold or \nconnect to Massey Univers ity’s corporate network and information.  \nKey success factors:  \n• Confidential data that resides within Massey University’s technology infrastructure, including internal and \nexternal clou d sources are protected  \n• Data is protected from being deliberately or inadvertently stored insecurely on a mobile device or carried over \nan insecure network where it could potentially be accessed by unsanctioned resources.  \nPolicy : \nThis policy covers all device s and accompanying media  connected to the Massey University network  environment  or \nhandling University information , whether the device is owned by the user or the University . \nAll University staff or anyone performing work on behalf of the University (inc luding  contractors, consultants and \nvolunteers) who use a device to access, store, back up, or relocate any  University  or client -specific data are subject to \nthis policy.   The policy addresses a range of threats to University data, or related to its use, such as:  \n \nThreat  Description  \nDevice Loss  Devices used to transfer or transport work files that could be lost or stolen.  \nData Theft  Sensitive corporate data is deliberately stolen and sold by an employee or unsanctioned \nthird party  \nCopyright  Software copied onto a mobile device could violate licensing.  \nMalware  Viruses, Trojans, worms, spyware, malware, and other threats could be introduced via a \nmobile device.  \nCompliance  Loss or theft of financial and/or personal and confidential data could expose the University \nto the risk of non -compliance with various identity theft and privacy laws.  Section  Information Technology Servic es \nContact  Chief Information Officer  \nLast Review  Octo ber 2022  \nNext Review  Octo ber 2025  \nApproval  SLT 19/08/142  \nEffective Date  November 2019  \n \nDevice Security Policy  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University    P a g e  | 2  \nPolicy S tatements:  \n \n1. The Vice-Chancellor has the overall responsibility for the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of \ncorporate data.  \n \n2. The Chief Information Officer has delegated execution and maintenance of information technology and \ninformation systems.  \n \n3. All University staff are responsible to act in accordance with University policies and procedures.  \n \n4. Connectivity of all devices will be centrally managed by the University’s Information Technology Services \ndepartment who will use authentication and strong encryption measures.  Although ITS will not directly \nmanage personal devices purchased by employees, end users are expected to adhere to the same security \nprotocols when co nnected to non -University equipment.  Failure to do so will result in immediate suspension \nof all network access privileges so as to protect the University’s infrastructure.  \n \n5. It is the responsibility of University staff who use a device to access corporate resources to ensure that all \nsecurity protocols normally used in the management of data on conventional storage infrastructure are also \napplied here.  It is imperative that any device that is used to conduct University business be used \nappropriately, responsibly and ethically.  Failure to do so will result in immediate suspension of that user’s \naccount.  \n \nAccess and Storage  \n \n1. ITS reserves the right to refuse the ability to c onnect devices to University connected infrastructure.  ITS will \nengage in such action if such equipment is being used in a way that puts the University’s systems, data, \nusers, and clients at risk.  \n \n2. Classified information is material that the University deems to be confidential  information  (e.g. IN \nCONFIDENCE, SENSITIVE)  that must be protected.  When storing /processing classified  information on a \npersonally owned  device, use of a University i ssued  device (i.e. laptop or tablet) should always be seen as \nthe preferred mechanism. Storage on  personally o wned devices can put classified information at risk of \ncompromise .  Anyone choosing to use their own personal device to handle University information is fully \naccountable and responsible for the security of their device . \n \n3. IN CONFIDENCE and SENSITIVE  information must  be stored within and accessed from University \ninformation systems  and Information Technology Services  approved  cloud providers,  to ensure the security of \nand appropriate secure access to the  information.  \n \n4. IN CONFIDENCE and SENSITIVE  information must  not be stored or transferred to a cloud computing service \n(such as  personal OneDrive, Google Drive  or Dropbox accounts  for example ) unless it is under a University \nnegotiated contract.  \n \nDevice and Physical Security  \n \n1. University staff using d evices  to access University information will, without exception  use a strong \npassword /passcode/passcode / PIN enabled to reduce the opportunity for unauthorised  access. Passwords \nand PIN’s must be kept secure  and be compliant with the Electronic Password Policy . The device must \nautomatically lock after a maximum of five minutes of inactivity . \n \n2. Devices used to access or store SENSITIVE  information must be encrypted to reduce the opportunities for \ncompromise or loss of information.  \n \n \nDevice Security Policy  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University    P a g e  | 3 3. Devices should, where possible, have operating system and anti -virus updates enabled.  “Jailbroken” or \n“Rooted” devices or those mobile devices which have otherwise circumvented the  installed operating system \nsecurity requirements (making them vulnerable to compromise) are not  permitted to connect to the University \nICT facilities.  \n \n4. Devices must not be left unsecured whether on or off  University premises. When unattended the device must \nbe locked (password /passcode / PIN  protected)  and kept secure.  \n \n5. Users must take responsibility for a mobile device  and not leave it unattended and unsecured.  \n \n6. All software contains security vulnerabilities, and software vendors are constantly  supplying updates \n(patches) to address these vulnerabili ties when they are identified. Device software operating s ystems  and \napplication software must be  kept up to date with the latest security -related patches, as soon as it is practical \nto do so . \n \n7. In the event of a lost or stolen device, it is incumbent on the user to report the incident to Massey University \nService Desk and your manager immediately.  The device will be remotely wiped of all data and locked to \nprevent access by anyone other than the ITS department.  If the device is recovered it can be submitted to \nITS for re -provisioning.  \nDefinitions : \nClassified Information  consists of confidential information which has been classified using the University’ s Data \nClassification Framework:  \n• IN CONFIDENCE information consists of information which if compromised would be likely to impede the \neffective operation of Massey University or adversely affect the privacy of its students or staff  \n• SENSITIVE information consists of information which if compromised would be likely to seriously damage the \nreputation of Massey University or endanger the safety of its students or staff.  \nDevices  include, but are not limited to laptop computers and netbooks, tablet devices, smartphones, portable storage \nsuch as removable hard drives, USB memory sticks and data cards, portable audio visual equipment including data \nprojectors, cameras etc.  \nPersonally owned devices means any device that is held personally by an individual in a private capacity.  \nUniversity issued device means any device that has been purchased, is owned or  leased by the University \n(regar dless of the source of funding).  \nUniversity information means information relating to or connected with the University’s business or  affairs.  \nRelevant Legislation:  \n \nPrivacy Act, 1993.  \nCopyright Act, 1994.  \nLegal compliance:  \nPrivacy Act 1993  \nEmail communications and web activity may be monitored from time to time to support operational, maintenance, \nauditing, security and investigative activities. The Privacy Act 1993 governs the collection and use of information held \nby the University for the purposes of its management and administration. Personal information held for these \n \nDevice Security Policy  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University    P a g e  | 4 purposes must not be used for other purposes. Release of personal information otherwise than in accordance with the \nterms of the Privacy Act is strictly prohibited.  \nCopyright Act 1994  \nEmail and the Internet make it very easy to copy the work of others. However, the Copyright Act 1994 makes it illegal \nto make or distribute copyright material without specific authorisation from the copyright owner. The University \nabsolutely forbids the use of its computer and network facilities for a purpose which constitutes an infringement of \ncopyright.  \nNo material is to be used without the written permission of the copyright owner.  \nCopyright information is provided at the following intranet address: http://copyright.massey.ac.nz/  \nNote that the legal ownership of messages may not reside with the originator. For example, the ownership of \nintellectual property in the messages may rest with the University or other parties, depending on contracts, statutes \nand policies outside this document.  \nRelated procedures / documents:  \nMassey University Collective and Individual Employment Agreements  \nMassey University Information Security Manual  \nPolicy on Staff Conduct  \nElectronic Password Policy  \nStudent Academic Integrity Policy  \nIntellectual Property Policy  \nDesktop Hardware and Software  Policy  \nResearch Data Management Policy  \n \nDocument Management Control:  \nAll policies should have a footer, which indicates the document number (if any); person who prepared the document; \nperson/body who authorised the document (policy owner); the date the document was issued or revised; the date the \npolicy is to be reviewed and a statement that this policy is the property of Massey University. This information should \nbe set out as follows:  \n \nPrepared by:  Chief Information Officer  \nAuthorised by:  Deputy Vice -Chancellor, University Services  \nApproved by:  SLT 19/08/142  \nDate issued:  November  2019  \nLast review:  October 2022  \nNext review : October 2025  \n \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Equal_Employment_Opportunities_Policy_PDF_97_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Equal Employment Opportunities Policy",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "97 KB",
      "creation_date": "2022-11-18T08:05:00",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220101012+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n \nEQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES POLICY  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \nPurpose :   \nTo reinforce Massey University’s commitment to the principle of equal employment opportunities and to eliminating \nbarriers that cause or perpetuate inequality in employment.  \nPolicy:  \nMassey University is committed to upholding its responsibilities as an Eq ual Employment Opportunities employer and \ncreating a workplace that attracts, retains and values diversity. To achieve this policy objective, Massey University will  \naim to :  \n \n• provide equal opportunities for recruitment, retention, development,  and promotion of all its current and prospective \nemployees, regardless of sex, marital status, religious/ethical belief, colour, race, ethnic or national origins, \ndisability, age, polit ical opinion, employment status, family status, or sexual orientation.   \n \n• develop and maintain a workplace culture that values and supports diversity.   \n \n• ensure that it provides a safe, supportive,  and healthy environment for all employees that is conducive t o quality \nteaching, research,  and community service.   \n \n• identify and aim to eliminate all aspects of policies and procedures or other institutional barriers that cause or \nperpetuate inequality in respect of the employment of any person or group of persons . This includes ensuring \nprocedures for recruitment, selection, promotion,  and performance reviews are fair and free from bias, including \nunconscious bias, towards any group of people . Groups of people include  women, ethnic minorities and any other \ngroups wh ere pay and/or equity gaps may exist.   \n \n• not tolerate any form of unfair discrimination in the workplace on any ground, including sex, marital status, \nreligious/ethical belief, colour, race, ethnic or national origins, disability, age, political opinion, em ployment status, \nfamily status, or sexual orientation.   \n \n• promote equal employment opportunities as an integral part of university  policies and practices.   \n \n• support the health and wellbeing of female staff members breastfeeding infants by providing time for  breastfeeding \n(or expressing milk) and the provision of private facilities in the workplace for breastfeeding (or expressing and \nstoring milk), wherever possible.   \n \n• monitor, review and evaluate progress towards achieving equal employment opportunities . This includes assessing \nand, if required, reducing gaps (including, but not limited to, gender pay gaps) at all levels .  \n Section  People & Organisational Development  \nContact  People & Organisational Development  \nLast Review  November 2022  \nNext Review  November 2025  \nApproval  SLT 17/08/112  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nEqual Employment Opportunities Policy  – Page 2  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n• provide a workplace that welcomes, respects, and includes rainbow and takatāpui communities – people of minority \nsexualities, genders, and diverse sex characteristics.   \n \n• promote an environment where there is no size or weight discrimination (in respect of a person’s physical size, \nsuch as very tall or short, or overweight/underweight ). \n \n• furthermore, Massey University supports the protection of human rights and is guided by international human rights \nstandards, including the UN Universal Declaration of Human  Rights, UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, \nand the International Labour Organisation Core Conventions . Massey is committed to treating all employees with \nrespect and dignity . We expressly prohibit forced labour, modern slavery,  and child labour.  Modern slavery is an \numbrella term for several serious exploitative work practices that represent violations of human rights . Modern \nslavery can take many forms, including human trafficking, slavery, and slavery like practices such as servitude, \nforced labour, forced or on servile  marriage, the sale and exploitation of children, deceptive or misleading \nrecruitment for labour or services and debt bondage.  \nAudience : \nAll staff of the University must abide by Massey University's Equal Employment Opportu nities (EEO) Policy and are \nresponsible for applying equal employment opportunity principles to work practices and decision -making processes.  \nRelevant legislation : \n• Education and Training Act 2020  \n• Human Rights Act 1993  \n• Public Service Act 2020  \n• Employment Relations Act 2000  \nLegal compliance : \nUnder the Education and Training Act 2020 Massey University must include in its annual report a summary of its EEO \nprogramme and an account of the extent to which the University was able to meet the equal employment opportunities \nprogramme for that year.  \n \nThe Human Rights Act 1993 prohibits Masse y University from discriminating against any employee, job applicant or \ncontractor on the grounds of sex, marital status, religious/ethical belief, colour, race, ethnic or national origin, disabili ty, \nage, political opinion, employment status, family statu s, or sexual orientation.  \n \nThe Public Service Act 2020  requires Massey University to develop and publish an EEO programme aimed at the \nidentification and elimination of all aspects of policies, procedures, and other institutional barriers that cause or \nperpetuate (or tend to cause or perpetuate) inequality in respect to the employment of any persons or group of persons. \nThe University also has an obligation to ensure that its EEO programme is complied with.  \nMassey University is a signatory to the Equal Em ployment Opportunities Employers' Group Charter (under ‘Diversity \nWorks New Zealand ,’ formerly the Equal Employment Opportunities Trust). By signing the Charter, the University has \nagreed to develop and maintain a policy that endorses EEO; develop plans t o achieve EEO goals with specific actions, \nperformance measures and senior management accountabilities; and report on EEO progress in the organisation via \nthe Diversity Works New Zealand biannual survey. Massey has achieved and seeks to maintain Rainbow Ti ck \nAccreditation.  \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nEqual Employment Opportunities Policy  – Page 3  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nRelated procedures / documents : \nNone  \nDocument Management Control:  \nPrepared by:  Senior Employment Relations Advisor  \nAuthorised by:  Deputy Vice Chancellor – University Services  \nApproved by:  Deputy Vice Chancellor – University Services  \nDate issued:  17 November 2022  \nLast review:  November 2022  \nNext review:  November 2025  \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Distinguished_Professor_Policy_PDF_140_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Distinguished Professor Policy PDF 140 KB",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "140 KB",
      "author": "Riley, Tracy",
      "creation_date": "2023-07-31T11:01:05",
      "modification_date": "D:20230731111525+12'00'"
    },
    "content": "© This Policy  is the property  of Massey  University   \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n  \n \n \n \n \n \n \nPurpose : \n \nThis Policy  sets out the principles, criteria,  and process for the award of  the role and title of  Distinguished Professor at \nMassey University  Te Kunenga ki P ūrehuroa . \nBackground:  \n \nThe title of Distinguished Professor has been established by the university to recogniz e professorial staff members \nwho have achieved positions of eminence internationally in their field.  The award of this title brings with it the highest \nrecognition the university can bestow on a member of its academic staff and reflects the importance it places on the \nwork and achievement of the recipients.  \nAwarding  Distinguished Professor ship also aligns with the university’s  Strategy  to ‘invest in research dissemination \nand actively benchmark our outputs to global standards to inform excellence and standing in research performance’  \nand ‘ demonstrating authentic leadership in contemporary Aotearoa New Zealand ’ (Pou Rangahau ); and  ‘to build \nconnections, both domestically and internationally ’ (Pou Hono ). \n \nPolicy:  \n \nEligibility  \n \n1. Nominees must be full -time or part -time (minimum of 0.5 FTE)  members  of the profess or staff who have been  \nemployed by Massey University  continuously for the past five years  prior to the date of nomination . Nominees \nwho have not yet attained  the required five years’ continuous prior service  at Massey University may o nly be \nconsidered  in exceptional circumstances . \n2. Nominees must:  \n(a) have attained prominence of international standing as a pre -eminent authority and have made outstanding \ncontributions which are widely recognised as making a substantial intellectual contribution  (rather than an \nincremental extension of existing knowledge)  and as having redirected scholarship, in their field;  and \n(b) exhibit exemplary national and international leadership in teaching, research, creative activity and/or \nenterprise and research  commercialisation and/or service ; and  \n(c) conform with professional stand ards and conduct that could be reasonably expected  of a person at their \ncurrent level of appointment.  \n \nCriteria  \n \nThe rationale  for making the award of Distinguished Professor are: \n• to acknowledge excellence among existing professorial staff members and confer upon them a special \nstatus which in turn enhances the reputation of the university.   \n• to attract excellent new talent to the university; and  \n• to act as a retention mechanism  by which the university might retain an excellent performer in a competitive \nemployment environment.  Section  Organisation Management and Governa nce \nContact  Vice-Chancellor  \nLast Review  March 2023  \nNext  Review  March 20 28 \nApproval  SLT 23/0 3/18 \nEffective  from  March 2023  \n \n DISTINGUISHED PROFES SOR POLICY  \n© This Policy  is the property  of Massey  University  \n \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nDistinguished Professor Policy – page 2   \n  \nThe primary criterion for selection will be the eminence, not merely excellence, of the nominee’s work as attested to \nby the national and international recognition of the highest order which they have received from the scholarly \ncommunity, with a baseline of sound integrity and respectful engagement.  Typically, this will be measured across all \nthree areas of academic responsibility – research and scholarly activity, teaching, and service.  \n \nSome non-exclusive examples of specific criteria are:  \n• internationa l recognition through notable citations of published works.  \n• international acclaim of creative works.  \n• distinguished leadership through innovative pedagogy and curriculum development.  \n• the receipt of awards, prizes,  or fellowships from international bodies, no ting that in fields with few or no \nawards other recognised indicators of acknowledged intellectual leadership may be provided.  \n• invited presentations of keynote lectures or esteemed plenary sessions at international meetings.  \n• the successful application of p atents and licences based on original research.  \n• distinctive and distinguished academic service contributions to the discipline/institution/nation.  \n \nA limited proportion of the university’s active Professoriate will hold this title commensurate with its status, with normally \nno more than fifteen Distinguished Professors in employment with the university at any time.  \n \nNominations proce ss \n \nUpon invitation from the Vice -Chancellor, which will take place  no less than every three years, nominations for \nDistinguished Professor may be made by any Pro Vice -Chancellor  of the university . It is not possible to apply for the \nrole of  Distinguished Professor.  \n \nThe following information should be  included in the nomination in the order set out below:  \n \n• A cover page listing the name of the nominee, Department/Institute/School, number of years of employment \nat the university and a supporting statement prepared by the nominator which should also attest that there \nare no known issues of integrity or characte r reputation that would not be befitting for holding the title.  \n• A current curriculum vitae of the nominee including identification of their most distinguished contributions \nat national and international level, as relevant to the discipline . \n• Discipline -relevant supporting material should be provided.  \n• Supporting statements from the applicable College Pro Vice -Chancellor.  \n• External Referee Reports from highly respected peers which reflect the required standards being met and \nstrongly endorsing the Distinguished  Professor designation (up to five with a minimum of three  reports , with \nthe university reserving the right to source additional referees).  \n \nSelection proce ss \n \nThe Pro  Vice-Chancellor or the candidate may nominate the external referees , but the Vice -Chancellor reserves the \nright to approach any or all of them, as well as  any other referees of the Vice -Chancellor’s choice . \n \nOnce the Vice -Chancellor has made their selection of referees , and  referee reports have been obtained, t hose referee  \nreports will be made available to members of the Distinguished Professor Selection Committee, along with the  \ninformation provided in support of  the candidate’s nomination , to consider the nomination . \n \nThe Pro Vice -Chancellor of the nominee’s College w ill be invited to present the individual case to the Distinguished \nProfessor Selection Committee  but will not be present for deliberations of the Committee.  \n \nThe Distinguished Professor Selection Committee will be chaired by the Vice -Chancellor , and comprise  members of \nthe Professorial Promotions Committee, the Chancellor,  or their nominee from among the lay members of Council , one \nProfessor, external to the university, appointed by the Vice -Chancellor , and a current Massey University Distinguished \nProfessor . The Committee shall include a Māori member who may either be drawn from staff  or from Council.  \n \nBefore an appointment  as a Distinguished Professor is made, the Vice -Chancellor will ensure  that the outcome of the \nDistinguished Professor Selection Committee  is endorsed  by Council.  \n \n© This Policy  is the property  of Massey  University  \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nDistinguished Professor Policy – page 3   \n Tenure  and Responsibilities  \n \nRecipients shall h old the role and title of Distinguished Professor for the duration of their substantive appointment at \nMassey University . \n \nA supplementary employment contract recording  the award , and its terms and responsibilities,  will be entered into  \nbetween  the university  and the  recipient of the Distinguished Professorship . The contract may provide for expectations \naround delivery of regular  public  addresses by the Distinguished Profes sor. \n \nAppointment  as a Distinguished Professor will be subject to a requirement by the i ndividual to observe professional \nstandards including university policies on conduct,  the Policy on Staff Conduct ,  research , teaching and public \ncommentary . To protect the integrity of the award and the reputation of the university, the title of Distinguished \nProfessor  may be discontinued,  or the status withdrawn  at the discretion of the Vice Chancellor.  There is no appeal \nprocess to such a decision.  \n \nIn the event that the university consider s discontinuing a Distinguished Professorship , it must  observe the principles  \nof natural justice and due process, including  notifying the  applicable Distinguished Professor  of the alleged conduct \nand of the potential for loss of the title ; providing an opportunity for them to respond ; and considering that response \nbefore making any dec isions.  \n \nAwarding the title ‘Emeritus /Emerita  Professor ’ may be considered  by the university in a case where a Distinguished \nProfessor ’s appointment at Massey University , and therefore their Distinguished Professorship,  comes to an end.  \nThere are separate Regulations supporting the process of awarding the title of ‘Emeritus/Emerita Professor ’. \n \nRemuneration  \n \nThe university may offer financial or in -kind remuneration  to a Distinguished Professor , and this must be  recognised in \na supplementary employment contract between the individual staff member and the university . \n \nSuch remuneration wil l be paid on an annual basis as a separate allowance  and will be applied consistently across the \nuniversity for al l staff a warded  the title of Distinguished Professor.   \n \nDefinitions:  \n \nDistinguished Profe ssor: A highly prestigious and honorary title  accorded to eminent professors who have made \nexceptional and sustained contributions  to their field, discipline,  or industry, and who may demonstrably contribute to \nbuilding the reputation of Massey University within New Zealand and internationally.  \n \nDistinguished Professor Selection Committee :  A committee tasked with the selection of  Distinguished Professors, \nwhich committee is constituted as described in this Policy , and is chaired by the Vice Chancellor.  \n \nAudience : \n \nPro Vice -Chancellors  \nDeputy Vice-Chancellors , Provost  \nHeads of Academic Schools (or equivalent)  \nMassey University Professors  \n \nRelevant legislation:  \n \nNone  \n \nLegal compliance : \n \nNone  \n \nRelated policies and procedures:  \n \nPolicy on Staff Conduct  \nRegulations and Criteria for the Conferment of Honorary Degrees, Professor  Emeritus/Emerita Titles,  and Awarding \nof Univer sity Medals   \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Equity_of_Access_to_Educational_Opportunities_Policy_PDF_93_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Equity of Access to Educational Opportunities Policy",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "93 KB",
      "creation_date": "2022-10-27T12:02:02",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220101001+13'00'"
    },
    "content": "   \n Massey University Policy Guide  \n \nEQUITY OF ACCESS TO EDUCATIONAL OPP ORTUNITIES  POLICY  \n \n \n© This Pol icy is the property of Massey University   \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \n \nPurpose : \nThe purpose  of this policy  is to state  Massey  University’ s commitment  to attracting  and supporti ng students  from \ndivers e social,  economic , cultural  backgrounds  and characteristics  and capabilities by provid ing reason able support  to \ngroups  in the community  who are under -represented  in the Unive rsity or who are disadvantaged  in terms  of their \nability  to attend and succeed at university . \nPolicy:  \nMassey University is committed to reducing barriers to participation  and providing equity of access to educational \nopportunities for all current , prospective,  and future  students who  meet the U niversity’s entrance  requirements , \nirrespective of  divers e characteristics such as , but not limited t o, their age, belief,  colour,  disability,  employment  \nstatus,  ethnic  or national  origin,  family status,  marital  status,  race,  religio n, gender , or sexual orientation.     \nAll m embers of the university, including s taff and student s, must encourage and support  equitable acce ss, \nengagement , participation,  and success in educational opportuni ties for all. \n \n \nSome groups of students are more likely to have experienced one or more barri ers to accessing and succeeding at \nMassey University, such as discrimination, marginalisation, under -representation, underachievement in school, and/or \nsocioeconomic background.  Massey University aims to support these group s, including:  \n \n• Māori students  \n• Pacific students  \n• Students with disabilities  \n• Men, women,  and gender diverse people where there are barrier s to access and success  \n• Students from refugee backgrounds  \n• Students from low socio -economic backgrounds  \n• Differently abled and talented stu dents  \n \nAnd any other groups of students who may experience barriers to access and success . \nAudience : \nAll staff and students  Section  Provost  \nContact  Office of Academic Quality, Reporting and Assurance  \nLast Review  October 2022  \nNext Review  October 2027 \nApproval  AB14/84  \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nEquity of  Access to Educational Opportunities  Policy  – Page 2 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  Relevant legislation : \nEducation and Training Act 2020  \nHuma Rights Act 1 993 \nLegal compliance : \nUnder  the Education  and Training Act 2020 [Section  252 (1)(a)]  Massey  Univers ity must  foster  equity of access . \nUnder  the Human  Rights  Act 1993  [Section  57 (1)(a)-(d)] Massey  University  must  not refuse  to admit,  or deny  or \nrestri ct access, or exclude any person by  reason of any of the prohibited  grounds of di scrimination   \nRelated pr ocedures / documents : \nTe Kunenga Ki Purehuroa – Massey University Strategy 2022 – 2027  \nEducation (Pastoral Care of Tert iary a nd International Le arners) Code of Practice 20 21 \nMassey University Inves tment Plan  \nTertiary E ducat ion St rategy  2020  \nDocument Manageme nt Con trol: \nPrepa red by:  Office of Academi c Quality , Reporting  and Assuranc e \nAuthorised by:  Provost  \nApproved by:  Provost  \nDate issued:  July 2012  \nLast review :  October 2022  \nNext review:  October 2027  \n \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Emergency_Statute_PDF_165_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Massey University Emergency Statute",
      "policy_type": "Statute",
      "file_size": "165 KB",
      "author": "Walker Anne",
      "creation_date": "2022-06-28T10:02:09",
      "modification_date": "D:20220707110810+12'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n Massey University Policy Guide  \n \nEMERGENCY STATUTE  \n \n \n \n© This P olicy is the property of Massey University   \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \n \nPurpose :  \nThis Statue has been developed to ensure that appropriate decis ion-making authority is in p lace for Council and the \nVice -Chancellor to act urgently in emergency situations.  \nStatute  Provisions : \nThe University Council delegates authority to the Vice -Chancellor to take all steps necessary to protect life, prevent \nor limit further injury, pre vent or limi t harm to the environment and University infrastructure and assets, and to \nprotect the University’s core business of teaching and research in the lead up to, during and directly after an \nemergency .  \nIn re sponding t o an emergency , the Vice -Chancellor (or nominee) may sub-delegate this authority to appropriate \nresponders and teams, as detailed in the Emergency Management Policy . Where the Vice -Chancellor is unavailable \nthis authority falls to the C risis Management Team  Leader . \nWhere a pand emic,  natural disaster, fire, or other emergency occurs  the University Council, upon  the advice of the \nVice -Chancellor  may , for such a period and on such terms as it thinks fit to accommodate the emergency, grant \nwaivers to  any student or group o f stude nts, or suspend the application of all or any part of any University \nRegulation or Statute  or Policy, make decisions in relation to the operation s (management, academic and research) \nof the university , or to close the Universi ty.  \nIf the Univers ity Council  cannot meet , the Vice -Chancellor is authori sed to act independently and report his/her \nactions back to the Co uncil as soon as practicable for review of the actions taken . This may include actions that \nwould in normal circumst ances  fall outside of  the Vice -Chancellor ’s delegated authority . Any decision made under \nthis Statute shall be of immediate and continuin g effect, but shall be subject to review by the Council.  \nAny directions given by a responding agency such as the NZ Pol ice, or the National CDEM Cont roller or a CDEM \nGroup or Local CDEM Controller during a declared state of emergency, take precedence over those of the Council  \nand/or the Vice -Chancellor, or delegate . Section Council\nContact Governance and Assurance \nLast Review May 2022\nNext Review May 2027\nApproval C22 /41\nEffective date 20 May 2022\n  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nEmergency Statute  – Page 2 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property o f Massey Univ ersity Definitions : \n \nEmergency: Emergency means a situation that is the result of any happenin g, whether natura l or otherwis e, and \ncauses or may cause loss of life or injury or illness or distress or in any way endangers the safety of people  or \nproperty, o r the continuity of university operations and requires a co -ordinated response.  \n \n[Includes, bu t is not limited to: any injur y, trauma, harm, explosion, earthquake, eruption, tsunami, land movement, \nflood, storm, tornado, cyclone, serious fire, leakage or sp illage of any dangerous gas or substance, technological \nfailure or threat, infestation, plagu e, epidemic, fail ure of or dis ruption to an emergency service or a lifeline utility, or \nactual or imminent attack or threatening act.]  \nAudience : \nAll staff, student s and general public . \nLegal compliance : \nEducation  and Trainin g Act 2020  \n• Section 281 Dut ies of Councils: It i s the duty of  the council of an institution, in the performance of its \nfunctions and the exercise of its powers… (e) to ensure that the institution operates in a financially \nresponsible manner that ensures the efficient use of resource s and maintains the i nstitution’s long -term \nviability, and; (f) to ensure that proper standards of integri ty, conduct, and concern for (i) the public interest; \nand (ii) the well -being of students attending the institution are maintained.  \n \n• 284 (1) the U niversity is empowere d to make Sta tutes and Regulations  \n C\nivil Defence and Emergency Management Act 2002: Provides for a state of local emergency to be declared; \nprovides for certain people to be authorised to declare a state of local emergency; provides powers to the CDEM \nGroup when a state of emergency is in force.\nRelated procedures / documents:\nEmergency Management Policy\nStrategic Emergency Management Framework \nCampus Emergency Management Plans(s)\nDocument Management Control:\nPrepared by:  Director Governance & Assurance \nAuthorised by:  Vice-Chancellor\nApproved by:  C22/41\nDate issued:  December 2014\nLast review:  May 2022\nNext review:  May 2027\n \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Council_Delegations_Statute_PDF_294_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "[UCOL LOGO]",
      "policy_type": "Statute",
      "file_size": "294 KB",
      "author": "Nicol, Paddy",
      "creation_date": "2025-06-16T13:04:02",
      "modification_date": "D:20250616134255+12'00'"
    },
    "content": "Approved by Council : 15 May 2025   Page 1 of 12  \n \n \n \nMassey University Council  \nDelegation Statute   \n \n \n \nDelegation Statute pursuant to section 284 of the Education and Training Act 2020  \n \nPursuant to section 284(1) of the Education and Training Act 2020  the Council hereby \nresolves to adopt the attached Delegation Statute.  \n \n \n Signatures  \n \n \n \n   ……………………………  Date  15 May 2025  \n   (Chancellor, Massey University Council)  \n \n \n \n \n   ……………………………  Date  15 May  2025  \n   (Pro -Chancellor, Massey University Council)  \n \n \n \n \n   ……………………………  Date  15 May  2025  \n   (Vice -Chancellor, Massey University)  \n \n \n\nApproved by Council : 15 May 2025   Page 2 of 12 MASSEY UNIVERSITY DELEGATION STATUTE  \n \n1.1 By resolution of Council and pursuant to Section 284(1)(a) of the Education and Training Act 2020 \n(“Act”), the Council adopts this Statute as the Delegation Statute.  \n \n1.2 Immediately upon this Delegation Statute coming into force, the Delegation Statute 2025 is \nrepealed.  \n \n2. Title and Commencement  \n \n2.1 This Statute shall be known as the Massey University Delegation Statute.  \n \n2.2 This Statute comes into force on the date that Council resolves to adopt it and two Council \nmembers have signed it . \n   \n3. Objectives  \n \n3.1 The objectives of this Statute are to:  \n \n(a) State which of Council’s functions, and powers may be delegated pursuant to Section \n285 of the Act ; \n \n(b) Identify the procedure for delegations ; and  \n \n(c) Generally record delegations.  \n \n4. Savings  \n \n4.1 Except as stated in section 1.2, n othing in this Statute repeals any delegations already given by \nCouncil, or by its Committees, or by the Vice -Chancellor (including Vice -Chancellor delegates).  \nDelegations existing at the date of adoption of this Statute , unless revoked,  shall c ontinue in force \naccording to their tenor.  \n \n4.2 Where any functions or powers set by legislation are amended then this Statute is deemed to be \namended to the extent required so that this Statute is consistent with the enacted amendment.  \n \n5. Procedure for Delegations by Council  \n \n5.1 Except as stated in Section 5. 3, at any time after there has been a resolution passed, Council may, \nin writing signed by two members of Council, delegate to the Vice -Chancellor or to a Committee \nappointed by Council any of Council’s functions or powers.  \n \n5.2 Council shall not delegate its power to appoint a Vice -Chancellor or Acting Vice -Chancellor.  \n \n5.3 Each delegation must record whether or not the Vice -Chancellor or the Committee may further \ndelegate the function or power so delegated by Council.  \n \n5.4 If further delegation is permitted that further delegation by the Vice -Chancellor or by the \nCommittee must be in writing signed by the Vice -Chancellor or two members of the Committee \nand may only be to the staff of Massey University.  \nApproved by Council : 15 May 2025   Page 3 of 12  \n5.5 If any special directions or conditions are imposed by Council then those special directions or \nconditions must be recorded in writing on the delegation.  \n \n5.6 Any delegation made to a Committee shall be deemed to be a delegation to the persons from \ntime to time constituting the Committee.  For the avoidance of doubt, any Committee constituted \nby the Academic Board is deemed to be a Committee constituted by Council pursuant to Section \n283 (4) of the Act. For the avoidance of doubt, the Council consents to delegation by the \nAcademic Board and by its Committees to staff of Massey University.   \n \n5.7 Any delegation to staff may be made to specified person(s) or holder of specified office(s).  \n \n5.8 Even after a function or power is delegated the Council is responsible for acts of the person(s) \nacting under delegation.  \n \n5.9 Even after Council has delegated any Council function or power Council may still perform the \nfunction or exercise the powers.  Where Council performs a function or exercises a power that is \nsubject to a delegation, Council’s actions will take precedence over any actions of the delegate.  \n \n5.10 Any delegation by Council may be revoked in writing signed by two members of Council after a \nresolution by Council at any time.  Any further delegations by a Committee may be revoked in \nwriting signed by two Committee members after resolution by the Committee.  Any further \ndelegations by the Vice -Chancellor may be revoked in writing signed by the Vice -Chancellor.  \n \n6. Council Delegations  \n \n6.1 The Council may delegate those Council functions and powers under the  Act set out as Schedule \nA. \n \n6.2 Without derogating from Section 6.3 the Council delegates and/or hereby continues to delegate \nthose functions and powers as set out in Schedule A. \n \n6.3 For the avoidance of doubt, in respect of the Act all of Council’s functions and the exercise of its \npowers have previously and continue to be delegated to the Vice -Chancellor with th e exception \nof the appointment of the Vice -Chancellor, performance reviews of the Vice -Chancellor  and the  \nterms and conditions of employment of the Vice -Chancellor.  \n \n7. Interpretation  \n \n7.1 In this Statute the following definitions apply:  \n \n“Academic Board”  means the Academic Committee of Massey University established pursuant \nto Schedule 11 clause 18 of the Act  and includes its delegates.  \n \n“Act”  means the Education  and Training  Act 2020 and includes any amendment Acts or Acts \npassed in substitution for the Education  and Training  Act 2020 . \n \n“Campuses” , “Centres” , “Colleges” , “Departments”  or “Schools”  are operational units as \ndirected in writing from time to time by the Vice -Chancellor.  \n \n “Chair”  means a position with that title as established by the Vice -Chancellor.  \nApproved by Council : 15 May 2025   Page 4 of 12  \n“Council”  means the Council of Massey University.  \n \n“Massey University”  means a body corporate constituted under the Education and Training Act \n2020 as Massey University.  \n \n“Statute”  means this Delegation Statute.  \n \n“Student”  means a student enrolled in any course(s) at Massey University.  \n \n “Vice -Chancellor”  means the Vice -Chancellor of Massey University and includes the Acting Vice -\nChancellor . \n \n7.2 Sections from the Act are not set out in full in this Statute.  Consequently, a delegate should refer \nto a current version of the Act when exercising a power or performing a function by delegation.  \nApproved by Council : 15 May 2025   Page 5 of 12 Schedule A \n \nRef Power  Can be \ndelegated  Standing \nDelegation  Further \nDelegable  Special directions and conditions  to \ndelegation  \n1 Massey University submissions to  Tertiary Education \nCommission on  the proposed Tertiary Education  Commission \ndecisions pertaining to  The University’s plan.  \n(Section 425) Yes Vice -Chancellor  Yes  \n2 Supply information to the Tertiary Education Commission \nand the Ministry as required.  \n(Section 426) Yes Vice -Chancellor  Yes  \n3 Make submissions to the Tertiary Education Commission \nwhen the Tertiary Education Commission proposes to \nsuspend or revoke funding. ( Schedule 18,  clause 16) Yes Vice -Chancellor  Yes  \n4 Require review of the Tertiary Education Commission powers \nto suspend or revoke funding. ( Schedule 18, clause 19) Yes Vice -Chancellor  No  \n5 Ask the Tertiary Education Commission to approve significant \namendment of plan.  (Schedule 18, clause 20 ) Yes Vice -Chancellor  Yes  \n6 Collaborate with the Tertiary Education Commission and \nmake submissions on significant amendments to plan \nproposed by the Tertiary Education Commission.  \n(Schedule 18, clause 22 ) Yes Vice -Chancellor  Yes  \n7 Provide summary of plan. ( Schedule 18, clause 24) Yes Vice -Chancellor  Yes  \n8 As a condition of receiving funding, s upply information to the \nTertiary Education Commission and the Ministry under \nSection 426. (Section 426) Yes Vice -Chancellor  Yes  \n9 Make submissions on the Tertiary Education Commission \ndecision to  suspend or revoke funding given under Section \n428 (Schedule 18, clause 28 ) Yes Vice -Chancellor  Yes  \n10 Countersign documents to which the Common Seal is \nAffixed. ( Section 273(2c)) Yes Any two:  \nChancellor  \nVice -Chancellor  No Affixing of the University Seal must be in \naccordance with the Common Seal Statute.  \nApproved by Council : 15 May 2025   Page 6 of 12 Ref Power  Can be \ndelegated  Standing \nDelegation  Further \nDelegable  Special directions and conditions  to \ndelegation  \nUniversity Registrar \n(Deputy Vice -\nChancellor \nStudents and \nGlobal \nEngagement ) \n \n11 Enter into a contract or other enforceable obligation  on \nbehalf of the Institution . (Section 274) Yes Vice -Chancellor  Yes  \n12 Recommend to the Minister that Massey University \nConstitution be amended.  (Schedule 11, clause 2 ) No    \n13 Fix, in accordance with the fees framework, fees to be paid \nto Council members, other than the Vice -Chancellor.  \n(Schedule 11, clause 17)  No    \n14 Appoint a chief executive in accordance with the State Sector \nAct 1988, and to monitor and evaluate their  performance  \n(Section 280 (a)) No    \n15 Submit a proposed plan in accordance with requirements of \nSchedule 18, clause 4  at a frequency  determined  by the \nTertiary Education Commission.  (Section 280 (b))  Yes Vice -Chancellor  Yes  \n16 Ensure that Massey University is managed in accordance \nwith the plan and determine policies to implement the plan. \n(Section 280(c)) Yes Vice -Chancellor  Yes  \n17 Determine policies in relation to the management of Massey \nUniversity’s affairs subject to the Public  Service  Act 2020 . \n(Section 280(d))  Yes Vice -Chancellor  \nFinance and \nAssurance \nCommittee  (FAC)  \nPeople and Culture \nCommittee (PAC)  \nAcademic Board  \n(AB)   Yes \n Council retain approval of all Statutes .  \nSub-committees may  approve policies  where \nthey relate to the committee’s ToR.  \nAcademic Board also have authority to \napprove academic regulations.  \n[Office of Governance and Assurance to \nmaintain policy approval register]  \nApproved by Council : 15 May 2025   Page 7 of 12 Ref Power  Can be \ndelegated  Standing \nDelegation  Further \nDelegable  Special directions and conditions  to \ndelegation  \n18 Approv e the University's long -term strategic direction, \nsignificant strategies and plans, annual operating budget and \nAnnual Report.  (Section 280(e)) No*   *Annual Report Letter of Representation \nsigning is delegated to the Chancellor, Vice -\nChancellor and Deputy Vice -Chancellor \nUniversity Services.  \n19 Establish an Academic Committee consisting of the Vice -\nChancellor and  members of the staff and students of  the \nUniversity.  (Schedule 11, clause  18) No   Terms of Reference to be approved by \nCouncil .  \n20 Approve the establishment, acquisition or participation of \nthe University in controlled entities. Approve the \ndisestablishment, disposal or divestment of controlled \nentities.  (Section 282(2)) No   See Controlled Entities Governance \nFramework Policy  \n \n21 Provide courses of study (section 283(2)(a))  Yes  Vice - Chancellor  Yes  \n22 Admit Students (section 283(2)(a))  Yes Vice -Chancellor  Yes  \n23 Grant Awards ( Section 282(8)(a)), S ection 283(2)(a))  \n Yes Vice -Chancellor  \nChancellor  \nAcademic Board  No \nNo \nNo Conferment of degrees and awards diplomas and \ncertificates generally occurs at  graduation \nceremonies or ‘in Council’ at Academic Board \nunder  the d elegation of Council  or at Council \nmeetings as and when required . See Council \nGraduation Statute.  \nThe Chancellor, or nominee, may confer degrees \nand award diplomas and certificates outside of the \nUniversity Graduation Ceremonies or ‘In Council’ \nprocess to those students reported as having \nsuccessfully completed the prescribed courses of \nstudy for the relevant year as and when require d. \nVice -Chancellor may grant nationally recognised \nawards other than degrees, diplomas or \ncertificates.  \n24 Grant  fellowships, bursaries, scholarships or prizes.  (Section \n283(2)(b))  Yes Vice -Chancellor  \n  Yes \n  \n25 Grant honorary degrees  (Sections 282 and 283)  No  \n On recommendation from Honorary Awards \nCommittee  \nSee Honorary Awards Regulations and \nCriteria  \nApproved by Council : 15 May 2025   Page 8 of 12 Ref Power  Can be \ndelegated  Standing \nDelegation  Further \nDelegable  Special directions and conditions  to \ndelegation  \n26 Award Massey University Medals  (Sections 282 and 283)  No  \n On recommendation from Honorary Awards \nCommittee  \nSee Honorary Awards Regulations and \nCriteria  \n27 Award title of Emeritus/Emerita Professor  (Sections 282 and \n283)  Yes Honorary Awards \nCommittee  No  \n28 Authorise the making of grants or loans to:  \n• Vice -Chancellor  \n• Staff and staff associations  \n• Students (grants)  \n• Student associations (loans)  \n(Section 283(2)(c))   \nNo \nYes \nYes \nYes  \n \nVice -Chancellor  \nVice -Chancellor  \nVice -Chancellor   \nYes \nYes \nYes  \n \n \n29 Accept gifts, devises, and bequests made to Massey \nUniversity, whether on trust or otherwise.  (Section 283(2)(d) , \n300(1)) Yes Vice -Chancellor  Yes  \n30 Agree to disestablishment of Massey University and its \nincorporation into another institution.  (Section 283(2)(e))  No    \n31 Agree to the incorporation into Massey University of another \ninstitution  or institutions . (Section 283(2)(f)) No    \n32 Arrange for manufacture of, and distribute (whether by way \nof sale or otherwise), any article or thing bearing a mark, \nsymbol or writing that is associated with Massey University.  \n(Section 283(2)(g)) Yes Vice -Chancellor  Yes  \n33 Arrange for the provision of goods and services to Massey \nUniversity staff or students or other persons using, or \notherwise attending Massey University.  (Section 283(2)(h)) Yes Vice -Chancellor  Yes  \n34 Prescribe  administrative  fees payable by students at Massey \nUniversity (Section s 283(2)(i), and 256(1)(b) ) Yes Vice -Chancellor  No  \n35 Appoint committees consisting of such persons as the \nCouncil  determines to exercise such powers as are delegated \nto them and such powers as are conferred on them by No    \nApproved by Council : 15 May 2025   Page 9 of 12 Ref Power  Can be \ndelegated  Standing \nDelegation  Further \nDelegable  Special directions and conditions  to \ndelegation  \nstatutes made by the Council, and to alter, discharge and \nreconstitute committees so appointed.  (Section 283(4)) \n36 Approve and review  statutes.  (Section 284(1))   No   \n  \n37 Review the imposition and quantum of any penalties \nimposed by statute upon students or staff.  (Section 284(3)) Yes Vice -Chancellor  \n Yes  \n38 Supply information or reports to the Tertiary Education \nCommission.  (Section 288) Yes Vice -Chancellor  Yes  \n39 Consult and comment to the Minister on any proposed \nappointment of a Crown observer.  (Section 289) No    \n40 Consult with the Minister over possible need to dissolve \nCouncil and appoint a Commissioner and respond to \npreliminary decision of Minister to dissolve Council.  \n(Section 290). No    \n41 Establish, maintain and operate bank  accounts as permitted \nunder Section  158 of the Crown Entities Act 2004  in Massey \nUniversity’s name at any  registered bank . (Section 297)  Yes Vice -Chancellor  \n Yes  \n42 Authorise withdrawals and payments of money from any of \nMassey University ’s bank accounts.  (Section 297(3)) Yes Vice -Chancellor  Yes  \n43 Keep proper accounts as per Section 168(1) and (2) of the \nCrown Entities Act 2004.  (Section 298) Yes Vice -Chancellor  Yes  \n44 Invest money as per Section 65I(1) and (2) of the Public \nFinance Act 1989.  (Section 305(4)) Yes Vice -Chancellor  Yes  \n45 Approve  annual report  prior to submission  to the Minister in \ncompliance with requirements of Sections 154 to 156B and \n157A of the Crown Entities Act 2004.  (Section 306) Yes Vice -Chancellor  Yes  \n46 Chairperson of Council and Chief Executive to s ign a \nstatement of responsibility prepared in accordance with \nSection 155 of the Crown Entities Act 2004.  (Section \n306(3)(a))  Yes Chancellor and \nVice -Chancellor  No  \nApproved by Council : 15 May 2025   Page 10 of 12 Ref Power  Can be \ndelegated  Standing \nDelegation  Further \nDelegable  Special directions and conditions  to \ndelegation  \n47 Determine programmes of study and training at Massey \nUniversity (Section 260) Yes Vice -Chancellor  \n Yes Includes but is not limited to: a pprov al of  all \nqualifications  (programmes) , subjects, \ncourses, specialisations  (including majors and \nminors) and  special topic s, in addition to \nlocation, mode, deletions, deferrals, \nretirements and any structural changes to \nqualifications . \n48 Determine  minimum entry criteria for students under 20 \nyears old.  (Section 255(1)(b)  Yes Vice -Chancellor  Yes \n  \n49 Determine  the minimum age for enrolment at Massey \nUniversity.  (Section 255(1)(c)(i))  Yes Vice -Chancellor  \n No  \n50 Determine the minimum age for enrolment in the \nprogramme or training scheme.  (Section 255(1)(c)(ii))  Yes Vice -Chancellor  Yes  \n51 Consent to enrolment of a person who has not attained the \nminimum age for entry to Massey University or the person  \ndoes not have the minimum entry requirements for \napplicants under 20.  (Section 255(2)(b))  Yes Vice -Chancellor  Yes  \n52 Where satisfied that it is necessary to do so because of \ninsufficiency of staff, accommodation, or equipment , \ndetermine  the maximum number of persons that may be \nenrolled in a particular Massey University programme or \ntraining scheme in a particular year.  (Section 255(4)(a)) Yes Vice -Chancellor  \n Yes  \n53 Give preference to eligible persons who are under -\nrepresented among the students undertaking the \nprogramme or training scheme , where  the number of \npersons  who apply for enrolment in that  course, exceeds the \nmaximum  number of students who may  undertake that \ncourse.  (Section 255(4)(b)) Yes Vice -Chancellor  Yes  \n54 Refuse to permit or cancel the enrolment of a person as a \nstudent  at Massey University or in a particular programme or \ntraining scheme on specified grounds.  \n(Section 255(5)) Yes Vice -Chancellor  \n \n Yes \n  \nApproved by Council : 15 May 2025   Page 11 of 12 Ref Power  Can be \ndelegated  Standing \nDelegation  Further \nDelegable  Special directions and conditions  to \ndelegation  \n55 Fix a tuition fee for any programme of study or training but \nnot fix, in relation to domestic students, a fee that exceeds  \nany maximum  specified as a condition of receiving funding . \n(Section 256(1) and ( 2)) Yes Chancellor and  \nVice -Chancellor \njointly \n(Committee)  No Domestic student fees must be approved by \nCouncil, unless such circumstances exist that \nrequire an out of Council meeting approval, \nin which case that approval may be provided \njointly by the Chancellor and Vice -Chancellor.  \n56 Fix or speci fy a means to determine a fee for the provision of \nstudent  services provided by Massey  University or by \nanother body on its behalf.  (Section 256(1)(b)  Yes Chancellor and  \nVice -Chancellor \njointly \n(Committee)  No Student services fees must be approved by \nCouncil, unless such circumstances exist that \nrequire an out of Council meeting approval, \nin which case that approval may be provided \njointly by the Chancellor and Vice -Chancellor.  \n57 Approval of Non -Standard Fees for domestic and \ninternational students (Section 256(1)(b))  and Section 526 . Yes Chancellor and \nVice -Chancellor \njointly \n(Committee)  No The Chancellor or Vice -Chancellor have \ndelegation to approve Non -Standard Fees for \ndomestic and international students that fall \noutside of the normal fee approval cycle of \nCouncil. Non -Standard fees include (but are \nnot limited to) the following:  \n·       Any insurance premiums for \ninternational students  \n·       Any programme application fees  \n·       Annual compulsory student services fees  \n·       Any offshore delivery fees  \n·       Any partnership fees.  \n \n58 Refund a student all or any part of  any fees . (Section 256(8)) Yes Vice -Chancellor  Yes  \n59 Fix fees for international students  in accordance with \nspecified requirements.  (Section 526(2)(a), (b) and (c))  Yes Chancellor and  \nVice -Chancellor \njointly \n(Committee)  No International student fees must be approved \nby Council, unless such circumstances exist \nthat require an out of Council meeting \napproval, in which case that approval must \nbe provided jointly by the Chancellor and \nVice -Chancellor.  \n60 Agree subsidies for international students.  (Section 526(3)(a-\nd)) Yes Vice -Chancellor  Yes  \nApproved by Council : 15 May 2025   Page 12 of 12 Ref Power  Can be \ndelegated  Standing \nDelegation  Further \nDelegable  Special directions and conditions  to \ndelegation  \n61 Establish refund policy for international students and inform \nthem  in writing.  (Section 526 (10) ) Yes Vice -Chancellor  Yes  \n62 Refuse to hear, hear and determine complaints in respect of \nundue influence allegations in breach of Section 262 by \nprospective students and students.  (Section 263) Yes Vice -Chancellor  Yes  \n \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Events_Notification_Form_PDF_582_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Event Notification Online Form",
      "policy_type": "Unknown",
      "file_size": "582 KB",
      "author": "Microsoft Office User",
      "creation_date": "2021-01-21T01:02:07",
      "modification_date": "D:20230811115937+12'00'"
    },
    "content": " EVENT NOTIFICATION  & \nREQUIR EMENTS FORM  \nMASSEY UNIVERS ITY | TE KUNENGA KI P ŪREHUROA  \nEVENT DETAILS  \nEvent name:  \nDate:  Time:  \nCampus:  Venue /s: \nEvent type:  Confer ence, seminar, workshop, social event, exhibition, etc  \nAttendee estimate: \nMassey contact : \nMobile p hone:  Email:  \nDepartment/College:  \n*Below is only required if this booking is on behalf of an external organisation.  \nExternal contact:  \nMobile p hone:  Email:  \nOrganisation:  \nOPERATIONS REQUIREMENTS \nSet up date and time: Pack  down date and time:  \nAccess  requirements : Please provide us with the room names of all spaces you require access to, and the times of access.  \nFurniture  requirements:  Please let us know what you items you require, and how you need them configured.  \nSecurity  requirements : Please talk with the campus operations team if you are unsure if additional security is required. Please  note this is chargeable, and a GL code will be \nrequired . \nCleaning  requirements : If additional cleaning is required for an event, please note that this is chargeable, and a GL code will be required.  If a post event clean is required but \nhad not been organ ised this will be charged to your department.  \nParking  requirements : Please note  parking availability is limited and cannot be guaranteed . \nGL Code:\nFACILITIES MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS \nHeating and air -conditioning requirements:  \nWill the event involve haze machines, indoor BBQing, or any other activities/equipment that may require \nfire alarm isolation? *YES NO \n*If yes , please give details and provide a GL code for callout fee:  \nEVENT CONSIDERATION S \nIs the venue booked?\nRemember to allow time for set up and pack down in the  booking.  BOOK VENUE HERE  \nIs catering required? Will alcohol be served?\nPlease be aware that events involving alcohol will require a Duty Manager.  \nPlease arrange with the Hospitality Services Team, this is subject to approval as per the \nEvents Policy.  COMPASS \nGROUP  WHARERATA  TUSSOCK \nCAFE  \nWill you have guest speaker/s?\nHave you reviewed Massey University’s  External Speaker Procedures?  \nIs approval and risk assessment required?  INTERNAL EVENT  \nSPEAKER FORM  EXTERNAL EVENT  \nSPEAKER FORM  \nCultural considerations?\nWill the event start with a  mihi whakatau? Do you require cultural advice or support?  MORE INFO HERE  \nDo you have a suitable AV setup?\nDoes the  venue have the appropriate tech requirements? Sound, projector, microphones, etc . REQUEST ITS SUPPORT  \nHealth & safety  responsibilities ?\nAre the guests external? Will they need a health & safety briefing?  \nDo you have an Event Hazard Management Plan in place?CAMPUS HEALTH & \nSAFETY INFO  EVENT HAZARD PLAN \nTEMPLATE  \n Do the guest s need maps or signage?  \nWill the guests need a map to navigate campus?  Are additional signs needed to direct external guest s? CAMPUS MAPS \nIs a runsheet and floorplan required ? \na runsheet lists what  is happening and approximate timings. Th e should be emailed to all stakeholders prior to the event. Will creating \na floorplan assist in venue set up?  RUNSHEET TEMPLATE  \nI acknowledge that I have read and understood Massey University’s \npolicies and procedures  listed in this document. I agree I have undertaken \nall appropriate responsibilities when planning this event.  Date  Event organiser signature  \nONCE COMPLETED PLEASE EMAIL TO THE RELEVANT  CAMPUS OPERATIONS TEAM.  \nAuckland  \nestatesservicedesk- \[email protected] ū \nestatesservicedesk- \[email protected] Wellington  \nestatesservicedesk- \[email protected]\nAllow 10 working days for processing. If this event request is approved, you will receive email confirmation. Campus Operations are unable to \nassist with set -up and pack -down at weekends and after 3pm weekdays.  \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "COVID-19_Vaccination_Requirement_Policy_PDF_150_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "COVID-19 Vaccination Requirement Policy",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "150 KB",
      "creation_date": "2023-08-11T12:02:05",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220101129+13'00'"
    },
    "content": "    \n Massey University Policy Guide  \n \nCOVID -19 VACCINATION REQUIRE MENT POLICY  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \nObjective:   \nConsistent with Government requirements and advic e, Massey University’s commitment to keeping people \nhealthy  and safe at work,  and in line with the University’s  duty of care to take all reasonably  practicable  steps  to \neliminate  (or minimise)  harm  to workers  and other  persons,  the objective  of this Policy  is to minimise  the risk of \nexposure  to and transmission  of the COVID -19 virus  at Massey.  \nThe previous  version  of this Policy  required  all Employees  and Contractors  (Workers),  Students,  Tenants  and \nVisitors attending  On-Campus  or undertaking  In-Person  University Activities  to be Fully  Vaccinated  for COVID -19. \nFollowing changes  in Government  requirements  for vaccination  passes  and updated public health advice, the \nUniversity has reviewed its risk assessment and this  Policy.  Going forward, t he requirement  to be Fully \nVaccinated  will only be applied  where  required by a Public Health Order, or where the requirement is  supported by  \nan activity -based  risk assessment  completed  and approved  by the appropriate  SLT member  and the Director  of Health, \nSafety and  Wellbe ing. \nThis policy  has been  informed  through  our consultation  process  and by a risk assessment  process  that took into \nconsideration  both the public  health  risk of COVID -19 and the impacts  of this risk as an occupational  health  threat.   It may \nbe further revi ewed in response to changing circumstances, including changes in the public health advice or \nOrders.   \nScope : \nThis Policy applies to all Employees and Contractors (Workers), Students, Tenants,  and Visitors .  \nPolicy : \n1.1. Vaccination  Requirement  \n1.1. For the most par t there is no requirement for Workers, Students, Tenants,  and Visitors to be \nFully  Vaccinated to attend On Campus or undertake In Person University Activities.  \n1.2. However, certain roles and activities must be undertaken by individuals who are Fully \nVaccinated  (or have a valid exemption).  Specifically , an individual will be required to be Fully \nVaccination (or have  a valid ex emption) where they –  \n(a) are an 'affected person' under the Public Health Response (Vaccinations) Order 2021 (or \nsubsequent Public Health O rders) ; or \n(b) undertake an  Activit y that has been  identified  by the University  as 'higher risk ' through an \napproved activity -based  Risk Assessment (see further below ). Section  Health, Safety and Wellbeing  \nContact  Director , Health, Safety and Wellbeing  \nLast Review  August 2023  \nNext Review  August  2026 \nApproval  SLT WH230522  \nEffective Date  20 May 2022  \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nCOVID -19 Vaccination  Requirement Policy  – Page 2 \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  1.3. Individuals who cannot provide evidence of vaccination or a v alid exemption as required by this policy \ncannot undertake any higher risk Activities , or any work covered by the Public Health Response \n(Vaccinations) Order 2021 (or subsequent Public Health Order) .  \n1.4. The previous version of this Policy required all individuals who attended On -Campus o r participated in \nIn-Person University Activities to be Fully V accinated by 14 February 2021 (or, if earlier, within the \nspecified timeframe in the Public Health Response (Vaccinations) Order 2021 ).  This will continue to be \nthe case for individuals who ar e required to be vaccinated in accordance with paragraph 1. 2 above.  \n \n2. Evidence of vaccination status (where vaccination is required)  \n2.1.  All Employees  and Contractors  (Workers),  Students  or Visitors  who are required  to be Fully  Vaccinated  \nas part of this Policy will be required  to provide  evidence  acceptable  to the University  of their \nvaccination  status.  \n2.2.  For employees  and contractors  of a Tenant , or an employer  other  than Massey  University,  the \nUniversity  may accept  a written  declaration  from the Tenant,  or other employer , confirming  that all their \nemployees  and contractors  who work  On-Campus  are Fully Vaccinated  or exempted  in line with this \nPolicy . \n2.3.  In the event of a non -disclosure of vaccination status, the University will consider the individual to be \nunva ccinated for COVID -19 for the purpo ses of this Policy.  \n2.4. For positions that are covered by the COVID -19 Public  Health Response ( Vaccinations) Order 2021 (or \nsubsequent Public Health Order), workers will be required to provide all relevant information as set out \nin the relevant  Order.  \n \n \n3. Support  for COVID -19 Vaccinatio n \n3.1.  The University  will take reasonable  measures  to support Employees who want to be Fully Vaccinated , \nor who choose or are required in the future to receive any booster doses of the COVID-19 vacci ne. \n3.2. The University requires managers and supervisors to m ake rea sonable accommodations in supporting \nour E mployees, Stude nts, Contractors and Visitors  to be Fully Vaccinated (including booster d oses) \nwhere this is rec ommen ded).  For Employees, th is may inv olve managers and supervisors temporarily \nadjusting the Employees work, allowing remove working the day of an/or after an Employee receives a \ndose of a COVID -19 vaccine and permitted paid leave as required.  \n3.3.  Where a person is immune compro mised the Univers ity requires managers and supervisors to make all \nreasonabl y practicable accommodations in supporting their vulnerabilities  and providing protection  \nmitigations.  \n \n4. Engaging in good faith with affected Employee s \n4.1.  The University commits to engag ing in good fa ith with th ose Employees who may be affected by \nparag raph 1 of this Policy , and to follow a process whereby:  \n(a) All parties are treat ed with dignity and resp ect, and in accordance with the applicabl e employment  \nagreement.  \n(b) All parties  have an opportunity  to un derstand either other position  and concerns.  \n(c)  The University  supports Employees  to be come Fully Vaccinated , where du ring the process an \nEmpl oyee expresses t hat they wish to become Fully Vaccination; and   \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nCOVID -19 Vaccination  Requirement Policy  – Page 3 \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  (d) All reaso nable alternative options, such as suitable  changes to duties , or redeployment will be \nconsidered b efore an employee ’s employment is proposed to be ended.  \n5. Affected Enro lled students  \n5.1.  The University is committed to providing a comprehensive range of programmes able to be completed by \ndistance/online . \n \n5.2. Where a student  is enrolled in a programme of study that requires them to be Fully Vaccinated in \naccordance with this Policy and  they remain unvaccinated, the University will endeavour to work with the \nstudent to support their continuation of study.  \n \n5.3. Where there are no reasonable alternative learning options available or the student has not adequately \nverified their vaccination status, then the affected Student may be withdrawn from their programme of study \nas a last resort.  \n \n5.4. Withdrawals from programmes  will be managed so far as practicable before the s tart date of the programme, \nand any fees paid by the student will be managed in accordance with the Student Fees Refund Policy.  \n \n6. Activity -based Risk Assessment  \n6.1.  The University recognises that there may be some Activities that are higher risk and are required to be \nundertaken by Fully Vaccinated individuals, where supported by an activity -based risk assessment.  \n \n6.2. Heads of Schools, Departments and Institutes are responsible for preparing activity -based risk as sessments \nwithin their work area, where they consider a n Activity might be 'higher risk'. Activities will only be \nconsidered higher risk where the risk of exposure to COVID -19 is greater than would be reasonably \nexpected in the community.  \n \n6.3. Heads of Schools , Departments and Institutes should use the following g uidelines and form for preparing \ntheir risk assessment in Guideline to Seek Approval for COVID -19 Vaccination Requirement.  Further \ninformation about preparing risk assessments can be found in the Revi ew of Covid -19 Risk Assessment \nApril 2022.  The Occupat ional Health, Safety and Wellbeing team can provide assistance and specialist \nsupport as required.  \n  \n6.4. The Head of School, Department or Institute is responsible for engaging with Workers and Students a s \nappropriate.   \n \n6.5. Following engagement with Workers and  Students, the risk assessment must be submitted to the \nappropriate SLT member and the Director of Occupational Health, Safety and Wellbeing for consideration \nand approval.  The SLT member and Director  of Occupational Health, Safety and Wellbeing may appro ve \nor decline the risk assessment or  suggest amendments to the risk assessment or further engagement with \nWorkers and Students prior to approval.  \n \n6.6. Activity -based risk assessments supplement the Univer sity's COVID -19 risk assessment which can be found  \nthe Review of Covid -19 Risk Assessment April 2022.  \n \n6.7. When the University is carrying out COVID -19 risk assessments, the University will consider public h ealth  \nguidance and engage with Workers and Students a s appropriate.   \n \n7. Exemptions where Vaccination is Required  \n7.1.  Where a person is required to be Fully Va ccinated in accordance with the COVID -19 Public Health \n(Vaccinations) Order 2021 (or subsequent Public Health Order), exemptions can only be granted in \naccordance with the applicable Order.  \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nCOVID -19 Vaccination  Requirement Policy  – Page 4 \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  7.2.  For all other individuals who are required to be Fully Vaccinate d in accordance with paragraph 1.2(b) of this \nPolicy:  \n(a) The University may pro vide exemptions in limited circumstances  and on a case -by-case  basis.  \n(b) The Unive rsity will consider any request for an exemption on its merits, including the nature of the In -\nPerson University Activity, the risk to the person and others, the risk of transmi ssion, and the \nUniversity's ability to make reasonable accommodations, without unreasonable disruption.   \n(c) Where the University is satisfied that reasonable accommodations can be made, without \nunreasonable disruption, and the risk to health and safety can be  appropriately managed, an \nexemption may be granted.   \n(d) Guidelines for requestin g an exemption can be found  in the Guideline to Seek Approval for COVID -\n19 Vaccination Requirement . \n(e) Any exemption must be approved by the relevant SLT member and the Director Occupational \nHealth, Safety and Wellbeing.  \n \n8. Privacy  \n8.1.  Vaccinati on information col lected for the purposes of this policy will be held securely and processed in \naccordance with relevant laws and the university’s Privacy Statement.  \n \n8.2. Vaccination information may be shared confidentially, on a need -to-know basis either internally, or externa lly \nwith other agencies if that is authorised by public health orders or  related legislation. Vaccination \ninformation will not otherwise be shared with anyone else, except with the individuals consent or as \npermitted by law.  \n \n9. Additional Health and S afety C ontrol Measures  \n9.1.  The University  will continue to ensure that additional control measures to prevent infection and transmission \nof COVID -19 remain in place, in line with the Government’s COVID -19 Protection Framework (or any future \nvariation). This may in clude use of face coverings, physical distancing, remote working, and infection \ncontrol measures such as hand washing and hand sanitising.  \n \nDefinitions : \nApproved  Vaccine  means  any COVID -19 vaccine  that has been  approved  for use in New Zealand  by MedSafe or i s \nspecified Schedule 3 of the COVID -19 Public Health (Vaccinations) Order 2021.  \n \nContractor  means  any PCBU  (Person  Conducting  a Business  or Undertaking)  that has a ‘contract  for services’  with \nMassey  University (including individual contractors).  \n \nFully  Vaccinated  means  having  obtained  the number  of doses  of an Approved  Vaccine  as recommended  by the \nMinistry  of Health.  Currently,  a two-dose  schedule  is recommended  for most  people  as their primary  course, including \nand recommended boosters.  For individuals  who are 'affected persons' under the COVID -19 Public Health \n(Vaccinations) Order 2021, Fully Vaccinated also means having any required booster doses within the specified \ntimeframe.  \n \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nCOVID -19 Vaccination  Requirement Policy  – Page 5 \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  In-Person  University  Activities  or Activities  means  the Student  or Worke r participates  in or undertakes  \nUniversity  activities  such  as teaching,  learning,  research  or other  professional  or work -related  duties  in-person  \neither  on-campus  or at third-party  sites or locations.  This also includes  physical  attendance  at university  events \nsuch  as graduation  or open  days.  This includes (but may not be limited to): work -placements, work integrated \nlearning, zero credit courses where in -person work experience/attendance  at a workplace  is required,  research  \nfield work,  field trips,  researc h interviews,  where conducted  in-person,  meetings  in-person  off campus,  in-person  \nattendance  at conferences,  workshops  or courses, and work -related  travel.  \n \nOn-Campus  means  any land or property  forming  a Massey  University  campus  or otherwise  used  or occupi ed by \nthe university  for the purposes  of undertaking  education,  research  or other  university  activities.  Examples  include  \nthe following Massey occupied  locations:  \n• University owned and operated student  accommodation  \n• University farms and  orchards  \n• Symonds St reet, Auckland  \n• Albany Village,  Auckland  \n• Ōtehā Rohe,  Auckland  \n• Corinthian Drive,  Auckland  \n• Hokowhitu,  Manawatū  \n• Aviation Centre, Milson, Palmerston North  \n• University -owned  or leased  transport  such  as fleet vehicles,  buses  and boats  \nOn-Campus  excludes  premises  outside  New Zealand,  and certain  location s that are vaccine  pass  prohibited  \nlocations such  as health  and disability  services,  licensed  early  childhood  educatio n services,  primary  or \nsecondary  schools  and public  transport.  \n \nStudent  means  any enrolled  student  at Massey  University.  \nTena nt means any person or company who leases space or property On -Campus (including employees of those \nTenants accessing On -Campus sites) but excludes residential tenants who have a Residential Tenancy \nAgreement.  \nVisitor  means any other person including guest s, honoraries , alumni, event attendees, spectators, volunteers, \nresearch participants and members of the public who attend On -Campus.  \nEmployee  means all employees (permanent, fixed term or casual), or secondees of Massey University.  \n \nAudience : \nEach policy should identi fy who the audien ce is in terms of staff, students and external bodies within the university \ncommunity.  \nRelevant legislation : \nState the relevant legislation this policy must comply with or is referenced to.  \nLegal compliance : \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nCOVID -19 Vaccination  Requirement Policy  – Page 6 \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  Health and Safety at Work Act 2 015 \nThe Health and Safety at Work Act requires Massey University as a Person Conducting  a Business or Undertaking \n(PCBU) to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety of workers it engages, influences or \ndirects and that the health and safety of other persons is not put at risk from work carried out as part of the con duct \nof its business or undertaking. The Act also requires Massey University to comply with various other duties of care \nand to consult, co -operate and co -ordinate activ ities with all other PCBUs who have duties in relation to the same \nmatter.  \nCOVID -19 Pub lic Health Response Act 2020  \nProvides a legal framework for dealing with the COVID -19 pandemic in New Zealand. The Act allows the Minister of \nHealth (or the Director -General of Health in specified circumstances) to make orders under Section 11 to give effe ct \nto the public health response to the COVID -19 in New Zealand. The Act provides for a Person Conducting a \nBusiness or Undertaking (a PCBU) to assess that workers are v accinated and undergo medical examination or \ntesting for COVID -19; Allows for the stora ge and disclosure of personal information on the condition that it is used for \nascertaining that a person has been vaccinated, issued with a COVID -19 vaccination certifi cate, or is complying with \nthe COVID -19 Public Health Response Act; Recognises the My V accine Pass as COVID -19 vaccination certificates.  \nEducation (Pastoral Care of Tertiary and International Students) Code of Practice 2021  \nThe Code exists to support educa tion objectives for domestic and international learners, recognising that the \ncommunity  expects providers to support wellbeing, and providers need flexibility to respond to their learners’ needs \nin different ways. The Code acknowledges the importance of su pporting learner wellbeing and safety in education, \nand the value New Zealanders place on wellbeing and safety.  \nPrivacy Act 2020  \nCollection, use and disclosure of personal information, and access to and correction of personal information and the \nuse of uni que identifiers, must comply with the principles of the Privacy Act 2020.  \nEmployment Relations  Act \nThe Employment Relations Act 2000 requires Massey University to abide by the criteria set out in this Act and further \ncomply with Part 1, Good faith employme nt relations, to ensure that the parties to the employment relationship deal \nwith each  other in good faith and are open and communicative. It also sets out certain rights and obligations that \napply in the context of COVID -19 vaccination (Schedule 3A).  \nRela ted procedures / documents: \nMassey University Collective and Individual Employment Agreements  \nMassey University Po licy on Staff Conduct  \nDocument Management Control:  \nPrepa red by:  DVC University Services  \nAuthorised by:  Senior Leadersh ip Team \nApproved by  SLT WH230522  \nDate issued:  18th February 2022  \nLast review:  August 2023  \nNext review:  August 2026   \n \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Employee_Support_Services_Policy_PDF_101_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Employee Support Services Policy",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "101 KB",
      "creation_date": "2022-11-21T11:00:05",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220101022+13'00'"
    },
    "content": "Massey  University  Policy  Guide  \n© This Policy  is the property  of Massey  University   \n  \n \n \n \n \n \nSection  People  & Culture  \nContact  People  & Culture  \nLast Review  October  2022 \nNext  Review  October  2025 \nApproval  SLT 17/08/112  \n \n \nPurpose:  \n \nTo provide  a system to  encourage  and assist  employees to  seek help  and resolve problems that  may affect  their work \nperformance.  \n \nPolicy:  \n \nMassey University is committed to providing an enabling work environment for its staff which encourages and assists \nemployees to seek help and resolve personal and professional problems that may affect their work performance and \nhealth and wellbeing.  \n \nMassey  University  is committed  to raising  the awareness  of the resources/services  available  throu gh the University  and \nwill strive to integrate with various internal and external support providers to build stronger relationships with wider \ncommunity support services.  \n \nMassey University  recognises  the need for a wide variety of resources/services to be available to its staff members in \naddition to the Employee Assistance Programme to provide an enabling environment and will promote key services \nthrough its People and Culture  section.  \n \nEmployee  Assistance  Programme:  \n \nMassey University has contracted an independent organisation, Employee Assistance Programme Services (“EAP \nServices”), as its primary external support agency to provide the Employee Assistance Programme (EAP).  This is a \nprogramme through which University staff can access appropriate professional/specialist assistance for a wide range \nof issues which can affect work performance.  \n \nThe policy  for access  to and use of the EAP is as follows:  \n \n• The programme will be available to all employees of 0.5FTE or greater who have an employment agreement \nof 12 months or more.  \n \n• The Deputy Vice-Chancellor  – University Services  or nominee  may at his/her  discretion make EAP services \navailable to other staff.  \n \n• Massey University will meet the cost of up to three (3) counselling sessions per presenting problem.  Should \nany more  than three  (3) visits  per presenti ng problem be  required,  then prior approval  from the  Deput y Vice- \nChancellor  – University Services  or nominee  will be required  for this to be deemed  a cost to the University.  \n \nEMPLOYEE  SUPPORT  SERVICES  POLICY  \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \nEmployee  Support  Services  Policy  – Page  2 \n© This Policy  is the property  of Massey  University   \n  \n \n• If employees are referred  to another specialist agency,  they may be required  to meet  the cost of the  specialist \nservices themselves.  \n \n• The counselling  sessions  will be with one of the EAP Services  contracted  counsellors  unless  otherwise  agreed \nwith the Deputy Vice-Chancellor – University Services  prior to any counselling being accessed.  If an employee \nchooses to use  a counsellor other than one  provided by EAP  Services,  they will be required to meet the cost \nthemselves.  \n \n• The EAP Services  counsellor  will maintain  the confidentiality  of all records  and discussions  with the employee.  \n \n• Use of the programme  will be entirely  at the choice  of the staff member  concerned.  \n \n• Self-referral or referral through a manager will not affect job security, promotion, or any other privilege of any \nperson accepting and successfully completing the recommendations made by the EAP Services counsellor.  \n \n• Employees  cannot  use the programme  to avoid  performance  management  procedures  or the consequences  of \nnot adhering to the University’s policies and procedures.  \n \n• The programme will provide assistance for personal problems affecting work performance but  will not \nnecessarily prevent disciplinary action for serious offences or continued unsatisfactory work performance.  \n \n• It is expected  that a staff member  will make  every  effort  to successfully  complete  counselling  within  a reasonable \ntime period and that the work per formance will improve to the standard agreed with the manager.  \n \n• Assessment  and counselling  may take place  during  work  hours  with agreement  of the employee’s  manager.  \n \nAdditional  Employee  Support  Services:  \n \nIn addition to the Employee Assistance Programme, the University has several  other employee support services \navailable  to support  personal  and professional  requirements  of its staff.  These  services,  both internal  and external,  will \nbe promoted through the People and Culture intranet site to raise awareness of such support services available to \nuniversity  staff.  \n \nConfidentiality:  \n \nThe University  is committed  to maintaining  confidentiality  unless  there  are circumstances  involving  probable  risk to  the \nsafety  of any person/s,  or where  maintaining  confidentiality  would  be unlawful,  or when  this would  compromise  principles \nof natural justice.  \n \nAn anonymised summary of EAP attendances is provided by EAP Services to the University to monitor usage and costs.  \n \nAudience:  \n \nAll staff \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nRelevant  legislation:  \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \nEmployee  Support  Services  Policy  – Page  3 \n© This Policy  is the property  of Massey  University   \n  \nNone  \n \nLegal compliance:  \n \nNone  \n \nRelated  procedures  / documents:  \n \nEmployee  Assistance  Programme  – EAP Services  Information  \n \nDocument  Management  Control:  \n \nPrepared  by: Employment  Relations  Advisor  \nAuthorised  by: Deputy  Vice-Chancellor  – University Services Approved  by: SLT \n17/08/112  \nDate issued: August 2003  \nLast review: October 20 22  \nNext review:  October  2025 \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Code_of_Ethical_Conduct_for_Research_Teaching_and_Evaluations_Involving_Human_Participants_PDF_464_K.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Code of Ethical Conduct for Research, Teaching and Evaluations Involving Human Participants",
      "policy_type": "Code",
      "file_size": null,
      "author": "Massey University",
      "creation_date": "2017-11-30T12:02:05",
      "modification_date": "D:20250708092143+12'00'"
    },
    "content": "Code of Ethical Conduct  \nfor Research, Teaching and Evaluations  \nInvolving Human Participants\nREVISED CODE \n2017\nTable of Contents\nUniversal principles\nTreaty of Waitangi obligations \nand principlesResearcher values in the  \nNew Zealand context\nResearch on teaching  \nand learning\nResearch involving children\nMassey University staff and \nstudents as participants\nCompensation of participants\nResearch adequacy\nAccessing, using and  \nsharing data\nRespect for property rights\nRe-use of samples/data\nTreatment of human tissues,  \nbody fluids and remains\nFormulation and publication  \nof results Glossary\nReferences\nAppendix A: Key questions\nAppendix B: Data  \nResources\nHuman Ethics Code – Introduction \nThe Code of Ethical Conduct for Research, Teaching and Evaluations involving \nHuman Participants has been developed to ensure that research, teaching and evaluation activities undertaken by staff and students of Massey University are consistent with Section 161 of the Education Act 1989. This Section guarantees the freedom of academic staff to engage in research and to teach and assess students in the manner which they consider best promotes learning. However, it also requires that institutions maintain the highest ethical standards and permit public scrutiny of the maintenance of those standards.\nThe following activities must comply with the Code of Ethical Conduct for \nResearch, Teaching and Evaluations involving human participants\n1:\na) All research involving either the participation of humans or where the research \nimpacts on individuals, groups or communities. This includes consultancies, contract research, staff research and supervised student research.\nb) Any teaching which involves the participation of students for the demonstration of procedures or phenomena that have a potential for harm\n2.\nc) Any evaluation of University services, organisational practices or teaching programmes where information of a personal nature may be collected, where participants may be identified, or where the performance of staff may be commented on. This does not include routine organisational quality improvement activities, (e.g. academic programme evaluations or service delivery projects or institutional research assessment exercises, such as that required for the Performance Based Research Fund), but does include activities which have a research component and may be disseminated.\n1   Unless specified otherwise ‘Code’ refers to the Code of Ethical Conduct for Research, Teaching \nand Evaluations involving Human Participants. A ‘human participant’ is any person participating in a research, teaching or evaluation situation as:• an experimental participant\n• as an example of some human characteristic or condition\n• as a recipient of any physical, psychological, behavioural or social intervention or manipulation, or\n• as a provider of information\n2   Excluding ‘regular’ teaching which is covered by the principles of professional conduct as referred to in Massey University’s Policies on Staff Conduct and Teaching and Learning, and the Collective Employment Agreement.The Code is endorsed by the Massey University Council and administered by the Director, Research Ethics through the Massey University Human Ethics Committees at Albany (HEC: Northern) and Palmerston North (HEC: Southern A and B). These Committees receive accreditation from the Health Research Council, which is a benchmark of international best practice. Such accreditation is necessary for any research receiving Health Research Council funding.\nThe intention of the Code is to provide protection for all participants in research, \nand certain teaching and evaluation programmes, as well as to protect \nresearchers and institutions.\nThe Code is an expression of the basic human rights of respect for persons, \nautonomy, privacy and justice and incorporates the principles implicit in the Treaty of Waitangi and the Te Ara Tika Mäori ethical framework.\nA ‘HIGH TRUST’ RESEARCH ETHICS SYSTEM\nThe Characteristics of the Code\nThe code is characterised by a ‘deep consideration – high trust’ approach. What this means is that the University expects that researchers will take responsibility to thoughtfully apply the principles to their research (interpreting principles using ‘deep consideration’ rather than having a set of rules to follow). The ‘high trust’ factor implies that the institution has the expectation that researchers will as a community (by and large) act on the responsibility to interpret and apply the higher level principles in this Code to their projects. The posing of questions to researchers is an indication of a sharing of responsibility for deep ethical consideration by both the researcher and ethics committee.\nTrust might be defined as having four key elements\n3, which in the Massey \nUniversity research, teaching and evaluation context are:\n3   Hardin, 1993\n1. That the Code promotes a climate of trust and responsibility within the \nUniversity research community by allowing researchers to interpret and apply the principles thoughtfully to their project, rather than following rules.\n2. That the University trusts all researchers to follow the procedures indicated in their application. Researchers are asked in their application for their expertise and experience; committees will therefore have some basis upon which to trust the particular researcher in a specific context. \n3. That the University expects that participants should also be able to trust researchers. Committee reviews will also attempt to ensure that researchers will build respect and rapport, and act with reciprocity toward participants; these elements are constituents of ‘trust’.\n4. That the Ethics Committees aim to earn the trust of researchers by interacting respectfully with researchers. \nThis trust is verified by procedures which check how researchers apply the code through low risk auditing and committee review. The justification for this checking is two-fold: firstly, to satisfy accreditation bodies and secondly, to build evidence for ongoing ‘trust’ (trust ought not, in this context, be ‘blind faith’).\nOur system uses both ‘ascribed’ and ‘achieved’ trustworthiness. Ascribed \ntrustworthiness is the default trust granted to all members of the University \ncommunity. This is the basis for not requiring reports on research to the Ethics \nOffice unless there are exceptional circumstances. Achieved trustworthiness \nis trust given on the basis of demonstrated expertise or capacity to do what \nthe Ethics Office, through its Committees, expects. In requiring that student \nresearch is submitted by supervisors, their researcher merit of being ‘ethically \naware and responsible’ is called on. There is, therefore, an element of achieved \ntrustworthiness applied by Human Ethics Committees to researchers who have \ndemonstrated ethical research in the past.How to use this Code\nThe Code poses a series of questions designed to identify the key ethical \ncomponents/issues that researchers need to address to ensure the soundness of their research planning.\nThese questions are compiled as a summary in Appendix A.\nNot all specific questions may be relevant, but a proportion of them would likely \nneed to be considered and addressed.\nSection 1 Principles\nUNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES\nTREATY OF WAITANGI OBLIGATIONS & PRINCIPLES\nUNIVERSAL ETHICAL PRINCIPLES\nThe principles of this Code draw attention to considerations that are typically \nof ethical significance. These principles are designed to be guides, not rules. Whether and to what extent the considerations matter ethically, and what to do in situations where considerations conflict, are matters of judgement that researchers and Ethics Committee members are charged with making. The principles should inform those judgements, but cannot replace them.\nThe order of principles in this document does not indicate priority as their \nrelative importance will depend on a specific context. \nAutonomy\nTo what extent will doing/allowing this research enable others to freely decide to participate in light of their own beliefs and values?\nAutonomy is about making decisions on the basis of one’s own values and \nbeliefs. There are four main components to autonomous decision-making:\na) Agency (the capacity to make decisions in light of one’s values and \nbeliefs);\nb) Information (on which to base the decision);\nc) Comprehension (so that the decision is based on full understanding); and\nd) Absence of pressure, coercion or manipulation (so that the decision can \nbe said to belong to the agent).\nProviding conditions a) through d) are appropriately met, research typically \npromotes autonomy by providing others with the opportunity to participate. The corollary of this is that preventing research from proceeding can often be disrespectful to the autonomy of others by depriving them of the opportunity to make their own decision about whether or not to participate.\nNote that it is important not to confuse vulnerability with lack of autonomy. \nThose who lack autonomy are vulnerable, but those who are vulnerable do not necessarily lack autonomy. When it comes to vulnerable individuals and groups, special care may need to be taken to ensure that component ‘d’ is \nadequately satisfied; and it is important not to deprive the vulnerable from the \nopportunity of exercising their autonomy and having their voice heard.This principle incorporates elements of the following principles from the \nprevious code: respect for persons, informed and voluntary consent, respect \nfor privacy and confidentiality, the avoidance of unnecessary deception and \nthe avoidance of conflict of interest. \nAvoidance of Harm (non-maleficence) \nTo what extent will doing/allowing this research risk or cause harm?\nHarm should be understood broadly to cover physical and psychological harm \nas well as damage to one’s reputation, dignity and relationships with others. \nNote that harms of this broad kind can accrue to individual participants, \ncommunities and institutions, as well as researchers. \nTypically harm operates as a negative ethical consideration. However, this may \nnot always be the case and, as with all the considerations mentioned in this code, judgement needs to be exercised. For instance, the fact that a particular harm or risk of harm would have occurred anyway may sometimes operate to make the harm in question ethically insignificant, or less significant than it otherwise would have been. There may also be cases where it will be unethical for a researcher to be the agent of a harm that would otherwise have occurred. Cases are different and it is for the researcher and relevant Ethics Committee to judge, on an individual basis, whether the fact a harm would have occurred anyway operates, in a particular case, to make it ethically permissible to cause it, or not.\nSometimes it may be ethically relevant whether a harm was actively caused, \nor merely allowed. Sometimes it may be ethically relevant whether a harm was intended or merely foreseen. But again, the ethical relevance of this distinction can vary from case to case and so judgement is needed. The point here is that \nthe purpose of the research can affect the ethicality of any harm or risk of harm \nthat it may cause.\nNormally, the greater the autonomy of prospective participants, the less \nethically justified paternalism becomes; conversely, the less autonomy prospective participants will be capable of exercising, the greater the degree of paternalism that may be justified.\nBenefit (beneficence)\nTo what extent will doing/allowing this research create, support or make likely \nbenefits?\nBenefit should be understood as broadly as harm has been above.\nOther things being equal, the promotion of benefit is an ethical positive. As \nsuch it can sometimes operate to countervail ethical negatives and make ethically permissible what might otherwise be unethical. The word ‘sometimes’ is important; it should not be assumed that benefits can always be used to offset harms or other ethical negatives.\nThe same distinctions that apply to harm can also be applied to benefit. That is, \nit is typically better to have caused a benefit than to have allowed one (though this is not always the case). And it is sometimes ethically relevant whether one intended the benefit, or merely foresaw it.\nJustice\nTo what extent will the benefits and burdens of this research be fairly distributed?\nJustice typically involves the fair distribution of harms and benefits. For \nexample, if all the benefits of a research proposal accrue to one group, and all the harms to another, then this typically counts as an ethical negative due to it being unjust.\nAchieving a fairer distribution of harms and benefits by increasing the harms \nor decreasing the benefits will probably not operate to make a proposal more just (this is why justice only ‘typically’ involves fairly distributing harms and benefits). By contrast, if a fairer distribution can be achieved by increasing benefits or reducing harms, then normally this will operate to make a proposal more just.\nDiscrimination in the selection and recruitment of participants, except where \nnecessary logistically or for the purpose of the research, will typically be unjust. However, even when necessary for logistical reasons, some kinds of discrimination may still be ethically problematic.Special relationships\nTo what extent would doing/allowing this research honour the ethical norms generated by the special relationships that the researcher has?\nRelationships can take many different forms, including between persons and \nother persons, institutions, communities, activities, objects, and places. These relationships can generate ethical obligations and permissions that would not exist otherwise. For example, researchers come to be in a special relationship to their participants and thereby acquire a special obligation to respect their autonomy, welfare, values and beliefs that would not be owed to the same degree to perfect strangers. Similarly, researchers at Massey University have a special relationship to the institution of Massey University, to colleagues, to students, and to the wider research community. In each case the existence of these relationships can generate obligations that would not otherwise exist, or make more stringent those that do.  \nSpecial relationships can sometimes operate to make ethically permissible what \nmight otherwise be unethical. That is, they can generate permissions as well as obligations. For instance, some methods of recruitment may be unethical in the context of strangers, yet ethical in the context of family members, friends, fellow community members or colleagues. \nSpecial relationships can sometimes render impermissible what would otherwise \nbe permissible. For instance, it may be ethically inappropriate for an Ethics Committee member to pass judgement on the proposal of, say, his/her partner, even if no bias would be shown.  In this sort of case it is the brute existence of the relationship that is making the ethical difference.  In other cases, relationships can generate conflicting requirements. Being a good researcher may not always be compatible with being a good friend, parent, community member or colleague. In cases where a researcher’s relationships are generating conflicting requirements, judgement has to be exercised to determine which requirements are ethically more binding.\nTREATY OF WAITANGI OBLIGATIONS & PRINCIPLES \nMassey University as an institution has agreed, as have Massey University \nresearchers as individuals, that all research conducted under the auspices of the University will comply with the principles (implicit in the Treaty of Waitangi) of partnership, participation and protection. The Treaty principles, while not specific to research, nonetheless provide general obligations and considerations to all staff and students. Ethical principles and the interpretation of them draw from cultural understandings; it follows then that, as good Treaty partners, New Zealand researchers need to be cognisant of Mäori ethical principles.\nWhile the academic literature on Mäori research contains a number of ethics \nrelationship-based models, Massey University looks to the comprehensive review of mätauranga Mäori (Mäori knowledge) on research ethics undertaken for the Health Research Council by the Putaiora writing group in Te Ara Tika\n4.   \nThe writers produced a Mäori ethics framework which extrapolates the Treaty principles, and applies tikanga (cultural) concepts into research contexts. The framework helps researchers to identify ethical issues in terms of ‘the rights, roles and responsibilities of researchers and Mäori communities: the contribution that research makes towards providing useful and relevant outcomes; and addressing inequalities’ (Te Ara Tika, p.1).\nThe Mäori ethics framework proposed in Te Ara Tika has four principles: \nwhakapapa (purpose and relationships), tika (research design), manäkitanga \n(cultural and social responsibility) and mana (justice and equity). Below are \nsummary questions for mainstream research; for fuller explanations and for \napplying these principles in Mäori-centred research, see the full document.\nWhakapapa (relationships)\nIn what ways are relationships being established, developed and maintained \nwith iwi, hapü, whänau and Mäori communities?\nConsulting meaningfully and developing authentic relationships contributes \nto the ethical tenor of the research. This ethical principle links to the Treaty \nprinciple of partnership, being concerned with consultation and engagement \nwith communities, and demonstrating reciprocity to them.\n4    Hudson, M., Milne, M., Reynolds, P., Russell, K. & Smith, B.Tika (purposefulness)\nCan the research achieve its aims? In what ways will it impact on Mäori?\nWill the research protect the rights and interests of Mäori and contribute to \nbuilding Mäori capacity and welfare across the research stages and roles?\nThis principle links to the Treaty principles of participation and active protection \nof the rights and interests of Mäori.\nManäkitanga (cultural and social responsibility)\nDoes the research treat people with cultural sensitivity? In what ways will the research ensure that the dignity and respect of all parties is upheld?\nThis principle links to the Treaty principle of partnership.\nMana (justice and equity)\nWho will benefit from the research and how will this benefit be manifested? \nIn what ways will the research strengthen and protect Mäori culture, values, practices and language?\nIn the context of this framework mana relates to equity and distributive justice \nand therefore to the Treaty principle of protection.\nAll research in New Zealand is of interest to Mäori and this ethical framework \nprovides the context within which Massey University researchers can enact the Western principles in the previous ‘Universal’ sub-section. When undertaking research in New Zealand there are core values which can guide how research is designed and undertaken by researchers to be biculturally appropriate, regardless of whether the participant focus is Mäori or not. See ‘Researcher values in the New Zealand context’ in Section 2 of this Code for explanation of the core values.\nSection 2 Applying the Principles\nRESEARCHER VALUES IN THE NEW ZEALAND CONTEXT\nRESEARCH ON TEACHING AND LEARNINGRESEARCH INVOLVING CHILDRENMASSEY UNIVERSITY STAFF AND STUDENTS AS PARTICIPANTS\nCOMPENSATION OF PARTICIPANTS\nRESEARCH ADEQUACYACCESSING, USING AND SHARING DATARESPECT FOR PROPERTY RIGHTSRE-USE OF SAMPLES/DATATREATMENT OF HUMAN TISSUES, BODY FLUIDS AND REMAINSFORMULATION AND PUBLICATION OF RESULTS\nRESEARCH VALUES IN THE NEW ZEALAND CONTEXT\nWhen conducting research in New Zealand there are core values which guide \nhow research is designed and undertaken by all researchers to fulfil the Treaty principles (for communities as well as for individuals), regardless of whether or not the participant focus is Mäori. For guidelines on consultation, see Te Ara \nTika, Table 1 (p17).\nValues such as those in the table below assist researchers in New Zealand to \nbe aware of our bicultural context and to acknowledge the ethical implications of bicultural engagement whether working specifically with Mäori or not. The \nvalues are demonstrated using explicit behaviours of appropriate conduct.\nResearcher values 5\nCultural Value Researcher Guideline \nAroha ki te tangata A respect for people – allow people to define their own space and meet on \ntheir own terms.\nHe kanohi kitea It is important to meet people face to face, especially when introducing the idea of research, “fronting up” to the community before sending out long, complicated letters and materials.\nTitiro, whakarongo  \n… koreroLooking and listening (and then maybe speaking). This value emphasizes the importance of looking/observing and listening in order to develop understandings and find a place from which to speak.\nManaaki ki te tangata Sharing, hosting, and being generous. This is a value that underpins a collaborative approach to research, one that enables knowledge to flow both ways and that acknowledges the researcher as a learner and not just a data-gatherer or observer. It also facilitates the process of “giving back,” of sharing results and of bringing closure if that is required for a project, but not to a relationship.\nKia tupato Be cautious. This suggests that researchers need to be politically astute, culturally safe, and reflective about their insider/outsider status. It is also a caution to insiders and outsiders that in community research, things can come undone without the researcher being aware or being told directly.\nKaua e takahia te mana o te tangataDo not trample on the “mana” or dignity of a person. This is about informing people and guarding against being paternalistic or impatient because people do not know what the researcher may know. It is also about simple things like the way Westerners use wit, sarcasm and irony as discursive strategies or where one sits down. For example, Mäori people are offended when someone sits on a table designed and used for food.\nKaua e mahaki Do not flaunt your knowledge. This is about finding ways to share knowledge, to be generous with knowledge without being a “show-off” or being arrogant. Sharing knowledge is about empowering a process, but the community has to empower itself.\n5    Adapted from Smith, L.T. (2005).Further implications of Mäori ethical framework and \nresearcher values\nIn New Zealand, Mäori generally consider collective welfare is paramount. \nConsideration for collective welfare requires additional ethical consideration when gaining consent from and acknowledging ownership of information by whänau, hapü and iwi. Given this paramount importance of collective welfare, the results of any research should be appropriately disseminated.\nResearch, teaching and evaluations covered by this Code should therefore be \nundertaken in a culturally sensitive and appropriate manner in full discussion \nand partnership with participants. Considering the inclusion and facilitation \nof whänau support for participants is one example of sensitivity to cultural \nwell-being. The rights of participants with regard to personal data must be respected.\nTe Reo Mäori is an official language of New Zealand and is highly valued by \nmany research respondents. Research respondents should be offered the choice of responding in either Mäori or English (or, alternatively, if participants volunteer to respond in Mäori, they should not be excluded for wanting to do so). If researchers are not fluent, appropriate alternative arrangements should be made to enable respondents to communicate in Mäori.\nMäori ethical perspectives will be important when the situation in question \nwould normally require observance of tikanga. Observing tikanga can be as simple as removing one’s shoes when entering a home, or as complex as working with whänau of Mäori who have recently died, where appropriate expert consultation and support is required to uphold the mana of all involved. Another example is when a research project seeks knowledge which may be considered tapu by the respondents and therefore not usually available to outsiders, such as the encountering of whakapapa or research projects that relate to historical artefacts. Such knowledge can be held by living respondents or contained in personal documentation that has not been made public.\nHistorically, researchers in New Zealand working with human participants have \ntended to fail to recognise our bicultural history and Treaty obligations and so have undertaken research which has caused harm and provided few benefits. Smith (1999) speaks to the credibility problem the research community has created for itself:\nSome scholarly communities of scientists may have well established ethical guidelines, many have not. Even if such communities have guidelines, the problem to be reiterated again is that it has been taken for granted that indigenous peoples are the ‘natural objects’ of research. It is difficult to convey to the non-indigenous world how deeply this perception of research is held by indigenous peoples. (p.118)\nApplicants are here referred to the Guidelines for Mäori Research Ethics,  \nTe Ara Tika\nRESEARCH ON TEACHING AND LEARNING\nAs the introduction indicates, this Code applies to research on teaching and \nlearning, but not to evaluation of teaching. Ethical issues to be addressed in the \ncontext of conducting research on teaching and learning may include: conflicts \nof interest and the power relationships involved in teaching and research, the use of existing data for a new purpose, the privacy of information and where \ndissemination may involve confidentiality issues. While research on teaching \nand learning may or may not involve research within one’s organisation on \none’s own students, this section focuses on the key considerations involved in \nundertaking research on and with one’s own students. Comments on the broader ethical issues are included elsewhere in the Code.\nRESEARCH ON YOUR OWN STUDENTS/PUPILS\nThe definition of ‘own students’ includes persons who are current students, potential students in the future and those with whom a prospective relationship \nof power/influence is likely.\nThe conventional view of the distinction between teaching evaluation and \nresearch would imply that reflective teaching and research (or scholarship) on one’s teaching are based on quite different sets of requirements depending on \nwhether one is referring to the rights of learners or of research participants. In \nthis view, research on one’s own teaching and student’s learning may only occur where students exercise their rights as individuals to participate\n6 .\n6    O’Neill, J. (2010).So while evaluation of teaching and research into the teaching and learning \ncan involve the same kind of teacher/researcher behaviour, the permissions required of the students are different because their rights as learners are different from those of research participants.\nStudents have the right that (a) their explicit consent will be sought by researchers whenever this is practicable; but that in any proposed study where their explicit consent is not sought, (b) the proposed research will be reviewed and approved by an institutional ethics committee; and (c) any research report may not identify or permit inference of the identity of individuals. \n7 \nFurther, anonymity of data is not sufficient if data is provided to a teacher \nwithout expectation that it might be used for research purposes, ie some \nmaterial that students provide is personal and is not given by them as ‘learning data’. A decision-making chart is included here to guide thinking in this area. In \nsummary, the key criteria included are:\n• Whether consent for research has already been given\n• The student’s purpose in providing data\n• The student’s expectations for use of the data\n• The anonymity and identifiability of the data\n• Whether the findings will be disseminated within or beyond the institution\nThe decision chart captures the following scenarios:\n1. Dissemination of anonymous student data within the university, for which \nthe student has already given consent for use, or could reasonably be expected to think would be used in teaching evaluation, can proceed without any ethics notification.\n2. Dissemination of such data outside the university would require low risk \nethics notification (assuming no other ethical issues).\n3. In situations where the student might not expect that their data would be \nused for evaluation or research, full ethics applications are required.\n4. In situations where data is disseminated in identifiable form, a full ethics application is required\n7    ibid\nDecision Chart\nDecision chart for use of Massey student data where specific consent has not been sought prospectively and the students are not currently being taught by the \nresearcher.\ndata provided \nby students of the \nresearcher\nteaching \nevaluation or quality \nimprovementlearning or \nassessment\nprovided \nanonymously\nnot anonymised \nbefore analysisanonymised by third \nparty before analysisfull ethics \napplication\nfull ethics \napplication\nfull ethics \napplication\nfull ethics \napplicationlow risk \nnotification\nno ethics \nnotificationwithin the \nuniversityoutside the \nuniversityrisk \nassessment \nquestionsadministrative \nor other purposes eg: \nethnicity, family contact \ndetails etc\nlearning \ninformation eg: \nassessment results, \nattendance recordsprivate information eg: \nclothing choices, social \ncomments onlineconsent for research \nalready provided eg: \nMOSTs\nstudent’s purpose in \nproviding the data\nstudents \nexpectation for use \nof the data\nanonymity of \nthe data\nsite of \ndissemination of \nfindingssource of data\nprospective \nconsent status\nstudent’s \npurpose in \nproviding data\nstudent’s \nexpectations for \nuse of the data\nanonymity of  \nthe data\nsite of \ndissemination of \nthe findings\neg. publication  \nrequirement, institution \nidentifiable, conflict of interestno yes\nidentifiable\nif triggered by  \nother risk Qs\nRESEARCH INVOLVING CHILDREN\nThe Code considers research participants under the age of sixteen to be \nchildren. A prime consideration in any research involving children is that the research is not against the interest of any individual child participant.\nIn undertaking research involving children the following considerations arise:\na) Do the Information Sheet and Consent form use appropriate language for \nthe reading levels of the participants?\nb) How autonomous will the children’s own consent be? Child participants \ncan provide consent if the researcher believes that they are competent to \nunderstand the nature of the project. This usually applies from around the \nage of seven, but it can be younger.\nc) Is there a separate appropriate Information Sheet for parents/guardians? If the participation of children is being sought, their parent/guardian/carer’s consent is normally obtained because their judgement about what is in the child’s best interest is normally more reliable than anyone else’s. Where the researcher believes that the gaining of parental consent is unnecessary or would be of potential harm to the child, a case should be made in the ethics application for not gaining parental consent.\nd) In what ways will the anonymity of non-participants be protected? If children in a classroom or other group setting are being asked to participate in a research project, procedures are needed to protect the anonymity of those children who do not wish to participate, or whose parent/guardian/carers do not wish them to do so. The Information Sheet should indicate what disruption, if any, will happen to the child’s education programme; disruption should be avoided if at all possible.\ne) Will the research be undertaken in a Pre-School/School setting? Such institutions usually require researchers to submit a Police Security Clearance.\nf) Are the researcher’s own children or family members involved? How will conflicts of interest be addressed?MASSEY UNIVERSITY STAFF  AND STUDENTS AS PARTICIPANTS\nParticular care must be taken to preserve the rights of staff and students who are participants in research projects. In such cases, confidentiality is particularly important. Where possible, avoid recruiting students from teaching and learning spaces (physical and online). Once the research design and project scope have been established, time spent informing students about the research in a teaching and learning context should be kept to a minimum, normally no more than five minutes.\nCOMPENSATION OF PARTICIPANTS\na) If participants suffer physical injury as a result of participation in Massey \nUniversity research, and should ACC decline cover, participants are directed \nthrough a statement on the Information Sheet to contact the researcher \nwho will then notify the Research Ethics Office to initiate discussions concerning cover under the relevant Massey University insurance policy.\nb) At the onset of the project, researcher(s) should make clear to participants their absolute right to withdraw from research, irrespective of whether or \nnot payment is involved. Payments to participants must not be used:\ni. either as an inducement to participate in research\nii. or to encourage participants to undertake dangerous or harmful acts \nwhich they would not perform in their normal lifestyle. \nc) Researchers may wish to reimburse participants for expenses incurred as a result of participation. These expenses may include opportunity costs \n(e.g. for time) or other costs (e.g. for travel). Reimbursement of reasonable \ntravel costs is accepted as a legitimate practice. The case for payment of opportunity costs for participation in the research is less clear and some \nguidelines are detailed below.\ni. the payment must in general apply to all participants and all \nparticipants must be fully informed of the terms and conditions of \nthe payment;\nii. the level of, and reason for, the payments should be clearly explained \nin the application and the Information Sheet;\niii. the opportunity must be given for the participant to decline payment \nor seek recompense in an equivalent or alternative manner (eg koha \npayment);\nd) Payments to children must not be made without prior approval by their\nparents or guardians.\ne) Traditionally, \nkoha is an acknowledgement of the knowledge and/or\nhospitality extended by tangata whenua to manuhiri and is often presented\nas part of a pöwhiri or mihi whakatau. Koha may also be offered in line withthe cultural norms of the researchers and/or participants in research.\nf)\nIn \nsome contexts, it is inappropriate to require participants to sign for\ncompensation. There are specific guidelines for such situations in theAdditional Information document.\ng)\nResearchers \nundertaking clinical trials (through HDEC) must complete\nthe relevant forms included in the National Application Form concerningcoverage of research participants for injury in a research study.\nRESEARCH ADEQUACY\nResearch should meet appropriate standards of adequacy to be considered ethical. While different research paradigms may inform the conception and design of projects, the following questions should be able to be answered in the affirmative.\na) Does the project have clear research goals?\nb) Does the design make it possible to meet these goals?\nc) Does \nthe project potentially contribute to the advancement of knowledge to\nan extent that warrants the cost, in time and effort, from the participants? Inthe case of student research, it is recognised that research is undertakenfor training purposes and may not always advance knowledge.\nd)\nDoes \nthe researcher/supervisor have appropriate qualifications and/or\nexperience to conduct or guide the research?\ne) Has \nthere been discussion with colleagues, preferably independent of the\nresearch/teaching about the ethical issues associated with the research?In the case of student research, has the student discussed the ethicalissues associated with the research with their supervisor(s)?\nf)\nHave \ninnovative methodologies demonstrated adherence to a set of\nstandards set by professional peers?\nResearchers need to demonstrate to an Ethics Committee that they have consulted with appropriately skilled experts to establish the validity of innovative approaches. Where methodological development is a component of the research, such development needs to be accompanied by mechanisms for participant protection.ACCESSING, USING AND SHARING DATA\nWhen research involves obtaining data from people, researchers are expected \nto maintain the high ethical standards set out in the Code both during research and when sharing data.\nResearch data, even sensitive and confidential data, can be shared ethically \nand legally if researchers pay attention, from the beginning of research, to five important aspects: \n8\n• Consent\n• Privacy and confidentiality\n• Ownership and authorship\n• Governance and custodianship\n• Data sharing: assessing the social benefits of research\nThese \nmeasures should be considered jointly between students, supervisors, \nstaff and Ethics Committees. The same measures form part of good research practice and data management, even if data sharing is not envisioned. Data collected from and about people may hold personal, sensitive or confidential information.\nThere can be a perceived tension between data sharing and data protection where research data contain personal, sensitive or confidential information. However, in many cases, data obtained from people can be shared while upholding both the letter and the spirit of data protection and research ethics principles.\nSee Appendix B for further material on the following aspects of data:\n• Consent\n• Privacy and confidentiality\n• Authorship & ownership of digital data\n• Data governance & custodianship\n• Disposal of data\n• Data sharing: assessing the social benefits of research\n• Open data\n• Big data\n8    Adapted with permission from Clark, K. et al (2015).\nRESPECT FOR PROPERTY RIGHTS\nProcesses of research and publication must not violate or infringe personal, \nlegal or culturally determined property rights. These may cover such things as land and goods, creative works, spiritual treasures, information and works of the intellect.\nApplicants are referred to the Massey University Policy on Intellectual \nProperty from the Massey University Policy Guide website:   \nhttp://policyguide.massey.ac.nz/\nRE-USE OF SAMPLES/DATA\nSamples and/or data cannot be re-used in a new research project without going back to the participants for their informed consent.\nWhere it is impossible to do this, approval for the use of de-identified samples \nor data can be applied for from a Massey University Human Ethics Committee \non a case-by-case basis.\nTHE TREATMENT OF HUMAN TISSUES,  \nBODY FLUIDS AND REMAINS\nAll human remains must be treated with respect, irrespective of age, condition, origin, ethnicity, religion, sex or nationality.\nResearch, teaching and evaluations involving human remains, tissues and body \nfluids should only take place if there are demonstrated legitimate, scientific \nor educational reasons. In addition, the wishes of the local community, ethnic groups, relatives, guardians and the dead persons, with respect to investigation, storage, and/or disposal should be complied with when they are known or can \nreasonably be inferred. FORMULATION AND  \nPUBLICATION OF RESULTS\nThere is an ethical dimension to the formulation and publication of results, an obligation to share research findings with participants in an appropriate form and to inform participants how the findings will be disseminated. Researchers are advised to be aware of the uses to which less scrupulous people might put the research findings (see the ‘Additional Information’ document on the Ethics website, section ‘Media Communications’).\nApplicants are referred to the policy on Grounds for Embargoing of Theses.\nFURTHER INFORMATION\nGLOSSARY\nREFERENCESAPPENDIX A: KEY QUESTIONSAPPENDIX B: DATA \nRESOURCES\nGLOSSARY\nHapü extended family, subtribe\nIwi tribal group\nKoha gift\nMana authority\nMätauranga knowledge\nMihi whakatau welcome or greeting between groups, less formal\nPöwhiri formal greetings between groups\nTangata whenua indigenous people, in Aotearoa New Zealand, Mäori\nTapu requiring respect and observance of related tikanga\nTikanga Mäori customs, protocols and social values\nWhänau family\nWhakapapa lines of descent, connections, genealogy \nREFERENCES\nClark, K., Duckham, M., Guillemin, M., Hunter, A., McVernon, J., O’Keefe, C., Pitkin, C., Prawer, S., Sinnott, R., Warr, D. & Waycott, J. (2015). Guidelines for the Ethical \nuse of Digital Data in Human Research, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne.\nHardin, R. (1993). The street-level epistemology of trust. Politics and Society, 21, 505-529.\nHudson, M., Milne, M., Reynolds, P., Russell, K. & Smith, B. (no date). Te Ara Tika Guidelines for Mäori research ethics: A framework for researchers and ethics \ncommittee members. Health Research Council of New Zealand, Auckland.\nO’Neill, J. (2010). Some ethical considerations in staff research on teaching and learning at Massey University, paper for Teaching & Learning Committee, TLC30_\nSoTLethics1\nSmith, L. Tuhiwai. (1999). Decolonising Methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. Dunedin: University of Otago Press.Smith, L. Tuhiwai. (2005). On Tricky Ground: researching the native in the age of uncertainty. In N.K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative \nresearch (3rd Ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. pp 85-107. Also reproduced in Cram, F. (2009). Maintaining Indigenous Voices. In D.M. Mertens & P.E. \nGinsberg (Eds.), The Handbook of Social Research Ethics. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Pp 308-322.\nAppendix A \nETHICAL PRINCIPLES: KEY QUESTIONS\nAutonomy To what extent will doing/allowing this research enable others to freely decide to participate in the light of their own beliefs \nand values?\nAvoidance of harm To what extent will doing/allowing this research risk or cause harm?\nBenefit To what extent will doing/allowing this research create, support or make likely benefits?\nJustice To what extent will the benefits and burdens of this research be fairly distributed?\nSpecial relationships To what extent would doing/allowing this research honour the ethical norms generated by the special relationships that the researcher has?\nWhakapapa (relationships) In what ways are relationships being established, developed and maintained with iwi, hapü, whänau and Mäori communities?\nTika (purposefulness) Can the research achieve its aims? In what ways will it impact on Mäori?\nManäkitanga  (cultural and social responsibility)Does the research treat people with cultural sensitivity? In what ways will the research ensure that the dignity and respect of all parties is upheld?\nMana (justice and equity) Who will benefit from the research and how will this benefit be manifested? In what ways will the research strengthen and protect Mäori culture, values, practices and language?\nAppendix B \nDATA\nConsent\nAlthough the conditions for consent are well established in research practice, \nthere are issues regarding consent that are specific to using data.\nQuestions for Consideration\n• Is an ongoing process of informed consent (rather than a one-off consent) \nmore appropriate for this research?\n• Who is most appropriate to give approval for the research to be undertaken in an organisation or for the organisation to be named?\n• Have all avenues for gaining informed consent from individuals to use potentially identifiable data been explored?\n• Are participants aware that data collected for one research project may be reanalysed in future research projects?\n• Is there a need for renegotiating consent if the data are used by someone other than the researcher who collected it?\n• Has consent been provided to link these data to other data (including personal data)?\n• Does the consent process make clear the uses to which the population data (ie the individual data) may be put?\n• When information is generated in one context, in what instances should consent be obtained to use this material for research purposes in another context?\nEnsuring that participants are enabled to make informed decisions about their research participation is fundamental to consent in research. In consenting to participate in research, the process must be voluntary, and based on provision of sufficient information and adequate understanding of the purpose, aims and risks of the research, as well as what is required from participants.Privacy and confidentiality\nPrivacy and confidentiality are both key to ethical research practices. Privacy can be defined as the control that individuals have over who can access and manage their personal information. There are a number of kinds of privacy including location privacy and information privacy, both of which are substantially affected by the widespread use of digital devices and the production of digital data.\nBy contrast, confidentiality is the principle that only authorized persons should \nhave access to information. In research, confidentiality refers to the process of keeping information gathered in research secure, and ensuring that access \nwill be restricted to authorised users (data governance).\nQuestions for Consideration• Do the data in question constitute personal information in the sense \nof the Privacy Act? [Personal Information includes contact details \nand information about an identifiable individual that is maintained by \nthe Registrar-General pursuant to the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act 1995. See Massey Human Ethics webpage, ‘Ethics Notes: Privacy’]\n• Is there any mechanism, regulatory framework, or administrative structure that is designed to protect the individual’s privacy in relation to this project?\n• Does the creation of data in this project challenge individual or community expectations about privacy?\n• If explicit consent has not been obtained for this usage of data, does the public interest support its use without consent?\n• To what extent are the data gathered in this context considered personal and private, or public and available for research purposes?\nIt is important to differentiate between the ethical value of confidentiality, which is a central aspect of the relationship between the researcher and research participants, and the legal definition of privacy.\nAuthorship and ownership of digital data\nQuestions for Consideration\n• What are the risks associated with the use of a data repository?\n• Who has authority to access, release and manage this data?\n• What processes have been used to anonymise this data?\n• What \npotential harms may result from stripping data of identifiable\ninformation?\n• Who is accountable for data quality, protection and access to data?\n• Who is responsible for providing documentation and metadata?\n• Who is responsible for long-term maintenance of this data?\n• Is \ndata destruction (as a requirement of ethics applications) a relevant\napproach to digital data?\n• Has \nthe relevant University policy pertaining to data ownership been\naccessed, read and considered?\nThe subject of authorship and ownership of digital data is one where there is \nlittle consensus about who has responsibility for the data and at what point the individual has given up their right to control their personal data. This becomes an issue, particularly in relation to data sharing and data management, in projects where data are being re-used or shared.\nData governance and custodianship\nQuestions for Consideration\n• Are there processes in place to track the use of the data?\n• Who \nis responsible for archiving data and/or deleting data if that is\nappropriate?\n• Are \nprocesses in place to enable adequate data archiving and deletion as\nneeded?\n• How is access to data managed?\n• What are the principles of data system management?\n• How well informed and trained are the data gatekeepers?\n• Is \nthere a means of knowing when data has moved from one storage\nplace to another or been copied/replicated in many places?\n• Is there a way of retrieving data that has previously been shared?• Who assumes responsibility once data is in the cloud or is managed/\nstored by third parties?\n• Who \nhas ultimate responsibility for the data (and succession, should that\nperson leave Massey)?\nThe management, organisation, access to and preservation of digital data are \nall vital to research integrity and represent great challenges. There is increasing emphasis on data access and preservation worldwide as digital data storage becomes more available and has become increasingly commercialised.\nData governance can be distinguished from authorship in that it deals with data storage and access to data and its possible reuse after the research has taken place.\nSee Massey University Library’s research support webpage on research data \nmanagement.\nDisposal of data\nClear procedures must be established for the destruction of any identifiable data \nat the end of the storage period, including determining who will be responsible for the destruction. Non\n identifiable \ndata does not have to be destroyed at the \nend of a set period, but the researchers should specify a clear plan for ongoing storage, and how data will eventually be deleted (if it is to be deleted).\nData provided by participants is not owned as such by the researcher but \nrather is in the safe-keeping of the researcher (or supervisor where the project is conducted by a student). Where sound and image recordings are involved, the option of the participant retaining the recordings or agreeing to storage in a research archive can be considered. In the case of the latter option a suitable release form should be negotiated with the interviewee, clarifying the conditions of access. Advice on the nature of the release form can be found in the Code of Ethics devised by the National Oral History Association of New Zealand.\nThe Massey University Code of Responsible Research Conduct recommends \nthat data generated by researchers be recorded in an appropriately referenced and durable form having regard to the research or ethical protocols under which the data have been obtained, the time such data may be held and the extent to which the data will be accessible. See Part 2, section 2 of the Code of Responsible Research Conduct: http://policyguide.massey.ac.nz/ All \nresearchers must be aware of the need for care with respect to computer-stored data when the ownership of a device changes.\nData sharing: assessing the social benefits of research\nQuestions for Consideration\n• Does the approval/permission regime for the original data include or \npreclude the new use of the data?\n• Do researchers accessing data gathered in another context have a responsibility to understand the conditions of its original collection?\n• Do researchers have a responsibility to assess whether the secondary use of the data is aligned with the original intent for which it was collected?\n• Do researchers using data gathered by another research project have a responsibility to ensure that access to, and use of, the data does not pose a risk to individuals from whom it was originally collected?\n• Is there a risk that, in accessing the data collected by others, research participants will be adversely affected? How can this risk be evaluated?\n• Do the benefits outweigh the potential risks and/or unintended consequences of repurposing data?\n• What are the researchers’ ethical and legal responsibilities in the use of re-purposed data?\n• Is it possible to withdraw data from a project which may be secondary to the original research? (Is it ever possible to withdraw digital data?).\nData re-use and data matching are techniques that have been enabled by the widespread creation and use of digital data and by increased computing capacities. The use of data from one research project by another research project is one form of repurposing of digital data.\nEthical challenges can arise when digital data produced by one project are \nused in another project or combined with data from another source, where such reuse must be approved or justified under the same framework as the \noriginal use of the data.Open data \nResearch data should be made available to peers who wish to repeat or \nelaborate on the study, subject to requirements for privacy, confidentiality and intellectual property; in many cases however, it may be appropriate to keep identifiable information confidential, but share de-identified data openly.\nResearch data may be made available either by providing it on request or by \nposting it in an openly accessible online repository. Data thus shared should usually be anonymous or de-identified, unless the participants have consented to the sharing of identifiable information.\nMetadata\nMetadata means “data about data”. It is information about an object or resource that describes characteristics such as content, quality, format, location and contact information. It can be used to describe physical items as well as digital items (documents, audio-visual files, images, datasets, etc). Metadata can take many different forms, from free text (such as read-me files) to standardised, structured, machine-readable content. Key ethical issues are comparable to “big data”.\nBig data\nThe term ‘big data’ is frequently used. There is no agreed definition, but in public discourse it tends to refer to the increasing ubiquity of data, the vastness of datasets, the growth of digital data and other new or alternative data sources. Key ethical issues in relation to “big data” are privacy, confidentiality, transparency and identity.\nRESOURCES\nMeezan, W. & Martin, J. (2009). Handbook of research with lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender populations.  \nNew York: Routledge.\nWith the exception of logos or where otherwise indicated, this work is licensed \nunder the Creative Commons Australia Attribution 3.0 Licence.ANDS is supported by the Australian Government \nthrough the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy Program. Monash University leads the partnership with the Australian National University and CSIRO.\nKeep in mind \n»»Publish»your»data»and»metadata»according»to»participant»consent,»ethics»\napproval»and»licensing\n»»For»confidentialised»sensitive»data,»it»is»often»appropriate»to»have»public»metadata»and»conditional»access»to»the»data»itself\n»»Cite»your»data»along»with»your»other»scholarly»outputsPUBLISHING AND SHARING \nSENSITIVE DATA\nWhen and how to publish sensitive data as openly and ethically as possible  \nFor more information see: ands.org.au/sensitivedata\nSensitive data identifies individuals, species, objects or locations, and carries a \nrisk of causing discrimination, harm or unwanted attention\nIf you are collecting new data, \nstart planning for sharing »\nin»your» application» to»ethics »\ncommittees.\nYou should cite data collected \nby others.\nYou may be able to publish \nmetadata alone if»it»does» not»\ninclude» identifiable» information.\nIn some cases confidentialised \ndata may still be shared if »\nthis» was» not»precluded» in»the»\ninformation» given» to»participants.\nLicensing removes \nuncertainty around» how »your »\ndata» can»and» can’t» be»reused.\nMost metadata can be made publicly available. You »can»\nplace» conditions» around» access »\nor»reuse» of»data.Data collection\nConfidentialise\nResearch ethics\nLicensing\nDiscoverability\nDo I Have Sensitive Data?\nWas consent for data sharing  \ngiven by research participants?\nNO\nNO\nWas the data previously  \ncollected by you?\nWas data publication approved by  \nan Ethics Committee?\nNO\nNO\nIs the data licensed for reuse  \nand attribution?\nNO\nCan the data be made non-sensitive?\nCan you publish data with metadata?\nNO\nNO\nPublishing & sharing\nYES\nYES\nYES\nYES\nYESOwnership\nDo you have the right to publish?\n NO\nYES\nYES\nYES\n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Electrical_Safety_Procedure_PDF_98_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Electrical Safety Procedure",
      "policy_type": "Procedure",
      "file_size": "98 KB",
      "author": "Banner, Jodie",
      "creation_date": "2024-05-16T09:02:05",
      "modification_date": "D:20240821110739+12'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n \n \n \n \n   \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n \n ENTER PROCEDURE  \n \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n ELECTRICAL SAFETY PROCEDURE  \n \nSection  University Services  \nContact  Director  Occupational Health & Safety, Wellbeing  \nLast Review  November  2023  \nNext Review  November  2025  \nApproval  Director Occupational Health & Safety, Wellbeing  \n \n \nPurpose:  \n \nMains electrical voltages are a significant hazard. As such, health,  and safety policies as well as \nelectrical requirements for safety apply.  \n \n \nScope : \n \nThis document details administrative procedures for electrical safety at Massey University.  \n \n \nDefinitions : \n \nExtra Low voltage: less than 50v AC or 120v ripple free DC.  \nLow voltage: between 50v and 1000v AC or between 120v and 1500v ripple free DC.  \nHazardous location: areas where explosive atmosphere may be present.  \n \n \nResponsibilities for Electrical Safety : \n \nAll electrical wiring and equipment are to comply with the latest revision of all applicable New Zealand \nStandards and legislation.  \n \nFixed Wiring and Equipment:  \n \nAll fixed wiring and equipment irrespective of voltage, is to be supervised by Estates Management. This \nincludes testing of in -built protection devices as required and any alterations to fixed wiring . There are \nspecific requirements in areas where moisture occurs, flammable liquids and gases, laboratories, \nphysiology suites and operating theatres.  \n \nApproval for any changes or alteration to fixed electrical wiring must be obtained from relevant Campus \nEstates Management.  \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nElectrical Safety  Procedure  – Page 2 \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University    \nExamples of applicable regulations and standards include:  \n \n• Electricity (Safety) Regulations AS/NZS 3000, Electrical installations (known as Australian/New \nZealand Wiring Rules) and Amendments  \n• AS/NZS 2982 Part 1 – Laboratory design and construction, Part 1, General Requirements  \n• AS/NZS 2430.3.6 – Classification of Hazardous Areas. Part 3.6: Examples of Area \nClassification – Laboratories including Fume Cupboards and Flammable Medical Agents.  \n• AS/NZS 2243 – Laboratory Safety. The Standards have several parts covering different types \nof specialist laboratories.  \n• AS/NZS 3003 Electrical installations – Patient areas of hospitals, medical and dental practices,  \nand dialyzing locations.  \n• AS/NZS 3003.1 – Patient areas of hospital and medical and dental practices – testing \nrequirements.  \n• AS/NZS 3760 – In-Service Safety Inspection and Testing of electrical equipment and RCDs.  \n• AS/NZS 3761 – In-Service Safety Inspection and Testing – Second -hand electrical equipment \nprior to sale.  \n• AS/NZS 3762 – In-Service Safety Inspection and Testing - Repaired electrical equipment  \n \n \nElectrical Equipment:  \n \nAny repair work with electrical equipment where the voltage in the area being repaired is above extra \nlow voltage (i.e. prescribed electrical work) must be done by or supervised by a Registered Electrical \nWorker with a current Practising Licence.  \n \nAny repair work to equipment that is used in hazardous location must be done or supervised by a \nRegistered Electrical Worker with a current Practising Licence irrespective of voltage. Examples of \nwork, which can be completed by staff who are not Registered  Electrical Workers include:  \n• Replacing a network card that does not involve removing covers which give access to voltages \nabove extra low voltage.  \n• Mechanical repair to laboratory equipment that does not involve removing covers which allows \naccess to electrical circuits with voltages above extra low voltage.  \n• Operating or unplugging of equipment.  \n• Changing a light bulb or projector bulb where access to the bulb doesn't involve removing covers \nwhere access to voltages above extra low voltage.  \n \nExamples of work requiring registration as an Electrical Worker with a current Practising Licence \nincludes:  \n• Fitting a mains rated connector to equipment or cables.  \n• Repairs to power supplies or switches and equipment.  \n• Changing a power supply in a computer where the power supply is externally switched.  \n \nIt should be noted that some of the above work can be undertaken by homeowners in a home setting \nonly. People who have done such work at home are not able to do this at work  unless they are a \nRegistered Electrical Worker with a current Practising Licence.  \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nElectrical Safety  Procedure  – Page 3 \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University    \nStatutory Inspection following Repair to Electrical Equipment:  \nA full electrical inspection and test as described in Standards AS/NZS 3762 is to be completed if the \nrepair involves access to mains voltage.  \n \nThis testing is mandatory and must be undertaken by any University staff or external companies who \nservice or repair electrical equipment.  It should be noted that the testing is invoked where mechanical \nrepair is undertaken where the mechanical repair involves removing covers, which give acce ss to low \nor above voltages.  \n \n \nRoutine Testing and Inspection of Electrical Equipment : \n \nElectrical equipment and portable electrical equipment must be tested prior to purchase by the supplier \nand tagged with the date prior to service.  Tests shall be done thereafter as per the table of testing and \ninspection intervals (from AS/NZS 3760) in se ction 11 of this report.  Responsibility for routine testing is \nas follows.  \n \n \nRooms with Specialist Equipment : \n \nDepartments, Schools, Institutes and Sections which have rooms containing specialised electrical \nequipment which is “owned” by them must arrange for required periodic testing as per AS/NZS 3760 of \nall electrical equipment in the room to ensure electrical safety during routine use.  Specialised electrical \nequipme nt includes equipment used in the following areas:  \n \n• Laboratories (i.e. includes computer, language, mechanical, and “bench” laboratories)  \n• Workshops  \n• Farms  \n• Research Centres  \n• Teaching equipment in centrally timetabled rooms (including AV Systems and IT Equipment).  \n• Catering areas and student halls of residence.  \n \nSpecialised equipment will include equipment that has specialised requirements such as: use in wet \nareas, use in construction, flameproof, biomedical use, body protection and/or cardiac protection use. \nIn some instances, additional technical registrations will be needed where equipment repairs are \nundertaken. For example, irradiating equipment can only be tested by people with Electrical Worker \nRegistration and Radiation Equipment maintenance licence.  \n \nIn addition to periodic testing of specialised equipment it is the responsibility of Departments, Schools, \nInstitute and Sections to ensure that testing following repair is undertaken as in section 3.3 of this \nprocedure.  \n \nNon-Specialised Equipment : \n \nElectrical equipment in offices and shared spaces are the responsibility of Estates. Routine testing is to \nbe undertaken as per the Standard AS/NZS 3760.  \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nElectrical Safety  Procedure  – Page 4 \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University    \n \nHire Equipment : \n \nThe hirer has the responsibility to ensure compliance with AS/NZS 3760 during hiring at the \ncommencement of hire.  \nDuring hiring, the responsibilities for testing, inspection and tagging passes to the hiree.  \n \nEquipment used for Commercial Cleaning : \n \nCommercial cleaning contractors must arrange for periodic testing as per AS/NZS 3760 for all electrical \nequipment used on campuses.  \n \n \nVerification of Testing : \n \nAll tested equipment must be tagged following the test as per AS/NZS 3760. The tag must detail the \nfollowing:  \n \n• Name of the person or company that performed the test.  \n• The test, or inspection date, a retest date, and a reference to AS/NZS 3760.  \n \nThe background colour of the tag is to be used to indicate the test year as in the following schedule.  \nWhere testing is more frequent than annually, the test date will need to be read to determine if \nequipment is still within the test period.  \n \n Year  Tag Colour   Year   Tag Colour   \n       \n     2031  Blue                     \n 2021  Blue   2032  Green  \n 2022  Green    2033  Orange  \n 2023  Orange   2034  Red \n 2024  Red   2035  Yellow  \n 2025  Yellow    2036  Blue  \n 2026  Blue   2037  Green  \n 2027  Green    2038  Orange  \n 2028  Orange   2039  Red \n 2029  Red                            2040    Yellow  \n 2030  Yellow  \n \nNon-compliant equipment must be:  \n \n• Withdrawn from service immediately.  \n• Sent for repair, disposal,  or destruction by a Registered Electrical Worker with a current Practicing  \nCertificate.  \n \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nElectrical Safety  Procedure  – Page 5 \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University    \nScope of Equipment to be Tested : \n \n• All laboratory equipment.  \n• All equipment used in teaching spaces.  \n• All equipment in common rooms and office kitchens.  \n• All office equipment where the supply cord is subject to flexing in normal use - example, extension \nleads, portable fans, heaters.  \n \nWhere the supply cord to the equipment is not subject to flexing in normal use, a testing regime of five \nyears is acceptable. Such equipment may include fixed computers and printers that are normally in a \nstationary location.  \n \nRequirements for Staff Undertaking Testing and Inspection of Electrical Equipment : \n \nStaff undertaking electrical tests must be a competent person or service person as defined by AS/NZS \n3762. Specialised electrical equipment is also required to undertake some tests.  Access to PAT testers \nin each workshop is required.  Staff members who un dertake equipment repairs outside of a central \nworkshop will need to be supplied with portable PAT testers.  \n \nWhere existing in -house resources do not have appropriate expertise and equipment then \narrangements should be made either with other Institutes or Department who can support electrical \ntesting or alternatively sub -contract equipment testing. Outsourcing of  testing should be arranged using \nthe procurement processes.  \n \nUse of Personally Owned Electrical Equipment : \n \nWhere a staff member uses personally owned electrical equipment for work purposes, the staff \nmember must arrange for this equipment to be Tested and Tagged prior to use on campus and \ninspected as required by this procedure.  The cost of Testing and/or Tagg ing is the staff member’s \nresponsibility.  \n \nStudents may bring electrical equipment into accommodation rooms for personal use.  The equipment \nmust comply with the specification in accommodation handbooks. It is strongly recommended for \nstudent well-being  the equipment is tested to confirm its safety.  \n \nWhere students’ use personally owned electrical equipment in teaching and research, it must be tested \nand inspected as required by this procedure. The cost of testing is the student’s responsibility.  \n \n \nIncident Reporting : \n \nIncidents involving electricity are to be reported to the Health, Safety & Wellbeing team. Serious injury \nwill also require notification to WorkSafe.  \n \nUnsafe installations and unsafe equipment must first be reported to the University.  \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  Testing and Inspection Intervals for Electrical Equipment  \n(This page is reproduced from AS/NZS 3760 (2010))  \n(Caution: This page must be read in conjunction with the Standard as a whole, and particularly Clause 2.1)  \n \n \n \n \nType of environment and/or equipment  \n(a) Interval between inspection and tests  \nClass of equipment  Residual Current Devices (RCDs)  \n \nClass I (Protectively earthed)  \nClass II (double insulated cord \nsets and power boards)  \n(b) Push -button test by user  Operating time and push -\nbutton test  \nPortable  \n(c) Fixed  \n(d) Portable  \n(e) Fixed  \n(f) \n1. Factories, workshops, places of work or repair, \nmanufacturing, assembly, maintenance,  or fabrication   \n6 months  Daily, or before every use, \nwhichever is the longer   \n6 months   \n12 months   \n12 months  \n2. Environment where the equipment or supply flexible \ncord is subject to flexing in normal use OR is open to \nabuse OR is in a hostile environment   \n12 months   \n3 months   \n6 months   \n12 months   \n12 months  \n3. Environment: where the equipment or supply cord is \nNOT subject to flexing in normal use and is NOT open \nto abuse and is NOT in a hostile environment.   \n5 years   \n3 months   \n6 months   \n2 years   \n2 years  \n4. Residential type areas of hotels, residential \ninstitutions, motels, boarding houses, halls, hostels \naccommodation houses, and the like.   \n2 years   \n6 months   \n6 months   \n2 years   \n2 years  \n5. Equipment used for commercial cleaning  6 months  Daily or before every use, \nwhichever is longer  N/A 12 months  N/A \n6. Hire equipment:   \n  Inspection  Prior to hire  Including push -button test by hirer prior to hire  N/A N/A \n  Test and tag  3 months  N/A 3 months  12 months  \n7. Repaired, serviced, and reintroduced equipment.  After repair or service which could affect electrical safety, or on reintroduction to service. AS/NZS 5762 may apply.  \n \n8. New Equipment  Inspection, testing, and tagging is required prior to use in service by Massey.  \n9.Second hand equipment  For second hand equipment AS/NZS 5761 shall apply.  \nBefore placement in service, if sourced from a second hand to ensure equipment is safe AS/NZS 5761 shall apply.  \n \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University    NOTES:  \n1 The actual sub -environment in which the equipment is located determines the row for the environment to be used in Table 4.  e.g.  A computer in a \nnon-hostile environment in an office within a factory would attract a test/inspection action in accordance with Row 3.  \n \n2 Regulatory authorities, other Standards, workplace safety requirements or manufacturers’ instructions may specify intervals a ppropriate to \nparticular industries or specific types of equipment.  \n \n3 RCDs in transportable equipment shall be regarded as portable RCDs.  \n \n4 The following Standards refer only to the inspection and testing method of Clause 2.3 of this Standard, but not to the interv als of testing in Table 4 \nabove.  Refer to the current version of appropriate Standards for specific test intervals:  \n \nAS 1674.2               Safety in welding and allied processes - Electrical  \nAS/NZS 3001  Electrical installations – Re-locatable premises (including caravans and tents) and their site installations.  \nAS/NZS 3002  Electrical installations – Shows and carnivals.  \nAS/NZS 3003  Electrical installations –Patient treatment areas of hospitals and medical and dental practices and dialysing locations  \nAS/NZS 3004  Electrical installations –Marinas and pleasure craft at low voltage  \nAS/NZS 3012  Electrical installations –Construction and demolition sites  \nAS/NZS 4249  Electrical safety practices – Film, video,  and television sites  \n \nAdapted from and reproduced with permission from Standards New Zealand © Standards New Zealand 2003.  The Standard can be dow nloaded from \nthe University Library.  \n \n \nRelated documents : \nProcedures  \n• Isolation and Lock out / Tag out procedure.  \n \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Event_Management_Policy_PDF_160_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Event Management Policy",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "160 KB",
      "creation_date": "2018-03-27T11:01:06",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220100926+13'00'",
      "review_date": "july 2016"
    },
    "content": " \n Massey University Policy Guide  \n \nEVENT MANAGEMENT POL ICY \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \nPurpose :  \na. To provide guidance in the p lanning, organising and delivering  of events across all Massey University campuses  \nso they align to the National Events and Sponsorship strategy.  \n \nb. To ensure that events delivered across the University are of a consistent ly high quality and standard, minimising \nthe risks and maximisin g the opportunities to enhance  the University ’s business and reputation.  \nPolicy : \n1) Any party who intends to plan, organise and stage an “Event” on Campus  must complete the respec tive Event \nApplication or Notification Form for the event; and forward it to the respective Campus Event s Management office  \nto register and confi rm details of the proposed event, no later than 20 days prior to the event commencing.  \n \n2) Any party who intends to plan, organise and stage an “Event” off Campus , which is affiliated to Massey University \nthrough brand association, sponsorship etc  must complete the Event Notification  Form and forward it to the National \nEvents and Sponsorship Director  to notify them of the details of the proposed event /activity , no l ater than 3 0 days \nprior to the event commencing.  \n \n3) If required , prior approval for particular aspects of the event must be obtained from the appropriate departments, \ni.e. Campus base d Operations , Facilities Management , Risk Management, Health and Safety, ,etc and s uch \napproval must be confirmed on the Event Application or Notification Form for the event.  \nDefinitions : \nEvent: Any occasion of importance or significance involving the attendance of numerous people (staff, students, parents \nof students, student representatives, members of industry, commerce or the community, dignitaries and invited guests) \nfor a specific purpose re lated to Massey University activity, business or community involvement.     \n \n-  An event may be a one -off, regular or annual occasion  \n \n-  It may be staged on or off Campus  \n \n-  It is generally planned, organised and staged by Massey University, or in conjunction with other internal or \nexternal bodies  or stakeholders , e.g. City Council.  \n \n-  It may be held on Campus but managed by an external party who has contracted to use the University’s facilities \nand venue  \n Section  Campus Facilities  \nContact  AVC Operations, International & University Registrar  \nLast Review  March 2018  \nNext Review  March 2021  \nApproval  SLT 14/07/176  \nEffective Date  July 2014  \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nEvent Management Policy  – Page 2 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n-  It excludes normal academic and staff only occasions such a lectures, tutorials, workshops, block courses, field \ntrips, and staff meetings/workshops/functions that form part of an academic paper and programme or a \nmanagement process and are scheduled throu ghout a semester or academic year.  While these occasions may \nbe considered to be events in their own right, these are undertaken within a clearly established ongoing  planning \nand management framework utilising a range of University infrastructure and supp ort services.  Stand -alone \nevents such as guest lectures or lecture series would be included.          \n \nEvent Categories: - All University e vents fall  into one of the following categories  as per the National Events and \nSponsorship strategy :  \n \n- Defining Events  - represent a high level value to the University across multiple platforms and are usually \ndelivered by the National Events and Sponsorship Team – events can include Awards , Forums, Dignitary \nfunctions and dinners . \n- Major Events  - provide a platform for the University through multiple channels and are usually delivered by \nCampus Events Management – events can include  Conferences , Open Days . \n- Business E vents – these events are part of a wider offer within the University and have potential growth - events \ncan include stakeholder functions.  \n- General Events  - have limited benefit to the University’s wider strategy but are important for relationship building \n– event s can include c elebrations , one -off lectures and workshops, or sporting activities.  \nAudience:  \nAll parties who plan organise and deliver  events on Massey campuses or other locations on behalf of Massey \nUniversity.   \nRelevant Legislation:  \nHealth and Safety in Employment Act 1992, and Amendments  \nInjury Prevention, Rehabilitation Compensation Act 2001  \nLegal Compliance:  \nHealth and Safety in Employment Act requires Massey University to take all practicable steps to identify hazards in the \nworkplace and to ensure  that people working or visiting the University premises are not harmed from any hazard in or \narising in the workplace. Accordingly, Massey University has a duty of care to staff, contractors and visitors taking part \nin any event on our campus.  \nRelated Pro cedures:  \nRisk Management Policy  \nHealth and Safety Policy  \nGuidelines for Activities on Campus  \nEvent Application Form  (for Manawatu  Campus events ) \nEvent Notification Form ( for Albany and Wellington  Campus events, and off -Campus events ) \nDocument Management Control:  \nPrepared by: AVC External Relations    \nAuthorised by:  AVC External Relations  \nApproved by: SLT 14/07/176  \nDate Issued:  July 2014  \nReview Date:  July 2016  \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Doctoral_Supervision_Policy_PDF_126_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Doctoral Supervision Policy PDF 126 KB",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "126 KB",
      "author": "Whittle, Jo",
      "creation_date": "2021-09-08T11:01:03",
      "modification_date": "D:20210908111316+12'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \n \nPOLICY  FOR  DOCTORAL  SUPERVISION  \n \n \n \n \nSection  Office  of the Provost  \nContact  Dean,  Research  \nLast Review  October  2020  \nNext  Review  October  2025  \nApproval  SLT 21 /07/90 \nEffective  Date      July 2021  \n \nPurpose:  \n \nTo provide a coherent set of research supervision expectations and guiding principles to underpin doctoral  \nresearch  supervision  practices.  \nBackground:  \nMassey University provides academic guidance, advice and support for each research candidate through the  \nappointment of supervisors. Research supervision, as a unique and personalised approach to teaching and  \nlearning,  is the highest  level of study  within  the university.  Supervision  is described,  invariably,  as a distinctive  \nform of teaching and learning, mentoring, providing apprenticeship opportunities, developing researchers,  \nadvising  student  research,  or scaffolding  student  projects.  \n \nIn Māori  culture,  the interactions  between  research  candidates  and supervisors  may be shaped  by a tuakana - \nteina structure. Tuakana -teina, or elder -younger, builds on the concept of an expert guiding those with less  \nexperience. When applied to research  supervision,  and mediated by ako  (to teach  and to  learn),  supervisors  and \ncandidates each have a role in the learning and teaching process, as researchers learning from one  another,  \nguided  by informed  supervisory practices and  deliberate  reflection.  \n \nThis policy  outlines  expectations  and principles  of research  supervision  which  have  been  developed  to: \n• ensure  high quality  research  experiences  and success  for candidates;  \n• acknowledge  disciplinary  methods  and expressions  of research  (e.g.,  creative  works);  \n• build  research  supervision  capability  and capacity; and  \n• differentiate  supervisory  roles  and responsibilities.  \n \nPolicy:  \nDoctoral  research  candidates  will be provided  with a supervisory  team,  consisting  of a main  Massey  University  \nsupervisor  and one or more  co-supervisor(s),  who may have  different  roles  and responsibilities,  as outlined  in \nthe following  sections.  \n\n \nThe Supervisory  Team  \nThe supervisory team will comprise at least two members, and  should have a mix of expertise in the discipline(s)  \nof the candidate’s  research  and the relevant  research  methods  (including  Kaupapa  Māori  principles  and practices,  \nas appropriate). The main supervisor will be a Massey University academic staff member, an d, preferably, the  \nsecond  supervisor  will be a Massey  University  academic  staff member.  \n \nThe supervisory  team  should:  \n• actively  assist  and support  the candidate’s  research;  \n• meet  the academic  and administrative  requirements  of the Doctoral  Research  Committee;  \n• tailor  their practice  to the needs  of individual  candidates  within  their disciplinary  context;  \n• support  facilitate  culturally  responsive  and respectful  research  supervision;  and \n• and encourage  researcher  learning  and development  and pastoral  care.  \n \nAdditional  expertise  outside  the supervisory  team  may be sought  or appointed  to support  the candidate  by way of \ncontent,  methodological,  and/or cultural advisor(s) or  an advisory group.  \n \nEligibility  and Role  of the Main Supervisor  \nThe supervisory  team will  be co-ordinated  by a main  supervisor  who is: \n• an academic  staff member of  Massey  University  (including  Emeritus  Professors);  \n• suitably  qualified or  experienced  in their discipline  (including  relevant  cultural  knowledge  and skills);  \n• actively  engaged  in research  of national  standing,  as evidenced  in written  research  outputs  and \ncreative  works;  \n• experienced  in all aspects of doctoral processes;  and \n• engaged  in ongoing  supervision  development,  as evidenced  by accreditation.  \n \nThe main supervisor should take overall responsibility for co -ordinating the supervisory team, ensure transparent  \nand consistent  communication  amongst  all team  members,  ensure  administrative  requirements  for the degree  are \nmet, and may have  a role in  mentoring  other  supervisors.  \n \n \nEligibility  for Co-Supervisors  \nCo-supervisors,  including  external  supervisors,  are expected  to be: \n• an academic staff member of Massey University (including Emeritus Professors) or a research  \nassociate,  sponsor,  partner  or other  active  working  relationship  with Massey  University  research  \n(including  Honorary  and Adjunct  positions)  \n• suitably  qualified or  experienced  in their discipline  (including  relevant  cultural  knowledge  and skills ); \n• actively  engaged  in research;  and \n• engaged  in ongoing  supervision  development,  as evidenced  by accreditation.  \n \n \n \nSupervisor  Accreditation  \n \nAll supervisors will be accredited by  the Doctoral Research Committee, within a reasonable timeframe  of \ncommencement  of supervision  responsibilities.  Accreditation  will be initially  gained  through  an application  providing  \nevidence  of supervisor  experience,  learning  and development.  Ongoing  accreditation  will be maintained  by supervisors \nthrough differential engagement in su pervision development, which may be facilitated by the  Graduate Research \nSchool, College, academic unit or an external body (e.g., Quality in Postgraduate Research  conference), and approved \nby the Doctoral Research Committee. Supervisor accreditation will be determined  based on supervisory role (e.g., \nMain Supervisor, Co -supervisor). Supervisors who engage in leading doctoral  education, supervisor development and \nsupervisory teams with early career researchers may be accredited as  Mentor  Supervisors.  \n \nIn ad dition to Supervisor Accreditation, supervisors at Massey University may also seek accreditation through the  Higher  \nEducation  Academy  as part of their continuing  professional  development  for teaching,  of which  supervision  is a form.  \n \nThe Graduate Research School will manage the accreditation process and facilitate learning and development  \nprogrammes  for supervisors.  \n \n \nAppointment  of Supervisory  Teams  \nThe appointment  of supervision  will be the responsibility  of the Head  of Unit (or delegate)  in the \nschool/institute/department  in which  the candidate  is enrolled.  The supervisory  team  should  work  together  with the Head \nof Unit (or delegate) to determine the roles and responsibilities, how they will work together and why this is  the right \nteam  for the candidate.  Any perceived  or real conflicts  of interests  should  be disclosed  and managed,  as part of the \nappointment of a supervisory team. Conflicts of interest include personal, business or academic  relationships between \nmembers of the supervisory team or candidates and supervisors  that may negatively impact  the research candidate, \nresearch proc ess or outcomes. The final approval of supervisory teams will be given by  the Doctoral Research  \nCommittee.  \n \nResearch supervision should be formally and transparently recognised in workload formulae. Supervision should  be \nbalanced in terms of other workload  responsibilities (e.g., teaching, research, service), with time allocated,  dependent  \nupon  supervisory  roles  and responsibilities.  The Performance  and Development  Process  (PDP)  should  help supervisors  \nreview  and improve  their supervision  performance,  and identify  appropriate  supervisor  development opportunities.  \n \n \nDocument  Management  Control:  \n \nPrepared  by: Dean,  Research  \nAuthorised  by: Provost   \nLast review:  October  2020  \nNext review:  October  2025  \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Event_Management_Guidelines_PDF_201_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Event Management Guidelines",
      "policy_type": "Guideline",
      "file_size": "201 KB",
      "creation_date": "2014-08-22T14:00:07",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220100937+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " \nMassey University Policy Guide \n \nEVENT MANAGEMENT GUI DELINES – ALBANY/MANAWATU/WELLINGTON \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \n \n   \n  \n  \nGuidelines for Activities on Campus :  \nThese guidelines relate to the use of Massey University space and facilities (land and buildings). The University (via \nCampus Event s Management and the Office of the Campus Registrar ) retains the right at its sole discretion, to waive \ncertain particular requirements where it is deemed appropriate to help facilitate University events such as the student \norientation celebrations (see \"Guidelines for Orientation\").  \nObjectives:  \n1. To identify and define authorisation sources.  \n \n2. To clarify  the expectations of Massey University regarding use of space and facilities . \n \n3. To ensure legal compliance with legislation  \n• Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992  \n• Health and Safety in Employment Amendment Act 2002 \n• Health and Safety in Employment Amendment Act 2013  \n• Health and Safety in Employment Regulations 1995  \n• Health and Safety in Employment (Prescribed Matters) Regulations 2003  \n• Building Act 2004  \n• Resource Management Act 1991  \n• Fire Service Act 1975  \n• Fire Safety & Evacuation of Building Regulations 2006 \n• Local Body Regulations  \n• Sale and Supply of  Alcohol  Act 2012  \n• Massey University policies (e.g. Massey University Safety Policy)  \n1.0 Legal Status:  \n1.1 Albany  (ALB) , Manawatu (MAN)  and Wellington  Campuses  (WN)  \n The campuses are considered to be a public place, a public area and with open access to members of the public. \nHowever, under the authority as \"Occupier\" access can be restricted or denied to any undesirable (as deemed by the \nOccupier) and this can be legally enforced with the aid of the Police.  \n \n  Section  Campus Facilities  \nContact Campus Registrars  \nLast Review  June 2014  \nNext Review  June 2016  \nApproval  n/a \n \nMassey University Policy Guide \nEvent Management Guidelines –  Albany/Manawatu/Wellington – Page 2  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n1.2 Community Constable Contacts (New Zealand Police)  \n \n(a) Albany Community Constable, 16 Library Lane, Albany  \n(b)  Community Constable Facilities Management, Colombo Road, Manawatu  Campus  \n(c)  Wellington Police Station, Victoria Street, Wellington  \n \n2.0 Local Authority Requirements : \n2.1 Albany, Manawatu  and Wellington  Campus es \n \nAny activities held on campus are considered to be private (and at the discretion of the Occupier) and therefore do not \nrequire a local authority activity permit, however, should the activity involve food then item 2.2 and 2.3 (below) apply. \nShould the act ivity involve alcohol  then item 2.4/3.2 (below) apply.  \n \n2.2 Commercial Activity (such as Coffee Bar, Restaurant etc.) \n \nThis activity will only be permitted as part of a lease agreement or a University Support Service. The tenant will, in all \nrespects, comply with the provisions of the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 and t he Health Act 1956 and to \noperate within the Food Hygiene Regulations 1974 and any other regulations or bylaws in force.  \n \nThe above requirements will also necessitate the tenant to hold a current Health Licence.  \n \n2.3 Fundraising Activity (such as Sausage Sizzle etc.)  \n \nWhile the food may be for sale, the proceeds must be for a fundraising/charitable cause and not for commercial gain.  \n \nOrganisers/operators will display a sign to identify who/what the fundraising is for and will exercise good hygiene \npractices as per the Hygiene Guidelines for  Fundrais ing Events  (as outlined below ). These guidelines relate to \nsausage sizzles and any other type of food stall.   \n \n2.4 Alcohol  \n \nRefer to item 3.2 below.  \n \n2.5 Local Authority Contacts  \n \n(a) Manawatu Campus es \n(i) Health Officer, Health Services Section, Palmerston North City Council, Private Bag 11034, \nPalmerston North, Telephone: (06) 356- 8199  \n(ii) Liquor Licensing Inspector, Palmerston North City Council, Private Bag 11034, Palmerston North, \nTelephone: (06) 356- 8199  \n Wellington Campus  \n(iii) Wellington City Council, Wakefield Street, Wellington, Telephone (04) 499 4444  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide \nEvent Management Guidelines –  Albany/Manawatu/Wellington – Page 3  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nAlbany Campus  \n(iv) Auckland City Council, Private Bag 92300, Auckland 1142, Telephone (09) 301 0101  \n \n \n3.0 Standard Terms and Conditions  \n \n3.1 For any activity involving the dispensing or sale of food please refer to 2.0 Local Authority Requirements \nand Hygiene Guidelines for Fundraising Events ( below ). \n \n3.2 The sale or dispensing of alcohol is strictly prohibited unless a Liquor Permit from the respective Campus \nRegistrar has been obtained for the specific activity/event and location. Dependent on the location of the event, a Liquor License may need to be obtained from the local authority.  \n \n3.3 The stall/event provider will take all practical steps to ensure that no harm occurs to either their own staff or \nany person(s) who may be in the vicinity of the stall or event. Safe operating practices will also be followed e.g. electricity for any eve nt/stall must be operated through a transformer or a residual current device. If \nthere is cabling being run it needs to be covered by appropriate mats/cable covers to minimise the tripping hazards. Any electrical requirements should be checked with Facilit ies Management in the early stages of \nplanning to ascertain if power is available for the proposed sites , and t he type of power required (i.e.  \n 3phase), it should not be assumed that there is power available everywhere.  \n \n3.4 The stall/event provider will advise the University Health and Safety Officer regarding any hazards or \npotential hazards.  \n \n3.5 Any accident that causes injury to people or damage to property is to be reported immediately  by the \nstall/event provider to the Authorising Authority (see Authority Checklist above) , and the completion of an \nHealth & Safety incident form may be required.  \n 3.6 Stall/event providers will indemnify the University against any and all loss.  \n \n3.7 The noise level of any event will not be at a level that is intrusive and obstructive to a concentration to \npeople in the surrounding area (excluding lunch times).  \n 3.8 Access/egress from/to surrounding buildings, ramps, stairwells, fire escapes and exit doors will be kept \nclear. Fire appliances and ambulances must have clear access to all areas of the Campus at all times.  \n \n3.9 Stall/event providers will be liable for any damages to University property or additional cleaning \nrequirements and must have adequate insurance cover to protect the Univer sity/Organiser. The stall area \nwill be left clean and tidy. All litter and other materials will be removed and any residue/spillages will be \nwashed from surfaces.  \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide \nEvent Management Guidelines –  Albany/Manawatu/Wellington – Page 4  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n3.10  University Security is to receive prior notification from the stall/event provider should an event be \ncommencing/continuing after 5.00pm or prior to 8.30am . Subject to the nature of the event Emergency \nWardens may be required, any costs will need to be covered by the organiser.   \n 3.11 Subject to the timing of the event, attendees will be required to park in designated car parks unless  \notherwise alternative arrangements have been made with Regional Facilities Management.   \n 3.12 An event requiring access to the University’s facilities  for event set up and pack  down needs to be planned in \nadvance, and relevant University departments such as Regional Facilities, Security etc need to be advised, \nand relevant paperwork needs to be completed.   \n \n3.13 The University is not obliged to provide any equipment for an event, such as tables and chairs, however will assist with equipment requests when possible.   \n \n \nFood Hygiene Guidelines for Fundraising Events  \n \nThese guidelines apply to all fundraising ev ents that involve the provision or sale of food to the public . \n \nOperati ng a Food Stall  \n \n1 Only fresh food purchased from a supermarket or registered food premises immediately before the event \nshould be used.  \n2 If food is being made specifically for the event then ri gorous food preparation and hygiene standards apply.   \n3 All food is to be cooked thoroughly , as per food preparation standards . \n4 The food should be prepared in small quantities, and stored in air -tight containers in a cool, clean place until \nrequired.  \n5 All serving utensils should be thoroughly cleaned prior to food servic e. \n6 All food handlers should wear protective clothing, such as gloves, hairnets etc, and clean their hands \nthoroughly while preparing and serving food.  It is recommended that serving utensils such as  tongs be used \nduring food service.  \n7 Leftover  food should not be sold following the main event . \n8 Any rubbish or waste generated by the event needs to be removed by the stall -holder  and the area left clean \nand tidy .  If there is significant waste, and resource is required to remove or clean, then costs will need to be \ncovered by the stall -holder .  \n Note: Always display a sign clearly identifying who/what the fundraising is for.  \n \n  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide \nEvent Management Guidelines –  Albany/Manawatu/Wellington – Page 5  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nGuidelines for Orientation:  \n \nThese guidelines have been prepared to assist the Organisers of Massey University Orientation. The primary \nOrganiser has been identified as the Office of the Campus Registrar and these guidelines have been drafted with this \nfocus. It is intended that these guidelines may also be used as a proforma and customised for other Event/Orientation \nOrganisers, being: MAWSA, MUSA, Albany Students’ Association, Sports and Recreation Centre and other University \ngroups, who have the approval of the Office of the Campus Registrar . \n \nThese guidelines should be read in conjunction with \" Guidelines for Activities on Campus \". \n \n1.0 Location:  \n \n1.1 Albany  (ALB) , Manawatu (MAN) and Wellington  Campuses  (WN) .  \n \n2.0 Nature of Activities  \n \n2.1 Commercial activities will be permitted.  \n \n2.2 Tents and stalls will be permitted.  \n \n2.3 Any stalls which supply food must adhere to either: the Hygiene Guidelines For Fundraising Events , or: hold \na current Health License under the Food Hygiene Regulations 1974, for commercial activities (seek specific approval from the Office of the Campus Registrar).  \n \n3.0 Registration  \n \nAll stalls/activities must be approved and registered with the respective Campus Events Manager . \n \n3.1 Standard Conditions  \n \n3.2 The respective Student Associations will have plans and policies in relation to the assignment of st alls and \nactivities.  \n 3.3  Any recompense for identified damage to University property in the event area or additional cleaning \nrequirements relating to  the stallholders  at the event, will be paid for by the Campus Registrar  who may \nseek recompense from the stall/event provider.  \n \n3.4 The Campus Registrar will ensure that the stall/event provider indemnify to the University against any loss \nresulting from the stall/event provider's activities whilst on University property.  \n \n3.5 A direct passage through high traffic areas on each Campus  will be maintained at all times for pedestrian \ntraffic and emergency vehicles.  \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide \nEvent Management Guidelines –  Albany/Manawatu/Wellington – Page 6  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n3.6 Existing Commercial tenants and University Services are to be offered an opportunity to have a stall lot, \nunless there is a prior exclusivity arrangement with another provider of that service.  \n \nChecklist : \n Activity  Authorisation  Guidelines  \n1 Consciousness Raising  \n- Political  \n- Welfare  \n- Religious  \n- Displays  \n- Recreational  Office of the Campus Registrar  (CR) (for \nUniversity/external events) in consultation \nwith the Student President (where applicable)  \nStudent President (for student  specific  \nevents) in consultation with the Office of the \nCampus Registrar or Campus Events Management . No tents or stalls *  \nNo commercial gain *  \n2 Entertainment/Performances Office of the CR or Campus Events \nManagem ent (for University/external \nevents) in consultation with the Student President (where applicable)  No tents or stalls  \nCommercial content to be evaluated by the Campus Registrar.  \n3 Fundraising  \n- Massey Students  \n- Massey Departments  \n- Outside Organisations  Office of the CR or Campus Events \nManagement . No tents or stalls *#  \n4 Hiring University Timetabled Space  Facilities Management  Set rates apply  \n5 Internal Trading from \nDepartments  Office of the CR or Campus Events \nManagement . All internal trading/commercial \ngain of any kind must have the prior approval of the Office of the CR. \n6 Massey University Tenants  Office of the CR  /General Manager \nCommercial & Events  (WN)  Commercial Lease Basis  \n7 Outside Commercial \nPeople/Groups  Office of the CR /General Manager \nCommercial & Events  (WN)  No tents or stalls *  \nOutside Orientation, any person wanting to carry out commercial activity on campus must do so as a result of a tenancy \n(includes “potential \ntransactions ”) or a general \npermission \n8 Selling from Vehicles  Office of the CR or Campus Events \nManagement  (for University/external \nevents)  Generally prohibited  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide \nEvent Management Guidelines –  Albany/Manawatu/Wellington – Page 7  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n9 Vending, Dispensing or \nGame Machines and \nAutotelling in any  \nUniversity owned or operated premises  Office of the CR/Facilities Management for \nvending and games machines as appropriate  Contractual Basis Lease or \nPermission to Purchase  \n10 Orientation  Office of the CR or Campus Event \nManagement.  Refer to “Guidelines for Orientation”  \n* Excluding Orientation et al.  Refer to “Guidelines for Orientation”   \n# For any activity involving dispensing/sale of food please refer to 2.0 Local Authority Requirements and Hygiene Guidelines  \nFor any vendor wishing to place posters or flyers on vehicles parked on University property, approval \nneeds to be provided by the Campus Registrar.  \nDefinitions:  Commercial: For Financial return/profit making.  May be individual or organisation.  \n Fundraising  For charitable/not for profit causes, for University or Student  affiliated bodies or other \napproved causes.  \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Code_of_Responsible_Research_Conduct_PDF_244_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Code of Responsible Research Conduct",
      "policy_type": "Code",
      "file_size": "244 KB",
      "creation_date": "2015-08-19T11:00:07",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220101304+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " Massey University Policy Guide \n \nCODE OF RESPONSIBLE RESEARCH CONDUCT  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n \n \n  \n \n \n \nPart 1:  Code of Responsible Research Conduct  \nPurpose  and Background:   \nThe perception of Massey University’s research by national and international stakeholders including academic peers, \ngovernment, industry and our communities is dependent on the integrity of the research.  To ensure that research at \nMassey is performed to appropriat e, internationally recognised standards, it is important that the principles behind \nresearch integrity, the standards expected of researchers, and the responsibilities of both individuals and the \ninstitution, are clearly expressed and understood. While it is recognised that the principles and standards must be \ninterpreted through a discipline specific lens, it is critical that research performed by Massey researchers can stand up \nto widest peer scrutiny.  \n \nMassey University supports researchers in the pursui t of their research interests in accordance with the principles \nexpressed in the Massey University Charter.  Massey also endorses the principle of ‘academic freedom’ in the \nperformance of research, where Academic Freedom is  defined as: \n \n‘…the right, without constriction by prescribed doctrine, to freedom of teaching and discussion, freedom in carrying out research and disseminating and publishing the results thereof, freedom to express freely their opinion about the \ninstitution or system in which they work,  freedom from institutional censorship and freedom to participate in \nprofessional or representative academic bodies .’ 1 \n Similarly, in following their interests, Massey also recognises the need for researchers to undertake research which \nchallenges discipl inary  norms, but expects that it is performed in a responsible manner which is consistent with the \nprinciples of research integrity . \n \nThe Code of Responsible Research Conduct is intended to express these principles, standards and responsibilities \nand to pr ovide supportive, helpful guidance on what constitutes internationally accepted responsible research \nconduct.  The Code has been developed with reference to, and draws explicitly on, the equivalent Codes for \nAustralia\n2, Europe3, Canada4 and Singapore5. \n                                                 \n1 Recommendation concerning the Status of Higher -Education Teaching Personnel, UNESCO, 11 November 1997  \nhttp://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php- URL_ID=13144&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html  \n2 Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research \nhttp://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/r39.pdf  \n3 A European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity  \nhttp://static.uni -graz.at/fileadmin/forschen/dok umente/diverses/A_European_Code_of_Conduct_for_Research_Integrity.pdf  \n4 Tri-Agency Framework: Responsible Conduct Of Research \nhttp://www.rcr.ethics.gc.ca/eng/poli cy-politique/framework -cadre/ \n5 Singapore Statement on Research Integrity  \nhttp://singaporestatement.org/statement.html  \n Section  Research and Enterprise  \nContact Office of AVC Research, Academic \nand Enterprise  \nLast Review  May 2015  \nNext Review  May 2018  \nApproval  Academic Board AB15/072  \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nCode of Respons ible Research Conduct  – Page 2 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \nMassey University promotes integrity in research and expects all Massey researchers to work to the highest ethical \nand professional standards.  \nPrinciples of Research Integrity : \nWhen undertaking research, Massey University r esearchers are expected to perform to the following principles:  \n• Honesty in presenting research goals and intentions, in precise and accurate reporting on research \nmethods and procedures, and in conveying valid interpretations and justifiable claims with respect to possible applications of r esearch results.  \n• Reliability in performing research (meticulous, careful and attentive to detail), and in communication of the \nresults (fair and full y informed reporting).  \n• Research outcomes must be based on a robust methodology  where  interpretations and conclusions are \nfounded on relevant information capable of verification  and secondary review . Where appropriate to the \ndiscipline, the analysis of information must be undertaken in an objective manner . Where the research is \nnot undertaken from an objective viewpoint , as may be appropriate based on the professional standards \nof a given  discipline, this should be clearly apparent . \n• Impartiality and independence from commissioning or interested parties, from ideological or political \npressure groups, and from economic or financial interests.  \n• Open communication, in discussing the work with other researchers , in contributing to public knowledge \nthrough publication of the findings, in honest communication to the general public. This openness \npresupposes a proper storage and availability of data, and accessibility for interested colleagues  as \nappropriate and subject to privacy, confidentiality and intellectual property requirements.  \n• Duty of care for participants in and the subjects of research, be they human beings, ani mals, the \nenvironment or cultural objects. Research on human subjects and animals should always rest on the principles of respect and duty of care.  \n• Fairness, in providing proper references and giving due attribution  to the work of others  (where \nappropriate to the medium) and in treating collea gues with integrity and honesty.  \n• Responsibility for future generations. The education of young r esearchers requires high standards for \nmentorship and supervision.  \n• Awareness of responsibilities to society  in undertaking  research.  \nGuidance on Research  Integrity   \nGuidance on responsible research conduct and performing research with integrity  is given in Appendix 1, covering the \nfollowing areas:  \n1. Research practice  \n2. Research supervision  \n3. Research records and data  \n4. Dissemination,  publication and a uthorship  \n5. Peer review  \n6. Conflict of interest  \n7. Collaborative research  \n8. Public communication  \n9. Research  involving identified  communities  \na) Research involving Māori communities  \nb) Research involving Pasifika communities  \nResponsibilities of the Institution \nMassey University has the responsibility to promote and sustain a culture of research integrity through the \ndevelopment and communication of appropr iate policies and standards and through the provision of support and \nsuitable infrastructure.  \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nCode of Respons ible Research Conduct  – Page 3 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \nAs part of the above, Massey will promote effective mentoring and supervision of researchers and research trainees. \nThis includes advising on research integrity,  research ethics, research design and methods, and the responsible \nconduct of research through these mechanisms and through relevant ethics committees.  \n \nMassey also has a responsibility to respond to, investigate and deal appropriately with any allegations  of research \npractices  not complying with the standards expressed in this policy, in accordance with the principles for  dealing with \nresearch misconduct in Part 2 and with the procedures given in Appendix 2.  \nResponsibilities of Researchers:  \nIt is the responsibility of all researchers to comply with the principles of research integrity as expressed in this policy \nand with the professional standards of their individual discipline. Researchers must foster and maintain a research \nenvironment of intellectual honesty and scholarly rigour.  \n In addition to following the above Principles, Massey r esearchers must:  \n• Manage conflicts of interest so that ambition and personal advantage do not compromise ethical or scholarly \nconsiderations;  \n• Adopt methods appropriate for achieving the aims of each research proposal;  \n• Follow proper practices for safety and security;  \n• Cite awards, degrees conferred and research publications accurately, including the status of any publication, \nsuch as under review or in press;  \n• Conform to the pol icies adopted by their institution and those of bodies funding the research, where relevant . \n Researchers also have the responsibility to report to the relevant authorities any knowledge of or suspicion of research practices which are not compliant with the standards expressed in this policy and within relevant related \npolicies.  \n \nIn addition to the above, r esearchers have additional responsibilities dependent  on their level of experience.  \n Experienced researchers have a responsibility to assist less experienced researchers, including research students, in \ndeveloping their understanding of what constitutes working to suitable standards of research integrity in accordance \nwith the standards expressed in this policy and with the international standards of their  particular discipline.  This may \nbe undertaken through informal discussions, or through more formalised mechanisms such as training, supervision \nand mentoring.  The responsibility for ensuring oversight of the development of the next generation of r esearc hers \nparticularly applies to those staff at Mass ey in roles with academic  leadership and management responsibilities.  \n \nAll researchers and research students  have a responsibility to engage with more experienced colleagues in relation to \nmatters of research integrity and to accept the guidance provided to them to allow them to work within the \ninternational standards of their disciplines and to comply with Massey’s policies and procedures.  \n \nPart 2:  Research Misconduc t \nBackground:   \nDespite the best intentions  of most researchers and with an environment supporting research integrity, allegations of \ndeviations from the standards expected from Massey University’s r esearchers will occasionally occur.  In cases where \nsuch an allegation does occur, Massey will respond to the allegation promptly, in accordance with the principles \nexpressed below and through following the proced ures described in Appendix 2. Any outcome reached after an \ninvestigation must be appropriate in relation to the severity of the deviation from the standards and such that it \nensures that Massey’s reputation as a resource for quality, trustworthy research is maintained.  \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nCode of Respons ible Research Conduct  – Page 4 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  Categories of Non- Compliant Research Practices  \nResearch practices which are not compliant with the standards expected of Massey researchers can be divided into \nthree categories , as described below : \n \nNote:  personal misconduct such as intimidation of students, harassment, discrimination, insensitivity to social or \ncultural norms in doing research, misuse of funds, etc , is in general  not research misconduct and is subject to other \nMassey policies or generally applicable legal and social penalties.  \n \na) Questionable Research Practices  \n \nThis category would generally include inferior research practices, such as bad data management, carelessnes s in \nobservation and analysis, or poorly conceived research procedures.  In general, practices such as these would be \nreferred to a senior colleague or a line manager for remediation.  \n \n \nb) Breaches of Research Conduct \n \nA Breach of Research Conduct is a minor,  often  unintentional, deviation from the principles of research integrity and \nmay include (but not exclusively):  \n• Unintentional errors;  \n• Addition of non- contributing individuals as authors on publications;  \n• Minor adjustment or selectivity of data, where not appropriate to the discipline ; \n• Unacknowledged ‘adaptation’ of a figure;  \n• Redundant publications.  \n \nThe distinction between a Breach of Research Conduct  and Research Misconduct is not sharp and will depend up on \nthe experience of the researcher, the impact of t he breach and whether the breach has occurred only once or has \nbeen repeated. Repeated or continuing Breaches  of Research Conduct  will constitute Research Misconduct, \nparticularly where these have been the subject of previous counselling or specific direct ion. \n \nc) Research Misconduct  \n \nResearch misconduct is wilful deviation from the principles of research integrity and includes:  \n• Deliberate fabrication, falsification of research results;  \n• Destruction of key research records  prior to the end of the retention peri od suggested in the Massey \nUniversity General Disposal Authority, particularly where the research has been publically disseminated;  \n• Deliberate plagiarism;  \n• Intentional omission of contributors as authors;  \n• Deception in proposing, carrying out or reporting the results of research;  \n• Failure to declare or manage a serious conflict of interest;  \n• Failure to follow research proposals as approved by a research ethics committee, particularly where this failure may result in unreasonable risk or harm to humans, anim als or the environment;  \n• Wilful concealment or facilitation of research misconduct by others.  \nPrinciples for Dealing with Breaches of Research Conduct and Research Misconduct  \nWhen an allegation of research misconduct arises, investigations should be undertaken under the following principles:  \n• The person who is the subject of the inquiry must be granted a fair hearing under the legal principle of \nprocedural fairness, also known as ‘natural justice’;  \n• The person who is the subject of the inquiry must be presumed innocent until proven guilty;  \n• To ensure procedural fairness, the allegations of research misconduct must be stated clearly in writing;  \n• The person facing the allegations has a right to be heard;  \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nCode of Respons ible Research Conduct  – Page 5 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  • Members of any investigative panel constituted must be free from bias or preconception and must conduct \nthemselves in a manner that demonstrates this;  \n• The panel should provide its findings, and the reasons for those findings, in writing;  \n• There should be an avenue for the findings to be appealed;  \n• The allegation and any i nvestigations must be kept confidential until a final determination of the truth of the \nallegation has been reached, including any appeal;  \n• Once a final determination of the truth of the allegation has been made, consideration should be given to the \nopennes s and dissemination of the outcome.  \nDealing with Breaches  of Research Conduct  and Research Misconduct  \nSee Appendix 2 for the procedures for dealing with Questionable Research Practices , Breaches  of Research Conduct \nand Research Misconduct.  \n People from out side of Massey University may be asked to be part of an investigating panel where this is considered \nappropriate by the A ssistant Vice-Chancellor  (Research, Academic and Enterprise)  for the case in question.  \n \nIf the research is supported by external funding sources, the funders should be notified when an allegation of \nmisconduct is evidenced after an initial investigation.  \nDefinitions : \nAffected Parties  means those parties, including both individuals and organisations,  who may be affected by an \nallegation.  \nAllegation of Misconduct in Research (or Allegation) means an allegation that a r esearcher has breached the \nCode of Responsible Research Conduct.  \nCode of Responsible Research Conduct means the code of conduct set out in Part 1 of this document.  \nComplainant means a person who has made an a llegation of m isconduct in r esearch against a r esearcher.  \nConflict of Interest is defined as a situation in which the activities of a staff member outside their employment \nobligations lead to material benefit to the staff me mber concerned, either directly or indirectly (eg. through a family \nmember, associated entity, or external agency), to the detriment of the University.  \nData mean any information generated by r esearch.  \nHead of Unit  means the Manager responsible for a School , Department, Institute, Section, or Research Centre within \nMassey University.  \nInvestigation means an investigation of a llegations.   \nInvestigation Report means a report of the findings of an i nvestigation.  \nBreach  of Research Conduct means a minor , often un intentional,  breach of the Code of Responsible Research \nConduct by a r esearcher.  \nPreliminary Enquiry means an initial enquiry into an a llegation.   \nQuestionable Research Practices include inferior research methodologies and personal misconduct related to \nresearch.  \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nCode of Respons ible Research Conduct  – Page 6 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  RCAC means the Research Conduct Appeal Committee established in accordance with Paragraph 10.4 of Schedule \n1 in Appendix 2 of this document.  \nRCIC means the Research Conduct Investigations Committee established in accordance with Paragraph 8.1 of \nSchedule 1 in Appendix 2 of this document.  \nReport of Preliminary Enquiry means the report specified in Paragraphs 6.5 and 6.6 of Schedule 1 in Appendix 2 of \nthis document.  \nResearch and D evelopment  (R&D) is defined according to the OECD Frascati Manual (2002) as \"creative work \nundertaken on a systematic basis in order to increase the stock of knowledge, including knowledge of man, culture \nand society, and the use of this stock of knowledge to devise new applications.\"  \nResearch Misconduct means a serious breac h of the Code of Responsible Research Conduct by a r esearcher . \nResearcher means a s taff member or s tudent involved in conducting r esearch.  \nRespondent means a person against whom an a llegation has been made.  \nStaff or Staff Member means a person employed b y the University under either individual employment contracts or a \ncollective employment contract and includes s taff who are also formally enrolled as s tudents at the University.  \nStudent means a person who has formally enrolled at the University in any paper listed in the University Calendar \nand has received a student identity card/number.  \nSupervisor means a s taff member who is responsible for the supervision of a r esearcher undertaking a research \nproject.  \nWilful means  purposeful conduct: an intentional or deliberate act to achieve a purpose with out regard to the \nconsequences.  \nWilful misconduct means  purposeful conduct: an intentional or deliberate concealment or facilitation of research \nmisconduct, by yourself or others without justification or excuse, in c ontravention of Massey’s policies.  \nAudience : \nAll staff and students undertaking or supervising research.  \nRelevant legislation : \nProtected Disclosures Act 2000  \nPublic Records Act 2005  \nLegal compliance : \nIf this policy has obligations for legal compliance thes e should be listed briefly.  \nRelated procedures / documents : \n1. Intellectual Property Policy  \n2. Disclosure of Serious Wrongdoing Policy and Procedures (Whistleblower)  \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nCode of Respons ible Research Conduct  – Page 7 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  3. Research and Consultancy Contracts Policy  \n4. Health and Safety Policy  \n5. Conflicts of Commitment and Interest Policy  \n6. The Student Contract  \n7. Procedure for Dispute Resolution at Mas sey University \n8. Code of Student Conduct  and Procedure for Managing Breaches of Academic Integrity  \n9. The Code of Conduct for Research or Teaching involving the Importation or Development of New \nOrganisms Using Recombinant DNA  \n10. The Code of Ethical Conduct for the Use of Live Animals for Teaching and Research \n11. The Code of Ethical Conduct for Research, Teaching and Evaluations Involving Human Participants  \n12. General Disposal Authority  \n13. Kia Mārama:  M āori@Massey 2020 Strategy  \n14. Growing Pearls of Wisdom:  Pasifika@Massey Strategy 2020  \n \nDocument Management Control:  \n \nPrepared by : Dr Michael Millan, Director Research Operations  \nApproved by: Academic Board AB15/072  \nLast review: May 2015 \nNext review: May 2018  \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nCode of Respons ible Research Conduct  – Page 8 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  Appendix 1:  Guidance on Responsible Research Conduct  \n \n1. Research Practice  \n \nMassey Researchers should follow the established research practices  as accepted internationally in their individual \ndiscipline.  This should include employing appropriate research methods, basing conclusions on critical analysis of the \nevidence and reporting findings and interpretations fully.  \n \nResearch design and practice must be considered carefully before the research is undertaken to ensure:  \n• Results generated are accurate and reliable;  \n• Respect for human research subjects, including obtaining informed consent;  \n• Suitable care and respect for animals used in research;  \n• Minimisation of the number of animal s used in research;  \n• Ethical and other research protocols are followed;  \n• Compliance with relevant policies and legislation;  \n• Care for and consideration of the environment;  \n• Respect for cultural heritage;  \n• Privacy protection;  \n• Maintenance of trust (e.g. confidentiality); and  \n• Delivery of research promised to funding bodies.  \n \n2. Research Supervision  \n \nEffective supervision of the next generation of r esearchers, including both r esearch students and less experienced \nstaff undertaking research, is critical.  \n Supervisors should ensure that the role model they provide to less experienced r esearchers, including r esearch \nstudents, is positive and conducive to a research culture of excellence, integrity,  professionalism and mutual respect.  \n Supervision by experienced r esearchers should include training on research integrity , research ethics , research \ndesign and methods , the responsible conduct of research and health and safety .  In addition, s upervisors should \nensure that r esearchers under their supervision develop the necessary skills to undertake the research for which they \nare being supervised.  The supervisor should guide the professional development of research trainees , including  \nproviding guidance in all matters relating t o research conduct  and overseeing all stages of the research process, \nincluding supporting the identif ication of  the research objectives and approach, obtaining ethics and other approvals, \nobtaining funding,  conducting the research and appropriate ly reporting the research outcomes . \n Supervisors should ensure that researchers under their supervision  receive appropriate  credit for their work.  \n Supervisors of r esearch students conducting research must comply with the requirements and responsibilities of \nsupervisors  as specified by either the Doctoral Research Committee or the College and Academic Unit (whichever is \nappropriate for the qualification sought by the s tudent).  \n \nSupervision workloads should be kept at levels that ensure effective personal inter action between each r esearcher \nand their supervisor. For this reason,  Heads of Unit  will need to limit the numbers any one person may supervise \nwhere difficulties are likely to arise.  \n  \n3. Research Records and Data \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nCode of Respons ible Research Conduct  – Page 9 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  Retaining research data is important because it may be all that remains of the research work at the end of a project.  \nResearchers should keep clear, accurate records of all research in ways that will allow verification and replication of \ntheir work by others.  \n While it may not be practical to keep all  the primary material (such as ore, biological material, questionnaires or \nrecordings), records derived from them (such as assays, test results, transcripts, and laboratory and field notes) must be retained in an accessible form.  It is the responsibility of the researcher to determine what records and data should \nbe kept, in- line with any requirements set out in law, funding agreements, publisher’s agreements or through \ndisciplinary conventions.  At a minimum, researchers should keep detailed records descr ibing the methods used and \nthe results observed, as well as records of any approvals granted as part of the research process.  \n \nUnless otherwise defined through policy or funders requirements, r esearch records and data should be retained as \ndefined in Section 13 of the General Disposal Authority .  Where the policy or funders requirements indicate shorter \nretention periods for researc h records and data, the General Disposal Authority will take precedence.  All academic \nunits must have a procedure in place for storage and destruction (once the retention period has elapsed)  of research \ndata.  \n When storing research records and data, consi deration should be given to:  \n• The safety and security of the research records and data;  \n• The durability of the data storage method (as a general rule, storage of data on computer hard drives is not suitable);  \n• The privacy and confidentiality requirements for the data;  \n• Requirements ascribed to the storage of data as part of ethical approvals;  \n• Methods to ensure locating the data at a later date is simple (e.g. indexing and cataloguing);  \n• Massey ’s policies on data storage and retention.  \n \n \nResearch data should be  made available to peers who wish to repeat or elaborate on the study, subject to \nrequirements for privacy, confidentiality and intellectual property.  \n \n4. Dissemination, Publication and Authorship \n \nDissemination of research outcomes is an important part of research.  While this will ideally involve a peer review \nprocess (the form of which may be discipline dependent), all types of dissemination of research outcomes and \nmediums are intended to be captured in this section.  \n When publishing the outcomes of their research, Researchers should:  \n• Disseminate all relevant research findings, including any that run contrary to their research question / topic / \nhypothesis, in an open, honest and transparent manner;  \n• Avoid publishing the same material more than needed, i.e. parsimony of publication.  \n• Ensure where possible that published information is accurate and correctly reported, including correcting any \ninformation which is misleading or incorporates errors as soon as possible;  \n• Take into account any restrictions relating to confidentiality, privacy, intellectual property or culturally sensitive \ninformation;  \n• Cite relevant work from other authors fully and accurately  as relevant to the communication media;  \n• Seek permission before republishing other author s’ material;  \n• Seek to communicate to relevant audiences through multiple channels where possible;  \n• Disclose and acknowledge all sources of financial and in- kind support;  \n• Disclose any potential conflicts of interest;  \n• Provide research participants with an opportunity to access an appropriate summary of the research results.  \n \nResearchers should take responsibility for their contributions to all publications, funding applications, reports and \nother representations of their research.  All potential authors of a publication must be inc luded in the published list of \nauthors.  Authors named on a publication should:  \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nCode of Respons ible Research Conduct  – Page 10 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  • Have made a creative and significant intellectual contribution to the research (e.g. through conception and \ndesign of the research, execution of research,  or analysis and inter pretation of research data);  \n• Given their permission to be named as an author;  \n• Not be named as an author solely on the basis of being the supervisor of the researcher or student \nundertaking the research, or the leader of the research group, where a creative  and significant contribution \nhas not been made to the research;  \n• Not be involved solely in writing the publication, unless contributing to critically revising the interpretation.  \n \nThe work and contribution of all contributors  should be acknowledged appropr iately , with their permission.  \n \nThe sequence of authors should be agreed by all authors  and may follow national and/or disciplinary codes.  \n \n \n5. Peer Review  \n \nPeer review is a critical part of the research process, providing an impartial and independent assess ment of the \nquality and novelty of the research by others experienced in the same field or discipline.  \n \nResearchers should seek to become involved in peer review where possible.  When undertaking peer review, \nresearchers should:  \n• Provide thorough, accurate,  objective, and justifiable assessments in a timely manner;  \n• Act in confidence and not disclose the content or outcome of any process in which they are involved;  \n• Declare all conflicts of interest;  \n• Do not take undue or calculated advantage of knowledge obtai ned during the peer review process;  \n• Ensure that they are informed about, and comply with, the criteria to be applied;  \n• Do not agree to participate in peer review outside their area of expertise;  \n• Give proper consideration to research that challenges or changes accepted ways of thinking and do not \npermit personal prejudice to influence the peer review process.  \n \nResearchers whose work is undergoing peer review should not seek to inappropriately influence the process or \noutcomes.  \n \n6. Conflict of Interest  \n \nA conflic t of interest exists where there is a divergence between the individual interests of a person and their \nprofessional responsibilities such that an independent observer might reasonably conclude that the professional \nactions of that person are unduly influenced by their own interests.  \n \nResearchers should disclose actual or potential conflicts of interest, including financial and other personal, \nprofessional and institutional conflicts of interest that could compromise the trustworthiness of their work in res earch \nproposals, publications and public communications as well as in all review activities.  \n \nAll actual or potential conflicts of interest must be handled in accordance with Massey’s Conflicts of Commitment and \nInterest Policy . \n \n7. Collaborative Research  \n \nIn collaborative research projects between Massey and other institutions, an agreement should be reached on the \nexpected standards of conduct and management of the research in accordance with this policy .  The agreement will \ninclude the procedure for dealing with any suspected deviations from the agreed standards.   \n \nThis agreement preferably should be in wri ting ( it must be in writing if externally funded) and will  cover intellectual \nproperty, confidentiality and copyright issues; sharing commercial returns (where relevant); responsibility for ethics \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nCode of Respons ible Research Conduct  – Page 11 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  and safety clearances; and reporting to appropriate agencies, where required.  It should address the protocols to be \nfollowed by the partners when disseminating the research outcomes, and the management of primary research \nmaterials and research data.  \n \nThe agreement may take various forms, including a legal contract signed by the relevant authorised personnel, an \nexchange of  emails and/or  letters, or a research management plan signed by all parties.  \n \n8. Public Communication \n \nResearchers should limit professional comments to their area of recognized expertise when engaged in public \ndiscussions about the application and importance of research findings and clearly distinguish professional comments from op inions based on personal views.  \n Researchers should also make clear where their views are individual viewpoints and where , if relevant,  they speak on \nbehalf of Massey University.  \n Researchers in need of further guidance in this area should contact External Relations.  \n \n9. Research Involving Identified Communities  \n \nWhen conducting research with minority  communities, researcher s should:  \n• Clearly identify and illustrate how the research findings could be relevant and useful for the communities.  The \nresearch findings should be made available to the communit ies participating in the research.   \n• Undertake research in a culturally -appropriate manner.  This includes observing cultural protocols and norms \nand the ability for the participant to respond in their own language.   \n• Utilise research methodologies that are appropriate and relevant to the communities . \n• Ensure that the research is not detrimental to the communities.  \n• Underpinning the research should be the values of respect, humility and reciprocity.  \n \na) Research with M āori communities  \n \nMassey University has a Treaty of Waitangi policy.  Massey promotes the three principles of the Treaty of Waitangi as \narticulated by the Royal Commission on Social Policy (1988):  partnership, protection, and participation.  For more \ninformation please see Section Two:  Treaty of Waitangi in Code of Ethical Conduct for Research, Teaching and \nEvaluations Involving Human Participants.  \n \nMassey University supports the “ KIA MARAMA:  Maori@Massey 2020 Strategy ”.  Theme Three of the strategy “ He \nPuna Matauranga:  Platforms for Translational Research and Scholarship” iden tifies two relevant themes for \nResearchers to be familiar with;  Platf orm One -  Translational Research requires Researchers to bridge the gap \nbetween research outcomes and objectives and their application to real life situations (relevant to the aspirations of \nMāori) incorporating research designs and methodologies that will  be of value to communities while still satisfying \nscientific requirements;  and Platform Three – Integrated Research Programmes  places emphasis upon inter -\ndisciplinary research projects and programmes as well as broadening the scope of current Māori research endeavor . \n \nb) Research with Pasifika communities  \n \nMassey University supports the “ Growing Pearls of Wisdom:  Pasifika@Massey Strat egy 2020”.  Strategic Goal 2:  \nResearch and Policy, outlines the research goals for Pasifika at Massey University.  Within Research and Scholarship, the strategy states that Massey University will “Provide quality support enabling Pasifika Researchers to \nundertake Pasifika research” and “Enable non- Pasifika Researchers to undertake Pasifika research”.    \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nCode of Respons ible Research Conduct  – Page 12 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  Appendix 2:   \n \nSchedule 1:  Procedures for Dealing with Minor Breaches and Research Misconduct  \n1. Informal Resolution Procedures  \n1.1. Wherever possible, before a formal allegation of research misconduct is made, attempts  should be made to \nresolve the issues at a local level.  This will be most appropriate when the issues are of a relatively minor \nnature or involve personal grievances.  The issues should be dealt w ith at the following levels (in escalating \norder) where possible, before a formal allegation is made.  \na) Between the staff and / or students involved.  \nb) By the Head of Unit (or delegate) if the issue cannot be resolved directly or is of a more serious nature.  \n1.2. Questionable Research Practices and Breaches  of Research Conduct  should, wherever possible, be dealt with \nat a local level, including by referral of the issue to the Head of Unit or senior academic colleague, or through \nother policies and processes where personal misconduct is involved.  \n2. Formal  Allegation s \n2.1. Where resolution through informal procedures is not possible, a formal allegation of research misconduct may \nbe made.   Allegations may originate from individuals or groups either inside or outside the University.  \n2.2. All allegations must be made in writing to the Assistant Vice- Chancellor (Research, Academic and Enterprise).  \nOther staff members receiving such allegations must pass them to the Assistant Vice- Chancellor (Research, \nAcademic and Enterprise).  \n2.3. Writte n allegations must include : \na) The name(s) and contact details of the person making the a llegation ; \nb) The name(s) of the r espondent(s);  \nc) The nature and full details of the a llegation; and  \nd) Documented evidence in support of the a llegation, where possible . \n3. Protecti on of Affected Parties  during the P reliminary Enquiry and Investigation  \n3.1. When an a llegation is made, the Assistant Vice- Chancellor (Research, Academic and Enterprise) should \nendeavour to assess the risk to, and protect the interests of, all affected parties. \n3.2. Affected parties  may include:  \na) The complainant;  \nb) The respondent;  \nc) Researchers collaborating with the respondent;  \nd) Publishers by whom manuscripts impacted by the a llegation  have been or are about to be published;  \ne) Funding bodies who have contributed to the r esearch in question;  \nf)   The University; and  \ng) Members of the public.  \n3.3. If the complainant is disclosing information about serious wrongdoing, the disclosure may be protected under \nMassey’s Protected Disclosure Policy  (staff member) or the Protected Disclosures Act 2000 (non- staff \nmember).  \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nCode of Respons ible Research Conduct  – Page 13 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  3.4. The University should provide all necessary protection to the complainant(s) during the course of the \npreliminary enquiry and investigation to ensure that they are not the subject of victimisation or undue pressure \nin relation to the allegation.  \n3.5. If the r espondent is a member of the University and is the subject of an a llegation, the Vice -Chancellor may, at \nthe time that the substance of the a llegation is conveyed to the r espondent, and on the recommendation of the \nAssistant Vice -Chancellor (Research, Academic and Enterprise), suspend the respondent from duty (with pay, \nif applicable) or from enrolment and exclude him or her from the University. This shall occur only in situations in \nwhich the Vice- Chancellor is satisfied that continued presence of the respondent at the University may lead to \ncriminal, unsafe or malicious behaviour prejudicial to the w ell-being of other University personnel or to \nresolution of the problem.  \n3.6. A researcher who is suspended and excluded from the University shall be permitted reasonable access to the \nUniversity in order to prepare his or her response to the a llegation and to collect books, papers and other \npersonal property.  \n3.7. If an allegation is dismissed, any respondent who has been suspended or excluded from the University under \nParagraph 1.3 of this Schedule shall be reinstated with an unblemished record.  \n3.8. If an a llegation is  substantiated, the position of r esearchers supervised by or working with the r espondent must \nbe clarified. In some cases it may be necessary to provide assistance or compensation to those affected by the \nmisconduct of others.  \n3.9. If the a llegation is related to external funding, where the f unding body has its own policies for dealing with \nResearch Misconduct, Schedule 2  will apply.  \n4. Confidentiality  \n4.1. Confidentiality must be protected to the maximum extent possible during the p reliminary enquiry and the \ninvestigation. Only such information relating to the allegation as is strictly necessary to conduct the preliminary \nenquiry and the i nvestigation may be disclosed by the University or any staff Member or student. During the \npreliminary enquiry, confidential information may only be disclosed with the permission of the Assistant Vice-\nChancellor (Research, Academic and Enterprise). Confidential information may only be disclosed with the \npermission of the Research Conduct Investigations Committee ( RCIC)  during the inves tigation.  \n4.2. When determining whether confidential information should be released to any person, the Assistant Vice-\nChancellor (Research, Academic and Enterprise) or the RCIC,  as the case may be, should take into account \nthe following points:  \na) The preliminary enquiry and investigation shall be conducted expeditiously and, as far as possible, \nconfidentiality shall be maintained;  \nb) If the r espondent is in receipt of a grant from an external funding body which is related to the a llegation and \nthe matter passes to the stage of i nvestigation, the Assistant Vice- Chancellor (Research, Academic and \nEnterprise) shall advise the appropriate officer of that funding body, in confidence, that a case is being \nformally investigated on the understanding that the funding body will  not terminate the grant until the \noutcome of the Investigation is known. If the r espondent is subsequently exonerated, then the Assistant \nVice-Chancellor (Research) shall advise the funding body accordingly;  \nc) There may, in some circumstances, be reason to inform the publishers of a manuscript that the authenticity \nof a manuscript or manuscripts is in doubt;  \n \n5. Researchers holding  grants from a n external  research funding agency  \n5.1. If an a llegation relates to an application for, or research funded by,  an external  research funding agency with its \nown policy for dealing with and reporting possible misconduct in research, then Schedule 2 of this document \napplies.  \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nCode of Respons ible Research Conduct  – Page 14 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  6. Preliminary Enquiry  \n6.1. In the case of students, the Assistant Vice -Chancellor (Research, Academic and Enter prise ) shall follow the \nProcedure of Managing Breaches of Academic Integrity . (Note that Paragraphs 3.1 – 3.4, 5.1 and 11.2(c -e) of \nthese procedures and these paragraphs only continue to apply to allegations or complaints of r esearch \nmisconduct relating to s tudents).  \n6.2. In the case of staff , the Assistant Vice -Chancellor (Research, Academic and Enterprise)  shall: \na) Immediately notify the r espondent  in writing that an Allegation has been made and that a p reliminary enquiry \nwill be conducted.  The written notification should include:  the nature and detail of the allegation;  the \nprocedures to be followed;  and the na me of the c omplainant , unless the complainant  is protected under the \nProtected Disclosure Policy  or the Protected Disclosures Ac t 2000.   The notification should also include an \ninvitation to submit a written response to the allegation;  \nb) Conduct a p reliminary enquiry.  The p reliminary enquiry will  gather evidence,  including through interviews or \nother communication with the c omplainant, the r espondent and other interested or affected part ies (e.g. \nHeads of Department).  Interviews and other evidence should be documented as part of the record of the \ninvestigation;  \nc) Examine the evidence provided in support or rebuttal of the a llegation,  taking precautions against real or \nperceived conflicts of interest on the part of those invo lved in the p reliminary enquiry ; \nd) Seek the assistance of such technical experts as is required to complete th e preliminary enquiry;  \ne) Decide whether a prima facie case exists in relation to the a llegation so as to warrant an Investigation.  \n6.3. Both the complainant and the respondent shall have the right to seek independent advice and to be \nrepresented by any person they choose during the preliminary enquiry.  \n6.4. The preliminary  enquiry shall be concluded as quickly as possible and shall be completed within 60 calendar \ndays of its initiation unless, in the opinion of the Assistant Vice- Chancellor ( Research, Academic and \nEnterprise), circumstances clearly warrant a longer period of investigation. This period includes conducting the \ninquiry and preparing a draft r eport.  \n6.5. At the conclusion of the p reliminary enquiry, the Assistant Vice- Chancellor ( Research, Academic and \nEnterprise) shall prepare a written report that:  \na) States all relev ant evidence that was reviewed;  \nb) Summarises relevant interviews with affected Persons;  \nc) Sets out reasons for exceeding the 60- day period , if relevant;  and \nd) Sets out the conclusion of the p reliminary enquiry.  \n6.6. The respondent shall be given a copy of the draft report of preliminary enquiry and shall be given 21 days to \ncomment. If the respondent chooses to comment on the report, those comments shall be incorporated into the \nreport .  The complainant shall be given 14 days to respond, in writing, to those comments . If the complainant \nchooses to comment on the report those comments shall be incorporated into the report. Once all comments \nhave been incorporated, the Assistant Vice- Chancellor ( Research, Academic and Enterprise) shall finalise the \nreport of p reliminary  enquiry.  \n6.7. A preliminary enquiry should not proceed to an Investigation if:  \na) The allegation is found in the p reliminary enquiry to lack substance;  \nb) The allegation can be resolved by mediation or other means; or  \nc) The respondent admits the allegation:  \nin which c ase, the Assistant Vice -Chancellor ( Research, Academic and Enterprise) shall advise the \ncomplainant and the r espondent, in writing, of the outcome of the p reliminary enquiry.  \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nCode of Respons ible Research Conduct  – Page 15 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  6.8. In the event that the r espondent admits the allegation, the Assistant Vice- Chancellor (Research, Academic and \nEnterprise) shall pass to the Vice- Chancellor all material pertaining to the p reliminary enquiry. The Vice-\nChancellor shall then determine what disciplinary action, if any, will be applied in accordance with Paragraph 11  \nof thi s Schedule.  \n6.9. If the p reliminary enquiry finds that a prima facie case exists in relation to the allegation and that the matter  \ncannot be resolved by mediation or other means, and the r espondent does not accept the a llegation, the \nAssistant Vice -Chancellor ( Research, Academic and Enterprise) shall recommend to the Vice- Chancellor that \nthe matter pass to an investigation.  \n6.10.  The University shall retain all documentation relating to the preliminary enquiry for at least six years  in a safe \nand secure location.  \n7. Frivolous, Vexatious or M alicious Allegations  \n7.1. If the Assistant Vice -Chancellor ( Research, Academic and Enterprise) finds that an a llegation has been made in \na frivolous, vexatious or malicious manner, or is an abuse of process, he or she shall report this finding to the \nVice-Chancellor who will notify the complainant of this conclusion.  \n7.2. The complainant shall be given reasonable opportunity to dispute or refute a finding that an a llegation has been \nmade in a frivolous, vexatious or malicious manner, and has rec ourse by appeal to a  Research Conduct Appeal \nCommittee (RCAC) . \n7.3. If the RCAC determines in favour of the c omplainant against the finding that the a llegation was frivolous, \nvexatious or malicious , or an abuse of process, this conclusion shall be conveyed to t he Vice -Chancellor. The \nRCAC may, if appropriate, direct the Vice- Chancellor to reinstate the investigation of the r espondent . \n7.4. If the RCAC finds that an allegation has been made in a frivolous, vexatious or malicious manner or was an \nabuse of process,  this finding will be reported to the Vice- Chancellor . \n7.5. If the c omplainant is a member of the University, the Vice- Chancellor will determine the appropriate disciplinary \naction in accordance with Paragraph 1 1 of this Schedule. If the complaint originates from outside the University, \nthe Vice- Chancellor will consider what action, if any, should be taken in respect of the a llegation.  \n8. Investigation  \n8.1. The investigation shall be conducted by a Research Conduct Investigations Committee ( RCIC) , created for \neach investigation, which shall comprise the following members appointed by the Vice- Chancellor. These \nmembers shall normally be:  \na) A Chairperson appointed by the Vice- Chancellor;  \nb) A member of the Doctoral Research Committee;  \nc) A member of the University Research Committee; and  \nd) Up to two persons proposed by the Chairperson on the basis of their having skills relevant to the \ninvestigation.  \n8.2. The Vice- Chancellor shall appoint a secretariat to service the RCIC.  \n8.3. The Vice- Chancellor shall take precautions against real or perceived c onflicts of interest on the part of those \ninvolved in the Investigation and shall ensure that those involved are able to act impartially. The Vice-Chancellor shall notify the complainant and respondent of the composition of the RCIC and both parties shall \nhave the right to make written comment on the composition of the RCIC within 14 days of receiving the notice.   \nThe Vice- Chancellor shall consider any written comment and make a decision as to whether to maintain the \nRCIC or to change the membership.  \n8.4. The RC IC shall conduct an investigation of the a llegation, considering all evidence provided by the \ncomplainant, the r espondent and other a ffected parties . Such evidence may include (but not necessarily be \nlimited to):  \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nCode of Respons ible Research Conduct  – Page 16 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  a) Documentation (e.g. Research proposals, Dat a, publications and correspondence);  \nb) Records or transcripts of meetings  or telephone conversations;  \nc) Interviews (or transcripts of interv iews) with any affected persons; and  \nd) Any evidence collected during the p reliminary enquiry . \n8.5. The complainant, respondent and other a ffected parties  shall be interviewed and shall have the right to be \nrepresented at the interview. Complete summaries of these interviews shall be prepared by the RCIC, and shall \nbe provided to the interviewed party for comment and included as part of the file relating to the Investigation.  \n8.6. The investigation should be concluded as quickly as possible,  ordinarily within 120 calendar days of its \ninitiation. This includes conducting the i nvestigation and preparing a draft i nvestigation report.  \n8.7. A draft investigation report shall be prepared by the RCIC and provided to the respondent who shall be given \n21 days in which to provide written comments. Those comments shall be included as part of the investigation \nreport.  \n8.8. The complainant(s) should be given the portions of the draft i nvestigation report which address his/ her/their \nrole and opinions in the investigation and be given 14 days to provide written comments. Those comments shall \nbe included as part of the investigation report.  \n8.9. Once all comments have been received, the RCIC shall finalise the investigation report.  \n9. Outcome of the investigation  \n9.1. The RCIC shall report its findings to the Vice- Chancellor, who shall provide copies of the i nvestigation report to \nboth the complainant and the r espondent.  \n9.2. If the RCIC finds that the allegation is not proven beyond reasonable doubt, the respondent and complainant \nshall be informed by the Vice- Chancellor in writing that no further action will be taken. This shall be recorded on \nthe file of the r espondent, with agre ement by the r espondent as to the content of this record (where possible).  \n9.3. If the RCIC finds that the a llegation is proven beyond reasonable doubt, the Vice- Chancellor shall inform the \nrespondent and complainant in writing and give the Respondent 21 days i n which to lodge an appeal pursuant \nto Paragraph 10 of this Schedule.  \n9.4. If the RCIC finds that the allegation has been made in a frivolous, vexatious or malicious manner, or is an \nabuse of the process, it shall report this finding to the Vice- Chancellor who will convey this conclusion to the \ncomplainant. The provisions of Paragraphs 6.2 to 6.5 of this Schedule shall then apply.  \n10. Right of Appeal  \n10.1.  If the r espondent wishes to contest the findings of the RCIC, he or she may lodge an application for appeal \nwithin 2 1 days with the Vice -Chancellor, requesting a review of the Investigation process by a RCAC.  \n10.2.  An application for appeal under Paragraph 10 .1 of this Schedule shall state in detail the grounds for the appeal \nwhich must relate to alleged shortcomings in the procedures used during the i nvestigation.  \n10.3.  The RCAC should hear appeals as soon as possible after an appeal has been lodged, preferably within 60 \ndays.  \n10.4.  The RCAC shall be made up of three persons, including:  \na) A nominee of the Vice- Chancellor (but excluding mem bers of the RCIC which conducted the Investigation of \nthe Allegation in question);  \nb) A nominee of the President of the local branch of an appropriate registered union (e.g. TEU) ; and \nc) A senior member of the legal profession or a person with appropriate experi ence as Chairperson,  appointed \nby agreement between the Vice- Chancellor and the President of the local branch of  an appropriate \nregistered union (e.g. TEU) . \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nCode of Respons ible Research Conduct  – Page 17 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  10.5.  The RCAC shall have access to all persons and documents relevant to the i nvestigation and shall rul e on \nwhether University policies and procedures were adhered to in the conduct of the Investigation and whether the \noutcome of the Investigation was consistent with the evidence available to the RCIC.  \n10.6.  If the r espondent appeals to the RCAC, the r espondent and complainant shall have the right to be heard by the \nRCAC and are entitled to legal representation.  \n10.7.  Appeal to the RCAC is the final step in the internal investigative process within the University. This does not, \nhowever, preclude a ffected persons from pursuing judicial review or other remedies outside the University.  \n10.8.  If an appeal to the RCAC by a respondent is successful, the respondent and complainant shall be informed by \nthe Vice- Chancellor in writing that no further action will be taken. This shall be recorded on the file of the \nrespondent, with agreement by the r espondent as to the content of this record (where possible).  \n10.9.  If the RCAC finds that an allegation has been made in a frivolous, vexatious or malicious manner, or is an \nabuse of the process, it  shall report this finding to the Vice -Chancellor who will convey this conclusion to the \ncomplainant. The provisions of Paragraph 7  of this Schedule shall then apply.  \n10.10.  If an appeal to the RCAC is not successful, the i nvestigation report will stand, subject to any changes or \namendments made to the report by the RCAC.  \n11. Disciplinary outcomes  \n11.1.  These may apply if:  \na) The respondent admits the allegation(s) at the p reliminary enquiry or investigation;  \nb) The RCIC finds and reports to the Vice- Chancellor that the a llegati on is upheld and the r espondent does not \nappeal against this finding; or  \nc) The respondent loses an appeal to the RCAC following an Investigation.  \n11.2.  Any of the outcomes of 11 .1 being the case:  \na) The Vice- Chancellor shall determine the appropriate disciplinary act ion, if any, under the provisions of the \ncurrent contract of employment of the r espondent;  \nb) If the respondent is not a staff member of the University, the Vice- Chancellor shall consider and may adopt \nsuch measures as are necessary and available within the l aw to protect the reputation of the University;  \nc) If the allegation is related to research funded by a grant from an external funding body , the Assistant Vice -\nChancellor ( Research, Academic and Enterprise) shall advise the appropriate officer of that funding body, in \nconfidence:  \ni. That an a llegation against the respondent was formally investigated by the University and found to be \nproven; and  \nii. Whether the r esearcher is able to continue as a r esearcher and under what conditions; and  \nd) The Assistant Vice -Chancellor (Research, Academic and Enterprise) shall notify all affected publishers that \nthat an allegation against the r espondent was formally investigated by the University and found to be \nproven.  \ne) If doubt has been cast on the validity of one or more manuscripts pr oduced by the respondent, it may be \nnecessary to investigate the person’s past r esearch as well as that covered by the a llegations.  \n11.3.  If an a llegation is found to have been frivolous, vexatious or malicious, or an abuse of process, the Vice-\nChancellor shall:  \na) If the complainant is a member of the University, determine the appropriate disciplinary action to be taken \nagainst the c omplainant under the provisions of the appropriate contract of employment or the student \ndisciplinary regulations; or  \nb) If the complaina nt is not a member of the University and the respondent wishes to take legal proceedings \nagainst the complainant for defamation or other cause of action, determine whether it is appropriate in the \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nCode of Respons ible Research Conduct  – Page 18 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  circumstances for the University to make a contribution to the respondent's legal costs and the extent of that \ncontribution.  \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nCode of Respons ible Research Conduct  – Page 19 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \nSchedule 2:  Procedures for dealing with Allegations related to an application for, or \nresearch funded by, an external research funding agency with its own policy for dealing \nwith and reporting possible misconduct in research  \n \n1. Process for dealing with Research Misconduct Allegations  \n1.1. If the allegation relates to an application for, or research funded by, an external research funding agency with \nits own policy for dealing with and reporting possible misconduct in research, Massey University may choose to \nadopt that policy as a framework under which the r esearch misconduct inquiry  will be completed.  \nFor example,  the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)  has a policy relating to misc onduct in \nresearch.  This policy is supported by the US Public Health Service (PHS), which has mechanisms for applying \nfor PHS research support and procedures in relation to the research. See the link below for a full copy of the \nPHS Policies on Research Mi sconduct 42 CFR Part 50 and 93; Final Rule at: \nhttp://www.ori.dhhs.gov/sites/default/files/42_cfr_parts_50_and_93_2005.pdf  \n1.2. If Massey University adopts the policy fo r dealing with and reporting possible misconduct of the external funding \nbody , then the processes described in the relevant sections of Schedule 1 will be superseded by those of the \npolicy involved.  \n1.3. No investigation should begin until the specific requirem ents of the policy of the external funding body  have \nbeen considered and suitable procedures agreed on.   \n1.4. An infringement of the standards where applicable in the PHS Final Rule, or any other adopted policy, will be a \nbreach of this policy and may result in disciplinary action.  \n1.5. It will be stated in individual  funding contracts that Massey University choses  to adopt the policies of the \nexternal funding body , so that all parties are aware.  \n2. Research Misconduct related to applications to and funding from the US Public Health Service  \n2.1. In the event of conflict with any applicable general parts of any Massey University policies, the PHS Final Rule \nor adopted policy processes and procedures are to be read into and applied to such parts so as to support the \nintention and objectives of the PHS Final Rule or adopted policy.  \n2.2. Specific requirements in the PHS’s Final Rule are summarised below:  \na) An obligation to start and finish inves tigations within set timeframes;  \nb) Recording, transcribing, disclosing and correcting interview s; \nc) Reporting to the US Office of Research Integrity (ORI) Director, and notifying at various stages, and \ncooperating with, the ORI ; \nd) Responsibility for maintenance and custody of research records and evidence ; \ne) Application of selection criteria for those conducting the inquiry or investigation;  \nf)   Appeals ; \ng) Retention of records of proceedings ; \nh) Interim protective actions including protective court orders, and suspension of the research, and notifying the ORI of the same;  \ni)   Cooperation and compliance with ORI/ HHS administrative actions ; and \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nCode of Respons ible Research Conduct  – Page 20 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  j)   Restoration of reputations of complainants/respondents . \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nCode of Respons ible Research Conduct  – Page 21 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  Appendix 3: References  \n \nThis policy draws explicitly on and acknowledges with gratitude the following national codes of conduct.  \n \nAustralia  \nAustralian Code for the R esponsible Conduct of Research \nhttp://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/r39.pdf  \n European  \nA European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity  \nhttp://static.uni -\ngraz.at/fileadmin/forschen/dokumente/diverses/A_European_Code_of_Conduct_for_Research_Integrity.pdf  \n Canadian  \nTri-Agency Framework: Responsible Conduct Of Research \nhttp://www.rcr.ethics.gc.ca/eng/policy -politique/framework -cadre/  \n Singapore  \nSingapore Statement on Research Integrity  \nhttp://singaporestatement.org/statement.html  \n \n \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Code_of_Ethical_Conduct_for_the_Use_of_Animals_for_Research_Testing_and_Teaching_PDF_334_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Code of Ethical Conduct for the Use of Animals for Research Testing and Teaching PDF 334 KB",
      "policy_type": "Code",
      "file_size": "334 KB",
      "author": "Cayzer, Juliet",
      "creation_date": "2024-01-26T15:04:02",
      "modification_date": "D:20240126154252+13'00'"
    },
    "content": "Massey University : Approved for the period 15 December 2023  to 14 December 2028 Page 1  \n  \n \n \n \nMassey University  \n \n \n \nCODE OF ETHICAL CONDUCT  \nFor the Use of  \nAnimals for Research, Testing and Teaching  \n \n \n  \n \nEffective from 15 December 2023  to 14 December 2028 \n \n \n \nMassey University : Approved for the period 15 December 2023  to 14 December 2028 Page 2  \n Contents  \nCommitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi  ....................................................................................................... 3 \n1 Introduction / Background on the Activities of the Organisation  ................................................... 4 \n2 Functions, Powers and Membership of the Animal Ethics Committee  .......................................... 5 \n3 AEC Processes .................................................................................................................................. 7 \n4 Consideration of Application s by the AEC  ..................................................................................... 11 \n5 Responsibilities of Applicants  ........................................................................................................ 15 \n6 Animal Facilities ............................................................................................................................. 19 \n7 Monitoring  .................................................................................................................................... 20 \n8 Compliance  .................................................................................................................................... 21 \n9 Complaints Procedures  ................................................................................................................. 22 \n10 Process to Amend, Suspend or Revoke the CEC  ........................................................................... 23 \n11 Table of References to Documents Relevant to the Operation of the Massey University Animal \nEthics Committee  .................................................................................................................................. 24 \n \n  \nMassey University : Approved for the period 15 December 2023  to 14 December 2028 Page 3  \n Commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi  \nAll New Zealand Universities are legally obligated “to acknowledge the principles of Te Tiriti o \nWaitangi” in the performance of their functions and exercising of their powers in accordance with \ns281(1)(b) of the Education and Training Act 2020 .   \nTe Kunenga o Purehuroa has asserted an aspirational vision of being Te Tiriti- led, affirming a strategic \ncommitment “to demonstrating authentic leadership in contemporary Aotearoa New Zealand as we uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the founding document of our nation, and its principles through our practice.”\n[1] \nIn alignment with the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) Good Practice guidelines for the use of \nanimals in research, testing and teaching,[2] Te Kunenga o Purehuroa endorses the views of the \nNational Animal Ethics Advisory Committee (NAEAC) that, although the principles of Te Tiriti o \nWaitangi[3] have not been developed to specifically apply to the use of animals in research, testing and \nteaching (RTT), they do “provide general obligations and considerations of relevance to all working in \nRTT in Aotearoa.”[4] \n \n  \n \n[1] Massey University Strategy 2022- 2027, Palmerston North, p.6.  \n[2] MPI & NAEAC .  (2022).  Good Practice Guidelines for use of animals in research, testing and teaching.  \nWellington .   \n[3] From Article 1: the principles of Good governance, Partnership and Fiduciary duty; From Article 2: the \nprinciples of Māori self -determination, Active Protection and Development; From Article 3: the principles of \nAccess, Participation, Options, Equity and E qual Outcomes; From Article 4: the principle of Honouring Māori \ncultural- spiritual values and practices.  \n[4] MPI & NAEAC .  (2022).  Good Practice Guidelines for use of animals in research, testing and teaching.  \nWellington, p.5.  \nMassey University : Approved for the period 15 December 2023  to 14 December 2028 Page 4  \n 1 Introduction / Background on the Activities of the Organisation  \n1.1 Organisational Activities  \nAnimals are used at Massey University for research, testing and teaching (RTT).  The scope of research  \nincludes development of fundamental knowledge, conservation and ecology, environmental \nmanagement, animal science, veterinary science, and occasionally human nutritional and medical science, and production of biological agents .  Teaching using animals is predominantly in the \nveterinary , animal science and agricultural science areas .  Testing of animal and human health \nproducts for safety and effectiveness,  health -promoting characteristics of nutritional products, and of \nproducts requiring evaluation of nutritional qualities , is also undertaken .  The range of species used \nfor RTT embraces reptiles, amphibians, birds, fish, crustaceans and mammals (laboratory, domestic, farm, marine and wild).  \n1.2 Research, Testing and T eaching  and the Three Rs  \n1.2.1 Users of animals for RTT or production of biologically active agents have ethical and \nlegal responsibility for the welfare of their animals.  \n1.2.2 Legal responsibilities in relation to this code holder are set down in the Animal \nWelfare Act 1999, specifically Part 6, and in all codes of animal welfare approved under that Act as listed on the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) A nimal Welfare  website.  \n1.2.3 The Animal Ethics Committee (AEC) requires that  the principles of replacement, \nreduction and refinement as defined in the Animal Welfare Act 1999 (Section 80)  are applied  \nwhenever animals are used for RTT . \n1.2.4 No animals will be used for RTT without prior approval of the AEC  (with the exception s \ndescribed in  paragraph 4.1.13\n). \n1.3 Responsible Persons  \nThe full legal name of the C ode Holder is Massey University .  The Code of Ethical Conduct (the “Code”) \nis administered by the Vice -Chancellor through the Animal Ethics Committee .   \n1.4 Persons/Organisations Under the CEC  \nThe Code applies to all Massey University staff and students and all animals used for research, testing and teaching. \n \n \nMassey University : Approved for the period 15 December 2023  to 14 December 2028 Page 5  \n 2 Functions, Powers and Membership of the Animal Ethics \nCommittee  \n2.1 Functions, Duties and Powers of the AEC \n2.1.1 Key responsibilities of the  AEC are  to:  \n•   consider applications for the  use animals for RTT;  \n•   set appropriate conditions  for approved projects;  \n•   monitor approved applications;  \n•   approv e and monitor adherence to standard operating procedures;  \n•   review the results of approved projects;  \n•   monitor animal facilities used for RTT;  \n•   monitor routine animal husbandry and welfare . \n2.1.2 The AEC has the power to inspect animals, the  facilities where they reside , and related \nexperimental records at any time to satisfy itself that approved procedures are being properly \ncarried out .   \n2.2 Membership of the AEC  \nTotal membership of the AEC is to be a minimum of eleven  (11) and a maximum of twelve (12) persons  \n(refer Section 2.4) .  The term of the Chair  will be three (3) years .  Other members may be appointed \nfor one, two or three years at the discretion of the appointing/nominating parties .  The membership \nof the AEC  shall be comprised as described in paragraphs 2.3 and 2.4.  Where members are nominated, \nthe Vice -Chancellor  will make the appoint ment . \n2.3 Statutory Members  \n• The Chair shall be a senior staff member capable of evaluating projects, the skills of the applicant \nand the scientific or teaching value of the project.  \n• One (1) member nominated by the Royal New Zealand Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to \nAnimals (RNZSPCA), who is not employed by or associated with the University, or involved in the use of animals for research, testing or teaching .   \n• One (1) member nominated by Horizons Regional Council  or Palmerston North City Council, who \nis not employed by or associated with the University, or associated with the scientific community or animal welfare agency .   \n• One (1) veterinarian nominated by the New Zealand Veterinary Association, who is not employed by or associated with the University  in a manner that could result in a conflict of interest . \nMassey University : Approved for the period 15 December 2023  to 14 December 2028 Page 6  \n 2.4 Organisational Members  \n• Six (6)  academic members:  \nTwo  (2) member s appointed by the Pro Vice -Chancellor of the College of Sciences.  \nOne (1) member appointed by the Pro Vice -Chancellor of the College of Health.  \nOne (1) member  appointed by the Head of School of Veterinary Science . \nOne (1) member appointed by the Head of School  of Agriculture  and Environment . \nOne (1) member appointed by the Head of School of Natural Science s. \n• One (1) member appointed by t he Director  of Massey Ag & Hort Enterprises . \n• One (1) additional member may be appointed by the AEC itself to assist with scientific or technical  \nmatters or with expertise not otherwise represented on the AEC.  \n2.5 External Members  \nStatutory External Members will be paid an agreed amount per half day per AEC meeting for time \ninvolved in reading material and attending meetings, and reimbursed for meeting travel costs .  \nProcessing of p ayment s will be arranged by the Secretary on a monthly basis.  \n2.6 Additional  Members or Advisors  \nThe Animal Welfare Officer is an officer of the AEC whose role includes  report ing on monitoring and \nsite visits .  The Animal Welfare Officer does not participate in decision -making . \n2.7 Appointment Procedures  \n2.7.1 When seeking appointment s of organisational members , the AEC  will consider the \nexpertise of current members and may suggest that the nominee has experience in areas that are currently poorly represented .  Important areas of expertise that should be represented \non the AEC  include, but are not limited to:  \nWelfare  \nHusbandry  \nPhysiology  \nPharmacology   Companion animals  \nPathology     in Production animals  \nSurgery    Laboratory animals  \nHealth     Wild animals  \nNutrition  \nMassey University : Approved for the period 15 December 2023  to 14 December 2028 Page 7  \n Ecology  \nStatistics  \n \nA single member may contribute to more than one area of expertise.  \n2.7.2 The Chair will be appointed by the Vice -Chancellor, on the recommendation of the \nAEC.  At the last meeting of each year, the AEC shall appoint a Deputy Chair from the \nAcademic Membership category who may deputise for the Chair in their  absence in the \nfollowing year.   \n2.7.3 Nomination  of a new external AEC member  shall be requested from t he relevant \nnominating body . \n2.8 Term of A ppointment  \nMembers may be reappointed for up to two additional terms with the approval of the nominating \nbody, except for  the Chair who may serve further terms .   \n2.9 Induction and Training of Members  \nInduction and training, including NAEAC’s new member’s induction pack and the Code, will be provided as appropriate for newly appointed University and Statutory External Members of the AEC .  \nThe Chair will meet with new members , preferably  prior to their first AEC meeting , to discuss how the \ncommittee functions .  Communications, newsletters and documents  sent to the AEC will be forwarded \nto all members to  provide continuing education .   \n2.10 Vacancies  \nIn the event of any member being absent for a planned  period of more than six months , nominations \nfor a replacement person to stand in for the duration of that member’s absence  shall be sought from \nthe appointing/nominating party concerned .  Where the duration of absence is uncertain, the AEC will \ndecide whether to appoint a replacement person  for that duration .   \n3 AEC Processes  \n3.1 AEC Meetings  \nThe previous meeting minutes, Chair’s report,  communications to the AEC, reports on approved \napplication s, Animal Welfare Officer reports, other monitoring reports,  project feedback  reports, \nStandard Operating Procedure s, applications for the use of animals for RTT, application  amendments \nand general business (including non -compliances and complaints) are discussed .  Any conflict of \ninterest of AEC members is  declared prior to the AEC meeting.  \nMassey University : Approved for the period 15 December 2023  to 14 December 2028 Page 8  \n 3.2 Frequency of Meetings  \nThe AEC will meet at least once per month (except January) .  The annual schedule of monthly meetings  \nfor the coming year is arranged in advance and notified to members prior to Christmas .  Extra meetings \nmay be scheduled as required .  Members are expected to attend at least two -thirds of the Committee \nmeetings each year .   \n3.3 Timing for Circulation of Agenda Items  \nAgenda items must reach the Secretary nine days prior to the meeting .  Application s will be made \navailable  to members on the University’s Animal Ethics Committee  SharePoint site one week prior to \nthe meeting .  Other agenda items will be made available as early as possible in the week of the \nmeeting .  A supplementary agenda and associated documents  subsequently submitted  may be placed \non this SharePoint  site in advance of the meeting , with agreement by AEC members . \n3.4 Quorum  \nThe quorum for meetings shall be 50% of the number of AEC members plus one ( 1), with at least two \n(2) from the Statutory External Members hip category .   \n3.5 Decision Process  \nThe AEC will reach decisions by consensus .  If consensus cannot be reached , the applicant or another  \nperson with relevant expertise may be invited to pr esent additional information  and respond to \nmembers ’ questions  or the application  will be declined.  \n3.6 Effective Input of Committee Members  \nExternal members will be encouraged and expected to participate in and be involved with the business \nof the AEC in the same manner as University appointees .  The Chair will actively ensure that all \nmembers have opportunity to provide their full input . \n3.7 Establishment and Membership of Subcommittees  \nSubcommittees may be established when specialist consideration  of an  application  is required  and \nwill include at least two  external statutory members .  The subc ommittee is arranged during an AEC \nmeeting  and will report its recommendations to the AEC  for ratification .   \n3.8 Conflict of Interest  \nTo achieve impartiality, any member of the AEC  who is named as an applicant on a n application  before \nthe AEC, or who has a conflict of interest whereby the impartiality of that member could be \nquestioned , will declare it and  will withdraw from the AEC ’s assessment of that application . \nMassey University : Approved for the period 15 December 2023  to 14 December 2028 Page 9  \n 3.9 Confidentiality  \nAEC members shall hold in confidence information submitted in applications , amendments, Standard \nOperating Procedures , report s, complaints and other communications to the AEC . \n3.10 Use of Tele/Video Conferencing  \nIn-person meetings are preferred .  When AEC members find it necessary to attend a meeting using \nvideo (or telephone link s as a last resort) , those members will be considered part of the quorum .  The \nChair will ensure that all AEC members have opportunity to provide their full input.  \n3.11 Consideration between Meetings  \n3.11.1  When approval  of an application or amendment with manipulations graded  A or B is \nrequired urgently , the Chair or,  in their  absence, the Deputy Chair, may approve the \napplication pro tem  only after consultation with all available members of the AEC .  \nAmendments with manipulations graded C may similarly be considered but only if the Chair \nconsiders the amendment to be readily comprehensible to  all AEC members .  Approval will \nrequire agreement by all members responding, with a minimum number of responses being that required for a meeting quorum  (paragraph 3.4) ; this approval must be ratified at the \nnext meeting of the AEC  for the application to be considered approved by the AEC .  No pro \ntem approvals for new applications graded C, D or E will be permitte d.   \n3.11.2  Where an application with manipulations graded A or B  has been deferred (paragraph  \n4.3.1.e) at a prior meeting and approval is subsequently required urgently , paragraph 3.11.1  \nwill apply.  \n3.12 Public Presence at Meetings  \nMeetings will be conducted in two parts .  Part I consist s of general business and the public may attend .  \nPart II exclude s the public so that matters may be discussed without public disclosure when the AEC  \nis satisfied that there are considerations that outweigh the public interest of disclosure.  \n3.13 Applicant Presence at Meetings  \nThe applicant will not normally be present during the AEC 's discussion of an application, but may ask \nto attend a meeting in support of an application , in which case , the Cha ir must approve .  Similarly, the \nAEC may require an applicant to be present .  The applicant will not be present during AEC decis ion-\nmaking discussion.  \n  \nMassey University : Approved for the period 15 December 2023  to 14 December 2028 Page 10  \n 3.14 Secretarial Support  \nThe University provides administrative support to the AEC .  The Secretary  receiv es AEC documents, \nprepares  and circulat es the agenda  and meeting documents , and take s meeting minutes .  Other \nfunctions include  communicat ing with applicants and AEC members , maintain ing all records, reporting \nannually to internal and external govern ing bodies  and any other  duties as required  to support the \nAEC.  The Secretary does not contribute to AEC decision -making . \n3.15 Recordkeeping and Information Management  \nThe Secretary will prepare meeting agendas and take the minutes .  All documentation relating to  \nfunctioning of the AEC, communications to  and from  the AEC, applications and reports , is kept in \nlockable  cabinets  in the Research Ethics Office and , more recently , electronically in SharePoint .  Access \nto records is controlled by permissions in SharePoint .  Paper records are archived after five years .  \nArchived records can only be retrieved by authorised personnel .  Applications and statistical records \nwill be retained for twenty (20) years and then destroyed .  Destruction is undertaken in accordance \nwith the General  Disposal Authority (GDA) policy and the Public  Records Act.  \n3.16 Reporting of Statistics to MPI  \n3.16.1  It is a requirement of the Animal Welfare (Records and Statistics ) Regulations  1999 \nthat statistics of animal usage in research, testing and teaching be kept and  made available \nto the Director -General of MPI annually and if otherwise request ed. \n3.16.2  To facilitate the requirement set out in paragraph  3.16.1 , each researcher or teacher \nresponsible for an application (or their nominee ) must keep a diary or other record of the \nnumber of animals used, their source, the procedures they are being or were used for , any \nunanticipated impact on any animal  and their ultimate fate at the completion of the study .  \nWhere animals are used on multiple occasions or for multiple application s, individual animal \nidentification must also be recorded .  This record must be kept fully up -to-date and may be \ninspected or  requested at any time.  \n3.16.3  The chief applicant will be required to make a return of these statistics to the \nSecretary  at the completion of a project or upon request  by the Secretary .  The Secretary will \ncollate an d report animal use statistics  as required by MPI .   \n3.17 Protection of AEC Members  \n3.17.1  No member of an  AEC is personally liable for any act done or omitted by the member \nor the AEC in good faith in the course of the operations of the AEC.  \nMassey University : Approved for the period 15 December 2023  to 14 December 2028 Page 11  \n 3.17.2  All members of the AEC are covered by the University’s Professional Indemnity \nInsurance policy when carrying out their duties in relation to the AEC, subject to the policy \nterms, conditions, exclusions and limitations.  \n4 Consideration of Application s by the AEC  \n4.1 Criteria for Consideration  \n4.1.1 Before an application is submitted , careful attention should be given to the following:  \na) that the manipulation is necessary as part of an education curriculum, or  \nb) that there is good reason to believe the findings will add to the scientific \nunderstanding of biological functions and behaviour or will extend the body of knowledge \naimed at the improvement of the health and welfare of humans and animals or the \nproductivi ty of animals or the protection of the environment, and  \nc) that alternative methods , such as mathematical models, audio -visual means, \ncomputer simulation and in vitro  biological systems , cannot provide the required result \nor fulfil the purpose .   \n4.1.2 Manipulations should be proposed only after due consideration of the relationship \nbetween the ethical cost and the potential benefit to be obtained and where those responsible for the research, testing or teaching are thoroughly conversant with the \nliterat ure and background information on the subject in question.  \n4.1.3 Consideration must be given to  whether duplication of an experiment is proposed \nand, if so, whether any such duplication will be undertaken only if the original experiment  \nwas flawed  or if duplication  is appropriately justified.  \n4.1.4  The impact of the manipulations on the animals  and the extent to which  any harm or \ndistress can be alleviated must be considered.  \n4.1.5 The AEC must evaluate whether adequate measures will be taken to ensure the \ngeneral health and welfare of animals before, during and after manipulation . \n4.1.6 To minimise distress, no animal should be subjected to more procedures than are \nnecessary to achieve the objectives of the research, testing or teaching .  The fact that \nprocedures are multiple in regard to individual animals must be brought to the attention of the AEC  at the time approval for a procedure is requested .  Multiple procedures may \nbe carried out on a single animal only if the applicant can justify that they are necessary \nand do not cause avoidable harm to the animal.  The applicant must also sho w that, by \nMassey University : Approved for the period 15 December 2023  to 14 December 2028 Page 12  \n repeatedly using the same animal, the results from the research, testing or teaching are \nnot compromised . \n4.1.7 Animals selected for an experiment should be of an appropriate species and quality .  \nEndangered or threatened species must not be used unless the appropriate permits are \nobtained and the findings are expected to assist the survival of that species.  \n4.1.8 Research, testing and teaching should be of an appropriate design and performed on \nthe minimum number required to obtain scientifically valid results or meet teaching \nobjectives .  The AEC must evaluate whether the design of the experiment or \ndemonstration is such that it is reasonable to expect that the stated objectives will be \nmet.  \n4.1.9 The AEC must evaluate whether there is a commitment to ensuring that findings of \nany experiment will be adequately used, promoted or published . \n4.1.10  All applications involving native fauna (captive or wild) must indicate evidence of \napproval by the Department of Conservation ( DOC ) and iwi consultation from appropriate \nrepresentatives .  Copies of DOC permits must be forwarded to the Secretary prior to the \ncommencement of any research . \n4.1.11  Iwi consultation should preferably be undertaken separately to DOC processes and \nmay be written or verbal.  The chief applicant is required to document the consultation \nand forward this to the Secretary.  \n4.1.12  The chief applicant must be a permanent staff member.  \n4.1.13  The procedural requirements of the Code of Ethical Conduct for the Use of Animals \nfor Research, Testing and Teaching do not apply to:  \na) tissues obtained from a slaughterhouse , farm or at a routine post -mortem \nexamination, where their use is incidental to the reason the animal died or was killed;  \nb) animals subject to diagnosis and treatment in the normal course of veterinary \npractice .  This extends to situations wh ere veterinary students examine animals or assist \nwith  treatments either at Massey University or in other veterinary practices as part of \ntheir course requirements, so long as they are under the supervision of a registered \nveterinary surgeon;  \nc) animals being farmed under normal animal husbandry practices, so long as there \nare no additional manipulations;  \n \nMassey University : Approved for the period 15 December 2023  to 14 December 2028 Page 13  \n d) Massey staff and students who are co -applicants on applications approved by \nother New Zealand animal ethics committees .  However, these staff  must comply with the \nCEC of the host organisa tion, and  are required to provide a copy of the signed approval \nby that AEC to the Massey University AEC; \ne) When a member of staff is on overseas leave, is attached to an overseas \ninstitution and participates in research, the responsibility for which clearly resides with \nthe host institution .  In this instance, the proposed work should be considered under the \nregulations pertaining to that country's laws on the use of animals in research, testing and \nteaching, provided that there is a mechanism in place .  Notwithstanding this, the AEC \nrequires the staff member to notify it of the type of research being undertaken  and \nconditions pertaining to that research .  If there is doubt in any particular situation, the \nmatter should be discussed with the AEC . \n4.2 Impact Grading  \nThe AEC will grade applications according to ethical cost as set out in  the MPI Animal Use Statistics \nGuidance Document . \n4.3 Outcomes for Consideration \n4.3.1 The AEC will either:  \na) approve an application;  \nb) approve an application with additional notes for reference  or adherence by the \napplicants ; \nc) approve an application subject to making minor corrections , or administrative or \ntechnical modifications , to the Secretary;  \nd) approve an application subject to the provision of specified details to the Secretary \nand agreed as being acceptable to the Chair and , where appropriate,  specified \nmembers of the AEC ; \ne) defer an application subject to the provision of specified details for consideration by \nthe full AEC ; \nf) not approve an application.  \n4.3.2 Decisions will be provided in writing to all internal applicant s. \n4.3.3 Where modifications, details or clarifications are requested by the AEC , they should \nbe provided as a response  to the notification generated by the online application system .   \nMassey University : Approved for the period 15 December 2023  to 14 December 2028 Page 14  \n 4.3.4 In the case of the AEC  not approving an application, the applicant may submit a \nrevised application or appeal the decision to the AEC.  In the latter situation, further \njustification or expert opinion in favour of the application shall be produced.  \n4.4 Conditions of Approval  \nWhen a n application is approved , conditions may  be stipulated , e.g. applicants must  report outcomes  \nto the AEC , or application  monitoring is required .   \n4.5 Maximum Approval Period \nApplications for ongoing research, testing or teaching procedures must be submitted for consideration  \nat least every three (3) years.  \n4.6 Power to Suspend, Revoke and Vary Approvals  \n4.6.1 The AEC may direct that any procedure, whether approved or not approved, be \nstopped or modified on ethical grounds and the animal(s) either euthanis ed or properly cared \nfor.  Between meetings, this power is vested in the Chair (or, where appropriate, the Deputy \nChair) or their  nominee .  The AEC will be notified  and this decision ratified at the next AEC \nmeeting.  \n4.6.2 The AEC reserves the right to cancel or suspend a n application  if the chief applicant \nfails to comply with the reasonable requests of the AEC in a timely or satisfactory manner.  \n4.7 Changes to Approved Applications  \n4.7.1 Approval of any proposed alteration to an approved application must be requested \nusing the current  ‘Amendment Request Form’ available  on the Animal Ethics  SharePoint  site.  \nAmendment s require either  approv al (if the modification is major) or noting (if the \nmodification is minor) .  If minor , the Chair may sanction the amendment  in advance of it \nbeing ratified at the next meeting . \n4.7.2 An amendment will be considered to be minor in nature if it does not adversely affect \nthe welfare  of the animals , or increase the number of animals , or reduce the validity of the \nstudy  or the teaching benefit.  \n4.7.3 An amendment will be considered to be  major in nature if it may  adversely impact the \nwelfare of the animals , or increase the number of animals used , or reduce  the expected \nresearch or teaching benefits . \nMassey University : Approved for the period 15 December 2023  to 14 December 2028 Page 15  \n 4.7.4 Where a co -applicant is added to a n application  after its approval, the new co -\napplicant will read the application and sign and date  a separate copy of the Applicant  \nDeclaration Form which can be downloaded  from the Animal Ethics SharePoint site .  The \nsigned declaration must then be emailed to the Secretary  with a covering note requesting \ninclusion of the additional personnel  on the application . \n5 Responsibilities of Applicants  \n5.1 Procedures to be Followed  \n5.1.1 All individuals using animals for research, testing or teaching are to be familiar with \nthe University ’s Code of Ethical Conduct for the Use of Animals for Research, Testing and \nTeaching and so signify on their application to the AEC .  Guidelines for determining the need \nor otherwise for AEC approval may be found on the Massey University Animal  Ethics \nSharePoint site . \n5.1.2 The University expects that all researchers and teachers involved in the use of \nanimals, having signified that they have read the Code , will observe it in the spirit as well as \nto the letter.  \n5.1.3 While the primary responsibility lies with the chief applicant, all co -applicants and \nother persons involved are also responsible for the wellbeing of the animals and must give \ndue regard to avoiding or minimising discomfort, distress or pain . \n5.1.4 Applications must list and be signed by persons primarily involved with and \nresponsible for the manipulations .  Where the manipulation is undertaken as part of a \nprofessional service by a person not otherwise involved in the project, then it is sufficient to \nmerely list the person (e. g.  anaesthetist, surgeon, technician, farm manager) .  It is the \nresponsibility of those signing to ensure that all personnel involved in the manipulations and \ncare of the animals are adequately skilled and aware of their obligations under the Code of \nEthical Conduct.  \n5.1.5 Applicants  requiring guidance should refer to the Massey University Animal Ethics \nSharePoint  site or contact the Secretary, Chair or Deputy Chair of the AEC  or the Animal \nWelfare Officer.  \n5.1.6 On submission by the applicant, the electronic application is sent to the Animal \nWelfare Officer, who will then  review  the document and  return it to the applicant for any  \nchanges as required .  When satisfied that  thes e changes have been made, t he Animal Welfare \nOfficer will then authorise the application and forward it to the Secretary  for processing . \nMassey University : Approved for the period 15 December 2023  to 14 December 2028 Page 16  \n 5.1.7 Applications must be submitted to the Animal Welfare Officer by the due dates \npublished on the Animal Ethics SharePoint  site, but at least twelve (12) working days prior to \na schedu led meeting .  Deadline d ates for the provision of applications to the Se cretary are \nsimilarly published  and are at least seven (7) working days prior to  a scheduled meeting.  Late \nsubmissions may be considered by the AEC  if accompanied by an explanation for  lateness and \na valid reason for immediate consideration.  \n5.1.8 Procedures with animals that may cause more than momentary or minimal pain or \ndistress should be performed with appropriate sedation, analgesia or anaesthesia, including \npost -surgical analgesia, in accordance with best veterinary practice .  In the absence of \ninformation to the contrary, investigators should assume that any procedure that would \ncause pain in human beings will cause pain in other vertebrate species.  \n5.1.9 Paralysing agents will be permitted only under exceptional circumstances, in the \nhands of experienced personnel and, normally, under general anaesthesia.  \n5.1.10  Animal shelters, pet shops or other retailer traders of companion species should not \nbe used to source animals without the prior written approval of the AEC .  Animals should be \nacquired from specialised breeding programmes wherever possible .  Other non -specifically \nbred animals should be used only if they meet research requirements for health and quality and are acquired legally from a suitable source.  \n5.1.11  At the conclusion of a manipulation as defined in the Code, the person undertaking \nthe manipulation, or a senior person responsible for the research, testing or teaching, must \nmake appropriate arrangements for the final disposal of animals either by re -homing \n(paragraph  5.9), return to normal farmin g practice,  or by euthanasia  (as approved by the \nAEC) .  Dead animals must be disposed of in a manner that is compliant with all relevant \nregulations .  Where possible, animal tissues should be made available to ot hers for research \nor teaching purposes .  The University’s animal tissue sharing web site should be utilised to \noptimise use of animal tissues.  \n5.2 Interim Reports  \nInterim reports may be submitted at any time but may also be required as a condition of approval or as otherwise requested by the committee (paragraph 7.5) . \n5.3 Appropriate Qualifications  \nManipulations must be undertaken by trained individuals or under the direct supervision of trained \nindividuals .  This includes euthanasia of animals.  \nMassey University : Approved for the period 15 December 2023  to 14 December 2028 Page 17  \n 5.4 Sick and Injured Animals  \nSick or injured animals should immediately, according to circumstances, either receive appropriate \nveterinary care or be euthanis ed.  Animals that suffer severe or chronic pain, distress, discomfort or \ndisablement that cannot be relieved should be euthanis ed.  This also applies to animals held in animal \nfacilities and on farms managed by the University.  \n5.5 Standard Operating Procedures  (SOPs) \n5.5.1 SOPs describing research -related manipulations  must  be submitted to the AEC for \napproval.  SOPs may be obtained from other organisations, or prepared by  the us er group or \ncontributing personnel with expertis e in the area, or the AWO.  \n5.5.2 It is the responsibility of the c hief applicant to ensure that all personnel performing \nprocedures covered by the SOP have access to the SOP.  \n5.5.3 SOPs must be reviewed by the AEC every  three years, where their use is ongoing .   \n5.6 Adverse Events  \n5.6.1 Any event during research, testing or teaching that impacts adversely on animal \nwelfare beyond the stated impact of  the approved manipulation(s) must be notified to the \nAEC as soon as practicable using the Adverse Event Report form available on the Animal Ethics \nSharePoint  site.  Adverse events that result from facility management and  that adversely \nimpact animal welfare  to a degree that exceeds normal occurrences must similarly be \nreported .  The report must describe  actions taken in response to the event.  Appropriate \nnecropsy reports must be conveyed  in writing as soon as practicable .  The AEC will consider \nactions taken in response to  the event and , if considered inadequate , will require additional \nresponses to  manage the animals or reduce future risk.  \n5.6.2 Adverse events include untoward outcomes , unplanned euthanasia of animals  or \nunplanned deaths of animals as a direct result of the research, testing or teaching procedures , \nor of conditions under which animals are maintained for such procedures , or the way they \nare manage d. \n5.6.3 Animals that die unexpectedly or are euthanis ed prior to completion of the study \n(with the exception of  ‘loss due to normal mortality’ as defined below) require a necropsy to \nbe carried out, wherever possible, by either a pathologist or a registered veterinarian .  Where \na veterinarian carries out the necropsy, the AEC  reserves the right to have the report \nreviewed by a pathologist.  \nMassey University : Approved for the period 15 December 2023  to 14 December 2028 Page 18  \n 5.6.4 No necropsy is required when animals die or are euthanis ed as part of normal animal \nmanagement practices .  As these losses are considered ‘normal’, they must be stated in the \nanimal ethics application .  Where it has not been indicated that losses are expected , or losses \nexceed expectations, necropsy examination is required.  \n5.6.5 Applicants named on animal ethics applications may, themselves, perform \nnecropsies, but to avoid potential conflicts of interest, the AEC  recommends that \nindependent expertise be sought wherever possible.   \n5.7 Record keeping  \nApplicants must  keep r ecords of: \n• the research protocol  and data obtained  from the experiment;  \n• the AEC approval, amendments, non -compliances and adverse events ; \n• the animals  used  and whether they have previously been used for other RTT work ;   \n• the manipulations performed and actual impact grading resulting  therefrom ; \n• any veterinary treatment  or medicines administered ; \n• the fate of the animals at the conclusion of the project;  \n• personnel  training records  (as relevant) . \nThese records must be kept for one year after provision of the end of approval reports  (paragraph  \n7.5). \n5.8 Euthanasia for T issue Collection/ Dissection  \nAEC approval must be obtained for a nimals that are euthanis ed for the primary purpose of dissection \nor tissue collection .  Where animals are primarily euthanis ed for other purposes  but are subsequently \nused for dissection or tissue collection , AEC approval is required if animal management or the method \nof euthanasia differs substantially from what the animal would otherwise experience.  \n5.9 Rehoming  \nEfforts to rehome animals when no longer required or suitable for RTT should be attempted w here  \nthe animal is likely to adapt to the new home environment and experience good quality of life .  \nAnimals that present an increased risk of causing harm to people or other animals should not be \nrehomed .  Animal s should only be rehomed to owners who are equipped to manage them in a manner \nwhich provides them with good quality of life .  Any ill health or behavioural problems must be \ndisclosed prior to seeking agreement to rehome.  The Animal Welfare Officer should be contacted if  \nassistance is required with rehoming . \nMassey University : Approved for the period 15 December 2023  to 14 December 2028 Page 19  \n 6 Animal Facilities  \n6.1 Management of Animal Facilities  \nApplicants should ensure that a ll animal facilities are appropriate  in their  design, construct ion, \nequipment , staffing  and maintenance to guarantee  the health and welfare of animals and to meet the \nrequirements  of the application .   \n6.2 Emergency Management  \nAll facilities must identify potential large -scale  events  such as fire, earthquake, flood , drought , failure \nof water supply  and power  outage  that could be harmful to the animals or their management .  \nContingency plans must  be in place  for animal care and management  should such an event occur , and \npreparations made in advance .  Contingency plans must not contradict human health and safety \npolicies and procedures .  All personnel  using animals for RTT at a facility and all staff managing animals \nmust be  aware of the contingency  plans.  \n6.3 Facility Animal Health Plans \nAnimal health plans for animals that reside at a Massey animal facilit y or farm must be reviewed by \nthe AEC .  Subsequently , they must be resubmitted  for AEC review at least once every five years . \n6.4 Transportation of Animals  \nAnimals must be transported under safe, humane and hygienic conditions appropriate to the species .  \nThe AEC refers applicants to MPI’s Codes of Welfare for guidance.  \n6.5 Housing of Animals  \nAnimals must be housed so as to ensure that their general health and welfare are  safeguarded and \nthat undue stress is avoided .  Sufficient space, according to the species, should be allocated for each \nanimal.  Environmental needs such as temperature, humidity, ventilation, lighting, enrichment  and \nsocial interaction should also be consistent with the needs of the species concerned .  Animals must \nreceive a supply of foodstuffs appropriate to their requirements and of the quality and quantity \nadequate to preserve their health, with free access to water, unless the object of the experiment is to \nstudy the effects of variation in these nu tritional requirements .  The Codes of Welfare published by \nMPI may contain relevant information  about appropriate standards .  Requirements for reporting of \nadverse events that occur due to  facility management practic es are described in paragraph 5.6.1.  \n \n \nMassey University : Approved for the period 15 December 2023  to 14 December 2028 Page 20  \n 7 Monitoring  \n7.1 Powers of the AEC  \nThe AEC has the power of inspection of animals, their accommodation, and of animal health and \nexperimental records at any time in order to satisfy itself that procedures are being properly carried out.  Between meetings, this power is vested in the Chair (or, where appropriate, the Deputy Chair) \nor their  nominee .  Any member of the AEC can request access to animals or facilities at any time, \nsubject to the approval of the Chair or Deputy Chair.   \n7.2 Monitoring of Applications  \n7.2.1 Application s will be monitored at the discretion of the AEC .  Generally, the Animal \nWelfare Officer will undertake this role .  Written reports will be provided to the AEC .  On \ndiscussion of each report, any requirements of the AEC will be recorded in the AEC meeting minutes and communicated in writing to the chief applicant.  \n7.2.2 Both scheduled and unscheduled monitoring visits will be undertaken.  \n7.2.3 Where scheduled visits are undertaken, the A nimal Welfare Officer will inform AEC \nmembers of the visit, giving them opportunity to attend subject to their availability .  AEC \nmembers are encouraged to  attend monitoring visits.  \n7.2.4 Where RTT is conducted at University facilities, at least 10% of application s with \nmanipulations graded A and B will be monitored  on an annual basis .  All application s with \nmanipulations graded C, D and E will be monitored annually .  Where RTT is performed in \nremote locations, monitoring will be undertaken as is practicable  and at the AEC’s discretion .   \n7.2.5 Manipulations not previously monitored, those performed by new personnel and \nprojects using unfamiliar experimental models are more likely to be selected for monitoring.  \n7.3 Monitoring by Proxy  \nWhere timing or geographic location prevent direct monitoring,  the applicant may be requested to \nprovide photographic, video graphic  or written report of manipulations where the AEC is unfamiliar \nwith these  and/or where the impact grading is C, D or E.  \n7.4 Frequency of Monitoring  \nAn application  may be monitored on more than one occasion  at the discretion of the AEC .   \nMassey University : Approved for the period 15 December 2023  to 14 December 2028 Page 21  \n 7.5 End of Approval Reporting  \n7.5.1 The AEC may request a detailed report on any approved research, testing or teaching \nprocedure .  Such reports will automatically be required for any procedures where animals \nfall into Categories D and E .  Reports may also be requested for the purposes of educating \nmembers of the AEC (e.g .  where a technique that is unknown to the AEC is being used).  \n7.5.2 At the conclusion of the application , the AEC will require  the applicant to complete a \nproject feedback report and prov ide it to the Secretary .  The animal use statistics section  in \nthe on line applicat ion must also be completed .  The number of animals approved for use and \nactually used, and impact grades predicted and reported, will be compared.  \n7.6 Monitoring Animal Facilities  \nFacilities in use will be inspected routinely at least annually by the Animal Welfare Officer who will be \naccompanied by a member of the AEC as often as is possible but subject to member availability .  \nWritten reports from these inspections will be provided to the AEC.  \n8 Arrangements for External Parties to use the CEC and AEC  \nParenting agreements are not permitted.  \n9 Compliance  \n9.1.1 All Acts of Parliament, regulations and by -laws pertaining to the obtaining, holding \npossession, care and treatment of animals are to be complied with.  \n9.1.2 Any breaches of the Code, legislation, animal welfare regulations, or deviations from \nan approved application  must be reported . Breaches should  be reported as soon as possible.   \n9.1.3 Breaches of the Code should be corrected or dealt with immediately under the \ndirection of the AEC .  Breaches of a serious nature will be dealt with by the AEC in conjunction \nwith the Head of School .  Heads of School have a special responsibility to see that staff under \ntheir authority  observe  the Code.  \n9.1.4 The AEC will investigate suspected or alleged non -compliance of the Code or \nlegislation by (an) individual(s) and, where transgression of the Code is evident, instigate \ndisciplinary procedures in accordance with the principles set out in Massey University's Code \nof Responsible Research Conduct .  Other University policies that will guide the response, \nwhere relevant, are:  \n \nMassey University : Approved for the period 15 December 2023  to 14 December 2028 Page 22  \n • Massey University Student Complaints and Grievance Procedures  \n• Dispute Resolution Procedures at Massey University  \n• Massey University Policy on Staff Conduct  \n• Massey University Conflict of Commitment and Interest Policy  \n• Massey University Harassment and Discrimination at Work Policy  \n9.1.5 An offence against the Animal Welfare Act may also be reported to the MPI Animal \nWelfare compliance team  if there has been a serious impact on animal welfare.  \n9.1.6 The Animal Welfare Act 1999 provides that every person who commits an offence in \ncontravention of, or fails to comply with, any provision of the regulations is liable, on \nsummary conviction, to a fine or to imprisonment or both .  Maximum penalties for individual \nand corporate offences against the Animal Welfare Act 1999, the Animal Welfare (Records and Statistics) Regulations 1999 and other legislation and regulations that apply to the use of \nanimals for research, testing and teach ing are included in the te xt of each Act and Regulation .  \nHowever, no member of an animal ethics committee is personally liable for any act done or \nomitted by the member or the committee in good faith in the course of the operations of the \ncommittee.  \n10 Complaints Procedures  \n10.1 Animal Welfare Complaints  \nComplaints will be recorded in the AEC meeting documents and brought to the attention  of the AEC  \nto raise  aware ness .  Any complaint will be ev aluated, investigated  and, if needed , escalated to the \nProvost .  Animal welfare complaints may also be lodged with MPI, the SPCA or the Police .  Complaints \nwill be investigated as soon as practicable .  Outcomes will be recorded in the AEC meeting documents . \nIf the identity of the complainant is known  to the AEC, the outcome will be reported to them either \nverbally or in writing.  \n10.1.1  Complaints by the Public  \nA suspected offence against the Animal Welfare Act may be reported in writing to the Secretary, Chair \nor Animal Welfare Officer.  Alternatively, the public may communicate the complain t to an animal \nwelfare agency.  \n10.1.2  Complaints by Employees, Applicants and AEC Members  \nAs there is a corporate responsibility inherent in the Animal Welfare Act, it is expected that all \nUniversity personnel, whether directly involved in the conduct of a project or not, will inform the AEC \nMassey University : Approved for the period 15 December 2023  to 14 December 2028 Page 23  \n if a suspected breach of the Code is detected .  The Chair or the Animal Welfare Officer may be \ncontacted in the first instance .  (Staff may wish to refer to the section, “ Disclosure of Serious \nWrongdoing Policy and Procedures (Whistleblowe r)” within the  Massey University  Code of \nResponsible Research Conduct  to understand the protection they are afforded by the Protected \nDisclosures Act 2000 .) \n10.2 Procedural Complaints  \n10.2.1   Complaints of any nature about the activities of the AEC, its members or its decisions \nshall be notified to the Chair or the Provost  as appropriate to the circumstance .   \n10.2.2   Complaints against the Chair should be made to the Provost  (the Vice Chancellor’s \ndesignated representative), or Deputy  Chair.  \n10.2.3   The responsibility of AEC members to hold information included in applications in \nconfidence (paragraph  3.9) does not prevent AEC members from making a complaint.  \n11 Process to Amend, Suspend or Revoke the CEC  \nThe AEC may recommend to the code holder that the CE C be amended.  Minor amendments (that \ndo not affect implementation  of the CEC ) must be notified to the Director- General of MPI  at the \nbeginning of the year  (by 31 March) after which the amendment is made .  Other amendments \nmust be submitted to the Director -General for approval.  Staff affected by the change to the CEC \nwill be notified of the amendment .  Suspension or revocation of the CEC must also be ap proved \nby the Director- General.  \nMassey University : Approved for the period 15 December 2023  to 14 December 2028 Page 24  \n 12 Table of References to Documents Relevant to the Operation of \nthe Massey University Animal Ethics Committee  \n \n• Terms of Reference for the Massey University Animal Ethics Committee  \n• MPI-approved Codes of Animal Welfare  \n• Operating Plan for the Use of Restricted Veterinary Medicines by Non-Veterinarians for \nResearch, Testing or Teaching Purposes A ccording to S pecific Veterinary Operating \nInstructions at Massey University  \n• Massey University Code of Responsible Research Conduct   \n• Massey University Student Complaints and Grievance Procedures  \n• Dispute Resolution Procedures at Massey University  \n• Massey University Policy on Staff Conduct  \n• Massey University Conflict of Commitment and Interest Policy  \n• Massey University Harassment and Discrimination at Work Policy  \n• Procedures for Dealing with Requests under the Official Information Act 1982  \n• Need for Ethical Approval  Flowchart  \n• NAEAC Good Practice Guide for the Use of Animals in Research, Testing and Teaching  \n• Wildlife Act 1953  \n• Conservation Act 1987  \n• Marine Mammals Protection Act 1978  \n• Animal Welfare Act 1999  \n• Animal Welfare (Records and Statistics) Regulations 1999  \n \n• Animal Welfare (Care and Procedures) Regulations 2018  \n \n• Animal Welfare (Care and Procedures) Amendment Regulations 2020  \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Asset_Financial_Procedure_PDF_359_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Asset Financial Procedure",
      "policy_type": "Procedure",
      "file_size": "359 KB",
      "creation_date": "2023-08-11T11:04:06",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220101556+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n \nASSET FINANCIAL PROCEDURES  \n \n \n© Th ese Procedures are  the property of Massey University  \n \n \n \n \n \n  \n \nPurpose :  \nTo provide clear standards and practical guidance for the financial management of Massey University ’s (the \n“University”)  property, plant and equipment , and intangible assets .   \n \nThe procedures will  assist with financial planning of capital projects , by outlining:  \n• Costs associated  with a ctivities which  can be capitalised and activities that must be expensed to operating \naccounts .  \n• Depreciation rates for assets . \n• Project account structure and item codes . \n \nThese procedures  have been developed specifically for non -finance staff , and to ensure the University complies with \nits Statement of Accounting Policies  (section 2 ( 1) refers) .  \nProcedure s: \nThese procedure s cover Property, Plant and Equipment (PP&E) and Intangible Assets  and apply to the following : \n• Capital PP&E where the asset purchase cost exceeds  the capital isation  threshold of  $2,000.  \n• Capital intangible assets where the asset purchase cost exceeds  the capital isation  threshold of  $20,000 ; and  \n• Non-capital  PP&E and intangible assets where the purchase cost is below capital isation  thresholds  \n(expensed as operating items) . \n \nThese procedure s exclude t he asset classes  listed below . Budget centre managers must consult with Finance on the \ncapitalisation and operating assumptions associated with these asset classes.  \n• Biological Assets .  \n• Intellectual Property . \n• Development of educational course or course materials ; and   \n• Determination of library collection tangible and intangible assets . \n \nThe definitions on pages 8 -9 of this procedure provide further explanation of the technical terms used i n this \ndocument.  \n \nFor additional guidance on th ese procedure s please consult with Finance representatives.  \n \n \n \n \n  Section  Finance  \nContact  Financial Reporting Manager  \nLast Review  July 2023 \nNext Review  July 2026 \nApproval  SLT 16/06/111  \n \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nAsset Financial Procedure  – Page 2  \n \n© These Procedures  are the property of Massey University  \nSection 1 Management of Assets  \n1. Ownership  \nAll Assets  funded or otherwise acquired by the University  are owned by the University and not by a specific \nindividual, department , or other operating unit . Generally, the University has sole ownership of all assets  \nacquired regardless of source of funding or method of acquisition .  This includes equipment funded from \nresearch surpluses or other income, with the following exceptions:  \na. Equipment acquired through sponsored projects where the government or  other sponsor retains title \nto the equipment or where the s ponsor provides  equipment merely for the duration of the project ; or \nb. Equipment on short -term loan from another institution ; or \nc. Equipment aligned with an academic’s research, where th e equipment is owned by the supplier o r \nother sponsor ; or \nd. Leased assets . \n2. Responsibility  \na. All University employees are responsible for protecting University assets  entrusted to the m and for \nhelping to safeguard  University assets in general. This responsibility includes the proper care and  \nmaintenance  of assets, and  guard ing against  loss, damage,  or theft, and extends to assets in the \ntemporary care of the University.  \nb. Budget centre managers are ultimately responsible for the management and safe keeping of all \nequipment and other assets  assigned to their department , school,  or institute  budget centre .  \nc. Assets should only be used for university  business purposes and in accordance with university  \npolicies.  \nd. Research contract supervisors are responsible for ensuring research funded equipment is used in \naccordance with the research contract  and as agreed by the funding agency.  \n3. Approvals to Purchase  Assets  \na. All expenditure  on Assets  must have an approved budget before an asset is procured.  \nb. Approved budgets are released through the  University budget process for operating items  and \nRequest for Financial Authority  (RFA) process  for capital assets  or by a specific memorandum f rom \nthe Deputy Vice-Chancellor University Services  (DVC US). \nc. The purchase of a ssets must be  planned and  procured in accordance with the Procurement Policy, \nProcurement and Contracts Governance Board Terms of Reference,  Asset  Investment  Policy, \nBusiness Case Policy, and Delegations of Authority Policy . \nd. Planning,  budgeting and financial management for capital projects and assets  will be undertaken in \naccordance  with the Capital Planning , Approval  and Management  Procedure s, and Project \nManagement Policy and Framework . \n4. Asset Transfers  \na. Internal Transfers  \ni. Internal transfers apply to capital assets  recorded on the University financ e asset register  (the \nAsset Register)  \nii. Transfers between budget centres  (i.e., University departments, schools,  and institutes ) are \nrequired  to ensure correct assignment of management responsibilities and depreciation.  \niii. An Asset Transfer  Form must be completed  and submit ted to Finance . Forms are available \non the Finance intranet site.  \nb. External Transfers  \n \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nAsset Financial Procedure  – Page 3  \n \n© These Procedures  are the property of Massey University  \ni. Asset transfers from /to external organisations shall be generally treated as a  purchase or  \nsale,  with the agreed purchase or  sales price of the transferred item recorded  by Finance  on \nthe asset register . If treated as a non -financial transfer between related agencies, it is \nrecorded at its original historical cost a t acquisition date . \nc. Loan Equipment  \ni. Loan of University owned equipment , exceeding $5,000 in value  and for periods  of one \nmonth or more,  to external organisations shall be notified  via email  to: \n1. Finance , for accounting purposes (assystNET - Financial Reporting Enquiry \n(axiossystems.com ) and   \n2. Insurance Advisor , for insurance purposes  (assystNET - Insurance \n(axiossystems.com) ).    \nThe budget centre lending the equipment must provide details of who the equipment is \nloaned to, its location , the equipment asset number and when the equipment is to be returned \nto the University .  \nii. Equipment borrowed from external organisations must  be insured by the owner  of the \nequipment against loss, damage,  or theft . The budget centre manager will maintain a register  \nof borrowed equipment indicat ing who owns the equipment  and where it is located . \niii. The Procurement Office can assist in developing an appropriate loan agreement where \nnecessary . \n5. Disposals , Damaged  and Stolen Assets  \na. Assets no  longer required , not serviceable  or not providing an economic benefit  to the University must \nbe disposed of in accordance with  the Asset Disposal and W rite Down  Policy , and consistent with \nsound environmental management, in accordance with the Environmental Policy . \nb. Asset disposals are subject to the specific requirements under the Education Act 1989  section 192 ( 4) \n(a). Ministry of Education approval is required for the disposal of assets above a calculated Asset \nDisposal Limit (ADL) . For additional guidance on this calculation please consult with Finance \nrepresentatives   \nc. Disposals, damaged or s tolen assets  that are recorded  on the  asset register  must be reported to \nFinance who will amend the register  and make  subsequent adjustments  to depreciation . An Asset  \nDisposal  form is  available on the Finance intranet site.  \nd. Information and Communication Technology ( ICT) equipment eligible for disposal,  damaged , stolen \nor no longer required, must also be  returned , or if stolen, reported to Information Technology Services \n(ITS) in accordance with the ICT equipment disposal procedures . Refer to the ITS  web page for \ndetails . \ne. Damaged assets must  have their value o n the asset register appropriately reduced before any \nremediati on or replacement PP&E is capitalised  to ensure the  book value does not significantly \nexceed the ass et’s fair market value . Refer to Section 2 ( 7) and definitions . \nf. Damaged or Stolen assets must also be reported  to the Insurance Advisor  using the following Askus \nlink assystNET - Insurance (axiossystems.com) .   \ni. Information relating the deductible applicable to each asset category can be obtain ed from \nthe Insurance Advisor using the Askus link above .  \nii. The deductible must be paid from the budget allocations of the department.  \ng. Proceeds from asset sales will be reported under the University Central budget centre and will only \nbe available as additional funds with the approva l of the DVC US. \n \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nAsset Financial Procedure  – Page 4  \n \n© These Procedures  are the property of Massey University  \n6. Physical Verification of Assets  \na. Budget centre managers must annually verify the existence of equipment and intangible assets \nassigned to their department, school,  or institute.  For additional guidance on this verification please \nconsult with Finance representatives  \nb. Finance will undertake a verification of building and infrastructure assets as part of the asset re -\nvaluation procedure . A building and infrastructure re -valuation is typically undertaken at least every \nthree  years.   \nc. Damaged, missing, or obsolete assets must be reported in accordance with Section 1  (5) Disposals, \nDamaged or Stolen Assets and Section 2 (6) Impairment.  \nSection 2 Measurement and Recording of Assets  \n \n1. Statement of Accounting Policies  \na. The valuation and recording of Assets is undertaken in accordance with the University Accounting \nPolicies and financial reporting standards . \nb. The statement of accounting policies is included in the University Annual Reports . These policies  are \naligned to Public Benefit Entities International  Public  Sector Accounting  Standards ( PBE IPSAS ). \nhttps://www.massey.ac.nz/about/governance -and-leadership/strategies -plans -and-annual -reports/  \n2. Capitalisation  \na. Capitalisation is the conversion of cash assets  into PP&E or intangible assets with future economic \nvalue to the University . Capitalisation is applied to Assets with a useful life greater than one year and \nexceed ing the capitalisation thresholds  (Section 2 (3) refers ). \nb. Accumulation of capital costs does not commence until the full business case has been approved by \nSLT and, if over $ 5.0m, by the University Council.  \nc. Preliminary project costs (prior to business case approval) and post completion costs (after \nimplementation of practical completion) cannot be capitalised and must be ex pensed when incurred \n(Appendices C, D and E refer).  \nd. Capitalisation occurs when practical completion is achieved,  and the asset is “ available for use .”   \ne. Assets  with diminished  useful life  resulting from delays between procurement and ‘ in use’  operation , \nin particular electronic technology,  will be subject to impairment due to technological obsolescence \n(Section 2(6) refers).  \nf. Capital costs are accumulated in individual project accounts as work in progress (WIP)  until \ncapitalisation occurs . \ng. Project managers must capitalise a project when the asset is “ available for use .’  Where projects are \ncompleted in stages, each ‘ available for use ’ stage must be capitalised. Capitalisation forms and staff \ncontact details are availab le from the Finance intranet site.  \n  \n \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nAsset Financial Procedure  – Page 5  \n \n© These Procedures  are the property of Massey University  \n3. Capitalisation Threshold s \na. The capitalisation  threshold is the minimum financial value (the asset ’s purchase cost excluding GST) \nat which an asset must be added to the University asset register  and recorded on the balance sheet.  \nb. PP&E are capitalised  when the value of an individual item or the value of an Asset Set is greater than \n$2,000. \nc. Intangible A ssets are  capitalised  when the value of an individual item or Asset Set is greater than \n$20,000 . \nd. Assets must have a Useful Life of greater than one year to be capitalised . \ne. Expenditure splitting to fall below the capitalisation threshold is not permitted . \nf. Operating items  including low value Assets below the capitalisation thresholds defined in  3b and 3c \nmust be expensed to an operating budget  and are not recorded on the asset register . \n4. Determining What Expenses ( Costs) Can Be Capitalised  \na. In determining what  costs  can be capitalised  the general rule is : \ni. Do the goods or services being supplied, materially add to the fair market value of an existing \nasset such as increase the asset’s capacity  or remaining life , enhance,  or add additional \nfeatures to the asset  or estab lish a new asset?  \nii. Do the goods or services exceed the capitalisation thresholds ? Section 2 ( 3) refers.  \niii. Examples of project capital and operating expenses are provided for:  \nBuilding and Infrastructure Project s (Appendix C ).  \nSoftware Projects (Appendix D) ; and  \nEquipment Project s (Appendix E) . \nb. Projects will include  both operating and capital costs , and b usiness cases  must budget for both . \nBusiness cases must clearly separate  capital and operating expenditure associated with projects.  \nc. Budget centre managers and project managers will consult with Finance to determine the correct \nallocation of capital and operating expenditure . \nd. Operating costs included in project contracts shall be identified and expensed  to operating  budgets  in \nthe year they are incurred  (E.g., building and landscape maintenance costs , software maintenance \ncosts  which don’t meet the intangible asset recognition c riteria etc.). \ne. Software upgrades implemented to maintain an existing system ’s support  and not add ing significant \nnew functionally cannot be capitalised and must be expensed in the year incurred . \nf. Software upgrades implemented that are greater than $20,000 and that enhance the system, add \nnew features, increase capacity , increase useful  life, or form part of a contractual agreement with the \nvendor  can be capitalised . \ng. Software purchased to operate instruments or machines, where the software is integral  to the \noperation of the equipment should be capitalised as a part of the equipment, as PP& E (e.g., \nComputer operating systems should be capitalised with the computer hardware ). \nh. Software purchased under licence and forming an integral  part of the development and \nimplementation of a software solution ( e.g., Student Management System) shall be capitalised a s part \nof the internally generated intangible asset . \ni. Training materials, and technical manuals  developed  may be capitalised as a part of the related \nasset.  \nj. Annual licence costs for a Software as a Service (SaaS) solution cannot be capitalised . Development , \ncustomisation, and implementation costs associated with a SaaS solution also cannot be capitalised . \nThere are certain exceptions, such as if the configuration is controlled by the University and it can \neasily be transferred to a new system. Co ntact Finance for further advice.  \n \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nAsset Financial Procedure  – Page 6  \n \n© These Procedures  are the property of Massey University  \nk. Any direct costs associated with creating an area of biological plantings can be capitalised.  \n5. Depreciation and Amortisation  \na. Depreciation is the recognition of the cost of use, wear and tear or obsolesc ence of an asset over its \nuseful life . Depreciation also serves as a cash management tool whereby a portion of University’s \ncash inflows is set aside for the renewal or replacement of assets.  \nb. Depreciation is charged  against  PP&E  recorded o n the asset register , with the exc eption of land  and \nartwork .  \ni. Depreciation on campus facilities and utilities infrastructure  is charged  to a Facilities \nManagement budget centre . \nii. Depreciation on  Desktop Computer Fleet , National  ICT infrastructure  and University wide \nbusiness systems  is charged to an Information Technology Services budget centre . \niii. Depreciation on other capital  assets  including research equipment  is charged to the budget \ncentre with responsibility for managing the asset.  \nc. Amortisation  is applicable to  the obsolescence of non -physical assets  and is charged on all intangible \ncapital assets . \ni. Amortisation of software for university  wide business systems is charged to an Information \nTechnology Services budget centre . \nii. Amortisation  of software dedicated to a  budget centre s activity  is charged to that budget \ncentre .  \nd. Managers  undertaking capital projects , and business case developers  preparing capital cases , must \nconsult with the budget centre managers where the  depreciation and amortisation impact.  \ne. Assets will only be capitalised and depreciated if they have a useful life of greater than one year \n(subject to other thresholds and requirements) . \nf. Appendix A provides a summary of the asset classes, indicative useful lives of assets and indicative \ndepreciation rates . \n6. Impairment  \na. An asset is financially  impaired  (reduced in value)  if the depreciated value ( also refer red to as the \ncarrying amount or net book value) on the asset register exceeds  the recoverable amount . \nRecoverable amount is the greater of the fair market value  (less sale costs) , or value to the University \nwhen the asset is in use. \nb. Impairment can occur if the asset is aged, damaged, obsolete, no  longer providing an economic \nbenefit or through a decline in the market value . The level of impairment will typically be determined \nbased on the market value .  \nc. Asset managers and budget centre managers must  advise Finance of any known asset impairment  \naffecting the usability of the Asset or reduc ing its value . \nd. University assets will be reviewed for impairments annually  by Finance . \n7. Recording and Reporting  Capital Expenditure  \na. Accurate  financial  and project  records  must be maintained and retained  in accordance with the \nFinancial Monitoring and Control Policy and the Information and Record Management Policy . These \npolicies are aligned with legislative compliance.  \nb. Asset costs must be assigned to the correct finance accou nt and item codes , for the activity being \nundertaken.  This ensures  costs against individual assets are accurately reflected .  \ni. Account codes will be provided as either standing account codes for minor equipment \npurchases or specific project codes provided through the RFA process.  \n \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nAsset Financial Procedure  – Page 7  \n \n© These Procedures  are the property of Massey University  \nii. 6000 series item codes shall be used for all capital  project or programme  costs . Appendi x B \nprovides a schedule of item codes.  \niii. Item code 2018 should only be used for discrete  capital purchases where the capital cost \ndoes not form part of a larger project or programme.  \nc. Internal staff costs charged to capital projects must be clearly attributable , by staff member, to \nindividual projects or the costs will  be expensed  to operating budgets when incurred.  \nd. Financial planning, forecasting and management of projects should be completed on both an accrual s \nbasis  and a cash  flow basi s: \ni. An accrual s basis is budgeting and forecasting  expenditure in  the month in which the work is \nundertaken . This is particularly  important for year-end (31 December ) where costs incurred in \nthe current year, but not paid , must be accrued  to ensure the accuracy of annual accounts .  \nii. Project s will generally be reported  on a cash flow basis i.e., forecasting expenditure i n the \nmonth when pay ment is made to  the supplier .  \n1. When forecasting cash flows , project managers must make allowance  for university \npurchase order approval and invoice processing  times. \n2. Payments to suppliers and service providers are made on 20th of the month  following \nthe invoice date  and must be received by Accounts Payable  5 working days prior  in \norder to be paid in the next payment run . The only exception is contract payments \nbeing paid in  line with the terms and  conditions of the contract.  Invoices should be \nsent to  [email protected] .  \niii. Project managers are required to complete monthly project cash flow reports  and quarterly \nproject status reports , or submit special  reports  as requested . \niv. Project managers must advise Finance when  there are  material changes , within the approved \nbudget,  to the monthly cash flow forecasts  greater than $250,000  in a calendar month . \nReporting is required to optimise the management of university  finances.  \nv. Project managers must advise Finance when forecasts or actual  expense s exceed the \napproved project budget by $50,000 or 10% whichever is less. \ne. Financial transfers  (journals) between project accounts or between project and general ledger \naccounts shall be fully transparent to ensure the correct allocation of capital and operating \nexpenditure.  \ni. Journals must have an accurate description reflecting:  \n1. the nature of the expenditure , and  \n2. the source or destination account  for each credit a nd debit transaction as applicable.  \nii. Journals transactions may be : \n1. One-to-one account  and item code  transfers , or \n2. One account  and item code, to one account and  many item code  transfers .  \niii. Using journals to consolidate transactions (many to one) is not permitted.  \n \n1. Appendix A – Asset Class and Useful Life Summary  \n2. Appendix B – Schedule of Capital Account Codes  \n3. Appendix C  – Operating vs. Capital Construction Project Examples  \n4. Appendix D  – Operating vs. Capital Software Project Example  \n5. Appendix E  – Operating vs. Capital Equipment Project Example  \n \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nAsset Financial Procedure  – Page 8  \n \n© These Procedures  are the property of Massey University  \nDefinitions : \nAmortisation  \n Similar to depreciation  as defined below , amortisation is the recognition of the cost of obsolescence \nfor intangible assets . \nAssets  \n Property, plant,  and equipment  (PP&E) or intangible asset s as defined in this definitions section.  \nAsset Set   \nA ‘set ’ of assets is :  \n• a group or pool of like assets having the same useful life , and where the value of the individual \nitems is less than $ 2,000 , (e.g., a class set of microscopes ), or \n• a group of components mak ing up a singular system where component interdependency exists \nfor the system to operate effectively  (e.g., Instrumentation  and its application software necessary \nto operate the instrument effectively ). \n• This does not include items of a consumable nature or items that can be readily destroyed in the \ncourse of normal use  (e.g., survey forms or plastic pipet tes).  \nAn “Asset Set” is recorded on the asset register as a single entry with notation indicating the \nseparable components or the number of like items (e.g., 25 desktop computers with single monitors ). \nCapital Expense  \n• The f ixed, one -time expenses incurred on the purchase of an asset used in the production of \ngoods or in the delivery of services , or \n• The total cost needed to bring a project to a commercially operable status . \nCapitalisation  \n Capitalisation is the conversion of cash assets into PP&E or intangible assets which have  future value \nto the University,  and which are then recorded  on the F inanc e asset register and  on the University \nbalance sheet . \nDepreciation  \nDepreciation is the apportionment of the cost of an asset over its useful life, in recognition that an \nassets value reduces due to use, wear and tear or obsolescence .  \nDevel opment   \nDevelopment is the application of research findings or other knowledge to a plan or design for the \nproduction of  new or substantially improved materials, devices, products, processes, systems,  or \nservices before the start of commercial production or use .  Development costs may be capitalise d. \nFair Market Value  \n Fair market value (FMV) is the price an asset  would sell  for on the open market. It is the price that \nwould be agreed on between a willing buyer and a willing seller, with neither being required to act and  \nwith both having reasonable knowledge of the relevant facts . \nFixed Asset  \nPP&E (property, plant,  and equipment)  are tangible items:  \n• Held for use in the production or supply of goods or services, for rental to others, or for \nadministrative purposes; and  having  an economic useful life exceeding one year . \n• That are  a capital  asset when an individual item or Asset Set  exceed s $2,000.  \nAvailable for Use  \nThe date when an asset becomes  available for its intended use .  \n \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nAsset Financial Procedure  – Page 9  \n \n© These Procedures  are the property of Massey University  \nIntangible Asset  \nAn intangible  asset  is an identifiable non -monetary asset without physical substance .  \n \nAn asset is identifiable if it either:  \n(a) Is separable, i.e., is capable of being separated or divided from the entity and sold, transferred, \nlicensed, rented, or exchanged, either ind ividually or together with a related contract, identifiable \nasset,  or liability, regardless of whether the entity intends to do so; or  \n(b) Arises from binding arrangements (including rights from contracts or other legal rights), regardless \nof whether those  rights are transferable or separable from the entity or from other rights and \nobligations  \n \nIntangible  assets are classified as computer software, websites, licenses and permits, patents, \ncopyrights and trademarks, rights -of-way and easements, natural resources extraction rights, and \nother intangible assets .  \n \nIntangible assets   \n• Are an intangible capital  asset when an individual item  or Asset Set  exceed s $20,000 , is \nidentifiable as either (a) or (b) above , and where the University can control the future \neconomic benefits flowing from the underlying asset and can restrict the access of others to \nthose benefits . \nOperating i tem \n A non -capital  low value  item, of property, plant or equipment or an intangible asset , used for no rmal \nbusiness operations : \n• That has an economic life of less than one year ; or \n• An individual asset or asset set where the purchase cost is below the capitalisation threshold ; \nor \n• An Item where the purchase cost is  below the capitalisation threshold  is expensed in the \nfinancial year the cost is incurred.  \nOperating Expense  \n The day-to-day costs of running  the U niversity  including , but not limited to, salaries, consumables, \ntravel, rentals, repairs and maintenance, utilities,  and depreciation .  \nPractical Completion  \n The time when the contract works,  or contract is complete, notwithstanding minor outstanding items .  \nResearch   \nResearch is original and planned investigation undertaken with the prospect of gaining new scientific \nor technical knowledge  and understanding . Research is an operating expense and cannot be \ncapitalised.  \nUseful Life   \nThe period over which an asset is expected to be available for use , i.e., years in service before \ndisposal , or years in service before reinstatement  or renewal  is required .  \n  \n \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nAsset Financial Procedure  – Page 10  \n \n© These Procedures  are the property of Massey University  \nAudience : \nMassey University and its controlled entities  \nCapital Programme and Project Managers  \nBudget Centre Man agers  \nManagers  of University Assets  \nRelevant legislation : \nFinanc ial Reporting Act 2013  \nCrown Entities Act 2004  \nPublic Finance A ct 1989  \nNew Zealand International Financial Reporting Standard s (NZ IFRS)  \nPublic Benefit Entities’ International Public Sector Accounting Standard s (PBE IPSAS)  \nLegal compliance : \nNil in relation to this procedure  \nRelated procedures / documents : \nUniversity Accounting Policies  \nAsset Disposal and Write  Down Policy  \nEnvironmental Policy  \nAsset Investment Policy  \nBusiness Case Policy  \nDelegations of Authority  Policy  \nProcurement Policy and Procedures  \nProject Management Policy and Framework  \nProcurement and Contracts Governance Board Terms of Reference and Processes  \nFinancial Monitoring and Control Policy  \nInformation and Record Management Policy  \nDocument Management Control:  \nPrepared  by:  Financial Reporting Manager  for the Chief Financial Officer  \nAuthorised by:  Deputy Vice-Chancellor  University Services  \nDate issued:  November 2016  \nLast review:  July 2023 \nNext review:  July 2026 \n \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nAsset Financial Procedure  – Page 11  \n \n© These Procedures  are the property of Massey University  \nAppendix A  - Asset Classes , Useful Life  and Depreciation  Summary  \n \nAsset Class:  \nProperty, Plant and Equipment  Indicative \nUseful \nLife Indicative \nDepreciation \nRate  Notes  \nLand  indefinite  N/A \n  The land  \n Land developments in cluding levelling and drainage.  \n Grass, shrubbery,  and trees  \nReticulation  10 years to \n80 years  10% to 1.25%  \n  Pavements, Roads, Footpaths  \n Water Supply, Sewerage, Storm water  \n Gas and Electricity Supply  \n Communications Supply  \n Fences  \n Reticulated Services between buildings  \nBuildings Structure  10 years to \n100 Years  10% to 1%  \n  The basic shell of the building, foundations, structural \nmembers,  floor slabs, permanent walls  \n Exterior Cladding, Roof,  and Windows  \nTypically,  50 to 75 years (2% to 1.5%)  \nBuildings Fit out  10 years to \n33 years  10% to 3.3%  \n  Interior walls and doors not part of the main structure \nand by nature have a shorter useful  life than the main \nstructure.  \n Upgradeable non -core services such as kitchens, \nJoinery, parti tioning and suspended ceilings.  \n Carpets, Vinyl, wall  coverings and ceiling  \n Blinds, Fittings and Fixtures  \nBuildings Services  10 years to \n40 Years  10% to 2.5%   \n  Cabling for electrical, emergency lighting  and \ncommunications in building  \n Water Supply and sewer within Building  \n HVAC piping, ducting  \n Fire Protection  \n BMS , Security  and Assess Systems  \n Compre ssed Air distribution services  \n Gas and Gas Scavenge distribution services  \nBuildings Plant  8 years to \n20 years  12.5% to 5%  Covers permanent pieces of plant installed into the \nstructure  of the building, specifically.  \n Air conditioning, Chillers  and Freezers  \n Automatic Opening Doors  \n HW Cylinders,  Heating Boilers and Radiators  \n Elevators/Lifts  \n Ventilati on Systems and Automatic Windows  \n Fume Cupb oards and Chemical Cabinets  \n Building management and Security hardware  \n Emergency Lighting Units  \n Compressors/ Gas Scavenge Plant/ Generators  \nLease Hold Improvements  10 years or \nless 10% to 50%  Fit out of leased facilities . Useful life and depreciation \nrates should align with the term of the lease.  \nEquipment  3 years to \n20 years  33% to 5%  AV Systems  / Instruments/Simulators  / Appliances  / \nPortable  Appliances  / Network Switches  / Wireless \nTransmitters  / Telephones / Cameras / Lamps / Trolleys  \nComputers  4 years  25% Servers  / Desktops  / Laptop  / Tablets  \n \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nAsset Financial Procedure  – Page 12  \n \n© These Procedures  are the property of Massey University  \nAsset Class:  \nProperty, Plant and Equipment  Indicative \nUseful \nLife Indicative \nDepreciation \nRate  Notes  \nFurniture  5 years to \n20 years  20% to 5%  Tables  / Chairs  / Stools  / Couches  / Shelving  / Cabinets  / \nNotice Boards  / White Boards  / Display and File C abinets  \nMotor Vehicles  4 years to \n20 years  25% to 5 % Cars  / Vans  / General Trailers  / Quad B ikes / Tractors  / \nTrucks  \n20 years for tractors  \nAircraft  3 years  to \n30 years  3% to 30%  Aircraft / Spare E ngines  \nImplements  10 Years to \n20 Years  10% to 5 % Ploughs  / Harrows  / Injection drills  / Sprayers  / Mowers  / \nFeeders  / Spreaders  / Tipping Trailers  / etc. \nLibrary Collection  10 years  10% Physical Books  / Serials (electronic versions are \ncapitalised under Intangible Assets)  \nArtwork  Collections  indefinite  N/A Paintings  / Prints / Photos  / Jewellery  / Porcelain  / Silver \nCollection  / Sculpture  / Objet d'art  \nCollections  Consult \nFinance  Consult \nFinance  Other collections of significance / Herbarium, Special \nTeaching Artefacts and S pecimens  \nBiological Plantings  Indefinite  N/A Native, or exotic plantings, not intended for harvest, or \nconversion into agricultural products, but created for \nenvironmental or other purposes.  \nFeasibility Studies, early  concepts, \nBusiness Cases, start -up costs  N/A N/A Research phase / procurement / contract negotiations are \noperating expenses  \n \n \nAsset Class:  \nIntangible Assets  Indicative \nUseful Life  Indicative \nDepreciation \nRate  Notes  \nSoftware Licences  3 years to 5 \nyears  33% to 20%  Purchase of Licenses  (including significant upgrades \nwhich are greater than $20,000 and are an identifiable \nintangible asset  – refer to definition ), excluding annual \nmaintenance fees and support costs . Useful life and \ndepreciation rates should align with licence term.  \nSoftware Development  4 years to 1 6 \nyears  25% to 6% Programming  / Coding of S oftware  \nSoftware Configuration  4 years to 10 \nyears  25% to 10%  Setting Parameters / Configure DB / Configure Screens / \nWorkflows / Establishing R eports  \nSoftware Implementation  4 years to 10 \nyears  25% to 10%  Project Management / Change Management / UAT/ \nQuality Assurance /  Development of Technical M anuals  \nOther Intangible assets  Consult \nFinance  Consult \nFinance  Easements  \nLibrary electronic collections  10 years  10% e-Books / e -serials (physical versions are capitalised \nunder PP&E as above)  \nFeasibility Studies and Business \nCases and start -up costs  N/A N/A Research phase / procurement / contract negotiations  are \noperating expenses  \nNote:  Software intangible assets are recorded under a single asset class ‘Software’ in the University Financ e asset register.   \n \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nAsset Financial Procedure  – Page 13  \n \n© These Procedures  are the property of Massey University  \nAppendix B – Capital Expense  Item Codes  for Project (PR) Accounts  \n \nItem Code  Item Description  Notes  \n*****-2018  Capital Works in Progress   Capital Works in Progress  \n*****-2998  Maintenance Write Off   Operating costs expensed out of capital projects  \n*****-2999  Asset Capitalisation   Item code used for the capitalisation of capital projects  \n      \n*****-6101  Demolition/Site Preparation  Selected accounts need to be set up for each project  \n*****-6102  Civil Works    \n*****-6103  Building Works    \n*****-6104  Infrastructure Services    \n*****-6105  Site Works    \n*****-6106  Internal Infrastructure    \n*****-6107  IT Feeder Infrastructure and connections    \n*****-6108  Mechanical Services    \n*****-6109  BMS Services  Building Management Systems (Automatic Controls)  \n*****-6110  Electrical Services    \n*****-6111  Fire Services    \n*****-6112  Security Services    \n*****-6113  Landscaping    \n*****-6114  Directory Boards/Signage    \n*****-6115  Master Key System    \n*****-6116  Design Contingency    \n*****-6117  Other Separate Contract    \n*****-6118  Refrigeration Services    \n      \n*****-6201  Consents and Statutory Charges    \n*****-6202  Contract Works Insurance    \n*****-6203  Principle Consultant Services    \n*****-6204  Structural Consultant Services    \n*****-6205  Services Consultant Services    \n*****-6206  Civil Works Consultant Services    \n*****-6207  Landscaping Consultant Services    \n*****-6208  Quantity Surveying Services    \n*****-6209  Cost Management Services  Quantity  surveying and ICT estimators  \n*****-6210  Construction Programming    \n*****-6211  Construction Management    \n*****-6212  Project Management  Includes PM, project director, programme manager, and \nproject coordination  \n*****-6213  Post Occupancy Evaluation  Opex Cost  to be expensed in the year incurred  \n \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nAsset Financial Procedure  – Page 14  \n \n© These Procedures  are the property of Massey University  \nItem Code  Item Description  Notes  \n*****-6214  Other Specialist Services    \n      \n*****-6301  Temporary Works  Opex elements must be expensed in the year incurred  \n*****-6302  Decanting  Only construction related costs  \n*****-6303  Relocation Expenses  Opex Cost to be expensed in the year incurred  \n      \n*****-6401  Furniture and Equipment    \n*****-6402  Audio Visual Equipment    \n*****-6403  Computers and Printers    \n*****-6404  IT Services Infrastructure    \n*****-6405  IT Active Component, Telephones, etc.   \n*****-6406  University Infrastructure Internal Charg e Opex Costs  to be expensed in the year incurred  \n*****-6407  Specialist Equipment    \n*****-6408  Artworks    \n*****-6409  Other Items    \n      \n*****-6501  Fluctuations in cost    \n      \nIntangible Assets  \n*****-6601  Software Purchase and Licences  Direct purchase of software and initial licence costs  \nSignificant  software upgrades, i.e., > $20,000 and are an \nidentifiable intangible asset – refer to definition  \n*****-6602  Solution Design  Internal and External staff, Vendor consultants, BAs directly \ninvolved in the solution design and specification  \n*****-6603  Solution Configuration  Internal and External staff, Vendor consultants, BAs directly \ninvolved in software configuration  \n*****-6604  Solution Development and Customisation  Internal and External staff, Vendor consultants, BAs directly \ninvolved in programming, API, customisations, interfaces  \n*****-6605  Data Migration  Internal and External staff, Vendor consultants, BAs directly \ninvolved in data cleansing, normalisation,  and migration  \n*****-6606  Solution Testing  Internal and External staff, Vendor consultants, BAs directly \ninvolved in software testing including development and UAT  \n*****-6607  Technical Manuals  Costs associated with the development of technical manuals . \n(Actual staff training cannot  be capitalised)  \n*****-6608  Release Management and Deployment  Internal and External staff, Vendor consultants, BAs directly \ninvolved in the software implementation  \n*****-6609  Quality Assurance  External Project QA and IQA  \n*****-6610  Other External Specialists  E.g., Change Managers  \n \n \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nAsset Financial Procedure  – Page 15  \n \n© These Procedures  are the property of Massey University  \nAppendix C – Operating vs . Capital Expenditure: Building  and Infrastructure Case Example  \nTechnical: Fixed Assets – Property, Plant and Equipment  \nApplication: Building Construction and Renovation projects, Infrastructure projects  \nPreliminary Project Stage and            \nAll Other Stages  Development and           \nImplementation Stages Post Implementation and        \nOperating Stage s \nExpense to Operating Budget  Capitalise  Expense to Operating Budget  \nPre-business case costs  \nInvestment logic mapping  \nBusiness case preparation  \nCosts relating to project governance  Design of the chosen path including  \nprofessional fees , compliance costs  \nArchitects, engineers, QS, project \nmanager.   \nBusiness case review  Project quality assurance  Post completion review  \nStart -up costs  \nFeasibility studies, concepts,  and \nevaluation of alternatives  Site preparation ,  \nDemolition costs only when aligned with \nreinstatement of the asset.  \nInitial delivery and handling  costs  Costs of demolition , removal,  and \nrelocation of assets  generally  \nFinal selection of alternatives  \nProcurement  \nContract negotiations and legal costs  Installation and assembly costs  \nConstruction costs  \nLandscape design and installation  \nSignage design and installation  Staff reorganisation and relocation costs  \n \nGeneral administration , overheads,  and \ntravel costs  (including budget \ndevelopment and monitoring)  Staff costs directly contributing to  \ndesign, project management and \nconstruction  (Note 2) Marketing or promotional  costs  \nOpening a new facility   \nStaff travel costs  \nTraining of designers, engineers etc.  \nConferences and travel costs  Development of O&M manuals and \ntraining materials   \nCosts of testing whether  the asset is \nfunctioning properly  Training of users  \nTravel and accommodation costs  \nCatering for project team  Waste management, cleaning and \nutilities  associated with the construction  On-going cleaning, waste management  \nutility costs, repairs and maintenance \ncosts , landscape,  and grounds costs  \n(Note 1)  \nThese opex costs also apply to the \ndevelopment and implementation stage  Furniture, fittings,  and equipment (See \nAppendix E for details)  Equipment repairs and maintenance  \n \nNote 1:  On-going repairs, maintenance and operating  costs for buildings, infrastructure and grounds mu st be expensed  in the year \nthe expense  is incurred, irrespective  of their inclusion in a capital construction or i nstallation  contract.  \n \nNote 2: “The cost of an item of property, plant and equipment shall be recognised as an asset if and only if … (b) The  cost or fair \nvalue of the item can be measured reliably ” (PBE IPSAS 17 para 14) . Therefore,  internal  staff costs charged to projects must be \nclearly attributable  to individual projects or such costs will  be re-expensed  to operating budgets when incurred .  \n \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nAsset Financial Procedure  – Page 16  \n \n© These Procedures  are the property of Massey University  \nAppendix D – Operating vs. Capital Expenditure: Software Case Example  \nTechnical : Intangible Assets - An internally generated intangible asset  \nApplication: Business systems development projects  \nPreliminary Project Stage and            \nAll Other Stages  Development and           \nImplementation Stage s Post Implementation and        \nOperating Stage s \nExpense to Operating Budget  Capitalise  Expense to Operating Budget  \nPre-business case costs  \nInvestment logic mapping  \nBusiness case  preparation   \nResearch phase  \nSaaS development, implementation, \nconfiguration,  and interfaces  (subject to \ncertain exceptions)  Design of the chosen path including \ndevelopment of detailed requirements, \nsoftware configuration and interfaces .  Software as a Service  (SaaS)  annual \nlicence costs \nBusiness case review  Project quality assurance  Post completion review  \nEvaluation of alternatives  \n Software licenses and installation  Annual support costs   \nSoftware maintenance costs  \nFinal selection of alternatives  \nProcurement  \nContract negotiations and associated \nlegal costs  Software  purchased or developed  to \nmigrate old information to the new \nsystem.  \nFees to register a le gal right  Data cleansing and normalis ation  of old \ndata for the new system . \n \nGeneral administration and overheads  \n(including budget development and \nmonitoring)  Catering for project team.  \nStationery  Coding,  programming, systems t esting  \nand UAT  (wherever backfill cost is \nincurred ) \nStaff costs directly contributing to \ndesign, project management and \nimplementation  (Note 3) Application maintenance , operating , \nbackups and  DB admin istration . \nInternally generated brands, publishing \ntitles, lists of users of a service.  \nTraining of developers   \nConferences and travel costs  Development of technical manuals  and \ntraining materials  Training of users  \nTravel and accommodation  costs  \nStart -up costs  \nIdentified inefficiencies and initial \noperating losses incurred before the  \nasset achieves planned performance  Upgrades to add new modules or \nsignificant enhancements in functionality  Upgrades to maintain a support ed \napplication.   \n \nCost relating to project governance \ngroups  Hardware/equipment to support  the \nsoftware  (See Appendix E for details)  Equipment repairs and maintenance  \nStakeholder meetings   Staff r eorganising costs  \nSoftware purchased  to operate instruments or machines, where the software is integral  to the operation of the equipment should be \ncapitalised as property, plant,  and equipment . Computer operating systems should be capitalised with the computer hardware.  \nNote 3: If an entity cannot distinguish the research phase from the development phase  of an internal project to create an intangible \nasset, the entity treats the  expenditure as if it were incu rred in the research phase only  (PBE IPSAS 31 para 51) . Internal  staff \ncosts charged to projects must be clearly attributable  to individual projects  or such costs shall be re-expensed  to operating budgets \nwhen  incurred .   \n \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nAsset Financial Procedure  – Page 17  \n \n© These Procedures  are the property of Massey University  \nAppendix E – Operating vs. Capital Expenditure: Equipment Case Example  \nTechni cal: Fixed Assets – Property, Plant and Equipment  \nApplication: Equipment Purchases  \nPreliminary Project Stage and            \nAll Other Stages  Development and           \nImplementation Stage s Post Implementation and        \nOperating Stage s \nExpense to Operating Budget  Capitalise  Expense to Operating Budget  \nPre-business case costs  \nInvestment logic mapping  \nBusiness case preparation    \nBusiness case review  Project quality assurance  Post completion review  \nFeasibility studies and Evaluation of \nalternatives  Site preparation ,  \nFreight  and handling  costs  Disposal  costs generally  \nFinal selection of alternatives  \nProcurement  \nContract negotiations and legal costs  Installation and assembly costs  –  \nrefer to Appendix C  \nCommissioning Costs  Warranty Costs  (Note 6) \nInsurance  \nGeneral administration, overheads,  and \ntravel costs  Staff costs directly contributing to project \nmanagement and installation (Note 5) Marketing or promotional  costs  \n \nStaff travel costs  \nTraining of scientists, engineers etc.  \nConferences and travel costs  Development of O&M manuals and \ntraining materials  Training of users  \nTravel and accommodation costs  \nThese opex costs also apply to the \ndevelopment and implementation stage  Costs of testing whether  the asset is \nfunctioning properly  Cleaning, operating  materials, waste \nmanagement , utility costs, repairs and \nmaintenance costs  for the equipment , \nreplacement of parts under $ 1,000 in \nvalue.  \n \nAssets with diminished useful life  resulting from delays between procurement and ‘ in use’  operation , in particular electronic \ntechnology, will be subject to impairment due to technological obsolescence  (Section 2(6) refers) . The time between equipment \nsupply and ‘ in use’  operation should be minimised . Programmes of work should consider  an appropriate  procurement strategy with \nstaged supply and payment of equipment.  \nOn-going repairs, maintenance and operating  costs for equipment  must be expensed  in the years the expense  is incurred, \nirrespective  of their inclusion in a  procurement or installation contract.  \nNote 5: “The cost of an item of property, plant and equipment shall be recognised as an asset if and only if… (b) The cost or fair \nvalue of the item can be measured re liably” (PBE IPSAS 17 para 14).  Therefore, internal staff costs charged to projects must be \nclearly attributable to individual projects or such costs will be re -expensed to operating budgets when incurred . \nNote 6: Warranties and other operating costs paid in advance at the time of purchase shall be treated as prepayments . Contact \nFinancial Reporting for treatment of prepayments.  \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "External_Speaker_Guidelines_PDF_101_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "External Speaker Guidelines PDF 101 KB",
      "policy_type": "Guideline",
      "file_size": "101 KB",
      "creation_date": "2023-09-14T15:03:05",
      "modification_date": "D:20231010130243+13'00'"
    },
    "content": "Massey University Policy Guide\nEXTERNAL SPEAKER GUIDELINES\n© This Policy is the property of Massey University\nPurpose\nMassey University Te Kunenga ki P ūrehuroa has a legal duty to promote academic freedom, free\nspeech/freedom of expression within the law. Theuniversity also has obligation sunder the Health and Safety\nat Work Act 2015 to ensure the physical and mental health and safety of students, staff and visitors .\nTheuniversity ’sPolicy on Academic Freedom , Free Speech and Freedom of Expression (henceforth known\nasthePolicy on Academic Freedom or‘the Policy’), affirms the university’s commitment to promoting such\nfreedoms within the law, as well as specifying the responsibilities of exercising these freedoms .\nExternal speakers play a key role in the life of the u niversity, providing staff and students with opportunit ies\nto access a broad range of views and beliefs and encouraging students to develop their own informed\nopinions. Th eseExternal Speaker Guidelines (henceforth known as ‘the Guidelines’) provide guidance for\nstaff and students at theuniversity t oensure that external speakers who wish to speak on campus (including\nvirtual platforms hosted or owned by the university) or who are invited to speak on campus are aware of the\nexpectation sregarding the promotion of academic freedom, free speech/freedom of expression , and that any\nspeakers remain within the law.\nThese Guidelines apply to all external speakers who have been invited to speak on campus orhave requested\nauniversity -owned and operated venue to deliver an event ,as well as any event that utilises the university’s\nname away from the university and their Students’ Association premises. TheseGuidelines should be read\nin conjunction with the Policy, the Massey University Strategy 2022 -2027 ,theVenue and Space Use Te rms\nof Agreement and the Massey University Event Management Policy .\nTheseGuidelines should therefor ebeconsidered by all staff and student satMassey University Te Kunenga\nki Pūrehuroa as well as external parties .\nStaff and students have personal obligations under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 to take\nreasonable care for their own health and safety and to take reasonable care that their acts and omissions do\nnot adversely affect the health and safety of oth er persons. Academic staff and students are expected toSection University Management\nContact Provost\nLast Review September 2023\nNext Review September 2026\nApproval C23/103\nEffective Date 22 September 2023\nMassey University Policy Guide\nExternal Speaker Guidelines –Page 2\n© This Policy is the property of Massey University\nexercise their academic freedom in a manner that is consistent with these legal obligations.\nTheuniversity, through the auspices of the Vice -Chancellor or delegate has the right to withdraw any prio r\napproval given to an external speaker considering new information that leads the university to reasonably\nbelieve that the external speaker might contravene its policies or the law.\nExternal Speaker Notifications\nIt is expected thatthe event organiser willundertake a preliminary risk assessment for all external speakers.\nWhere the risk assessment is medium or high it is recommended the relevant university officer is contacted\nso that they can either be advised and/or provide advice at least t wo weeks prior to the speaker’s\nengagement.\nThe risk assessment should consider and address at least the following:\n•Will the event be open to the public?\n•Will the event be broadcast, streamed, or offered for download by the organisers and be available to \nthe public?\n•Does the proposed title or theme of the event present a potential risk where  views or opinions  \nexpres sed by  speakers may be in breach of the university’s policies?\n•Will the event contravene, undermine, or diminish the rights and responsibilities or the University’s  \ncommitment to upholding the Te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of Waitangi and the status of Māori as \nMana Whenua and Tangata Whenua?\n•Has the s peaker previously been prevented from speaking at Massey Univers ity or another university  \nor similar establishment, or previously been known to express views that may be in breach of Massey  \nUniversity policies?\n•Is the subject matter or the speak er likely  to attract protest, negativ e media coverage or otherwise  \nbe a potential threat to the reputation of the university?\n•Is there any pos sibility of a situation arising in which people might experience harassment,  \nintimidation, verbal  abus e, or violence, or that those in attendance might be incited to engage in  \nharass ment, intimidation, verbal abuse, or violence directed at others, as defined within law and  \nwithin the  university’s policies governing bully ing and haras sment and those of New Zealand?\nWhile it is the responsibility of the event organiser to assess and address risks, generally:\nif the answer to all the questions above is NO, it is considered to indicate a LOW RISK.\nif the answer to any of the questions is unclear, or the answer to any of thefirst three q uestions\nabove is YES , it is considered to indicate a MEDIUM RISK .\nif the answer to one or more of the last three q uestions above is YES , it is considered t oindicate a\nHIGH RISK.\nMassey University Policy Guide\nExternal Speaker Guidelines –Page 3\n© This Policy is the property of Massey University\nThe event organiser should indicate clearly that:\nthey have provided the correct information to the University so that the relevant university officer\ncan fully consider possible risks associated with having th espeaker at an event. Consideration\nshould be given, amongst others, tophysical, reputational ,andmental harm to students, staff and/or\nvisitors; and\nthey have read both these Guidelines and the Policy and confirmed that they will share these with\ntheir external speaker(s) prior to arrival at the event so that both the event organiser and the speaker\nare aware of theuniversity’s policies and expectations ;and\nif there is a change of topic or should the speaker have been replaced or isno longer able to attend\nthe event, they will notify the relevant university officer .\nThe relevant university officer, and if required  in consultation with the Deputy Vice-C hancellor University  \nServices, will c onsider possible risks assoc iated with the speaker, including physical, reputational and mental  \nharm to students, staff and visitors, and the risk that the external speaker could contravene  university polic y \nor the  law, before making a decision . If there are concerns regarding the physical, reputational and mental \nharms to students, staff and visitors , further advice may be sought from t he Director, Governance and \nAssurance and/or the ev ent organis er.\nShould the matter need to be esc alated beyond the relevant university officer, and the Director, Governance \nand Assurance conclude s that the external speaker poses a significant risk to health and safety and  other \nconsiderations noted in the Policy , the matter should be ref erred  to the Incident G roup, who will  determine if  \nthe event should proceed .\nAn event organiser may appeal the o utcome of a decision if they  believe the decision was reached unfairly. \nIn such case the event organiser should submit a detailed explan ation of the grounds of any appeal by email \ndirectly to the Vice- Chancellor.\nConsiderations in preparation for the event\nGuidanc e in relation to preparing and assessing a request may vary depending on whether the event \norganiser is a staff member or student, or whether the event relates to an internal or external booking .\nAn external speaker considered medium or high risk should not be confirmed until the event orga niser has \ndiscussed this with the relevant university officer.\nThe university understands that circumstances relating to an external speaker notification may change, even \nat the last minute. In this case, it is the responsibility of the event organiser to inform the University, via the \nrelevant university officer , or the relevant member of Stud ents’ Association staff, immediately if there is:\na change in the arrangements which may l ead to the contravention of university policy or the law ;\nor\na change in external speaker or their topic.\nMassey University Policy Guide\nExternal Speaker Guidelines –Page 4\n© This Policy is the property of Massey University\nIf the University considers there to be a significant change in the attendant risks, the decision approving the \nevent may be revised.\nDuring an event\nIf, during the event, the event organiser or an attendee c onsiders  that the external speaker is  contravening \nuniversity policies or the law, or if there is a physical threat to those attending the event, they should inform \nUniversity Secu rity immediately.\nAfter an event\nIf, after an event, it c omes to light that the external speaker contravened university policies or the law, or if \nthere was a s ignific ant risk to the university, its  members or guests, then the relevant  university officer who \nconsidered the possible risks assoc iated with the event, and if required in consultation with the Deputy Vice-\nChancellor Univers ity Servic es, may conduct a post-e vent review, the outcome of which may result in the \nuniversity taking such action as may  be appropriate in the circumstances.\nDefinitions:\nAn‘external speaker’ is any individual (or organisation) who is not a student or staff member of\nMassey University.\n‘The relevant university officer ’in the context of this document refers to any member of the\nuniversity’s Senior Leadership Team (SLT) .\nAn‘event’ in the context of this policy i sconsidered asa major university event; that is, anypublicly -\nadvertised meeting or activity organised by a staff or student member of Massey University or an\nexternal party thatis considered by the university nottobeassociated with formal research or learning\noutcomes ordoes notform part of (or directly support) acredit -bearing programme of study offered\nby the university andis expected to attract a significantly large public audience andrequire sa central\nroom or space booking .\nAn‘event organiser’ in the context of this policy is the staff or student member or external party who\norganises an event.\nThe ‘ incident group’ for the purposes of this document includes the Provost, the Director Governance\n& Assurance, and the Executive Director Marketing & Co mmunications .\nThe‘review ’ is the process by which the university will consider possible risks posed by an external\nspeaker and mitigating actions that may be required in order to reduce the level of risk. The outcome\nof this review will be communicated to the event organiser who may appeal the decision. It is extremely\nMassey University Policy Guide\nExternal Speaker Guidelines –Page 5\n© This Policy is the property of Massey University\nunusual for the university to refuse a request for a speaker, but there are occasions on which\nmeasures need to be taken to ensure that the event can take place safely and within appropriate\nconditions .\nAudience :\nAllstaff, students ,visitors and external bodies within the university community.\nRelevant legislation :\nNew Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990\nHuman Rights Act 1993\nAmendments Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation Compensation Act 2001\nHealth and Safety at Work Act 2015\nHarmful Digital Communications Act 2015\nEducation and Training Act2020\nLegal compliance :\nTheHealth and Safety at Work Act 2015 requires Massey University Te Kunenga ki P ūrehuroa to take all\npracticable steps to identify hazards in the workplace and to ensure that people working or visiting the\nuniversity premises are not harmed from any hazard in or arising in the workplace. Accordingly, theuniversity\nhas a duty of care to staff, contractors and visitors taking part in any event on our campus.\nRelated procedures / documents :\nPolicy on Academic Freedom\nStudent Disciplinary Regulations\nEvent Management Policy\nRisk Management Policy\nInternet Use and Digital Communications Policy\nEmergency Management Policy\nPolicy on Staff Conduct\nHealth, Safety and Wellbeing Policy\nDocument Management Control:\nPrepared by: Provost\nMassey University Policy Guide\nExternal Speaker Guidelines –Page 6\n© This Policy is the property of Massey University\nAuthorised by: Provost \nApproved by: Council \nDate issued: September 2023\nNext review: September 2026\n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Equivalence_Policy_PDF_143_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Equivalence Policy",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "143 KB",
      "author": "jmlochhe",
      "creation_date": "2022-09-23T09:00:00",
      "modification_date": "D:20220923090033+12'00'"
    },
    "content": "  \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n  \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n  \n  \nSection  Teaching and Learning  \nContact  Office of Academic Quality, Reporting and \nAssurance   \nLast Review  June 2022   \nNext Review  June 2025   \nApproval  Council 22 /64 \n  \nPurpose  \nTo ensure that all students, regardless of their discipline, mode of study, location or semester are  afforded an \nequivalent opportunity to achieve the required  learning outcomes for their course, and therefore, the graduate profile \nfor their qualification.   \nScope  \nThe Equivalence Policy applies to all undergraduate and postgraduate courses, qualifications,  and specialisations .  \nPolicy  \nEach offering of the same course in a single semester, regardless of the mode and location for the delivery of that \ncourse , will have equivalent teaching, learning and assessment activities . Regardless of mode of delivery or campus \nof location, all students have an equivalent opportunity  to meet the graduate profile for their qualification, and where \nrelevant, their specialisation.  Equivalence will be made explicit through:    \n \n1. All offerings of a course within a single semester, regardless of mode and location of delivery, will have:  \n \na. identical course prescriptions and expected learning outcomes  \nb. An equivalent assessment structure, such that the  same learning outcomes , student workload, and \nweightings are maintained when there is variation to the method of assessment   \nc. identical course texts (including any textbook, whether available in hard copy or digital form) \nunless an exception is approved by the PVC or their nominee  \n \n2. All students will have:  \n \n \n \n \nEquivalence Policy  – Page 2  \n  \n \n \na. Equivalent opportunities to access appropriate academic advice, relevant to the student’s study \nmode, discipline,  and level of study  \n  \nEQUI  \nVALENCE  \nPOLICY  \n  \n  \n  \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n  \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nb. Equivalent access to study and learning resources appropriate to a \nstudent’s study mode, level of study and discipline  \n \n3. Course details in STREAM such as learni ng outcomes, assessments and prescription details are the \nsame as those which have been officially approved and listed in the Curriculum Management System.  \n \n4. In addition to the above, Massey University will make all reasonable efforts to ensure that studen ts are not \nunduly disadvantaged by widespread disruption that is beyond their control. This will be achieved by \nensuring there are emergency plans in place that address issues of access, whether to systems or \nphysical spaces. These emergencies would include but  are not limited to natural disasters such as \nearthquakes, floods and volcanoes, pandemics, widespread disruption caused through cyber -attacks or \nterrorism and wide -spread power outages.  \n \nIn relation to courses, equivalence does not mean identical in every way, l ecturers teaching the same course may \nintroduce variations with respect to experiences, examples, and emphases as a function of their own expertise, and \nthe background and interests of the students . However, such variations are subject to any overarching requirements \nof the qualifications  the course is associated with including professional accreditation requirements .  \n  \nColleges may elect to establish additional authori sation requirements relating to Equivalence .  \nGuiding Principles  \n \nDecisions regarding equivalence at Massey Universit y will be guided by the following principles:  \n \nEquity: The Equivalence Policy aims to ensure that all students, regardless of their mode of study,  and location, have \nthe same opportunities to meet the Learning Outcomes of their courses and the graduate pro file of their specialisations \nand qualifications. The Policy also aims to take account of disruptive events beyond any student’s control that would \ncause them undue disadvantage.  \n \nConsistency: by promoting equivalence the Policy assures students that consi stent approaches will be taken across \nthe University when it comes to the composition of courses, specialisations,  and qualifications, and the accessing of \nacademic advice and University systems.  \n \nEfficiency: to achieve equity and a consistent approach, the  University needs efficient systems to facilitate equitable \naccess to academic advice and Information Technology resources.  \n \nFacilitative: by promoting equivalence the University takes a facilitative approach to assuring student success.  \n \nDefinitions  \nEquivalence  is defined as how equity and parity of the student learning experience and outcomes is achieved.  \n  \nA course  is defined as a module of work in a particular subject that is identified by means of a unique code number . \nEach course carries its own credit value .  \n  \n  \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n  \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \nEquivalence Policy  – Page 3  \n  \n  \nA course offering  is defined as a course  at a particular campus location in each  semester and delivered in a specific \nmode .  \n  \nLearning Outcomes  are statements of the knowledge, skills,  and attitudes that students are expected to demonstrate \nbecause of  successfully completing a course of learning.  Learning outcomes are usually stated in terms of \nobservable and/or measurable behaviour.  \nRespons ibilities  \nCollegial communication and cooperation amongst the teams teaching each offering of a course and across course \nofferings provides the basis for equivalence and in many cases the established processes for communication within \ndepartments must be extended to include colleagues in other disciplines and Colleges.  \n  \nProgramme leaders (or equivalent) and/or Course Coordinators are responsible for ensuring the equivalence of \ncourses taught at different times, in different modes, or at different locatio ns. These staff are expected to work \ncollaboratively with all teaching staff during the planning and delivery phases of each course offering to ensure that:  \n  \n• the curriculum meets the requirements of the course prescription and learning outcomes which are  informed \nby the aims of the qualifications that the course is associated with.  \n• the assessment design is equivalent and that any variations in the assessment are agreed by all the teaching  \nstaff.   \n• relevant Heads of Institutes or Schools or programme lead ers (as appropriate) are informed by the course \ncoordinator at the earliest opportunity of any risks to the equivalence of courses and offerings.  \n  \nStaff who contribute to the teaching of course offerings are expected to engage constructively with Course \nCoordinators and/or programme leaders (or equivalent) in the assurance of equivalence including keeping them \ninformed of any developments which threaten the equivalence of the offering.  \n  \nHeads o f Institutes or Schools (or programme leaders as appropriate) are responsible for mediating any disputes \narising from the equivalence requirements . In the event of irreconcilable differences of opinion that threaten \nequivalence, the final option must be t o offer the courses under separate titles and numbers, subject to the \nUniversity’s processes for course approvals and any requirements for viability set by the University and/or College.  \n  \nPro Vice -Chancellors have overall responsibility for ensuring the effective and efficient implementation of the \nUniversity’s Equivalence Policy.  \nRecords  \nThe information requirements for Course Outlines and Course Guides can be used to verify that the University’s \nEquivalence Policy is being given effect.  \nAudience  \nAll staff and students  \nRelevant Legislation  \nConsumer Guarantees Act 1993  \n \n \n \n  \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n  \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nEquivalence Policy  – Page 4  \n \n \nSection 29 of the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 requires that services provided are fit for purpose.  \n \nFair Trading Act 1986  \nSection 13 of the Fair-Trading  Act 1986 requires that the University does not make false or misleading representations \nregarding any aspects of its programmes.  \n \nEducation and Training Act 2020  \nSection 4 of the Education and Training Act 2020 states that its purpose is to provide an education system that : \n• ensures those studying in New Zealand are provided with the skills, knowledge,  and capabilities to fully \nparticipate in the labour market, society,  and their communities,  \n• supports student well -being  \n• assures the quality of education and the providers of that  education and honours Te Tiriti o Waitangi  \n \nLegal Compliance  \nNone  \nRelated Procedures/Documents  \nPaerangi Learning and Teaching Strategy  \nAssessment Strategy, Principles and Guidelines   \nMassey University Qualifications Policy   \nMassey University Qualifications Framework   \nDocum ent Management Control  \nPrepared by:  Office of Academic Quality, Reporting and Assurance  \nAuthorised by:  Provost  \nApproved by:  C22/64 \nDate issued:  20 June 2012   \nLast review:  June 2022  \nNext review:  June 2025  \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "General_Debt_Collection_Policy_PDF_90_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "General Debt Collection Policy",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "90 KB",
      "creation_date": "2024-11-22T12:01:09",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220100815+13'00'"
    },
    "content": "Massey University Policy  Guide  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n  \nGENERAL DEBT COLLECTION POLICY  \n \n \n \nSection  Finance  \nContact  Chief Financial Officer  \nLast Review  November 20 24 \nNext Review  November 20 29 \nApproval    FAC24/35  \nEffective Date  November 20 24 \n \nPurpose:  \n \nThe purpose  of this policy  is to define actions to be taken to chase overdue general debt. General debt is defined as \ndebt owed by debtors who are not students  and for this policy includes research debt. Overdue debt is any amount that \nhas not been paid after the due date on the invoice.  \n \nIt is important for cash flow purposes that debt is collected in a timely manner and in accordance with payment \nterms. When a debt becomes overdue prompt action must be taken to chase and collect the debt.  \n \nPolicy:  \n \nThe chasing of overdue general debt is the responsibility of the originating Massey department, section, school, or \ninstitute.  The accounts receivable team may assist the originating department to collect overdue debts.  \n \nTo setup a new general debtor an application for commercial credit must be completed by the requesting \ndepartment. When new debtors are setup , they are advised of and agree to Massey’s terms of trade.  \n \nAs per Terms of Trade payment is due on the 20th of the month after invoice is issued. Exceptions to this are for \nproperty leases and research contracts.  \n \nA monthly statement is sent to each debtor showing outstanding debt as at the last day of the month. The s tatement \nshows a list of outstanding invoices and the date each was issued. Debtors that have amounts owing that are 30 , 60, \nor 90 days overdue will be sent an overdue debt letter.  \n \nAt each month end a list ing of debt is sent by accounts receivable to the originating departments for chasing. It is the \nresponsibility of the department to contact each debtor that has an overdue balance and confirm when payment will be \nmade . The communication method used will depend on the age of the debt as below.  \n \n30 days  – Email to debtor requesting confirmation of when payment will be made.  \n \n60 days  – Phone call to debtor requesting payment and warning that interest of 1.5% per month may be charged.  \n \n90 days  – Phone call to debtor requesting urgent payment and advising that debt may be sent to Baycorp  and that any \ndebt collection costs incurred will be charged to the debtor .    \n \nIf the debt is outstanding for 90 days or more the Head of Department/Institute/School (HOD/I/S) must advise the \nrelevant SLT Member. In addition, the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) should also be advised for review and follow up.  \n \nThe debtor will continue to receive a monthly statement showing the overdue amount.   Overdue debt may incur a \npenalty interest charge  of 1.5% per month as per Massey ’s Terms of Trade.  \nMassey University Policy  Guide  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n  \n \n \nDebt outstanding for more than 6 months will be impaired and provided for by Finance, unless extenuating \ncircumstances  exist which  must  be agreed  by the CFO.  In most  cases  the debt will then be placed  with a debt collector \n(appointed by  Finance).  \n \nThe department/section/school/institute will continue to follow up on impaired / written -off debt with oversight from the \nAccounts Receivable team.  \n \n \nAt the end of the financial year, a doubtful debt provision will be made by Finance and approved by the CFO. This \nprovision will be based on an appropriate percentage of outstanding debt greater than 30 days excluding:  \n \n1. Where  there  are balances  in excess  of the agreed  percentage  where  it is clear  that recovery  is remote.  In these \ncircumstances a specific provision will be made.  \n \n2. Where there are extenuating circumstances that indicate the likelihood of recovery is  high.  \n \n \n \n \nAudience:  \nAll Management of the University  \nAll staff  \n \nRelevant Legislation:  \n \nNil \n \nRelated Procedures/Documents:  \n \nNil \n \nDocument Management Control:  \n \nPrepared by: Chief Financial Officer  \nOwned by: Deputy Vice -Chancellor University Services  \nApproved by: FAC24/35  \nDate issued: November 20 24 \nLast review: November 20 24 \nNext review: November 202 9 \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Emergency_Management_Policy_PDF_183_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Emergency Management Policy",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "183 KB",
      "author": "Parkin, Theresa",
      "creation_date": "2017-07-04T13:03:02",
      "modification_date": "D:20170704133240+12'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n  \n \nEMERGENCY MAN AGEMENT POLICY  \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University                                                                              EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT  POLICY  \n \n \n \n  \n \n \n \n \n \nPurpose : \nThe purpose of this policy is to provide a mandate for emergency management act ivities within the University , and to \nfacilitate appropriate decision -making that protects life, limits damage and minimises business disruption  for the \nbenefit of the University, its communities, and its operations.    \nPolicy:  \nGeneral  \n \nMassey University wi ll prepare for emergency events by having an effective emergency management system that \nleads to a reduction in risk and an increase in organisational resilience.  \n \nAs such the University is committed to the ongoing support for emergency management arrangem ents at Massey \nUniversity.  \n \nMassey University aims to become a leader in the institutional  emergency management sector by developing good  \npractice s based on empirical evidence and contemporary research.  \n \nMassey University endorses and adopts  the principles  of emergency management as published  by the International \nAssociation of Emergency Managers , which , contextualised to the Massey’s situation,  are:  \n \nThat emergency management must be:  \n \n1. Comprehensive  – all hazards, all phases  [risk reduction, r eadiness, re sponse and recovery] , all \nstakeholders and all impacts relevant to emergencies  are considered . \n2. Progressive  – future emergency events are anticipated and preventive and preparatory measures are \ntaken to build disaster -resistant and disaster -resilient commun ities. \n3. Risk-driven  – sound hazard identification and risk management principles are used in assigning priorities \nand resources.  \n4. Integrated  – unity of effort is ensured among all levels of the University  and all elements of a community.  \n5. Collaborative  – broad and sincere consultative relationshi ps with individuals and organis ations are \ncreated and sustained to encourage trust, advocate a team atmosphere, build consensus, and facilitate \ncommunication.  \n6. Coordinated  – activities of all relevant stakeholders are s ynchronised to achieve a common purpose.  Section  Risk Management  \nContact  Risk Management Office  \nLast Review  September 2016  \nNext Review  September 20 21 \nApproval  C17/12  \nEffective Date  March 2017  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nEmergency Management Policy  – Page 2 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  7. Flexible  – creative and innovative approaches are used to solve emergency  challenges.  \n8. Professional  – a science and knowledge -based approach based on education, training, experience, \nethical practice, public stewards hip and continuous improvement  is valued . \n \nMassey University shall develop and maintain an emergency management framework which set s out the University’s \nvision, mission, goals and objectives for emergency management and sets up structures for the enduring  coordination \nof effective emergency management arrangements at the University.  \n \nMassey University will provide information regarding what to do in an emergency to staff, students and visitors.  \n \nRisk Reduction  \n \nRisks identified though emergency management activities shall be entered into the University’s Risk Register and \nmanaged in accordance with the University’s Risk Management Policy and Risk Management Framework . \n \nReadiness  \n \nMassey University will develop and maintain, through periodic review  and testi ng, emergency response plans, \nincluding, but not limited to:  \n \n1. Massey University Crisis Management Plan  \n2. Emergency Communications Plan  \n3. Campus Emergency Response Plans  \n \nMassey University may develop sub -plans and/or Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) where a need is identified. \nAny sub -plans or SOPs must be consistent with higher -level plans, the framework and this  policy.  \n \nMassey University will provide equipment and training required to ensure an effective response to identified \nemergency events.  \n \nExternal  organisations that provide contracted services to Massey University and organisations who are tenants of \nMassey University must develop emergency plans that are consistent with those of the University.  These \norganisations are responsible for their own equ ipment and training; however, Massey University will provide access to \nrelevant documentation which supports their emergency planning.   \n \nResponse  \n \nThe University endorses and adopts the Co -ordinated Incident Management System (CIMS) as the basis for the \nMassey University Emergency Management System (MUEMS) . \n \nThe Massey University Emergency Management System (MUEMS) is used for the management  of all emergency \nevents, including Incidents (Level 1), Local Emergencies (Level 2) and University Emergencies (Level  3).  \n \n \nAny directions given by the National CDEM Controller or a CDEM Group or Local CDEM Controller during a  declared  \nstate of emergency, takes precedence over those of the University Crisis Management  Team Leader  and/or the V ice-\nChancellor , or delegate . \n \nDelegations of Authority  \n \nThe University Council delegates authority to the Vice -Chancellor to take all steps necessary to protect life, prevent or \nlimit further injury, prevent or limit harm to the environment and University infrastructure and assets,  and to protect the \nUniversity’s core business of teaching and research  in the lead up to, during a nd directly after an emergency  event . \n \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nEmergency Management Policy  – Page 3 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  During an emergency event, t he Vice -Chancellor m ay sub -delegate this authority to the University Crisis Management \nTeam Leader.  \n \nThe Vice -Chancellor delegates authority to members of the MUEMS as follows:  \n \nThe University acknowledges that, during an event, first responders must make decisions and take action to \nprotect life, prevent or limit further injury, prevent or limit  harm to the environment and University infrastructure \nand assets, noting it is likely that first responders may be Massey security and trained staff.  \n \nAccordingly, the Vice -Chancellor delegates authority to first responding staff to make decisions and ta ke action s \nbelieved  to assist with the successful resol ution of the situation, or until such time as the MUEMS is operating \neffectively, whichever occurs first.  \n \nWhen the MUEMS is operating, the Vice -Chancellor approves the release of staff from their regu lar duties for the \nduration of the staff member’s involvement in the MUEMS.  \n \nIn the event of an Incident (Level 1) the Vice -Chancellor delegates authority to the Incident Controller / Departmental \nManagement  to make decisions and respond appropriately, noti ng the requirement to advise the Vice -Chancellor (or \ndelegate) and Campus Registrar of the decisions made as soon as practical.  \n \nThe University Council delegates authority to the Vice -Chancellor (or the Vice -Chancellor’s delegate) to, on the advice \nof the Campus Response Coordinator , declare:  \n \n1. A Local Emergency (Level 2), or  \n2. A University  Emergency (Level 3).  \n \nIn a situation where the Vice -Chancellor (or delegate) cannot be contacted for initial advice, t he University Council \ndelegates authority to each C ampus Registrar (or the Campus Registrar’s delegate) to, on the advice of one or more \nIncident Controller/s, declare a Local Emergency (Level 2) for their Campus .  \n \nDuring a Local Emergency or University Emergency, the University Crisis Management Team Lea der may direct:  \n \n The closure of part or all o f one or more campuses  (including the securing of Campus sites ). \n The evacuation of any University building or open space . \n The suspension of University operations.  \n The activation of  the Business Continuity Plan(s ). \n \nCommunications  \n \nWhen a Local Emergency  or University  Emergency is declared, the University Crisis Management Team Leader  shall, \nas soon as practic able, and within 24 hours, advise the University Council of the emergency. If communication \nsystems are af fected and the University Council cannot be contacted, the University Crisis Management Team Leader  \nwill advise them of the Emergency as soon as possible.  \n \nCommunication with the wider University Community will be undertaken in accordance with the timeline s and systems \ndescribed in the Emergency Communications Plan  \n \nOnly the following people are authorised by University Council to speak to the media in relation to an Incident or \nEmergency:  \n \n The Vice-Chancellor, or Vice –Chancellors nominee, or  \n A member of s taff nominated by the University Crisis Management Team Leader  (usually the University \nPublic Information Manager).  \n \n \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nEmergency Management Policy  – Page 4 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  Recovery  \n \nMassey University’s emergency management recovery arrangements shall be effectively integrated with business \ncontinuity and IT disaster recovery arrangements.  \n \nIn addition to business continuity and IT disaster recovery arrangements, Massey University will develop effective \nplans and procedures that promote holistic recovery of the University and its communities.  \n \n \nRoles and Respo nsibilities  \n \nCouncil of the University – Approves the Massey University Emergency Management Policy. Seeks periodic \nassurance from management that the Strategic Emergency Management Framework has been implemented and is \noperative.   \n \nSenior Management  – Responsible  for the implementation of the Massey University Strategic Emergency \nManagement Framework, including resourcing, planning, training, testing, monitoring and review of the emergency \nmanagement preparedness at Massey University.  \n \nDefinitions : \nLevels of Emergency Event  \n \nLevel 1: Incident  refers to any event that: affects a person or people in one location (such as a building or campus) \nand requires an immediate, formal emergency response, but can be managed effectively by local management and \nresponse personnel; has little or no impact on the operations of a campus or the University and there is no need for \nemergency  communications.  \n \nNOTES:  1.  Incidents are often manage d in accordance with Sub -Plans/Departmental Emergency Response P lans \n      and usin g business as usual structures.  \n \nNOTES:  2. Refer to definitions of “location”.  \n \nLevel 2: Local Emergency  refers to an event that: directly affects people in one location (such as a campus); has \nsignificant impact on the operations of one campus;  places a high level of demand on local management  and \nresponse personnel, or requires significant coordination of internal and external resources , and may result in the \nactivation of the Emergency Communications Plan and/or the University Crisis Management Team .  \n \nNOTES:  1.  Refer to definitions of “location”.  \n \nLevel 3:  University Emergency  refers to an event that: directly affects people in more than one location;  and/or  has \na significant impact on the operations of the University; cannot be effectively managed b y local management and \nresponse personnel, or requires significant coordination of internal and external resources  and results in the activation \nof the Emergency Communications Plan and the University Crisis Management Team . \n \nNOTES:  1.  Refer to definitio n of “location”.  \nAlphabetical Listing of Terms  \nBusiness Continuity is “the uninterrupted availability of all key resources supporting essential business functions” \n(Australian National Audit Office, 2000).  \n \nCDEM means Civil Defence Emergency Management.  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nEmergency Management Policy  – Page 5 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \nNOTES:  1.  The terms, “Civil Defence ”, “Emergency Management ” and “Civil Defence  Emergency Management \n(CDEM) ” are, in the New Zealand context , interchangeable.  \n 2.  Refer to “emergency management” for a definition of CDEM.   \n \n \nCoordinated Incident Management  System (CIMS)  is a structure to systematically manage emergency incidents \n(New Zealand Fire Service Commission, 1998) . \n \nNOTE :  1. Massey University has adopted  the CIMS structure for use primarily  during Local Emergencies (Level 2)  \n    and University Emergencies (Level 3).   \n \nEmergency event  refers to any occurrence, whether natural, social or technological that impacts on one or mor e \nstaff members, students or stakeholders of Massey University, but do es not include occurrences that affect only \ninformation communications technology systems (as these are managed in accordance  with the IT Disaster Recovery \nPlan).  \n \nNOTES:  1. The term “ emergency event” covers Incidents (Level 1), Local Emergencies (Level 2) and University \nEmergencies (Level 3).  \n \n 2. The terms “emergency event” and “event” are used interchangeably, and their  usage depends on the \naudience of the document – “emergency event”  should be  used where there is a possibility that “event” \nmay be confused with a scheduled , planned  activity or function such as a graduation ceremony.   \n \nEmergency management  means the application of knowledge, measures, and practices that: are necessary o r \ndesirable for the safety of the public or property; and are designed to guard against, prevent, reduce, or overcome any \nhazard or harm or loss that may be associated with any emergency; and includes, without limitation, the planning, \norganisation, co -ordination, and implementation of those measures, knowledge, and practices.  \n \nHazard refers to a potentially damaging physical event, phenomenon or human activity, which may cause the loss of \nlife or injury, property damage, social and economic disruption or e nvironmental degradation (Inter -Agency Secretariat \nof the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, United Nations, 2004, p. 24).  \n \nNOTES:  1. Massey University interprets the term “hazard” as  an occurrence or event that is an actual or potential \ncause  of harm to people or damage to property.  \n \nIT Disaster Recovery  relates to policies, procedures, plans and systems for the rec overy of information technology \nsystems immediately after an emergency event.  \n \nLocation  refers to any of the following: a workplace, building, campus (Manawatu, Albany, Wellington), site (such as \nHokowhitu, East Precinct, Keeble’s Block, the site of a fiel d trip) or non -geographic grouping (such as extramural \nstudents).  \n \nMassey University Strategic Emergency Management Framework  (“the Framework”) is an overarching document \nthat outlines the vision, mission, principles, goals and objectives of emergency mana gement at Massey University; \nhow emergency management arrangements at the University relate to other (internal and external) arrangements.   \n \nMassey University Emergency Management System (MUEMS)  is a structure for managing emergency events \nwhich is based o n the Co -ordinated Incident Management System.  \n \nRisk Management means coordinated activities to direct and control an organisation with regard to risk (Standards \nAustralia/Standards New Zealand, 2009) . \n \nRisk Management Policy  sets out Massey University’s commitment to ensuring that risk management forms part of \nits internal control and corporate governance arrangements.  \n \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nEmergency Management Policy  – Page 6 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  Risk Managem ent Framework outlines the structure  and organisational arrangements for designing, implementing, \nmonitoring, reviewing and continuously improving risk management processes throughout Massey  University.  \n \nUniversity Crisis Management Team Leader is the  person appointed to manage the strategic response and \nrecovery to an emergency and provide input into crisis communications. This is usually filled by the Vice -Chancellor s \nnominee . \n \nAudience : \nAll staff , organisations who are tenants of the University and external organisations that provide contracted services to \nthe University.  \n \nRelevant legislation : \nHealth and Safety at Work Act 2015  \nCivil Defence Emergency Management Act (2002)  \nCrimes Act ( 1961 ) \nLegal compliance : \n \nHealth and Safety at Work (General Risk and  Workplace Management)  Regulations 2016 :  \n \nSection 14: Duty to prepare, maintain, and implement emergency plan  \n(1) A PCBU must ensure that an emergency plan is prepared for the workplace.  \n(2) The emergency plan must — \n    (a) provide emergency procedures, in cluding — \n         (i)  an effective response to an emergency; and  \n         (ii) evacuation procedures; and  \n         (iii) procedures for notifying emergency service organisations  at the earliest opportunity; and  \n         (iv) medical treatment and assistan ce procedures; and  \n         (v) procedures to ensure effective communication between the person authorised by the PCBU to co -ordinate \nthe emergency response  and all other persons at the workplace:  \n     (b) provide for testing of the emergency procedures, i ncluding the frequency  \n     of testing:  \n     (c) provide for information, training, and instruction to be given to relevant workers in relation to  implementing the \nemergency procedures.  \n(3) The PCBU must maintain the emergency plan for the workplace so th at it remains  effective.  \n(4) In complying with sub clauses  (1) to (3), the PCBU must have regard to all relevant  matters, including — \n     (a) the nature of the work being carried out at the workplace:  \n     (b) the nature of the hazards at the workplace:  \n     (c) the size and location of the workplace:  \n     (d) the number and composition of the workforce at the workplace.  \n(5) The PCBU must implement the emergency plan for the workplace in the event of an emergency.  \n(6) A PCBU who contravenes this regulation commits an offence and is liable on conviction, — \n     (a) for an individual, to a fine not exceeding $10,000:  \n     (b) for any other person, to a fine not exceeding $50,000.  \n \n \nCivil Defence Emergency Management Act (2002) : \n Section 8 provides for the Nation al [Civil Defence Emergency Management] Controller to, during  a state of \nnational emergency, “direct and control for the purposes of this Act the resources available for civil defence \nemergency management” (Civil Defence Emergency Management Act, 2002, s.8 ). \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nEmergency Management Policy  – Page 7 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   Section 9 empowers the Director of Civil Defence in the event of a declared civil defence emergency to \nacquire all resources necessary for the response. Such powers will override Massey University’s policy in \nthese circumstances.    \n Section 28 provides f or the Group or Local [Civil Defence Emergency  Management] Controller, d uring a state \nof local emergency , to “direct and co -ordinate... the use of the personnel, material, information, services, and \nother resources” (Civil Defence Emergency Management Act,  2002, s.28).   \nCrimes Act (1961 ): \n Section 151: The University has a duty without lawful excuse to provide the necessities of life to those who \ndepend on the University. This applies to all persons in the University who have de fact o charge of other \npeople (such as lecturers and tutors who have de facto care of their students).  \nRelated procedures / documents : \nMassey University Strategic Emergency Management Framework   \nRisk Management Policy  \nRisk Management Framework  \nEmergency  Communi cations Plan   \nCampus Emergency Response Plan   \nUniversity Crisis Management Plan  \nAS/NZS  IS0 31000:2009: Risk Management – Principles and Guidelines  \n \nDocument Management Control:  \nPrepared by:   Director, Risk and Assurance  \nAuthorised by:  AVC Operations, International & University Registrar  \nApproved by:  C17/12  \nDate issued:  May 2011  \nLast revi ew:   September 2016  \nNext review:   September 20 21 \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Formation_of_Spin-out_Companies_Policy_PDF_352_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Formation of Spin-out Companies Policy",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "352 KB",
      "creation_date": "2024-06-21T13:02:01",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220100839+13'00'"
    },
    "content": "Massey University Policy Guide  \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n  \nFORMATION OF SPIN -OUT COMPANIES POLICY  \n \n \n \nSection  Research  \nContact  Office of the Provost  \nLast Review  May 2019 \nNext Review  May 2024 \nApproval  C19/41  \nEffective Date  May 2019  \n \nPurpose:  \n \nThe University actively encourages the professional management of its Intellectual Property (IP)  as a way  of fulfilling its \nobligations to transfer knowledge and research outputs for the benefit of industry and the wider community and  \ngenerat ing a financial return through the commercial development of intellectual property as an asset.   This approach \naligns with the Massey University Strategy 2022 -2027  goal to maximize the commercial benefit of IP and other outcomes \nderived from research, and the commitment in He Rautaki Rangahau Massey University Research Plan 2024 -2027  to \ndraw on appropriate structures to bring to market the intellectual property arising from the University’s research activities , \nto derive social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits.  \n \nOne way of achieving these goals is to set up a new company1 to implement the commercial development of University \nintellectual property.  \n \nThe University encourages the formation of new compan ies where the circumstances suggest this is a suitable way \nforward.  \n \nThis policy aims to ensure that spin -out companies are formed in such as manner as to optimise the opportunities for \nsuccess of the new venture, and to manage the risks inherent in the initiative.  \n \n \nPolicy:  \n \nMembers of staff must obtain approval from the University before setting up a spin -out company, and also before \nbecoming an officer (director, secretary and/or shareholder) of a spin -out company.  \n \nAs part of the authorisation process, they must first consult the Enterprise  Office . The Enterprise Office will in turn involve \nMassey Ventures Ltd  (a company wholly owned by the University and formed to manage such  activity ) where \nappropriate . \n \nThe interests of the University, the individuals and the spin-out company must all be considered, and legal issues must \nbe addressed. Issues to be considered by the University  include:  \n \n• the impact  on existing  and future  duties  of members  of staff.  \n• the use of intellectual  property  owned  by the university.  \n• the use of University  resources,  such  as space  and equipment , and  \n• the business case for the spin -out company and expected financial and other benefits , and any associated risks.  \n \n1 The terms ‘company’ and ‘companies’ includes partnerships, joint ventures and other commercial entities.  \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  Massey University Policy  Guide  \nFormation of Spin -out Companies Policy – Page  2  \n  \n \n \nGeneral provisions  \n• The University  may require  an equity  stake  in a spin-out company,  either directly or via Massey Ventures  Ltd, in \nconsideration  for facilitating  the company's  formation  and contributing  the IP. \n• The University  reserves the right to appoint  a director  or have  observer  status  at board  meetings . \n• No full-time University  employee  may also be an employee  of a spin-out company,  and \n• Where  members  of University staff own shares  or share  options  in a spin-out company  they waive  their right to a share  \nof any licence , share -sale,  or dividend  income  received  by the University  from the spin-out company.  \n \nStaff  \nSubject to University regulations and codes of conduct, members of staff may:  \n• own shares or share options in a spin -out company , \n• act as directors of a spin -out company,  or \n• act as paid consultants to a spin -out company.  \n• but may not act in all three  capacities , and  \n• no staff member of the University in a position to influence the relationship between the University and a spin -\nout company  (with the exception of the Creator of the IP, as defined in the Intellectual Property Policy) may own \nshares or share options in a spin -out company , nor act as a director of a spin -out company except as the \nUniversity’s nominee.  \n \n \nApprovals and consultation required.  \n \nStaff must carry out the f ollowing steps when forming  a spin -out company:   \n1. Contact the Dean , Enterprise. With advice  from the Enterprise Office, p repare a  business case outlining the \nfinancial requirements of the spin -out, the  expected financial and other benefits , and a risk assessment (which \ncovers compliance risk, operational risk, reputational risk, and financial risk) and how these risks will be \nmonitored  and/or mitigated . \n2. Gain approval and support from the relevant  line manager or head of academic u nit. The involvement of the \nstaff member in the spin -out company is one of the key activities that the University supports and rewards.  \nForming a spin -out company will, however, necessarily  impact on the employee’s  existing \nresearch/teaching/ professional  activities (potentially including PBRF measures).  The line manager or head of \nacademic unit therefore must provide a signed statement that the work in the spin -out company is su pported, \nthat these impacts have been recognized and can be managed effectively , and that the work in the spin -out \ncompany is part of the employee’s contributions to the University in fulfilling research commercialisation goals .  \nThe line manager or head of academic unit is not asked to comment on any other aspects of the business \ndevelopment plan for the company.  \n3. Gain approval from the relevant member of the Senior Leadership Team  (SLT)  (for example College Pro Vice -\nChancellor , Deputy Vice-Chancellor,  or Provost ).  The relevant SLT member must provide a signed statement \naddressing similar issues  to those in step 2 , but from a whole -of-portfolio perspective.  The SLT member is not \nasked to comment on any other aspects of the business development plan for the company.  \n4. Gain final approval  and support (where appropriate)  from the Board of Massey Ventures Ltd.  \n \n \nDefinitions:  \n \nSpin-out Company  is a new company involving the development and exploitation of University intellectual property.  \n \n \nAudience:  \n \nAll staff  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  Massey University Policy  Guide  \nFormation of Spin -out Companies Policy – Page  2  \n  \n \n \nRelevant legislation:  \n \nCompanies Act 1993  \n \n \nLegal compliance:  \n \nAll obligations of the Companies Act 1993 will apply to University spin -out companies.  \n \n \nRelated procedures / documents:  \n \nConflict  of Commitment and Interest Policy  \nConflicts of Commitment and Interest  Manager Guidelines  \nConflicts of Commitment and Interest  Disclosure Form  \nDelegations of Authority Policy  \nIntellectual Property Policy  \nResearch and Consultancy Activity Proposals Policy  \nMassey University Research Plan 2024 -2027 \n \n \nDocument Management Control:  \n \nPrepared  by: Dean Enterprise  \nAuthorised by:  Provost   \nApproved  by: Date  issued:  2 December  2011  \nLast review:  May 2019  \nNext review:  May 2024  \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Fraud_and_Corruption_Response_Procedure_PDF_577_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Fraud and Corruption Response Procedure PDF 577 KB",
      "policy_type": "Procedure",
      "file_size": "577 KB",
      "author": "Jodie Banner",
      "creation_date": "2024-11-22T09:02:08",
      "modification_date": "D:20241122092811+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n \n  \n  \n \nMasse y University Polic y Guide   \n   \nFRAUD AND CORRUPTION RESP ONSE PROCEDURE  \n \n \n \n \n \nProcedures:   \n \n1.  Notifying susp ected fraud or corruption   \n \nAny per son w ho suspects that a fraudulent or corrupt act is  occurring or has o ccurred, mu st report this \nimmediately .  All informatio n about suspected f raud or  corrupt ion is to be t reated confidentia lly to the \nextent possibl e, and were  made by a staff member , may be made as a p rotected disclosure in ac cordance \nwith the Universi ty’s Protected   \nDisclosures Policy .   \n \nIn accordan ce with the Fr aud and Corruptio n Policy, all Univers ity staff h ave a duty to report \nsuspected cases of fraud or corrupt ion using one of the fol lowing mecha nisms:   \n• Making a p rotecte d disclo sure in accordance with the Universi ty’s P rocedu re for the Disc losure o f \nSerious Wrongdoin g   \n• Raising their concerns wit h their manager   \n• Completing and su bmittin g the ‘Susp ected or  Detected Fraud or Corruptio n Notification Form’ \n• Emailing or telephoning t he Director Governance and Assura nce   \n• Emailing or telephoning t he Employment Relat ions Manager   \n \nIn addition to notifying an  appropriate a uthority, staf f should use all rea sonable endeavours to \ndocument and preserve a ny available evi dence.    \n \nSufficient informat ion should be provided to enable a n initial investigat ion of the suspected f raud or  \ncorrupt act.   \n \nThis should include details about th e event s or acts constituting the suspected f raud or corrupt act, \ndates, times and persons al leged to be invo lved, together with an y documentat ion, evi dence or  \nverifiable facts to sup port the allegation .   \n Section  Governance and Organisational Management  \nContact  Director Governance and Assurance  \nLast Review  November 2024   \nNext Review  November 2029   \nApproval  FAC24/37  \nEffective Date  2 May 2019  \n \n \nMasse y University Polic y Guide \nFraud and Corruption Respon se Pro cedure – Page 2   \n \n \n2.  Procedure  following noti fication   \n \nWhere f raud or  corrupt ion is notifie d to a manager , that manager must immedia tely a dvise the \nDirector Governance and Assurance  or the Employment Relations Manager and  provide any \nsupporting i nformation.   \n \nThe Di rector  Governance and A ssurance will be adv ised of all notifications received and is responsible \nfor the following actions :   \n• ensuring that any instance s of sus pected fraud o r corruption are appropriately recorded, \ninvestigated and satisfactorily resolved.    \n• keeping the Vice -Chan cellor apprised o f any al legations, inve stigations and outcomes.    \n• notifying t he externa l auditor and t he Chairper son of the Finance and Assuran ce Comm ittee as \nappropriate .   \n \nThe Di rector  Governance and A ssurance will  ensure this by:   \n• determining whet her an i nvestig ation i s warra nted in the circumstan ces. \n• managing any al legation s or any investigat ion in accordance with the Policy on Staff Conduct , \nemployment  \n• agreements and Mas sey’s obligation s under th e Employmen t Relations Act, i n consultation with the \nEmployment  Relat ions Manager.    \n• overseeing or unde rtaking an investig ation (noting that an external i nvestigator  may be ap pointed ).   \n• receiving updates and reports from any investig ation.   \n• determining, in consultat ion with re levant internal pa rties, t he appropri ate cour se of action to b e \npursued, which m ay include:   \n• Referral  to external a gencies, such as the NZ Poli ce   \n• Disciplinary action in ac cordance with the Policy on Staff Conduct   \n• Implementing a p rocess to recove r money, asset s or property   \n \n3.  Inves tigation Outc omes   \n \nWhere a n allegat ion of fra ud or corrupt ion is substa ntiated, and an i nvestig ation has concluded , a \npost-incident revi ew will be undertaken to identi fy any contro l weaknesses and mitig ate any residual \nfraud or corrupt ion risk. Considerat ion will be g iven as to w hether a mo re comprehensive internal \naudit is warranted.    \n \n4.  Communications protocol   \n \nThe Vice -Chan cellor has sole author ity to author ise any communicat ion with respect to any al legation , \nany investigat ion or a ny referral to a regula tory organis ation or law enfo rcemen t agency by the \nUniversity.    \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Fieldwork_Safety_Standard_PDF_850_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Fieldwork Safety Standard PDF 850 KB",
      "policy_type": "Standard",
      "file_size": "850 KB",
      "author": "Wendi Croft",
      "creation_date": "2018-08-28T14:00:03",
      "modification_date": "D:20180828140356+12'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n© Massey University  | For Internal Use Only – Not Controlled When Printed  \nS218ST Fieldwork Safety  |Created 13 August 2018 |  28 August 2018     1 \nField work Safety  Standard  \nPlease refer to the Fieldwork Safety Guideline for detailed advice on how to manage and plan \nfieldwork in support of this Fieldwork Safety Standard.  \n1. Purpose  \n \nThis standard outlines the minimum health and safety requirements and processes needed to ensure \nthat Massey University fieldwork activities are suitably planned and managed to reduce or mitigate \nany risk s identified.  \n \n2. Scope  \n \n Fieldwork is defined as any academic work carried out by staff or students for the purposes of \nteaching, research or other related activities while representing Massey University off-site \neither in NZ or overseas. It includes individual researchers, supervised study, a nd delivery of \nfieldwork as a component of organisation to organisation contracts.  \n \n This s tandard applies to fieldwork  that is assessed as medium or h igh risk . \n \n Low risk activities such as; attending conferences,  public events, visiting local institutions , or \ntouring facilities as observers while supervised , will not require completion of a Field work \nHealth and S afety Plan. \n \n Low risk activities shall be the responsibility of each School or Institute to ensure that hazards \nand risks have been assessed and sufficient controls are in place, appropriate approvals are \nobtained, safe transport and communication is arranged and a check -in process is \nestablished if necessary.  \n \n This Standard  does not apply to students whilst off site on Massey student work placemen t or \ninternships , these are outlined in Student Placement Guidelines  nor does it include Massey  \nstaff travelling to  work at other Massey Campuses .  \n \n3. Fieldwork  Health and Safety Plans  \n \n A Fieldwork Health and Safety P lan for all medium and high risk fieldwork activities must be \ncompleted and approved by the Head of Department (HoD) (or nominated delegate  \nresponsible for Fieldwork Approvals )  \n \n The plan must identify all hazards , assess associated risks, select appropriate control \nmethods , and outline  an emergency plan . \n \n4. Participant Declaration and Profile Form  \n \n All participants , including staff and  leaders , must complete a Participant Declaration and \nProfile form prior to participating in medium to high  fieldwork  and overnight trips . \n \n \n© Massey University | For Internal Use Only – Not Controlled When Printed   \nFieldwork Safety  Standard/Created 15 August 2018  2 \n Any matters identified by this process which may affect the individual’s capability to undertake \nthe fieldwork in a safe manner must be discussed and addressed with the Fieldwork Leader.   \n \n Only personal and health information that is relevant to ensuring the health and safety during \nthe fieldwork can be collected from students or staff.   \n \n Any personal information must be treated confidentially and stored securely. Personal details \nmust be destroyed after the conclusion and review of the fieldwork .  \n \n Collection of all personal information must comply with the Massey University Privacy Policy . \n \n \n5. Fieldwork Plan Development and Approval Process  \nNew \nFieldwork \nH&S Plan\nExisting  \nFieldwork \nH&S Plan\nFieldwork \nLeader \ndevelops \nPlan\nParticipants \nreview & \nsubmit \ndeclaration \nHOD or \ndelegate \nApproval\nFieldwork \nLeader \nimplements \nPlanPost-travel prompt to feedback \nfor lessons learnedArrange resources , equipment , \npeople , emergency plans , financial \nor risk approvals\nParticipants added & relevant \ntraining includedFieldwork Leader \nOnline Access\n \n6. Responsibilities  \n \n The following are key individuals with responsibilities in relation to the safe and successfu l \ndevelopment and execution of fieldwork health and safety p lans.  \n \n6.1 Head of Department (HoD)  \n \n The Head of Department (HoD) has overall responsibility to ensure the health, safety and \nwellbeing of participants involved in fieldwork . The HoD may delegate this responsibility to \nanother person referred to as the Fieldwork Approver (FA) \n \n The HoD/FA must ; \n \n Ensure  fieldwork is planned and resourced to meet health and safety obligations .  \n \n Appoint  a compet ent Fieldwork Leader and ensure an appropriate level of supervision \nby people with relevant experience and training is provided for work in the field . \n \n Review , authorise and sign off Fieldwork Plans . \n \n \n \n© Massey University | For Internal Use Only – Not Controlled When Printed   \nFieldwork Safety  Standard/Created 15 August 2018  3 \n6.2 Fieldwork  Leader  \n \n The Fieldwork  Leader has operational responsibility for planning and supervising fieldwork to \nensure it is managed safely . \n \n The Fieldwork Leader must e nsure ; \n \n A Health and Safety Plan is completed  and all participants complete the Participant \nDeclaration and Profile Form .  \n \n Participants  are informed of the nature of the work/activities and the associated \nhazards and the likely risk and controls to manage these.  \n \n Participants  are adequately, instructed, informed, trained and supervised \nproportionate to risk.   \n \n All injuries, illness or incidents  are report ed as soon as practicable . \n \n During the  fieldwor k the Fieldwork L eader must e nsure that all health and safety precautions \nare observed for the duration of the fieldwork and that the level of supervision is adequate for \nany given situation . \n \n6.3 Fieldwork Participants  \n \n Participants  must;  \n Complete  a personal profile and  disclose any medical condition, in confidence to \nthe Fieldwork  Leader, which could have a bearing upon their own safety or that of \nothers on the fieldwork.  \n \n Ensure  they take reasonable care for their own health and safety  and follow any \ninstruction given to them by those supervising .  \n \n Raise  any concerns or uncontroll ed hazards  to the attention of the  Fieldwork \nLeader.  \n \n Undertake  to comply with the instructions of the supervisors and behave \nappropriately for the entire duration of the fieldwork .  \n \n Participants are not permitted to bring children or dependents with them on fieldwork and/or \noffsite activities without permission by the HoD.  \nRelated Field Work Documents  \nS218 G L Fieldwork Safety Guidelines  \nS218 FM Fieldwork  H&S Plan  \nS218 FM Participant Declaration & Profile  \nS218TP Overseas Fieldwork Information Pack  \nS218FM List o f Participants Personal Details    \n \nRelated Massey Procedures:   \nRisk Management Framework   \nMassey Privacy Policy   \nStudent Placement Guidelines  \nTravel Policy and Procedures  \nSafe Driving  Procedure    \nIncident Reporting   \n \nRelevant Legislation : \nHealth and Safety at Work Act 2015 and associated Regulations  \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Firearms_and_Weapons_Procedure_PDF_37_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Firearms and Other Weapons Procedure",
      "policy_type": "Procedure",
      "file_size": "37 KB",
      "author": "Banner, Jodie",
      "creation_date": "2024-05-16T09:05:03",
      "modification_date": "D:20240522145415+12'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n \n \n \n \n   \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n \n ENTER PROCEDURE  \n \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \nFIREARMS AND OTHER WEAPONS PROCEDURE   \n \n \nSection  University Services  \nContact  Director  Occupational Health & Safety, Wellbeing  \nLast Review  November  2023  \nNext Review  November  2025  \nApproval  Director Occupational Health & Safety, Wellbeing  \n \n \nPurpose:  \n \nThe purpose of this guideline is to impose controls and promote safe possession and use of firearms and \nother weapons at Massey University including on farmlands and accommodation facilities.  \n \nUse of firearms and other weapons at Massey University is strictly limited to the purposes of pest control \nand animal euthanasia. Recreational shooting is strictly prohibited.  \n \n \nScope : \nAll Massey University staff, students, contractors,  and visitors to the campuses.  \n \nDefinitions : \n \nAirgun : \n \nIncludes any air rifle, air pistol and any weapon from which by use of gas or compressed air (and not by \nforce or explosive) any shot, bullet, missile, or other projectile, can be discharged.  \n \nExplosive : \n \nMeans any substance or mixture or combination of substances which in its normal state is capable either \nof decomposition at such rapid rate as to result in an explosion or of producing a pyrotechnic effect \nincluding gunpowder, nitro-glycerine , dynamite, guncotton, blasting powder, fulminate of mercury or of \nother metals, coloured flares, fog signals, fuses, rockets, percussion caps, detonators, cartridges and \nammunition of all descriptions.  \n \nFirearm : \n \nMeans anything from which any shot, bullet, missile, or other projectile can be discharged by force o f \nexplosive, including anything that has been adapted and, anything under repair or replacement and, \nanything dismantled or partially dismantled and, any dangerous air  gun. \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n  Firearms and Other Weapons  Procedure  – Page 2 \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University    \n \n \n \nFirearms Licence : \n  \nMust be issued by a member of the Police to the applicant who is of or over 16 years of age and is fit and \nproper person to be in possession of a firearm or an airgun and whose storage of the firearm(s) and \nammunition satisfies Police requirements.  \n \nMassey University Approval : \n \nIs granted for a valid reason to control or use a firearm at  Massey University. A written approval  will \ninclude a detailed list of approved weapons being used and for what purposes, who will be using them, \nwhere they will be used, how long they will on university property and the provisions made for safe \nstorage while not in use . The management of approval is under the direction of the Executive Director, \nEstates, General Manager of Farms,  or their delegate (where applicable).  \n \nPests : \n \nIncludes rabbits, hares, possum, mustelids, rodents, feral cats, pigeons, ducks,  and pigeons.   \n \nRisk Assessment : \n \nThe overall process of hazard identification, risk analysis and risk evaluation for a task or job at hand.  \n \nSafety Plan : \n \nA plan that outlines the steps taken to safely control any hazards identified in  a risk assessment and \nincludes an appropriate emergency response plan.  \n \nWeapons : \n \nIn this procedure a weapon is defined as any article made or adapted for use for killing or causing injury \nto a person or intended by then for such use by themselves or another person. This definition includes \nany article which is a concealed knife or conc ealed weapon and any article designed to look like a \nweapon.  \n \nExamples of weapons include but are not limited to explosives including fireworks and pyrotechnic \ndevices, pellet guns, airsoft guns, crossbows, long bows, swords, martial arts weapons, articles which are \nsharply pointed or have a blade (other than a foldi ng pocket -knife with a blade less than 3 inches in \nlength), hunting or fishing knives, ‘zombie knives and knuckle -dusters’.  \n \nExemptions for Approval under this Procedure : \n• Police officers carrying police issued weapons or other exempted persons carrying issued weapons \nin the course or performance of their duty.  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n  Firearms and Other Weapons  Procedure  – Page 3 \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University    \n• Tools approved for work or educational purposes at Massey University and used for a lawful purpose \nthat are not brandished or worn in such a way as to cause concern or harm, for example firearms \nused on agricultural farms, use of captive bolts for animal e uthanasia and pest control mechanisms.  \n• Massey University work or educational processes carried out in accordance with relevant legislation, \ncodes of conduct, manufacturer instruction manuals and approved department standard operating \nprocedures.  \n• Exemptions will be considered in relation to ceremonial knives carried or used for religious purposes.  \n• Exemptions to this procedure may be granted for a Massey University sanctioned event or activity \nsuch as theatrical productions or filming as part of educational activity. All such exemptions for such \nevents or activities must be subject of an appropriate written risk assessment and require written \napproval signed by:  \n• Appropriate Head of School and  \n• Executive Director, Estates and  \n• Director Health Safety & Wellbeing and  \n• National Lead, Security & Traffic  \n \nExemptions for Approval under this Procedur e: \n• Police officers carrying police issued weapons or other exempted persons carrying issued weapons \nin the course or performance of their duty.  \n \nUnauthorised Firearms and Weapons on Campus : \n• Any firearms and weapons which have not been authorized to be on university owned or controlled \nproperty will be seized by Security and immediately relinquished to the Police.  \n \nIn addition the following may apply:  \n• Using any object, article, substance, or liquid in an offensive or dangerous manner or in a manner \nwhich is likely to frighten others is also strictly prohibited.  \n• The university may inform the police of the details of any person who is or has been in possession \nof any offensive and/or dangerous weapon found on university owned or controlled property.  \n• Members of University staff who are or who have been found to be in possession of an unauthorized \nfirearm and/or weapon on campus, or any university owned, or controlled property may be subject \nto disciplinary action.  \n• Students who are or who have been found to be in possession of unauthorized firearms and/or \nweapons on campus or a university owned, or controlled property may be subject to disciplinary \naction. Any instances of potential misconduct will be investigated in  line with the University’s Student \nDisciplinary Regulations.  \n• In the case of prohibited or non -registered firearms and other illegal weapons, an individual may also \nbe subject to criminal prosecution.  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n  Firearms and Other Weapons  Procedure  – Page 4 \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University    \n \nStudent Accommodation Owned and/or Controlled by Massey University : \nDangerous Items and Hazardous Substances  \n \nThe possession or storage of firearms and weapons is not permitted at Massey Halls by residents or \nguests, include but not limited to knives, firearms, swords, air guns , pistols, BB guns and bow and arrows \n(this includes replica items).  \n \nThe police may be informed if an offensive and/or dangerous weapon is found within any student \naccommodation and/or areas surrounding them.  \n \nResidents are not permitted to have or use hazardous substances such as chemicals, spray paints, butane \nlighters or fluid solvents within Massey Halls. Any damage caused by paint, glue or vanish to carpet or \nfloors will be charged to the resident concerned , or the entire Hall/Apartment.  \n \nUsing any object, article, substance, or liquid offensively or dangerously or in manger that is likely to \nfrighten others is strictly prohibited within Massey Halls.  \n \nRequirements : \n1. Approval is required to use a firearm and other weapons for the purpose of pest control and animal \neuthanasia when operating outside controlled and approved documented university work at \nMassey University. An example of operating to an approved document would be when you are \noperating under the instruction of a code of conduct, a manufacturer instruction manual and/or an \napproved local standard operating procedure (SOP).  \n2. Conduct an appropriate risk assessment and then complete a safety plan. As a minimum the safety \nplan should cover:  \na) Details of the task/job at hand.  \nb) A detailed list of approved weapons being used and for what purposes.  \nc) Who will be using them, where they will be used and for how long they will be used on \nuniversity property?  \nd) How carcasses will be managed.  \ne) Provisions for safe storage of firearms/weapons while not in use.  \nf) A site map of where the firearm/weapon will be used.  \ng) A start and end date/time.  \n3. The safety plan must be approved under the direction of the Executive Director, Estates General \nManager of Farms, or their delegate.  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n  Firearms and Other Weapons  Procedure  – Page 5 \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University    \n4. Any persons approved to use a firearm/weapon under this policy will be required to ensure they \ncan provide evidence upon request. In addition to approval the person shall have a current NZ \nPolice issued firearms license.  \nA text message or an email or a signed and dated copy of the safety plan received from the Executive \nDirector, Estates or General Manager of Farms or SoVS HoS or their delegate is accepted evidence of \napproval.  \nApproval will expire upon the end date of the safety plan’s or when the job/task is completed (whichever \ncomes first).  \n \nRelated documents : \nRelevant Legislation  \n• Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act 1997  \n• Arms Act 1983  \n• Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996  \n• Health and Safety at Work Act 2015  \n• Misuse of Drugs Act  \n• Veterinarians Act 2005  \n• Welfare of Animals Act 1999 (and relevant Codes of Welfare)  \n \nLegal Compliance  \n• Firearms license issued by the New Zealand Police  \n• Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinarians 2020  \n \nRelated Procedures  \n• Post-mortem Cash Special User’s Manual  \n• Farms Services Escaped Large Animal Contingency Plan  \n• Guidelines for Shooting on Massey University Farms  \n• Massey University Farms Shooting Permit Application  \n• Grounds Communication Plan  \n \n \n \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "First_Aid_Resources_Guideline_PDF_210_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "First Aid Resources Guideline",
      "policy_type": "Guideline",
      "file_size": "210 KB",
      "creation_date": "2023-03-06T11:05:09",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220100852+13'00'"
    },
    "content": "    \n Massey University Policy Guide  \n \nFIRST AID RESOURCES GUIDELINE  \n \n \n© This Polic y is the property of M assey University  \n \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \n \nPurpose :  \nThis document  outlines th e guidelines for Massey University to meet its legi slative requirements and \nprovide s guidance f or first aid facilities, equipment and access to first aiders.  \nGuidelines : \nFirst Aid  \nFirst aid is the immediate basic care given to an injured or si ck person be fore a doctor, other health \nprofessional or emergency services tak e over their treatment . It focuses on preserving life and minimi sing \nserious injury.  \n \nAppointing First Aiders  & Coverage  \nManagers  must  complete a First Aid Needs Assessment  and ensure they have appointed staff to fulfil the \nrole of first aider within thei r areas of responsibility . The assessment assists with identif ying the number \nand availability of first aider s, and appropriate first aid equipment  required for the nature of  activities bein g \nundertaken . Please refer to the First Aid Needs Assessment temp late below , the assessment should be \nreviewed annually . \n \nIn some buildings there are multiple business units, so having at least one first aider per department is \ngood practi ce. In these situ ations, Managers must liaise  with other departments  in their immediate area  to \nensure full coverage.  \n \nLine Managers/Academic Supervisors are responsible for ensuring that there is at least one first aider \navailable at all times  when  their depar tment  or bui lding  is available  for students and staff. This m eans \ntaking into account staff leave, breaks and sickness.  \n \nPeople  responsible for organising  an event  are responsible for completi ng the First Aid Needs Assessment \nto identify and ensure there is first aid  coverage for all on and offsite events, field work assignments and \nday trips.  \n \n \n Section  Health & Safety  \nContact  Occupational Health, Safety & Wellbeing \nDirector \nLast Review  6 March 2023  \nNext Review  6 March 2026  \nApproval  Occupational Health, Safety & Wellbeing \nDirector  \nEffective Date  6 March 2023  \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nFirst Aid Reso urces Guid eline  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nManagers  must con sult with workers in the area and take in to account their views as well as consider :  \n• The number of workers at the workplace at any given time  \n• The needs of w orkers with a disability or known health concern s \n• The nature of the work  they do and its risks.  \n• The likelihood of people being hurt and how serious the injuries might be. \n• The physic al size of the workplace and whether workers are scattered ac ross different  parts of it.  \n• The location of the workplace and its distance from ambulanc e services, medical centres and \nhospitals  \n• Whether other people ( e.g., students or members of the public) v isit the workplace.  \n \nFirst Aid and the Risk Management Proces s \n \n\n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nFirst Aid Reso urces Guid eline  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nSource: WorkSaf e \nTraining  \nTraining is provided by Red  Cross  (NZQA Accredited) and can be booked  via MyHR  Devel opment \nCalendar. Training is paid for by your business unit.  \n \nThe initial course is Comprehensive First Aid training (12hrs over 1.5 days) for a 2-year certification . A \nrevalidation course (6hrs) is required before  the expiry of the Comprehen sive First Ai d certificate to refresh \nand maintain skills . In addition, specialty first aid courses for specific roles ( e.g., Electrical Service \nTechnicians) are also organized through the University.  \n \nAll train ing records are held by People & Culture,  and it is a manager’s  responsibility to review and confirm \ntheir first aid resource details are correct and current  every 6 months .  \n \nFirst Aider Responsibilities  \nThe first aider is res ponsible for administering basic acute treatment in the case of an injury . They must \nfamiliarise  themselves with  the first aid equipment on site and the contents of the first aid kits.  \n \nIn an evacuation , first aiders must  report to the Building Warden with their kit.  \n \nWhere to Find a First Aider  \nDuring an emergency, designated  first aiders will be carrying a first aid kit. In addition, all security staff are \ntrained first aiders.  \n \nManagers are responsible for introducing new staff members to their local first aider  during inductions.  \n \n \nFirst Aid Ki ts \n \nType & Quantity of First Aid Kits  \n• You m ust provide at least one first aid kit for each workplace and ensure workers know where it is.  \n• It must be clearly labelled as a ‘First Aid Kit’ and be easily accessible.  \n• It must have a list of what i s in the kit. \n• It must be made of material that will protec t the contents from dust, moisture, and contamination.  \n \nManagers must complete a First Aid Needs Assessment to identify appropriate equipment required for the \nnature of activities being undertaken. P lease refer to the First Aid Needs Assess ment t emplate be low to \ndetermine whether your activities require basic first aid or specialized equipment , quantities  and how the \nkits should be distributed . The assessment should be reviewed annually . \n \nBasic  kits a re for most office , workshop  and non -lab or hazardous env ironments. Choosing between a soft \nor hard case depends on where you are storing/mounting your kit.  \n \nFirst Aid Kit Maintenance  \nFirst aid kits are purchased , replenished,  and maintained by the local schools and departments. They \nshould be checked 6 monthly and restocked as needed. If your local kit is low on supplies, contact your \nDepartments Administrator.  \n \nKits can be purchased through our approved supplier s, NZ Safety  Blackwoods  or Redcross . \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nFirst Aid Reso urces Guid eline  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \nA basic first aid kit contents list is attached below. For higher risk areas with specialised equipment, please \nrefer to your First Aid Needs Assessment  for guidance.  \n \n \nChecks you should make:  \n• Contents:  Kits should be  fully checked yearly as a minimum . If you have a notebook with the kit \nyou should check it 6 monthly so items can be topped up as soon as possible.  \n• Expiry Dates:  Items should be replaced in the year of ex piry. \n• General Check:  Is the kit clean? Do the zip or clips work?  \n• Spares:  It’s handy to keep spares of items that run out quickly e.g. plasters. Store separately and \nremember the expiry dates.  \n• Special ised Areas:  For labs and other speciali sed areas you wou ld additionally have items that \nrelate to the hazards, such as eye wash stations or solution. A First Aid Needs Assessment is \nnecessary to determine needs – the HSW team can help you with this.  \n• Over -the-counter Pain Relief:  Don’t keep the se freely accessi ble in kits. Massey University does \nnot supply or provide pain relief. More information:  Worksafe’s Workplace F irst Aid Guidance . \n• Notebooks:  Ensure these are used for usage of kit ite ms so it’s easy to see if anything is running \nlow in the kit.  \n• Unreported Use of Items:  If this is high, you should investigate.  \n• Highly Visible  Signage:  Install signage to show exactl y where your kit is. If you don’t have a sign, \nan example of a good on e is a First Aid Sign 230x 300. \n \nLocation of First Aid  Kits \nManagers are responsible for shar ing the location of your departments first aid kits during staff member \ninduction s.  \n \nSchools and Departments  should have their first aid kits in common areas, such as a staff kitchen and \nhave details on the locations  of the first aid kits in the emergency  information noti ces. These are placed \nnear the exits of their buildings.  \n \nAED Defibrillators  \nAED or ‘Automated External Defibrillator’  is a small, portable device that can deliver an electric shock to \nrestore the he arts normal rhythm .  \n \nAEDs can be used by trained or unt rained people as the machine verbally instructs the user on how to \nadminister  the device.  \n \nAEDs  are located throughout the University and maintained by the Health, Safety and Wellbeing team  as \nper ma nufactu rer’s instructi ons. They should be located in are a’s that are clearly visible, accessible and not \nexposed to extreme temperatures.  \n \nYou can locate them, and other defibrillators throughout New Zealand, using the Massey App  or AED \nLocations websi te. Get to know where the nearest AED is to your workplace.  \n \n \n \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nFirst Aid Reso urces Guid eline  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \nAudience : \nMassey University Staff  \nRelevant legislati on: \nHealth and Safe ty at W ork (General Risk and Workpl ace Management) Regulations 2016  \nLegal complian ce: \nLegal provision to pro vide first a id \nRelated procedure s / documents : \nWorkSafe First Aid Guidance - First Aid Needs Assessment Template   \nWorkSafe First Aid Guidance - Basic First Aid Kit Co ntents List  \nDocument Management Control:  \nPrepared by:  Health, Safety & We llbeing  \nAuthorised by:  Occup ational Health, Safety & Wellbeing Dir ector  \nApproved by:  Occup ational Health , Safety & Wellbeing Director  \nDate issued:   6 Mar ch 2023 \nLast review:  6 March 2023  \nNext review:  6 March 2026  \n \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Genetically_Modified_Organisms_Procedures_PDF_125_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Genetically Modified Organisms Procedures PDF 125 KB",
      "policy_type": "Procedure",
      "file_size": "125 KB",
      "author": "Banner, Jodie",
      "creation_date": "2024-05-17T13:03:02",
      "modification_date": "D:20240517133251+12'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n \n \n \n \n   \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n \n ENTER PROCEDURE  \n \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n  GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS PROCEDURE  \n \nSection  University Services  \nContact  Director  Occupational Health & Safety, Wellbeing  \nLast Review  July 2023  \nNext Review  July 2026 \nApproval  Director Occupational Health & Safety, Wellbeing  \n \n \nPurpose:  \n \nTo provide for safe and responsible use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) at Massey \nUniversity in a way that protects the environment and the health and safety of people and communities \nand complies with the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) act 1996 and Biosec urity \nact 1993.  \n \nAll staff and students conducting research or teaching involving the importation or development of \ngenetically modified organisms (GMOs) in containment must ensure that their work is carried out in \nsuch a way that any adverse effect on the environment is minimised as specified in the Hazardous \nSubstances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act 1996.  \n \n \nScope : \n \nAll Massey University staff, students,  and visitors to a Campus.  \n \n \nProcedure : \nThe importation (including storage and use) and development of GMO’s must only take place with \napproval gained through one of the pathways below:  \na) For work involving Low Risk Genetic Modifications (according to HSNO Low -Risk Genetic \nModification Regulations 2003), refer to the New Organisms at Massey  site for more information, \nand applications for permission to work under existing broad HSNO approvals.  \nb) For work involving Genetic Modifications not classified as Low -Risk, applications should be made \nto the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  See EPA website  for details.  Before any \napplication is made to the EPA, contact the New Organisms at Massey  team to notify them and \nfor advice on how best to proceed.  \nWork with GMOs  at Massey must be undertaken in an MPI approved Transitional and Containment \nFacility.  For further information refer to the Restricted Organisms and Biological Products Procedure .  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nGenetically Modified Organisms  Procedure  – Page 2 \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University    \nSome GMOs may also be classified as infectious, pathogenic,  or zoonotic organisms.  For further \ninformation refer to the Infectious, Pathogenic and Zoonotic Organisms Procedure . \nIt is the responsibility  of the applicant  to ensure  that all GMO  approval  conditions  are followed.  \nWhere  facilities  or conditions  do not meet  required  criteria,  the work  must  not occur  until the \nsubstandard  matters  are remedied,  or relocated  to laboratories  that meet  the required  criteria . \n \nDefinitions:  \n \n1. Genetically  modified  organism  means,  unless  expressly  provided  otherwise  by regulations,  any \norganism  in which  any of the genes  or other  genetic  material : \na) Have  been  modified  by in vitro techniques;  or \nb) Are inherited  or otherwise  derived,  through  any number  of replications,  from any genes  or other  \ngenetic  material  which  has been  modified  by in vitro techniques.  \n \n2. Organism:  \na) does  not include  a human  being.  \nb) includes  a human  cell. \nc) includes  a micro -organism.  \nd) includes  a genetic  structure,  other  than a human  cell, that is capable  of replicating  itself,  \nwhether  that structure  comprises  all or only part of an entity,  and whether it  comprises  all or \nonly part of the total genetic  structure  of an entity.  \ne) includes  an entity  (other  than a human  being)  declared  to be an organism  for the purposes  of \nthe Biosecurity  Act 1993  \nf) Includes  a reproductive  cell or developmental  stage  of an organism.  \n \n \nRelated documents : \nRelevant Legislation  \n• Hazardous  Substances  and New Organisms  Act 1996.  \n• Biosecurity Act 1993.  \n \nLegal Compliance  \n• All GMOs or work involving GMOs must be approved by EPA (or duly authorised agent) prior to \ncommencement of work as required by Part 5, Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act \n1996.  \nRelated Procedures  \n• Restricted Organisms and Biological Products Procedure  \n• Infectious and Pathogenic or Zoonotic Organisms Procedure  \n \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Fee_Appeal_Guidelines_PDF_261_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Fee Appeal Guidelines PDF 261 KB",
      "policy_type": "Guideline",
      "file_size": "261 KB",
      "creation_date": "2022-05-19T12:02:09",
      "modification_date": "D:20220519122950+12'00'"
    },
    "content": "                                               Massey University Policy Guide  \n \nFEE APPEAL GUIDELINES  \n \n \n IN CONFIDENCE   \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \n \nDEFINITIONS:  \nDefinitions used in these guidelines are defined by the glossary to the calendar.  \nPROCEDURES:   \nThe Fee Appeal Guidelines guide staff in the consideration and processing of Fee Appeals.  \n \nThe following principles will apply:  \n1. Applications must be consistent with the timeframes outlined in the Enrolment and Fee Appeal Regulations;  \n2. Applications will be considered on th e merits of, the context of, and the evidence for, each situation;  \n3. Where appropriate a Credit  of Fees is the preferred option for redress.  \n \nThe diagram below outlines the options available to students:  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n Section  DVC SaGE  \nContact  Student Registry  \nLast Review  February 2022  \nNext Review   February 2025  \nApproval  SLT \n \n  \n \n IN CONFIDENCE   \n \n \nConsistency with Enrolment and Fee Appeal Regulation Timeframes  \nCheck that the student has withdrawn from the course(s) between the Dates for Withdrawal without Financial \nPenalty and the Final Examination, or end -date for the paper if no examination.  The Enrolment Regulat ions specify \nthe Dates for Withdrawal without Financial Penalty and the Dates for Withdrawal without Academic Penalty.  These \nmay change from time to time and staff are advised to check these regulations periodically to ensure activities are \nundertaken in accordance with approved timeframes.   \n \nIf no withdrawal has occurred, the student should be referred to the Academic Standing process so an appeal can be \nmade via this route.  Should the Academic Standing Hearings Committee refer a student appeal to the F ee Appeal \nprocess, the requirement to comply with withdrawal timeframes may be waived.  \n \nAt a glance:  \nDate of Withdrawal  Mitigating Factor  Outcome  \nPrior to Date of Withdrawal without \nFinancial Penalty   No Financial Penalty applies \ntherefore not eligible for Fee Appeal  \nWithdrawal between Date of \nWithdrawal without Financial \nPenalty and the Final Examination, \nor end -date for the paper if no \nexamination   Eligible to be considered for Fee \nAppeal if other criteria met  \nNo withdrawal or late withdrawal  Referred to Fee Appeal process by \nUniversity staff.  \nExtenuating factors considered to \nexplain non withdrawal  Eligible to be considered for Fee \nAppeal if other criteria met  \n \nExceptional Personal Circumstan ces \n \nFee Appeals are considered when Exceptional Personal Circumstances prevent the student from completing their \nstudy.  A check must be made that the student has not already applied for and received a concession, an Aegrotat or \nImpaired Performance, or a Fee Appeal, on the same grounds.   \n \nSituational Merit, Context, and Evidence  \nThere are three factors to consider:  \n\n \n  \n \n IN CONFIDENCE   \n1. Student Enrolment/ Academic Standing History  \n2. Situation Experienced by Student  \n3. Specific Programmes  \n \n1. Student Enrolment History  \nIt is important that Fee Appeals are not used to avoid the justified application of an academic penalty or an \nacademic progress restriction.  If a student submits a Fee Appeal and there is any evidence of the following, \nconsultation should take place with the Di rector of Teaching and Learning for the relevant College, or nominee, and \nthe Student Success and Engagement Coordinator:  \n \n▪ Repeated Fee Appeal(s)  \n▪ Repeated Enrolment and Withdrawal  \n▪ Previous Exclusion status  \n▪ Academic Standing is ‘At Risk’  \n \nThis will ensure t hat a multiple applications/appeals are not submitted on the same grounds and if so, that the \nstudents application for consideration is referred to the most appropriate route, i.e. AEG/IP, Study extension, \nAcademic Standing/ Exclusion Appeal, or Fee Appeal , for consideration.  \n \n2. Situation Experienced by Student  \nThe following are some common situations identified by applicants, the evidence that may be sought to support \nthese, and the options for outcomes:  \n \nSituation  Procedure to Verify  Potential Outcomes  \nFinancial Reasons:  \nPersonal Bankruptcy  Court records  Advise Credit Control  \nCan’t Afford  N/A     Not generally an acceptable reason \nfor Fee Appeal; however the \nunderlying cause may be.  If not \nupheld, WD or DNC is awarded.   \nThird party (e.g. e mployer) \nrefuses to pay/ scholarship falls \nthrough  Evidence that an agreement was in \nplace that should have reasonably \nbeen able to be relied upon.  If Massey is party to the agreement, \npursue payment through contractual \nmeans.   \nIf Massey is not a party to the \nagreement, a fee appeal may be \nconsidered.  If upheld, the enrolment \nmay be cancelled as not a valid \nenrolment.  \nRedundancy  Evidence including the date of advice \nand the date redundancy has \noccurred/will occur must be supplied \non official letterhead from the \nemployer.   A fee appeal may be considered; if \nupheld a WD may be awarded.  \nEnrolment Issue   \nLate Enrolment  Enrolment records, transaction \ndates, advice provided, \ncorrespondence.    If the  student has elected to enrol \nlate and has been advised of possible \nconsequences, award of WD or DNC \nis appropriate outcome.  \nIf student has enrolled late with no \ncounselling a fee appeal may be \n \n  \n \n IN CONFIDENCE  considered; an award of WD may be \ngranted if upheld.  \nIf student enrolment was delayed by \nUniversity  a fee appeal may be \nconsidered; if upheld, the enrolment \nmay be cancelled as not a valid \nenrolment.    \nFailed attempt at Withdrawal  Check contact records, system log, or \nrequest online log from ITS to \ndetermine whether a  withdrawal has \nbeen requested.   \n If the student has attempted to \nwithdraw prior to 17%  of the elapsed \ncourse, the enrolment may be \ncancelled as not a valid enrolment.    \n \nIf the Student has attempted to \nwithdraw after 17%  of the elapsed \ncourse, a fee appeal may be \nconsidered; an award of  WD may be \ngranted if upheld.  \nIf no evidence of withdrawal \nattempt, the likely outcome is a \ndecline.  \nStudy Concern  \nCourse Content different to \nExpectation  Explanation/ evidence of how course \nis inconsistent with published \nmaterial or advice provided; seek \nvalidation from relevant College \nDirector of Academic Programmes or \nsimilar.   Refer to Student Complaints and \nGrievance Procedures .  If other \nfactors to consider also, may be \ngrounds for Fee Appeal.  If upheld, \nthe enrolment may be cancelled as \nnot a valid enrolment.    \nIf not upheld, WD or DNC may be \nawarded.  \n \nStudy Materials/ Texts not \navailable  Check availability of Stream site, \nstudy materials, or textbooks (via \nUniversity bookseller).  Grounds for Fee Appeal.  If upheld, \nthe enrolment may be cancelled as \nnot a valid enrolment.    \nIf not upheld, WD or DNC may be \nawarded.  \nMassey has admitted faul t, \nstudent tried to persevere with \nstudy, but now withdrawn.  Seek relevant evidence:   \nNames of Massey staff they have \nreceived advice from . \nCopies of correspondence . \nDetailed written explanations.  \nContact records, Student letters  \n Refer to Student Complaints and \nGrievance Procedures .   If other \nfactors to consider also, may be \ngrounds for a Fee Appeal.  If upheld, \nthe enrolment may be: cancelled as \nnot a valid enrolment, or a WD may \nbe awarded.    \n \n \nGrievance – action of the \nUniversity has caused the student \ndisadvantage   Refer to Student Complaints and \nGrievance Procedures  \nOther Commitments  \nWork Commitments  Request letter on official letterhead \nfrom employer including dates that \nwork circumstances changed and if A fee appeal may  be considered; if \nupheld a WD may be awarded.  \n \n \n  \n \n IN CONFIDENCE  possible when work commitments \nare likely to ease.  \nIf the student is self -employed or the \nDirector/CEO of the company \nrequest a sworn affidavit. This  must \nbe signed and dated by a Lawyer, \nJustice of the Peace.  Corroborating \nevidence may assist.  \nWith appropriate evidence a \npartner’s change in work \ncircumstances may be considered if \nit impacts heavily on the students’ \nability to study.  \n Confirm that previous fee appeals \nhave not been made on this ground.  \nAttending another Training/ \nEducational Institute  Request evidence  of attendance  \n(NB: Evidence of enrolment only is \nnot enough) at other \ntraining/educational institute. \nAcceptable evidence is verified \ncopies of academic transcripts, exam \nresult slips, and a letter from the \ntertiary institute’s registry office. \nEvidence of fee payment is not \nsufficient.  \n Grounds for Fee Appeal.  If upheld, \nthe enrolment may be cancelled as \nnot a valid enrolment.    \nIf not upheld, WD or DNC may be \nawarded.  \n \nSporting, Military, Navy, Airforce, \nand Police commitments  Request evidence of reason from \ncommanding officer, superior, \ncoaches or union of sport with \nreason for inability to continue \nstudy, including dates that the \nstudent’s ability to study was \naffected and if possible when they \nwill be able to commence study.  A fee appeal may be considered; if \nupheld a WD may be awarded.  \n \nConfirm that previous fee appeals \nhave not been made on this ground.  \nMedical  \nTemporary Medical Condition \n(including immediate family)  Request medical evidence on official \nletterhead from the  student’s DR, GP \nor medical professional detailing the \ndates that the student’s ability to \nstudy was affected.  \n \nIf the student’s evidence advised \nthat their illness was less than one  \nweek the student must provide a \nletter/email from their paper co -\nordina tor stating that the student \nhad fallen too far behind due to the \nillness and is not able to catch up \nwith the work.  \n \nEnsure an AEG/IP has not been \nsubmitted.  A fee appeal may be considered; if \nupheld a WD may be awarded.  \n \nConfirm that previous fee appeals \nhave not been made on this ground.  \n \n  \n \n IN CONFIDENCE   \nLong Term Medical Condition \n(Physical, Terminal illness – \nincluding family and close friends)  Request medical evidence from the \nstudent’s Medical Professional on \nofficial letterhead including the date \nof incapaci ty and the fact that the \nstudent will not recover sufficiently \nto be able to resume studying.  \n A fee appeal may be considered; if \nupheld a WD may be awarded.  \n If the student is appealing on the \ngrounds of a family member or close \nfriend’s illness they wil l need to \nsupply evidence stating that their \nability to study has been affected by \nthis, including dates from when this \naffected their study . \n A fee appeal may be considered; if \nupheld a WD may be awarded.  \n \nConfirm that previous fee appeals \nhave not been m ade on this ground.  \nTemporary Mental Health \nCondition (Stress, etc.)  Request medical evidence from a \nGeneral Practitioner, Medical \nProfessional, Psychiatrist or \ncounsellor, including the date that \nthe student’s ability to study was \naffected.  \n  \nEnsure tha t the counsellor is suitably \nqualified.  \n A fee appeal may be considered; if \nupheld a WD may be awarded.  \n \nConfirm that previous fee appeals \nhave not been made on this ground.  \nLong Term Mental Health \nCondition  Request evidence from Dr, GP, \npsychiatrist or medical professional \non official letterhead that includes a \nstatement regarding the fact that this \nis a long -term mental illness and the \nstudent is unfit for study. If the \nstudent suffered from the mental \nillne ss before they enrolled the \nstatement must include dates that \nthe illness affected the student ability \nfor the current academic year.  \n A fee appeal may be considered; if \nupheld a WD may be awarded.  \n \nConfirm that previous fee appeals \nhave not been made on this ground.  \n \nPersonal Matter  \nRelationship Breakdown \n(Student/ Student’s Parents)  Request evidence from an \nappropriate source – medical, \ncounsellor or solicitor, sworn \naffidavit , church counsellor, court \ndocuments, women’s refuge. This \nevidence must state dates that the \nrelationship breakdown affected the \nstudent’s ability to study.  \n A fee appeal may be considered; if \nupheld a WD may be awarded.  \n \nConfirm that previous fee appeal s \nhave not been made on this ground.  \nRelationship Breakdown (Close \nfamily and friends)  Request evidence from the above \nlist, or if that is not possible a sworn \naffidavit. This evidence must state \ndates that the relationship A fee appeal may be considered; if \nupheld a WD may be awarded.  \n \n \n  \n \n IN CONFIDENCE  breakdown affected the student’ s \nability to study and if possible a date \nthat the student may resume study.  \n Confirm that previous fee appeals \nhave not been made on this ground.  \nSensitive Issue – Student’s family \nmembers included (sexual abuse \netc) Request evidence from a Dr, GP, \nMedical Professional, Councillor or \nACC on official letterhead including \ndates that the student’s ability was \naffected.  Stress to student that \ninformation will remain confidential. \nIf the  student requests the \ndocumentation back do not keep a \ncopy and send all evidence back.  \nRecord on student notes on the Fee \nAppeal Restricted area that the \nevidence has been cited.  \n A fee appeal may be considered; if \nupheld a WD may be awarded.  \n \nConfirm that previous fee appeals \nhave not been made on this ground.  \nBereavement  \nDeath of Student  Request the Death Notice of the \nstudent from the University Library. \nIf there is not a death notice, request \na copy of the death certificate.  Set student fl ag appropriately so no \ncontinued contact from University.  \nInform Te Paepoto to instiga te \ndeceased student process.  \nFee Appeal may be upheld with WD \nawarded.  Send letter/Card to the \nnext of Kin advising.  \n \nDeath of a family member or \nfriend  Need evidence of the relationship \nand death certificate. Contact the \nLibrary for the death notice. The \nfuneral service sheet is a lso \nacceptable if includes name of \nstudent. If student is unable to prove \nrelationship then a sworn affidavit is \nacceptable.  \n A fee appeal may be considered; if \nupheld a WD may be awarded.  \n \nConfirm that previous fee appeals \nhave not been made on this ground.  \nDisaster  \nNatural Disaster/ Act of God (Fire \netc) Request evidence of insurance \ninspectors report, police report or \nreport from Civil defence or a \nnewspaper article naming the \nstudent.  \n A fee appeal may be considered; if \nupheld a WD may be awarde d. \n \nConfirm that previous fee appeals \nhave not been made on this ground.  \nCivil Unrest – Riots and Mutiny  Request evidence that proves the \nstudent was in that country/region \nat the time. Travel documents are \nacceptable, letter from the New \nZealand consulat e or a sworn \naffidavit.  \n A fee appeal may be considered; if \nupheld a WD may be awarded.  \n \nConfirm that previous fee appeals \nhave not been made on this ground.  \nImmigration Criteria  \nA returning student was not \ngranted a visa  N/A Not generally grounds for appeal.  \nStudent is required to hold valid visa \n \n  \n \n IN CONFIDENCE  prior to commencement of \nenrolment period.  Award of WD or \nDNC is appropriate.  \nVisa not obtained  N/A New International students should \nnot be enrolled without a visa. In the \nevent a student enrol s and pays fees \nwithout obtaining a visa then the \nstudent will be withdrawn without \nacademic or financial penalty, and a \nrefund will be provided.  \nVisa Revoked  Correspondence from Immigration \nNew Zealand.  A fee appeal may be considered; If \nupheld, the enrolment may be \ncancelled as not a valid enrolment, \nor a WD may be awarded.  \n \nConfirm that previous fee appeals \nhave not been made on this ground.  \nUnable to study in mode offered  Verification from International \nStudent Support or International \nAdmissions.  Grounds for Fee Appeal.  If upheld, \nthe enrolment may be cancelled as \nnot a valid enrolment.    \n \n \nOutcomes of Fee Appeals  \nThe outcomes listed above are only a guide and the decision will be based on the factors outlined in the sections \nprior.  Possible outcomes include:  \n \nDecision  Evaluation  Award  Fees  \nFee Appeal Upheld  Does not meet threshold \nfor valid enrolment  N/A: withdraw enrolment  Full refund  \n Meets threshold for valid \nenrolment  WD Fullrefund  \nFee Appeal Declined  Withdrawal prior to Date \nfor Withdrawal without \nAcademic Penalty  WD No refund  \n Withdrawal after Date for \nWithdrawal without \nAcademic Penalty  DNC  No refund  \n \nAudience:  \nUniversity Staff.  \nRelated procedures / documents:  \nStudent Complaints and Grievance Procedures  \nUniversity Enrolment and Fee regulations disclosed in the University Calendar . \nAcademic Progress regulations disclosed in the University Calendar.  \nDelegations Document   \nStudent Refund and Fee Protection Policy  \n \n \n  \n \n IN CONFIDENCE  Document Management Control:  \nPrepared by: Head of  Student Registry  \nAuthorised by: SLT \nDate issued:  \nLast review:  \nNext review:  \n \n \n \nAppendix 2 Previous Policy, Procedures and Guidelines  \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Guideline_for_Health_and_Safety_Protection_of_Peoples_Safety_in_Contracting_Situations_PDF_65_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Guideline for HS Protection of Peoples Safety in Contracting Situations",
      "policy_type": "Guideline",
      "file_size": "65 KB",
      "creation_date": "2015-02-09T15:01:05",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220100746+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n Massey University Policy Guide \n \nGUIDELINE FOR HEALTH AND SAFE TY PROTECTION OF STA FF, STUDENTS,  \nCONTRACTOR’S  EMPLOYEES, SUBCONTRA CTORS AND INDIVIDUAL S SAFETY IN \nCONTRACTING SITUATIO NS  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n \n   \n  \n \n \nPurpose  \nThe purpose of this guideline is to recommend processes for  ensuring protection of health and safety of staff, \nstudents, contractors employees, subcontractors and individuals in contracted work or services. The process uses the \nword “principal” which is the legal term for the University person who engages the cont ractor.  \nGuideline :  \nThe steps below outline the usual features of a process for principals to manage and assist with the safety \nperformance of contractors. It summarises the \"best practice\" process outlined in the Department of Labours \ndocument A principal’s guide to contracting to meet the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 . \n  \nAll six stages of the contract process will apply to any contracting situation. However, the extent to which each is \nformalised will vary according to the size and type of contract involved. For each stage the health and safety issue are \ndetailed, along with corresponding task and documentation. Outcome documents are indicated in italics . A \ncompr ehensive induction may be sufficient for routine maintenance and  service contracts.  \n1. Scoping the work  \nHealth and safety issues  Tasks and documentation  \nDetermining what work needs to be contracted out, \nand considering the broad health and safety \nimplicatio ns. \nConsidering health and safety issues when \nselecting the best way to select a contractor and \ndeciding price and other contractual terms.  Initial appraisal of significant hazards and overview of \nlikely risks associated with different options. Existing \nassessments should be used as starting point.  \nRelevant tender and/or contract information developed \nby the principal.  \n2. Pre-qualifying the contractor  \nHealth and safety issues  Tasks and documentation  \nAssessing capability of potential contractors (i.e. \nfor an \"approved list\").  Pre-qualification questionnaire  \n \nAssessing health and safety management and, \ndepending on the scale or significance of the hazards, Section  Health and Safety  \nContact People and Organisational Development  \nLast Review  August  2014  \nNext Review  December 2017  \nApproval  AVC People and Organisational \nDevelopment  \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nGuideline for Health and Safety Protection of Staff, Students, \nContractor’s Employees, Subcontractors and Individuals Safety \nin Contracting Situations  – Page 2 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  a detailed appraisal of technical competence.  \n \nConsider:  \n• hazards at the University  \n hazards the contrac tor may create during \nthe contract;  \n emergency preparation;  \n safety requirements;  \n restricted areas;( e.g. accommodation, IT  \nfinance, containment areas, confined \nspaces)  \n security;  \n after hours work,  \n other relevant rules.(any special criteria \nrequired of c ontractor and \nsubcontractors?)  \nNote: From 1 November 2011 contractors \nproviding Adventure Activities must be registered \nwith Department of Labour.   \n \n3. Contractor selection and negotiation of terms \nHealth and safety issues  Tasks and documentation  \nProviding  information to potential contractors on the \nhealth and safety, including the hazards of the \nparticular contract.  \n \nDeveloping a draft health and safety plan for the \nproject with scope for completion in discussion with \nthe principal.  \n \nAssessing capability of tenderers (where pre- tender \nqualification hasn't been done).  Tender contracts  \nRelevant information is given to tenderers by the \nprincipal through the information for tenderer \ndocument.  \n \nDraft health and safety plan  \n \nTenderers complete a draft plan. Princ ipal provides \ninformation and answers questions specific to the job, \nassists with completion of hazard assessment and \nmethod statements where appropriate.  \n \nNon-tendered contracts  \nContract specific health and safety information is \nprovided to pre- qualified contractor. Contractor \nresponds to information provided and depending on \nthe size and nature of the contract provides either:  \n• A draft health and safety plan; or  \n• Acknowledgement of receipt and acceptance \nof health and safety information, terms and \nconditi ons; such as through contractor \ninduction (a check list is attached) or  \n• Other documentation as required  \n \n \n4. Awarding the contract  \nHealth and safety issues  Tasks and documentation  \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nGuideline for Health and Safety Protection of Staff, Students, \nContractor’s Employees, Subcontractors and Individuals Safety \nin Contracting Situations  – Page 3 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  For larger projects, developing a job -specific \nhealth and safety plan.  \n  \nFor smaller jobs, or ongoing work, maintaining \nagreed standards, systems and processes \nestablished by pre- qualification, and modifying \nthem to suit the circumstances of the individual \ncontract.  The contract itself will often draw on the tender \ndocuments or other information provided to or by the \ncontractor.  \n \nJob registration or permit -to-work systems may be \nused to inform risk assessments.  \n \nCompleted health and safety statements or plan  \n \nPrincipal provides information and answers questions \nspecific to the j ob, assists with completion of hazard \nassessment and method statements where \nappropriate.  \n \nIncorporation of health and safety plan into contract  \n. \nIncludes agreed detail of lines of communication, \nresponsibilities, accountability, safe systems of work, \nmethod statements, use of client services, etc.  \n \n5. Monitoring the contract (as and where applicable)  \nHealth and safety issues  Tasks and documentation  \nMonitoring/checking throughout duration of \ncontract.  \n \nResponding to information as received.  \n \nKeeping the contractor informed of the results of \nmonitoring.  Checking and ensuring contractor performance meets \nthe agreed standards.  \n \nEnsuring permit to work or job registration systems, \ncompetency requirements, and other controls are in \nplace and maintained.  \n \nMeeting as appropriate to plan for and resolve health \nand safety issues.  \n \nPrincipal’s reporting, notification and hazard \nmanagement documentation as required by the \ncontract.  \n \n6. Post-contract review (as and where applicable)  \nHealth and safety issues  Tasks a nd documentation  \nConcluding review to determine success or \notherwise of the contract.  \n Helping principal and contractor learn from health and \nsafety performance during the contract.  \n \nPost-contract evaluation form  \n \nDefinitions : \nWho is a principal?  \nA \"prin cipal\" is any person, or corporate entity, who engages another to do any work for gain or reward, other than as \nan employee. The exception is engaging someone to do work on your own home (Residential Work).  \n \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nGuideline for Health and Safety Protection of Staff, Students, \nContractor’s Employees, Subcontractors and Individuals Safety \nin Contracting Situations  – Page 4 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  If you engage a self -employed person, the duties  of a principal under the Act apply — as long as the person meets \nthe accepted tests for that person being an independent contractor and not an employee.  \n \nA contractor is considered a \"principal\" with respect to subcontractors. This is an important point f or businesses to \nconsider.  \n \nWho is a contractor?  \nA “contractor” is any person who is engaged, other than as an employee, by another to do work for gain or reward. \nThey may be a self -employed person, corporate entity, or a person engaged on some other basi s than as an \nemployee.  \n \nWho is an employee? \nAn “employee” is defined for the purposes of the Health and Safety in Employment Act as any person of any age who \nis employed by an employer to do any work (other than residential work) for hire or reward under a contract of service, \ni.e. an employment agreement.  \n \nIn some situations volunteers, loaned employees or people receiving training or work experience may be deemed \n“employees” for the purpose of the Health and Safety in Employment Act. Student volunteers are not required to be \nconsidered employees by the Act.  \n \nAgents and advisers  \nOften a principal will act through an agent or adviser. This includes situations where a company uses expertise that it \ndoes not retain in- house to purchase specialist goods or services.  \n \nBy using an agent or a management facility a principal does not necessarily avoid their duty under section 18. For \nexample, where a building owner asks a property management company to organise a contractor to repair a roof, and \nthe account is forwarded by the agent to the building owner, the owner still has the duties of a principal. Alternatively, \nif the property management company commissions the work and pays the bill, it is a principal in relation to the \ncontractor.  \n \nRelated duties  \nThree fur ther provisions in the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 may apply to principals during the lifetime \nof a contract. They may overlap with duties under section 18, and are in addition to the duties the principal may have \nas an employer. The duties apply to  \n1. Person who controls a place of work, including plant and vehicles  \n2. Selling or supplying plant for use in a place of work  \n3. Recording and notifying accidents and incidents  \nAudience : \nEvery manager and staff member who engages contractors.  \nLegislation:  \nHealth and Safety in Employment Act 1992  \nACC Regulations and Workplace Safety Management Practices standards  \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nGuideline for Health and Safety Protection of Staff, Students, \nContractor’s Employees, Subcontractors and Individuals Safety \nin Contracting Situations  – Page 5 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  Related procedures / documents : \nCampus Regional Facilities Contractor Hand books, agreements, or procedures  \nPost Completion Review process  \nProcedure for Site Safe A ccreditation and M embership \nDocument Management Control:  \nPrepared by: University Health an d Safety Manager  \nAuthorised by: AVC – Operations , International  and University Registrar  \nDate issued: 16 April 2012  \nLast review: August 2014  \nNext review:  December  2017  \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Fraud_and_Corruption_Control_Plan_PDF_303_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Fraud and Corruption Control Plan PDF 303 KB",
      "policy_type": "Unknown",
      "file_size": "303 KB",
      "author": "Banner, Jodie",
      "creation_date": "2025-02-04T11:03:09",
      "modification_date": "D:20250204113939+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n \n \nFRAUD AND CORRUPTION CONTROL PLAN  \nStatement of Massey University’s approach to Fraud & Corruption Risk Management  \nThe operational, financial, social and reputational impact of fraud and corruption on our organisation, and the \npeople it supports, can be significant. For these reasons, Massey University takes a no tolerance approach to \nfraud and corruption.  To demonstrate this commitment, the University has developed:  \n• A Fraud & Corruption Policy  to support an effective control environment which will discourage fraud, \nfacilitate its detection and  ensure  the timely reporting and investigation of potential fraud and \ncorruption.    \n• A Fraud Response Procedure that details the investigation procedure that the University will initiate \nand follow to respond to any fraud or corruption related notification or allegation.  \n• A Fraud & Corruption Control Plan (FCCP) that supports the principles outlined in the Fraud and \nCorruption Policy by establishing key activities to mitigate  fraud and corruption risk.  \nObjectives  \nThe objectives  of this plan  are to  promote a culture that supports pre vention of fraud and corruption and to \nminimise the risk of fraud and corruption withi n and against Massey University.  \nDefinitions (according to Massey’s Fraud Control Policy definition)  \nFraud:  means an intentional and dishonest act that involves deception or misrepresentation where the \nperpetrator obtains (or potentially obtains/seeks to obtain) an advantage for themselves, another person or the \nUniversity. This includes, but is not limited to:   \n• Forgery of any type -Unauthorised possession or misappropriation of University funds or assets -Deliberate \nmishandling or misreporting in recording and reporting financial transactions  \n• Deliberate misuse or unauthorised use, destruction or removal of University resources for unfair, \nunjustified or unlawful gain -Unauthorised disclosure of confidential information (may also be considered \ncorruption) -Dishonest claims for reimbursement.  \n• Fabrication or falsification of data or personal information.  \n• Intentional misstatements which include:  \no Misstatements resulting from fraudulent financial (and non -financial) reporting; and  \no Misstatements resulting from misappropriation of assets.  \nCorruption: is the lack of integrity or honesty (especially susceptibility to bribery) or the use of a position of trust \nfor dishonest gain. It includes bribery, coercion, destruction, removal or inappropriate use or disclosure of \nrecords, data, materials, intellectua l property or assets, or any similar or related inappropriate conduct.  \n\n \nRoles and Responsibilities  \nEffective fraud control requires active participation and input from all University staff. All members of the \nUniversity as defined in the University’s Fraud and Corruption Policy play an important role in identifying and \nreporting suspicious actions or wr ongdoing.  This plan details specific responsibilities allocated within Massey \nUniversity, for fraud & corruption related matters which are summarised in the following table:  \n \nROLE  RESPONSIBILITY  \nFinance and \nAssurance \nCommittee \n(FAC)  • Supports Council in discharging its responsibilities for ensuring quality and integrity of the \nfinancial management and assurance requirements of the University. This includes the \ngovernance responsibility to review any assurance provider’s review of the a dequacy and \neffectiveness of the University’s control environment and management responses to the \ninternal control and fraud risks as found appropriate.  \n• Approves the Fraud and Corruption Policy and Response Procedure.  \nVice -Chancellor  • Approves the Fraud & Corruption Control Plan . \n• Report any material  matter that relates to the assurance requirements of the University to \nthe Finance and Assurance Committee  following any investigation into fraudulent and \ncorrupt behaviour.   \nGovernance & \nAssurance / \nInternal Audit  \n  • Acting as a central contact point for allegations of incidents of fraud to be reported, \nincluding ensuring that all instances of suspected fraud are appropriately recorded, \ninvestigated, and reported to the Finance and Assurance Committee  (as required) and \nsatisfactorily resolved.  \n• Develop an overall Fraud and Corruption Control Plan for Massey University.  \n• This function provides ongoing assessment and evaluation of the effectiveness and \nefficiency of financial and operational co ntrols and reporting mechanisms.  \n• Identification of fraud risk and recommendations for improvement.  \n• Where appropriate, staff may be involved in undertaking investigations of alleged fraud.  \n• Establish and maintain a register of fraud breaches. Ensure all updates and changes to fraud -\nrelated policies, procedures, codes of conduct, and guidelines on behav iour are published \nto all staff.  \n• Overseeing fraud awareness and control training and ensuring that all fraud related policies \nand procedures are communicated and available to staf f via the internet and intranet.  \n• Coordinate follow -up of the fraud risk assessment by ensuring that all timetabled mitigation \nstrategies are implemented in accorda nce with the Fraud Control Plan.  \n• Designing and impleme nting a fraud detection program.  \n• Prepare risk based internal audit plans  with explicit consideration of fraud where applicable . \n• Conduct internal audit reviews.  \n• Report any suspected incidents of fraud or corruption.  \nManagers  • Implementing fraud control strategies as appropriate for their areas . \n• Ensure staff clearly understand their role and obligations as a first line of defence in the \nprevention and detection of fraud.  \n• Ensure that their staff are aware of the mechanisms for reporting incidents of suspected \nfraud and encourage staff to report any suspected incidents of fraud to an appropriate \ncontact officer in accordance with this Plan.  \n• If an incident of fraud or corruption is reported they should notify the Director, Governance \nand Assurance or Employment Relationship Manager of the same.  \nAll staff  • Behave diligently and act in good faith, in accordance with applicable laws, University policy, \nprocedures and Policy on staff conduct.  \n• Assist in the implementation of fraud risk management strategies and participate fully in \nactivities relating to fraud control.  \n• Remain vigilant and report all instances of suspected or actual fraud to an appropriate \ncontact officer in accordance with th e Policy .  \n• Not knowingly make a false or misleading report . \n• Deal with all reports of fraud in a professional and prompt manner.  \n• Undertake training in fraud awareness, ethics and privacy as required . \n \nApplication of Fraud & Corruption Plan  \nThe key activities  for each fraud control objective  within the University are shown in the below sections . These \nactivities will be monitored by the Internal Auditor on an annual basis, to ensure their continued operation and \nreported to the Senior Leadership Team and Finance and Assurance Committee : \nMassey University  Fraud and Corruption Control Plan  \nPreventing Fraud and Corruption : This stage outlines the frameworks, systems and processes in place across \nMassey University to promote and support the prevention of fraud and corruption.  \nObjective  Mechanisms / Key activities  Oversight  Timeline  \nEndorsement \nand promotion \nof Fraud and \nCorruption \npolicy and plan  1. Senior Leadership team to endorse and promote the Fraud and \nCorruption Policy and FCCP ensuring staff awareness on an \nongoing basis.  Senior \nLeadership \nTeam  Every \ntwo years  \nDevelopment \nand \nmaintenance of \nsound ethical \nculture  1. Ensure the University’s expectations around ethical conduct are \nclearly outlined in the Policy on Staff conduct.  People & \nCulture  Ongoing  \nStaff education \nand awareness  1. Ensure online formal fraud and corruption awareness sessions are \nprovided as part of the staff induction programme to all new \nstarters and then on an ongoing basis as a refresher course which \nshould include, but not limited to:  \na. General awareness of the significance of fraud and corruption \nand their potential impacts on the organisation.  \nb. Awareness of the University Fraud and Corruption Control \nPolicy and Fraud and Corruption Control Plan  \nc. An understanding of what might constitute fraud or corruption  \nd. Awareness of the ways in which they can report allegations or \nconcerns regarding alleged fraud or corruption or alleged \nunethical conduct  Internal Audit  Ongoing  \n \n2. Ensure staff attendance records are maintained, and feedback \nsurveys are used to establish the effectiveness of training sessions.  Internal Audit  Ongoing  \n3. Include Fraud Control Policy, Fraud and Corruption response \nprocedure and Fraud and Corruption Control Plan on Massey \nUniversity’s intranet along with the online notification form.   Internal Audit  Ongoing  \n4. Updates and changes to fraud related policies and procedures and \nother ethical pronouncements are effectively communicated to all \nstaff.   Governance \nand Assurance  As \nrequired  \nImplement a \nfraud & \nCorruption risk \nassessment \nprogram  1. Assess and register fraud risks in a Fraud Risk register on a regular \nbasis in accordance with the University’s Risk Management \nframework, with input from managers and Internal Audit.  Governance \nand Assurance  Two \nYearly  \n2. Review the FCCP to include any mitigations arising from the fraud \nrisk assessment program.  Internal Audit  Annually  \nConduct \nEmployment \nscreening  1. As part of the recruitment process, pre -employment screenings \nare conducted in accordance to the University’s policy on pre -\nemployment checks for prospective appointees which includes \nemployment, qualifications, credit, criminal history and reference \ncheck s which can help identify potential issues and factors that \nmay be indicative of fraud risk, such as prior criminal convictions \nfor dishonesty.  Recruiting \nManagers and  \nPeople and \nCulture Team  Ongoing  \nPrevention of \nThird -party \nfraud & \ncorruption  1. Contractors and suppliers are subjected to a due diligence process \nthrough which the credentials of the new suppliers are checked \nduring the initial negotiation stages,  and which are confirmed \nperiodically during thereafter . Procurement \nand Contract \nManagers and  \nFinance Team.  Ongoing  \nDeclaration of \nconflicts of \ninterest  1. Ensure that through online induction programmes, staff are made \naware of the need to declare any conflicts of interest in \naccordance to the Conflict -of-Interest  policy requirements.  Respective \nManagers  Ongoing  \n2. Maintain, review and update the Conflict of Interest register as \nrequired  Governance \nand Assurance  Annually  \nMassey University  Fraud and Corruption Control Plan  \n \nDetecting Fraud and Corruption: The following mechanisms/ activities aim to detect fraud or corrupt \npractices where preventative mechanisms are unsuccessful  \nObjective  Mechanisms / Key activities  Oversight  Timeline  \nTo provide clear \navenues for \ninternal & external \nreporting of \npotential or actual \nfraud and /or \ncorruption  1. Staff are made aware of the Massey University’s Fraud & \nCorruption Response procedure  which outlines the reporting / \nnotification methods available to internal and external parties \nfor any type of suspected fraudulent conduct or incident. \nUniversity also accepts both anonymous reports of suspected \nfraud.  Internal \nAudit  Ongoing  \nTo maintain a \nsound system of \nInternal Controls  1. Fraud controls are identified through the fraud risk register. \nProcess to validate the operation of those critical fraud controls \nwill be established.  Internal \nAudit  Periodic (2 \nyearly)  \n2. The results of the fraud risk assessments are considered when \ndeveloping the risk based annual internal audit plan.  Internal \nAudit  Ongoing  \n3. An independent Internal Audit function that reports directly to \nthe Finance and Assurance Committee has been setup that uses \nvariety of methodologies to detect fraud and corrupt practices. \nThis includes:  \na. Auditing University’s management controls over fraud, \nincluding policies, procedures, training and awareness \npractices, culture and governance, risk management and \nassessment practices etc.  \nb. Considering fraud as part of each internal audit engagement \nperformed including known fraud risks but also \nbrainstorming, researching and benchmarking to identify \nareas that may not have been otherwise identified.  \nc. Post transaction reviews by using data analytic tools and \nprogram to detect any unusual transactional behaviour or \npattern which might highlight fraudulent activity or non -\ncompliance to Massey policies and procedures  Internal \nAudit   Ongoing  \nTo provide \nassurance that \nfinancial \nstatement s are free \nof fraudulent \nreporting  1. External audit is responsible for conducting the audit of the \nUniversity’s financial statements, obtaining reasonable \nassurance about whether the financial statements are free of \nmaterial misstatement and whether the misstatements were \ncaused by error or fraud.  This includes:  \na. Misstatements resulting from fraudulent financial (and \nnon-financial) reporting.  \nb. Misstatements resulting from misappropriation of assets.  \n \n2. Misstatements resulting from fraudulent financial (and non -\nfinancial reporting will be controlled via:  \na. Process in place for purchasing where delegated \nauthorities are assigned – all purchases have raiser and \napprover  \nb. Payroll checks and balances are in place (HR)  \nc. Journals over $5K are reviewed prior to posting by the FR \nteam  \nd. Monthly reports to SLT to review variances in budget  \ne. Technical papers produced (often through external \naccounting consultants) for areas of significant judgement \nor subjectivity.  \n \n \n \n Audit NZ  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nFinance  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n Annually  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nOngoing  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nMassey University  Fraud and Corruption Control Plan  \n3. Misstatements resulting from misappropriation of assets will be \ncontrolled via:  \na. Departmental confirmation of assets at year end  \nb. Asset disposal procedures are in place  \nc. Year -end stock takes (e.g. Vet, Alumni shop)  Finance  Ongoing  \n \nResponding to Fraud and Corruption: This stage outlines the systems and processes in place across the local \ngovernment to respond to fraud and corruption within local government and the various channels to ensure \nimprovements or remedies for fraud and corruption.  \nObjective  Mechanisms / Key activities  Oversight  Timeline  \nTo ensure that \nappropriate \ninvestigations are \nperformed.  1. Communicate the University’s Fraud & Corruption Response \nprocedure  to staff at point of induction, which outlines the \ninvestigation procedure following the notification / reporting of \nfraud or corruption allegation and communication protocols if a \nfraud against Massey is detected.   Internal \nAudit  Ongoing  \nTo ensure \nappropriate \nregister and \nrecords are \nmaintained  1. All reported allegations or incidents are to be recorded and \ndocumented in the Fraud & Corruption register . The Fraud & \nCorruption register will include details and dates of the suspected \noffence, details of any staff involved, value of the alleged \nfraudulent or improper conduct, details of the investigation \nundertaken, outcome of investigation and any policy or \nprocedure amended as a result.  Internal \nAudit  As \nrequired  \nTo ensure that \nthe processes and \ninternal controls \nare reassessed \npost fraud \ninvestigation  1. Review internal controls, policies and procedures considering \nrecent risk incidents and in response to recommendations made \nby investigators, internal or external audit.  Governance \nand \nAssurance  As fraud \nincidents \noccur  \nTo ensure fraud \nand corruption \nrelated matters \nare reported to \nthe Governance \ncommittee  1. Ensure that fraud prevention and control matters are reported in \nthe annual Assurance report .  Internal \nAudit  Annually \nand as \nrequired  \nTo ensure \nappropriate \ncommunication \nprotocols are \nfollowed  2. Ensure that appropriate reporting channels and methods are \napplied in a fraud case against Massey University has been \ndetected . Governance \nand \nAssurance  As \nrequired  \n \nReview  \nThis plan will be review at 2 yearly intervals to ensure it remains current and that the fraud and corruption \ncontrol activities remain fit -for-purpose and effective.    \nModification History  \nDate  Source  \nSeptember 2020  Senior Leadership Team  \nNovember 2024  Senior Leadership Team  \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Financial_Monitoring_and_Control_Policy_PDF_111_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Section",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "111 KB",
      "author": "jmlochhe",
      "creation_date": "2025-02-27T09:02:04",
      "modification_date": "D:20250227092459+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " Massey University Policy Guide  \n \nFINANCIAL MONITORING AND CONTROL POLICY  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \n \n \n  \n  \n \n \n \nPurpose:   \nThe purpose of this policy is to provide assurance to the University Council and Senior Leadership Team  (SLT)  that \nresponsibility for University’s financial performance and stewardship of its assets is clearly defined.  \n \nFor clarity purposes, each of the University subsidiaries are governed by their respective board of directors who are \nresponsible for developing and implementing the policies and controls in their respective entities; therefore, are \nexcluded from the scope  of this policy document.   \nDefinitions:  \nActivity : Internal financial reporting splits University operations into five activity types . The three income generating \nactivities, ‘Teaching  (& supervision) ’, ‘Research’ and ‘Trading and Trusts’ are also collectively known as core activities. \nThe two non -income generating activities are ‘Support Services’ and ‘Strategic Initiatives’.  \n \nAnnual Budget : Annual financial statement s budget approved by the University Council  \n \nBudget Centre: Cost/Profit centre  defined as “Budget Centre” in the University’s chart of accounts and represented by \na unique three -digit numerical code (e.g. 123). Budget centres normally have income and expense budgets allocated \nto them and accumulates actual income and expenses agains t those budgets during a financial year.  \n \nReporting Line:  A Reporting Line in the context of this policy, consists of one or more budget centres  and is led by an \nSLT member. Budgets are allocated annually by SLT to the Reporting Lines which are further sub -allocated to the \nbudget centres within that Reporting Line at the discretion of the respective SLT member.  \n \nBudget Centre Manager : The Budget Centre Manager is a University employee with delegated financial authority \nunder the University’s Delegations of Authority Policy to make financial commitments for the budget centre.  Other staff \nwith sub delegations for a budget centre are not budget centre managers.  \n \nContribution : The bottom line on the budget centre financial reports, calculated as budget centre income less \nexpenses. For non -income generating activities contribution may also be referred to as the ‘net cost’ of the activity.  \n \nMargin : For core activities, the margin is contribution as a percent of income from that activity  – e.g. $20 contribution \nfrom $100 income  is a 20% margin . For support services and strategic initiatives, the margin is the net cost of the activity \nas a percent of University core income  – e.g. in a university generating $500 of core income, a support service with a \nnet cost of $5 has a margin of 1%.   \n Section  Finance  \nContact  Chief Financial Officer  \nLast Review  February  2025  \nNext Review  February  2027  \nApproval  FAC 2 5/03 \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nFinancial Monitoring and Control Policy  – Page 2 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nMateriality : An item can be material  if it has a significant financial impact on the financial performance of the budget \ncentre . Professional judgement is required in assessing material items but as a guide 5 % of the budget c entre ’s total \ncost or revenue budget  or $100,000 whichever is lower might be considered material.  \n \nOther examples of items that may be materially important and should be included in reports include contract disputes, \noverdue debtors, receiverships, breach of legislation, onerous contracts, non-performance  of contract and potential for \nUniversity reputational damage.  \n \nRisk Management : Refer to the University’s risk management framework.  \n \nTen Year Capital Plan (TYCP):  Rolling ten -year capital plan approved by the University Council annually  in December . \n \nPolicy:  \n \nOverview  \n \nThe SLT will endorse an annual budget for  University Council approv al each year . The budget will be compiled  after \nconsidering the Consolidated University P lan, TYCP,  Investment Plan (renewed every 2 to 3 years) , Enrolment Plan \nand strategy  and financial goals of the University. This will provide the framework for managing the University finances \nincluding meeting financial performance targets,  effective balance sheet management  and ensuring treasury  and cash \nflow commitments are met.  \n \n \nFinancial targets will be approved by the SLT based on enrolment plans  / targets , key financial assumptions , University \nstrategy , agreed surplus /deficit  requirements  and the University’s investment  and financial sustainability goals . \n \nThe annual planning and investment plan proce sses will identify how the strategic goals of the University will be met , \nincluding achievement of the financial targets.  \n \nFinance Business Partners  will prepare b udgets for the budget centre , in conjunction with the budget centre managers \nand including any projects within the budget centre , following the planning process guidelines  so the financial \nimplications from the planning round are identified within the financial plans . SLT members are accountable for their \nReporting Line budget.  \n \n1. Reporting Line Budget Allocation  \n \nThe Budget Allocation Framework (BAF) determines the overall level of budgetary resources available to each \nreporting line by setting target margins for each of its activity type s. For core activities target margins represent \nthe expected contribution as a percent of reporting line income from that activity. For support services and \nstrategic initiatives, target margins represent the expected net cost of the activity as a proportion of University \ncore income.  \n \nMargin targets for each activity are evidence based and approved by SLT on a periodic basis . \nShould the margin targets not reach the targeted University surplus/deficit , Finance will recommend budgetary \nadjustments to be approved by SLT.   \n \nBudget Preparation  \n \nOnce target margins have been approved by SLT , budgets will be prepared for each budget centre and project  in \nthe University . The aggregate of all budgets within a reporting line must align with target margins set for that \nreporting line .  \n \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nFinancial Monitoring and Control Policy  – Page 3 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n2. Budget Phasing  \n \nTo ensure financial performance and cash flow management are appropriately monitored and managed , Finance \nBusiness Partners will phase the annual budgets across the twelve months of the financial year. This budget \nphasing will form the basis of variance analysis and commentary on financial performance.  \n \nMonthly capital budgets/forecasts will be phased by the Facilities Directors , ITS  and Capital Projects Managers in \nconsultation with the Manager – Financial Planning and Analysis . \n \n3. Financial Management  \n \nBudget Centre Managers are responsible for ensuring all income and expenditure budgets approved by their \nrespective SLT member are met including the individual projects within their budget centres. In turn, the respective \nSLT members are responsible for meeting income and expenditure budgets at their Reporting Line level. SLT  and \nthe Vice-Chancellor are  responsible for meeting  the income and expenditure budget set by the University Council . \nThe delegations of authority policy and framework outline specific responsibilities in respect of commitment to \ncontracts and purchasing goods or services.  \n \nAll Budget Centre M anagers , College Executive Managers , Business Executive Managers , Principal Advisors  and \nBusiness Services Managers (or equivalent)  are expected to have a n appropriate  level of financial literacy  and will \nensure they develop and maintain their financial competency . This includes understanding the fundamental financial \nconcepts of accruals, commitments, income, operating expenditure, capital expenditure, delegations, and the \nimpact of their actions on the financial statements.  \n \nThe Chief  Financial Officer (CFO)  will request the Reporting Line to reforecast their income and expenditure \nperiodically with the assistance from the respective Finance Business Partner and B udget Centre Managers to \nreflect where factors behind assumptions included in the  original annual budget have changed significantly.  \n \nIn normal circumstances, Reporting Lines are expected to forecast to and achieve the target margins approved by \nSLT. However, an inability to achieve the target margin for a specific activity may be offset by overachievement of \nthe target margin for another activity within the same reporting line.  \n \n4. Financial Monitoring and Reporting  \n \nReporting Line Finance  Business  Partners  \n \nReporting Line Finance  Business Partners  are responsible for reporting against their approved budgets and \nforecasts on a monthly basis. A commentary in relation to material variances should be provided  to Finance , \nincluding action being taken to address the variance.  \n \nReporting Line Leaders  \n \nSLT members are responsible and accountable for reporting against their Reporting Line budget  and forecast  to \nthe Vice -Chancellor on a monthly basis. The specific reporting requirements will be defined by the Vice -Chancellor.  \n \nMaterial variances should be commented on,  noting the reason for the variance  and any action being taken to \nmitigate the variance.  \n \nFinance  will provide an independent assessment of Reporting Line performance to SLT. \n \nSLT and Council  \n  \nSLT will recommend an annual budget for the University Council to approve.   \n \nThe Vice -Chancellor and SLT are responsible for the University’s compliance with the Council approved budget \nand will report to the Finance and Assurance Committee (FAC) and Council at each Council meeting .  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nFinancial Monitoring and Control Policy  – Page 4 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \nThe DVC University Services  (DVC US), through t he CFO , will provide an independent assessment of financial \nperformance, financial position and cash flows for the University and clearly identify responsibility for changes in \nfinancial performance, financial position or cash flow.  \n \nThe CFO , through t he DVC US, is responsible for preparing the annual  financial statements  for the University  and \nits controlled entities . \n \n5. Delegations & Internal Controls  \n \nFinancial delegation s must be adhered to.  \n \nGood financial management requires that Budget Centre Managers enforce internal control systems that ensure \n(1) segregation of duties in the purchasing process, and (2) ethical commercial practice.  \n \nBudget Centre Managers must ensure that all potential conflict s of interest arising from commercial transactions \nare identified and appropriately managed . \n \nAll external and internal financial reporting must comply with generally accepted accounting practice as defined in \nthe Financial Reporting Act 1993 and Amendments.  \nAudience:  \nAll staff.  \nRelevant Legislation:  \nPublic Finance Act 1989 and Amendments  \nEducation and Training Act 2020 and Amendments  \nFinancial Reporting Act 1993 and Amendments   \nLegal Compliance:  \nSection 41 of the Public Finance Act 1989 requires Universities to prepare the annual report  as soon as possible after \nthe end of the financial year.  \n \nSection 305 of the Education and Training Act 2020  states that Section 41  (above)  will apply to every (tertiary) institution, \nand further that the financial year will read as academic year.  \n \nFinancial Reporting Act 2013  and Amendments require s a reporting entity to prepare financial statements in accordance \nwith generally accepted accounting practice and present a true and fair view of their affairs.  T he University falls within \nthe Financial Reporting Acts 2013 ’s definition of a reporting entity.  \nRelated Procedures and Documents:  \nAsset Investment Policy  \nConflict of Commitment and Interest Policy  \nDelegations of Authority Policy  \nFraud and Corruption Policy  \nRisk Management Policy  \nProcurement Policy  \nProcurement Procedures  \n \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nFinancial Monitoring and Control Policy  – Page 5 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nDocument Management Control:  \nPrepared by:  Chief Financial Officer  \nOwned by:  Deputy Vice -Chancellor University Services  \nAuthorised by: Finance and Assurance Committee  \nDate issued : February 2021  \nLast review: February  2025  \nNext review: February  2027 \n \n \n \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Fraud_and_Corruption_Policy_PDF_201_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Fraud and Corruption Policy",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "201 KB",
      "creation_date": "2024-11-22T09:02:03",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220100825+13'00'"
    },
    "content": "Massey  University  Policy  Guide  \n© This Policy  is the property  of Massey  University   \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nSection  Risk Management  \nContact  Director  Governance  and Assurance  \nLast Review  November  2024  \nNext  Review  November 2029  \nApproval  FAC24/37  \nEffective  Date 9 December  \n \nPurpose : \nMassey University is committed to ensuring the highest standards of ethical conduct in its activities and \noperations. The purpose of this policy is to confirm as part of that commitment that the University will not \ntolerate fraud and corruption.  This policy  also provides  guidance for  staff on how to notify  suspected  \ninstances  of fraud  and corruption.  \nPolicy : \nMassey  University  is committed  to preventing,  detecting  and responding  to fraud  and corruption  threats,  and \nwill not tolerate incidents of fraudulent or corrupt behaviour. To give effect to this commitment, the \nUniversity will:  \n• Investigate  all instances  of suspected  fraud  or corruption.  \n• Where an allegation is substantiated, determine whether to invoke formal disciplinary procedures in \naccordance  with the University’s  policies  and the relevant  employment  agreement,  and/or  refer the \nmatter to the NZ Police, the Serious Fraud Office or other external agency as may be appropriate.  \n• Take all  appropriate measures to recover any loss or expenditure attributable to proven fraudulent \nor corrupt  behaviour.  This includes  but is not limited  to recovery  of intellectual  property,  physical  \nassets, money, third party expenses incurred and/or investigation costs.  \nIn addition,  the University  as part of ongoing  prevention,  detection  and response  activities  will: \n• Require  all suspected  or detected  instances  of fraudulent  or corrupt  behaviour  to be notified  \ninternally.  \n• Undertake  to reduce  the risk of fraud  and corruption  through  prevention  activities,  such  as fraud  \nawareness training.  \n• Implement  detective  controls  and monitoring  processes  to uncover  fraud  and corruption  at the \nearliest opportunity.  \n• Provide  effective  options  to support  staff to report  suspected  cases  of fraud  and corruption.  \n• Establish  a robust response  plan to achieve  successful  outcomes  where  fraud  or corruption  is \nidentified  or suspected.  \nFRAUD  AND  CORRUPTION  POLICY  \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \nFraud  and Corruption  Policy  – Page  2 \n© This Policy  is the property  of Massey  University   \n \n \nDuty  to report  suspected  fraud  or corruption:  \n \nThe University relies on its staff and students to maintain the highest ethical standards in their activities and \noperations,  and staff should  expect  other  members  of the University  community  to adhere  and be held to \nthose same high standards.  \n \nAny person  who suspects  that a fraudulent  or corrupt  act is occurring  or has occurred,  must report  this \nimmediately. All information  about  suspected fraud  or corruption is to  be treated confidentially to the  extent  \npossible, and  were  made by a staff member, may be made as a protected disclosure in accordance with the \nUniversity’s Protected Disclosures Policy.  \nSuspected  incidents  of fraud  or corruption  are to be notified  in one of the following  ways:  \n \n• Staff members  notifying  their manager  \n• Completing  and submitting  the ‘Suspected  or Detected  Fraud  and Corruption  Notification  Form’  \n• Emailing  or telephoning  the Director  Governance  and Assurance  \n• Emailing  or telephoning  the Employment  Relations  Manager  \n \nFailure to notify suspected or detected instances of fraud or corruption may be considered as serious \nmisconduct and  invoke  formal  disciplinary  procedures  in accordance  with the University’s  policies  and the \nrelevant  employment agreement.  \n \nAny investigation  of fraud  or corruption initiated  will follow the process as set  out in  the University's Fraud  \nand Corruption Response Procedures. The investigation process adopted includes a provision for a \npreliminary investigation,  the purpose  of which  shall be to determine  whether  a more  comprehensive  \ninvestigative  process should be followed.  \nAssociation  to other  University  Policies:  \n \nThe key underlying  element  in fraud  and corruption  is dishonesty  for an unfair,  unjustified  or unlawful  gain.  \n \nWhere fraud or corrupt behaviour is substantiated, the University will determine whether to initiate \ndisciplinary proceedings in accordance with the Policy on Staff Conduct as permitted in the relevant \nemployment agreement, and/or  refer the matter  to the NZ Police,  the Serious  Fraud  Office  or other  external  \nagency  as may be appropriate.  \nIf the conduct is  in breach  of any other  policy  and is of a lesser  standard,  it will be dealt  with under  the \nPolicy  on Staff Conduct, or as that policy may otherwise require.  \n \nAudience : \nThis Policy applies to all employees, contractors, sub -contractors, consultants, adjunct and visiting \nacademic staff, members  of the Massey  University Council,  University  committees,  Boards  and Trust  \nBoards,  and any other  persons or entities carrying out work for or on behalf of the University,  \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \nFraud  and Corruption  Policy  – Page  3 \n© This Policy  is the property  of Massey  University   \n \n \nThis policy  also applies  to controlled  entities  of the University,  where  those  entities do  not have  their own \nseparate Fraud and Corruption Policy.  \n \nEmployees  for the purposes  of this policy include:  \n• Current  employees.  \n• Former  employees.  \n• People  seconded  or contracted  to the University;  and \n• Volunteers  who work  without  rewards.  \n \nDefinitions:  \n‘Fraud’ means  an intentional  and dishonest  act that involves  deception  or misrepresentation  where  the \nperpetrator obtains (or potentially obtains/seeks to obtain) an advantage for themselves, another person or \nthe University.  \n \nThis includes,  but is not limited  to: \n- Forgery  of any type \n- Unauthorised  possession  or misappropriation  of University  funds  or assets  \n- Deliberate  mishandling  or misreporting  in recording  and reporting  financial  transactions, including \nmisstatements resulting from fraudulent financial (and non -financial) reporting  \n- Deliberate  misuse  or unauthorised  use, destruction  or removal  of University  resources  for unfair,  \nunjustified or unlawful gain  \n- Unauthorised  disclosure  of confidential  information  (may  also be considered  corruption)  \n- Dishonest  claims  for reimbursement  \n- Fabrication  or falsification  of data or personal  information  \n \n‘Corruption’ is the lack of integrity or honesty or the misuse of a person’s position or office for dishonest \npersonal gain or advantage for themselves or for another person / entity. It may take various forms such as \nforeign and domestic bribery, coercion, destruction, removal or inappropriate use or disclosure of records, \ndata, materials, in tellectual  property  or assets,  nepotism,  illegal  conduct,  maladministration,  wastage  of \npublic  money  or any similar or related inappropriate conduct.  \nExamples  of potential  acts of corruption  relevant  to University  may include,  but are not limited  to: \n \n- Nepotism and favouritism whereby any University official or any person who has a business \ninvolvement with  the University,  improperly  uses  or attempts  to improperly  use, the knowledge,  \npower  or resources  of their position for personal  gain or the  advantage  of others such  as in student  \nselection  & admissions, staff recruitment & promotion, diversion of university or research funds, \nprocurement fraud,  fabrication of business travel requirement to satisfy personal situations etc.  \n- Political  manipulation  of University  affairs  by member  of public,  public  / government officials  in a way \nthat is dishonest, biased or breaches public trust.  \n- Payment  or solicitation  of donations  for an improper  political  purpose.  \n- Academic  dishonesty  in the form of examination  fraud  and/or  issuance  of fraudulent  degrees.  \n- Payment, receipt or solicitation of foreign & domestic bribes or secret commissions (kickbacks) by or \nto University Officials  in order  to secure  a contract for  the supply  of good  or services  or manipulation  \nof the procurement process by knowingly favouring one tenderer over others or by providing, \nvalidating, or assisting in providing false, misleading, incomplete or fictitious information.  \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \nFraud  and Corruption  Policy  – Page  4 \n© This Policy  is the property  of Massey  University   \n \n \n- Disclosing, copying or selling, altering or damaging, forgery or fraudulent use of private, confidential \nor proprietary  information  / data to outside  parties  either  directly  or by using  IT resources  without  \nimplied  or expressed consent in exchange for some financial / non -financial benefit.  \n- Conflict of interests whereby an office may act in his own self -interest rather than the interests of the \nentity to which he is appointed to. This could be by accepting or seeking anything of material value \nfrom third  party  agents  / consultants,  contractors,  vendors,  or persons  providing  services  or \nmaterials  to the University, except as provided for in the Sensitive Expenditure and Gifts Policy.  \nRelevant  legislation:  \nProtected  Disclosures  (Protection of Whistleblowers ) Act 2022 \nCrimes Act 1961  \nLegal  compliance:  \nFraud is a crime against rights of property as defined in Part 10 of the Crimes Act 1961, and amendments. \nThe Act specifies  (does  not limited  to) the following  acts as being  liable  for punishment  as an offence:  \nobtaining  by deception or causing loss by deception; Altering, concealing, destroying, or reproducing \ndocuments with intent to deceive; False accounting; Theft or stealing (dishonestly taking property).  \nProtected  Disclosures  (Protection of Whistleblowers)  Act 2022 provides  for the facilitation  of disclosure  and \ninvestigation  of serious  wrongdoing  in or by the organisation and  protects the individual who reports \nallegations of serious wrongdoing. Persons who make a disclosure under the Act are protected for \ndismissal or punishment, legal  action, or disclosure of their own private information, unless one of the \nexceptions in the Act applies.  \nRelated  procedures  / documents:  \nPolicy on Staff Conduct \nCode  of Student  Conduct \nCredit Card Policy  \nCode of Ethical Research Conduct  \nCode  of Responsible  Research  \nConduct Sensitive Expenditure and \nGifts Policy  \nConflict  of Commitment  and Interest  Policy \nFraud  and Corruption  Response  Procedures  \nProcedure  for the Disclosure  of Serious  Wrongdoing  (Whistleblower  Procedure) \nProtected Disclosures Policy (Whistleblower)  \nProcurement  Policy  \n  \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \nFraud  and Corruption  Policy  – Page  5 \n© This Policy  is the property  of Massey  University   \n \n \nDocument  Management  Control:  \n \nPrepared  by: Director  Governance  and Assurance  \nOwned by: Vice -Chancellor  \nAuthorised by: FAC24/37   \nDate  Issued:  12 September  2003  \nLast Reviewed: November 2024  \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Generative_Artificial_Intelligence_in_Assessment_Policy_PDF_91_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Generative Artificial Intelligence in Assessment Policy PDF 91 KB",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "91 KB",
      "creation_date": "2025-05-19T13:00:09",
      "modification_date": "D:20250626085258+12'00'"
    },
    "content": "Massey University Policy Guide\nGENERATIVE ARTIFICAL INTELLIGENCE IN ASSESSMENT POLICY\n© This Policy is the property of Massey University\nPurpose :\nToprovideguidance tostudents andstaffofMasseyUniversityTeKunen gakiPūrehuroaregarding\ntheuseof gen erativeartificial i ntelligence ( GenAI) in student assessment s.\nTostrikeabalan cebetween embracing ethica land respo nsibleuseofgenerative artif icial intelligence i n\nteaching and learning, andensuri ngacad emicintegri tyisupheld asafoundational value ofallacad emic\nworkattheUniversi ty.\nPolicy:\n1. GenAI tools may only be used to support students’ own intellectual and scholarly work, not as a\nsubstitute for it. The use of GenAI tools b ystudents in the comp letion of assessment sis framed by the\nArtificial Intelligence Use Framewo rk (the Framewo rk).\n2. Student use of GenAI tool smust be in accordan ce with the Fr amewo rk level al located to the sp ecific\nassessmen ttask. Studen tsmay only u seartificial intelligen ce in t heproces sof ge nerating work fo r\nasses sment to the exte nt that has been explicitly allowed in the relevant assessment criteria for that\nassessment.\n3. Students must disclose and acknowledge theextentoftheiruseofartificial intellige nce.In addition\ntoa dec laration b ythestudent re garding th etools o rtechnology used in a ny wor ksubmittedfor\nasses sment ,students may also be required to submit a recordof all prompts used, to maintain afull\ndocument vers ionhistoryforthecompleted assessment ,andto provide evidence of their assessment\nwork in relation to any learning outcome .\n4. Students must a lwaysact in accordan ce with the principles o facad emicintegri ty in their l earning and\nresearch. In the context of t he use o fGenAI, this means tha t:\n4.1 Artificial intelli gence tools and techno logiesmust not be used for an yasses smentwhere the\nassessme nt criteria s pecifie sthatgenerative artificial i ntelligen ce tool sand techno logies m ay not\nbe used.\n4.2 Generat ive artificia lintelligence tools must not b eused to gene rateany parts of asse ssment\nsubmi ssions wit hout independent deve lopment and critical refinement of the GenAI outputs by\nthe student, and fact checking and confirmation of scholarly sources.Section Academic\nContact Office of the Provost\nLast Review May 2025\nNext Review May 2026\nApproval AB25/26\nEffective Date               May 2025\n2 of 7\nMassey University Policy Guide\nGenerative Artificial Intelligence in Assessment Policy –Page\n2\n© This Policy is the property of Massey University\n4.3 Artificial intelligence may only be used in accordance with the AIAS level and specific\nrequirements set for the particular assessment.\n4.4 The inappropriate use of artif icial intellige nce in any assessment m ayconstitute a br each of\nacademi cintegrity ,asset out in the Student Academic I ntegrity Poli cy,Code o fResponsibl e\nResearch Conduct, or ot her Massey Un iversity Policy dealing with academic integrity.\n5.Students are responsible for everything they upload into GenAI tools, and must abide by copyright,\nintellectual property ,privacy and data security and data sovereignty expectations .\n6.Tosupport  students’ development of AI knowledge and skills, s taff are encouraged to integrate the\nuse of artificial intelligence into their teaching, and toprovide students with clear guidelines on the\nethical and appropriate use of artificial intelligence in the context of the discipline and the type and\nlevel of assessment .\nDefinitions:\nAcademic i ntegrity:aguiding principle of acad emic li fe, whic hrefers toacting w ithhone sty,responsibility and\nopennes sin all a cademic a ctivity, outp uts,and relat ionswithothers.\nArtificial intelligence : thesimulat ionof human inte lligence p rocesse dby mach ines or comp utersystems .It\nincludes the ability ofacomputer ,orarobotorsoftwarecontrolled byacomputer,todotasks that are\nusual ly done by human sbecaus ethey req uirehuman intelligence an ddiscer nment, such as the ability to\nreason,discove rmeaning, gen eralise, or lea rnfrompast exper ience s.\nArtificial Intelligence UseFramew ork:\nBased o nthe wo rk of Perk ins, Roe & Furze (2024)1, the artificial Intelligence Use Framewo rk (be low) is a\nframewo rk with four levels which outl ine how AI can be integrated and used to sup portstudents in their work\nwhile at the s ame time ensuring that the finalsubmiss ionisindepen dently deve loped with therequisite\nlevelof critical th inking and analysis from the student.\nAIAS Level Description\nNO AI The as sessment is comp leted entire ly without AI assi stance in a co ntrolled\nenviro nment ensuring th at students re ly sole ly on the ir existing knowledge,\nunderstanding and skills .\nAI PLANNING AI may be u sed fo rpre-task act ivities such a sbrainstorming, outlining and\ninitial resea rch. This level focuse son the effective use of AI for planning,\nsynthesi sand ideat ion, but assessment sshould emph asise th eability to\ndeve lop and refi ne these ideasindependent ly.\nAI\nCOLLABORATIONAI can be use dto help complete t he task, including i dea gener ation, drafting,\nfeedback, and ref ineme nt. Students should critically evalu ate and modi fy the\nAI suggested outputs, demon strating t heirunderstanding .\n1Perkins, M., Roe J., & Furze, L. (2024) The AI Assessment Scale Revisited: AFramework for Educational Assessment arXiv\npreprint\narXiv:2412.09029 .\n3 of 7\nMassey University Policy Guide\nGenerative Artificial Intelligence in Assessment Policy –Page\n3\n© This Policy is the property of Massey University\nAI EXPLORATION AI is used creatively to enhance problem -solving, generate novel insights, or\ndevelop innovation solutions to solve problems. Students and educators co -\ndesign assessments to explore unique AI applications within the field of\nstudy.Assessme\nnt : the process of judging how effectively learning is occurring through a process of generating and\ncollecting evidence of a student’s attainment of knowledge and skills and comparing that evidence against\nthe assessment criteria.\nAssessment criteria : statements that describe how student performance in relation to the stated learning \noutcomes will be recognised.\nEvidence : materials provided by a student to demonstrate their competence against specific learning \noutcomes.\nLearning outcomes : statements of the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that students are expected to \ndemonstrate as a result of successfully completing a course of learning. Learning outcomes are usually \nstated in terms of observable and/or measurable behaviour.\nAudience:\nAll staff and students\nRelevant legislation:\nNone\nLegal compliance:\nNone\nRelated policies and procedures:\nMassey University Assessment Handbook\nCode of Responsible Research Conduct\nAcademic Integrity Procedures for the Managing Student Breaches \nAcademic Integrity Policy\nStudent Disciplinary Regulations\nDocument Management Control: \nPrepared by: Office of the Provost \nAuthorised by: Provost\nApproved by: AB25 /26\nDate issued: February 2023\nLast review: May 2025\nNext review: May 2026\n4 of 7\n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Health_and_Safety_Consultation_and_Engagement_Procedure_PDF_267_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Health and Safety Consultation and Engagement Procedure PDF 267 KB",
      "policy_type": "Procedure",
      "file_size": "267 KB",
      "author": "Banner, Jodie",
      "creation_date": "2024-05-10T12:04:00",
      "modification_date": "D:20240510124044+12'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n \n \n \n \n   \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n \n ENTER PROCEDURE  \n \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n  HEALTH AND SAFETY CONSULTATION ENGAGEMENT PROCEDURE   \n \nSection  University Services  \nContact  Director  Occupational Health & Safety, Wellbeing  \nLast Review  November  2023  \nNext Review  November  2025  \nApproval  Director Occupational Health & Safety, Wellbeing  \n \n \nPurpose:  \n \nThe purpose of this document is to define how workers at Massey University will be engaged and \nconsulted on changes that may impact their health and safety, or the management of risks associated \nwith their work.  \n \n \nScope : \n \nThis procedure applies to consultation and engagement with workers in relation to health and safety \nmatters at Massey University. It applies to consultation on the following aspects of health and safety:  \n• Design of procedures and processes that impact the management of health and safety.  \n• Changes to the methods for control of risks  \n• Methods of meeting legislative requirements  \n• Worker participation and representation systems; and  \n• Health, safety and wellbeing strategy and annual planning (including objectives and targets)  \n \n \nDefinitions : \n \nWorker: an individual who carries out work in any capacity for a PCBU. This may be an employee, \ncontractor, subcontractor, apprentice or trainee, or volunteer.  \n \nStakeholder: means any person who has a material interest in the outcome of any change or process \nand may include workers, unions, officers,  or any other person associated with Massey University  \n \n \nStakeholder Identification and Assessment : \n \nBefore designing or engaging on any change processes relating to health and safety, all key \nstakeholders will be identified,  and an assessment undertaken to determine:  \n• The relationship between the stakeholder and the issue being addressed.  \n• How any change may impact the stakeholder  \n• The needs and expectations of the stakeholders  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nHealth and Safety Consultation  Engagement  Procedure  – Page 2 \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University    \n• The degree of acceptance or resistance that the stakeholder may experience.  \n• Any required intervention or mitigation required to address possible stakeholder issues.  \n \nThis stakeholder assessment will be held by the person undertaking the activity and will be updated \nregularly as further information becomes available (proposed solutions, changes to stakeholder \nimpacts, changes of stakeholders, etc.). The stakeholder anal ysis will be maintained confidentially and \nonly held for the duration of the project.  \n \n \nCollaborative Design : \n \nWhere a procedure, process, or control mechanism is being investigated or designed, the stakeholders \nwho are directly impacted by any change must be engaged in the process as early as possible, to \nensure that those who undertake work are able to influence the design of that work.  \n \nThis approach to collaborative design may require short -term working groups to be established that will \ninvolve (at a minimum):  \n• A sample of workers who will be directly impacted by any new process or changes.  \n• A sample of managers who direct work or  design the work to be undertaken where that work is \naffected.  \n• A sample of those persons who will be required to design/construct/engineer or maintain any \nphysical attributes of a solution (where required)  \n• A selection of Health and Safety Representatives from the workgroups affected.  \n• Health and safety resources.  \n \nThese parties are to be involved in the following activities:  \n• Determining the nature of the risk, the problem that requires solving, or the process that requires \nimprovement.  \n• Considering the level of risk or  impacts of the current state.  \n• Identification of possible solutions or improvements  \n• Undertaking high -level design activity to enable drafting of procedures or standards (where \nappropriate)  \n \n \nConsultation : \n \nPrior to approval of anything that is covered by the scope of this procedure, there must be an \nopportunity for managers and workers to consider and provide feedback on any change. It is not a \nprocess for establishing consensus and agreement, it is to ensure that all views are considered, and \nany potential major issues are identified prior to implementation.  \n \nThe process for consultation shall include the following:  \n• Define the purpose of consultation.  \n• Identification of stakeholders for consultation . \n• Massey University has an established mechanism for consultation with workers, through \nthe elected health and safety representatives and committees at each campus. This forum \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nHealth and Safety Consultation  Engagement  Procedure  – Page 3 \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University    \nshould be the primary method by which the university engages and consults with its \nworkers.  \n• Where other stakeholders have been identified who may be directly impacted by the \nproposed changes, a representative sample of these stakeholders will be engaged at the \nsame time as the health and safety representatives and  provided with an opportunity to \nprovide feedback. It is not necessary to consult with all individuals where a representative \nsample of stakeholders is deemed to be sufficient.  \n• Clearly defined and communicated timeframes for feedback . \n• Consider the complexity of the subject matter and ensure that adequate time is provided for \nstakeholders to understand and determine a response. There may be a trade -off between a \nneed for getting a decision made quickly, and the need to get adequate feedb ack to ensure \nthat solutions are appropriate and workable.  \n• Clearly define the mechanisms for feedback – email, voting, physical submission etc. \n• Determine the process for providing feedback to consultation . \n• Those who have contributed to the solution, or have been consulted, should be advised of \nthe outcomes of the consultation process and any decisions made as a result of the \nconsultation . \n \n \nRelated documents : \nRelevant Legislation  \n• Health and Safety at Work Act 2015  \n• Health and Safety at Work (Worker Engagement, Participation, and Representation) \nRegulations 2016  \n \nRelated Procedures  \n• Health, Safety & Wellbeing Policy  \n• Occupational Health and Safety Management Framework  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Hazardous_Substances_Use_Synthesis_Purchase_and_Importation_Procedure_PDF_144_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Hazardous Substances Use Synthesis Purchase and Importation Procedure PDF 144 KB",
      "policy_type": "Procedure",
      "file_size": "144 KB",
      "author": "Banner, Jodie",
      "creation_date": "2024-05-08T12:00:08",
      "modification_date": "D:20240508120830+12'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n \n \n \n \n   \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n \n ENTER PROCEDURE  \n \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \nHAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES USE, SYNTHESIS, PURCHASE  \nAND IMPORTATION PROCEDURE  \n \n \nSection  University Services  \nContact  Director  Occupational Health & Safety, Wellbeing  \nLast Review  November 2022  \nNext Review  November  2025  \nApproval  Director Occupational Health & Safety, Wellbeing  \n \n \nPurpose:  \n \nTo provide for safe and responsible use of hazardous substances at Massey University in a way that \nprotects the environment, and the health and safety of people and communities.  \n \nScope : \n \nManagers, and all staff, undergraduate and post -graduate students.  \n \nProcedure : \n \nWhere hazardous substances are used, synthesized, purchased, imported, or disposed of for small \nscale teaching and research, the hazardous substances and laboratory will be managed to satisfy all \napplicable legislative requirements. All laboratories involved in small scale research, synthesis, \ndevelopment, and teaching shall meet the requirements of Part 18 of the Health and Safety \n(Hazardous Substances) Regulations 2017 (the regulations) and all other applicable parts of the \nregulations were directed and/or by a ny future Safe Work Instrument. Hazardous substance disposal \nshall meet the requirements of the Hazardous Substances (Disposal) Notice 2017.  \n \nThe above provisions satisfy the requirements of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act \n(HSNO Act) relating to the requirement for Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) approval (section \n33). \n \nThe above does not apply if:  \n1. The hazardous substance or any substance created from the exempt use of the hazardous  \nsubstance is sold as a substance or in a product containing or derived from that substance.  \n \n2. The use creates or involves a hazardous substance for which any application for approval has \nbeen  declined for approval by the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA).  \n \n3. The hazardous substance is being evaluated in field trials.  Field trials are research in containment  \nand are subject to section 31 of the HSNO Act.  \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nHazardous Substances Use, Synthesis, Purchase,  and Importation Procedure  – Page 2 \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University    \nHazardous substances use which fits any of the conditions of four scenarios above requires EPA \napproval using appropriate approval methodology.  \n \nWhere approved hazardous substances are manufactured, imported, used, or sold and are not \ncovered by the small -scale teaching and research provisions, then those substances shall be subject \nto the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act (HSNO Act) and t he Health and Safety at Work \n(Hazardous Substances) Regulations 2017. The appointed laboratory manager that controls the \nhazardous substances shall ensure the substances are appropriately risk assessed, handled by \ntrained persons, and, disposed of appropri ately.  \n \nThe university advisor, hazardous substances, will coordinate the annual Location Compliance \nCertificate for the relevant region. The Health and Safety Office will arrange training for certified \nhandlers.  \n \nAll hazardous substances covered by this procedure are to be recorded in the chemical inventory \nsystem as directed by the university advisor and shall contain all information required by the \nlegislation.  If an owner is not assigned for substances used in a laboratory, the laboratory manager \nwill be deemed to be the owner.  \n \nThe above procedure does not include the use of radioactive materials which is regulated by the \nRadiation Protection Act and its associated Regulations. Use of such materials (above exempt \nquantities) must be undertaken by a holder of a license issued by t he National Radiation Laboratory \n(NRL) or under instruction or supervision of that license holder. Use of radioactive materials is \nsubject to separate Massey University policy statement.  \n \n \nDefinitions : \n \nCertified handler : \n \nmeans a person who has a test certificate that certifies that the person meets the  \ncompetency requirements for certified handlers specified in the Health and Safety at Work (Hazardous  \nSubstances) Regulations 2017.  \n \nHazardous Substance : \n \nmeans, unless expressly provided otherwise by regulations, is any  substance -with one or more of the \nfollowing intrinsic properties:  \na) Explosiveness  \nb) Flammability  \nc) A capacity to oxidize.  \nd) Corrosiveness  \ne) Toxicity (including chronic toxicity)  \nf) Ecotoxicity, with or without bioaccumulation; or which on contact with air or water (other \nthan air  or water where  the temperature  or pressure has been artifi cially increased or \ndecreased)  decreased) generates a substance with any one or more of the properties \nspecified in paragraph (1) of this definition.  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nHazardous Substances Use, Synthesis, Purchase,  and Importation Procedure  – Page 3 \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University    \n \nPlease note, guidance on what constitutes a Hazardous Substances for each hazardous property can \nbe obtained from the Environmental Protection Authority. There is a level below which a substance is \nnot considered hazardous in New Zealand.  \n \nLaboratory : \n \nmeans a vehicle, room, building, or any other structure set aside and equipped for scientific \nexperiments or research, for teaching science or technology, or for the development of chemical or \nmedicinal products.  \n \nLocation Compliance Certificate : \n \nmeans that an area meets the safety requirements as specified in the appropriate part of the Health \nand Safety at Work (Hazardous substances) Regulations 2017. A location compliance certificate is \nrequired above generic quantities specified in the regulati ons. However, the quantities can be varied \nby substance as identified in gazette notices.  \n \nSafe Method of Use : \n \na method detailing storage, precautions, disposal and emergency response for a hazardous \nsubstance or group of hazardous substances.  \n \nSubstance : \n \nmeans  \na. Any element, defined mixture of elements, compounds, or defined mixture of compounds, either  \ni. naturally occurring or produced synthetically, or any mixtures thereof.  \nb. Any isotope, allotrope, isomer, congener, radical, or ion of an element or compound which has \nbeen  declared by the Authority, by notice in the Gazette, to be a different substance from that \nelement or compound.  \nc. Any mixtures or combinations of any of the above.  \nd. Any manufactured article containing, incorporating, or including any Hazardous Substance with  \nii. explosive properties.  \n \n \nRelated documents : \nRelevant Legislation  \n• Health and Safety at Work (Hazardous Substances) Regulations 2017  \n• Hazardous Substances (Disposal) Notice 2017  \n• Hazardous Substances (Minimum Degree of Hazard) Regulations 2001  \n• Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996.  \n• Health and Safety at Work Act 2015  \n• Health and Safety at Work (General Risk and Workplace Management) Regulations 2016  \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nHazardous Substances Use, Synthesis, Purchase,  and Importation Procedure  – Page 4 \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University    \nRelated Procedures  \n• Radiation Manual  \n• New Organisms and Restricted Biological Products Procedure  \n• Genetic Modified Organisms Procedure  \n• Guidance on what constitutes a Hazardous Substances for each hazardous property can be \nobtained from the Environmental Protection Authority . \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Harassment_and_Discrimination_at_Work_Policy_PDF_189_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Harassment and Discrimination at Work Policy PDF 189 KB",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "189 KB",
      "author": "Massey University",
      "creation_date": "2020-05-27T12:05:08",
      "modification_date": "D:20200527125849+12'00'",
      "review_date": "february 2023"
    },
    "content": " \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n \nHARASSMENT AND DISCRIMINATION AT WO RK POLICY  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \n \n \n \n \n  \n  \n \n \n \nPurpose:  \n \nThe purpose of this policy is to:  \n• Confirm Massey University’s commitment to zero tolerance of all forms of  harassment  \n• Promote a safe and healthy work environment free from all forms of harassment  \n• Provide information to staff about what constitutes harassment  \nPromote the prevention of all forms of discrimination and harassment across the University.   \nHarassment in this policy, includes discrimination, sexual harassment, personal harassment, abuse of supervisory/  \nmanagerial authority and bullying.  \n Please see the Harassment and Discrimination Resolution Procedures  for the processes by which complaints can be \nresolved both informally and formally.  \n \nPlease see ‘Audience’ below for who is covered by this policy.  \n Principles:  \n \nMassey University is committed to providing a work environment for its staff which is free from harassment, where staff \nare treated with dignity and respect.   Massey University has a zero tolerance for harassment and considers any form \nof harassment to be unacceptable.  It will take all practical steps to eliminate harassment and is commit ted to resolving \nissues of harassment as early as possible.  \n The Massey University Policy of Staff Conduct sets out the expected standards of conduct of all staff.  \n \nMassey University recognises that any form of harassment is likely to be harmful to the rec ipient’s emotional and \nphysical health.  Harassment can damage working conditions and relationships and may substantially impact on a \nperson’s ability to perform by undermining their confidence, concentration and motivation.  The University will implement \nmeasures to prevent harassment and promote a positive working environment  and mana- enhancing behaviours . \n Massey University will treat complaints of harassment seriously.  There are a number of options for dealing with \ncomplaints which may include informal steps, early intervention, formal complaints, dispute resolution and mediation.  \nFormal complaints will be investigated fairly and sensitively.  \n \nAny member of staff  found to have harassed another member of staff , a student, a contractor or a visitor may  be \nsubject to the disciplinary provisions set out in their employment agreement.  For those staff covered by the Massey \nUniversity Collective or Individual Employment Agreements, Part 10 refers.  \n Section  People & Culture  \nContact People & Culture  \nLast Review  February 20 20 \nNext Review  February 2023  \nApproval  SLT 20/04/51  \nEffective Date  February 20 20 \n \n                                            Massey University Policy Guide  \nHarassment and Discrimination at Work Policy – Page 2  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nUniversity Managers are expected to monitor the work envir onments they manage and to take action to ensure the work \nenvironment is free from harassment.  Managers are expected to treat alleged instances of harassment seriously and \nto take appropriate action and/or seek advice as soon as practicable.  Formal compl aints must be addressed \nimmediately. Managers are expected to promote positive working environments and provide information to staff on what \nharassment is/is not and how to deal with it.  \n \nThis policy applies to behaviours exhibited on- campus and off -campus , including work and social functions held outside \nof working hours, that arise from a workplace relationship or where staff  represent Massey University. It applies whether \nthe behaviour is in person or through digital mediums or social media. It also app lies to staff who may be on secondment \nor otherwise temporarily located with another organisation either in New Zealand or overseas.  \n \nMassey supports the training of managers and staff in relation to harassment and harassment prevention.   \n \nDefinitions: \n \nHarassment is a form of discrimination and is unlawful under both the Employment Relations Act 2000 and the Human \nRights Act 1993.  \n \nHarassment of any kind is defined broadly as:  \n \nAny behaviour directed towards an individual or group that a reasonable per son, having regard to the circumstances \nwould expect to insult, intimidate, victimise or disadvantage the recipient, and which is:  \n• Unwelcome, hurtful or offensive to the recipient; and is  \n• Repeated, and/or is of such significance as to adversely affect the recipient’s employment or wellbeing.  \n \nFor the purposes of this policy, harassment includes but is not confined to the following categories:  \n \ni. Discrimination:  \nConduct which is likely to result in less favourable treatment, or create a less favourable environment, for any \nperson/group than for another under similar circumstances, by reason of any of the prohibited grounds set out in \nthe Human Rights Act 1993:  \n• Sex, including pregnancy and childbirth  \n• Marital status  \n• Religious belief  \n• Ethical belief  \n• Colour  \n• Race  \n• Ethnic or national origins, which includes nationality and citizenship  \n• Disability – physical, psychiatric, intellectual, abnormality of anatomical structure  \n• Age \n• Political opinion  \n• Employment status  \n• Family status  \n• Sexual orientation  \n• Family Violence  \n \nMassey University includes the following prohibited grounds for discrimination in addition to the grounds covered in \nthe HRA:  \n• Gender  \n• Physical size  \n \n \n                                            Massey University Policy Guide  \nHarassment and Discrimination at Work Policy – Page 3  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nDiscrimination may arise from official statements, actions, omissions, decisions or policies as well as from informal \nor personal statements or conduct.  It may also be indirect, that is it may have the effect of treating someone \ndifferently on a prohibited ground, even if the discrimination is not explicit.  \n \nAffirmative actions or polici es of the University to assist or advance persons as defined under the Human Rights \nAct 1993 are not considered to be discriminatory.  \n \nii. Sexual Harassment:  \nSexual Harassment may occur irrespective of the recipient’s gender.  \n• It is unwanted attention of a  sexually orientated nature.  \n• It may include an implied or express promise of reward for complying with a sexually orientated request and/or  \n• An implied or expressed threat of reprisal for not complying with a sexually orientated request.  \n \nExamples of sexual harassment include but are not limited to:  \n• Offensive verbal comments of a sexual nature;  \n• Sexual or smutty jokes;  \n• Repeated comments or teasing about someone’s alleged sexual activities or private life;  \n• Persistent, unwelcome social invitations, telephone calls or emails from colleagues at work or at home;  \n• Following someone home from work;  \n• Offensive hand or body gestures;  \n• Leering or ogling;  \n• Unwelcome physical contact e.g. patting, pinching, touching or putting an arm around another person;  \n• Provocative visual material in either hardcopy or electronic media.  \n \niii. Personal Harassment:  \nPersonal harassment means any behaviour by a member of staff, which explicitly or implicitly intimidates, \nhumiliates, undermines or dominates another person; or involves the use of abusive and/or threatening language, \nverbal or physical threats; or any form of physical assault.  \n \niv.   Abuse of Supervisory/Managerial Authority:  \nAbuse of Supervisory/Managerial authority means conduct by a supervisor or manager in relation to a  member of \nstaff who reports to them or over whom they have supervisory or academic authority and which:  \n• Intimidates, humiliates or undermines another person by belittling them, or excessively, destructively or \ninappropriately criticising or reprimanding t hem, or excessively scrutinising their work; or  \n• Makes demands that are unreasonable or outside that other person’s role; or  \n• Makes a demand to perform an action that is in breach of the principles of any policy of the University.  \n v. Bullying  \nBullying is a form of harassment and a misuse of power, whether formal or informal, which is characterised by \nrepeated and persistent, offensive, abusive, intimidating, malicious or insulting behaviour. It makes the recipient or \ntarget feel upset, threaten ed, humiliated or vulnerable and undermines self -confidence. It has a detrimental effect \non a person’s dignity and well -being and may cause them to suffer stress. Bullying can be exercised by anyone in \nany position in an organisation and occur at all level s: manager to staff; staff t o manager; and staff to staff.  \n \nOvert bullying can include:  \n• Threats and intimidation;  \n• Manipulation and coercion;  \n• Verbally abusive or degrading language or gestures;  \n• Shouting, yelling; using a raised voice and unpleasant tone;  \n• Unexplained displays of rage;  \n• Nit-picking and fault finding without justification;  \n \n                                            Massey University Policy Guide  \nHarassment and Discrimination at Work Policy – Page 4  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n• Constant humiliation;  \n• Belittling remarks either to the recipient or behind their back;  \n• Unjustified threats of dismissal or other disciplinary procedures; and  \n• Punishment imposed without reasonable justification.  \n \nCovert bullying can include acts such as:  \n• Deliberately overloading someone with work and imposing impossible deadlines;  \n• Sabotaging someone’s work by withholding information that is required to fulfil tasks;  \n• Hiding documents or equipment;  \n• Constantly changing targets or work guidelines;  \n• Preventing someone from receiving necessary resources and training;  \n• Isolating or ignoring an employee on a consistent basis; and  \n• Changes in the duties or responsibilities of a member of staff to their detriment, without reasonable \njustification.  \n \nvi. What Harassment Is Not: The following are examples of behaviours that are not considered to be harassment or bullying:  \n• Friendly banter, light -hearted exchanges, mutually acceptable j okes and compliments;  \n• Friendships, sexual or otherwise, where both people consent to the relationship;  \n• Assertive expressing of opinions that are different from others’;  \n• Words or actions that are directed at the advancement of knowledge; add to critical deb ate; or which serve as \na pedagogical framework and which are not targeted at individuals’;  \n• Free and frank discussion about issues or concerns in the workplace, without personal insults;  \n• Legitimate criticisms made to a staff member about their behaviour or work performance (not expressed in a \nhostile, harassing manner);  \n• Issuing of reasonable instructions in line with delegated authority and expecting them to be carried out;  \n• Warning or disciplining a member of staff in line with University policy;  \n• Insisting on satisfactory standards of performance in terms of quality, safety and team cooperation; and  \n• Giving negative feedback, including in a performance appraisal, and requiring justified performance \nimprovement.  \n vi.   Other Inappropriate Behaviour  \n       Please refer to Massey University Staff Code of Conduct for matters related to other inappropriate behaviour  \n \nAdvice, Information and Support:  \nAs an employee you can access the following for personal support to discuss any issues or concerns you have, to seek \nadvice on resolving the issues or concerns you have or to discuss how to make a complaint:  \n \n• Friend or family member  \n• A senior colleague  \n• Your manager  \n• A Human Resources Advisor  \n• A Health and Safety Advisor  \n• A union representative www.teu.ac.nz ; www.epmu.org.nz ; www.psa.org.nz ; www.tiasa.org.nz   \n \n• Employee Assistance Programme (EAP) 0800 327 669 \n• A Health Professional  \n• Massey University Harassment Contact Network  \n• Massey University Disputes Advisor  \n \n                                            Massey University Policy Guide  \nHarassment and Discrimination at Work Policy – Page 5  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n• Massey University Mediation Service  \n \nExternal agencies such as the Equal  Employment Opportunities Trust www.eeotrust.org.nz , or the Human \nRights Commission www.hrc.co.nz .  WorksafeNZ www.worksafe.govt.nz  \n \nAs a manager, you can seek advice from the following:  \n  \n• Massey University Disputes Advisor  \n• Massey University Mediation Service  \n• Human Resources Advisor  \n• Health and Safety Advisor  \n \nAdditionally, courses are available through the development programme and managers are also referred to the \nManagers Handbook and Checklist for Harassment Prevention.  \n \nMalicious Allegations or Complaints:  \n \nThe potential consequences for someone accused of harassment are severe. Therefore an allegation or complaint of \nharassment against another member of staff wh ich is found to be malicious, vexatious or frivolous could itself be \nconsidered an act of harassment and may result in disciplinary action against the complainant.   \n Genuine complaints, even where not able to be substantiated do not fall into this categor y.   \nTherefore, this should in no way discourage staff from making a legitimate complaint.   \n Audience:  \n \nThis policy applies to all University staff, including temporary or casual staff.  \n This policy does not apply to students.  Incidents of harassment between students; or by students towards staff should be dealt with through the student harassment co- ordin ators and procedures.  \n \nWhere students are employed as staff, this policy covers them in their capacity as staff only.  \n \nRelevant Legislation: \n \n• Employment Relations Act 2000  \n• Health and Safety at Work Act 2015  \n• Human Rights Act 1993  \n• Privacy Act 1993  \n• State Sec tor Act 1988  \n \nThe Employment Relations Act 2000 and the Human Rights Act 1993 codify forms of discrimination which are unlawful \nand which the University will not permit.  The provisions contained in these Acts are drawn to the attention of all members \nof the University community. Copies of relevant Acts are available on line at www.legislation.govt.nz .   \n \nLegal Compliance:  \n The Employment Relations Act 2000 requires Massey  University to comply with Part 9 -  Personal grievances, disputes, \nand enforcement  and Part 10 -  Institutions and abide by the criteria set out i n this Act.  \n \n \n                                            Massey University Policy Guide  \nHarassment and Discrimination at Work Policy – Page 6  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nUnder Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 Massey University has a primary duty of care to ensure that as far as \nreasonably practicable, the health and safety of workers and of others persons is not put at risk from work carried out \nby Massey University (Section 36). Massey University also has a duty to eliminate risks to the health and safety so far \nas is reasonably practicable, and if is not able to eliminate risks to health and safety, to minimise those risks so far as \nis reasonably practicable (Section 30).  \nThe Human Rights Act 1993 prohibits Massey University from discriminating against any employee, job applicant or \ncontractor on the grounds of sex, marital status, religious belief, colour, race, ethnic or national origin, disability, age,  \npolitical opi nion, employment status, family status or sexual orientation.  \n \n \nThe Privacy Act 1993 requires Massey University to comply with its 12 Principles in regards to the collection of personal information, the manner in which it is collected and the storage and security of personal information. In \naddition, Massey University is required to provide the individual concerned with access to their personal information \nand the ability to request correction of information if necessary. The University must adhere to the limits on the use of \npersonal information collected in that the U niversity may only collect personal information for the intended purposes of \nselection for appointment of the individual and this information cannot be used for any other purpose. It is essential \nthat the personal information gathered is checked before use to ensure the information is accurate, up to date, \ncomplete, relevant and not misleading. The personal information obtained shall not be kept for longer than it is \nrequired for the purposes for which the information may lawfully be used.  \n The State Sector Act 1988 requires Massey University to maintain appropriate standards of integrity and conduct among \nemployees (Section 57).  \n \n Related Policy, Procedures & Guidelines:  \n \n• Harassment  Resolution Procedures  \n• Health and Safety policies/procedures  \n• Massey Universi ty Policy on Staff Conduct   \n• Use and Access to Information Technology Services Systems Policy  \n• Conflicts of Commitment and Interest Policy  \n• WorkSafe New Zealand and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Empl oyment Best Practice Guidelines:  \nPreventing and Responding to Workplace Bullying  \n \n \nDocument Management Control:  \n Prepared by:   Employment Relations Manager  \nAuthorised by:   The Deputy Vice-Chancellor (People & Culture ) \nApproved by:   SLT 20/04/51  \nDate issued:   20 February 20  \nLast review:   February 20 20 \nReview Date:   February 2023  \n \n \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Harmful_Sexual_Behaviour_Policy_PDF_158_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Harmful Sexual Behaviour Policy",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "158 KB",
      "creation_date": "2023-01-16T10:01:06",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220100626+13'00'"
    },
    "content": "    \n Massey University Policy Guide  \n \nHARMFUL SEXUAL BEHAVIOUR POLICY  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \n \n \n \n \n   \n \n \n \nPurpose :  \nSexual violence is a serious problem that needs attention and intervention throughout society and within institutions. \nHarmful sexual behaviours  have a significant impact on those who experience it , their friends and family members, and \non those who work c losely with  them  as supporters, advocates, and educators and on those who are accused of or \nfound to have engaged in this behaviour .    \nThe purpose of this policy is to outline Massey University’s commitment to reducing harmful sexual behaviours through \npromoting a safe campus, healthy relationships, and a supportive culture, which encourages reporting of incidents and \nensures that they are dealt with  sensitively and as per already existing policies or regulations.   \n \nWe recognise that it can be di stressing for all those affected by a sexual violence disclosure; this policy aims to ensure \nthat all parties are treated with dignity and respect and are provided with appropriate support  and guidance .  \nDefinitions : \nThe terms ‘sexual violence’ and ‘harmfu l sexual behaviours’ are used interchangeably throughout this policy to order to \nmake clear the breadth of behaviour covered and to utilise a well -defined and researched term.  \n \nFor the purpose of this policy and its implementation Massey University adopts  the World Health Organisation definition \nof sexual violence (Krug et al, 2002) as a term that encompasses the spectrum of sexual acts and behaviours that are \nharmful.  \n \nSexual Violence: Any sexual act, attempt to obtain a sexual act, unwanted sexual comments or advances, or acts to \ntraffic or otherwise directed against a person’s sexuality using coercion, by any person regardless of their relationship \nto the victim, in an y setting, including but not limited to home and work.  \n \nCoercion can encompass:  \n• varying degrees of force.  \n• psychological intimidation.  \n• blackmail.  \n• threats (of physical harm or of not obtaining a job/grade etc.).  \nIn addition, sexual violence may also ta ke place when someone is not able to give consent – for instance, while \nintoxicated, drugged, asleep or mentally incapacitated.  \n- Krug, E.G. et al., eds. (2002). World report on  violence and health. Geneva, World Health Organization  Section  Health, Safety and Wellbeing  \nContact  DVC Students and Global Engagement \nand the DVC People and Culture  \nLast Review  April 2021  \nNext Review  April 2023  \nApproval  SLT 21/05/63  \nEffective Date  May 2021  \n \n Massey University  Policy Guide  \nHarmful Sexual Behaviour Policy  – Page 2 \n \n \nThis Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \nFor clarity the University also notes that:  \n• Sexual viole nce need  not include  physical  violence.  \n• Sexual violence can occur within relationships.  \n• Sexual violence can occur through email, text, messaging, social media posts and other forms of \nelectronic communication.    \n• Anyone can be a victim of sexual violence  regardless of their age, sex, gender, sta tus, culture, ability, or \nsexuality.  \n• Consent to a sexual act should be clear and obvious. The fact that a person does not say ‘no’ to, or does \nnot physically resist, a sexual act does not of itself mean that they consent to it.  \n• Any person is free to withd raw their consent at any time prior to, or during a sexual act, for any reason.     \nHarmful sexual behaviour may include sexual “harassment”, all forms of which are not tolerated by the University,  and \nwhich is defined further below.  \n \n“Sexual Harassment”:  \n• It is unwanted attention of a sexually orientated nature.  \n• It may include an implied or express promise of reward for complying with a sexually orientated request \nand/or  \n• An implied or expressed thr eat of reprisal for not complying with a sexually orientated request.  \n \nExamples of sexual harassment include but are not limited to:  \n• Offensive verbal comments of a sexual nature.  \n• Sexual or smutty jokes.  \n• Repeated comments or teasing about someone’s alleged sexual activities or private life. \n• Persistent, unwelcome social invitations, telephone calls or emails from colleagues at work, at the \nUniversity, or at home.  \n• Following someone home from work or from the  University.  \n• Offensive hand or body gestures.  \n• Leering or ogling.   \n• Unwelcome physical contact e.g., patting, pinching, touching,  or putting an arm around another person.  \n• Provocative visual material in either hardcopy or electronic media.  \n \nNothing in the de finition above shall apply to the use or presentation of language or materials, which is reasonably \nrequired for bona fide educational purposes  but wherever possible sexually explicit academic material should be \naccompanied with an appropriate advanced not ing. \n \nCommitment to Prevent Sexual Violence  \n \nThe University considers all sexual violence unacceptable and will not tolerate sexual violence in any form.   Massey \nUniversity is committed to creating and maintaining a safe environment for the entire Massey c ommunity, which is free \nfrom harmful sexual behaviour.  Power imbalances can occur within tertiary institutions and as such, the University will \nactively use good practice which incorporates service -user voices, current research, and advice from experts working \nin the sexual violence sector in Aotearoa New Zealand to take steps to eliminate or prevent any environment or culture \nin which this form of harm can occur.  \n \nThese steps will include, but are not limited to, addressing sexual violence and r ape culture through support to those \nwho disclose it, awareness, education , training and prevention programs, the appropriate handling of reports or \ncomplaints of sexual violence incidents, and fostering and promoting a culture of consent.    \n \n \n Massey University  Policy Guide  \nHarmful Sexual Behaviour Policy  – Page 3 \n \n \nThis Policy is the property of Massey University  \nThe Universit y also commits to working with all parties involved, from the outset; during any processes invoked; and \nirrespective of the outcomes of those processes, including – where appropriate – opportunity for a party to better \nunderstand the impact of their action s \n \nSafety and Wellbeing and Cultural Sensitivity  \n \nA person who has experienced sexual violence can elect to make a disclosure of their experience  and/or make  \na formal complaint.  Making a disclosure will not prevent a person subsequently making a formal co mplaint .  \n \nThe safety and wellbeing of the person disclosing or making a formal complaint of sexual violence is a priority of the \nUniversity.   \n \nMassey University aspires to be a Te Tiriti -led institution. As such culturally appropriate response to a disclosure or \ncomplaint will be made available .   \n \nResponding to Disclosures of Sexual Violence  \n \nThe University will take a survivor led  approach when  responding to a disclosure  and will provide support and \nassistance to that person, who includes, but is not limited to:  \n \n• access to information about appropriate emergency health, counselling, security, and \naccommodation  providers.     \n• referral to internal and external support services.  \n• information about, and support navigating, the University’s academic special  consideration process if a \nstudent wishes to  apply.     \n• Information about, and support navigating, the University’s leave provisions.  \n• information about  the available  reporting  options, including reporting to Police and making a formal \ncomplaint to the  University.     \n \nThe University will acknowledge and consider the needs of our diverse community members in its sexual violence \nresponse pr ocedures and support systems. It also acknowledges the need to review prevention and support measures \nfollowing any incidents to continually improve practices and procedures  \n \nResponding to Formal Complaints of Sexual Violence  \n \nUniversity community members who disclose an incident of sexual violence have agency over any resulting actions. \nThis includes making a formal complaint to the Police, regulatory agencies and/or making a formal complaint to the \nUniversity.  Support and assistance will be provided if s omeone wishes to make a formal complaint to the University \nincluding but not limited to:  \n \n• information about the University’s formal report and misconduct investigation  processes , including \ninformation about principles of natural justice that apply to any investigation  \n• assistance with navigating the University’s formal report and misconduct investigation  processes.     \n• pastoral support  \nWhere a formal complaint of sexual violence, as per the definition above, is lodged with the University by an affected \nmember of the University community these complaints will be managed by specifically trained individuals  using:  \n \n• Where the respondent is a  student, the Code of Student Conduct and, the Student Disciplinary \nRegulations or.    \n \n Massey University  Policy Guide  \nHarmful Sexual Behaviour Policy  – Page 4 \n \n \nThis Policy is the property of Massey University  \n• Where the respondent is a staff member, the Policy on Staff  Conduct , the Harassment and \nDiscrimination Resolution Procedure  and the disciplinary provisions set out in th eir employment \nagreement.  \n• Where the respondent is a contractor, supplier or affiliate, provisions available within the associated \ncontract.  \nSupport will be provided to the respondent of a formal complaint as part of the resulting process undertaken.  This \nincludes procedural and pastoral support.    \n \nMaking a formal complaint to the University does not prevent the matter being considered a cri minal act that may be \nindependently subject to police investigation and subsequent prosecution.  \n \nAudience : \nAll staff and students, contractors of the University, visitors to the University and the wider community. As such this \npolicy is co -owned by the DV C Student and Global Engagement and the DVC People and Culture.  \nRelevant legislation : \nCrimes Act 1961  \nHealth and Safety at Work Act 2015  \nEmployment Relations Act 2000  \nHuman Rights Act 1993  \n \nRelated procedures / documents : \nHealth, Safety & Wellbeing Policy  \nStudent Disciplinary Regulations   \nStaff Conduct Policy  \nUniversity Complaints Procedure (under development)  \nHarassment and Discrimination at Work Policy  \nHarassment and Discrimination Resolution Procedure  \nDocument Management Control:  \nPrepared by:  DVC Students and Global Engagement and the DVC People and Culture  \nAuthorised by:  Senior Leadership Team  \nApproved by:  SLT 21/05/63  \nDate issued:  May 2021  \nLast review:  April 2021    \nNext review:  April 2023  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Health_and_Safety_Guidelines_on_Minimum_Compliance_PDF_57_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Dogs on Campus Policy",
      "policy_type": "Guideline",
      "file_size": "57 KB",
      "author": "jmlochhe",
      "creation_date": "2015-02-09T13:03:08",
      "modification_date": "D:20150209133848+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " Massey University Policy Guide \n \n HEALTH AND SAFETY GUIDELINE S ON MINIMUM COMPLIANCE  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n \n \n   \n  \n  \nPurpose :  \nTo detail minimum compliance H ealth and Safety in Employment Act  requirements for managers .  \nMinimal health and safety compliance requirements are derived from strict liability duties in the Health and Safety in \nEmployment Act. The different roles assigned by the Act are then considered along with safety requirements s pecific \nto each role.   \nGuidel ines:  \nManagers shall have:  \n1. A Hazard Register   \n2. Information for employees   \n3. Accidents recorded, reported, investigated  \n4. Ascertain use of plant  before supplying plant  \n5. Train elected health and safety representatives and agree wit h them  (or provide a written explanation why not)   \n \nEach is considered in turn, with the strict liability requirement underlined . \n Hazard register  \n• All foreseeable hazards identified and recorded in register or similar.  The identification must be systemati c\n \nand include inspections, staff consultation and response to accident investigation. (Register needs to be up to date, \nincluding new items  and accident investigation recommendations.)  \n• All identified hazards assessed for significance .  \n• Significant hazards  controlled through a three step hierarchy of; elimination, isolation, minimisation.  \n• If minimisation used as strategy : \na. Provide personal protective equipment and ensure it is used   and  \nb. Monitor exposu re to significant hazards. (e.g. systems to report discomfort, concerns, incident \naccidents, staff satisfaction, performance review).  \n \nInformation requirements  \n• Employees  and elected Health and Safety representatives  \no Hazards and their controls  \no Emergency procedures .   \no The results of any monitoring .  \no The location of protective equipment .  \n \n• Elected Health and Safety representatives  \no Systems information provided  \no Safety issues information  Section  Health and Safety  \nContact University Health and Safety Manager  \nLast Review  April 2014  \nNext Review  December 2017  \nApproval  University Health and Safety Manager  \nRecording accidents is \nnot an opti onal activity  \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nHealth and Safety Guidelines on Minimum  \nComplia nce – Page 2 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \nAccidents record ed, reported, investigated  \n• All accidents recorded . Includes anyone in workplace – i.e. staff, contractors, s tudents  \n• Serious harm notified to WorkSafe and accident scenes secured until clearance obtained .  \n• Investigations carried out to determine causes –  record non- resolved to hazards in hazard register.  \n \nAscertain use of plant before supplying plant1  \n• Applies if you hire plant, lease plant, or loan plant that can be used in place of work . Ask if it is to be used in \nplace of work? If yes what is the intended use? Plant must be designed, made, and maintained so safe for \nindented use.  \n \nTrain elected health and safety representatives and agree with them (or provide written explanation why not) \n• Must allow each elected representative 2 days paid leave  to attend approved safety training  \n• If a safety committee or representative makes a health and safety recommendation it must be followed or \nwritten reasons why the proposal will not be implemented   \n \nRole responsibility:  \nAnother way to view  the Act is to consider what functional roles might have a safety responsibility. More than one role \ncan exist at any one time (they are not always mutually exclusive).  \n• As an employer  – usually means an employment contract  \n• As a principal  - someone who arranges a services to be done for gain or reward (can be non-monetary ) – e.g. \nfree accommodation for XXX, or clean this tree up and you c an have it for firewood.  \n• A person controlling a place of work  (teacher, lab manager)  \n• As someone who loans an item   \n• As an employee  \n \nIn the above section we missed out “general duties”, that is the one prefixed by “ all practicable steps ”. In consideration \nof roles responsibilities with all practicable are included.   \n \nAs an employer : \n \nA SYSTEMATIC HAZARD MANAGEMENT SYSTEM:  \n• All foreseeable hazards identified and recorded in register or similar. The identification must be systematic and include inspections, st aff consultation and response to accident investigation. (Register needs to be up to \ndate, including new items and accident investigation recommendations.)  \n• All identified hazards assessed for significance.  \n• Significant hazards controlled through a three s tep hierarchy of; elimination, isolation, minimisation.  \n• Provide personal protective equipment and ensure it is used if minimisation strategy used.  \n• Monitor exposure to significant hazards. (e.g. systems to report discomfort, concerns, incident accidents, staff \nsatisfaction, performance review).  \n INFORMATION PROVIDED TO EMPLOYEES AND ELECTED REPS ON :  \n• Hazards and emergency procedures. (e.g. control procedures, emergency response.)  \n• The results of any monitoring.  \n• The location of protective equipment.  \n• Elect ed reps to also be given access to safety systems and issues  \n \nTRAINING AND OR SUPERVISION PROVIDED:  \n• Competence of employees to work safely assessed, and record kept of the assessment.  \n• Supervision of employees who lack knowledge and experience to carry out assigned tasks without risk to \nhealth or safety.  \n                                                 \n1 Plant has a very broad meaning, \"Plant\" includes -- \n(a) Appliance, equipment, fitting, furniture, implement, machine, machinery, tool, and vehicle; and  \n(b) Part of any plant, the controls of any plant, and anything connected to any plant:   \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nHealth and Safety Guidelines on Minimum  \nComplia nce – Page 3 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  • All students, visitors and contractors given minimum health and safety training –  preferably as an induction. \nKeep a record of training.  \n \nACCIDENTS AND INCIDENTS RECORDED, REPORTED AND INVESTIGATED :  \n• All accidents recorded.  \n• Serious harm notified to WorkSafe and accident scenes secured until clearance obtained.  \n• Investigations carried out to determine causes –  record non resolved to hazards in hazard register.  \n \nDefinitions :  \nAuxiliary adverbs are used to  assign duties in the Act:  \n• Shall – implies strict liability, a rule specifying strict liability makes a person legally responsible for the \ndamage and loss caused by his or her acts and omissions regardless of culpability . In other words intention \ndoesn’t h ave to be proved.   \n \n• All practicable steps –  implies a reasonable  prudence given likelihood and severity of injury, state of \nknowledge about harm interventions and access to resources2.  Equivalent term in English law best practical \nmeans . Interpretation c an be contested.  \n \n• Reasonable – lowest level of responsibility, only used for Inspectorate requirement to uphold the law and \nemployers in setting up a staff participation system.   \nAudience:  \nAll Massey University staff, student s, contractors and visitors to the c ampuses.  \nRelevant Legislation:   \nHealth and Safety in Employment Act 1992  \n \nDocument Management Control : \nPrepared by: –University Health and Safety Manager  \nOwned by: Assistant Vice Chancellor –  People and Organisational Development    \nAuthorised by:  University Health and Safety Manager  \nDate Issued: April 2014  \nLast reviewed: August 2014  \nNext review: December  2017 \n                                                 \n2 means all steps to achieve the result that it is reasonably practicable to take in the circumstances, having regard to—  \n(a) the nature and severity of th e harm that may be suffered if the result is not achieved; and  \n(b) the current state of knowledge about the likelihood that harm of that nature and severity will be suffered if the result is not achieved; and  \n(c) the current state of knowledge about harm of that nature; and  \n(d) the current state of knowledge about the means available to achieve the result, and about the likely efficacy of each of those means; and  \n(e) the availability and cost of each of those means.  \n \nTo avoid doubt, a person required by this Act to take all practicable steps is required to take those steps only in respect of circumstances that \nthe person knows or ought reasonably to know about.  \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Harassment_and_Discrimination_Resolution_Procedures_PDF_119_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Harassment and Discrimination Resolution Procedures PDF 119 KB",
      "policy_type": "Procedure",
      "file_size": "119 KB",
      "author": "Massey University",
      "creation_date": "2020-05-27T12:05:09",
      "modification_date": "D:20200527125957+12'00'"
    },
    "content": " \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n \nHARASSMENT AND DISCR IMINATION RESOLUTION  PROCEDURES  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \n \n \nPurpose:  \n \nThe purpose of these procedures is to provide guidance to staff and managers in dealing with harassment, raising \nissues and resolving them and making formal complaints. The procedures outline a range of options.  \n \nHarassment in this procedures document inc ludes discrimination, sexual harassment, personal harassment, abuse of \nsupervisory/managerial authority and bullying.  \n \nPlease see the ‘Harassment and Discrimination at Work Policy’ for definitions of what constitutes harassment.  \n \nProcedures:  \n \nDealing with harassment when it first occurs:  \n \nEarly intervention when an issue or concern is raised is the best option for long term resolution.  \n \nStaff who believe they have experienced some form of harassment, or who have witnessed harassment against a nother \nmember of staff should act promptly.  \n \nStaff are encouraged to respond assertively to behaviour that they consider harassment, if this is possible or practicable. \nThis may mean talking to the person to let them know that their behaviour is unwelcome  or inappropriate and asking \nthem to stop it. It may include writing the person a ‘private and confidential’ letter outlining the behaviour which is \nunwelcome and asking them to stop it. It is recognised this may not be possible or practical in many situat ions.  \n \nWhere the member of staff is unable to resolve the situation themselves, it may be appropriate to take the matter up \nwith their immediate manager or, if the matter involves that person, their manager’s manager.  \n \nAny manager who is approached about  a potential case of harassment or receives a complaint should act immediately \nand seek advice and support if necessary.  \n \nWhere a staff member witnesses harassment against another staff member, a student o r contractor they are known as \na bystander.  They may seek to address the matter with the staff member directly at the time or they may advise their \nimmediate manager of their concerns or contact a Human Resource or Health and Safety Advisor. Bystanders have the \npotential to make a difference to a situati on by interrupting or speaking up to stop the harassment. A bystander can deal \nwith the situation by  \n• Questioning the behaviour  \n• Standing beside the person who is being harassed to let them know they are supported  \n• Assist the person to remove themselves from the situation  Section  People & Culture  \nContact  People & Culture  \nLast Review  February 20 20 \nNext Review  February 202 3 \nApproval  SLT 20/04/51  \nEffective date  February 20 20 \n \n                                                Massey University Policy Guide  \nHarassment  and Discrimination  Resolution Procedures  – Page 2  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n• Reach out privately to the person.  \n• Supporting the person to raise with an appropriate person.  \n \nSteps that may be taken to resolve the issue informally:  \n \nThe manager may suggest the member of staff find a person to support them in the process of resolving the issue. This \ncould be a friend, a family member, a trade union representative or associate.  \n \nThe Employee Assistance Programme is available to Staff. The University has engaged EAP Services to provide \nprofessional and confidential support to staff in instances of harassment. EAP Services will provide immediate advice, \ndiscuss various options available and assist them in attempts to remedy the situation.  \n \nWhere the parties agree, the manager may convene a meeting between the parties to resolve the matter informally.  \n \nIt may also be appropriate to seek assistance from a mediator to facilitate a resolution to the matter. Mediation can bring \nthe matters out  in a safe yet confidential environment and assist the parties to understand the nature and impact of \nharassing behaviours. It can also assist and facilitate the on -going working relationship between parties. If the \ncomplainant is satisfied with the outcom e, the matter will be deemed to be resolved. Mediation may not be appropriate \nin all situations and should be carefully weighed up by all parties.  \n \nTo find out more about mediation procedures and processes you can contact:  \n• Labour Department Mediation Services  \n• Massey University Disputes Advisor  \n• Massey University Mediation Service  \n \nFormal Complaint:  \n \nThe member of staff may choose to make a formal complaint along with any further explanation as appropriate about \nthe incident that has taken place. A formal complaint does not need to be in any special form but must be in writing and \noutline the events, when and how they occurred and the impact of any situation on the employee concerned, any action \nthe complainant may ha ve taken to stop the behaviour, and an indication of the desired outcome the complainant is \nseeking.  \n \nThe complaint is to be lodged with the appropriate manager or with the Deputy Vice-Chancellor People and Culture . Any \nmanager who receives a complaint must deal with it promptly . \n  \nIf the complaint has sufficient substance, the manager should commission an investigation. Where it appears that there \nhas been an incident of misconduct or serious misconduct (and possibly a criminal offence to be r eferred to appropriate \nexternal authorities), an employment investigation will be undertaken in accordance with the staff member’s employment \nagreement and the principles of natural justice.  \n \nOn receipt of a formal complaint, the complainant will be infor med of how the investigation will proceed and be provided \nwith an indicative timeframe for the investigation. The complainant will be kept informed throughout the course of the \ninvestigation.  \n \nDuring the course of an investigation it may be necessary to g ather information and interview other individuals. Content \nof any interviews will be documented and verified by the individual supplying the information for the purposes of being \nincluded in the investigation and the investigation report.  \n \nWhere a formal complaint is submitted for investigation, the complaint together with any supplementary information \nobtained during the course of the investigation will, in line with the principles of natural justice, be given to the member \nof staff who is the subject of the complaint, to answer.  \n \n \n                                                Massey University Policy Guide  \nHarassment  and Discrimination  Resolution Procedures  – Page 3  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nAt any time during this process the complainant can seek to have the matter referred to mediation in an effort to resolve \nit without going further or withdraw the complaint. If mediation is unsuccessful then a decision would hav e to be made \nas to whether or not to continue with the investigation.  \n \nBoth the complainant and the respondent will be provided with a copy of any report of the investigation and given an \nopportunity to provide a written response before a decision is made . The respondent is entitled to all information on \nwhich the University is relying on to make any decision affecting the respondent.  \n \nAt the end of the investigation a decision will be made as to whether or not  the complaint is substantiated and what \naction should be taken in relation to the complaint or issue. This could include:  \n• No further action  \n• Disciplinary action against the person complained about  \n• Mediation between the parties  \n• Consideration of health a nd safety measures to promote prevention of a recurrence of such behaviours  \n \n \n \nPersonal Grievance under the Employment Relations Act 2000 (ERA ):  \n \nAn employee may raise a personal grievance if they are harassed or discriminated against. This is a formal procedure \nunder the Employment Relations Act 2000 (ERA) and may arise if an employee feels that matters remain unresolved \nor they feel that they have  been disadvantaged or dismissed unjustifiably as a result of a complaint under these \nprocedures.  \n \nThere is a 90 day time frame for an employee to raise a personal grievance under the Employment Relations Act  \n• Depending on the circumstances, outcomes from  the above processes may include:  \n• Complainant feels satisfied that the problem has been resolved.  \n• Disciplinary action is taken against harasser. This will be applied consistently throughout the University taking into \nconsideration the nature of the behav iour, the circumstances, previous occurrences, etc.  \n• Some form of behaviour modification e.g. counselling for the harasser.  \n• Changes to work practices and/or environment.  \n \nAt the conclusion of the investigation the complainant will be notified in broad te rms the outcome.  \n \nNothing in these procedures is to be construed as restricting the recourse of any person to other avenues of dealing \nwith cases of harassment as outlined above.  \n \nHuman Rights Act  \n \nAn employee can also decide to refer a complaint of discrimination or harassment to the Human Rights Commission, \nunder the Human Rights Act 1993.  \n \nChoice of Procedures  \nAn employee may determine that they would prefer to raise the matter with the Human Rights Commission. The \nCommission can deal with cases of alleged discrimination, sexual harassment or racial harassment. The Commission \nmay decide to investigate the compla int under its own procedures. If an employee does raise a complaint through the \nHuman Rights Commission they cannot also raise the complaint under the Employment Relations Act.  \n \nParties entitlements during any procedure:  \n \nAll parties (complainants, respo ndents, witnesses, interviewees) involved with or affected by complaints dealt with under \nthese procedures are entitled to:  \n• A fair hearing;  \n \n                                                Massey University Policy Guide  \nHarassment  and Discrimination  Resolution Procedures  – Page 4  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n• Be kept fully informed during the process;  \n• Have a representative and/or support person present at meetings  \n• Apply, where relevant, for a change of supervision, work duties or workplace while an investigation is proceeding;  \n• Counselling through the University’s EAP scheme.  \n \nThe University will obse rve the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. They will ensure that anyone whose \ninterests may be adversely affected by a complaint is aware of the allegations against them, including the identity of the \nperson making the allegations, and has the opportunity to respond. The University will not act on anonymous complaints.  \n \nComplainants have the right to withdraw from the process at any stage. However, this will not necessarily halt further \naction where there is a risk to personal safety or property, or where there would be legal implications for the University \nif action does not follow.  \n \n \n \nProtection of Parties to a complaint:  \n \nWhen a member of staff has either made a complaint or is the subject of a complaint they must use all reasonable \nefforts to avoid action which actually or potentially causes disadvantage to or creates a hostile environment for the other \nperson or colleague s including those who may have been interviewed.  \n \nIf the member of staff is concerned about disadvantage or hostility  they should raise this immediately with a manager, \nhuman resources or their union or support person.  \n \nInvestigation where no formal complaint or complaint withdrawn:  \n \nIn some circumstances, depending on the seriousness of the matter, even where a compla inant has withdrawn a \ncomplaint or where a formal complaint has not been received, a manager may decide to undertake an investigation into \nthe issue or behaviour.  \n \nThis may particularly apply where the alleged behaviour is serious or on -going and may cons titute misconduct requiring \ndisciplinary action against the person responsible; or where there is a risk to personal safety; or where there are legal \nimplications for the University if formal action is not taken.  \n \nA manager should seek assistance and advi ce from their HR Advisor in such circumstances.  \n \nAdvice, Information and Support:  \n \nAs an employee you can access the following for personal support to discuss any issues or concerns you have, to seek \nadvice on resolving the issues or concerns you have or to discuss how to make a complaint:  \n \n• Friend or family member  \n• A senior colleague  \n• Your manager  \n• A Human Resources Advisor  \n• A Health and Safety Advisor  \n• A union representative www.teu.ac.nz www.epmu.org.nz; www.psa.org.nz; www.tiasa.org.nz  \n \n• Employee Assistance Programme (EAP) 0800 327 669  \n• A Health Professional  \n• Massey University Harassment Contact Network  \n• Massey University Disputes Advisor  \n• Massey University Mediation Service  \n \n                                                Massey University Policy Guide  \nHarassment  and Discrimination  Resolution Procedures  – Page 5  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \nExternal agencies such as the Equal Employment Opportunities Trust www.eeotrust.org.nz, or the Human Rights \nCommission www.hrc.co.nz   \n \nAs a manager, you can seek advice from the following:  \n• Massey University Disputes Advisor  \n• Massey University Mediation Service  \n• Human Resources Advisor  \n• Health and Safety Advisor  \n \nAdditionally, managers ar e also referred to the Managers Handbook and Checklist for Harassment Prevention.  \n \n \n \n \n \nConfidentiality:  \n \nThe University is committed to maintaining confidentiality unless there are circumstances involving probable risk to the \nsafety of any person/s, or where maintaining confidentiality would be unlawful, or when this would compromise principles \nof natural jus tice.  \n \nDefamation:  \n \nDue to the possibility of defamation proceedings, all information must be kept as confidential as possible. The \ncomplainant and the alleged harasser are not to discuss any matters pertaining to a complaint with anyone other than \nthose  directly involved.  \n \nAudience:  \n \nThis policy applies to all University staff, including temporary or casual staff.  \n \nThis policy does not apply to students. Incidents of harassment between students; or by students towards staff should \nbe dealt with through the student harassment co -ordinators and procedures.  \n \nWhere students are employed as staff, this policy covers them  in their capacity as staff only.  \n \nRelevant Legislation:  \n• Employment Relations Act 2000  \n• Health and Safety at Work Act 2015  \n• Human Rights Act 1993  \n• Privacy Act 1993  \n• State Sector Act 1988  \n \nThe Employment Relations Act 2000 and the Human Rights Act 1993 codify forms of discrimination which are unlawful \nand which the University will not permit. The provisions contained in these Acts are drawn to the attention of all members \nof the University c ommunity. Copies of relevant Acts are available on line at www.legislation.govt.nz.  \n \nLegal Compliance:  \n \nThe Employment Relations Act 2000 requires Massey University to comply with Part 9 - Personal grievances, disputes, \nand enforcement and Part 10 - Institutions and abide by the criteria set out in this Act.  \n \n                                                Massey University Policy Guide  \nHarassment  and Discrimination  Resolution Procedures  – Page 6  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \nUnder Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 Massey University has a primary duty of care to ensure that as far as \nreasonably practicable, the health and safety of workers and of others persons is not put at risk from work carried out \nby Massey University (Section 36). Massey University also has a duty to e liminate risks to the health and safety so far  \nas is reasonably practicable, and if is not able to eliminate risks to health and safety, to minimise those risks so far as \nis reasonably practicable (Section 30).  \n \nThe Human Rights Act 1993 prohibits Massey University from discriminating against any employee, job applicant or \ncontractor on the grounds of sex, marital status, religious belief, colour, race, ethnic or national origin, disability, age,  \npolitical opinion , employment status, family status or sexual orientation.  \n \nThe Privacy Act 1993 requires Massey University to comply with its 12 Principles in regards to the collection of personal \ninformation, the manner in which it is collected and the storage and secur ity of personal information. In addition, Massey \nUniversity is required to provide the individual concerned with access to their personal information and the ability to \nrequest correction of information if necessary. The University must adhere to the limit s on the use of personal \ninformation collected in that the University may only collect personal information for the intended purposes of selection \nfor appointment of the individual and this information cannot be used for any other purpose. It is essential that the \npersonal information gathered is checked before use to ensure the information is accurate, up to date, complete, \nrelevant and not misleading. The personal information obtained shall not be kept for longer than it is required for the \npurposes for w hich the information may lawfully be used.  \n \nThe State Sector Act 1988 requires Massey University to maintain appropriate standards of integrity and conduct among \nemployees (Section 57).  \n \nRelated Policy, Procedures & Guidelines:  \n• Harassment at Work Policy  \n• Health and Safety policies/procedures  \n• Massey University Policy on Staff Conduct  \n• Use and Access to Information Technology Services Systems Policy  \n• Conflicts of Commitment and Interest Policy  \n• WorkSafe New Zealand and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment Best Practice Guidelines: \nPreventing and Responding to Workplace Bullying  \n \nDocument Management Control:  \n \nPrepared by: Employment Relations Manager  \nAuthorised by: The Assistant Vice-Chancellor (People & Organisational Development)  \nApproved by: SLT 20/04/51  \nDate issued: 20 February 20  \nLast review: February 20 20  \nReview Date: February 202 3 \n \n \n \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Homestay_Agreement_Policy_PDF_160_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Homestay Agreement Policy",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "160 KB",
      "creation_date": "2014-08-29T09:03:07",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220100609+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " \nMassey University Policy Guide \n \nHOMESTAY AGREEMENT POLICY  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n \n   \n  \n \n \nPurpose :  \nTo outline the Policy for managing agreements with homestay providers, and agreements f or placement into \nhomestay accommodation. In particular the Policy provides:  \na. procedures for concluding agreements on behalf of the University with authorised homestay providers  \nb. procedures for authorised homestay providers to conclude agreements with board ers \nc. procedures for police checking and assessing the suitability of prospective homestay hosts.  \nPolicy:  \nThe Massey University Centre for Professional and Continuing Education -  PaCE  (the Centre) is responsible for \nmanagement of the homestay arrangements on behalf of Albany, Manawatu and Wellington campuses . Homestay \naccommodation will be arranged for international and domestic students and others as required by the University. To \nbe eligible for homestay accommodation, students should be studying internall y at the Albany, Manawatu or \nWellington campuses of Massey University.  \nThe Director or Business Development Manager  must conclude an agreement for services with the homestay provider \n(Homestay Provider Agreement) before placing boarders with the provider.  The provider in turn concludes an \nagreement with each boarder before each placement (Homestay Placement Agreement).  Agreements are in accordance with this Policy and using the authorised homestay agreements as maintained on the Contract Template \nsite in the University’s Contract Document Management System. Where the Director or Business Development \nManager  wishes to vary the content of the Template for a specific homestay arrangement the variation must be \nauthorised by the AVC Operations, International, &  University Registrar  or his/her delegate for this purpose.  \nInternational students under the age of 18 years must be placed in homestay accommodation, and not other types of University accommodation, in order to comply with Massey University’s undertakings as signatory to the Code of \nPractice for the Pastoral Care of International Students.  \nAll enquiries for homestays (in terms of hosting students and students who need hosting) must be directed to PaCE \nAccommodation and Welfare staff at the Albany, Manawat u and Wellington campuses . All PaCE staff must be made \naware of this policy.  \nWhen processing applications from prospective homestay hosts, the Director or Business Development Manager  \nmust ensure that the accommodation has been assessed as suitable and that all adults residing in the homestay are assessed in terms of the Massey University procedure for police vetting of homestay providers.  Section  International  \nContact International Office \nLast Review  June 2014  \nNext Review  June 2017  \nApproval  SLT 14/06/148  \nEffective date  June 2014  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide \nHomestay Agreement Policy  – Page 2  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  Definitions : \n“The Centre” is the Massey University Centre for Professional and Continuing Education  on the three \ncampus es i.e. Albany, Manawatu  and Wellington.  \n \n\"Centre Manager\"  means the Director or Business Development Manager  who is authorised to negotiate and \nconclude an agreement on behalf of the University for the Provision of services within this policy.  \n \n\"Homestay Provider\" is a University authorised provider of accommodation for international or domestic \nstudents.  \n \n\"Boarder\" is an international or domestic student enrolled at Massey University, or another individual requiring \nhomestay accommodation who has been pl aced by Massey University with an authorised provider of homestay \naccommodation.  \n \n\"Homestay provider agreement\"  means the authorised agreement used by the University and homestay \nprovider to clarify the arrangement.  \n \n\"Homestay placement agreement\"  means t he authorised agreement used by the student, the University and \nhomestay provider to clarify the arrangement.  \nAudience : \nAll Managers across the University that are involved in any way with student homestays and/or homestay providers.  \nRelevant legislation : \nCode of Practice for the Pastoral Care of International Students  \nPrivacy Act 1993  \nHealth and Disability Commission Act  \nLegal compliance : \nThe Code of Practice for the Pastoral Care of International Students requires that Massey University has robust \nprocedures for the selection and monitoring of homestay carers and homestay residences to ensure that \naccommodation for international students is suitable and safe.  \nRelated procedures / documents : \nCode of Practice for the Pastoral Care of International Students   \nProcedure for Police Vetting of Homestay Providers  \nHomestay (Provider Agreement)  \nHomestay (Placem ent) Agreement for Individual Boarders  \nHomestay (Placement) Agreement for Group Boarders  \nMassey Student Accommodation website: accommodation.massey.ac.nz  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide \nHomestay Agreement Policy  – Page 3  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  Document Management Control:  \n \nPrepared by:  International Office, Mr Arthur Chin  \nAuthorised by:  AVC Operations, International, & University Registrar  \nApproved by:  SLT 14/06/148  \nDate issued:  July 2004  \nLast review:  June 2014  \nNext review:  June 2017  \n \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Health_and_Safety_Responsibilities_for_Academic_Staff_Guidelines_PDF_49_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Health and Safety Responsibilities for Academic Staff Guidelines",
      "policy_type": "Guideline",
      "file_size": "49 KB",
      "creation_date": "2015-02-09T15:01:04",
      "modification_date": "D:20231011151924+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " Massey Uni versity Policy Guide \n \nHEALTH  & SAFETY RESPONSIBILITIES FOR ACADEMIC STAFF  GUIDELINES   \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n \n \n   \n  \n  \nPurpose :  \nTo guide academic staff in the implementation of health and safety responsibilities in l earning , teaching, research, and \nknowledge t ransfer .  \nGuidelines :  \n \nAcademic staff members are responsible for the implementation of health and safety within their realm of \nresponsibility for learning, teaching, research, and knowledge transfer. To the extent that an Academic member of \nstaff has control over persons or activities they also have responsibilities to protect anyone who may foreseeably be \nharmed.  \n \nThe position taken in this document is that academic staff members know m ost about their research projects and \nassociated work activities, as well as teaching in their discipline. They must, therefore, not only ensure their own health and safety but that of anyone who might be affected by their own work, and the work of junior colleagues and \nstudents.  \n \nTherefore Academic members of staff are in positions of responsibility for others (e.g. teaching, leading, instructing or \nsupervising) and are resp onsible for the following steps :  \n• ensuring risk assessments are conducted where ap propriate (e.g. for field trips, work in laboratories/  \nworkshops etc.) and all those who may be affected are advised of relevant findings and risk reduction \nstrategies;  \n• ensuring any required approvals or licenses are obtained (e.g. genetic engineering, bi osecurity, animal ethics, \nhuman ethics, radioactivity);  \n• providing employees and students that they supervise with sufficient information to  ensure safety, such as \ninstruction, training and supervision, and in particular make them aware of any foreseeable hazards connected with their work;  \n• ensuring that the University's rules and procedures are adhered to and, where necessary, initiating \ndisciplinary procedures against any employee or student who wilfully  disregards these;  \n• evacuating students promptly from teaching location in the case of emergency situations and practice drills, in \naccordance with published procedures;  \n• checking that all necessary safety equipment is available, adequate, properly maintained and used as \nspecified;  Section  Health and Safety  \nContact University Health and Safety Manager  \nLast Review  April 2014  \nNext Review  December 2017  \nApproval  University Health and Safety Manager  \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nHealth and Safety Responsibilities for Academic Staff \nGuidelines  – Page 2 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  • resolving local health and safety issues in consultation with those who may be affected and bringing strategic \nissues to the attention of the appropriate member of the Department, Institute or School management.  \n• complying with the University accident reporting procedure and inst igating investigation of accidents which \noccur within their areas of responsibility;  \n• demonstrating their personal concern for health and safety at work through example and commitment, and encouraging those that they supervise to do the same;  \n• reporting ha zards and risks which are outside of their power to control to their manager and Regional Health \nand Safety Advisor, as well as any concerns about discharging any of the above responsibilities;  \n• ensuring contractors engaged to provide teaching or leaning are evaluated for safety performance as per contractor policy, field work guidelines and template contract documents.  \n \nAudience:  \nAll Massey University staff, student s, contractors and visitors to the c ampuses.  \nRelevant Legislation:   \nHealth and Safety in Em ployment A ct 1992  \n \nDocument Management Control : \n \nPrepared by: –University Health and Safety Manager  \nOwned by: Assistant Vice Chancellor –  People and Organisational Development    \nAuthorised by:  University Health and Safety Manager  \nDate Issued: August  2014  \nLast reviewed: August 2014 \nNext review: December 2017  \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Health_Safety_and_Wellbeing_Standard_COVID-19_Alert_Level_2_-_Working_on_Campus_PDF_332_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Health Safety and Wellbeing Standard COVID-19 Alert Level 2 - Working on Campus PDF 332 KB",
      "policy_type": "Standard",
      "file_size": "332 KB",
      "author": "Robertson, Paul",
      "creation_date": "2020-08-18T08:05:03",
      "modification_date": "D:20200818085345+12'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n \n \n \n \n \nVERSION: 2.1 \nDATE: 14 August  2020  \nAPPROVAL : Director Health, Safety and Wellbeing  \nThis standard  as approved  forms part of the Health and Safety Framework of the University as approved by the Massey \nUniversity Council . \n \nINTRODUCTION  \nThis standard has been prepared for Massey University to assist in managing and reducing the risks associated \nwith transmission of Covid -19 within a university environment during the current pandemic.  It must be read in \nassociation with all existing Massey University policies, procedures and standards and Government -issued \nguidance for operating within the Covid -19 Alert Levels.  \n \nThis standard provides a set of minimum expectations that the University has established, and while individual \nschools or departments may choose to exceed these minimum standards, they may not remove requirements \nwithout the written permission of the relevant SLT member AND Director of Health, Safety and Wellbeing.  \n \nManagers of staff working on campus are responsible for ensuring that this standard is met, and should \nconsider these requirements when making arrangements for work to commence at Level 2.  \n \nMINIMUM  HEALTH AND SAFETY REQUIREMENTS AT LEVEL 2  \nThe following m easures must be met at Alert L evel 2 by all staff and students : \n• Those persons who are sick and have cold or flu symptoms must stay home and NOT come onto \ncampus, even if symptoms are currently being managed with medications. Students living on campus \nwho are sick should ensure minimum contact with others while symptomatic  and remain in self -\nisolation .  \n• Anybody who is deemed vulnerable ( those who are immune -compromised, pregnant, or ove r the age \nof 70) should continue to work and/or study from home.  \n• Mental health and wellbeing should be prioritised over productivity  \n• University business meetings should  not take place face -to-face, and should utilise audio -visual \nmethods as appropriate.  \n• Everyone on campus is to maintain physical distancing, with a minimum of 1 metre distance between \npeople known to each other, and 2 metres for others . \n• All persons entering a university building  are to adhere to contact tracing requirements at all times  \nusing the Contact Tracer App and associated QR codes . \n• All staff and students must have access to handwashing facilities (or hand sanitiser as an alternative), \nand practice good hygiene practices such as covering coughs/sneezes and washing hands regularly.  \n• Cont ingency plans should be in place to enable all activities to cease should the campus be closed at \nshort notice.  \n• Face coverings should be worn in situations where physical distancing is not possible,  and in \nenvironments where contact tracing is inherently challenging.  \n \nHEALTH, SAFETY AND WELLBEING  STANDARD : \nWORKING ON CAMPUS AT ALERT LEVEL 2  \n\n \nHEALTH AND SAFETY REQUIREMENTS  FOR SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES  AT LEVEL 2  \nTeaching  \n• Lectures and other teaching activity  should be undertaken online wherever possible, with exceptions \nonly wher e authorised by the relevant PVC , where  these are likely to list  NF grad es. The online \nteaching may be undertaken from a campus office, provided physical distancing protocols are \nobserved  with other staff on campus.  \n• Any authorised in-person teaching (inclu ding tutorials, workshops and labs) or assessments must be \nlimited in numbers to ensure that  physical distancing requirements and contact tracing requirements \ncan be met at all times . \n• Hand sanitiser should be made available at the entry to any teaching spa ces. \n• Shared equipment or surfaces should be disinfected between users .  \n• Where activities require close supervision in order to ensure the safety of staff or students these \nactivities should be reviewed to determine alternative methods of supervision, or not undertaken.  \nWork Integrated Learning (includes practicums and placements)  \n• Staff responsible for work integrated learning should discuss arrangements with the organisation \nhosting the student, to ensure that appropriate public health mea sures that apply to that workplace \nare managed.  \n• Students should continue to follow all instructions provided by the host organisation relating to \ninfection control, hygiene and safety.  \nResearch  \n• Physical distancing should be maintained at all times, and there is no close personal contact with \nhuman research participants permitted.  \n• Any required human biological samples should be collected by the participant, and provided safely \nwithout contact  \n• Application of sensors or monitoring equipment to human su bjects is not permitted, however the \nparticipant may apply these themselves under supervision in some situations.  \n• Shared equipment or surfaces should be disinfected between users .  \n• Contact tracing requirements must be met at all times  in controlled environ ments.  \nFieldwork  \n• All fieldwork must me et current travel requirements, including the use of appropriate modes of \ntransportation.  \n• Contact tracing must be in place and maintained at all time  by the fieldwork leader . \n• Any fieldwork must still be approved as per existing procedures , and any H&S plans developed as part \nof this application must include controls specific to Covid -19   \nTravel \n• Travel now requires SLT member signoff prior to the journey taking place  \n• An appropriate mode of transportation must be used that maintains physical distancing between \npassengers for short journeys.  \n• Longer journeys should be minimised where there are mu ltiple persons who are travelling . \n• Alternatives should be explored where possible to avoid the need for travel  – such as use of video -\nconferencing facilities.  \n• Any person who is sick, or is classed as vulnerable, should not travel . \nEvents  \n• Events that are not related directly to education or teaching purposes must not involve more than 100 \npeople , and should not involve members of the public.  \n• Physical distancing and contact tracing requirements must be met at all times.  \n \n \nOffice -Based Work  \n• Where staff do not need to be physically on campus to undertake their roles, they should continue to \nwork from home.  \n• Open -plan arrangements must be reviewed to ensure physical distancing requirements can be \nmaintained. This may require a change in arrangeme nts, such as spreading out to use spaces not \ncurrently utilised, or rostering staff between home and campus to minimise numbers using an open \nplan environment at any given time . \n• Shared equipment or surfaces should be disinfected between users .  \n• Physical di stancing and contact tracing requirements must be met at all times.  \nResidential Accommodation  \n• Physical distancing and contact tracing requirements must be met at all times.  \n• External visitors are not permitted within residential accommodation.  \n \nCommercial Operations  \n• All commercial operations must adhere to the public health control measures that apply to that type \nof business. Information on these measures can be found at covid19.govt.nz  \n \n \n \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Health_Safety_and_Wellbeing_Policy_PDF_107_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Health Safety and Wellbeing Policy PDF 107 KB",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "107 KB",
      "author": "Banner, Jodie",
      "creation_date": "2022-03-04T17:03:06",
      "modification_date": "D:20220509110541+12'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n © This Policy is the property of Massey University  Page 1 of 2 \n  Masse y University Polic y Guide   \n  \nHEALTH, S AFETY & WELLBEING POLICY  Ohu Hauora, Hauma ru  \n S\nection Council\nContact Director Health, Safety and Wellbeing \nLast Review October 2021\nNext Review   October 2023\nApproval Council C21/145\nPurpose:\nAt Massey University, we are committed to a high standard of health, safety and wellbeing for every \nmember of our community, including our employees, students, contractors and visitors. This policy \ndescribes what we should know and, and what we will do to meet that commitment.\nPolicy:\nMassey University is committed to:\n1.  Providing a safe, healthy, and protected place to work, learn and play;\n2.  Develop, implement, and continuously improve a health, safety and wellbeing management framework\nwhich considers legal compliance as a minimum standard;\n3.  Ensuring that we take appropriate steps to eliminate or minimise the risks that exist on our campuses,\nas well as the risks that are present as a result of our operations, equipment, teaching, and research \nenvironments;\n4.  Engaging and collaborating with staff, students and others to continuously improve the management\nand performance of health, safety and wellbeing;\n5.  Learning from our incidents and failures, through effective investigation and sharing of information;\n6.  Ensuring that everyone has the tools, capability, information and resources to maintain a safe and\nhealthy environment.\n \nAll university staff, students, visito rs, contractors and othe rs working with us are responsible for:   \n1.  Undertaking tasks and activities in a way that meets or e xceeds the standards established by the \nUniversity;   \n2.  Notifying thei r manager/super visor of any near miss, incident, or uncontrolled risk to people or property   \n3.  Stopping work and requesting guidance from their manager/supervisor or a member of the Health and \nSafety team   \nbefore continuing any task when they identify a condition or practic e that creates serious safety or health \nrisk; and   \nAll university members of the Senior Leadership Team, and Heads of Department (including manage rs \nor heads of school, institute, or  depa rtment) a re responsible for providing resou rces to:   \n1.  Implement and maintain a p rogramme which embraces our  Health, Safety and  Wellbeing  values \nand complies with all  applicable health and safety legislation, as well as approp riate accepted \nindustry standards and p ractices;   \n2.  Report, monitor and revie w performance metrics designed to enable continual improvement;   \n3.  Consult with, listen to , and respond to staff, students and others to ensure they have the t raining, \nknowledge, skills, supervision and resou rces to maintain a health and safe working and learn ing \nenvironment;   \n4.  Support the safe and ea rly return to study or work of any injured or ill students and staff;   \n5.  Require the safe design, construction and operation  of all plant, substances or structures in order to \nprotect people and  property;   \n\n \n © This Policy is the property of Massey University  Page 2 of 2 6.  Require all staff, students, visitors, contractors and othe rs working with us to conduct thei r tasks and \nactivities in  accordance with p rotocols which meet or e xceed those standards established by the \nUniversity;    \n7.  Recognise and re ward those who contribute to the Unive rsity’s Health, Safety and  Wellbeing \nperformance and  commitment to continual imp rovement.   \n  \nAudience:   \nStaff, students, contracto rs, service providers, visitors and others affected by or who affect our activities.  \n   \nRele vant Legislation:   \nHealth and Safety at  Work Act 2015 , and associated Regulations   \nLegal Complia nce:  \nStatutory requi rements for university , managers, staff members, students, visito rs or persons with \nbusiness at Massey University,  are detailed in the above policy statements. It should be noted that in \nthe event of non -compliance criminal penalties can be assigned to, individual staff, the university or it’s \nCouncil.    \nRelated Pr ocedures and Documents:   \nS002PR Massey Health and Safety Management Frame work  \nDocument Manage ment Control:   \nPrepared by:   Directo r Health, Safety and  Wellbeing   \nOwned by:  Executive Director People and Culture    \nAuthorised by:  Council  \nDate issued:  1 August 2003   \nLast review:  October 2021  \nNext revie w:  October 2022   \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Honorary_and_Adjunct_Non-Employment_Appointments_Policy_PDF_175_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Honorary and Adjunct Non-Employment Appointments Policy",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "175 KB",
      "creation_date": "2020-04-21T10:03:09",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220103213+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " Massey University Policy Guide  \n \nHONORARY AND ADJUNCT (NON- EMPLOYM ENT) APPOINTMENTS PO LICY  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \n    \n  \n  \nPurpose:  \nThe University recognises the importance of retaining esteemed retiring academic staff and attracting eminent \ncommercial, technical and industry experts to honorary or adjunct academic positions, which serve to enhance the \nUniversity’s research and teaching expertise and wider academic standing.  \nPolicy:  \nThe University shall, from time to time make non- employment appointments of, or confer status on, key individuals with \nwhom a mutual professional association and relationship supports the University’s strategies and goals.   \nThese arrangements shall apply to the following categories of relationships -    \n• Honorary and ancillary academic appointments  \n• Distinguished and Academic Visitors  \n• Massey Ambassadors  \n• Distinguished Friends of Massey   \n  \nTo enable such relationships to be formally expedited, Colleges and Services are authorised to manage the end- to-\nend process of originating, approving, and signing documentation and retaining records of these arrangements.  \nAppointment will be subject to a requirement by the individual to observe professional standards inc luding University \npolicies on conduct, research, teaching and public commentary and the appointment may be discontinued or the status \nwithdrawn.   \nApproval shall be in accordance with the following schedule and documentation shall use University authorised  \nTemplates specified in the related Procedure or as amended from time- to-time and published in the official University \nwebsite.   \nRecords of the documentation shall be retained by the originating college or service (and in the case of Professors Emeriti, s hall be retained in the office of the Vice- Chancellor).  \nWhere immigration requirements are involved, the college or service shall be responsible for ensuring any necessary \ncompliance.   \nIf remuneration is to be paid, this Policy shall not apply, and normal employment processes and documentation should \nbe facilitated through People and Culture  as appropriate.  \n \n \n Section  People and Culture  \nContact People and Culture  \nLast Review  July 2019  \nNext Review  July 2024  \nApproval  SLT 19/12/209  \n Honorary and Adjunct (Non- Employment)  \nAppointment Policy  – Page 2 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \nCategory of Relationship  Approval  \nHonorary academic  \n• Professor Emeritus  \n• Honorary Teaching and/or Research Fellow  \n• Honorary Teaching and/or Research Associates  \n• Adjunct Professor  \n• Adjunct Lecturer/Senior Lecturer    \n• Honorary Awards Committee  \n• Relevant Pro Vice- Chancellor   \n• Relevant Pro Vice- Chancellor  \n• Relevant Pro Vice- Chancellor  \n• Relevant Pro Vice- Chancellor  \nMassey Ambassador/Industry Expert  • Vice-Chancellor  \nDistinguished Friend of Massey  \n  • Relevant Pro Vice -Chancellor, \nDeputy Vice- Chancellor or Provost  \nDistinguished Visitors  \n   • Relevant Pro Vice -Chancellor, \nDeputy Vice- Chancellor or Provost  \n  \nDefinitions  \nAppointments may be in the following categories and titles:  \na)     Professors Emeriti   \nThe title “Professor Emeritus” is normally conferred on members of the professoriate:   \n1. on retirement; and  \n2. who are recognised nationally as having been outstanding in their discipline; and  \n3. who have made an outstanding contribution to scholarship or the University or both; and  \n4. who are held in the respect and esteem of colleagues: -  \n        (all of  the above criteria being required to have been met); and  \n5. who will in normal circumstances be likely to maintain a continuing association within the University.  \nb)    Honorary Teaching and/or Research Fellows   \nNominees  shall  be  persons  of  distinction  (equivalent  to  Associate  Professor or Professor)  and/or  who  has  \nmade  an outstanding contribution to their field (the latter allows recognition for those who do not have an academic research background) and whose expertise and interests lie in a field related to a subject included in the scope of \nthe unit concerned and who can contribute to teaching or research at a University level. Nominees may be persons \nin part -time or full -time employment in senior positions outside the University or may be r etired senior staff of this \nand other universities or from other learned institutions or research centres.  \nc)    Honorary Teaching and/or Research Associates  \nPersons appointed to these positions are normally expected to possess qualifications and experience equivalent to those held by applicants eligible for appointment to full -time academic positions up to and \nincluding the level of Senior Lecturer.   \nd)    Adjunct Professors   \nDistinguished members of the community with relevant academic and/or professional qualifications who carry out \nteaching, supervision and/or other duties.  Appointment as an Adjunct Professor will only be made when the \nnominee is a person of eminence as demonstrated by excellence of scholarship, the highest level of vocational or \nprofessional achievement, and proven capacity of leadership in the field where the appointment is sought. The \ncandidate must also possess high- level skills in teaching, supervision and research, and in the practical application \nof her/his discipline, as appropriate.  \n  \n Honorary and Adjunct (Non- Employment)  \nAppointment Policy  – Page 3 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \ne)     Adjunct Lecturer/Senior Lecturer  \nPersons appointed to these positions will have relevant academic or professional qualifications and experience \nand will offer specialist teaching, supervisory or practical work services.   \nf)     Massey Ambassadors/Industry Expert  \nMassey Ambassadors and Industry Expert roles are for individuals who are recognised professional experts, who \nare highly regarded in their professional field and who possess attributes that align with the University’s strategic \ngoals. The purpose of such honorary positions is to establish a recognised partnership between the University and \nthe individual that is effective, complementary and builds on our areas of strength.  This type of honorary \nappointment will be used as a platform to promote Massey in an innovative manner without the establishment of \na formal employment arrangement.   \ng)    Distinguished Friends of Massey  \nRetiring academic staff (but  may include professional services staff) whom the college or service holds in high \nesteem, whom the college or service considers merits recognition and is likely to want to continue to make a \ncontribution to academic endeavour or service to the University  community, and who accordingly is issued with a \nDistinguished Friend of Massey ID card.  This card provides identification while on a Massey campus and can also \nbe used to access the print only material in the library, printing and photocopying.  For furt her information visit the \nPeople and Culture website  and the University Calendar Use of Information pages under Studying at Massey.   \nh)    Distinguished Visitors  \nDistinguished Visitor roles are for distinguished scholars, researchers and other persons who are widely \nrecognised, who have achieved a high level of distinction in their field, and whose presence at Massey University \nis likely to have a significant impac t.  These individuals are expected to contribute substantially to academic activity \nin an Institute or School(s).   \n \n \nAudience:  \n \nPro Vice -Chancellors  \nHeads of Academic Schools (or equivalent)  \n \nRelevant legislation: \n \nNone  \n \nLegal compliance:  \n \nNone  \n \nRelated procedures / documents: \n \nHonorary and Adjunct (non -Employment) Appointments Procedure  \nApplication for a Distinguished F riend of Massey ID Card  \n \nDocument Management Control: \n \nPrepared by: Employment Relations Advisor  \nAuthorised by: DVC People and Culture  \nApproved by: SLT 19/12/209 \nDate issued: September 2015  \nLast review: July 2019  \nNext review: July 2024  \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Health_and_Safety_Incident_Management_Procedures_PDF_190_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Health and Safety Incident Management Procedures PDF 190 KB",
      "policy_type": "Procedure",
      "file_size": "190 KB",
      "author": "Banner, Jodie",
      "creation_date": "2024-04-30T10:05:02",
      "modification_date": "D:20240430105219+12'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n \n \n \n \n   \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n \n ENTER PROCEDURE  \n \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \nHEALTH AND SAFETY INCIDENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE  \n \nSection  University Services  \nContact  Director  Occupational Health & Safety, Wellbeing  \nLast Review  July 2023  \nNext Review  July 2025  \nApproval  Director Occupational Health & Safety, Wellbeing  \n \nPurpose:  \n \nThe purpose of this procedure is to provide a clear understanding of the requirements relating to timely \nand accurate reporting and management of incidents that occur at Massey University.  \n \n \nScope : \n \nThis procedure applies to all of Massey University including all campuses, ventures and enterprises. It \napplies to all incidents that occur involving workers, students or others while undertaking activity \nrelating to Massey University, or that are within the university’s influence and control.  \n \nIncidents relating to driving, aircraft operations, or boating may have further reporting requirements that \nrelate to the relevant regulator’s processes, and this document should be read in the context of those \nrequirements.  \n \nDefinition : \n \nCritical Risk:  A hazard that has been assessed as having the potential for causing fatalities or serious \nlife-altering injuries.  \n \nICAM:  Incident Causation Analysis Methodology, an investigation tool used for serious incidents.  \n \nIncident:   Any event that occurs that was unexpected, unplanned, and had actual or potential injury or \nillness consequences.  \n \nJust Culture:  A culture in where people are not punished or blamed for actions, omissions or decisions \nmade which are in line with their level of experience and training, and in which negligence, wilful \nviolations and sabotage are not tolerated.  \n \nLife-Altering Injury:  Any injury which causes permanent loss of bodily function, or any chronic or \nsevere illness resulting from work.  \n \nNear Miss:  Any incident that occurs that did not result in injury or illness, however had the potential to \ncause injury or illness.  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nHealth and Safety Incident Management Procedure  – Page 2 \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University    \n \nNotifiable Event:  Has the same meaning as contained in the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, and \nincludes death, notifiable illness or injury, and notifiable incidents.  \n \nWorker:  an individual who carries out work in any capacity for a PCBU (Person Conducting a Business \nor Undertaking). This may be an employee, contractor, subcontractor, apprentice or trainee, or \nvolunteer.  \n \n \nImmediate Action and Initial Response : \n \nIn the event of any incident occurring, the first priority is to ensure the safety of any person involved and \nthe safety of any person responding. This may involve, where appropriate:  \n• Moving any injured person to safety, if safe to do so. \n• Turning off any plant, service or equipment required to make the area safe (e.g. machinery, \ngas, electricity etc.)  \n• Provide first aid or arrange medical treatment, if required  \n• Arrange for support services where appropriate (e.g. EAP).  \n \nWhere the incident is potentially a notifiable event under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, the \narea where the incident occurred must be isolated and left undisturbed until both the regulator (WorkSafe \nNZ or other agency) (legal requirement) and the  Director Occupational Health & Safety, and Wellbeing \nor their delegate (Massey University requirement) have given authorisation to release the site. This is to \nensure that evidence is undisturbed for the purposes of investigating what happened.  \n \nIf unsure whether the notifiable event requirements exist following an incident, the Occupational Health \n& Safety, and Wellbeing team can assess and provide advice and support.  \n \n \nIncident Classifications : \n \nThese incident classifications must be applied to all incidents and  are used to guide the response and \nmanagement of those incidents. Refer to Guidance for Classifying Incidents for more information.  \n \nLevel 1 Incident:   Fatality, Life -Altering Injury,  or Illness  \n \nLevel 2 Incident:    Restricted Work Injury, Medical Treatment Injury, Lost Time Injury  \n \nLevel 3 Incident:   First Aid Injury, Near Miss  \n \nHigh Potential Incident:   Any incident or near miss that involved a Critical Risk or  could have resulted \nin a fatality or life -altering injuries under slightly different circumstances . \n \n \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nHealth and Safety Incident Management Procedure  – Page 3 \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University    \nIncident Reporting : \n \nIn the event of a Level 1 or Level 2 Incident, verbal notification to the Occupational Health & Safety, and \nWellbeing team should be made immediately to ensure that appropriate processes are put in place.  \n \nRegardless of severity, all incidents shall be reported in writing within the timeframes in the table below:  \n \nIncident Severity  Reporting Timeframes  \nLevel 1 Incident  Immediately  \nLevel 2 Incident  12 hours  \nLevel 3 Incident  24 hours  \nHigh Potential Incident  24 Hours  \n \n \nAll reports must be made using the online system for reporting - MasseySAFE.  \n \n \nIncident Investigation : \n \nWhere an investigation is required, the purpose of that investigation is to determine what hazards and \ncausal factors were involved in causing the incident, and whether control mechanisms were missing or \nnot effective. The purpose of an investigation is no t to determine or apportion blame and  will be conducted \nusing principles of Just Culture.  \n \nInvestigations will be carried out depending on the level of severity of the incident, as per the following \ntable:  \n \nIncident Severity  Lead Investigator  Technique*  Timeframe for Investigation  \nLevel 1 Incident  Director HSW or delegate  ICAM  6 Months  \nLevel 2 Incident  OH&S Advisor  ICAM / Learning Team  2 Months  \nLevel 3 Incident ** n/a Review Only  2 Week  \nHigh Potential Incident  OH&S Advisor  ICAM / Learning Team  3 Months  \n \n* Director Health Safety & Wellbeing may make directions as to a specific technique to be used, depending on the complexity o f the incident \nand level of risk involved  \n \n** Level 3 incidents will be reviewed for any learnings, however,  are not subject to a full investigation unless deemed necessary  \n \nMembers of the investigation team should include:  \n• Technical experts (where appropriate),  \n• H&S professionals,  \n• Elected H&S Representatives, and  \n• The injured or involved person(s).  \n \nLevel 3 incidents shall not be immediately subject to an investigation but must be reviewed by the \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nHealth and Safety Incident Management Procedure  – Page 4 \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University    \nmanager of the area or person involved, with support from the Health, Safety and Wellbeing team as \nappropriate. Where learning opportunities exist, a Learning Team approach may be taken.  \n \nWhere appropriate, a Learning Team may be formed to gain a better understanding of the context and \ncomplexity of work being undertaken, including any actual and potential failure modes, and how to \nimprove work to prevent incidents.  \n \nLearnings obtained from investigations should be provided to those persons involved in the incident, and \nincorporated into hazard and risk registers so information on control mechanisms are kept up to date and \nreflect what is known about the risk.  \n \nAll Level 1, 2, and High Potential incident investigations will be reviewed by the Occupational Health & \nSafety, and Wellbeing team.  \n \n \nCorrective Actions : \n \nOnce an investigation is complete, there must be a consideration as to whether corrective actions are \nrequired based on the findings of the investigation. These may be to correct identified gaps or failures \nwithin a control, or to create new controls for a  hazard.  \n \nThe lead investigator is responsible for working with the investigation team and responsible managers \nto determine what corrective actions, if any, are required. This should then be agreed to by the person \nwho has been allocated responsibility for the acti on, and appropriate timeframes set for completion. \nCorrective actions will then be monitored to closure, and reports on outstanding actions generated.  \n \nNotifiable Events : \n \nA notifiable event is any death, notifiable illness or injury, or notifiable incident that occur as a result of \nthe operations of Massey University, either from the conditions onsite, the activities being undertaken or \nsubstances or equipment that is being  used. It excludes any death, injury or illness that results from pre -\nexisting medical conditions, or commuting directly to (or from) the normal place of work.  \n \nWhere a notifiable event occurs, and the immediate actions have been undertaken (provision of \ntreatment), ensure that the area around the incident (including all equipment and materials) are left \nundisturbed and unaltered as per the requirements above.  \n \nIt is the responsibility of the Occupational Health & Safety, and Wellbeing team to verify notifications to \nWorkSafe NZ of any notifiable event.  \n \nRefer to WorkSafe – What events need to be notified?  for further guidance.  \n \n \nCommunication :  \n \nWhere an incident investigation identifies new hazards, new causes, or new controls required, a safety \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nHealth and Safety Incident Management Procedure  – Page 5 \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University    \nalert or shared learning will be published by the Occupational Health , Safety  and Wellbeing team. This \nsafety alert or shared learning will be distributed to targeted recipients and published online for students \nand other workers. No safety alert or shared learning is to be issued prior to the review and approval of \nthe Director Hea lth, Safety and Wellbeing.  \n \nWhere a Level 1 Incident, or a High Potential Incident, occurs:  \n \n• Ensure that the Vice Chancellor, relevant SLT member, DVC University Services, and \nDirector Occupational Health & Safety, and Wellbeing have been advised.  \n• Initial communication should be verbal where possible to ensure that the message is \ndelivered rapidly.  \n• Written communication should stick to the facts of the activity and injury, without any \nassumption as to causes prior to investigation.  \n• In the event that an incident is being investigated under legal professional privilege for the \npurposes of receiving legal advice, all communications relating to the incident shall be \nthrough the nominated legal representative only.  \n \n \n \nRelated documents  \nRelevant Legislation  \n• Health and Safety at Work Act 2015  \n \nProcedures  \n• Health, Safety & Wellbeing Policy  \n• All relevant Workplace Rehabilitation and Injury Management Procedures and Guidelines (refer \nto the Policy Library for full list)  \n• All relevant Hazard and Risk Management Procedures and Guidelines (refer to the Policy \nLibrary for full list)  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Generative_Artificial_Intelligence_GenAI_Usage_Guidelines_for_Staff_PDF_212_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) Usage Guidelines for Staff",
      "policy_type": "Guideline",
      "file_size": "212 KB",
      "creation_date": "2024-08-02T11:05:05",
      "modification_date": "D:20240802125207+12'00'"
    },
    "content": " \nPage | 1 Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa Massey University  \nGenerative Artificial Intelligence  (GenAI)  Usage Guidelines for Staff  \nThe purpose of th ese Guidelines  is to provide high -level direction for staff (i.e. professional, academic, \npermanent, fixed -term, part -time) when using and responding to Generative Artificial Intelligence \n(hereafter ‘ GenAI ’) as part of activities conducted under the auspices of Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa Massey \nUniversity .  \nWhile t here are many definitions of GenAI , the definition used to inform  these Guidelines is:  \nGenerative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is a type of artificial intelligence that can \nautonomously generate content such as text, images, videos , or software code from human \nprompts. It uses complex machine learning models that are trained on large sets of data and \nrespond with relevant content to natural language prompts.  \nThese guidelines seek to offer a balanced approach to GenAI adoption that enables staff to embrace new \ntechnologies while supporti ng the ethical and responsible use of GenAI tools in the everyday work of \nstaff across the U niversity . They are in turn underpinned  by (a) the University’s commitment to ensuring  \nquality and rigor in our teaching, research , and related work; and (b) academic integrity, a guiding \nprinciple of academic life, which refers to acting with honesty, responsibility and openness in all \nacademic activity, outputs, and relations with others.  \nWhile these Guidelines speak to work beyond teaching and learning, including research, they should be \nread in conjunction  with the University’s Use of Artificial Intelligence in Assessment Policy .  \nThe University, through its staff, has a responsibility to ensure that we are preparing students and \nemerging researchers for the future world of work, much of which will involve navigating and using GenAI \ntools; we need, therefore, to encourage informed  and considered use s of appropriate GenAI tools for \nlearning, teaching, research, and administrative work . This technology has  the potential to improve \naccessibility , personalise learning  and stimulate creativity while supporting educators with  their \nteachin g. GenAI has the potential to  support research  activities by fostering innovation and new ideas \nwhile accel erating the discovery process.  It can also  enable productive gains  through enhancing \nefficiency, improving workflows , and simplifying data management  within the University .  \nAlongside the opportunities  that Gen AI affords , there are a range of issues and risks  that need to be \nmitigated . These include issues of privacy and security , access and equity , Māori data sovereignty  (i.e., \nconsideration must be given to what the use of GenAI means for Māori ), ethical use , transparency and \naccountability, and research conduct .  \nThere are significant ethical issues surrounding how GenAI tools produce their outputs. All GenAI tools \nare trained by exposure to large sets of data.  This raises issues of ownership, authorship, and reliability \nof output which need to be considered when using these tools. This is particularly relevant to Massey \nUniversity as a Te Tiriti -led organisation, especially regarding issues of Māori data sovereignty  (see for \nexample  this resource ).  \nSimilarly, in cases where work is shared with free GenAI tools ( e.g., through uploading student \nsubmissions), there is currently no control over that information once it has been shared. The uploading \nof information to GenAI tools can lead to potential breaches of Aotearoa New Zealand law, as well as \nuniversity policies. As such, staff need to consider carefully before sharing information with GenAI tools. \nReading the terms and conditions of GenAI tools to verify if the data will stay confidential and avoid ing \nthe sharing of sensitive data should be two of the primary concerns of any user affiliated with the \nUniversity.  \n \nPage | 2 The intent of this document is to ensure that staff are informed of the sensitivities and risks around using \nGenAI tools in course of  their duties. Given the sensitive nature of information to which staff have access \nand the legal constraints under which the University operates, staff must ensure they follow University \npolicies when using GenAI tools. Staff uploading data to GenAI tools or using GenAI tools as part of their \nresearch, teaching and/or professional duties will need to ensure that their activiti es comply with \nUniversity policies.  \nSeven high -level guidelines  that apply across all areas of University business  are outlined in this \ndocument . The information under ‘Applying the Guidelines ’ is not intended to be exhaustive , but to offer \nguidance on the range of issues that need to be taken into consideration in understand ing and us ing \nGenAI responsibly.  \n \nPage | 3  \nGuid elines  Applying the Guidelines  \n1. Privacy and Security : Potential privacy \nand data security risks are considered and \naddressed  by staff planning to use and when \nusing a GenAI tool . 1.1 Staff using GenAI tools are responsible for establishing the classification of any data or material \nthey upload or otherwise input , in accordance with the University ’s Information and Technology \nSecurity Policy .  \n1.2 In choosing to use a particular GenAI tool, and in deciding whether to input any data or \nmaterial to any such tool, staff are responsible for ensuring that their actions comply with the \nclassification level of that data or material  under the Information Security Classification Framework  (see \nInformation and Security Policy  for more detail) . This includes  any personally identifiable  informati on, \nand any  data or material inputted for the purpose  of the creation of communications with students or \nstaff, and an y form of appraisal  of student or staff performance  (e.g. performance evaluations) .  \n1.3 Staff are advised to take a precautionary approach to upload or otherwise inputting data or \nmaterial to any GenAI  (including a controlled  GenAI)  tool, defined as one where inputs are not used for \nany other purpose by the provider , including no use of the data for further training of the GenAI  tool,  \nand should take care to ensure that they do not upload , or input data classified as ‘In Confidence ’ or \n‘Sensitive ’. As a rule , the following apply : \n• Public Data : Any appropriate GenAI tool may be used .  \n• Unclassified Data : Only services solely controlled by Massey University may be used (e.g., \nCopilot when logged in with your Massey account).  \n• In confidence and Sensitive Data : May not be uploaded or used with any GenAI tool . \n1.4 A Privacy Impact Assessment  (PIA)  may need to be completed if staff use of GenAI is likely to \ninclude personal information about the University’s data subjects  (e.g., s tudents, staff, contractors, \nresearch participants, alumni etc.) . A PIA should be completed before uploading or inputting  any data or \nmaterial that contains Personal Information. The completed PIA is emailed to the Privacy Officer at \[email protected]  for consideration . \n1.5 Staff users of GenAI tool s also need to check that they are complying with the Secure Cloud \nProcurement and Use Policy , including restrictions on open ing cloud service accounts and enter ing into \ncloud service contracts that will initiate new vendor relationship s without the direct  approval of the CIO . \n \nPage | 4 1.6 Staff who consider that their own data or material has been uploaded, inputted  or otherwise \nused to train a GenAI tool  without authorisation , or who become aware of GenAI activity  related to \npersonal information , can report this  to the University via the Data Breach notification  form . \n \n2. Access and Equity:  Staff and students \nexperience inclusive and equitable access to \nand training  around GenAI tools and resources . \n 2.1 If the use of a particular GenAI tool has been approved for use by the University and is used  in \nteaching, the University  need s to ensure that all students have equitable and equal access to that tool \nand, where this is not possible,  provide alternatives.   \n2.2 It is unfair to require students to use a GenAI tool for which subscription/payment is required \nunless students have been advised of this condition  prior to enrolment.  \n \n3. Ethical Use and Social Responsibility : \nGenAI tools are used in ways that are ethical, \nnon-discriminatory, and prevent harm against \nminority and vulnerable groups.  \n 3.1 Users of GenAI tools should familiarise themselves with the limitations and/or the possibility of \ninherent bias  and stereotypes (based on, for example, ethnicity, cultural background, gender, disability, \nage) within the tool prior to use, and these limitations should  be acknowledged and actively countered \nin any use .  \n3.2 Where GenAI outputs are used to inform teaching, they should be  critically assessed before being \nused in class  and/or disseminated as materials  or other resources  to identify and rectify any bias e.g., \nstereotypical presentation of certain groups , invisibility of certain groups.  \n3.3 Review of  course learning outcomes,  activities, assessment tasks , marking criteria  etc.,  may be \nnecessary to  incorporate the ethical use of GenAI, or to indicate when use is not permitted.  \n4. Transparency : Massey University staff \nand students always know when GenAI is used \nto make decisions that impact them, especially \nif it relates to their rights.  4.1 Where materials have been created with the assistance of, or exclusively using GenAI tools  \n(including  text, images, video, apps, etc.) , this should be disclosed and clearly explained to affected \nparties  in the most appropriate manner  (which may include: an attestation  as required by a journal or \nstyle guide; completion of a template or attestation attached to an article submission; \nacknowledgement in Stream sites, course guides or other materials  to clarify  what tools were  used and \nfor what general purpose , etc.). \n4.2 Learning materials designed  for students (e.g., assessments, learning activities) should clearly  \noutline permitted  GenAI uses , refer ring to University policies where relevant . \n \nPage | 5 4.3 The use of GenAI tools in programmes of study  should be clearly communicated to relevant \nexternal partners, such as professional bodies , accreditation bodies  and other  appropriate  community \nmembers . \n \n5. Accountability : Massey staff are  \nresponsible and accountable for all decisions \nand actions associated with the ir use of GenAI \ntools . \n 5.1 The person responsible for a decision is accountable and responsible for validating the GenAI \noutput prior to use of that output to inform university processes and remains responsible when GenAI \nis used to aid their decision.  \n5.2 It is the responsibility of research supervisors to promote a culture of integrity among research \nstudents by having open conversations about the appropriate use of GenAI in research.  \n5.3 Research leaders ( Principal Investigators), lead and/or corresponding authors or lead inventors \nare considered responsible for communicating expectations around use of GenAI tools and outputs to \ntheir research colleagues and students, and ultimately bear the consequences of any associated \nintentional or incidental errors.  \n5.4 GenAI cannot assess risks to research participants or researchers, nor obtain con sent from \nparticipants; it is the responsibility of researchers to identify risks and ensure their safety and that of \ntheir participants.  \n5.5 The University acknowledges that GenAI tools and the uses to which they may be  applied  \ncontinue to develop . In this regard, the University is responsible for providing training and support  for \nboth staff and students to become  AI litera te and (where appropriate) to ensure staff can support \nstudents to use GenAI responsibly, safely and ethically . \n6 Mātauranga Māori  and Māori  Data \nSovereignty : Decisions about the use of GenAI \nare undertaken in consultation with Māori to \nensure that the mana and dignity of the people \nwho share their data are respected and \nupheld.  6.1 The University acknowledges that mātauranga Māori and Māori data  is an evolving ancestral \ninheritance that is a taonga protected under Te Tiriti o  Waitangi . \n6.2 The University acknow ledges that under tikanga Māori , Māori communities or Māori \nindividuals have certain conditional rights and obligations regarding the use of and access to \nmātauranga Māori or Māori data , and that these rights and obligations are contingent upon fulfilling  \nkaitiakitanga obligations.  \n6.3 The University acknowledges that mātauranga Māori or Māori data introduced or shared with \nthe University remains subject to the kaitiakitanga obligations and principles required by the originating \ncommunities or individuals.   \n \nPage | 6 6.4 The U niversity acknowledges  that the originating Māori community or individual  has the \nprimary interest , as kaitiaki , over mātauranga Māori or Māori data and as such the University is \ncommitted to ensuring that the sharing, promotion and innovation of mātauranga Māori or Māori data \nrespects and enhances the cultural and spiritual integrity of the originating community or individual.  \n6.5 Users of  GenAI tools that incorporate mātauranga Māori or Māori data are responsible for \nsupporting the originating communities or individuals to fulfil  kaitiakitanga obligations . \n6.6 Users of GenAI tools that incorporate mātauranga Māori or Māori data  are responsible for \nensuring that  decisions regarding what is and is not appropriate use of mātauranga Māori or Māori data \nis best determined by the originating communities or individuals.  \n6.7 Users of GenAI tools will not assume any proprietary interest of mātauranga Māori or Māori \ndata.  \n6.8 Users of GenAI tools are responsible for ensuring that no GenAI tool will assume any \nproprietary interest of mātauranga Māori or Māori data. Where the user cannot determine whether the \nparticular  GenAI tool will claim any propr ietary interest in mātauranga Māori or Māori data, the user is \nresponsible for seeking advice from responsible decision makers (Office of the DVC Māori)  within the \nUniversity and the kaitiaki of the mātauranga Māori or Māori data  as originating communities or \nindividu als before using GenAI tools.  \n6.9 The University recognises the innovative and commercial potential of mātauranga Māori or \nMāori data. The University accepts that commercialisation of mātauranga Māori or Māori data remains \nsubject to obligations  of kaitiak itanga. Therefore, a ny plans to commercialise  any outcome from the use \nof a GenAI tool that incorporates mātauranga Māori or Māori data must require consent from the \nkaitiaki on fair and equitable benefit -sharing terms.  \n7 Research publishing and ethical \nresearch conduct : GenAI tools are used in full \nknowledge of the risks and implications and in \nsuch a way as to uphold  the principles of \nresearch integrity . 7.1 Researchers should exercise caution when relying on  GenAI tools to assist them with  research \nfunctions including literature reviews, grant applications and award nominations, ethics applications  \nand theses, and should be aware that such tools can generate false, skewed , biased or misleading \noutputs and, in some situations, may be considered plagiarism.  \n7.2 It is the responsibility of all researchers to ensure that any use of AI in the design, \ndevelopment , review  and publication  of their research /creative outputs  complies with the University \nCode of Responsible Research Conduct . \n \nPage | 7 7.3 The use of GenAI in relation to research involving human participants remains subject to the \nCode of Ethical Conduct for Research, Teaching and Evaluations Involving Human Participants , in \nparticular provisions relating to : consent, privacy and confidentiality; data governance, ownership and \ncustodianship, data sharing and disposal of data.   \n7.4 Staff conducting research or supervising research students should familiarise themselves  with \npolicies  for the use , definition of ‘authorship’ , ‘originality’  and appropriate disclosure of GenAI in \njournals  and other publication venues , and of fundin g and awards bodies . \n7.5 Researchers need to be aware of potential loss of Intellectual Property , mātauranga Māori and \nIndigenous knowledges  from uploading or inputting to GenAI tools raw data,  images, prototypes  or \nfunding applications that contain original research not yet published  or patented.  \n7.6 Staff conducting research or supervising research students should  consider the privacy and \nethical implications in uploading manuscripts, draft chapters , or other  work by colleagues and/or \nstudents  (whether Massey or external to the University)  to a GenAI tool, as doing so may violate the \nauthors’ confidentiality and Intellectual Property rights and, where the mater ial contains personally \nidentifiable information, may breach data privacy rules  or research ethics codes . \n7.7 The critical thinking  and original assessment needed for the evaluatio n, assessment and \napproval  of postgraduate student research (including theses or portions of theses) is outside of the \nscope of GenAI tools as there is a high risk that the technology will generate incorrect, incomplete or \nbiased conclusions.  \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Guidelines_on_Research_Teaching_Study_and_Professional_and_Organisational_PeriodsDuties_Overseas_and.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Guidelines RTS Professional Organisational Periods Duties Overseas NZ",
      "policy_type": "Guideline",
      "file_size": null,
      "creation_date": "2015-06-22T10:00:03",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220100645+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " Massey University Policy Guide \n \n \n GUIDELINES ON RESEARCH, TEACHING, STUDY AND PROFESSION AL  \nAND ORGANISATIONAL P ERIODS/DUTIES OVERSE AS AND IN NEW ZEALAN D  \n \n1. Introduction \n \nThe University recognises the importance of academic staff undertaking research, teaching, study and professional and organisational duties overseas.  This contributes to their research work, assists them to maintain and develop \ntheir teaching and academic  career and contributes to the overall standing and reputation of the University.  \nSimilarly professional services staff contribute to the work of the University when conducting business overseas and \ncan enhance and develop the work they are doing through professional development which may be taken overseas.  This activity is a form of duty to the University and is granted for those purposes that are  consistent with the basic \npurposes for which the University is constituted.  \n \nThere is no automatic entitlem ent to the provision of time away from the University in accordance with these \nprovisions.  The granting of any time to carry out duties overseas or within New Zealand as specified below is entirely discretionary.  Each application is determined on its merits.  \n \nThese guidelines are subject to approval by SLT and any amendments or changes to the guidelines can only be \nimplemented with the approval of SLT and following a reasonable period of consultation with staff.  \n \n2. Background \n In 2014 SLT determined to dev olve the functions of the Leave and Ancillary Appointments Committee to PVCs.  This \ndocument represents a revision of the Leave Regulations that covered the following:  \n \n• Short Leave overseas not exceeding 23 Calendar Days  \n• Long Leave overseas exceeding 23 Calendar days  \n• Research Leave in NZ  \n•  Business Leave Overseas Exceeding 23 Calendar Days  \n• Service Leave Overseas.  \n This document replaces the regulations and is effective from 1 June 2015 and covers all bullet points above.  \n \n3. Application  \n \nThis document applies to academic and professional services staff unless otherwise specified.   \nThis document does not  apply to students, adjunct staff, casual employees, post -doctoral fellows, research \nassistants, teaching fellows, visiting academic staff, graduate assistants, tutors and senior tutors or research officers \nwho do not have ongoing appointment unless otherwise specified.  \n This document relates to periods or duties overseas but includes reference to academics undertaking, in special circumstan ces, research within NZ.   Any application to undertake research, teaching, study or professional and \norganisational periods or duties overseas  must have the support of the immediate manager and be approved by  the PVC on the form provided  or online.   \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n\n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nGuidelines  on Research, Teaching, Study  and \nProfessional and Organisational  Periods/Duties  \nOverseas and in New Zealand  – Page 2 \n \n \n4. Purpose  \n \nThe purposes of providing opportunities to staff to undertake research, teaching or study overseas or to undertake \nprofessional and organisation duties overseas are to:  \n1. Enable academic staff to extend their own knowledge and to improve their teac hing and research;  \n2. Increase academic staff members’ contributions to the University teaching and research programmes;  \n3. Contribute to the University’s teaching and research, and the individuals professional development and the \noverall goals of the University;  \n4. Allow academic staff to undertake teaching, study and research of a kind or to an extent that cannot be \npursued during the course of their normal day to day employment within New Zealand. This provides staff \nthe chance to assess themselves, their research and teaching against the highest international standards and \nconfers benefits to both the individual and the University;  \n5. Allows staff (whether academic or professional) the opportunity to develop and maintain contacts and \ninternational standing  with the wider academic and research community and with organisations or agencies \noverseas;   \n6. Enables professional, career and personal development;  \n7. Enables staff to conduct the business of the University and enhance the reputation of the University.  \n \n5. Conditions  \n \nThe following conditions apply to:  \n \nAcademic Staff Only  \n1. At the time of applying there must be a record of contributions to the Symplectic database although this \ncondition may be waived in the case of a staff member in the first septennium of service who is in the \nprocess of building a research record.  \n2. On return from periods or duties overseas the academic staff member must submit within one calendar \nmonth a report of the activities undertaken and the research outputs achieved (which shall be entere d in to \nSymplectic) and the benefits that will accrue to the University.  This report is to be submitted to the Head of \nSchool/Institute/Department.  \n3. Funds for periods or duties overseas exceeding 23 calendar days will be held centrally and be paid centrally and be approved by the applicant’s SLT member.  \n \nAcademic and Professional Staff  \n4. For periods of less than 23 days funding will be provided  either by the unit, school or c ollege, travel \nscholarship, project account or in the case of a request for services  by a government, government agency a \nnational or international organisation funding will be paid by the requesting body. There may also be a mix of funding providers.  \n5. There must be sufficient cover for the period the staff member is overseas. Cover should  be discussed \nbetween the staff member and the approving manager.  \n6. The application must have the support of the Head of School/Institute/Department  \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n\n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nGuidelines  on Research, Teaching, Study  and \nProfessional and Organisational  Periods/Duties  \nOverseas and in New Zealand  – Page 3 \n \n \n7. All applications should state the reason for the period or duty overseas, the objectives of the activity and \nhow it will enhance the goals of the University, college, or unit and/or the professional and career \ndevelopment of the employee.  \n8. Annual leave accrues during any period or duty overseas and a proportionate amount of annual leave (being \nthe amount accrued d uring the period of duty) shall be incorporated within every period or duty that \nexceeds 90 days.  \n9. All financial assistance received from any source other than the University must be disclosed whether that assistance is by way of a scholarship, support for travel and/or living expenses, payments of any kind and the \nprovision of equipment or services.  \n10. Application must be made no less than 6 weeks before the proposed periods or duties overseas greater than 23 days.  \n11. Any period or duty overseas greater than 23 days should be discussed with the staff members manager but \nmust be authorised and approved by the PVC. This approval cannot be delegated.  Approval for periods or \nduties less than 23 days may be delegated.  \n12. Periods or duties overseas attract different fund ing (refer below) and therefore duties or period overseas \nwill either be for a period of less than 23 days or no less than 24 days and not exceeding 318 calendar days including annual leave, statutory and university holidays.  In making application the staff member must \nspecify the length of the period or duty overseas.  \n13. Staff may be asked to provide a record of their contribution to a conference or other activity or provide a report on the achievement of the objectives related to the purpose of their period  or duty overseas.  \n14. Reasonable travel time of up to three calendar days will be considered to be working time where it is \nassociated with the intended purpose of the period or duty overseas.  \n15. These guidelines should be read in conjunction with the Travel Policy  and \nReimbu rsement of Expenses \nPolicies.  \n \n6. Calculation of days for academic staff undertaking periods or duties overseas for a period exceeding 23 \ndays.  \n \nThe number of days available for periods overseas is based on years of service on a 7 year cycle (septennial). The  \nfirst 7 year cycle commences on the day of commencing employment with Massey University at a lecturer level or \nabove.  \n \n \nSeptennia of \nEmployment  Days Accrued at \nend of each year  Total at end of each \nyear if no days used  Example of \ndays used  Total at end of  each \nyear after days used  \nYear 1  53* 53* 0 53* \nYear 2  53 106 0 106 \nYear 3  53 159 0 159 \nYear 4  53 212 0 212 \nYear 5  53 265 0 265 \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n\n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nGuidelines  on Research, Teaching, Study  and \nProfessional and Organisational  Periods/Duties  \nOverseas and in New Zealand  – Page 4 \n \n \nYear 6  53 318 0 318 \nYear 7  0 318 292 26 \nYear 1  53 318 0 79 \nYear 2  53 318 0 132 \nYear 3  53 318 0 185 \nYear 4  53 318 0 238 \nYear 5  53 318 0 291 \nYear 6  53 318 91 253 \nYear 7  0 318 0 253 \n* Assumes no carry forward of days accrued, but not used, in preceding septennium or days a ccrued as an Assistant \nLecturer  or Junior Research Officer.  \n \nAll calculations are based on the number of day accrued less the days used. Days accrued but not used will be carried over to a maximum of 318 calendar days.  Funds accrued do not carry over.  \nAny available days are pro -rated for part time staff.  \n \nResearch within NZ.  \nOnly academic staff of  lecturer and above may apply to undertake a period of research in New Zealand where that \nresearch is, for example, unique to New Zealand or to produce a major research output. Such time is in lieu of having research time overseas.   The number of days is calculated as above.  Funding assistance for this is available only through the unit, school or college and not centrally.  \n \n7.  Periods of less than 23 days  \nAll staff members to whom this document applies can apply for periods or duties overseas that are less than 23 \ndays.  There is no minimum number of days that may be applied for or times that a staff member may apply for leave overseas not exceeding 23 days.  \n  8. Funding Assistance Academics Only  \n \nPeriods exceeding 23 days for academics only  \nSubject to the availability of funds, financial assistance for duties overseas may be available from the Office of the \nAVC Research , Academic and Enterprise through the Colleges.  \n $10,000.00 Maximum each septennium  \nFinancial Assistance from the Office of the AVC RAE for duties overseas is calculated by reference to septennia of employment with Massey University. Each staff member’s first septennium of employment commences on the day \nof commencing employment with Massey University at lecturer level (or equivalent) or above. Subsequent \nseptennia of employment commence the day after the preceding septennium of employment ends. In each septennium of employment a staff member may receive financial assistance to a maximum of $10,000.00. The \nmaximum financial assistance for any one period of duty overseas is $8,000.00.  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n\n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nGuidelines  on Research, Teaching, Study  and \nProfessional and Organisational  Periods/Duties  \nOverseas and in New Zealand  – Page 5 \n \n \nAccrual in first septennium  \nIn the first septennium of employment, funding for financial assistance for full time staff will accrue on the \nanniversary of the commencement of the septennium as follows:  \n \nFirst Septennium \nof employment  Funds accrued at \nend of each year  Total at end of each \nyear if no funds used  Example of \nfunds used  Total at end of each \nyear after funds used  \nYear 1  3,000.00  3,000.00  nil 3,000.00  \nYear 2  3,000.00  6,000.00  nil 6,000.00  \nYear 3  3,000.00  9,000.00  nil 9,000.00  \nYear 4  1,000.00  10,000.00  8,000.00  2,000.00  \nYear 5  nil 10,000.00  nil 2,000.00  \nYear 6  nil 10,000.00  nil 2,000.00  \nYear 7  nil 10,000.00  2,000.00  nil \n A staff member in their first septennium of employment may not anticipate the funds that will accrue to them at the end of the current year in that septennium unless, immediately before that septennium, they were employed by the university as an Assistant Lecturer or Junior Research Officer for a minimum of two years.   No funds will be accrued \nor credited on account of previous employment with the university as an Assistant Lecturer or Junior Research Officer or on account of previous employment in any cap acity with another university.  Any funds used will be \ndeducted and any funds not used in one septennium will not be carried forward.   \n 9. Funding Periods overseas not exceeding 23 days  \n Any staff member who has a period or duty overseas not exceeding 23 days may have funding to a maximum of $10,000.  Such funding will be available from the unit , school o r college.  \n 10.  Other Funding  \n Where a staff member is requested to provide services overseas by a government or a government agency, or a national or international organisation all expenses and funds shall be provided by the requesting body.  Full \ndisclosure by the staff member of all payments made is required.  \n \nFunding for research by lecturers and above within New Zealand is provided by the unit , scho ol or college and or by \napplication to the Massey University Research Fund.  \n  11.  Use of funds  \n Any funds are to be used for:  \ni. Travel: the most economical return fare from the normal employment location to the destination provided \nthat the travel is in acc ordance with the Travel Policy\n.  Where any part of a trip includes periods which are \nfor personal reasons i.e. not related to teaching, research, study, professional or organisational duties the \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n\n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nGuidelines  on Research, Teaching, Study  and \nProfessional and Organisational  Periods/Duties  \nOverseas and in New Zealand  – Page 6 \n \n \nemployee may be asked to contribute to a proportion of the costs, this may be through a red uced daily \nallowance.  This will be determined by the relevant SLT member . \nii. Travel to and from airports, seaports, bus and train stations by the most economical means.  \niii. Massey University Travel insurance: the current approved rate per day excluding annual le ave days and \nweekend days, New Zealand statutory holidays and Massey University holidays contiguous to the annual \nleave.  \niv. Domestic and international departure taxes where actually incurred.  \nv. Conference registration fees where actually incurred.  \n \n12. Allocation of Central Funds to Colleges  \n  \nFunding of long periods of research is currently held centrally in the Office of the AVC Research, Academic and \nEnterprise.  A notional allocation to Colleges and Services will be made of the central fund, which will be administered by each College and Service.  The amount of funding allocated, the persons to whom it is allocated and \nthe report on the outcomes of the research, will be filed with the Office of the AVC Research, A cademic and \nEnterprise.  \n \nThis central funding/college and service administration model will be trialled for 12 months to determine whether \nfurther devolvement might be appropriate at that time.  \n 13. Reimbursement of Expenses  \n Prior approval of expenses such as travel, accommodation, conference  fees, daily expenses and meals (e.g. breakfast \nprovided as part of accommodation) will be covered by funds available.   \n \nWhere staff are provided with a Massey credit card no daily allowance will be paid in accordance with the \nCredit \nCard Policy .  \n \n All other expenses should be met by reimbursement of reasonable and actual costs incurred on the provision of \nreceipts on the staff members return from overseas.  \n \nExcept that staff who are overseas for longer than 23 days may be paid out of the accrued funds an allowance in \nadvance of their travel based on the following schedule excluding annual leave, weekends, NZ Statutory holidays or \nMassey University holidays contiguous to periods or duties overseas:  \nAustralia   $NZ150.00  \nNorth America    $NZ175.00  \nLondon     $NZ250.00  \nUK    $NZ235.00  \nEurope     $NZ235.00  \nSingapore and Malaysia   $NZ150.00  \n China     $NZ100.00  \nJapan     $NZ250.00  \nAll other locations   $NZ150.00  \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n\n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nGuidelines  on Research, Teaching, Study  and \nProfessional and Organisational  Periods/Duties  \nOverseas and in New Zealand  – Page 7 \n \n \n \nStaff who travel for periods or duties overseas for less than 23 days are not entitled to payment of an allowance to \nmeet expenses except in the case of hardship in accordance with the Travel Policy .  \nStaff who elect to stay privately may be paid an allowance based on the rates above but shall not have accommodation and meals or other expenses paid by Massey.  \n All staff will continue to receive their salary during the period or duty they are overseas whether this is for periods of \nless than 23 days or more than 23 days.  \n \nStaff should also refer to the Travel Policy , Reimbursement of Expenses  and Credit Card Policy\n. \n \n14. Additional Financial Assistance  \n \nPVC’s have the discretion to provide any additional funding from other college sources to cover costs but this should \nbe clearly identified on approval.     \n The staff member must declare all financial support received from sources other than the University.  \n 15. Special Conditions  \n \n• When booking travel this must be undertaken through the recognised provider.  A staff member may \nupgrade, at their own expense, an y flight, train, bus or boat travel.   \n• Where travelling with a partner who is also a member of the University and where that staff member is also undertaking teaching, research, study or professional and organisational duties each staff member will \nreceive a daily allowance, however, reimbursement of all other expenses shall be shared except with the \napproval of the PVC.  \n• Expenditure on companions, partners or family members who are travelling with the staff member will not \nbe paid.  \n• Costs associated with a private travel component linked or contiguous with the period overseas will not be met.  \n• Recreational activities such as sightseeing tours, cinema, theatre, in room movies, sporting and cultural events will not be met.  \n• Personal expenses will not be paid (e. g. pet care, toiletries, minibars etc).  Refer to the Travel Policy .  \n• It is expected that following the period overseas the staff member will return to the service of the University.  In the event of a resignation during the overseas period or in the event of failure to return to \nservice with the University the staff member \nshall  be liable to repay to the University all financial support \nreceived for  the period of leave or a proportion of the costs as determined by the relevant SLT member.  \nStaff who resign from their employment within six months of returning from overseas may  be requested to \nrepay a proportion of cost as determined by the relevant SLT member.  \n• Staff shall not engage in secondary employment while undertaking periods of duty overseas except with PVC \napproval.  \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n\n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nGuidelines  on Research, Teaching, Study  and \nProfessional and Organisational  Periods/Duties  \nOverseas and in New Zealand  – Page 8 \n \n \n• The maximum financial assistance from all Massey University sources for any one period of duty exceeding \n23 days is $20,000.00.   This may be abated where external funding exceeds $10,000.00.  \n \n16. Annual Leave/Retiring Leave/Parental Leave/Leave Without Pay  \n \nFor every period of duty overseas that exceeds 90 days staff are required to take a period of annual leave during a \nperiod of undertaking teaching, research, study or professional and organisational duties overseas.  It is expected \nthat the amount of annual leave taken will be at least equivalent to th e annual leave which will be accrued in that \nperiod.  As the days available for the staff member to undertake duties overseas are expressed as calendar days any annual leave or statutory holidays or university holidays are in addition to the number of days  taken as duty \noverseas.  \n For periods of less than 23 days if annual leave days exceed working days  financial assistance that may be available shall be reduced by multiplying the amount of the financial assistance by the number of working days and dividin g \nby the number of annual leave days.  \n  Weekend days contiguous to annual leave, statutory holidays or Massey university holidays are not counted as annual leave or days taken as duty overseas.  \n Staff on parental leave will have this period of leave counte d as service for the purpose of qualifying for periods of \nduty overseas.  \n Staff on retiring leave will not qualify for duty overseas.  \n \nPeriods of leave without pay will not count as qualifying service.  \n \nTravel time – The University expects that time spent travelling overseas and returning to New Zealand will be \nincluded within the days accumulated for the purposes of the duty overseas provided this does not exceed 3 \ncalendar days being 72 hours.  \n 17. Transfer of Days From Another University For Academic Sta ff \n A newly appointed academic staff member may be credited with up to 159 days for the purposes of duty overseas on account of the unused eligibility or equivalent at the staff member’s previous university of employment.  Credit \nwill only be given for previou s service at a New Zealand university. The number of days that may be credited shall \nnot exceed one- half of the number of days that the staff member was eligible to use for duties overseas at the time \nof cessation of employment with their previous university up to a maximum of 159 days.  Such a credit may be \nincorporated into the terms and conditions of appointment.  Alternatively, application for such credit must be made \nby a staff member within 6 months of commencing employment with Massey University.  Ap plication shall be by \nway of letter to their PVC with supporting evidence from the previous university of employment verifying the number of days the staff member was eligible to use for duty overseas (Long Leave or equivalent) at the time \nemployment with that university ceased.  \n \n18. Special condition relating to Academic staff who do not undertake periods or duties overseas for periods \nnot exceeding 23 days.  \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n\n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nGuidelines  on Research, Teaching, Study  and \nProfessional and Organisational  Periods/Duties  \nOverseas and in New Zealand  – Page 9 \n \n \n \nAn academic staff member with the maximum accumulation of 318 calendar days who can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the PVC that they have not undertaken significant periods of work overseas for periods not exceeding 23 days within the preceding 6 years may apply for a single period of leave of up to 365 calendar days (including \nannual leave statu tory and Massey University holidays.)  \n \n19. Other Relevant Policies  \n Travel Policy   \nCredit Card Policy  \nReimbursement of Expenses Policy  \nDiscretionary Expenditure and Gifts Policy  \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n\n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Health_and_Safety_Procurement_Procedures_PDF_185_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Health and Safety Procurement Procedures PDF 185 KB",
      "policy_type": "Procedure",
      "file_size": "185 KB",
      "author": "Banner, Jodie",
      "creation_date": "2024-04-30T10:00:00",
      "modification_date": "D:20240430100027+12'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n \n \n \n \n   \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n \n ENTER PROCEDURE  \n \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \nHEALTH AND SAFETY PROCUREMENT PROCEDURE  \n \nSection  University Services  \nContact  Director  Occupational Health & Safety, Wellbeing  \nLast Review  November  2023  \nNext Review  November  2025  \nApproval  Director Occupational Health & Safety, Wellbeing  \n \n \nPurpose:  \n \nThis procedure details a general approach and then specific standards which have been determined \neither by statute or University management.  \n \n \nScope : \n \nAll Massey University staff, students  and visitors to campus.  \n \n \nGeneral approach - New or Modified Equipment, Material, Service or Work Process : \n \nIt is a statutory requirement under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 to complete a risk assessment \nfor new or modified equipment, material, service or new work process. This is an absolute requirement; \nthere is no defense  available for omission, and instant fines can be imposed by the inspectorate.  \n \n“New” in this context is taken as an item/service/process which has not previously occurred within the \nUniversity. This requirement is not invoked where an item/service/process which has an existing hazard \nassessment is replaced.  \n \nSteps are:  \n1. Identify any hazards associated with the procurement.   \na. For ‘off the shelf” items the supplier may have safety information.  \nb. For de novo or original construction, the designers or manufacturer will need to \ncomplete.  \n2. Assess the risks of the hazard.  \n3. Designers, manufacturers, importers etc., are to take action to eliminate, or where \nelimination is not possible, minimise the hazard/s in procurement decisions, and ongoing \nuse of the item or service.  \n4. Identify training needs, approvals, and supplementary items such as Personal protective \nequipment requirements.  \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nHealth and Safety Procurement Procedure  – Page 2 \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University    \nThe Occupational Health, Safety & Wellbeing team can provide assistance and guidance with this \nprocess.   \n \n \nBiological Collections  \nBiological collection procurement purchase or donation may be subject to MPI movement authority for \ntransfer within New Zealand.  Overseas procurement is subject to MPI import permit and HSNO or CTO \nrequirements. The processes are explained in the Restrict ed Organisms and Biological Products and \nGenetically Modified Organisms procedures.  \n \nContracted Services  \nContractors may be used either for construction/maintenance type activity or for teaching/consultancy \ntype of activity. Health and safety process to protect University staff and students are detailed as separate \npolicy in the Policy Guide.    \n \nThe scope of construction/maintenance type contracts includes minor capital, preventative maintenance \nand repair work including IT cabling and wiring, electrical work, cleaning, security and similar works; \ninstallation, servicing, maintenance or operation of plant, equipment or machinery and agricultural type \ncontracts.  \n \nTeaching/consultancy type activity includes departmental and individual contracts for teaching, \nconsultancy reports or similar activities.  \n \nElectrical Equipment Safety – Pre-purchase Requirements  \nElectrical equipment and portable electrical equipment must be tested prior to purchase by the supplier \nand tagged with the date prior to service. See Electrical Safety procedures, in Massey Policy Guide for \nfurther detail.  \n \nElectrical Wiring Work  \nAll fixed wiring and equipment is to be supervised by Facilities Services. This includes testing of \nprotection devices as required and any alterations to fixed wiring. There are specific requirements in \nareas where moisture occurs, flammable liquids and ga ses, laboratories, physiology suites and operating \ntheatres.  \n \nApproval for any changes or alteration to fixed electrical wiring must be obtained from Facilities Services. \nSee Electrical Safety procedures in Massey Policy Guide for further detail.  \n \nEquipment Hire  \nHire companies are required to ensure supplied equipment is designed, made and maintained so it is \nsafe for its intended use.   \n \nHire that uses mains electricity must have a current test certificate.  \n \nSelf-propelled hire equipment that is driven on the road must have an appropriate motor vehicle \nregistration.  \n \nStaff who loan apparatus are subject to legal requirements as a supplier of “plant”.  The requirements \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nHealth and Safety Procurement Procedure  – Page 3 \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University    \nare explained in Appendix 6 of the Procurement Procedures.   \n \nEvents  \nSee Event Management procedure and associated guidelines in Massey Policy Guide.  \n \nFieldtrips  \nSee risk management section of Health and Safety and Wellbeing site. Also includes procurement \nassessment of contracted services.  \n \nFirst Aid Supplies  \nUnder the Health and Safety at Work (General Risk and Workplace Management) Regulations 2016, \nPCBUs have a duty to provide first aid for their workers at work. Each department/institutes/schools at \nits expense shall:  \n• Maintain an adequate number of first aid kits and first aid rooms.  \n• Supply and restock first aid kits and rooms.  \n• Identify first aid kits and rooms with appropriate signs.  \n \nGenetically Modified Organisms  \nStrict controls are applied in New Zealand for genetic modified work. These are explained in the policy \nweb site under the Genetically Modified Organisms Procedure.  \n \nHazardous Substances  \nHazardous substances use must be recorded in the chemical information management system.  \nContact the Institute of Fundamental Sciences on Turitea campus for access to the database.  \n \nMaterial safety data is available to staff and students from www.chemwatch.ac.nz  \n \nInfectious Organisms  \nHazards and controls for infectious or pathological organisms must be documented. Specific \nrequirements are detailed in the Infectious, Pathogenic or Zoonotic Organisms procedure and \nRestricted Organisms and Biological Products procedure within the Massey Policy Guide.  \n \nNoise – Laboratory, Pilot Plants  \nApparatus and equipment used in laboratories and pilot plant should be less than 50 dB Noise Criteria, \nor Noise Rating Number.  Any apparatus above these levels should be in a noise enclosure. No \napparatus is to be above 85 dB(A).  \n \nNoise – Lecture Space, Study Area, Offices  \nApparatus and equipment used in lecture spaces, study area, or offices should be less than 30 dB \nNoise Criteria, or Noise Rating Number. Levels above this will disrupt concentration and reliable \ncommunication.  \n \nPersonal Protective Safety Equipment  \nIt is the responsibility of the employing unit to provide and  maintain in good condition personal \nprotective equipment (PPE) required by employees. When the equipment reaches the end of its life or  \nis damaged in a way that it adversely affects the safety performance of the PPE, it must be replaced. \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nHealth and Safety Procurement Procedure  – Page 4 \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University    \nFurther information is available in the Personal Protective Equipment Guidelines within the Massey \nPolicy Guide.  \n \nThe cost of this equipment is a departmental expense as part of the processes conducted by the \ndepartment or unit. It is insufficient (statute law) to pay an allowance and expect employee to provide \ntheir own protective equipment.  \n \nWhere equipment is in direct bodily contact (for example respiratory protective equipment, ear plugs, \nmouth guards), then equipment must be personally issued to each employee. There is to be no sharing \nof such items.  \n \nRefrigerators/Freezers used in Laboratories, Studios or Workshops  \nAll refrigerators/freezers in or associated with laboratories, workshops and studios must be suitable for \nflammable solvent storage. Refrigerators or freezers can be either modified to ensure they can be used \nfor storage of flammable substances or purchase d as a purpose designed laboratory flammable \nstorage refrigerator. An alternative is to specify low voltage switching with insufficient arc energy to \ncreate ignition and  modify the light. Modifications on freezers are less onerous, as usually the \nthermostat is already externally mounted and only the lamp needs sealing up.    \n \nIt is not acceptable to label non -modified refrigerators/freezers as unsuitable for solvent storage. This \npractice allows a fire hazard to occur accidentally.  \n \nRadioactive Material or Apparatus  \nThe purchase, sale or disposal of radioactive material or apparatus (e.g. X -ray equipment) is subject to \nthe Radiation Safety Act 2016. Managing entities of radiation sources must hold a Source licence \nauthorising them to manage and control those sources. Managing entities must register controlled \nradiation sources with the Office of Radiation Safety. Individual users of radiation sources must hold a \nUse licence unless their use is otherwise authorised by the Act or Regulations. Consent is required for \nanyo ne who wishes to import or export radioactive material.  \n \nSupplying or Manufacturing Plant  \nStaff who design or supply plant are subject to legal requirements from the Health & Safety at Work Act \n2015.  The requirements are explained in Appendix 6 of the Procurement Procedures.   \n \nTraining  \nMost common health and safety training is funded centrally. Check the People & Culture calendar for \nHealth & Safety related training.  \n \nVehicle Purchase  \nPurchase processes and safety requirements for vehicles is centralised. These are detailed in the \nVehicle Management policy on the Massey Policy Guide.  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nHealth and Safety Procurement Procedure  – Page 5 \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University    \nRelated documents  \nProcedures  \n• Infectious, Pathogenic or Zoonotic Organisms Procedure  \n• Event Management Policy  \n• Genetically Modified Organisms Procedure  \n• Electrical Safety Procedures  \n \nResources  \n• Chemwatch – www.chemwatch.net  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nHealth and Safety Procurement Procedure  – Page 6 \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University    \n \n \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Induction_Policy_PDF_110_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Induction Policy",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "110 KB",
      "creation_date": "2022-11-21T11:03:09",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220100504+13'00'"
    },
    "content": "Massey  University  Policy  Guide  \n© This Policy  is the property  of Massey  University   \n  \n \n \n \n \n \nSection  People  & Culture  \nContact  People  & Culture  \nLast Review  October  2022 \nNext  Review  October  2025 \nApproval  SLT 17/08/112  \n \n \nPurpose:  \n \nThis policy  reinforces the importance of the induction process in ensuring that  people joining Massey  University  are \nable to integrate  effectively  into the workplace  and achieve  performance  in their role from early  in their employment.  \n \nPolicy:  \n \nThe objective  of Massey  University’s  formal  induction  programme  is to accelerate  the acquisition  of the knowledge  and \nresources new staff need to perform competently and to feel connected into the organisation.  \n \nAll new staff,  including  casual  and fixed  term,  will participate  in a formal  induction programme. \nExisting staff changing locations or going into a new role will require job -specific induction.  \nInduction  must  cover  all requirements  outlined  in the applicable  induction  guidelines  and/or  checklist.  \n \nIt is the responsibility  of the hiring  manager  to ensure  that a formal  induction  takes  place  in accordance  with the \napplicable induction guidelines and/or checklist.  \n \nThe completion  of induction is  to be notified to  People and  Culture  using the Induction Completion Checklist included \nin the University Induction resource.  \n \nAudience:  \n \nAll staff \nAll hiring  managers  \n \nRelevant  legislation:  \n \nHealth  and Safety  at Work  Act 2015 \nAccident Compensation Act  2001   \nINDUCTION  POLICY  \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \n© This Policy  is the property  of Massey  University   \n Induction  Policy  – Page  2 \n \n \n \nLegal compliance:  \n \nThe Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 (“the Act”) requires in section 36(3)(f) that workers are to be given any \ninformation,  training,  instructions,  or supervision  that is necessary  to protect  all persons  from risks  to their health  and \nsafety arising from work carried out as part of the University’s business.  \n \nIn an induction  this would include information  on what  to do in an  emergency,  hazards  that might harm workers and \nhow the risks are being  managed,  any procedures  for such  hazards,  what  personal  protective  equipment  is needed, \nwhat facilities are available, and instruction on the safe use of substances, plant,  and structures.  \n \nWorkers  are also required  to ensure they  complete  their induction.  Section  45 – ‘Duties  of workers’  in the Act states \nthat while at work, a work er must (among other things) — \n \n(c) comply,  as far as the worker  is reasonably  able,  with any reasonable  instruction that  is given  by the \nPCBU* to allow the PCBU to comply with this Act or regulations; and  \n(d) co-operate  with any reasonable  policy  or procedure  of the PCBU  relating  to health  or safety  at the \nworkplace that has been notified to workers.  \n \n* NB: PCBU  in the Act means  a “Person  Conducting  a Business  or Undertaking”.  \n \nMassey University pays a levy to ACC annually for all employees. If you are injured at work this levy is adjusted up \nor down at the end of each year based on the previous three years of work injury claims history. This means ACC \nmay pay Massey University a  discount (up to 50%) or invoice for additional (up to 100%).  Massey University will \nsupport workplace -based  rehabilitations for all those who are medically able and supported by ACC.  \n \n \nRelated  procedures  / documents:  \n \nJoining  Massey  – Manager  Guideline  for Staff Induction  \nJoining Massey - Managers Induction  \nCasual  Employees  Personal  Information  Declara tion and Induction  Completion \nPerformance and Development Planning Policy  \nPerformance  and Development  Planning  and Review  Procedures  \n \nDocument  Management  Control:  \n \nPrepared  by: Senior  Human  Resources  Advisor  \nAuthorised  by: Deputy  Vice-Chancellor  – University Services  \nApproved by:  SLT 17/08/112  \nDate  issued:  25 January  2003 \nLast review: October 20 22 \nNext review: October 202 5 \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "International_Student_Fee_Scholarships_and_Discounts_Policy_PDF_79_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "International Student Fee Scholarships and Discounts Policy",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "79 KB",
      "creation_date": "2009-11-20T02:05:02",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220103046+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " \nMasse y University Policy Guide  \n \nINTERNATIONAL STUDEN T FEE SCHOLARSHIPS  AND DISCOUNT POLICY  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \nPurpose :  \nTo protect the integrity of the International Tuition Fee Structure by standardising the practice of  discounting fees \nthrough scholarships, concessions, and other financial arrangements with partner institutions.  \nPolicy:  \nThe following principles will apply when Massey staff or Colleges negotiate articulation, twinning, or off -shore delivery \nagreements wi th partner institutions: - \n \n Fee discounting is not intended to become the norm, and should only be utilised to facilitate agreements with \nreputation -enhancing partner institutions  \n All communications with prospective students should clearly state the relevan t tuition fees payable.  \n \nIn the case of articulation or twinning agreements, the following discounting options apply: - \n \n 10% fee discounts are permissible where cohorts of 10 or more students are enrolled as part of a twinning or \narticulation agreement with  a single partner institution  \n For student cohorts of 20 or more students from a single partner institution, a discount not exceeding 15% of \nthe full fee is permissible  \n In circumstances where a “scholarship” is created on the basis of numbers of students en rolled, the \nscholarship may be awarded only on the basis of academic merit, in accordance with pre -established criteria. \nIn all other circumstances the term “fee discount” will apply.  \n Where a special case is made, in which student group enrolments at the margin from a partner institution can \nbe handled profitably on lower income per student, specific agreement on the fee level and distribution of \nincome is required between the College Pro -Vice Chancellor, the RCE (Albany and International) and the \nAVC (FIS C). \n \nIn the case of overseas course or programme delivery agreements with partner institutions, full fees should normally \nbe charged. Where it is financially viable for Massey to offer discounted fees requested as part of a negotiation with a \nprospective p artner, the following discounting maxima apply: - \n \n For programmes delivered by Massey University staff, tuition fees should be no lower than 80% of the full \nInternational Programme tuition fee  \n For programmes delivered extramurally, tuition fees should be no  lower than 70% of the full International \nProgramme tuition fee  Section  International  \nContact  International Office  \nLast Review  October 2009  \nNext Review  October 2010  \nApproval  SLT 09/10/221  (DRAFT)  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nInternational Student Fee Scholarships and Discount Policy  – Page 2  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  Definitions : \nIn terms of this policy t he following definitions apply:  \n \nDefinitions are as per the Policy Relating to the International Delivery of Qualifications  \nAudience : \nAll staff  \nRelevant legislation :  \nEducation Act 1989 and Amendments  \nLegal compliance : \nNone  \nRelated p rocedures / documents : \nPolicy relating to the International Delivery of Qualifi cations  \nProcedures for Distance Education Offerings to Intern ational Students Overseas  \nGuidelines for Distance Education O fferings to International Students Overseas  \nEquivalence Policy  \nProcess for the Establishment of New Off -Shore Academic Agreements  \nProcess relating to the Renewal of Expired Off -Shore Academic Agreements  \nCreation of Contracts Policy  \nDelegations of Authority Document  \n \nDocument Management Control:  \nPrepared by: Professor John Raine  \nAuthorised by: AVC Academic and International  \nApproved by: SLT 09/10/ 221 \nDate issued:  October 2009  \nNext review:  October 2010  \n \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Guidelines_for_Providing_References_for_Students_and_Graduates_PDF_179_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Guidelines for Providing References for Students and Graduates",
      "policy_type": "Guideline",
      "file_size": "179 KB",
      "creation_date": "2023-09-04T10:03:06",
      "modification_date": "D:20240423105112+12'00'"
    },
    "content": " Massey University Policy Guide  \n \nGUIDELINES FOR PROVIDING REFERENCES FOR STUDENTS AND GRADUATES  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \n \n \n \n \n  \n  \nPurpose:  \nTo provide guidelines to staff for providing references for students and graduates of Massey University Te Kunenga \nki Pūrehuroa.  \nGuidelines : \nStaff are frequently asked to provide reference s for student s and gradu ates for emplo yment or further study. This \ndocument offers staff advice on good practic e in pro viding r eferences in ord er that the y are fair, transp arent and \nadhere to the University policies. These guidelines do not apply to references r egardi ng member s of staff, which \nshould  be dealt with in accordanc e with the  relevant HR policies and guidance. The reference should also not replace \nthe formal confirmation of graduation – as this can only be provided through Student Registry or by accessing the \nGraduate Database Search ( https://www.massey.ac.nz/student -life/graduation/massey -university -graduates -\ndatabase -search/ ) for students who have graduated after July 1997.   \nWhilst the Uni versity encour ages st aff to give its st udents and graduates r eference s to support them in gaining \nemplo yment or f urthering their studie s, it is important to und erstan d that th ere is no obligation or dut y to provide a \nreference. If a stude nt or graduate of the University ap proaches you t o be a referee and you do not wish to d o so, \nyou ar e free to refuse if you ha ve a legitim ate reason f or doing so. If you have been detailed a s a referee without \nhaving e xpressl y consented in advance and  are co ntacted b y a thir d party for the reference, you ma y still refuse to \ndo so, altho ugh it is imp ortant to a void implying a negative reference b y a refusal ( see ‘refusing to give a reference’ \nbelow) and t o ensure that an y refusal is not dis criminatory.   \nPrivacy Protectio n \nPersonal details abo ut a student or graduate must n ot be disclosed t o third parties without a valid lawful purpose in \naccordanc e with th e Privacy Act 2020 and the  Official Information Act 1982. This includes pro viding t he informatio n in \na reference, which are only to be provided with the express consent of the individual concerned.   \nAll references should be provided in confidence to a third party requesting the reference unless the third party advises \nyou that the information will be shared with the student/graduate in respect of whom the reference is made, or the \nstudent is asking for  an open testimonial (se e below). References must be disclosed to the individual under a Privacy \nRequest 1 unless expressly or impliedly provided in confidence, so any references intended to be provided in \nconfidence should state this in writing to avoid any ambiguity later.  \nWhere a reference requests disclosure of sensitive personal information, or referees feel that such information \nneeds to be included in the reference for the reference to be accurate and fair (see below), additional criteria apply \n \n1 Under Principle 6 of the Privacy Act 2020  https://www.privacy.org.nz/privacy -act-2020/privacy -principles/  \n Section  Student Ad ministration and Su pport  \nContact  Deputy V ice-Chancellor,  Students and Global Engagement  \nLast Review  July 2023  \nNext Review  July 2026  \nApproval  Deputy V ice-Chanc ellor, Students and Global Engagement  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nGuidelines for providing references for students  and graduates  \n– Page 2 \n \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nfor disclosure to be permissible. Please note however, that it is rare for a referenc e to need to disclose such \ninformation. Sensitive personal information includes, amongst others, information relating to an individual’s:   \n• race.    \n• ethnic origin.   \n• politics.    \n• religion.  \n• trade union membership.    \n• genetics.   \n• biometric s (where use d for ID purp oses). \n• health.  \n• sexual orientation or activities; or  \n• criminal rec ords or allegations.  \nThe Privacy Act 2020 pro vides a framework for protecting an individual’s right to privacy of personal information, \nincluding through Privacy Principles2, which must be adhered to when processing and disclosi ng sensiti ve personal \ninformation. Not e that acad emic misconduct, disciplinar y and wellbeing issues, including disabilit y, ma y be \nconsidered sensiti ve personal information. Consideration should ho wever be gi ven as to whether suc h informatio n \nis rele vant to the ref erence, particularl y where an y complaints or proc esses were fo und to be unjustified, or no action \ntaken.    \nIf you are considerin g disclo sing sensiti ve personal information i n a referenc e, either because you ha ve been asked \nto or becaus e you consider it i s relevant to ensur e that the referenc e is accur ate and fair, the n you should obt ain \nspecific cons ent to do so (in writin g) from th e stude nt or graduate (as the case may be) b eforehand. If you are \nunable t o obtain that consent from th em, the n you should not dis close sen sitive pe rsonal information in that \nreferenc e.    \nIf you feel that th e only way you can gi ve a tru e and fair r eferenc e is by including the sens itive personal information,  \nbut you do not ha ve the stude nt’s or graduate’s consent to d o so, then th e advice fr om the Uni versity is that you \nshould n ot give the refer ence.    \nPurposes of the Reference  \nThe purpos e of a reference is to provide facts, c onfirm acc uracy of statements in a n application, and t o provide \nrelevant opinions such a s a stude nt’s or graduate’s suitabilit y for a job, p lacement, i nternship, work e xperience, \ncasual work, volunteering or f urther study and a n applicant’s genera l potential.    \nIf the referee is asked for a reference by a student or graduate, the person seeking the reference shou ld ensur e \nthat their r eferees ha ve a copy of the jo b/placeme nt specification, an d the applicant ’s CV and/ or job application prior \nto writing the r eferenc e, although the perso n seeking the r eferenc e may provide these. If you are asked to pro vide \na reference and do n ot have this information, you should r equest it from th e third p arty, the stude nt, or the graduate.  \nTypes of references  \nWritten references:  These take a variety of formats, such as hard copy or electronic pro -forma, or a free -form letter \nor email, or completed through a password -protected website. References should be sent from an official University \ne-mail or on a university  letterhead. A copy of the reference, or wording submitted, should be retained by the \nreferee.  \nVerbal reference s: Only in exceptional circumsta nces should  verbal r eference s be pro vided. Unplanned \nconversations must b e handled c arefully as the y can b e misheard an d misinter preted. If a tele phone r eferenc e is \n \n2 Further information on the 13 Privacy Principles is available on the Office of the Privacy Commissioner’s website at \nhttps://www.privacy.org.nz/privacy -act-2020/privacy -principles/  \n \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nGuidelines for providing references for students  and graduates  \n– Page 3 \n \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nrequested, m ake an appointm ent that allo ws you time t o provide appropriat e information an d ensure you establish \nthe identity of the caller an d retain a recor d of the discussion. All verbal r eference s should be follo wed up in writing. \nIf an unplanned call is recei ved, try t o reschedule it t o get tim e to obtain the n ecessar y information to pr epare a \nrespons e.    \nOpen testimo nials:   These may b e requeste d by students/gradu ates or provided by staff as an alternative to \nconfidential written or verbal references. It is important to ens ure that an open test imonial is clearl y dated.  Keep to \nfactual e vidence including result s, comment on the student’ s or graduate’s  skills, qualitie s and abilities , and an y \nparticipation in e xtra-curricular acti vities.    \n \nWho should pro vide the reference?  \nThe referee should b e a memb er of staff who ha s had s ignificant in volvement in teachi ng or welfare of the student \nor graduate. W here this is n ot possible, a senior m ember of staff (e.g., the programme lead) can produc e a factual \nreference gi ving opinion s only when supported b y evidence on file. R eference s may contain inp ut from more than \none member of staff. Th e initial part of the reference shoul d explain ho w the referee kno ws the student or graduate \nand why they are qual ified to write the r eference.   \nIt is imp ortant to respon d to the request for a reference as soon a s possib le.    \nThis guidanc e does not cover the c ircumstance s in which a r eferenc e is provided in a personal capacit y rather than \non behalf of the University. If a m ember of staff provides a r eference i n a personal capacit y, this should be st ated \nand the Uni versity’s information or records, letterhea d, e-mail,  or logo mu st not be used. The y should also not dra w \non their pr ofessional persona, other tha n as an indicator of goo d standi ng in th e communit y.   \nContent of the Reference  \nLegal issues: There is no statutory duty to provide a r eference, b ut referees are under lega l obligation to us e a \nduty of care when compiling r eferences an d are expected to take reasonable steps i n preparation of the referenc e \nin ord er to ensure its fairnes s and a ccurac y. The referenc e must be tru e, accur ate, fair, and not give a misleading \nimpression . There is no obl igation to provide an y specifi c detail in the r eference or for it t o be comprehensi ve. In \naddition, an y refusal to gi ve a reference mu st not be discriminat ory and should be f or a legitimate reason onl y.     \nEvidence: Referenc es need t o be evidenced wherever possible. E vidence can b e drawn from a variety of rec ords \ninclud ing th e University’s student recor d system.  A void m aking wide stat ements of opinion t hat ha ve no evidence \nsuch as “I thi nk the stude nt will pass”.    \nFactual accurac y:  Verification of informatio n such as p ersonal d etails, d egree co urse, d ate of graduation, \nacad emic a chievement, plac ement/internship e xperience, skills and kno wledge de veloped during studie s, must be \nundert aken c arefully. Any informatio n confirme d by the referee as true or untrue must be able t o be evidenced. Th e \nprovision of inaccurate, unfair, or misleadi ng information could ope n the Uni versity up to liabilit y to the individual or \nthe third part y.  \nFact versus opi nion: If requeste d, the r eferee should offer opinions onl y within their professional compete nce an d \ndiscipline kno wledge, and the r eferenc e should d ifferentiate clearl y between stat ements of facts an d opinion. As f ar \nas po ssible, stick to fa cts an d make sur e opinions and comme nts (both pos itive and n egative) ca n be supporte d by \nevidence fr om your kno wledge of the student or graduate and their acad emic c areer. The referen ce mu st be base d \non attributes, suc h as kno wledge, skills and c ompetencie s alread y demonstr ated. Do n ot speculate o n how these \nmight equip the student or graduate to fu lfil the role f or which the y are appl ying.  Do n ot offer ambiguo us or code d \nreferences, an d positi ve or n egative opinions that ar e not rele vant to the position/placeme nt for which the r eference \nis sought. Avoid offeri ng a p ersonal view of the candi date’s choice of care er or area of study or wide stateme nts \nsuch a s “I think the stude nt will do e xcellentl y in this rol e”.   \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nGuidelines for providing references for students  and graduates  \n– Page 4 \n \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nAssessing competenc y:  Where requeste d, the r eferenc e may include i nformation on th e extent to which the \nstudent or graduate is qualified for th e job/plac ement/stud y opportunit y, what the y can co ntribut e, and ho w their \nskills, qualities and abilities match the position. You ma y be aske d to comme nt on e vidence of spec ific discipline \nand technical skills, te amwork, c ommunicat ion, and organis ational skills, resilience, cr itical thi nking, creativity, time \nmanagement skills, la nguages proficienc y, probl em sol ving and dig ital skills. As note d above, comments o n \ncompetency an d suitability, both positi ve and n egative, must be able to b e evidenced fr om your kno wledge of the \nstudent or graduate an d their academic c areer. If nec essary, us e qualified stat ement s and e nsure that the opinion \ngiven is n ot wider tha n the staff member is abl e to give. The referee may prefer to dec line to sp eculate an d instead \nto simpl y limit t heir comme nts to offering an account of the student’s or graduate’s dutie s and perf ormanc e they are \naware of.    \nAttendance record: Care should be t aken when r eferring to stude nt attendance. Onl y where attendanc e is a \nrequirement of the programme r egulation s can r eference be mad e to poor attendanc e, although consistentl y good \nattenda nce can b e included. Particular car e should b e given to comments abo ut performanc e, attendan ce or \nsicknes s absenc e where ther e is a ri sk that these ma y give rise t o discrimination or disclos ure of sensiti ve personal \ninformation . Issues around health and disabilit y are sensiti ve personal information and the student’ s or graduate’s \nwritten con sent is th erefore require d if these are to b e mention ed in th e reference.    \nNegati ve Inf ormation: If the informatio n gives cause f or concern, such as issues around disciplinar y or fitnes s to \npractic e/stud y matters, which could affect the student's or graduate’s abilit y to perf orm the job in q uestion, or \nother wise includes negati ve informatio n, the staff member should consid er discussing their conc erns with the \nstudent or graduate an d providing them with the o pportunit y to address th em or se ek a d ifferent r eferee. Do n ot \nwrite a d efamatory r eference – the reference m ust be a ccurate and fair.    \nRefusing to give a r eference:  As d etailed abo ve, the Uni versity encour ages st aff to provide student s and \ngraduates with reference s unless th ere is a legitim ate reason for not doi ng so. If you are unabl e to give a reference, \noffer a clear e xplanation of your reasons, because  an unexplained r efusal ma y be interpr eted a s a negative opinion. \nAn alternative would be t o provide a fa ctual r eferenc e confirming dates, d egree title, results and kno wn participation \nin oth er activities. It i s also important t o ensure that r efusal of a referen ce is not discr iminatory.    \nForme r stude nts: If a referee does n ot have recent kno wledge of the student or graduate, this shoul d be clearl y \nstated, an d any referenc e provided should be fa ctual onl y.   \n \nRecordkeeping  \nStorin g references: Staff should kee p referenc es for a minim um of two years an d store them securely in CRM in  \nsuch a way that unauthorised access to the reference is not available.  \nStudent  Information Access Requests : Staff should be a ware th at individuals ha ve the right to request a cop y of \nthe referenc e from the  University or the third-party  recipient of the reference, und er the Privacy Act 2020 , which  in \nmost instances would be withh eld under the evaluative material exception to the Privacy Act , provided the reference \nwas provided  in confidence . \nFurther Support: If your referenc e is challe nged b y the student or graduate which it relates to, or you receive an y \nadditional qu eries fr om the student/graduate/third p arty, or you ha ve an y concern s about gi ving the r eference, \nplease se ek advice in t he first instanc e from your line man ager. If you receive a request from the student or graduate \n(or a third party) for a copy of the reference, please refer the request to the University Privacy Officer. Where \nrelevant, further information and/or advice on supp ort services that may be available to the student may be included \nin the reference.  \n \n \n \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nGuidelines for providing references for students  and graduates  \n– Page 5 \n \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nDefinitions:  \n“Personal information ”: means information about an identifiable individual.  \n \n“Reference ”: an endorsement of a person’s skills, attributes and/or achievements, made by someone familiar with \ntheir work, character and accomplishments.  \nAudience:  \nAll Massey University staff, students, contractors,  and visitors to Campuses.  \nRelevant Legislation:  \nOfficial Information Act 1982  \nPrivacy Act 2020  \nProtected Disclosures Act 20 22 \nPublic  Records Act 2005  \nRelated Procedures:  \nInformation and Records Management Policy  \nFraud and Corruption Policy  \nFraud and Corruption Response Procedures  \nPrivacy Policy  \nProtected Disclosure Policy and Reporting Procedure  \nStaff Conduct Policy  \nStudent Complaints and Grievance Procedures  \nDocument Management Control : \nPrepared by: Student Administration an d Support  \nOwned by: D eputy Vice -Chancellor, Stud ents and Global Engagement  \nDate Issued: July 2023    \nLast reviewed: July 2023  \nNext review: July 2026  \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Infectious_Pathogenic_or_Zoonotic_Organisms_Procedures_PDF_195_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Infectious Pathogenic or Zoonotic Organisms Procedures PDF 195 KB",
      "policy_type": "Procedure",
      "file_size": "195 KB",
      "author": "Banner, Jodie",
      "creation_date": "2024-04-30T10:00:04",
      "modification_date": "D:20240430100429+12'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n \n \n \n \n   \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n \n ENTER PROCEDURE  \n \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \nINFECTIOUS PATHOGENIC OR ZOONOTIC ORGANISMS’  PROCEDURE  \n \nSection  University Services  \nContact  Director  Occupational Health & Safety, Wellbeing  \nLast Review  July 2023  \nNext Review  July 2026  \nApproval  Director Occupational Health & Safety, Wellbeing  \n \n \nPurpose:  \n \nTo provide for safe and responsible work with infectious, pathogenic, or zoonotic organisms at Massey \nUniversity in a way that protects the environment and the health and safety of people and communities.\n  \nScope : \n \nAll Massey University staff, students,  and visitors to a Campus.  \nThis procedure covers the use of organisms that are infectious, pathogenic,  or zoonotic; or animals, \nanimal specimens or other material that may contain such organisms.  \n \nFor new organisms (including GMO’s) also classified as infectious, pathogenic,  or zoonotic or biological \nproducts which may harbour such organisms, the following procedures may apply:  \n \n• Restricted Organisms and Biological Products Procedures  \n• Genetically Modified Organisms Procedure  \n \n \nProcedure : \n \nRisk Management  \n \nPrinciple Investigators and Laboratory/Collection managers are responsible for assessing the risks \nassociated with the hazards from infectious, pathogenic,  or zoonotic organisms used at Massey \nUniversity.  \n \nLaboratory managers must ensure the risks are minimized in accordance with the Australian/New \nZealand Standard (AS/NZS) 2243.3 Safety in laboratories: Microbiological aspects and containment \nfacilities.  \n \nAS/NZS 2243.3 prescribes the risk groupings, conditions for facilities, day to day operation and quality \nmanagement systems required to control the risks associated with infectious, pathogenic or zoonotic \norganisms.  \n \n \nMassey University  Policy Guide  \nInfectious Pathogenic or Zoonotic Organisms Procedure  – Page 2 \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University    \nVeterinary and Farm managers are required to assess associated hazards and implement best practice \nto reduce the risk from zoonotic organisms to staff and students and to reduce the risk of disease \nspreading to other animals.  \n \nThis may include (but is not limited to) veterinary standard precautions for animal handling or diagnostic \nspecimens, protective actions during veterinary procedures, environmental infection control, including a \nwritten infection control plan and appropria te facility design standards.  \n \nAny inability to implement to requirement containment and hazard control requirements must be \nadvised to Head of School or equivalent and alternative arrangements made for adequate complaint \ncontrols or facilities.  \n \nHazard controls  \n \nAll human or animal blood, bodily fluids or tissues is to be regarded as infectious or pathogenic, even if \nscreening processes are applied in the collection.  \n \nAll work with potentially infectious or pathogenic samples must follow standard precautions or  \nequivalent infection control measures to minimize risk to staff, students and laboratory organisms.  \n \nPrinciple investigators and/or laboratory /collection managers are to ensure an updated record of the \ninfectious, pathogenic, zoonotic organisms is maintained and users of the facility are made aware of \nthe risks and associated procedures.  \n \nAll work with animals shall be treated as potentially hazardous, hazard control measures must be \napplied reflective of the particular hazards associated with the animal, the procedure, environmental \nconditions and the facilities involved.  \n \nControls may also be applied by resource management act 2003, animal welfare act 1999 or the \nBiosecurity act 1993.  Acquisition of a condition caused by an infectious, pathogenic or zoonotic \norganism at work must be documented using accident report forms. An investigation must be \ncompleted where an infection occurs as a result of work activities. Other statutory notifications may be \nrequired depending on the disease.  \n \nReview  \n \nHazard controls, procedures and school procedures must be reviewed at least annually and/or with any \naddition of hazards or change to facilities or equipment.  \n \nFacilities  \n \nLaboratory facilities that house infectious, pathogenic or zoonotic organisms must apply the physical \nand operational containment measures listed in the AS/NZS 2243.3 to ensure the containment of such \norganisms and provide for safe work practices. Laborato ry design and specifications must be fit for \npurpose and  include basic measures such as (but not limited to) appropriate handwashing  and change \nfacilities and the necessary personal protection equipment (PPE) and equipment required to achieve \nsafe practice.  \n \nMassey University  Policy Guide  \nInfectious Pathogenic or Zoonotic Organisms Procedure  – Page 3 \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University    \n \nFacilities containing materials with controls applied under the HSNO and biosecurity acts (MPI \napproved transitional and containment facilities) often meet the requirements for containment of \ninfectious, pathogenic or zoonotic organisms. However, the MPI/E PA standards for biosecurity or \ncontainment laboratories may vary from the requirements to those set out in joint AS/NZ 2243.3.  \n \nVeterinary or farm facilities must be designed in such a way as to provide for hygiene and infection \ncontrol best practice as and where required along with the animal welfare act 1999. Provisions for \nmobile veterinary services to provide for hygiene and in fection control best practice must be provided \n(e.g. work vehicle PPE, hygiene and first aid kits) to mitigate infection risk where possible.  \n \nLeased or shared facilities  \n \nWhere facilities are leased or shared, the owner/operator of the facility is responsible for the control, \nmaintenance and work occurring in the facility. Where a facility is shared by schools or indeed colleges, \none school or college must be nominated as “ owner” and take responsibility for control of the activities \ninvolving infectious, pathogenic or zoonotic organisms in the facility, training of users and facility \nmaintenance and any shared responsibilities clearly documented and agreed between the respec tive \nparties.  \n \nHuman Resources Protocols and Internal Notification  \n \nThere are human resource protocols regarding work or task restrictions for personnel with infectious \ndiseases status. For further information, check with the Massey Health and Safety team.  \n \n \nDefinitions:  \n \nAn infectious  organism  is: An organism that  is capable  of invading  a susceptible  host and multiplying  \nin it, which  may or may not cause  disease.  \n \nA pathogenic  organism  is:  A n organism that  is capable  of causing  disease  in a host.  \n \nOrganism:  \na) does  not include  a human  being.  \nb) includes  a human  cell. \nc) includes  a micro -organism.  \nd) includes  a genetic  structure,  other  than a human  cell, that is capable  of replicating  itself,  \nwhether  that structure  comprises  all or only part of an entity,  and whether it  comprises  all \nor only part of the total genetic  structure  of an entity.  \ne) includes  an entity  (other  than a human  being)  declared  to be an organism  for the purposes  \nof the Biosecurity Act 1993  \nf) includes  a reproductive  cell or development stage of an organism.  \ng) includes  a prion.  \n \n \n \n \nMassey University  Policy Guide  \nInfectious Pathogenic or Zoonotic Organisms Procedure  – Page 4 \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University    \nRelated documents  \nLegislation  \n• Biosecurity Act 1993  \n• Hazardous  Substances  and New Organisms  Act 1996  \n• Resource  Management  Act 2003   \n• Animal  Welfare  Act 1999  \n• New Zealand  Nuclear  Free Zone, Disarmament,  and Arms  Controls  Act 1987   \n• Health  and Safety  in Employment  Act 1992  \n• Health (infectious and notifiable diseases) notification regulations 2016  \n \nLegal Compliance  \n• SS:8, New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, And Arms Controls Act 1987 prohibits \nmanufacture, storage, acquiring or possessing, or controlling any biological weapon.  \nRelated Procedures  \n• Restricted Organisms and Biological Products Procedure  \n• Genetically Modified Organisms Procedure  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Health_and_Safety_Contractor_Management_Procedure_PDF_192_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Health and Safety Contractor Management Procedure PDF 192 KB",
      "policy_type": "Procedure",
      "file_size": "192 KB",
      "author": "Robertson, Paul",
      "creation_date": "2020-07-17T09:02:08",
      "modification_date": "D:20200717092843+12'00'"
    },
    "content": " \nMassey University Po licy Guide  \n \nHEALTH & SAFETY  CONTRACTOR MANAGEMEN T PROCEDURE   \n \n \n \n \n \n \n  \n \nPurpose : \n \nThe purpose of this document is to define how contractors at Massey University wil l be selected and managed \nwith respect to the health and safety of workers, and the risks associated with their work.  \n \nScope : \n \nThis procedure applies to all staff who engage contractors on a “contract for services” basis, across all site s and \noperations of  Massey University. This procedure should be read alongside, and in the context of, the Contract \nManagement Policy and Procedure.  \n \nDefinitions:  \n \nContractor : Any individual or organisation that provides services under a contract for services. This definitio n \nexcludes suppliers who do not undertake work for Massey  University and only supply goods or materials.  \n \nContract Manager : The Massey staff member with responsibility for ensuring that the rights and obligations \nunder the contract are met.  \n \nJob Safety Ana lysis (JSA) : A document which describes the steps to be undertaken within a task, the hazards \nor risks that will arise for each step , and the controls th at must be  put in place to manage that risk.  \n \nPCBU : A “Person Conducting a Business or Undertaking”, as  defined by the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015  \n \nRing -Fence : The establishment of a discrete  and easily identifiable  work area that is under the complete control \nand management of the contractor , and where Massey University has no staff , students,  or op erations within that \narea. It must be subject to access control (such as fences), and Massey acts only as a client organisati on. \nTypically,  a Tier 1 construction project.  \n \nSubcontractor:  An individual or organisation which is providing services directly to  a contractor of Massey \nUniversity under a contract for services. There is no direct contract between Massey and this PCBU . \n \nSafe Work Method Statement (SWMS):  Has the same meaning as Job Safety Analysis, and is the term \ncommonly used in the construction i ndustry  Section  People & Culture  \nContact  Director Health, Safety & Wellbeing  \nLast Review  n/a \nNext Review  July 2022 \nApproval  Director Health, Safety & Wellbeing  \n \nMassey University Po licy Guide  \n \nHEALTH & SAFETY  CONTRACTOR MANAGEMEN T PROCEDURE   \n \n \n \nWorker:  Has the same meaning as contained with the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 , and for the purposes \nof this procedure includes all employees, contractors, subcontractors, labour hire, apprentices/trainees, and \nvolunteer workers.  \n \n \nContract or Management Lifecycle  \n \n \n \nContractor Classifications  \nAt the commencement of any contract  or project , Massey shall assess the classification of the contractors \ninvolved , based on the following factors:  \n• The size and complexity of the contractor organisati on,  \n• the type of work that will be undertaken,  \n• the location of the work, and  \n• the degree to which Massey University will exercise control and influence over the work  \nContractors will be managed on the basis of the classification to ensure the appropriate level of effort and \ndiligence is applied where appropriate, while avoid ing small or simple contracts being subject to significant \nmanagement effort.  \nClass 1 Contractor : Work is undertaken by the contractor for Massey University, however the work, the \nproce sses and the equipment used is managed by the contractor , and the worksite is “ring -fenced” and \nhanded over to the contractor for the duration of the project.  Massey  does not apply direction or influence \nas to how the work is  to be  undertaken , however  may set site expectations and minimum standards . \nGenerally,  applies to principal contractors  undertaking construction activity on campus  where no Massey \nUniversity operations are taking place . \n \nClass 2 Contractor:  Work is undertaken by a contractor but is within our ability to control or influence. \nThe contractor manages how the work is done, and the equipment and process that they use – however \nthe work is undertaken within a Massey -controlled  workplace  and Massey has some influence or control .  \n \nClass 3 Contr actor : Work is undertaken by a contractor under our direct control. We generally manage \nhow and where the work is done, and the equipment and process that is used.  \n \nClass 4 Contractor:  The contractor is only providing expert advice or knowledge to Massey and does \nnot undertake any physical work s as part of their contract . \n \n \nMassey University Po licy Guide  \n \nHEALTH & SAFETY  CONTRACTOR MANAGEMEN T PROCEDURE   \n \n \n \nPrequalification : \n \nPrequalifying contractors ensures that we have selected an organisation that has the skills, experience, resources \nand systems to be able to undertake high -quality wo rk that is safe for them, as well as our staff, students and any \nother person who may be exposed to that work . It establishes trust that is qualified  by evidence and  sets the tone \nfor the contract relationship . \n \nThe degree to which an organisation must be prequalified is dependent on the classification of that contractor and  \nmay differ based on the degree to which work will be undertaken using the contractors own health and safety \nmanagement system.  Where a contr actor uses Massey University H&S management s ystems, there is a reduced \nrequirement to prequalify the contractor’s  system.  \n \nThe table below describes the degree of prequalification required for a contractor , based on the classification \nassigned to them.  \n \n \nContractor Classification  Prequalification Re quirements  Supporting Documents  \nClass 1 Contractor  These contractors will be required to work using their own \nhealth and safety management systems. Massey University \nmust undertake appropriate due diligence to ensure that \nthe contractor:  \n• Has the necessary  skills, experience, management \nsystems , and resources to manage the project safely  \n• Demonstrate s an ability to identify and manage risks, \nand plan for safe work  \n \nNote: Where the contractor has a prequalification \naccreditation from a n industry organisation  (eg. ISN , \nIMPAC, etc), this may only be used as evidence if Massey \nUniversity is signed up as a client organisation  and has \naccess to t he appropriate reports and information.  \n Class 1 Contractor \nPrequalification  Guide  \nClass 2 Contractor  These contra ctors may use their own health and safety \nmanagement system;  however it must first be fully \nreviewed by Massey University to ensure that it is \nappropriate, and does not create conflicts with Massey \nsystems, standards or policy.  Massey University must \nunder take appropriate due dil igence to ensure that the \ncontractor : \n• Has the necessary skills, experience, management \nsystems, and resources to manage the project safely  \n• Demonstrates an ability to identify and manage risks, \nand plan for safe work  \n \nWhere an approp riate standard is not me t by the \ncontractors H&S management system, they ma y either \nundertake improvements to their system, or work under the \nMassey University H&S Management System . \n Class 2 Contractor \nPrequalification G uide \n \nMassey University Po licy Guide  \n \nHEALTH & SAFETY  CONTRACTOR MANAGEMEN T PROCEDURE   \n \n \nNote: Where the contractor has a prequalification \naccreditation from an industry organisation (e g. ISN, \nIMPAC, etc), this may only be used as evidence if Massey \nUniversity is signed up as a client organisation to that \nprocess and has access to the appropriate reports and \ninformation.  \n \nClass 3 Contractor  These contractors will work under the Massey University \nH&S Management System, as they are  generally small or \nindependent operators who may not have invested in \nprocedures or systems.  Massey University must undertake \nappropriate d ue diligence and ensure that the contractor:  \n• Has the necessary competencies, licences and \nregistrations  where these are required  \n• Demonstrates and ability to identify and manage \nrisks, and plan for safe work  \n Class 3 Contractor \nPrequalification Guide  \nClass 4 Contractor  These contractors will undertake work under the Massey \nUniversity H&S Management system. Massey University \nmust undertake appropriate due diligence and ensure that \nthe contractor:  \n• Has the ne cessary competencies, licences and \nregistratio ns where these are required  \n Class 4 Contractor \nPrequalification Guide  \n \nPrequalification is the responsibility of  the Contract Manager, with support from the Health, Safety and Wellbeing \nteam where expertise is needed in assessing systems or evidenc e. \n \nOnce a contractor is prequalified, the contractor should be asked  every 2 years  (or at contract renewal)  for any \ninformation relating to changes to their management systems or systems of work  that may have occurred since \nprequalification . This may be u ndertaken earlier in the event of a serious safety issue , or if significant changes  are \nmade to the Contractors H&S Management System , their resources, or the type of work that is to be undertaken.  \n \nDocumentation : \n \nOne of the key elements of effective cont ractor management  is the degree to which there is consultation, \ncommunication and collaboration between PCBU’s. Sharing of information  allows each party  to clarify \nexpectations, agree responsibilities, and ensure effective planning (and budgeting) can be m anaged.  \nMassey Un iversity must provide all contractors wi th any  H&S requirements and information as part of any request \nfor tender or request for proposal, to ensure that  appropriate planning can be undertaken as part of the \ncontractor’s  response . \nContract s should cl early d efine what performance standards are expected,  clearly define if the site will be handed \nover to the contractor (ring -fenced ) and  includ e roles and responsibilities for health and saf ety (including \nagreement on usage of management systems ). \nSite Specific Safety Plans  (SSSP)  \n \nMassey University Po licy Guide  \n \nHEALTH & SAFETY  CONTRACTOR MANAGEMEN T PROCEDURE   \n \n \nWhere a contractor is undertaking a construction project on campus, a site specific safety plan should be \nprepared and agreed between the principal contractor and Massey University . This must  be specific for the \nproject  and, at a minimum, cover:  \n• Arrangements for site establishment , including  \no Traffic management  (e.g. parking, deliveries , pedestrian management etc)  \no Access control  and security  arrangements  \no Facilities or services  layouts  \n• Worker participation and/or consultat ion ar rangements  \n• Incident reporting processes and responsibilities , including how notifications will be made  \n• Risk management processes and responsibilities , including permit processes  \n• Emergency plans  \n• Communication arrangements between PCBU’s  \n• Relevant campu s requ irements (e.g. no smoking, etc) \nClass 1 contractors will develop their own SSSP after consideration of Massey University requirements and  will \ncommunicate these plans to Massey University and any other impacted PCBU.  \nClass 2 contractors will develop a SSSP based on Massey University standards , in consultation with Massey \nUniversity (as the PCBU with the most control and influence on site ). This will then be communicated to any \nimpacted PCBU ’s. \nJob Safety Analysis (JSA) or Safe Work Method Statement (S WMS)  \nNote: This requirement is for Class 2 & 3 Contractors only. Class 1 contractors will manage work as per the \nagreed SSSP , and Class 4 Contractors do not undertake physical works  for Massey University . \n \nWhere work activities may expose the worker (or an y other person) to a risk of  serious injury or illness, the \ncontractor must develop a JSA or SWMS for that work . This must be developed in consultation with the workers \nwho will be undertaking the work and  must be communicated to all workers and affected s takeholders (including \nthe Contract Manager).  Where a templated or pre viously developed JSA or SWMS is to be used, this must be \nreviewed with the workers involved to ensure that it  appropriately describes the activity and controls  before it is to \nbe used.  \n \nAt a minimum, t he JSA/SWMS must include a breakdown of the tasks to be undertaken (in sufficient detail to \nallow for proper assessment), the hazards/risks that are associated with that work, and the controls that are \nrequired to manage the risk.  \n \nIn the  event that the  actual  steps to undertake work begin to differ from those detailed within the JSA/SWMS , \nwork must cease  immediately  and the workers shall review and update the JSA or SWMS to ensure that all \nhazards and risks are still appropriately managed . \n \n \n \n \nMassey University Po licy Guide  \n \nHEALTH & SAFETY  CONTRACTOR MANAGEMEN T PROCEDURE   \n \n \nOnboarding : \n \nInduction  \nAll contractors must receive a health and safety induction prior to undertaking work . This must cover, at a \nminimum:  \n• Roles and responsibilities  of the worker  \n• Overview of w ork that will be undertaken  \n• Hazards and associated contro ls that are required  for the work/site  \n• Emergency procedures  \n• Incident and hazard reporting  processes  \n• Available facilities (first aid, toilets, food/drink , emergency equipment  etc.) \n• Site requirements (no smoking, parking arrangements etc.)  \nClass 1 Contractor s are responsible for inducting all workers (including subcontractors) , and M assey University \nshall provide any information that may be relevant for the content of that induction . \n \nClass 2 Contractors  may be given responsibility to induct all workers , whic h will include any information that \nMassey University provides that is required for the content of that induction. Otherwise, Massey University will \ntake responsibility for inducting all workers. The arrangements for induction shall be agreed between  the \nContractor and the Contract Manager  at the commencement of the contract, however shall be subject to change if \nmutually agreed.  \n \nMassey University ’s Contract Manager  is responsible for ensuring that  all workers for Class 3 and 4 Contractors  \nreceive an  induc tion. \n \nStakeholder Engagement  \nAll contractors shall have arrangements in place to ensure appropriate consultation, cooperation and \ncommunication occurs between themselves and any stakeholder who may be impacted or affected by work . \nMassey University will a ssist in identifying these stakeholders, and in making arrangements for engagement \nbetween PCBU’s.  \n \n \nMonitoring : \n \nDuring the contract, the Contract Manager shall ensure that appropriate monitoring is in place to ensure that the \nwork is being undertaken to an appropriate standard, that risks are being managed appropriately , and that there \nis a mechanism for identifying if any  arrangement  is not working . The timeframes for monitoring shall be based on \nthe degree of risk that is involved in the contracted work s. \n \nFor Class 1 Contractor s, this monitoring shall include regular meetings between Massey University and the \nContractor to ensure that all arrangements are in place  and working effectively, and to share information about \nshared duties or risk controls. Re gular site inspections shall take place , with a focus placed on ensuring that the \n \nMassey University Po licy Guide  \n \nHEALTH & SAFETY  CONTRACTOR MANAGEMEN T PROCEDURE   \n \n \narrangements within the SSSP are in place and are still appropriate for the contract. It is permitted for this \nfunction to be met by engaging an independent auditor, or throu gh utilising specialist H&S staff.  \n \nFor Class 2 and 3 Contractors, the focus of monitoring will be on the adherence to any SSSP that is in place, \nalong with the verification of controls associated with JSA or SWMS.  There shall also be a check that the \ncontractor is engaging and communicating with other PCBU’s and affected stakeholders as appropriate.  \n \nWhere monitoring  identifies an uncontrolled risk , this shall be communicated immediately to the Contract \nManager and the Contractor to ensure that controls ar e put in place  \n \nReview : \n \nAll contractors shall be subject to a regular review process  that will be arranged by the Contract Manager , which \nat a minimum will look at : \n• Safety performance – with a particular focus on serious incidents and subsequent learnings  \n• What worked well  between Massey and the Contractor  \n• What did not  work well  between Massey and the Contractor  \n• Opportunities for improvement  in the way that health and safety is managed for contracts  \nThis review should  provide both parties with an opportunit y to provide feedback and share opportunities for \nimproving the health and safety of future work , or to address any concerns or issues tha t may have arisen . It may \nbe undertaken digitally and does not have to be a formal meeting.  \nReviews should take place every 2 years  or at the completion of the contract (whichever happens first) , unless \ntriggered by serious safety concerns or incidents .  \nReviews must be documented and kept on file  for future reference.  \n \nRelevant Legislation : \n \nHealth and Safety at Work Act  2015  \nHealth and Safety at Work (Worker Engagement, Participation, and Representation) Regulations 2016  \n \nRelated Procedures : \n \nHealth, Safety & Wellbeing Policy  \nMassey University Contract Management Policy and Procedures  \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "International_Student_Insurance_Cover_Policy_PDF_222_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "International Student Insurance Cover Policy PDF 222 KB",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "222 KB",
      "author": "Information Technology Services",
      "creation_date": "2019-07-25T10:00:03",
      "modification_date": "D:20190725100346+12'00'"
    },
    "content": "Massey University Policy Guide  \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n  \n \n \n \nSection  International  \nContact  International Relations Office  \nLast Review  July 2018  \nNext Review  July 2023  \nApproval   SLT 19/04/55  \n \nPurpose:  \n \nThis policy outlines the University’s commitment to ensure that all international students studying at Massey University \nhave an appropriate and current Medical and Travel insurance policy, covering the activities they will undertake as a \npart of their course for the duration of their planned period of study in New Zealand.  \n \nMedical and Travel insurance cover for International Students is required under the New Zealand Qualification \nAuthority’s Education (Pastoral Care of Int ernational Students) Code of Practice 2016 “the Code” and the current \nImmigration New Zealand student visa policy.  \n \nPolicy:  \n \nMassey University will ensure that all enrolling international students have appropriate and current Medical and Travel \ninsurance f or the duration of their planned period of study.  \n \nUnder the Code the student must ensure that they have appropriate and current Medical and Travel insurance for the \nplanned period of their study.  \n \nAlthough International PhD students pay domestic fees and are not covered by the Code, for the purpose of this \npolicy International PhD students are required to have appropriate and current medical and travel insurance.  \n \nInternational Short Course Students on Individual or Group Visitor Visas are required to have  appropriate and current \nmedical and travel insurance for the planned period of their study.  \n \nMassey University may elect to meet the Code requirement to ensure all International students have appropriate and \ncompliant travel insurance through the negotiat ion of a group policy. This would operate as a default scheme of \nMedical and Travel Insurance in the form of a mandatory charge to all enrolling or enrolled international students who \nhave not provided evidence of approved and appropriate alternative apply ing cover.  \n \nSuch insurance will meet two primary objectives: - \n To insure the student against loss or  harm  \n To insure the University against legal liability arising as a consequence of an International student not being \nappropriately insured as required under  the Code.  \n \nThe following principles will apply: - \n \nTransparency : The requirement to have appropriate and adequate Medical and Travel insurance will be included in \nall promotional material, prospectus, and admission materials issued to International student s. Full detail of current \ncriteria and requirements will be posted on the Massey Website and referenced to International students.   \nINTERNATIONAL STUDENT INSURANCE COVER POLICY  \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  Massey University Policy  Guide  \nInternational Student Insurance Cover Policy – Page 2  \n  \n \n \nA key factor  in choosing  a group  policy  provider will  be the transparency  of the scheme  and the provider’s  willingness \nto disclose details of claims received, payment history, and financial  details.  \n \nChoice : Students will retain the option to choose their own Medical and Travel insurance provider where the policy \nmeets the requirements of permitted insurance under this policy and the Code. Alternative provider policies that have \nbeen assessed by the University will be referenced on the Massey  Website.  \n \nThe University m ay appoint an agent with appropriate expertise to assess any alternative policies presented for \nconsideration.  \n \nCost Effectiveness : As students retain free choice in provider provision, the focus for an appropriate group policy / \ndefault scheme of insuranc e, under this policy will be to ensure flexibility of cover to protect the University against \nuninsured students, and the cost effectiveness of the scheme for the University to administer.  \n \nWhen choosing a group policy provider, the cost effectiveness of t he scheme will not be evaluated on the basis of \npremium alone, but will be balanced with the provider’s track record in paying on claims.  \n \nDefinitions:  \n \nInternational Student : An International Student is a student who as an individual enrolment or as a participant of a \ngroup course or programme; is not a New Zealand Citizen; a Permanent Resident, or an Australian Student who is \nentitled to enrol as a domestic student, and covered by a reciprocal care agreement. Although International PhD \nstudents pay dom estic fees, International PhD students are considered International Students in respect of this policy. \nInternational Short Course students on either individual or group visitor visas are treated as International Students in \nrespect of this policy.  \n \nEnroll ing Student : An enrolling student is one who applies for admission to the university, gains entrance, and enrols \nin a programme and courses. Enrolling students are issued with a Confirmation of Place by the University in \naccordance with the University’s en rolment regulations. Some international short course students and group students \nare managed separately through PaCE.  \n \nEnrolled Student : Having satisfied the requirements for admission following an Enrolment Application, the becoming \nor continuing to be a student of the University by the University receiving acceptance of an Offer of Place and by the \nUniversity  issuing  a Confirmation  of Enrolment  for a programme  at the University.  ”Enrolment”  also means  the student \nwas, by implication, admitted to study at the University whether admission was subject to a different application or \nfollowing the Enrolment Application. For Insurance purposes, students enrolled in Distance papers and who are \nbased outside of New Zealand, are not covered by this  policy.  \n \nAge Limi t: Cover for students’ families and students’ over the age of 60 is not automatic under the StudentSafe - \nUniversity Master policy for their study course. Students aged 60 and over or students’ with family members who \naccompany them during their period of s tudy aged 60 or over must complete a Medical Risk Assessment form and \nsubmit to the University’s default Insurance provider before cover can be accepted.  \n \nAppropriate Medical and Travel Insurance : Insurance that satisfies the terms of the International Stu dent Insurance \nCover Policy and is in accordance with the Guidelines to the Code will be posted on the Massey University website \nand referenced to International Students.  \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n International Student Insurance Cover Policy – Page 3  \n \nPre-existing Medical Conditions  \nStudents are not automatically covered for pre -existing medical conditions. These are medical conditions or physical \nconditions that the student had prior to enrolment. The student must complete a Medical Risk Assessment form and \nsubmit it to the University’s default Insurance Provider.  \n \nCurrent Medical and Travel Insurance : Insurance that provides cover for the duration of the planned period of study \nand student visa including any en -route pre -arrival travel and en -route travel post -departure.  \n \nPlanned Period of Study : The period for which the student is enrolled. For non -semesterised programmes, the \nplanned period of study may be calculated on a monthly or annual basis.  \n \n \nAudience:  \n \nThis policy will be relevant to all international students and any staff responsible for their admission and ongoing \nsupport, in particular:  \n \nInternational Students  \nInternational Admissions Staff, St udent Administration \nInternational Relations Office Staff  \nInternational Student Support Staff \nProfessional and Continuing Education Staff.  \nInternational Marketing and Recruitment Staff, External Relations  \n \nRelevant legislation:  \n \nEducation (Pastoral Care of  International Students) Code of Practice 2016 – New Zealand Qualifications Authority  \n \nLegal compliance:  \n \nMassey University is a signatory to the Education (Pastoral Care of International Students) Code of Practice 2016 and \nas such is bound by its requirements.  \nImmigration New Zealand: Student Visa Requirements  \n \nRelated procedures / documents:  \n \nInternational Student Insurance Cover Operational Procedures \nInsurance System Manual  \nAgreement and Policy as negotiated with the default Insurance Provider f rom time to time (StudentSafe University \nTravel Insurance)  \n \nDocument Management Control:  \n \nPrepared by: International Relations Office  \nAuthorised by: AVC Operations, International, and University Registrar \nApproved by:  Senior Leadership Team  \nDate issued:  February 2009  \nLast review: July 2017 \nNext review: July 2022 \n\n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Fieldwork_Safety_Guideline_PDF_805_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Fieldwork Safety Guideline PDF 805 KB",
      "policy_type": "Guideline",
      "file_size": "805 KB",
      "author": "Wendi Croft",
      "creation_date": "2018-08-28T14:00:05",
      "modification_date": "D:20180828140553+12'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n© Massey University  | For Internal Use Only – Not Controlled When Printed  \nS218 GL Fieldwork Safety Guide  |Created 15  August 2018 |   1 \nField work Safety  Guide line \nRelated Field Work Documents  \nS218ST Fieldwork Safety Standard  \nS218FM Fieldwork H&S Plan  \nS218FM Participant Declaration & Profile  \nS218 G L Fieldwork Safety Guidelines  \nS218TP Overseas Fieldwork Information Pack  \nS2218FM List of Participants Personal Details.   \n \n1. Purpose :  \nThis guide is intended to be used to pr ovide further guidance and advic e on how to manage and plan \nfieldwork in support of the Fieldwork Safety Standard.  \n2. Introduction   \n \n Fieldwork is fundamental to Massey as a leading teaching and research university. Student \nand staff participation in fieldwork in NZ and throughout the world offers experiences to \ndevelop and enhance practical skills and extend theoretical understanding in  live learning \nand research environments.  \n \n Fieldwork and offsite activities can cover a diverse range of activities from low risk activities \nin predicable environments such as a visit to a local museum, through to very high risk \nactivities such as researc h in post disaster countries .  \n High and medium risk fieldwork must follow the Fieldwork Safety Standard and ensu re \ncompletion of a health and safety plan.  \n3 Definitions  \nDynamic risk assessment.  The continuous assessment of risk in unforeseen and/or changing  \ncircumstances possibly requiring the implementation of new control measures.  \nFieldwork . Any academic work carried out by staff or students for the purposes of teaching, \nresearch or other related activities while representing the Massey University off-site”. (based on \nthe USHA Guidance on Health and Safety in Fieldwork 2011)  \nFieldwork Leader  - has responsibility for operational responsibility for the planning and \nsupervising fieldwork to ensure it is managed safely.  \n \nFieldwork Approver  – The Head o f Department (HoD) or designate who has overall \nresponsibility to ensure the health, safety and wellbeing of participants involved in fieldwork.  \nParticipant.  An individual who is undertaking fieldwork either as part of a group , or working \nalone, includes staff or students.  \n \n \n© Massey University | For Internal Use Only – Not Controlled When Printed  \nS218 GL Fieldw ork Safety  Guide  |created 15 August 2018  \n 2 \nIndependent fieldworker  \nAn individual who is undertaking fieldwork on their own without direct supervision.  \nPersonal time . Personal time can be defined as time when programmed fieldwork activities are \nnot taking place but fieldworkers remain under the general jurisdiction of the University. Personal \ntime is normally included in most fieldwork, including night time socialisin g. Staff are expected to \nsupervise such activities, although this supervision is not necessarily direct supervision. A \ncommunication plan between all parties and knowing generally what people are doing is \nessential for quick and efficient communication sho uld an emergency arise. Plans need to be in \nplace if someone fails to return from a social outing, and boundaries should be clearly \ncommunicated.  \nLow R isk- activities such as; attending conferences, public events, visiting local institutions, or \ntouring f acilities as observers while supervised, will not require completion of a field work health \nand safety plan.  \nMedium R isk  activites such as ; overseas travel outside NZ and Australia, other than to MFAT \nSafe Travel extreme or high risk destinations, and /or  activities, workplaces, or destinations \nposing medium ris k such as: manufacturing/industrial, working in proximity to high risk factors \n(but not directly with them) some high hazards i n otherwise low risk workplaces.   \nHigh Risk  travel to countries listed as high risk destinations by MFAT Safe Travel  \nand/or where fieldwork activities pose a high risk. such as: unaccompan ied or in an isolated \nenvironment , significant, prolonged or difficult travel to reach destination,  work with \ntoxic/hazardous materials, social research with high risk clients, large or dangerous animals, \nZoological parks, outdoor pursuits, working in or near water, unstable environments such as \nvolcanoes, inoculations required, poitical or civil unrest, personal security risks.   \n \nHome conta ct \nThe person in the University – usually in the School/Department who is involved in, (or has \nknowledge of) organising the fieldwork – nominated and contactable in an emergency, and for \ngeneral support (ideally linked into University arrangements). The le vel of knowledge and \ninvolvement will be dependent on the level of risk arising from the fieldwork . \n \nLocal contact  \nThe local person or organisation who acts in support of the fieldwork in the location of the \nfieldwork.  \nManaged risk. The level of assessed r isk remaining after reasonably practicable controls have \nbeen implemented, taking account of the level of impact of the hazard or threat, the likelihood of \nits realisation and the robustness of control measures. Managed risk in high risk activities would \nneed to be accepted or rejected by Massey University. This is sometimes referred to as residual \nrisk.  \nSupervised fieldwork  means participants are under direct supervision by Massey workers on \nsite with them, such as taug ht undergraduate or post -graduate courses.  \nIndirect Supervison  means Massey workers are not physically with the fieldwork participants.   \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n© Massey University | For Internal Use Only – Not Controlled When Printed  \nS218 GL Fieldw ork Safety  Guide  |created 15 August 2018  \n 3 \n4 Responsibilities  \n4.1 Heads of Department   \nThe Head of Department (HoD)  is the person with overall responsibility for the  health, safety and \nwelfare of all participants involved in fieldwork organised by their School/ Institute . They may delegate \nthis responsibility to another person ( Fieldwork Approver ) within the School or Institute to oversee \nand approve Fieldwork H&S Plan s. \nThe HoD must ensure:  \no There are suitable and sufficient local arrangements for planning and organising fieldwork;  \no A competent Fieldwork Leader  is appointed for each fieldwork venture having taken full account of their \nexperience and qualifications relevant to the fieldwork proposed;  \no The conduct and role of participants are clearly understood;  \no An appropriate level of supervision by staff with relevant experience and training is provided for work in \nthe field;  \no Authorisation is withheld until the planning and risk assessment process is complete;  \no Adequate financial resources are available to Fieldwork Leaders  to enable procurement of training, \nequipment ( including personal protective equipment) and provision of additional staffing to support the \nfieldwork; and  \no Fieldwork Leader  are empowered to act in the interest of safety, to change itineraries or abort the \nfieldwork if necessary.  \n The HoD or Fiel dwork Approver must be satisfied that the Fieldwork Leader  has the personal \ncapability and competence to lead, especially under possible adverse conditions, and has \nsufficient awareness of their obligations to those under supervision.  \n The HoD or Fieldwork  Approver must include funding requirements for fieldwork training to \nensure the health and safety plans of the fieldwork can be met.  \n The HoD or Fieldwork Approver must explicitly empower the Fieldwork Leader  to discharge \ntheir responsibilities and to imp lement emergency or contingency plans if necessary.  \n4.2 Fieldwork Leader  \nThe Fieldwork Leader  has operational responsibility for planning and supervising fieldwork to ensure \nit is managed safely.  \nBefore the fieldwork,  the Fieldwork Leader  shall:  \n Ensure that fieldwork is properly and thoroughly planned;  \n Complete a fieldwork risk assessment as part of the Fieldwork H&S Plan;  \n Ensure emergency plans are in place;  \n Ensure all equipment has been checked, is suitable, sufficient and fit for purpose;  \n Allocate specific  supervisory duties to participants and assistant leaders;  \n Obtain guidance and advise from a Health and Safety Advisor  in planning new fieldwork as required;  \n Obtain medical declarations and personal information from all participants and in way that protect s the \nindividual’s privacy  \n Confirm the participant’s ability to safely perform the activities requested ; \n Allocate a competent person to lead each sub -group where necessary;  \n Delegate explicit responsibility to the leader of each sub -group to know the tota l number and identities of \nthe participants they are responsible for supervising;  \n Ensure a Fieldwork H&S Plan is completed;   \n Ensure participants have a  copy of the S218FM Fieldwork H&S Plan ; and  \n Ensure that participants are made aware of the hazards of the trip and the risk management strategies to be \nput in place.  \n \n \n© Massey University | For Internal Use Only – Not Controlled When Printed  \nS218 GL Fieldw ork Safety  Guide  |created 15 August 2018  \n 4 \nDuring the fieldwork:  \n Ensure that all health and safety precautions are observed for the duration of the fieldwork and that \ndynamic risk assessments are carried out if necessary;  \n Ensure control measures identified in risk assessments are implemented in practice;  \n Ensure instructions issued to participants are clear and understood;  \n Ensure that the level of supervision is adequate for an y given situation;  \n Make necessary adjustments to itineraries in the interests of health and safety, including, where necessary, \ncessation of an activity; and  \n Report all injuries, illness or incidents.  \nFieldwork Leaders  or supervisors must be able to demon strate the following competencies:  \n knowledge and technical skill above the level to be taught to students,  \n applied knowledg e of hazard and risk management,  \n first aid skills appropriate to the setting, activities, and students,  \n correct and safe use of any  equipment used ,  \n interpersonal skills, personal organisation and initiative as evidenced by previous leadership responsibility in \nfield trips,  \n suitable group skills including management, teaching, problem solving, crisis intervention and planning,  \n level of fitness and condition appropriate for the expected activities and in an emergency response \nsituation,  \n communication skills appropriate to peers, students and outside agencies, including members of the public,  \n the ability to fulfil the programme's admi nistrative and support requirements,  \n the ability to support the philosophy, goals and objectives of the programme,  \n specific recognition of the unique needs of students.  \n4.3 Fieldwork  Participants  \n Participants participating in medium or high risk fieldworks must complete a personal profile and \ndisclose any medical condition, in confidence to the Fieldwork Leader , which could have a \nbearing upon their own safety or that of others on the fieldwork.  \n Participants must take reasonable care of  their own health and safety  and e nsure that any acts \nor omissions by  them does adversely affect the health and safety of others.  \n All participants must undertake to follow any instruction given to them by the leade r or  \nsupervisor and raise any concerns or uncontrolled hazards to the attention of the Fieldwork \nLeader.  \n Participants are not permitted to bring children or dependents with them on fieldwork and/or \noffsite activities without permission by the HoD.  \n Participants must behave appropriately for the entire duration of the fieldwork, including during \npersonal time.  \n4.4 Independent o r Lone  Working Fieldworkers  \n Independent fieldworkers undertaki ng self -managed fieldwork , and or remote work can pose \na higher risk due to isolation from others who can provide potential assistance. They have \nresponsibility to take reasonable care for their own health and safety. In practice they will \nassume many of the duties of the Fieldwork  Leader  and therefore some of their \nresponsibilities, which should be agreed in advance with the HoS/HoD or other appropriately \nqualified member of staff.  \n The working after hours and lone working procedure  must  also be applied.  \n \n \n \n© Massey University | For Internal Use Only – Not Controlled When Printed  \nS218 GL Fieldw ork Safety  Guide  |created 15 August 2018  \n 5 \n4.5 Assistance of Staff  from Other Ins titutions  \n Instructors, tutors or guides may be used from other institutions. If they play a pivotal \nsupervisory role the Fieldwork  Leader  must clarify their responsibilities and ensure \ncompetence in relation to University of Massey students, in writing, as  part of the planning of \nthe fieldwork. This does not include incidental contact such as local guest lecturers or \ntranslators.  \n4.6 Student Leaders  \n Field work  programmes may also create the opportunity for student leaders to participate  or be \nstudent lead in the  field without staff being present.  While student leaders may have the \nnecessary skills they may not always have the required risk management experience. The \nHead of Department (HOD or their delegate) who approve  student -only trips must ensure that \nthe cap ability of the students is commensurate with the risks of the trip.   \n4.7 Third Party Contractors  \n All third party providers such as outdoor pursuit activity providers, instructors, trainers, boat \nskippers, land transport drivers etc should be checked that the y are reputable and competent \nproviders.  \n Contractors should be able to produce certification, health and safety risk hazard \nmanagement plans, training competency and any other relevant documentation to ensure \nthey meet all legal requirements.  \n If you are using New Zealand outdoor activity pursuit contractors you must ( where relevant) \nuse registered providers as required under the Health and Safety at Work (Adventure Activity) \nRegulations 2016.   \n It is a requirement that Massey consult, coordinate and cooperate over health and safety  with \nother organisations that may be involved in the Fieldwork. . Third party contractors must be \nbriefed, as appropriate, on their role in the safety and supervision requirements of students. \nThey mu st also be provided with relevant information on abilities or health issues of individual \nstudents with the consent of the student. The third party provider must comply with all Privacy \nAct requirements in relation to health and other personal information of students.  \n4.8 Volunteers  \n Some fieldwork may include volunteers including more senior students, parents, alumni, \nfriends or others who expect no payment.   \n Only volunteers  with relevant skills for the job required of them should be appointed. If \nspecialis t skills are required then volunteers must have the correct qualifications, certifications \netc.  \n Massey volunteers should be given a job description, outline of expectations, an induction \nwhich will include hazards and risks and familiarisation of fieldwor k guidelines.  \n5 Training, Supervision and Competency of fieldwork team  \n A high standard of supervision is required for all field trip activities. Inexperienced leaders can \nstart by leading lower risk fieldwork having first being supervised by an experienced leader. \nDuring supervised fieldwork ensure a robust system is in place  to assess and train participants \nbefore allowing any indirectly supervised fieldwork.  \n Proper understanding and an ability to operate incident and emergency protocols should be in \nplace. At least one person should be first aid trained. The type of first a id training will depend \non the how far away the group would be from medical assistance.  \n \n© Massey University | For Internal Use Only – Not Controlled When Printed  \nS218 GL Fieldw ork Safety  Guide  |created 15 August 2018  \n 6 \n Review training needs for fieldworkers regularly. This can be achieved as part of the annual \nstaff performance and development assessment.  \n Encourage staff to maintain  a reflective log of their fieldwork experience which may be used \ntowards evidence of competence.  \n Research diving and boating requires certification under Diving Regulations. Adventure \nactivities being undertaken by students as part of the fieldwork must b e led by suitably trained \nand competent members of staff. Massey leaders must have up to date and NZ relevant \nqualifications or equivalent. If staff do not have  these qualifications then the School needs to \ncontract in people with the appropriate qualifica tions and expertise.   \n6 Planning  \n All fieldwork is unique and there will be variables that need to be considered for each instance \nof fieldwork. For example the varying competence of the group; participants’ individual special \nneeds; changes to or at the fie ld site; and the introduction of new activities or methods.  \n Particular attention should be paid to Fieldwork  Leader s becoming complacent with \nconducting well established but high risk activities and/or undertaking routine work in \nunfamiliar or higher risk  surroundings.  \n Fieldwork  Leader s should consider the following during planning stages : \no Clearly establish the purpose of the fieldwork and the value of expected outcomes.  \no Identify the proposed fieldwork team and as many of the participants and stakeholders  as possible at an \nearly stage of planning.  \no Identify potential participants including young (under the age of 18) and participants with particular \nneeds .  \no Identify all permissions required in advance and ensure they are obtained.  \no Identify any relevant legi slation of the country where the fieldwork is taking place.  \no Develop a procurement plan if specialist equipment or services will be needed.  \no Review process.  \n For supervised fieldwork, where reasonably practicable, a preparatory visit should be made to \nthe fi eld site and an evaluation made of local facilities and services with particular regard to \nthe needs of known or likely participants.  \n7 Staff/Student Ratios  and Composition  \n Fieldwork i nvolving mixed gender students should  consider that each fieldwork activit y has at \nleast one male and one female staff member. If this proves impractical, then suitable post \ngraduate students may be used to ensure that genders are represented. In the event that it \nproves impossible to provide mixed gender staffing then this fact  should be clearly \ncommunicated to fieldwork participants.  \n Staff-Student ratios will depend upon the leaders’ risk assessment for a specific fieldwork. \nFlexibility should be built in to allow activities to continue, suitably supervised, should a \nmember of  staff become temporarily indisposed due to illness, accident, or having to deal with \na situation that requires extended one on one supervision during the fieldwork. If supervision \nlevels are seriously compromised undertake a dynamic risk assessment and be  prepared to \nstop the fieldwork .  \n \n \n \n \n© Massey University | For Internal Use Only – Not Controlled When Printed  \nS218 GL Fieldw ork Safety  Guide  |created 15 August 2018  \n 7 \n8 Health Information  and Privacy  \n Fieldwork  Leader s are responsible for making reasonable checks that all participants are \ncapable of fulfilling the physical and mental requirements of the fieldwork. Fieldwork  Leader s \nmust en sure that participants (staff and students) are made aware of the requirements to \ndisclose any medical condition which could have a bearing upon their own safety or that of \nothers on the fieldwork.  \n Fieldwork  Leader s must ensure any personal information is  gathered from participants and \nstaff engaged in fieldwork is  captured  on S218 FM3 Participant Declaration and Profile Form .  \n Any matters which are identified by this process which may affect the individual’s capability to \nundertake the fieldwork in a safe manner must be discussed with HoD and seek advice from \nHealth and Safety staff or Student Health staff for advice.  \n Any personal or health information collected from the student should only be relevant to \nensure health and safety during the fieldwork  and must be treated confidentially and stored \nsecurely. It may also be necessary to disclose personal factors to a third party. Consent to \nsuch disclosures will be a condition of approval to participate in the fieldwork.  \no Participant Declaration and profile forms must be treated wi th the highest confidentiality.   \no Personal details must be destroyed after the conclusion and revi ew of the fieldwork . \no Ensure personal information is stored securely e.g. use password protected hard drives, locked files. Do \nnot leave paperwork in cars, on desks or photocopiers or accessible to others.  \n Any information collected, stored and used must at  all times comply with the obligations of the \nPrivacy Act 1993 and the Health Information Privacy Code 1994. Refer to Massey University \nPrivacy Policy and procedures or contact the Risk and Assurance office if you need further \nassistance .  \n9 Risk Management  \nRisk management principles provide a framework for the general guidance and control measures that are \nappropriate for managing the diversity of fieldwork activity hazards. A hazard is the potential to cause harm, \nwhile risk is the likelihood or uncertaint y of harm occurring and the likely conseqences when exposed to a \nhazard.   \n The Fieldwork  Leader  is responsible for undertaking a hazard risk assessment for all \nmedium to high risk profile f ieldwork. The purpose of this is to ensure that basic \nconsideration s are in place for the health and safety of the participants and so that \nsupport can be provided in case of an emergency.  \n For multiple trips on one project, every fieldwork trip requires a current Fieldwork H&S \nPlan.  \n Consider all the hazards that may harm people on your trip including the interaction of \npeople, equipment and th e environment. Each hazard or ri sk factor which could cause \nloss should be assessed for seriousness, such as likely severity, probability of \noccurrence. The management strategies  to be applied to reduce the risk to an \nacceptable level need to be listed. Further information on hazard management is \navailable on the Massey University health and safety web site .  \n Assistance can be sought from people with expertise in the area (i.e., College Health and \nSafety Officer, students, staff, health and safety office or contractors with specialist \nexpertise ).  \n In so me cases, after having undertaken a risk assessment, residual risks associated with \nfieldwork may still be significant and a college management decision will need to be \nmade ideally in conjunction with the relevant Senior Management Team member in order \nto determine whether the University is willing to accept these risks.   \n \n© Massey University | For Internal Use Only – Not Controlled When Printed  \nS218 GL Fieldw ork Safety  Guide  |created 15 August 2018  \n 8 \n In all such cases there must be very clear written and verbal communication with the \nfieldwork participants to make sure they understand the nature of the risk and control \nmeasures they will undertake.  Advice is available from Health and Safety Advisors who \nwill assist in making the decision whether or not a residual risk has been controlled to an \nacceptable level; this advice should be sought at an early stage.  \n For travel to high risk c ountries a threat analysis must also be undertaken to consider \nsecurity and political threat levels, significant natural hazards and health risks and \nwhether a destination is appropriate to undertake fieldwork and this information must be \nkept under review  at all stages both prior to departure, and during the fieldwork. Advice \nmust be sought from the Director of Risk and Assurance and any advice provided should \nbe included in the fieldwork approval requests and escalations.  \n10 Emergency Response Planning  \nDealing with an emergency is a possibility for all fieldwork . The level and depth of emergency \nplanning required for each fieldwork event will relate directly to the level of risk associated with the \nfieldwork and the availability and standard of medical suppo rt available.  \n The emergency plan should be in place before the fieldwork begins. The emergency plan \nshould, where relevant, cover the matters listed below, including funding arrangements, local \nsupport, and co mpetency of the field work team:  \no Adverse weath er  \no Transport/travel disruption  \no Available local support  \no Missing or misplaced persons  \no Methods for contacting next of kin  \no Civil unrest , natural disasters  \no Medical emergencies (minor to those requiring repatriation)  \no Financial plan for emergencies  \no College crisis communication plan and structure  \n Where external stakeholders, including partner institutions or third party providers, have roles \nor responsibilities in the emergency plan, it is vital that the arrangements are established \nbefore the field work so both parties understand their role.  \n There should be a means of summoning help in an emergency. For remote locations, it may \nbe necessary to have a personal location beacon or satellite phone.  \n The Fieldwork  Leader  should obtain information on local  health care facilities including their \ncapacity, adequacy, and location. If additional emergency assistance provision is relied upon, \nthe plan needs to identify which facilities are to be used including contact and implementation \ndetails.   \n Provide first aiders, information and specialist training for Fieldwork  Leader s as necessary \nwhere it is known that participants have particular health needs. For example, if a participant \nis known to be vulnerable to anaphylactic shock, instruction and authority will b e needed in \nrelation to suitable treatment.  \n Ensure the reporting of any event of injury, illness or incident to a member of staff, visitor or a \nstudent participant  to Massey University .  \n All Fieldwork  Leader s and supervisors must be aware of the College’s and Massey’s \nprocedures in the event of a major emergency or crisis which is beyond the scope of the \nimmediate fieldwork teams ability to deal with. Your College must have an emergency \ncommunication crisis plan in place so that Massey senior leadership tea m can be notified as \nsoon as possible. Massey will manage public communications, legal issues, and arrange \nsupport, counselling, and provide any other assistance applicable. Fieldwork participants \n \n© Massey University | For Internal Use Only – Not Controlled When Printed  \nS218 GL Fieldw ork Safety  Guide  |created 15 August 2018  \n 9 \nmust not speak to the media who  should be referred to Mass ey External Communications \nteam.    \n11 Communication  with University Home Contact  \n Heads of Department is responsible for ensuring that there is a system in place whereby off \ncampus staff and students can contact suitable staff (Home contact) for advice and su pport. \nThe home contact must be contactable 24 hours a day throughout the duration of the \nfieldwork. The home contact must be able to receive contact queries regarding the fieldwork, \nprovide information if know n and  how to action an emergency response plan  if needed.  \n11.2 Local in -Country  Contacts f or Overseas Visits  \n Fieldwork  Leader s are responsible for ensuring that there is a local in -country contact \nestablished for all overseas field fieldworks.  These details should be included in the risk \nassessment docum entation. More usually, local tour operators and third party providers can \nbe used in this capacity. As a minimum, international visits outside of Australia should be \nregistered on MFAT Safe travel website.   \n12 Travel a nd Transport  \n Travel should be booked through the Massey University Designated Management Travel \nCompany. (TMC) All Travel should comply with the Mass ey Travel Policy.  \n Fieldwork Leaders  are responsible for ensuring the risks associated with transport \narrangements are considered in the planning phase of the fieldwork and that the Massey \nUniversity Safe Driving Procedures  are followed.  \n Ideally, for large groups, hired buses should be used to transport students and staff by road.  \nAlternatively, public transport may be an option. For  smaller numbers, staff driven people \ncarriers are preferable to minibuses, due to the fact that they are easier to handle and do not \nrequire any special authorisation on the drivers licence.  However, the choice of vehicle \nshould also take account of the ability for the drivers to take suitable breaks and the capacity \nto store luggage and equipment.  \n The provision of transport will also vary from public transport to third party providers and the \npossibility of fieldworkers using their own vehicles.  \n Provid ing safe transport for fieldwork can be a challenging aspect, particularly in developing \ncountries. If the risk or complexity of the travel dictates, it may be necessary to actively \nmanage transport arrangements to ensure that all fieldworkers arrive safel y at a particular \nlocation.  \n Fieldwork  Leader s will need to make sure that transport arrangements with external \nproviders overseas are suitable and fit for purpose.  Consideration should be given to the \nsafety record of transport providers when selecting th e mode of transport for the fieldwork \n(e.g. ferries and airlines in developing countries).  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n© Massey University | For Internal Use Only – Not Controlled When Printed  \nS218 GL Fieldw ork Safety  Guide  |created 15 August 2018  \n 10 \n13 Insurance   \n13.1 Fieldwork in NZ  \n Massey University has General Liability Insurance which provides cover staff against third \nparty property damage and personal injury. It c overs students under the direction and control \nof Massey on fieldwork s.  \n If a staff member or student has an accident then ACC covers injuries to NZ citizens. \nOverseas students or non resident  citizens are also covered with some restrictions. For \nfurther information visit the health and sa fety web page.   \n If students are driving motor vehicles ensure that the student has insurance.  \n13.2 Overseas Insurance for students ordinarily resident in NZ  \n Staff Massey Business travel insurance covers accidents overseas if you are working. Cover \ncan be obtained through Massey University’s TMC when you are booking your travel.   \n Students can obtain cover by either:  \no Massey University’s TMC when booking travel,  or  \no Students arra nge their own working insurance  \n Students who arrange their own travel insurance will need to be sure that it covers the \nactivities of the field work.  \n All policies not taken out via Massey should be checked by the Massey Procurement Offic e \nto confirm whether they provide adequate coverage.  \n If you are injured overseas ACC may be able to help you if you return home with an injury that \nhappened while you were overseas. The ACC cover applies whether you have been travelling \non business, or on  leave or for personal reasons. To qualify, for ACC cover you must be an \nordinarily resident in New Zealand at the date of the injury.  \n Travel insurance is still needed because ACC doesn’t cover you for illness or things such as \noverseas treatment costs, di srupted travel plans, third party liability, and statutory processes \nin the country you are visiting, assisted travel or emergency travel.  \n There may be some locations where insurance cannot be obtained . Fieldwork should not \noccur in these locations.  \n14 Accom modation  \n Fieldwork  Leader s are responsible for ensuring that all accommodation is booked with \nMassey University TMC  who can guarantee that safety standards in the establishment have \nbeen vetted.  If this is not possible the responsibility for assessing the  safety of the \naccommodation falls to the Fieldwork  Leader .   \n Where a pre -visit is not practicable, the Fieldwork  Leader  must take steps to assess the \nstandard of accommodation as far as possible prior to the work. The level of due diligence \nchecks require d will depend upon the circumstances of the fieldwork and the accommodation \nprovider.  \n All members of staff in a supervisory role should be provided with suitable guidance from the \nFieldwork  Leader  to enable them to make an informed decision on whether or n ot the \naccommodation arrangements are suitable on arrival. This will be based on the provision of \nbasic safety precautions.  \n \n© Massey University | For Internal Use Only – Not Controlled When Printed  \nS218 GL Fieldw ork Safety  Guide  |created 15 August 2018  \n 11 \n Checks may include:  \no Fire Safety  \no Personal Security  \no General Safety of the structure and facilities, for example pool, lifts, balconies , electrics and gas safety  \no Environment surrounding the accommodation  \n As a minimum, familiarisation with accommodation emergency escape routes will be required \nto be undertaken by the Fieldwork  Leader  and supervisory team.  \n Fieldwork  Leader s should change accommodation booked if it does not meet basic safety \nrequirements.  \n Students and staff should where ever possible stay in the same accommodation. If students \nwish to stay in cheaper accommodation it should be very close by and contingencies  will need \nto be put in place to ensure contact can be made in an emergency.  \n15 Catering  \n The Fieldwork  Leader  must ensure that the level of catering meets the needs of all members \nof the group, paying particular attention to participants who have special die tary requirements. \nInformation on participant dietary requirements should be sought prior to the fieldwork \ncommencing.  \n For supervised fieldwork, inform participants in advance which meals will be provided for \nthem and if they will be required to pay for th em. \n16 Equipment  \n Fieldwork  Leader s are responsible for ensuring that all equipment, including personal \nprotective equipment, necessary for the fieldwork has been identified and specified at the \nplanning stage, including any equipment or clothing expected to be provided by fieldworkers \nwell in advance. Identify and follow requirements /and or manufacturers instructions  for the \nthorough examination, maintenance and inspection of equipment.  \n17 Student Communication  \nFieldwork  Leader s are responsible for ensuring that there are face to face meeting s between all \nparticipants before departure. This meeting(s) should be used to carry out the following functions:  \no Promote the educational and personal benefits of the fieldwork, often once in a lifetime experiences.  \no Explain any inherent residual risks asso ciated with the venture which have not been adequately \ncontrolled.  \no Act as a deadline for completion of student personal details forms.  \no Allow some familiarisation with students who may be less known to the Fieldwork  Leader s. \no Allow expectations of students, differences in standards of accommodation, cultural differences and \nbehavioural and security requirements to be re -enforced.  \no Give timely information on vaccination requirements.  \no Provide detailed student information packs with kit lists and general advice for the fieldwork, this may \ninclude identification of hazardous specimens.  \no Ensure it is clear that the fieldwork is an educational visit.  If students are planning to extend their stay \nthere should be a very clear distinction between the time the fieldwork  finishes and independent travel \nbegins.  A mixture of the two is not permitted.  \no Explain the circumstances in which a student may be asked to leave the fieldwork, and return home at \ntheir own cost, and the likely consequences of disciplinary action.  \n \n \n \n \n© Massey University | For Internal Use Only – Not Controlled When Printed  \nS218 GL Fieldw ork Safety  Guide  |created 15 August 2018  \n 12 \n18 Fieldworkers w ith Disabilities  \n Massey University aims to be inclusive, therefore students or staff with disabilities should not \nbe put at a substantial disadvantage compared with non -disabled fieldworkers. In order to do \nthis, institutions have a duty to make reasonable adjustments to enable those with disabilities \nto participate in the fieldwork if, without such adjustments they would be excluded.  \n The only exception to this would be if the decision not to make adjustments is based on \nevidence that it is a prop ortionate means of meeting a legitimate aim. For example, the costs \nof the adjustments might prevent the fieldwork from taking place, thereby disadvantaging all \nparticipants or the research outcomes. Similarly it might be justifiable to restrict the activi ties \nof a disabled participant in whole or part if their safety or the safety of others would be \ncompromised.  \n On disclosure of a disability, Fieldwork  Leader s must put control measures in place that \nsupports the fieldworker and the fieldwork team. The Fieldwork  Leader  should liaise with \nspecialists to obtain guidance, advice and support to facilitate adjustments and offer \nparticipation where this is reasonably possible. Ensure suitable specialist equipment, as \nappropriate, is provided for the use of fieldwo rkers with disabilities.  \n Advice can be sought from the Inclusive Education Advisors (Disability), Health and Safety \nstaff, Student Health Services when deciding upon adjustments.  \n19 Student Information  \n Fieldwork  Leader s must ensure that there is a student in formation pack produced for each \nfieldwork activity. (where relevant)  \n The student information pack should contain all the information the student needs to know \nabout the fieldwork in a user friendly format. The health and safety elements mentioned below \nare just one part of the overall information likely to be included with this pack.  \n Issues covered in the pack should include the following (non -exhaustive) list:  \no Price  \no Leadership team composition and competency  \no Travel plans, timings and duration  \no Currency  \no Contact Cards  \no Working protocol  \no Project risk assessment  \no Kit lists, including medical and vaccination  \no Distance to medical facilities (in time)  \no Special requirements, including competence requirements of participants  \no Resume of culture including any security i ssues and host country legislation which they may fall foul of( \ne.g. offences around same gender sex )  \no Likely hazards to be encountered (spiders, sharks, excessive heat etc)  \no Tips on extra items needed  \no Skills required for particular activities, including fi tness requirements  \no Draft or final itinerary  \no Climate  \no Food and eating information  \no Awareness of environmental conditions e.g. Security, hot weather, dehydration, insects and advice on \ndealing with these.  \no Awareness of Cultural considerations .  \no Clear informatio n on any element of the venture which presents a high level of residual risk and what the \nimplications of this might be.  \no Things they might not expect, being homesick, not having home comforts, sharing, lack of privacy, what \nto do if they experience problem s. \n \n© Massey University | For Internal Use Only – Not Controlled When Printed  \nS218 GL Fieldw ork Safety  Guide  |created 15 August 2018  \n 13 \n20  Additional Information  for International Field T rips.    \n Expert advice on the areas below can be found on Ministry Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) \nSafe Travel Website  or through Oracle Healix in -country guides  or app.  \n For all overseas fieldwork activities, participants must be provided with a relevant pack of \ninformation . This may be done using the Oracle Healix country reports or  using S218 TP2 \nOverseas Fieldwork Information Pack  as a template as appropriate . \n20.2 Environment  \n The climate of the fieldwork location may be quite different to what is usually experienced by \nthe field trip participants at home. Time should be allowed for partic ipants to adjust to the new \nclimate and tasks should be planned taking into account the constraints of the climate for \nworkers who are not fully acclimatised. For example, in tropical climates, allowance should be \nmade for increased water consumption to pr event dehydration. Suitable clothing can also be \nan issue, as what is considered comfortable for the climate may not be appropriate for health \nand safety reasons e.g. long sleeves may be advisable in tropical areas to protect against \ninsects and UV radiati on.  \n20.3 Hygiene, Food a nd Water  \n Hygiene standards may differ, leading to increased risk of diarrhoeal diseases including \ncholera, so field trip participants may require advice on safe food and water. In many regions \nit is best to avoid eating salads, uncooked foods, fruits that aren't pe eled, ice confectionary \nand food from roadside stalls. Water, including reticulated supplies, is unsafe to use in many \nparts of the world. Boiling water for 15 minutes or using water purification tablets may be \nneeded to render water safe for drinking, coo king with, and for other uses such as cleaning \nteeth. Tea and coffee made with boiling water, and canned or bottled beverages are generally \nsafe to drink. Milk and ice may not be safe.  \n Bodies of fresh water, such as rivers, ponds and lakes can harbour org anisms and other \ncontaminants that make paddling, swimming or other forms of contact risky.  \n High personal hygiene standards may be required to counteract poor sanitation standards. \nAttention to thorough hand washing after using toilets and before food pre paration and \nconsumption is important. Personal hygiene requirements may differ due to different climate, \nsuch as the need to shower and change clothes regularly in tropical climates in order to avoid \nskin infections and tinea. Note that there may be a lac k of suitable ablution facilities.  \n These aspects should be investigated in the planning stages so that participants can be \nproperly briefed on the precautions they need to take.  \n20.4 Cultural, Social a nd Religious Constraints  \n Information should be obtained ab out any social and/or religious constraints that could impact \non the personal security, health or safety of field trip participants. These may include issues \nsuch as appropriate dress, appropriate behaviour in public, same sex relationships, \nrelationships between unmarried partners,  consumption of alcohol and the like. Many foreign \ncultures have more conservative expectations around dress and in particular women's dress \nand behaviour than in New Zealand. Information can be obtained from sources such as \nreputable travel guide books, local contacts in the destination country, participants on \nprevious field trips to that location, and staff or students with knowledge of that culture.  \n20.5 Crime  \n Field trip participants should take precautions to avoid becoming vic tims of crime during their \ntrips. Due to economic disparities and for other reasons, normal personal safety precautions \ntaken in New Zealand may be insufficient. Lack of local knowledge, such as what areas to \n \n© Massey University | For Internal Use Only – Not Controlled When Printed  \nS218 GL Fieldw ork Safety  Guide  |created 15 August 2018  \n 14 \navoid after dark, may make foreigners more vuln erable to crime. In addition, criminals \nsometimes target foreigners. Field trip participants should try to remain unobtrusive as far as \npossible.  \n20.6 Political Climate  \n Field trips should be avoided in areas where the political climate is unstable, where futu re \ninstability is being predicted (e.g. during election periods) or where there is, or has been a \nrecent history of, civil unrest, terrorism, kidnapping of foreigners or civil war. The political \nclimate can deteriorate quickly, and it is essential to check  periodically with the MFAT Safe \ntravel to ensure travel is still safe. Contingency plans should be made in case of deterioration \nin the political climate.  \n20.7 Disease  \n There are many diseases overseas that do not generally occur in New Zealand. Some of \nthese infectious diseases include malaria, typhoid, cholera, dengue fever, filariasis, rabies, \nplague, schistosomiasis, meningitis, yellow fever, Japanese encephalitis, trypanosomiasis, \ntetanus, diptheria, poliomyelitis, Hepatitis A/B/C/D/E, and HIV, and the Zik a virus.   \n Disease risks vary with the area to be visited, the duration of the stay, the living and sanitary \nconditions and  types of work to be performed at least 3 months before departure.  \n Vaccinations may be required for exotic diseases as well as to update routine immunisations. \nVaccines are not available to prevent all diseases, so other types of precautions may be \nneeded. For example, to prevent malaria the appropriate type of anti -malar ial medication and \nadvice on how to avoid mosquito bites would be needed.  \n20.8 Natural Disasters  \n Work in some parts of the world may pose risks due to the propensity for natural disasters to \noccur. Seasonal and geological factors should be taken into account w hen planning field trips \nin order to minimise the risks of working in areas prone to flooding, severe storm, avalanche, \nvolcanic eruption, earthquake and tsunami, etc. Participants should ensure they have \ninformation about what to do in the event of such a n emergency. Travel information and \ncontact details of students must be kept by Departments, Institutes and Schools.  \n20.9 Bio Security Arrangements  \n Staff and students who participate in fieldwork overseas should ensure appropriate Bio \nsecurity and Hazardous S ubstances and New Organism approvals are obtained before \nattempting to import various materials into New Zealand. See University polices for new \norganisms, hazardous substances and genetically modified material. As well as approval, \nstaff and students need  to ascertain that approved containment facilities are available at the \nUniversity if these may be required. Note that sometimes articles that are not themselves \nrestricted may be contaminated with a material that requires approval.  \n21 Review of Field W ork \n Fieldwork  Leader s must ensure that fieldwork planning activities and the fieldwork risk \nassessment are reviewed and revised where necessary.  \n \n \n \n \n \n© Massey University | For Internal Use Only – Not Controlled When Printed  \nS218 GL Fieldw ork Safety  Guide  |created 15 August 2018  \n 15 \n22 References  \nUniversity of Brighton: A Health And Safety Guide To Planning And Managing Fieldwork Or \nOff-Site Activitie s. University of Brighton 2015  \nGuidance on Health and Safety in Fieldwork USHA – including offsite visits and travel in the \nUK and overseas. Universities Safety and Health Association UK 2011  \n23 Related Fieldwork Documents  \nS218 ST Fieldwork Health and Safety Standard   \nS218 FM Fieldwork H&S Plan  \nS218FM Participant Declaration & Profile  \nS218FM List of Participants Personal Details   \nS218TP Overseas Fieldwork Information Pack  \n24. Relevant Legislation:  \nHealth and Safety at Work Act 2015 and associated Regulations   \n25. Related Massey Procedures:   \nRisk Management Framework   \nMassey Privacy Policy   \nStudent Placement Guidelines  \nTravel Policy and Procedures  \nSafe Driving  Procedure    \nIncident Reporting   \nWorking alone or after hours procedure   \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Investment_in_Developing_and_Commercialising_Intellectual_Property_Policy_PDF_59_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Investment in Developing and Commercialising Intellectual Property Policy",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "59 KB",
      "creation_date": "2024-06-24T12:01:09",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220103034+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nINVESTMENT IN DEVELOPING & COMMERCIALISING INTELLECTUAL \nPROPERTY POLICY  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \n \n \n  \n \n  \n \n \n \nPurpo se: \n \nThe University actively encourages  the professional manage ment of its intellectual property (IP): both in terms \nof fulfilling its obligations to  transfer knowledge and research outputs out to the benefit of industry and the wider \ncommunity and wishing to gene rate a financial return through the commercial development of intellectual property as \nan asset. \n \nOne way of achieving these goals is to set up a new company to implement the commercial development of \nuniversity  intellectual property. \n \nThe University encourages such new company formation where the circumstances sugge st this is a suitable \nway forward. \n \nThe Minister of Finance, after consultation with the Tertiary Education Commission and The Treasury has approved \nthe investment by the University of up to 1 percent of the equity of University Group (directly and through its \nsubsidiaries), in securities of limited liability and/or limited liability partnerships that are developing and \ncommercialising intellectual property created by or on behalf of the University.  \n \nThis policy contains the specific conditions under which this approval can be exercised. It operates within the \ncontext of the Treasury Policy and the Treasury Management Framework.  \n \n \nPolicy: \n \nSubsequent to an exemption granted by the Minister of Finance, on 2 9 October 2013 , to the University under section \n65I of the Public Finance Act 1989 and section 305(4) of the Education and Training Act 2020 , investments can be \nmade by the University  in debt or equity securities in companies, in New Zealand or overseas, that are developing \nand commercialising intellectual property created by or on behalf of the University.  \n \n \nSpecific Provisions  \n1. The aggregate face value of all these investments (either in cash or cash equivalent) shall  not exceed 1 % of \nthe equity of the University group, measured against the most recent audited group financial statement for the \nUniversity.  \n Section  Research and Enterprise  \nContact  Office of AVC Research and Enterprise  \nLast Review  December 2013  \nNext Review  December 2016  \nApproval  C13/144  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nInvestment in Developing & Commercialising Intellectual Property Policy  – Page 2  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n2. There may be no contingent liabilities associated with any investment by the University, either by way of \nuncalled shares, guarantees or otherwise.  \n3. Investments made by the University under this exemption must be approved by the Vice -Chancellor up to the \nlimit of the Vice -Chancellor’s delegated financial authority for capital expenditure and by University Council for \namounts above this.  \n4. The University will advise TEC of its current investments in securities of limited liability companies and/or \nlimited liability partnerships on an annual basis. The University will also disclose the investments, at an \nappropriate level, in the University’s  annual report.  \n5. The term of this approval is limited to three years, or such other term, including extensions, as agreed by the \nTEC.  \n \nAudience: \n \nAll staff. \n \nRelevant legislation: \n \nPublic Finance Act 1989  \nEducation and Training Act 2020  \n \nLegal compliance: \n \nAll obligations of the  Public Finance Act 1989 and the Education and Training Act 2020  will apply to this policy except \nwhere there has been a specific exemption granted by the Minister of Finance.  \n \n \nRelated pro cedures / documents: \n \nTreasury Policy  \nTreasury Framework  \nConflicts of Commitment and Interest Policy  \nDelegations of Authority Policy  \nFormation of Spin -out Companies Policy  \nIntellectual Property Policy  \nResearch and Consultancy Activity Proposals Policy  \n \nDocument Management Control:  \nPrepared by:  Research and Enterprise  \nAuthorised by: AVC Research and Enterprise  \nApproved by:  C13/ 144 \nDate issued:  December 2013  \nLast review:  December  2013 \nNext review:  December  2016 \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Information_Records_Management_Policy_PDF_111_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Information Records Management Policy PDF 111 KB",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "111 KB",
      "creation_date": "2024-12-05T13:02:02",
      "modification_date": "D:20241205132216+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide   \n \nINFORMATI ON AND R ECORDS M ANAG EMENT P OLICY   \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nPurpose :     \nTo establish a framework for the implementation of the University' s information and records management  programme \nthat ensures full and accurate records of the University's activities are created, captured, maintained,  made \naccessible, stored, and legally disposed of in accordance with legislative requirements.    \nAudience:   \nThis policy applies to all university staff and its affiliated organisations, including its business enterprises such as  \nwholly owned subsidiary companies, joint venture companies, partner ships, trusts, and research centres. It also  \napplies to volunteers and independent contractors in the course of their work fo r, and on behalf of the University.   \nPolicy:   \n1.  Information   and  records   created   in  the  course   of  the  university’s   business   are  owned   by  the  University   and   \nsubject to its control – unless otherwise superseded by another University Policy or Agreement.   \n \n2.  Information  and records  created  by a contractor  during  the course  of a contract  belong  to the University  and  \nshould   be  captured   and  managed   in  the  University   recordkeeping   systems   -  unless   otherwise   agreed   in  the  \nformal contract specifying any exclusion.   \n \n3.  Information and records will be managed as corporate assets, in the same way as financial, people, and  physical \nassets of the University. Information and records will be effectively managed to create business value,   \nreduce duplication, and support a collaboration culture with the embedded use of a fully integrated digi tal  \ncollaborative environment.    \n4. Under the Public Records Act, all staff of the University, its Controlled Entities, and any organisations  contracted to \ndeliver services on Massey’s behalf have to create and maintain full and accurate records of the   \nUniversity’s business activities and decisions, in accordance with its normal or prudent business practices. All  \nstaff have a responsibility to ensure that information and records are managed appropriately in accordance  with \nthis policy within their areas of responsibility and accountability.   \n5.  All records must be compliant with the recordkeeping requirements arising from the regulatory and   \naccountability environment in which Massey operates.   \n \n \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   Section   Univers ity Management   \nContact   ITS Information and Records   \nLast Review   June 2021   \nNext Review   June 2025   \nApproval   SLT 71/10/151   \n \n \n \n \n \nInformation and Re cords Management Policy – Page 2   \n \n \nDefinitions:   \nBusiness   Activity   is  an  umbrel la  term  cover ing  all  the  functions,   processes,   activities,  and  transactions   of  \nthe  Univers ity  and  its  emplo yees  that  are  related   to  the  management   and  administrative   functions   of  \nthe  Universit y. It excludes  activities  related  to personal  research.   \nControlled Entities mean those organ isations or ent ities where the University has an ownership stake of 50%  or  \nmore.   \nFull and accurate records  in this policy refer to records which are created to the extent necessary to:    \n•  facilitat e action by staff, at any level and  by the ir successors   \n•  make p ossible a proper investigatio n of the cond uct of busin ess by a nyone au thorised t o undertake such   \nscruti ny, an d   \n•  protect the fina ncial, legal,  and oth er rights of the Un iversity and a ny others affected by its action, an d   \ndecisions .   \n \nInformation  refers to knowledge communicated or received. The result of processing, gathering, manipulating, and  \norganising data in a way that adds to the knowledge of the receiver. (AS/NZS ISO 16175 -1:2020)   \nRecord in this policy refers to information recorded in any form that is created or received and maintained in the   \ntransact ion of business activ ities and retained as evidence of such an activity by Massey University (inc. all staff ,  \naffiliated organisations,  and anyone contracted to  deliver  services on  its behalf). This  covers all functions  of the  \nUniversity  including  management,  academ ic, and administration.  A record  may be  a document,  signature,  seal,  \ntext, image, sound, speech, or data, and it can be in audio, electronic (including web pages) or ph ysical forma t.  \nApart from records outlined in the Disposal Authority for New Zealand Universitie s (DA702), this also includes:   \n \n•  teaching  and research  materia ls owned by the Universit y, and   \n•  the records  of the University’s  affiliated  organisations.   \n•  research data, whether received from external parties or created by  the University  (which shall at all times   \nbe subject  to research  protocols  and the Privacy  Act).   \n \nThis excludes:   \n•  an individual’s  documents, correspondence  or personal  papers  that have   been  created  in a private  capacity,   \n•  materials  received  for information  only,   \n•  primary  drafts  and working  papers  not recording  decisions,   \n•  published  research  that are not covered  by the Universit y’s Intellectual  Property  Polic y,   \n•  copies of documents  kept for personal  reference  or convenience.   \n \nPublic Records means any records, in any form, in whole or in part, created or received by a publ ic office (such  as  \nMassey Universit y) in the course of its bus iness which are covered by the Public Records Act 2005.  The A  provides  \na detailed guide to the various t ypes of Public Records. The term ‘Public Record’ does not necessarily  imply  public  \naccess  or the placement  of such  records  into the public  arena.  This excludes  records  not  covered  by the Public  \nRecords Act, i.e., teaching and research mater ials generated by  academic  staff or students,  including  (but not limited  \nto) raw data,  analysed data,  working  notes , and publications.   \nRecordkeeping System  refers  to a s ystem  which captures, manages,  and provides  access to records  over time.  \nThe system   can  be  manual   or  electron ic,  depending   on  the  records   formats   and  the  operat ing  environment.   A  \nmanual  system, such as corporate fi ling s ystems and registers, may be appropria te to capture and maintain ph ysical   \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n \n \n \n \n \nInformation and Re cords Management Policy – Page 3   \n \nrecords.  A  business   information   system   or  database   applicat ion  (e.g.,   finance   system,   HR  system),   while  not  a  \ndedicated  recordkeeping  system,  may incorporate  aspects  of recordkeeping  functi onality.   \n \nRecords   Management  is  the   field  of  management   responsible   for  the  efficient   and  systemat ic  control   of  th e  \ncreat ion, receipt,  maintenance,  use, and disposition  of records,  including  processes  for capturing  and mainta ining  \nevidence of  and information  about  business  activities and transactions  in the form of records.   \nLegal com pliance:   \n•  Public  Records  Act 2005   \n•  Official Information  Act 1982   \n•  Privacy  Act 2020   \n•  Inform ation and  Training Act 2020   \n•  Massey  University  Act 1963   \nRelated procedures / documents:   \nBusiness  Classif icatio n Scheme   \nData Manageme nt Policy   \nDisposal Proce dure for Physica l Records   \nDA for New  Zealand  Universities (DA702)   \nOffsite Storage Procedure    \nGuidelines on Sh arePoint Collaboration Sit es   \nPrivacy Policy    \nIRM Guidelines on recordkeeping and digitisation    \nIRM Guidelines on managing records on business systems    \nIRM Guidelines on information management and social media    \nIRM Legal Compliance    \nIRM Roles and Responsibilities    \nIRM Principles    \nResearch Data Management Policy  \nDocument Manage ment Control:   \nPrepared by:   Manager Information and Records   \nAuthorised by:   Deputy Vice -Chancellor University Services   \nApproved by:   SLT 17/10/151   \nDate issued:   June 2022   \nLast review:   June 2022   \nNext review:   June 2025   \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Institutional_Partnerships_Policy_PDF_164_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Institutional Partnerships Policy",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "164 KB",
      "creation_date": "2023-08-24T11:00:09",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220103114+13'00'"
    },
    "content": "    \n  \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n \nINSTITUTIONAL PARTNERSHIPS POLICY  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \n \nPurpose :  \nThis policy and its associated procedures govern the initiation, development, execution,  and monitoring of Institutional \nAgreements between Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa Massey  University  and an Institutional Partner . The policy \nacknowledges  that working in partnership is an  integral part of  the University’s strategic aspirations and mission for Pou \nAko (L earning and Teaching ), Pou Rangahau (R esearch ), Pou Tangata (P eople ) and Pou Hono (C onnections ). \n \nInstitutional Partnerships can be formal or informal, but for the purpose of this policy the focus is on formalised \npartnerships  that involve an Institutional Agreement.    \nAim:  \nMassey  University is a significant research intensive dual -mission university that operates across Aotearoa New \nZealand  and internationally  through  a local and global network of people and partners.  University staff teach and \nresearch within their respective fields, sharing their expertise and skills to advance knowledge . University  students \nbenefit from our staff connections at the discipline and institutional levels. Working together , we solve national and \nglobal problems through fundamental, applied,  and interdisciplinary research and teaching, while culturally and \nartistically enriching our world.  \n \nThis policy aims to:  \n• ensure Institutional Partnerships are aligned with the University’s strategy, our Te Tiriti o Waitangi aspirations \nand maintain the U niversity ’s standard for quality, reputation,  and integrity of outcome s. \n• provide a set of principles to guide decisions and set clear responsibilities regarding the development, approval,  \nand management of the University ’s Institutional Agreements.  \n• ensure alignment with the University ’s business practice ; and  \n• recognise that partnerships can have many starting points, including those that could be described a s informal . \nScope:  \nThis policy applies to:  \n• Both domestic and international Institutional Partnerships.  \n• All academic delivery options  with Institutional Partners including, but not limited to, those Partnership Types \nlisted in this policy.  Section  University Management  \nContact  Office of the Deputy Vice -Chancellor Students and Global Engagement  \nOffice of the Provost  \nLast Review  August 2023  \nNext Review  August 2026  \nApproval  SLT 23/07/73  \nEffective Date  August 2023  \n \n  \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nInstitutional Partnerships Policy – Page 2 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n• Institutional Partnerships that involve research and/or consult ancy as part of the partnership . \n• Māori and other Indigenous People’s Institutional Partnerships.  \n• Non-delivery Institutional Partnerships that involve student recruitment and mobility of staff or students.  \n \nThis policy does not apply where:  \n• Institutional Partnerships  and/or Institutional Agreements  are established for the sole purpose of Research or \nConsultancy. These are managed under the Research and Consultancy Contracts Policy .  \n• Institutional Partnerships and/or Institutional Agreements are established for the sole purpose of commercial \nactiviti es (such as procurement of equipment or IT products or services). These are managed under the \nContract Management Policy .  \n• Institutional Partnerships that are informa l and/or where an Institutional Agreement does not currently exist, \nhowever it is still expected that this policy should guide their development as these may lead to a formal \npartnership in future.  \n \nEndorsements : \nFor the development of any formal  Institutional Partnerships and/or I nstitutional Agreement the following endorsements \nmust be granted by the relevant Strategic Lead er before any agreement is made . The  University recognises  three \nStrategic Lead ers who will work with the relevant College Pro Vice -Chancellors :  \n \n• Provost  \n• Deputy Vice -Chancellor, Māori  \n• Deputy Vice -Chancellor, Students and Global Engagement  \n \nThe relevant endorsements apply:  \n \n• The re levant Pro Vice -Chancellor must endorse all College linked Institutional Agreement s. \n• The Provost must endorse all Institutional A greement s involving research . \n• The Deputy Vice -Chancellor, Māori must endorse all  Institutional Agreement s with M āori insti tutions, \norganisations, community groups, iwi organisations or hap ū. \n• The Deputy Vice -Chancellor, Students and Global Engagement must endorse all  Institutional Agreement s with \ninternational institutions or organisations, including those with international ind igenous peoples . \n• Either the Provost or Deputy Vice -Chancellor, Students and Global Engagement must endorse all   Institutional \nAgreement s with domestic institutions or organisations  involving teaching . \n• All Institutional Agreement s for Offshore Delivery, must be  contracted  through Massey Global Ltd, and must be \nendorse d by the Deputy Vice -Chancellor, Students and Global Engagement. Exemptions to operate outside of \nMassey Global Ltd can only be granted by approval of the Deputy Vice -Chancellor, Students and Global \nEngagement.  \n \nAny Institutional Partnership  and/or Institutional Agreement  which involve multiple categories  must have the \nendorsement  of all applicable Strategic Lead ers.  \n \n \n \n \n  \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nInstitutional Partnerships Policy – Page 3 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nPrinciples:   \nInstitutional Partnerships should be based on a set of principles that align with the University  strategy, while  \ncomplement ing existing partnerships.  The University  is committed to demonstrating auth entic leadership in  Aotearoa \nNew Zealand as we uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi  through our practice. The University  sees this as a critical requirement \nto advance more inclusive and socially progressive outcomes for Aotearoa New Zealand.  The Strategic Lead er will use \nthis set of principles to make decisions for endorsement.  \n \nCore Principles : \n \n• Mātāpono  – that at the heart of all Institutional Partnerships is a common set of agreed mātāpono that will at a \nminimum focus on excellence and access, and a commitmen t to teaching, discovery and innovation.  \n• Opportunities  – that the Institutional P artnership is connected to providing students and staff with opportunities \nthat are not always available to the institution alone.  \n• Benefit – that the Institutional P artnership offers value not only to the University , but to Aotearoa New Zealand \nand its pe ople.  \n• Sustainability  – that there is an academic and commercial commitment to the Institutional P artnership  that is \nideally long -term focused . \n• Risk  – that there is a clear and transparent approach to risk that considers political, economic, \ntechnological/cyber, sociological,  and financial risks (although not limited to these only).  \n• Tikanga  – that the Institutional P artnership consider s the implications on both Māori and non -Māori , ensuring \ncultural practices are authentically recognised and embraced.  \n• Quality – that quality assurance underpins  all aspects of  the Institutional Partnership .  \n• Reputation – that the reputation of all Institutional P artners is linked to appropriate p artner selection, including \nthe use of institutional or subject rankings, ideally with those institutions placed similarly or ahead of the \nUniversity . \n \nBased on these core principles, the University will seek to:  \n \n• Broaden and deepen existing partnerships  before looking to expand to new Institutional Partners . \n• Be both reactive and proactive in seeking  any new Institutional P artnership opportunities . \n• Work with partners that have a similar culture to the University  – recognising that the University  aspires  to be \nTe Tiriti -led and this may differ to other institutions , making clear linkages to Pou Ako, Pou Rangahau, Pou \nTangata or Pou Hono  within the University Strategy.  \n• Focus on opportunities that grow our people. The University  will seek Institutional Partnership s that offer \nstudents and staff innovative and enhanced educational opportunities.  \n• Negotiate, endorse, approve,  and manage relationships in accordance with this policy and the associated \nprocedures.  \n• Grow a nd follow best practice , such as those defined in the Qualification Policy, Qualification Frameworks \n(including those internationally), Education (Pastoral Code of Practice for Domestic Tertiary and International \nLearners), Research Practice Policy and other related practices.  \n \nTypes of Institutional Partnerships :  \nSee Partnerships Type Table .  \nDefinitions : \nInstitutional Agreement(s)  refers to any formal instrument or document entered by the University and another party \nwhich sets out the respective rights and responsibilities of the parties (including financial obligations and deliverables) \n \n  \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nInstitutional Partnerships Policy – Page 4 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nin respect of a partnership.  For the purposes of this policy, Institutional Agreements include Memorandums of \nUnderstanding and only relate to Institutional Agreements in scope.  By way of example, s ome of the main types of \nInstitutional Agreements that are currently used at the University  are MOU’s, Letters of Intent, Non -Disclosure \nAgreements, Collaboration Agreements, Study Abroad and Student Exchange Agreements, Articulation and Pathway \nAgreements , Internship Agreements and Scholarship Agreements.  \n \nInstitution al Partner  includes  institutions and organisations providing education and/or research activities/services \n(such as  university, private training establishment, wā nanga, schools, museum, business, kura, zoos, iwi organisations , \ndefence force ).  \n  \nInstitutional Partnership(s)  means any formal partnership  between the University  or a University  subsidiary and an \nInstitutional Partner  to achieve specified objectives  in scope of this policy.  \n  \nMemorandums of Understanding (MOU)  are institution -to-institution framework documents used for the purpose \nof formalising an  Institutional Partnership.  MOUs are legally non -binding,  high-level, non -specific partners hip \ndocuments. It is important to note that Institutional Partners  may inte rpret the form and function of MOUs differently.   \n \nOffshore Agreements  are a greements where the teaching, research or other services are provided outside New \nZealand.  \n  \nPartnership Category  includes activities categorised as: research, international , domestic  and/or Māori.  \n  \nPartnership Types Partnerships Types Table.pdf .  \n  \nResearch or Consultancy  means the provision by university  staff of expert or professional advice, information and/or \nservice to individuals  or organisations (whether internal or external), or research (as defined in the Code of Research \nConduct) as agreed by contract and resulting in the receipt of a n egotiated remuneration.   \n \nStrategic Lead er refers to the SLT member  deemed as the primary/s trategic lead er of a Partnership C ategory. The \nStrategic Lead ers are listed  in this policy and in the procedures alongside their responsibilities and accountabilities.  \nAudience : \nAll staff.  \nRelevant legislation : \nEducation and Training Act 2020  \nEducation (Pastoral Care of Tertiary and International Learners) Code of Practice 2021  \nPrivacy Act 2020  \nPublic Records Act 2005  \nExport IP (MFAT)  \nTreaty of Waitangi Act 1975  \nLegal compliance : \nCompliance is expected with all aspe cts of the relevant legislation, including any relev ant legislation in the country of \ndelivery.  \n \nThe Education (Pastoral Care of Tertiary and International Learners) Code of Practice 2021  (“the Code ”) exists to \nsupport education objectives for domestic and international learners, recognising that the community expects providers \nto support wellbeing, and providers need flexibility to respond to their learners’ needs in different ways. The Code \n \n  \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nInstitutional Partnerships Policy – Page 5 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nacknowled ges the importance of supporting learner wellbeing and safety in education, and the value New Zealanders \nplace on wellbeing and safety.  \n \nCollection, use and disclosure of personal information, and access to and correction of personal information and the \nuse of unique identifiers, must comply with the principles of the Privacy Act 2020.  \n \nThe Public Records Act 2005 provides for the selection of public records and archives for creation,  maintenance,  and \nretention.  \n \nCompliance with CUAP regulations  and approva ls is required.  \nRelated procedures / documents : \nInstitutional Partnerships Procedures  \nSubcontracting of Teaching Activity Policy  \nApproval Pathways and Quality Assurance Guidelines for Domestic and International Subcontracting of Teaching \nActivity \nContract Management Policy  \nContract Management Procedures  \nMassey University Qualifications Policy  \nResearch and Consultancy Contract Policy  \nTeaching and Learning Policy  \nTeaching and Learning Framework  \nDelegations of Authority Policy  \nMassey University Strategy 2022 -2027  \nDocument Management Control:  \nPrepared by:  Business Executive Manager   \nAuthorised by:  Deputy Vice -Chancellor Students and Global Engagement and Provost  \nApproved by:  SLT 23/07/73  \nDate issued:  August 2023  \nNext review:  August 2026  \n \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Insurance_Policy_PDF_121_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Insurance Policy",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "121 KB",
      "creation_date": "2022-11-02T09:01:03",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220103054+13'00'"
    },
    "content": "      Massey University Policy Guide  \n \n \nINSURANCE POLICY  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nPurpose:  \nTo ensure that Massey University  maintains  a portfolio of insurance policies (the “Policies’) to minimise the financial \nrisk associated with significant uncontrollable events.  Insurance  transfers  a defined  portion of the financial risk from \nthe university to its Insurers and is targeted  to situations  where the poten tial financial  loss is more than  is appropriately  \nborne  by the university.  \nBackground:  \nThe university ’s insurances are under an agreement with the New Zealand Universities ’ Insurance Collective (‘the \nCollective’) to ensure effective coverage and optimised value.  The policies are renewed for 12 months from 1 December \neach year  for Material Damage and Business Interruption and Contract Works and from 1 November each year  for all \nother insurances . Please  note staff can access  the full list of current policies at OneMassey  \nPolicy:  \nThe university must maintain in place, as part of its risk management framework, a comprehensive programme of \ninsurance cover to mitigate loss or costs arising from unexpected events. Subject  to the terms  and conditions of the \ninsurance cover,  policies will provi de indemnity  for financial losses. \n \nResponsibilities : \n \nThe Vice Chancellor , or Delegate , will approve placements of the annual insurance programme .  \n \nThe Deputy Vice Chancellor University Services  (DVC US), or Delegate,  is responsible for all  university  insurance \nmatters and will make provision in the university’s operating budget to cover insurance premiums.  No other person \nshould attempt to arrange insurances for the university .  The DVC US will periodically review insurances to ensure the \ncover meets the university’s business needs, reflects the risk management strategies,  and allows for changes in \nlegislation . Material changes to Insurance covers will be notified to relevant staff.  \n \nUniversity Reporting Line Managers , or Delegate , are responsible for the completion of the annual liability \nquestionnaire/declaration . This responsibility is  to satisfy the university’s legal requirement to provide a full and detailed \ndisclosure to our Ins urers.   \n \nUniversity Staff:  \n• Staff preparing and signing contracts, are responsible for : \n• Ensuring adequate insurance clauses are included in the contracts to cover for General Liabi lity, \nProfessional Indemnity,  Contract Works,  and specialist covers.   \n• Ensuring they review the adequacy of the university’s insurance cover , and if required, contact the Section  Finance  \nContact  Finance  \nLast Review  September  2022  \nNext Review  December 202 7 \nApproval  C22/80  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nInsurance Policy  – Page 2  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nFinance Insurance Advisor to  arrange new or extended cover.  \n•  \n• Some contracts  benefiting the university  may include unlimited  or uncap ped liability clauses . Such contracts \nshall be evaluated by staff or external advisors with the knowledge and experience to evaluate such contracts, \nwho will ensure an appropriate assessment of the risk factors is completed before contract signing.  \n \n• Staff must provide all inform ation and disclosure requirements, as requested by the DVC US, or Delegate, in \norder to ensure the completion of an insurance contract.  \n \nThe university insurance  premiums  will be  paid annually,  and expenses  transferred to  the budget centre wit h \nresponsibility for management  of the assets or activities covered by the insurance.  The Chief Financial Officer may , for \nfinancial  management efficiencies, hold some insurance expenses centrally.  \n \nConfidentiality : \n \nThe contents of th e Policies are confidential to the university, it s insurance brokers and underwriters and should not be \ndisclosed to any non -university organisations or persons without the consent of the Chief Financial Officer.  \n \nReporting  for Insurance Purposes : \n \nAll insurance related questions, issues, reports, communications,  and documents relating to potential claims, \nprocedures, cover, certificates,  and the annual renewal are to be referred to the Finance Insurance Advisor .  \n \nAll policies are subject to exclusions , conditions,  and limitations . Staff must ensure the university and themselves are \ncovered under insurance by informing the Finance Insurance Advisor of any new activity ; in particular research activities, \ntravel to high-risk destinations, or any other activity that could expose the university to litigation.  \n \nThe loss, suspected loss or damage to university property must be reported immediately  to the Finance Insurance \nAdvisor . Refer to the claims procedure s (OneMassey ) for details on the type of insurance cover, excess and \nprocedure s.  \n \nAll additions and disposals of vehicles, artworks, marine hull, UAVs , and buildings  must be no tified to the Finance \nInsurance Advisor to ensure the university  has effective financial risk cover and that disposals are reported to optimise \nthe premium.  \n \nAny contract works where the university is engaged in new building works or building alterations works must be notified \nto the Finance Insurance Advisor  to ensure  the university does not exceed its cover limit ( OneMassey ) Separate \ncontract works cover can be arranged where cover limits are exceeded . \n \nContracts and Agreements : \nSome policies contain a clause permitting certain kinds of waiver without having to disclose them.  Before signing a \nuniversity contract containing any kind of waiver, the  Finance  Insurance Advisor  must be consulted  to assess any \ninsurance  implications . This applies to the kind of waiver that relieves other parties of liability  for their own negligence.  \n \nUniversity staff  signing a contract having a Hold Harmless  clause preventing or li miting the right to sue another party \nfor recovery of a loss, may prevent the insurers exercis ing subrogation . The clause might therefore be deemed a \nmaterial f act which, if not disclosed to the university’s insurers, could result in the university’s  insurance being \nrendered void. Before signing a university contract that contains a clause preventing or limiting the university’s right to \nsue, the Finance Insurance Advisor  must be consulted  to assess the insura nce implications . \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nInsurance Policy  – Page 3  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \nMost contracts / agreements include clauses requiring  the university to have appropriate insurance cover for the activity \nto be undertaken, and the provision of indemnity to the third party for any losses or claims that might arise against them \nbecause of  the university activity.  It is important such clauses do not have requir ement levels that exceed the university \ncoverage provided through its insurance policies or any clause implying  unlimited liability .  \n \nSpecific exclusions to the liability provisions in this policy, covering contracts with unlimited liability clauses are included \nin the Delegations of Authority Policy - Part Three Contract Signing Delegation Schedule - Section 3.4.  \nDuty of Disclosure  to Insurers : \nThe university has a duty to disclose all material facts before entering , renewing,  or altering a contract of insurance. \nAny failure to disclose, or misrepresentation of, material facts may void  the insurance  policy.    \n \nThe Insurance Law Reform Act  1985 defines a material fact as one that would influence a prudent insurer in accepting \nor rating a risk.  Disclosure is required before each contract is entered into, renewed,  or changed, but some policies \nhave a condition that extends the duty throughout the p eriod of insurance.  \n \nGovernance Reporting : \nThe renewal and remark eting of insurances will be reported to the university Council  annually .  \n \nMaterial changes to the university insurance risk profile or insurance cover will be reported to SLT, the Finance and \nAssurance Committee of Council and  the university Council , as they may arise . \nDefinitions : \nHold Harmless : A clause in a contract under which one party agrees to release another party from all legal liability.   \nIndemnity : The process or undertaking where the insurer provides financial compensation for loss under the policy. \nThe principle of indemnity is based o n the insured being returned to a position no better or no worse than they were in \nprior to the loss.  \nLiability : Liability is a position of being legally responsible for something . In the context insurance, parties can be held \n\"liable\" for things such as injuries occurring to others, causing damage to property owned by another party, malpractice, \nnegligence, inattention and the like . Liability insurance exists to protect people or companies from losses associated \nwith liabilities that can occur as the result of lawsuits.  \nLiability Cover s: The university’s liability insurance cover s include Directors and Officers Liability, Employers Liability, \nGeneral/Public Liability, Professional Indemnity, Trustee s Liability , and Statutory Liability . Cover includes defense  costs . \nIn addition,  the university has crime cover to protect against fina ncial loss.  \nMaterial Fact : A material f act is one  which may influe nce a prudent Insur er in decid ing whether  to provide \ninsurance cover,  and if so, at what ter ms and conditio ns and for what premi um. \n \nReporting Line Manager : Senior Leadership Team and their delegates being level 4 managers and other key staff \nwho have responsibility to identify and manage risk within their portfolio.  \nSubrogation : The right of an Insurer to take over the legal rights of the insured person in o rder to recover payment \nfrom a third party that is partially or wholly responsible for a loss for which an insured has made a claim.  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nInsurance Policy  – Page 4  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nAudience:  \nAll staff.  \nRelevant legislation:  \nThe Insur ance Law Reform Act 19 85 \nMarine Insurance Act 1908  \nLegal compliance:  \nThe Insur ance Law Reform Act 19 85 states that a policy  may be a voided (tr eated as it never  existed) if any \nstatement made in the proposal or other document (inc luding declaratio ns) at comp letion, reinstate ment, or re newal \nis substantially incorrect a nd material, or if  you fail to d isclose any m aterial fact.  \nRelated procedures / documents : \nDelegatio ns of Authority Policy  \nRisk Ma nagement Policy  \nInsurance Claim Procedures  (OneMassey ) \n \nDocument Management Control:  \nPrep ared by:   Chief Financial Officer  \nAuthor ised by:   DVC University Services  \nApprov ed by:  Council  \nLast revi ewed: September 2022 \nNext review:   September 2027 \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Honorary_Awards_Regulations_and_Criteria_PDF_193_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Honorary Awards Regulations and Criteria PDF 193 KB",
      "policy_type": "Regulation",
      "file_size": "193 KB",
      "author": "pnicol",
      "creation_date": "2021-07-28T13:01:09",
      "modification_date": "D:20210729092515+12'00'"
    },
    "content": "Page 1 of 12     \n \nREGULATIONS AND CRITERIA FOR THE CONFERMENT OF  \nHONORARY DEGREES, PROFESSOR EMERITUS/EMERITA TITLES AND  \nAWARDING OF MASSEY UNIVERSITY MEDALS  \n \n \n1.0 CONFERMENT OF HONORARY DEGREES AND AWARD OF MASSEY UNIVERSITY  \n MEDALS  \n \nUnder section 193 of the Education Act 1989 the Council may grant awards and prizes.  Under \nsection 159 awards are defined as including a degree and under section 192 a University may grant \nan award without other authori sation.  \n \nThe purpose of honorary awa rds is to recognise individuals of distinction who have made a \nsignificant contribution to the University, the nation or in the public  domain .  An honorary award is \ndesigned to recognise the individual and enhance the reputation and standing of the University.  \n \n \n2.0 CONFERMENT OF HONORARY  DEGREES  \n \n2.1 Honorary Degrees conferred by Massey  University  \nHonorary degrees conferred by the University are:  \n \n• Doctor  of Science:  DSc (Honoris  Causa)  \n• Doctor  of Literature:  DLit (Honoris  Causa)  \n• Doctor  of Commerce:  DCom (Honoris  Causa)  \n• Doctor  of Music:  DMus (Honoris  Causa)  \n• Doctor of  Fine Arts: DFA (Honoris  Causa)  \n• Doctor  of Health  DHealth (Honoris Causa)  \n• Doctor  of Education  DEd (Honoris Causa)  \n \n2.2 General Criteria for the Conferment of a Massey University  Honorary Degree  \n \nThe general criteria for the conferment of an honorary degree shall be exceptional \ndistinction shown by outstanding scholarship or by outstanding service to the University or \nto the public. It is also expected that the conferee will maintain a cont inuing association \nwith the University.  \n \n2.2.1  Outstanding  Scholarship  \nThe University may recognise scholarship of exceptional distinction.  \n2.2.2  Outstanding Service to the  University  \nThe University may recognise outstanding service to the University, extending \nover a long period ,1 or outstanding contribution to the advancement of the \nUniversity.2 \n2.2.3  Outstanding Public  Service  \n The University may recognise outstanding public service to regional, n ational or \ninternational communities3 \n \n \n________________________________  \n1 A respected and long -serving Chancellor would be an example (the stated criteria apply).  \n2 A substantial benefactor may be recognised under this heading.  \n3 A long -serving Prime Minister or Minister, particularly someone with an association with the University, would be an \nexample, it being noted that nominations are not restricted to those in political life. The University should not, however, \ncomp ete with the Honours list  \n \n\nPage 2 of 12    2.3 General regulations for the conferment of an honorary  degree  \n \n2.3.1  The Council may confer an honorary degree on any person whom it deems \nworthy of the  honour.   In reaching its decision the Council shall require that the \nprovisions of these regulations are applied.  \n \n2.3.2  An Honorary degree is the highest recognition the University can give and \nconsistent with the status of this award the University would expect to offer only a \nmaximum of 3 to 4 per  year.  \n \n2.3.3  No honorary degree shall be conferred by the Council on any person unless such \nperson has been so recommended by a joint committee, called the ‘Honorary \nAwards Committee’, appointed by the Council and the Academic  Board.  \n \n2.3.4  Massey University Council has duties under the  Education and Training Act 2020.  \nUnder section 281, this includes “ to ensure that proper standards of integrity, \nconduct, and concern for the public interest and the well -being of students \nattending the institution are maintained”.  \n  \nIn order to be able to give effect to this duty, The Council reserves the right to \nwithdraw an offer and/or revoke the conferring of an honorary degree or title of \nProfessor Emeritus/Emerita, if further information comes to light that, in the \nopinion of the Council, will brin g the University into disrepute  \n \n \n2.4 Procedure for the nomination of honorary  degrees  \n \n2.4.1  Nominations for honorary degrees must  be made confidentially to the Chair of the \nHonorary Awards Committee by any person with the support of a member of one \nof the  following:  \n• University Council  \n• University Senior Leadership Team  \n• Professoriate  \n• Academic  Board  \n \n2.4.2  Nominations shall be called for twice a  year:  \n• In June for receipt of nominations no later than the October Honorary \nAwards Committee meeting and awarding at the April/May graduations or \nanother future graduation  ceremony.  \n• In February for the receipt of nominations no later than the June Honorary \nAwards Committee meeting and awarding at the end of year graduations or \nanother future graduation  ceremony.  \n \nIn addition to the formal call for nominations one -off nominations may be \nsubmitted to the Honorary Awards Committee at any other tim e. \n \n2.4.3  Each nomination shall be made in accordance with the Honorary Degree and \nMassey University Medal – Nomination Guidelines (Appendix 1) and be \naccompanied by the completed Cover Sheet: Nomination for Honorary Award \n(Appendix  2). \n \n2.4.4  The Chair of the Honorar y Awards Committee shall bring each nomination \nbefore the Honorary Awards Committee for the Committee to consider. The \nCommittee will either recommend to Council that an honorary degree shall be \nmade, including the preferred time and place of the confermen t; hold the \nnomination over for further and/or future consideration; or determine that the \nnomination shall not be progressed  further.  \n \n2.4.5  The Chair of the Honorary Awards Committee shall bring any recommendation \nof the Committee before the Council, which sha ll determine whether the \nhonorary degree proposed in the recommendation, shall be  conferred.  \n \nPage 3 of 12    2.4.6  The Chair of the Honorary Awards Committee shall bring any recommendation \nto Council for an honorary degree no later than approximately four working \nmonths prior to the graduation ceremony at which it is proposed to confer the \naward, except for special circumstances so that there is adequate time to \nprepare for these prestigious  awards.  \n \n2.4.7  All proceedings under these regulations and procedures except a resoluti on of the \nCouncil for the conferring of an honorary degree shall be confidential and taken in  \nCommittee.  \n \n \nNOTE: It is absolutely essential that there is no communication with the nominee  throughout this \nprocess.  \n \n \n \n3.0 MASSEY UNIVERSITY  MEDALS  \n \n3.1 General Criteria for the Award of a Massey University  Medal  \n \n3.1.1 The award of a Massey University Medal gives Council the opportunity to \nacknowledge special service to the University (particularly) or to the community or \nto both.  \n \n3.1.2 The University may recognise, particularly at the time of retirement, distinguished \nservice by staff who have made special contributions to learning generally or to \nthe University or to both, significantly above and beyond performance \nexpectations in an em ployment role . \n \n3.1.3 The University may recognise citizens, who may or may not have an academic \nbackground, whose work for the University or the community or both has been  \ndistinguished.  \n \n3.1.4 Massey University Council has duties under the Education and Training Act 2020.  \nUnder section 281, this includes “ to ensure that proper standards of integrity, \nconduct, and concern for the public interest and the well -being of students \nattending the institution are maintained”.  \n  \nIn order to be able to give effect to this duty, The Council reserves the right to \nwithdraw an offer and/or revoke the conferring of an honorary degree or title of \nProfessor Emeritus/Emerita, if further information comes to light that, in the \nopinion of the Council, will bring the Universit y into disrepute  \n \n \n3.2 General regulations for the awarding of a Massey University  Medal  \n \n3.2.1 The Council may award a Massey University Medal to any person who it deems \nworthy of honour. In reaching its decision the Council shall require that the \nfollowing provisions of these regulations are  applied.  \n \n3.2.2 No University Medal shall be awarded by the Council on any person unless such \nperson has been so recommended by a joint committee, called the ‘Honorary \nAwards Committee’, appointed by the Council and the Academic  Board.  \n \n \n3.3 Procedure for the nomination of a Massey University  Medal  \n \n3.3.1 Nominations for a Massey University Medal must  be made confidentially to the \nChair of the Honorary Awards Committee by any person with the support of a \nmember of one of the  following:  \n• University Council  \n• University Senior Leadership Team  \nPage 4 of 12    • Professoriate  \n• Academic  Board  \n \n3.3.2 Nominations shall be called for twice a  year:  \n• In June for receipt of full nominations no later than the October Honorary \nAwards Committee meeting and awarding at the April/May graduations or \nanother future graduation  ceremony.  \n• In February for the receipt of full nominations no later than  the June \nHonorary Awards Committee meeting and awarding at the year -end \ngraduations or another future graduation  ceremony.  \n \nIn addition to the formal call for nominations one -off nominations may be \nsubmitted to the Honorary Awards Committee at any other time.  \n \n3.3.3 Each nomination shall be made in accordance with the Honorary Degree and \nMassey University Medal – Nomination Guidelines (Appendix 1) and be \naccompanied by the completed Cover Sheet:  Nomination for Honorary Award \n(Appendix  2). \n \n3.3.4 The Chair of t he Honorary Awards Committee shall bring each nomination before \nthe Committee for Honorary Awards for the Committee to consider.  The \nCommittee will either recommend to Council that a Massey University Medal shall \nbe awarded, including the preferred time a nd place of the presentation; hold the \nnomination over for further and/or future consideration; or determine that the \nnomination shall not be progressed  further.  \n \n3.3.5 The Chair of the Honorary Awards Committee shall bring any recommendation \nfrom the Committee for Honorary Awards before the Council of the University \nwhich shall determine whether the Massey University Medal proposed in the \nrecommendation shall be  awarded.  \n \n3.3.6 The Chair of the Honorary Awards Committee shall bring any recommendation to \nCouncil for an Massey University Medals no later than approximately four working \nmonths prior to the graduation ceremony or other occasion at which it is proposed \nto make the award, except for special circumstances so that there is adequate time \nto prepare for these p restigious  awards.  \n \n3.3.7 All proceedings under these regulations, except a resolution of the Council for \nthe award of a Massey University Medal, shall be confidential and taken in  \nCommittee.  \n \n \nNOTE: It is absolutely essential that there is no communication with the nominee  throughout this \nprocess.  \n \n \n \n4.0 CONFERMENT OF PROFESSOR EMERITUS/EMERITA  TITLE  \n \n4.1 General Criteria for the conferment of Professor Emeritus/Emerita  title \n \n4.1.1 The title “Professor Emeritus” for male members of the professoriate, and \noptionally for female members of the professoriate “Professor Emerita” is \nnormally conferred on members of the  professoriate:  \n \na) upon  retirement;  and \n \nb) who are recognised nationally as having been outstanding in their discipline;  \nand \n \nc) who have made an outstanding contribution to scholarship or the University or \nboth;   and \n  \nPage 5 of 12     \nd) who are held in the respect and esteem of their colleagues:  (all of the \nabove criteria being required to have been met);   and \n \ne) who will maintain a continuing association with the  University.  \n \n \n4.2 Procedure for the nomination for a Professor Emeritus/a  title \n \n4.2.1 Nominations for Professor Emeritus/Emerita must  be made confidentially to the \nVice-Chancellor by any Professor or any member of the Academic  Board.   Self-\nnominations will not be accepted.  \n \n4.2.2 Each nomination shall be accompanied by a statement of the nominee’s career \nand the grounds for the conferment of the title (addressing each of the criteria in \nclause 4.1.1), a complete curriculum vitae and be accompanied by the \ncompleted Nomination for Professor Emeritus/Emerita Title Cover Sheet \n(Appendix  3), including at least two letters of support.  \n \n4.2.3 The Vice -Chan cellor shall bring each nomination and the accompanying \ndocumentation  first before the Honorary Awards Committee.  \n \n4.2.4 The Honorary Awards Committee confers the title of Professor Emeritus  or \nProfessor Emerita under the delegated authority of Council (delegation \nauthorised – 4 September 2009) and reports delegations exercised to Council.  \n \n \nNOTE:  It is absolutely essential that there is no communication with the nominee  throughout this \nprocess.  \n \n  \nPage 6 of 12    APPENDIX 1  \n \nHONORARY AWARDS COMMITTEE  \n \nHONORARY DEGREES AND MASSEY UNIVERSITY MEDALS:  \n \nNOMINATION GUIDELINES  \n \n1. The purpose of the University’s honorary awards is to recognise individuals of distinction who \nhave made a significant contribution to the University, the nation or in the public  domain .  An \naward is designed to both recognise the individual and enhance the reputation and standing of \nthe University. Such awards are not given lightly and relatively few are awarded.  Not all excellent \ncandidates can be recognised and knowledge of an unsuccess ful nomination can be \nembarrassing and harmful.   For this reason, t hose making nominations and providing supporting \ndocumentation are asked to ensure that the nomination is treated in strict confidence and that the \nperson concerned is not aware of their no mination to  the Honorary Awards Committee.  \n \n \n2. Nominations for an honorary degree or Massey University Medal may be made by any person with \nthe support of a member of one of the  following:  \n• University Council  \n• Senior Leadership Team  \n• Professoriate  \n• Academic  Boar d \n \n \n3. Nominations will be reviewed by the Secretary for completeness prior to being placed on the \nHonorary Awards Committee  agenda.  \n \n \n4. Nomination s for an Honorary Degree and the Massey University Medal must have a  completed \ncover sheet and should be accompanied by the following  documents:  \n \na) Summary statement distilling the essence of the nomination (approximately 300 words). \nThis should be written in the accompanying Nomination  Sheet.  \n \nb) Three  supporting statements from other senior academic or external persons in support \nof the  award . \n \nc) Where the nominee is prominent in a field of scholarship practised by the University, a \nstatement of support from the relevant Pro Vice -Chancellor , unless a sup porting \nstatement from that person has already been  provide d. \n \nd) Complete curriculum vitae.  Where the provision of a complete curriculum vitae proves to \nbe difficult to obtain while keeping the nomination confidential the following biographical \ninformation must be  provided:  \ni. Date of birth or  age \nii. Photograph  (optional ) \niii. Education  history  \niv. Work  history  \nv. Any other information that provides the Committee with an understanding of the \nnominee relevant to the award being  sought.  \n \n  \n\nPage 7 of 12    5. Both the n ominator and those providing supporting statements should address themselves to the \ncriteria set out in the Regulations for either an Honorary Degree or Massey University  Medal . \n \n \n6. The statement by the nominator  should  also:  \n \na) Explain the exceptional merit of this candidate relative to their peer group and how that \nnominee was selected from among other eminent candidates (including the process \nadopted);  \n \nb) Explain what the nominee did/does that is worthy of celebration; what distinguishes the \nnominee in his/her field;  and why this  makes the nominee exceptional ; \n \nc) Describe the profile of the nominee and the reason the honorary doctorate should \nspecifically be conferred by Massey  University;  \n \nd) Explain how the nomination will further the aims and objectives of the  University;  \n \ne) Explain what association the nominee has had in the past, and in the case of an Honorary \nDegree is likely to have in the future, with the  University;  \n \nf) Identify and outline what external event, if possible, the nominee will undertake at the tim e \nthe award is made  and i nclude estimated costs;  and \n \ng) Identify the form of  celebration to honour the nominee to be undertaken at the time the \naward is made  and i nclude estimated  costs.  \n \n \n7. The nominator may suggest one of more orators (who may be external to the University and of \npublic standing), giving the reason for the choice/s for the Vice -Chancellor to  consider.  \n \n \n8. Draft recommendation [for inclusion in  coversheet]  \n \n \n \nHonorary Degree  \n Recommended  that the Honorary Awards Committee recommend to  Council that the degree of \nDoctor of [insert]  (honoris causa) be conferred on [insert full name]  recognising [his/her]  \noutstanding [scholarship or service to the university/the public]  in the field of [insert]  and \n[recording any particular service to or a ssociation with the University].  \n \nMassey University Medal  \n Recommended  that the Honorary Awards Committee recommend to Council that a Massey \nUniversity Medal be awarded to [insert name]  recognising [his/her]  outstanding [scholarship \nor service to the university/the public]  in the field of [insert]  and [recording  any particul ar \nservice to or association with the University].  \n \n \n \nNote  1: It is absolutely essential that there be no communication with the  nominee  prior to the award being \ndetermined by Council.  \n \nNote  2: The criteria for the conferment of an Honorary Degree anticipates  that the nominee will \nhave, and maintain, a continuing association with the  University  \n \n.\nApplications to be submitted to:  The Secretary, Honorary Awards Committee, Vice -Chancellor’s Office . \n Appendix 2  \nCOVER SHEET:  NOMINATION FOR HONORARY DEGREE  \n \nTitle and Full Name of Nominee:  \n  \nReside ntial address and phone number:   \nBusiness address and phone number:   \nNominator:  \nStatement (attached)   \nSummary Statement  \n(approx. 300 words):  \n  \nCV or biographical details (attached)  \n  \nNames of Supporters  (three) :  \n(Supporting references/letters of support  \nattached)  1.   \n2.   \n3.   \nCurrent Links with Massey University \n(expected)  \n  \nOngoing Links with Massey University  \n(expected)  \n  \nLinks with Tertiary Sector  \n  \nLinks with Business / Community \n  \nFinancial implications of making the \naward  (if known)  Travel and accommodation for recipient and supporter/s:  \n \nExternal Event to publicise award:  \n \nCelebration to honour nominee undertaken by related College/s or \narea:  \nSuggested Award (Please Tick ✓) Doctor  of Literature  DLit (honoris  causa )  ☐ \nDoctor  of Science  DSc (honoris  causa )  ☐ \nDoctor  of Commerce  DCom  (honoris  causa ) ☐ \nDoctor  of Music  DMus ( honoris  causa ) ☐ \nDoctor of  Fine Arts DFA ( honoris  causa ) ☐ \nDoctor of Health  DHealth (honoris causa)  ☐ \nDoctor of Education  DEd (honoris causa)  ☐ \nMassey Medal    ☐ \nSuggested orator/s and the reason  \nThis could include persons of standing \nexternal to the University (optional \ncompletion)  \n  \nSuggested event and date for making \nthe Award:   \nDate Submitted:    \n\nApplications to be submitted to:  The Secretary, Honorary Awards Committee, Vice -Chancellor’s Office . \n Appendix 3  \nCOVER SHEET:  NOMINATION FOR PROFESSOR EMERITUS/EMERITA TITLE  \n \nTitle and Full Name of Nominee :  \n \nResidential Address and phone number : \n  \nBusiness Address and phone number : \n  \nNominator :  \nCV / Testimonials Attached   \n \nSupporting Statements  (three)  1.  \n2.  \n3.  \nDate of retirement from the University   \nOutline national recognition as having \nbeen outstanding in their discipline   \nOutline outstanding contribution to \nscholarship or the University or both   \nDescribe the respect and esteem of \ntheir colleagues   \nDescribe any continuing association  with \nthe University the nominee is expected to \nhave  \n  \nDate Submitted   \n \n \n\n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Koha_Procedures_PDF_159_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Koha Procedures",
      "policy_type": "Procedure",
      "file_size": "159 KB",
      "author": "gfell",
      "creation_date": "2023-02-01T11:04:02",
      "modification_date": "D:20231013130926+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n \nKOHA PROCEDURES  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \nScope : \nMassey University  upholds strong commitments and responsibilities associated with Article 2 of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, \nincluding due protection of Taonga Māori . This Policy  relates to Article 2 o Te Tiriti, and more broadly to Tikanga Māori, \nwhich in summary encompasses Māo ri cultural practices, customs and traditions.   The cultural obligation  of contributing  \nKoha, in valuing and  maintaining social  cohesion and  important  relationships  across  wider networks of the  Massey  \nUniversity  community  including Te Ao Māori, is essenti al.  \n \nTo contribute koha, is viewed by Māori as a mana enhancing practice, whereby reciprocity and generosity by way of \nkoha emphasises the importance of relationships and related expressions of manaakitanga . This Policy therefore \nensures culturally app ropriate provision and receipt of koha within appropriate expenditure practices. Whilst recognising \nthe importance of koha as a fundamental Māori cultural practice within Māori society, Massey University also recognises \nits role as a publicly funded entity  and with that an adjoining imperative to account for public money . Therefore, the \nKoha Policy sets out a process that fulfils and achieves the Māori cultural requirements associated with the practice of \nprovision and receipt of Koha, as well as accountin g for all situations where the practice of koha is required and \nnecessary.  \n \nThe objective of this document is to ensure a clear and consistent understanding of procedures for Koha , to ensure all \nKoha  contributed or receiv ed meet s standards of probity expected of a publicly funded organisation. These procedures \nare consistent with the Controlling Sensitive Expenditure: Guidelines for Public Entities, published by the Office of the \nAuditor General.  \n \nThese procedures aim to clearly identify koha and where it is  considered to be legitimate and appropriate.  \n \nThese procedures stipulate  the way s in which koha  may be contributed . Members are expected to exercise prudent \njudgement in relation to koha  contributions . \n \nThese procedures are to be read in conjunction with the Koha  Policy.  \n \nNote the amounts in these procedures take precedence over any standard delegations as outlined in the delegations \nof authority policy.  \n \nProcedures:  \n \nProcedurally , Koha is recognised as a discretionary  and unconditional  contribution which is distinct from actual \nexpenditure and appropriate to the o ccasion. The  purposes and occasions for providing Koha are many and varied . \nThe following guideline s are provided:  \n Section  Finance  and Procurement  \nContact  Chief Financial Officer  \nPolicy Date  August 2022  \nNext Review  August 2025  \nApproval  SLT 22/09/125  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nKoha P rocedure s – Page 2  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n• For specific purposes, t here should only be one  koha from the University , however, in exceptional circumstances, \nsuch as tangihanga, there may  more than one koha presented by more than one unit or area of the University;  it is \nthe responsibility of each unit / area to make proper arrangement s for koha.  \n• Where possible, k oha must be approved in advance by the relevant delegations of financial authority holder.  \n• Koha is usually given t o an organisation or marae, but in some circumstances may be given  to individuals  or to \nwhānau.   \n• Where possible, koha needs to be processed b y completing a “Sundry Payment Form” which is provided to the \nAccounts Payable Team three days in advance. They can pay direct into a bank account.  \n• In circumstances such as tangihanga, it is often not possible for a 3 -day advance request to be made via Sun dry \nPayment Form . In such situations, an email request by Heads of Unit to the Financial Operations Manager  and the \nOffice of the DVC Māori must  be made . The Chief Financial Officer (CFO)  can action and approve the request, \nwhilst the Office of the DVC M āori can ascertain and affirm the cultural purposes of the request .  \n• Koha  payments are made primarily by cash  and must be approved in advance by the Financial Operations Manager  \nor their delegate,  and the DVC Māori or their delegate.  \n• Koha payments, under specific and exceptional circumstance s, can also be made by direct payment via online \nbanking to the recipient ’s bank account, or to the bank account of a representative of the recipients. In the event \nthat representatives of the University  are unable to attend a tangihanga  in person , or in situations where late \nnotification of a tangihanga ha s occurred and a university  delegation is not able to attend, an online banking deposit \nmay be appropriate .   \n• Koha payments need to be coded to  item code – 1315 “Koha Expenditure”.  \n• Under no circumstances can koha given be exchanged with the University for cash or be used as a substitute for \nlegitimate payment or remuneration.  Where goods or services are being received  in exchange for payment, this  \npayment should not be treated as koha .  \n• When receiving koha from manuhiri or visitors to the University for the purposes of Pōwhiri or Whakatau, the koha \ngenerally goes to the unit or area hosting the Pōwhiri or Whakatau. It is considered good practice to  always \nacknowledge the contribution of koha.  \n• Koha received needs to be coded to the item code – 0905  “Other income – Koha.”  \n• The HOD/I/S or their nominee is required to ensure the online gift register is completed for all Koha given or \nreceived.  \n \n \nAmount Given:  \n \nIt is stipulate d that for the purposes of Massey University delegations attending tangihanga, that $200 is an appropri ate \nkoha . In situations regarding the loss of a staff member or student, the appropriate level of koha will be determined by \ndiscussion with the Head of Unit, Office of the DVC Māori,  and the  CFO . For tangihanga, this acknowledges that those \nattending will  also add to the university contribution.  \n \nFor all other purposes, the amount of Koha will vary depending upon the purpose of contribution from $50 to $200 . In \nmost cases this will be made by cash, however vouchers may be preferable and should be approved  in advance by \nHead of Department/Institute/School (HOD/I/S) or Senior Leadership Team (SLT) member.  \n \n \nAudience:  \nAll members as defined in the Policy ( members of Council, Committee Members, Students, Staff, Board Members and \nContractors working for, and on behalf of, the University ) and applies to all gifts and benefits received by University \nMembers in the course of their official duties.  \n \nUniversity controlled entities are expected to adopt th ese Procedures  or to have their own Koha Procedures  Policy in \nplace . \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nKoha P rocedure s – Page 3  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \nRelated Procedures and documents:  \nDelegations of Authority Policy  \nSensitive  Expenditure and Gifts Policy  \nSensitive Expenditure and Gifts Procedures   \nKoha Policy  \nProcurement Policy  \nConflict of Commitment and Interest Policy  \nFraud and Corruption Pol icy \nReimbursement of Expenses Policy  \nTravel Policy  \nTravel Procedures (Domestic and International)  \nTax Procedures Manual  \n \nDocument Management Control : \nPrepared by:  Office DVC Māori  \nOwned by: DVC Māori  and DVC US  \nAuthorised by: SLT 22/09/125  \nDate Issued:  August 2022  \nNext revie w: August 2025  \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Guidelines_for_Dual-Purpose_and_Multi-Purpose_Travel_PDF_227KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Guidelines for Dual-Purpose and Multi-Purpose Travel",
      "policy_type": "Guideline",
      "file_size": "227 KB",
      "creation_date": "2023-12-13T10:00:07",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220100706+13'00'"
    },
    "content": "                                                                    Massey University Policy Guide  \nGUIDELINES FOR DUAL -PURPOSE AND MULTI -PURPOSE TRAVEL  \n  \n \nIntroduction  \n \nThis procedur al guidance applies  to all University  Traveller s (defined as anyone participating in university -\nsponsored travel activities) including all permanent, fixed term or temporary staff, faculty, students, visitors, \nguests,  and other non -University personnel who have been authorised and/or directly funded to travel on behalf \nof the University. This includes adjunct staff, casual employees, post -doctoral fellows, research assistants, \nteaching fellows, visiting academic staff,  graduate assistants, tutors, senior tutors, and research officers . \n \nTypes of  Travel  \n \nUniversity -sponsored Travel  includes all activity days that deliver a benefit to the university, which  includes \ntravel and recovery days.  University -sponsored Travel  can be done by foot, bicycle, scooter, automobile, train, \nboat, bus, airplane, ship,  or other means, with or without luggage, and can be one way or round trip. Travel  is \nmost often conducted to reach a distant location, but travel can also include single or successive activities \nwithin short distances.  \n \n \nMulti -Purpose Travel  is defined as university -sponsored travel that combines more than one travel activity \nassociated to more than one Massey initiative, event, goal,  or business objective ( e.g., University Traveller \nattends a conference overseas in location their research project is being conducted).   \n \nThe University acknowledges that University Travellers may elect to book Personal Travel  days in conjunction \nwith university -sponsored travel. When this occurs, it is considered Dual -Purpose Travel.  \n \n \nDual -Purpose Travel  is defined as a combination of university -sponsored travel and private/personal travel  \nconducted within the same journey/travel itinerary .   Dual-Purpose Travel  consists of university -sponsored \ntravel and Personal Travel   \nPersonal Travel  occurs when a personal/private portion of a journey is combined with, University -sponsored \ntravel. The University acknowledges that University Travellers may elect to book private /personal  travel days \nin conjunction with university -sponsored  travel.  \n \nPersonal Travel  is generally supported  where the University Traveller  pays for all private costs relating to the \nPersonal Travel  portion (and any excess airfare or transport cost differential caused solely by adding a \nPersonal Travel  component to a university -sponsored  travel booking  (i.e., the personal/ Personal Travel  \ncomponent must not be paid from university  funds ). The University Traveller  is responsible for ensuring  they \nhave p ersonal  travel insurance coverage for the p ersonal  days  of their travel , including travel insurance to \ncover them on personal weekends and holidays  during  any Dual -Purpose travel journey . \n \nFor cases of Personal Travel , the following applies:  \n \n• Air and ground transportation costs related  to the initial journey to and from the University -sponsored  \ntravel destination  will be funded by the University.  \n• Air and ground transportation to other destinations ( non-University -sponsored travel  locations) are the \nUniversity Traveller ’s responsibility to fund.  \n• The University Traveller  is responsible of arranging and paying for their own personal travel insurance \nfor personal travel days including  weekend and holidays (excluding stipulations listed below) . \n \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \nGuidelines for Dual -Purpose and Multi -Purpose Travel   \n– Page  2 \n \n \n \n© This Policy  is the property  of Massey  \nUniversity   \n \n• All other expenses associated to Personal Travel  days  are the University Traveller ’s responsibility to \nfund.   This includes any additional cost of airfare to accommodate a return journey that includes a \nPersonal Travel  destination ( i.e., if the airfare for the journey costs more when Personal Travel  days \nare included in the itinerary than without). In these cases, the University Traveller  must reimburse the \nUniversity  for the cost differential in the airfare.  \n• Methods of transportation and accommodation  for university -sponsored travel time  must be  booked \nthrough the univesity’s  TMC . Any Personal Travel  bookings should be communicated to the \nUniversity Traveller’s manager  to ensure the University  can fulfil any duty of care responsibilities that \nthe University has for University Traveller s on Dual -Purpose travel journeys.  \n \nTreatment of weekends during travel  \nThe treatment of weekends will depend on where the  weekend occurs during  a trip. Where a traveller  \narrives at their destination on the Saturday before a conference /meeting  commencing on Monday, the \nweekend will be considered days in transit  if the travel time from departure airport to destination airport is \nmore  than 8 hours  (this allows travellers to arrive at overseas destinations with time to adjust , otherwise \nknown as travel recovery time ). \nWhere the weekend is in -between two business events (such as a conference ending on Friday and a \nbusiness meeting on Monday), the weekend will be considered University -sponsored travel.  \nWhere the weekend is at the end of the University -sponsored travel (either before returning home or \nbeginning Personal Travel ) the weekend will be considered in -transit or personal time in accordance with \nthese guidelines.  \nFringe Benefit Tax considerations  \nAs the University  does not pay for any expenses relating to the personal component of a trip, Fringe \nBenefit Tax (FBT)  is not applicable to travel expenses .  \n \nEXAMPLE   1:  Multi -Purpose Travel  including Personal Travel  \n \nA University Traveller  is heading to the United States for University  business.  Their S enior Leadership Team \n(SLT) member has approved their attendance at a conference in Chicago , which is not available to attend \nvirtually. The University Traveller  has subsequent work with research colleagues at the Michigan State \nUniversity. Both components of the travel are University related and will deliver distinct benefits and outcomes \nto the Universit y. \n \nThe University Traveller ’s itinerary is drafted as  the following : \n• Day 1 :one day in transit to fly from Palmerston North to Auckland to Chicago via Houston  (day in \ntransit) . \n• Day 2 : one travel recovery day  (day in transit ). \n• Days 3-5: three -day conference in Chicago , at which they are a presenter . \n• Days 6-8: three  days of collaborator meetings/workshops at Michigan State University (includes travel \nfrom Chicago to Michigan) . \n• Day 9 : one day travel to fly from Chicago to Auckland (via Los Angeles) and onward to Palmerston \nNorth  (day in transit) . \n \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \nGuidelines for Dual -Purpose and Multi -Purpose Travel   \n– Page  3 \n \n \n \n© This Policy  is the property  of Massey  \nUniversity   \n \n• Day 10 :one travel recovery da y (day  in transit ). \n \nRather than returning to New Zealand on Day 9, the University Traveller  would like to include some private \ndays as part of this trip , being : \n• two days (private ) around Lake Michigan area , \n• three  days (private ) in Chicago , and  \n• four days (private ) in California . \n \nTo include  these additional private days t he University Traveller ’s itiner ary is updated as  the following : \n• Day 20 (original Day 9 ): one day travel from Los Angeles to Auckland and onward to Palmerston \nNorth . \n• Day 21 (original Day 10 ): one travel recovery day (day in transit ). \n \nThe final University -sponso red itinerary and University funding covers only the below dates:  \n \n• Day 1 : one day in transit to fly from Palmerston North to Auckland to Chicago via Houston  (day in \ntransit) . \n• Day 2 : one travel recovery day  (day in transit ). \n• Days 3-5: three -day conference in Chicago at which they are a presenter . \n• Days 6-7 – weekend days in transit before work at Michigan State University  \n• Days 8 -10: three  days of collaborator meetings/workshops at Michigan State University (includes \ntravel from Chicago to Michigan) . \n• Day 20: one day travel from Los Angeles to Auckland and onward to Palmerston North .  \n• Day 21: one travel  recovery day (day in transit ). \n \nIn the above instance, the Personal Travel  during Days 11 – 19 is considered Personal Travel  and the  \nUniversity  can fully fund the air travel and  ground transport costs  to and from the country of the University -\nsponsored travel location ( s). Any other  expenses associated to the personal portions of this trip will not be \nfunded by Massey.  \nThe University Traveller  is required to comply with the University  Travel Policy and associated procedural \nguidance. As the overseas journey includes a university -funded portion all significant travel booking s related \nto the University -sponsored travel dates (transport and accommodations)  must be booked through the \nUniversity’s TMC.   Staff are encouraged to utilise the services of the TMC for their personal travel bookings.  \nThe following table shows a calendar of this trip example:  \n \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \nGuidelines for Dual -Purpose and Multi -Purpose Travel   \n– Page  4 \n \n \n \n© This Policy  is the property  of Massey  \nUniversity   \n \nEXAMPLE  1 CALENDAR :  Multi -Purpose Travel including Personal Travel  \n \n \n \nEXAMPLE  2:  Dual -Purpose Travel including Personal Travel  \n \nExample 2 is like example 1 but  is a Dual-Purpose Travel and not a Multi -Purpose Travel . \n \nA University Traveller  is heading to the United States for University  business.  Their SLT member has \napproved their attendance at a conference  in Chicago . The conference is not available to attend virtual ly and \nattendance by the University Traveller  will deliver distinct benefits to the goals of the University.  \n \nThe University Traveller ’s itinerary is drafted as:  \n• Day 1 : one day in transit to fly from Palmerston North to Auckland to Chicago via Houston  (day in \ntransit) . \n• Day 2 : one travel recovery day  (day in transit ). \n• Days 3-5: three -day conference in Chicago .  \n• Day 6: one day travel to fly from Chicago to Auckland (via Los Angeles) and onward to Palmerston \nNorth  (day in transit) . \nMonday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday\n1-May 2-May 3-May 4-May 5-May 6-May 7-May\nUniversity-\nPurpose TravelUniversity-\nPurpose TravelUniversity-\nPurpose TravelUniversity-\nPurpose TravelUniversity-\nPurpose TravelUniversity-\nPurpose TravelUniversity-\nPurpose Travel\nPN to ChicagoRecovery Day In \nTransitChicago \nconferenceChicago \nconferenceChicago \nconferenceDay in Chicago \nbefore University \nwork in MichiganTravel to \nMichigan for \nwork in the \nmorning\nUniversity \nExpense (Massey \ncovers air/ground \ntransport costs)University \nExpenseUniversity \nExpenseUniversity \nExpenseUniversity \nExpenseUniversity \nExpenseUniversity \nExpense\n8-May 9-May 10-May 11-May 12-May 13-May 14-May\nUniversity-\nPurpose TravelUniversity-\nPurpose TravelUniversity-\nPurpose TravelIncidental \nPersonal TravelIncidental \nPersonal TravelPersonal \nWeekend DayPersonal \nWeekend Day\nWork at Michigan \nState UniversityWork at Michigan \nState UniversityWork at Michigan \nState University Michigan Tourism Michigan Tourism Chicago Tourism Chicago Tourism\nUniversity \nExpenseUniversity \nExpenseUniversity \nExpenseIndividual Massey \nTraveller Expense \nincluding travel \ninsurance \narrangementsIndividual Massey \nTraveller Expense \nincluding travel \ninsurance \narrangementsIndividual Massey \nTraveller Expense \nincluding travel \ninsurance \narrangementsIndividual Massey \nTraveller Expense \nincluding travel \ninsurance \narrangements\n15-May 16-May 17-May 18-May 19-May 20-May 21-May\nIncidental \nPersonal TravelIncidental \nPersonal TravelIncidental \nPersonal TravelIncidental \nPersonal TravelIncidental \nPersonal TravelUniversity-\nPurpose TravelUniversity-\nPurpose Travel\nChicago to \nCalifornia travelCalifornia \nTourismCalifornia \nTourismCalifornia \nTourismCalifornia \nTourism Los Angeles to PNTravel Recovery \nDay in Transit\nIndividual Massey \nTraveller Expense \nincluding travel \ninsurance \narrangementsIndividual Massey \nTraveller Expense \nincluding travel \ninsurance \narrangementsIndividual Massey \nTraveller Expense \nincluding travel \ninsurance \narrangementsIndividual Massey \nTraveller Expense \nincluding travel \ninsurance \narrangementsIndividual Massey \nTraveller Expense \nincluding travel \ninsurance \narrangementsUniversity \nExpense (Massey \ncovers air/ground \ntransport costs)University \nExpense (until at \nhome location)\n \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \nGuidelines for Dual -Purpose and Multi -Purpose Travel   \n– Page  5 \n \n \n \n© This Policy  is the property  of Massey  \nUniversity   \n \n• Day 7: one travel recovery da y (day  in transit ). \n \nRather than returning to New Zealand on Day 6, the University Traveller  would like to include four days \nPersonal Travel  in Chicago as part of this trip. \n \nTo include these additional private day s, the University Traveller ’s itinerary is updated  as the following : \n• Day 10 (original Day 6 ): one day travel from Los Angeles to Auckland and onwards to Palmerston \nNorth . \n• Day 11 (original Day 7) : one travel recovery day  (day in transit ). \n \nThe final University -sponsored itinerary and University funding covers only the below dates:  \n• Day 1 : one day in transit to fly from Palmerston North to Auckland to Chicago via Houston  (day in \ntransit) . \n• Day 2 : one travel recovery day  (day in transit ). \n• Days 3-5: three -day conference in Chicago . \n• Day 10: one day travel from Los Angeles to Auckland  and onwards  to Palmerston North . \n• Day 11: one travel recovery day  (day in transit ). \n• In the above instance, the Personal Travel  during Days 6 – 9 is considered Personal Travel  and the \nUniversity  can fully fund the air travel and  ground transport costs  to and from the country of the \nUniversity -sponsored travel location(s). Any other  expenses associated to the personal portions of this \ntrip will not be funded by Massey.  \n• The University Traveller  is required to comply with the University  Travel Policy and associated \nprocedural guidance . As the overseas journey includes a university -funded portion all significant travel \nbookings related to the University -sponsored travel dates (transport and accommodations)  must be \nbooked through the University’s TMC.  Staff are encouraged to utilise the services of the TMC for their \npersonal travel bookings.  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \nGuidelines for Dual -Purpose and Multi -Purpose Travel   \n– Page  6 \n \n \n \n© This Policy  is the property  of Massey  \nUniversity   \n \nThe following table shows a calendar of this trip example:  \n \nEXAMPLE 2  CALENDAR:  Dual -Purpose Travel including Personal Travel  \n \n \n \nEXAMPLE 3:  Multi -Purpose Travel including separate personal holiday  (Personal Travel ) \nAssume the same circumstances as example 1 . \nThe University Traveller ’s itinerary is drafted as:  \n• Day 1 : one day in transit to fly from Palmerston North to Auckland to Chicago via Houston  (day in \ntransit) . \n• Day 2 : one travel recovery day  (day in transit ). \n• Days 3-5: three -day conference in Chicago at which they are a presenter . \n• Days 6-7 – weekend days in transit before work at Michigan State University  \n• Days 8 -10: three  days of collaborator meetings/workshops at Michigan State University (includes \ntravel from Chicago to Michigan) . \n• Day 11: one day in transit to fly from Chicago to Los Angeles to Auckland and onwards to Palmerston \nNorth (day in transit) . \n• Day 12: one travel recovery day  (day in transit ). \n \nThe University Traveller  would like to take three  weeks leave in the United States , after completing their \nauthorised University sponsored travel in Chicago and at the Michigan State University. This change means \n21 days ou t of a total 32-day journey will be personal travel.  \n \nThe final University -sponsored  itinerary and University funding covers only the below dates:  \n• Day 1 : one day in transit to fly from Palmerston North to Auckland to Chicago via Houston  (day in \ntransit) . \n1-May 2-May 3-May 4-May 5-May 6-May 7-May\nUniversity-\nPurpose TravelUniversity-\nPurpose TravelUniversity-\nPurpose TravelUniversity-\nPurpose TravelUniversity-\nPurpose TravelPersonal \nWeekend DayPersonal \nWeekend Day\nPN to ChicagoRecovery Day In \nTransitChicago \nconferenceChicago \nconferenceChicago \nconferencePersonal \nWeekend DayPersonal \nWeekend Day\nUniversity \nExpense (Massey \ncovers air/ground \ntransport costs)University \nExpenseUniversity \nExpenseUniversity \nExpenseUniversity \nExpenseIndividual Massey \nTraveller Expense \nincluding travel \ninsurance \narrangementsIndividual Massey \nTraveller Expense \nincluding travel \ninsurance \narrangements\n8-May 9-May 10-May 11-May 12-May 13-May 14-May\nIncidental \nPersonal TravelIncidental \nPersonal TravelUniversity-\nPurpose TravelUniversity-\nPurpose TravelRegular Work DayPersonal \nWeekend DayPersonal \nWeekend Day\nHOLIDAY LEAVE HOLIDAY LEAVE Chicago to PNRecovery Day In \nTransitRegular Work DayPersonal \nWeekend DayPersonal \nWeekend Day\nIndividual Massey \nTraveller Expense \nincluding travel \ninsurance \narrangementsIndividual Massey \nTraveller Expense \nincluding travel \ninsurance \narrangementsUniversity \nExpenseUniversity \nExpenseRegular Work DayPersonal \nWeekend DayPersonal \nWeekend Day\n \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \nGuidelines for Dual -Purpose and Multi -Purpose Travel   \n– Page  7 \n \n \n \n© This Policy  is the property  of Massey  \nUniversity   \n \n• Day 2 : one travel recovery day  (day in transit ). \n• Days 3-5: three -day conference in Chicago at which they are a presenter . \n• Days 6-10: four days of transit and collaborator meetings/workshops at Michigan State University \n(includes driving time from Chicago to Michigan  and back).  \n• Day 31: one day travel to fly from Chicago to Auckland (via Los Angeles) and onward to Palmerston \nNorth  (day in transit).  \nDay 32: one travel recovery da y (day  in transit ). In the above instance, the Personal Travel  during Days 11 – \n30 is considered Personal Travel  and the University  can fully fund the air travel and  ground transport costs  to \nand from the country of the University -sponsored travel location(s). Any other  expenses associated to the \npersonal portions of this trip will not be funded by Massey.  \nThe University Traveller  is required to comply with the University  Travel Policy and associated procedural \nguidance . As the overseas journey includes a university -funded portion all significant travel bookings related \nto the University -sponsored travel dates (transport and accommodations)  must be booked through the \nUniversity’s TMC.  Staff are encouraged to utilise the services of the TMC for their personal travel bookings.  \n \nThe following table shows a calendar of this trip example:  \nEXAMPLE 3 CALENDAR:   Multi -Purpose Travel including separate personal holiday ( incidental  Personal  Travel)  \n \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \nGuidelines for Dual -Purpose and Multi -Purpose Travel   \n– Page  8 \n \n \n \n© This Policy  is the property  of Massey  \nUniversity   \n \n  \nMonday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday\n1-May 2-May 3-May 4-May 5-May 6-May 7-May\nUniversity-\nPurpose TravelUniversity-\nPurpose TravelUniversity-\nPurpose TravelUniversity-\nPurpose TravelUniversity-\nPurpose TravelUniversity-\nPurpose TravelUniversity-\nPurpose Travel\nPN to ChicagoRecovery Day In \nTransitChicago \nconferenceChicago \nconferenceChicago \nconferenceDay in Chaicago \nbefore University \nwork in MichiganTravel to Michigan \nfor work in the \nmorning\nUniversity \nExpense (Massey \ncovers air/ground \ntransport costs)University \nExpenseUniversity \nExpenseUniversity \nExpenseUniversity \nExpenseUniversity \nExpenseUniversity Expense\n8-May 9-May 10-May 11-May 12-May 13-May 14-May\nUniversity-\nPersonal TravelUniversity-\nPersonal TravelUniversity-\nPersonal TravelIncidental Private \nTravelIncidental Private \nTravelPersonal \nWeekend DayPersonal \nWeekend Day\nWork at Michigan \nState UniversityWork at \nMichigan State \nUniversityWork at \nMichigan State \nUniversityHOLIDAY LEAVE HOLIDAY LEAVEPersonal \nWeekend DayPersonal \nWeekend Day\nUniversity \nExpenseUniversity \nExpenseUniversity \nExpenseIndividual \nMassey Traveller \nExpense \nincluding travel \ninsurance \narrangementsIndividual \nMassey Traveller \nExpense \nincluding travel \ninsurance \narrangementsIndividual Massey \nTraveller Expense \nincluding travel \ninsurance \narrangementsIndividual Massey \nTraveller Expense \nincluding travel \ninsurance \narrangements\n15-May 16-May 17-May 18-May 19-May 20-May 21-May\nIncidental Private \nTravelIncidental \nPrivate TravelIncidental \nPrivate TravelIncidental Private \nTravelIncidental Private \nTravelPersonal \nWeekend DayPersonal \nWeekend Day\nHOLIDAY LEAVE HOLIDAY LEAVE HOLIDAY LEAVE HOLIDAY LEAVE HOLIDAY LEAVEPersonal \nWeekend DayPersonal \nWeekend Day\nIndividual \nMassey Traveller \nExpense including \ntravel insurance \narrangementsIndividual \nMassey \nTraveller \nExpense \nincluding travel \ninsurance \narrangementsIndividual \nMassey Traveller \nExpense \nincluding travel \ninsurance \narrangementsIndividual \nMassey Traveller \nExpense \nincluding travel \ninsurance \narrangementsIndividual \nMassey Traveller \nExpense \nincluding travel \ninsurance \narrangementsIndividual Massey \nTraveller Expense \nincluding travel \ninsurance \narrangementsIndividual Massey \nTraveller Expense \nincluding travel \ninsurance \narrangements\n22-May 23-May 24-May 25-May 26-May 27-May 28-May\nIncidental Private \nTravelIncidental \nPrivate TravelIncidental \nPrivate TravelIncidental Private \nTravelIncidental Private \nTravelPersonal \nWeekend DayPersonal \nWeekend Day\nHOLIDAY LEAVE HOLIDAY LEAVE HOLIDAY LEAVE HOLIDAY LEAVE HOLIDAY LEAVEPersonal \nWeekend DayPersonal \nWeekend Day\nIndividual \nMassey Traveller \nExpense including \ntravel insurance \narrangementsIndividual \nMassey \nTraveller \nExpense \nincluding travel \ninsurance \narrangementsIndividual \nMassey Traveller \nExpense \nincluding travel \ninsurance \narrangementsIndividual \nMassey Traveller \nExpense \nincluding travel \ninsurance \narrangementsIndividual \nMassey Traveller \nExpense \nincluding travel \ninsurance \narrangementsIndividual Massey \nTraveller Expense \nincluding travel \ninsurance \narrangementsIndividual Massey \nTraveller Expense \nincluding travel \ninsurance \narrangements\n29-May 30-May 31-May 1-Jun 2-Jun 3-Jun 4-Jun\nIncidental Private \nTravelIncidental \nPrivate TravelIncidental \nPrivate TravelUniversity-\nPurpose TravelUniversity-\nPurpose TravelPersonal \nWeekend DayPersonal \nWeekend Day\nHOLIDAY LEAVE HOLIDAY LEAVE HOLIDAY LEAVETravel Day back \nto NZRecovery Day In \nTransitPersonal \nWeekend DayPersonal \nWeekend Day\nIndividual \nMassey Traveller \nExpense including \ntravel insurance \narrangementsIndividual \nMassey \nTraveller \nExpense \nincluding travel \ninsurance \narrangementsIndividual \nMassey Traveller \nExpense \nincluding travel \ninsurance \narrangementsUniversity \nExpenseNo ExpensePersonal \nWeekend DayPersonal \nWeekend Day\n \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \nGuidelines for Dual -Purpose and Multi -Purpose Travel   \n– Page  9 \n \n \n \n© This Policy  is the property  of Massey  \nUniversity   \n \nEXAMPLE 4:  Dual -Purpose Travel including separate personal holiday  (Personal Travel ), \ntravel starting on a Saturday  for short flight  \nA University Traveller  is heading to Sydney, Australia for University  business. They are travelling to attend \na 2-day conference , the relevant SLT member has confirmed there will be distinct benefits to the University’s \ngoals derived from conference attendance  and the conference is not available for virtual attendance. The \nUniversity Traveller  is electing to depart on a Saturday.  The travel time between the University Traveller’s  \narrival at the departure airport (Wellington) to the ir arrival at their destination airport (Sydney) is less than 8 \nhours. Therefore, they will not have an additional day in transit/recovery day.  \n \nTheir university -sponsored  itinerary is drafted as:  \n• Day 1 : one day in transit to fly from Wellington to Sydney  (less than 8 hours airport -to-airport) . \n• Day 2 : personal travel/weekend day . \n• Days 3-4: – two-day conference in Sydney .  \n• Day 5 – 1 day in transit to fly from Sydney to Welling ton (less than 8 hours airport -to-airport) . \n \nRather than returning to New Zealand on Day  5, the University Traveller  wishes to stay in Australia for an \nadditional five days of personal travel time to visit friends in Australia . This change means 6 days ou t of a \ntotal 10-day journey will be personal travel.   \n \nThe final University -sponsored  itinerary  and University funding  covers only the below dates:  \n• Day 1 : one day in transit to fly from Wellington to Sydney (less than 8 hours airport -to-airport) . \n• Day 2:  personal travel/weekend day.  \n• Days 3-4: two-day conference in Sydney .  \n• Day 10:   1 day in transit to fly from Sydney to Wellington (less than 8 hours airport -to-airport).  \n \nIn the above instance, the Personal Travel  during the 6 days is considered Personal Travel  and the University  \ncan fully fund the air travel and  ground transport costs  to and from the country of the University -sponsored \ntravel location(s). Any other  expenses associated to the personal portions of this trip will not be funded by \nMassey.  \nThe University Traveller  is required to comply with the University  Travel Policy and associated procedural \nguidance . As the overseas journey includes a university -funded portion all significant travel bookings related \nto the University -sponsored travel dates (transport and accommodations)  must be booked through the \nUniversity’s TMC.  Staff are encouraged to utilise the services of the TMC for their personal travel bookings.  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \nGuidelines for Dual -Purpose and Multi -Purpose Travel   \n– Page  10 \n \n \n \n© This Policy  is the property  of Massey  \nUniversity   \n \nThe following table shows a calendar of this trip example:   \nEXAMPLE 4 CALENDAR:  Dual -Purpose Travel including separate personal holiday ( Personal Travel ) \n \n \n \nNote: the same requirement would apply in Example 4 if the University -sponsored  travel destination was a \ndomestic location , such as Auckland , for a staff member living in Levin.  If the University Traveller  living in a \ndifferent region of New Zealand travel s for business to another region but  elect s to take holiday leave on \neither side of the business component of the travel (equal to or greater than the University -sponsored portion \nof the journey) , than it would follow the same procedure  as the scenario above.  \n \nThe locations in the  above scenarios only serve as  examples  of how the apportionment of travel days is \ncalculated and managed.  \n \n  \nMonday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday\n1-May 2-May 3-May 4-May 5-May 6-May 7-May\nRegular Work Day Regular Work Day Regular Work Day Regular Work Day Regular Work DayUniversity-\nPurpose TravelPersonal \nWeekend Day\nRegular Work Day Regular Work Day Regular Work Day Regular Work Day Regular Work Day Welly to SydneyPersonal \nWeekend Day\nRegular Work Day Regular Work Day Regular Work Day Regular Work Day Regular Work DayUniversity \nExpense (Massey \ncovers air/ground \ntransport costs)Individual Massey \nTraveller Expense \nincluding travel \ninsurance \narrangements\n8-May 9-May 10-May 11-May 12-May 13-May 14-May\nUniversity-\nPurpose TravelUniversity-\nPurpose TravelIncidental \nPersonal TravelIncidental \nPersonal TravelIncidental \nPersonal TravelPersonal \nWeekend DayIncidental \nPersonal Travel\nSydney \nConferenceSydney \nConferenceHOLIDAY LEAVE HOLIDAY LEAVE Sydney to WellyPersonal \nWeekend DaySydney to Welly\nUniversity \nExpenseUniversity \nExpenseIndividual Massey \nTraveller Expense \nincluding travel \ninsurance \narrangementsIndividual Massey \nTraveller Expense \nincluding travel \ninsurance \narrangementsIndividual Massey \nTraveller Expense \nincluding travel \ninsurance \narrangementsPersonal \nWeekend DayIndividual Massey \nTraveller Expense \nincluding travel \ninsurance \narrangements\n \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \nGuidelines for Dual -Purpose and Multi -Purpose Travel   \n– Page  11 \n \n \n \n© This Policy  is the property  of Massey  \nUniversity   \n \nDefinitions,  Terms,  Acronyms  \n \nDomestic  Travel  All travel  within  New Zealand.  \nDual-Purpose  Travel  \n(DPT)  Defined  as a combination of part University -sponsored  travel and part \nprivate/personal travel . DPT is permitted provided the  Massey travel  is in \naccordance with this procedure and the Massey Travel Policy.  \nGround Transport  Massey  Fleet  vehicles,  rental  cars,  taxis,  rail, buses,  and transfer  shuttles.  \nPersonal Travel  (IPT)  Personal Travel  is private/person al travel conducted in  conjunction with \nuniversity -sponsored travel  when University -travel is the primary purpose for \nthe travel  (‘primary’ is determined as the majority portion of travel time/days)  \nInternational  Travel  All travel  outside  New Zealand.  \nUniversity Traveller  (s) Defined  as anyone participating in university -sponsored travel activities \n(including all permanent, fixed term or temporary staff, faculty, students, \nvisitors, guests,  and other non -university personnel who have been authorised \nand directly funded to travel on behalf of the university. This includes adjunct \nstaff, casual employees, post -doctoral fellows, research assistants, teaching \nfellows, visiting academic staff, gr aduate assistants, tutors, senior tutors,  and \nresearch officers).  \nMulti -Purpose Travel  \n(MPT)  Defined  as University  sponsored  travel that combines more than one travel \nactivity associated to more than one Massey initiative, event, goal,  or \nbusiness objective ( e.g., University Traveller  attends a conference overseas in \nlocation their research project is being conducted).  \nSLT Senior  Leadership  Team.  \nTravel Management \nCompany (TMC)  The University is contracted with to provide Massey staff and representatives \ntravel booking services provider.  \nUniversity -sponsored \ntravel  Trave l funded by the University in part or whole  to achieve the goals, \nobjectives and strategies of the University, College, Unit and/ or the \nprofessional and career development of the University Traveller  \n \n  \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "International_Student_Insurance_Operational_Procedures_PDF_260_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "International Student Insurance Operational Procedures PDF 260 KB",
      "policy_type": "Procedure",
      "file_size": "260 KB",
      "author": "Information Technology Services",
      "creation_date": "2019-07-25T10:00:01",
      "modification_date": "D:20190725100142+12'00'"
    },
    "content": "Massey University Policy Guide   \n \n \n \n \n \nSection  International  \nContact  International Relations Office  \nLast Review  July 2018  \nNext Review  July 2023  \nApproval    SLT 19/04/55  \n \n \nPurpose:  \n \nThese procedures outline how the University will enact the requirements of the International Student Insurance Cover \nPolicy.  \n \nProcedures:  \n \nPROMOTIONAL MATERIAL  \n \n1. Where appropriate, promotional material provided to International students will outline the requirement for \nInternational students to have appropriate, compliant, and current  Medical and Travel insurance for the planned \nperiod of their study, in accordance with the New Zealand Qualification Authority’s Education (Pastoral Care of \nInternational Students) Code of Practice 2016 and the current Immigration New Zealand student visa  policy.  \n2. Such reference will direct the prospective International Student to the criteria for ‘appropriate, complaint and \nadequate’ insurance. These criteria will be posted on the University website or will be available to students in \nwritten form upon  request.  \n \nON APPLICATION  \n \nAlternate Insurance  \n \n3. As part of the Application process for Admission to the University for International Students, the International \nAdmissions staff will provide opportunity for the student to provide evidence of appropriate and  complaint \nalternative Medical and Travel Insurance for the planned period of study, prior to issuing a Confirmation of Place. \nIf an approved alternative cover is not presented the default insurance will be  charged.  \n4. If the student provides evidence of an a pproved alternate Medical and Travel insurance policy prior to the WMAR \ndate, and subject to the student not having made a claim to the default insurance provider, the default insurance \ncover will be refunded. A copy of their insurance materials will be se nt to the International Student Support office \non the relevant campus and loaded onto the Student Management System. If a student has made a claim prior to \nWMAR date, the default cover will remain in place until for the first semester of study. Following t he first semester, \nthe alternative cover can be  implemented.  \n5. If the student provides evidence of a policy that has not been assessed it will be sent to the Senior Advisor, \nInternational Student Compliance and Policy, International Relations Office, to determine whether the policy \nmeets the required criteria. The default cover will be charged while the assessment is undertaken. If the \nassessment is undertaken and the policy is deemed eligible before the student travels to New Zealand, then \ncharges for th e default cover will be reversed. If the student has already travelled to New Zealand prior to the \nassessment  being  undertaken,  charges  for the default  cover  will remain  in place.  If a student  has made  a claim   \nINTERNATIONAL STUDENT INSURANCE OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES  \nMassey University Policy  Guide  \nInternational Student Insurance Operational Procedures – Page  2  \n \n \nduring the period of travelling to New Zealand and having the insurance assessment undertaken, the default \ninsurance will remain in place for the first semester of study.  Following the first semester, the alternative cover \ncan be implemented,  subject  to approval.  If no claims  have  been  made,  insurance  charges  for the default  provider \nwill remain and will be charged on a monthly basis, with a minimum of a two month charge. The remaining default \nprovider insurance will be refunded from the date of approval by the Senior Advisor, Policy and Compliance, \nInternational Relations  Office.  \n6. Should the alternative policy be deemed compliant as per the Code, step four will apply. Should it be ineligible \nstep seven will  apply.  \n \nDefault Insurance  \n \n7. Students who provide evidence of a non -approved policy will be advised that it is not suitable and will be charged \nfor the default University approved  insurance.  \n \nPre-existing Medical Condi tions  \n \n8. Students taking the default Medical and Travel insurance who declare a pre -existing medical condition, they are \nasked to complete a Medical Risk Assessment form. This is sent to the default insurer for  assessment.  \n9. If the default provider will not cover the pre -existing medical condition then the student must provide evidence \nfrom an alternative insurance policy confirming that the pre -existing medical condition will be  covered.  \n10. If the pre -existing medical condition will not be covered by an alterna tive insurance policy then the student must \nprovide one of the following documents which advises that all medical expenses related to the pre -existing \nmedical conditions will be  covered:  \n a letter from a scholarship provider if a scholarship student; or  \n a letter from their overseas university or institution;  or \n a letter from parents/guardian agreeing to meet all medical expenses related to the pre -existing medical \ncondition;  or \n a signed indemnity document absolving Massey University from any expenses arising  as a result of the \nmedical  conditions.  \n \nAppropriate Insurance  \n \n11. All International students, including International Short Course (ISC) students, must have an appropriate and a \ncurrent Medical and Travel Insurance policy covering the activities they will un dertake as a part of their course for \nthe duration of their planned period of study (e.g. cover for aviation students or quad -biking for agriculture \nstudents).  \n \nRETURNING INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS  \n \n12. For returning international students, International Student Support (ISS) and Professional and Continuing \nEducation (PaCE) staff at the relevant campus will check all students provide evidence of appropriate and \ncompliant  Medical  and Travel  Insurance  for the planned  period  of study.  Students will  have  until the WMAR  date \nto provide such  evidence.  \n13. Students who provide evidence of acceptable and compliant alternative insurance, will have the details of their \npolicy will be entered in Student Management System (SMS) and no default insurance will be  charged  \n14. Students who provide evidence of acceptable and compliant alternative insurance for a shorter period than the \nplanned period of their study, or enrolment period for PaCE English language or ISC students, will be given the \noption of extending said insurance or being  charged the default insurance. Evidence of extension of alternative \ninsurance must be shown by the WMAR  date.  \nMassey University Policy  Guide  \nInternational Student Insurance Operational Procedures – Page  3  \n \n \n15. If the student does not have appropriate alternative Medical and Travel insurance for the planned period of study, \nor full enrolment period for PaCE English language or ISC students, they will  be charged the default insurance \npremium in line with their enrolment via the automatic charging facility on the  SMS.  \n \nCHARGING INSURANCE  \n \n16. Insurance  is provided  on an annual  basis  per year (Semester  One,  Two,  and Summer  School,  or until the end \ndate of the visa – whichever is the earliest), or it can be charged per semester. This  means:  \n Students enrolling in one semester are only charged for that semester regardless of which semester it  is. \n Students enrolling in a full academic year (semesters one, two, and three; or semesters one and two only) will \nbe charged a full insurance year fee. Students enrolled in semester two and semester three (summer school) \nwill be charged a single semester insurance fee and will be covered for both semesters, as long as the  \nstudent is returning the following academic year as a full time student. Students who first enrol in semester \ntwo and study through summer school, but do not return for the following academic year semester one, will be \ncharged a semester fee plus a three month fee on a prorate  basis.  \n Students whose semester date starts earlier than the standard semester start date of February – including \nAviation Students who start in January and some Veterinary papers which start in December – will be covered \nby the Semes ter One policy. An extension of the start date will be recorded in  SMS.  \n Returning students are covered by designated holiday periods e.g. between Semester Two and Semester \nOne the following year - solely on the proviso they re -enrol in the following  semest er. \n Students  who withdraw  prior to the WMAR  date without  making  a claim  (ISS staff will check  with the insurers), \nwill not be required to pay insurance as they are not considered to be enrolled students. However if the \nstudent is already in the country they will be charged for the period they have been in New  Zealand.  \n Students who  withdraw  prior to the WMAR  date who have  made  a claim  (ISS staff should  check with  the \ninsurers) will be charged insurance equivalent to the single semester rate for the semest er in which they \nwithdraw.  \n Students who withdraw subsequent to the WMAR date will be charged for the full semester, but should be \nadvised  that they will no longer  be able to claim  on the University’s  cover  once  they are no longer  enrolled  if \nstaying in New  Zealand.  \n Any International  student  withdrawing  from the University  must  be promptly  reported  by ISSO  to the relevant \nimmigration authorities, to ensure they are no longer regarded as students of the  University.  \n \n17. Only selected courses such as PaCE’s General English Language and International Short Course students have \nthe option of being charged insurance at a monthly rate. A minimum special premium applies to courses less \nthan one month in  duration.  \n \n18. Students whose period of study is outside semester  terms will be charged as  follows:  \na. PhD Students in the first year of their registration will be charged from the date they leave their home \ncountry until 31 December. This may include monthly prorate charges and/or a semesterised charge. \nSubsequent enrolle d years, Doctoral students will be charged the annual rate. If ISS staff become aware \nof a PhD student who is actively engaged with the University, but not yet registered, they must bring the \nmatter of insurance to the attention of the student and their su pervisor with a view to prompting \nregistration. Alternatively a monthly charge can be implemented manually where the student is engaged \nwith the University prior to  registration.  \nb. Study  Abroad  students  on customised  programmes  will be charged  for the durati on of their course.  This \nmay include monthly prorated charges and/or a semesterised charge, with a minimum charge of two \nmonths.  \n19. International Student Support Staff should continue to run Insurance reports and make corrections as required \nand as outlined i n the Insurance System  Manual.  \nMassey University Policy  Guide  \nInternational Student Insurance Operational Procedures – Page  4  \n \n \n \nINSURANCE RECONCILIATION  \n \n20. The Senior Advisor, International Student Compliance and Policy, International Relations Office, is responsible for \nconducting an insurance reconciliation for all students enrolled through the Student Management System. Short \ncourse students and group students on study tours are managed by PaCE and are therefore not included in the \ninsurance reconciliation. In these cases the insurance charges are managed by PaCE directly with the default \ninsura nce broker firm. The insurance broker invoices PaCE  directly.  \n21. A report is run from SMS Insurance module field and is compared with the GL budget code to which the insurance \nfunds have been  deposited.  \n22. Most insurance is automatically added to the Internation al student fees accounts, but on occasions manual \nentries will be made to the SMS Insurance module. The GL should match with the Insurance register produced by \nthe SMS Insurance module, but some manual entries will not show and this is checked as part of t he \nreconciliation.  \n23. The initial  reconciliation  should  be conducted  as soon  as practicable  after the WMAR  date for each  semester  with \na concluding reconciliation carried out at the end of the academic  year.  \n24. As part of the reconciliation, the commission paid to the University for administering the insurance register, is also \ncalculated.  \n25. All transactions recorded in the GL budget code is GST exclusive, but it is GST inclusive when charged to the \nstudent fee  account.  \n \nAPPEALS  \n \n26. Students have the right to appeal any concerns they have about insurance, and staff have the right to escalate \nmatters if they are uncertain of the policy or  procedures.  \n27. In the first instance all insurance queries should be managed by International Student Support Staff on each \ncampus. It is anticipated that these staff should be able to respond to all queries and use the policy and \nprocedures to explain insurance charging and their  decisions.  \n28. If a student wishes to make a complaint that the International Student Support staff member feels they need to \nescalate it should be referred to the Senior Advisor, International Student Compliance and Policy in the first \ninstance.  \n29. The Director International Relations Office has delegation to consider the final right of appeal within the \nUniversity.  \n30. If students wish to escalate the matter further, they will need to refer to the University Academic Grievance  Policy.  \n \nDefinitions:  \n \nInternational Student : An International Student is a student who is not a New Zealand Citizen, a Permanent \nResident, or an Au stralian Student who is entitled to enrol as a domestic student, and covered by a reciprocal care \nagreement. Although International PhD students pay domestic fees, International PhD students are considered \nInternational Students in respect of these procedu res. International Short Course students on either individual or \ngroup visitor visas are treated as International Students in respect of this policy.  \n \nEnrolling Student : An enrolling student is one who applies for admission to the university, gains entranc e, and enrols \nin a programme and papers. Enrolling students are issued with a Confirmation of Place by the University in \naccordance with University policy. Some international short course students and group students are managed \nseparately through PaCE.  \n \nEnrolled Student : Having satisfied the requirements for admission following an Enrolment Application, the becoming \nor continuing to be a student of the University by the University receiving acceptance of an Offer of Place and by the \nUniversity issuing a Con firmation of Enrolment for a programme at the University. ”Enrolment” also means the student  \nMassey University Policy  Guide  \nInternational Student Insurance Operational Procedures – Page  5  \n \n \nwas, by implication, admitted to study at the University whether admission was  subject to a different application or \nfollowing the Enrolment Application. For Insurance purposes, students enrolled in Distance papers and who are based \noutside of New Zealand, are not covered by this policy.  \n \nAppropriate Medical and Travel Insurance : Insurance that satisfies the terms of the International Student Insurance \nCover Policy (and as outlined in Schedule A) and is in accordance with the Guidelines to the Code.  \n \nCurrent Medical and Travel Insurance : Insurance that provides cover for the durati on of the planned period of study \nand student visa including any en -route pre -arrival travel and en -route travel post -departure.  \n \nPlanned Period of Study : The period for which the student is enrolled. For non -semesterised programmes, the \nplanned period of study may be calculated on a monthly or annual basis.  \n \nAudience:  \n \nThese procedures will be relevant to all staff responsible for the admission and ongoing support of international \nstudents, in  particular:  \n \nInternational  Students  \nInternational Admissions Staff, Student Administration \nInternational Relations Office Staff  \nInternational Student Support Staff \nProfessional and Continuing Education Staff \nFinance Staff  \n \nRelevant Legislations:  \n \nEducation (Pastoral Care of International Students) Code of Practice 2016 – New Zealand Qualifications Authority \nand Immigration New Zealand  \n \nLegal Compliance:  \n \nMassey University is a signatory to the Education (Pastoral Care of International Students) Code of Practice 2016 and \nas such is bound by its requirements.  \n \nMassey University has also entered into a contractual arrangement with an Insurance Broker to provide a group \npolicy/ default scheme of insurance which provides cover to the University and its students. There are legal \nobligations arising under this contractual a rrangement.  \n \nRelated procedures / documents:  \n \nInternational Student Insurance Cover Policy  \nAgreement and Policy with default Insurance (StudentSafe University Travel Insurance).  \n \nDocument Management Control:  \n \nPrepared by: International Relations Office  \nAuthorised by: AVC Operations, International, and the University Registrar \nApproved by:  Senior Le adership Team  \nDate issued: February 2009\nMassey University Policy  Guide  \nInternational Student Insurance Operational Procedures – Page  6  \nInternational Student Insurance Operational Procedures – Page 6  \n \nLast review: July 2017 \nNext review: July 2022  \n\n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Isolation_and_Lockout_Tagout_Procedures_PDF_161_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Isolation and Lockout Tagout Procedures PDF 161 KB",
      "policy_type": "Procedure",
      "file_size": "161 KB",
      "author": "Banner, Jodie",
      "creation_date": "2024-04-30T10:02:02",
      "modification_date": "D:20240430102207+12'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n \n \n \n \n   \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n \n ENTER PROCEDURE  \n \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n  ISOLATION AND LOCKOUT TAGOUT  PROCEDURE   \n \nSection  University Services  \nContact  Director  Occupational Health & Safety, Wellbeing  \nLast Review  November  2023  \nNext Review  November  2025  \nApproval  Director Occupational Health & Safety, Wellbeing  \n \n \nPurpose:  \n \nThe purpose of this procedure is to provide a safe system for isolating plant or processes from sources \nof energy, to remove the possibility of anyone accidentally starting up or activating any moving parts of \nthe plant or process or the accidental release of energy that coul d cause harm.  \n \n \nScope : \n \nThis procedure applies to all operations, sites, and workers operating on Massey University sites, and \nwill apply to contractors where a specific arrangement has not been agreed for an alternative system to \nbe used.  \n \n \nDefinitions : \n \nEnergy:  Any source of energy, which if accidentally released or energised could cause injury from \nexposure to that energy. Sources of energy include, but are not limited to, electricity, gravity, chemical, \nmechanical, heat, pressure, and steam.  \n \nIsolation:  The disconnection, or closing off, of sources of energy at a point to prevent energy from being \npresent in the plant or process being worked on.  \n \nLicenced Electrical Worker:  A person who has the requisite training and competency in installing, \nmaintaining, and repairing electrical systems and equipment, and who has a current practicing licence \nfrom the Electrical Workers Registration Board.  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nIsolation and Lockout Tagout Procedure  – Page 2 \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University    \n \nGeneral Isolation Overview  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nElectrical Isolation  \n \nComplete Electrical Isolation  \nIn the case of electrical isolation, “Whole Current Isolation” such as the main circuit breaker must be used \ninstead of “Control Isolations” such as E -Stops, interlocking devices or control systems.  \n \nWhole Current Isolation removes electricity completely from the plant, and must be used wherever  \npossible, and in all cases where plant is disassembled for maintenance or production, or where persons \nare to be exposed to energy sources within the plant.  \n \nWhere isolation is to be applied by removing electricity in the Switchboard, or Motor Control Centre, this \nmust be applied by a licensed electrical worker. It is necessary to verify this isolation by testing it in the \npresence of the person responsible for  the isolation.  Shut down  the relevant \nplant or equipment.  Plant must be shut down using the standard operating controls. E -Stops are not to \nbe used as a substitute for a controlled stop and shutdown.  \nIdentify  ALL energy sources \nand other hazards.  \nIdentify  ALL isolation points.  \nIsolate  ALL energy sources.  \nRelease  or dissipate ALL \nstored energy.  \nLock out  all isolation points.  \nTag Out  all isolation points.  \nTest and Verify that the \nisolation has been effective.  Energy sources may be electrical, pneumatic, spring -loaded, gravitational, \nchemical, hydraulic, or mechanical.  \nEach energy source must have a method of “turning it off”, fixing it in place, or \ndisconnecting it . \nIsolate each energy source at the isolation point. This should always involve a \n“whole current” isolation where possible, rather than “control isolations”.  \nIf there is potential energy stored (such air pressure in a line) then this energy must \nbe released or otherwise controlled to create a safe environment for work . \nEach isolation point must be locked using a padlock. It may be necessary to use \ndevices such as hasps, chains, or covers to effectively lock the isolation point.  \nEach locked isolation point must have Danger Tag applied that indicates that the \nisolation has been applied and the plant is not safe to operate.  \nOnce the isolation has been applied, verify that the isolation has been effective by \ntesting it . \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nIsolation and Lockout Tagout Procedure  – Page 3 \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University    \n \nEmergency Stops, Interlocked Guards, Gates or Doors  \n \nThese types of devices interrupt the power supply to the machine’s control circuit only, which prevents \noperation of the plant. Mains power is still connected to the machine; therefore it could easily start if \nthese devices or the supporting systems fail. These devices shall not be relied on as a means of \nisolation or immobilisation.  \n \nWhere Cat III or Cat IV interlock devices are installed, these devices may be used to allow safe access \nto the mechanics of the machine for minor adjustments or maintenance activities only where there is no \nrisk of harm in the event of inadvertent start -up, and no Lock or Tag is required.  \n \nIsolation Locks : \n \nIsolation locks are utilised in conjunction with Danger Tags to isolate the equipment prior to work being \nperformed on it.  \n \nIsolation Lock Requirements  \n \nIt is mandatory that every person working on the equipment must apply a personal lock and tag to either \nthe isolation point, or to the Lockbox in accordance with the Group Isolation requirements of this \nprocedure.  \n \nPersonal locks shall be individually keyed, with no duplicates. Each person working on the plant is \nresponsible for their Personal Lock, and the locking and unlocking of the lockout device.  \n \nDanger Tags : \n \nA Danger Tag is used to communicate the danger of operating the plant or process the tag is attached \nto and  must be accompanied by a personal lock. No equipment is to be operated when a danger tag is \nattached.  \n \nUse of Danger Tags  \n• You must attach a Danger Tag with your personal lock before starting work on any equipment \nor machine where you could be injured if the machine inadvertently started up. Attach it to the \ncurrent isolating device after it has been set in the correct position.  \n• You must never operate equipment which has had a danger tag or locked isolation device \nattached . \n• You may only remove your own Danger Tag . \n• When you have finished working on the equipment, you must remove your own danger tag . \n \nWarning Tags : \n \nA Warning Tag is used to communicate that the equipment is unserviceable and should not be used. It \ncan be attached to a non -powered item of plant, such as ladders, jacks,  and trolleys, as well as powered \nplant. If used on powered plant, the tag should be attached to the main controls if possible.  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nIsolation and Lockout Tagout Procedure  – Page 4 \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University    \n \nUse of Warning Tags  \n \nA warning tag is used to give safety advice and protect equipment, or it may be used to give an indication \nof the status of the equipment after maintenance repairs . \n \nThe reason for applying the tag must be written in the appropriate area on the tag.  \n \nIf a piece of equipment is made safe for use, or the fault is being investigated, the Warning Tag may be \nremoved by:  \n• The person who attached the Warning Tag . \n• The person who is responsible for the repair or maintenance of the equipment, or  \n• The supervisor responsible for the equipment.  \n \nVerification of Isolation : \n \nAfter plant has been shut down, locked out, and tagged; all isolated power sources should be tested prior \nto any person starting work on the plant. This testing should be done through attempting to activate the \nplant, or by testing with appropriate instrum ents. This testing should be undertaken by a person who has \nunderstanding of the plant and its operation, including any control stations (local and remote) or devices \n(such as sensors) which may start or operate the plant. Where electricity is to be tested  with instruments, \na licenced electrical worker shall be required to undertake these tests.  \n \nIt is not safe to assume that an isolator has locked out an electricity source simply due to it being in an \nopen position. While normally this should open an air gap between contact points, it is possible for contact \npoints to become welded together by the  passage of electricity and  remain so even when the isolator \nappears to be open/off.  \n \nWork on the plant must not begin until tests have confirmed that it is safe to do so. The operation of any \ninstruments required to test isolations should be checked before use.  \n \nLockout Stations : \n \nAll campuses must have at least one Lockout Station where locks and tags are located for use by \nworkers.  \nThe Lockout Station should contain, as a minimum:  \n• Locks, including Personal Locks, and any other lock necessary as per these procedures.  \n• Danger Tags.  \n• Warning Tags.  \n• Isolation Devices as appropriate, such as valve covers, chains etc. \n• Isolation registers; and  \n• Multi -lock hasps  \n \nEvery department and school with a requirement for a Lockout Station shall be responsible for ensuring \nthat the Lockout Stations have adequate equipment for the isolations that it undertakes. During periods \nof high usage, such as maintenance shutdowns, it will be necessary to have sufficient isolation equipment \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nIsolation and Lockout Tagout Procedure  – Page 5 \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University    \nto allow for the higher levels of use.  \n \nGroup Lockout : \n \nWhere multiple workers need to work on, or gain access to, the same piece of equipment, machinery or \nelectrical system for repairs of maintenance a “group” isolation procedure may be used.  \n \nThere are two methods available for Massey University workers to use. \n \nIndividual Isolation Option  \n \nIn this option, each worker must attach a Personal Lock to every isolation device using a multi -lock hasp. \nThis allows up to 6 workers to isolate a single isolation device using a Personal Lock. The Hasp passes \nthrough the isolation device, and locks are fitted to the hasp.  \nLockbox Option  \nIn this option, which is appropriate for larger groups or more complex isolations, a “group” isolation lock \n(individually keyed) is applied to the isolation and the key put into a “lockbox”. Each worker then reviews \nthe isolation and  locks the box with a Personal Lock so the Group Lock key cannot be removed.  \n \nRemoval of Locks and Tags  \n \nOnly the person who applied the lock and tag may remove them. Locks and tags are to be removed by \nthe person who applied them in the following circumstances:  \n• Work has finished, and the machine is to be re -energised . \n• Any time where there is a handover between workers, as per this procedure . \n \nAnyone who fails to remove their lock at the end of work, will be expected to return to campus and remove \ntheir isolation, at their own expense.  \n \nWhere locks and tags were to be removed, and the responsible person has left, then the following actions \nmust be taken:  \n• Attempt to contact the person who applied the lock and  request them to return to the job and \nremove the lock.  \n• If the person who placed the lock cannot be contacted, or is unable to return and remove it, a \ngroup of three people can authorise the removal of the lock if a careful examination of the lock \nscenario has been undertaken and it is safe to do so.  \n• This group must include the Facilities Services Manager (or designated person within a school), \nand at least 2 other people familiar with both the plant/equipment and these procedures. If the \nlock is for work being undertaken on electrical equipment, then a licenced electrical worker must \nbe involved and must confirm that it is safe to remove the lock.  \n \nAny event involving the removal of locks and tags using this procedure must be documented in writing \nby a member of the group . \n \n \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nIsolation and Lockout Tagout Procedure  – Page 6 \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University    \nHandover  \n \nIndividuals must remove their own Personal Lock (and Danger Tag) if the isolated plant is to be handed \nover to other workers. Following handover, and before commencing work on the plant, the relieving \nperson must install their own personal lock and tag if the isolation is to be maintained.  \n \nWhere a physical handover is not possible due to operational hours or staffing, the person responsible \nfor managing the work must develop a procedure that determines how Lockout is maintained, and the \nexchange of keys is managed. This must address the appl ication or removal of locks, the location of \nthe keys, and the exchange of safety information relating to the isolation. Any registers used with the \nisolation must be updated with the names of the new party.  \n \n \nRelated documents :  \nRelevant Legislation  \n• Health and Safety at Work Act 2015  \n• Electricity Act 1992  \n• Electricity (Safety) Regulations 2010  \n \n \nProcedures  \n• Health, Safety & Wellbeing Policy  \n• Contractor Management Procedures/Guidelines  \n• Hazard and Risk Management Procedures  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Information_and_Technology_Security_Policy_PDF_282_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Information and Technology Security Policy",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "282 KB",
      "creation_date": "2024-12-05T13:01:07",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220103125+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n \n \nINFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY SECURITY POLICY  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University    \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nPurpose : \nTo ensure Massey  University’s information and information technology  assets are  appropriately  protected  and to \nensure information security ris ks are  identified and mitigated.  \nKey success factors:   \n• Massey University is protected against unauthorised access to, or unauthorised use or sharing of data which  \ncould potentially result in harm to the University or to members of the University community . \n• The University is compliant with legal requiremen ts, University policies and any agreements binding the \nUniversit y to implement applicable security safeguards.   \n• Information security  assurance is enabled through clear lines of responsibility and control led access to \nuniversity  information.  \nAudience:  \nThis policy applies to a ll staff, students, third parties  (including, but not limited to contractors, consultants , and \nvolunteers)  or anyone using Massey University information  and communication  and technology  systems .   It applies to \nall information held for the purposes of the University’s operations including the provision of teaching and learning, and \nresearch and to those  who create, access,  process,  trans mit or store Massey University  information.  \nPolicy Statements:  \n1. The threat landscape and security risks are constantly changing.  To reduce risk university staff are expected to \ncomplete  security awareness and training modules yearly to protect Massey and staff information.   \n2. All University ICT systems  must undergo a security assurance  review  prior to being purchased  to ensure they meet \nthe minimum information security requirements  of the University , in accordance with the University’s Progressive \nProcurement Policy and procedures . \n3. All University ICT systems must comply with the University’s  information security and technical standards before \nbeing installed into any production environment or handling of any University  data.  \n4. Over the term of its lifecycle, a ll information must be  appropriately  classified , and where required, includ e restrictions \non redistribution  when transmitted via email or physical mai l, storage,  and disposal methods  in accordance with  the \nInformation Security Classification Framework . \n  Section  Information Technology Servic es \nContact  Chief Information Officer  \nLast Review  November 2022  \nNext Review  November 2025  \nApproval    SLT 22/12/168  \n \nInformation and Technology Security Policy  – Page 2 \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University     \n \n 5. When changes are proposed  to systems , a risk assessment , overseen by the C hief Information Officer , shall be \nundertaken to identify potential  information security risks . Where a risk is identified , the Data Custodian of the \nsystem must approve any change s before they are made.  All University ICT systems shall have an identified Data \nLeader, Data Custodian and Data Steward(s) responsible for the risk management of the asset.  Information security \nrisks shall be managed in accordance with the University’s Risk Management Policy and Framework.  \n6. Information security and technical standards will be included in design specification  prior to  procurement for all third \nparty purchased technology or applications.   All third-party  service providers and agents with access to any \nUniversity information asset shall comply  with all regulatory, legal, and contractual requirements, including \nUniversity statutes and policy documents.  \n \n7. Applying a principle of least privilege, access must be explicitly requested and approved to access non -public facing \ntechnology assets.  Personal, sensitive, and confidential information will have access controls applied accordingly.  \n8. Misuse of University information , communication  and technology assets will be treated seriously .  Alleged violations \nof this policy will be pursued in accordance with the appropriate disciplinary procedures, and when appropriate , \nsanctions up to and including dismissal or expulsion may be imposed.  Examples of misuse of technology can \ninclude, but are not limited to, the unsanctioned installation or running of hacking software, crypto mining  software, \npirated software, or any other software that may be used to intentionally  or negligently  compromise the University’s \ninformation and technology  assets . \n9. At any time and without prior notice , the University reserves the right to monitor, access, inspect or lawfully disclose \nany information stored on or transmitted through university  information systems (including via a VPN connection) \nfor ensuring compliance with university  policy and legal obligations.    \nRoles and responsibilities:  \n10. The DVC University Services is the Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) and is accountable for:  \n• overseeing the University security program me and ensuring compliance with architecture, policy, \nstandards, regulations,  and legislation  \n• ensure  alignment between  information security and business objectives  at the strategic level  \n• strategic oversight via Crisis Management Team engagement in the event of an emergency (Note: \nEmergency event includes significant I CT security incident) .   \n11. The Chief Information Officer (CIO)  is responsible for:  \n• constructing and delivering  an information security program me which shall include  the creation of an  \ninformation  security  strategy, architecture, principles, policy, standards, objectives, and other relevant \ncomponents  \n• coordinating the development of ICT disaster recovery plans and arrangements  within the University to \nensure that business -critical services are supported appropriately,  and that information security is \nmaintained in the event of a disaster  \n• developing and maintaining a comprehensive strategic level information security and security risk \nmanagement programme within the University aimed at protecting Massey’s official and classified  \ninformation  \n• monitoring compliance to security policies, architecture,  standards and to relevant regulat ion and  \nlegislation  \n• approving the isolation or disconnection of any equipment , ICT facility  or account  from the University \nnetwork which breaches this polic y.  The re -enablement of disconnected assets as a result of a breach of \nthis policy will need to be authori sed by the CIO and  the applicable Head of School  or relevant approving \nauthority  \n \nInformation and Technology Security Policy  – Page 3 \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University     \n \n • providing oversight of the security assurance review  of ICT systems.  \n12. All technical staff with administrator privileges or those undertaking I CT related work are responsible for : \n• comply ing with all technical  standards when designing, purchasing, configuring, or operating ICT related \nsystems, solutions, or applications.  \n• maintain ing professional standards of knowledge, skill , and expertise  in relevant ICT technical areas . \n13. All users are responsible for : \n• compl ying with information security policies, processes,  and standards , and understand their specific \nresponsibilities for information security  \n• maintaining  the confidentiality and privacy of individuals whose information and records  they access  \n \n• immediately reporting any system vulnerabilities,  incidents (issues)  or technical risks  related to \ninformation security  to the IT Service Desk  \n \n• advise their manager immediately if they identify or suspect that they  or any other person  may have \ninappropriate access to private or sensitive information . \nDefinitions :  \nClassified Information  has been identified and marked to enable protection and effective handling using the  New \nZealand Government Security Classification System.  \n \nData Leader is a representative of the University’s Senior Leadership Team (SLT).  Data leaders provide strategic \nguidance regarding the data requirements of the University.  \n \nData Custodian refers to the business owner of a particular I CT System. This is usually an authoritative head of the \nrespective College , School, Division or Unit within the University who has a level of accountability and/or responsibility \naround decision making as it applies to a particular technology  asset  and are responsible for the information that resides \nand/or is primarily used in their department .  This reflects the line management and delegated responsibility applied to \na role by the University.    \n \nData Steward  is an individual responsible for the day-to-day operational management  of an I CT System.  \n \nInformation Security  directly relates to  the assurance that the confidentiality, integrity and availability of all  information \nand ICT systems  are maintained to the appropriate degree and provides assurance that data is only accessible by those \nwho are authorised to view it, unless a special request is received . \n \nICT System  refers to an information , technology , or communication system  used to deliver a business service (such as \nemail), including its computing  equipment, business applications, audio visual, data network, telecommunication and \nother communications systems, storage media and peripheral devices.  \n \nOfficial Information is any information held by an agency subject to the Official Information Act .  This includes \ndocuments and non -written information .   \n \nSecurity Assurance Review provides confidence that University ICT systems meet security requirements and are \nresilient against security vulnerabilities and failures.  The confidence indicated by the security assurance review \nrepresents the level of trust given to a system that shows it is safe to use.  \n \n  \n \nInformation and Technology Security Policy  – Page 4 \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University     \n \n Relevant Legislation  and Government Manuals : \n \nPrivacy Act 2020  \nCopyright Act 1994  \nOfficial Information Act 1982  \nNew Zealand Information Security Manual  \nNew Zealand Protective Security Requirements  \n \nRelated Policies  and S tandards :  \n \nAcceptable Use of Technology Policy  \nInformation Security Classification  Policy and Framework  \nDevice Security Policy  \nInformation and Records Management Policy  \nMobile Device Management Policy  \nPrivacy Policy  \nProgressive Procurement Policy  \nResearc h Data Management Policy  \nStaff Conduct  Policy  \nTechnical Standards  \n \nDocument management control:  \n \nPrepared by: Chief Information Officer   \nAuthorised by:   DVC, University Services    \nApproved by: SLT 22/12/16  \nDate issued: April 2022  \nLast review: November 2022  \nNext review: November  2025  \n \n Information Security Classification Framework   \nPurpose:  This Framework helps determine what our baseline information security controls are, so that based on its classification, we can mitigate risk  \nINFORMATION SECURITY CLASSIFICATION  BASIC GUIDELINES ON HANDLING OF THE CLASSIFICATION  \nClassification  Description  Information Sharing  Transmission  Storage  \nMust comply with Information and \nRecords Management Standard under the \nPublic Records Act 2005)  Disposal Method  \nMust comply with Information and \nRecords Management Stand Records Act \n2005)  \nUNCLASSIFIED  Disclosure of this information to an unauthorised party is not \nlikely to adversely affect the interest/reputation of Massey \nUniversity or the privacy of any natural persons.  \n \nFor information which are not publicly available and primarily for \ninternal use. They are information where additional protective \nmarkings are not required to increase security, given that the \nbaseline protections for availability and integrity still apply .  \n \nMost official information does not meet the threshold for a \nsecurity classification. It is generally referred to as 'unclassified' \ninformation and may be marked as such but need not be.  Information that is created and consumed by \nstaff . Intended for internal use, however, may be \nshared with contractors, students, anyone with a \nformal, internal relationship with the University \n(e.g., vendors), or externally as and when \nneeded.  Electronic Transmission:  \n• Information can be transmitted without \nrestriction between Massey University staff \nand students or anyone with a formal \nrelationship with the University.  \n• Ensure correct recipients for transmission to \nexternal email addresses.  \n  \nPaper Transmission:  \nSealed envelope stating recipient and postal \naddress e.g., internal mailbox number.  Electronic Storage:  \n• Stored in a file or directory accessible to \nauthorised users.  \n  \nPaper Storage:  \nShould be stored in a way that are protected \nagainst theft, vandalism, or misuse.  Electronic Disposal:  \n• Electronic files, magnetic and other \nstorage media should be disposed of in \na way that makes compromise unlikely.  \n \nPaper Waste Disposal:  \nUNCLASSIFIED documents are subject to \nstandard secure disposal. They are to be \ndisposed of in a way that makes compromise \nunlikely, such as depositing the documents in a \nsecure destruction bin at Massey. (Further \ndetails – see IRM website ). \nIN CONFIDENCE  Disclosure of this information to an unauthorised party would be \nlikely to impede the effective operation of Massey University or \nadversely affect the privacy of any natural persons.  \n \n For all Massey information where the use of information  \nis subject to privacy, legal privilege, obligations of confidence, \ncommercial interests or constitutional conventions, Massey’s policy \nrequires staff to take reasonable steps to protect that information \nfrom unauthorised disclosure or access.  Examples of IN \nCONFIDENCE information:  \n  \n• Adversely affect the privacy of any person. •  Any \ninformation that could bring Massey University into \ndisrepute.  \n• Any information that unauthorised disclosure  \ncould impede Massey commercial activities, \nbreach constitutional conventions or legal \nprofessional privilege.  \n• Any information that unauthorised disclosure  \nwould likely result in adverse media attention.  \n• Any information that has been provided in confidence, or \nwhere there are contractual requirements for \nconfidentiality.  Information that is created and consumed by \nauthorised staff . Intended for internal use, \nhowever,  may be shared with contractors, \nstudents, anyone with a formal, internal \nrelationship with the University ( e.g., vendors), or \nexternally as and when needed – some \nlimitations will apply i.e., a reason for sharing \nexternally and who it is being shared with.  \n  \nNote: Personally Identifiable Information (PII) \nshould not be shared externally unless \nauthorised  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n Electronic Transmission:  \n• Information must be marked IN CONFIDENCE  \n• IN CONFIDENCE information can be \ntransmitted across external or public \nnetworks (including the internet). The level of \ninformation contained should be assessed \nbefore transmitting.  \n• Username/password access control and/or \nencryption should be considered.  \n• An appropriate statement should accompany \nall IN CONFIDENCE information transmitted \nvia email  \n  \nPaper Transmission  \n• Documents must be posted in a sealed \nenvelope.  \n• May be carried by ordinary postal services or \ncommercial courier firms, provided the \nenvelope/package is sealed.  \n• The envelope must clearly show a return \naddress in case delivery is unsuccessful.  Electronic Storage:  \n• Electronic files must be protected against \ninappropriate use or unauthorised access.  \n• Risk mitigation controls must be appropriate \nand in accordance with the University’s  Risk \nManagement Framework  and the  \nInformatio n Security Manua l.  \n  \nPaper Storage:  \nIN CONFIDENCE documents should be stored in \nlocked drawers or cabinets with restricted access.  Electronic Disposal:  \n• Electronic files, magnetic and other \nstorage media should be disposed of in a \nway that makes compromise highly \nunlikely.  \n• Magnetic waste e.g., CDs, tapes, videos \nmust be securely disposed of using \nsecure destruction services at Massey.  \n  \nPaper Waste Disposal  \n• IN CONFIDENCE documents are to be \ndisposed of in a way that makes \ncompromise highly unlikely i.e., using \nsecure destruction services at Massey. \n(Further details - see IRM website ).  \n \nSENSITIVE  Disclosure of this information to an unauthorised party would \nbe likely to seriously damage the interest/reputation of \nMassey University or endanger the safety of any natural \npersons.  \n  \nExamples of SENSITIVE information:  \n  \n• Endanger the safety of any person.  \n• Seriously damage the interest of Massey if prematurely \ndisclosing information relating to decisions, trade secrets, \nagreements, or commercials activities.  \n• Impede Massey negotiations (including  \ncommercial and industrial negotiations).  \n• Any information that unauthorised disclosure would \nlikely result in prolonged adverse media attention.  Sensitive or restricted information created and \nconsumed by a limited subset of authorised \nstaff.  Intended for internal use, however, may \nbe shared with students, contractors, anyone \nwith a formal, internal relationship with the \nUniversity ( e.g., vendors) or externally as and \nwhen needed (given it is authorised) – some \nlimitations will apply.  Electronic Transmission:  \n• Information must be marked as SENSITIVE.  \n• All SENSITIVE information can be transmitted \nacross public networks (this includes the \ninternet) within NZ or across any networks \noverseas but must be encrypted.  \n  \nPaper Transmission:  \n• Documents must be posted in a sealed and \ntaped envelope and marked SENSITIVE for \naddressee only. The use of double envelopes \nmay be considered.  \n• May be carried by ordinary postal services or \ncommercial courier firm, provided the \nenvelope/package is properly sealed.  \n• The envelope must clearly show a return \naddress in case delivery is unsuccessful.  \n• The envelope should be addressed to an \nindividual by the name and title.  Electronic Storage:  \n• Electronic files must be protected against \ninappropriate use or unauthorised access.  \n• Risk mitigation controls must be \nappropriate and in accordance with the \nUniversity’s  Risk Management Framework  \nand the  Informatio n Security Manua l.  \n  \nPaper Storage:  \nSENSITIVE documents must be protected against \nunauthorised access by storing them separately \nfrom other files, and in locked drawers or \ncabinets. The storage areas should be intruder \nresistant with security measures applied e.g., \nbuilding security, door swipe system.  Electronic Disposal:  \n• Electronic files, magnetic and other \nstorage media must be disposed of in a \nway that makes reconstruction highly \nunlikely.  \n• Magnetic waste e.g.,  CDs, tapes, videos \nmust be securely disposed of using secure \ndestruction services at Massey.  \n  \nPaper Waste Disposal:  \nSENSITIVE documents are to be disposed of in \na way that makes reconstruction highly \nunlikely, i.e., using secure destruction services \nat Massey. (Further details - see IRM website ).  \n \n\n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Honorary_and_Adjunct_Non-Employment_Appointments_Procedure_PDF_509_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Honorary and Adjunct Non-Employment Appointments Procedure",
      "policy_type": "Procedure",
      "file_size": "509 KB",
      "creation_date": "2020-04-21T10:01:08",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220100552+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " Massey University Policy Guide  \n \nHONORARY AND ADJUNCT  (NON -EMPLOYMENT) APPOINTMENTS PROCEDURE  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \n    \n  \n \nPurpose:  \nTo enable the University and the colleges and services to nominate and approve strategic relationships with key \nindividuals and to expedite formal documentation or those relationships, to operationalise the Strategic Individual (Non-\nemployment) Relationshi ps Policy.    \nProcedures : \nAppointments may be in the following categories and titles:   \n   \na) Professors Emeriti    \n   \nThe title “Professor Emeritus” is normally conferred on members of the professoriate:    \n   \n1. On retirement; and   \n2. Who are recognised nationally as having been outstanding in their discipline; and   \n3. Who have made an outstanding contribution to scholarship or  the University or both; and   \n4. Who are held in the respect and esteem of colleagues: -   \n       (all of the above criteria being required to have been met); and   \n5. Who will in normal circumstances be likely to maintain a continuing association within the Uni versity.   \n   \n      Procedure:    \n   \n(i) Nominations for Professor Emeritus may be made confidentially to the Vice- Chancellor by any professor \nor any member of the Academic Board or other senior executives of the University.   \n   \n(ii) Each nomination shall be accompanied by a statement of the nominee’ s career and the grounds for the \nconferment of the title (addressing each of the criteria in 1- 5 above). The Vice- Chancellor shall bring each \nnomination and the accompanying statements first before the Honorary Awards Committee.   \n   \n(iii) The Honorary Awards Co mmittee awards the title of Professor Emeritus under the delegated authority of \nCouncil (delegation enacted on 4 September 2009) and reports delegations exercised to Council. The \nposition of Emeritus Professor is not an established position, nor is any emo lument attached to it.   \n   \nb) Honorary Teaching and/or Research Fellows    \n   \nNominees  shall  be  persons  of  distinction  (equivalent  to  Associate  Professor or Professor)  and/or  who  \nhas  made  an outstanding contribution to their field (the latter al lows recognition for those who do not have an \nacademic research background) and whose expertise and interests lie in a field related to a subject included Section  People and Culture  \nContact People and Culture  \nLast Review  July 2019  \nNext Review  July 2024  \nApproval  SLT 19/12/209  \n Honorary and Adjunct (Non- Employment)  \nAppointment Procedure  – Page 2 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nin the scope of the unit concerned and who can contribute to teaching or research at a University lev el. \nNominees may be persons in part -time or full -time employment in senior positions outside the University or \nmay be retired senior staff of this and other universities or from other learned institutions or research centres.   \n   \nNominations of persons to be appointed as Honorary Teaching F ellows or as Honorary Research Fellows may \nbe submitted by a Head of School (or equivalent) to the relevant Pro Vice- Chancellor for a decision.   \n   \nAppointments to Honorary Fellowships shall normally be for three years and appointees will be eligible for \nreappointment. Honorary Fellows may be appointed to one or more Colleges. The criterion for continued \nappointment is related to the ongoing effectiveness of the individual’s contribution.   \n   \nAppointees will be required to indicate their willingness either to give lectures or demonstrations to students or staff of the College or act in capacities which make definite contributions to the University’s teaching, or to \njoin an existing research team, or assist in developing new research initiatives within the relevant College or \nColleges.   \n   \nThe position of Honorary Fellow is not an established one, nor is any emolument attached to it. Honorary Fellows may be appointed under the general title, or as Honorary Research Fellows.   \n   \nThe School (or equivalent) is responsible for preparing the letter of appointment which must be consistent with \nthe template at Appendix A.    \n   \nc)    Honorary Teaching and/or Research Associates   \nPersons appointed to these positions ar e normally expected to possess qualifications and experience \nequivalent to those held by applicants eligible for appointment to full -time academic positions up to and \nincluding the level of Senior Lecturer.   \n   \nNominations of persons to be appointed as Honorary Teaching Associates or Honorary Research Associates may be submitted by a Head of School (or equivalent) to the relevant Pro Vice- Chancellor. Honorary \nAssociates may be appointed to one or more Schools (or equivalent).   \n   \nAppointments to Honorary Associates shall normally be for three years and appointees will be eligible for \nreappointment. Recommendations for reappointment may be made by the Head of School (or equivalent) \ndirectly to the relevant Pro Vice- Chancellor for a decision.   \n   \nPersons appointed as either second or third Supervisors of PhD candidates, shall on their appointment by the \nDoctoral Research Committee and in consultation with the Head of School (or equivalent), also be eligible to \nbe appointed as Honorar y Associates of the University.   \n   \nIn certain cases, honorary appointments may be given to persons possessing special and specific expertise. \nHonorary Associates may be appointed from those employed full or part -time outside the University or from \nstaff employed in general sections of the University. Retired academic staff of sub -professorial level may also \nbe eligible for appointment as Honorary Associates.   \n   \nThe criterion for continued appointment is related to the ongoing effectiveness of the indivi dual’s contribution.   \n   \n \nHonorary Associates are expected to enter a working relationship with a School (or equivalent), such that they \noffer research assistance or vocational, professional or practical work contacts, which otherwise students \nwould not enjoy. The nature of this relationship, and the expectancies of the School (or equivalent), should be specified in the documentation in which nominees are presented for appointment, together with a statement \nsummarising the qualifications and the experience of the nominee.   \n   \n Honorary and Adjunct (Non- Employment)  \nAppointment Procedure  – Page 3 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nThe p osition of Honorary Associate is not an established one, nor is any emolument attached to it. Honorary \nAssociates may be appointed under the general title (‘Honorary Associate’) or as ‘Honorary Research \nAssociate ’.   \n \nThe School (or equivalent  academic uni t) is responsible for preparing the letter of appointment which must be \nconsistent with the template at Appendix A.   \n   \nNote: The University awards both these titles as recognition of the high academic qualities and/or expertise of \nthe individuals concerned. Appointment to an Honorary Fellowship is only made in the case of individuals \nwhose contributions to the University can be expected to be at the highest levels of excellence.   \n   \n   \nAppointment to Adjunct Positions    \n   \nDistinguished members of the community with relevant academic and/or professional qualifications may be \nnominated for appointment to adjunct positions in a College or School (or equivalent) to carry out teaching, \nsupervision and/or other duties.   \n   \nThe object of these appointments is to associate with a College or School (or equivalent) a qualified person who can:   \n- provide a link between vocational and pract ical work and scientific and academic teaching;   \n- provide through special expertise, qualifications, or experience an additional teaching or research input \nto the College or School (or equivalent);   \n- provide students with the opportunity to interact with an effective and experienced professional.   \n   \nAdjunct appointments may or may not involve a payment for some services but where a payment is involved \nit is to be covered by either an employment agreement (refer to People & Culture Web Site under Recruitmen t) \nor a contractor agreement (refer ‘ Contract Management Policy ’ and ‘Contractors (Academic & General Staff \nDuties) Procedures ’ within the Massey University Policy Guid e).   \n     \nThe School (or equivalent) is responsible for preparing the letter of appointment for an adjunct appointment \nwhich must be consistent with the template at Appendix B unless it is to be an employment relationship in \nwhich case the letter is to be prepared by People and Culture.     \n   \nd) Adjunct Professors    \n   \nAppointment as an Adjunct Professor will only be made when the nominee is a person of eminence as \ndemonstrated by excellence of scholarship, the highest level of vocational or professional achievement, and \nproven capacity of leadership in the field where the appointment is sought. The candidate must also possess \nhigh-level skills in teaching, supervision and research, and in the practical application of her/his discipline, as \nappropriate.   \n   \nNomination for appointment as Adjunct Professor will be proposed by a Head of School (or equivalent) to an \nappropriate Pro Vice- Chancellor for a decision. The nomination should take the form of a recommendation for \nappointment and should include:   \n- a CV of  the person nominated;   \n- a report by the Head of School (or equivalent) on the person nominated, which specifies the grounds on \nwhich the nomination is made; and   \n- a proposed contract for duties of the nominee which also specifies the recommended emolument  should \nthe nomination be successful.   \n   \nAppointments to positions as Adjunct Professor shall normally be for three years and appointees will be eligible \nfor reappointment. Upon cessation of appointment, the Professorial title shall not be retained.    \n   \n Honorary and Adjunct (Non- Employment)  \nAppointment Procedure  – Page 4 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \ne) Adjunct Lecturers/Senior Lecturers    \n   \nAppointments to positions as Adjunct Lecturers or Adjunct Senior Lecturers will be made to an appropriate \nSchool (or equivalent) of persons who have relevant academic or professional qualifications and experience, \nand who can offer specialist teaching, supervisory or practical work services to that School (or equivalent).   \n   \nNominations for appointment as Adjunct Lecturer or Adjunct Senior Lecturer will be made in the normal manner \nfor academic appointment and are approved by the Pro Vice- Chancellor.   \n   \nNominations for adjunct positions should be accompanied by a proposed contract for duties of the nominee, specifying also the recommended emolument should the nomination be successful.   \n   \nAppointments to positions as Adjunct Lecturers and Adjunct Senior Lecturers shall normally be for three years \nand appointees will be eligible for re- appointment.   \n   \nf) Massey Ambassadors/Industry Expert   \n   \nThe University shall, from time to time, establish Massey Ambassadors or Industry Experts roles with \nindividuals wh o are recognised professional experts.  These honorary titles will be offered on an invitation only, \nnon-emolument basis to individuals who are highly regarded in their professional field and who possess \nattributes that align with the University’s strategi c goals.  The purpose of such honorary positions is to establish \na recognised partnership between the University and the individual that is effective, complementary and builds \non our areas of strength.  This type of honorary appointment will be used as a platform to promote Massey in an innovative manner without the establishment of a formal employment arrangement.    \n   \nAppointments to Massey Ambassador or as an Industry Expert shall normally be for up to two years and \nappointees will be eligible for reapp ointment. The criterion for continued appointment is related to the ongoing \neffectiveness of the individual’s contribution.   \n   \nNominations for Massey Ambassadors/Industry Experts may be made confidentially to the Vice- Chancellor by \nany Head of School (or  equivalent).  If approved, the School (or equivalent) is responsible for preparing the \nletter to the individual which must be consistent with the template at Appendix C.      \n   \ng) Distinguished Friend of Massey:   \n   \nDistinguished retiring academic and where appropriate resigning staff and recognised professional experts to \nhonorary or adjunct research and teaching positions may, with approval, be appointed a Distinguished Friend \nof Massey. Appointment will be subject to a requirement to observe professional standards including University \npolicies on conduct, research, teaching and public commentary. Feedback should be given to nominators of \nunsuccessful nominations.     \n   \nIndividuals appointed on an honorary basis are eligible to apply for a Distinguished Friend of Massey ID card. \nThis card provides identification while on a Massey campus and can also be used to access the print only \nmaterial in the library, printing and photocopying.  For further information visit the People and  Culture   Website  \nand the University Calendar Use of Information pages under Studying at Massey.   \n   \nThe University recognises the importance of retaining relationships with esteemed retiring academic staff and \nattracting eminent commercial, technical and industry experts to honorary or adjunct academic positions, which \nserve to enhance the University’s research and teaching expertise and wider academic standing.   \n   \nh) Distinguished Visitors     \n   \nIncludes distinguished scholars, researchers and ot her persons who are widely recognised, and who have \nachieved a high level of distinction in their field, and whose presence at Massey University is likely to have a \n Honorary and Adjunct (Non- Employment)  \nAppointment Procedure  – Page 5 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nsignificant impact. The visitors are expected to contribute substantially to academic activ ity in an Institute or \nSchool(s). These outcomes need to be agreed on prior to the visitor coming to New Zealand. In addition, the \nvisitors are requested to offer a public lecture(s) to a wider and more general audience which will enhance the \nstanding of t heir discipline or profession and to intellectual debate at an international level.   \n   \nProcedures:   \n \nThe procedures listed below should be followed if Institutes/Schools wish to invite Distinguished Visitors, Visiting \nAcademics or Researchers to Massey University.  There is a requirement for specific outputs from invited Academic \nVisitors to ensure they m ake a substantial contribution to the University. Collaborative publications and other \nmeasurable outcomes need to be agreed on prior to the academic’s arrival.   \n   \nThese procedures should also be followed when inviting international student interns comin g to the University to gain \npractical work experience or to satisfy requirements for a qualification.  Some specific financial support is available \n(from the office of the Provost ) for distinguished and widely recognised overseas scholars, researchers and other \npersons.   \n   \nImmigration Requirements for Visiting International Academics:     \n Visiting academics to the University who are entering New Zealand for visits of three months or less in any calendar \nyear do not require a work visa provided they are f rom countries whose nationals are people to whom a visa waiver \napplies (see list below). They will be required to produce a letter of invitation from the University and on arrival at a \nNew Zealand airport they will then be granted a visitor visa. If they are not from a visa waiver country, they must apply \nfor a visitor visa through the New Zealand embassy closest to them before travelling to New Zealand.   \n   \nVisiting academics must apply for a work visa prior to travelling to New Zealand if they wish to:   \n• Stay in New Zealand for longer than three months; or   \n• Make multiple visits with a total duration of more than three months in any calendar year.   \n   \nRequirements for Letter of Invitation:   \n \nThe visitor must provide a letter of invitation from Massey University, which demonstrates:   \n1. That they are well qualified in their field and are either employed by an overseas academic or research institution, \nor have wide experience in such employment; and   \n2. That their academic or research institution is of high international standing; and  \n3. That they are undertaking activities of a pedagogical, educational, professional management or research nature; \nand \n4. The dates they will be in New Zealand.   \n   \nThe lett er does not need to be long (see attached examples in Appendices D and E).   \n   \nActivities Qualifying a Visitor entry:   \nI. Collaborating on research projects with academics working at Massey University, including publishing work with \nMassey University academics; and   \nII. Presenting at one- off seminars or conferences organised by the institution; and   \nIII. Providing teaching or tutori ng or short courses in specialised areas that Massey University academics do not \nhave the subject knowledge in; and   \nIV. Sourcing research material only available in New Zealand (including literature) or conducting research only able to be undertaken in New Z ealand; and   \nV. Planning and management (including designing, developing, implementing and reviewing/auditing academic \nresearch courses, programmes and resources) professional development, including teaching methods and \ncurriculum development; and sourcing r esource materials for academic and research programmes; and   \n Honorary and Adjunct (Non- Employment)  \nAppointment Procedure  – Page 6 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nVI. Meeting with a post -graduate student who they co- supervise if the student is enrolled at Massey University from \nwhere they will be receiving their qualification, if successful; and   \nVII. Undertaking performance classes (e.g.in theatre, dance or music) or studi o master classes (i.e. recording and \nmastering music); and   \nVIII. Participating on assessment panels for oral or practical examinations, including for theses; and Study tours.   \n   \n   IX  Citizens of the following countries will be granted a visitor visa on ar rival at the airport:  \n  \nBrazil  Iceland  Netherlands  Sweden  Brunei  \nSwitzerland  Ireland  Norway  Bulgaria  Taiwan******  \nAndorra  France  Luxembourg  Israel  Oman  \nSlovak    Argentina  Germany  Malaysia  Republic  \nAustria  Greece*****                                     Malta  Slovenia  Bahrain  Hong  \nMexico  South Africa  Belgium  Hungary                          Hong Kong  \nMonaco  Spain  Poland                                              Canada  Italy                                                \nUnited Arab  Chile    Japan  Portugal*    Emirates  \nCyprus  Romania  USA**                                          Czech Republic                                 Kuwait  \nQatar  Uruguay  Denmark                                                  Latvia****              San Marino                        \nVatican City  Estonia****   Liechtenstein  Saudi Arabia  Finland     \nLithuania****                                           Singapore  Korea (South)                     \n                                                    \na. ** Including nationals of the USA   \nb.  * Portuguese passport holders must also have the right to live permanently in Portugal   \nc.*** Residents of Hong Kong travelling on Hong Kong Special Administrative Region or British National (Overseas)  passports.   \nd.**** Visa waiver does not apply to people travelling on alien’s (non- citizen’s) passports issued by these countries.   \ne.***** Greek passport holders whose passports were issued on and after 1 January 2006.   \nf.****** Permanent residents of Taiwan travelli ng on Taiwan passports.   \n \n   \nProcedures:   \n   \nIf the Visitor is to be paid a salary this is actioned through People and Culture .  If the Visitor is not paid a salary the \ntitle Honorary shall be added to the category.  Salary does not include grant -in-aid for living expenses or research or \ncomputer facilities, library, office space or other non- monetary resources.   \n   \nFor visiting Associates and Fellows the Head of Institute/School should forward a Memorandum to the Pro Vice  \nChancellor outlini ng:   \n• The period of stay (dates to be supplied)   \n• The purpose of the visit (including measurable outcomes such as collaborative publications)   \n• Any financial assistance/salary that may be payable and the Institute/School Account Number this financial \nassistance will be paid from.   \n• A current curriculum vitae from the Visiting Academic should be attached to the HoI/HoS memo.   \n• A current contact address for the Visitor MUST also be provided.     \n• The Pro Vice- Chancellor should note their approval on the HoI/HoS recommendation.   \n   \nDocuments for academic visitors for which a salary is to be paid should be forwarded to People & Cul ture, along with \nthe Pro Vice- Chancellor and HoI/HoS recommendation.   \n   \nFor honorary visitors, after approval by the Pro Vice- Chancellor the approval memo and related documentation should \nbe sent to the relevant Head of Institute/School to arrange the formal letter of invitation, consistent with the templates \nin Appendix A.   \n Honorary and Adjunct (Non- Employment)  \nAppointment Procedure  – Page 7 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n   \nIt is essential that these procedures be followed in full to ensure visitors are covered for Immigration NZ, IRD and ACC \npurposes.   \n   \nFunding for Distinguished Visitors:   \n   \nThe University has set aside a small fund to assist Institutes/Schools wishing to encourage distinguished overseas \nscholars , researchers, and enterprise leaders  to spend time at the University.  Allocations will be made by the Provost  \non application by a Head of Institute/School.    \n   \nIn order to  support visits by distinguished scholars, researchers  and entrepreneurs  and other persons who are widely \nrecognised, who have achieved a high level of distinction in their field, and whose presence at Massey University is likely to have a significant impact , the visitors are expected to contribute substantially to academic ac tivity in either an \nInstitute , School , College or University . These outcomes need to be agreed on prior to the visitor coming to New \nZealand. In addition, the visitors are requested to offer a public lecture(s) to a wider and more general audience which \nwill enhance the standing of their discipline or profession and to intellectual debate at an international level.   \n   \nAwards will be made annually by the Provost  with the number dependent on available funds. Applications can be made \nby any staff member at any time, with all a pplications approved by the Ho/I/S.  The award is for up to NZ $10,000 and \nmay be supplemented by Institute/School grant.  A significant external financial contribution is also required.   \n \nApplications are to be submitted for visits dur ing the current or subsequent academic year and should where possible \nbe during semester time. Applications are to include:   \n• a current curriculum vitae for the visitor    \n• the name of host and sponsoring HoI/S (s)   \n• a detailed programme plan for the Visitor (including measurable outcomes)   \n• a detailed proposed budget including details of external funding   \n• a letter of support from the HoI/S which: (a) states why the proposed visitor is distinguished and world \nrecognised; (b) outlines the benefits to the Ins titute/School; (c) outlines the benefits to Massey University and \nprofession   \n• letters of support from related HoI/S (s) and external community when appropriate    \n• approval by the PVC   \n   \nBench Fees for Academic Visitors:   \n   \nThe charging of bench fees for visiting academics shall be at the discretion of Heads of Institutes/Schools in consultation \nwith the Pro Vice- Chancellor of the College.   \n   \nHeads of Institutes/Schools are required to supply details of individual cases to the Office of the Provost and DVC \nFinance and Technology  within two weeks of the agreement being reached.   \n  Audience:  \n \nPro Vice -Chancellors   \nDeputy  Vice-Chancellors , Provost  \nHeads of Academic Schools (or equivalent)   \n Relevant legislation: \n \nNone  \n \n \n Honorary and Adjunct (Non- Employment)  \nAppointment Procedure  – Page 8 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nLegal compliance:  \n \nNone  \n \nRelated procedures / documents:  \nHonorary and Adjunct (non -Employment) Appointments Policy   \n Document Management Control: \n Prepared by: Employment Relations Advisor  \nAuthorised by: DVC People and Culture  \nApproved by: SLT 19/12/209 \nDate issued: September 2015  \nLast review: July 2019  \nNext review: July 2024  \n  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nAPPENDIX A: Letter for Honorary Teaching and/or Research Fellows/Associates  \n \n \nOur Ref:  REF \n \nPersonal and Confidential  \n \n \nDATE  \n \n \nName  \nAddress  \n \n \nDear Name  \n \nOn behalf of the Vice -Chancellor, I have pleasure in offering you a position as Honorary Teaching/Research Fellow/  \nAssociate  within the School  in recognition of your teaching/researching  contribution to the School .  The appointment \nis initially for period  commencing on a date to be agreed with the HoD/I /S however no later than date . \n \nPlease advise your acceptance of this offer by signing one copy of this letter and returning it as soon as possible but no \nlater than Reply Date . \n \nYours sincerely  \n \n \n(name of HoD/I/S)  \nfor Professor Jan Thomas  \nVICE -CHANCELLOR  \n \n \n \nACCEPTED:   \nSigned : …………………………………  \n \nDate : ………./………./………………  \n \n \n   \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nAPPENDIX B – Letter for Adjunct Positions  \n \nOur Ref:  REF \n \nPersonal & Confidential  \n \n \nDATE  \n \n \nName  \nAddress  \n \n \nDear Name  \n \n \nDear Name  \n \nOn behalf of the Vice -Chancellor, I am pleased to formalise the relationship between you and the University in your role as \nan Adjunct Position .   \n \nDistinguished members of the community with relevant academic and/or pr ofessional qualifications may be nominated \nfor appointment to adjunct positions in a College or Department (or equivalent) to carry out teaching, supervision \nand/or other duties.  \n \nThe object of an adjunct role is to build a relationship between the Univers ity and a qualified person who can;  \n• provide a link between vocational and practical work and scientific and academic teaching;  \n• provide through special expertise, qualifications, or experience an additional teaching or research input to the \nSchool/Institute/Department/Centre  of School/Institute Department/Centre name ;  \n• provide students with the opportunity to interact with an effective and experienced professional.  \n  \nThe role will be for limited duration of period , commencing in the School/Institute/Department/ Centre  of \nSchool/Institute/Department Centre name  on Date  OR a date to be agreed with Professor HoI Name . \n \nIf unpaid insert:  Please note, that this is an honorary role within the University.   \n \nIf payment is involved as an employee  then the School (or equivalent) must send all information to People and Cutlure  \nfor preparation of the letter and an employment agreement.  \n \nIf payment is as a contractor insert:  You will be paid …(details of payment) .. for ….(details of services for whic h payment \nis to be made) ….   Payment is subject to acceptance of the enclosed Contract for Service of which two copies are enclosed.  \nPlease sign both copies and return one copy with your acceptance of this letter.    During the period of your role, you w ill, \nDuties/Responsibilities to be inserted  \n \nIn accordance with that relationship, there are obligations for both you and the University in terms of the standards of \nconduct expected.   While you are on University business it is expected that you will act in accordance with the expectations \ncontained within the Policy on Staff Conduct. Further information on this can be found on the Massey University Policy \nGuide website: http//:policyguide.massey.ac.nz   \n \nIf you choose to accept this invitation you do so on the basis that, except in the proper performance of your duties, you \nwill not at any time either directly or indirectly utilise or divulge to any person, and will use your best endeavours to pre vent \nthe publication or disclosure of, any knowledge or information which is acquired by you during the course of your time \nwith, or discussions leading up to your commencement with, the University concerning the business, affairs, property, \nteaching resources or o ther activities of the University.  These confidentiality obligations will continue to apply after the \nconclusion of your relationship with the University.  \n \n \n \n \n \n \nWe would be grateful if you could indicate your acceptance of this relationship and acknowledgemen t of the terms of this \nletter by signing and returning one copy of this letter to the School/Institute/Department/Centre .  \n \nA response to this offer is requested no later than Reply Date . \n \nYours sincerely  \n \n \n(name of HoD/I/S)  \nfor Professor Jan Thomas  \nVICE -CHANCELLOR  \n \n \n \n \nACCEPTED:   \n \nSigned:  __________________________________  \n \n   \nDate :  ___________________________________   \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n    \n \n   \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n   APPENDIX C – Letter for Massey Ambassadors/Industry Experts  \n \nOur Ref:  REF \n \nPersonal & Confidential  \n \nDATE  \n \n \nName  \nAddress  \n \n \nDear Name  \n \nRe: Appointment as a Massey Ambassador  \n \nFurther to our recent conversation about you undertaking a role with Massey, this letter is to reflect an arrangement \nbetween you and the University which will provide a platform for you to engage officially on behalf of the University and \nenable the University to advance the  Name of Initiative   within the  Location  region.  \n \nThis appointment is for a period of  Length of Time (no longer than 2 years) .  This provides both a period of certainty for \neach of us regarding your availability for this important task, as well as enabling you to assess your own portfolio of \ncommitments and interests and the University to review the continued relevance of the ro le and your continuation in \nthis.  \n \nWe appreciate that as an honorary, non -remunerated role, there is no intention to create a relationship of employer \nand employee, but actual and reasonable expenses incurred in undertaking of the role will be reimbursed or paid by the \nUniversity.  During the course of you undertaking this role, if there are any issues of concern, we will both discuss these \npromptly with a view to their amicable resolution.  \n \nAs Massey  Ambassador you will under take a number of key  accountab ilities and the focus of the role is as set out in the \nenclosed Role Description.  \n \nMassey University will provide you with:  \n• Official business cards and letterhead.  \n• Access to secretarial and administrative resources in consultation with the  Location  Campus Registrar.  \n \nI would appreciate your indication of acceptance for this relationship and acknowledgement of the terms of this letter by \nsigning and returning one copy of this letter to me.  A response to this offer is requested by Reply Date .   \n \nI look forward to a working with you in this critical area as Massey takes forward our mission of shaping the nation and \ntaking the best of New Zealand to the world.  \n \nYours sincerely  \n \n \n(Name of HoD/I/S)  \nfor Professor Jan Thomas  \nVICE -CHANCELLOR  \n \nEnclosed:  Copy of Role Description  \n \n \nACCEPTED:  Signed:  _______________________________________  Dated: ________________________  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n   \nAppendix D: Visit of 3 months or less duration + citizen of a country listed in Clause IX  \n \n \nPersonal & Confidential  \n \nDATE  \n \n \nName  \nAddress  \n \n \nDear Name  \n \nInternational Visiting Academic  \n \nMassey University wishes to extend a warm invitation for you to visit the School/Institute of (Department)  in the College of \n(Faculty ) from (date ) until ( date ). \n \nThe Institute/School and University are looking forward to developing a mutually beneficial re lationship. We confirm that you \nwill be undertaking activities of a pedagogical, educational, professional management or research nature ( delete those that \ndon’t apply)  that will benefit staff and students.  \n \nPlease have a copy of this invitation available for immigration officials when you arrive in New Zealand. You will then be issued \nwith a Visitor Visa by NZ Immigration,  \n \nPlease confirm your acceptance of this invitation by contacting ( Name ) on ( Number ) or email ( email ) \nI/We look forward to welcoming you  to Massey University  \n \n \nYours sincerely  \n \n \n \n \n(Name of Head of School/Institute)  \nMassey University  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n     Appendix E : Visit of longer than 3 months duration and/or a citizen of a country not listed in Clause IX     \n \n \nOur Ref:  REF \n \nPersonal & Confidential  \n \nDATE  \n \n \nName  \nAddress  \n \n \nDear Name  \n \n \n      International Visiting Academic  \n \nMassey University wishes to extend a warm invitation for you to visit the School/Institute of (Department)  in the College \nof (Faculty ) from (date ) until ( date ). \n \nThe Institute/School and University are looking forward to developing a mutually beneficial relationship.   During this \nperiod you will ….(insert wording about the activities to be undertaken e.g.:  \n• be undertaking research on  ………………while on your sabbatical  from …………….. University . \n• deliver a series of lectures on ……………… and support the research activities of staff in the School of………………  \n• working as a volunteer under the supervision of Dr …………….  \n \nYou will require a visa to travel to New Zealand and you should discuss your requirements with the New Zealand Immigration \nService.  The New Zealand Immigration Service may require a copy of this letter as evidence of the purpose of your visit.  \nInformation about the application process can be found on the Immigration Service web site at \nhttp://www.immigration.govt.nz .  It is recommended that you carry health insurance to cover the duration of your visit.  \n \nPlease confirm your acceptance of this invitation by contacting ( Nam e) on ( Number ) or email ( email ). \n \nI/We look forward to welcoming you to Massey University . \n \n \nYours sincerely  \n \n \n \n \n(Name of Head of School/Institute)  \nMassey University  \n \n \n \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Massey_University_Qualifications_Policy_PDF_186_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Massey University Qualifications Policy PDF 186 KB",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "186 KB",
      "author": "mamacken",
      "creation_date": "2023-04-03T12:02:07",
      "modification_date": "D:20230403122743+12'00'"
    },
    "content": " \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n \n \nMASSEY UNIVERSITY QUALIFICATIONS POLICY  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \n \n \n \n \nPurpose : \nTo assure the design, approval, implementation, delivery, and review  of all qualifications and micro -credentials at \nMassey University.  \nTe Tiriti o Waitangi  \nAll qualifications will be developed in accordance with Te Tiriti o  Waitangi, including meaningful partnership, \nconsultation, and consideration of Kaupapa Māori . The needs of Māori students and scholars will be accommodated . \nPolicy:  \nQualifications are conferred by the University on persons who have completed an approved p rogramme of study.  \nQualifications that offer a coherent educational experience are central to the overall quality of teaching and learning at \nthe University.  The Qualifications Policy assures that all qualifications at Massey University adhere to the req uirements \nset across the qualification lifecycle (i.e., design, approval, implementation, delivery, and review) , through the following \nobjectives:    \n• To maximise consistency, enhance portability, and reduce variation wherever possible and appropriate.  \n• To pr omote transparency, reduce complexity, ensure that all necessary information is available to support \neffective decision -making , and standardise practices where appropriate .  \n• To utilise staff effort efficiently and improve student success.  \n \nThe design, appr oval, implementation, delivery, and review of qualifications offered by Massey University will  be \nassured through : \n \n1. Adhere nce to the following general principles:  \n \na. Coherence  \nQualifications will be supported by qualification -specific regulations which ensure programmes of study are \nmeaningful, well -structured, have internal coherence, and that requirements, expectations, and outcomes \nare transparent. Any chang e processes should  be outcome focussed . Frequent change  should be avoided .  \n \nb. Consistency  \nQualifications will be subject to University -wide enrolment and general regulations to ensure consistency, \nportability, and simplicity across the University.  Terminology will be clearl y defined and used consistently \nto facilitate  translation of internal documents for third parties.  Section  Academic  \nContact  Office of Academic Quality, Reporting and Assurance  \nLast Review  October 2022  \nNext Review  October 2027  \nApproval  C23/13 \n \nMassey University Qualifications Policy – Page 2 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \nc. Relevance  \nWithin this context qualification design and review will ensure qualifications are aligned to the needs and \nexpectations of student cohorts (inc luding international students), industry and professional bodies, are \nrespected by peers and contribute to the University’s role as critic and conscience of society.  \n \nd. Efficiency  \nQualifications will provide for defined pathways to completion , which are stra ightforward for students to \nunderstand and follow and which minimise duplication of resource and activity.  Qualification regulations \n(where appropriate) will include specific requirements for entry, time limits for completion, and alternative \nexit qualifi cations to encourage student progression and completion.  \n \ne. Integrity  \nQualifications offered by the University will primarily be NZQF levels 5 -8 (undergraduate and graduate) \nand 8 -10 (postgraduate), or be offered for the purposes of matriculation or professi onal development.  \nProgrammes of study will be research -informed and with clearly articulated learning  and teaching  \noutcomes.  All qualifications will be subject to regular and ongoing academic review.  \n \nf. Sustainability  \nQualifications will be designed to be financially, academically , and administratively sustainable and \nimplementable, with adequate and appropriate resources, along with policies to ensure that Intellectual \nProperty is appropriately retained.  \n \ng. Equity  \nQualifications of a similar type and level offered across the University  will have parity with regard to \nadmission, progression , and workload expectations.  Qualifications may be offered in partnership with other \ninstitutions of similar standing, and the U niversity may formalise admission with advanced standing through \narticulation agreements with partner institutions where desirable and equitable.  Accessibility and equity of \naccess will be a defining feature.  \n \n \n2. Offering of qualifications in accordance wit h the Massey University Qualifications Framework, which outlines how \nthe University will incorporate the principles outlined in this policy into deliverable qualifications.  \n \n3. Align ment  with the strategic directions of the University as articulated in the University’s Strategic Plan.  \nDefinitions  \nAs used in this policy portability  relates to the ability to appropriately transfer credits completed into, between and from \nqualifications (both complete and partially completed) , the ability to progress into higher level study (either within Massey \nor at an alternative institution) from a qualification , the relevance of the qualification and the skills and attributes of \ngraduates to relevant sectors in the workplace , and  the recognition of the qualification by peers and professional bodies \nin New Zealand and abroad.  \n \nDefinitions for terms  used in the Qualification s Policy and Qualifications Framework and relating to qualifications are \nlocated in the University Calendar.  \n \nFor the purposes of this Policy, the principles applied to qualifications will also apply to micro -credentials.  \n \n \nMicro -credential has been defined by NZQA and adopted by CUAP as:  \n• certifying the achievement of a specific set of skills and knowledge  \n• having a statement of purpose and clear learning outcomes  \n \nMassey University Qualifications Policy – Page 3 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n• having demonstrable support from relevant industries, employers, or c ommunities  \n• having a credit value from 5 to 40 credits ( inclusive ) \n• typically not duplicating current quality assured learning already approved.  \nAudience  \nAll staff and students  \nRelevant legislation  \nConsumer Guarantees Act 1993  \nFair Trading Act 1986  \nEducation and Training Act 2020  \nLegal compliance  \nConsumer Guarantees Act 1993: Qualifications provided by the University must be of the nature and quality generally \nexpected of similar qualifications, and prepare students for relevant careers where the student makes their intention \nknown (s29).  \nFair Trading Act 1986: Qualifications provided by the University must not be represented in  a manner that is misleading \nor deceptive as to their nature, characteristics, suitability for a purpose, quality, or approval or accreditation status or \nallow such to be reasonably inferred (s13).  \nEducation and Training Act 2020 : \nRelated procedures / doc uments:  \nMassey University Qualifications Framework  \nQualification Review Policy and Procedures  \nEquivalence Policy  \nEquity of Access to Educational Opportunities Policy  \nTreaty of Waitangi Policy  \nInstitutional Partnerships Policy  \nDocument Management Control:  \nAuthorised by:  Provost  \nApproved by:  Provost  \nDate issued:  August 2011  \nLast review:  October 2022  \nNext review:  October 2027  \n \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Massey_University_Council_Occupational_Health_Safety_and_Wellbeing_Charter_PDF_80_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Massey University Council Occupational Health Safety and Wellbeing Charter PDF 80 KB",
      "policy_type": "Unknown",
      "file_size": "80 KB",
      "author": "Rachel Ferguson",
      "creation_date": "2025-06-24T12:03:09",
      "modification_date": "D:20250624123953+12'00'"
    },
    "content": "Massey  University  I massey.ac.nz  I 0800  MASSEY   MASSEY  \nUNIVERSITY  \nTF KU:\"ll\"E NGA Kl P0REHUROA  \n \nUNIVERSITY  OF NEW  ZEALAND  \nMassey  University  Council  \nOccupational  Health, Safety  & Wellbeing Charter  \nMassey U niversity's Cou ncil is comm itted to gove rning and ensuring a hea lthy, safe a nd supportive  \nenvironment for staff, students,  contractors , and any members  of the pub lic who are  affected by \nuniversity  operatio ns or associated  workp laces. T his includes the physica l, psycholo gical, soc ial, and \ncultural health , safety  and we llbeing of o ur commu nity members . Counc il further recog nises Te Ao \nMāori  and the importance of te Tirit i o Waitangi i n the university 's approach to occupationa l healt h, \nsafety and wellbeing.  \nCouncil recognises t hat it has workp lace safety governance overs ight a nd monito ring respons ibilities \nfor the u niversity's (PCBU) primary duty of care to e liminate o r minimise harm to worke rs and other \npersons . This i ncludes a ll PCBU  risk management practices that contribute to safety c ritical risk control \neffectiveness  and resilience, and a shared commitment to inclusive cu lture that ack nowledges a nd \nvalues workp lace safety for our commun ity. \nAll Council Members , as officers  of the PCBU, are committed  to meet ing their obl igations unde r \nrelevant legislation  (includ ing any  amendments) , and ensuring that  approp riate knowledge a nd \nresou rces are in place a nd used by  the PCBU to  meet  those obligatio ns. \nThe Charter  requires  Council  to demonstrate  due diligence  that reasonably  ensures;  \n \n1. PCBU  Safe System of  Work \n• Cultural Safety  - enable Te Ao  Māori  to flourish in  the university's approac h to \noccupatio nal health, safety a nd wellbeing.  \n• Deliberate Learni ng and Development - increase awareness , knowledge, unde rstandi ng and \ndeve lopments necessary for the unive rsity to  grow  capability  and capacity  for safe huma n \nand o rganisational  performance . \n• Risk Anticipat ion, Understanding and Mitigatio n - anticipates and focuses attention on  'ought \nreasonab ly to know' governa nce decision -making  that informs , influences  and maps  risk \nprofiling practices  whether interna l and externa l risk expos ures. \n• Plan and Resource  - regula rly schedules  and informs safe work expectations  that nav igate \nvariabi lity and unexpected  situations  that affect work  as one, actively  listens  for what resources \nare needed,  and ensures  resou rce availability . \n• Trust and Verify  - routine ly test the rigour of safe systems of wo rk with management to clearly \nunderstand the effectiveness , optimisatio n and resilience  of ‘work  as imagined ' safety critica l \nrisk contro ls. \n• Monitor a nd Respond  - proactively a nd systemat ically seek out PCBU safe wo rk risk \nmanagement pract ices and provide genuine insights and responses  that reduces \nincentiv isation of  unwanted behaviour . \n \n2. Officer Inquiry  and Response  \n• Courage - The capacity to c hallenge o neself a nd others arou nd the governa nce table when \nworkpolace safety challenges arise and to then res pond in const ructives way  \n• Capabil ity -Continuously  improve self -capa bility on wo rkplace safety matters by looking for \ninformatio n, knowledge and advice from experts, partners , workers  and ma nagement.  \n• Curiosity -  Be genuinely  curious  about  what  is happe ning in the university  and seek  to \nunderstand , (1) How work is done rather than imagined,  (2) T he cha llenges  of what worke rs \n\nMassey  University  I massey.ac.nz  I 0800  MASSEY   face, (3) T he impact  governance  decisions have on safety systems of work , and (4) The \nassurance level of systems effectiveness . \n• Context - recognise a nd take into account the context of work, wo rkplace safety challenges  \nand the broader enviro nment. Understand how non -safety organisational matters impact on \nsafety performance a nd how the peoples ' actions are driven by t heir co ntext. \n• Care - Place people at  the centre of  university  safety approaches and discussio ns. Be peop le \ncentric before be ing comp liance centric a llowing governance and due dil igence to arise  out \nof a healthy and safe  workfo rce. \n \n Signature   \n \n Unive rsity Chancellor  Date 15 May 2025   \n\n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Institutional_Partnerships_Procedures_PDF_216_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Institutional Partnerships Procedures",
      "policy_type": "Procedure",
      "file_size": "216 KB",
      "creation_date": "2023-08-24T11:01:00",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220103104+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n \nINSTITUTIONAL PARTNERSHIPS PROCEDURES   \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \n \nPurpose:  \nThe Institutional Partnerships Procedures complement the related Institutional Partnerships P olicy and support its \noperationalisation.  \nTe Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa Massey  University  will establish living guidelines and systems , hosted on One Massey, for \nthe proposal, due diligence, approval , management  and renewal of Institutional Partnerships and Institutional \nAgreements.  \nKey Roles  \nThere are three key roles linked to university  partnerships, including:  \n• Strategic Lead ers; \n• Relationship Manager s; and \n• Partnership Manager s. \nThe Strategic Lead ers are responsible for:  \n• Setting the strategic direction and providing oversight of Institutional Partners and Institutional Agreements.  \n• Assigning the management of Institutional Partnerships in their area of res ponsibility to authorised staff . \n• Establishing criteria against which new and renewing Institutional Agreements are assessed. These  will be \nsubject to change, dependant on Partnership Type and published online as part of the guidelines. These will \nbe develope d in consultation with College Pro Vice -Chancellor s, Relationship Managers,  and stak eholders \nacross the University.  \n• Determining tiers of Institutional Partnerships and the engagement requirements for each level.  \n• Setting and reviewing “Risk Levels” for Partnership Types.  \n• Reviewing and either endorsing or rejecting the Proposals against the  criteria , adding commentary as \nrequired . All relevant Strategic Leads must endorse the Proposal for it to proceed.  \n• Signing or approving the Institutional Agreements, depending on delegation s. \nAligned with the University delegations, the Strategic Lead ers are as per the policy.  The Strategic Lead ers may  further  \ndelegate  their roles w here appropriate and within the University delegation framework.   \nThe Relationship Manager s are responsible for:  Section  University Management  \nContact  Office of the Deputy Vice -Chancellor Students and Global Engagement  \nOffice of the Provost  \nLast Review  August 2023  \nNext Review  August 2026  \nApproval  SLT 23/07/73  \nEffective Date  August 2023  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nInstitutional Partnerships Procedures  – Page 2  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n• Engaging with relevant academic, research and professional services  stakeholders  and/or collaborators  \nregarding the e stablishment of the Institutional Partnership and/or Institutional Agreement.  \n• Consulting with the relevant Partnership Manager or delegate  during the process, including ensuring the \nPartnership Manager  is informed of the initiation of discussions with the Institutional Partner.  \n• Liaising with the Institutional Partner to establish the areas of cooperation and type of In stitutional Agreements \nbeing sought.  \n• Ensuring  appropriate tikanga and mātāpono  for each Institutional Partnership are established and upheld.  \n• Where required, coordinating the completion of  course or programme equivalence assessments and the \nInstitutional Agreement programme s chedules as required.  \n• Determining the financial and resource commitment required by  the University  to establish and implement a \nsuccessful Institutional Agreement.  \n• Ensuring alignment and adherence with any College specific strategies, priorities,  and approval processes.  \n• Completing the due diligence (outlined below and in the guidelines), alongside the Partnership Manager or \ndelegate.  \n• Completing a Proposal for the Institutional Partnership and/or Institutional  Agreement.  \n• Ensuring the quality assurance and monitoring of relevant Institutional Partnerships.  \n• Contributing towards the records for an Institutional Partnership or Institutional Agreement as relevant.  \n• Undertaking reviews, variations,  and terminations in  alignment with these procedures.  \nThe responsibilit y of Relationship Manager s will be supported by the relevant Partnership Manager or delegate ( e.g., \nPartnership Coordinator) . \nThe Relationship Manager  is a Senior Leadership Team endorsed senior staff member of a sponsoring \nCollege/ Department who sponsors  the Institutional Partnership and is in a  position to perform the  relevant oblig ations \nin these procedures and associated g uidelines. They are responsible for being the primary point of co ntact for matters \nrelating to the  Institutional Agreement s and will liaise  with and coordinate appropriate College staff, key stakeholders,  \nand the Partnership Manager  regarding the establishment of the Institutional Partnership  and/or Institutional \nAgreements . \nThe Partnership Manager s are responsible for:  \n• Providi ng cross -university partnership management for tier one  Institutional Partnerships.  \n• Managing the business pr ocess for Institutional Partnerships including Institutional Agreement templates, \nworkflow, approvals, CRM, and systems.  \n• Providing guidance and advice on establishing Institutional Partnerships and Institutional Agreements, \nincluding establishing risk mana gement plan templates.  \n• Supporting the relevant Relationship Manager to complete the Proposal and monitoring established \nInstitutional Partnerships, this could be by assigning Partnership Coordinators where relevant.  \n• Reviewing and either supporting or rejecting the Proposals against the criteria, addin g commentary as \nrequired.  \n• Seeking legal and financial advice and/or review from relevant internal or external advisors . \n• Ensuring that the requirements of the Education (Pastoral Care of Tertiary and International Learners) Code \nof Practice 2021 (“the Code”) are adhered to for each Institutional Agreement.  \n• Ensuring there is no conflict with existing Institutional Agreements.  \n• Creating Project Teams or appropriate governance structures where the risk level for the Institutional \nPartnership and/or Institut ional Agreement has been identified as high.  \n• Reporting on Institutional Partnerships, Institutional Agreements,  and compliance with the Code annually.  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nInstitutional Partnerships Procedures  – Page 3  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \nProposal  of Institutional Partnerships (including  Due Diligence and Approval ): \nProposal : \nStrategic Le aders, Relationship Managers, and/or Partnership Managers  may propose the establishme nt of \nInstitutional Agreements.  \nProposals will be  considered against the partnership principles  in the policy  and endorsed or rejected by the Strategic \nLead er(s).   \nDue Diligence : \nAll University policies, procedures and regulations will apply unless specifically exempted as part of an Institutional \nAgreement. Any exemption m ust ensure  the University ’s reputation and academic quality are not diminish ed. \nAll Institutional Partnerships are subject to  due diligence and formalised by an Institutional Agreement, the complexity \nof which is proportionate to the Partnership Type  and identified risk level . \n• Financial (if relevant ): \n· The Strategic Lead er will determine the appropriate structures (governance/leg al) for a Partnership \nTypes  and in turn each Institutional Agreement, having regard for the preferences of the Institutional \nPartner and internal/external advice from relevant advisors and meeting the financial management \nrequirements of both institutions.  \n· All financial arrangements will foll ow current legislation, regulations, guidelines,  and p olicies.  \n· All financial arrangements must c omply with TEC funding rules and other relevant external \nrequirements.  Strategic Leader \n(Provost or DVC)\nRelationship \nManager (PVC or \ndelegate)Partnership \nManager \n(Provost/DVC \nService Director \nor delegate)\n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nInstitutional Partnerships Procedures  – Page 4  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n· The Partnership Manager  is resp onsible for ensuring that they  seek external advice from the relevant \nIP/tax/financial advisor on IP/tax/financial matters related to partnership arrangements for both the \nUniversity and any relevant staff.  \n \n• Compliance:  \n· The Relationship Manager  will be responsible for checking alignmen t with relevant regulations, \npolicies, procedures, specifically those related to qualification delivery , recognition,  or research.  \n· The Partnership Manager  is resp onsible for ensuring that they seek advice from the relevant advisor \non legal matters related to partnership arrangements, including requests to draft or review Institutional \nAgreements, or to seek external advice. External legal review is required for high -risk Institutional \nPartnerships , where  Institutional P artnerships involve new countries, a new Partnership Type or if an \nInstitutional Agreement is not on a university  template.  \n· The requirements of the Code must be  adhered to for each Institutional Agreement.  \n· The Partnership Manager  is responsible for ensurin g that there is no conflict with existing Institutional \nAgreements.  \n· Any Massey  University  award  delivered offshore must be recognised in the Institutional Partner ’s \ncountry.  \n· Any programme delivery by the University  offshore must be permitted  in the Institutional Partner’s \ncountry.  \n· Internal quality assurance and external CUAP requirement s must be adhered to.  \n• Academic:  \n· Further to the above compliance checks, t he Relationship Manager is responsible for ensuring all \nrelevant academic regulations and requirements are met. Including coordinating the completion of \ncourse or programme equivalence assessments and the Institutional Agreement programme \nschedules as required.  \n· Where the risk level on the Partnership Table is “High” or the delivery of the I nstitutional Agreement \nwill be outside of current academic regulations and requirements, the Relationship Manager shall \nengag e with relevant Academic Directors from the College and Office of Academic Assurance in \norder to ensure relevant due diligence and approval steps are undertaken (including internal \ncommittee and CUAP approval where required ). \n• Risk Management:  \n· Where the risk level is high  or risks have been identified as an outcome of due diligence, the \nRelationship Manager  is responsible for ensuring a risk management plan is c ompleted (templates \nare available in the guidelines) . \n· Where the risk level is high  or risks have been identified as an outcome of due diligence, the \nPartnership Manager  is responsible for the creation of a Project Team or appropriate governance \nstructure for at least the development and initiation stages o f the Institutional Partnership . \nEndorsement and Approval : \nFormal n egotiations regarding  the obligations  of a proposed Institutional Agreement  can only be undertaken with the \nprior approval of the Partnership Manager  and are always subject  to formal approval and signature . No University  \nemployee shall make any promise to another party which purports to bind the University, whether verbally or in \nwriting, outside of an approved Institutional Agreement  or variation  (as per the University Dele gation Policy) . \nThe Relationship Manager is responsible for ensuring that  the Proposal and  all due diligence is completed in order for \nthe Proposal to have a smooth transition through the approval process. This includes ensuring that any academic \napprovals  have been considered and obtained.  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nInstitutional Partnerships Procedures  – Page 5  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nTo ensure a proposed Institutional Partnership meets the requirements of the University , the Partnership Manager  is \nresponsible for ensuring appropriate advice and approvals from all relevan t sections of the University have  been \nobtained before entering into a n Institutional Agreement . \nProposals may be paused or not endorsed  at any stage of the  due diligence and  approval process. Reasons for the \nnon-endorsement must be provided. Proposals which are not endorsed will go back to the Partnership Manager for \ndetermining the next steps. The Proposal will be able to  resume once any concerns are rectified.  \nInstitutional Partnerships may be established with an MOU;  however, an Institutional Agreement is required when any \nobligations are legally binding on a party. The form the Institutional Agreement takes may differ between Institutional \nPartners and will depend on the Partnership Type. All Institutional Agreements  must  include robust arrangements for \nthe protection of the rights of individuals, including for safety, security, and the assurance of appropriate arrangements \nfor students in the event of the unexpected cessation of an Institutional Partnership  and/or the Institutional Agreement . \nThe Partnership Manager  will manage Institutional Agreement templates and associated materials for their area of \nresponsibility. Where the partner requests variations to the Institutional Agreement template, the Partnership  Manager  \nwill work with the relevant legal advisor.  \nThe term of the Institutional A greement  will normally be for a period of between three (3) and five (5) years.  \nFollowing endorsement to execute an Institutional Agreement, the Partnership Manager  arranges for the final \napproval and signature of the Delegated Authority.  \nThe Delegated Aut hority to enter any Institutional Partnership is the Vice -Chancellor. This authority may be sub -\ndelegated on a standing or specific basis, refer to the Delegations of Authority Policy.  \nThe Partnership Manager  is responsible for ensuring records of fully ex ecuted Institutional Agreements are lodged in \nthe approved  systems, with appropriate metadata.  \nQuality Assurance, Monitoring and Reporting  \nInstitutional Partnership arrangements undergo continuous quality assurance , monitoring,  and improvement cycles. \nThis means that:  \n• a quality and standards review cycle for all Institutional A greements is established where the frequency of \nreview will align with the risk level of the Institutional Partnership.  \n• all third -party delivery of teaching activities involve s regul ar contact and collaboration between the parties.  \n• all parties are required to provide immediate notification of any issues that require remediation for the \nprotection of students, staff, quality assurance or formal notifications under policy or legislation . \nQuality Assurance : \nArrangements for the quality assurance and governance of Institutional Partnerships will vary according to the \nPartnership Type.  \nResearchers are required to comply with the Massey University Code of Responsible Research Conduct at all times. \nResearchers and consultants, in particular, need to ensure and monitor adherence with the Institutional Agreement \nobligations and timelines.  \nWhere the Institutional Partnership includes students enrolled in Massey  University  programmes and/or courses, \nquality assurance will include reporting and analysis of student outcomes and Code compliance. They are also \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nInstitutional Partnerships Procedures  – Page 6  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nincluded in standard course and/or pro gramme monitoring activities, in addition to the specific quality assurance \nmeasures outlined in the Institutional Agreement.  \nFor high -risk teaching partnership types, an Academic Programme Director from each party must be appointed for \neach programme prio r to delivery. The Academic Programme Director is responsible for oversight of the day -to-day \ndelivery of the programme and escalating issues as necessary to the Relationship Manager  and Partnership  \nManager. A Joint Management Committee or equivalent (JMC)  will also convene. The JMC is responsible for \noversight of the quality and strategic development of programmes under the Institutional Partnership.  \nMonitoring:  \nFor all teaching Institutional Agreements, the Relationship Manager  will undertake monitoring and improvement of \narrangements. This will include:  \n• Student academic performance data.  \n• Student and graduate survey data.  \n• Graduate employment and outcomes data.  \n• Comparison data from similar student cohorts.  \n• The status of relevant professional body accreditations and issues . \n• Compliance with relevant regulatory or legislative requirements.  \n• Where applicable, compliance with Graduating Year Review, or other review, requirements . \n• Analysis of cohort outcomes which may also result in required adjustments to credit arrangements and \nprecedents.  \n• Regular review of credit precedents to ensure the consistency of credit decisions between like courses with \nthe University regulations and policies.  \n• Monitoring the teaching performance of the Institutional Partner ’s staff members and will discuss \nunsatisfactory results with the Institutional Partner . \nWhere a resolution of the issues or mitigation of risks are not achieved, the Relationship Manager  will refer the matter \nto the Partnership Manager . \nReporting : \nThe Partnership Manager  will manage reporting for Institutional Partnerships, however, the re levant  Relationship \nManager  for each Institutional Partnership and/or Institutional Agreement  will enter their activities and information into \nthe approved system , including, where applicable:  \n• Evidence of the continued strategic value of the Institutional Partnership  and/or Institutional Agreement  to the \nUniversity . \n• Student numbers/participation/o utcomes and/or research outputs.  \n• Visits and interactions.  \n• Financial performance.  \n• Issues, risks,  and recommended actions, including details of progress against these.  \n• JMC activities (where applicable).  \n• Recommendations for continuation or termination of any Institutional Partnership  and/or Institutional \nAgreement . \nThe Partnership Manager  is responsible for keeping accurate and relevant information (in accordance with the \nRecords Management Policy) necessary to appropriately manage the partnerships in accordan ce with all regulatory, \nlegislative,  and good practice guidelines.  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nInstitutional Partnerships Procedures  – Page 7  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nThe Partnership Manager is responsible for reporting on compliance with the Code annually , as well as reporting to \nSLT, Council as required . \nVarying an Institutional Agreement : \nWhere changes or additions are required to an existing Institutional Agreement, the Strategic Lead er must be notified \nas early as possible. Consultation must occur with all relevant stakeholders and the Institutional Partner to ensure that \nresourcing and o ther requirements can continue to be met under the proposed variations.  \nThe documentation required to vary an existing Institutional Agreement will depend on the level of change required:  \n• A new Institutional Agreement and revision of associated documentati on may be required where a \nsubstantive change to accountabilities or terms of an arrangement is proposed.  \n• A Variation Agreement including updates to any relevant schedules or other associated documents will suffice \nwhere the change to terms is not substant ive. \nRenewing an Institutional  Agreement : \nPreparations for the renewal of an Institutional Agreement should commence well in advance of the expiry of the \ncurrent Institutional Agreement, timelines will be dependent on the nature of the Institutional A greement.  \nThe Relationship Manager  will normally commence renewal. Renewals of arrangements require the same approval \nprocesses and considerations as new Institutional Agreements. Proposals for renewals must consider the current \nacademic qua lity, equivalency, research outputs, regulatory compliance, any transitional arrangements and student \nand financial performance.  \nFollowing a review, the Relationship Manager  may commence  formal negotiations with the Institutional Partner and \nconsultation  with internal stakeholders for any revisions to the arrangements.  \nExisting Institutional Agreements may be extended by a Variation Agreement for up to 5 years where the obligations \nand terms of the current Institutional Agreement meet all the current re gulations . \nTermination : \nInstitutional Agreements can be terminated only in accordance with its terms. All Institutional Agreements must \ninclude an exit strategy.  \nInitial discussions in relation to terminating an Institutional Agreement will occur between the Relationship Manager  \nand Institutional Partner . The Relationship Manager  liaises with the Partnership Manager  in relation to a proposal to \nterminate. The Partnership Manager  will determine process and accountabilities in relation to the termination of \nInstitutional Partnership and/or Institutional Agreement arrangements , as this will need to be specific to each \nInstitutional Partnership . \nWhen making decisions on the termination of an Institutional Agreement, the University will consider:  \n• Protection of the i nterests of students including teach out responsibilities to students . \n• Protection of the interests of staff . \n• Legal, financial,  and reputational implications . \n• Other areas of the University involved in the Institutional Partnership . \n• Compliance with relevant regulatory and legislative requirements.  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nInstitutional Partnerships Procedures  – Page 8  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nDefinitions : \nInstitutional Agreement(s) refers to any formal instrument or document entered by the University and another party \nwhich sets out the respective rights and responsibilities of the parties (including financial obligations and deliverables) \nin respect of a partnership.  For the purposes of this Policy Institutional Agreements include Memorandums of \nUnderstanding and only relate to Institutional Agreements in scope.  By example, s ome of the main  types of Institutional \nAgreements that are currently used at the University  are MOU’s, Letters of Intent, Non -Disclosure Agreements, \nCollaboration Agreements, Study Abroad and Student Exchange Agreements, Articulation and Pathway Agreements, \nInternship Ag reements and Scholarship Agreements.  \n \nInstitution al Partner  includes  institutions and organisations providing education and/or research activities/services \n(such as  university, private training establishment, wā nanga, schools, museum, business, kura, zoo’s, iwi organisations , \ndefence force ).  \n \nInstitutional Partnership(s)  means any formal relationship between  the University  or a University subsidiary and a n \nInstitutional Partner  to achieve specified objectives  in scope of this Policy .  \n  \nMemorandums of Understanding (MOU)  are institution -to-institution framework documents used for the purpose \nof formalising an Institutional Partnership. MOUs are legally non -binding, high -level, non -specific relationship \ndocuments. It is important to note that Institutional Partner s may int erpret the form and function of MOUs differently.   \n \nOffshore Agreements  are a greements where the teaching, research or other services are provided outside New \nZealand.  \n \nPartnership Category  includes activities categorised as: research, international and/or Māori.   \nPartnership Coordinator  is a staff member who supports the Partnership Manager and Relationship Managers to \nperform their obligations in these Procedures and Guidelines  (e.g., College International Advisor).  \nPartnership Manager  is a senior s taff member of a Strategic Lead er’s portfolio , usually Associate Director level  or \nabove who is in a position to perform the Partnership Manager ’s obligations in these procedures and guideli nes (e.g., \nAssociate Director Global Partnerships) . \nPartnership Types Partnerships Types Table.pdf   \n \nResearch or Consultancy  means the provision by the University staff of expert or professional advice, information \nand/or service to individuals  or organisations (whether internal or external), or research (as defined in the Code of \nResearch Conduct) as agreed by contract and resulting in the receipt of a negotiated remuneration.   \nRelationship Manager  is a s enior staff member of a sponsoring  college/department, usually at Director/ Associate \nHead of Department level or above who endorses the Institutional Agreement and is in a position to perform the \nRelationship Manager ’s obligations in these procedures and guidelines ( e.g., College International Director).  \nStrategic Lead er refers to the SLT member deemed as the primary/strategic lead er of a Partnership Category. The \nStrategic Lead ers are listed in this policy and in the procedures alongside their responsibilities and accountabilities.   \nAudience:  \nAll staff.  \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nInstitutional Partnerships Procedures  – Page 9  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nRelated procedur es / documents:  \nInstitutional Partnerships Policy  \nSubcontracting of Teaching Activity Policy  \nApproval Pathways and Quality Assurance Guidelines for Dome stic and International Subcontracting of Teaching \nActivity  \nContract Management Policy  \nContract Management Procedures  \nMassey University Qualifications Policy  \nResearc h and Consultancy Contract Policy  \nTeaching and Learning Policy  \nTeaching and Learning Framework  \nDelegations of Authority Policy  \nDocument Management Control:  \nPrepared by:  Business Executive Manager  \nAuthorised by:  Deputy Vice -Chancellor Students and Global Engagement and Provost  \nApproved by:  SLT 23/07/73  \nDate issued:  August 2023  \nNext review:  August 2026  \n \n \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Massey_University_Visual_Arts_Collection_Policy_PDF_228_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Massey University Visual Arts Collection Policy PDF 228 KB",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "228 KB",
      "creation_date": "2025-04-30T11:02:02",
      "modification_date": "D:20250430112205+12'00'"
    },
    "content": " Massey University Policy Guide  \n \nVISUAL ARTS COLLECTION POLICY   \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nPurpose  \n \nThe purpose of the Visual Arts Collect ion Policy is to provide the guiding principles for the acquisition, \npossession, exhibition, management, care, maintenance, and, where appropriate, deaccessioning of \nthe University Visual Arts Collection held by Te Kunenga Ki P ūrehuroa Massey University.  \n \nThe main purpose s of the Visual Arts Collection are to: \n \n• Enhance and reflect the culture and character of the University\n• Enrich the learning and teaching experience through active engagement with art in all University\nenvironments\n• Encouraging and supporting debate and discussion\n• Recognise the longstanding place and presence of mana whenua as this is linked to our three\ncampuses\n• Explore and encourage the connection with our local and wider communities\n• Be available, and create opportunities, for research and education \n• Recognise individuals and events connected with the University.\n \nPrinciples  \n \nThe Visual Art s Collection is  founded and managed based  on the following principles:  \n \n• Fulfil the Collection purpose as outlined in this policy.  \n• Artworks acquired and held, must be  able to be displayed and maintained by the University  \n(ensuring we are appropriately able to be kaitiaki of any items we both acquire  and hold ) and we \nwill s eek to minimise and remove barriers to people experiencing, gaining an understanding of , \nand appreciating our art collection.  \n• The Collection will be regarded as permanent and public.  \n• All artworks will have clear title and be legally, ethically and culturally appropriate for the \nUniversity to hold ; and \n• New acquisition s must  meet priority level 1 or 2 as defined below. Level 3 priority will only be \nconsidered if this is endorsed by the Deputy Vice -Chancellor, Students and Global Engagement.  \n \nPriorities  \n \n• Level 1: Artworks by significant artists where the artist or subject matter is closely associated with \nthe University  (it’s history or future) , or its wider community.  Section University Management \nContact University Curator\nLast Review October 2024\nNext Review October 2026\nApproval SLT15/10/206\n Massey University Policy Guide   \nVisual Arts Collection Policy  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n• Level 2: Artworks where the artist or subject matter is closely associated with the University , or its \nwider community.  \n• Level 3: Other artworks.  \n \nThis policy and its principles are aligned with the University Strategy.  \n \nManagement  \n \nThe management of the C ollection falls under the delegation of the Deputy Vice -Chancellor, Students \nand Global Engagement, who is advised by the University Visual Arts Committee.  The University \nVisual Arts Committee also advise s the University Curator, who acts as the operational custodian of \nthe Collection.  The terms of reference for the Committee can be found as a supporting document to \nthis policy.   \n \nAcquisition  \n \nArtworks acquired by the University must be:  \n• Acquired with a consideration for necessity and cost of future physical maintenance and the art \nworks permanence.  \n• Owned entirely (not as a share, or in partnership with another organisation) by the University  \nunless endorsed by the Deputy Vice -Chancellor, Students and Global Engagement.  \n \nPossession of  Artwork \n \nThe University commits to e nsuring artworks are held with the intention to exhibit, or otherwise make \navailable to the general public for experiencing . \n \nLoans  \n \nThe University will consider lending artwork to an outside organisation where:  \n• The loan will benefit the reputation of artist, the reputation of the University, and/or help to reduce \nthe barriers to public access and appreciation of the artwork.  \n• The period for the loan is fixed.  \n• The borrowing institution pays all costs related to the loan.  \n• The borrowing institution agrees to store and exhibit the artwork securely and with adequate \ninsurance to cover any loss or damage; and  \n• The University is recognised as the owner of the artwork.  \n \nThe University will only borrow artworks in exceptional circumstances. These loans must:  \n• Be for a fixed time period.  \n• Be able to be stored and exhibited securely and with adequate insurance to cover any loss or \ndamage.  \n• Benefit the reputation of artist, the reputation of the University, and/or help to reduce the barriers \nto public access and appreciation of the artwork.  \n \nMaintenance and Conservation  \n \nThe University commits to:  \n• Ensuring the artworks condition does not deteriorate beyond what is unavoidable and can \nreasonably be expected due to the passage of time . \n• Establishing a plan for returning damaged artwork to an exhibitable standard.  \n \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nVisual Arts Collection Policy  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nDeaccession  \n \nThe University will only deaccession work when:  \n• The work is judged to be not of a suitable calibre to be held by the University.  \n• The work is not exhibitable and no plan for returning the artwork to an exhibitable state by the \nUniversity can be identified.  \n• Ownership of the work is detrimental to the reputation of the University; or  \n• Under exceptional circumstances as endorsed by the Deputy Vice -Chancellor, Students and \nGlobal Engagement . \n \nWhen deaccessioning artwork, the University will:  \n• Seek to return the artwork to the donor, where it was donated.  \n• Consider and make reasonable effort to return artwork to the artist who created it.  \n• Seek to identify a suitable public owner for the artwork; or  \n• Where none of the above are deemed suitable by the Committee, sell the artwork through \nappropriate channels with any proceeds contributing to the growth and maintenance of the \nVisual Arts Collection.  \n \nAn artwork may only be destroyed where the above methods of deaccession have been considered \nand deemed unsuitable, and with approval of Deputy Vice -Chancellor, Students and Global \nEngagement .  \n \nDefinitions:  \n \n“Visual Arts Collection ” or “ Collection ”: comprises the general collection and in addition a number \nsub-collections:  \n- Active sub -collections:  \no Massey University Portraits Collection  \n- Closed sub -collections (no further acquisitions):  \no Riddet Collection  \no Webster Collection  \no Georgian and Colonial Silver Collection  \no William F. Massey Collection  \no Massey University Library Art Collection  \no Mike and Alice Fitzgerald Poster Collection  \no Massey University College of Education Arts Trust Collection  \n \n“Works of art” , “artworks ”, “works ” or “ art” include painting, sculpture, water -colour, drawing, print, \nceramic art, vinyl, fibre or textile art, photograph, glass art, documentation of conceptual art, time -\nbased art, mixed media art, or site -specific installations.  \n \nAudience:  \nAll staff, students and external stakeholders.  \n \nRelevant legislation:  \nCopyright Act 1994  \nPrivacy Act 2020  \nPublic Records Act 2005  \n \nLegal compliance:  \n \nRelated procedures / documents:  \nMassey University Visual Arts Collection Guidelines  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nVisual Arts Collection Policy  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nMassey University Visual Arts Curator – Job Description  \nTe Tiriti o Waitangi Policy  \nUniversity Strategy 2022 – 2027  \nAsset Investment Policy  \nAsset Disposal and Write Down Policy  \n \nDocument Management Control:\nPrepared by: Mark Kaneko – University Curator\nAuthorised by: Dr Tere McGonagle-Daly – DVC Students and Global Engagement \nApproved by: SLT 15/10/206\nDate issued: October 2024\nLast review: October 2024\nNext review: October 2026\n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Leave_Policy_PDF_178_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Leave Policy PDF 178 KB",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "178 KB",
      "author": "McMorran, Fiona",
      "creation_date": "2020-08-24T10:01:05",
      "modification_date": "D:20200824101555+12'00'"
    },
    "content": "      Massey University Policy Guide  \n \nLEAVE POLICY  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nPurpose:   \nTo provide a framework for the granting and administration of various types of leave, and to manage absences in \naccordance with employment agreement entitlements, legislative requirements and operational needs. This policy \nmust be read in conjunction with the Massey University Guidelines on Research , Teaching, Study and Professional \nand Organisational Periods/Duties Overseas and in New Zealand and an employee’s relevant leave provisions \nprovided in their individual or collective employment agreement. This policy provides clarification on s even  types of \nleave available to Massey University, staff namely:  \na) Leave Without Pay  \nb) Requests for the Pay Out of Annual Holidays  \nc) Leave for Sport  \nd) Election to Parliament  \ne) Employment Relations Education Leave  \nf) Health and Safety Leave  \ng) Volunteering Leave  \n \nInformation about other types of leave can be found at the end of this policy under the section titled ‘ Other Leave’ . \nPrinciples:  \nLeave is an important aspect of an employee’s working conditions, reflecting the value of having a ba lance between \nwork and other aspects of their lives. The ability to take time from work for rest and recreation, when an employee \nis sick or injured or when they are required to attend to responsibilities outside of the University, is important to \nensuring  employee wellbeing and enabling employees to be at their productive best while at work.  \n \nLeave of any kind other than for illness/injury or bereavement/Tangihanga, must be planned for by both the \nemployee and their manager and taken at a time that balance s the employees’ needs with the operational needs \nof the University. Leave must be formally approved by the relevant manager before leave commences.  \n \nThe following types of leave can be applied for and approved online through the MyHR system on the Massey  \nUniversity website:  \n• Annual Leave  \n• Sick Leave  \n• Bereavement Leave  \n• Discretionary Paid Leave  \no ACC Non Work/Work Related Injury  \no Discretionary Leave  \no Domestic Violence Leave  \no Employment Relations Education leave  \no Jury Service Leave  \no Maori Land Court/Waitangi Tribunal  \no Volunteering Leave  \nSection  People & Culture  \nContact  People & Culture  \nLast Review  December 2018  \nNext Review  December  2023  \nApproval  SLT 18/12/152  \n \n       Massey University Policy Guide  \n     Leave Policy – Page 2 \n \nMassey University has a number of  different employment agreements in place. When reading this policy, it is \nimportant that employees consult the relevant part of their employment agreement. Where there is a discrepancy \nbetween these policies and the provisions of the employment agreement,  the employment agreement will take \nprecedence .   \nPolicy:  \nLeave will be granted in accordance with the Employment Agreements and as stated below:  \na) Leave Without Pay  \nRequests for leave without pay, other than for illness or injury, will be considered tak ing particular account of the \noperational needs of the school or Department.  \nIn accordance with the Human Resources Delegations of Authority, periods of leave without pay can be approved \nby managers with authority Bands A, B , C or D. Noting: Band D can only approve periods of leave without  pay of \nup to one month.   \nAll annual leave must be exhausted before the period of leave without pay commences except in situations requiring \nextended sick leave or bereavement leave as per section 39 of the Holidays Act 2003.  \nb)  Requests for the Pay Out of Annual Holidays  \nThe Holidays Act 2003 provides for employees to be able to request that a portion of their annual holidays be paid \nas cash.  However, Massey University supports and encour ages its employees to have the full opportunity for rest \nand recreation, through the taking of annual holidays and for this reason will not pay out annual holidays.  \nc) Leave for Sport  \nApplications for leave to take part in international competition oversea s or in New Zealand will be approved by the \nrelevant Pro Vice -Chancellor (or equivalent).  The authority to approve leave for sport cannot be delegated. The \nfollowing conditions apply.  \n• Applicants are to be members or accredited officials of sports teams, o r individual sportsmen or \nsportswomen who have been selected on a national basis.  \n Note : Delegates to any conference would not be eligible.  \n• Selection to be on a national basis (e.g. not provincial or representative or any particular group – racial, \nsectari an, etc.).  \n• Competitions at international level to take place at some time during the tour.  \n• The sport should have a properly constituted and recognised national body, which conducts regular \ntournaments.  \n \nIf the above requirements are met, leave may be grant ed as follows:  \n• First five working days on paid annual leave (where entitled) or leave without pay followed by,  \n• Up to four weeks special leave on ordinary pay in a combination of full or half pay , \n• Thereafter leave without pay (or annual leave if  available ). \n \nd)  Election to Parliament  \nAny member of the staff of the University, who desires to become a candidate for election as a Member of \nParliament, shall be placed on leave of absence.  \n \nSubject to Clause 3 of the Electoral Act 1993, that leave of absence shall commence on nomination day (as defined \nin the Electoral Act 1993), and, in the event of nomination as a constituency candidate or list candidate, shall \ncontinue until the first working day after polling day, unless the nomination is withdrawn . \n\n       Massey University Policy Guide  \n     Leave Policy – Page 3 \n \nWhere the Vice -Chancellor is satisfied that the staff member’s candidacy will materially affect the ability of that \nperson to:  \n• carry out satisfactorily their duties as a University employee; or  \n• be seen as independent in relation to particular duties,  \nthen the period of leave shall, if the Vice -Chancellor so determines after consultation with the employee, commence \nbefore nomination day or a day appointed by the Vice -Chance llor. \nDuring the period of leave the staff member shall not be required or permitted to carry out any University duties \nunless the Vice -Chancellor deems these essential to the running of the University or unless it is teaching or \nsupervising students who a re preparing for examinations or marking examinations of those students.  No other \nduties shall be carried out without the approval of the Vice -Chancellor.  \nDuring the period of leave there shall be no entitlement to salary or other remuneration from the Un iversity in respect \nof that period or any part thereof, except to the extent to which the employee takes, during that period, any leave \nwith pay to which she/he is entitled, or carries out specific duties which may be required.   \nExcept as provided in the f oregoing provisions of this section, rights as a member of the staff of the University shall \nnot be affected by her/his candidature.  \n \nMassey University is not to be involved in any way in the candidate’s campaign.  The candidate is to make is clear \nthat sh e/he is not speaking on behalf of Massey University and that the views expressed are not the views of the \nUniversity.  \n \nEmployment with the University will cease should the candidate be elected to Parliament.  The effective date shall \nbe no later than the d ate of receiving confirmation of election as a Member of Parliament or the date of \ncommencement for receiving a parliamentary salary, whichever is earlier.  \n \ne) Employment Relations Education Leave  \nEmployees who are union members are entitled to paid leave to attend approved courses for the purposes of \nemployment relations education.  \nThe Union will advise the employee and the University of the education leave allocated to the employee. An eligible \nemployee must apply to their manager for leave giving at least 14 days’ notice and specifying the nature of the \nleave.  \nf) Health and Safety Leave  \nThis policy applies to all staff appointed as Health and Safety Representatives.  \nHealth and Safety representat ives are entitled to two paid days per year to attend approved Health and Safety \ntraining courses.  \nThe staff member is required to seek approval from their manager before commencing leave.   \ng) Volunteering Leave  \nTo actively promote, encourage and recognise the importance of volunteering in the community and by encouraging \nand enabling staff to participate in local volunteering activities, permanent and fixed -term employees can receive \nup to 3 paid leave days per c alendar year (at the employee’s contracted work hours for the days and at ordinary \npay) in which to undertake volunteer activities that deliver tangible benefits in the local community and supports an \nemployee’s personal and professional development.  \nVolun teering leave shall not accumulate from year to year, and may be taken as a block or spread across the year, \nas long as it is approved in advance by the line manager, does not interfere with work commitments, does not bring \nthe University into disrepute, a nd does not involve any conflict of interest with the University.  The time given and \nthe choice of organisation will be agreed with the employee’s manager, with any potential conflict of interest being \ndiscussed.  The manager may consult with their HR Advi sor if in doubt.   \n \n\n       Massey University Policy Guide  \n     Leave Policy – Page 4 \n \nThe employee volunteer will adhere to the recipient’s organisation’s volunteering policies and procedures and to \nthat organisation’s health and safety policies and procedures.  Any accident or injury incurred by the volunteer in \ntraveling to and from or during any volunteer activity initiated by the employee, shall not be regarded as a Massey \nwork -related accident or injury.  If the volunteering activity is initiated  by a University manager this shall be regarded \nas work -related activity and all usual University policies and rules will continue to apply, including coverage of any \naccident or injury arising from the activity.  \nWhere the volunteering activity is undertak en as a private individual and not as a representative of or on behalf of \nMassey University, the University will not be responsible for out -of-pocket expenses, training, special equipment \netc incurred by the employee while undertaking activities associated  with the volunteering activity.  \nVolunteering leave will not apply to following voluntary work activities (which are excluded from the Health and \nSafety At Work Act 2015):  \n(i) participating in a fund -raising activity:  \n(ii) assisting with sports or recreation for an educational institute, sports club, or recreation club:  \n(iii) assisting with activities for an educational institute outside the premises of the educational institution:  \n(iv) providing care for another person in the volunteer’s home.  \nOther leave:  \nAs well as this policy, there are a number of other sources of information in which staff can access regarding \nleave.  These include:  \n1. Employment Agreement:  This document outlines a staff members contractual leave entitlements  eg \nDomestic Violence Leave  \n \n2. The People and Culture (P&C) Website  which has information on:  \n- Annual Leave     -      Parental Leave  \n- Sick Leave,     -      Long Service Leave  \n- University Holidays    -      Discretionary Leave  \n- Public Holidays     -      Bereavement/Tangihanga Leave  \n- Jury Service Leave    -      Leave Without Pay  \n- Research Leave    -      University Duties Leave  \n- Volunteering Leave  \n \n3. Guidelines on Research, Teaching, Study and Professional and Organisational Periods/Duties \nOverseas and in New Zealand:  \n- Short Leave  \n- Long Leave            \n- Research Leave (in New Zealand)  \n- Service Leave Overseas  \n- Business Leave Overseas    \n- Leave With Pay  \n- Leave Without Pay    \nAudience:  \nAll staff  \nRelevant legislation:  \nHolidays Act 2003  \nParental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987 and Amendments  \nWages Protection Act 1983  \nEmployment Relations Act 2000  \nElectoral Act 1993  \n\nLegal compliance:  \nKey provisions in the Holidays Act 2003:  \n• The University must allow every employee to take public holidays, annual leave, sick and bereavement leave \nin accordance with the Act and Employment Agreements. (Sections: 7, 46, 16, 39, 63)  \n• Employers to keep holiday and leave record. (Section: 81)  \n \nKey provisions in the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987:  \n• Where an employee meets the eligibility criteria prescribed by the Act the employee must be given the \nappropriate Parental Leave entitlement. (Sections: 7, 9, 17, 19, and 70)  \n• Employees’ positions must be kept open or available in certain situations. (Secti ons: 36, 40)  \n• The University must not take action, which disadvantages the employees’ rights in relation to Parental Leave. \n(Sections: 49, 56)  \n \nKey provisions in the Wages Protection Act 1983:  \n• The University must ensure that payment to employees of leave is  made in accordance with the Act.  \n \nKey provisions in the Employment Relations Act 2000;  \n• The Employment Relations Act 2000 requires parties to an employment relationship to deal with each other in \ngood faith (Section 4).  \n \nKey provisions in the Electoral Ac t 1993;  \n• The University must ensure that it abides by the criteria set out in this Act, namely that Election to Parliament \nleave shall commence on nomination day and in the event of nomination as a constituency candidate or list \ncandidate, shall continue until the first working day after polling day, unless the nomination is withdrawn \n(Section 3).  \nRelated procedures / documents:  \n• Employment Agre ements  \n• MyHR (the Massey University leave system)  \n• Guidelines on Research, Teaching, Study and Professional and Organisational Periods/Duties Overseas and \nin New Zealand  \n• The People and Culture (P&C) Website  \n• Delegations of Authorit y Document – Human Resources Delegations  \nDocument Management Control:  \nPrepared by: Employment Relations Advisor  \nAuthorised by: DVC, People & Culture  \nApproved by: SLT 18/12/152  \nDate first issued: 1 April 2004  \nLast review: September 2018  \nNext review: August 2023  \n \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Graduation_Procedures_and_Guidelines_PDF_290_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Graduation Procedures and Guidelines PDF 290 KB",
      "policy_type": "Procedure",
      "file_size": "290 KB",
      "author": "Chambers, Jan",
      "creation_date": "2024-07-08T10:00:04",
      "modification_date": "D:20240708100400+12'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n1 \n Massey University Operational Guide  \n \n \nGRADUATION   \nPROCEDURES AND GUIDELINES  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nContents  \n \n1. Purpose  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 2 \n2. Definitions  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............................  2 \n3. Audience (for this guidance)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 2 \n4. Graduand and guest attendance at ceremonies  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 2 \n5. Conduct of ceremonies  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  3 \n6. Chancellor and Vice -Chancellor roles, and official alternatives.  ................................ ................................ ..........  3 \n7. Duration of ceremonies and speakers ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................  4 \n8. Academic dress  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................  4 \n9. Deputy Vice -Chancellor, Students and Global Engagement (University Registrar)  ................................ ............  4 \n10. Office of Governance and Assurance  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  4 \n11. Deputy Vice -Chancellor Māori (main graduation)  ................................ ................................ ................................  5 \n12. Delivery of Whakapotaetanga Māori (Māori Ceremony)  ................................ ................................ .....................  5 \n11. Office for Pacific Student Success  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........................  6 \n12. Events and Sponsorships team  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............................  6 \n13. Student Registry team  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  7 \n14. Marketing team  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  8 \n15. Alumni office  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........................  8 \n16. Marshals and Assistant Marshals ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........................  8 \n17. Graduation certificate handover  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........................  9 \n18. Name readers  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .........................  9 \n19. Helpers  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 10 \n20. Graduation speakers  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  10 \n21. Honorary doctorate award  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 12 \n22. Higher degree awards  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  12 \n23. Valedictorians  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................  12 \n24. Posthumous award  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  12 \n25. Stage seating guidelines  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 13 \n26. “In Council” graduations  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 14 \n27. Graduation delivery committee (national and local)  ................................ ................................ ..........................  14 \n28. International graduations ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 15 \n29. Postponement  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  15 \nRelevant legislation  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 15 \nLegal compliance  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 15 \nRelated procedures / documents ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......15 \nDocument management control  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......15 \n Section   Council Statutes  \nContact   Events and Sponsorship Team  \nLast Review   June  2024  \nNext Review   June  2026 \nApproval   Deputy Vice -Chancellor, Students and Global Engagement  \n \n2 \n  \n1. Purpose  \n \nThe purpose of the Massey University Graduation Procedures  and Guidelines  is to support the delivery of and \nthe protocols to be applied for Massey University graduations : \n \n.  \n1. It should b e read in conjunction with the Massey  University Council Graduation Statute . \n2. It is a framework to assist those involved in preparations for and running of graduations.  \n3. It provide s direction  regarding  the organisational  and logistical  considerations  relating  to graduation  \nceremonies.  \n4. It establish es a clear set of directives and procedures that address ceremonial  processes.  \n5. It identi fies the responsibility, role , and function of  key-players.  \n6. It integrate s, align s, and coordinate s relevant  graduation  processes  across  the University.  \n7. It identif ies the responsibility and proces ses for graduation “in Council .” \n8. It identif ies the responsibility for celebrations to honour  graduates . \n \n \n2. Definitions  \n \n‘In Council’ graduation  Where the graduate has chosen to graduate at a time other than a graduation \nceremony. The dates are declared by the University and will be the dates of the \nAcademic Board meetings, and Council meetings as required.  \n“Academic dress”   Formerly referred to as “regalia .”  Change made to be consistent with hireage . \n“Helpers”  Formerly referred to as “ushers .”  Change made to reflect that ushers are \nsometimes provided by the venue.  \n“Graduation certificate ”  Formerly referred to as “scroll .”  Change made to reflect that they are no longer \nrolled but  presented flat in a folder.  \n“Name reader”  Formerly referred to as “caller .”  Change made to differentiate between the \nKaikaranga caller.  \n“Ceremony”  A formal occasion  with delegated authority to confer degrees, award diplomas and \ncertificates and present the graduation certificates to graduands.  \n“Celebration”  Is not a  conferral event  but an informal occasion to honour graduates:  to \nacknowledge cohorts . Please note – these events can also be formal – but it needs \nto be made clear that awards are not conferred at these events. A celebration  is \nnot a graduation “ceremony ,” and no graduation certificate s are presented . \n \n \n3. Audience  (for this guidance)  \n \nAll staff in volved with  graduation ceremonies and  ‘in Council’ graduations .  \n \n \n4. Graduand and guest attendance at ceremonies  \n \nGraduands may only graduate at one conferral  event per qualification, and for this purpose Academic Board \nand Graduation ceremonies are conferral events.  \nThe graduation events for Māori students can be attended by students of any ethnicity.  \nGraduands may attend any ceremony which is offered for their qualification.  \nGraduands will be invited to all ceremonies . \nGraduands must choose one ceremony to attend – the Māori ceremony or their college ceremony . They \ncannot attend both.  \nGraduates  who have previously graduated via Ac ademic Board  are not able to attend or walk the stage for a \nceremony unless they meet the conditions for exception management ( such as University  Error, or events out \nof their control – injury or family death prevents) . Escalation is via the DVC SAGE. Management is via the Events  \n \n3 \n and Sponsorship team  and Student Registry .  \nThe graduands will be listed in alphabetical order by qualification and College . \nGraduands will be given no less than 3 guest tickets per ceremony  (dependent on venue capacity) . The Māori \nceremonies have no limits applied .  \nWhānau (families) will be encouraged to offer their own form of ‘ tautoko ’ for when their graduand crosses the  \nstage.  The ceremony lead or caller will normally pause until the end of each ‘tautoko .’ \nGraduands and guests who have identified requiring extra assistance (mobility , hearing impaired  etc.) are \ncontacted and accommodated prior  to the ceremonies.  \n \n \n5. Conduct of ceremonies  \n \nACTION  WHO  \nPutatara and ka ikaranga  \nArranged throu gh Deputy Vice -Chancellor Māori  Performed by a senior staff member or \ncommunity member  \nOfficiate  Chancellor, Pro -Chancellor,  or \nnominee  \nWelcome address, including suitable reference to tangata whenua  Chancellor or Pro Chancellor  \nClosing address, charge to students  Vice -Chancellor  or nominee  \nRead graduands names  Senior academic staff nominated by \nPro Vice -Chancellor  \nHand out graduation certificat es to graduates.  \nGraduates receiving two or more certificates  in the same ceremony \nwill receive them when being presented the highest award. They will \nnot cross the stage more than once.  Pro Vice -Chancellor or nominee  \nsupported by Deputy Vice -Chancellor \nStudents and Global Engagement  \nThe University mace must be used at all ceremonies . Lead the street \nprocession, carrying mace and h eading official procession .  Marshal  \nThe official procession leaves the stage first at the conclusion of each \nceremony.  Marshal  \nOrganise stage seating, decide whether there is sufficient space on \nstage to accommodate PhD recipients (all efforts should be made to do \nthis). Ensure the correct students are presented to the Chancellor.  Marshal, Assistant Marshal  \nThe academic procession precedes the official procession onto the \nstage at the commencement of each ceremony  Assistant Marshal  \nLiais e with guest speakers. Honorary award recipients ,’ valedictorians , \nand posthumous wh en required  about the format  of the ceremony \nand the speaker/award recipient role in order to  ensure that these key \nfeatures of the ceremony occur smoothly.   Event s Manager  \nThe Massey waiata (Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa) is to be used in all \nceremonies.  Deputy Vice -Chancellor Māori  \nThe same recording of introductory video, processional music , and the \nNZ national anthem is to be used in all ceremonies.  Event s Manager  \nA procession will occur if  conditions allow  for graduands and their \nguests . Events Manager  \n \n \n6. Chancellor and Vice -Chancellor roles, and official alternatives.  \n \nAlternative Order  Chancellors Role  Vice -Chancellors Role  \nStandard  Chancellor  Vice -Chancellor  \nAlternative One  Pro Chancellor  Vice -Chancellor  \nAlternative Two  Designated Council Member  Vice -Chancellor  \nAlternative Three  Vice -Chancellor  Provost  \nAlternative Four  Provost  University Registrar (DVC SAGE)  \n \n4 \n  \n \n7. Duration of ceremonies  and speakers  \n \nAttempt should  be made to keep a ceremony to less than 2 hours:    \n \nSPEAKER  NO LONGER THAN  \nChancellor welcome address  5-7 minutes  \nGuest speaker address  5-7 minutes  \nValedictorian address  2-3 minutes  \nHonorary doctorate  orator citation  \nHonorary doctorate  recipient address  4-5 minutes  \n4-5 minutes  \nPhD citation summaries must be succinct and written in non -technical language  Up to 100 words  \n \n \n8. Academic dress  \n \nStandard for all Massey graduates  Black gowns  \nStandardi sed for each qualification  Colour and tones of hoods  \nHonorary Doctorate  Post office red gown  \nDiplomats who do not hold a degree.  \nDiplomats who hold a degree  Massey stole  \nAppropriate gown/hood/trencher/bonnet  \nAll people seated on stage  \nNon-graduates  Must wear academic dress accompanied by  formal dress standards . \nBlack bachelor gown  (except Honorary Doctorate)  \n \nWhere a student  cleared to graduate, and listed in the printed programme, arrives at the graduation venue \nwithout academic dress, and insufficient time to obtain full academic dress before ceremony commencement, \na few spare gowns, trenchers,  and stoles are held at the venue . For a bachelor’s  degree the student is \npermitted to cross the stage with gown, trencher and stole instead of the relevant hood .  \n \nThe Marshal or nominee has the authority to require staff to adapt dress accordingly to meet formal dress \nstandards.  \n \n \n9. Deputy Vice -Chancellor, Students and Global Engagement (University Registrar)  \n \nRole  Responsibility  \nGraduation \nStatute and \nGuidance  Responsible for all national and international statutes, procedures and guidelines relating to \ngraduation.  \nIs overall responsible for graduation ceremonies and is the main escalation point for all areas.  \nAdviser  Acts as an advisor to the Chancellor or Vice -Chancellor during the event.  \nUniversity \nRegistrar  • The Deputy Vice -Chancellor, Students and Global Engagement is also the University Registrar . \nIn this capacity, the DVC SAGE oversees the key teams linked to the graduation ceremonies, \nincluding Student Registry, Events, Marketing, Student Experience and is also a member of \nAcademic Board.  \n \n \n10. Office of Governance and Assurance  \n \nRole  Responsibility  \nCouncil \nmembers  Liaises with and makes  arrangements for Council members, including at the graduation \nvenue/s prior to and following the graduation ceremony.  \nAcademic \ndress  • Respons ible for approval and standardi sation of academic dress and accoutrements across the \ncampuses . \n \n5 \n • Provides ceremonial  academic dress for the positions of Chancellor, Pro -Chancellor, Vice - \nChancellor, Deputy Vice -Chancellor Students and Global Engagement  (University Registrar) , \nand members of Council . \n• Provides Honorary Doctorate academic dress. Should the Honorary Doctorate recipient wish to \nkeep the Honorary Doctorate academic dress , the  Council will gift it. If not, Council will provide \nit on request .  \n• In the case of a posthumous award the Council will gift the stole or floppy bonnet  to the family \nof the graduate.  Currently Academic Dress hire donate this. This may be at a graduation \nceremony or at another time.   \n“In Council” \ngraduations  − Provides Student Registry  with Academic Board meeting dates for publication in the University \nCalendar for ‘in Council’ graduations.  \n− Liaises with Student Registry  to ensure ‘in Council’ graduation lists are supplied, with the \naccompanying attestation confirming the identity and eligibility to graduate of those listed, for \nthe appropriate Academic Board or Council meeting.  \nConfer ment of \ndegrees  − At a graduation ceremony, the Chancellor, Pro -Chancellor, or Council nominee has the \ndelegated authority of Council to confer degrees and award diplomas and certificates on those \nto be presented in person or listed as ‘in absentia’ in each Graduation Progr amme.  \n \n \n11. Deputy Vice -Chancellor Māori  (main graduation)  \n \nRole  Responsibility  \nAdvise  Assist the Chancellor to include Te Reo Māori as part of his/her graduation ceremony address.  \nWaiata  Responsible for the University waiata, including professional recording, and its placement in \nthe ceremonies.  \nKaikaranga  Delivery of the Kaikaranga at each ceremony, and any associated payments .  \nMana Whenua  Responsible for inviting, liaising,  and supporting any Mana Whenua involvement in the \nceremony.  \nTikanga or \nCultural \naspects  Advise on cultural aspects as part of the Order of Ceremony if necessary.  \nHosting  Assist the Office of the Vice -Chancellor  at the graduation ceremony in hosting Māori Honorary \nDoctorates, their whānau, and groups who wish to support them. If appropriate organise, host,  \nand fund an appropriate event such as a lunch or dinner, for Māori Honorary Doctorates to \nconclude the graduation formalities in a culturally appropriate manner.  \nCeremony \nliaison  Appoint a convenor to liaise with the Events  and Sponsorship team  to advise on all cultural \naspects of the ceremonies.  \n \n \n12. Delivery of Whaka potae tanga  Māori  (Māori Ceremony )  \n \nRole  Responsibility  \nGeneral  Any student who is eligible to graduate can choose to attend the Māori Ceremony – they do \nnot need to be Māori .  \nGraduands must choose one ceremony to attend – the Māori  ceremony or their college \nceremony . They cannot attend both.  \nThe ceremony should be kept as close to  two hours where possible.   \nThe tewhawha  is used to replace the University mace.  \nThe ceremonies are bilingual – Te Reo Māori  and English.  \nIn order to futureproof the use of Te  Reo Māori  when a new Chancellor is appointed , an MC \nfrom  the Office of the DVC Māori may be  select ed to ensure Te  Reo Māori  is used throughout.  \nKakahu or Korowai  (or alternatives)  are encouraged , as are whānau who may  tautoko their \ngraduand  when  cross ing the stage.  \nThe format does  not differ from a main graduation ceremony – the Chancellor still does an \n \n6 \n opening speech, the University Waiata is sung . The Vice -Chancellor still reads his/her Ph D \nextract and citations, plus his/her charge speech , and the ceremony ends with the National \nAnthem .  \nStudent \nRegistry  Students can state their Iwi on the ‘application to graduate’ form . This is included in t he \ngraduation programme and read out during the during the ceremony  following their name,  by \nthe name reader.  \nDVC Māori \n/Event  \nManager  At each region,  a working group is formed where both parties  meet regularly  and work through \nall aspects of the ceremony  (which may include local Mana Whenua).  \nDVC Māori  Is responsible for:  all cultural aspects including, the appointment  and liaison of the kapa haka \ngroup, the taonga - the tewhawha and mauri  stone, the choosing of the guest speaker  and \nvaledictorian, the name readers, MC, processional music, inviting local k aumatua and kura , \nMāori @massey volunteers and how students enter the auditorium (seated or process in).  \nEvents and \nSponsorship \nteam  Is responsible for: run sheet , the ceremonial procedures and ensuring DVC Māori , Council, \nVice-Chancellor and MC has a copy  in a timely manner, student and guest ticketing, staff on \nstage  registration , packing scrolls in correct order,  communication to students  and staff,  liaising \nwith the guest speaker and valedictorian, the  venue set up and technical requirements, traffic \nmanagement, parking and catering.  \nMarshal’s  Responsible for liaising  with the DVC Māori (or appointee) around the seating  and entrance  of \nstaff.  \nPayment  The Events and Sponsorship team pays for the venue, kapa haka groups, technical \nrequirements, photographer,  and catering.  \nDraft run \nsheet  Please see Appendix 1 for a copy of the run sheet . Note: each region differs slightly  due to \nvenue capacities and the number of graduands attending.  \n \n \n11. Office for Pacific Student Success  \n \nRole  Responsibilities  \nHosting  Assist the Office of the Vice -Chancellor at the graduation ceremony in hosting Pacific  Honorary \nDoctorates, their family , and groups who wish to support them. If appropriate organise, host,  \nand fund an appropriate event such as a lunch or dinner, for Pacific  Honorary Doctorates to \nconclude the graduation formalities in a culturally appropriate manner.  \n \n \n12. Events and Sponsorships team  \n \nThe Events and Sponsorship Team  takes a leadership role in the operational mana gement of graduation \nceremonies nationally , and for collaborating with all campuses to promote a “one university approach” to \ngraduation.  The team  plans  the organi sational logistics for graduations. The following is an indicative list  of \nactivities:   \n \nRole  Responsibilities  \nOverall  Overall planning and de livery of graduation ceremonies.  \nReviewing of all graduation ceremonies and procedures.  \nChair the Graduation Delivery meetings  (nationally and locally) . \nCoordinate the Programme sign off with  Student Registry.  \nCeremonial \nsplits  Decisions regarding the ceremonial split will be made by the Events office  in conjunction with \nStudent Registry , and relevant Colleges, cognisant of achieving a critical mass at the \nceremonies.  \nGuest \nspeakers  The engagement of guest  speakers nominated by the College Pro Vice -Chancellors and all \nspecific arrangements ( academic dress, travel, accommodation, chaperones) for each \nspeaker . If there is an Honorary Doctorate or Massey Medal recipient,  then  no additional \nguest  speaker is required.  \nThe Events and Sponsorship team will advise the Deputy Vice -Chancellor Students and Global \n \n7 \n Engagement of the proposed graduation speakers  prior to finali sation.  \nValedictorians  The engagement with valedictorians  nominated by the College Pro Vice -Chancellors.  \nMarshals  Liaison with College Pro Vice -Chancellors on the appointment and training of Marshals and \nAssistant Marshals . The DVC SAGE formally appoints any nominees and will maintain this \nrecord.  \nProcessions  The coordination of the academic procession in conjunction with the Marshal.  \nThe co ordination of the Graduation Street  processions.  \nNon \nceremonial  All non -ceremonial front -of-house matters including venue bookings, invitations to staff, \ninvitations to official guests, publicity, programmes, flowers, parking, thank -you.  \nOversight  Oversight of a ssociated graduation related activities such as hospitality before or after \ngraduation ceremonies . Celebrations honour ing graduates and College or Alumni events  are \nexcluded . \nVenues  Booking of all venues, venue layout, catering, coordination of deliveries, emergency plan.  \nStreet parades  Event permit, traffic management, book parade band, book parade.  \nParade cancellation notice:  - make the wet weather call to cancel parade and arrange \nnotification.  \nSignage  Booking of strategic street banners, hoardings,  and signage, and arrange installation  \nFurniture  Organi se/confirm delivery dates/times of graduation furniture.  \nTicketing  Graduand/guest ticket allocation, manage late ticket allocations/returns, manage \nreserved/VIP seating.  \nWebsite  Revise and update graduation information for website in conjunction with Student Registry.  \nIntranet  Revise and update graduation information for staff.  \nPrinted \nprogramme  In consultation with Student Registry check all relevant ceremonial information in \nprogramme, order and pay for the required quantity of programmes and confirm delivery \ndate, distribute,  and deliver programmes .  \nCertificates  Events  office  order and pay for the presentation folders and collate certificates for \npresentation into folders before each ceremony. Certificates are paid for by Student Registry . \nAcademic \ndress hire  Ensure the academic dress hire provider has sufficient venue and spaces to carry out their \nservice. Liaise with them on days and hours of service so this can be communicated.  \nSystem \ndevelopment  Continuous improvement of systems to improve student experience and delivery of \ngraduation related functions.  \n \n \n13. Student Registry  team  \n \nRole  Responsibilities  \nCeremonial \nsplits  Liaise with  the Events and Sponsorship team and Colleges to produce the ceremonial splits.  \nSystem set up  Create background data in accordance with agreed ceremonial split.  \nTimeline  Create a timeline documenting the activities for the various stakeholders.  \nApplications to \ngraduate  Manage applications to graduate, including withdrawals, deferrals,  and changes, and verify \nceremony allocation.  \nProvide academic clearance for graduands and attest to their identity and eligibility to \ngraduate.  \nFinali sation of graduands to attend may be delayed to manage attendance volumes.  \nLate \napplications  Closing date for ceremonies will be strictly adhered to.  \nDecisions on late applications will be made in consultation with Student Registry  and the \nEvents office . Where possible late applications will be processed with due consideration to \nstudent experience, eligibility to graduate, ceremony size, seating availability, risk and inclusion \nin graduation documentation.   \nOnce a late application outcome is reached there is no right of appeal. Complaints will be \nescalated to the Events and Sponsorship team . \nThe DVC SAGE is the ultimate escalation point.  \nPrinted Develop and d eliver a printed programme , which includ es all ceremonies for each  graduation \n \n8 \n programme s location .  \nUpdate official information in the printed programmes including the lists of officers and \nHonorary Doctorate a wards.  \nGraduands will be listed by college , by qualification and in graduand alphabetical order (by \nsurname).  \nCoordinate the production of the printed programmes and provide printed programmes to the \nEvents  office .  \nWebsite  Display graduat ion details on the Massey University website. Ensure relevant information such \nas ceremony date and times are current.  \nGraduation \ncertificates  Order and quality assure graduation certificates , deliver for the  Events office .  \nProvide academic qualification lists for each ceremony  to the gown hire suppliers .  \nArrange for certificates  to be sent to students who have withdrawn or in -absentia.  \nMaintain the security protocols around certificate production.  \nAssociated \ngraduation \ncelebrations  Off-shore:  Liaise with organisers of off -shore ceremonies or celebrations . Ensure all relevant \nprocesses have been adhered to , including all relevant checks  and clearances before producing \ncertificates and programmes.  \nSystem \ndevelopment  Contin uous improvement of systems to improve student experience and delivery  of graduation \nrelated functions.  \n \n \n14. Marketing team  \n \nRole  Responsibil ities  \nMarketing and \nbranding  Marketing team to l iaise with Events and Sponsorship team , and Student Registry  to update \nassociated branding on the printed programme, certificate folders  and all other collater al as \nwell as pay for all associated costs of the design. Ensure brand consistency.  \nProvide culturally appropriate photographs for printed graduation material.  \nSupply and arrange advertising of graduations in the media.  \nComm s Communications  team  to run digital media campaigns.  \nProvide ‘on demand’ recording of graduation ceremonies  for university website.  \nProvide publicity and media releases on graduates, Honorary Doctorates and Massey University \nMedal recipients (including photographs).  \nWeb  Compile graduation information for students online.  \nRelated events  Provide support for graduation related events.  \n \n \n15. Alumni  office  \n \nRole  Responsibilities  \nMerchandise  Alumni office organise and run merchandise stalls at each ceremony.  \nAssociation  Alumni office provide information about the Massey Alumni Association and its relevant \nbenefits and chapters.  \n \n \n16. Marshals and Assistant Marshals  \n \nRole  Responsibilities  \nMarshal  The Marshal is a senior  position, leading the p rocessions, carrying the mace, and providing \nsupport to the graduation team . In consultation with Pro Vice -Chancellors, the DVC Students \nand Global Engagement will  appoint  a senior  academic as  Marshal  to each campus . A senior \nprofessional staff member, in consultation with their relevant Deputy Vice -Chancellor  or \nProvost , ma y also be a Marshal. Where possible, one Marshal will carry out the duties for all \nceremonies in that season.  \nAssistant The DVC Students and Global Engagement  appoints Assistant Marshal(s) for each ceremony \n \n9 \n Marshal(s)  from either  academic or professional staff .  \nThe Assistant Marshal team should be consistent for all ceremonies within a season where \npossible to ensure continuity of delivery.  \nReporting  Marshals and Assistant Marshals report to the  DVC Students and Global Engagement  \nAppointmen ts are based on periods of time (normally up to 4 years) and can be extended by \nmutual agreement.  \nDuties  on \nGraduation \nDay 1. Arrive at least 90 minutes prior to the start of the ceremony.  \n2. Work collaboratively with the Events office . \n3. Ensure  that agreed processes are c onsistent across the University, having a good \nunderstanding of graduation policy, procedures,  and guidelines.  \n4. Organise and document stage seating . \nOnce the seating plan is relatively settled the Marshal/s  will put the place names on the \nfirst two rows of seats. As the official party arrive,  they are marked off on the seating plan \nand ensure each person knows where they are sitting.  \n5. Liaise with graduation name readers, ensure they have checked for withdrawals, and \nunderstand the protocols for no -shows and ‘in absentia .’ \n6. 20 minutes prior to the start of the ceremony begin lining up the academic procession, \nchecking academic dress and counting staff to ensure there is adequate seating on stage . \nAt this time, provide an introduction to the academic procession of the ceremony, any \nspecial allowances  or acknowledgements, and “ housekeeping ”.   \n7. 10 minutes prior to the start of the ceremony do a final check of numbers. Deal with staff \narriving late. As a rule,  the 10-minute  call is final,  and no -one can join the procession after \nthis time.  \n8. 5 minutes prior to the start of the ceremony the academic procession should be lined up \nin order ready to proceed . NB. The ceremonies have  a short video that plays before staff \nprocess into the hall.  \n \n \n17. Graduation certificate  handover  \n \nThe Pro Vice -Chancellors , or nominee , hand out the certificate  to taught graduates as they progress across the \nstage.  \nThe Provost, or nominee, hand out the certificate to research graduates as they process across the stage .  \n \n \n18. Name r eaders  \n \nACTION  WHO  \nAppoint name readers for each ceremony  Pro Vice -Chancellors  \nAn appropriate reader is able to speak publicly  with clear diction , has \nsufficient time to seek advice on correct pronunciation of graduands’ \nnames, remain calm when receiving late changes, and able to pronounce \nthe names correctly . This is a prestigious position representing the \nCollege.  Academic staff member  \nA list of graduands is  provided to name readers approx imately  one week \nprior to check pronunciation  and practice names .  Events office  \nIf a student has provided p honetic spelling of their name  this will  be \nprovided to the name reader by the Events office . Events office  \nPronunciation advice should be sought, and a phonetic system may be \nused . Check with Office of the Deputy Vice -Chancellor Māori and linguistic \nstaff within the University.  Name readers  \nAt graduation, the Assistant Marshal will cover any changes with the name \nreader. The name reader will mark their copy of ceremoni al instructions \nappropriately.  Assistant Marshal , name readers  \nRemain aware of last-minute  changes to graduands coming onto the stage Name readers  \n \n10 \n using the established system for that graduation.  \n \n19. Helpers  \n \nEvents office  to coordinate adequate number of staff required each day, dependent on the size of the \nceremony, to assist with people management . Helpers are sourced from university departments and /or casual \nstaff . Indicative duties are:   \n \nACTION  WHO / WHEN  \nHelpers report to  the Events Manager  or nominee  Helpers  \nDouble check that certificates  are filed in correct order prior  Helpers, prior to start of \nceremony  \nHand certificates  to Pro Vice -Chancellor or nominee to hand to graduate  During the ceremony  \nStaffing of help desk for any enquiries regarding the ceremony , e.g.,  for late \nrequest of additional tickets and guests/students  Daily  \nSell programmes using the EFTPOS  machine as required  Daily  \nFit academic dress as required in staff and student gowning rooms  Before each ceremony  \nCheck academic dress and order of graduands as they prepare to cross the \nstage  During the ceremony  \nAdvise name readers using the established process if a graduand is not \npresent to cross the stage  Before and during the \nceremony  \nEnsure auditorium/theatre door ushers are briefed to give general direction \nto student/guest seating, and ceremony length  Events and Sponsorship team , \nbefore each ceremony  \nAssist students/guests with disabilities e.g., take  to allocated spaces and \nadvise of process at end of ceremony.  \nGraduands who need assistance will be advised of process specific to their \nneeds.  Venue team or helpers, daily  \n \nEvents and Sponsorship team  \nProcession assistants to walk alongside the procession to the destination and \nensure safety of procession, along with traffic management company.  During each procession  \n \n \n20. Graduation s peakers  \n \nACTION  WHO  \nSuggestions of speakers for each ceremony are put forward to the Events and \nSponsorship team  Pro Vice -Chancellors  \nApproach suggestions approved by the Pro Vice -Chanc ellors on behalf of the \nCollege, and manage the speakers, including arranging academic dress , \ntransport, accommodation.  Events and Sponsorship team  \nIf there is an Honorary Doctorate  or Massey University Medal  recipient  and \norator,  no additional  speaker is required.  Vice -Chancellor’s office  \nAppoint a chaperone for each ceremony, who:   \n- meets  the speaker and guests at the start of the parade or graduation \nvenue.  \n- arranges for speaker to be robed.  \n- arranges for speaker’s guests to be seated in the auditorium.  \n- introduces the speaker to the Chancellor and Vice -Chancellor  (and other \nofficials)  \n- meets the speaker after the ceremony and returns academic dress  as \nrequired . Events and Sponsorship team  \nArrange a speaker thank you gift (from Alumni or Massey Press ) with \nappropriate message , to be presented to the speaker after the ceremony by \nthe DVC SAGE or nominee . Events and Sponsorship team               \n \n \n11 \n   \n \n12 \n  \n21. Honorary doctorate award  \n \nRefer separate honorary doctorate g uidelines.  \n \n \n22. Higher  degree  award s \n \nThe University can offer a range of higher degrees, which include:  \n• Doctor of Science: DSc (Honoris Causa)  \n• Doctor of Literature: DLit (Honoris Causa)  \n• Doctor of Commerce: DCom (Honoris Causa)  \n• Doctor of Music: DMus (Honoris Causa)  \n• Doctor of Fine Arts: DFA (Honoris Causa)  \n• Doctor of Health: DHealth (Honoris Causa)  \n \nMore information can be found in the Qualification Regulations .  \n \nACTION  WHO  \nConfirmation of  higher degree awards  Student Registry  (in conjunction \nwith the Graduate Research \nSchool)  \nPreparation of graduation stole  gift and flowers . Each award should have a \nstole that corresponds to the colour of that discipline .  Events and Sponsorship team ( in \nconjunction with Academic \nDress Hire)  \nThe stole will always be given by the Chancellor, while the gift and flowers \nare given by the Provost . The Vice -Chancellor  leads all spoken activities.  Chancellor, Vice -Chancellor,  and \nProvost (or their nominees)  \n \n \n23. Valedictorians  \n \nACTION  WHO  \nArrange for a list of graduands to be provided to Offices of Pro Vice \nChancellor s  Events and Sponsorship team  \nPro Vice -Chancellors provide nominations for  valedictorian for their relevant \nceremony  Pro Vice -Chancellors  \nProvide support to the valedictorians in a mentoring capacity.   Events and Sponsorship team \nand Communications team  \nAppoint a valedictorian minder for each ceremony, who:   \n- liaises with the valedictorian prior, providing support.  \n- meets the valedictorian at the graduation venue.  \n- introduces the valedictorian to the Chancellor and Vice -Chancellor  (and \nother officials)  Events and Sponsorship team  \nArrange a valedictorian acknowledgement  gift (from Massey Alumni ) to be \npresented to the valedictorian b y the PVC’s or nominee.  Events and Sponsorship team  \n \n \n24. Posthumous award  \n \nACTION  WHO  \nSend a letter to the family from the DVC SAGE  Student  Experience  \nStudent Experience  Directorate to advise Student Registry  of the outcome of \ncommunication regarding wh ānau attending a ceremony to receive an award \nposthumously . To occur within ceremony timelines.  Student Experience  \n \n13 \n Liaise with next of kin  Events and Sponsorship team  \nIn the case of a posthumous award the Council will gift the hood and \ntrencher/bonnet to the family of the graduate. Currently Academic Dress \nHire donate this. This may be at a graduation ceremony or at another time. \nLiaise with Academic Dress Hire.  Events and Sponsorship team  \nLiaise with College . Arrange minder.  Events and Sponsorship team  \n \nDuring  the ceremony:  \n- The Name Reader states  the following:   \nChancellor, this award is made posthumously and will be collected on behalf of student’s name  by \nhis/her (describe relationship e.g., father, cousin).  \n- The relative/s wait with the Assistant Marshal until the Name Reader has fully announced the award for \nthe deceased student and the on-stage  staff are all standing.  \n- All staff on stage are to stand.  \n- The relative/s then proceed across the stage with the hood/stole over the left forearm and holds the \ntrencher in the left hand, so that this faces the audience.  \n- The relative/s then shake hands with the Chancellor with the right hand and then receive s the certificate  \nfrom the certificate  handover person, again in the right hand .  \n- The relative/s then exit the stage, and if they choose to return  to their seat .  \n- Staff on stage resume their seats .  \n \n \n25. Stage seating guidelines  \n \nRow  Guidelines  \nFront row  • The front row at all ceremonies will consist of three  ceremonial chairs only.  \n• The front row will have (left to right facing the stage) the Vice -Chancellor, Chancellor,  \nand Pro Chancellor on the raised stage. If the Pro Chancellor is not present the Deputy \nVice -Chancellor Students and Global Engagement  will take that place on the raised \nstage .  \n• On the left -hand side (facing the stage) of the raised stage will be the Pro Vice -\nChancellor of the appropriate College, the Marshal and one other member of the Senior \nLeadership Team if a seat is available.  \n• On the right -hand  side will be the Deputy Vice -Chancellor Students and Global \nEngagement  if the Pro Chancellor is present, the graduation speaker, two further \nmembers of the Senior Leadership  Team  and the Assistant Marshal . \n• Where there is an Honorary Doctorate or Massey University Medal being awarded, the \ntwo Senior Leadership Team members on the right -hand  side will move to the second \nrow to accommodate the Honorary Doctorate/ Massey University Medal recipient and \norator.  \n• The front row will always have Senior Leadership Team or senior academics from the \nCollege in the seats not allocated to graduation officials. If there is no room they will sit \nwith Council members in the second row.  \n• The guest speaker is seated to the right of the Pro -Chancellor.  \n• Subject to the number of honorary awards, name readers may be seated in the front \nrow on the right -hand  side of the stage.  \n• It is culturally appropriate that th e senior member presenting the Pūtātara  and \nKaikaranga  may be seated in either the front or second row at the left edge depending \non front row allocations.  \nSecond row  • Depending on front row allocations, the second row will comprise Council members and \nSenior Leadership Team members. Where vacant seats remain,  these will be allocated \nto senior staff of the College associated with that graduation e.g.,  name readers.  \n \nFlexibility for each ceremony is required depending on the attendance  of Senior Leadership and Council \n \n14 \n members. One example is:  \n \n \nTHIRD \nROW  Academics            \nSECOND \nROW  Pūtātara  / \nKaikaranga  Senior \nAcademic  Council \nmember  Council \nmember  Senior \nAcademic  Senior \nAcademic  Senior \nAcademic  Council \nmember  Council \nmember  Name \nReader  Name \nReader  \nFRONT \nROW  \nL-R facing \nthe stage  1 \n \nSLT for \nCollege  2 \n \nSLT for \nCollege  3 \n \nMarshal  4 \n \nProvost  5 \n \nVice -\nChancellor  6 \n \nChancellor  7 \n \nPro-\nChancellor  \n(or DVC \nSAGE)  8 \n \nDVC SAGE  9 \n \nGuest \nSpeaker  10 \n \nSenior \nLeadership \nTeam \nmember  11 \n \nAssistant \nMarshal  \n \n \nFRONT \nROW IF \nHONORARY \nDOCTORAT\nE 1 \n \nSLT for \nCollege  2 \n \nSLT for \nCollege  3 \n \nMarshal  4 \n \nProvost  5 \n \nVice -\nChancellor  6 \n \nChancellor  7 \n \nPro-\nChancellor  \n(or DVC \nSAGE)  8 \n \nDVC SAGE  \nor SLT \nmember  9 \n \nHonorary \nDoctorate \norator  10 \n \nHonorary  \nDoctorate \nrecipient  11 \n \nAssistant \nMarshal  \n \n \n26. “In Council” g raduations  \n \n Details  Who  \nDates  Provide Student Registry with Academic Board and Council meeting \ndates as soon as available  Academic Board \nSecretary –\nGovernance  \nWebsite  Place Academic Board dates on graduation webpage. These become \nthe dates for “in Council” graduations.  Student Registry  \nSchedule  Provide Academic Board Secretary  - Governance with schedule of \ngraduands who have applied to have their degree conferred, or \ncertificate or diploma awarded, at an “in Council” graduation in time to \nbe included in the relevant Academic Board meeting papers .  \nProvide a statement from the Head of Student Registry  (on behalf of \nthe DVC SAGE)  attesting that all graduands presented on the schedule \nhad been subjected to the necessary procedures to confirm their \nidentity, and their eligibility to graduate, and that the procedures had \nbeen conducted by appropriately authorised staff .  Student Registry  \nMinute  Provide Student Registry with the minute approving the degrees had \nbeen conferred, and certificates and diplomas awarded.  Academic Board \nSecretary –\nGovernance  \nPrinting  and \nPostage  Manage the printing of the certificates, dated as at the Academic Board \nmeeting at which the degree had been conferred, and certificates and \ndiplomas awarded, and send to graduate.  Student Registry  \n \n \n27. Graduation d elivery committee  (national and local)  \n \nChaired by the Events and Sponsorship team or nominee . Has an operational focus and will be responsible for \norganising and ensuring the smooth delivery of all graduation events at the relevant location . Develop s and \nmonitor s policy, subject to approval by the Deputy Vice -Chancellor Students and Global Engagement , ensuring \nbest practice across all ceremonies . Should meet  at least twice per year and linked to the associated \ngraduation seasons.  \n \n  \n \n15 \n  \n28.  International graduations  \n \nGraduation ceremonies normally take place in New Zealand, however, as Massey is growing its international \nfootprint, ceremonies or celebrations conducted outside of New Zealand are expected to grow . International \nGraduations  will only be considered if approved the by Vice -Chancellor or DVC Students and Global \nEngagement.  \n \nCeremonies  will only be considered internationally when Massey ha s a transnational footpri nt (either through \npartnership or through its own campus) . Ceremonies will be required to follow these guidelines but  can be \nnuanced based on local customs  and practices . Student Registry to confirm these graduates have completed  \nand are eligible to confer their awards . Ceremonial gowns for senior University officials will only  be provided by \nthe Office of Governance and Assurance . Any deviation from these guidelines must be agreed with the DVC \nStudents and Global Engagement in advance . It is anticipated that  if an international ceremony is held,  the \nprocedures will be recorded for future ceremonies (and for consistency).  \n \nCelebrations  should be used to acknowledge graduates in most other circumstances . Graduates will have \ngraduated ‘in Council’ prior  to the celebration as a cohort. Student Registry to confirm these graduates have \ncompleted . Ceremonial gowns for senior  University officials will only  be provided by the Office of Governance \nand Assurance.  The University mace and ceremonial banners are not required.  Celebrations to acknowledge \ncohorts of graduates will be organised and funded by the College delivering  the education and the host \ninstitute.  \n \n \n29. Postponement  \n \nIf Graduation ceremonies are unable to be held for any reason , students will be conferred via Chancellor \napproval and offered an alternative graduation ceremony to attend as per approved  1.B of the contingency \nplans . A decision will be made 4 weeks prior to the commencement of the ceremonies.  Student Registry and \nthe Events and Sponsorship team in conjunction with the communications team,  to create , coordinate  and \ndeliver communication s for staff and students . \n \n \nRelevant legislation  \nEducation and Training Act 2020 Section 283 (2(a))  \n \nLegal compliance  \nHealth and Safety at Work Act  2015  \n \nRelated procedures / documents  \nMasse y University Council Graduation Statute  \nHonorary Doctorate G uidelines  \n \nDocument management c ontrol  \nPrepared by:  Events and Sponsorship team  \nAuthorised by: Executive Director, Marketing and Communications  \nApproved by: Deputy Vice -Chancellor, Students and Global Engagement (University Registrar)  \nLast review: March 2024  \nNext review: March 2026  \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Monitoring_Staff_Health_Procedure_PDF_78_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Monitoring Staff Health Procedure",
      "policy_type": "Procedure",
      "file_size": "78 KB",
      "creation_date": "2015-02-09T14:00:01",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220102912+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " Massey University Policy Guide \n \nMONITORING S TAFF HEALTH PROCEDURE  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n    \n  \n  \nPurpose :  \nThe purpose of this procedure is to detail University requirements for:  \n1. Preventative health initiatives,  \n2. Assessment of occupational environmental hazards and health effects on staff,  \n3. Pre and exit baseline health monitoring, and  \n4. Medical certificates (cost of).  \n \nPre employment health assessments are covered in the Policy on Pre -employment Checks for  Prospective \nAppointees .  \n \nThe associated Monitoring Staff Health Guidelines  should be consulted for steps on when and how health monitoring \nis to be completed.  \nProcedure : \nPreventative health initiatives  \nInfection hazards or the health impact of infection can often be reduced by appropriate vaccination producers.  \nExamples of such procedures include:  \n• All stud ents and staff who work in medical professions should have a BCG1 vaccine unless they are Mantoux \npositive already to protect against tuberculosis,  \n• Staff travelling to countries with active malaria risk should take anti malarial precautions,  \n• Winter seasonal viruses, including pandemic strains such as H1N1.  \n When there is increased risk of infection, managers are encouraged to reduce the infection effects by ensuring staff \nand students have checked and taken suitable preventative health initiatives. Where preventative procedures are \nrequired as a part of work (eg travel to a country with medical risk, work with infected people), the cost of the \nprocedures is a part of employment responsibilities.  \n \nStaff and students are to ensure the preventative measures ar e undertaken when they are in situations of increased \ninfection risk.  \n \nInformation about infection risk is available from:  \n• Health and safety web site (see Specific hazards > Infectious diseases)  \n• Medical country risk rating on SOS website  (Latest travel advice and warnings on the International SOS \nwebsite)  \n \n                                                 \n1 Bacillus Calmette -Guérin (or Bacille Calmette- Guérin). BCG  is a va ccine against tuberculosis.  Section  Health and Safety  \nContact University Health and Safety Manager  \nLast Review  August 2014  \nNext Review  December 2017  \nApproval  University Health and Safety Manager  \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nMonitoring Staff Health  Procedure – Page 2 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  Requirement for environmental and or health monitoring in hazardous situation s  \nWhen a significant hazard2 cannot be eliminated, isolated, or minimised the manager must:  \n minimise harm to employees, and  \n provide protective equipment to employees, and  \n monitor exposure to the hazard in the occupational environment, and  \n if possible obtain employee consent to monitor their health in relation to the hazard, and  \n ensure monitoring of employee health (with the employees consent) in relation to the hazard.  (e.g. working in \na very noisy environment would need assessment and staff who work i n that environment should have \naudiometric tests if the noise could cause hearing loss.)  \n \nWhere managers use minimisation and personal protective equipment as the method of controlling a hazard , then \nmonitoring must be undertaken as a part of employment responsibilities.  \n \nIt should be noted personal protective is measure of the last resort in controlling hazards, and superior methods of \nelimination and isolation do not require personnel monitoring. Some isolation systems ( e.g. fume cupboards/biohazard \ncabinets) have other technical monitoring requirements as part of quality control or calibration verification.  \n \nPre and exit baseline health monitoring  \nWhere tasks in a position expose an employee to a significant hazard that affects health, the employee’s hea lth status \nin relation to the hazard must be assessed if possible at the time of engagement and exit from duties during which the \nexposure occurs.   \n \n(e.g. Research or use of traceable toxic chemicals should include pre and post biological monitoring, traumatic \nresearch projects may warrant pre and post psychological assessment, pre and exit audiometric tests for staff who \nwork with noisy instruments or equipment.)  \n \nMedical certificates (cost of)  \nAbsences:  Medical certificate for absences longer than 5 consecutive days must be provided by employees as \nspecified in employment agreements. The cost medical certifi cates for shorter periods is a department employment \nresponsibility.  \n \nImpairment, reduced capacity, medical conditions:   Where a manger requires medi cal certificates for reasons other \nthan absence, th e cost of the examination is a department employment responsibility.  \n \nDefinitions : \nHazard:   Something that might or does cause harm  \nSignificant hazard:  Something that causes serious harm  \nElimination:   Where the hazard is removed.  \nIsolation:   Where the hazard or employees are separated by a barrier.  \nMinimisation:   When a hazard is reduced but still present at significant level that will cause serious harm (ie \nsignificant hazard).  \nDepartment (al):  A generic term reefing to University operating groups. Other equivalent terms are School, \nInstitutes, Section, Division etc.  \nAudience : \n                                                 \n2 It is essential to note that this requirement is only invoked if the hazard is still significant  after minimisation.  If the hazard is minimised to the point \nit cannot cause serious harm, monitoring is not required, other than  to demonstrate the hazard is at a “safe” level.  \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nMonitoring Staff Health  Procedure – Page 3 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  Staff and managers.  \n \nThe term “manager” covers any staff member with authority to supervise other staff, visitors, and persons with business at Massey University. Manager includes titles such as; Vice Chancellor, Registrar, Pro Vice Chancellor, \nAssistant Vice Chancellor, Head of Department, Head of School, Head of Institute, Head of College, Head of Section, \nDirector, Manager, team leader and equivalent titles.  \nRelevant legislation : \nHealth and Safety in Employment Act 1992,  \nHolidays Act  \nInjury Prevention, Rehabilitation Compensation Act 2001,  \nOccupational health and safety management systems –  General guidelines on principles , systems and supporting \ntechniques (AS/NZS 4804:2001)  \nLegal compliance : \nThe requirement to undertake staff health monitoring is detailed in s:10(2)9c), and 11 of Health and Safety in \nEmployment Act 1992.  \n \nProvision in relating to absence are covered by Holidays Act and University Employment agreements.  \nRelated procedures / documents : \nPolicy on Pre- employment Checks for Prospective Appointees .  \nMonitoring Staff Health Guidelines  \nEmployment agreements . \nDocument Management Control:  \nPrepared by: University Health and Safety Manager  \nAuthorised by: University Health and Safety Manager  \nDate issued: 16 April 201 4 \nLast review: August  2014 \nNext review: December  2017  \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Manager_Staff_Development_Policy_PDF_143_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Manager Staff Development Policy",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "143 KB",
      "creation_date": "2022-11-22T12:03:08",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220103019+13'00'"
    },
    "content": "Massey  University  Policy  Guide  \n© This Policy  is the property  of Massey  University   \n  \n \n \n \n \n \nSection  People  & Culture  \nContact  People  & Culture  \nLast Review  October 2022  \nNext  Review  October 2025 \nApproval  SLT 15/06/103  \n \nPurpose:  \n \nThis policy  aims  to support  the development  of academic  and professional services  managers  and staff to increase  their \nknowledge, skills, expertise,  and potential to enhance individual and team performance in their current roles and to \nprepare them for future roles, to support the strategic direction of the University.  \n \nPolicy:  \n \nMassey University is committed to appropriate personal and professional development of all permanent and fixed -term \nstaff.  The policy  outlin es Massey’s  development  model,  individual  and management  responsibilities,  processes  relating \nto development planning and access to development opportunities, and equity considerations.  Staff development \nopportunities are a critical investment from which s taff and the University benefit.  \n \nDefinitions:  \n \nStaff Development  refers  to the range  of activities  that: \n \n• improve  individual  skill and knowledge  to enhance  performance,  and increase  staff capability,  engagement,  and \njob satisfaction.  \n• develops  and expands  team  performance.  \n• facilitate  a high–performance  service  culture,  raising  the quality  of the work  environment,  and enabling  excellence.  \n• help to build  the collective  capability  to maintain  and improve  organisational  effectiveness  and efficiency  and \nachieve Massey’s strategies and goals.  \n \nThe responsibility for staff development is shared by the individual and their managers including Heads of \nDepartments/Schools/Institutes, and the University.  Massey provides development opportunities to support staff to \nimprove  effectiveness  in a current  role, to assist  staff to initiate  and respond  constructively  to change,  and/or  may assist \nrealisation of potential and career advancement in a future role.  \n \nAll staff, both academic and professional services, are encouraged to participate in these opportunities and balance \ndevelopment with operational requirements and budget.  Development is a legitimate form of work activity.  Where a \nmanager  identifies  development  as necessary  to improve identified  areas  of performance  and capability,  participation \nmay be compulsory.  \n \nDevelopment  is not merely  about  ‘training ’ but may involve  a mix of development categories.  Development  options \nmay include tertiary study, structured on -line or face-to-face training courses, conferences, coaching, mentoring, \nsecondments, peer review, networking, and workplace/on -the-job learning opportunities.  \n \n \n \nThe following  model  reflects  the importance  and contribution  of the main  categories  of development  opportunity:   \nMANAGER  AND  STAFF  DEVELOPMENT  POLICY  \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide \nManager  and Staff Development  Policy  – Page  2 \n© This Policy  is the property  of Massey  University   \n Structured Learning \nTraining & Education  \nRelationship -based \nCoaching  & Mentoring  \nExperiential \nWorkplace  Learning   \n \n \n \n \nThe investment in development whether funded or unfunded, aims to enable staff to deliver their best, maximise their \npotential  and enhance  Massey  University’s  capability.  Managers  and the various  internal  providers  of staff development \nactivities will develop, implement,  and monitor development activities in accordance with this policy.  \n \nPrinciples:  \n \nThe Manager  and Staff Development  Policy  is based  on the following  principles:  \n \n1. Development  activities  should  contribute  to the achievement  of Massey  University’s  strategies  and goals.  \n \n2. The induction,  performance  management,  and development  processes  are the primary  means  of identifying \nindividual development needs and are informed by college, service, and University planning documents.  \n \n3. Some  staff development opportunities  may be mandatory  as a consequence  of employment agreements, \nlegislation, University policy and strategy, and/or individual performance and development needs.  \n \n4. Permanent staff and those employed on fixed -term agreements (12 months or more) have precedence for \ndevelopment based on identified needs, follow ed by those employed on shorter fixed terms and casual \nagreements.  Contractors  are generally  expected  to possess  the requisite  capabilities  to perform any  work they \nare hired to undertake and will not generally be eligible for development support from the University.  \n \n5. All staff are required  to take responsibility  for their own learning,  develop  personal  goals, and  to record  and \nreflect on their own development, and to assist in developing others.  \n \n6. Development  for improved  performance  in a current  role shall take precedence  for an individual  over \ndevelopment of that individual for potential future roles.  \n \n7. Effective,  efficient,  and culturally  appropriate  delivery  of development  solutions will be  supported  by \nthe University  selection  of providers  of development  interventions  in preference  to dispersed  \npurchasing of solutions.  \n \nResponsibility  for Development:  \n \nThe responsibility  for development  is shared  by individual  staff members,  supervisors,  managers,  and internal  providers \nand should be provided on an equitable basis.  \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide \nManager  and Staff Development  Policy  – Page  3 \n© This Policy  is the property  of Massey  University   \n  \n \nManagers  Responsibilities:  \n \nManagers  are responsible  for implementing  this policy  by ensuring  staff are provided  with appropriate  opportunities  to \ndevelop within the financial and HR delegations.  Responsibilities include:  \n \n• Analysing  the development  needs  of the business  area and individual  staff members  and ensuring  that team \nmembers have a current performance management and development plan to meet these needs.  For \nmanagers this will involve use o f the Massey University Managerial -Leadership Capability Framework and \nassociated assessment resources.  \n \n• Ensuring  that regular  Performance  and Development  Planning  processes  occur  annually  for their staff that they \nmanage.  \n \n• Utilising  University  approved  or endorsed  development  solutions,  which  support  consistency  and scale \neconomies for development expenditure and investment.  \n \n• Budgeting  to make  reasonable  provision  for staff development  needs.  \n \n• Ensuring  planned  attendance  by staff at development  events  is supported  by appropriate  planning  and release \nof staff.  \n \n \n \nStaff  Members  Responsibilities:  \n \nIndividual  staff members  are responsible  for: \n \n• Engaging  with their own development  needs.  \n \n• Participating  constructively  in discussions  about  their development  needs,  and in programmes  and \ndevelopment activities agreed with or as reasonably directed by their manager.  \n \n• Planning  work  to ensure  scheduled  attendance  at development  events  is able to be adhered  to. \n \n \nInternal  development -provider’s  Responsibilities:  \n \nTo promote an integrated and comprehensive source of information about development solutions offered by the \nUniversity,  internal  providers  of development  offerings  will, in addition  to any separate  promoti on of offerings,  include \nthese in a university  portal of information.  \n \nThe People and Culture section , in partnership with other areas of the University engaged in providing  development  \nsolutions  (such  as Teaching  and Learning  Centres)  will operate  appropriate  mechanisms  to support a community of \npractice around manager and staff development that supports, as practicable - \n \n• Relevance  of offerings.  \n• Recommendations  to the University  Senior  Leadership  Team  on priorities  for development.  \n• An aggregate  view of development  themes.  \n• Opportunities  for effective  procurement.  \n• An effective  balance  of University  and College/Service  decisions  about  development.  \n• Co-ordination  of timing  of development  events.  \n• Avoidance  of replication  of offerings.  \n \n \n \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide \nManager  and Staff Development  Policy  – Page  4 \n© This Policy  is the property  of Massey  University   \n  \n \n \nDevelopment  Expenditure:  \n \nDevelopment interventions can involve significant investment of money and time.  To support efficiency in the \npurchasing  or development  of solutions,  managers  are encouraged  to direct  learning  and development  requests  for new \ninterventions to People and Culture  to avoid replication and multiple providers of common solution s. \n \nCore  managerial -leadership  development  will generally  be sourced  through  university -approved  and funded  University - \ninterventions, while not precluding provision at the College and Services level for particular identified individual \ndevelopment needs.  \n \nAudience:  \n \nAll staff of Massey  University.  \n \nRelevant  legislation:  \n \nNone  \n \nLegal compliance:  \n \nNone  \n \nRelated  procedures  / documents:  \n \nStaff members  relevant  Massey  University  Individual  or Collective  Employment  Agreement  \nMassey University Performance and Development Pla nning Policy  \nPerformance  and Development  Planning  and Review  Procedures  \nMassey  University  Staff Study  and Application  for Staff Member  Fees  Concession  \nMassey University Staff Development Calendar  \nMassey  University  Leave  Guidelines  \n \nDocument  Management  Control:  \n \nPrepared by:  People and Culture  Development  \nAuthorised  by: Deputy Vice-Chancellor  – University Services  \nApproved by:  SLT 15/06/103  \nDate issued:  April 2013  \nLast review:  October 2022   \nNext review:  October 2025  \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Māori_Language_Policy_PDF_122_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Matua Reo Kaupapa – Māori Language Policy",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "122 KB",
      "author": "jmlochhe",
      "creation_date": "2015-01-13T10:04:07",
      "modification_date": "D:20150113104730+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " Massey University Policy Guide \n \nMATU A REO KAUPAPA – MĀORI LANGUAGE POLICY \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n \n   \n  \n \n \nPolicy:  \n \nThe purpose of this policy is to outline how Massey University will recognise Māori Lan guage as an official language \nof the University.  \n Introduction:  \n  \nThe Māori Language Act 1987 declared Māori to be an official language of New Zealand with particular implications \nfor Government departments, Crown agencies and Crown entities.  However the A ct was not prescriptive and there \nwere no statutory requirements for its implementation (except in relationship to Courts).   \n \nIn successive Charter revisions since 1989, Massey University has recognised Māori language as an official language \nof the Univer sity and has had a partial Māori language policy at least since 1997.   \n \nUnder that policy students have been permitted to write assignments and examinations in Māori [Assessment and \nExamination Regulations, regulation 17: ‘The Māori language is an official language of the University.  Those \nconsidered to have the necessary level of competency may write assignments, tests, and examinations in Māori, \nsubject to approval and where the subject is considered to be appropriate…’ Massey University 2005 Calendar].    \n \nDuring the 2001 Ten Year planning exercise it was agreed that a more comprehensive policy was needed and in 2003 Māori@Massey identified the formulation of a Māori Language Policy as a priority project.  The Deputy Vice -\nChancellor (Māori) subsequently established a working party, headed by Professor Taiarahia Black, to recommend on \na policy; in 2004 the working party presented a detailed report which formed the basis for this policy.  \nDefinitions:   \nTe Reo Māori  refers to the Māori Language  \n \nMatua Reo K aupapa refers to the Māori Language Policy  \n \nPolicy:  \n \nPromotion of Te Reo Māori  \nMassey University will actively promote the retention, transmission, and development of te reo Māori and will report \nannually on progress and achievements in:  \n• teaching and research programmes  \n• activities of the Māori language advisory group  \n• domains of usage and sites of visibility  \n• fluency in te reo Māori among the University staff  \n• measures to ensure high quality of te reo Māori  Section  University Management  \nContact Office of the AVC Māori and Pasifika  \nLast Review  August 2014  \nNext Review  August 2016  \nApproval  SLT 14/11/269  \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nMatua Reo Kaupapa – Māori Language Policy  – Page 2 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  • participation in government, tribal and community f orums related to the retention, transmission, and \ndevelopment of te reo Māori.  \n \nTeaching and research programmes  \n(a) Massey University will ensure that there are academic provisions including student learning support within the \nrelevant Colleges for students t o study te reo Māori and to study in the medium of te reo Māori at \nundergraduate and postgraduate levels and through internal and extramural modes.  Teaching programmes \nmay be generic (suitable for a general student audience) or applied (for students who h ave particular \nprofessional requirements) and will have regard for Māori as both a spoken and a written language.   \n(b) Academic units which teach te reo Māori will also undertake research related to the further development of Māori language and will seek opportunities to participate in externally funded research programmes where te \nreo Māori is a major focus.  \n(c) A characteristic of Massey University te reo Māori research and teaching programmes will be excellence and \nhigh levels of achievement.  \n(d) In accordance with the Massey University Assessment and Examination Regulations all students enrolled at \nMassey University will be able to complete assignments, tests and examinations in te reo Māori, provided \nprior approval has been obtained and the subject area is considered to be appropriate.  \n \nMāori Language Advisory Group  \nA Māori Language Advisory Group will advise on the appropriate usage of te reo Māori within the University and \nensure that a consistent approach is adopted by colleges, divisions and campuses in the use  of Māori words, \nphrases, imagery and icons.  Although the Group will not have a direct role in teaching and research programmes \nit may identify issues and opportunities for academic units to pursue. (b)The Advisory Group will be responsible to \nthe Assistan t Vice-Chancellor Māori and Pasifika.  It will include staff members who are able to advise on the use \nof te reo Māori, the Communications Account Manager – Māori and Pasifika , and will be broadly representative \nof colleges, campuses and appropriate divis ions.   \n \nMultiple domains of usage and sites of visibility  \n(a) The University will promote the use and high visibility of te reo Māori through:  \n• University branding including stationery, signage, publications, websites  \n• University occasions  \n• marketing and communi cations  \n• Māori names and titles (for staff positions, facilities, structures)  \n \n(b) In all of these domains, the Māori Language Advisory Group will make recommendations and will ensure that \nthere is consistency and quality across the University.  \n \nStaff fluency i n te reo Māori \n(a) Massey University staff should have the opportunity to acquire proficiency in te reo Māori. As part of staff \ndevelopment there will be provision for all staff to acquire a basic level of competence and understanding.  \n(b) Where Māori language is required as part of a staff function, a relevant minimum level of fluency in te reo \nMāori will be required.  \n(c)  In order to increase the level of proficiency in te reo Māori across the University, competence in Māori \nlanguage, measured against academic and national standards, will be regarded as a desirable qualification in relevant areas.  \n(d) Where a staff position explicitly requires Māori language skills, advertisements and interviews will use te reo \nMāori  \n \nMeasures to ensure high quality of te reo Māori  \n(a) An imp ortant function of the Māori Language Advisory Group will be to offer advice on quality and \nconsistency.  \n(b) Quality in University communications will also be emphasised by ensuring that University -wide electronic \nsystems have standardised approaches to the us e of macrons, a Māori language spell -checking tool, and an \noptional Māori language software suite as part of the standard software bundle installed on personal \ncomputers.  \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nMatua Reo Kaupapa – Māori Language Policy  – Page 3 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  (c) Specific issues surrounding the intellectual property of Māori language resources wil l be provided for in the \nUniversity’s Intellectual Property policy.  \n(d) University Publication Policy will be consistent with the Matua Reo Policy.  \n \nParticipation in forums relating to te reo Māori  \n(a) as part of its wider role, Massey University will be a nation al contributor to policies and programmes leading to \nthe retention, transmission, and development of te reo Māori.  \n(b) In addition to teaching and research, the University may host and participate in events that actively promote te \nreo Māori.  \n(c) The contribution made by Massey University will build on its academic credibility and will be distinguishable \nfrom the contributions made by other agencies, iwi, Crown entities, and media organisations.  \nAudience:  \nCouncil, all students, staff, external stakeholders  \nRelevan t Legislation:  \nMāori Language Act 1987  \nState Sector Act 1988 (section 77A)  \nEducation Act 1989  \nEducation (Tertiary Reform) Amendment Act 2002  \nLegal Compliance:  \nThis policy is consistent with the Massey University Charter and Profile, and University regulati ons.  It is also \nconsistent with legislation.  \nRelated Procedures:  \nMāori@Massey  \nMassey University Charter   \nMassey University  Profile   \nMassey University Calendar   \nIntellectual Property Policy  \nPublication Policy  \nKIA MĀRAMA: Key  Initiatives to Accelerate Massey’s Academic & Research Agenda for Māori Advancement  \nDocument Management Control:  \nPrepared By:  Assistant  Vice-Chancellor Mā ori and  Pasifika  \nOwned by: Vice- Chancellor  \nAuthorised by: SLT 14/11/269  \nDate issued: 20 April 2005  \nLast review:  August 2014  \nNext review:  August 2016  \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Mobile_Device_Management_Policy_PDF_113_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Mobile Device Management Policy PDF 113 KB",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "113 KB",
      "creation_date": "2021-02-18T15:02:03",
      "modification_date": "D:20210219123537+13'00'"
    },
    "content": "Mobile Device Management Policy\nMOBILE DEVI CEMANAGEMENT POLICY\n© This Policy i s the pro perty of Ma ssey Universi ty Page|1Purpose :\nThe purpose of this policy is to define standards, procedures, a nd restri ctions for users who havealegitimate\nbusiness need for connecting mobile devices to Massey University’s corporate network anddata.\nKey success factors:\nConfidential data that resides within Massey Universi ty’s technology infrastructure, inclu ding inte rnal and\nexternal clou d sources , isprotected\nData is protected from being deliberately or inadvertently stored insecurely ,on a mobile device ,or carried\nover an insecure network where it could potential lybe accessed by unsanctioned resources\nCentralised manag ement of all mob iledevices is owned by the University.\nAudience:\nAll users or anyone using the Massey network via a mobile device whilst working on behalf of the University.  Users\ninclude Massey University staff and students (including but not limited to contractors, consultants and volunteer s).\nPolicy :\nThismobile device policy applies, but is not limited to, all devices and a ccompanyin g media that fit the following :\nsmartphones\nother mobile/cellular phones\ntablets\ne-readers\nportable media devices\nportable gaming d evices\nlaptop/notebook/ult rabook computers\nwearable computing devices\npersonal digital assistant s (e.g. PDAs)\nany other mobile device capable of storing corporate data and connecting to a network .Section Information Technology Services \nContact Chief Information Officer\nLast Review November 2020\nNext Review November 2023\nApproval                SLT 21/02/17\nMobile Device Managem entPolicy\n© This Poli cy is the property of Masse y Uni versity Page |2The policy addresses a range of threats to Unive rsity data,orrelated to its use, such as:\nThreat Description\nDevice Loss Device sused to transfer or transport work files that could be lost or stolen.\nData TheftSensitive corporate data is deliberately stolen and sold by an employee or unsanctioned\nthird par ty\nCopyright Software copi ed onto a mobil edevice could violate licensing .\nMalwareViruses, Trojans, worms, spyware, malware, and other threats could be introduced via a\nmobile device.\nComplianceLoss or theft of financial and/or personal and co nfidenti al datacould expose the Un iversity\nto the risk of non -compliance with var ious ident ity theft and privacy laws.\nPolicy S tatements:\n1.TheVice-Chancellor has overall responsibility for the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of corporate\ndata.\n2.TheChiefInformation Officer has delegated execution and maintenance of inf ormation t echnology and\ninformation systems.\n3.All users or anyone using the Massey network via a mobile device whilst working on behalf of the University\nare responsible to act in accorda ncewith University policies and procedures .  Users include Massey\nUnive rsity staff and students (including but not limited to contractors, consu ltants and volunteer s).\n4.Connec tivity of all mobile devices w ill be centrally managed by the IT S depart ment and willuse authentication\nand stron g encryption measures .Although ITS will not dire ctly manage personal devices purchased by\nemployees, ITS will apply minimal controls to prot ectUniversity information when used on a personal device.\nEnd users are expecte d toadhere to the same security protocols when connected to the Massey network .\nFailure todo so will result in imme diate sus pension of all network access priv Ileges so as t o protect the\nUniver sity’s infrastructure .\nMobile Device Ap propriate Use\nMassey -supplied mobile devices\n1.Massey -supplied m obile devices are issued f or business pu rposes. Personal (non -work) r elated u se of\nMassey -supplied mobile devices should be kept to a min imum. Where per sonal use incurs a cost against the\ndevice account, the devic e user may be required to r eimburse the University for those costs.\n2.Premium Text S ervices, Text shortcodes and Text Se rvice Calls are not permitted on Massey -supplied\nmobile devices.\n3.Staff ri ght of access and use of Massey supp liedmobile device s,andasso ciated s oftware ,ceases withthe\ntermination of em ployment, and such equipment remains the pr operty o f the University.\n4.All users that are in pos session of a Masse y-supplied mobile device mus t ensure that t he usage of calls a nd\ntext messages remains wi thinthe quota of thei rallocated plan.\nMobile Device Managem entPolicy\n© This Poli cy is the property of Masse y Uni versity Page |35.Massey mobil econnectio ns are given a limi ted allocation of mobile data pe r month. If usage regularly or\nexcess ively exceeds this amoun t,ITS may contact the user’s fina ncial administrator to discuss addi tional\ncosts being met by their d epartment. Repeat excessive use may result in a user’s data c onnection being\ndisabled .\n6.Many mobile devices provid e the user with theability to download, purchase, and run Applications (“Apps”)\ndirectly on them. App swhich are not permitted are t hosecontaining objectiona ble material that may br ingthe\nUniversity into disrepute or are identified as c reating an unac ceptable information security r isk.\nAll mobile devices\n7.Itisimperat ivethat any mobile devi ce that is used to access Mass eyinformation is secure .\n8.For all telecommunication senable d onmobile devices , the Telecommunications Po licy als o applies.\nMobile D evice Management (MDM)\nMassey -supplied mobile devices\n1.ITS uses a mobile device manag ement solution to secure devices andenforce policies remotely. Before\nconnecting a mobi ledevice to corporate reso urces, the device w ill be automatically enrolled prior t o being\nissued to the us er.\n2.The vendor’s device managem ent solution must be installed on any Massey -suppli ed mo biledevice.\n3.The mobile device management solutio n enable s ITS to take the following a ctions o nMassey-supplied mobile\ndevices:\nremotewipe of Massey owned information.  Personal information will not beaffected\nenforcement of security poli cies, including m anda ting the use of a PIN to sec ure the device\nlocation tracking if the device i slost or s tolen\napplication deployment and visibility\nhardwar e feature management .\nPersonally owned mobile device s\n4.ITSuses a mobile device manag ement solution to secure devicesandenforce policies remotely. Before\nconnecting a mobi ledevice to Massey corporate resources, the device must berecorded and registered with\nITS.\n5.The mobile device management solutio n enablesITS to take the following actions o npersonally owned\nmobile devices:\nremotewipe of Massey owned information.  Personal information wil l not be affected\nenforcement of security poli cies, including mand ating the use of a PIN to sec ure the device .\nAll mobile devices\n6.Any attempt to contravene or bypass themobile device m anagement implem entation may result in immediate\ndisconnection from corpora te resourc es.\nMobile Device Managem entPolicy\n© This Poli cy is the property of Masse y Uni versity Page |4Approved Mobile Devices\nMassey -suppli ed m obile devices\n1.AllMassey-supplied mobile devi cesmust beprocured from an authorised supplier vi a the Univ ersity’s\npurchasing system through ITS:\nthe most current and up -to-datemobile handset listis available to all staff via the mobi lephones page\nonthe ITS intranet; other device sareavailable viatheITSpublished catalogue\ndevices not on the list must notbe connected to the University network unless verified and approved\nby Masse yITS\nif you r preferred device does not appear on thislist,contactthe Massey ITS Service Desk .\n2.All University p rocur ed mobile devices must be used in conjunc tionwitha Mas seyUniversity mobile plan.\n3.All mobile devi ces tha tare the property of Mas sey Uni versity mu st be returned to ITS upon upgrade or\nterminatio n ofemployment.\nAll mobile devices\n4.Prior to int ialuseon the Unive rsity network, a ll mobile devices mus t be re corded and registered with ITS.\nMobile Devi ce Security\nAll mobile dev ices\n1.All mobile devices must be protected by astrongpassword or pincode to prevent unautho rised use.\n2.Passwords and pin code smust not be written down , stored with the mobile devic e or di sclosed to other\npersons. F or furt her information, refer to the Pass word Policy.\n3.All users of mobil e devices must emplo y reasonable physical securi ty measures to protect their mobile d evice\nwhen inuse, when travelling with t he device, or when it i s unatt ende d.\n4.Massey data stored on a mobil e device m ustbe cleared from the device when it i sno longer r equired.\nRegula rreviews of data should b e compl eted by the mobile device use r, with all data identified as n o longer\nrequired being deleted.\n5.No mo bile dev icemodificatio ns to University issued hardware orsoftware are to be made withou t the expre ss\napproval of ITS.\n6.The unauthorise d use of mobile devi ces to back up, store and/or access sensitive University data containing\npersonally ident ifiable informatio nisprohibited.\n7.ITSundertakes wirel ess user a nddevice access audit logging. A udit logs a re revi ewed and used t oprovide\nwireless act ivity report sto identif y possible breach es and/or misuse that could jeopardise information security.\nMassey University reserves the right to use such logging and infor mation to assist in investigation s.\n8.In the event a mobile device i s lost or sto len, the user must n otify the Ma ssey ITS Servi ceDesk immediately.\nMobile Device Managem entPolicy\n© This Poli cy is the property of Masse y Uni versity Page |5Definitions:\nInformation security directly relates to providing for the confidentiality, integrity and availability of all digital resources \nwithin Massey University.  This provides assurance that information is only accessible by those who are authorised to \nview it, records and data are valid and correct, and mission-critical information is accessible when it is needed.\nMalware means programming code, scripts, active content, and other software designed to disrupt, collect private \ninformation, or gain unauthorised access to system resources.\nNetwork facilities are Information Communication and Technology (ICT) systems accessed via connection to the \nUniversity network, which includes, but is not limited to, email, printing, teaching spaces, internet and world wide web.\nPersonally identifiable information means data contained in University systems that is private information, as \ndefined by the Privacy Act.\nPremium Text Services, Text short codes and Text Services refers to a variety of services that are available on \nmobile devices, and which generally result in additional ad hoc service charges against the mobile device account. \nExamples include, but are not limited to: Text to Park, ringtones, games, service alerts, competitions, charity\ndonations, weather updates, subscription services and feedback or information on demand.\nVPN or Virtual Private Network is a secure and encrypted connection between a remote client device and the internal \nMassey network. It acts to secure data transmitted over a typically insecure network (such as the internet) to a \ncorporate (private) network.\nRelevant Legislation:\nRelated policy and procedures:\nAcceptable Use Policy\nDesktop Hardware and Software Policy \nDevice Security Policy\nIntellectual Property Policy\nOfficial Information Act\nPassword Policy\nPolicy on Staff Conduct\nStudent Academic Integrity Policy \nTelecommunications Policy\nService plans and mobile data\nDocument Management Control:\nPrepared by: Chief Information Officer\nAuthorised by: Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Finance and Technology \nApproved by:     SLT 21/02/17\nDate issued: August 2016\nLast review: November 2020\nNext review: November 2023\n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Hazardous_Substances_Guidelines__General_Areas_PDF_714_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Hazardous Substances Guidelines  General Areas PDF 714 KB",
      "policy_type": "Guideline",
      "file_size": "714 KB",
      "author": "Robertson, Paul",
      "creation_date": "2023-07-05T11:01:09",
      "modification_date": "D:20230705111957+12'00'"
    },
    "content": " \nO c c u p a t i o n a l  H e a l t h  & S a f e t y  - H a z a r d o u s  S u b s t a n c e s  G u i d e l i n e  \nJ u l y  2 0 2 3                                                                                                                            | 1 \n \n \n \n \n \n \nTable of Contents  \n1 PURPOSE ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................  3 \n2 SCOPE  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  3 \n3 DEFINITIONS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  3 \n4 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  5 \n4.1 The PVC, Se rvice Director:  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  5 \n4.2 Heads of School and Departments:  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........................  5 \n4.3 All Contractors/Workers:  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........  5 \n4.4 Occupational Health, Safety & Wellbeing:  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  5 \n5 DEFINITION OF A HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........................  6 \n6 PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............  6 \n6.1 Key Controls for Managing Hazardous Substances: ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 6 \n6.2 Hazardous Waste:  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  7 \n6.3 Risk Assessment:  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................  7 \n6.4 Safety Data Sheets:  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  7 \n6.5 Inventory:  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 8 \n6.6 Information , Training, and Instruction:  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  8 \n6.6.1 Information  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  8 \n6.6.2 Training and Instruction ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............................  8 \n6.6.3 Supervision  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................  9 \n6.6.4 Training Records  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  9 \n6.6.5 Training in Other Requirements  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................  9 \n6.6.6 Certified Handler  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  9 \n6.6.7 Hazardous Substance Location  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  9 \n6.6.8 Hazardous Substance Location Compliance Certificates  ................................ ................................ .............  9 \n7 EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLANNING  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 10 \n8 LABELLING  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........  11 \n8.1 Workplace Labels  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .....................  11 \n8.2 Information on Labels  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............  11 \n8.3 Hazard Pictograms  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................  11 \n8.4 Hazardous Waste  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .....................  13 \n9 SIGNAGE  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............  13 \n9.1 Placement of Signs  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................  13 \n9.2 Content of Signs  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................  13 \nHazardous Substances Guidelines  – General Areas  \nVersion 1 .0 | Issued July 2023  \nReview Due: June  2025 \n \nO c c u p a t i o n a l  H e a l t h  & S a f e t y  - H a z a r d o u s  S u b s t a n c e s  G u i d e l i n e  \nJ u l y  2 0 2 3                                                                                                                            | 2 9.3 Signs f or Substances in Buildings  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................  14 \n9.4 Substances in a Dedicated Room or Compartment in a Building, or in an outdoor Area  ................................ ........  14 \n10 PERSON IN CHARGE OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  14 \n11 CERTIFIED HANDLER  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........................  15 \n12 SECURED WHEN UNATTENDED  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  15 \n13 LOCATION COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............................  15 \n14 COMMISSIONING A HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE LOCATION  ................................ ................................ ................................  15 \n15 TRACKING HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............................  16 \n16 STATIONARY CONTAINER  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  16 \n16.1 Stationary Container System with a Stationary Tank  ................................ ................................ ............................  16 \n16.2 Stationary Container System with a Process Container  ................................ ................................ .........................  16 \n16.3 Types of Compliance Certificates  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........................  16 \n16.4 Requirements for Stationary Tanks  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................  16 \n16.5 Requirements for Process Containers ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  17 \n17 PROCUREMENT OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES OR HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE CONTAINING PRODUCTS  .........................  17 \n17.1 Contractors  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................  17 \n18 REFERENCES  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 19 \n19 APPENDIX 1: AMOUNTS OF SUBSTANCES THAT MUST BE SECURED WHEN UNATTENDED  ................................ .............  20 \n20 APPENDIX 2: LOCATION COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATES  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......  21 \n \nH a z a r d o u s  S u b s t a n c e s  G u i d e l i n e  | 3 \n 1 PURPOSE  \nThis guideline  outlines  how Massey University will manage  the identified critical risk of Hazardous Substance use \nand storage in non -laboratory areas at Massey University to ensure the safety and security of workers and \ncompliance to meet the requirements of the University Safety Man agement framework.  \n2 SCOPE  \nThis guideline  applies to all entities, officers, workers , and contractors of Massey University, its operations, and \nall joint ventures with Massey University of at least 50% ownership and/or controlled by the University. This \ndocument serves as a minimum requirement and is subject to the additional requirements of legislation, other \nPCBU’s or plant manufacturers.  \n3 DEFINITIONS  \nFor the interpretation of this document, the following definitions shall apply (singular form includes the  plural \nand vice versa, the list is no t exhaustive):  \nTerm  Definition  \nApprovals and approval \nnumbers  Importing, manufacturing, or using hazardous substances, a hazardous \nsubstance must be approved under the Hazardous Substances and New \nOrganisms (HSNO) Act 1996 and/or manufactured in accordance with the \nMU Hazardous Substances, Use, Synthesis, and Importation Procedure .   \nApproved filler  A person who has the necessary training, knowledge, and skills to fill ga s \ncontainers safely and has obtained an approved filler compliance \ncertificate from a compliance certifier.  \nCertified handler  A person who has specific knowledge and experience on how to use \nhazardous substances safely. This person needs to apply to a compliance \ncertifier to get a certified handler compliance certificate . Where class 6.1A \nor 6.1B are used, handled,  or stored outside a laboratory they are required \nto be under the control and supervision of a certified handler.  \nClassification  The proper ties of a substance are classified according to their hazards. \nBased on the classification, controls are put in place to manage the risks \nthat arise from these hazards. In New Zealand HSNO and GHS classification \nare used.  \nCompliance certificates  Certification issued by a registered compliance certifier where a PCBU \nholds Class1, Class 2, Class 3, Class 4, Class 5, Class 6 and Class 8 hazardous \nsubstances in volumes that trigger the requirement for Location \nCompliance Certi fication.  \nCompliance certifier  An independent service provider approved by WorkSafe to issue \ncompliance certificates.  \nControlled substance licence  A controlled substance licence (CSL) is required to possess certain \nexplosives, vertebrate toxic agents, and fumigants. To obtain a CSL, a \nperson must be a certified handler and a fit and proper person to possess \nthe substance concerned.  \nDangerous goods  The term ‘dangerous goods’ is used internationally to describe the goods \ncovered by the United Nations Recommendations on the Transport of \nDangerous Goods Model Regulations.  \nEmergency response plan  An emergency response plan is a written document that covers what will \nbe done and who is responsible for each task in an emergency involving \nhazardous substances at a workplace.  \nHazardous area  A hazardous area surrounds a place where flammable substanc es are \nused or stored, and flammable vapours may be present  (explosive \natmosphere)   \n \nH a z a r d o u s  S u b s t a n c e s  G u i d e l i n e  | 4 \n Within these areas, special precautions need to be taken to prevent \nunintended ignition so that a fire or explosion does not occur.  \nHazardous substances  A hazardous substance is a substance classified as having one or more of \nthe following properties:  \n• an explosive nature, including fireworks.   \n• flammability, for example, petrol, turps, LPG, diesel  \n• ability to oxidise, accelerate a fire, for example hydroge n \nperoxide.   \n• corrosiveness, for example, caustic drain cleaner  \nHazardous Substance Location  A hazardous substance location (HSL) is a place where specific controls are \nput in place to safely store certain hazardous substances above specified \namounts. You must establish an HSL (or hold the substances in a transit \ndepot) if you hold tracked substances in a place for more than 2 hours or \nif you hold untracked substances in a place for mor e than 24 hours. You \nwill need a location compliance certificate for some HSLs.  \nHSNO  HSNO refers to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 \nand supporting regulations. Under HSNO, the Environmental Protection \nAuthority (EPA) approves substances and sets environmental controls top \nof the supply chain controls for manufacturers a nd importers for matters \nsuch as packaging and disposal or the content of labels or safety data \nsheets (SDSs).  \nHSWA  HSWA refers to the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015. The main purpose \nof HSWA is to provide a balanced framework to ensure the health a nd \nsafety of workers and others.  \nIncompatible substances  Incompatible substances are substances that must be kept away from \neach other to prevent them from mixing and causing a fire or explosion or \nany other potentially harmful chemical reaction, such a s production of \ntoxic fumes.  \nInventory  An inventory is a list of all hazardous substances used, handled, \nmanufactured, and stored at your workplace.  \nLocation Compliance Certificate  A location compliance certificate certifies that the place where hazardous \nsubstances are used and stored is safely managed, according to the rules. \nCompliance certificates are issued by compliance certifiers .  \nPCBU  This is the abbreviation for Person Co nducting a Business or Undertaking. \nThe PCBU is a key duty holder in workplace health and safety and may be \nan organisation (e.g., a company), or a person (e.g. a sole trader).  \nA business is an activity carried out with the intention of making a profit \nor gain.  \nAn undertaking is an activity that is non -commercial in nature, such as a \nnot-for-profit group.  \nPersonal Protective Equipment \n(PPE)  PPE is used to handle hazardous substances. It can include respiratory \nprotective equipment (RPE). As the PCBU, you must make sure that \nsuitable PPE is provided to your workers, that it fits them, and that it is \nproperly maintained.  \nRegulations  Regulati ons are rules that must be complied with under a specific Act, such \nas the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015.  \n \nH a z a r d o u s  S u b s t a n c e s  G u i d e l i n e  | 5 \n Risk  Risk is the combination of the likelihood of adverse effects occurring and \nthe magnitude of the effects if they were to occur.  \nSafety D ata Sheet (SDS)  A safety data sheet includes information about how to safely use and store \na hazardous substance, first aid information and what to do in an \nemergency. Safety data sheets must be provided by your supplier when \nyou purchase a hazardous subs tance for the first time.  \nSecondary Containment \n(bunding)  A secondary containment system ensures that liquid substances (or \nliquefiable substances) can be contained if they leak or spill from the \ncontainer in which they are stored. The system should also enable \nrecovery of a spilled substance.  \nStationary Contai ner System  A stationary container system is a fixed tank and its associated pipework \nand fittings. If you have a stationary tank containing a gas or a liquid \nhazardous substance you may need a stationary container system \ncompliance certificate. This certi fies that your tank is safe and complies \nwith the rules.  \nTest station  Test stations are authorised to inspect and test gas cylinders.  \nTracking  Tracking refers to recording what happens to very hazardous substances \nfrom their manufacture through to use and/or disposal.  \n \n4 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES  \n4.1 The PVC, Service Director:  \n• Ensuring the effective implementation of this guidance.  \n• Allocating sufficient resources to enable this guidance to be delivered.  \n• Ensuring adequate monitoring the overall effectiveness of this guidance.  \n4.2 Heads of School and Departments:  \n• Ensuring that the guidance is implemented within their respective areas of influence and \nmanagement and adequately monitored and enforced.  \n• Ensuring that risk assessments are performed for all hazardous substances handling, storage and \nother associated operations involving hazardous substances, including thos e used by \ncontractors.  \n• Ensuring that all reasonably practicable control measures are identified and implemented.  \n• Providing workers with suitable and sufficient information, instruction,  and training in \naccordance with this procedure and taking all reas onably practicable steps to maintain, and \nwhere necessary, improve health and safety standards.  \n• Escalating, where it is not possible to implement adequate control measures.  \n4.3 Workers:  \n• Ensure their own safety, and that no action or inaction causes harm t o any other person.  \n• Follow the safe systems of work identified when handling hazardous substances.  \n• Report any compliance failures, or concerns to their line manager, Health and Safety \nRepresentative and/or the Occupational Health, Safety and Wellbeing team.  \n• Report incidents, accidents and near misses.  \n• Attend training as required.  \n4.4 Occupational Health  & Safety:  \n• Provide advice and support to managers regarding the implementation of this procedure.  \n \nH a z a r d o u s  S u b s t a n c e s  G u i d e l i n e  | 6 \n • Provide the organisation with data and any reports related to hazardous substances as \nrequested.  \n• Approving and maintaining a register of approved providers of services relating to hazardous \nsubstances.  \n• Monitor the effectiveness of this procedure through appropriate means including audits.  \n5 DEFIN ITION OF A HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE  \nA Hazardous Substance is defined in the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 (HSNO) as a \nsubstance that is:  \n• Explosive  ( HSNO Class 1)  \n• Flammable  ( HSNO Class 2,3 & 4)  \n• Oxidiser  (HSNO Class 5)  \n• Toxic  (HSNO Class 6)  \n• Corrosive  (HSNO Class 8)  \n• Ecotoxic  (HSNO Class 9)  \nA substance may have more than one hazardous substance classification, i.e., it can be a mixture of classes.  \nRadioactive materials (class 7) are not included in the Hazardous Substances Regulations 2017 and are dealt \nwith separately in the Radiation Safety Act 2016.  \n6 PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS  \n6.1 Key Controls for Managing Hazardous Substances : \nAll applicable steps in this guidance shall be followed. However, the following controls are highlighted \nthroughout this document as they are considered key controls to eliminate or minimise the risks of fatalities and \nserious injuries arising from and including the management of process es and facilities  where  hazardous \nsubstances  are used or stored : \n1. All haza rdous substances handled or stored by Massey University outside of a designated laboratory \nenvironment must be approved hazardous substances .   \n2. All hazardous substances  require  appropriate emergency management  response planning . Emergency \nmanagement involv es preventing accidents and incidents as well as limiting the adverse effects of \nincidents, should they occur.  \n3. All personnel who handle , use and store hazardous substances shall be competent and authorised and \nwill have received training, supervision and instruction that meets the requirements of Part 4.5 (3) of \nthe Health and Safety at Work ( Hazardous Substances ) Regulations  2017) . \n4. Safety Data Sheets (SDSs) for all substances must be  easily accessible  to the work area. SDSs must be \nobtain ed, when a hazardous substance is initially supplied to a work area and must be updated when \nany change is made to the SDS  or has date expired.  \n5. Versions of SDSs are not more than five years old, from the date of last review.  \n6. An SDS can be the full 16 part or  mini versions.  \n7. Appropriate risk management strategies that meet the requirements of the Hazardous Substances \nRegulations Part 2 and Part 3.2 . Regulations 5 -8 of the General Risk and Workplace Management \nRegulations will be in place for all hazardous subst ance activities including hazardous substance waste.  \n8. An inventory of all hazardous substances used, handled , or stored by Massey University including \nhazardous substance waste must be kept and maintained up to dat e and meet the requirements of \nregulation 3 of the Health and Safety at Work (Hazardous Substances) Regulations 2017.  \n9. All containers that contain hazardous substances must be labelled in accordance with Part 2.1 of the \nHazardous Substances Regulations  and be <5L in size where practicably possible except for areas \ndesignated as a farm where a container size must not exceed 1000L.  \n \nH a z a r d o u s  S u b s t a n c e s  G u i d e l i n e  | 7 \n 6.2 Hazardous Waste : \nHazardous waste is waste generated that is likely to be, or contain, at least one hazardous substance that is \nexplosive, flammable, oxidising, toxic, corrosive or ecotoxic. In other words, waste that comes from work \ninvolving a hazardous substance is likel y to be hazardous. The Regulations apply to the use, handling, and storage \nof hazardous waste. There is no requirement to have a safety data sheet (SDS) unless it is known that the waste \nis of the same substance, however:  \n• hazardous waste must be included i n the department’s inventory of hazardous substances. This \nincludes a name that best reflects what the waste is, the amount, its location, and any specific storage \nrequirements.  \n• hazardous waste in containers must be correctly labelled.  The label must be in  English and identify \nthe waste as closely as possible and include relevant hazard pictograms and statements, and contact \ndetails of the producer, if known.  \n• The department must provide workers with the relevant information, training, instruction, and \nsuper vision  before they carry out work involving hazardous waste.  \n• The hazardous waste needs to be stored the same as any other hazardous substance with the same \nclassification.  \n• The risk management for hazardous waste should be the same as for any other hazardo us substance.  \n6.3 Risk Assessment : \nRisk derived from the handling or storage of hazardous substances must be proactively managed in line with the \nrequirements of:  \n• The Health and Safety at Work Act 2015  \n• The Health and Safety at Work (Hazardous Substances) Regul ations 2017 which specify technical \nrequirements to manage the risk of working with hazardous substances.  \n• The Health and Safety at Work (General Risk and Workplace Management) Regulations 2016, which set \nout a process for managing risks , including the ris ks that arise from hazardous substances.  \nThe manager or supervisor in charge of the area must undertake the risk assessment of the hazardous \nsubstances handled or stored within their area. The risk assessment should address all reasonably foreseeable \nactivities or exposure of persons to that substance including visitors.  \n6.4 Safety Data Sheets : \nA safety data sheet (SDS) provides comprehensive information about the properties of a hazardous substance, \nhow it affects health and safety in the workplace and how to manage these risks. An SDS explains how the \nsubstance should be safely used, stored, transported , and disposed of. It provides first aid information, \ninformation about the personal protective equipment that the person handling the substance should w ear and \nwhat to do in the event of an emergency, such as a spill or fire . \nThe supplier of a hazardous substance to a workplace must provide a HSNO compliant SDS with their products.  \nThere is also a duty on the PCBU that is being supplied with a hazardous substance to obtain a n SDS:  \n• when the hazardous substance is first supplied. This includes if it is the first time it has been supplied \nto the workplace in five years.  \n• when the hazardous substance is first supplied after the SDS has been amended.  \nA current SDS for each hazardous substance (or a condensed version of the key information from the safety data \nsheet, for example a product safety card) must be kept with your inventory.  It must be read, the risks posed by \nthe substance understood and the appropriate measures put in place to manage them.  \nThe full SDS, or the condensed version, must be readily accessible to people who may handle, or be exposed to, \nthe hazardous substance such as workers and emergency services personnel.  \nSDS can be obtained via the University resource, ChemWatch  for all hazardous substances held by a workplace.  \n \nH a z a r d o u s  S u b s t a n c e s  G u i d e l i n e  | 8 \n You do not require an SDS when:  \n• a hazardous substance that is a consumer product to be used in quantities consistent with household \nuse. \n• a hazardous substance in a re tailer’s premises that is a consumer product and is in that workplace only \nfor the purpose of supply to other premises and is not intended to be opened on the retailer’s premises.  \n• anhydrous ammonia contained in equipment that forms part of any other equipm ent in which \nanhydrous ammonia is used as a refrigerant (unless the quantity of anhydrous ammonia is more than \n100 kg).  \nHowever, in any of these exclusions there must be provision to make sure that information about the safe use, \nhandling, and storage of t he substance is readily accessible to workers.  \n6.5 Inventory : \nFor each hazardous substance used, handled, or stored, the inventory must include:  \n• the product or chemical name and United Nations (UN) number (if available). If there is a UN number, \nit will be in section 14 of the SDS. If there is no UN number assigned , then the UN number does not \nneed to be included in the inventory.  \n• the maximum amount likely to be at the workplace.  \n• its location.  \n• any specific storage and segregation requirements.  \n• an SDS or a condensed version of the key information from the primary SDS.  \n• its HSNO or GHS classification  \nThe inventory must also include hazardous waste. This means waste likely to meet the classificati on criteria for \nsubstances with explosive, flammable, oxidising, toxic or corrosive properties in the Hazardous Substances \n(Classification) Notice 2017.  \nFor hazardous waste, the inventory must include:  \n• an identifier describing the waste as closely as pos sible (e.g. chlorinated solvent waste).  \n• the maximum quantity of the waste likely to be at the workplace.  \n• its location.  \n• any specific storage and segregation requirements for the waste.  \n6.6 Information, Training, and Instruction : \n6.6.1 Information  \nBefore workers carry out or supervise work that involves using, handling, manufacturing, or storing hazardous \nsubstances, they must know:  \n• about any work with hazardous substances in their work area.  \n• where to find information about handling and storing sub stances safely, including (but not limited to) \nthe information found on the SDS.  \nThe method in which this information is given must be effective and appropriate.  \n6.6.2 Training and Instruction  \nBefore  workers undertake or supervise, any work involving hazardous substances or work around hazardous \nsubstances, they must receive training and instruction on:  \n• the physico -chemical and health hazards of the substances they will handle (in other words, whether \nthe substances are explosive, flammable, oxidising, toxic or corrosive, and what this means for the \nworkers who handle them).  \n \nH a z a r d o u s  S u b s t a n c e s  G u i d e l i n e  | 9 \n • any procedures for safely usi ng, handling, manufacturing, storing, and disposing of the hazardous \nsubstances.  \n• how to safely use the plant (e.g., machinery, tools, and equipment, including PPE needed to manage \nthe hazardous substances).  \n• any other duties or obligations they may have b ecause of the substances they work with.  \n• what to do in an emergency involving the hazardous substances or that could affect the hazardous \nsubstances.  \n• Training needs to reflect the work that the worker will carry out.  If workers are in possession of a cur rent \ncertified handler or Grow Safe certificate or similar  then they will be considered as satisfying this training \nrequirement.  \n6.6.3 Supervision  \nWorkers must be supervised with an appropriate level of supervision to protect them from the risks associated \nwith their work when they:  \n• use, handle, manufacture or store hazardous substances.  \n• operate, test, maintain, repair, or decommission plant used to store, manufacture, or handle hazardous \nsubstances at the workplace.  \n• are likely to be exposed to hazardous substances at the workplace.  \n \nWhere it can be demonstrated (with documentation or certification) that a worker has equivalent previous \nexperience and/or training for their work, there is no requirement to provide the above training and instruction \nunless it is decided that there is a requirement for refresher training.  \n6.6.4 Training Records  \nRecords must show what training has taken place and when a refresher is needed.  \nTraining records will be required if an inspector, compliance certifier or auditor requests to view them.  \nIt is mandatory to keep records of training and instruction for each worker from 1 June 2018.  \n6.6.5 Training in Other Requirements  \nInformation, instruction, and training are required for different types of certification and as part of emergency \npreparation.  \n6.6.6 Certified Handler  \nWorkers require information, training , and instruction to become certified handlers, which are required where \nan area handles certain highly hazardous substances Class 6.1A, 6.1B.  Areas defined as a laboratory who handle, \nstore, use or manufacture Class 6.1A or 6.1B substances do not require t hese to be under the control of a \ncertified handler.  \n6.6.7 Hazardous Substance Location  \nIf a work area holds gas, liquid or solid hazardous substances that meet the classification and quantities stated \nin Appendix 2 then that work area will be required to commis sion a hazardous substance location and a \nLocation Compliance Certificate obtained. The costs of the certification are borne by the department, see 5.6.8  \nWhere an HSL has been identified, you must contact the Advisor, Hazardous Substances for guidance and \nmanagement requirements of that location.  \n6.6.8 Hazardous Substance Location Compliance Certificates  \nWhere an HSL has been established the HSL is required to obtain a Location Compliance Certificate (LCC). An \nLCC is an annual inspection of an HSL to ensure it me ets the requirements of the regulations activated and is \nmanaged in accordance with those regulations. The HSL assessment is undertaken by a WorkSafe registered \ncompliance certifier. Only location certifiers approved by the University can be engaged to und ertake the LCC \nassessment. LCC assessments are arranged by the Advisor, Hazardous Substances.  \n \nH a z a r d o u s  S u b s t a n c e s  G u i d e l i n e  | 10 \n 7 EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLANNING  \nWhere hazardous substances are stored, used , or handled in a workplace there must be an emergency response \nplan prepared. The plan must be appropriate to the amount(s) and type(s) of hazardous substance handled, \nused , or stored in that area.  \nThe emergency response plan must describe and apply to all  reasonably foreseeable emergencies that may arise \nfrom a breach or failure of the controls on any hazardous substance present or likely to be present, at the \nworkplace.  \nThe emergency response plan must, for each reasonably foreseeable emergency:  \n• describe the actions to be taken to warn people at the workplace, and in surrounding areas that may \nbe adversely affected by the emergency, that the emergency has occurred; and  \n• advise those people about the actions they should take to protect themselves; a nd \n• help or treat any person injured in the emergency; and  \n• manage the emergency so that its adverse effects are:  \n▪ restricted to the area initially affected; and  \n▪ reduced in severity as soon as practicable; and  \n▪ eliminated, if reasonably possible; and  \n▪ re-establ ish the controls put in place in respect of the hazardous substances at the workplace, \nincluding the use of protective equipment or chemical agents (for example, neutralisers or \nabsorbents); and  \n▪ identify each person with responsibility for the actions desc ribed in paragraph or any part of \nany of those actions and give information on how to contact the person, any skills the person \nis required to have, any special training needed to deal with an emergency involving the \nsubstance and any actions the person is  expected to take.  \nThe plan must specify:  \n• how to obtain information about the hazardous properties of, and means of controlling, the substance \nor substances that may be involved .  \n• actions to be taken to contact any emergency service provider . \n• the purpose a nd location of each item of equipment or facilities to be used to manage the emergency . \n• how to decide which actions to take . \n• the sequence in which actions should be taken.  \nThe plan must provide:  \n• an inventory of hazardous substances present at the workplace ; and  \n• a site plan that shows the physical position of all hazardous substance locations within the boundary of \nthe workplace (if applicable).  \nThe emergency response plan must:  \n• specify the type and location of the fire extinguishers provided in accordance w ith regulation 5.3, and \nany extra fire -fighting equipment or facilities provided, if any of the reasonably foreseeable \nemergencies identified in the plan is a fire . \n• must provide for the retention of any liquid or liquefied oxidising substance or organic peroxide to \nprevent it from contacting any incompatible substance.  \nFor areas deemed a Hazardous Substance Location there is an expectation that the Emergency Response Plan is \ncommunicated to and reviewed by Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ).  \n \nH a z a r d o u s  S u b s t a n c e s  G u i d e l i n e  | 11 \n 8 LABELLING  \nAll containers that contain a hazardous substance must be labelled. This means:  \n• keeping the manufacturers  or importer’s label on original containers of hazardous substances . \n• labelling workplace containers . \n• providing information about substances i n transportable containers.  \nThe label must be legible, written in English, and have all the information required for the type of container and \nsubstance.  \nThe following workplace containers must be labelled:  \n• small portable containers for substances that are decanted or transferred from their original containers.  \n• containers of hazardous waste . \nIn a workplace, so far as reasonably practicable, hazardous substances in their original containers need to retain \nthe manufacturer’s or importer’s label and that th ese need to be maintained in a legible condition.  \n8.1 Workplace Labels  \nWhen a substance is decanted from its original container the new container must be labelled. The information \nincluded on the label depends on the type of container. All labels must be written in English.  \n8.2 Information on Labels  \nMost labels have some common  features. Importer and manufacturer labels generally have all the features listed \nbelow, but the workplace labels listed above can be a simpler version. Labels can include:  \n• hazard statements  \n• hazard pictograms  \n• signal words  \n• precautionary statements  \n• other information, including response, storage, and disposal statements.  \n8.3 Hazard Pictograms  \nHazardous substances are put into classes depending on their hazardous properties.  \nOn signs and labels, two types of pictograms (symbols) show the class a substance belongs to:  \n• GHS (Globally Harmonised System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals) pictograms, or  \n• Transport of Dangerous Goods pictograms.  \n  \n \nH a z a r d o u s  S u b s t a n c e s  G u i d e l i n e  | 12 \n  \nTable 1 : Hazardous Substances Pictograms GHS and Transport of Dangerous Goods  \nClass  Subclass  Description  \n2: Flammable g ases & Aerosols  \n 2.1.1 A, B  Flammable gas  \n2.1.2 A  Flammable aerosol  \n3: Flammable liquids  \n 3.1 A, B, C, D  Flammable liquid  \n3.2 A, B, C  Liquid desensitised explosive  \n4: Flammable solids  \n 4.1.1 A, B  Readily combustible solid  \n4.1.2 A, B, C, D, E, F  Self-reactive solid  \n4.1.3 A, B, C  Desensitised explosive  \n4.2 A, B, C  Spontaneously combustible  \n4.3 A, B, C  Dangerous when wet  \n5: Oxidising substances  \n 5.1.1 A, B, C  Oxidising liquid/solid  \n5.1.2 A  Oxidising Gas  \n5.2 A, B, C, D, E, F, G  Organic Peroxide  \n6: Toxic  \n  6.1 A, B, C, D, E  Acute Toxicity  \n6.3 A, B  Skin Irritant  \n6.4 A  Eye Irritant  \n6.5 A, B  Respiratory/contact \nsensitiser  \n6.6 A, B  Mutagen  \n6.7 A, B  Carcinogen  \n6.8 A, B, C  Reproductive & development  \n6.9 A, B  Target organ or systemic  \n8: Corrosive  \n  8.1 A  Metal corrosive  \n8.2 A, B, C  Skin corrosive  \n8.3 A  Eye corrosive  \n9: Ecotoxicity  \n  9.1 A, B, C, D  Aquatic ecotoxic  \n9.2 A, B, C, D  Soil ecotoxic  \n9.3 A, B, C  Vertebrate ecotoxic  \n9.4 A, B, C  Invertebrate ecotoxic  \n \n \n\n \nH a z a r d o u s  S u b s t a n c e s  G u i d e l i n e  | 13 \n 8.4 Hazardous Waste  \nHazardous waste that is reasonably likely to be or contain a substance that meets one or more of the \nclassification criteria for substances with explosive, flammable, oxidising, toxic and/or corrosive properties \nunder the Hazardous Substances (Classification) Notice 2017 must be labelled.  \nHazardous waste can be a mixture of different hazardous substances that cannot be separated back into the \noriginal substances. For th is reason, the waste must be identified in a way that reflects its nature as closely as \npossible (e.g., flammable waste). The label must provide details about its producer, and a hazard pictogram and \nhazard statement.  \n9 SIGNAGE  \nWhere hazardous substances are  stored over specific amounts, signage must be displayed to inform workers, \nother people, and emergency services what hazardous substances are present and to inform them of the \nassociated hazards.  \nSignage must:  \n• Be in English and readily understandable.  \n• Not contain abbreviations and acronyms unless people commonly understand them and that the term \nin full is used at least once on the sign.  \n• All information must be clearly visible and legible from no less than 10m in varying conditions (e.g., in \nthe rain or  changing light).  \n• Are made of durable materials that are resistant to sunlight and require minimal maintenance.  \n9.1 Placement of Signs \nSignage must be placed in areas that make it clear to all persons what type of hazardous substances are present \nand where they are located on the worksite.  \nAs a rule, if hazardous substances are :  \n• in a room, put a sign at the entrance to the room  \n• in a bu ilding, put a sign at every entrance to the building  \n• in a building on your land, put a sign at every entrance to the land  \n• outdoors, put a sign immediately next to the storage area  \n9.2 Content of Signs \nSigns present information about safety and the immediate  response to take in an emergency.  \nKey features:  \n• A warning that hazardous substances are present – this must use the words: EXPLOSIVES for class 1 \nsubstances or HAZCHEM for class 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 or 9 substances on signs outside rooms or \ncompartments ins ide buildings.  \n• A description of the hazardous property and general type of hazard of the substances that are present. \nThe hazardous property means the class of the substance, represented by pictograms and/or a hazard \nstatement (e.g., flammable liquid).  \n• The general type of hazard means the substance subclass, represented by pictograms or a hazard \nstatement (e.g., dangerous when wet).  \n• Precautionary measures to prevent the hazards of explosives, flammables and oxidisers or organic \nperoxides.  \n• The immediate emergency response action.  \n• The sign contains no additional instruction such as PPE, authorised persons.  \n \nH a z a r d o u s  S u b s t a n c e s  G u i d e l i n e  | 14 \n Where flammables, oxidisers, toxic or corrosive substances are present on a worksite in volumes that trigger the \nrequirement for a test compliance certificate, the emergency response action can be represented by the \nHAZCHEM code . \n9.3 Signs for Substances in Buildings  \nWhere hazardous substances are present in quantities above the threshold for displaying signs in a building (but \nnot a dedicated room or compartment in that building), the sign must state:  \n• that hazardous substances are present  \n• the general type o f hazard of each hazardous substance presents  \n• the immediate emergency response action – the first action in an emergency  \nSignage must be displayed at every vehicular and pedestrian entrance:  \n• to the building  \n• to the land where the building is located.  \n9.4 Substances in a Dedicated Room or Compartment in a Building, or in an outdoor Area  \nWhen there are hazardous substances in a dedicated room or compartment in a building or an outdoor area at \nyour workplace, your signs must include:  \n• a warning that hazardous substances are present – use the word ‘HAZCHEM’ for class 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 or \n9 substances or ‘EXPLOSIVES’ for class 1 substances  \n• the general type of hazard of each substance – use hazard pictograms or hazard statements reflecting  \nthe classification of the substance  \n• the immediate response action to take in an emergency involving the substances.  \nThe signs must also include precautionary statements to prevent:  \n• unintended explosion for explosives (e.g., explosion risk in case of fire)  \n• unintended ignition of the substance for flammables (e.g., no smoking)  \n• unintended combustion, acceleration of fires, or thermal decomposition for oxidisers or organic \nperoxides (e .g., keep away from sparks).  \nSigns must be displayed:  \n• at each entrance to the room or compartment  \n• immediately next to the outdoor area.  \n10 PERSON IN CHARGE OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES  \nA Person in Charge (PiC) of hazardous substances must be appointed to each a rea where hazardous substances \nare stored, used, or handled.  \nThe PiC:  \n• In charge of all hazardous substances contained within the area, department, workshop, hazardous \nsubstance location, room, etc. assigned to them.  \n• may nominate any appropriately trained person to be in charge in their absence.  \n• must be treated as an individual who holds a controlled substance licence for the possession of \nsubstances that require a controlled substance licence.  \nBeing in charge of the  hazardous substances contained within the designated area means the PiC must ensure \nthat:  \n• any approved hazardous substance is handled, used, and stored in accordance with Parts 9 to 17 & Part \n19 of the Health and Safety at Work (Hazardous Substances) Reg ulations 2017.  \n• there is an emergency response plan in place.  \n \nH a z a r d o u s  S u b s t a n c e s  G u i d e l i n e  | 15 \n • all hazardous substances are entered on to those areas hazardous substance inventory and this is kept \nup to date.  \n• where that area is subject to a location compliance certificate that it is manag ed in accordance  with  the \nregulatory requirements for that/those substances and documentation is kept up to date.  \n• all substances are secured from unauthorised access or use.  \n• all persons using, handling, storing hazardous substances have been inducted into that area and \nrefresher induction is carried out as a minimum, bi -annually.  \n• where substances are subject to tracking under Part 19 of the regulations that these are done so in \naccordance with the requirements of Part 19.  \nWorkers are provided with the following information before handling a hazardous substance:  \n• Ensure that those workers handling hazardous substances have completed a Massey University \napproved hazardous substance awareness training course.   \n• procedures to pr event the contamination of any equipment, clothing, or part of the work area.  \n• if the substance is an approved hazardous substance, procedures to ensure that persons in the area are \nnot exposed to more than the prescribed exposure standard (if any) for tha t substance.  \n• the disposal requirements for the substance set out in the Hazardous Substances (Disposal) Notice \n2017.  \n• the actions required under the emergency response plan in the event of an accident or accidental \nexposure to the substance.  \nThe PiC will ensure that:  \n• workers are trained in the correct use, storage and maintenance of personal protective equipment and \nrespiratory protective equipment  \n• workers are trained in the correct operation, storage, and maintenance of any other required \nequipment  \n• information on hazardous substances is made available (i.e. SDS/Standard Operating Procedure/Safe \nMethod of Use) and that all precautions are in place.  \n11 CERTIFIED HANDLER  \nA certified handler is someone who has a current compliance certificate to show that they have received the \ninformation, training, and instruction that they need to handle highly hazardous substances.  \nA certified handler is required for any amount of substances requiring a controlled substance license or where \nClass 6.1A or 6.1B substances are  stored, used, or handled (not applicable to areas defined as a laboratory)  \n12 SECURED WHEN UNATTENDED  \nAll hazardous substances must be secured when unattended to prevent them from being accessed by \nunauthorised persons (see Appendix 1)  \n13 LOCATION COMPLIANCE CE RTIFICATE  \nA current compliance certificate is required at hazardous substance locations where flammable, oxidising, toxic \nor corrosive substances are stored or used, and the amount of substance is over the amounts described in \nAppendix 2. If no specific am ount is listed for open or closed containers, then the amount is the same whether \nthe substance is in an open or closed container. Only test certifiers who appear on the Massey University \napproved hazardous substance service providers register can be engag ed to undertake certification on all \nMassey University sites.  \n14 COMMISSIONING A HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE LOCATION  \nThe regulations require that where a hazardous substance location has been established to notify WorkSafe \nNew Zealand of the hazardous substance loca tion before it is commissioned.  \n \nH a z a r d o u s  S u b s t a n c e s  G u i d e l i n e  | 16 \n Time frames (before commissioning):  \nHazardous Substance Location (excluding LPG)  at least 30 days  \nHazardous Substance Location (where LPG is to be located)  at least 5 working days  \n15 TRACKING HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES  \nIf an area holds any amount of a substance with one or more of the following classifications that substance will \nrequire tracking:  \n• 3.1A, 3.2A  \n• 4.1.2A, 4.1.2B  \n• 4.1.3A  \n• 4.2A  \n• 4.3A  \n• 5.1.1A  \n• 5.2A, 5.2B  \n• 6.1A, 6.1B  \n16 STATIONARY CONTAINER  \n16.1 Stationary Container System with a Stationary Tank  \nStationary tanks are used for storing or supplying hazardous liquids and are normally located at specific places. \nStationary tanks include:  \n• all parts and materials that help to maintain the structure and integrity of the tank s  \n• any means of closing the tanks (e.g. a lid or fitted cover)  \n• any component of the tanks intended to protect the contents of the tank from harm (e.g. lightning \nprotection), and  \n• any other components that are integral parts of the tanks (e.g. liquid heigh t indicators, heating coils, or \ninternal valves).  \n16.2 Stationary Container System with a Process Container  \nProcess containers are stationary containers that hold a hazardous substance during manufacture or use (e.g. a \nmixing container, reaction vessel, distillation column, drier or dip tank).  \n \n16.3 Types of Compliance Certificates  \nIt must be established if an area  requires one or both of a stationary container system compliance certificate \nand a location compliance certificate for a tank or process container.  \n16.4 Requirements for Stationary Tanks  \nA stationary container system compliance certificate is required for you r tank if it is:  \n• a below -ground tank (including tanks that are covered by earth or other material) holding more than \n250L  \n• an above -ground tank, holding more than 2,500L of class 3.1A and 3.1B substances (e.g. petrol or \nsolvents)  \n• an above -ground tank, holding more than 5,000 L of substances other than class 3.1A or 3.1B (e.g. \ndiesel, caustic soda, or corrosives)  \n• an above -ground tank, holding more than 500L of gas used with a vaporiser dispenser  \n \nH a z a r d o u s  S u b s t a n c e s  G u i d e l i n e  | 17 \n • a tank that provides fuel to an oil burning installation which has a capacity greater than: 500L for a class \n3.1D substances (e.g. diesel and waste oil) supplying an internal combusti on engine  \n• 50L for class 3.1A, 3.1B and 3.1C substances supplying an internal combustion engine  \n• 60L for class 3.1 flammable substances supplying a burner  \n• a tank that provides fuel to an oil burning installation with a service tank.  \n16.5 Requirements for Process Containers  \nA stationary container system compliance certificate is required for your process container if it is:  \n• below ground (including process containers that are covered by earth or other material) of any size  \n• above ground, greater than 250L and intended for use with a hazardous gas, or  \n• above ground, greater than 1,000L and intended for use with a hazardous liqu id.  \n17 PROCUREMENT OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES OR HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE CONTAINING \nPRODUCTS  \nBefore introducing any new hazardous substance or a product containing a hazardous substance to any Massey \nUniversity facility, submit it for approval to Occupational Healt h, Safety If the substance requires a Certified \nHandler, the appropriate Certified Handler must be consulted, and training must be given appropriate to the \nsubstance prior to it being introduced.  \nOccupational Health and Safety will require:  \n• A current (no older than 5 years) New Zealand compliant SDS.  \n• Product name and chemical name of substance(s) contained.  \n• Name, address, and contact number for New Zealand supplier.  \n• The HSNO and GHS Class of subst ance e.g., Class 3.1, Class 5.1A, Class 8.2 etc.  \n• Size of the container(s) product is supplied.  \n• The likely maximum amount to be stored and handled.  \n• Storage location and type, e.g., flammable cabinet, secured area.  \n• How would the substance or residual substan ce be disposed of?  \n• Documented statement on how the substance, if introduced to Massey University , will be safely \nmanaged in line with this SOP including the appointed Person in Charge details.  \n17.1 Contractors  \nAll contractors bringing on to a Massey University  site, a hazardous substance shall have a  minimum safety \nmanagement process  that will ensure that those hazardous substances meet the requirements of the \nregulations and present no risk to the health or saf ety of the contractor, Massey University  staff, and visitors to \na Massey University  campus.  \nAs a minimum, a contractor shall have in place prior to bring a substance on site:  \n• Pre-approval for use from Health and Safety  \n• A Site -Specific Safety Plan or simil ar that details how that substance is safely managed.  \n• An SDS for all hazardous substances introduced on site.  \n• Appropriate Emergency Response Plan for any likely emergency event involving that substance \nincluding, but not limited to fire, spill, contaminati on, fume and vapour management, ingestion, and \nenvironmental exposure.  \n• Where a substance is classed as ecotoxic the Emergency Response Plan shall include environmental risk \nmanagement.  \n \nH a z a r d o u s  S u b s t a n c e s  G u i d e l i n e  | 18 \n • Evidence that they have received appropriate training, instruction, inf ormation, and supervision that \nfulfils the requirements, where appropriate of section of this SOP.  \n \n \nH a z a r d o u s  S u b s t a n c e s  G u i d e l i n e  | 19 \n 18 REFERENCES  \nWorkSafe New Zealand 2018, Guidance to the changes introduced by the Health and Safety at Work \n(Hazardous Substances) Regulations 2017, viewed 16th of April 2020,  \nWorkSafe New Zealand 2018, Certifying stationary container systems.  \nWorkSafe New Zealand 2018, Working safely with hazardous substances.   \nWorkSafe New Zealand 2018, Health,  and Safety by Design  \nWorkSafe New Zealand 2018, Information, training,  and instruction for workers handling hazardous substances.  \nWorkSafe New Zealand 2019, Hazardous substance signage viewed.   \nWorkSafe New Zealand 2017, Identifying and Assessing Workplace Risk,  \nWorkSafe New Zealand 2018, Inventory requirements for hazardou s substances  \nWorkSafe New Zealand 2017, Labelling, decanting, and repackaging hazardous substances in the workplace.   \nWorkSafe New Zealand 2018, Hazardous substances that activate key safety controls,  \nWorkSafe New Zealand 2017, Hazardous substance risk management  \nWorkSafe New Zealand 2018, Certified handler requirements  \nWorkSafe New Zealand 2017 Safety data sheets in the workplace  \nHealth and Safety at Work Act 2015  \nHealth and Safety at Work (Hazardous Substances) Regulations 2017  \nHealth and Safety at Work (General Risk and Workplace Management) Regulations 2016  \n \n \n \nH a z a r d o u s  S u b s t a n c e s  G u i d e l i n e  | 20 \n 19 APPENDIX 1: AMOUNTS OF SUBSTANCES THAT MUST BE SECURED WHEN UNATTENDED  \nHighly hazardous substances or large amounts equal to, or over, the amounts in the tab le below must be secured \nfrom people not permitted to have access to them when they are unattended.  \nHazard of classification (HSNO) of \nsubstance  Substance must be secured when amount is equal \nto or over the amounts below  \n2.1.1A  100 kg (non-permanent gas) or 100 m3 (permanent \ngas) permanent gas  \n2.1.2A  3,000 L (aggregate water capacity)  \n3.1A  Any amount  \n3.1B  250 L when in containers of more than 5 L or  \n500 L when in containers less than or 5 L in size  \n3.2A  Any amount  \n3.2B  100 L  \n4.1.1A  100 kg  \n4.1.2A, 4.1.2B  Any amount  \n4.1.2C, 4.1.2D  25 kg  \n4.1.2E, 4.1.2F  50 kg  \n4.1.3A  Any amount  \n4.1.3B  100 kg  \n4.2A  Any amount  \n4.2B  100 kg  \n4.3A  Any amount  \n4.3B  100 kg  \n5.1.1A  Any amount  \n5.1.1B  500 kg or 500 L  \n5.1.1C  1,000 kg or 1,000 L  \n5.1.2A  250 kg or 200 m3 \n5.2A, 5.2B  Any amount  \n5.2C, 5.2D, 5.2E, 5.2F  10 kg or 10 L  \n6.1A, 6.1B  Any amount (must be either under the personal \ncontrol of a certified handler or secured)  \n6.1C  Any amount (except for classes 1.1C (UN 0160) and \n1.3C (UN 0161)  \nAnhydrous ammonia  (HSNO approval \nnumber HSR001035)  100 kg  \n6.7A  10 kg or 10 L  \n8.2A  Any amount  \n \n \nH a z a r d o u s  S u b s t a n c e s  G u i d e l i n e  | 21 \n 20 APPENDIX 2: LOCATION COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATES  \nHazard classification (HSNO) of \nsubstance  Location compliance certificate needed when have amounts of \nsubstance over those below  \n2.1.1A , 2.1.1B  100 kg or 100 m3 for a permanent gas  \n2.1.2A  3,000 L (aggregate water capacity)  \n3.1A 20 L \n3.1A \n(petrol, aviation gasoline, and \nracing gasoline)  50 L \n3.1B Closed containers  \n100 L (in containers more than 5 L in size) or  \n250 L (in containers 5 L or less in size)  \nOpen containers  \n50 L \n3.1C  500 L (in containers more than 5 L in size) or  \n1,500 L (in containers 5 L or less in size)  or Open containers  \n250 L  \n3.2A, 3.2B, 3.2C  1 L \n4.1.1A  1 kg \n4.1.1B  100 kg  \n4.1.2A, 4.1.2B  1 kg  \n4.1.2C, 4.1.2D  25 kg  \n4.1.2E, 4.1.2F, 4.1.2G  50 kg  \n4.1.3A, 4.1.3B, 4.1.3C  1 kg \n4.2A 1 kg \n4.2B, 4.2C  25 kg  \n4.3A 1 kg \n4.3B 25 kg  \n4.3C  50 kg  \n5.1.1A  50 kg or 50 L  \n5.1.1B  500 kg or 500 L  \n5.1.1C  1,000 kg or 1,000 L  \n5.1.2A  100 kg non -permanent gas or 200 m3 permanent gas  \nOxygen in discrete cylinder or tank  200 m3 \nChlorine – HSR1001058  150 kg  \n5.2A, 5.2B  10 kg  \n5.2C, 5.2D  25 kg  \n5.2E, 5.2F  100 kg  \n6.1A 50 kg or 50 L  \n6.1B 250 kg or 250 L  \n \nH a z a r d o u s  S u b s t a n c e s  G u i d e l i n e  | 22 \n 6.1C  1,000 kg or 1,000 L  \n8.2A 50 kg or 50 L  \n8.2B 250 kg or 250 L  \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Massey_University_Visual_Arts_Collection_Procedures_and_Guidelines_PDF_86_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Massey University Visual Arts Collection Procedures and Guidelines",
      "policy_type": "Procedure",
      "file_size": "86 KB",
      "author": "jmlochhe",
      "creation_date": "2015-11-26T15:03:00",
      "modification_date": "D:20230726095943+12'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n Massey University Policy Guide  \n \nMASSEY UNIVERSITY VI SUAL ARTS COLLECTION  PROCEDURE AND GUIDEL INES  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \n \n \nIntroduction  \nThe Massey University Visual Arts Collection Policy is supported by the following procedures and guidelines.  These \nguidelines enable the University to acquire, manage and maintain works of art on each of the campuses.  Procedures \nfor acquisition through purchase, donation and bequest are outlined as are the circumstances under which artworks  \ncan be loaned or de- accessioned.  \n \nFinance  \nThe University currently makes an annual allocation towards the acquisition, maintenance and upkeep of the Massey \nUniversity Art Collection.  \n \nFundi ng for special purchases may be sourced from relevant grants, sponsorships, or trust funds, or from the budgets \nof University management, college, schools or departments, in accordance with University policy. These purchases \nmust be made in consultation wi th the relevant Campus Visual Art s Collection Committee.  \n \nAll works of art  over a certain value ($5,000)  acquired for the Massey University’s Art C ollection, must be registered \non the Fixed Asset Register, in accordance with the University’s Fixed Asset Po licy.  \n \nResponsibilities  \nMassey  University Visual Art s Collection Committee is responsible for the overarching strategy and policy.  \n \nResponsibility for the acquisition of artworks  for each campus rests with the respective Campus Visual Arts Collection \nComm ittees.  The Campus Visual Arts Collection Committee is also responsible for the maintenance of the collections \nand advocacy for their role and purpose in university life.  \n \nThe University will appoint, as appropriate, a  Visual Arts Collection Curator for each Campus which  will be responsible \nfor researching the art collection, supervising its direction and growth, cataloguing, labelling, conserving, installing and \nrelocating art on campus in collaboration with the Office of the Campus Registrar. This person will be an ex officio \nmember of the Campus Visual Art s Committee and in that role take part in the initiation, development, and selection of \nnew works.  \n \nThe Office of the Campus Registrar will hold the Register of all art collections on campus and new acquisitions or any changes in location of artworks  must be updated on this Register by the Campus Visual Arts Collection C urator at the \ntime of change. The Office of the AVCOI&UR  will hold a consolidated register of all artworks  across the University and \nthis register will be updated by the Campus Registrars’ Offices on a regular (at least annual) basis.  \n \nEvidence of due diligence is a requirement for the acq uisition of all artworks  into the collections.  Due diligence \nincludes: compliance with acquisition policy; relevance; necessity to collection; quality; condition; conservation \nrequirements; site selection / proposed use and location, where appropriate; fair price and valuation; provenance; Section  University Management  \nContact Office of the AVCOI&UR  \nLast Review  June 2014  \nNext Review  June 2019  \nApproval  SLT 15/10/206  \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nMassey University Visual Arts Collection  \nProcedure and Guidelines  – Page 2 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nlegal title; conditions and limitations associated with acquisition / risk assessment; documentation; copyright; \nwarranties; transport; other (hidden) costs etc.  \n Any University staff member may make recommendations for acquisition to the relev ant Campus Visual Art s \nCommittee for consideration. Recommendations must be in line with the terms laid out in the Massey University Visual Arts Collection Policy.  All recommendations must be supported by a fully developed acquisition proposal that \ndocuments the rationale for acquiring the art work; its authenticity and establishes the legal and ethical foundations for \nthe acquisition.  \n Any staff member or University representative involved in the process of acquiring works of art, or negotiating with donors, for the University, who has a potential, actual or perceived conflict of interest, must declare their interest. A \nconflict may arise where the individual is a private collector, has financial interest in a commercial gallery or art dealer,  \nor has a rel ationship with an artist or a donor with whom the University is negotiating. Where decisions about \npurchase or donations may potentially conflict with the personal interests of a staff member or University \nrepresentative, the staff member  may be asked to w ithdraw from that process or ask to be withdrawn themselves.  \n Acquisition may be achieved by purchase, commission, gift, bequest, loan, exchange, field collection, collaboration, or \nthrough sponsorship.  \n \nAcquisition by Purchase \nThe Campus Visual Art s Colle ction  Committees will be convened at least twice a year, in order to discuss prospective \nacquisitions and proposals, and to appropriately spend the allocated art acquisitions budget.  The Campus Visual Arts \nCollection Committee will  have appropriate terms of reference and will either have sufficient skills to make decisions \nor will consult with appropriate professionals to assist with decision making.  \n \nSources of acquisitions may be from any appropriate venue, such as artist studios, exhibitions, dealer gal leries, \nauction houses or private collections.  \n \nThe University will not normally make purchases directly from members of the staff. Should this circumstance arise, \nand the artwork  fully fits the collection scope, exceptions may be permitted. In this instance the approval of the \nUniversity Registrar should be sought.  \n Colleges, Schools and Departments may also purchase works of art from their respective budgets in accordance with University policy. Units are advised to consult with the appropriate Campus Vis ual Art s Collection  Committee, and to \nseek assistance from the Campus Visual Arts Collection  Curator, to ensure the works meet the criteria of the Massey \nUniversity Visual Arts Collection Policy prior to acquisition.  To this end the Campus  Visual Art s Col lection  Committee \nwill assess the works against the Massey University Visual Arts Collection Policy prior to purchase. Artw orks acquired \nwill be registered as part of the relevant Art Collection if they meet the criteria for accessioning . \n \nThe University m ay partner with individuals or organisations to enter into joint purchase of artwork s.  This could occur \nthrough a donation of funds that are administered by the Campus Visual Arts Collection Committee to purchase works \nthat are solely held within the Mass ey University Art Collection with appropriate recognition for the other party.  An \nalternative could be a dual acquisition where resources are contributed by two or more entities.  In this case an MoU \nwould provide detail on where the work would be held and how it would be available for exhibition by the other party.  \n \nThe University will not acquire works that have been deliberately or misleadingly identified, or valued to the detriment \nof the owner or previous owner.  \n \nAcquisition by Commission  \nThe Universi ty may acquire works of art by commission. Funding of such commissions may be from sources other \nthan the art acquisitions budget, but must none- the-less comply with the criteria laid out in the  Massey University \nVisual Arts Collection Policy.  \n Commissions  must be supervised and processed by the appropriate Campus Visual Arts  Collection  Committee in \naccordance with the Massey University Visual Arts Collection Policy.  \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nMassey University Visual Arts Collection  \nProcedure and Guidelines  – Page 3 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \nAcquisition by Gift  \nArtworks may be acquired by donation where they meet the collecting scope and criteria described above.  \n \nDonations may be made unconditionally, or with certain agreed conditions attached, provided they are fully stated on \nthe deed of gift.  \n \nAll donations must be assessed against the Massey University Visual Arts Collection Policy by the appropriate \nCampus Visual Arts Collection Committee prior to acceptance for the collection.  The Campus  Visual Arts  Collection  \nCommittee may refer to the Campus Visual Arts Collection Curator for assistance.  Where donors contact colleges, schools or departments directly, they must be referred to the appropriate Campus Visual Arts  Collection Committee \nwho will nominate a member (usually the curator) to liaise with the donor, assess the artworks , and register them as \npart of the relevant collection if accepted.  \n \nAll donations must be reported to the Massey University Foundation in accordance with the terms of the Fundraising Activities Policy.  \n \nEach donation will be recorded on a Deed of Gift ( including a copyright licence), which details the University’s formal \nobligation to care for and protect any work of art gifted to it.  \n The Deed of Gift must clearly state any terms and conditions on which the donation has been accepted.  \n \nAny donated item, unless specifically stated in the conditions of t he Deed of Gift, will be treated in the same manner \nas any other work acquired for the Massey University Art Collection.  \n \nThe University reserves the right to decline works of art that may be offered. Where a gift of a work of art does not \nmeet the criteri a of the Massey University Visual Arts Collection P olicy, it may be respectfully declined or referred to a \nmore appropriate repository by agreement.  \n \nAcquisition by Bequest  \nDonation to the Massey University Art Collection may be made by bequest. For assist ance with wording of bequests, \ncontact the Massey University Foundation.  \n It is strongly recommended that donors considering making a bequest discuss their intentions with the University prior \nto writing their will in order to ensure their intended gift meets with University Visual Arts C ollection Policy criteria. ( As \nfor gifts above).  \n \nWhere a bequest of a work of art does not meet the criteria of the Massey University Arts C ollection Policy, it may be \nrespectfully declined or referred to a more appropriat e repository.  \n \nLoan Works  \nThe University will not accept works of art on long- term loan into the collection, unless there are exceptional \ncircumstances.  All long- term loans need to be processed by the Campus Visual Arts Collection Committee in keeping \nwith the Massey University Visual Arts Collection Policy and Procedures.  Any long- term loan must be approved by \nthe University Registrar for insurance purposes.  \n \nThe University may accept short term loans for research, teaching and exhibition from other inst itutions, or from public \nsources in accordance with the loans policy and procedure set out in the Massey University Visual Art s Collection \nPolicy. All short term loans must have appropriate documentation, including terms of the loan, insurance, condition \nassessment , transport, installation and de- installation processes . \n  \nUniversity Loan  \nWorks from the Massey University Art Collection may be available for loan, subject to requests being received and \nconsidered by the relevant Campus Visual Arts  Collection  Committee, and to loan requests satisfying criteria including \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nMassey University Visual Arts Collection  \nProcedure and Guidelines  – Page 4 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \ncuratorial rationale, atmospheric conditions, security arrangements, insurance cover, packing and transport \narrangements.    \n The loan will only be signed off by the Campus Registrar if all requ irements  (as above, including appropriate condition \nreporting),  have been fulfilled.  On loan and return the register must be updated by the Campus Registrar’s Office.  \n \nAcqui sitions by other means  \nAcquisitions by exchange, field collection, collaboration, or through sponsorship must all meet the Massey University \nVisual Arts C ollection Policy criteria if they are to be accessioned into the collection. All accessioned works acquired \nby these means wi ll be reviewed and, if suitable for accessioning, be recorded in the art collection registers  by the \nCampus Visual Arts Collection C urators at the time of accessioning as above.  \n \nMoral Rights \nWhen acquiring works of art, the University will recognise the m oral rights of the artists as described in the Copyright \nAct (2004). Massey University  will ensure that copyright and moral and intellectual rights are respected in the \ndocumentation, display, interpretation and reproduction of all artworks  in the collecti on. \n Copyright, and moral and intellectual rights, will be considered when completing donation agreements, or commissioning works.  \n \nIllegally Obtained Works \nThe University will not acquire any artworks  that have been obtained illegally or in contravention of the UNESCO \nConvention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural \nProperty (1970).  \n \nStandards and Ethics  \nIn addition to abiding by the mission, standards and policies of the University itself, it will adhere to the following specific standards and ethical guidelines:  \n− Museums Aotearoa Code of Ethics (201 3) \n− New Zealand Museums Standards Scheme \n \n \nDE-ACCESSION AND DISPOSAL:  \n \nDe-accession  \nThe University regards its Art Collection as  a permanent and public collection, and would not normally de- accession \nartworks . As the mission and objectives for the Massey University A rt Collection are reviewed on a regular basis, the \nUniversity may choose to re- evaluate works in the Art C ollection and recommend de- accessioning. De- accessioning \nis the permanent removal of a work of art from the Massey University Art C ollection.  \n There will be a strong professional caution against the disposal of works of art from the Art C ollecti on, and de-\naccessioning will only be undertaken with great care, in line with the Massey University Visual Arts Collection  policy.  \nProcedures for the recommendation and approval of a work of art for de- accessioning must be clearly stated in the \nMassey University  Visual Arts Collection Policy. All de -accessions must be clearly recorded in the Visual Arts \nCollection Database (both local campus and University collection database), and documentation retained in the De-\naccessions File.  Records and images must be retained of the de- accessioned artworks .  \nNote:   De-accessioning of closed collections will not normally be considered.  Any decision to do so would only be \nwith the permission of the University Council or Council’s nominee.  \n \nDisposal  \nDisposal should be in accor dance with Massey University’s Visual Arts Collection P olicy.  \n \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nMassey University Visual Arts Collection  \nProcedure and Guidelines  – Page 5 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nWorks may be disposed of in the following ways, listed in order of preference:  \n- Returned to the origin al donor, or the donor’s family;  \n- Gifted or exchanged with another appropriate institution;  \n- Offered for public sale;  \n- Destroyed (for works in an extensively dam aged or deteriorated condition).  \n \nWorks acquired by donation may not usually  be disposed of by public sale, unless specifically agreed with the donor.  \n Works being disposed of may not be gi fted to, or exchanged with, any person connected to the University, including \nstaff members, board members, trustees or their families or agents.  \n \nWorks being sold for disposal may not be purchased by any person connected to the University, including staff  \nmembers, board members, trustees or their families or agents.  \n \nProcedures for the disposal of a work of art must be clearly stated in the Massey University Visual Art s Collection \nPolicy. All disposals must be clearly recorded in the  Visual Arts Collection Database, and documentation retained in \nthe De- accessions file.  \n \nRecordkeeping  \n Appropriate r ecords of the  Art C ollection  management  must be created and maintained to meet  the recordkeeping \nrequirements of Massey University . Disposal of Art C ollection rec ords must be undertaken in accordance with the \nGeneral Disposal Authority (GDA) of the University.  See the Records Management website for detai ls. \n \n  \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nMassey University Visual Arts Collection  \nProcedure and Guidelines  – Page 6 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nMASSEY  UNIVERSITY  \nVISUAL ARTS COLLECTIONS DEED OF GIFT \nAND  LICENCE  OF COPYRIGHT  \n \nDonor Number: ................................................  Acc Number: ...........................................................  \n(Office use only)      (Office use only)  \n \nDONOR DETAILS  \n \nName: ..............................................................................................................................................................  \n \nAddress: ..........................................................................................................................................................  \n \n..................................................................................................................................................................  \n \nPhone Number: ................................................  E-mail: .......................................................................  \n \nEstate of: ...........................................................................................................................................................  \n \nContact: ............................................................................................................................................................  \n \nDeliverer: ........................................................................................................................................................  \n  \nDESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL:  \n \n..................................................................................................................................................................  \n ..................................................................................................................................................................  \n \n..................................................................................................................................................................  \n \nNumber of items: ... ..................................  Number of boxes: ……………………………………….  \n  \nPROVENANCE / ADDITIONAL INFORMATION  \n..................................................................................................................................................................  \n \n..................................................................................................................................................................  \n \n..................................................................................................................................................................  \nThe Donor has read and understood the conditions overleaf:  \n \n \nSignature of Donor: .........................................................................  Date: ………………………… \n Signature of Witnesses : .............................................................  Date: ……………………  \n \n \n \n \n \n  \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nMassey University Visual Arts Collection  \nProcedure and Guidelines  – Page 7 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nDONATION AND ACQUISITIONS CONDITIONS  \n \nTHE DONOR AGREES TO:  \n \n1. Declare that they are the legal owner for the items being offered for donation.  \n2. Gift legal ownership of the items being offered for donation to Massey University.  \n3. Transfer  ownership at the date of the transaction.  \n4. Allow personal information collected as part of the donation process to be used by the University for the \npurposes of display, publicity, education or research.  \n5. Allow the University to approach them for further information in relation to this donation in the future.  \n6. Advise the University of any change of address so that the University may acknowledge this donation, or inf orm \nthe donor of a change in the status of the items donated.  \n7. Understand that this material is to be assessed for its suitability for inclusion in the University’s collections. If \ndeemed unsuitable, the material is to be retrieved by the donor at an agreed time, unless prior arrangements \nhave been made.  \n8. Allow the publication of the cataloguing information for this donation on the Massey University Visual Arts Database and website.  \n \nTHE UNIVERSITY AGREES TO:  \n \n1. Retain all donated items in accordance with University Policy, and to collect artworks  in accordance with the \nMassey University Visual  Arts Collection Policy, or other relevant University policy.  \n2. Accept only items that are able to be cared for, stored and displayed in a professional manner.  \n3. Give preference to items that are donated unconditionally.  \n4. Assess all items for acceptance in to the collections according to the Massey University Visual Arts Collection \nPolicy, and to advise donors as the outcome of this process.  \n5. Return all unaccepted items to the donor, unless prior disposal arrangements have been made.  \n6. Document, care for, study, exhibit, loan and make available for research donated items in accordance with \nUniversity policies and procedures.  \n7. Allow donors to access information collected in relation  to the items they have donated.  \n8. Enable donors to have access to items they have donated by appointment during normal opening hours.  \n \nCOPYRIGHT  \n \nWhere the donor is the copyright holder for the donated item/s, the donor hereby grants Massey University the r ights \nto: \n 1. Present the art work/s at public exhibitions, organised by Massey University, or to authorise others to present the \nworks at public exhibitions.  \n2. To photograph and reproduce the work/s for any purpose related to Massey University such as exhibition, \npromotion, advertisement, registration or other purpose.  \n3. To photograph and reproduce the work /s for internal records and catalogues, research by staff, security, \ninsurance, conservation or other internal purposes.  \n4. To photograph and reproduce the work/s in digital format for placing on the University’s repositories and sites \n(web site, intranet, databases, online catalogues, etc).  \n \nNote: This document references the University of Canterbury Arts Collection Policy (for which permission \n  has been granted).  \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Micro-credentials_and_Short_Courses_Policy_PDF_107_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Micro-credentials and Short Courses Policy",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "107 KB",
      "creation_date": "2024-05-06T12:04:02",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220102939+13'00'"
    },
    "content": "    \n Massey University Policy Guide  \n \nMICRO -CREDENTIALS  AND SHORT COURSES  POLICY  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \nPurpose :  \nThis Policy states  Massey University’s definition of , and approach to , the development, approval, and awarding of \nmicro -credentials  and short courses . \nPolicy:  \nMicro -credentials and Short Courses  \n \n1. All University micro -credentials and short courses will comply this, Policy . \n \n2. All University micro -credentials and short courses will be managed through the SMS system. No micro -\ncredential or short course can be offered unless it has followed th is Policy and the accompanying Procedures.  \n \n3. Micro -credentials and short courses must adhere to the Universities’ guiding principles: Micro -credentials, as \napproved by the Committee on University Academic Programmes ( CUAP ), and the requirements of the CUAP \nHandbook, Appendix H: Quality assurance of university courses and programmes not leading to a qualification  \nas appropriate . \n \n4. Admission to  a micro -credential or short course may be through an open -entry pathway, or specified entry \ncriteria.  \n \n5. The learning outcomes of a micro -credential or short course may include those covered and those not covered \nin an existing qualification that have been identified by industry, employers, occupation groups, professional \nassociations, iwi and/or other communities.  \n \n6. New proposals for, and changes to existing , micro -credentials and short courses are approved by the relevant \nCollege Board or equivalent and noted at Academic Committee.  \n \n7. The awarding of a micro -credential certifies achievement of a coherent set of skills and knowledge.  \n \nMicro -credentials  \n \n8. A micro -credential will certify achievement of a range of assessable learning outcomes of between 5 and 40 \ncredits.  \n \n9. Micro -credentials are considered ‘stand -alone’ packages of credit and may, or may not, contribute to a \nqualification.  Section  Academic  \nContact  Provost  \nLast Review  March 202 4 \nNext Review  March 202 7 \nApproval  AB24/04/43  \nEffective Date  24 April 2024  \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nMicro -credentials  and Short Courses  Policy  – Page 2 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \n10. Micro -credentials must be awarded on the basis of the achievement of outcomes appropriate to their level and \nwill not simply recognise participation and/or attendance.  \n \n11. A micro -credential may be granted following the successful assessment of learning obtained from a course of \ninstruction delivered by the University, or assessment against pre -determined learning outcomes.  \n \n12. The achievement of a micro -credential will be recognised on the student’s Academic Transcript and a digital \nbadge may also be issued to represent the achievement.  \n \n13. Micro -credentials awarded by the University may be recognised for the purpose of admission and/or for credit \ntowards a qualification under the relevant regulations.  \n \n14. The University may recognise micro -credentials awarded by other universities in New Zealand or overseas or \nother education providers by way of recognition of prior learning.  \n \n15. Stacking micro -credentials is permitted and can be used for credit towards a qualification under the relevant \nqualification regulations and/or the Recognition of Formal and Informal Prior Learning Regulations and subject \nto the approved limits.  \n \nShort Courses  \n \n16. Short courses are considered ‘stand -alone’ packages of learning  that can only be used at Massey University \nfor recognition of completion. They  cannot be used by themselves  to credit toward any course or qualification \nor for admission purposes  unless they form part of a portfolio -based  application for recognition of informal \nlearning . \n \n17. A short course does not include any formal assessment but may contain some form of evaluation . \n \n18. A certificate of participation or attendance may be provided as a means of recognising participant engagement \nwith the short course . Results are not included in the student’s transcript.  \nDefinitions : \nMicro -credential : \nPeriods of organised learning, offered separately from the standard University curriculum, which have learning \noutcomes that can be assessed. The learning outcomes evidence that the micro -credential is a logical and coherent \npackage of learning. On successf ul completion of the learning, as assessed, students are awarded a micro -credential. \nThe micro -credential can be used for something further:  \n \n• to demonstrate a student has met the admission criteria for a qualification.  \n• crediting against an existing Massey course or courses (where the micro credential/s are 15 credits or \nmultiples of, whether a single micro -credential or a bundle)  \n• to show an employer achievement of an assessed piece of learning.  \nCUAP lists five criteria for micro -credentials:  \n \n• they have been objectively and consistently assessed as being at an appropriate level relative to the \nqualification’s  framework.   \n• they have a credit value that has been derived consistent with the credit value of other comparable \ncourses offered by universities.  \n• there are adequate mechanisms for verifying that students themselves have successfully completed \nnecessary work and assessment.  \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nMicro -credentials  and Short Courses  Policy  – Page 3 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n• there is credible quality assurance behind the design, delivery, and assessment of whatever is being \noffered.  \n• there is support from the relevant industries, employers,  or communities.  \n \nShort course :  \nPeriods of organised learning offered separately from the standard University curriculum that do not include any formal \nassessment and after which participants receive a Certificate of Participation/Certificate of Completion . \n \nMassey University Digital Badge: A Massey University  Digital Badge is a validated indicator of an accomplishment, \ncompetence, skill, quality, or interest that has been earned by the badge holder. Digital badges are associated with an \nimage and contain embedded metadata about the badge, its recipient, the issuer, and supporting evidence for the \nachievements listed.  \n \nMy eQuals  are a digital platform for Australian and New Zealand Tertiary institutions providing secure digital access \nto certified official transcripts and degree documents . \nAudience : \nThis Policy applies to all Massey University Staff Members . \nRelevant legislation : \nEducation and Training Act 2020 . \nLegal compliance : \nNil \nRelated procedures / documents : \nNZQA  Guidelines for micro -credential  listing, approval,  and accreditation  \nCUAP Handbook – Appendix H Quality assurance of university courses and programmes not leading to a qualification   \nCUAP Handbook – Appendix H 14.5 Universities guiding principles: M icro-credentials  \nMicro -credentials and Short Courses Procedures  \nDocument Management Control:  \nPrepared by:  Office of Academic Quality, Reporting and Assurance  \nAuthorised by:  Provost  \nApproved by:  Academic Board  AB24/04/43  \nDate first issued:  July 2020  \nLast amendment :  March 202 4 \nNext review:  March  2027 \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Micro-credentials_and_Short_Courses_Procedures_PDF_178_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Micro-credentials and Short Courses Procedures",
      "policy_type": "Procedure",
      "file_size": "178 KB",
      "creation_date": "2024-05-06T12:04:05",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220102927+13'00'"
    },
    "content": "    \n Massey University Policy Guide  \n \nMICRO -CREDENTIALS  AND SHORT COURSES  PROCEDURES  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \nPurpose :  \nThese  Procedures outline Massey Universit y’s approach to, and process for, approving and managing micro -\ncredentials  and short courses and  storing of information on micro -credentials  and short courses including enrolment \ninformation . \nProcedures : \nMicro -credentials and short courses allow the University to credential or recognise packets of learning or skill \ndevelopment to support the needs of industry, iwi, professional bodies,  or community groups.  One of the guiding \nprinciples informing the institutional approach to micro -credentials and short courses is that they should be recognised \nby industry, community, iwi, or professional bodies, and that the University has a robust quality assurance process \nunderpinning the delivery of  micro -credentials  and short courses .  As such, they will all be developed according to \nthese procedures . \n \nMicro -credentials and Short Courses  \n \nAll proposals for micro -credentials and short courses are developed to Massey University’s usual standard of \nacademic rigour. They are completed using the approved template (Appendix A) and are  considered and approved by \nthe relevant College Board or equivalent and noted at  the University’s Academic Committee. Changes to  a previously  \napproved  micro -credential  will be approved by College Board and notification of the changes provided to Academic \nCommittee for noting . \n \nThe details of new micro -credential s and short courses  will be entered in the SMS by the Office of Academic Quality, \nReporting and Assurance (OAQRA) following approval by the relevant College Board and notification to Academic \nCommittee.  \n \nAll existing micro -credentials and short courses that are to be offered again must be added to SMS to enable students \nto enrol . Students cannot take a micro -credential or short course unless they have been enrolled in SMS. The College  \nAcademic Manager (or equivalent)  logs an Assyst job to have the micro -credential or short course information entered \ninto SMS. For some existing micro -credentials or short courses additional information will be required. Colleges \nshould plan to allow sufficient time before the start date to ensure this process is completed in time for students to \nundertake the enrolment process.  \n \nRegistration and payment for a micro -credential or short course will be managed by the University’s enrolment \nsystems.  \n Section  Academic  \nContact  Provost  \nLast Review  March 2024  \nNext Review  March 2027  \nApproval  AB24/04/43  \nEffective Date  24 April 2024  \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nMicro -credentials and Short Courses Procedures  – Page 2 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  University issued micro -credentials or certificates or completion or attendance for short courses must include \napproved University branding and comply with the University’s data requirements, record keeping and reporting rules.  \n \nMicro -credentials are approved for a period of three (3) years, after which time a review of the credential will be \nconsidered by the relevant College in conjunction with the Office of Academic Quality, Reporting and Assurance.  \n \nA periodic evaluation plan must be in place to ensure that a micro -credential undergoes evaluation that is informed by \nand utilises feedback from the recipients of the credential as well as industry, iwi, or community groups that the \ncredential has been developed in conjunction with.  Reporting of the periodic evaluation shall be through the \nassociated College Board . \n \nAs part of the proposal for a micro -credential the subject area must be defined and included in the proposal. The \nsubject area may be as general or specific as appropriate . This subject area number is not used in the same way as a \ncourse number is but is and is needed for identifying and reporting purposes in SMS. Examples of subject area s are \n119 = Agriculture and Horticulture, 196 = Ecology, 115 = Management, 110 = Accountancy, 293 = Creative Arts, 212 \n= Fashion Design.  \n \nMicro -credentials  \n \nAll micro -credentials are worth between 5 and 40 credits in value , where one credit is the equivalent of 10 hours of \nlearning.   \n \nIf a micro -credential is recognised as a pathway into a specific qualification this should  be noted  in the micro -\ncredential proposal.  \n \nMicro -credentials are awarded at the successful completion of an assessment  or assessments . Results are recorded \non the student’s academic transcript. At the time of developing a micro -credential proposal, the grade marking \nscheme is chosen from either the standard marks scheme ( i.e. letter grade or pass/fail), or the micro -credential mark \nscheme i.e. (completed, attempted, not attempted, withdrawn).   \n \nAll micro -credentials that take the form of a Massey University digital badge will be issued by the University’s \napproved digital badge issuer.  The digital badge will appear in eQuals  alongside the details of the student who has \nreceived the badge.  \n \nMicro -credentials must use the University’s processes to validate a student’s identity in order to ensure the integrity of \nthe assessment and that the micro -credential is awarded to the person who has undertaken the assessment.  \nDefinitions : \nMicro -credential:  \nPeriods of organised learning, offered separately from the standard University curriculum, which have learning \noutcomes that can be assessed. The learning outcomes evidence that the micro -credential is a logical and coherent \npackage of learning. On successful completion of the learning, as assessed, students are awarded a micro -credential. \nThe micro -credential can be used for something further:  \n \n• to demonstrate a student has met the admission criteria for a qualification.  \n• crediting against an existing Massey course or courses (where the micro credential/s are 15 credits or \nmultiples of, whether a single micro -credential or a bundle)  \n• to show an employer achievement of an assessed piece of learning.  \n \nCUAP lists five criteria for micro -credentials:  \n \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nMicro -credentials and Short Courses Procedures  – Page 3 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  • they have been objectively and consistently assessed as being at an appropriate level relative to the \nqualification’s  framework.   \n• they have a credit value that has been derived consistent with the credit value of other comparable \ncourses offered by universities.  \n• there are adequate mechanisms for verifying that students themselves have successfully completed \nnecessary work and assessment.  \n• there is credible quality assurance behind the design, delivery, and assessment of whatever is being \noffered.  \n• there is support from the relevant industries, employers,  or communities.  \n \nShort course :  \nPeriods of organised learning offered separately from the standard University curriculum that do not include any \nformal assessment and after which participants receive a Certificate of Participation/Certificate of Completion . \n \nMassey University Digital Badge: A Massey University  Digital Badge is a validated indicator of an accomplishment, \ncompetence, skill, quality, or interest that has been earned by the badge holder. Digital badges are associated with an \nimage and contain embedded metadata about the badge, its recipient, the issuer, and supporting evidence for the \nachievements listed.  \n \nMy eQuals  are a digital platform for Australian and New Zealand Tertiary institutions providing secure digital access \nto certified official transcripts and degree documents . \nAudience : \nThese Procedures apply to all Massey University Staff Members . \nRelevant legislation : \nEducation and Training Act 2020  \nLegal compliance : \nNil \nRelated procedures / documents : \nNZQA  Guidelines micro -credential  listing, approval,  and accreditation  \nCUAP Handbook – Appendix H 14.5 Universities  guiding principles:  micro -credentials  \nCUAP Handbook – Appendix H Quality assurance of university courses and programmes not leading to a qualification   \nMicro -credentials and Short Courses Policy  \nDocument Management Control:  \nPrepared by:  Office of Academic Quality, Reporting and Assurance  \nAuthorised by:  Provost  \nApproved by:  Academic Board AB24/04/43  \nDate issued:  July 2020  \nLast review:  March 2024  \nNext review:  March 2027  \n \n    \n Massey University Policy Guide  \n \nMICRO -CREDENTIALS  AND SHORT COURSES  PROCEDURES  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  Appendix A: Micro -credentials and Short Courses Proposal Template  \n \nFill in as appropriate depending on whether the proposal is for a micro -credential or short course. Remove italicised \nnotes.  \n \nAlready approved MC/SC  do not require re -approval but the information in this template is required for building the \nMC/SC in SMS. O nce the template is  completed, log an Assyst job under SMS Qualification Maintenance in the ITS \nsection , include the completed template and confirmation of past approval . \n \nFor new MC/SC approval is required through the usual committee approval workflow.  An Assyst job is not required for \nnew MC/SC.  \n \n \nAcademic Unit  \n \nContact Person  \n \nType of entity  \n< Micro -credential or Short Course or Study Tour>  \n \nTitle of entity  \n<This is limited to 120 characters, including spaces.>  \n \nImplementation Date  \n<Year of implementation>  \n \nSemester  \n<This is the semester period in which it is intended to be first offered. >  \n \nPrescription  \n<Give a brief outline of what the micro -credential / short course (MC/SC) is about.>  \n \nSubject area  \n<Defines the subject course prefix  area the MC/SC falls under (this is for background purposes only).  E.g. 196 = \nEcology, 110 = Accountancy. >  \n \n Purpose of the Proposal/Rationale:  \n<What need is this designed to fulfil>  \n \nCredit value.  \n<Micro -credentials between 5 – 40 in increments of 5. Short courses must be 0>  \n \nCourse Level  \n<What level is the course e.g. 100, 200 etc.>  \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nMicro -credentials and Short Courses Procedures  – Page 5 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \nNZQF Level  \n<What level on the New Zealand Qualifications Framework is this?>  \n \nEntry Rules  \n<What experience/qualifications, if any, does the student need to have to meet admission/entry requirements?  \nInclude any prior learning or knowledge required.>  \n \nLearning Outcomes  \n \nLO #  Description  \n  \n \nAssessment  \n<List the assessment components. Indicate the nature of each assessment and which learning outcome(s) the \ncomponent assesses.  Careful consideration needs to be given to ensure the assessments align with the mark \nscheme.  \n \nType  Title  Weighting  Pass Mark  LO #  \n         \n \n \nMark Scheme  \n<Standard graded scheme – M/G or P/F  \nOR special MC/SC scheme.>  \n \nLocation  \n<i.e., AKL, WGL, MTU, DIS, OTH.>  \n \nPractical/workplace requirements  \n \nProfile of participants intended for the course.  \n<Provide a brief profile of the participants intended for this MC/SC e.g., belonging to a specific defined industry.>  \n \nQuality Assurance  \n< What role or committee is responsible for the quality assurance of the MC/SC?>  \n \nResources  \n<What resources, other than staff, are required? Note Short courses are not covered by the University’s Copyright \nLicense>  \n \nAdmission to a qualification (N/A for SC)  \n<List any qualifications that this MC may be used for admission purposes.    (Note: The Recognition of Prior Formal \nand Informal Learning regulations will apply.)>  \n \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nMicro -credentials and Short Courses Procedures  – Page 6 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  Support/recognition from Industry, Iwi, Community,  or professional body.  \n<Evidence as appropriate.>  \n \nLinks to other Micro -credentials/Short Courses/Courses/Specialisations/Qualifications  \n<Include any courses, specialisations,  or qualifications the Micro -credential may be credited to. > \n \nConsultation  \n<If applicable, describe any consultation that has been undertaken, internal and external.>  \n \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Media_Commentary_Policy_PDF_136_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Media Commentary Policy PDF 136 KB",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "136 KB",
      "author": "Ferguson, Rachel",
      "creation_date": "2024-07-05T12:03:00",
      "modification_date": "D:20240705123014+12'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n \n \n \n \n \nMassey University Po licy Guide   \n \nMEDI ACOMMENTAR Y POLICY   \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nPurpose:   \nThe purpose of this policy is to outline  Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa Massey  University's expectations of both academic  \nand professional  staff with  respect to media and public comment, including social media, where there is an \nidentifiable connection with the  university.   \nThe universit y uphol ds its responsibilities as critic and conscience of society, fostering an d encouraging the testing of  \nreceived truths and the creation of new knowledge, and the dissemination of these views with integrity and respect.   \nThe university firmly supports the exercise of academic freedom, which includes the right to undertake research , to  \nquestio n and tes t received wisdom, to put forwar d new ideas and to state opinion s even if they are controversi al or  \nunpopular . The university also encourages  staff to demonstrate civic leadershi p throug h public debate and media   \ncommen t in their area s of expertise or specialisation.   \nPolicy:   \nTe Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa Massey University encourages staff members t o engag e with the media and the public in \norder to promot e civic leadership on matters of interest nationally and internationally and in particular on the social, \neconomic, cultural,  and environmental issues faced by Aotearoa New Zealand, including those that affect tangata \nwhenua.   \nThe Policy on Staff Conduct  require s a staff membe r to ensure  they do not bring the university into  disrepute, defined \nas either willfully  or deliberately discrediting the university publicly, through their conduct, when  acting on university \nbusiness or when claiming affiliation with the university.   \n \nProfessional or personal capacity   \nStaff must make clear whether their public commentary contribution is mad e in a professional o r a personal capacity.  \nWhere a staff member is contributing to a subject which is within their range of professional expertise in the media, it  is \nappropriate for the staff member’s university position/title to be given.   \nHowever, if a staff member’s contribution (in any format) is provided with no greater expertise or informed opinion.   \nthan that of a member of the general community, then no indication of association with the university should be given.  \nIn such circumstances, it should be made  clear by the staff member that the views expressed are those of them as an  \nindividual, and in no way represent the position or views of the university.   \nUniversit y commentary an d position   \n \n \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   Section   Marketing & Communications   \nContact   Executive Director  Marketing  and \nCommunications  \nLast Review   May 202 3 \nNext Review     May 202 5 \nApproval   SLT 20/08/116  \n\n \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide   \nMedi a Commentary  Polic y – Page2  \nThe Vice -Chancellor i s the universit y spokespers on on matters of policy, management,  and organisational issues.   \nViews on behalf of the universit y may only be expressed by the Vice -Chancellor, o r anothe r university spokesperson  \nwhere specifically authorised.   \nSpokesperson in a crisis  \nThe followin g people are authorised to speak to the media in relation to a n incident o r emergency:   \n• The Vice -Chancellor, Vice -Chancellor’s nominee, or   \n• A member of staff nominated by the Crisis Management Team Leader (usually the Communications  Manager ).  \nAny media enquiries or request for comment should be directed to the Communication s Team in the first  \ninstance.   \n \nAcademic staff commentary   \nAcademic staff are encourage d and supported , as part of demonstrating positive civic leadershi pandensurin g \nimpact  from their research and scholarly endeavours , to make submissions t o local or nationa l government , or to \npublic  inquirie s or consultation opportunitie s within their areas of academic or professional expertise . Support from the   \nCommunications Team is available t o staff making expert commentary and opinion.   \nWhere asked t o provide commentar y and/o r opinio n in a public forum within a particular area of expertise, staff are   \nexpected to adhere to a hig h standar d of conduct appropriate t o their role and responsibilities, by:   \n• promoting informed evidence -based, inclusive public debat e that is grounded in research and scholarship   \n• respectin ga diversity o f views an d opinions   \n• ensuring that they do not act in a way that is discriminatory, violent, abusive , bullying , harmful or   \nthreatening to others   \n• not misrepresenting their expertise or experience   \n• ensuring their comments and actions do no t bring the university into disreput e as per the Policy on Staff   \nConduct.   \nWher e a staff member has been invited to participate in a forum that will requir e them to express an opinion on a   \nbroad range of subject matter, possibly including but not limited to their field of expertise, then due care should be   \ntaken to adhere to the standards of conduct outlined above.   \n \nMedia enquiries to staff   \nAll medi a enquiries t o staff other than those inviting academic staff to comment on their area of expertis e must be   \nreferred in the first instance to the university' s Communication s Team. This includes requests by and invitations to   \nmedia to visit Masse y Universit y campus es or events, including filming on campus.   \nCorporate press release s on behalf of the university ma y only be distributed by the Communications Team.   \nThe Communicatio ns Team is available to assis t with media liaison, and the writing, approval and   \ndistribution o f Masse y University media release s where academic staff are commenting on their area of expertise.   \nUse of Massey identity and brand   \nThe Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa Massey University name and/or brand , in full or in part, may not be used as part of a \npublic person a such  as username, personal email address o r social medi a handle.   \n \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n\n \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide   \nMedi a Commentary  Polic y – Page3  \nUse of the Masse y Universit y logo or images on third party social media platform s is not permitted . In addition , staff   \nand students  permitte d to use the university’s nam e should not use it t o promote or endorse any product, cause,   \npolitica l party or candidate.   \nRequests to use the Massey University identity, name or brand must be referred in the first instance to the Executive \nDirector  Marketing  and Communic ations.  \nUse of social media   \nThe university recognise s the value  of staff participation in social media t o facilitate discussion , collaborate , \nexchange,  and contribute information an d ideas, to advance researc h impact , conne ct with ou r students, staff,  and \ncommunities,  and to demonstrate civic leadership.   \nMaterial posted o n officia l Mass ey University social media sites and platforms has the same status as any public   \ncommunication from the university, and staff usin gthesesites should adhere t o the Social Media Guidelines and \ncomply with the requirements of this Policy.   \nUse o f other social media b y Masse y University staff , where accessed using university systems or equipment, or   \nwhere there is a clear affiliatio n between the staff member and the university on the site , shoul d also adhere to this   \nPolic y and the expectations of conduct as outlined in the Policy o n Staff Conduct, including taking care not to bring the  \nuniversity into disrepute.   \nFurther guidance o n socia l media  usage is provided in the Social Media Guidelines .  \nDefinitions :  \nAcademi c freedom : Academic freedom, in relation to an institutio n and per section 267 of the Education  and Training \nAct 2020 , means —  \n(a) the freedom  of academic  staff and students,  within  the law, to question  and test received  wisdom,  to put  \nforward new ideas and to state controversial or unpopular opinions:   \n(b) the freedom of academic staff and students t o engage in research:   \n(c) the freedom of the institution and its staff to regulate the subjec t matte r of courses taught at the institution:   \n(d) the freedom  of the institution  and its staff to teach  and assess  students  in the manner  they consider  best  \npromotes learning:   \n(e) the freedom of the institutio n through its chief executive to appoint its own staff.   \n \nHandle : a username on a social media site, for example,  Twitter.  \nMedia : means all f orms of print,  radio, te levisio n, online , digita l, and social  media.   \nSocial media : refers  to the channels used for the distribution and exchange of content in an online setting, such as,  \nbut not limited to, blogs, micro -blogs, media sharing sites, social networks,  and virtual worlds.   \nAudience:   \nThis policy applies to all staff and should be read in conjunction with the related policies and procedures below. This  \npolicy does not appl y to the personal use of media or social media where there is no identifiable connection with the  \nuniversity.   \n \n \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n\n \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide   \nMedi a Commentary  Polic y – Page4  \n \nRelevant Legislation:   \nThe Human Rights Act 199 3prohibits Massey University and its employee s from discriminating against any   \nemployee, job applicant  or contractor on the grounds of sex, marital status, religious belief, colour, race, ethnic or   \nnational origin, disability, age , political opinion, employment status, family status or sexual orientation.   \n \nNew Zealand Bill of Rights Act 199 0 prescribes t hat everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience,   \nreligion, and belief, including the right to adopt and to hold opinion s without interference; and to freedom of   \nexpression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions  of any kind in any form.   \n \nThe Education and Training  Act 2020  requires  Massey University to recognise and exercise academic freedom, \nwhich includes  the rights to teach and assess students in the manner that academic staff consider best promotes \nlearning, to  undertake research, to question received wisdom and to put forward or state ideas even if they are \nunconventional or  unpopular (Part 4, Section 267).  \n \nThe Harmfu l Digital Communications Act 201 5aims to deter , prevent and lessen harmful digital communications,  \nincluding any form of electronic message, including texts, emails, photos,  and recordings. Harmful digital   \ncommunications include cybe r bullying and harassment, for example sending or publishing threatenin g or offensive   \nmaterial, spreading damaging rumours, o r sending or publishing sensitive personal information.   \nRelated Procedures:   \nPolicy on Academic Freedom, Free Speech and Freedom of Expression   \nPolicy on Staff Conduct   \nCode of Student Conduct   \nBrand Guidelines   \n \nDocument Mana gement and Control:   \nPrepared by:  Executive Director  Marketing  and Communications   \nAuthorised by:  Provost  \nApproved by:  SLT 20/08/116  \nDate issued:  February 2021   \nLast review:  May 202 3 \nNext review:  May 202 5 \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \n\n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "No_and_Low_Enrolments_Policy_PDF_98_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "No and Low Enrolments Policy",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "98 KB",
      "creation_date": "2023-07-28T14:01:01",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220102841+13'00'"
    },
    "content": "    \n Massey University Policy Guide  \n \nNO AND LOW ENROLMENTS POLICY  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \n \nPurpose :  \nThis Policy is designed to assist in the management of the Massey University qualification portfolio (the ‘academic \nprofile’)  in order  to identify  and actively  manage  qualifications,  specialisations  and courses  that receive  no \nenrolments or low enrolments. It must be read in conjunction with the No and Low Enrolments Procedures. While the \nfocus of this policy is to consider those qualifications, specialisations and courses  that do not meet  a viable  \nenrolment  threshold,  consideration  should  also be given  to the strategic  and academic rationale,  particularly  in \ncases where enrolments may be modest, but the strategic value  and academic cogency merits consideration for \ncontinuation. In addition, Massey University must also meet the Committee on University Academic Programmes’  \n(CUAP)  requirement  that qualifications/ specialisations  with no enrolments  within  a five-year period  must be deleted \nor have their approval re -evaluated by CUAP. For qualifications, specialisations and courses with low enrolments, the \nPolicy is intended to support decisions to revitalise where enrolments are declining or do not reach the threshold; \nconsi der the strategic or academic importance of those that only attract low enrolments; or to close and  delete.  \n \nBackground/Context : \n \nThis Policy applies to new and existing qualifications, specialisations and courses and is designed to monitor \nenrolment numb ers to provide the opportunity for action to be taken to:  \n• attract  enrolments.  \n• where appropriate, revitalise qualifications, specialisations and courses that have no or low  enrolments.  \n• consider and set out criteria for the continuation of qualifications, specialisations and courses that have attracted \nlow enrolment numbers.  \n• identify those qualifications, specialisations or courses that have reached the end of their lifecycle and should be \nclosed to new enrolments and  subsequently deleted.  \n \nThe lifecycle of a qualification, specialisation or course consists of initial approval, followed by monitoring, review, \nassessment and ongoing development and, where necessary, revitalisation. In this way, qualifications, specialisations, \nand courses are  afforded the opportunity to be responsive to the changing needs of students, stakeholders, the \nUniversity community and the global community. As the needs and interests of our learners and our communities will \nchange, so too must our academic profile. Thi s means that some qualifications, specialisations, and courses may no \nlonger remain relevant or adaptable to current trends and therefore they may enter a period of decline and, for some, \ncome to the end of their lifecycle. Other qualifications, specialisa tions and courses may naturally attract low numbers, \nand it may be appropriate in the University’s considered view, for them to do so.  \n \nUnder Section 443(2) of the Education and Training Act 2020, Universities New Zealand has determined the \ncircumstances in which universities require an extension of the period specified in sub -sections 443(1) (a) and (b) Section  Academic  \nContact  Provost  \nLast Review  June 2023  \nNext Review  June 202 6 \nApproval  SLT 23/07/69  \nEffective Date  June 2023  \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nNo and Low Enrolments Policy  – Page 2 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  after which approval and accreditat ion will lapse for a programme which has not been taught either wholly or in \npart.  \n \n \nApproved  proposals  remain  approved  for a period  of five years  following  their introduction  or following  the most  \nrecent  enrolments.  If a q u a l i f i c a t i o n  has not been  taught or  has b e e n  a d v e r t is e d  a n d is o p en  b u t \nh a s  attracted  no enrolments, in any five -year period following its introduction,  and a  university  wishes to \ncontinue  to advertise and keep it open for enrolments, the qualification should be submitted to CUAP for  re-\nevaluation. (Source: CUAP Handbook 2021 ) This does not apply to courses.  \nWhile  the re-evaluation  of qualifications and specialisations  with no enrolments  is a CUAP  requirement,  it is up to \nindividual universities to determine their own processes for monitoring and managing their academic profile. \nActively monitoring  qualifications,  specialisations,  and courses  with either  no enrolments  or low enrolments  allows  \nthe opportunity for strategies and actions to be put in place to attract enrolments and increase them where \nappropriate. The review of no and low enrolment qualifications, specialisations, courses and course offerings is \none of the tools that Massey Univer sity utilizes to develop and maintain a long -term sustainable approach to \nmanaging the academic profile by ensuring the ongoing oversight and continuous decision -making regarding what \nand where we teach.  \nThe accompanying No and Low Enrolments Procedures s ets out the Massey University process in further detail.  \n \nPolicy:  \nMassey University is committed to providing a quality and relevant academic profile that is strategically, \nacademically,  and financially sound and sustainable. To enact this commitment, enr olment numbers in all sub -\ndoctoral qualifications, specialisations and courses will be monitored, reviewed,  and managed by the College \nhosting the entity, in conjunction with the Academic Resource Planning Working Group (a subgroup of the Senior \nLeadership  Team) and supported by the Office of Academic Quality, Reporting and Assurance.  \nThe No and Low Enrolment Procedures details the process for monitoring enrolments. Where enrolments fall \nbelow the approved thresholds, the Procedures also provide actions to  be followed by the relevant College to \nactively manage the qualification, specialisation,  or course with the purpose of either increasing enrolments by \nrevitalizing it or where appropriate, closing it.  \nIn the context of our Te Tiriti o Waitangi commitmen ts, programmes (qualifications, specialisations,  and courses) \nof significance for Māori will be carefully considered regarding the application of both this  policy  and the \naccompanying procedures .  \nDoctoral -level qualifications and Transnational Education ( TNE) partnership arrangements are out of scope of this \npolicy.  \nDefinitions : \nAcademic Resource Planning  A subgroup of the Senior Leadership Team, comprising the College Pro \nVice-Chancellors and the Provost.  \nNo Enrolments:  A qualification, specialisation, or course in which no student has enrolled in \nany one academic year.  \nLow Enrolments:  A qualification, specialisation, or course in which the student enrolments do \nnot meet the threshold stipulated in the No and Low Enrolment procedures.  \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nNo and Low Enrolments Policy  – Page 3 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  Nested:  Nested qualifications exist where a lower -level qualification consists of \ncourses that are nested within a higher -level qualification, for example, the \nDipBus is nested in the BBus – the two qualifications share courses at the \n100- and 200 -levels. A qualification or specialisation can only be considered \nnested under another if all of its courses also o ccur in the parent \nqualification or specialisation.  \nQualification:  A coherent programme of  study.  \nSpecialisation:  For the purposes of this Policy, the collective term specialisation covers \nmajors, non -nested (standalone) minors, subjects, and endorsemen ts in a \nspecific discipline for a qualification.  \nAudience : \nAll staff.  \nRelevant legislation : \nEducation and Training Act 2020 – Section 443  \nRelated procedures / documents : \nMassey University Qualifications Framework  \nMassey University Qualifications Policy  \nMassey University Strategy 2022 – 2027   \nNo and Low Enrolments Procedures  \nPaerangi Learning and Teaching Plan 2023 -2027  \n \nDocument Management Control:  \nPrepared by:  Office of the Provost  \nAuthorised by:  Provost  \nApproved by:  SLT 23/07/69.  \nDate issued:  June 2023    \nLast review:  June 2023  \nNext review:  June 2025  \n \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Intellectual_Property_Policy_PDF_168_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Intellectual Property Policy PDF 168 KB",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "168 KB",
      "author": "Banner, Jodie",
      "creation_date": "2024-06-05T07:03:00",
      "modification_date": "D:20241209121210+13'00'"
    },
    "content": "Massey University Policy Guide S\nection Research \nContact Provost\nLast Review September 2024\nNext Review November 2026 \nApproval                    C24/66 \nEffective Date            September 2024\nPurpose:  \nTo ensure that Intellectual Property Rights generated by Massey University Staff and Students are used to maximise  \nthe flow of benefits to the community, enhance the reputation and wealth of the University, encourage Staff and  Students \nto benefit from their commercially viable activities and to protect the rights of Staff, Students and the  University  where  \nIntellectual  Property  Rights  are concerned.  \nPolicy:  \nThe Provost  is the custodian of the University’s Intellectual  Property Policy and is the University’s delegated agent for \nall of the University’s rights and obligations under this  Policy. All matters involving Intellectual Property Rights in which \nthe University has an interest, must be directed  through the office of the Provost  unless exempted in this Policy  or \notherwise  agreed  by this Office  (See  Schedule  1).  \nThe Provost will endeavour to ensure that claims are clearly recognised and attributed fairly to  the parties  (e.g. Staff,  \nStudents,  the University)  in which  an interest  is held  (See  Schedule  2). \nIn gen eral, the University claims legal and beneficial ownership of all Intellectual Property Rights in relation to  all \nIntellectual Property generated under the  auspices of the University. This includes, without limitation,  Intellectual \nProperty created by any of the University’s staff  during the course of their employment or arising out of performance of \na duty relating to their employment, and Intel lectual Property  created by any of the University’s students  in the course \nof their study at the University . \nThe U niversity does not claim ownership of copyright to Scholarly Work, creative work or instructional materials created \nby its staff in the course of their employment, or Student Work created by its students in the course of their study at the \nUniversity, unless those works or materials have been exp licitly  commissioned by the University , or created with the \nmaterial use of University (or University sourced)  funding or allocation of significant  University resources  specifically \nrelated to the creation of such Scholarly Work of Student Work . Unless otherwise agreed, copyright in non -\ncommissioned works belongs to the creator s. Notwithstanding  this, the University shall have a permanent, nonexclusive, \nroyalty -free, world -wide licen ce to use scholarly works (including instructional material) created by its staff in the course \nof their employment, or its students in the course of their study, provided that such use is confined to research or \nteaching of courses offered by the University. Where a legal impediment to the granting of such licen ce exists (for \nexample, the potential infringement of IP rights held by a third party), then such licen ce is granted to the extent \npermissible at law (i.e., to the extent such licen ce does not infringe on the IP rights held by a third party).  \nINTELLECTUAL  PROPERTY  POLICY  \nMassey University Policy Guide \nIntellectual Property Policy – page 2\nStaff and Students are bound by obligations of confidentiality in relation to Intellectual Property Rights or any other  \ncommercially sensitive information (either that which the University and/or a third party has an interest) they become  \naware of during their work or study at the University. Except as expressly stated in this Policy, where Staff or Students  \ncreate Intellectual Property Rights which may be of commercial interest to the University, they will formally notify (in  \nconfidence and at  the earliest  practicable opportunity)  the Massey Enterprise  (See  Schedule 3 ). \nThe Provost  (or delegated agent) will normally assign  Massey Enterprise  the responsibility  to evaluate notified \nIntellectual Property Rights and make a decision, within a prescribed or  agreed period  of time, as to  whether  to pursue \nCommercialisation. Where Massey Enterprise  decides that it or the University  would not  exploit specific  Intellectual \nProperty Rights, the  applicable  Staff and/or Students will be notified of that decision, and may  then request to have \nownership of those Intellectual Property Rights assigned  to them  (See  Schedule  4). \nThe Provost  will take all reasonable steps necessary to fairly  and transparently  allocate  the benefits  of Intellectual  \nProperty  Rights  to all parties  with an interest  (See  Schedule  5). \nStudents are subject to most of the rights and obligations of Staff for the purposes of this Policy. Relevant staff and the \nProvost  are required to take special care to ensure  that the reasonable interests and academic  progress of students are  \nprotected  (See  Schedule  6). \nWhere Intellectual Property Rights are directly related to Māori Language Resources or derived from any Māori  \nTraditional Knowledge, the Provost  must consult  the Deputy  Vice-Chancellor  Māori  if and when  it decides  to proceed \nwith Commercialisation  (See  Schedule  7). \nContracts with third parties will take precedence over this Policy. In negotiating contracts between the University and  \nthird parties, the University , and where applicable Massey Enterprise , will endeavour to negotiate intellectual property  \nclauses  which  are consistent with  this Policy.  (See  Schedule  8). \nExceptions – Written signed agreements between the University and Students (and/or any third party) concerning \nIntellectual Property  Rights  shall apply  to Student  Works  as defined  in the agreement  concerned  and not this Policy.  \nWhen  Student  Work    is submitted for a competition organised by the University, the rules for that competition shall apply \nto the Student  Work  submitted  and not this Policy.  \nThe University will take all reasonable steps to resolve any dispute over Intellectual Property Rights between the  \nUniversity and the applicable Staff and Students. This will be carried out with the assistance of an independent third  \nparty  if necessary  (See  Schedule  9). \nStaff and Students that leave the University may be entitled to continue receiving benefits from the Commercialisation  \nof Intellectual  Property  Rights (See Schedule  10). \nAudience:  \nMassey  University  staff,  students  and other personnel  using  Massey  University  facilities  and resources.  \nRelevant  Legislation:  \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nIntellectual Property Policy – page 3  \nCompanies Act 1993\nCopyright Act 1994\nCrimes Ac 1961\nDesigns Act 1953\nEducation and Training Act 2020\nFair Trading Act 1986\nGeographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Act 2006 \nHazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996\nLayout Designs Act 1994\nPatents Act 2013\nPlant Variety Rights Act 2022\nResearch Data Management Policy\nTrade Marks Act 2002\nLegal Compliance\nAll research practice must comply with relevant legislation. \nRelated Policies, Procedures and Documents:\nAcademic Outputs Policy\nCode of Responsible Research Conduct\nCommercial Contracts management Policy/Framework \nConflict of Commitment and Interest Policy\nDelegations of Authority\nGrounds for Embargo Policy\nInformation and Records Management Policy\nMatua Reo Kaupapa: Māori  Language  Policy\nProgressive Procurement Policy\nResearch and Consultancy Activity Proposals Policy \nResearch and Consultancy Contracts Policy\nUse of Copyright Material for Educational Purposes Policy \nUse of External Research and Consultancy Funding Policy \nStudent Contract\nStudent Consent Form\nTreaty of Waitangi Policy\nMassey University Policy Guide \nIntellectual Property Policy – page 4\nSCHEDULES AND  DEFINITIONS  \nDefinitions  \nSchedule  1: Authority for Dealing with Intellectual Property Rights  \nSchedule  2: Ownership of Intellectual  Property  Rights  \nSchedule  3: Disclosure and notification of Intellectual Property Rights  \nSchedule  4: Evaluation of  Intellectual Property  Rights  \nSchedule  5: Allocating the benefits of IP  \nSchedule  6: Students  \nSchedule  7: Māori Language Resources and Traditional Knowledge  \nSchedule  8: Contracts  with Third  Parties  \nSchedule  9: Dispute  Resolution  \nSchedule  10: Cessation  of Employment  or Enrolment  \nDefinitions :\nArtistic Work  means a Scholarly Work or Student  Work that has an artistic quality and may include:  paintings;  design; \nphotography drawings; sculptures; literature; poetry; performances; musical  works, dramatic  works or  films that have  \nany artistic quality.  \nCommercialisation  in relation  to any New Intellectual  Property  Rights,  includes:  \n(a) the sale,  licensing  or other  transfer  of the New Intellectual  Property  Rights;  or\n(b) the use of  the New Intellectual  Property  Rights  in relation  to the  supply  of any  good  or service,\nin return for consideration which may include the provision or promise of assets, money, shares or similar. However,  \nCommercialisation does not include the University’s use of New Intellectual Property Rights in relation to the supply of  \nteaching or contract research services or the supply of any goods related to those teaching or contract research  \nservices.  Commercialise , Commercialising  and Commercialisable  have  corresponding  meanings.  \nConfidential Information  means information obtained by a Staff member in the course of their employment, or  by a \nStudent in the course of their enrolment, which the University identifies as confidential, or that could  reasonably  be \nconsidered to  be confidential,  to the University  or a third party, and includes information:  \n(a) relating  to any New Intellectual Property  Rights  created  by any Staff or  Student;\n(b) relating  to the actual  or proposed  Commercialisation  of any Intellectual  Property  Rights  by the University,\nincluding  the terms of  any agreement;  or\n(c) provided  by, or confidential  to, any of the University’s  clients,  collaborators,  licensees,  service  providers  or any\nother  third party,\nbut does not include information that is in, or becomes part of, the public domain (other than because of a breach of  \nthis Policy  by any Staff or  Student)  or which  the University  confirms  in writing is  no longer  confidential.  \nCreator  means the Staff member or Student who individually or jointly  with others  creates , invent s, develop s or \nconceives  any New  Intellectual Property Right and who  meets the criteria for inventorship or ownership under relevant \nlegislation. ‘Create’, ‘created’ and ‘creating’ have corresponding meanings in this instance . \n Instructional Material  means any copyright material prepared specifically for the purpose of teaching and learning.  \nIntellectual  Property  (IP) means  any discovery, innovation, invention, form, shape,  sound, image, expression , \nMassey University Policy Guide \nIntellectual Property Policy – page 5\ntechnique, or process which is the product of skill, effort or intellect, and includes:\n(a) copyright works, computer programs, and performances.\n(b) patentable and potentially patentable subject matter, trade secrets, applications, and associated know-how. \n(c) plant varieties and invented or protected life forms.\n(d) Designs, registerable or otherwise.\n(e) Databases and other valuable or potentially valuable information, including research outcomes and records. \n(f) Embodied ideas or concepts.\n(g) Layout designs for integrated circuits.\n(h) Signs or insignia of origin, quality, or reputation.\n(i) Registered and unregistered trade marks, domain names, and business names.\n(j) Instructional material.\nIntellectual Property Rights  means any claim, right or interest, whether conferred by statute, at common law, by \ncontract, or in equity, to Intellectual Property, and which is enforceable under the law of New Zealand or any other  \ncountry where protection of the Intellectual Property is being sought, whether by contract or direct operation of the law.\nMāori  Language Resources  means any (re)sources written in the Māori Language,  Te Reo Māori .\nMassey Enterprise  means the administrative office or other entity nominated by the Provost and charged with \nresponsibility for identifying, protecting and Commercialising Intellectual Property Rights in which the University has an \ninterest.\nNew Intellectual Property Rights  means all Intellectual Property Rights arising in the course of a Staff member’s \nemployment, and/or a Student’s enrolment at the University (as the case may be), where the course of employment or \nenrolment will be read widely to include all research, development, inventive and/or creative work undertaken by that \nStaff member or Student in connection with their employment or enrolment (as the case may be) or otherwise using \nUniversity resources.\nPolicy  means this Intellectual Property Policy including the Schedules and Definitions.\nScholarly Work  means all literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works, sound recordings, films or communication works \nproduced by a Staff member in the course of their employment at the University and includes work:\n(a) in relation to a Staff member’s research activities, any scholarly publications including books, textbooks, articles\nin scholarly journals or conference proceedings or other collections, research reports and book reviews; and\n(b) in relation to teaching and other activities, any lectures, lecture notes and material, study guides, assessment\nmaterials, images, multi-media presentations, web content and published lectures,\nbut excludes Software.\nSoftware means protectable computer programs and related programming code, including machine readable object \ncode and human readable source code, and related documentation.\nStaff  means persons employed by Massey University under either individual employment contracts or a collective \nemployment contract.\nStudent  means a person who has enrolled at Massey University in any paper listed in the University Calendar and who \nhas received a student identity number.\nStudent Work  means all literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works, sound recordings, films or communication works \nproduced by a Student in the course of their enrolment at the University and includes reports, research papers, theses, \ndissertations, books, journal articles, conference papers and book reviews, but excludes Software.\nTraditional Māori  Knowledge  means a body of knowledge, innovations, and practices generated within Māori \ncommunities and transmitted between generations in oral, written, or electronic form.\n \n \n \n \n M\nassey University Policy Guide \n Intellectual Property Policy – page 6\n \nUniversity  means  Massey University, the tertiary  education  institution  established  as a University  under  the Education  \nAct 1989.  \n \nVisitor  means a person other than Massey University Staff  or Student who is given access to or use of University \nresources, including but not limited to adjunct appointees, temporary staff, consultants, contractors, external library \nborrowers, private researchers/research assistants, Professor ’s Emeriti, University patrons, external users of university \nfacilities or resources , or visiting academics/researchers /students . \n \n  \n \n \nSCHEDULE  1: Authority  for Dealing  with Intellectual  Property  Rights    \n \n \n1. The Provost  is the custodian of this Policy and is the  University’s delegated agent for all of the University’s rights \nand obligations under this Policy.  All matters  involving Intellectual Property Rights in which the University has a \ncommercial interest must be directed through  the office of the Provost  unless otherwise provided under    this Policy  \nor directed by  the Provost . \n \n2. Except where expressly permitted under this Policy, no Staff member or Student may apply for in their own  name, \nassign, licen ce or otherwise deal with, any Intellectual Property Rights in which the University has a n interest or \ncan reasonably be said to have a n interest, without the written consent of the  Provost . \n \n3. The Provost  will normally delegate their authority under this  Policy to Massey Enterprise  to allow for the \nexpeditious use and Commercialisation of New Intellectual  Property  Rights by  the University  in accordance with  \nthis Policy.  \n \n  \n \n \nSCHEDULE  2: Ownership  of Intellectual  Property  Rights  \n \n1. Ownership  of New Intellectual  Property  Rights:  \n \n1.1 Each Creator agrees that the legal and beneficial ownership of all New Intellectual Property Rights they \ncreate  vests  in the University  on creation except:  \n \n(i) in relation  to copyright  in Scholarly  Works  which  is addressed  under  clause  2.1 of this Schedule;  \n(ii) in relation  to copyright  in Student  Works,  which is  addressed  under  clause  2.2 of this Schedule;  \n(iii) in relation  to moral  rights,  which  are addressed  in clause  3 of this Schedule;  \n(iv) where  otherwise  agreed  in writing  by the University . \n(v) where there are agreements with third parties, or underlying rights in a work that are outside the \ncontrol of the Creator  \n \n1.2 Where  required  by the University , Creators  must  promptly  complete  and sign all documentation  \nrequired  by the University  to give effect  to clause  1.1 of this  Schedule.  \n \n \n1.3 Ownership of any New Intellectual Property Rights developed by a Creator that Massey Enterprise  \nnotifies the Creator are not considered Commercialisable under Schedule 4, may be assigned to the  \nCreator  in accordance  with clause  3 of Schedule  4. \n \n2. Scholarly  Works  and Student  Works:  \nMassey University Policy Guide \nIntellectual Property Policy – page 7\n2.1 Each  Staff member:  \n(i) retains  copyright  (but no other  Intellectual  Property  Rights)  in their Scholarly  Work , unless th at\nScholarly Work ha s been exp licitly  commissioned by the University , or created with the use of\nUniversity (or University sourced) funding or allocation of University resources  specifically\nrelated to the creation of such Scholarly Work, or unless otherwise agreed ;\n(ii) grants the University a non -exclusive, royalty free, irrevocable, transferable , perpetual licen ce to\nuse, modify  and reproduce their  Scholarly  Work  for research , teaching  and promotional  purposes\n(unless restrained by some legal or contractual arrangement );\n(iii) must not assign or licence copyright in their Scholarly Work to any other university or  tertiary\neducation institute other than in accordance with clause 2.1(iv) or with the University’s  prior\nwritten  agreement;\n(iv) must not use their Scholarly Work to provide any course at any other university or tertiary\neducation  institute  during  the term of their employment,  other  than as reasonably required  as\npart of that Staff member’s overseas duties, study leave, secondment or similar visit to that\nuniversity or tertiary education institute approved by the relevant Head of Department for that\nStaff member ; and\n(v) must keep copies or images or other form of description  of all Scholarly Work , including Artistic\nWork, created by the Staff member in the course of their employment at the University  or which\nhave been expressly commissioned by the University or created with the use of University (or\nUniversity sourced) funding or allocation of University resources, in the University’s Recor d\nKeeping System (as defined in the  Information and Records Management Policy ). The Provost\nmay establish, from time to time, the requirements  for storing those, taking into account, amongst\nothers:\n(a) c onsistency  with reporting  requirements  from external  funding  bodies.\n(b) consistency  of approach  across  the University.\n(c) consistency  with international  conventions.\n(d) efficiency  of administration\n(e) addressing the needs of Colleges\n2.2 Each  Student:  \n(i) retains  copyright  (but no other  Intellectual  Property  Rights)  in their Student  Work , unless th eir\nStudent  Work ha s been exp licitly  commissioned by the University , or created with the use of\nUniversity (or University sourced) funding or allocation of University resources  specifically\nrelated to the creation of such S tudent  Work , or unless otherwise agreed ; and\n(ii) grants the University a non -exclusive, royalty free, irrevocable, transferable , perpetual licen ce to\nuse, modify and reproduce such Student Work for the University’s teaching, research and\npromotional purposes.\n2.3 Notwithstanding clauses 2.1 and 2.2 above, Staff and Students must comply with their confidentiality  \nobligations relating to Scholarly Works and Student Works, including those set out in Schedule 3 of  this \nPolicy.  \n2.4 Nothing  in this policy  requires  that a Staff member  or Student  share  with the University  any \nconsideration they  derive from the licensing or other Commercialisation of any copyright held  by  that \nStaff member or Student.  \n3. Moral  rights  and modification\n3.1 The University recognises moral rights held by Creators in their works under the Copyright Act 1994,  \nMassey University Policy Guide \nIntellectual Property Policy – page 8\nincluding the right of fair attribution of authorship and the need for work not to be modified or used in \nsuch a way that it harms the Creator’s reputation.\n3.2 The University will use its reasonable endeavours to assist Creators in asserting their moral rights in \nScholarly Works or Student Works in cases where clear breaches of accepted academic conventions \noccur.\n3.3 In exercising the rights granted under clause 2.1(ii) or 2.2(ii) of this Schedule, the University will use \nits reasonable endeavours to ensure that any modification it makes to any Scholarly Work or Student \nWork:\n(i) does not harm the Creator’s reputation; and\n(ii) is limited to the extent that modification is necessary for the University’s purposes; and \n(iii) does not in its opinion prejudice the creative integrity of that work.\nSCHEDULE  3: Disclosure  and notification  of Intellectual  Property  Rights  \n1. Where a Creator develops, creates, or conceives (whether totally or in part) any New Intellectual Property Right\nthat is related to the business of Massey University in any way and/or that may be of commercial interest to the\nUniversity, they must discuss that New Intellectual Property Right with a senior representative of Masse y\nEnterprise  as soon  as practicable  and must  complete  and return  to Massey Enterprise  a confidential notification\nabout that New Intellectual Property Right, unless Massey Enterprise  agrees in  writing that the confidential\nnotification is not required. The notification must include sufficient information for Massey Enterprise  to\nunderstand  the New Intellectual Property  Right  and whether there are co -Creators , to undertake due diligence to\nassess any  obligations arising from Contracts with Third Part ies (Schedule 8)  and to assess  its commercial\npotential.\n2. If a Creator is not sure whether to have discussion with, or notify, Massey Enterprise  about any New  Intellectual\nProperty  Right  under  clause  1 of this Schedule,  they  should  consult  the head  of their  academic unit or\nsupervisor.   If any doubt remains, the Creator must discuss the New Intellectual Property  Right with Masse y\nEnterprise  and notify Massey Enterprise  about the New Intellectual Property Right in  accordance with  clause  1\nof this Schedule.\n3. A confidential register of notifications submitted under this Schedule will be maintained by Massey Enterprise .\n4. Staff members or Students must not use or disclose Confidential Information for any unauthorised purpose.\nWhere a Staff member or Student knows (or should reasonably know) that the University owes another party an\nobligation  of confidentiality  in relation  to any  information,  they will comply  with that obligation.\n5. Staff members and Students must keep confidential all New Intellectual Property Rights developed at the\nUniversity that are notified (or should be notified) to Massey Enterprise  under this Policy. Without limitation,  this\nmeans they must not submit or publish any academic abstracts or other publications, make any conference\npresentations, release press articles or otherwise disclose or use such New Intellectual Property Rights without\nthe written approval of Massey Enterprise . Such use or disclosure may prejudice the patentability and  commercial\npotential  of those  New Intellectual  Property  Rights.  This requirement  is in addition  to the requirements of the\nUniversity’s Thesis Embargo policy. The University will comply with its obligations under  Schedule  6 of this Policy\nin relation  to Students’  obligations under  this paragraph.\n6. When a Staff member or Student is considering publishing or commercialising material that can be reasonably\nsaid to relate directly to Māori Language Resources or to be derived from any Māori Traditional Knowledge they\nmust notify the Deputy t Vice -Chancellor (Māori) as well as Massey Enterprise  as soon as is  practicable and\nbefore a decision is made to submit for publication or before they complete and return a  confidential  notification\nform to Massey Enterprise .\nMassey University Policy Guide \nIntellectual Property Policy – page 9\nSCHEDULE  4: Evaluation  of Intellectual  Property  Rights  \n1. Determination  by Massey Enterprise  as to the viability  of Commercialisation\n1.1 Massey Enterprise  will use  its best efforts  to assess  the commercial potential of  any New  Intellectual \nProperty Right within three months of receiving all relevant information relating to that New  Intellectual \nProperty  Right.  \n2. Notice  of determination  by Massey Enterprise\n2.1 Massey Enterprise  will promptly advise the Creator(s) of any decision it makes to proceed \nwith Commercialisation or not  or where it decides  to defer that  decision.  \n(i) 2.2 Where Massey Enterprise  decides to pursue Commercialisation of any New \nIntellectual Property  Right:it  will have  discretion  in relation  to seeking  patent  protection  and \nnegotiating  and entering  into commercial  agreements;  \n(ii) it will advise the Creator(s) on progress, but will not need consent from the Creator(s) in relation\nto such  activities;  and\n \n(iii) the Creator(s)  will:\n(a) provide  all reasonable  assistance  to Massey Enterprise  including  providing  information\nand advice, assisting with due diligence, attending meetings and executing  required\ndocumentation;  and\n(b) assign to the University copyright in all Student Works or Scholarly Works (as applicable)\nthat are part of or directly  related  to the New Intellectual  Property  Right  that Massey\nEnterprise  wishes to Commercialise solely to the extent that Massey Enterprise  considers\non reasonable grounds that the copyright in such works is, or will be,  required  for the\npurpose  of Commercialisation.\n3. Unwanted  IP\n3.1 Where Massey Enterprise  notifies the Creator(s) that it does not wish to Commercialise any New  \nIntellectual Property Right or continue to commercialise any new IP Right, the Creator(s) may request  \nthat the New Intellectual Property Right be transferred to them. The continuation of the  dissemination \nembargo would then be at the discretion of the Creator(s). That transfer will then be  negotiated with \nMassey Enterprise  in good faith and in a timely manner. Massey Enterprise  may require some form of \nconsideration , including recovery of costs,  for that transfer, including (for example) recovery of any \ninvestment by the university or Massey Enterprise , ongoing royalty  payments , an equity stake , and/or \nthe provision of an ongoing licence back to the University for research and teaching  purposes.  However, \nMassey Enterprise  must not unreasonably withhold its consent to a  transfer or seek  to impose \nunreasonable consideration obligations or other conditions in relation to  any transfer under this clause  \n3.1. \n3.2 Without limiting the University ’s discretion, the University  may decide not to assign  any New Intellectual  \nProperty  Right  to the Creator(s)  where:  \n(i) that New Intellectual Property Right arose out of, or is closely related to, any ongoing research\nor development work at the University and the University  wishes to assess the future  outputs\nfrom that research or development work before determining whether or not to assign  any New\nIntellectual  Property  Right  to the Creator(s);  or\nMassey University Policy Guide \nIntellectual Property Policy – page 10\n(ii) the University can demonstrate that any use or disclosure of the New Intellectual Property may:\n(a) endanger public safety;\n(b) prejudice the teaching and research activities of the University; or\n(c) prejudice the commercialisation of any other Intellectual Property by the University or its\nclients, licensees or collaborators.\n3.3 Where a New Intellectual Property Right is subsequently owned solely by a Student Creator or group\nof Student Creators, and subject to there being no overarching rights or obligations arising from \nContracts with Third Parties (Schedule 8), the University may at its discretion agree for the Student \nCreator(s) to exploit the New Intellectual Property Right without an obligation to share any or some \nroyalties with the University. The University may, at the Student Creators’ request, explore the potential \nfor Massey Enterprise to further assist the Student Creator with commercialisation, under such terms \nas agreed to in writing.\nSCHEDULE  5: Allocating  the benefits  of Intellectual Property  \n1. Revenue  and costs\n1.1 Subject to the terms of this Policy or any applicable agreement, the University  will treat both  Staff and  \nStudents  fairly  and equitably  in any  negotiations  under  clause  2 of this Schedule.  \n1.2 In relation to any period, “Net Revenue” means (subject to clause 1.3 of this Schedule) all Revenue  \nreceived by the University in relation to New Intellectual Property Rights in that period less all Costs  \nthat have  not yet been  recovered  by the University  as at the end of the  period,  where:  \n(i) “Revenue”  includes:\n(a) all royalties, licence fees or other cash consideration from the licensing, assignment or\nother  Commercialisation  of the  New Intellectual Property  Rights;  and\n(b) where the University acquires shares in return for the licensing, assignment or other\nCommercialisation of New Intellectual Property Rights (which may include the creation of\na new entity),  all cash  revenue  received as  distributions  or from the sale of such  shares,\nbut does  not include  research  funding  received  in relation  to the licensing,  assignment  or other  \nCommercialisation of  the New Intellectual  Property  Rights;  and \n(ii) “Costs”  include:\n(a) costs and expenses incurred by the University in the development of the applicable New\nIntellectual Property Rights as evidenced by written records of the University following\ndiscussions between the  relevant Head of Department or Head of College and Massey\nEnterprise ;\n(b) all costs and expenses incurred by Massey Enterprise  directly in relation to the\nCommercialisation of  New Intellectual Property  Rights;\n(c) all external costs and expenses incurred by the University directly in relation to the\nCommercialisation of the New Intellectual Property Rights including all legal, accounting\nand other consultancy costs, all patent protection, defence and enforcement costs and all\nother  costs  and liabilities  arising from  any action  or proceedings  in contract  or tort relating\nto the Commercialisation  of the New Intellectual  Property  Rights,  including  (without\n \n \n \n \n M\nassey University Policy Guide \n Intellectual Property Policy – page 12\nlimitation) all collection costs; and\n(d) any penalties or third party liabilities incurred by the University in relation to the New\nIntellectual Property Rights or its Commercialisation.\n \n1.3 Subject  to clause  1.4, when  offsetting  Costs  against  Revenue  to determine  Net Revenue,  the University  \non the recommendation  of the Provost  may first off set its own Costs (including Costs of Massey \nEnterprise ) then offset Costs   of the  applicable  College  in which the  Creators  were  employed  or enrolled.  \n \n1.4 In relation to any period, Massey Enterprise  may decide to spread Costs over both current and  expected  \nfuture  Revenue.  Where  it does so:  \n \n(i) only the portion (determined by Massey Enterprise ) of Costs that have not been recovered  by \nthe University as at the end of that period will be off set against Revenue received in that  period;  \n(ii) any Net Revenue that thereby arises in that period will be allocated in accordance with clause 2  \nof this Schedule;  and \n(iii) unless Massey Enterprise  determines otherwise, at least the same portion of Costs that  have not \nbeen recovered by the University at the end of any future period will be off set against  Revenue  \nin that future  period  until all Costs are  recovered  by the University.  \n \n \n1.5 Any Creator that has a right to any Net Revenue under this Policy may, by written notice and no more  \nfrequently than once every 12 months, appoint a registered accountant to audit the University’s  records \nat a time reasonably convenient for the University for the sole purpose of validating any Net  Revenue \npayments paid or payable to that Creator.  The Creator will meet the full costs of any audit  provided that \nthe University will refund those costs where the audit reveals a discrepancy in total  payments of  more \nthan 5%. \n \n2. Allocation  of Net Revenue  \n \n2.1 Each  year,  the University  will allocate  a percentage  of Net Revenue  received  in that year in accordance \nwith this clause. The percentage of Net Revenue allocated to the Creator(s) and the  applicable College \nand the percentage retained by the University will depend on the total cumulative  value of Net Revenue \nreceived by the University over the life of the Commercialisation up to the date  of the  allocation,  as \nfollows:  \n \nCumulative  Net Revenue  \n(over  life of Commercialisation)   \nCreator(s)   \nCollege   \nUniversity  \n$1 to $15,000  100%  0% 0% \n$15,001  to $50,000  50% 25% 25% \nMore  than $50,000  30% 35% 35% \n \n \n2.2 Where there is more than one Creator, their percentage of Net Revenue set out above will be shared  \nequally  between  them,  unless they  have  otherwise  agreed in  writing.  \n \n2.3 Where  a Creator(s)  has been  allocated  shares  under  clause  3 of this Schedule:  \n \n(i) that Creator(s) will not be entitled, under this clause 2, to any Net Revenue  from revenue  received  \nby the University  in relation  its shareholding,  including  revenue  received  by the  University  from \ndistributions,  share  sales  or similar;  \n(ii) half of the portion of Net Revenue that would otherwise have been allocated to that Creator(s)  \nMassey University Policy Guide \nIntellectual Property Policy – page 13\nwill be allocated to the College and half will be retained by the University; and\n(iii) if, in relation to the same New Intellectual Property Rights, another Creator(s) has not been\nallocated shares, Massey Enterprise may enter an agreement with that Creator(s) to set out the \nappropriate allocation of Net Revenue to that Creator(s). That allocation must recognise the \nreduction of the University’s Revenue from distributions and share sales resulting from the other \nCreator(s)’ shareholding.\n3. Allocation of shares to Staff and Students\n3.1 In some circumstances, Massey Enterprise and the Creator(s) may agree that it is appropriate for the\nCreator(s) to acquire shares in a company or other entity into which the applicable New Intellectual \nProperty Rights have been licenced or assigned. In such circumstances the Creator(s):\n(i) must comply with the Formation of Spin-Out Companies Policy, Conflict of Commitment and\nInterest Policy, and other relevant University policies;\n(ii) if required, must negotiate and agree an appropriate shareholders’ agreement and constitution\nin good faith with the University and other shareholders (as applicable);\n(iii) acknowledges the intention that the total aggregate value of the Creator(s) initial shareholding\nwill be no greater than one third of the combined initial shareholding of the University and/or \nMassey Enterprise and the Creator(s);\n(iv) acknowledges that, for the purpose of attracting and securing external investment or support, it\nmay be necessary for the Creator(s) to:\n(a) be issued shares of a certain class and/or to enter into a shareholders’ agreement so\nthat in any matter that requires unanimous assent or a special resolution of shareholders, \nthe Creator(s) must either not vote, or (if they do vote) they must vote consistently with the \nUniversity; and\n(b) not have a voting position on the applicable company’s or entity’s board of directors; and \n(v) acknowledges that the Creator(s) will have no right to any payment or return received by the\nUniversity in relation to its shareholding,\nprovided that it is always open to Massey Enterprise and the Creator(s) to negotiate arrangements\noutside these parameters in particular cases where Massey Enterprise and Creator(s) consider it \nappropriate.\n4. General\n4.1 Each Creator is responsible for assessing and complying with all tax obligations associated with benefits\nallocated to that Creator under this Policy.\n4.2 Massey Enterprise will advise Creators to obtain independent advice prior to them signing any\nshareholders’ agreement or any other agreement relating to any New Intellectual Property Rights.\n4.3 Without limiting clause 4.1, where M a s s e y  E n t e r p r i s e  and a Creator intend to agree on\nthat Creator acquiring shares under clause 3.1, the University will refund that Creator the direct cost \nfor first three hours of legal and/or accounting advice they receives in relation to that arrangement \nprovided that:\n(i) the Creator notifies Massey Enterprise before seeking such advice;\n(ii) Massey Enterprise agrees that the proposed advice will fall within the scope of this clause; and \n(iii) the Creator provides an itemised invoice or other evidence of the actual costs incurred by the\nCreator in relation to that advice.\n4.4 Where any New Intellectual Property Right is licenced or assigned to a wholly owned subsidiary of the\nMassey University Policy Guide \nIntellectual Property Policy – page 14\nUniversity, that subsidiary will be treated as part of the University for the purpose of this Schedule, \nincluding the determination of Net Revenue.\nSCHEDULE 6: Students\n1. Subject to written signed agreements with Students concerning Intellectual Property rights, and subject to rules \nfor competitions held by Massey University, where Students are involved in activities that could lead to the  \ndevelopment of New Intellectual Property Rights, the following conditions will apply:\n1.1 participation in the research should not interfere with the assessment of the Student’s academic\nperformance;\n1.2. any delays in publication of the Student’s thesis that arise from an agreement should be consistent with\nthe University’s embargo policy or as otherwise agreed by the Provost; and\n1.3    any agreement with a third party should be reached with a view to ensuring that the Student’s rights\nunder this Policy are maintained as far as practicable.\nFor competitions and promotions, see the Student Consent Form under Related Procedures, listed on page two\nof this document.\nSCHEDULE  7: Māori  Language  Resources  and Traditional  Knowledge  \n1. The University  is committed to giving effect to  the principles of  the Treaty  of Waitangi , and its aims under the\nTreaty of Waitangi Policy .\n2. The University also recognises  Māori language an official language of New Zealand, and of Massey  University ,\nand i s mindful of its obligations under the  Matua Reo Kaupapa - Māori Language Policy .\n3. Where the University has a commercial interest in New Intellectual Property Rights that can reasonably be said\nto be directly related to Māori  Language Resources or derived from any Māori Traditional Knowledge, Masse y\nEnterprise  must consult  the Deputy  Vice-Chancellor (Māori) if and when it decides to  proceed with\nCommercialisation  (See  Schedule  4 section  2).\n4. Where publication of material that can similarly be reasonably said to relate directly to Māori Language Resources\nor to be derived  from any Māori  Traditional  Knowledge,  and which  has not hitherto  been  appropriately\nacknowledged, the relevant academic manager will notify the Deputy  Vice-Chancellor (Māori)  before  a decision\nis made  to submit  for publication.\n5. The Deputy  Vice-Chancellor  (Māori)  will consider  those  aspects  of Commercialisation  or publication that have\nimplications for Māori intellectual property rights and  will endeavour to identify where  those  rights  properly  reside\nand how the processes  of Commercialisation  or publication  might  then proceed.\n6. In the case of Commercialisation, if the Deputy  Vice-Chancellor (Māori) wishes to respond, the  response  must\nbe supplied  to Massey Enterprise  within  21 working  days  (or otherwise  by mutual  agreement)  of receiving\nnotification  of the matter.\n7. Massey Enterprise  is obliged to take account of this advice (if tendered) before allowing any transfer,  licence or\nother  third-party  use or Commercialisation  of those  New Intellectual  Property  Rights.\n \n \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nIntellectual Property Policy – page 15    \nSCHEDULE  8: Contracts  with Third Parties  \n \n1. In the event of a conflict between this Policy and any agreements the University has with a third party  (including \nscholarship agreements), the latter  shall prevail.  \n \n2. The University reserves its right to transfer its Intellectual Property Rights to third parties in accordance with this  \nPolicy, or otherwise, where practicable, following consultation with the Creator(s) of the Intellectual Property  \nRights  that are still employed  by, or enrolled at, the University.  \n \n3. All contracts between the University and third parties which include considerations about Intellectual Property  \nRights  must  include specific  clauses  defining the ownership of  Intellectual  Property.  The University shall  \nendeavour  to negotiate  intellectual property  clauses  which  are consistent with this  Policy.  \n \n4. On entering contracts with third parties which include considerations about Intellectual Property Rights, the  \nUniversity  will ensure that the applicable Staff and Students are aware of the content of that agreement  to the \nextent  it impacts  on those Staff and Students  in their  employment  or enrolment  at the University.  \n \n5. Visitors to the U niversity have no rights to the U niversit y’s Intellectual Property , other than as specifically recorded \nin a written agreement with the U niversity . \n \n6. Visitors to the U niversity may develop I ntellectual Property during their time at the U niversity . Where  such \nIntellectual Property was created with the significant use of U niversity resources or funding, or have been \nexpressly commissioned by the University , or on University premises , then in the absence of an express written \nagreement to the contrary , any Intellectual Property created during the visitor ’s time at the U niversity shall be \nowned by the U niversity . Where such an agreement is negotiated on behalf of the University, Massey Enterprise \nmust do so in consultation with the applicable Head of College/School/Institute/Department.  \n \n7. When  Staff or Students  are to undertake  work  with considerations  about  Intellectual  Property  Rights    in  \ncollaboration with third parties  or at physical or virtual  sites controlled by other organisations in the course of their \nemployment or research with the University, the  Staff or Students concerned shall notify Massey Enterprise  \nbefore such work commences. Massey Enterprise will use its best endeavours to negotiate an agreement with \nthe other organisation(s) regarding the  allocation of Intellectual Property Rights created. Such agreement shall \nbe in accordance with this Policy as far  as is possible.  \n \n8. Staff and Students who have been advised of the terms of a contract with a third party must not act (or omit to  \nact) in any way that may result  in the University  breaching its  obligations under  that third party  contract.  \n  \n \nSCHEDULE  9: Dispute  Resolution \n \n1. Unless otherwise determined in a written agreement, t his disputes procedure is available to all Staff and Students \nhaving an interest in decisions or processes  relating to the exploitation of Intellectual Property Rights, as \ndescribed in the Massey University Intellectual Property  Policy  to which  this procedure is appended  as a \nSchedule.  \n \n2. In the event of a dispute arising between persons (including the University itself) having an interest in decisions  \nor processes relating to the exploitation of Intellectual Property Rights at or by the University, resolution of this  \ndispute shall be sought  in accordance with  the following  procedure:  \n2.1 The aggrieved person(s) shall immediately inform the other party or parties to the dispute of their  \ngrievance in writing, and invite them either to remedy the matter complained of or respond to the \ngrievance  within  thirty  (30) days.  \n2.2 Should the dispute remain unresolved, all parties shall then seek  to settle the matter informally  through  \ndiscussion  or negotiation.  \n2.3 If no such informal resolution can be reached within a reasonable time, then any party may refer the  \nmatter for compulsory arbitration by a single arbitrator to be nominated by the President of the Arbitrators’  and Mediators’  Institute of New Zealand Inc. and such  arbitration shall be regarded as \nfinal and binding  upon all  parties.  \n \n \n \n \n \n M\nassey University Policy Guide \n Intellectual Property Policy – page 16\n2.4 Any party may seek the advice, support, assistance or representation from whomever it chooses in\nseeking to resolve the dispute.\n \n  \n \nSCHEDULE  10: Cessation  of Employment  or Enrolment  \n \n1. When  a Staff member  or Student  retires,  graduates  or otherwise  leaves  the University,  without  limiting  any \nother right or obligations they may have, that Staff member or Student will continue to be bound by their \nobligations of confidentiality in relation to information they worked on or became aware of while  employed by  or \nenrolled  at Massey  University.   \n \n2. When a Staff member or Student, who is entitled to an allocation of benefits under Schedule 5, retires,  graduates,  \ndies or otherwise  leaves  the University  while  employed  by the University  or enrolled  at the University, the \nallocation of benefits will continue after the date of retirement, graduation, death or other  departure (and to the \nextent necessary, will endure to the benefit of their estate) provided that the Staff  member or Student is not in \nmaterial breach of any Policies of the University. Nothing in this Policy requires  that the University continue any \ncommercial activity that is uneconomic or otherwise not in the interests of the  University.  It is always open to \nMassey Enterprise  to negotiate arrangements outside these parameters in  particular cases where Massey \nEnterprise  considers it appropriate. Shareholdings already allocated under other agreements are not affected  by \nthis clause.  \n \n3. It is the responsibility of Staff and Students to ensure that the University is aware of their contact details , so the  \nUniversity  is able  to make  any payments due  under this Policy.  \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Masters_Thesis_Examination_Policy_PDF_86_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Master's Thesis Examination Policy",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "86 KB",
      "author": "Riley, Tracy",
      "creation_date": "2024-11-18T11:02:00",
      "modification_date": "D:20241118125753+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n______________________________________________________________________________  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nPurpose : \n \nTo provide a coherent set of guiding principles to underpin master’s student thesis examination practices at \nMassey University , and to assist students, supervisors, and examiners  in the successful, timely completion \nof a master’s thesis . The policy aims to ensure fair, transparent and robust processes across all master’s \nresearch  degrees by thesis or by coursework and thesis to achieve equity and excellence in postgraduate \nstudent research. The policy is also designed to help prevent difficulties and disput es, and to assist in the ir \nresolution should they arise.  \nContext : \n \nMaster’s degrees are structured in three principal ways :  \n• Master’s degrees by thesis or primarily by thesis, following a bachelor’s honours or postgraduate \ndiploma, are usually 120 credits and normally consist of a research project presented as a thesis or \ncreative work worth at least 90 credits.  \n• Master’s degrees by coursework and thesis, following an undergraduate degree, are  180 or 240 \ncredits and include a research project presented as a thesis or creative work worth at least 90 credits.  \n• Master’s degree by coursework only, following an undergraduate degree. 1 \nGraduates with master’s degrees , whether by research, courses or a combination, should  have highly \nspecialized  knowledge; research skills, critical thinking and creativity that can be applied to existing or \nemerging problems; and a growing autonomy as a developing specialist or researcher.  \nThis policy is designed to guide the assessment of master’s  by research which also require students to \ndemonstrate skills in planning, executing and developing a piece of original research. Graduates with \nmaster’s by research degrees should be able to apply research skills  learned during their degree studies  to \nnew situations and problems as they emerge ,2  and demonstrate critical reflection and contextualization of \ntheir research. When achieved to an appropriate standard, the research project, presented in the form of a \n \n1 CUAP Handbook 2023 https://www.universitiesnz.ac.nz/sites/default/files/uni -nz/documents/CUAP%20Handbook%202023.pdf   \n2 CUAP Handbook 2023  https://www.universitiesnz.ac.nz/sites/default/files/uni -nz/documents/CUAP%20Handbook%202023.pdf   \n Section  Graduate Research School  \nContact  Dean , Postgraduate Research  \nLast Review  October 2024  \nNext  Review  October 2027  \nApproval  AB24/67  \nEffective  from  October 2024  \n \n MASTER ’S THESIS EXAMINATION  POLICY  \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nMaster’s Thesis Examination Policy – page 2 \n______________________________________________________________________________  \n \nthesis or creative work worth at least 90 credits3., should prepare students for successful doctoral research.  \nThe examination of research theses or creative works of 90 credits or above is required in  the completion \nof some master’s degree qualifications  at Massey University Examiners will evaluate a thesis or creative \nwork , including the student’s understanding of the relevant literature  and context of the research ; the \nmethods and techniques used ; the result s and their interpretation  or application;  and the conclusions \nreached . The thesis or creative work should demonstrate skills in identifying and solving problems through \ncareful research planning, implementation  and communication, as well as the student’s  capacity for \nindependent thinking.   \nThesis examiners play a vital role in providing feedback and assessing the outcome of master’s research.  \nMassey University is committed to provid ing academic guidance, advice, and support for each research \nstudent  throughout the examination process.  \nThis policy should be read alongside  the Assessment and Examination Regulations  published in the Massey \nUniversity Calendar, and  alongside the relevant degree regulations . In any situation where this policy is \ninconsistent with th ose regulations, the regulations will prevail.  \nThis policy outline s the processes for preparation, submission, and examination of the thesis component of \nmaster’s qualifications . The roles and responsibilities of  students, their supervisors, and examiners  in the \nexamination process  are explained . The policy also seek s to ensure high quality, robust, and independent \nexamination  of theses  and creative works  by master’s students ; acknowledge disciplinary methods and \nexpressions of research ; and build research supervision capability and capacity . \nPolicy : \nAll master’s students who complete a thesis  or creative work  (of 90 or more credits) are required to \nparticipate in a final assessment , which involves the evaluation of their research by two examiners \nindependent of the research.  At least one of these examiners must be external to the university.  \n \nAll thesis examinations will be managed by the Graduate Research School  and Ethics (GRSE) . Students \nare required to submit their thesis for assessment online via the student management system (portal) for \nassessment.  \n \n3 Assessment and Examination Regulations 81(a) defines reseach reports and dissertations as reserach comprised of up to 60 cred its. \nRegulation 83(a) defines master’s theses or creative works as 90 or more credits.  \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nMaster’s Thesis Examination Policy – page 3 \n______________________________________________________________________________  \n \nAppointment of Examiners : \n \nAll master’s theses will be examined by two examiners, at least one of whom is external to the University. \nThe examiners must be able to provide a fair and impartial assessment of the thesis  and should have \nresearch experience and standing in the field of the thesis ; have no significant conflict of interest or  \ncommitment, or  other significant personal, professional, or contractual relationship with the student ; and \nmust not have been a supervisor of the thesis at any time.  \n  \n• The external examiner will be from outside the University and the supervisory team , usually based \nin Aotearoa New Zealand , but may be based overseas.  \n• The internal examiner will usually be a member of the academic staff of the University and  will not \nbe a member of the supervisory team. Where there is no suitable internal examiner, it is possible for \ntwo external examiners to be appointed.  \n \nThe thesis examiners will be nominated by the student’s main supervisor, after consultation with the \nsupervisory team and the student, prior to and no later than two weeks after submission of the thesis. The \nstudent is consulted to ensure avoidance of conf licts of interest or commitment, and to enable the student \na voice in the process, but the final nomination is the responsibility of the main supervisor and should remain \nconfidential until the end of the examination process. The nomination must be approve d by the thesis course \ncoordinator. Careful consideration should be given well in advance of the expected submission of the thesis \nfor examination to ensure not only that examiners have expertise appropriate to the subject of the thesis, \nalso that they are  willing to examine the thesis and submit an examination report in a timely fashion, as \nrequired below. Where the main supervisor does not nominate suitable examiners, the thesis course \ncoordinator may be requested to nominate suitable examiners.  \n \nThe independence of the examiners will be ensured by using the Conflict of Interest in Examination \nGuidelines  to raise awareness of what might constitute a conflict of interest, whether real or perceived, and \nhow to minimize  the risks associated with conflicts of interest. When making the nomination of examiners \nto the thesis course coordinator, the main supervisor must comment briefly on the suitability of each \nexaminer and must also confirm that there is no relationship bet ween either examiner and any member of \nthe supervisory team or the student that might reasonably be considered to impair an examiner’s abilit y to \nexamine the thesis independently and objectively.  \n \nWhere an examiner is unwilling or unable to continue in that role or fails to perform the duties of an examiner \nin an appropriate and timely manner, the Dean, Postgraduate Research may work with the main supervisor \nand thesis course coordinator to appoint a suitably qualified replacement examiner.  \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nMaster’s Thesis Examination Policy – page  4 \n______________________________________________________________________________  \n \nSubmission of Thesis : \n \nBefore the thesis is provided  to the examiners, the student  and their main supervisor will confirm that the \nthesis embodies original work carried out by the student in accordance with regulations. The student and \nsupervisor confirm that the research has only been used for the master’s  degree of current enrolment and \nthe thesis meets recommended word counts, ethical and, if any, contractual requirements of external \norganisations. The main supervisor also indicates the standard of the thesis, any commercial p otential or \nsensitivities, the need for an embargo and whether examiners have been nominated to assess the research.  \n \nProcess of examination : \n \nTo ensure the independence and robustness of the examination process, and the outcome, the supervisors \nwill not be involved in the thesis examination. This means that after nominating the examiners, the \nsupervisors will have no further contact with the exa miners regarding the thesis during the examination \nprocess. In the period between the examiners’ appointment and completion of the examination process, the \nstudent and members of the supervisory team must not discuss any matters relating to the thesis, or the \ncomposition of the examination panel, with the examiners. All communications regarding the thesis \nexamination must be through the Graduate Research School.  For creative practice examinations, the \nGraduate Research School will work closely with the College which will facilitate the examination of the \ncreative work, including some communication with examiners as deemed necessary and appropriate, and \nfollowing the examination guidelines for creative practice examinations.  \n \nThe supervisors will not have any input into the decision about the outcome of the exam.  \n \nAn examiner is required to assess a thesis presented for examination against the following criteria.   \n• The thesis must:  \no be the student’s own work undertaken by the student during their enrolment.  \no demonstrate advanced knowledge about a specialist field of inquiry or practice.  \no apply new skills or techniques to existing or emerging problems in the field of inquiry or practice.  \no be written at a standard generally acceptable to the discipline; and be written in English or  in Te Reo.  \n• The thesis may contain:  \no creative works.  \no software, computer code, or models.  \no material that has been published during study with the student as either sole or joint author.  \n \nColleges may provide discipline -specific guidance, for example, in the creative arts, to assist examiners. \nDiscipline -specific guidance must be agreed between the College and Graduate Research School and will \nbe provided to examiners by the Graduate Resear ch School. Discipline -specific guidance should not \ncontradict or conflict with general examination guidance, to ensure equity across programmes of study.  \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nMaster’s Thesis Examination Policy – page  5 \n______________________________________________________________________________  \n \nThe examiners wi ll independently and individually  submit their confidential examination report and \nrecommendation to the Graduate Research School.  \n \nExaminers will be asked to provide a confidential recommendation whether the thesis should be:  \n• Accepted, and the grade  and mark4 that should be considered for it; or  \n• Failed.  \n \nWhere examiners recommend that the thesis should be accepted, the examiners will indicate that the thesis \nbe accepted   \n• Without emendation s; or \n• With very minor emendations, for example,  typographical or formatting, that can be completed within \n1-2 weeks and approved by the  main  supervisor.  \n \nDetermining a final grade for the thesis  \n \nAfter receiving the reports and recommended grades from the examiners, the thesis course coordinator will \nreview the reports and seek to finalise the thesis grade using the following processes:  \n• Where the two examiners’ recommended letter grades are the same  , that grade will be awarded with \nthe average5 of the two marks. For example, if 94 A+ and 90 A+ are recommended, the student will \nreceive a final mark of 92 and grade of A+; where a 70 B and 73 B are recommended, the student will \nreceive a final mark of 72 and grade of B.  \n• Where the two examiners’ letter grades differ by letter grade, the final grade will be determined by first \ncontacting the examiners, sharing both reports and recommended grades and marks with them, and \nseeking their consensus on the final grade and mark.  \n• If consensus between examiners cannot be reached, the Dean, Postgraduate Research, in consultation \nwith the thesis course coordinator, will seek the advice of an independent assessor. The assessor will \nbe provided with the thesis, the anonymised examinatio n reports and recommended grades. The \nassessor will be required to provide a written report that evaluates the reports and recommended grades \nagainst the thesis. The assessor will recommend a final grade that cannot be outside the bounds set by \nthe origina l examiners’ grades.  \n \nThe Graduate Research School  and Ethics (GRSE)  will formally notify the student of the result  once this \nhas been determined and  will provide the student and main supervisor with copies of the examiners’ reports. \nIf minor emendations are required, the student must complete these to the satisfaction of their main \nsupervisor.  \n \nFor approval for the award of a master’s degree, an electronic copy of the final version of the thesis, in PDF \nformat, is submitted by the student to the University Library. \n \n4 Following the University’s published grading system.  \n5 The University applies the Swedish Rounding system to final grades.  \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nMaster’s Thesis Examination Policy – page  6 \n______________________________________________________________________________  \nAppeals : \n \nStudents may raise concerns informally through the academic complaint process by making the concern \nknown to a staff member of the University (e.g., the main supervisor, thesis course coordinator, head of \nschool or Dean, Postgraduate Research).  \n \nStudents may appeal against the process or outcome of an examination in accordance with the Student \nComplaints and Grievance Procedures.  Formal complain ts are escalated to the Pro Vice -Chancellor for \ninvestigation.  \nDefinitions : \n \nThesis course coordinator:   an academic staff member with responsibilities for the coordination of theses \nwithin an academic qualification, school or College.  This role may have other \ntitles, including, but not limited to, postgraduate lead, postgraduate coordinator, \nthesis coordinator, programme director, associate dean, or director. The critical \naspect of this role is academic leadership and decision -making re garding \nmaster’s research theses.  \nExternal examiner:   an examiner who is external to the University , usually based in Aotearoa New \nZealand, but may be international,  and not a member of the supervisory team.  \nInternal examiner :  an examiner who is usually an academic staff member of the University and is not a \nmember of the supervisory team.  \nMain supervisor :  the supervisor who takes the primary responsibility for the provision of academic and \nadministrative guidance to the student and who also acts as the coordinator of the \nsupervisory team. The main supervisor assumes administrative responsibilities on \nbehalf of the supervisory team (e.g., nomination of examiners ) \nCo-Supervisor/s:   a person appointed to take substantial responsibility for provision of academic and \nadministrative guidance to the candidate, under the coordination of the main \nsupervisor.  \n.\n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nMaster’s Thesis Examination Policy – page  7 \n______________________________________________________________________________  \n \nAudience : \n \nUniversity Staff  \nMaster’s students  \nMaster’s thesis supervisors  \nExaminers of master’s  theses  \n \nRelevant legislation : \n \nOfficial Information Act 1982  \nPrivacy Act 2020  \n \nRelated policies and procedures : \n \nAssessment and Examination Regulations  \nCode of Ethical Conduct for Research, Teaching, and Evaluations Involving Human Participants  \nCode of Ethical Conduct for the Use of Animals for Research, Testing, and Teaching  \nCode of Responsible Research Conduct  \nDoctoral Supervision Policy  \nIntellectual Property Policy  \nQualifications Policy  \nThesis Embargo Policy  \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Massey_University_Council_Appointments_and_Election_Statute_2024_PDF_322KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Massey University Council Appointments and Election Statute 2024 PDF 322KB",
      "policy_type": "Statute",
      "file_size": "322 KB",
      "author": "Nicol, Paddy",
      "creation_date": "2025-04-10T12:05:07",
      "modification_date": "D:20250410125754+12'00'"
    },
    "content": " Approv al: Council – 6 March 2025    Page 1 of 13  \n  \n \n  \n  \n  \n \n \nMASSEY UNIVERSITY C OUNCIL APPOINTMENTS AND ELECTION STATUTE 2024 \n  \n1. Title and Commencement  \n1.1 The Council of Massey University makes this Statute under sections 279 and 284 of the \nAct.  \n1.2 This Statute may be cited as the Council Appointments and Elections Statute 2024.  \n1.3 This Statute comes into force on 6 March 2025 .  \n1.4 The following Statutes are repealed from the date that this Statute comes into force :  \n(a) Massey University Council Election (Academic Staff Member) Statute 2023;  \n(b) Massey University Council Election (Professional Staff Member) Statute 2023;  \n(c) Massey University Council Election (Student Member) Statute 2024;  \n(d) Massey University Council Electronic Election Statute 2024; and  \n(e) Massey University Council Appointments Statute 2024  \n \n2. Application  \n2.1 This Statute applies to:  \n(a) each Council member;  \n(b) the Returning Officer;  \n(c) any person who is eligible to be elected as a member of the Council; and  \n(d) any person who is eligible to vote in an Election.   \n3. Purpose  of this Statute  \n3.1 The purpose of this Statute is:  \n(a) to govern the appointment of members to the Council, who are appointed by \nCouncil resolution in accordance with the University's Constitution and the Act; \nand  \n(b) in relation to the appointment of elected Council members, to also govern:  \n(i) the eligibility for nomination as a Candidate in an Election;  \nMassey University Council Appointments and Election Statute  \n \n Approv al: Council – 6 March 2025    Page 2 of 13  \n  (ii) the eligibility to vote in an Election;  \n(iii) the Election Process; and  \n(iv) determination of Election results.  \n4. Appointment of Vice -Chancellor by virtue of office  \n4.1 The Council will, by resolution, appoint the Vice -Chancellor as a member of the Council \nby virtue of holding office as the Chief Executive of the University.  \n4.2 The Vice -Chancellor will be a member of the Council for the period that they hold that \noffice.  \n5. Appointments on the nomination of the Vice -Chancellor  \n5.1 The Council will, by resolution, appoint as members of the Council 4 people who are \nable to provide the knowledge, skills and experience to meet the needs of the \nUniversity as specified by Council, following nomination by the Vice -Chancellor.  At least \none of those people must be Māori.  \n5.2 The Council will consult with Ngā Kaiwhakapūmau on the people nominated by the \nVice -Chancellor.  The decision to appoint members, following consultation, is the \nresponsibility of the Council.  \n6. Appointments by Election  \n6.1 In accordance with section 278 of the Act and the University's Constitution, the Council \nwill appoint as members:  \n(a) one Permanent Member of the Academic Staff who has been elected by the \nPermanent Members of the Academic Staff of the University , for a term of four \nyears or until they cease to be a Permanent M ember of the Academic Staff, \nwhichever is the earlier event ; \n(b) one Permanent Member of the Professional Staff who has been elected by the \nPermanent Members of the Professional Staff of the University , for a term of four \nyears or until they cease to be a Permanent M ember of the Professional Staff, \nwhichever is the earlier event ; and  \n(c) one Student enrolled at the University who has been elected by the Students of \nthe University , for a term of two years or until th ey cease to be an enrolled  \nStudent , whichever is the earlier event . \n6.2 Elections provided for in this Statute are held when a Council member's term is due to \nexpire or there is a casual vacancy in accordance with the Act.  \nEligibility to be appointed by Election and Eligibility to Vote  \nGeneral eligibility to be an elected member of the Council  \nMassey University Council Appointments and Election Statute  \n \n Approv al: Council – 6 March 2025    Page 3 of 13  \n  6.3 To be eligible to be elected to the Council under this Statute, a person must:  \n(a) be nominated as a Candidate, in the form and within the timeframe specified by \nthe Returning Officer;  \n(b) agree to comply with the Massey University Election Rules; and  \n(c) not be disqualified from appointment under section 277 of the Act or the \nUniversity's Constitution.  \nAcademic Staff member  \n6.4 In addition to meeting the requirements in clause 6.3, to be eligible to be elected to the \nCouncil as an Academic Staff member, a person must be a Permanent Member of the \nAcademic Staff.  \n6.5 To be eligible to vote in an election for an Academic Staff member on the Council, a \nperson must be a Permanent Member of the Academic Staff.  \nProfessional Staff member  \n6.6 In addition to meeting the requirements in clause 6.3, to be eligible to be elected to the \nCouncil as a Professional Staff member, a person must be a Permanent Member of the \nProfessional Staff.  \n6.7 To be eligible to vote in an election for a Professional Staff member on the Council, a \nperson must be a Permanent Member of the Professional Staff.  \nStudent member  \n6.8 In addition to meeting the requirements in clause 6.3, to be eligible to be elected to the \nCouncil as a Student member, a person must be a Student of the University.  \n6.9 To be eligible to vote in an election for a Student member on the Council, a person must \nbe a Student of the University.  \nElection Process  \n6.10 Each Election must be conducted:  \n(a) by the Returning Officer;  \n(b) through an electronic voting system;  \n(c) using the first past the post voting methodology;  \n(d) in accordance with the Election Process; and  \n(e) in accordance with the Massey University Election Rules.  \n6.11 In addition to the Returning Officer's powers and responsibilities specified in this \nStatute, the Returning Officer also has the power to settle any question that may arise \nunder this Statute for which no provision is made.  \nMassey University Council Appointments and Election Statute  \n \n Approv al: Council – 6 March 2025    Page 4 of 13  \n  6.12 The Returning Officer may issue such rules as they consider appropriate to ensure the \nfair and proper conduct, and campaigning, of elections.  \n6.13 Without limitation, such rules may include restrictions on the mode and timing of \ncampaigning, and on the amounts that may be spent in campaigning by or on behalf of \nany Candidate.  \nAppointment of elected members after an Election  \n6.14 Subject to clause 6.13, following an Election the Council will appoint each successful \nCandidate:  \n(a) as a member of the Council; and  \n(b) for a term consistent with  clause 6.1 of this Statute and  clause 6 of Schedule 11 of \nthe Act and the University's Constitution.  \n6.15 The Council must not appoint any person who is ineligible for appointment under \nsection 277(1) of the Act.  \n7. Matters to consider when appointing members (section 278 of the Act)  \n7.1 The Council will, as far as is reasonably practicable, reflect:  \n(a) the ethnic and socio -economic diversity of the communities served by the \nUniversity; and  \n(b) the fact that approximately half the population of New Zealand is male and half \nthe population is female.  \n7.2 In addition (and subject to paragraph 7.3), when appointing one or more Council \nmembers, the Council must appoint people who, in the Council's opinion:  \n(a) have relevant knowledge, skills, or experience;  \n(b) are likely to be able to fulfil their individual duties to the Council;  \n(c) together with the other members of the Council, are capable of undertaking their \nresponsibilities, duties, and functions; and   \n(d) can meet the needs of the University and support the sound governance of the \nUniversity.  \n7.3 When appointing one or more elected members, each elected member is to be treated \nas meeting any relevant knowledge, skills or experience requirements.  \n8. Term of office  \n8.1 Unless specified otherwise in this Statute, each Council member appointed under this \nStatute will be appointed for a period of not more than 4 years.   \n8.2 The maximum number of occasions on which a person, other than the Vice -Chancellor, \nmay be appointed as a member of the Council is the number that, for that person, \nMassey University Council Appointments and Election Statute  \n \n Approv al: Council – 6 March 2025    Page 5 of 13  \n  ensures that the total period for which they are a member of the Council does not \nexceed 12 years.  \n9. Casual Vacancies  \n9.1 A casual vacancy will arise if:  \n(a) a Council member dies, or resigns in accordance with clause 7(1) of Schedule 11 of \nthe Act;  \n(b) the Council, by resolution, dismisses the Council member under clause 7 of \nSchedule 11 of the Act; or  \n(c) the Council member is removed under clause 12 of Schedule 11 of the Act.  \n9.2 Subject to clause 9.3, if the office of a Council member of the University becomes \nvacant before the end of the Council member’s term of office, another person must be \nappointed to the office by the procedure by which the Council member became a \nmember.  A ccordingly, if there is a casual vacancy of an elected member, there must be \nan Election Process (as set out in Appendix 1) to elect a Candidate to be duly appointed \nto the Council.  \n9.3 In accordance with clause 9 of Schedule 11 of the Act, if the office becomes vacant \nwithin 6 months before the end of the Council member's term of office, the Council \nmay decide that the vacancy does not need to be filled.  \n \nDefinitions  \n \nAcademic Staff means a staff member on or deemed to be on the University's academic \npayroll or system for payment  \nAct means the Education and Training Act 2020  \nCandidate means a candidate for election under this Statute as a member on the Council  \nConstitution means the Constitution of Massey University Council Notice 2024, which may be \namended from time to time  \nCouncil means the Council of the University  \nElection means an election of one or more members of the Council conducted under this \nStatute  \nElection Process means the process set out in Appendix 1 of this Statute  \nMassey University Election Rules  means the election rules prepared by the Returning Officer \nto ensure the fair conduct of the Election and of campaigning in connection with the Election, \nthat are included in Appendix 2 of this Statute or otherwise published by the Returning \nOfficer  \nPermanent Member , in relation to the Academic Staff or Professional Staff of the University:  \nMassey University Council Appointments and Election Statute  \n \n Approv al: Council – 6 March 2025    Page 6 of 13  \n  (a) means a member of the staff who:  \n(i) is employed, on a full -time or part -time basis, for a period ending, unless \nsooner terminated, on the member’s resignation or retirement; or  \n(ii) has been employed, on a full -time or part -time basis, whether under an \nemployment agreement for a fixed term or otherwise, for at least 3 months; \nor \n(iii) has been employed, on a full -time or part -time basis, whether under an \nemployment agreement for a fixed term or otherwise, for less than 3 \nmonths and whose employment is, in the opinion of the Vice -Chancellor, \nlikely to continue for at least 3 months from the date of commencement of \nthat employment.   \nTo avoid doubt, unless the Vice -Chancellor decides otherwise, the Vice -\nChancellor will have the opinion that a staff member's employment \nagreement is \"likely to continue for at least 3 months from the date of \ncommencement of that employment\" if the staff m ember has an \nemployment agreement for a period of at least 3 months (even if that staff \nmember has not been employed for 3 months by the date of the Election);  \n(b) does not include (to avoid doubt) a person on a casual contract with the \nUniversity, or a volunteer at the University  \nProfessional Staff means a staff member on or deemed to be on the University's professional \npayroll or system for payment  \nReturning Officer means the Director Governance and Assurance (including an acting Director \nGovernance and Assurance), or another person appointed by the Council as the returning \nofficer  \nStatute  means this Council Appointments and Elections Statute [2024], which may be \namended from time to time by resolution of the Council  \nStudent means a person who is enrolled in a qualification or programme at the University, or \nwho has accepted an offer of enrolment into a qualification or programme of study at the \nUniversity.  To avoid doubt, a micro -credential or certificate of proficiency is n ot a course or \nprogramme for the purpose of this definition  \nUniversity  means Massey University  \nVice -Chancellor  means the person holding office for the time being as the Chief Executive \nOfficer of the University, and includes any person for the time being acting in that capacity   \nContent Manager   [Director, Governance and Assurance]  \nApproved By    [Council]  \nDate approved     [date]   \nMassey University Council Appointments and Election Statute  \n \n Approv al: Council – 6 March 2025    Page 7 of 13  \n  Appendix 1 – Election Process  \n1. This Appendix sets out the process that will be followed for each Election.  \nDetermining Election date and list of eligible Electors  \n2. The Returning Officer will:  \n(a) determine the date of the Election and report that date to the Council; and  \n(b) compile a list of the Electors at a date determined by the Returning Officer.  \nNotification of Election  \n3. The Returning Officer will publish a Notification of Election that:  \n(a) specifies that an Election will take place, and what member(s) will be elected through \nthe Election;  \n(b) identifies the number of vacancies;  \n(c) requests the nomination of candidates for the Election, and specifies that each \nnomination must be in the form specified by the Returning Officer; and  \n(d) specifies the closing date for the receipt of nominations; and.  \n(e) the dates or period during which the election will be held.  \n4. The Returning Officer may receive a nomination by email, by post, or in hard copy at the \naddress specified by the Returning Officer.  \n5. The Returning Officer will assess each nomination received before 5pm on the Nomination \nDeadline, and will accept a nomination unless paragraphs 6 or 7(a) apply.   \n6. The Returning Officer must reject any nomination:  \n(a) in respect of a nominee who is ineligible for appointment under section 277(1) of the \nAct;  \n(b) that breaches the Massey University Election Rules, and the Returning Officer is \nreasonably satisfied that the breach will have a material effect on the outcome of the \nElection; and  \n(c) that is received after 5pm on the Nomination Deadline.  \n7. If the Returning Officer receives a nomination that is not in the form specified by the \nReturning Officer, the Returning Officer (at the Returning Officer's sole discretion) may:  \n(a) reject the nomination; or  \n(b) request that the nominee resubmit the nomination in the form, and by the date, \nspecified by the Returning Officer.  If those requirements are not met, the Returning \nOfficer must reject the nomination.  \n8. If a nomination is rejected, the Returning Officer will notify the nominee in writing.  \nMassey University Council Appointments and Election Statute  \n \n Approv al: Council – 6 March 2025    Page 8 of 13  \n  Withdrawal of Candidate  \n9. A Candidate may withdraw their nomination at any time before 5pm on the Nomination \nDeadline.  A withdrawal will be effective only if it is in writing and signed by the Candidate.  \nRetirement of Candidate  \n10. The Returning Officer will determine that a Candidate has retired if:  \n(a) the Candidate is found to be, or becomes ineligible for appointment under section \n277(1) of the Act;  \n(b) the Candidate dies;  \n(c) the Returning Officer considers, based on clear evidence, that the Candidate is \nincapacitated; or  \n(d) the Returning Officer has received written notice from the Candidate that they are \nretiring before the Returning Officer Publishes:  \n(i) an Election Declaration; or  \n(ii) a Notice of Elections.  \n11. If the Returning Officer determines that a Candidate has retired, the Returning Officer will:  \n(a) notify eligible Electors of the retirement in the manner that the Returning Officer sees \nfit; and  \n(b) ensure that, if any votes have been cast for a retired Candidate, those votes are void.  \nElection Declaration  \n12. If the number of Candidates does not exceed the number of vacancies to be filled (including \nfollowing the retirement of a Candidate), the Returning Officer will:  \n(a) publish an Election Declaration that sets out the nominated Candidate(s) that will be \nduly appointed as members to the Council; and  \n(b) ensure that no Election is held.  \nVoting Instructions and Voting  \n13. No later than the closing day of the Election, the Returning Officer must send Voting \nInstructions to each Elector at:  \n(a) the Electors' University email address; or  \n(b) any email address that the Elector has nominated for the purpose of communicating \nwith the University.  \n14. The Voting Instructions must include:  \n(a) instructions as to how to cast a vote in the Election;  \nMassey University Council Appointments and Election Statute  \n \n Approv al: Council – 6 March 2025    Page 9 of 13  \n  (b) the days of the Election, including the closing date and time of the Election; and  \n(c) the name and statement of each Candidate for Election (as set out in the accepted \nnomination).  \n15. Subject to paragraphs 20 to 23, the Returning Officer will consider that a vote is valid if:  \n(a) the Elector's vote is entered into the electronic voting system in accordance with the \nVoting Instructions;  \n(b) the Elector has not previously recorded their vote;  \n(c) the Elector's vote is recorded on the days of the Election; and  \n(d) the Elector has not breached the Massey University Election Rules.  \nCounting of Votes  \n16. As soon as reasonably practicable after the close of the Election, the Returning Officer will \ncount the votes by the means that the Returning Officer prescribes.  \nDetermination of Result  \n17. Subject to paragraphs 20 to 23, in accordance with the first past the post voting methodology, \nthe Returning Officer will determine that the Candidate with the most votes will be declared \nelected.  \n18. If there is an equal number of votes for .2 or more Candidates, and the addition of a vote \nwould entitle any of the Candidates to be declared elected, the Returning Officer must \ndetermine by lot which Candidate will be declared elected.   \n19. If there is more than one vacancy, the Candidates with the most votes will be elected to the \nvacant positions.  \nBreaches of, or issues regarding, Election Process  \n20. If, before Publishing the Declaration of Result,  the Returning Officer considers that a \nCandidate, a person acting on behalf of the Candidate, or an Elector has materially breached \nthe Massey University Election Rules or this Statute, the Returning Officer, may, at their \nabsolute sole discretion:  \n(a) notify the relevant Candidate, person, or Elector of the identified breach;  \n(b) give the Candidate, person, or Elector a reasonable opportunity to be heard; and  \n(c) after  considering any submissions:  \n(i) declare a Candidate’s nomination, the Elector's vote, or the entire Election to be \ninvalid; or  \n(ii) declare that no action is to be taken.  \nMassey University Council Appointments and Election Statute  \n \n Approv al: Council – 6 March 2025    Page 10 of 13  \n  21. If, before Publishing the Declaration of Result, the Returning Officer receives a complaint or \nbecomes aware of an issue regarding the Election Process, the Returning Officer may \ninvestigate that complaint or issue.  \n22. If, following that investigation, the Returning Officer is satisfied that there has been a breach \nof the Massey University Election Rules or this Statute, which has materially affected the \noutcome of the Election, the Returning Officer may, in their sole d iscretion, declare the votes \nfor one or more Candidates invalid, or the entire Election invalid.  \n23. If the Returning Officer declares that the entire Election is invalid, the Returning Officer will \nrestart the Election Process.  If a Candidate's nomination is declared to be invalid by the \nReturning Officer after or during the Election, any votes cast for  that person will not be \ncounted.   \nPublication of Declaration of Result  \n24. No later than one month after all votes have been counted, the Returning Officer must Publish \nthe Declaration of Result.  The Declaration of Result may include the number of votes cast for \neach Candidate.   \nRecount  \n25. Within 7 days from the date that the Declaration of Result is Published, a Candidate may apply \nto the Returning Officer for a recount.  \n26. On receiving an application, the Returning Officer will undertake a recount by such means as \nthey think fit.  \n27. Following the recount, the Returning Officer will:  \n(a) notify the applicant in writing of the result of the recount; and  \n(b) if the Returning Officer determines that, as a result of the recount, the Declaration of \nResult is incorrect, the Returning Officer will declare through a notice that is Published \nthat:  \n(i) the Declaration of Result was incorrect and, if the Returning Officer thinks it \nappropriate to do so, the number of votes cast for each Candidate; and  \n(ii) the name of the Candidate duly elected.  \nDestruction of votes  \n28. The Returning Officer must arrange for all records of Elector's votes to be destroyed in a \nmanner that ensures the confidentiality of voting information:  \n(a) no earlier than one month after the Declaration of Result has been Published; or  \n(b) if an application for a recount has been received, no earlier than one month after the \nrecount has been undertaken.  \n \n \nMassey University Council Appointments and Election Statute  \n \n Approv al: Council – 6 March 2025    Page 11 of 13  \n  Definitions  \nCandidate means a nominee who is eligible to be a candidate for election under this Statute as a \nmember on the Council, and whose nomination has not been rejected by the Returning Officer  \nDeclaration of Result  means the result of the Election  \nElection means an election of one or more members on the Council conducted under this Statute  \nElection Declaration means a notice Published by the Returning Officer when the number of \nCandidates is not greater than the number of vacancies  \nElection Process means the process set out in Appendix 1 of this Statute  \nElector means a person on the list compiled by the Returning Officer as being eligible to vote in the \nElection  \nMassey University Election Rules means the rules prepared by the Returning Officer to ensure the \nfair conduct of the Election that are included in Appendix 2 of this Statute or otherwise published by \nthe Returning Officer   \nNomination Deadline means the day appointed for the closing of nominations of Candidates for \nElection as members on the Council  \nPublish means to include in hard copy or electronic form in magazines, newsletters, websites that \nare published by the University.  Publishes has the same meaning  \nReturning Officer means the person appointed by the Council as the returning officer (including an \nacting returning officer) to conduct elections   \nUniversity  means Massey University  \nVoting Instructions means an email issued by the Returning Officer that provides for electronic \nvoting by means of a secure system which ensures each Elector is only able to cast one vote  \n  \nMassey University Council Appointments and Election Statute  \n \n Approv al: Council – 6 March 2025    Page 12 of 13  \n  Appendix 2 - Massey University Council Election Rules  \n1. This Appendix sets out the Massey University Council Election Rules with which each Candidate \nmust comply.  The defined terms in these Massey University Council Election Rules have the \nsame meaning as they are defined in the Council Appointments and Elections Statute [2024].  \n2. The Returning Officer may amend these Massey University Council Election Rules from time to \ntime, by Publishing the amended Massey University Council Election Rules.  \nOfficial Profile Statement  \n3. As part of their nomination, each Candidate must submit to the Returning Officer a factual and \naccurate written statement ( Official Profile Statement ) of no more than 200 words that \ncontains:  \n(a) the information that the Returning Officer has prescribed in the Nomination Form; and  \n(b) a passport -like photo of the Candidate.  \n4. For the avoidance of doubt, professional designations, pepeha and other cultural introductions \nare not included in the 200 word count of the Official Profile Statement.1  \n5. If the Candidate's nomination is accepted, the Returning Officer will Publish the Candidate's \nOfficial Profile Statement during the Election Process.  \n6. The University is not responsible or liable for Publishing an Official Profile Statement that \nincludes any inaccuracies or omissions.   \nConduct during an Election Process  \n7. At all times when campaigning, each Candidate (and person campaigning on behalf of the \nCandidate) must comply with their obligations as a student or staff member at Massey \nUniversity, including complying with the applicable Code of Conduct, all policies, r ules, statutes \nand procedures of the University and the relevant laws of New Zealand.  \n8. Candidates (and those campaigning on behalf of a Candidate) must comply with any directions \nof the Returning Officer in relation to campaign conduct and campaign material issued at any \ntime before or during an Election.  \n9. Each Candidate must not:  \n(a) use undue influence to get a voter to vote or to abstain from voting;  \n(b) publish, distribute, broadcast or exhibit (or have anyone publish, distribute or exhibit) a \nstatement of fact that a Candidate knows is false in any material way.  \n \n1 Candidates are supported to introduce themselves in ways and languages that are culturally affirming to \nthem. Candidates are to use good judgement regarding word length of introductions and take care not to \nrepeat or overlap content included in the ir core Official Profile Statement.  \nMassey University Council Appointments and Election Statute  \n \n Approv al: Council – 6 March 2025    Page 13 of 13  \n  10. Any behaviour  by a Candidate during an Election Process that breaches these Massey University \nElection Rules may be dealt with in accordance with the Council Appointments and Elections \nStatute [2024], the relevant Code of Conduct, policy, rule, or procedures of the University.  \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "No_and_Low_Enrolments_Procedures_PDF_136_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "No and Low Enrolments Procedures",
      "policy_type": "Procedure",
      "file_size": "136 KB",
      "creation_date": "2023-07-28T14:01:02",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220102833+13'00'"
    },
    "content": "    \n Massey University Policy Guide  \n \nNO AND LOW ENROLMENTS P ROCEDURES  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \nPurpose :  \nThese procedures are designed to assist in the management of the Massey University qualification portfolio (the \n‘academic profile’)  to identify  and actively  manage  qualifications,  specialisations  and courses  that receive  no \nenrolments or low enrolments. They must be read in conjunction with the No and Low Enrolment Policy.  \n \nThe No and Low Enrolment Procedures details the process for monitoring enrolments. Where enrolments fall \nbelow the approved thresholds, the Procedures also provide actions to be followed by the relevant College to \nactively manage the qualification, speciali sation, or course with the purpose of either increasing enrolments by \nrevitalizing it or where appropriate, closing it.  \n \nIn the context of our Te Tiriti o Waitangi commitments, programmes (qualifications, specialisations, and courses) \nof significance for Māori will be carefully considered regarding the application of both this  policy  and the \naccompanying procedures . \n \nDoctoral -level qualifications and Transnational Education (TNE) partnership arrangements are out of scope of the \nNo and Low Enrolment Policy.  \n \nProcedures:  \n1. Tracking and Monitoring No Enrolments and Low Enrolments  \nThe current EFTS in all qualifications, specialisations, courses and course offerings and the status of those \nofferings relative to the No and Low Enrolment criteria wi ll be maintained and made available in No and Low \nEnrolment business intelligence (BI) reports. This information is updated on an ongoing basis and should be \nmonitored routinely within colleges as part of the management of the academic profile.  \n \nColleges, as hosts of qualifications, specialisations, courses, and course offerings and have primary responsibility \nfor monitoring and managing their enrolment numbers in conjunction with the Academic Resource Planning Working \nGroup (ARPWG) of the Senior Leadership Team (SLT) and the Academic Committee, a subcommittee of the \nAcademic Board.  \n \n2. Management of No and Low Enrolments  \nA College -level report (based on the last academic year) indicating the status of all qualifications, specialisations, \ncourses, an d course offerings against LE thresholds will be provided to Colleges in February. The report will be \ncompleted by each College by indicating the proposed outcomes for any No or Low Enrolment qualifications, Section  Academic  \nContact  Provost  \nLast Review  June 2023  \nNext Review  June 202 6 \nApproval  SLT 23/07/69  \nEffective Date  June 2023  \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nNo and Low Enrolments P rocedures  – Page 2 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  specialisations, courses, and course offerings a nd will be submitted for review and for consideration of any \nrequests for retention or continuation under the criteria for exceptions (see section 3).  \n \nOutcomes reported to the SLT (ARPWG) SLT must be actioned within a maximum of six months such that the \nimplications of any changes to qualifications, specialisations, courses, and course offerings can be made available \nto students prior to the period of enrolment for the next academic year. The College will follow up with the CUAP \ndeletion process for any q ualifications and specialisations and the University process for courses and course \noffering closures and deletions during this six -month period.  \n \n3. Justification of Exceptions to the Low Enrolment (LE) thresholds  \nIf a college  wishes to continue to retain a qualification, specialisation and/or course that does meet the LE not \nthreshold, the following are required in the report to SLT:  \n• an analysis of the reason(s) for low enrolment and possible reasons.  \n• a convincing justificati on for continuing to teach and advertise based on the following criteria that \nindicates strategic and academic importance:  \n- identified as a unique and strategically essential qualification, specialisation,  or course . \n- This must include a strong rationale and a demonstrated college -level plan and resourcing \nwhich includes the source of any cross -subsidy.  \n- where the qualification, specialisation or course  will by supported by external partnership(s).  \n- This must provide a description of the extent and the duration of partnership support.  \n- Te Tiriti o Waitangi commitments.  \n- In the context of our Te Tiriti o Waitangi commitments, programmes (qualifications, \nspecialisations,  or courses) of significance for Māori will be carefully considered regard ing the \napplication of these procedures.  \n• for new and existing qualifications, specialisations and/or courses, the College must demonstrate that it \nhas actively sought to attract students; and if the circumstances for no or low enrolments are deemed to \nbe out of the College’s control, the College should anticipate whether these circumstances are likely to \nchange and determine if continuation of the qualification, speciali sation and/or course can be justified.  \nThe SLT and/or the ARPWG may decline the applica tion for continuation.  \nIf a decision is made to not retain the qualification, specialisation and/or course, the CUAP or University closure and \ndeletion process will be initiated as appropriate for the entity.  \n \n4. Quick Guide  \nSemester One  Report on all No and Low Enrolment offerings provided to and completed by all \nColleges in February. Completed report submitted to ARPWG by mid -March.  \nSemester One  Review of all College LE reports by SLT (ARPWG) in March and April, to:  \n• consider all LE outcomes  \n• evaluate and provide decisions for all LE exceptions  \nSemester One and Two  Outcomes for all decisions regarding No and LE qualifications, specialisations \nand courses are undertaken according to appropriate CUAP or the University’s \nregular closure and deletion policy for the following academic year.  \nEnrolled students are notified of any implications of offering closures.  \nInformation regarding any changes is av ailable prior to the opening of  enrolments \nfor the next academic year.  \n \n \n \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nNo and Low Enrolments P rocedures  – Page 3 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  No and Low Enrolments  \n \nThreshold definitions  \nUndergraduate  Low enrolments are under the threshold stated below  \nCourse  7.5 EFTS per offering (100 -level)  \n5.0 EFTS per offering (200 -level)  \n2.5 EFTS per offering (300 -level and higher)  \nSpecialisation at undergraduate level per \nlocation  30 EFTs per academic year  \nQualification  Overall University EFTS, not College -based EFTS and excludes \nthose that are only used as exit qualifications  \nSub-degree  20 EFTS per academic year  \nUndergraduate Certificate  20 EFTS per academic year  \nUndergraduate Diploma  20 EFTS per academic year  \nBachelor’s Degree 3 years  50 EFTS per academic year  \nBachelor’s Degree with Honours 4 years  65 EFTS per academic year  \nBachelor’s Degree 5 years  80 EFTS per academic year  \nGraduate Certificate  20 EFTS per academic year  \nGraduate Diplomas  20 EFTS per academic year  \nNested Undergraduate Diploma and \nBachelor’s degree  60 EFTS per academic year  \n \nPostgraduate  Low enrolments are under the threshold stated below  \nCourse  2.5 EFTS per course offering (700 - and 800 -level)  \nSpecialisation  5 EFTS per academic year  \nQualification  Overall University EFTS, not College -based EFTS and excludes \nthose that are only used as exit qualifications  \nBachelor’s Degree (Hons)  15 EFTS per academic year  \nPostgraduate Certificate  15 EFTS per academic year  \nPostgraduate Diploma  15 EFTS per academic year  \nMaster’s Degree  15 EFTS per academic year  \nNested Postgraduate Diploma and Master’s \ndegree  20 EFTS per academic year  \nThose qualifications with unique courses cannot be included as \nnested qualifications.  \nNormally, no more than two nested qualifications can be combined at \nthe postgraduate level when assuming a combined total of EFTS \nfrom both qualifications.  \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nNo and Low Enrolments P rocedures  – Page 4 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  Audience : \nAll staff.  \nRelevant legislation : \nEducation and Training Act 2020 – Section 443  (2) \nRelat ed procedures / documents : \nMassey University Qualifications Framework  \nMassey University Qualifications Policy  \nMassey University Qualifications Review Policy  \nQualification Review Procedures  \nTransition Pro cedures  \nDocument Management Control:  \nPrepared by:  Office of the Provost  \nAuthorised by:  Provost  \nApproved by:  SLT 23/07/69.  \nDate issued:  June 2023    \nLast review:  June 2023  \nNext review:  June 2025  \n \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Naming_of_Buildings_Policy_PDF_280_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Naming of Buildings Policy",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "280 KB",
      "author": "jmlochhe",
      "creation_date": "2018-03-27T10:04:09",
      "modification_date": "D:20230726100057+12'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n Massey University Policy Guide  \n \nNAM ING OF BUILDINGS POL ICY \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \nPurpose:  \n \nThe purpose  of this policy  is to provide  a clear  framework  for the naming  and identification of University \nBuildings on all Massey  University  Campuses, or associated  with the Massey  University brand.  \nBackground:  \n \nUniversity  policies  and practices  relating  to the naming and identification of buildings,  facilities  and spaces  \nhave  evolved  over time.  Generally  there  is a preference  for a building  name  to remain  in place  over the \nbuilding  life and  that the building name builds  upon  the history  of Massey  University.  Particular care  \nneeds  to be exercised  when  it is propose d that a facility  be named  after a person or organisation.  Such \ncare includes the consideration of the contribution made by the person to the University including their \nacademic , professional,  or other  standing.  \nPolicy:  \n \n1) Decisions about naming University B uildings  after a person or organisation will be made by the \nUniversity Council. Other decisions  about naming  of University Buildings will  be made  by the \nUniversity’s  Senior Leadership Team (SLT) . Decisions for signage not relating to a building name, \nfor example directional signage or the labelling of a building with an existing name, will be made by \nAssistant Vice Chancellor Operations, International and University Registrar.  Proposals  to name  \nstudent - managed areas or student -affiliated club,  associatio n, and activity  areas  must be \napproved by SLT.  \n \n2) Recommendations  relating  to the naming  of University Buildings  may be made  by any individual  or \norganisation  and will be submitted  in the first instance  to the National  Facilities Director , who will then \nconsult  with the Deputy Registrar Operations Operations  and the AVC Operations, International and \nUniversity  Registrar.  A paper  will then be prepared  for approval by the appropriate body.  \n \n3) Names  for University  Buildings should be select ed using the following naming conventions. It is \npreferred that  building  names  reflect the history  or geographic locations of Massey  University.  \n \na) Eminent  Person’s  Name  \ni) A person’s  name  may be used  where  that person  is of academic  eminence  and has made  Section  Facilities  Management  \nContact  National Facilities Manager  \nLast Review  March 2018  \nNext Review  March 2023  \nApproval  C15/122 – December: 4.1.1  \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nNaming of Buildings Policy  – Page 2 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  an outstanding  contribution  to his or her field of study,  and/or  that person  or organisation  \nhas made an outstanding  contribution  to the development  of the relevant  School,  \nDepartment,  College  or the University  overall.  \n(i) Generally, a building  should  not be named  after a living  person.  \n(ii) A proposal to name  after a person shall be accompanied by a comprehensive  citation.  \n \nb) Benefactor’s  Name (Person,  Organisation  or Company)  \ni) A person, organisation or company name may be used where  a substantial benefaction  has \nbeen  made to Massey University by that person,  organisation or company.  \nii) Naming shall be given for a fixed time period,  determined by written  agreement with the \nbenefactor,  after which  time the name may be changed.  \niii) Naming may be changed if the benefactors  name falls into disrepute.  \n \nc) Maori Name  \ni) Any new building may be given a Maori name as its primary name.  Existing buildings may  \nhave Maori names in addition to their English name.  Naming should align with Massey \nUniversity's Māori Language Policy - Matua Reo Kaupap a \nd) Geographic  or Abstract  Name  \ni) A geographic  or abstract  name may be used  by agreement with the SLT. For example “The \nQuad  Block” or “Totara Hall”.  \n \ne) Functional Name  \ni) The use of functional  names for major buildings  should be avoided as functions  can change \nover time.  \nii) Common facilities  can retain functional  names but should be supported by a location  reference \nto avoid  confusion across campuses. For example  libraries  and recreation  centres.  \niii) Smaller  buildings, spaces  or farm buildings,  housing general functions m ay be referred  to by \nfunctional  names. For example, Dairy No.1 or Anatomy Laboratory.  \n \n4) A building  named  after a person  or organisation  may include  an appended  functional  appellation  where  \nthis would  serve  to clarify  the location  of the building  or assist  in identification.  For example,  The Sir \nNeil Waters  Lecture  Theatre.  \n \n5) Every  building  shall have  one primary  name  to be use in all formal  documentation  and information  \nsystems.  The name  should  be in English  or Maori.  A secondary  name  may be retained  for \nhistorical  continuity,  but should  not be used  in formal  documentation.  \n \n6) The names  of buildings  should,  be retained  for the life of the building,  to retain  continuity  of history,  \ndocuments,  and information  databases.  In particular,  where  a building  is named  after a person  the name  \nof that building  should  not generally  change  in the event  that there  is a change  in the School,  \nDepartment,  Institute  or College  occupying  the building.  \n \n7) In the event  of a proposal  to re-name  an existing  building,  the name  need  not necessarily  reflect  or \nbe consistent  with the current  function  of the building.  \n \n8) If an existing  building  is renamed  the staff resident  in that building  should  be consulted and  informed  in \nadvance  of the name  change.  \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nNaming of Buildings Policy  – Page 3 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n9) All University  buildings,  whilst  referred  to by name,  will retain  the building  number  assigned  at \ncommissioning  for the life of the building.  The building  number  will remain  the reference  for \nadministrative  management  of all campus  facilities  and infrastructures.  \n \nDefinitions  \n \nUniversity  Building : any building,  facility,  section  of land or space  and the like over which  the University  \nmay secure  naming  rights,  whether  located  on Massey  University  property  or associated  with the Massey  \nUniversity  brand.  \nBuilding  Number : a unique  identifier  assigned  to the University  Building  at commissioning  for database  \nreference  purposes.  \nPrimary  name : the formally  approved  name  of the University  Building.  \nSecondary  name : an informal  or superseded  name,  for example  following  a re-naming,  or to denote  a \nbuilding’s  function.  \nAudience:  \n \nAll staff,  students  and external  stakeholders.  \nRelevant Legislation:  \n \nNone.  \nRelated  Procedures:  \n \nMassey University Māori Language Policy - Matua Reo Kaupapa  \nDocument Management and  Control:  \n \nPrepared  by: Facilities Management  \nAuthorised  by: Assistant  Vice-Chancellor,  Operations, International and University Registrar   \nDate  issued:  15 March  2006  \nLast review:  March 2018  \nNext review March 2023  \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Posting_of_Notices_and_Display_of_Banners_and_Other_Materials_on_Campus_Procedure_PDF_135_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Posting of Notices and Display of Banners and Other Materials on Campus",
      "policy_type": "Procedure",
      "file_size": "135 KB",
      "creation_date": "2019-11-06T11:04:05",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220102644+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " Massey University Policy Guide \n \nPROCEDURES FOR POSTING OF NOTICES AND DISPLAY OF BANNERS AND  \nOTHER MATERIALS ON C AMPUS   \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n \n \n  \n  \n \n \nProcedure:   \n• Any groups posting notices or displaying banners and other materials are responsible for ensuring the \nmaterial is legitimately posted/displayed. Where doubt exists Campus Operations  Manager  (or delegate) shall \nbe asked to make a ruling. This decision may be appealed t o the Deputy Registrar  Operations . \n \n• The University reserves the right to take any appropriate action including the removal of any materials in the \nevent of a suspected or proven breach of these procedures.  \n \n• Surfaces other than designated notice boards are not to be used for notices. Inappropriately located notices \nor banners will be removed. The cost of repairing any damage to the surface may be charged to the person \nwho posted the notice.  \n \n• Should cam pus groups wish to establish notice boards, application should be made to the Campus  \nOperations  Manager and will set out the purpose and proposed location of the notice board, and who is \nexpected to fund the construction.  \n Section  Campus  Management, Campus \nOperations  \nContact Office of the Deputy Registrar  \nOperations  \nLast Review  June 2019  \nNext Review  June 2022  \nApproval  SLT 15/09/175  \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Policy_on_Student_Engagement_in_the_Assurance_and_Enhancement_of_Teaching_and_Learning_PDF_317_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Policy on Student Engagement in the Assurance and Enhancement of Teaching and Learning PDF 317 KB",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "317 KB",
      "author": "mamacken",
      "creation_date": "2019-05-13T10:01:04",
      "modification_date": "D:20190513101450+12'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n  \n \n \n \n  \nPurpose  \nTo enhance the quality of the student learning experience at Massey University by ensuring students have the \nopportunity to inform University decision -making and provide feedback in support of quality assurance and enhancement  \nof teaching and learning .   \nPolicy  \nThe University is committed to providing students with the opportunity to be involved, formally and informally, in student \nengagement a ctivities at all levels of the institution. This commitment is demonstrated through:  \n• facilitating conversations about quality assurance and improvement via, for example, teaching and service \nevaluations, student surveys, class /qualification  representative s and student participation on review panels;  \n• pursuing opportunities for staff and students to share their understanding of the learning environment, especially in \nareas most likely to impact student learning via , for example,  evaluations of new initiativ es, conducting focus groups \non key topics, ensuring survey results are reported back to students with appropriate commentary;   \n• creating an environment where effective solutions can be identified for challenging issues via , for example,  student \nrepresentat ion on key academic and governance boards/committees, regular and direct communication with \nStudents Associations’;  \n• providing resources that describe processes and pathways for student participation in decision making via , for \nexample,  student representat ion on committees, procedures for teaching evaluation; and  \n• ensuring that the outcomes of student engagement processes inform improvement priorities and their \nimplementation on an ongoing basis by recording actions and assigning responsibilities for their completion.    \n  \nAnd supported by:  \n  \n• A range of transparent systems and processes that encourage student involvement, engage students in feedback \nprocesses, and inform improvements to the learning experience; e.g., providing feedback to students on evaluation \nfindings, promoting student parti cipation on governance boards and committees  \n \n \n \n \n \n Section  Academic   \nContact  Office of Academic Assurance   \nLast Review  February 2019  \nNext Review  February 2021  \nApproval  AB19/02/16  \n  \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n  \n  \nPOLICY ON STUDENT ENGAGEMENT IN THE ASSURANCE AND  \nENHANCEMENT OF TEACHING AND LEARNING  \n\n \n  \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nPolicy on Student Engagement in the Assurance and \nEnhancement of Teaching and Learning – Page 2  \n  \n \nAudience:  \nAll staff and students.  \nRelevant Legislation:  \nNone  \nLegal Compliance :  \nNone.  \nRelated Procedures/Documents:  \n• University - Tā te Tauira Kirimana Student Contract  \n• Kaupapa Here Aratohu Student Code of Conduct   \n• Research Codes of Conduct   \n• Procedures Relating to the Use of the Massey Online Survey Tool (MOST)   \n• Learning and Teaching Strategy   \n• Student Academic Integrity Policy and Procedures   \n• Class /Qualification  Representatives Guidelines  \n \nDocument Management Control:  \nPrepared by:     Office of Academic Assurance  \nAuthorised by:    Academic Board  \nDate issued:      pre October 2010  \nApproval:    AB19/02/16  \nLast Review:    February 2019   \nNext Review:    \n  \n \n \n  February 2021  \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n\n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Policy_on_Memorials_PDF_192_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Policy on Memorials",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "192 KB",
      "creation_date": "2018-03-27T11:00:01",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220102726+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n Massey University Policy Guide  \n \nPOLICY ON MEMORI ALS  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \n \nPurpose :  \nThis poli cy has been developed to ensure that standard procedures are followed by all requesting individuals or \norganisations  of memorials,  consistently  across all campuses.  \n \nThis policy may also be referred to for guidance on other memorial s and monuments that may  be placed on campus \nto recognise events of significance to the campus community.   \n \nPolicy : \n \nThe University receives many requests for  memorials to individuals or groups associated with Massey University  \nincluding memorial trees, street furniture and plaq ues attached to rocks and other objects.  In addition, there are \nrequests to scatter ashes on campus.  \n \n It is not policy for ashes to be scattered or inter ned on ca mpus. It is also not policy for  any human  or non -human  \nremains or afterbi rths to be buried on  campus.  \nIf considered appropriate, for the campus, the campus will establish one or more memorial places where plaques \ncould be placed and where people could safely spend time in quiet reflection.  \n \n People wanting to establish a memorial will be encouraged  to utilize these spaces in the first instance.  \n \n Whilst respecting the wishes of the family in terms of text on plaques, the University retains the right to request \nchanges to any proposed text on plaques.  \n \n Requests for Memorial s should be made through the  respective  Campus Operations Manager  of the relevant  \nCampus.  The Campus Operations Manager  will consult with Facilities Management when considering memorials \nfor any individual with a significant connection to Massey University, including students, alumni, current and \nretired staff  \n \n Facilities Management will provide advice on the suitability of a location for a memorial and will work with the \nCampus Operations Manager  to establish a sui table site(s) for memorial plaques, should that be desirable for the \nCampus.  The Campus Operations Manager , in collaboration with Facilities Management, will manage requests \nfor gifts of memorial  tree plantings on campus.  The following conditions apply to the acceptance of a gift to plant \na tree , a plaque  or a donation of street furniture.  \n \n The donor will provide the tree or street furniture and the plaque.  Section  Campus Facilities  \nContact  Office of AVC O perations, International  & \nUniversity Registrar  \nLast Review  March 2018  \nNext Review  March 2023 \nApproval  SLT 14/11/294  \nEffective date  November 2014  \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nPolicy on Memorials  – Page 2 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n Should the memorial be in the form of a tree, then Facilities Management staff w ill help the donor select an \nappropriate species and an appropriate location for the tree  or assist with the selection of appropriate street \nfurniture and setting . \n \n Should a non -standard plaque be provided, then Facilities Management staff must approve the  material,  and size \nof the plaque.  However, w here possible, a standard , plaque will be used.  \n \n The donor will be responsible for costs associated with installation of the plaque and the survey of the location of \nthe memorial tree  or street furniture.  If the memorial is not in an identified memorial space : \n \no Facilities Management will survey the location of the tree or furniture and record it on the Memorial s \nRegister held by the Deputy Regis trar Operations, and published on the Memorial s website.   For \nmemorial trees, the register  will record  the tree variety, location planted, date planted and the person \nmemorialised.  \n \n If a memorial tree is requested in a space other than a memorial sp ace, the  tree should  not be planted on sites \nidentified as new building sites in the current Campus Development Plan.  If, however, a tree planted under the \nterms of this policy is subsequently removed due to construction of any type, the tree or a replacement tree, and \nplaque will be relocated as a normal cost of grounds maintenance.  \n \n Of note is that whilst all care is taken, the University cannot guarantee the perpetuation of any specific  tree.  If a \ntree dies or requires relocation, Facilities Management will manage the replacement of the tree and the \nassociated relocation of the plaque.  The details  of the date of the replacement, the species of tree, and its \nlocation will be recorded in the Register.  The donor need only be advised of the new location and replacement \naction if changed, when appropriate.  \n \n A virtual memorial site will be established t o complement the physical memorial sites on campuses. New \nmemorials will also be recorded on this site.  \n \n Any biographical material of people with strong Massey University links acquired at the tim e of the memorial \nestablishment  will be provided to archive s. \nAudience:  \nAll staff  \nRelevant Legislation:  \nNone  \nRelated Procedures:  \nProcedure to posting of notices and display of banners and other materials on campus.  \nDocument Management Control : \nPrepared by:  Office of the AVC OI & UR  \nOwned by:   AVC OI & UR  \nAuthorised by : SLT 14/11/294  \nDate issued:  March 200 7  \nLast review:  November 2014  \nNext review:  November 2017  \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Performance_and_Development_Planning_Policy_PDF_92_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Performance and Development Planning Policy",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "92 KB",
      "creation_date": "2022-11-22T09:03:06",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220102805+13'00'"
    },
    "content": "Massey  University  Policy  Guide  \n© This Policy  is the property  of Massey  University   \n  \n \n \n \n \n \nSection  People  & Culture  \nContact  People  & Culture  \nLast Review  October  2022 \nNext  Review  October  2025 \nApproval  SLT 15/11/239  \n \nPurpose:  \n \nTo provide  a performance  and development  planning  process  that aims:  \n• To help individual staff members to review and improve the performance of their duties and to identify career \nand professional development opportunities; and  \n• To align  individual  performance  contributions  to the overall  goals  and objectives  of the University;  and \n• To provide managers and staff members with a clear understanding of the objectives that have been agreed \nfor the following year; and  \n• To ensure  appropriate  development,  training  and/or  support  is provided  to assist  continuous  improvement.  \n \nPolicy:  \n \nAll Massey University staff members employed for more than 12 months duration are required to fully participate in  \nthe Performance and Development Planning cycle, as set out in the Performance and Development Planning and \nReview Procedures.  Annual participation in the process is compulsory and the mutual responsibility of the manager \nand staff member. Managers have a responsibility to  schedule and facilitate meaningful conversations about \nperformance and development, with staff that report to them.  \n \nTo support the PDP process, managers will annually report the number and percentage of PDP’s completed to their \nrelevant Senior Leadership  Team (SLT) member.  \n \nAudience:  \n \n• All University  Managers  and Supervisors  \n• All University  staff who have  an employment  agreement  of 12 months  or more  duration.  \n \nRelevant  legislation:  \n \nState Sector Act 1988 \nEmployment  Relations  Act 2000  \n \nLegal compliance:  \n \nRefer Section 5.1 of the Massey University Collective Employment Agreement (MUCEA) and Section 5.1 of the \nMassey University Individual Employment Agreement (MUIEA)  \n \nRelated  procedures  / documents:  \nPerformance  and Development  Planning  and Review  Procedures  \nThe Massey  University  Collective  and Individual  Employm ent Agreements  \nManager and Staff Development Policy   \nPERFORMANCE  AND  DEVELOPMENT  PLANNING  POLICY  \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide \nPerformance  and Development  Planning  Policy  – Page  2 \n© This Policy  is the property  of Massey  University   \n  \n \n \nDocument  Management  Control:  \nPrepared  by: Employment  Relations  Advisor  \nAuthorised  by: Deputy Vice-Chancellor – University Services  \nApproved  by: SLT 15/11/239  \nDate issued: August 2003  \nLast review:  October  2022  \nNew review:  October  2025 \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Occupational_Vaccinations_Procedure_PDF_146_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Occupational Vaccinations Procedure PDF 146 KB",
      "policy_type": "Procedure",
      "file_size": "146 KB",
      "author": "Banner, Jodie",
      "creation_date": "2024-06-12T09:05:00",
      "modification_date": "D:20240612095001+12'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n \n \n \n \n   \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n \n ENTER PROCEDURE  \n \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n  OCCUPATIONAL VACCINATIONS PROCEDURE   \n \nSection  University Services  \nContact  Director  Occupational Health & Safety, Wellbeing  \nLast Review  June 2023  \nNext Review  June 2025  \nApproval  Director Occupational Health & Safety, Wellbeing  \n \n \nPurpose:  \n \nThis document outlines the procedure to ensure a safe workplace  is provided for staff whose work \nactivities include potential exposure to occupational infections where effective immuni sation vaccines \nare available.  \n \n \nScope : \n \nAll staff.  \n \n \nProcedure:  \nPotential exposure : \nA suitable risk assessment must be conducted to identify areas of risk where vaccination may be \nrequired, or highly recommended.  \nThe potential for exposure to biological pathogens associated with the work task/environment is to be \nclearly identified in the hazard/risk register.  \nWhere a risk assessment identifies vaccination as a preferred control in relation to the person’s \nposition, this will be recorded in the job description.  \n \nVaccination requirements : \nWhere effective immunisation vaccinations are available for potential high risk work -related biological \npathogen exposure, these will be required before the commencement of work and will be stipulated in \nthe job description.  \nIn other identified areas of risk appropriate vaccinations may be offered as a reasonably practical step \nunder the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015.  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nOccupational Vaccinations Procedure  – Page 2 \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University    \nNew biological pathogens requiring vaccination will be managed according to the Ministry of Health \nguidelines, and a suitable risk assessment conducted to identify areas of high risk where vaccination \nmay be required, or highly recommended.  \n \nInstruction : \nWhere biological pathogen exposure risks are identified, workers will be advised of the following:  \n• Description of the hazard/risk.  \n• Method of transmission.  \n• Controls to prevent transmission.  \n• Specifics of immunisation vaccination including effectiveness, side effects, and vaccination \nprocedure.  \n• Process of consent.  \n• Privacy and holding of records.  \n• Options for individuals who choose not to be vaccinated or cannot be immunised.  \n \nEmployee consent : \nIndividuals are not obliged to accept the University’s offer of vaccination. Where an employee chooses \nnot to have the vaccination, an alternative hazard/risk exposure assessment with control methods must \nbe undertaken to minimise the risk of exposure.  \nA completed consent form is required prior to any vaccination funded by the University.  \n \nImmunisation status records : \nRelevant records of vaccination and immunisation status must be maintained on the Employee’s \noccupational health file.  \n \nCost of vaccination : \nCosts associated with vaccinations required under this policy for staff will be borne by the University.  \n \n \nRelated documents :  \nLegislation  \n• Health and Safety Act 2015  \n \nChecklists  \n• Occupat ional Exposure Risk Assessment  \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nOccupational Vaccinations Procedure  – Page 3 \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University    \n \nAppendix : Te Whatu Ora Immunisation Handbook (2024)  \nRecommended vaccines, by occupational group  \nOccupation  Recommended vaccines  \nWorkers in health care settings  \nHealth care staff who work with patients or are working in clinical areas \nwhere patient care is being administered  e.g.  \nmedical staff, nursing staff, other health professional staff and \nstudents, health care assistants and allied staff in health care settings, \nsuch as cleaning and catering staff  Tdap – at least every 10 years  \nMMR  \nVaricella  \nHepatitis B  \nInfluenza, annually  \nCOVID -19 \nIndividuals who work with children  \nEarly childhood education services staff  Tdap – at least every 10 years  \nIPV \nMMR  \nVaricella  \nHepatitis A  \nHepatitis B  \nInfluenza, annually  \nCOVID -19 \nOther individuals working with children, including:  \n• school teachers (including student teachers)  \n• outside school hours carers  \n• child counselling services workers  \n• youth services workers  Tdap – at least every 10 years  \nIPV \nMMR  \nVaricella  \nInfluenza, annually  \nCOVID -19 \nIndividuals who work with animals  \nVeterinarians, veterinary students,  and veterinary nurses  Tdap  \nIPV \nMMR  \nInfluenza, annually  \nZoo staff who work with primates  Tdap  \nIPV \nMMR  \nHepatitis A  \nInfluenza, annually  \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nOccupational Vaccinations Procedure  – Page 4 \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University    \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n Recommended vaccines, by occupational group  \nOccupation  Recommended vaccines  \n  \nIndividuals exposed to human tissue, blood, body fluids or sewage  (depending on exposure)  \nLaboratory staff  Tdap  \nMMR  \nVaricella  \nHepatitis A (if exposed to faeces)  \nHepatitis B  \nInfluenza, annually  \nMenACWY and MenB (if regularly \nworking with  Neisseria \nmeningitidis  cultures)  \nIPV (10-yearly booster doses if handling \nfaecal samples from those coming from \nhigh-risk countries)  \nCOVID -19 \nPlumbers or other workers in regular contact with untreated sewage  Tdap  \nIPV \nMMR  \nHepatitis A  \nHepatitis B  \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Posting_of_Notices_and_Display_of_Banners_and_Other_Materials_on_Campus_Policy_PDF_98_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Posting of Notices and Display of Banners and Other Materials on Campus Policy",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "98 KB",
      "creation_date": "2019-11-08T08:03:05",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220102658+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " Massey University Policy Guide  \n \nPOSTING OF NOTICES AND DISPLAY OF BANNERS AND  \nOTHER MATERIALS ON C AMPUS  POLICY  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \n \nPurpose :  \nTo ensure that all notices, banners and other material displayed on campus does not contravene the requirements of \nthe University’s Statutes, Regulations and Charter or Legislation.  \nPolicy : \nMassey University recognises that posting of notices and displaying of banners is an important means of \ncommunic ation on campus.  The University also has an obligation to ensure that such material is not offensive and  \nwishes to preserve the attractiveness of its campuses by minimising haphazard placement of banners and posters.  \nDefinitions : \nThe key aspects associated with posting notices/erecting banners  \n \n• Notices, banners or other materials displayed may not be offensive1, defamatory2 or illegal, or in contravention \nof the statutes, regulations and charter of the University.  Larger notices may require Resou rce Management \nAct related approvals.  \n \n• Surfaces not intended for the posting of notices are not to be used . \n \n• Appropriate authorisation is required to post notices on notice boards with designated owners.  \n \n• Notice boards may be allocated to various groups on  campus by agreement with the Campus Operations \nManager . \n \n• General notice boards are available to any member of the campus community.  \nAudience : \nAll staff and students  \n                                                 \n1 hurtful, derogatory or obscene comments  \n2 For the purpose of this policy the term defamatory describes something that could be injurious to a person’s reputation or business  Section  Campus  Management, Campus \nOperations  \nContact  Office of the Deputy Registrar \nOperations  \nLast Review  June 2019  \nNext Review  June 2022  \nApproval  SLT 15/09/175  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nPosting of Notices and Display of Banners and  \nOther Materials on Campus Policy  – Page 2 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nRelevant Legislation : \nResource Management Act 1991  \n \nLegal Compliance : \n \nNone  \nRelated Procedures:  \nProcedures for Posting of Notices and Display of Banners and Other Materials on Campus  \nDocument management and control:  \nPrepared by:  Campus Operations Managers : (Auckland , Palmerston North & Wellington)   \nOwned by: DVC  Operations  \nDate Issued: 16 July 2003  \nLast reviewed: June 2019  \nNext review:  June 2022  \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Occupational_Health_and_Safety_Management_Framework.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Occupational Health and Safety Management Framework",
      "policy_type": "Framework",
      "file_size": null,
      "author": "Banner, Jodie",
      "creation_date": "2024-03-20T14:00:05",
      "modification_date": "D:20240320140558+13'00'"
    },
    "content": "Page 1 of 7  \n  \n \n \n \n \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nPurpose : \nThe purpose  of this document  is to outline  the occupational health & safety management  framework  at \nMassey University  that drives and ensure s a compliant, systematic, consistent,  and effective  approach  to \nmanaging  occupational health  and safety  across  all University  operations and activities. The Occupational \nHealth and Safety  (OH&S) Management Framework contributes to the University’s overall management \nsystem, provides a platform for achieving our occupational health and safety governance, policy, strategic \nobjectives, and supports global improvement  practices and compliance with relevant legislation.  \n \nScope : \nThe underlying definition of safety implicit in this framework focuses on managing the capacity to work  \nsafely. This approach to safety puts emphasis on learning and growing the capability  to work safely rather \nthan an emphasis on the constraints necessary for  safety failure management. This requires growing \ncapacity for safe human and organizational performance.  \nThis document, and the framework that it describes, applies to all Massey University  activity  including its \noperations, ventures,  and enterprises. It applies to the way we manage occupational health and safety  \nrisk and includes psycho -social  harm . Wellbeing is guided by a separate Wellbeing Management (Hauora) \nFramework . \nThis OH&S Management Framework is an integrated system of organisation that works collaboratively \nwith the Student Health and Safety Management Framework.  \n \nPrinciples guiding the Occupational Health  and Safety  Management  Framework : \nMassey  University’s  OH&S Management Framework embraces tikanga o te Ao Māori and always seeks to \nweave this into the fabric of university hauora life. Our foundation in the development and implementation of \nthe OH&S management framework policies, standards, procedures,  and guidelines will the guided by Te \nTiriti o Waitangi and these four provisions.  \n \n1. Mahi Tahi (principle of active partnering)  \n2. Rite Tahi (principle of equity and equitable outcomes)  \n3. Kaitiakitanga (principle of active  care)  Section  University Services – Occupational Health, Safety and Wellbeing  \nContact  Director  Occupational Health  & Safety  and Wellbeing  \nLast Review  October  2023 \nNext  Review  September 2025 \n \nOCCUPATIONAL  HEALTH A ND SAFE TY MANAGEME NT FR AMEWORK  \n \n \n\nPage 2 of 7  \n 4. Whai Wāhi (principle of full participation)  \n \n \nExpression of what these principles mean in practice is indicated below in Table 1.  \n \nTable 1. Te Tiriti Principles in Response to Occupational Health and Safety.  \n \nPrinciples  Decision Making  Provisions  Outcomes  \nMahi Tahi  \n(Active \npartnering ) Active partnering \nwith Māori has \noccurred in key \ndecision -making \nprocesses . Māori involvement in \nprovisions that enhance \nquality of life (including \nat Massey) .  Positive and equitable \nhealth outcomes for \nMāori at Massey . \nRite Tahi  \n(Equity & \nequitable \noutcomes )  Decisions \nconsider potential \noutcomes for \nMāori, both \npositive & \nnegative . Access to appropriate \nservices, resources; \npolicies, procedures & \nprocesses are aligned . Māori health outcomes \nare advanced not \ndiminished . \nKaitiakitanga  \n(Active \nprotection ) The decision -\nmaking process \nreflects a level of \n‘active protection’ \n& ‘duty of care’ . Equitable level of Māori  \nhealth expertise on staff . Health protection \nfactors strengthened; \nhealth risk factors \nreduced & mitigated .  \nWhai \nWāhitanga  \n(Full \nparticipation ) Decisions account \nfor potential \nimpacts on Māori \nparticipation .  Ease of access to \nkaupapa Māori health \nexpertise & provision .   Quality of health & life \nis further enhanced .   \nIn addition to te Tiriti princip les, the following five (5) human and organisational performance principles1 are \nfundamental to all OH&S  decision making.  \n1. Error is normal – don’t be surprised when you encounter it.  \n2. Blame fixes nothing - and narrows the field of opportunity for improvement.  \n3. Learning and improvement are vital - learning is a deliberate  act and behavioural commitment . \n4. Systems drive outcomes - behaviour is influenced by context and shaped by systems.  \n5. Respon se to failure matters – what leaders d o counts .  \n \nOverview of Massey  University  Occupational Health  and Safety  Management  Framework : \n \nThe commitments made in the Occupational Health  & Safety , and Wellbeing Charter guide s the \nCouncil on the governance requirements of the OH &S Management Framework. The Occupational \nHealth & Safety, and Wellbeing Policy conveys the University’s commitment to OH&S  obligations and \nresponsibilities for all work undertaken for and by the University. Combined , the University Charter  \nand Policy sit at the pinnacle of how  we understand and a pproach OH&S . They  provide the underlying \nphilosophy that guides our  learning centric work and ensures that OH&S is adaptive, accessible , and \ncompliance compatible . Most of all it ensure s that people are  at the center  of everything we do.  \n \nWithin  the OH&S  management framework  there are fourteen standards to inform and learn what is \n \n1The 5 Principles of Human Performance: A Contemporary Update of the Building Blocks of Human Performance  for the New View of Safety; Todd Conklin - 2019 \nPage 3 of 7  \n required, procedures and guidelines to instruct how to achieve expectations and clear indication of \nwho does what. Additional  tools,  guide lines and instructions  may be managed  locally  and developed  \nin consultation  with those people who do the work  ensuring work er insight is always present . These \ntools may take the form of standard operating procedures (SOP), work instructions, safety plans \nand/or manuals.  \n \nDiagram 1  below  describes  how the various  components  of the OH&S management framework  are \narranged  and interact,  as well as an indication  of where  the components  are owned and managed  \nfrom.  \n \n \n \nDiagram 1: Massey University Occupational Health & Safety Management Framework  \n \n \n \n \nOverview of Standards :  \n \nCritical to the operational core of the OH&S  Management Framework is a partnering process with \nMassey people. Massey people2 includes students, staff, contractors, suppliers,  and the  wider  \nUniversity community.   \n \nEngaging and enabling the people partnering goal are three OH&S interconnected systems that work \ntogether to focus both on enterprise -wide risk and individual or specific activity risk.  \n \n1. Process Safety  – Targeted High potential risk activity controlled by formal procedures and \n \n2 As described in the Health, Safety and Wellbeing Policy purpose.   \n\nPage 4 of 7  \n processes.  \n2. Occupational Safety  – General and all of organisation workplace hazardous risk \nexposures and systems of management to eliminate or minimise risk of harm to people.  \n3. Occupational Health  – involves the prevention, monitoring,  and mitigations necessary in a \nworkplace for illness or harm, be it mental or physical in origin.  \n \nFinally, four integrated focus areas work together to guide a standardised approach, ensuring the \nfulfilment of a people partnering approach. There are 14 Standards in total.  \n \n1. Ako (to learn and teach)     6 Standards  \n2. Rangahau (to seek out, research)   2 Standards  \n3. Whakahaere (to influence action)   5 Standards  \n4. Te Urupare (response)    1 Standard  \n \nDiagram 2 indicates the overview of the Occupational Health & Safety Management Framework \nStandards.  \n \nDiagram 2: Massey University Occupational Health & Safety Management Framework Standards Overview  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n  \n\nPage 5 of 7  \n Occupational Health & Safety Management Framework Standards Intent : \n \n \nThe 14 Standards  are indicated below.  \n \nAKO (to teach and learn)  \n1   Leadership & \nCommitment  Manager s, workers , contractors and others at all levels of \nUniversity life demonstrate leadership and commitment to the \noccupational health and safety of all who can be impacted by \nour operations through the growth and nurturing of a people \npartnering culture that demonstr ates better care and asks \nbetter questions.  \n2   Organisation \nAccountability, \nResponsibility & \nAuthority  OH&S responsibilities and accountabilities are documented, \nunderstood and consistently applied.  \n3   Planning, Objectives \n& Targets  OH&S considerations are integrated into business processes \nusing systematic risk -based disciplines and approach with key \nperformance indicators established and regularly reported on . \n4   Compliance, \nDocuments & \nRecords \nManagement  Relevant compliance obligations, such as legal, regulatory, \ntertiary sector and organizational  commitments are \nunderstood, documented, monitored  and adhered to.  \n5   Competency , \nTraining & Behaviour  Employees, contractors, suppliers,  and others have the \nnecessary induction, information , training, and supervision to \nperform their role in a deliberate, safe and con scious manner.  \n6   Participation, \nCommunication, \nConsultation & \nEngagement  Worker insight, p articipation, c ommunication, consultation and \nengagement with all PCBU who share a duty of care and, \npeople stakeholders, are valued and involved in establishing a \nshared and partnering centric commitment to OH &S \nperformance improvement.   \n \n \n \n \nRANGAHAU (to seek out, research)  \n7   Performance, \nMeasurement  & Review  A full range of OH &S data is collected from all University \nactivity and assembled into interpretative and learning \ncentric reports for both operational and governance risk \nperformance considerations.  \n8   Audits, Inspections & \nManagement Reviews  OH&S assurance, inspection and management reviews \nregularly occur and determine alignment and performance \nagainst legal, regulatory, tertiary sector and organizational \ncommitments and obligations.  \n \n \n \n \nWHAKAHAERE (to influence action)  \nPage 6 of 7  \n 9   Hazard & Risk \nManagement, and \nManagement of Change  Hazards and risks associated with  University activities are \nidentified, assessed, controlled, and monitored for effectiveness \n– process safety controls and practices will be applied in high \npotential risk activities.  \n10 Contractors , Ventures  & \nSupplier  Overlapping \nDuties  Arrangements are in place to manage risks associated with the \nprocurement and activities of contractors and suppliers for goods \nand services. Where the University is the contracting PCBU and \nis working with other PCBU who share a duty of care to eliminate \nharm to workers and other persons, all PCBU will consult, co -\nordinate and co -operate on a ll matters of influence and control \nregarding the work.  \n11 Workplace  Preventative \n& Curative Care  All reasonably practicable steps are to be taken for the \npreventative and curative care needs of Massey people who \nengage with the university’s activities. This includes all \nnecessary support and processes to minimise the occurrence \nand impact of workplace physical and mental injury or illness.  \n12 Fleet , Plant & \nEquipment  Fleet, plant,  and equipment are to be regularly assessed as safe, \nsecure,  and effective  for use. This includes all stages of pre -\npurchase or hire, operational life and disposal.  \n13 Facilities  Design, \nConstructions, \nOperations, \nCommissioning and \nDecommissioning  Facilities are safe, secure, and efficient with OH &S risks \nidentified, assessed,  and controlled during the design, \nconstruction, operational life, and decommissioning stages.  \n \nTE URUPARE (response)  \n14 Incident & Emergency \nManagement   Incident and emergency situations are reported and managed \npromptly to eliminate or minimise further harmful impacts to \npeople. Deliberate learning through learning reviews and \ninvestigation is fundamental to improvements at both the \nsystems and behavioura l level of all university activity.  \n \nReview of Occupational  Health  and Safety  Management  Framework  \nIntegral to  delivering  a world  class  OH&S Management Framework  is regular and relevant checking \nand reviewing  processes . Management  review is  a learning  opportunity  to ensure  the OH&S \nManagement Framework  continues  to reflect  system s capability  and capacity , dynamic and trusted \nleadership,  effectively and efficiently  align s with other management systems, and fosters a culture \nof ‘better care’ and ‘better questions . \nA review  will be carried  out every  three  years  by the Director  Occupational Health & Safety,  and \nWellbeing,  with the involvement of members of the Senior Leadership Team and Massey University \nCouncil.  \nFindings and recommendations will be communicated to staff, and their Health and Safety \nrepresentatives.  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nPage 7 of 7  \n Relevant  Legislation:  \nHealth  and Safety  at Work  Act 2015,  and associated  regulations  \n \nRelated  Documents:  \nOccupational Health &  Safety,  and Wellbeing  Charter  \nOccupational Health &  Safety,  and Wellbeing  Policy  \nMassey University OHS Management Framework Standards  \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Password_Policy_PDF_112_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Password Policy",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "112 KB",
      "creation_date": "2023-04-06T12:05:06",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220102813+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " \nMassey University Password Polic y \n \nPASSWORD  POLICY  \n \n \n© This  Policy is the prop erty of Massey Uni versity   P a g e  | 1  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nPurpose : \n \nPasswords are the primary form of user authentication used to grant  access to  Massey ’s informatio n system s. To \nensure that passwords provide as much security as possible , they must be carefully created and used. Without strict \nusage guidelines , the potential exists that passwords will be created that are easy to break , thus allowing easie r illicit \naccess to Massey ’s informatio n systems,  and thereby compromising  the security of those systems.  \nKey success factors:  \n• Massey University’s network infrastructure and in formation systems  are pr otected from uncontrolled or \nunauthorised access which ma y result in intellectual property loss or data destruction .  \n• The availability of University systems and information is restricted to auth orised persons only . \nPolicy : \n \nThe Password Policy applies to all i nformation systems, information components , and all users working  on beha lf of \nthe University.  Users include sta ff and students (including , but not limited to  contractors , consultants and volunteers) . \n \nThe University will use passwords or p assphrases  (a sequ ence of words)  to prote ct user accounts, in order to \nmaintain the secu rity of  information.  To ensure passwords  provide as much security as possible , they must be \ncarefully created and used. Without strict usage guidelines , the potential exists that they will be easy to break , thus \nallowing easier illicit access to  Massey’s information systems,  and thereby compromising the security of those \nsystems.   Where this policy refers to passwords it equally applies to pas sphrases.  \n \nPolicy Stateme nts:  \n \n1. Passwords are to be individually owned and kept confidential .  The user will  not sha re their  password deta ils \nunder any circu mstances .  \n \n2. The user will not attempt to discover o r change  any other person’s password .  \n \n3. Passwords  must be constructed according to a minimu m set length (longer is better) and complexity \nrequir ements.  As such, pa sswords must : \n \n• be at least 10 characters in length  \n• contain  at least 2 numbers, punctuation or  special characters .  \n Section  Information Technology Servic es \nContact  Chief Information Officer  \nLast Review  February 2023  \nNext Review  February  2026 \nApproval  SLT 21/02/08  \n \n \nMassey University Password  Policy  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Masse y University    P a g e  | 2 4. The system will show staff the strength o f the password that they ha ve chosen .  \n \n5. Passwords wil l be changed fr om the init ial defaul t at the f irst p oint of use, and  at least every 90 days  thereafter.   \n \n6. The system will be enabled to remind and support staff to change  their password after 90 days . \n \n7. Passwords will no t be eas y to guess .  They will not :  \n \n• contain the words \"Massey \", \"password\" or any derivation  \n• contain birthdays, phone  numbers or other personal information  \n• use word or number patterns such as aaaabbbb, qwertyui, zyxwvuts, 12344321, etc .   \n \n8. The use of multi -factor authentication for systems  that represent a higher  risk is req uired.  This is especially \nvaluable for interne t-facing systems where the University cannot control the device being used  to access the \nsystem . \n \n9. Passw ord management is an individual responsibility .  Violations of  this policy may result in  consequ ences which \nmay i nclude but are not lim ited to, one or more of the following : \n \n• disciplinary action  \n• termination of employ ment; and/or  \n• legal action according to applicable laws and contractual agreements.  \n \nDefinitions : \nMulti -factor authentication is an authe ntication  method in which a user is gr anted access only after successfully \npresenting two or more pie ces of evidence (or factors) to an  authentication system . \nPassword is a secret  string of characters  (letters, numbers , etc) that is used to prove identi ty. \nPassph rase is a secret phrase (made u p of words that are easy to remember ) that is used to prove identify .  For \nexample, il 1ke2eatbreakfas t. \nRelevant Legislation:  \nPrivacy Act, 1993  \nCopyright Act 1994  \nLegal compliance:  \nThe Privacy Act 1993 places an obliga tion on o rganisat ions to protect infor mation from inappro priate access by  \nunauthorised parties. Uncontrolled acce ss to the University’s  network has the potential to make it very easy to gain  \nunauthorised access to Univer sity network based resources. Howeve r, the Pr ivacy Ac t 1993 places an onus  on \norganisations t o protect information from inappropriate access by unauthorised parties.   \nThere is a significant amount of information held on the Un iversity’s network that is pr otected by copyright and it is  \nthere fore impo rtant to  ensure that only app ropriate people have  access to this resource so that copyright protection i s \nnot breached. There is a significant amount of information held on the Univer sity’s networked systems tha t is \nprotected by copyright and it i s therefo re impor tant to ensure that o nly appropriate peopl e have access to this  \ninformation, to ensure that copy right protection is no t breached . \n \n \nMassey University Password  Policy  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Masse y University    P a g e  | 3 Related procedures / documents:  \nAcceptable Use of Technology Policy  \nCode of Student Conduct  \nDevice Securit y Policy  \nInformation and Technology Security Policy  \nStaff Co nduct  Policy  \nDocument management control:  \nPrepa red by: Chief Information Officer   \nAuthorised by: Deputy Vice -Chancellor, University Services  \nDate issued: February 2008   \nLast review: Februar y 2023  \nNext review : February 2026  \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Occupational_Health_and_Safety_Management_Framework_PDF_325_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Occupational Health and Safety Management Framework PDF 325 KB",
      "policy_type": "Framework",
      "file_size": "325 KB",
      "author": "Banner, Jodie",
      "creation_date": "2024-03-20T14:00:05",
      "modification_date": "D:20240320140558+13'00'"
    },
    "content": "Page 1 of 7  \n  \n \n \n \n \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nPurpose : \nThe purpose  of this document  is to outline  the occupational health & safety management  framework  at \nMassey University  that drives and ensure s a compliant, systematic, consistent,  and effective  approach  to \nmanaging  occupational health  and safety  across  all University  operations and activities. The Occupational \nHealth and Safety  (OH&S) Management Framework contributes to the University’s overall management \nsystem, provides a platform for achieving our occupational health and safety governance, policy, strategic \nobjectives, and supports global improvement  practices and compliance with relevant legislation.  \n \nScope : \nThe underlying definition of safety implicit in this framework focuses on managing the capacity to work  \nsafely. This approach to safety puts emphasis on learning and growing the capability  to work safely rather \nthan an emphasis on the constraints necessary for  safety failure management. This requires growing \ncapacity for safe human and organizational performance.  \nThis document, and the framework that it describes, applies to all Massey University  activity  including its \noperations, ventures,  and enterprises. It applies to the way we manage occupational health and safety  \nrisk and includes psycho -social  harm . Wellbeing is guided by a separate Wellbeing Management (Hauora) \nFramework . \nThis OH&S Management Framework is an integrated system of organisation that works collaboratively \nwith the Student Health and Safety Management Framework.  \n \nPrinciples guiding the Occupational Health  and Safety  Management  Framework : \nMassey  University’s  OH&S Management Framework embraces tikanga o te Ao Māori and always seeks to \nweave this into the fabric of university hauora life. Our foundation in the development and implementation of \nthe OH&S management framework policies, standards, procedures,  and guidelines will the guided by Te \nTiriti o Waitangi and these four provisions.  \n \n1. Mahi Tahi (principle of active partnering)  \n2. Rite Tahi (principle of equity and equitable outcomes)  \n3. Kaitiakitanga (principle of active  care)  Section  University Services – Occupational Health, Safety and Wellbeing  \nContact  Director  Occupational Health  & Safety  and Wellbeing  \nLast Review  October  2023 \nNext  Review  September 2025 \n \nOCCUPATIONAL  HEALTH A ND SAFE TY MANAGEME NT FR AMEWORK  \n \n \n\nPage 2 of 7  \n 4. Whai Wāhi (principle of full participation)  \n \n \nExpression of what these principles mean in practice is indicated below in Table 1.  \n \nTable 1. Te Tiriti Principles in Response to Occupational Health and Safety.  \n \nPrinciples  Decision Making  Provisions  Outcomes  \nMahi Tahi  \n(Active \npartnering ) Active partnering \nwith Māori has \noccurred in key \ndecision -making \nprocesses . Māori involvement in \nprovisions that enhance \nquality of life (including \nat Massey) .  Positive and equitable \nhealth outcomes for \nMāori at Massey . \nRite Tahi  \n(Equity & \nequitable \noutcomes )  Decisions \nconsider potential \noutcomes for \nMāori, both \npositive & \nnegative . Access to appropriate \nservices, resources; \npolicies, procedures & \nprocesses are aligned . Māori health outcomes \nare advanced not \ndiminished . \nKaitiakitanga  \n(Active \nprotection ) The decision -\nmaking process \nreflects a level of \n‘active protection’ \n& ‘duty of care’ . Equitable level of Māori  \nhealth expertise on staff . Health protection \nfactors strengthened; \nhealth risk factors \nreduced & mitigated .  \nWhai \nWāhitanga  \n(Full \nparticipation ) Decisions account \nfor potential \nimpacts on Māori \nparticipation .  Ease of access to \nkaupapa Māori health \nexpertise & provision .   Quality of health & life \nis further enhanced .   \nIn addition to te Tiriti princip les, the following five (5) human and organisational performance principles1 are \nfundamental to all OH&S  decision making.  \n1. Error is normal – don’t be surprised when you encounter it.  \n2. Blame fixes nothing - and narrows the field of opportunity for improvement.  \n3. Learning and improvement are vital - learning is a deliberate  act and behavioural commitment . \n4. Systems drive outcomes - behaviour is influenced by context and shaped by systems.  \n5. Respon se to failure matters – what leaders d o counts .  \n \nOverview of Massey  University  Occupational Health  and Safety  Management  Framework : \n \nThe commitments made in the Occupational Health  & Safety , and Wellbeing Charter guide s the \nCouncil on the governance requirements of the OH &S Management Framework. The Occupational \nHealth & Safety, and Wellbeing Policy conveys the University’s commitment to OH&S  obligations and \nresponsibilities for all work undertaken for and by the University. Combined , the University Charter  \nand Policy sit at the pinnacle of how  we understand and a pproach OH&S . They  provide the underlying \nphilosophy that guides our  learning centric work and ensures that OH&S is adaptive, accessible , and \ncompliance compatible . Most of all it ensure s that people are  at the center  of everything we do.  \n \nWithin  the OH&S  management framework  there are fourteen standards to inform and learn what is \n \n1The 5 Principles of Human Performance: A Contemporary Update of the Building Blocks of Human Performance  for the New View of Safety; Todd Conklin - 2019 \nPage 3 of 7  \n required, procedures and guidelines to instruct how to achieve expectations and clear indication of \nwho does what. Additional  tools,  guide lines and instructions  may be managed  locally  and developed  \nin consultation  with those people who do the work  ensuring work er insight is always present . These \ntools may take the form of standard operating procedures (SOP), work instructions, safety plans \nand/or manuals.  \n \nDiagram 1  below  describes  how the various  components  of the OH&S management framework  are \narranged  and interact,  as well as an indication  of where  the components  are owned and managed  \nfrom.  \n \n \n \nDiagram 1: Massey University Occupational Health & Safety Management Framework  \n \n \n \n \nOverview of Standards :  \n \nCritical to the operational core of the OH&S  Management Framework is a partnering process with \nMassey people. Massey people2 includes students, staff, contractors, suppliers,  and the  wider  \nUniversity community.   \n \nEngaging and enabling the people partnering goal are three OH&S interconnected systems that work \ntogether to focus both on enterprise -wide risk and individual or specific activity risk.  \n \n1. Process Safety  – Targeted High potential risk activity controlled by formal procedures and \n \n2 As described in the Health, Safety and Wellbeing Policy purpose.   \n\nPage 4 of 7  \n processes.  \n2. Occupational Safety  – General and all of organisation workplace hazardous risk \nexposures and systems of management to eliminate or minimise risk of harm to people.  \n3. Occupational Health  – involves the prevention, monitoring,  and mitigations necessary in a \nworkplace for illness or harm, be it mental or physical in origin.  \n \nFinally, four integrated focus areas work together to guide a standardised approach, ensuring the \nfulfilment of a people partnering approach. There are 14 Standards in total.  \n \n1. Ako (to learn and teach)     6 Standards  \n2. Rangahau (to seek out, research)   2 Standards  \n3. Whakahaere (to influence action)   5 Standards  \n4. Te Urupare (response)    1 Standard  \n \nDiagram 2 indicates the overview of the Occupational Health & Safety Management Framework \nStandards.  \n \nDiagram 2: Massey University Occupational Health & Safety Management Framework Standards Overview  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n  \n\nPage 5 of 7  \n Occupational Health & Safety Management Framework Standards Intent : \n \n \nThe 14 Standards  are indicated below.  \n \nAKO (to teach and learn)  \n1   Leadership & \nCommitment  Manager s, workers , contractors and others at all levels of \nUniversity life demonstrate leadership and commitment to the \noccupational health and safety of all who can be impacted by \nour operations through the growth and nurturing of a people \npartnering culture that demonstr ates better care and asks \nbetter questions.  \n2   Organisation \nAccountability, \nResponsibility & \nAuthority  OH&S responsibilities and accountabilities are documented, \nunderstood and consistently applied.  \n3   Planning, Objectives \n& Targets  OH&S considerations are integrated into business processes \nusing systematic risk -based disciplines and approach with key \nperformance indicators established and regularly reported on . \n4   Compliance, \nDocuments & \nRecords \nManagement  Relevant compliance obligations, such as legal, regulatory, \ntertiary sector and organizational  commitments are \nunderstood, documented, monitored  and adhered to.  \n5   Competency , \nTraining & Behaviour  Employees, contractors, suppliers,  and others have the \nnecessary induction, information , training, and supervision to \nperform their role in a deliberate, safe and con scious manner.  \n6   Participation, \nCommunication, \nConsultation & \nEngagement  Worker insight, p articipation, c ommunication, consultation and \nengagement with all PCBU who share a duty of care and, \npeople stakeholders, are valued and involved in establishing a \nshared and partnering centric commitment to OH &S \nperformance improvement.   \n \n \n \n \nRANGAHAU (to seek out, research)  \n7   Performance, \nMeasurement  & Review  A full range of OH &S data is collected from all University \nactivity and assembled into interpretative and learning \ncentric reports for both operational and governance risk \nperformance considerations.  \n8   Audits, Inspections & \nManagement Reviews  OH&S assurance, inspection and management reviews \nregularly occur and determine alignment and performance \nagainst legal, regulatory, tertiary sector and organizational \ncommitments and obligations.  \n \n \n \n \nWHAKAHAERE (to influence action)  \nPage 6 of 7  \n 9   Hazard & Risk \nManagement, and \nManagement of Change  Hazards and risks associated with  University activities are \nidentified, assessed, controlled, and monitored for effectiveness \n– process safety controls and practices will be applied in high \npotential risk activities.  \n10 Contractors , Ventures  & \nSupplier  Overlapping \nDuties  Arrangements are in place to manage risks associated with the \nprocurement and activities of contractors and suppliers for goods \nand services. Where the University is the contracting PCBU and \nis working with other PCBU who share a duty of care to eliminate \nharm to workers and other persons, all PCBU will consult, co -\nordinate and co -operate on a ll matters of influence and control \nregarding the work.  \n11 Workplace  Preventative \n& Curative Care  All reasonably practicable steps are to be taken for the \npreventative and curative care needs of Massey people who \nengage with the university’s activities. This includes all \nnecessary support and processes to minimise the occurrence \nand impact of workplace physical and mental injury or illness.  \n12 Fleet , Plant & \nEquipment  Fleet, plant,  and equipment are to be regularly assessed as safe, \nsecure,  and effective  for use. This includes all stages of pre -\npurchase or hire, operational life and disposal.  \n13 Facilities  Design, \nConstructions, \nOperations, \nCommissioning and \nDecommissioning  Facilities are safe, secure, and efficient with OH &S risks \nidentified, assessed,  and controlled during the design, \nconstruction, operational life, and decommissioning stages.  \n \nTE URUPARE (response)  \n14 Incident & Emergency \nManagement   Incident and emergency situations are reported and managed \npromptly to eliminate or minimise further harmful impacts to \npeople. Deliberate learning through learning reviews and \ninvestigation is fundamental to improvements at both the \nsystems and behavioura l level of all university activity.  \n \nReview of Occupational  Health  and Safety  Management  Framework  \nIntegral to  delivering  a world  class  OH&S Management Framework  is regular and relevant checking \nand reviewing  processes . Management  review is  a learning  opportunity  to ensure  the OH&S \nManagement Framework  continues  to reflect  system s capability  and capacity , dynamic and trusted \nleadership,  effectively and efficiently  align s with other management systems, and fosters a culture \nof ‘better care’ and ‘better questions . \nA review  will be carried  out every  three  years  by the Director  Occupational Health & Safety,  and \nWellbeing,  with the involvement of members of the Senior Leadership Team and Massey University \nCouncil.  \nFindings and recommendations will be communicated to staff, and their Health and Safety \nrepresentatives.  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nPage 7 of 7  \n Relevant  Legislation:  \nHealth  and Safety  at Work  Act 2015,  and associated  regulations  \n \nRelated  Documents:  \nOccupational Health &  Safety,  and Wellbeing  Charter  \nOccupational Health &  Safety,  and Wellbeing  Policy  \nMassey University OHS Management Framework Standards  \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Policy_and_Regulations_for_Alcohol_Use_on_Massey_University_Campuses_PDF_175_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Policy and Regulations for Alcohol use on Massey University Campuses",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "175 KB",
      "author": "jmlochhe",
      "creation_date": "2022-04-13T16:03:09",
      "modification_date": "D:20220414091701+12'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University     \nSection    Campus Facilities  \nContact    Executive Director Operations &  \n Campus Experience  \nLast Review    November 2021  \nNext Review    July 2024 \nApproval    SLT 15/09/178  \n  \n  \n \nIntroduction:   \n  \nThis document should be read in conjunction with the Massey University Host Responsibility Implementation \nPlan and the Guide  to managing an event where alcohol is included :  \n  \n1. The statement of policy and principles with regard to the sale, supply , and c onsumption  of alcohol on a \nMassey University campus.  \n  \n2. The Regulations for the operation of that policy on a Massey University Campus are in consideration of \nthe Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012.  \n  \nThe Statement of Policy and the Regulations have been  adopted primarily to encourage social \nresponsibility and appropriate behaviour in respect of the sale, supply,  and consumption of alcohol on a \nMassey University Campus  for both Students, Staff and University guests . \n \n     It is not intended to be seen pur ely in terms of a regulatory purpose.  \n  \nThe policy also contains the following associated recommendations to facilitate the educational purposes of \nthe policy.  \n  \ni. That the Executive  Director Operations & Campus Experience and Associate Director of Hospitality (or \ntheir nominee ), in conjunction with the  Campus Hospital ity Services Manager  combine with the regional \nStudents’ Association, consider ways in which an ongoing education programme is adopted regarding \nthe consumption and abuse of alcohol on a Campus to encourage safe and healthy attitudes and \nbehaviours towards alcohol.  \nii. That the relevant regional Students’ Association, in conjunction with the Halls of \nResidence/accommodation Management, consider on -going programmes of alternative activities which \ndo not emphasise the consumption of alcohol.  \n   \n1. Policy and Principles:   \n  \nConsumption of alcohol is an  accepted part of social interaction and social behaviour in New Zealand within \nnational legislative constraints. Within these constraints Massey University acknowledges that there is a need \nto provide a responsible environment for the use of alcohol on Ma ssey University Campuses. The following \nprinciples inform this policy.  \n \n  \n  \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n  \n  \nPOLICY AND REGULATIO  \nNS FOR ALCOHOL  \n  \nUSE ON MASSEY UNIVER  \nSITY CAMPUSES  \n  \n  \n\n  \n  \n   © This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n  \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n  \n  \nPolicy and Regulations for Alcohol Use on  \n  \nMassey  \n  \nUniversity Campus  \nes \n  \n  \n– \n  \nPa \nge  \n2 \n  \nThe sale, supply,  and consumption of alcohol on a Massey University Campus will at all times:  \n  \n1.1 Adhere to the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 (the Act) .  \n  \n1.2 Recognise the rights of others and will not be promoted or fostered as a means of fundraising, profit \nmaking, or an end in itself.  \n \n1.3 Adhere to the Health & Safety standards under the University’s Health & Safety policies and \nguidelines.   \n \n1.4 Be subject to the intended room being approved as a designated space and detailed on the relevant \nMassey University Campus Alcohol  Licence  \n  \n1.5 Adhere to a documented Host Responsibility policy which supports safe drinking practices, provision of \nnon-alcoholic  drinks and substantial food, and encourages responsible attitudes and behaviour towards \nalcohol consumption. These are requirements  detaile d in the University’s Host Responsibility  \nImplementation Plan.   \n  \n2.      Regulations:   \n  \nThese regulations cover all occasions where the sale, supply and/or consumption of alcohol are to be part of \nany event  held on a Massey University Campus.  \n  \nA.    General   \n  \n On   behalf   of   Massey   University, each   Campus    will    hold    a    current    Alcohol    Licence \n(On-Licence Sections 14 and 16, Sale and Supply of Liquor Act, 2012).  \n  \n The sale, supply,  and consumption of alcohol on a campus requires the issuance of an approved \nCampus Room & Alcohol  Permit  PRIOR to the event being held (usually two weeks – refer to \ncampus /event  procedures  related to this policy  – Auckland , Manawatū , Wellington ). The Permit will \nrequire information to be provided regarding which venue is to be used, the name of the Duty Manager, \nand ot her matters such as cleaning and security arrangement. No permit will be provided until all these \nmatters have been arranged and signed off by the relevant parties.  \n \n The sale, supply , and /or consumption of alcohol on a campus venue requires the completio n and \nconfirmation of the event notification proces s, at least 2 weeks PRIOR to the event . This confirmation of \nthe event will be provided by the Campus Operations Manager /Hospitality Services Licensee  and \nsubject to the satisfaction of all operational, legal,  and Health & Safety aspects of the proposed . \n  \nAs required under the Act:  \n  \no All functions where alcohol is available, non -alcoholic drinks must be provided as well as readily \navailable food of a substantial nature for all patrons . Food must be readily available throughout the \nevent.  \no No alcohol other than that approved for any function will be permitted into the venue.   \no No liquor is permitted to be taken outside the boundaries of the approved ven ue/event.  \no The Duty Manager has responsibility for adhering to all aspects of the legislation otherwise they \nare liable for any penalties as a result of non - compliance, including but not limited to:  \n• Not selling alcohol to minors (under 18 years of age)  \n• Not selling alcohol to intoxicated1 persons  \n \n1 Intoxicated means observably affected by alcohol  \n  \n  \n   © This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n  \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n  \n  \nPolicy and Regulations for Alcohol Use on  \n  \nMassey  \n  \nUniversity Campus  \nes \n  \n  \n– \n  \nPa \nge  \n3 \n  \n• Adhering to the responsibilities as shown in the Host Responsibility Implementation Plan    \no Ensuring appropriate signage is placed on the bar area  \no Delegating Duty Manager responsibilities when required, but such delegations must adhere to the \nrequirements of the Act.  \n  \nThe Duty Manager is responsible for the sale , supply,  and consumption  of alcohol during the event. This \nresponsibility can be delegated but can only be done so in line with delegations as required under the Act and \nthe person named on the event notification as Acting or Temporary Manager must be present at the event  for \nthe duration of the event . An Acting Manager can be appointed to cover for short term absences where the \nmanager is ill, absent, or on holiday  and may only be appointed for up to three weeks a t any one time and up \nto six weeks in any 12 -month period.   A Temporary Manager can  also be appointed where  a manager is ill or \nabsent for any reason or is dismissed or resigns, but only in the case where  application for a Managers \nCertificate is  currently  being determined by the local District Licensing Agency  (Acting or Temporary Managers  \nrequire notification to the local District Licence Agency as per sections 229,230,231 of the Act) . \n  \n Staff members who wish to obtain a General Manager’s Certificate mus t seek the approval of the \nrelevant Campus  Operations / Hospital ity Services  office prior to making application. Only those staff \napproved by  the University can undertake Duty Manager responsibilities in relation to the Campus \nAlcohol  Licence.  \n  \n A Duty Manager will hold a current General Manager’s certificate. A copy will be recorded on the Duty \nManagers Register held at the Campus Operations office /University Hospitality Unit  responsible for \nconfirming the Event . General Manager training is avail able through training providers as recognised by \na District Licensing Agency.  \n  \n A confirmed Event notification process must be achieved before alcohol is supplied or sold  or consumed  \nat an event, at least two weeks prior to an event/function. Such approva l by the authorised campus \nofficer grants authority for use of the campus “On Licence” for the sale and provision of alcohol and \nfood, subject to the requirements of the Act.  \n  \n An Event notification must be submitted through the appropriate Campus Operati ons/Hospitality \nServices  Office at least two (2) weeks  prior to the event  date.  \n  \n Security Staff or Doorkeepers under the direction of the event  organisers must maintain strict control of \nthose entering or leaving any event  and are required to remove or confiscate any alcohol  introduced \ninto or being removed from the event  unofficially.  \n  \n Any alcohol confiscated will not be returned to the offend er.  \n  \n No Duty Manager or person named on the event notification as being responsible for the event  shall \nconsume alcohol while working at or in charge of the event .  \n  \n No social event  involving the sale, supply , and/or consumption of alcohol shall take place in any building \non a Massey University Campus except such buildings or parts of those buildings designated and \napproved under the respective campus Alcohol  Licence for social events . A list of approved rooms is \navailable from the relevant Campus /Hospitality Services  office.  \n \n Alcohol shall not be consumed in the grounds of any University campus except at an approved event  \nfor which the appropriate confirmed notification has been obtained.  \n  \n If a function where alcohol is sold or served  or consumed  in a location not approved on the Campus \nAlcohol  Licence, a Special Licence will be required from the local District Licensing Agency.  Such \nlicences will need to be applied for at least four (4) weeks p rior to the event.  \n  \n  \n   © This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n  \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n  \n  \nPolicy and Regulations for Alcohol Use on  \n  \nMassey  \n  \nUniversity Campus  \nes \n  \n  \n– \n  \nPa \nge  \n4 \n  \n  \nB.  University Halls of Residence and Accommodation Complexes   \n  \nResidency in Halls is based upon consideration of others at all times. As stated in the Policy for Alcohol \nUse on Massey University Campuses, it is the aim to encourage social responsibility and appropriate \nbehaviour in respect to the consumption of alcohol. Halls  residents are provided with a Halls handbook \nas part of their residential agreement. This Handbook is updated annually and contains the rules and \nregulations pe rtaining to alcohol supply, storage and consumption in the Halls and residents are \nexpected to comply fully with these rules and regulations  for general student social activity.  For formal \nstudent events please refer to Section E of this policy for condit ions and guidance.  \n \n  \nC.  University Environ ment  \n  \n  Where conditions for  events  have been established , use of the facility will be governed by these \nconditions at all times.  \n \nD.  Staff Social Gathering & Events  \n \nMassey University campuses are legally licensed premises, therefore a t all times the University must \nobserve licensing and other legal requirements . Alcohol can only be supplied or consumed in a \ndesignated area, and a certified Duty Manager must be present.  Staff must also adhere to th e \nUniversity Host Responsibility guidelines, of which the key elements include provision of non -alcoholic \nbeverages and food.   Alcohol must not be provided to anyone under the age of 18 years.  \n \nE.  Student Events   \n  \nAll student function applications for a n event must be completed in full and have the signed approval of:  \ni. the approved Booking Officer for the facility /venue ,  \nii. the relevant Students’ Association representative; and  \niii. An event  notification  must be made and the relevant Health and Safety requirements must be met \nto the satisfaction of the Campus Operations /Hospitality Services  office before  approval  of the event \nis given .  \n  \nNormally the hours for student functions will only be approved to 11.30pm unless special circumstances \nprevail. The times granted for both the  event  and when alcohol  may be sold or supplied  or consumed  \nwill be clearly indicated on the issued approval . \n  \nF.  Discipline   \n  \nWith respect to management of the Alcohol Regulations on a Massey  University Campus, any behaviour \nor conduct which disrupts any event , and any breach of regulations, particularly but n ot exclusively, with \nrespect to wilful or accidental damage to property and/or disruptive social behaviour , such as excessive \nnoise, abusive or sustained threatening behaviour , or harassment , will be regarded as grounds for \ndisciplinary action being taken against the person(s) involved.  \n \nThis action will be administered, depending on the circumstances, either in accordance with any \nparticu lar regulations governing that area of a Massey University Campus ( e.g., Halls of Residence), or \nin accordance with University  discipline regulations as administered by the University Disciplinary \nCommittee, or by application of Civil or Criminal Proceedin gs.  \n \n \nAudience:   \n  \n  \n   © This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n  \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n  \n  \nPolicy and Regulations for Alcohol Use on  \n  \nMassey  \n  \nUniversity Campus  \nes \n  \n  \n– \n  \nPa \nge  \n5 \n  \n  \nAll University staff and students . \n  \nDocument Management Control:   \n  \nPrepared by:  Associate Director of Hospitality  \nAuthorised by: Executive Director Operations & Campus Experience  \nApproved by: DVC Students and Global Engagement  \nDate issued: 11 August 1995  \nLast reviewed:  November 2021  \nNext review: July 2024 \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Policy_on_Pre-employment_Checks_for_Prospective_Appointees_PDF_169_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Policy on Pre-employment Checks for Prospective Appointees",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "169 KB",
      "creation_date": "2019-09-25T11:05:05",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220102719+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " Massey University Policy Guide \n \nPOLICY ON PRE -EMPLOY MENT CHECKS FOR PROS PECTIVE APPOINTEES \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \n \n   \n  \n  \nPurpose:  \nThe purpose of this policy is to maintain a high standard of integrity, expertise, good character and safety in all staff \nappointments to Massey University, while also enabling hiring managers to move quickly to secure preferred \ncandidates.  \nPolicy:  \nThe reputation of Massey University requires that all prospective employees at the time of their appointment be subject \nto practical verification of those attributes necessary to perform the vacant role.  \nAll applicants  be subject to the following pre- employment checks prior to the commencement of employment at \nMassey University  (note there are specific checks relating to children’s workers as defined by the Vulnerable Children \nAct 2014 –  see section below) : \ni. Referee Check from either their current employer or last employer, and  \nii. Verification/Validation of Qu alifications, and  \niii. Previous Employment at Massey University Check, and \niv. Proof of identify, e.g. a birth certificate, passport or New Zealand Drivers Licence, and  \nv. Proof of legal entitlement to work in New Zealand, e.g. New Zealand citizenship/ permanent residency or valid \nwork permit. If a work permit  is provided, this must show suitability to work at Massey University and eligible \nfor the role offered.    \n \nIn addition, should the position be classed as ‘high risk’ (refer definition below) or the check can be demonstrated to \nbe “genuinely relevant ” to the role and not involve legally prohibited discrimination, then the applicant shall also be \nsubject to the appropriate combination of the following in accordance with the Procedure for Pre- Employment Checks \nfor Prospective Appointees to Massey University:  \n \nvi. Credit History Check, and/or  \nvii. Criminal and Traffic Convictions (Security) Check, and/or  \nviii. Health Assessment Pre- Employment Check.  \nAn offer of employment may be made on a conditional basis subject to receipt of sat isfactory checks .  Where this is \nnot received by the specified start date, the appointee cannot commence work under that employment agreement.  \nThey may, however, be appointed on a casual employment agreement  (with the exception of children’s workers –  see \nbelow) pending completion of the necessary check/s with appropriate limited access to information, systems, clients, \nand so on (depending on the position requirements).  This option is provided for as a practical measure and Section  People and Culture  \nContact People and Culture  \nLast Review  November 2018  \nNext Review  June 2023  \nApproval  SLT 19/09/153  \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nPolicy on Pre- Employment checks for  \nProspective Employees  – Page 2 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nrecognising the advantages in an appointee commencing work at the earliest opportunity to commence orientation \nactivities.  \nIn all cases , that is for any type of employment agreement, the appointee may not commence without proof of the \nright to work in New Zealand.  \nEvidence of a criminal conviction or other record of offence, negative credit history , or a significant and/or \nquestionable previous employment history resulting from a pre- employment check, shall not of itself be a barrier to \nemployment, but will require the hiring manager to have regard to the extent to which the record is in conflict with the \nrequirement of the role or undermines the credibility of the person to undertake the role.   \nIn accordance with the Procedures  for Pre -Employment  Checks for Prospective Appointees to Massey University , the \nappointment of a prospective applicant where there is evidence of any issues identified from  a pre- employment \nsecurity check must be approved by a manager with A uthority Band A delegation and in consultation with the \nEmployment Relations Manager . \nDefinitions: \nIn accordance with the Procedure for Pre- Employment Checks for Prospective Appointees to Massey University: \nAppendix A,  the definition for ‘ high risk’  positions or  what is deemed to be “genuinely relevant ”, is: \n• Positions that have moral and/or ethical responsibility, including areas where people are dealing with \nvulnerable individuals  and/or providing an element of pastoral care.  \n• Positions that have a high level of accounting and financial responsibility and any role that has financial \ndelegated authority to approve expenditure.  Also positions with high- level access to University systems and \ncommercially sensitive information such as core IT systems or Treasury functions.  \n• Positions which have a specific health capacity requirement for safe performance of duties.  Examples are \nroles which have tasks that require distinction of colour (e.g. electrical work), visual accommodation, noi se or \ntone distinction, exposure to sensitising chemicals, allergy to animals, repetitive movements, strength, \nstamina, or physical dexterity.  \n• Positions where the person could perform the duties of the position satisfactorily only with the aid of special \nservices or facilities and it is not reasonable to expect the employer to provide those services or facilities.  \n• Positions which are providing regulated services as part of a specified organisation under the Vulnerable \nChildren Act 2014.   (Provisions related to the required safety checks for these positions are set out below.)  \n \nSignificant and/or questionable previous employment history relates to history of significant concern i.e. serious \nmisconduct that has resulted in some form of formal discipline for the individual and/or dismissal.  Previous \nEmployment at Massey University Checks will not include information regarding written warnings that have expired or \nsettlement agreements where it is agreed that the terms of settlement and all matters discussed rem ain confidential to \nthe parties.  \n Children ’s Workers under the Vulnerable Children Act 2014 : \n \nA children’ s worker is defined under the Vulnerable Children Act 2014 (“the Act”) and includes core and non- core \nchildren’ s worker s.  These workers must undergo specific safety checks prior to employment  and on a regular basis \nthereafter (three- yearly) .  The components of the safety check process are:  \n \ni. Identity verification;  \nii. NZ police vet;  \niii. Reference check;  \niv. Interview;  \nv. Risk assessment.  \n   \nItems (iii) and (iv) are not required for the periodic safety check, and (i) is only necessary where there have been \nnames changes in the preceding period.  \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nPolicy on Pre- Employment checks for  \nProspective Employees  – Page 3 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nA children’ s worker is one providing a regulated service in a specified organisation.   Massey University per se is not a \nspec ified organisation except in situations where it is explicitly state funded to provide a regulated service.  \n \nA children’s worker is defined under the Act as one:  \n• Whose work may or does involve regular or overnight contact1 with a child or children; and  \n• This takes place without a parent or guardian of the child, or of each child, being present.  \n \nThis is also the definition of a “non- core” children’s worker.  A “core” c hildren ’s worker is one whose work allows them \nto be the only  children ’s worker present with the child/ren or the worker with primar y responsibility for the child/ren in \nproviding a regulated service.  \n \nA children’ s worker position should not in any circumstances be offered to an applicant until all the requirements of the \nsafety check have been met.  This is a legislative requirement.  \n \nAll children ’s workers must undergo a periodic safety check every three years.  As noted above, t his periodic check \nmust require the person to confirm whether since the last safety check whether their name has changed or is different \nfrom any original documentation supplied, a police vet unless they are registered by a professional organisation that \nregularly carries out police vetting every 3 years, check with the professional organisation their current registration or licence and any information that may be relevant to an assessment of the person, a risk assessment of the person.  \nManagers undertaking safety checks of children ’s workers must retain the information pertaining to the employee  and \nadvise People and Culture  of the date the check was completed.   \nConfidentiality: \n \nThe University is committed to maintaining confidentiality of pre- employment checks and the results of such checks \nunless there are circumstances involving probable risk to the safety of any person/s, or where maintaining \nconfidentiality would be unlawful, or when this would compromise principles of natural justice.  \n \nAudience:  \n \nAll staff involved in the recruitment and selection process.  \n \nRelevant legislation: \n \nCriminal Recor ds (Clean Slate) Act 2004  \nOfficial Information Act 1982 Privacy Act 1993  \nState Sector Act 1988  \nThe Human Rights Act 1993 Health and Safety at Work  Act 2015  \nVulnerable Children Act 2014  \nVulnerable Children (Requirements for Safety Checks of Children’s Workers) Regulations 2015  \n \nLegal compliance:  \n \nThe Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act 2004 binds the Crown (Section 5); therefore,  any checks requested by \nMassey University must comply with this legislation and abide by the criteria set out in this Act.  \n \nThe Official Information Act 1982 requires Massey University to comply with the requests and right of access to \npersonal information (sections 12 and 24) when seeking personal information on potential applicants . \n \n                                                 \n1 As well as physical contact (face to face) , contact also includes by telephone, email or other electronic communication . \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nPolicy on Pre- Employment checks for  \nProspective Employees  – Page 4 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nThe Privacy Act 1993 requires Massey University to comply with its 12 Principles in regards to the collection of \npersonal information, the manner in which it is collected and the storage and security of personal information.  In \naddition, Massey Univers ity is required to provide the individual concerned with access to their personal information \n(unless there is an express promise of confidentiality as can be the case with referee reports)  and the ability to \nrequest correction of information if necessary.   The University must adhere to the limits on the use of personal \ninformation collected in that the University may only collect personal information for the intended purposes of selection \nfor appointment of the individual and this information cannot be used for any other purpose.  It is essential that the \npersonal information gathered is checked before use to ensure the information is accurate, up to date,  complete, \nrelevant and not misleading.  The personal information obtained shall not be kept for longer  than it is required for the \npurposes for which the information may lawfully be used.  \n \nThe State Sector Act 1988 requires Massey University to maintain appropriate standards of integrity and conduct \namong employees.  The pre- employment check process signif icantly strengthens the key control around employment \nrisk to guard against misrepresentation during the recruitment process and the risk of potential fraud within the \norganisation after the person is employed.  \n The Human Rights Act 1993 prohibits Massey U niversity from discriminating against any employee, job applicant or \ncontractor on the grounds of sex, marital status, religious belief, colour, race, ethnic or national origin, disability, age \npolitical opinion, employment status, family status or sexual orientation.  \n \nThe Health and Safety at Work  Act 2015 requires practicable steps to be taken to prevent any action (or inaction) that \nmight cause harm to another person.  This obligation makes it legitimate, in appropriate cases, to undertaken a pre-\nemploym ent health check to ensure a person is not placed in a position which is likely to cause harm to that person or \nothers.  \n \nThe Vulnerable Children Act 2014 requires safety checking of people employed or engaged in work that involves working with vulnerable c hildren as part of a specified organisation providing regulated services .  This requirement \nhelps reduce the risk of harm to children in support of the Government priorities for improving the wellbeing of \nvulnerable children.  \n The Vulnerable Children (Requ irements for Safety Checks of Children’s Workers) Regulations 2015 detail the various \ncomponents and specific requirements of the safety check required under the Vulnerable Children Act 2014.  \n  \nRelated procedures / documents: \n \nProcedure for Pre- Employment Checks for Prospective Appointees to Massey University  \nPolicy on Verification and Validation of Qualifications  \nProcedures on Verification and Validation of Qualifications  \nDelegations of Authority Document –  Human Resource Delegations  \nVulnerable Children Act Guidelines  \n \nDocument Management Control: \n \nPrepared by: Employment Relations Advisor  \nAuthorised by: DVC People and Culture  \nApproved by: SLT 19/09/153 \nDate issued: 10 May 2011  \nLast review: November 2018 \nNext review: June 2023  \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Procedure_for_Hazardous_Substances_Disposal_and_Accidental_Release_PDF_124_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Procedure for Hazardous Substances Disposal and Accidental Release PDF 124 KB",
      "policy_type": "Procedure",
      "file_size": "124 KB",
      "author": "McMorran, Fiona",
      "creation_date": "2022-11-21T13:02:00",
      "modification_date": "D:20221121132053+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n \n \n \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nPurpose:  \nThis procedure provide s guidance on how to protect the environment, in particular stormwater and natural waterways from \nchemical pollutants through deliberate  release , accidental spillage or organized chemical waste disposal . Both the protection \nof the environment, and the heal th and safety of people and communities are regarded as being of the utmost importance by \nMassey University.  \n \nProcedures:  \n \nThe Hazardous Substances (Disposal) Notice 2017 prescribes requirements for the disposal of hazardous \nsubstances. This Notice uses the hazard classification system set out in the Hazardous Substances (Hazard \nClassification) Notice 2020 . At Massey University , all users of Hazardous Substances shall dispose of surplus \nsubstance s in accordance with: \n \n• The Hazardous Substances (Disposal) Notice 2017 , \n• The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Consolidated EPA N otice  (effective as at 30 April 2021)  \n• Any instruction given in this Procedure or by the Act Regulations or Authority.  \n \nThese disposal requirements shall apply to any hazar dous substance, either  whole or in part , and includes any  \ncontainer that once held a hazardous substance or had direct contact with a hazardous substance . (A container as \ndefined in the Hazardous Substances (Packaging) Notice 2017)  \n \nAny requirement for di sposal of hazardous substances off site shall be via a University approved hazardous substance \ndisposal company  and is a School/ Departmental cost. Disposal considerations and funding shall be considered and \nagreed prior to the purchase of any hazardous substance.  \n \nAll users wishing to dispose of a container that once held a hazardous substance which is now empty , except for \nminor residue of that hazardous substance (liquid or solid only) , shall dispose of that container by using the Massey \nUniversity Empty Hazardous Substance Container Treatment & Disposal Procedure . \n \nAll users of a hazardous substance  shall have in place an adequate Emergency Response Plan that outlines \nappropriate emergency equipment and procedures to  prevent the escape of a ny hazardous substances into  the \nenvironment including natural  waterways, stormwater drains and any uncontrolled  or unauthorised release into a trade \nwaste system . Any r elease must at all times meet the requirements of section 15 of the Resource Management Act, \nincluding any requirements of associated resource consents . The plan must also consid er measures to prevent any \npotential harm to individuals and must be approved  by Massey University Occupational Health and Safety .  \n \nAll hazardous substances  shall be stored appropriately based on volume:  \n  \nPROCEDURES  FOR  HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES DISPOSAL AND ACCIDE NTAL RELE ASE \nSection  Occupation al Health and Safety  \nContact  Directo r, Occupational Healt h, Safety and Wellbeing  \nLast Review  November 2022  \nNext  Review  November 2025  \nApproval  Director – Occupational Health, Safety and Wellbeing  \n \n \n \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide \nProcedures  for Hazardous Substances \nDisposal and Accidental Rel ease– Page 2 \n \n \nMinor storage  \nWhere directed by the Regulations (or appropriate NZ, AS/NZS or AS or BS Standard) or where there is a risk of \naccidental release to the environment e.g., transportation, all hazardous substances shall be stored  or handled with \nsecondary containment measure s in place.  \n \nBulk storage  \nBulk storage of substances shall be i nside a storage facility and if the store triggers the requirements for a Location \nCompliance Certificate , then this must be current as per the Health and Safety at Work (Hazardous Substances)  \nRegulations  2017 . \n \nSystems shall also be in place for any s torage facility to have a ‘bund’ integrity test  not less than 1 0-yearly,  or the \nstorage facility must be i nspected by an appropriately qualified and experienced engineer stating the integrity of the \nbund (secondary containment) is sound.  \n \n \nDefinitions:  \n \nAuthority  – Means the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA)  \nBulk storage – means a quantity/volume of a hazardous substance that would normally trigger the requirement for a \nLocation Compliance Certificate as stated in the Regulations . \nHazardous  Substance  - means,  unless  expressl y provided  other wise by regulations,  i s  any substance - with \none or more of the follo wing intrinsic properties:  \na) Explosiveness  \nb) Flammabilit y \nc) A capacit y to oxidise  \nd) Corrosiveness  \ne) Toxicit y (including chronic toxicit y) \nf) Ecotoxicit y, with or without bioaccumulation; or which on contact with air or water (other than air or water \nwhere the temperature or pressure has been artificiall y increased or decreased) generates a substance with \nany one or mor e of the properties specified above  \nPlease note, guidance on what constitutes  a Hazardous Substances  for each  hazardous  propert y can be obtained from the Environmental Protection \nAuthority.  There  is a level below which a substance  is not considered  hazardous in New Zealand.  \n \nMinor storage  – The storage of a hazardous substances in amounts or volumes that  do no trigger regulatory \nrequirement for a Location Compliance Certificate  \n \nNatural waterways – means any naturally occurring water body, including streams, rivers, lakes, estuaries,  and the \nocean.  \n \nRegulations – means the Health and Safety at Work (Hazardous Substances) Regulations 2017.  \n \n \n \n \n\n \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide \nProcedures  for Hazardous Substances \nDisposal and Accidental Rel ease– Page 3 \n \nSubstance – means:  \na) Any element, defined m ixture of elements, compounds, or defined mixture of compounds, either naturall y    \noccurring or produced s yntheticall y, or an y mixtures thereof.  \nb) Any isotope, allotrope, is omer, congener, radical, or ion of an element or compound which has been declared \nby the Authorit y, by notice in the Gazette, to be a different substance from that element or compound.  \nc) Any mixtures or combinations of an y of the above.  \nd) Any manufactured  article  containing,  incorporating,  or including  any Hazardous  Substance  with explosive \nproperties.  \n \n \nAudience:  \n \nManagers, and all staff, undergraduate and post -graduate students.  \n \nRele vant legislation : \nHealth and Safety at Work (Hazardous Substances) Regulations 2017  \nHazardous Substances (Disposal) Notice 2017  \nHazardous Substances and Ne w Organisms Act 1996  \nHealth and Safety at Work Act 2015  \nHealth and Safety at Work (General Risk and Workplace Management) Regulations 2016  \nResource Management Act 1991  \n \nRelated Procedures:  \nNew Organisms and Restricted Biological Products Procedure  \nGenetic M odified Organisms Procedure   \nGuidance on what constitutes  a Hazardous Substances  for each  hazardous  propert y can be obtained from the \nEnvironmental Protection Authority . \n \nDocument  Management  Control:  \n \nPrepared  by: Univers ity Advisor – Hazardous Substances  \nApproved by: Director – Occupational Health, Safety and Wellbeing  \nDate issued:  November 2022  \nLast review:  November 2022   \nNext review:  Novemb er 2025\n\n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Providing_Personal_Protective_Equipment_Guideline_PDF_32_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Providing Personal Protective Equipment Guideline",
      "policy_type": "Guideline",
      "file_size": "32 KB",
      "creation_date": "2015-02-09T13:02:07",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220102518+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " \nMassey University Policy Guide \n \nPROVIDING PERSONAL P ROTECTIVE EQ UIPMENT GUIDELINE  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n    \n  \n \nFor staff members :  \nIt is responsibility of the employing unit to provide, a nd maintain in good condition personal protective equipment \nrequired by employees.  When the equipment reaches the end of its life it must be replaced.   \n \nThe cost of this equipment is a departmental expense as part of the processes conducted by the depart ment or unit.  \nIt is insufficient (statute law) to pay an allowance and expect employee to provide their own protective equipment.  \n Where equipment in direct bodily contact (for example respiratory protective equipment, ear plugs, mouth guards), \nthen equipment must be personally issued to each employee.  There is to be no sharing of such items.   \n \nIf an employee wishes to provide their own equipment for personal reasons of comfort or convenience, then they may \ndo provided the equipment is suitable protect t hem from the hazard.  The employee can elect at any stage to use the \nemployee equipment by giving reasonable notice.  \n Employees must be instructed in the correct use and maintenance of personal protective equipment.  Proper storage and cleaning for persona l protective equipment is also required.  \nFor students : \nThe requirement to provide such a equipment for students and visitors is subject to the phrase \"all practicable steps\".  This allows for the University to specify equipment students may need for a par ticular course, paper, or field trip.  For \nexample is not practical to provide warm clothing for all students on a one off field trip to a cold area.  \n The University's responsibility is to ensure when necessary such equipment is used.  If students forgot to bring \npersonal protective equipment that is required for a laboratory class or field trip then it may be necessary to withdraw \nthe student from the critical processes when such equipment is required or make alternative arrangements for \nprovision.  Under  no circumstances should staff concede in a less than desirable safety standard.  \nWhen personal protective equipment is required:  \nProtective equipment can only be used as a last resort to control significant hazards.  The hazard must have \nevaluated to determine if it can be controlled by (in order) elimination, isolation, or minimization.  It is advised to \nmonitor the hazard to determine if personal protective equipment is required if the minimization strategy is used.   \n The decision process must be documented in the hazard management register .  For further information see hazard \nmanagement pages  on health and safety website.  \n Section  Health and Safety  \nContact University Health and Safety Manager  \nLast Review  April 2014  \nNext Review  December 2017  \nApproval  University Health and Safety Manager  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide \nProviding Personal Protective Equipment Guideline – Page 2  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  Environmental Health Monitoring:  \nIf minimisation is used to control hazards then environmental monitoring is required t o ensure the hazard control is \nadequate.  If the hazard is still significant despite minimisation then and health monitoring must be officered to ensure \nadequacy of personal protective equipment.  For more information see the Monitoring Staff Health Procedures .  \nDefinition : \nPersonal protective equipment is equipment, which protects employees from hazards.  I t includes items such as \nprotective headwear, eye protection, respiratory protection, protective clothing, protective footwear, barrier or protective lotions, etc.  \nLegal requirement : \nHealth and Safety in Employment Act 1992 Section 10  \n \nDocument Management  Control:  \n \nPrepared By: University Health a nd Safety Manager  \nOwned By: Assistant Vice Chancellor – People and Organisational Development    \nAuthorised By:  University Health and Safety Manager  \nDate Issued: August 2014  \nLast Reviewed: August 2014 Next Review : December 2017  \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Occupational_Health_Monitoring_Procedures_PDF_312_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Occupational Health Monitoring Procedures PDF 312 KB",
      "policy_type": "Procedure",
      "file_size": "312 KB",
      "author": "Banner, Jodie",
      "creation_date": "2024-04-30T10:03:09",
      "modification_date": "D:20240430103955+12'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n \n \n \n \n   \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n \n ENTER PROCEDURE  \n \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \nOCCUPATIONAL HEALTH MONITORING PROCEDURE  \n \nSection  University Services  \nContact  Director  Occupational Health & Safety, Wellbeing  \nLast Review  December 2023  \nNext Review  December 2025  \nApproval  Director Occupational Health & Safety, Wellbeing  \n \n \nPurpose:  \n \nTo protect and ensure the work health status of individual employees through early detection of \nadverse work (and non -work if required) health effects which may arise from exposure to hazardous \nactivities or substances in the workplace.   \n \n \nScope : \n \n The Health and Safety at Work Act (2015) requires that when there is a significant hazard that cannot \nbe eliminated, an employer must, in addition to minimizing the hazard, monitor the exposure of the \nemployee to the hazard.  \n \n Occupational health monitoring is a part of the overall Massey University Occupational Health & Safety \n(OHS) obligation to identify, manage and reduce the impact of occupational health hazards in the \nworkplace. Systematic assessment and early detection of  certain hazards in the course of work is \nessential for the safety of workers.  \n \n Occupational Health monitoring means monitoring a person to identify any changes in their health \nstatus because of exposure to certain health hazards arising from the conduct of work. It involves direct \nmonitoring of that person’s health indicators such a s blood, urine, lung function tests and hearing.    \n \nOccupational exposure monitoring means direct or indirect monitoring of the work environment to \nensure that no worker is exposed to a hazardous substance such dust, vapour, gas, noise etc. at a \nlevel that does not exceed the Workplace Exposure Standard and /or may cause harm to a worker. \nOccupational exposure monitoring involves environmental measurements such as dust or air sampling \nand noise levels.  \n \nObjectives : \n  \nThe Health & Safety at Work (General Risk and Workplace Management) Regulations 2016 require \nthat no worker is exposed to a substance hazardous to their health in a concentration that exceeds the \nprescribed exposure standard for that substance.   \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nOccupational Health Monitoring Procedure  – Page 2 \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University    \n To meet these regulations, the University must ensure that exposure monitoring is carried out where \napplicable and any worker exposed to a substance that is hazardous to their health is   offered health \nmonitoring. Objectives for this procedure include, b ut are not limited to:  \n \n• Identify and implement specific health monitoring requirements for workers liable to be exposed to \ncertain substances or elements that present a risk to their health and/or are working in potentially \nhazardous processes.  \n• Evaluate existing control measures and identify areas where improvements may be required.  \n• Collect, maintain and use results and information to assist in determining and evaluating hazards \nto health.  \n• Demonstrate compliance against regulatory standards.  \n• Ensure there are robust processes for monitoring employee exposure levels in relation to any job -\nrelated health hazard.  \n• Establish if current hazard identification and controls are effective i.e. whether harm is, or is not, \nbeing caused to staff  \n• To check if the health of workers is being harmed from exposure to hazards while carrying out \nwork.  \n• To check that job applicants can do the tasks required for specified roles in a safe manner. This \nincludes consideration of potential aggravation to an existing health condition and previous \nexposure levels. It provides baseline measurements for ongoing occupational monitoring and is \nnot intended to exclude or discriminate.  \n \nProcedure:  \n \n1. Occupational Health monitoring will be carried out in situations where:  \na) a worker undertakes work using a substance or element hazardous to health where it has \nbeen identified that health monitoring is required (as specified in a safe work instrument, \ncode of practice, workplace exposure standard) or  \nb) safe environmental levels have been exceeded and there is a risk to the worker’s health \nbecause of exposure to that hazardous material.  \n \n2. Occupational health monitoring will be carried out by a qualified practitioner with knowledge, skills \nand experience in exposure monitoring. The test will be appropriate to test the exposure of the \nhazard being monitored and the data must be interpreted  by a suitably qualified person who \nunderstands the hazards and risks as well as the occupational health & safety implications to the \nperson’s health.  \n \n3. The university will inform all relevant people about the exposure monitoring requirements of the \nwork that involves the health hazard before the work commences.  \n \n4. Consent will be obtained by workers prior to monitoring.  \n \n5. Massey University will pay all necessary occupational health monitoring costs.  \n \n6. Workers will be provided with information, policy, procedures  and evidence upon request \nregarding the occupational exposure monitoring in their area of work.  \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nOccupational Health Monitoring Procedure  – Page 3 \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University    \n7. An occupational health monitoring report will be provided to the relevant parties as soon as \npracticable after the monitoring has occurred. Where possible, workers should be encouraged to \ngive copies to their GP to maintain a central medical record.  \n \n8. The occupational health monitoring report will be escalated to a specialist medical practitioner for \nattention when the results indicate a worker may have suboptimal results or has contracted a \ndisease or an illness as a result of undertaking work. In t his case any remedial advice or \nrecommendations will be acted upon.  \n \n9. Occupational Health monitoring reports will be stored as confidential records and access will be \nrestricted to authorised personnel who need this information to make occupational health and \nsafety decisions regarding workplace safety improvements or to provide medical support to the \nworker. The reports must be identified as records of that worker and kept for the regulated period \nof time.  \n \n10. Health monitoring reports will not be disclosed without the worker’s written consent.  \n \n11. Upon request workers will be provided with a copy of their monitoring records when they leave the \nbusiness.  \n \n12. Exposure monitoring protocols will be reviewed annually or as instructed and updated \naccordingly.  \n \n13. Both the worker and the employer have a role to play in maintaining required occupational health \nstandards in the workplace and both are required to keep the other fully informed of changes in \nthe worker’s health condition or environment.  \n \n14. Both the worker and the employer must ensure that suitable prompt action is undertaken if \noccupational exposure monitoring results identify a problem.   \n \n \nRisk assessment process : \n \nThe first stage of a health and exposure monitoring programme is to identify potential occupational \nhealth hazards in a hazard risk register. If the hazard cannot be completely controlled or eliminated, \nthen minimisation controls must be introduced to prot ect the health of the worker and provide a safe \nworkplace.  \n  \nOnce the occupational health hazards and the work activities requiring monitoring have been identified \nan exposure risk assessment can be undertaken.  \n• Identify the occupational health hazards and who has exposure to them.  \n• Assess the level of risk (low, moderate, high,  or extreme) to the workers. This may involve a \ndetailed risk assessment by a qualified practitioner with knowledge, skills,  and experience in \nexposure monitoring.   \n• Take all reasonably practicable steps to reduce and control the threat of harm, for example:  \n• Remove the hazard altogether.  \n• Reduce the risk by changing the way work is done or use other controls (e.g. local \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nOccupational Health Monitoring Procedure  – Page 4 \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University    \nexhaust ventilation)  \n• Provide personal protective equipment.  \n• Regularly check the occupational health hazard exposure levels.  \n \nOccupational exposure monitoring is required in many workplace settings. Examples include but are \nnot limited to:  \n• Work involving exposure to respiratory (or skin) sensitisers.  \n• Significant exposure to particular substances or chemical agents  \n• Work with vibrating tools . \n• Work in a noisy environment . \n• Work with ionising radiation . \n• Work in compressed gas atmospheres (e.g. divers)  \n \n \nSubstances hazardous to Occupational Health : \n \nMassey has learning, teaching and research work that involves use of hazardous substances in \ncontrolled environments.  \n \nColleges or University Services using hazardous substances must consider the risk of harm to staff and \nstudent health when conducting work via a workplace risk assessment. Whether there is risk or \noccupational health harm or not, the risk assessment must b e recorded in the hazard risk register.  \n \nStaff, students,  and others using hazardous substances must be informed of any relevant occupational \nhealth risks in the risk register and trained in safe operating procedures/safe methods of use.  \n \nFor further information on the management of hazardous substances, refer to the following protocols:  \n• Management and Use of Hazardous Substances  \n• Radiation Management  \n• Hazardous Waste Disposal  \n• The site Hazard Risk Register  \n• Staff Health Monitoring Guideline  \n• Policy on Pre -employment Checks for Prospective Appointees  \nThe process for assessing the need for health surveillance, identifying those at risk and arranging for \nsurveillance to take place is summarised in the diagram below.  \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nOccupational Health Monitoring Procedure  – Page 5 \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University    \n \n \n \nInformation Storage and Privacy : \n  \n• Managers must ensure that results of Occupational exposure monitoring tests are presented to \naffected staff.  \n• The results are to be held with the OHS department for 40 years after the date on which the record \nis made, if the monitoring is undertaken in order to detect asbestos -related disease, or 30 years \nafter the date on which the record is made, in any other case.  \n• The University must provide an exposure monitoring report when requested by WorkSafe New \nZealand under Regulation 41 of the Health & Safety at Work (General Risk and Workplace \nManagement) Regulations 2016.  \n• Personal information collected during the health monitoring process is managed according to the \nfollowing:  \n• Privacy Act 1993  \n• Official Information Act 1982  \n• Health Information Privacy Code 1994  \n• Health & Safety at Work (General Risk and Workplace Management) Regulations \n2016  \n• Massey University Privacy Policy  \n \n \nFunding of monitoring costs : \n \nFunding arrangements are as follows:  \n                                                                             \n                             \n     \n            \n     \n       \n            \n        \n                                              \n                                                                             \n                                       \n                                              \n                                                           \n                        \n                                                                                                                                                                      \n       \n           \n      \n        \n    \n          \n    \n                    \n                \n           \n                 \n                        \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nOccupational Health Monitoring Procedure  – Page 6 \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University    \n• The cost of routine environmental and medical health monitoring is to be factored into \ndepartmental/unit budgets as a part of their operations. Initial determinations of the need for \nenvironmental monitoring may be funded from the Health and Safety office or from regional \nbudgets.  \n• Monitoring of workstation ergonomics for discomfort, pain and injury as well as vision with visual \ndisplay use is common to all University activity and is funded centrally by the University.  \n \n \nGlossary of terms : \n• Audiometry - measurement of the range and sensitivity of a person's sense of hearing.  \n \n• Radiation - the emission of energy as electromagnetic waves or as moving subatomic particles, \nespecially high -energy particles which cause ionisation.  \n \n• Substances hazardous to health - a substance, or product containing a substance, that is known or \nsuspected to cause harm to health. It includes:  \no a substance classified as having toxic or corrosive properties under the Hazardous \nSubstances and New Organisms Act 1996 (HSNO)  \no a substance for which a prescribed exposure standard exists.   \no a substance specified in a safe work instrument as requiring health monitoring.  \n \n• Workplace exposure standard (WES) - For a substance, refers to the airborne concentration of a \nsubstance at which it is believed nearly all workers can be repeatedly exposed to, day after day, \nwithout coming to harm. Employers should aim to have airborne c oncentrations well below the \nWES value. WES values can be found worksafe.govt.nz.  \n \n \nReferences:   \nHealth and Safety at Work Act 2015  \nGRWM Regulations 2016  \n \nRelevant Legislation:  \nHealth and Safety at Work Act (2015)  \nEducation and Training Act 2020  \nRadiation Safety Act 2016  \n \nInformative references:  \nRelevant ORS codes of practice for radiation safety  \nWorkplace exposure standards  \n \nRelated Procedures:  \nNone  \n \n \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Procedures_for_Defining_Qualification_Availability_PDF_130_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Procedures for Defining Qualification Availability",
      "policy_type": "Procedure",
      "file_size": "130 KB",
      "creation_date": "2015-10-09T15:02:07",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220102608+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " Massey University Policy Guide \n \nPROCEDURE S FOR DEFINING QUALIFICATI ON AVAILABILITY   \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \n1. Introduction:   \nMassey University is a multi- campus Univers ity which teaches a variety of Q ualifications  and Specialisations  \ncomprised of papers  delivered in a variety of modes to a variety of student cohorts at various intakes.  This creates a \nmatrix of factors which must be taken into account  in order to apply a definiti on of availability . \n2.  Purpose:  \nThe Procedures enable the University to accurately  identify and promote which Q ualifications and Specialisations are \navailable in which location and mode and for College units to confidently plan thei r qualification portfolio needs so that \nstudents can be assured that they will be able to complete their chosen programme.  \n3. Background:  \nThe University adopted the Qualification Availability Definition and Descriptor (see definitions below) in March 2015  to \nprovide an accurate and useful assessment of availability to assist and enhance the academic planning cycle and \nprovide students with a clearer picture of the location and mode within which  they are able to complete their \nprogramme of study . A Qualification Availability test should be applied that that consists  of seven specific questions , \neach requiring individual assessment of a qualification or a qualification and specialisation to determine if all \ncore/compulsory/fixed papers and sufficient other papers are available at a selected location/mode to complete a \ncourse of study.  \n4. Definitions : \nAcademic Delivery Plan:  The strategic plan Heads of Institute/School/Programme complete in an annual cycle to \nconsider their qualification portfolio needs in relation to teaching and resourcing papers and paper offerings.  \n \nCommittee on University Academic Programmes (CUAP):  This committee considers all new and major \namendments to qualifications and specialisations.  \n \nIntake:  An agreed commencement date for various cohorts, which ensures the availability and alignment of papers so \nthat they can be taken in an order which compl ies with progression regulations and paper requirements. The primary \nintake is traditionally Semester One, but may now also be Semester Two, Southern Spring, or Summer School.  \nIntakes  may also be defined by student participation as part -time or full -time.   \n Integrated Paper Planning Database  (IPP):  IPP is where paper and offering information is held within the Student \nManagement System (SMS) and is used as part of the enrolment and timetabling systems.  \n Location : The campus or other designation for the site of a paper offering.  Section  Academic  \nContact Academic Policy and Regulations Unit  \nLast Review   \nNext Review  August 2018  \nApproval  AC 15/08/297  \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nProcedures for Defining Qualification Availability  – Page 2 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \nMixed Delivery Mode Student : A student who is enrolled in a course of study which includes papers which are \ndelivered by different modes.   \nNote: Mixed mode refers to a student’s enrolment not how a qualification is offered, it can be included as part of the \ndescriptor for how students can complete a qualification.  \n Mode : Communicates the method of delivery that students are expected to engage with which may be internal, \ndistance (extramural) or block . \n Offering: The combination of mode and location to indicate where and how a paper will be taught . \n Paper:  A module of work in a particular discipline that is identified by means of a unique code number and delivered \nby means of lectures, tutorials, seminars, practica, studios or via other learning experiences. If in distance mode \ndelivery may be by correspondence or electronic means. The length of a paper is generally one or two semesters or \nas otherwise specified by the start and end dates. In appropriate combinations papers fulfil programme of study \nrequirements and thus contribute to qualifications. Each paper carries its own credit value . \n \nQualification : An official award given in recognition of the successful completion of a programme of study . \n \nQualification Availability  Definit ion: A [Qualification or Qualification and Specialisation, or specified Part of a Parts -\nbased Qualification]  may be defined as available in a specified location/mode when sufficient core, specialisation and \nelective papers permit a student to complete the qualification as described in the stated mode at the stated location, in \nthe manner described by the regulations within the expected timeframe defined by the student intake.  \n \nQualification Availability Descriptor: An example for the descriptor is:  \nThe [ Qualification or Qualification and Specialisation, or specified Part of a Parts -based Qualification ] is available on a \n[Full time/part time ] basis in a combination of [ Identify Modes ] delivered from/via [ Identify locations ] and can be \ncompleted by [ Identify  Cohort ] students commencing in [ identify start time ] over [ specify years ] duration at a rate of \n[specify credits ] per year.  \n \nQualification Availability Test: See Appendix A  \n \nQualification Availability Tool:  This tool enables staff to assess qualifications against the Qualification Availability \nTest and determine the descriptor to be used.  \n Qualification Regulation Manager (QRM): QRM is a tool within SMS that uses rules to build the qualification \nregulations in a format that students can use to assist them in enrolling.\n \n Student cohorts  may be subject to conditions which constrain their mode of engagement with the University, \nincluding visa conditions for International students, conditions set by funding agencies and sponsors, personal \ncommitments, physical limitations, and access to res ources and leave.  \n \n5.             Procedure  Overview:  \na) New Qualifications and Specialisations, and major amendments : \nWhen proposing a new Qualification or S pecialisation, or proposing major amendments approved by CUAP  \navailability must be planned and as sessed  following the process outlined in Figure 1.  This information will then be \nmade available to other appropriate university stakeholders for a number of purposes (qualification availability, \nmarketing, updating University webpages).  \n \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nProcedures for Defining Qualification Availability  – Page 3 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nFigure 1: Decisio n Pathway for new Qualification or Specialisation  Availability  \nPerson or Group  Responsibilities  Timeline  \nQualification or specialisation \nproposer  • Indicate which location and modes \nthe qualification or specialisation will be taught.  \n• Assess whether  Qualification \ndefinition  is met, and if not apply  a \ndescriptor and include  this information \nin qualification  proposal  in Section C \nof the template.  \n• Discuss the staffing and resource \nrequirements  for the proposed offer \nwith Head of Institute/School/Programme . \n• Create new papers proposals as \nappropriate with agreed offerings.  \n• Amend existing papers with agreed \nofferings.  • Ongoing throughout the year  \nHead of Institute/School/Programme or \nagreed College delegate.  • Review proposal and confirm staffing \nand resourcing.  \n• Confirm proposal meets College Strategic Plan with College Executive \nand Board.  \n• Finalise teaching timetables and \ncompare actual paper offerings \nagainst the availability agreed by the \nColleges in their annual plans to \nensure accuracy . • By January  for CUAP R ound 1  \n• By May for CUAP R ound 2  \n \n• Teaching Timetable finalised in \nSeptember  \nCollege Board  • Review proposal and confirm it is \nconsistent with the College academic \ndirection and goals.  • By February for CUAP Round 1  \n• By June for CUAP Round 2  \nStudent Administration \nPortfolio Leads  • Access Academic Committee minutes \nfor decision around new Qualification \nand Specialisations . Discuss \nqualification availability with College \ncontacts.  • By June of each year for website \nupdating  \nb) Existing Qualifications and Specialisations:  \nAs part of the Academic Delivery Plan  Colleges  consider their entire qualification portfolio , this process is summarised  \nin Figure 2. Once outputs from this College planning cycle have been made staffing and resource requirements need to be taken into account to guarantee the offer. Annual timing and dates, and staff roles need to be incorporated at \nthis point .  \nOn an annual planning cycle, Colleges will use the Test of Qualification Availability to confirm whether the current \noffer matches the offer in the College Academic Delivery Plan with the availability recorded in the Programme Guide. \nWhere offerings are misaligned with the planned mix of offer, take steps to amend the paper offerings to match the \nplan and update the Programme Guides  accordingly.  \nFigure 2: Decision Pathway for existing  Qualification or Specialisation Availability  \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nProcedures for Defining Qualification Availability  – Page 4 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nPerson or Group  Responsibilities  Timeline  \nHead of \nInstitute/School/Programme or agreed College delegate.  • Consider portfolio of Qualifications \nagainst College Strategic Plan.  \n• Apply Qualification definition or a \ndescript or to existing Qualifications and \nSpecialisations by utilising the \nQualification Availability Tool.  \n• Discuss offerings with teaching staff, \ntaking into account location and modes \nof offerings.  \n• Confirm  the staffing and resource \nrequirements for proposed offer.  \n• Advise College Executive/Board of \nplanned offer.  \n• Amend existing papers with agreed \nofferings.  \n• Finalise teaching timetables and compare actual paper offerings against \nthe availability agreed by the Colleges in their annual plans to ensure it is still \ncorrect.  • By January for CUAP Round 1  \n• By May for CUAP Round 2  \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n• Teaching Timetable finalised in \nSeptember  \nCollege Executive  • Review proposal and confirm staffing \nand resourcing.  \n• Confirm offer meets College Strategic \nPlan and Academic Delivery Plan.  • January for CUAP Round 1  \n• May for CUAP Round 2  \nc) Publication of Availability Definitions and Descriptors: \nOnce Availability definitions and descriptors have been assigned to qualifications and specialisations Student \nAdministration are able to update Massey University  publications as per Figure 3 for use by the Massey University  \nwebpages, External Relations and the International Office, as designated,  for recruitment purposes.  \nFigure 3: Publica tion Stage  \nPerson or Group  Responsibilities  Timeline  \nPortfolio Leads Student \nAdministration  • Update Programme Guides with new \nQualifications and Specialisations and \namendments to existing using \nAvailability definition or descriptor.  \n• Update Courses documents  to reflect \nProgramme Guides.  • Courses documents updated \nand completed by June for \nfollowing year’s enrolment.  \n \nCollege Account Managers  • Update marketing information in \nProgramme Guides and notify \nExternal Relations of changes.  • Courses documents updated \nand completed by June for \nfollowing year’s enrolment.  \nStudent Information Unit  • Update Courses webpages with \namended Courses documents.  \n• Access updated availability reports \nfrom QRM to update Publications.  • Your Guide Books publishe d in \nMarch for following year’s \nenrolment.  \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nProcedures for Defining Qualification Availability  – Page 5 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \n• Qualifications without specialisations or with simple availability  - the Qualification Definition or descriptor  can \nbe included in the key facts on the info page.  \n• Specialisations have their own pages and should have the availability information displayed on their key facts \nsection.  \n• International Office s taff responsible for Admissions and publications such as the ‘ International Prospectus ’ \nshould liaise with Student Administration to confirm availability of quali fication information.  \n \n6. Communication:  \nIf there is a change to the advertised availability  due to unexpected or exceptional events the web information must be \nupdated as soon as possible, any affected students  and stakeholders  must  be notified of the change and advice \nshould be given to students  about alternate options for their study.  \n7.  Audience : \nAll staff and students  \n \nRelated procedures / documents : \nMassey University  Qualification Policy and Framework  \nTeaching and Learning Policy and Framework  \nDocument Management Control:  \nPrepared by: Academic Policy and Regulations Unit  \nAuthorised by: AVC – Academic, Research and Enterprise \nApproved by: Academic Committee \nDate issued:  10 August 2015  \nLast review: 10 August 2015 \nNext review: August 2018   \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nProcedures for Defining Qualification Availability  – Page 6 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nAPPENDIX A: Qualification Availability  Test  \n \n  \n \n\n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Graduating_Year_Review_Procedures_PDF_255_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Graduating Year Review Procedures",
      "policy_type": "Procedure",
      "file_size": "255 KB",
      "creation_date": "2024-06-24T09:03:00",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220100800+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n \nGRADUATING YEAR REVIEW PROCEDURES  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \n \nContents:  \n Page  \n1. Introduction  2 \n2. Process Overview  2 \n3. Qualifications Requiring and Not Requiring a Graduating Year Review  2 \n3.1 Graduating Year Review Required  2 \n3.2 Graduating Year Review Not Required  2 \n3.3 Graduating Year Reviews Unable to be Completed  2 \n4. Process Details  3 \n4.1. Schedule  3 \n4.2. Data  3 \n4.3. Self-Review  3 \n4.4. Student Feedback  4 \n4.5. Consultation  5 \n4.6 Review Panel s 5 \n4.6.1 Review Panel Membership  5 \n4.6.2 Review Panel Meeting  5 \n4.6.3 Review Panel Documentation  5 \n4.6.4 Review Panel Considerations  5 \n4.6.5 Review Panel Report  6 \n4.7. Graduating Year Review Report  6 \n4.8 Peer Review  7 \n4.9. Deferrals  7 \n4.10. General  7 \n5. Appendices  \nA Graduating Year Review Template   9 \nB Committee on University Academic Programmes Graduating Year Review Requirements & Informatio n\n 16 \nC Review Panel Guide for Report s 19 \nD Massey University Graduating Year Review Internal Peer Review Guide  20 \nE Sample Graduating Year Review Deferral Request   21 \nF. Timeline  22 \n Section  Academic  \nContact  Academic Policy and Regulations Unit  \nLast Review  February  2014 \nNext Review  February 201 6 \nApproval  AC14/02/21  – February  2014 \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nGraduating Year Review Procedures – Page 2  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n1. Introduction:  \nGraduating Year Review  (GYR)  is the name of the moderation process directed  by the Committee for University \nAcademic Programmes (CUAP) .  All New Zealand universities are required to conduct a formal review of new \nqualifications generally within three years of the first cohort of students graduating.  Failure to submit a GYR may result \nin the withdrawal of approval of the qualification with no new students being allowed to enrol. (Source :  CUAP Handbook ) \n \nA GYR is not expected to be a congratulatory document.  It should critically analyse the qualification / specialisation \nagainst the specified CUAP criteria and provide hone st answer s.  If there is room for improvement this should be noted \nand wherever possible actions to take to correct the identified problems should be noted.   CUAP want to know if the \nqualification / specialisation is achieving  the goals stated in the original proposal and if it is meeting the needs of students \nand industry .  If not, what has been , or is being done , to address this.   \n \nThese Procedures outline the process to follow to conduct a GYR in order to  meet CUAP requirements.    \n2. Process  Overview : \n• The qualification / specialisation coordinator (or equivalent) conducts a self -review critically analysing the \nqualification / specialisation in relation to the original CUAP proposal and GYR requirements .   \n• A GYR Panel , comprising of experts external to the qualification / specialisation , is appointed and conducts \nthe GYR using the self -review document, the original CUAP proposal, student enrolment and completion \nnumbers, reports of any other reviews on the qualification / specialisation , the aggregated results of any \napplicable student survey s and any other relevant documentation.   \n• The GYR Panel  writes the GYR report using the self -review report as the base  and adding any appropriate \ncomments and /or recommendations .   \n• The GYR report is peer re viewed within Massey University  through College Committees  and Academic  \nCommittee prior to being sent to CUAP.  Colleges may add other peer review steps as appropriate.  \n• The GYR report is scrutinised  by two other universities and discussed at the November  CUAP meeting.  \nOutcomes of the scrutiny  process and CUAP meeting may include acceptance of the GYR report, revision \nand re -submission, the establishment of a CUAP review panel to report on specified issues or withdrawal \nof approval  of the qualification / specialisation . \n \n3. Qualifications Requiring and Not Requiring a Graduating Year Review  \n \n3.1 Graduating Year Review Required  \n \nA qualification / specialisation that is (a) open to enrolments , (b) has received  enrolments and (c) has had at least one \ncompletion requires a GYR.  \n \n3.2 Graduating Year Review Not Required  \n \nA qualification / specialisation that has been closed to new enrolments or that has been deleted through the CUAP \nprocess does not require a GYR.  \n \n3.3 Graduating Year Review s Unable to be Completed.  \n \nQualification s / specialisation s that are (a) open to enrolments but  have received no enrolments or ha ve had no \ncompletions or (b) have not yet been offered, cannot undergo a GYR and an application for deferral should be \nrequested.  See section 4.11 on Deferrals.  \n \n4. Process Details : \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nGraduating Year Review Procedures – Page 3  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \n4.1 Schedule:  \n \nThe Schedule of GYRs for the following year is sent to Academic Committee and Colleges in October/ November by the \nAccreditation Consultant .  All qualifications / specialisations  listed on the Schedule will, unless granted a deferral, or \ninvolve a closed qualification, have a  GYR report lodged with Academic Committee not later than the September \nmeeting.   Any changes to the Schedule due to deferrals or a qualification / specialisation being closed are communicated \nto CUAP who confirm the Schedule in February /March .   \n \n4.2 Data : \n \nThe Academic Policy & Regulations Unit (APRU) collates the  following data for all GYRs :   \n \n• Student headcount numbers  \n• EFTS  \n• Completion  numbers  \n• Strategic Priority Group headcount numbers  \n• Student Tracking Data  (transfers, withdrawals, completions)  \n \nThis data is sent to Colleges in January/February and is used by the qualification / specialisation coordinator as part \nof the self -review and by the GYR panel  in their review .  The student headcount numbers, EFTS data and completion \nnumbers are  also included in the final GYR report  that goes to CUAP .  The Strategic Priority Group headcount \nnumbers and student tracking data are for university  information only and are removed before being sent to CUAP.  \n \n4.3 Self-Review : \n \nThe purpose of the self -review is to critically analyse the qualification / specialisation in relation to the original CUAP \nproposal and GYR requirements.  The  self-review is conducted by the qualification / specialisation coordinator  and may \ninclude other staff if necessary .  The GYR template (attached as Appendix A) should be used for the self -review.  The \nfollowing areas  form the basis of the review  (source:  CUAP Handbook ):  The full CUAP GYR requirements and \ninformation section from the CUAP Handbook  booklet is attached as Appendix B.  \n \nProgramme Statement  \n \nDescription  \nProvide a  brief description of the programme as approved by CUAP and how it has been introduced and consolidated . \n \nAchievement  \nSet out the stated goals in the original proposal  and provide a brief statement on the extent to which these have been \nachieved.  \n \nChanges  \nMention any significant changes that have been made to the programme since approval, including specification of any \nchanges to regulations.  \n \nReview Processes  \n \nProvide a brief overview of programme review processes as they are applied in the university.  If more than one GYR \nis being submitted, this overview may be provided as a covering statement.  Provide a brief account of the GYR \nprocesses that have been appl ied to this specific programme, including student feedback and references to available \ndocumentation.  Include comment  on the establishment of the evaluation team, including names and positions held.  \nNote that a GYR process should involve a formally const ituted review panel with at least one member from a dis ciplinary \narea other than any involved in the delivery of the programme.  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nGraduating Year Review Procedures – Page 4  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \n(As part of the final GYR report comment on the establishment of the GYR Panel  is included  and contains names and \npositions held.  Composition of the panel is detailed below under the Review Panel  section.   An overview of the GYR \nprocess is compiled by APRU and provided to CUAP ) \n \nReview Outcomes  \n \nAcceptability  \nProvide a  statement of the ongoing acceptability of the programme  to the relevant academic, industrial,  and professional \ncommunities .  Provide evidence that the graduate profile is being achieved.   \n \n(Massey University only requirement:  Includ e Maori and Pasifika professional organisations and communities, with \nevidence of ongoing consultation with relevant reference groups.  Where appropriate, highlight the programme’s \ncontribution to local, national, Pacific,  and global developments. ) \n \nAssessment procedures and student performance  \nProvide a  statement on the ongoing appropriateness of methods of assessment including proc edures for external \nassessment.  \n \nData  \nProvide summary information on the numbers actually enrolling and completing . This should be provided in an easily \ninterpreted format with a commentary.   [Please note APRU provides this data,  and the self -review coordinator adds the \ncommentary ] \n \n(Massey University additional requirement)  If enrolments fell below the targets provide an explanation for this .  While \nCUAP requires the inclusion of raw data there is also a need for analytic interpretation,  and this should be  incorporated .  \nData on strategic priority groups comprising  Maori students, Pasifika students, distance learning students and under \n25-year-olds will be included in an appendix to t he GYR report.   Comment should be made on whether or not numbers \nof enrolments and completions in these groups are appropriate and if not, what has, or is being done to address this.   \nThis appendix will be removed before the report is sent to CUAP.    \n \nProgramme evaluation.  \nIf the programme  has been subject to any external reviews e.g. by professional or accreditation bodies include, where \nrelevant, a statement of intention , or revisions , to address any shortfall identified  in an external review.  \n \nContinuation or discontinuation  \nA statement indicating whether it is the university’s intention to continue or discontinue the qualification  / subject .  Where \nnumbers of students enrolling and completing are low  and where the university is continuing the qualification  / \nspecialisation , a summary of other actions to be taken to support that  continuation must be included.  \n \nOnce the coordinator has completed the self -review, the Director Teaching and Learning (or equivalent) should assess \nthe report against the CUAP requirements.   Colleges may add any additional approval / assessment pathways for the \nself-review report they think necessary .  The final self -review report is then made available to the Review Panel.  \n \n4.4 Student Feedback  \n \nCUAP require student feedback on the qualification / specialisation being reviewed.  The University currently conducts \nor takes part in the following surveys that can be used for the GYRs:  Australasian Surve y of Student Engagement \n(AUSSE) and the  Graduate Destination Survey.  Where these surveys have been carried out for the qualification / \nspecialisation under review a narrative and/or comments will be made available to both the Self -review Coordinator and \nthe Review Panel.  Individual student re sponses w ill not be provided.  APRU will obtain the survey information from the \nStudent Survey and Evaluation Unit.  Where an appropriate survey has not been conducted, or where the results are \ninsufficient, APRU, in consultation with the SSEU, will conduct a surve y specifically designed for the GYR.  \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nGraduating Year Review Procedures – Page 5  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n4.5 Consultation : \n \nConsultation with relevant units should be initiated during the self -review stage .  Where a nother  unit is directly involved \nwith teaching the  qualification / specialisation , formal consultation and sign off is required.  Where a qualification / \nspecialisation is jointly offered by two Colleges, one College will be the lead College for the GYR,  and timeframes need \nto be considered to allow the final report to be approved through each College’s  Committee process.   \n \n4.6 Review Panel s: \n \n4.6.1 Review Panel Membership  \nThe GYR process must  include a review of the qualification / specialisation by a review panel.  The panel will \nconsist of three members, one of whom will be appointed convenor .  Larger panels may be used .  Panel \nmembership will always include at least one member external to the College and wherever possible  external to \nthe University.  The panel should not contain , as a full member,  staff teaching in the qualification and should \navoid containing staff within the teaching unit.   However, a subject matter exp ert may be consulted by the panel \nand participate in panel meetings if required .  The GYR panel is similar in concept to that of a Qualification Review \nwith the expectation that people with appropriate expertise / knowledge external to the qualification / \nspecialisation look at it from an outside perspective and base their report on the evidence available.  Subject \nmatter experts should provide clarification and answers to panel queries.  It is acceptable to use one panel to \nconduct more than one GYR if pan el members contain suitable expertise / knowledge to cover each GYR.   \n \nColleges will nominate panel members,  and these will be approved by the Pro Vice -Chancellor.  Confirmed panel \nmembership should be sent to  the Accreditation Consultant  by 31 March in order to meet GYR process timelines \nand will be included in the April Academic Committee report .   \n \n4.6.2 Review Panel Meeting  \nOnce panel membership has been confirmed the School/College organises the panel meeting.  Enough time \nshould be allowed when inviting  the panel in case first choice members are unavailable and alternatives need to \nbe sought.   The Review Panel  may meet together in one location or make use of technology to conduct the review \nremotely  if appropriate.    \n \n4.6.3 Review Panel Documentation  \nThe panel is charged with reviewing the qualification / specialisation using  available  data and information .  This \nwill include:  the self -review report, the original CUAP proposal, student enrolment and completion numbers, \nreports of any other reviews on the qualification / specialisation , the aggregated results of the student survey  and \nany other applicable documentation .  The panel may also if  they wish, interview staff, students,  and stakeholders .   \n \n4.6.4 Review Panel Considerations  \nThe panel will consider  and assesses the qualification / specialisation against the CUAP requirements  where \npossible .  These are as follows:  \n \nIn assessing Graduating Year Review reports, the committee [CUAP] will use the criteria for programme approval \nset out in section 3  [ CUAP  Handbook ].  Particular attention will be paid in this peer review process to criteria 2 , \n3, 4 and 5 (see section 3).  \n \nTherefore the committee will be concerned mainly to verify that : \n \n(a) It has on its files a full and up -to-date statement of the institution’s own review, monitoring,  and evaluation \nprocedures . \n \n(b) Appropriate institutional review processes have been followed to an acceptable standard . \n \n(c) Criteria 2, 3, 4, and 5 have been met satisfactorily, namely:  \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nGraduating Year Review Procedures – Page 6  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \ni. The adequacy and appropriateness of the title, aims, stated learning outcomes and coherence of the \nwhole course . \n \nii. The adequacy and appropriateness of delivery and learning methods, for all modes of delivery, given \nthe stated learning outcomes . \n \niii. The acceptability of the course to the relevant academic, industrial, professional,  and other \ncommittees in terms of its stated aims and learning outcomes, nomenclature, content,  and structure . \n \niv. The adequacy and appropriateness of the regulations that specify requirements for admissions, \ncredit for previous study, recognition of prior learning. Course length and structure, integration of \npractical/work -based components, assessment procedures, and normal progression within a \nprogramme . \n \n(d) The targets stated in the original CUAP proposal have been met and, if not, the university states the actions \nto be taken . \n \n(e) Any concerns raised by CUAP at the point of approval, and any required changes, have been adequately \naddressed.  \n \nThe Review Panel should not consider themselves confine d to the above CUAP criteria but may address any \naspect of the qualification / specialisation.  A Review Panel Guide for Reports including these considerations is \nattached as Appendix C.  \n \n4.6.5 Review Panel Report  \nThe Review P anel will produce the GYR report.  A Review Panel Guide for Report s is attached as Appendix C.   \nThis Appendix includes a series of questions for the Review Panel to consider which look at the overall \ncompleteness of the self -review report  and the findings contained within it .  The Review Panel should include in \nthe report relevant recommendations and commendations if pertinent.  \n \n4.7 Graduating Year Review Report : \n \nThe Review Panel is responsible for writing the GYR report  in conjunction with staff as required , including t he Director \nTeaching and Learning  (or equivalent).  The GYR report should use the self -review report  as the basis.    The Review \nPanel  report should include any recommendations they make  and, if appropriate , selected quotes.  Once the Review \nPanel has finished the report it is sent to the Self -review Coordinator (or equivalent) for comment on how the College \nintends to action the review panel recommen dations or how it plans to look into these further.  The final report may also \ninclude other recommendations or suggestions made by the College.   It may also be helpful for the qualification / \nspecialisation coordinator to consider the c riteria that CUAP uses for assessing the GYR  reports  as detailed in the \nReview Panel Report section above.  The full CUAP GYR requirements and information section from the CUAP \nHandbook  is attached as Appendix B. \n \nThe final GYR report is submitted  through College Committees  and forwarded to the Accreditation Consultant in time \nfor the September meeting of Academic Committee .   \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nGraduating Year Review Procedures – Page 7  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n4.8 Peer Review  \n \nThe final GYR report is peer reviewed through College Committees and Academic Committee before being sent to \nCUAP.  Colleges may also put the report through additional peer review  depending on college  preference and time \nconstrain ts.   \n \nA guide  for this additional peer review is included as Appendix D  but Colleges do not need to limit themselves to the \nissues listed in th is guide . \n \n4.9 Deferrals : \n \nMassey University is required to lodge requests for deferrals of GYRs to CUAP .  Requests for deferrals should be sent \nto the Accreditation Consultant by 28 February  in time for the March  Academic Committee meeting.  Deferrals are not \nautomatically granted  by CUAP .   \n \nA sample deferral request is attached as Appendix E.  Late requests are not permitted.  \n \nDeferrals will be considered on the following  grounds : \n \ni. The programme either has not yet been offered or was first offered at a later date than first envisaged . \nii. All or most enrolments are part -time and there have been no completions by the time the report is due . \niii. The due date for the GYR precedes or coincides with a scheduled departmental or programme review.  \n \nDeferrals will be granted for a maximum of two years from the first due date of a  Graduating Year Review.  \n \nIf a programme has not been offered, or has attracted no enrolments, in the five  years following its introduction, it should \nbe re -submitted to CUAP (as in Section 5.1)  for re -evaluation  or formally deleted (as in section 5.2) .  (source:  CUAP \nHandbook ) \n \nThere is no minimum number of graduates required for a GYR.  Requests for deferral on the basis of low numbers of \ngraduates will not be accepted.  Qualifications with low numbers of graduates need to consider the reason for the low \nnumber in the GYR and, w here appropriate, report on actions to be taken to improve graduate numbers.  \n \n4.10 General:  \n \nA timeline is attached as Appendix F. \n \nExamples of previous GYRs and advanced schedules of GYR due dates are available from the Accreditation Consultant \nupon request.  \n \nIf a Qualification Review (QR) has occurred within one year of the due date for a GYR , another panel does not need to \nbe constituted to conduct the GYR provided that all the information required by a GYR has been addressed in the QR.  \nIn these cases the qualification / specialisation coordinator and the Director Teaching & Learning (or equivalent) will \nprepare the GYR report based on the findings of the QR.  The GYR report should include details of the QR panel and \nprocess they follo wed.   If a QR is due wit hin a year of a GYR a deferral of the GYR may be requested  (as per iii. in the \nDeferrals section above)  in order that both are conducted simultaneously.  If a QR is due the same year as a GYR these \nmay use the same Review Panel,  but two separate reports must be prepared.  If a QR an d GYR are to be combined  \nthese must be conducted in the first half of the year in order for the GYR report to proceed through the committee \nprocess before being submitted to CUAP.  \n \nAny costs associated with conducting a GYR are to be met within college  budgets.  \n \nThe qualification / specialisation coordinator should begin gathering information and documents from the first year of \noffering of  a new qualification / specialisation.  This could include , but is not limited to,  any reviews of the qualification / \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nGraduating Year Review Procedures – Page 8  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nspecialisation, changes made or recommendations for changes  and the reasons for these, student / industry feedback, \nand external accreditations.  In this way by the time the GYR is due information should be readily available and up to \ndate showing progression of the qualification / specialisation.  \nAudience : \nAll staff conducting a Graduating Year Review  \nRelated procedures / documents : \nCUAP Handbook  \nMassey University Qualification s Policy  \nMassey University Qualifications Framework  \nQualification Review Policy  \nQualification Review Procedures  \nDocument Management Control:  \nPrepared by:  Academic Policy & Regulations Unit  \nAuthorised by:  AVC (Research, Academic & Enterprise)  \nApproved by:   Academic Committee (AC)  \nDate issued:   April 2012  \nLast review:   February  2014  \nNext review:  February 2016  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nGraduating Year Review Procedures – Page 9  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nGYR Procedures  Appendix A \nGraduating Year Review Template  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nGRADUATING YEAR REVIEW  \n \nCurrent year   \nName of programme   \nIdentifier for the original proposal  (e.g. MU11 – BBS/2)  \nName of self -review coordinator \nand position held   \n \n1. Programme Statement  \n \n(a) Description  \n(Provide a brief description of the programme as approved by CUAP and how it has been introduced and consolidated)  \n \n(b) Achievement  \n(Set out the stated goals in the original proposal  and provide a brief statement on the extent to which these have been \nachieved). \n \n(c) Changes  \n(Mention any significant changes that have been made to the programme since approval, including specification of any \nchanges to regulations).  \n \n2. Review Processes  \n \n(Provide a brief overview of programme review processes as they are applied in the university. If more than one GYR \nis being submitted, this overview may be provided as a covering statement. Provide a brief account of the GYR processes \nthat have been appli ed to this specific programme, including student feedback and references to available \ndocumentation. Include comment on the establishment of the evaluation team, including names and positions held. Note \nthat a GYR process should involve a formally constitu ted review panel with at least one member from a disciplinary \narea other than any involved in the delivery of the programme).  \n \n3. Review Outcomes  \n \n(Summarise the outcomes of the review processes under the following headings)  \n \n(a) Acceptability  \n(Provide a statement of the ongoing acceptability of the programme to the relevant academic, industri al, and \nprofessional communities.  Provide evidence that the graduate profile is being achieved.  I nclud e Maori and Pasifika \n\n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nGraduating Year Review Procedures – Page 10  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nprofessional organisations and communities, with evidence of ongoing consultation with relevant reference groups.  \nWhere appropriate, highlight the programme’s contribution to local, national, Pacific,  and global developments.)  \n \n(b) Assessment procedures and student performance  \n(Provide a statement on the ongoing appropriateness of methods of assessment including  any procedures for external \nassessment.)  \n \n(c) Data  \n(Provide information on student number actually enrolling and completing. This should be provided in an easily \ninterpreted format with a commentary.  If enrolments fell below the targets provide an explanation for this.   Please also \ninclude in Appendix A this analysis information on strategic priority groups including Maori students, Pasifika students, \ndistance learning students and under 25-year-olds.) \n \nSummary information on numbers enrolling and completing.  \n \n(The following data is provided by APRU)  \n \nYears (from \nand \nincluding the \nfirst)  Actual \nnumbers \nenrolled  New to \nProgram\nme Full-time Part-time EFTS  Numbers \ncompleted  \n       \n       \n       \n       \n       \nExtend table as required. If more than one qualification, create appropriate sections.  \n \n(d) Programme evaluation  \n(If the programme has been subject to any external reviews e.g. by professional or accreditation bodies include, where \nrelevant, a statement of intention , or revisions , to address any shortfall identified  in an external review .) \n \n(e) Continuation or discontinuation  \n(A statement indicating whether it is the university’s intention to continue or discontinue the qualification/subject.   \nWhere numbers of students enrolling and completing the qualification do not meet the original targets and where the \nuniversity is continuing the qualification/subject, a summary of other actions to be taken to support that continuation \nmust be included.)  \n \nThis report should be no more than four pages long.  All italicised notes should be deleted before submission.  \n  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nGraduating Year Review Procedures – Page 11  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nGraduating Year Review Template – (GYR Template Appendix A ) \n \nStrategic Priority Groups Data  \n \nThis appendix contains data on distance and internal students, ethnicities, over and under 25s and full -time and part -\ntime study to allow comparisons on the strategic priority groups - Maori students, Pasifika students, distance learning \nstudents and under 25-year-olds.   \n \nComment should be made on whether or not numbers of enrolments and completions in the strategic priority groups are \nappropriate and if not, what has, or is being done to address this.   \n \nThis appendix is included for university  purposes only and will be removed before the GYR report is submitted to \nCUAP.   \n \n(The following data is provided by APRU)  \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nGraduating Year Review Procedures – Page 12  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nDistance Students  \nPrimary Ethnicity  Full/Part Time  Age 2010  Cmpltns  2011  Cmpltns  2012  Cmpltns  \nAsian  F 24 & under              \n    25 & over              \n  F Total                \n  P 24 & under             \n    25 & over             \n  P Total                \nAsian Total                  \nMaori  F 24 & under            \n    25 & over            \n  F Total                \n  P 24 & under            \n    25 & over            \n  P Total                \nMaori Total                  \nOther  F 24 & under            \n    25 & over            \n  F Total                \n  P 24 & under            \n    25 & over            \n  P Total                \nOther Total                  \nPacific Peoples  F 24 & under            \n    25 & over            \n  F Total                \n  P 24 & under              \n    25 & over              \n  P Total                \nPacific Peoples Total                  \nPakeha/European  F 24 & under             \n    25 & over             \n  F Total                \n  P 24 & under            \n    25 & over            \n  P Total                \nPakeha/European Total                  \nUnspecified  F 24 & under              \n    25 & over              \n  F Total                \n  P 24 & under              \n    25 & over              \n  P Total                \nUnspecified Total                  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nGraduating Year Review Procedures – Page 13  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nInternal Students  \nPrimary Ethnicity  Full/Part Time  Age 2010  Cmpltns  2011  Cmpltns  2012  Cmpltns  \nAsian  F 24 & under              \n    25 & over              \n  F Total                \n  P 24 & under             \n    25 & over             \n  P Total                \nAsian Total                  \nMaori  F 24 & under            \n    25 & over            \n  F Total                \n  P 24 & under            \n    25 & over            \n  P Total                \nMaori Total                  \nOther  F 24 & under            \n    25 & over            \n  F Total                \n  P 24 & under            \n    25 & over            \n  P Total                \nOther Total                  \nPacific Peoples  F 24 & under            \n    25 & over            \n  F Total                \n  P 24 & under              \n    25 & over              \n  P Total                \nPacific Peoples Total                  \nPakeha/European  F 24 & under             \n    25 & over             \n  F Total                \n  P 24 & under            \n    25 & over            \n  P Total                \nPakeha/European Total                  \nUnspecified  F 24 & under              \n    25 & over              \n  F Total                \n  P 24 & under              \n    25 & over              \n  P Total                \nUnspecified Total                  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nGraduating Year Review Procedures – Page 14  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nGraduating Year Review Procedures – Page 15  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nGraduating Y ear Review Template – (GYR Template Appendix B ) \n \nStudent Tracking Data  \n \nThis appendix is included for university  purposes only and will be removed before the GYR report is submitted  to \nCUAP.  \n \n(The following data is provided by APRU)  \n \nTotals        \nIndividual Commencements ( from the 1st year of offer – current year )       \nActive in 2014 (includes new in current year )       \nTotal Conclusions (from the 1st year of offer – year immediately prior \nto current year) :       \n        \n2014 Enrolments        \nReturning in current year  from previous year/s study        \nNew to Programme in current year        \n        \nConclusions  Prior to current year        \nSuccessful Completion        \nNot Carried On        \nTransferred Out        \n        \nPercentages        \nSuccessful Completions  % from total \ncommencements      \n% from \nconclusions only      \nExits without qualification  % from total \ncommencements      \n% from \nconclusions only      \nConclusions (from the 1st year of offer - year immediately prior to \ncurrent year ) as a percentage of Commencements from the 1st year of \noffer – current year ) % of \ncommencements      \n \nNotes:  \n \nThe current year figures are as of February and will be updated prior to the final report being presented to Academic \nCommittee in September.  \n \nConclusions include successful completions, transfers and students who have not carried on  studying . \n \nThe actual years will be added according to when the qualification was approved.  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nGraduating Year Review Procedures – Page 16  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nGraduating Year Review Template – (GYR Template Appendix C ) \n \n \nStaff Profiles  \n \nThis appendix is included for university  purposes only and will be removed before the GYR report is submitted to \nCUAP.  \n \n \nPlease provide appropriate information on staff teaching into the qualification / specialisation.  This should include \nposition, supervision and teaching, research projects, expertise and outputs, and qualifications.   \n \nThis information is to allow a critical review of the staffing environment with reference to the original proposal and \nenvironment in which success is articulated.  \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nGraduating Year Review Procedures – Page 17  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nGYR Procedures  Appendix B \n \nCommittee on University Academic Programmes Graduating Year Review Requirements and \nInformation  \n \nCUAP has given the name Graduating Year Review to its moderation process.  \n \nThe committee requires a follow -up review of all successful proposals involving the introduction of new qualifications \nand major subjects  and endorsements comprising 40% or more of a qualification . (Higher doctorates are exempted \nfrom this process , and reviews are not required for minor subjects or for endorsements when they comprise less than \n40% of the qualification .)  Reviews should be conducted formally, involving an appointed convener and also at least \none panel member from another disciplinary area. R eviews might be part of regular institutional reviews but the report \nto CUAP should stand alone and cover the topics outlined in the “Format for reports” following. The review is intended \nto assure the committee that programmes are meeting their original c ourse objectives and an acceptable standard of \ndelivery.  \n \nThe reports should be summary statements only and no more than four pages long.  Members of CUAP will be entitled \nto call for copies of all documentation referred to in the reports. Following the response to such a request, where any \nmember retains reserva tions about a programme, the university offering the programme may be asked to respond to \nthese reservations at a subsequent meeting of CUAP.  \n \nThe Graduating Year Review  reports will normally be required to be submitted within three years of the graduation of \nthe first cohort of students, and in time for the November meeting of CUAP, i.e. by 1 November. For a three -year \nbachelor’s degree this will mean Year 6, while for a one-year diploma it will mean Year 4. Universities will be provided \nwith approximately one year’s notice of their requirement to submit a review report.  \n \nIf a university fails to provide a Graduating Year Review report when requested, the committee may suspend approval \npending receipt of the report. The effect of such a decision would be that no new students could be enrolled in the \nprogramme until the comm ittee lifted the approval suspension on receipt of the report.  \n \nCriteria for Assessing Graduating Year Review Reports  \n \nIn assessing Graduating Year Review reports, the committee will use the criteria for programme approval set out in \nsection 3. Particular attention will be paid in this peer review process to criteria 2 , 3, 4 and 5 (see section 3).  \n \nTherefore the committee will be concerned mainly to verify that : \n \na. It has on its files a full and up -to-date statement of the institution’s own review, monitoring,  and evaluation \nprocedures  \n \nb. Appropriate institutional review processes have been followed to an acceptable standard  \n \nc. Criteria 2,  3, 4, and 5 have been met satisfactorily, namely:  \ni. The adequacy and appropriateness of the title, aims, stated learning outcomes and coherence of the whole \ncourse . \n \nii. The adequacy and appropriateness of delivery and learning methods, for all modes of delivery, given the \nstated learning outcomes . \n \niii. The acceptability of the course to the relevant academic, industrial, professional,  and other committees in \nterms of its stated aims and learning outcomes, nomenclature, content,  and structure . \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nGraduating Year Review Procedures – Page 18  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \niv. The adequacy and appropriateness of the regulations that specify requirements for admissions, credit for \nprevious study, recognition of prior learning. Course length and structure, integration of practical/work -\nbased components, assessment procedures, and normal progression within a programme . \n \nd. The targets stated in the original CUAP proposal have been met and, if not, the university states the actions to \nbe taken . \n \ne. Any concerns raised by CUAP at the point of approval, and any required changes, have been adequately \naddressed.  \n \nDeferral or Programme N ot Offered  \n \nUniversities may request deferral of a Graduating Year Review on the following grounds:  \n \ni. The programme either has not yet been offered or was first offered at a later date than first envisaged  \n \nii. All or most enrolments are part -time and there have been no completions by the time the report is due  \n \niii. The due date for the Graduating Year Review precedes or coincides with a scheduled departmental or \nprogramme review  \n \nDeferrals will be granted for a maximum of two years from the first due date of a Graduating Year Review.  \n \nIf a programme has not been offered, or has attracted no enrolments, in the five years following its introduction, it should \nbe re -submitted to CUAP (as in Section 5.1) for re -evaluation  or formally deleted (as in Section 5.2).  (See section 5.9) . \n \nProcess for Consideration of the Reports  \n \na. Each set of reports submitted by a university will be initially considered by two CUAP members acting as \nscrutineers who will provide a summary report to the CUAP meeting on:  \n \ni. The acceptability and rigour of the review processes utilised by the university  \n \nii. The general quality of the reports from the university, and the extent to which they meet the requirements \nof the GYR process  \n \niii. Any specific issues relating to individual programmes that are of interest to the Committee  \n \niv. Any general issues emerging from the university’s submissions . \n \nIn considering the Graduating Year Reviews the scrutineers may seek clarification of any matter from the originating \nuniversity.  \n \nb. The scrutineers’ reports will be considered by the full committee in order to:  \n \ni. Make specific recommendations on individual programmes  \n \nii. Make recommendations on improvements to the processes undertaken by individual universities, or \nproposals for improvement to the CUAP process  \n \niii. Identify any general issues of interest to all universities . \n \n \nOutcomes  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nGraduating Year Review Procedures – Page 19  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \nCUAP may,  \n \n1. a. Accept the review report.  \n \nb. Accept the report, with specified changes (which would normally be actioned through a Round One or \nRound Two proposal) or other comment.  \n \nThe programme would subsequently be subject to normal external academic audit and institutional self -review \nprocesses.  \n \n2. Require one further report after a specified time in response to concerns about the programme specified by the \ncommittee.  \n \n3. Establish a review panel to report to the committee on specified issues. The processes on revi ew panels set out \nin section 5.7 .4 of this booklet would be followed.  \n \n4. Withdraw approval where there are reasonable grounds for doing so after considering reports generated during \neither  outcome 2 or outcome 3 above.  The offering university would be given an opportunity to comment further \nprior to withdrawal of approval, and Universities New Zealand would be consulted in advance. The effect of such \na decision would be that no new students could be enr olled for the qualification. The university concerned and \nthe committee would negotiate agreed transition arrangements to pr otect the interests of students already \nenrolled. The qualification could be reinstated only through successful completion of a fresh Round One or Round \nTwo proposal. ’   \n \nSource:  CUAP Handbook  2013 – 2014.  The full booklet is available at:  \nhttp://www.universitiesnz.ac.nz/aboutus/sc/cuap  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nGraduating Year Review Procedures – Page 20  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nGYR Procedures  Appendix C  \nReview Panel Guide for Report s \n \nThe Review Panel should use this guide for their report but should not be limited by it.   \n \nInformation / Documentation:  \nHas enough information /documentation  been provided to the Review Panel?   If not, please contact either the \nAccreditation Consultant or the Self -review Coordinator.  \n \nDoes the panel wish to meet with any staff and/or students?  \n \n \nConsiderations :  \nAre the following adequate and appropriate?  \n• qualification title  \n• aims  \n• stated learning outcomes.  \n• coherence of the whole qualification  \n• delivery  and learning methods  given the stated learning outcomes.  \n \nIs the qualification acceptable to relevant academic, industrial, professional and/or other communities in terms of its \nstated aims and learning outcomes, nomenclature, content,  and structure?  \n \nHas due comment been included on any changes made to the qualification?  \n \nHave the achievements as stated in the original CUAP proposal been met according to the self -review?  \n \nAre the findings in the self -review clear and logical?  \n \nDoes the self -review appear to have been conducted rigorously ? \n \nWhat does the data tell you?  Is there an appropriate commentary to accompany and, if necessary, explain the data?  \n \nWhat is your evaluation of the programme?  \nRecommendations / Commendations:  \nDoes the Review Panel agree with any recommendations made in the self -review?  \n \nWhat additional recommendations does the Review Panel have to make ? \n \nWhat commendations does the Review Panel have to make?  \n \nDo you recommend continuation or discontinuation?  If discont inuation , please provide reasons for this.   \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nGraduating Year Review Procedures – Page 21  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nGYR Procedures  Appendix D  \n \nMassey University Graduating Year Review Internal Peer Review Guide  \n \n \n \nThe following are taken from the CUAP GYR criteria.  These may be used as a guide,  but peer reviewers \nshould not be limited by these : \n \n \n1. The adequacy and appropriateness of the title, aims, stated learning outcomes and coherence of the \nwhole course  \n \n2. The adequacy and appropriateness of delivery and learning methods, for all modes of delivery, given the \nstated learning outcomes  \n \n3. The acceptability of the course to the relevant academic, industrial, professional,  and other committees \nin terms of its stated aims and learning outcomes, nomenclature, content,  and structure  \n \n4. The adequacy and appropriateness of the regulations that specify requirements for admissions, credit for \nprevious study, recognition of prior learning. Course length and structure, integration of practical/work -\nbased components, assessment procedures, a nd normal progression within a programme  \n \n5. The targets stated in the original CUAP proposal have been met and, if not, the university states the \nactions to be taken.  \n \n \nComment on other issues:  \n \n1. The acceptability and rigour of the review processes utilised.  \n \n2. The general quality of the reports, and the extent to which they meet the requirements of the GYR process.  \n \n3. Any general issues.  \n \n \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nGraduating Year Review Procedures – Page 22  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nGYR Procedures  Appendix E  \n \nSample Graduating Year Review Deferral Request  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nTo: Assistant Vice -Chancellor (Academic & International)  \nFrom:  College of XX  \nDate:  1 June 2012  \nSubject:  Request to D efer Graduating Year Review for the Bachelor of University Studies  \n \n \n \nThe College of XX requests a deferral of the following Graduating Year Review:  \n \nBachelor of University Studies  \n \nPeriod of deferral: 1 year  \n \nReason: The Bachelor of University Studies was approved for delivery commencing in 2005.  However, due to the \npart-time nature of the qualification there have been no completions at this time.  \n \nOR \n \nReason: The Bachelor of University Studies was approved for delivery commencing in 2005.  However, due to \nunforeseen circumstances it was not first offered until 2009.  \n \nOR \n \nReason: The Department of University Studies is currently undergoing a departmental -wide academic review.  The \nBachelor of University Studies is part of this review.  \n \n \n\n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nGraduating Year Review Procedures – Page 23  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nGYR Procedures  Appendix F \nGYR Timeline  \n \nThis timeline allows for the final GYR report to reach Academic Committee in September.   \n \nDate  Item Details  Deadline  Notes  \n \nJanuary  / \nFebruary  Data  Colleges are sent data for \nGYRs scheduled for \nreview . 15 Feb  The data provided will be specific to the \nqualification/specialisation being reviewed.  \nJanuary / \nFebruary  Procedures  The Procedures are sent to \ncolleges  along with the \ndata 15 Feb  The Procedures are updated yearly to \ninclude changes required by CUAP.  \nFebruary  Deferrals  Send deferral requests to \nthe Accreditation \nConsultant  28 Feb  Deferrals must be received at the March \nAcademic Committee.  A deferral template \nis available as an appendix in the GYR \nProcedures.  Deferral requests based on \nlow enrolment or completion numbers are \nnot accepted by CUAP.  \nFeb / \nMarch   Self-Review  Qualification / \nSpecialisation co -\nordinators conduct the self -\nreview  31 March  Co-ordinators conduct a self -review of the \nqualification / specialisation.  The GYR \nProcedures outline CUAP and Massey \nrequirements .  The finished Self -review is \nsent to the Accreditation Consultant.  \nPanel \nAppointment  A panel is appointed to \nundertake the GYR  31 March  Panel members are selected by colleges  \nin accordance with the panel composition \nrequirements as set out in the GYR \nProcedures.  \nMarch  Self-Review  College check on Self -\nreview   This step is optional and allows for \ncolleges  to check the content of the self -\nreview prior to the Panel receiving it.  \nMarch  Panel  Panel membership is \nnotified to Accreditation \nConsultant  31 March  Colleges advise who panel members for \neach GYR are.  These are included in the  \nApril Academic Committee report . \nApril Update  \n A progress report  is sent to \nAcademic Committee  1 April  This report summarises action so far and \nreports any problems or delays.  \nApril / May  Panel \nReview  The panel conducts the \nGYR  and writes up the \nGYR Report  31 May  The panel undertakes the GYR using the \nself-review document, original CUAP \nproposal, GYR Procedures , student survey \nand feedback material  and any additional \ninformation available.  The panel may also \ninterview staff, students,  and stakeholders.   \nThe Review Panel is responsible for \nwriting the GYR report and uses the Self -\nreview document as the basis for the final \nreport.   The GYR Report is sent to the \nAccreditation Consultant.  \nJune  GYR \nReport s The Self -review \nCoordinator responds to  \nthe Review Panel \nrecommendations.  30 June  If appropriate, comment should be made \non how the College intends to action the \nrecommendations in the Report.  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nGraduating Year Review Procedures – Page 24  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nJune / July  College Peer \nReview  An appropriate person in \nthe College peer reviews \nthe GYR Report  31 July  This could be the Director, Academic \nProgrammes, or Teaching & Learning. \nThis step is optional.  \nJuly Update  A progress report is sent to \nAC 1 July  This report summarises action so far and \nreports any problems or delays.  Delays at \nthis stage can have  serious  \nconsequences . \nJuly /  \nAugust  GYR \nReports  Reports are sent to College \nBoards  for peer review  31 Aug Colleges may also wish to send the \nreports through sub -committees of College \nBoard.  \nSeptember  GYR \nReports  Completed GYR reports \nare sent to the \nAccreditation Consultant  1 Sep All GYR reports must be received no later \nthan the September AC meeting .  If \namendments are required,  the revised \nreport is re -submitted to the October AC \nmeeting.  \nOctober  GYR \nReports  Amendments to GYR \nreports as a result of \nSeptember AC 1 Oct  Only revised reports are sent to the \nOctober Academic Committee meeting.  \nOctober  GYR \nReports  Reports are sent to CUAP  24 Oct  2014 Reports are due to CUAP no later \nthan 24 October .  Late reports are not \naccepted.  \n October  GYR \nScrutiny  Receive GYR reports from \ntwo other Universities  27 Oct  As part of the CUAP process GYR reports \nare peer reviewed  by other Universities .  \nEach University is paired up to scrutinise \ntwo other Universities’ reports.   \nNovember  GYR \nScrutiny  Complete scrutiny of GYRs  Approx. \n3 Nov Subject matter  experts are sent GYRs \nreports from the two Universities assigned \nto Massey.  The scrutiny comments are \nsent to the Accreditation Consultant for \namalgamating into one report with \nMassey's partner University.  \nNovember  GYR \nScrutiny  Massey receives the \ncomments from the \nscrutiny of our GYRs  Approx. \n5 Nov Any questions raised need to be \naddressed prior to the CUAP meeting held \nin November . \nNovember  Schedule  The following year’s \nschedule and process \noverview are sent to AC \nand Colleges  1 Nov  \n \nDecember  GYR \nScrutiny  The results of the \ndiscussion of Massey's \nGYR reports  are received \nafter the CUAP meeting .  early \nDec Colleges are sent any comments made or \nquestions raised at the CUA P meeting.  \nAny rejected proposal is required to be \nrevised in light of the comments and re -\nsubmitted to the March CUAP meeting.  \nDecember  Year’s \nSummary  A report on the round just \nconcluded is sent to AC  Dec This may be an oral report.  \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Protocol_for_tertiary_education_organisations_on_the_treatment_of_PBRF_Quality_Categories_PDF_350_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Standard Template for SLT Documents",
      "policy_type": "Unknown",
      "file_size": "350 KB",
      "author": "jmlochhe",
      "creation_date": "2017-02-22T12:02:03",
      "modification_date": "D:20170222122350+13'00'"
    },
    "content": "1 | P a g e  \n Protocol for tertiary education organisations on the treatment of PBRF Quality Categories1 \n \nAn important aspect of the Quality Evaluation is maintaining the confidentiality of staff member’s \nindividual Quality Categories. This protocol was established to e nsure that tertiary education \norganisations (TEOs) maintain the confidentiality of individual Quality Categories for all staff, and that \nthey have processes and protocols to keep Quality Category information secure.  \n \nAll participating TEOs are subject to t he Privacy Act. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner has \nprovided advice that TEOs are unlikely to breach the Privacy Act as long as they are open and clearly \narticulate the reasons for collecting PBRF data, and the purposes the information will be used for. \nThis transparency can be achieved by a TEO’s commitment to the recommended protocol provided, \nor developing their own version based on those principles. The Tertiary Education Union (TEU) has \nbeen consulted and supports the intent of this protocol but  reserves the right to decline its support of \ninstitution -developed protocols if these differ markedly from the TEC recommended protocol.  \n \nThe TEC expects that participating TEOs have ensured staff are familiar with the protocol. Any \ncomplaints received by  TEC about a TEO’s use of individual Quality Categories will be referred back to \nthe relevant TEO.  \nRecommended protocol  \n1. The TEO will establish processes and protocols for maintaining confidentiality of individual \nQuality Categories for all staff, and proce sses and protocols to keep this information secure.  This \nincludes ensuring that  any trend data collected and distributed will not identify any individual  \nstaff member . \n2. All staff  participating in PBRF Quality Evaluations (including those staff named below i n point 4 in \nthe recommended protocol)  will be informed by their employing TEO of:  \na. the processes and procedures by which PBRF data, including individual Quality Categories, \nwill be communicated and to whom  \nb. those people and positions within the TEO who will  have access to an individual’s Quality \nCategory  \nc. the uses to which individual Quality Categories (and Component Scores if staff members \nvolunteer this information to their TEO) may be put and the uses to which they may not be \nput \nd. this SRG recommended proto col  \ne. any TEO developed protocol that relates to the use of Quality Category results and any \nendorsement by relevant unions.  \n3. The TEO will advise individual participating staff of their personal Quality Category (and any \nother data relating to the assignment  of the Quality Category relevant to them that is provided \nto the TEO by the TEC), unless the staff member requests otherwise.  \n4. The TEO will restrict access to individual Quality Categories to the minimum number of staff \nnecessary to achieve the following p urposes:  \na. validation of the accuracy of the Quality Categories, along with FTE and subject cost \ncategories for individual staff  \n                                                 \n1 This recommended protocol for TEOs was developed by the 2012 Quality Evaluation PBRF Sector Reference \nGroup, in consultation with the sector, the Tertiary Edu cation Union and other stakeholders. It is publicly \navailable at https://www.tec.govt.nz/Documents/Forms%20Templates%20and%20Guides/PBRF -teo-guide.pdf  \nb. internal management and allocation of financial resources (consistent with the purposes of \nthe PBRF)  \nc. to identify strengths of Dep artments/Schools  \nd. as an externally -validated benchmark to help ensure appropriate internal calibration of \nassessments of research.  \nAdvice must be given by TEOs to staff members, prior to their participation in the \n2018 Quality Evaluation, that the TEO may u se individual Quality Categories for \nthese purposes. TEOs should ensure that no identification of individual Quality \nCategories can be made outside this small number of staff.  \n \n5. The TEO will, in conjunction with staff and relevant union representatives, wi ll seek to establish \nagreed codes of practice and complaint procedures that govern the behaviour of staff members \nparticipating in the PBRF Quality Evaluation. The TEO’s code of practice relating to staff \nparticipation in the PBRF Quality Evaluation will s tate that:  \na. maintenance of the confidentiality of individual Quality Categories (and Component Scores if \nstaff members volunteer this information to their TEO) is a priority for the TEO  \nb. staff members will not be required to divulge their Quality Categories or Component Scores  \nc. each staff member has an opportunity to discuss their Quality Category with their manager if \nthe staff member desires  \nd. in the event that a staff member advises a manager of their Quality Category, or Component \nScores, or both, that manag er will ensure that these are kept private and confidential and \nwill not use that information other than for purposes authorised by the individual staff \nmember concerned and within the restrictions specified in this SRG recommended protocol.  \n6. The TEO will n ot use individual Quality Categories or information leading to the revelation of \nindividual Quality Categories, for purposes other than those consistent with this SRG \nrecommended protocol and advised to staff members prior to participation in the 2018 Qual ity \nEvaluation. In particular:  \na. the TEO will not use individual Quality Categories as a basis for salary determinations  \nb. the TEO will not request individual Quality Categories for recruitment purposes. Recruitment \ndecisions should be made on the basis of all  evidence of teaching, research, and service \nperformance as they relate to the specific role, as well as the TEO’s overall staff profile \n(particularly since the offered Quality Category cannot be verified by the TEO)  \nc. the TEO will not use individual Quality  Categories for performance appraisals or for \ndisciplinary action against staff.  \n7. The TEO will not divulge individuals’ Quality Categories to any third party without the prior \nauthorisation of the individuals concerned. In particular, the TEO will ensure th at individual \nQuality Categories of staff, either employed by the TEO concerned or by another TEO, are not \nrevealed through marketing or advertising activity initiated by the TEO.  \n \n \n \n \n \n \nAppendix Two – Massey University Protocol for use of PBRF 2018 Qualit y Categories  \n          \n          \n \n \nPROTOCOL FOR USE OF  \nPBRF 2018 QUALITY CA TEGORIES  \n \nThis information will be made available to  all Massey University staff affected by the Performance \nBased Research Fund (PBRF), including researchers, managers and adminis trators.  \n \nOverview  \n \nThe PBRF Sector Reference Group (SRG), in examining the design of the 2012 Quality Evaluation, \nconducted extensive consultation in 2009 with the sector regarding  the reporting of individuals’ PBRF \nQuality Categories.  \n \nAfter considering the sector responses to this consultation, the TEC determined that  TEOs were \nentitled to receive this information as an externally validated verification of the quality of research \nproduced by its researchers , but recommended  that each TEO develop a protoc ol to be followed in \ndealing with individual PBRF Quality Categories to ensure personal information is managed \nappropriately.  \n \nThe proposed  Protocol for Massey University is closely based on the Protocol recommended in the \npublicly available PBRF Quality E valuation Guidelines 2018.  \n \nMassey University Protocol for Managing Research Excellence  \n \n1. In accordance with the ‘ Protocol for tertiary education organizations on the treatment of \nPBRF Quality Categories ’, Massey University committs to informing  staff pa rticipating in, and \ncontributing to the NZ PBRF Quality Evaluation of :  \na. The processes and protocols by which PBRF data, including individual Quality \nCategories, w ill be communicated and to whom;  \nb. Those people and positions within the University who will hav e access to an \nindividual’s Quality Category;  \nc. The uses to which individual Quality Categories (and Component Scores if known) \nmay be put and the uses to which they may not be put; and  \nd. The Sector Reference Group recommended protocol.  \n \n2. Specifically, the  outcomes of externally assessed staff Quality Categories (e.g. PBRF) will be \nkept secure  at all times  and will only be accessible to the direct line managers, college Pro \nVice -Chancellors, college Research Director /Assistant PVC Research , the Assistant Vice -\nChancellor Research, Academic and Enterprise and Research and Enterprise staff.  \n \n3. The University will advise individuals participating in PBRF of their personal Quality Category \n(and any other data relating to the assignment of the Quality Category rel evant to them that \nis provided to the University by the Tertiary Education Commission), unless the staff member \nspecifically requests otherwise.  \n \n4. The University will restrict access to individual PBRF Quality Categories to the minimum \nnumber of staff neces sary to achieve the following purposes:  \na. Validation of the accuracy of the Quality Categories, along with FTE and subject cost \ncategories for individual staff;  \nb. Internal management and allocation of financial resources (consistent with the \npurposes of the PB RF);  \nc. To identify strengths of Department/Schools; and/or  \nd. As an externally validated benchmark to help ensure an appropriate internal \ncalibration of the assessments of research excellence.  \n \n5. The University shall only use  individual Quality Categories for  the purposes  of the PBRF \nQuality Evaluation . The University ensure s staff  that no identification of individual Quality \nCategories can be made outside of an approved and restricted group of staff,who have been \nformally identified.  \n \n6. The University will, in conjunction with staff and Tertiary Education Union (TEU) \nrepresentatives, establish codes of practice that govern the behavior of staff members \nparticipating in the PBRF Quality Evaluation. This code of practice also includes the Massey \nUniversity Privacy Statement  for PBRF purposes. The TEO’s code of practice relating to staff \nparticipation in the PBRF Quality Evaluation will indicate  that:  \na. Maintenance of the confidentiality of individual Quality Categories (and Component \nScores if known) is a priority for the University;  \nb. Staff members will not be required to divulge their Quality Categories;  \nc. Each staff member has an opportunity to dis cuss her/his Quality Category and \nComponent Scores with her/his manager if the staff member desires;  \nd. In the event that a staff member advises a manager of her/his Quality Category, or \nQuality Category and Component Scores, that manger will not use that inf ormation \nother than for purposes authorized  by the individual staff member concerned and \nwithin the restrictions specified in this Sector Reference Group recommended \nprotocol ; and  \ne. A defined complaints procedure can be used in the event of a grievance occur ring.2 \n \n7. The University will not use individual Quality Categories, or information leading to the \nrevelation of individual Quality Categories, for purposes other than those consistent with this \nprotocol and advised to staff members prior to participation in  the any Quality Evaluation.  In \nparticular , the University : \n \na. Will not use individual Quality Categories as a basis for salary determinations;  \nb. Will not request individual Quality Categories for recruitment purposes. If the \nUniversity makes recruitment deci sions informed by individuals Quality Categories, \nthen the University will consider the Quality Categories in the context of other \nevidence of research excellence and with due account of the University’s overall \nquality profile (particularly since the offe red Quality Category cannot be verified by \nthe University); and  \nc. Will not use individual Quality Categories for performance appraisals or for \ndisciplinary action against staff.  \n \n                                                 \n2 Code of Responsible Research Conduct \n(http://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/fms/PolicyGuide/Documents/Research/Code%20of%20Responsible%20Resea\nrch%20Conduct.pdf?BBD750C33827941FCA508DCB59B48210 ) \n8. In addition, t he University will not divulge any individuals’ PBRF Quality Cate gory to any third \nparty without the prior authorization  of the individuals concerned. In particular, the \nUniversity will ensure that individual Quality Categories of staff, either employed by the \nUniversity concerned or by another Tertiary Education Organi sation, are not revealed \nthrough marketing or advertising activity initiated by the University.  \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Programme_and_Project_Management_Policy_PDF_148_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Programme and Project Management Policy",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "148 KB",
      "creation_date": "2023-12-19T10:05:05",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220102538+13'00'"
    },
    "content": "    \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n \nPROGRAMME AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT POLICY  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \n \n \n \n \n \nIntroduction : \nProgrammes and projects at Massey University are defined as temporary acti vity which requires the allocation of capital, \nhuman or other resources to : \n• implement significant new or amended business processes, technologies, practi ces, or systems that bring about \nbusiness efficiencies and/or organisational change , or \n• deliver a new or refurbished facility.  \nA Project  is a temporary organisation, usually existing for a much shorter time than a programme, which will deliver \none or more outputs in accordance with a specific business case. A particular project may or may not be part of a \nprogramme. Whereas programmes deal with outcomes, projects deal with outputs.   \nA Programme  is defined as a temporary, flexible organisation created to coordinate, direct,  and oversee the \nimplementation of a set of related projects and activities in order to deliver outcomes and benefits related to the \norganisation’s strategic objectives.  \nThis policy stipulates the minimum requirements for the governance and management of pro grammes and pro jects.  \nPurpose : \nThe purpose of this policy is to provide a university wide approach for programme and project management throughout \nMassey University.  The policy provides a structure to ensure programmes and projects are effectively planned, \nimplemented, monitored and cl osed to enable the reali sation of expected benefits . \nThe policy is designed to:  \n• help ensure that pro grammes and pro jects are successfully governed and effectively managed within the \nlimitations of scope, quality, resources (time and budget) and risk. \n• enhance the likelihood that projects achieve their stated outcomes and deliver the expected benefits within \nagreed timeframes and budgets.  \n• ensure appropriate authori sation and acceptance is established throughout the life of a pro gramme or project.  \n• increase the visibility of projects to university stakeholders . \nPolicy  Statement : \nThe aim of the policy is to provide fit for purpose guidelines to suit the requirements of every project.  Section  Strategic Project Management Office \n(SPMO)  \nContact  Portfolio and Projects Manager  \nLast Review  December 2023  \nNext Review  December 202 8 \nApproval  SLT 20/08/104  \nEffective Date  December 2023  \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nProgramme and Project Management Policy  – Page 2 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nA pro gramme or pro ject that has an implementation cost of $ 250,000 or more (inclusive of capital and operational \nexpenses) , must comply with this policy.  On request of a Senior Responsible Officer  (SRO) /Sponsor , the policy  could \nbe applied to projects below this threshold.  \nNote: the policy is:  \n• Applicable to strategic, construction, Information Technology (IT) and business change programmes and \nprojects with total whole -of-life costs greater than $250,000 (whether capital or operating expense) . \n• Not applicable to research projects.  \n \nProject Management Framework , Tools and Artefacts : \nProgrammes and projects should comply with the Massey University Project Management Framework, approved by the \nSenior Leadership Team (SLT) .  \nThe Project Management Framework states the essential project artefacts which are the minimum requirement for \nprogrammes and projects.  The risk profile of a project (as determined by the Risk Profile Assessment ) will determine \nthe appropriate level of core artefacts required to meet good project management practices and disciplines.   \nAll Massey University projects covered by this policy must use the standard programme  and project reporting tool , \n(currently Psoda) for reporting project status, schedule, risk, financial and benefit realisation.  \nEvery project must identify during the concept or initiation phase an appropriate project management methodology that \nwill be followed  in consultation with the S trategic Project Management Office (S PMO ).  Massey University is not \nprescriptive in the methodology that projects use. Methodologies to consider are PRINCE2®  (recommended), PMBOK, \nand / or Agile variants.  It is important that Programme and Project Managers are  trained and/or experienced in the \nmethodology selected for delivery of a project .   \nProject Phases : \nPractically, all projects consist of four lifecycle phases . The number of stages within each phase is dependent on the \ncategory of project. The four main lifecycle phases of any project are:   \n \n• Initiation and approval.   \n• Governance and planning.   \n• Execution and control.   \n• Project closure and review.   \n \nAppropriate management and controls through each of these four phases is essential to constitute an effective Project \nManagement Framework. In the early phases of a project, the Business Case and project phases overlap.   \n  \nProgramme and Pro ject Governance : \nAll Massey projects must be governed in accordance with this Programme and Project Management Policy, accounting \nfor the scale and nature (risk profile) of the project.  This will be achieved through the explicit identification and alloca tion \nof roles and responsibilities for project delivery, and the delegation of appropriate decision -making  authorities to Project \nManagers and governance bodies, in accordance with the  Terms of Reference approved by each relevant governance \nbody.  \nProjects can be of varying size and complexity, some smaller size projects do not require the carrying out of every \nprocess as not all projects require significant or complicated levels of governance, documentation, and reporting.   \nOversight of all programmes and projects at Massey University rests with the Senior Leadership Team (SLT).   \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nProgramme and Project Management Policy  – Page 3 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nThe responsibility for day -to-day governance of projects is delegated to Senior Responsible Officer (Sponsor)  in \nconjunction with relevant governance bodies such as Programme or Project Boards,  Project Steering Groups  (PSG)  \nProject Control Group s (PCG) .  \nThe Senior Responsible Officer  (SRO) is the SLT member sponsoring the project  (or an SLT nominee) .  The SRO  of \na specific project is ultimately accountable and responsible  for the realisation  of the project benefits and the successful \ndelivery of the project .  The Senior Responsible Officer  is supported by a governance body . The SRO  (or nominee) \nserves as Chair of the programme or project governance body.  \nThe Programme Manager or Project Manager  has the day -to-day management responsibility for the delivery of the \nprogramme or project to the agreed time, quality and cost criteria.  \nThe Project Board, Project Steering Group  or Project Control Group  is a group of senior university leaders entrusted \nwith the governance/oversight responsibilities for a project  or programme .  In support of this, governance bodies  for \nprogrammes or  projects must be formally established under an approved Terms of Reference  consistent with the Project \nManagement Framework.   \nThe project governance body is  required to review and approve progression through project stages, assurance steps \nand lifecycle phases.  \nThe Estates and Infrastructure Advisory Committee ( EIAC ) is an advisory committee reporting to the Vice -\nChancellor and the SLT.  This committee oversees the planning and development of Estates, Information Technology \nServices , Operations  and Farms projects on the various Massey University campuses.   The role of the EIAC is to review, \nendorse, coordinate and harmonise projects to achieve optimised outcomes for the  university and to provide advice to \nSLT to ensure strategically aligned capital project investment decisions.   \nThe Procurement and Contracts Governance Board (PCGB)  is an advisory board reporting to the Vice -Chancellor \nand the SLT.  The PCGB  has been established to ensure consistent and correct application of procurement practices, \ngenerally for commercial contracts with Whole -of-Life values of greater than $250,000.    The PCGB oversees the use \nof appropriate procurement methodologies and monitor s procurement and contracting activity to ensure value is derived \nfrom procurement process es.  \n \nProgramme and Project  Support : \nThe SPMO  is the owner of this policy and is responsible for  oversight , monitoring , compliance and support  \nencompassing : \n• assurance that components from the Project Management Framework are implemented across the \nuniversity, to ensure programmes and projects deliver planned outcomes, are on time and  within  budget.   \n• assurance that systems and processes are in place to help support the timely and transparent reporting of \nprogrammes and projects to all relevant governance bodies and SLT.  \n• assistance with t he review and reporting of the status of key project art efacts as projects progress through \nlifecycle phase/stage decision gates ; and  \n• support for t he review and reporting of b enefits  realisation progress and changes to SLT and Council  \nprovision of reporting  to SLT and Council  (as warranted) . \nThe Finance  team  will provide financial budgeting and forecasting assistance.  Each project will be allocated a unique \nproject account for financial budgeting and accounting purposes.   \nFollowing approval of an overall capital programme or project budget the agreed budget component associated with \neach key stage shall be the subject of its own Request for Funding Authority (RFA) approval.  RFAs will be submitted \nin a timely manner to sustain continuity but will only cover the re levant stage of work, as necessary.  Subsequent \ntranches of funding within the approved Business Case funding will only be accessed following RFA approval by the \nrelevant governance body (Project Board, Project Steering Group or Project Control Group).  \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nProgramme and Project Management Policy  – Page 4 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nDelegations of Authority will be established in line with the Massey University Delegations of Authority policy.  \n \nProject Documentation and Records Management : \n \nAll project outputs are  required to be stored in the allocated Teams/SharePo int site, in compliance with the university’s \nInformation and Records Management Policy.  \nAll construction projects must provide a full set of asset data suitable for upload into Maximo as part of the completion \ndocumentation.   \nDefinitions : \n \nAgile  – agile project management is a time -boxed iterative and incremental approach to delivering \nrequirements throughout the project lifecycle.  \n \nPMBOK  – the Project Management Body of Knowledge, developed by the Project Management Institute \n(PMI) organisation.  \n \nPortfolio  - An organisation’s portfolio is the totality of its investment in the changes required to achieve its \nstrategic objectives.  \nPRINCE2®  – is a process -based project management methodology. PRINCE2  stands for Projects  IN \nControlled Environments . \n \nProject Governance  - the identification and allocation of roles, responsibilities and accountabilities for the \nachievement of project benefits, and the delegation of project decision making authorities.  \n \nProject Management  – the application of knowledge, skills, tools and techniques to project activities to \ndeliver pre -defined measurable deliverable, objective or outcome/benefit.  \nPsoda - The university’s current standard portfolio, programme and project reporting software tool.  \nWhole -of-Life (WOL) - is a calculation of the financial costs associated with buying and using a good or service. \nWOL  is also referred to as Total Cost of Ownership (TCO), Life Cycle Costs (LCC) or Maximum Total Estimated \nValue (MTEV).   Rather than just looking at the initial purchase price, WOL looks at the complete cost from \npurchase to disposal. WOL value includes eve ry phase of ownership and adds to the initial purchase price other \ncosts expected to be incurred during the life of the product such as subsequent consumables, maintenance, \ndesign costs, operating costs, associated financing costs, depreciation, implementa tion, training, and disposal \nof assets.     \n  \nValue for Money  - means the holistic consideration of price as well as other costs and benefits, including life \ncycle costs and relevant non -price attributes such as quality. Where applicable, these non -price attributes can \ninclude social and economic benefits to the commu nity as well as environmental considerations that secure \nwider environmental and sustainability benefits.   \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nProgramme and Project Management Policy  – Page 5 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nAudience : \nAll staff across the university undertaking a project  as defined in this policy.  \nRelevant legislation : \nNil. \nLegal compliance : \nNil. \nRelated procedures / documents : \nAsset Investment Policy   \nBusiness Case Framework and Procedures  \nBusiness Case Policy  \nDelegations of Authority Policy  \nHealth, Safety and Wellbeing Policy  \nInformation and Records Management Policy  \nProject Management Framework  \nProject Post Completion Review Policy  \nProgressive Procurement Policy  \nRisk Management Framework  \nRisk Management Policy  \nISO 21500 Guidance on Project Management  \nISO 21500:2021 Project, Programme and Portfolio Management  \nAS/NZS 8016:201 3 Governance of IT Enabled Projects  \nDocument Management Control : \nPrepared by:  Strategic Project Management Office,  Portfolio and Projects Manager  \nAuthorised by:  Deputy Vice-Chancellor  University Services  \nApproved by:  SLT 20/08/104  \nDate issued:  November 2006   \nLast review:  December  2023 \nNext review:  December  2028 \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Protected_Disclosure_Policy_and_Reporting_Procedure_PDF_178_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Procedure for the Disclosure of Serious Wrongdoing",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "178 KB",
      "author": "jmlochhe",
      "creation_date": "2019-11-08T10:02:06",
      "modification_date": "D:20191108102601+13'00'"
    },
    "content": "C19/146 - November  \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University    \nPROTECTED DISCLOSURE POLICY AND REPORTING PROCEDURE   \n \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n \n \n \nSection  Organisation management and governance  \nContact  Director Governance and Assurance  \nLast Review  October 2013  \nNext Review  October 2024  \nApproval  Council C1 9/146  \nEffective Date  November 2019  \n \n \nPurpose:  \n \nMassey University is required under the Protected Disclosures Act 2000 to have appropriate internal procedures in \noperation for receiving and dealing with information about serious wrongdoing in or by the University.  \n \nThe purpose of this policy is to:  \n1. Supp ort and facilitate the disclosure and investigation of matters of Serious Wrongdoing in or by Massey \nUniversity;  \n2. To set out the protections for employees who make disclosures of Serious  Wrongdoing;  \n3. Specify the process for making a  disclosure  \n4. To clearly sta te the rights and responsibilities associated with protected  disclosures.  \n \nDefinitions:  \n \nSerious Wrongdoing is defined under the Act as:  \n \n▪ An unlawful, corrupt, or irregular use of public funds or public resources;  or \n▪ An act, omission, or course of conduct that constitutes a serious risk to public health or public safety or the \nenvironment;  or \n▪ An act, omission, or course of conduct that constitutes a serious risk to the maintenance of law, including the \nprevention, inve stigation, and detection of offences and the right to a fair trial;  or \n▪ An act, omission, or course of conduct that constitutes an offence;  or \n▪ An act, omission, or course of conduct by a public official that is oppressive, improperly discriminatory, or \ngros sly negligent, or that constitutes gross  mismanagement.  \n \nAn employee is defined under the Act as including:  \n \n▪ a current  employee  \n▪ a former  employee  \n▪ a home -worker  \n▪ a person seconded to the  University  \n\nMassey University  Policy  Guide \nProtected Disclosure Policy and Reporting  Procedure  \nPage  2 \nC19/146 - November  \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n  \n \n▪ a contractor to the  University  \n▪ a person involved in the management of the  University  \n \nWhen an employee may make a Protec ted Disclosure  \n \nA protected disclosure may only be made where:  \n \n▪ the disclosure is about Serious Wrongdoing (refer to Definitions) in the University or by the University;  and \n▪ the staff member believes on reasonable grounds that the information he/she wishes to disclose is true or \nlikely to be true;  and \n▪ the staff member wishes to disclose this information so that the serious wrongdoing can be investigated;  and \n▪ the staff member w ishes the disclosure to be  protected.  \n \nHow to make a Protected Disclosure:  \n \nAll disclosures of Serious Wrongdoing, should be submitted in writing using the report form attached as Appendix 1. \nDisclosures may be submitted verbally, but in these instances sh ould be recorded in writing.  \nAn employee who has information about serious wrongdoing and who believes that the information is likely to be \ntrue and wishes to make a protected disclosure rather than using any other University reporting or complaints \nproces s, is encouraged to make the disclosure to their line manager in the first instance. If the employee prefers to \nmake a protected disclosure to someone other than their line manager, they may make the disclosure to any one of \nthe following:  \n• A member of the Senior Leadership  Team;  \n• The Director Governance and Assurance;  or \n• The Employment Relations  Manager.  \nIf the employee making the disclosure believes on reasonable grounds that these persons are involved in the Serious \nWrongdoing; or are associated with a per son who is or may be involved in the Serious Wrongdoing, then the \nemployee may make the disclosure to the Vice -Chancellor.  \n \nIf the employee making the disclosure believes on reasonable grounds that the Vice -Chancellor is involved in the \nSerious Wrongdoing; or are associated with a person who is or may be involved in the Serious Wrongdoing, then the \nemployee may make the disclos ure to any member of the University Council, via the Council Secretary.  \n \nDisclosing to External Authorities  \n \nIf the staff member believes they cannot approach any of the above persons, including the Vice -Chancellor or \nCouncil, because they may be involved in the Serious Wrongdoing; or believe on reasonable grounds that immediate \nreference to an appropriate authority is justified due to the urgency of the matter to which the disclosure relates, or \nsome other exceptional circumstance, they may make the disclo sure to one of the following external authorities.  \n \n▪ Commissioner of  Police;  \n▪ Controller and Auditor  General;  \n▪ Director of the Serious Fraud  Office;  \n▪ Inspector General of Intelligence and  Security;  \n▪ Ombudsman  \nMassey University  Policy  Guide \nProtected Disclosure Policy and Reporting  Procedure  \nPage  3 \nC19/146 - November  \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n  \n \n▪ Parliamentary Commissioner for the  Environment;  \n▪ Police Complaints Authority;  \n▪ Solicitor  General;  \n▪ State Services Commissioner;  \n▪ Health and Disability  Commissioner;  \n▪ Head of any Public Sector  organisation.  \n \nReceiving a Protected Disclosure  \n \nOnce a disclosure has been submitted the manager receiving the report must formally acknowledge receipt of it \nwithin 48 hours of receiving it.  \n \nThe manager should assess whether the protected disclosure meets the criteria of the Act and if it does, initiate an \ninvestigation following advice from their HR Advisor or the Employment Relations Manager into the facts of the \ndisclosure. The staff member should be informed, within seven days after receipt of the disclosure, whethe r or not \nthe matter is to be investigated. If the matter is not to be investigated, the manager must detail the reasons why.  \n \nInvestigating a Protected Disclosure  \n \nWhere the manager considers the disclosure meets the criteria of the Act, they should initia te an investigation.  \n \nAny investigation initiated to examine allegations of serious wrongdoing by a staff member of the University is an \nemployment investigation and must be conducted within the terms of the applicable employment agreement and \nthe principl es of natural justice.  \n \nBefore conducting an employment investigation, a manager should always seek advice from their HR Advisor or the \nEmployment Relations Manager within People and Culture.  \n \nThe investigating manager shall be required to make a prelimina ry finding within 20 working days of agreeing to \nconduct an investigation into the protected disclosure, unless the circumstances of the investigation are such that a \nlonger timeframe is necessary. If more time is required, the staff member making the disc losure should be notified \nof when a preliminary finding is expected and why the timeframe has been extended.  \n \nConfidentiality  \n \nWhere an employee makes a protected disclosure, information which identifies that employee will be kept \nconfidential, unless one of the exceptions in the Act applies. The exceptions are:  \ni. if you consent to the disclosure;  or \nii. if disclosure is  essential:  \n• to the effective investigation of the  allegations  \n• to prevent serious risk to public health or safety, or the  environment  \n• to comply with the principles of natural  justice.  \n \nProtections  \nMassey University  Policy  Guide \nProtected Disclosure Policy and Reporting  Procedure  \nPage  4 \nC19/146 - November  \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n  \n \nAny employee of Massey University who makes a disclosure under the Act is immune from criminal or civil \nproceedings.  \n \nWhere an employee feels they have been victimized or retaliated against for making a disclosure under the Act, they \nmake take a personal grievance under the Employment Relations Act 2000 or make a complaint under the Human \nRights Act 1993. The University will treat seriously any allegation of victimization or retaliation.  \n \nAny employee who makes a disclosu re knowing that it is false or makes the disclosure in bad faith will not be \nprotected by this Act.  \n \nAppeals  \n \nWhere the University decides not to take action in respect of a disclosure it has investigated; or does not make \nprogress  with  a disclosure  investigation  within  the timeframes  set by these  procedures,  or extended  for good  reason; \nor where  the University  has investigated  the matter  but has not taken  any action,  nor recommended  the taking  of any \naction, the employee may make their protected disclosure to a Minister of the Crown or the  Ombudsman.  \n \nTo make a disclosure to a Minister of the Crown or the Ombudsman, the employee must continue to believe on \nreasonable grounds that the information di sclosed is true or likely to be true.  \n \nAudience:  \nThis Policy applies to all employees, contractors, sub -contractors, consultants, adjunct and visiting academic staff, \nmembers of the Massey University Council, University committees, Boards and Trust Boards,  and any other persons \nor entities carrying out work for or on behalf of the University.  \n \nRelevant legislation:  \nProtected Disclosures Act 2000  \n \nLegal compliance  \nMas sey University as a Public sector organisation is required to establish appropriate internal procedures for \nreceiving and dealing with information about serious wrongdoing in or by the organisation. It is illegal to dismiss or \notherwise punish or bring pro ceedings against any employee for disclosing information protected by the Act. It is \nalso illegal to disclose information about a person who has made a protected disclosure.  \n \nRelated procedures and documents:  \n \nCode of Staff Conduct \nFraud and Corruption  Policy  \nFraud and Corruption Response Procedures  \n \nDocument management control:  \nPrepared by: Director Governance and Assurance \nOwned by: Vice -Chancellor  \nMassey University Policy Guide \nProtected Disclosure Reporting Form   \n  \n \n \nMASSEY UNIVERSITY \nPROTECTED DISCLOSURE REPORTING FORM  \n \n \n1 Is this report being made to your manager?  Yes/No  \n \nIf yes, please provide name of manager:  \n \n \n \n \nIf no, please provide the name of the person you are making the report to and why:  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n2. Describe the nature of the protected  disclosure  \n \nThis would include the nature of any incident, the names of persons involved, the area and location and any other \nrelevant information. You may continue on a separate sheet and/or attach evidence as necessary.  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n3. Please provide a list of any attachments to this  report  \n\n \n 4. In making this disclosure I understand the  following:  \n \na) I will receive immunity from criminal and civil proceedings that may result from this protected disclosure \nprovide d I have not acted in bad faith in making the disclosure;  and \nb) If I suffer any retaliatory or discriminatory action within the University as a result of making this \ndisclosure, I can take a personal grievance or make a complaint under the Human Rights Act 1 993;  and \nc) Whereas the University will take all practicable steps to protect my identity, in the interests of natural \njustice, it may be necessary for the University to disclose my identity and the information contained in \nthis form and its  attachments.  \n \n \n \n \n \nSigned:  \n \n \nDate:  \n \nName:  \n \nDesignation: \nDepartment/Institute/School/Unit:  \n \n \n \n \nManager’s Use  only  \n \n \nDisclosure  Received:  \n \n \nManager’s Name:  \n \n \nAcknowledgement of receipt sent:  \n \n \nDecision to proceed or not to proceed with investigation made: \nYour Manager and HR notified:  \nReasons for decision not to proceed, if applicable (attach report):  \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Policy_Relating_to_Paper_Information_and_Study_Resources_PDF_145_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Policy Relating to Paper Information & Study Resources Policy Relating to Paper Information and Study Resources",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "145 KB",
      "author": "jmlochhe",
      "creation_date": "2024-06-27T10:03:03",
      "modification_date": "D:20240627103358+12'00'"
    },
    "content": " Massey University Policy Guide  \n \nPOLICY RELATING TO PAPER INFORMATION AND STUDY RESOURCES  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \nPurpose  \nTo ensure that the information provided to current and prospective students about papers, their delivery, and the use \nof digital resources supports their decision -making, learning and engagement.  \nPolicy  \nAll current and prospective students must be able to access relevant and quality assured information about paper s \nand their delivery that will enable them to make good enrolment choices.  Information provided to enrolled students \nmust include sufficient detail regarding the requirements to pass the paper successfully  and to plan their study \neffectively .  \nScope  \nThe Policy applies to all undergraduate and taught postgraduate papers.  \nPrinciples  \n1. Massey University expects that most students will have access to the Internet and will consider the relevant \nrequirements of the online learning category for the paper when making decisions about their enrolment.  That \nsaid, the University remains committed to supplying core study resources that can be published in alternative \nformats to the students who request them.  \n \n2. Study resources for papers normally include a Paper Description, Paper Guide,  and digital resources appropriate \nto the content and assessment for the paper.   \n \n3. Paper description s are intended to provide  the information necessary for current and prospective students to \nmake informed enrolment choices.  This include s information regarding delivery modes, online learning \ncategories , contact courses  and the learning experience presented in a format that can be accessed and \nunderstood by students who have not previously enrolled in the paper.  Expectations for Paper Descriptions are \nprovided in Appendix 1.  \n \n4. Information about tuition fees, course costs (i.e. , additional fees applied to all students enrolled in a paper), and \nany additional costs associated with materials and equipment (e.g., software, art equipment) should be made \ntransparent to students prior to enrolment via the Paper Description.   \n \n5. Paper Guides  are intended to provide enrolled students with sufficient detail regarding the requirements to pass \nthe paper successfully and will normally be made available to students via Stream at least two weeks prior to the Section  Academic  \nContact  Academic Strategy  Manager  \nLast Review  September  2012  \nNext Review  September  2015  \nApproval  Academic Board  \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nPolicy Relating to Paper Information & Study Resources – \nPage 2 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \npaper start date1.  The Paper Guide includes details regarding the contact and interaction, assessment, learning \nand support, practical components,  and general information.  Expectations for Paper Guides are provided in \nAppendix 2.  \n \n6. Study resources are combined in a variety of ways depending on the overarching requirements of the \nqualification (s), the needs of students, the practices of the discipline, and the intended delivery modes of the \npaper.  Examples include:  \n \na. blended study resources which integrate digital and print -based resources with online and self -directed \nlearning activities  \nb. fully online study resources which are available in an accessible digital format through the online learning \nenvironment  and/or appropriate digital media, including required textbooks.  \nc. print-based study resources which are available in hard copy and pre -packaged by Massey University for \ndelivery to students.  \n \nDuring the prepar ation of study reso urces, academic staff will ensure that the expectations for student workloads \nare manageable taking into account the tot al learning hours for the paper.  To establish whether the workload is \nappropriate, staff are encouraged to use the Student Workload Calculator.  \n \n7. Wherever possible, information presented in Paper Guides will be sourced from, and/or linked to, the relevant \nquality assured sources on the Massey website (e.g., Paper Descriptions, University Calendar, Policy & \nProcedures website).  Otherwise, it is expe cted that the information will be subject to regular peer review within \npaper or programme teams.  \n \n8. Papers will normally have an online learning environment (Stream) that provides students with access to digital \nresources intended to enhance their learning experience and outcomes.  When Stream is used in a paper or \noffering a Stream Completion Checklist2 (available online) must be completed by the Paper Coordinator to ensure \ncompliance with relevant copyright, digital rights, accessibility and quality assurance procedures.  The Centres for \nTeaching and Learning can provide advice to academic staff regarding the use of Stream and the accessibility \nrequirements for other digital resources .  Expectations for Stream environments are provided in Appendix 3.  \nSummary Information:  Paper Descriptions & Paper Guides  \n Paper Description  Paper Guide  \nPurpose  To provide information to students who \nhave not previously enrolled in a paper that \nwill help them make good enrolment \nchoices3 To provide enrolled students with sufficient detail \nregarding the requirements to pass the paper \nsuccessfully  \nCommunication \nMethod  Massey Website (Courses Section)  Online in Stream – automatically printed for the \nOnline Learning Categories “None” and “Paper \nGuide & Administration” and printed on request \nfor papers that are partially or fully taught online.  \nAvailability  In July for the following academic y ear with \nupdates made as appropriate  Two weeks prior to the paper start date when the \nStream Sites open.  \n \n1 Consistent with the Policy and Purpose statements, availability of the Paper Guide  two weeks prior to the start date enables \nstudents to plan their study effectively and to make informed decisions about their ability to fully engage with the content,  \nassessment,  and interactive elements of the paper.  \n2 http://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/staffroom/teaching/stream -4-staff/stream -is-ready -checklist.cfm  \n3 Information from a Paper Description may also be used for other purposes such as by other institutions for the assessment of  \ncredit , or to inform qualification accreditation, review,  and mapping processes.  \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nPolicy Relating to Paper Information & Study Resources – \nPage 3 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nContent  Automatically extracted from relevant \nsource systems  “Core Information” pre -populated or linked \nelectronically to an online source, “custom \ninformation”  added by paper/programme staff  \nQuality \nAssurance  Peer review and approval via the Academic \nCommittee and/or relevant College Board \nin accordance with the academic approval \ntimelines4 Core information subject to peer review via the \nTeaching & Learning Committee, custom \ninformation subject to peer review within \nprogramme/paper teams  \nAudience  \nAll staff and students  \nRelevant Legislation  \nNone  \nLegal Compliance  \nNone  \nRelated Procedures/Documents  \nAcademic Integrity Policy  \nAcademic Integrity: Procedures  for Managing Student Breaches  \nAssessment Strategy, Principles & Guidelines  \nCommittee on University Academic Programmes Functions and Procedures  \nEquivalence Policy  \nTeaching & Learning Policy  \nTertiary Education Commission Funding Rules – AMFM Policy  \nUniversity Calendar  \nUse of Copyright Material for Educational Purposes Policy  \nDocument Management Control:  \nPrepared by:  Academic Strategy Manager  \nAuthorised by: Academic Board  \nDate issued:  17 October 2012   \n \n4 Contact the Academic Policy & Regulations Unit for any queries re the academic approval requirements or timelines.  \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nPolicy Relating to Paper Information & Study Resources – \nPage 4 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \nAppendix 1:   Expectations for Paper Descriptions  \n \nPaper Details  \n \n• Paper Number  \n• Paper Title  \n• Paper Prescription  \n• Pre and Co Requisites, Restrictions  \n• Credit Value  \n• Tuition Fees  \n• Course & Additional Costs  (excluding textbooks, administration,  and processing costs)  \n• Required Textbook (where relevant)5 \n• Contact for Enquiries  \n \nOffering Details  \n \n• Year  \n• Semester  \n• Paper Start and End Dates  \n• Entry Restrictions  \n• Location of Delivery  \n• Delivery Mode  \n• Online Learning Category  (refer categories below)  \n• Contact Course (category  (refer below) , date, and important information)  \n• Proposed Next Offering  \n• Approval Reference (College Board or Academic Committee Number)  \n \nContent & Assessment  \n \n• Learning Outcomes  \n• Assessment Requirements (Types, Weightings, Due Dates, Links to Learning Outcomes)  \n• Completion Requirements  \n• Examination Date (if applicable)  \n \nInformation for Students Thinking about Enrolling in the Paper  \n \n• Expected Prior Learning (can include links to self -assessment tools where available)  \n• Description of the Learning Experience  \n  \n \n5 When considering whether a textbook should be mandatory, it is important to note that many students look to the library  to supply \na borrowing copy and the library  purchases one copy of a required textbook per 100 internal students and one copy per 50 \ndistance students.  An electronic copy of the book is purchased if available.  \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nPolicy Relating to Paper Information & Study Resources – \nPage 5 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \nOnline Learning Categories  \n \nCategory  Full Description  \nNone  There is no online learning environment for this paper.  Study resources will be supplied \ndirectly to students.  \nPaper Guide & \nAdministration  Access to an online learning environment is required so students can access the Paper \nGuide, expected learning outcomes and assessment tasks.  The online learning \nenvironment may also be required to access supplementary study resources and for the \nelectron ic submission of assignments.  Core study resources will be supplied directly to \nstudents.  \nPartially Taught \nOnline  As part of the paper is taught online, Broadband access is required .  In addition to \naccessing the Paper Guide, students will be required to access core and supplementary \ndigital study resources, contribute to discussion fora and complete online activities and \nassessment tasks.  Core study resources that can be published in print will be supplied to \nthe students who request them.  \nFully Taught Online  As all of the paper is taught online and there are no on -campus components6, Broadband \naccess is required .  In addition to accessing the Paper Guide, students will be required to \naccess core and supplementary digital study resources, contribute to discussion fora and \ncomplete online activities and assessment tasks.  Core study resources that can be \npublished in print will be supplied to the students who request them.  \n \nContact Course Categories  \n \nCategory  Full Description  \nNone  There is no contact course for the paper offering.  \nIn Person,  \nRecommended  A synchronous event, over one or several days' duration, in which distance students meet \nwith academic staff and other students and participate in any of the following learning \nexperiences: lectures, lab oratory classe s, workshops, tutorials, seminars, field trips, tests \nor similar. In -person contact courses usually occur during the mid -semester and mid -year \nbreaks, at either a Massey University campus(es) or an approved alternative venue. \nAttendance at, and participati on in, contact courses  is recommended and in some cases \nmay be compulsory.  In Person; \nCompulsory  \nOnline,  \nRecommended  A synchronous event, over one or several hours’ duration, in which distance students meet \nonline with academic staff and other students and participate in any of the following \nlearning experiences: webinars, simulations, virtual lab oratory classe s, tutorials, fieldtrips  \nor similar. Online Contact Courses usually occur during semester at a specified time, and \nin some cases at regular scheduled times , using University approved and supported tools.  \nAttendance at, and participation in, contact courses is recommended and in some cases \nmay be compulsory.  Online,  Compulsory  \n \n \n  \n \n6 Attendance at an examination venue may be required.   \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nPolicy Relating to Paper Information & Study Resources – \nPage 6 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \nAppend ix 2:  Expectations for Paper Guides  \n \n Core Information  \n(pre-populated or linked electronically)  Customised Information  \n(entered by the Paper Coordinator & Teaching \nStaff)  \nPaper \nDescription  • Linked to the Paper Description available \nonline  • Paper introduction (including, where applicable, \na description of the links b etween the paper \nand programme( s) it contributes to  where the \npaper is a programme requirement ) \n• Overview of the study resources and online \nlearning environment  (e.g., whether study \nresources will be progre ssively added during \nthe paper)  \nContact & \nInteraction  • Timetable for classes and contact courses \n(where relevant)  \n• Use of Discussion Forums in the Online \nLearning Environment  \n• Student Profile Form  \n• Massey Contact Details (for enrolment or \nstudent administration queries)  \n• Paper Evaluation Information (e.g., \nMOST)  • Paper Coordinator and Teaching Staff Contact \nInformation  \n• Staff introductions including the topics and \nactivities each staff member is responsible for  \n• Times and methods for contact (e.g., class \ntimes, online meeting times, block or contact \ncourse schedule , and any associated \nadministrative requirements ) \n• Contact / Block Course Details (where \napplicable, e.g., attendance, venue, date/time, \npreparation required , links to learning outcomes \nand assessments ) \n• Expectations for interaction and online learning \n(i.e., what students can expect from staff during \nthe Semester in terms of availability, response \ntimes for queries, interaction and assistance \nand what staff expect from students for the \nsame)  \n• Any specific paper evaluation information  \nAssessment \nGuide  Summary statements regarding:  \n• Assessment & Examination Regulations  \n• Aegrotat & Impaired Performance  \n• Assignments in Te Reo  • Detailed information on each assessment \nactivity including assessment criteria.  \n• Any specific requirements for the completion of \nassessments (e.g., for student engagement or \nsuccess)  \n• Clear instructions for assessment  submission \nincluding preferred format, use of Stream \nand/or Turnitin.  \n• Assessment  marking and turnaround time  \n• Extensions & late submissions  \n• Final examination information (where relevant)  \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nPolicy Relating to Paper Information & Study Resources – \nPage 7 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nLearning & \nSupport \nGuide7 • Academic Integrity  \n• Academic Skills Development (OWLL, \nAssignment Planning Calculator, \nReferencing Tool, Maths First)  \n• Academic Writing (Pre -Reading Service, \nThe Writing Process, Academic Support \nRequest Form)  \n• Learning Consultancy Services  \n• Library Resources and Services  \n• Life Services (e.g., Career, Health & \nCounselling (CROW), Harassment, \nAccommodation, Finance)  \n• Student Success (Pasifika, Maori, \nDisability, International, Peer Assisted \nStudy)  \n• Students’ Associations contact \ninformation.  \n• Information Technology Services  \n• Time Management  • Learning programme or schedule including \nassessment due dates.  \n• Recommended and additional readings  \n• Student workload / time budget (i.e., how much \ntime students should expect to spend on each \nlearning and assessment activity)  \n• Mechanisms for feedback and learning support  \nPractical \nGuide  \n(where \napplicable)   • Relevant Health & Safety Information which \nmay require submission of a digital signature to \nconfirm that the information has been received \nand understood.  \n• Information relating to Laboratories, Studios, \nPractical components,  and applied learning  \nRelevant \nPolicies & \nProcedures  Summary statements regarding:  \n• Copyright  \n• Disciplinary Procedures  \n• Ethical Requirements  \n• Grievance Procedures  \n• Health & Safety  \n• Maori Language Policy  \n• Student Contract  • Relevant programme or College policies and \nprocedures  \n \n  \n \n7An abbreviated block of core information may be made available for papers where enrolled students are unlikely to \nbe new to Massey University.  \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nPolicy Relating to Paper Information & Study Resources – \nPage 8 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \nAppendix 3:  Expectations for Stream Environments  \n \nAll students new to study at Massey University receive a ‘How to Use Stream Guide’ before the start of the Semester, \nand all existing students receive notification of how to access the Stream environment before the start of the study \nperiod.  The Stream4St udents website provides additional information including when regular maintenance outages \nare scheduled and who to contact when Stream is unavailable.  \n \nAll Stream environments should include the following features:  \n \n1. an online Paper Guide (Appendix 2) which is made available to students at least two weeks prior to the paper \nstart date and accompanied by advice regarding when staff and other resources will be available for teaching \npurposes.  \n2. a discussion forum which can be used for notices and student introductions.  Students should be informed about \nthe process for receiving responses to their enquiries or questions if the discussion forum is not moderated.  For \nmoderated forums, students sho uld be advised of the maximum timeframe for responses from the moderator \nwhich should be less than one week.  \n3. information blocks regarding relevant services for students e.g., the Library and Student Learning blocks  \n4. a facility for the submission of assignments electronically where appropriate to the nature of the assessment  and \nthe discipline , especially for papers offered in distance mode.  \n5. notification to students of the intended date of closure of the Stream environment so they can download material \nin advance of that date .  The date of closure may be informed by decisions made at a programme level.   \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Project_Post_Completion_Review_Policy_PDF_306_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Capital Development Post Completion Reviews Policy",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "306 KB",
      "author": "SPMO",
      "creation_date": "2023-12-20T11:03:06",
      "modification_date": "D:20231220113623+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n \n \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n \nPROJECT POST COMPLETION REVIEW POLICY  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nIntroduction : \nAll projects  as specified in Table 1, of this policy,  must undertake a Project Post Completion Review (PCR).  Reviews \nshould be undertaken after the material project activities and deliverables have been in place long enough to allow for \nobjective judgments to be made about quality or performance.  Interview s, focus groups , surveys  and artefacts \nspecified in the ‘Related Procedures and Documents’ section of this policy will be used as a basis for helping form \nobjective judgments.  \nPurpose : \nThe purpose of this policy is to provide a university wide approach t o ensure programmes, project s, and or significant \nphases of a project , are reviewed against university  plans and objectives that : \n• ensures the intended benefits are tracked, measured, and  in time  achieved.  \n• there is an objective evaluation of how successfully the objectives were met and how effective governance \nand project management practices were.  \n• lessons learned and  previously unidentified shortfalls  are captured.  \n• elements of lessons learned are then available to assist in planning, managing,  and meeting the objectives of \nfuture phases or project s; and  \n• project  closure is consistent across Massey University.  \n \n \nPolicy  Statement : \n \nThis policy is mandatory for  all construction projects over $ 5.0 million , Information and Communication s Technology \n(ICT) Projects  over $ 2.0 million and other projects1 over $2.0 million .  The policy will also apply to all projects which do \nnot reach these financial thresho lds but  have been assessed as extreme risk or high risk in accordance with the  \nBusiness Case Policy , Risk Management Policy,  and Project Management Policy.  \n  \n \n1 Other projects include  operating projects, business developments, new programmes, and business change initiatives . Section  Procurement  \nContact  Portfolio and Projects Manager  \nLast Review  Dece mber  2023  \nNext Review  December 2028  \nApproval  C19/42  \nEffective Date  December 2023  \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nProject  Post Completion Review Policy – Page 2  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nA tiered review framework based on the risk and financial thresholds of the project will be adopted to undertake the \nProject Completion Review s as specified in Table 1 below.  \n• Extreme risk or high risk  or high value projects will be subject to independent  external  review . \n• Medium risk or medium value projects will be subject to re view from suitably qualified independent Massey \nemployee or the Strategic Project Management Office (SPMO) . \n• Low risk and low value projects  will be subject to pe er review . \n \nNote: Where there is a requirement for an independent external review, this process will be overseen in accordance \nwith the University’s Internal Audit Charter . \n \nTable 1 - The type of review to be completed for any given project.  \n \nRisk Threshold   Or Financial Threshold  Review Type  Requirement  \nAny case assessed as \nextreme  risk or high  risk Construction projects in excess \nof $5.0 m \nICT project s in excess of \n$2.0m \nOther  projects exceeding \n$2.0m  Independent \nExternal Review  Mandatory  \nFacilitated by \nSPMO and \nGovernance and \nAssurance Office  \nAny case assessed as \nmoderate risk  Construction projects between \n$1.0m and $5.0 m \nICT projects between $1.0 m \nand $2.0 m \nOther  projects between $1.0 m \nand $2.0 m Independent \nInternal Review  As specified by the \nSPMO or \nGovernance and \nAssurance Office  \nAny case assessed as \nlow risk  All projects between $0.15 m \nand $1.0m Peer Review  As specified by the \nSPMO or \nGovernance and \nAssurance Office  \nNote: The risk threshold  is determined by completion of a risk profile assessment.  Refer to Related Business C ase Procedures . \nThe financial threshold is the approved project budget or final project  cost whichever is greatest in financial value.  \n \nProvision is to be made in general ledger or project operating  budget s to cover the internal and external cost of any \nPCR .  External costs are those costs for engagement of external specialists to undertake independent PCR  or to \nprovide specialist advice for internal reviews.  Business cases must  make provision for PCR  operating costs  in the \nproject budget .   \n \nThe PCR  must address : \n• alignment with university strategy . \n• project  governance and management . \n• outcomes , benefits,  and benefits  realisatio n. \n• alignment with the business case . \n• review of financial  benefits , costs,  and value for money . \n• briefing by users'  specification  and, design  including options , coordination,  and delivery .  \n• procurement strategy, options, methodology  and delivery.   \n• construction or implementation , including variations, timelines, team performance and risk management.  \n• satisfaction of occupants/users  and.  \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nProject  Post Completion Review Policy – Page 3  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n• the requirements of Post Completion Review  Parameters as defined  in the Post Completion Review \nGuidance Template.  \n \nReview Management : \nProjects shall be reviewed and closed in accordance with the ‘Related Procedures and Documents’ referenced in this \npolicy.  Reviews will be led by the SPMO  in consultation with the Director Governance and Assurance , the Strategic  \nProjects and Procurement Director , project governance boards , project steering groups  and project control groups  \nwhere these groups are still in place and full projects have been completed .  The SPMO will have responsibility for : \n• Effective management of the PCR  programme, systems,  and processes . \n• Preparing the review scope and manage t he selection of an appropriate reviewer for each project  with input \nfrom the internal stakeholders above.  \n• Scheduling reviews , ensuring the timing of reviews considers the period for benefits realisation, the \noperational and seasonal utilisation cycles of the activity for which the asset/solution was implemented.  \n• Ensuring reviewers  are appropriately trained to undertake PCRs  and facilitate the training of university staff to \nundertake independent internal reviews and  peer reviews.   It is the intent of the university to:  \no Lift the capability of university staff in relation to PCRs . \no Utilise internal resources whenever it is appropriate to do so.  \n \nReporting : \nPCRs  will be  prepared in draft for review by the project governance board or steering group.   The final report will be \nsubmitted to the SLT, thereafter to the  Finance and Assurance  Committee  before submission  to university Council for \ninformation.  However, smaller projects defined  as low risk  or low value are not required to be provided to SLT, the \nFinance and Assurance  Committee  or University Council.  \n \nCommunication and distribution of PCR  reports shall be managed through the SPMO in accordance with the agreed \nreview scope . The SPMO will actively disseminate learnings to project governance boards and management teams  \nduring the preparation of business cases and at project establishment.  \n \nThe SPMO will maintain record of  PCR  reports ensuring project learnings are available to provide guidance for \ngovernance and management of future projects.   \n \nNote: A ny agreed management actions arising from independent external reviews  will be monitored by the \nGovernance and Assurance Office and progress reported to the Finance and Assurance Committee.  \n \nDefinitions : \nPost Completion Review (PCR)  - is undertaken  to critically assess the achievement of project outcomes and \nprovide feedback that allows for continuous improvement in the project governance, project management, \ndesign, construction,  and implementation processes.  This leads to improved performance for users, and \nimproved management and financial outcomes across the university.  \n \nReviewers  - shall be suitably qualified and experienced in project completion reviews and meet the following \n requirements.  \n Independent  External Review  - the appointment of a company or person, who.  \no Shall n ot be an employee of Massey University .  \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nProject  Post Completion Review Policy – Page 4  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \no Shall not be a company or person that has been associated with the development or \nmanagement of the project . \n Independent Internal Review  - the appointment of a company or person, who.  \no May be a Massey University employee.  The reviewer must not be a member of the \ngovernance board, project steering group, project board, and project  control group or within \nthe project sponsor ’s reporting line.  \no Shall not be a company or person that has been associated with the development or \nmanagement of the project.  \n Peer Review - the appointment of a company or person, who.  \no May be a Massey University employee for peer reviews of projects  but must not be  within the \nproject sponsor’s reporting line .  \no Shall not be a company or person that has been associated with the development or \nmanagement of the project.  \n \nStakeholders  - individuals, users,  or groups with a v ested interest  in the project outcomes.  These may \ninclude  students, academic staff , colleges, professional staff , services groups, governance groups, and  \nspecific external individuals or organisations.  \n \nAudience : \nAll university staff. \nRelevant Legislation : \nHealth and Safety at Work Act 2015  \nBuilding Act 2004  \nLegal Compliance : \n \nThe Tertiary Education Commission capital asset management (CAM) and financial reporting requirements.  \nOffice of the Auditor -General New Zealand, audit,  and financial reporting requirements . \nAccident Compensation Corporation (ACC) Workplace Safety Management Programme audit (8.6) that “ health and \nsafety component is part of any post contract evaluation”.  \nRelated Procedures  and Documents : \nBusiness Case Framework  and Procedure s  \nCapital Asset Management (CAM)  Policy  \nDelegations of Authority Policy  \nFinancial Monitoring and Control Policy  \nInternal Audit Charter  \nProgressive Procurement Procedures  \nProject Management Policy and Framework  \nPost Completion Review Templates  \nProject Business Cases and Project Terms of Reference  \nProject Documentation and Contracts  \nRequest for Financial Authority (RFA) Procedure  \nRisk Management Policy  \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nProject  Post Completion Review Policy – Page 5  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nDocument Management Control : \nPrepared by:   Portfolio  and Projects Manager  \nAuthorised by:   Deputy Vice -Chancellor University Services  \nApproved by:  C19/42  \nDate issued:  August 2003  \nLast review:  December 2 023 \nNext review:  December  2028  \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Procedures_for_Course_Related_Student_Travel_Overseas_PDF_70_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Procedures for Course Related Student Travel Overseas PDF 70 KB",
      "policy_type": "Procedure",
      "file_size": "70 KB",
      "author": "Neil Ulrich",
      "creation_date": "2025-07-01T13:03:07",
      "modification_date": "D:20250701133752+12'00'"
    },
    "content": "© This  Policy is  the property o f Masse y Universit y \n \n \n \n \n \n \nMassey Universit y Policy Guide   \n \nCOURSE RELATED STUDENT TRAVE L OVERSEAS PROCEDURES    \n \n \nSecti on   Academic   \nContac t   APRU   \nLast Revie w   June 2025    \nNext Revi ew   June 2028   \nAppr oval   SLT 13/12/28 4   \n \n \nPurpose:     \nTo ensure tha t course related  travel by universit y students to overseas locations is undertaken in a manner th at \nminimises foreseeable risks to  the student and the Uni versity .  \nScope :   \nThese procedures apply to cours e-related  activities re quiring students to  travel overseas and where such a ctivities \nare not specifically covered by othe r procedures (e.g ., Fieldwork Safety) .  \nAlthough the procedures cannot be enforced in case s where students elect  to travel overseas fo r study related \npurposes, and make their own arrangement s for such travel, students and  staff are strongly encouraged to o bserve \nthe procedures .  \nDefini tions:   \nCourse relate d activities: Include  any activit y required for th e succes sful completion of  the learning outcomes \nfor a university course or qualification .  \nMFA T Safe Trave l website : New Zealand Ministry of Trade and Foreign Affairs Safe  Travel website   \n(www.safetravel.gov t.nz)   \nRest rictions:   \nOverseas  travel cannot normally be  funded through St udent Component funding. I f overseas  travel is required  as \npart of a course or qualification, i t must comply wit h the requirements outlined in the Course Related Student \nTravel Ove rseas  Procedures .  \nProcedu res:   \nUniversity sta ff, together wit h their students, ar e required to consider and manage the ris ks associated wit h \nundertaking course related activities involving travel o verseas. In d etermining whether overseas  travel is l ikely to  \nbe of low or high risk  to students or  the University , consideration should be given in the first instance  to any ri sk \nrating, and information provided on the M FAT Safe Travel w ebsite in regard to  the travel destination .  \n     \nDetermination of the level o f risk should also include a subjective asse ssment of the following factors:   \n \n \n\n© This  Policy is  the property o f Masse y Universit y  \n \n \n \n \n         Massey Universit y Policy Guide  \nCourse R elated Student Travel Ove rseas Procedures – Page 2    \n \n \n• Meth ods of travel. Any risks associate d with the means  of travel  to or from the destination . For example , \nwhen  travelling to international destinations, considerations may include the need for a  stop-over.  \n• Risks  associated  with the travel location. Including  but not limited  to remotenes s of the location  and \ndistance  to assistance; terrain to be covered and how it will be travelled; climate including altitude, daylight \nallowance and season; geopolitical climate and potential civil unrest; securi ty and safet y provisions; \nemergency and firs t aid needs; and communication requirements such a s mobile phones.   \n• Risks associated w ith the course related ac tivity. This may include but is n ot limited to research \nactivities , and associated field work . Please n ote student s are not covered b y Universit y Liability Insurance \nCove r and accordingly risks which create any potential liability for the University must be clearly identified \nin the approval process and all steps taken to mitigate these risks . Where these risks cannot be mitigated,  \nadvice should be sought from  the Risk  Manager in the fir st instance .  \n• Fitness for travel and partic ipation. Any conditions that ma y affect the abilit y of staff or student s to travel \nor participate in course -related  activity should b e discussed prior to departur e with appropriate \ndepartmental staf f or a health professional. Pa rticular consideration should be given to vaccinations tha t \nmay be required fo r travel overseas .  \nApproval of overseas travel:   \nAccordi ngly, all travel must b e.  \n• for legitimate University approved purpose s   \n• endorsed by the supervisor when the  travel is researc h related .  \n• documented and approved prior to departure .  \n• booked through the designated University travel agent .  \n• arranged in such a way as  to optimise  the safet y of the travelling student .  \n• covered by travel insurance .  \n• not incur uninsurable professional or public liability risks for  the University .  \nAll Course  Related  Student  Travel  Overseas  must  be approved  by the relevant  PVC or their nominees , in line with \nthe following requirements .  \nTravel may be approved to countries identified on the MF AT Safe Travel website as being some risk  at the time \nof travel approval application, provided that the application meets all other  requirements fo r approval .  \nTravel ma y be considered to countries identified on t he MFAT Safe Travel website a s being high risk at the time \nof approval application provided that:   \n• The securit y advice is appended to the application, and risks are identified and mitigated .  \n• Travel  to countries,  or regions  of countries,  identified  as high risk is considered  essential  for university  \nbusiness and is unable to be deferred .  \nApproval for travel to high risk countries must be recommended by the PVC, and approved by the Vice Chancellor \n(or delegate)  who may app rove circumstances for travel fo r course related activiti es which are  to the student’s  \nhome  countr y, or the  student  has been  advised  by their relevant  home -country  authority that travel to th at \ndestination represents a lower ris k for na tionals of that countr y than tha t indicated by the ris k advice fo r New \nZealanders.   \nTravel will not be approved to countrie s identified on t he MF AT Safe Travel website as being extreme risk .  \nThe Vice -Chancellor reserves the righ t to decline Cour se Related Student Travel  Overseas  to any  country  for any \nreason .  \n \n \n \n\n© This  Policy is  the property o f Masse y Universit y  \n \n \n \n    \n         Massey Universit y Policy Guide  \nCourse R elated Student Travel Ove rseas Procedures – Page 3    \n \n \nResponsibilities of Heads of  Institutes a nd Schools:   \n1. Ensure  that appropriate  approvals  and procedures  are in place  for the authorisation  of all courses  \nrelated to  activities involving overseas travel .  \n2. Ensure  that appropriate risk identification assessment and control measures have been undertaken such \nas student requirements fo r travel and  medical insurance .  \n3. Ensure  that curren t and accurate  inform ation regarding  the whereabouts  and contact  details  of students  \ntravelling overseas for course -related  activities is retained by the department for at least six months after  \nthe student return s. This information mu st be acce ssible fo r use by  the University a t short notice .  \nSupervisory Sta ff, Course Coordinators,  and/or Supervi sors of Research  Students:   \n1. Must  provide an itinerar y that includes a complete lis t of participating staff and students , travel intention s \nand contact  details  for each leg of the trip (where  relev ant) to appropriate  people  (such as the departmental \nadministrator or departmen t head) in the  Institute or  School .  \n2. Consult  the University’s Health , Safety and Wellbeing  Policy  and abide by the Field work  Safety Guideline .  \nStudents :   \n1. Must comply wit h all departmenta l and Universit y policies and procedures relating to health , safety, and \ntravel  during completion of the course related activities,  and must comply i mmediately with any direction \ngiven in the interests o f their saf ety by the Head o f Departmen t, Institute or School or other senior \nUniversity  Officer.  \n2. Are required to  provid e an itinerar y of their cours e-related  activitie s to their superviso r or paper  \ncoordinator , including information regarding their whereabouts and contact details , prior to departure .  \n3. Are responsible for securing any visas o r work perm its required for completion of th e course -related  \nactivi ty.   \n4. Are responsible for securing appropriate travel and m edical insurance for their course related a ctivities \nand t o cover  equipment  being  taken off campu s. Student s are recommended  to seek advice  from the \ndesignated University travel agent in regard  to travel and medical insurance for overseas destinations .  \n5. Must  ensure they are fit to participate in the course -related  activity . This may include seeking medical \nadvice regarding fitness for pa rticipation and/or obtaining app ropriate vaccinations o r other medical \ntreatmen t before departing .  \nAudience:     \nAll staf f and student s.  \nReleva nt Legislation:   \nHealth and Safety a t Work Act 201 5   \nLega l Compliance:   \nHealth and Safety a t Work Act 2015  requires that  the University mus t ensure, s o far as is reasonably pra cticable, \nthe health and safet y of staff while they are at wor k, people carrying out work fo r the Universit y, and students  and \nother persons whose health and safet y may be put a t risk by  the conduct o f the Universi ty’s business.  \n \n \n \n\n© This  Policy is  the property o f Masse y Universit y  \n \n \n \n \n         Massey Universit y Policy Guide  \nCourse R elated Student Travel Ove rseas Procedures – Page 4    \n \n \nRelate d Procedures/Do cuments:   \nHealth , Safety and Wellbeing  Polic y    \nFieldwork Safety  Guideline    \nFieldwork Safety  Standard    \nInsurance Policy    \nTravel Policy     \nTravel Procedural Guid ance    \n \nDocu ment Management Control:   \nPrepared by : Office  of the Provost  \nAuthorised by  Provost    \nDate issued :  20 July 2011   \nLast Review :  June  2025    \nNext Review :  June  2028    \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Delegations_of_Authority_Policy_PDF_565KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Delegations of Authority Policy PDF 565KB",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "565 KB",
      "author": "Banner, Jodie",
      "creation_date": "2023-09-04T13:02:04",
      "modification_date": "D:20230904132407+12'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n Massey University Policy Guide  \n \nDELEGATIONS OF AUTHORITY POLICY  \n \n \n \n \n \n  \n \nContents  \nGeneral Provisions  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 1 \nPart One: Finance Delegation Schedule  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 5 \nPart Two: Human Resources Delegation Sche dule ................................ ................................ .................  10 \nPart Three: Contract Signing Delegation Schedule  ................................ ................................ ..................  15 \nPart Four: Other Delegations Schedule  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 21 \nPart Five: Academic Management Delegation Schedule  ................................ ................................ .........  23 \nSummary of Authorities by Authority Band ……………………………………………………………………… 31 \n \nPurpose  \nThe purpose of this policy document is to detail the operational framework within which the Vice -Chancellor provides \nsub-delegations  of authority  to Massey University  staff members, to ensure accountability and responsibility in decision \nmaking.   \nScope  \nThis policy applies to all employees  of Massey University.  \n \nPolicy  \nSection 193 of th e Education Act 1989 confers on  the University Council, all powers reasonably necessary to enable it \nto perform its functions efficiently and effectively.  \nThe Massey University  Council  Delegations Statute details the powers and functions delegated to the Vice -Chancellor \nby the University Council. \nTo enable effective and efficient governance and management of the University, the Vice -Chancellor may sub -delegate \nall or parts of these powers and functions to staff members or Committees of the University.  Section  University Management  \nContact  Governance and Assurance Office  \nLast Review  April 2022  \nNext Review  April 2024  \nApproval  SLT 22/04/53  \nEffective Date  April 2022  \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nDelegations of Authority Policy – Page 2 \n \n \nThe purpose of this p olicy document is to deta il the operational framework within which the Vice -Chancellor provides \nsub-delegations to staff members or Committees of the University .  \n \n1.0 Delegations apply to positions  \n1.1. Delegations  to staff  are conferred on positions, and appropriate levels of delegated a uthority are assigned as an \nattribute of a position . Not all positions require an authority level to be assigned. Individuals occupying a  position  \n(including in an “acting” capacity”)  which has assigned delegated authorities are accountable and responsible for \ndecisions made under that assigned delegation . \n1.2. Assigned l evels of authority are hierarchical, and the Delegate's line manager hold s at least the same level of \ndelegated authority . \n1.3. Authorities at Massey University are assigned as standardised Authority Bands. The Authority B ands are \nsummarised in  the table on page 36  to this policy  which includes indicative roles to be assigned each Band.  Details \nof the full sets of authorities are described  within each of the schedules .   \n1.4. Delegation holder s are subject to the direction and supervision of the ir managers, w ho in turn are accountable  \nultimately to the Vice-Chancellor , through established lines of accountability.  \n1.5. Delegations are generally provided and exercised for a specific portfolio or area of operation e.g., budget centre \nand reporting line or project account.  \n1.6. Delegated authorities cannot be provided to non -University staff  (including contractors)  without the prior approval \nof the Vice -Chancellor.  Any approval granted must in writing and retained by the Director Governance  and \nAssurance.  \n2.0 Exercise of delegation  \n2.1 Delegations of authority must always be exercised  subject to and in accordance with:  \ni) Legislation  \nii) Employment agreements and role descriptions  \niii) University policies and procedures and the Policy on Staff  Conduct  \niv) Any limits and requirements associated with specific delegated authorities  \nv) Council Delegations Statute  \nvi) Council delegations in place from time to time  \n2.2 Delegations apply where there is a commitment or liability incurred on behalf of the Universit y. Other functions \nand activities which are considered to be  part of normal business operations, are generally detailed in position \ndescriptions and accountabilities , and do not require a written authority.   \n2.3 Delegated powers or functions can only be ex ercised by a position holder within the scope of their respective \nmanagement or portfolio responsibility, unless explicitly stated within the associated schedules to this Policy , or \nthe position description for that role . \n2.4 Exercise of authority may be subject , at any time , to additional consultation, restriction or other direction provided \nby a delegate’s line manager or supervisor, Senior Leadership Team ( SLT) member or the Vice -Chancellor.   \n2.5 If a delegate is unable to carry out the duties associat ed with a delegation for any reason, including a potential or \nactual conflict of interest, an absence or incapacity, the delegation must be exercised by the delegate’s line \nmanager in the first instance or other superior within the line of authority.  \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nDelegations of Authority Policy – Page 3 \n \n \n2.6 Where a significant function is not generally or particularly delegated to a n employee or body , and a manager is \nunclear about who has authority , the matter must be referred to the Director Governance and Assurance in the \nfirst instance . The Vice -Chancello r must refer th e matter to the Council where any matter  is outside the scope of \nthe Vice -Chancellor’s delegated authority, or where it is appropriate.  \n2.7 Delegat ion holders  are responsible for ensuring expenditure of university funds is only exercised where the \nexpenditure is within approved  budge t allocation s, unless explicitly stated otherwise  in this Policy or associated \nschedules .  \n2.8 The detailed regulations or rules under which specific authorities may be exercised are contained in the \nassociated  schedules to this Policy. In addition,  delegation holders  must adhere to relevant policies and \nprocedures  of the University . \n2.9 Delegation holders  are always subject to the direction and authority of the Vice -Chancellor, including any \nemergency statute or direction.  \n2.10 Any delegation made to a Committee shall be deemed to be a delegation to the persons from time to time \nconstituting the Committee.    \n2.11 Even after the Vice -Chancellor has delegated any functions or powers, the Vice -Chancellor may still perform the \nfunction or exercise the powers. Where the Vice -Chancellor performs a function or exercises a power that is also \nprovided through delega tion to staff or to a Committee, the Vice -Chancellor’s actions will take precedence over \nany actions of the delegate.  \n3.0 Accountability  and Compliance  \n3.1 Full compliance with this policy and associated schedules is required by all employees.  \n3.2 Delegates are accountable for the decisions they make while exercising their delegated authorities and will be liable \nto account for how that responsibility or duty is carried out.  \n3.3 Compl iance with this policy and with the extent of authority provided to employees will be monitored. Failure by a \nstaff-member to fully comply with this policy may amount to misconduct or serious misconduct by the staff  member, \nwhich may result in removal of delegated authority  or disciplinary action.  \n3.4 Recommendations for removal of delegated authority due to non -compliance may be approved by the  SLT member \nor the  Vice-Chancellor on the recommendation of the Director Governance and  Assurance.  \n4.0 Assigning  and changing authority band  \n4.1 Managers in positions with an authority band  A or B may assign an authority band  to a new position as part of the \nposition establishment process, for positions within their line of accountability and responsibility.  \n4.2 Assignment of an authority band  means  assignment of all authorities prescribed therein, whether exercised in \npractic e or not  (i.e., delegation for a university credit card, does not obligate the Manager or position holder to apply \nfor and use a credit card) .  Partial assignment of bands  is not permitted .  \n4.3 Managers with an authority band A or B may change  the assigned authority level of a position within their line of \naccountability and responsibility.  \n5.0 Internal management , advisory, governance boards and committees  \n5.1 The scope of authority of management, advisory boards, project and programme governance boards and other \ninternal committees, sub -committees or steering groups will be detailed within a Terms of Reference, to be \napprove d by the appropriate Senior Leadership Team member, the Senior Leadership Team,  or the Vice-\nChancellor  as appropriate .  \n \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nDelegations of Authority Policy – Page 4 \n \n \n6.0 Acting positions and temporary delegations  \n6.1 A staff member  who has been formally appointed to act in a position can exercise any delegation attached to that \nposition unless  the appointment to act specifies otherwise.  \n6.2 Where a staff member is fulfilling both an acting role and their substantive role at the same time , the effect is not \ncumulative. The effective level of delegated authority shall be exercised within the limitations of the role to which \nthe decision or function is being applied.  \n6.3 Temporary delegations will be granted on an exception basis, only where there is good reason for not applying the \nrequisite authority band to the position. Where this case is made, the  Director Governance and  Assurance  has \nauthority to a pprove, on  endorsement of the  relevant SLT member .  \n7.0 Sub-delegations  \n7.1 Individual, specific d elegated authorit ies provided within an authority band  cannot be further sub -delegated to other \nmembers of staff. Where an authority is required on an ongoing basis then it is more  appropriate for the role to be \nassigned an authority band. \n7.2 Exceptions to clause 7.1 may be considered on a temporary basis in accordance with clause 6.3.  \n8.0 Exclusions and exceptions:  \n8.1 Delegated authorities specifically excluded from the scope of this policy are:  \n 8.1.1 Functions and Power retained by Massey University Council, including those prescribed by legislation. \nThese are detailed separately in the Massey University Council Delegations Statute  2020 . \n 8.1.2 Delegations from Council to the Vice -Chancellor and Academ ic Board. These are detailed separately in \nthe Massey University Council Delegati ons Statute  2020 . \n 8.1.3 Sub-Delegations provided by Academic Board to other persons or committees. These are detailed in the \nAcademic Board Terms of Reference.  \n 8.1.4  Decisio n making authorities vested in governance, management or advisory board and committees, which \nare detailed individually in a Terms of Reference document, to be approved by the Senior Leadership \nTeam, or Vice -Chancellor.  \n9.0 Definitive Source  \n9.1 This Policy is the definitive source of all formally approved Delegations of Authority provided by the Vice -Chancellor, \nexcluding those outlined in clause 8.0. Where there is any conflict between this Policy and any other University \npolicy, procedure, guid eline or document, this Policy will take priority unless determined otherwise by the Vice -\nChancellor or by Council.  \n \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nDelegations of Authority Policy – Page 5 \n \n \nPART ONE: FINANCIAL DELEGATIONS SCHEDULE  \n1.0 Financial authorities  \nThe financial authorities specified in this Schedule must be exercised in accordance with all provision s of the Delegations \nPolicy and associated sc hedules.  \n \n FINANCIAL AUTHORITY  AUTHORITY LEVEL  Special Authority  \nRef Operating expenditure (OPEX)  A B C D E  \n1.1 Commitment to OPEX item up to $5M per transaction \n(or total related transactions) all accounts       Vice-Chancellor  \n1.2 Commitment to purchase OPEX item up to $ 1M per \ntransaction (or total related transactions)  all accounts       DVC University Services   \n1.3 Commitment to purchase OPEX item up to $250,000 all \naccounts       Chief Financial Officer  \n1.4 Commitment to purchase OPEX item up to $100,000 \n(linked to contractual commitments, within budget)       Chief Information Officer  \n1.5 Approve purchase orders and financial transactions \n(within operating budget)  up to $200,000  ✓      \n1.6 Approve purchase orders and financial transactions \n(within operating budget) up to $70,000  ✓ ✓     \n1.7 Approve purchase orders and financial transactions \n(within operating budget) up to $30,000  ✓ ✓ ✓    \n1.8 Approve purchase orders and financial transactions \n(within operating budget) up to $10,000  ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓   \n1.9 Approve purchase orders and financial transactions \n(within operating budget) up to $5,000  ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓  \n1.10 Commitment to expenditure within existing operating  \nbudget  up to $200,000  per transaction  ✓      \n1.11 Commitment to expenditure over R eporting Line \n(operating)  budget       Vice-Chancellor/ DVC University \nServices  \n \nRef CAPITAL DELEGATIONS        \n1.12 Approve  Capital Expenditure  up to $1 m per transaction \n(or total related transactions)       DVC University Services  \n1.13 Approve Capital  Expenditure up to $5m per transaction \n(or total related transactions)       Vice-Chancellor  \n1.14 Approve OPEX  or CAPEX Expenditure  $5m +      Council   \n1.15 Approval of Capital Budget Transfers (within budget) \nfrom a specific approved capital programme of work to \nanother:  \nLess than and up to $300,000       \nChief Financial Officer  \n1.16 Approval of Capital Budget Transfers (within budget) \nfrom a specific approved capital programme of work to \nanother:  $300,000 to $1m       \nDVC University Services  \n1.17 Approval of Capital Budget Transfers (within budget) \nfrom a specific approved capital programme of work to \nanother:  \n$1m to $5m       \nVice-Chancellor  \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nDelegations of Authority Policy – Page 6 \n \n \n1.18 Approval of Capital Budget Transfers (within budget) \nfrom a specific approved capital programme of work to \nanother:  \n$5m +       \nCouncil  \n1.19 Approve one -off capital purchase /transaction  within \napproved budget and less than $200,000 per purchase \norder total  ✓      \n1.20 Approve one -off capital purchase /transaction  within \napproved budget and less than $70,000 per purchase \norder total  ✓ ✓     \n1.21 Approve  capital purchase /transaction up  to $30,000  ✓ ✓ ✓    \n1.22 Approve capital purchase/transaction  up to $10,000  ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓   \n1.23 Approve capital purchase/transaction  up to $5,000  ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓  \n1.24 Capital purchase for Library <$500,000 per transaction, \nwithin budget.       University Librarian  \n CAPITAL PROGRAMMES AND PROJECTS        \n1.25 Approval of payment of capital invoices against an \napproved programme budget       Refer to table 1.21  \n \nTable 1.21  \nPROGRAMME BUDGET VALUE  Up to $2m  $2m - $5m $5m-$10m  $10m>$20m  >$20m  \nProject Manager  $200k  $300k  $300k  $300k  Special delegation  \nProgramme Manager (where \napplicable)  $400k  $500k  $500k  $500k  Special delegation  \nExecutive Director Estates  / CIO  $600k  $700k  $800k  $800k  Special delegation  \nBand A (Sponsor)  $1.5m  $1.5m  $1.5m  $1.5m  Special delegation  \nVice-Chancellor  $2m $5m $5m $5m Special delegation  \n \n2.0 Commitment and approval  \n2.1 The dollar value specified as the financial authority limit relates to the total cost of  a purchase order . \n2.2 Only those employees  with assigned financial authority  as part of their assigned authority band, may approve \ncommitments, payments, including reimbursement of staff expenses, and signing approval of confirmed timesheet \npayment . The financial  limit specified for each authority level represents the maximum value of a purchase order  \nthat may be committed  to, and/or approved by that staff member . \n2.3 Staff members  must not approve reimbursement of expenditure paid on the University’s behalf to themselves , \nnor can expense reimbursement be approved by employees  who report to this position. This must be authorised \nby the Manager  to whom the employee  reports. Refer Reimbursement of Expe nses Policy . \n2.4 All expenditure must be business related  and must comply with the requirements of the Sensitive  Expenditure \nPolicy . \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nDelegations of Authority Policy – Page 7 \n \n \n2.5 The limits specified in the financial authorities are GST  exclusive. These delegations of authority apply to \ncommitments to purchase goods and services and to pay invoices for goods services, or to raise credit notes \nagainst invoices.  \n2.6 Where a one-off item is over $ 20,000, three quotes  are required before pu rchase, unless subject to a preferred \nsupplier agreement of other agreement – see Progressive Procurement Policy and Procedures . \n2.7 Procurement and Contracts Governance Board (PCGB)  approval is required (before purchase) where  \ngoods/services  item is over $100 ,000. See Progressive Procurement  Policy and Procedures . \n2.8 No financial activity of any kind (planning, construction, or procurement) is to commence against a project or work \nwithout an approved Financial Authority  (refer Capital Planning Framework and Procedures ). Commitments must \nbe exercised in accordance with the approved RFA, and any other terms and conditions of approval.  \n2.9 Before committing to any expenditure beyond the  current financial year or approved annual budget, the staff \nmember must confirm with Chief Financial Officer to ensure  that adequate provision will continue to be made in \nfuture budgets to meet that commitment.  \n3.0 Allocation of accounts  \n3.1 SLT members have accountability and authority for budget management within their overall reporting line and will \nconfirm the assign ment of general ledger accounts  to direct reports . \n3.2 Where a delegate  (direct report)  has been assigned a budget centre (s), and  has authority band  A or B, the \ndelegate will confirm th e provision of the assignment of the budget centre account(s) to roles within their line \nmanagement . \n4.0 Approved Budget  \n4.1 A staff  member must only commit University funds : \na) Where there is sufficient budget to cover the purchase ( regardless of their financial delegated authority ). \nb) Up to the financial limits of their assigned Authority Band, or specific delegated authority.  \n4.2 If it is likely that actual spend may exceed the budget at the budget centre level, approval from the relevant SLT \nmember should be obtained as soon as practical. If the actual spend is likely to exceed the budget at the reporting \nline level, the relevant SLT member should obtain approval from the Vice -Chancellor as soon as practical.  \n4.3 All budgets are allocated on the ap proval of the Vice -Chancellor on an annual basis.  \n5.0 Recurrent Capital Programmes and Capital Projects  \n5.1 The delegated authority for  capital expenditure (CAPEX) provided to each authority level represents the maximum \nvalue of an individual CAPEX purchase that may be committed to, and/or approved by that position.  \n5.2 Capital purchases must adhere to Progressive Procurement Policy and Procedures, and Capital Investment \nPolicy and Procedures.  \n5.3 Recurrent Capital Programmes are part of the University’s Ten-Year  Capital Plan (TYCP) and devolved to College \nand Professional Services reporting lines.  Sub -projects or capital purchases with in a programme may be \ndelegated to staff members within the reporting line including an apportionment of the approved programme \nbudget.  Staff can make capital purchases up to their assigned authority Level (5.1 refers) and within the sub -\nproject budget allocated (4.1 refers).   \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nDelegations of Authority Policy – Page 8 \n \n \n5.4 Capital Projects are included in the University’s TYCP and include major items of equipment, library collection, \ninfrastructure, major and minor capital works. Fina ncial delegations for payments relating to Capital Projects are \nspecified in Table 1  and Table 1.21 .  \n6.0 Business Case  \n6.1 A business case must be prepared for any capital funding request exceeding $250,000 in capital cost; any \noperating budget baseline a djustment exceeding $150,000 in operating cost in any one financial year; or any \nbusiness -related  venture with a risk assessment of high or greater assessed in accordance with the Massey \nUniversity Risk Profile Assessment.  Refer to Business Case Policy  \n6.2 Once SLT have approved the case in principle (as there may be further business case phases), RFA \ndocumentation can be pr epared for approval. Once approved , financial commitments in relation to the project \nmay commence (refer 2.8) . \n7.0 Credit Cards  \n7.1 The purchasing conditions specified apply to all purchases made with a University Credit  Card.  \n7.2 At all times the credit card holder must comply with the Credit Card Policy and the Sensitive Expenditure and \nGifts Policy.  \n7.3 Where an assigned authority level includes a Credit Card, this does not obligate the position holder to apply for  a \ncredit card, or for the Manager to approve  the use of a credit card.  The Credit Card application process must be \nfollowed where a credit card is required, and where the  Authority Band associated to the position allows.  \n8.0 Splitting invoices  \n8.1 Purchase transaction amounts must not be split into smaller amounts , across time periods, nor across \napprovers/credit card holders in an attempt to suit the financial delegated authority of a staff member . \n8.2 Any attempt to split a purchase transaction amount will be considered a breach of th is Policy and may result in \nremoval of financial authority or disciplinary action.  \n9.0 Banking relationships   \n9.1 Banking relationships , including the approval of account signatories,  and borrowing facilities,  are established by \nDVC University Services  and are subject to approval by the Vice -Chancellor or Council, in accordance with the \nTreasury Framework.   \n9.2 Once approved, authority to operate will be delegated to the DVC University Services  and Chief Financial Officer . \nRefer to Treasury Policy  and Treasury Framework .  \n10.0 Borrowing   \n10.1 All borrowing shall be undertaken following approval of specific f acilities by the University Council. This may \ninvolve prior scrutiny by the Finance and Assurance  Committee or a specially convened Council committee. Refer \nto Treasury Policy  and Treasury Framework . Once approved, authority to operate will be delegated to the DVC \nUniversity Services  or Chief Financial Officer .  \n \n \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nDelegations of Authority Policy – Page 9 \n \n \n11.0 Investment of Funds/Lending   \n11.1 Authority to invest/lend within constraints of Treasury Policy will be delegated to the DVC University Services . \nRefer to Treasury Policy  and Treasury Framework . \n12.0 Financial Risk Management   \n12.1 All facilities for interest rate hedging  and exchan ge rate hedging  shall be approved by the Vice -Chancel lor, on \nadvice from the DVC University Services .  The DVC University Services  will put facilities for advice in place,  as \nnecessary. Any hedging will be carried out under the direct auspices of the DVC University Services . Refer to \nTreasury Policy  and Treasury Framework . \n13.0 Write -off of Bad Debts  \n13.1 The DVC University Services  or Chief Financial Officer  may authorise write -off of Bad Debts up to the value of \n$100,000, for any one item.  \n13.2 Write -off off bad debts over $100,000 for any one item will be authorised by the Vice -Chancellor.  \n14.0  Staff -Related Payments  \n14.1 Write -off of salary -related over -payments of $150 or less to be authorised by the Team Leader Human Resource \nAdministration . \n14.2 Write-off or initiate recovery of salary -related overpayments in excess of $150 to be a uthorised b y the Manager \nRemuneration and Reporting.  \n14.3   Staff Recruitment Manager may authorise w aiver of residual relocation costs.  \n15.0 Asset Disposal  \n15.1 Asset s will be disposed in accordance with the Asset Disposal and Write Down Policy.  Finance must be \nadvised as s tatutory clearances need to be  obtained.  \n15.2 The DVC University Services  (or delegate) must approve the sale, write down and/or disposal of all ass ets with \nVice-Chancellor and Council approval for certain strategic and material assets as per 16.3 and 16.4. The Chief \nFinancial Officer can approve the sale, write down and/or disposal of any assets with a book value of less than \n$5,000.  \n15.3 Asset disposals between $300,000 and $1,000,000 NBV will be authorised by the Vice Chancellor . \n15.4 Asset disposals over $1,000,000 NBV will be authorised by the University Council . \n16.0 Monitoring  \n16.1 It is the responsibility of the DVC University Services  and the Chief Financial Officer  to ensure that there are \nadequate financial controls to safeguard the financial resources of the University.  \n16.2 Compliance will be monitored,  and all one-off deviations will be reported to the  Chief Financial Officer . Ongoing , \nrepeat,  or significant compliance issues and anomalies will be reported to the  Director Governance and \nAssurance.  \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nDelegations of Authority Policy – Page 10 \n \n \nPART TWO: HUMAN RESOURCES DELEGATION SCHEDULE  \nThe Vice -Chancellor is the employer of all staff at Massey University and, under Section 197 (7) of the Education Act \n1989, has delegated authority to all managers of staff in the University the general responsibility for managing day -to-\nday staffing matte rs, within the parameters and limitations set out in the Delegations of Authority Policy and associated \nSchedule s.   \n1.0 Application and scope of HR Authority  \n1.1 All positions which have formal line management responsibilities for fixed term and/or permanent staff will be \nassigned an Authority Band. Positions with an assigned Authority Band who do not have fixed term and/or \npermanent staff reporting to them, will only exercise H R delegations if positions reporting to them are be approved  \nand established .   \n1.2 Where an HR authority is held by a staff member, this authority is only to be exercised in relation to staff that are \nwithin their direct line management responsibility , except  where permitted  in clause  4.11 and clause  4.20.    \n2.0 Eligibility and adherence to University Policy and Guidelines  \n2.1 Any authority described in the HR Schedule must be exercised and provided at all times in accordance with \nspecified eligibility requirements an d applicable University Policies and Guidelines. Where eligibility is uncertain, \nconfirmation must be confirmed by an HR Advisor or the Employment Relations Manager.  \n3.0 In addition to the HR related authorities provided below  in section 4 , the University Council and \nVice-Chancellor retain some specific authorities, as follows:  \n3.1 Council :  \n• Appointment of Honorary Academic positions “Professor Emeritus” (On recommendation of V ice-Chancellor  \nto the Honorary Awards Committee.)  \n• Appointment to Vice -Chancellor position  \n• Approval of salary increases for the Vice -Chancellor  \n3.2  Vice-Chancellor : \n• Appointment to Senior Leadership Team positions, including acting appointments to these positions  \n• Approva l of salary increases for SLT members  \n• Approval of Settlement of Collective Employment Agreements  \n• Appoint Massey Ambassador/Industry Expert  \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nDelegations of Authority Policy – Page 11 \n \n \n4.0 The Vice -Chancellor provides the following delegated authorities to specific authority bands : \n \n HUMAN RESOURCE AUTHORITY  AUTHORITY BAND   \nRef Positions and appointments  A B C D E Conditions  \n4.1 Establish new positions above  approved \nestablishment FTE  ✓      \n4.2 Establish all Associate Professor and Professor \npositions  ✓      \n4.3 Appoint to Associate Professor and Professor \npositions  ✓      \n4.4 Appoint to Honorary Academic, Adjunct and \nDistinguished Visitors, Friends, Visiting Scholars,  or \nResearcher positions  ✓     Strategic Individual (Non -\nEmployment) Relationships Policy \napplies.  \nRef Positions and appointments  A B C D E Conditions  \n4.5 Appoint to academic position where the prospective \nappointee does not have the required level of \nacademic qualification  ✓      \n4.6 Appoint where applicant has not passed a pre -\nemployment check  ✓     In consultation with ER Manager  \n4.7 Approve Academic Promotion (progression in “rank” \nand accelerated progression within rank) from Tutor \nto Senior Tutor through to and including Senior \nLecturer Range 2  ✓     With endorsement of the College \nPromotions Committee  \n4.8 Establish new academic positions (up to and including \nAssociate Professor  level) and all professional \nservices positions within approved establishment FTE  ✓ ✓    Subject to consultation with the one \nup manager for B level and subject \nto PVC protocols around \nestablishing new positions  \n4.9 Appoint to  a vacan cy of a permanent position, within  \nestablishment FTE  ✓ ✓ ✓   Subject to SLT protocols for \nmanaging vacancies  (Check with \nHR Advisor  for protocols ) \n4.10 Advertise vacancies of more than 12 months via the \nUniversity’s recruitment system  ✓ ✓ ✓    \n4.11 Appoint to vacancies not exceeding 12 months \nwithout advertising  ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓  *Note department recruitment \ncoordinator (or equivalent) may be \nnominated to process fixed -term \nappointments  not exceeding 12 \nmonths . E.g., pre-semester fixed \nterm. \n4.12 Appoint (academic up to Senior Lecturer Range 2 and \nprofessional services) staff to an approved vacancy of \nan existing position or approved new position  ✓ ✓ ✓    \n4.13 Appoint to a position where a staff member would \nhave direct or indirect line management responsibility \nof a relative  ✓ ✓    Conflict of Interest and Commitment \nPolicy applies. HR advice required.  \n4.14 Approve staff transfers between departments/  \ninstitutes/schools and/or Colleges and/or Campuses  ✓ ✓ ✓    \n4.15 Approve secondments to or from outside \norganisations or within the University  ✓ ✓ ✓    \n4.16 Sign fixed term and permanent employment offer \ndocumentation, prepared by People and Culture  ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓  To include use of future People and \nCulture system -generated \ndocumentation authored by \nmanagers.  \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nDelegations of Authority Policy – Page 12 \n \n \n HUMAN RESOURCE AUTHORITY  AUTHORITY BAND   \n4.17 Prepare and sign casual employment agreement \ndocumentation for casual (as and when required) \nappointments  ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓  In line with People and Culture  \nguidelines and advice from HR \nAdvisor, using the current, approved \nUniversity template documents.  \nRef Leave  A B C D E Conditions  \n4.18 Approve leave without pay up to 30 days  ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓   \n4.19 Approve leave without pay greater than 30 days  ✓ ✓ ✓    \n4.20 Approve annual, sick, and discretionary leave in \naccordance with relevant employment agreement \nprovisions  ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓  *Note Leave Administrator may be \nnominated to process leave \nrequests  \n4.21 Approve annual, sick, and discretionary leave over \nand above relevant employment agreement \nprovisions  ✓ ✓    In line with People and Culture  \nguidelines and advice from HR \nAdvisor  \n4.22 Approve long service leave within entitlements  ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓   \n4.23 Approve annual leave in advance of accrued balance  ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓   \n4.24 Approve University / overseas duties up to 23 days  ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓   \n4.25 Approve University / overseas duties over  23 days  ✓      \n4.26 Approve parental leave where eligible  ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓   \nRef Remuneration  A B C D E Conditions  \n4.27 Approve appointment salary and new salary at \npromotion to Associate Professor or Professor Level  ✓      \n4.28 Approve payment of special allowances including \nallowances relating to appointment, retention, special \nresponsibilities or for duties over and above a staff \nmember’s existing employment agreement  ✓ ✓ ✓   In line with People and Culture \nguidelines and advice from HR \nAdvisor  \n4.29 Set appointment salary for new appointments outside \nof salary band or range  ✓     In line with People and Culture \nguidelines and advice from HR \nAdvisor  \n4.30 Set appointment salary for new appointments within \nsalary band or range  ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓  In line with People and Culture \nguidelines and advice from HR \nAdvisor  \n4.31 Approve standard progression for academic staff up \nto Senior Lecturer Range 2 who directly report to the \nmanager  ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓   \n4.32 Approve standard progression salary increment for \nprofessional services staff who directly report to the \nmanager  ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓   \n4.33 Approve accelerated professional services staff salary \nprogression recommendations, from managers of \nprofessional services staff who report to the manager \nmaking the recommendation  ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓    \n4.34 Approve annual salary reviews for staff who are \nManagement Individual Employment Agreements and \nwho directly report to the manager  ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓  In consultation with one up manager  \n4.35 Approve recommendations by managers for payment \nof a performance bonus for professional services staff \nreporting to them  ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓  In consultation with one up manager  \n4.36 Approval of overtime agreed in advance  ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓   \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nDelegations of Authority Policy – Page 13 \n \n \n HUMAN RESOURCE AUTHORITY  AUTHORITY BAND   \n4.37 Approve one -off non -contractual or extraordinary \nlump sum payment (other than section 123 (c) (i) \npayments and performance bonus payments above)  ✓ ✓    Rationale for payment and how it is \ncalculated to be documented and \nprovided to HR Administration.  \nRef Other  A B C D E Conditions  \n4.38 Approve variations of employment such as changes \nto staff FTE within approved establishment, change of \nduties/job description, change of reporting line.  ✓ ✓ ✓    \n4.39 Approve variation of employment to change job \nclassification, e.g., from Lecturer to Professional \nClinician  ✓      \n4.40 Approve staff study fees concession  ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓   \n4.41 Approve Retirement Gratuity being paid as paid leave \n(with payment of superannuation) rather than a lump -\nsum termination payment.  ✓      \n4.42 Approve request for Retirement Gratuity for less than \n10 years’ service, where eligibility confirmed by ER \nManager.   ✓      \n4.43 Approve initiation, consultation and implementation of \na restructuring/staff review process which may result \nin changes to the organisational structure or roles, \nstaffing levels, redundancies, and or major change to \nwork practices.  ✓     Managers are required to seek the \nadvice of the HR Advisor.  \n4.44 Co-approve payment of a non -taxable compensation \nfor humiliation and loss of dignity under section 123 \n(c) (i) of the Employment Relations Act.  ✓     Co-approval from  ER Manager \nrequired.  \n4.45 Approve dismissal of employee  ✓ ✓    Managers are required to seek the \nadvice of Employment Relations \nManager  and follow due process , \nand to keep their next level \nmanager appraised on the process \nand intention to dismiss before  any \nfinal decision is made by the \ndelegation holder.  \n4.46 Manage employment relationship problems that arise \nin the workplace, including unsatisfactory \nperformance.  ✓ ✓ ✓   Managers are required to seek the \nadvice of the HR Advisor.  \n4.47 Authorise staff disciplinary investigation into non -\nperformance or alleged misconduct/serious \nmisconduct, including the application of any penalty or \nsanction up to and including the level of final warning.  ✓ ✓ ✓   Managers are required to seek the \nadvice of HR Advisor. Where \noutcome of an investigation \npotentially results in dismissal, \nwritten approval to proceed should \nbe obtained from SLT manager.  \n4.48 Undertake PDPs for nominated staff  ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Also allocated to F band  \n4.49 Verifying renewal of  work permits  ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Also allocated to F band  \nRef People and Culture Specific Delegated Authorities  A B C D E Conditions  \n4.50 Approve appointments without advertising to ongoing \npositions and fixed -term positions of over 12 months       Executive Director People and \nCulture  \n4.51 Variation to standard conditions of employment       ER Manager or ER Advisor  \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nDelegations of Authority Policy – Page 14 \n \n \n HUMAN RESOURCE AUTHORITY  AUTHORITY BAND   \n4.52 Variation to standard relocation assistance \nallowances       Executive Director People and \nCulture  or Staff Recruitment \nManager, in consultation with \nrelevant SLT manager  \n4.53 Exception waiver of residual relocation costs       Staff Recruitment Manager  \n4.54 Response to a personal grievance, dispute,  or \ncompliance order        Executive Director People and \nCulture,  Director ER, ER Advisor, or \nHR Advisor.  \n4.55 Settling a personal grievance or a dispute about \ninterpretation, application,  or operation of an \nemployment agreement       Executive Director People and \nCulture, Director  ER, ER Advisor or \nHR Advisor - with concurrence of \nrelevant SLT manager  \n4.56 Negotiation of a Collective Employment Agreement       Executive Director People and \nCulture, Director ER  \n4.57 Negotiation and approval of an Employee \nParticipation Agreement for Health and Safety.        Executive Director People and \nCulture, Director ER in consultation \nwith Director H, S  & W \n4.58 Approve grading or re -grading of positions for \nprofessional services staff       P&C Manager Remuneration and \nReporting  Remuneration Advisor  or \nequivalent  \n4.59 Determining if a person is covered by MUCEA / IEA \nor a Management IEA       ER Manager or ER Advisor  \n4.60 Obtain external legal advice on employment related \nmatters on behalf of the University       Executive Director People and \nCulture, Director ER \n4.61 Authority to approve changes to the IEA template        Executive Director People and \nCulture, Director ER  \n4.62 Write -off of salary -related over -payments of $150 or \nless      Team Leader Human Resources \nAdministration  \n4.63 Decision whether to write o ff or initiate recovery of \nsalary -related overpayments in excess of $150       Manager Remuneration and \nReporting.  \nConsultation to occur with manager \nof the staff member before recovery \naction initiated.  \n4.64 Approve Supernumerary Academic staff subsidy       Executive Director People and \nCulture, in accordance with \nSupernumerary Policy  \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nDelegations of Authority Policy – Page 15 \n \n \nPART THREE: CONTRACT SIGNING DELEGATION SCHEDULE  \nUnder the provisions of the Education Act 1989, only the Vice -Chancellor or his/her delegated nominee may sign \ncontracts, which commit the University.  \n \nThe term “contract” in this context means any agreement, which commits the University in financial or legal terms, and \nincludes contracts relating to   \n \n• Construction , buildings , and l eases relating to property and land  \n• Equipment, consumables, services, non -research consulting, and commercial contracts  \n• Research, academic or research relate d consultancy, and commercialisation of IP  \n• Teaching  \n• International  \n• Sponsorship  \n• Student Recruitment  \n• Miscellaneous  signing authorities  \n \nGeneral provisions  \n• Contracts 5 years  or more in duration, and/or $2 million per annum are considered material transactions and must \nbe signed by the Vice -Chancellor.  \n• Staff negotiating contracts must seek guidance and assistance from the appropriate responsible area  referred to \nin the  Contract Management Policy.  \n• All contracts must adhere to the policies and procedures relating to the specific class of contracts ( i.e., Sub-\nContracting of  Teaching, procurement /commercial contracts ). \n• A list of approved external legal service providers i s maintained by the DVC University Services , in accordance \nwith the Contract Management Policy . Where contract review is required by an external party, an ap proved provide r \nmust be engaged by an authorised delegate, refer Other Delegations Schedule, Engagement of Solicitors.   \n• The establishment of specific individual delegations for the purposes of the signing contracts will be by letter to the \nVice-Chancellor on the recommendation of the Director Governance and Assurance . The Director Governance and \nAssurance  will maintain a re gister of these  delegations.  \n• Purchases/expenditure in excess of $100,000 are required to go through the Procurement and Contracts \nGovernance Board  and therefore associated contracts must be signed in accordanc e with the Board’s  approval.  \n• The signing authorities specified  in this schedule are subject to full compliance with the Procurement Policy and \nProcedures and the Contract Management Policy and Procedures. Where a contract or agreement has been \ndrafted or negotiated with an external party and  has not complied with the requirements of those policies, this must \nbe notified to the Director Governance and  Assurance. Contract signing authority for these contracts is restricted \nto the Vice -Chancellor.  \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nDelegations of Authority Policy – Page 16 \n \n \n1.0 Construction , buildings  and leases relating to property and land   \n1.1 Standard contracts up to $100,000  (with financial approval)  \n1.1.1 A pre-signature review and assessment , in accordance with the Contract Criticality Assessment Guidelines,  \nmust be undertaken by the applicable responsible area, as specified in the Contract Management Policy,  \nor by an approved external legal services provider.  \n1.1.2 Where the assessed risk level is not high  (as per the Contract Criticality Assessment) , standard contracts \nwithin this ca tegory may be signed by  any one of the following , for contracts relating to their area of \nresponsibility and oversight :  \n• National Facilities Director  \n• DVC University Services  \n• Individual employees with specific delegations to sign contracts as authorised  in writing  by the \nVice-Chancellor.  \n1.1.3 Where the assessed risk is high  (as per the Contract Criticality Assessment) , the contract must only be \nexecuted by  one of the following:  DVC University Services , or the Vice-Chancellor . \n1.2 Standard contracts in excess of $100,000  (up to $2M/p.a.)  \n1.2.1 A pre-signature review and assessment , in accordance with the Contract Criticality Assessment \nGuidelines,  must be undertaken by the applicable responsible area, as specified in the Contract \nManagement Policy, or by an approved external legal services provider.  \n1.2.2 Where the assessed risk level is not high  (as per the Contract Criticality Assessment) , standard contracts \nwithin this category may be signed by any one of the following:  \n• National F acilities Director   \n• DVC University Services  \n• Individual employees with specific delegations to sign contracts as authorised in writing by the \nVice-Chancellor.  \n1.2.3 Where the assessed risk is high  (as per the Contract Criticality Assessment) , the contract must only be \nexecuted by one of the following, after seeking appropriate legal review and advice on the contract:  DVC \nUniversity Services , or the Vice-Chancellor . \n1.3 The following classes of document s relating to land and buildings and must be signed under seal, in accordance \nwith the Common Seal Statute: Leases and licenses for land and buildings where the term exceeds five years or \nthe transaction value is greater than $1m per annum, and Sale, purch ase or ownership transfer of land and/or \nbuildings, or where otherwise required by law, or where the other party requests it.  Refer to the Common Seal \nStatute.  \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nDelegations of Authority Policy – Page 17 \n \n \n2.0 Equipment, consumables, services, non -research consulting, and commercial contracts  \n(including IT licence agreements)  \n2.1 Within approved budget up to $ 50,000  (total value, whole of term) , New Zealand jurisdiction only, 1 year or less  in \nduration:  \n2.1.1 Where the contract is not a standard Massey template, or terms are required to be varied, p re-signature \nreview and assessment  in accordance with the Contract Criticality Assessment Guidelines  must be \nundertaken by the applicable responsible area, as specified in the Contract Management Policy, or by an \napproved external legal services provider.  \n2.1.2 Where the assessed risk level is not high  (as per the Contract Criticality Assessment) , standard contracts \nwithin this category may be signed by any one of the following , relating to their areas of responsibility and  \noversight : \n• Senior Leadership Team Member  \n• Strategic Sourcing Manager  \n• Chief Financial Officer  \n• National Facilities Director  \n• Chief Information Officer (IT Equipment & Services)  \n• Individual employees with specific delegations to sign such contracts as authorised in writing by \nthe Vice -Chancellor.  \n2.1.3 Where the assessed risk is high  (as per the Contract Criticality Assessment) , the contract must only be \nexecuted by one of the following, after seeking appropriate legal review and advice on the contract:  \n• DVC Students and Global Engagement  \n• Provost  \n• DVC University Services   \n• Vice-Chancellor  \n2.2 Within approved budget , up to  $100,000, 3 years or less in duration:  \n2.2.1 Where the contract is not a standard Massey template, or terms are required to be varied, p re-signature \nreview and assessment in accordance with the Contract Criticality Assessment Guidelines must be \nundertaken by the applicable responsible area, as specified in the Contract Management Policy, or by an \napproved external legal services p rovider.  \n2.2.2 Where the assessed risk level is not high (as per the Contract Criticality Assessment) , contracts within this \ncategory may be signed by any one of the following , relating to their areas of responsibility and oversight : \n• Senior Leadership Team  Member  \n• Chief Information Officer  \n• Strategic Sourcing Manager  \n• Chief Financial Officer  \n• National Facilities Director  \n• Individual employees with specific delegations to sign such contracts as authorised in writing by \nthe Vice -Chancellor.  \n2.2.3 Where the assessed risk is high  (as per the Contract Criticality Assessment) , the contract must only be \nexecuted by one of the following, after seeking appropriate legal review and advice on the contract:  \n• DVC Students and Global Engagement  \n• Provost  \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nDelegations of Authority Policy – Page 18 \n \n \n• DVC University Services  \n• Vice-Chancellor  \n2.3 Within approved budget up to  a maximum of  $2M whole of contract cost, and less  than 5 years in duration:  \n2.3.1 Pre-signature review and assessment  in accordance with the Contract Criticality Assessment Guidelines  \nmust be undertaken by the applicable responsible area, as specified in the Contract Management Policy, \nor by an approved external legal services provider.  \n2.3.2 Where the assessed risk leve l is not high (as per the Contract Criticality Assessment) , contracts within this \ncategory may be signed by any one of the following:  \n• DVC Students and Global Engagement  \n• Provost  \n• DVC University Services  \n• Individual employees with specific delegations to sign such contracts as authorised in writing by \nthe Vice -Chancellor.  \n2.3.3 Where the assessed risk is high  (as per the Contract Criticality Assessment) , the contract must only be \nexecuted by the Vice -Chancellor.  \n3.0 Research, academic or researc h related consultancy  \nIncludes both the provision of research and consultancy services to third parties, and the purchase of research \nand consultancy services by the University.  Note that purchase of research and consultancy services must be \nwithin approve d budgets and subject to Procurement Policy requirements.  \n3.1 Delegated authority to sign:  \nRISK FACTORS  AUTHORITY TO SIGN  \nAny one of:  \nDirectors of Research \nCentres (only where \nexpressly authorised in \nCentre Agreement),  \nDirector Research \nOperations  \nSLT Member  Director Research \nOperations  \n Any one of:  \nDirector Research \nOperations , \nProvost  \nLiability cap  $0 - $50,000  $0 - $200,000  $0 - $2,000,000  \nTotal contract value  $0 - $50,000  $0 - $200,000  $0 - $2,000,000  \nJurisdiction  New Zealand only  New Zealand Only  Within or outside NZ  \nMaximum Duration of Contract  0 - 3 years  0-5 years  0 - 5 years  \n3.2 Where the University is the provider of research and consultancy services, the contract must include clauses \napproved by the Research  and Enterprise Office which cover the following*:  \n• Ownership of Intellectual Property.  \n• A liability cap of up to $2,000,000 in respect to direct failure of the University to perform (except for the \nexcluded categories in clauses 3. 3). \n• No acceptance of consequential or indirect liability by the University.  \n \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nDelegations of Authority Policy – Page 19 \n \n \n*If the liability clause is incons istent with the above, the contract may be signed following the review and \nrecommendations of the Research  and Enterprise Office  \n3.3 In addition to clause 3.1, the Director Research Operations, and Provost have delegation to sign the following : \n3.3.1  a variation  to an existing contract signed by the Vice-Chancellor.  \n3.3.2  a contract with any New Zealand Government Department, the Royal Society of New Zealand, or the \nHealth Research Council of New Zealand, where the contract is with these agencies alone or in \ncombinatio n with other of these agencies with no liability cap included.  \n3.3.3  a contract with any Statutory Crown Entities listed under Schedule 1 (Parts 1 -3) of the Crown Entities Act \n2004 where the contract is with these agencies alone or in combination with other enti ties listed under \nthis Schedule with no liability cap included.  \n3.3.4  a subcontract with no liability cap on account of the head contract being with an agency under this clause.  \n3.3.5  contracts not for services, including confidentiality, material transfer and grant agreements with  no liability \ncap.  \n3.3.6  inter-university contracts with no liability cap.  \n \n3.4 All other contracts ( i.e., those for which the liability cap is greater than $ 2,000,000 or the total contract value is \ngreater than $ 2,000,000 or the contract has a maximum duration greater than 5 years) will be signed by the Vice -\nChancellor :  \n3.5 At all times those staff members involved in the negotiation, preparation and/or execution of any research and \nacademic or research consultancy contract, whether the Univers ity is procuring or providing the service, must \ncomply fully with the requirements of this policy, the Contract Management Policy  and other associated policies \nand procedures of the University.  \n3.6 The Provost  can withdraw delegated authority to conclude research and consulting contracts in whole or part, with \nimmediate effect for any material breach of this Policy or for any other matter or event likely to put the University \nunder material risk. The Provost  must notify the staff member and relevant Pro Vice -Chancellor of this decision in \nwriting and cite the reason for this decision, with a copy also provided to the Director Governance and  Assurance . \n3.7 Authorities provided to the Provost  within this section ( 3.0) may also be exercised by DVC Students and Global \nEngagement as alternate, as and when required.  \n4.0 Domestic Teaching Agreements  \nIncludes conjoint arrangements, articulation agreements and sub -contracting of teaching . \n4.1 All contracts for sub-contracting of teaching activity must be signed by the Vice -Chancellor , after  approval of the \nrelevant Pro Vice -Chancellor. Refer to the Sub-contracting of Teaching Activity Policy . \n \n5.0 International Agreements  \n \n5.1 Agreements, including but not limited to Memorandums of Understanding in respect of student exchange \nprogrammes, conjoint arrangements, sub -contracting of teaching and articulation agreements must be approved \nand signed by. \n• the Vice -Chancellor in cases of institution -to-institution  level agreements  \n• the DVC Students and Global Engagement (in consultation with the VC)  \n• the Provost or the DVC Students and Global Engagement in cases of College level agreements. Prior \napproval must be obtained from the relevant P VC. Prior approval must also be obtained from the Provost, if \nthe agreement includes contract research collaboration.  \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nDelegations of Authority Policy – Page 20 \n \n \n5.2 All other international  contracts must be approved and signed by the Vice -Chancellor, on the recommendation  of \nthe relevant SLT member . Prior approval must also be obtained from the Provost, if the agreement includes \ncontract research collaboration.  The Vice -Chancellor may choose to sub -delegate this authority to an SLT \nmember on a case -by-case basis .  Confirmation must be provided to th e Director  Governance and Assurance and  \nmaintained as part of the contract record.  \n6.0   Sponsorship Agreements   \n6.1 Sponsorship contracts up to $ 50,000 and 2 years or less in duration may be signed by DVC SAGE . Sponsorship \nAgreements greater than $ 50,000 or exceeding 2 years must only be executed by the Vice -Chancellor, unless \ndelegated to an SLT member on a case -by-case  basis. Confirmation must be provided to the Director Governance \nand Assurance and  maintained as part of the contract record . Appropriate templates and/or legal review must be \nundertaken prior to execution.  \n6.2 All sponsorships involving media and/or media outlets must have prior approval from the Vice-Chancellor.  \n7.0 International Student Recruitment  \n7.1 Authority to execute agency contracts allowing third parties to act as representatives to recruit overseas students \nis delegated to the DVC Students and Global Engagement  or the Executive Director, Global Engagement . \nContracts must be on the standard University template unless  the alternative template has been legally reviewed \nand approved and  must not exceed 5 years in duration.  \n7.2 Termination of agreements with international recruitment agents may be authorised by th e DVC Students and \nGlobal Engagement  or the Executive Director, Global Engagement , having due regard to contractual obligations \nand dispute clause s. The DVC Students and Global Engagement  or the Executive Director, Global Engagement  \nwill follow internal or  external legal advice before terminating any contract.  \n8.0 Student Internships, Placement and Volunteer Agreements  (internal and external)  \n8.1 Members of the Senior Leadership Team have authority to sign Internship Agreements, Student Placement \nAgreements, Volunteer Agreements, and Student Practicu m Agreements  using the approved standard Massey \nUniversity template. Where  changes ar e required  to the standard template, approval of those changes must be \nprovided and recorded by the Legal Services Team, prior to signing. If the nature of the relationship is unclear, then \nthe responsible contract owner needs to liaise with People and Culture and/or Leg al Services to determine what \nthe appropriate mode of contracting should be.  \n9.0 Miscellaneous signing authorities  \n9.1 The Dean Enterprise has authority to sign patent documentation, including power of attorney forms on the  \nUniversity’s behalf. A patent register is to be maintained.  \n9.2 The University Publisher is authorised to sign publishing contracts where these are on an approved Massey \ntemplate, and appropriate pre -signature review has been undertaken. Management of contracts will comply with \nall requisite Univer sity policies and procedures.  \n9.3 DVC University Services  will authorise the Ministry of Education Single Data Return (SDR) on behalf of the \nUniversity.  \n10.0 Space and Property  \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nDelegations of Authority Policy – Page 21 \n \n \n10.1 The National Facilities Director is authorised to fulfil any required regional and territorial applications and processes, \nand resource consenting as may be required for the management of university estates and associated \ninfrastructure, including in support of the University’s Divestment and Crown Property Transfer initiati ves. \n10.2 The National Facilities Director is authorised to fulfil all applications and processes to sub -divide land in University \ntitle in support of the university’s Divestment and Crown Property Transfer initiatives, subject to any applicable \napproval o r consultation processes required by the TEC or other government agency.  \n10.3 For clarity, the intent of 10.1 and 10.2 is to enable the mechanics of estates related activities to efficiently occur \nwithin the framework of preapproved university initiatives.   \n10.4The National Facilities Director has authority for allocation of space for university  purposes in each campus , in   \nconsultation with the SLT member impacted.   \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nDelegations of Authority Policy – Page 22 \n \n \nPART FOUR : OTHER DEL EGATIONS  SCHEDULE  \n1.0 Management of Student Misconduct  \n1.1 Authority to investigate and resolve complaints is delegated in accordance with the policy and procedures      \noutlined in the Student Disciplinary Regulations , Student Academic Integrity Policy , and Procedure for Managing \nBreaches of Academic Integrity . \n2.0 Student Fees  \n2.1 Fee reductions or subsidies applied to international  cohorts are authorised by the Vice -Chancellor  or DVC \nStudents and Global Engagement . \n2.2 The Provost  or DVC Students and Global Engagement  will authorise the discounting of fees for domestic \nstudents.  \n2.3  The Head of Student Registry  is authorised to approve fee waivers or refunds up to a maximum value of $ 10,000 \nper item per debtor, subject to conditions and criteria set out in relevant policies and procedures,  and sub ject to \nany requirements of an e xchange partner.  \n2.4 The DVC Students and Global Engagement  or the Provost  can authorise fee waivers, refunds  and determination \nof fee appeals by Domestic or International students up to a maximum of $ 50,000 per item. Any commission \npaid to a Recruitment Agent, in good faith by the University, in relation to a student, will be deducted from the \namount of any refu nd payable to a student withdrawing prior to completion of the first year of study.  \n3.0 Engagement of Solicitors  \n3.1 Engagement of external legal services is subject to the approval of one of the following: P rovost , DVC Students \nand Global Engagement , DVC University Services , Executive Director People and Culture , Director  Governance \nand Assurance or , the Director Research Operations .   \n3.2 Engagement s must comply with internal guidelines or preferred supplier agreements in place at any time . \n4.0 University Seal, Coat of Arms and Name  \n4.1  Execution of Documents and the University’s Seal (Delegated Authority) . In terms of Section 167 of the \nEducation Act 1989, any two of:  \n• the Chancellor  \n• the Vice -Chancellor and   \n• the DVC Students and Global Engagement  \n are authorised to execute documents, including documents affixed with the University’s common seal.  This \ndelegation is subject to details of documents executed under seal being su bsequently reported to Council.  \n5.0 Research Centres and Other Independently Constituted Organisations  \n5.1 The Vice -Chancellor , with advice from the University Research Committee (URC), will approve the \nestablishment or disestablishment of College and University Research Centres . Advice from the URC is not \nrequired for Commercial  Centres.  \n5.2 Council, on the recommendation of the Vice -Chancellor, will approve the establishment or disestablishment of \nfoundations, trusts, University owned companies, or other  independently constituted organisations.  \n5.3 Appointment of Directors of controlled entities will be made by the Vice -Chancellor, unless otherwise directed \nby Council or in circumstances where the Vice -Chancellor is likely to be appointed into such roles.   \n6.0 Records and Documents  \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nDelegations of Authority Policy – Page 23 \n \n \n6.1 The Chief Information Officer  will approve disposal of University Records in accordance with the General \nDisposal Authority (GDA) approved by Archives New Zealand.  \n7.0 Information requests  \n7.1 The Director Governance and  Assurance is authorised to respond on behalf of the University to requests for \ninformation made under the Privacy Act 1993 and the Official Information Act 1982, and to respond to requests \nmade by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner or the Ombudsman re lating to complaints and investigations.  \n8.0 Other General Delegations    \n8.1 The Vice-Chancellor or Director Governance and Assurance  have authority to accept service of court proce ss \non behalf of the University.  \n \n  \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nDelegations of Authority Policy – Page 24 \n \n \nPART FIVE : ACADEMIC MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE  \n \n1.0 Where expressly permitted in this schedule, the delegate may authorise another person, the sub -delegate, to \nexercise the delegation (or any part of it). However, the delegate remains responsible for ensuring that the \nfunction is properly exercised. All such delegations need to be in writing or via email, must specify the authority \nbeing delegated, and limitations imposed, and be subsequently acknowledged and agreed by the sub -delegate in \nwriting or via email.  \nRef Category  Decis ion Delegated \nAuthority  Delegating \nAuthority  Recorded  \n1.  Admission  Grant Special Admission where \napplicant does not hold a university \nentrance qualification and does not \nqualify under Matriculation Regulation \n2(f)   Provost  Vice-\nChancellor  Special \nAdmission \nRegulations  \n2.  Admission  Admission may be granted conditionally \nin the case of students who have not yet \nmet the requirements for entry to \nuniversity  or to a specific qualification.  DVC Students \nand Global \nEngagement  (or \ndelegate)  Vice-\nChancellor  Admission \nRegulations  \n3.  Admission  The University Council (or its delegate) \nmay decline (under statutory authority) \nto matriculate a person in special cases.  DVC Students \nand Global \nEngagement (or \ndelegate)  Vice-\nChancellor  Matriculation  \nRegulations / \nCouncil \nDelegations \nStatute  \n4.  Admission  Grant discretionary entrance to a student  DVC Students \nand Global \nEngagement (or \ndelegate)  Vice-\nChancellor  Discretionary \nEntrance \nRegulations  \n5.  Admission  Admit any person with equivalent status \nto candidature in any degree or other \nacademic qualification or part thereof  DVC Students \nand Global \nEngagement (or \ndelegate)  Vice-\nChancellor  Admission with \nEquivalent Status \nRegulations  \n6.  Admission  Grant admission to a sub -degree \ndiploma or sub -degree certificate based \non the published admission \nrequirements  DVC Students \nand Global \nEngagement (or \ndelegate)  Vice-\nChancellor  Admission with \nEquivalent Status \nRegulations  \n7.  Admission  Grant admission to an undergraduate \ndegree, diploma,  or certificate, or for a \ncertificate of proficiency in a course of \nany degree, diploma,  or certificate with \nstatus equivalent to that of a person \nacademically qualified for entrance to a \nuniversity in New Zealand on the basis \nof study at a secondary or te rtiary \ninstitution in New Zealand or overseas  DVC Students \nand Global \nEngagement (or \ndelegate)  Vice-\nChancellor  Admission with \nEquivalent Status \nRegulations  \n8.  Admission  Grant a candidate admission to the \nstatus of the holder of a degree with the \nright to pr oceed to a specific higher \ndiploma or higher degree with or without \nHonours, provided that the applicant \ncomplies with any prerequisite \nprescribed or required by Academic \nBoard for such degree or diploma.  DVC Students \nand Global \nEngagement (or \ndelegate)  Vice-\nChancellor  Admission with \nEquivalent Status \nRegulations  \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nDelegations of Authority Policy – Page 25 \n \n \nRef Category  Decis ion Delegated \nAuthority  Delegating \nAuthority  Recorded  \n9.  Admission  Grant a candidate admission to the \nstatus of the holder of a degree with the \nright to proceed to a specific graduate \ndiploma or certificate, to an applicant \nwho demonstrates practical, \nprofessional,  or scholarly experience of \nan appropriate kind and equiva lent to \nthat of a graduate.  DVC Students \nand Global \nEngagement (or \ndelegate)  Vice-\nChancellor  Admission with \nEquivalent Status \nRegulations  \n10.  Admission  Students who wish to take a course for \nwhich they do not have the \nprerequisite(s) may make a case for \nadmission to the relevant Head of \nSchool or Programme Director \nconcerned.  Head of School \nor Programme \nDirector  Vice-\nChancellor  General \nRegulations for \nUndergraduate \nDegrees, \nUndergraduate \nDiplomas.  \n11.  Admission  Approve a personal programme of study \nwhich does not conform with the General \nRegulations or the Qualification \nRegulations for that degree, diploma or \ncertificate while still conforming to the \nacademic standards of the qualification  Head of School \nor Programme \nDirector  Vice-\nChancellor  General \nRegulations for \nUndergraduate \nDegrees, \nUndergraduate \nDiplomas.  \n12.  Admission  Limit the number of students enrolled in \nthe programmes of study or training \neach year because of insufficiency of \nstaff, accommodation, or equipment. \nAccordingly, where the number of \napplications for the particular \nprogrammes exceeds the number of \nplaces available, then Massey University \nwill select from the applicants the \nstudents to be enrolled in the \nprogramme of study.  Pro Vice -\nChancellor (or \ndelegate)  Vice-\nChancellor  General \nRegulations for \nUndergraduate \nDegrees, \nUndergraduate \nDiplomas ., \nCouncil  \nGraduation \nStatute  \n13.  Admission  Request a student carry out such work \nand satisfy such assessments as the \nBoard may determine to be necessary \nfor admission to a Postgraduate \ncertif icate, Postgraduate diploma, 120 -\ncredit Bachelor (Honours) or a Master's \ndegree, where appropriate to a specific \nqualification  Head of School \nor Programme \nDirector  Vice-\nChancellor  General \nRegulations for \nPostgraduate \nDegrees, \nPostgraduate \nDiplomas.  \n14.  Admission  Approve a personal programme of study \nwhich does not conform with the General \nRegulations or the Regulations for that \ndegree, diploma or certificate while still \nconforming to the academic standards of \nthe qualification (subject to specific \nrules)  Pro Vice -\nChancellor (or \ndelegate)  Vice-\nChancellor  General \nRegulations for \nPostgraduate \nDegrees, \nPostgraduate \nDiplomas.  \n15.  Admission  Waive maximum time to completion \nlimits, where a student exits with a \nqualification of lesser credit.  Pro Vice-\nChancellor (or \ndelegate)  Vice-\nChancellor  General \nRegulations for \nPostgraduate \nDegrees, \nPostgraduate \nDiplomas.  \n16.  Admission  Student progression periods may, in \nspecial circumstances, be \namended/extended.  Pro Vice -\nChancellor (or \ndelegate)  Vice-\nChancellor  General \nRegulations for \nPostgraduate \nDegrees, \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nDelegations of Authority Policy – Page 26 \n \n \nRef Category  Decis ion Delegated \nAuthority  Delegating \nAuthority  Recorded  \nPostgraduate \nDiplomas.  \n17.  Admission  In special circumstances permit students \nto suspend their programme of studies \nfor an approved period.  Pro Vice -\nChancellor (or \ndelegate)  Vice-\nChancellor  General \nRegulations for \nPostgraduate \nDegrees, \nPostgraduate \nDiplomas.  \n18.  Admission  Where it is shown to the satisfaction of \nthe Vice -Chancellor that any alteration or \namendment of a university  statute or \nRegulation involving a change in a \nprogramme or in examination \nrequirements has caused hardship to a \nstudent, the Vice -Chancellor may m ake \nsuch provisions as is thought fit for the \nrelief of such hardship. The student may \nappeal the decision of the Vice -\nChancellor to the Council, which may \nmake such provisions as it thinks fit.  Vice-Chancellor  Vice-\nChancellor  Cases of \nHardship – Vice-\nChan cellor's \nPower (Calendar)  \n19.  Admission  Offer a place in a qualification  DVC Students \nand Global \nEngagement (or \ndelegate)  Vice-\nChancellor  Enrolment \nRegulations  \n20.  Admission  Waive requirement to accept written \noffer of place in a qualification  DVC Students \nand Global \nEngagement (or \ndelegate)  Vice-\nChancellor  Enrolment \nRegulations  \n21.  Assessment \nand Exams  Set the examination timetables  DVC Students \nand Global \nEngagement (or \ndelegate)  Vice-\nChancellor  Assessment and \nExamination \nRegulations  \n22.  Assessment \nand Exams  Set timetable and process for college -\nadministered examinations  Pro Vice -\nChancellor  Vice-\nChancellor  Assessment and \nExamination \nRegulations  \n23.  Assessment \nand Exams  Decide to award a grade or to require \nthe student to complete the activity that \nis the subject of the aegrotat application  Pro Vice -\nChancellor (or \ndelegate)  Vice-\nChancellor  Assessment and \nExamination \nRegulations  \n24.  Assessment \nand Exams  Consider appeals for aegrotat or \nImpaired Performance  Pro Vice -\nChancellor  (or \ndelegate)  Vice-\nChancellor  Assessment and \nExamination \nRegulations  \n25.  Complaints \nand \nGrievance  Confirm the existence of extraordinary \ncircumstances whereby a complaint \nrelating solely to the grade of a piece of \ncourse work will proceed beyond the \nrelevant Pro Vice -Chancellor  Provost  Vice-\nChancellor  Student \nGrievance \nProcedures  \n26.  Complaints \nand \nGrievance  Convene the University Grievance \nCommittee  Provost  Vice-\nChancellor  Student \nGrievance \nProcedures  \n27.  Complaints \nand \nGrievance  Determine the conduct of its own \nprocedures; and  \n(ii) receive such information, as it \nconsiders relevant to the Grievance.  University \nGrievance \nCommittee  Vice-\nChancellor  Student \nGrievance \nProcedures  \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nDelegations of Authority Policy – Page 27 \n \n \nRef Category  Decis ion Delegated \nAuthority  Delegating \nAuthority  Recorded  \n(b) receive and investigate Grievances \nat all Massey University campuses and \nthrough all modes of delivery of \nacademic programmes;  \n(c) make decisions relating to \nGrievances;  \n28.  Curriculum  Approve  proposals for the deletion of \ncourses  Academic Board  Vice-\nChancellor  Delegations of \nAuthority Policy  \n29.  Curriculum  Recommend to the Vice -Chancellor \nproposals for the deletion of \nspecialisations and qualifications  Academic Board  Vice-\nChancellor  Delegations of \nAuthority Policy  \n30.  Curriculum  Approve the closure to new enrolments \nfor specialisations and qualifications.  Academic Board  Vice-\nChancellor  Delegations of \nAuthority Policy  \n31.  Curriculum  Non-CUAP Programme Amendments: \nAdding an existing course to, or \nremoving it from, any qualification or \nspecialisation schedule . (Note course \ndeletion addressed in #28 above)  Pro Vice -\nChancellors (or \ndelegate)  Vice-\nChancellor  Delegations of \nAuthority Policy  \n32.  Curriculum  Approval of all minor Calendar changes  Academic B oard Vice-\nChancellor  Delegations of \nAuthority Policy  \n33.  Curriculum  Approve  all proposals from College \nBoards for new courses  Academic Board  Vice-\nChancellor  Delegations of \nAuthority Policy  \n34.  Curriculum  Programme management within the \nregulatory framework of the University, \nincluding but not limited to, the \nadmission with equivalent status, \nrecognition of prior learning, approval of \nwaivers, courses of study, and \nexamination results for individual \nstudents, and quality assurance of \nstudent learnin g Pro Vice -\nChancellor (or \ndelegate)  Vice-\nChancellor  Delegations of \nAuthority Policy  \n35.  Curriculum  Approval of course amendments \nincluding but not limited to changes to: \nOnline learning category, Limitations on \nenrolment numbers, learning outcomes, \nCourse design and assessment \nmethodologies (including weightings), \nPrimary programme, Location of delivery \n(onshore and/or offshore), Course \noffering status (offered or not offered), \nCourse offering details (semester, mode, \nlocation, beginning and end date s), Title \nor prefix, Prescription, Prerequisites, co -\nrequisites or restrictions.  Pro Vice -\nChancellor (or \ndelegate)  Vice-\nChancellor  Delegations of \nAuthority Policy  \n36.  Curriculum  Approve non -CUAP academic proposals  Academic Board  Vice-\nChancellor  Delegations of \nAuthority Policy  \n37.  Enrolment  Approve enrolment by distance \n(extramural) education for citizens of the \nPeople's Republic of China  Pro Vice -\nChancellors  Vice-\nChancellor  Enrolment \nRegulations  \n38.  Enrolment  Make an offer of enrolment into a course  DVC Students \nand Global Vice-\nChancellor  Enrolment \nRegulations  \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nDelegations of Authority Policy – Page 28 \n \n \nRef Category  Decis ion Delegated \nAuthority  Delegating \nAuthority  Recorded  \nEngagement (or \ndelegate)  \n39.  Enrolment  Permit use of a paper -based enrolment \nsystem where electronic system is \ninoperable  DVC Students \nand Global \nEngagement  Vice-\nChancellor  Enrolment \nRegulations  \n40.  Enrolment  Make an offer of enrolment into Doctoral \ncourses  Doctoral \nResearch \nCommittee  Vice-\nChancellor  Enrolment \nRegulations  \n41.  Enrolment  Limit the number of students enrolled in \nany programme each year  Pro Vice-\nChancellor (or \ndelegate)  Vice-\nChancellor  Enrolment \nRegulations  \n42.  Enrolment  Select students to be enrolled in a \nprogramme, where the number of \napplicants exceeds the maximum \nnumber of places available.  Pro Vice -\nChancellor (or \ndelegate)  Vice-\nChancellor  Enrolment \nRegulations  \n43.  Enrolment  Consider and make determinations on \nLate Enrolment Appeal applications  DVC Students \nand Global \nEngagement (or \ndelegate)  Vice-\nChancellor  Enrolment \nRegulations  \n44.  Enrolment  Waive or vary by written notice the \nrequirements in relation to acceptance of \nOffer  DVC Students \nand Global \nEngagement (or \ndelegate)  Vice-\nChancellor  Enrolment \nRegulations  \n45.  Enrolment  Make an offer of enrolment subject to \nconditions, or waive conditions by written \nnotice  DVC Students \nand Global \nEngagement (or \ndelegate)  Vice-\nChancellor  Enrolment \nRegulations  \n46.  Enrolment  Cancel a student's enrolment in a course \nor programme after the student has \nreceived a Confirmation of Enrolment \nbut then does not pay tuition fees or \nnon-tuitio n fees, or does not meet the \nrequisites for one or more courses  DVC Students \nand Global \nEngagement (or \ndelegate)  Vice-\nChancellor  Enrolment \nRegulations  \n47.  Enrolment  Approve applications for students to \nenrol in the internal mode while not \nattending regularly scheduled classes on \ncampus.  DVC Students \nand Global \nEngagement (or \ndelegate)  Vice-\nChancellor  Enrolment \nRegulations  \n48.  Enrolment  Approve enrolment in concurrent \ncourses for credit to a second \nprogramme of study  DVC Students \nand Global \nEngagement (or \ndelegate)  Vice-\nChancellor  Enrolment \nRegulations  \n49.  Enrolment  Make determinations on Fee Appeals  DVC Students \nand Global \nEngagement (or \ndelegate)  Vice-\nChancellor  Enrolment \nRegulations  \n50.  Enrolment  Approve applications for Carry Forward \nof Postgraduate Enrolment with \nexceptional personal circumstances  DVC Students \nand Global \nEngagement (or \ndelegate)  Vice-\nChancellor  Enrolment \nRegulations  \n51.  Enrolment  Permit enrolment of a student enrolled \nfull-time in secondary school  DVC Students \nand Global \nEngagement (or \ndelegate)  Vice-\nChancellor  Enrolment \nRegulations  \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nDelegations of Authority Policy – Page 29 \n \n \nRef Category  Decis ion Delegated \nAuthority  Delegating \nAuthority  Recorded  \n52.  Enrolment  Set special terms and conditions for \nenrolment in international offshore \ndistance programmes  Pro Vice -\nChancellor (or \ndelegate)  Vice-\nChancellor  Enrolment \nRegulations  \n53.  Enrolment  Approve concurrent enrolment of a \nstudent at another University (subject to \nother institution's approval)  DVC Students \nand Global \nEngagement (or \ndelegate)  Vice-\nChancellor  Enrolment \nRegulations  \n54.  Higher \nDegree  Set due date for enrolment into doctoral \ncourses  Doctoral \nResearch \nCommittee  Vice-\nChancellor  Enrolment \nRegulations  \n55.  Higher \nDegree  Set commencement dates for Doctoral \nProgrammes  Doctoral \nResearch \nCommittee  Vice-\nChancellor  Enrolment \nRegulations  \n56.  Higher \nDegree  Make an offer of place into a Doctoral \nProgramme  Doctoral \nResearch \nCommittee  Vice-\nChancellor  Enrolment \nRegulations  \n57.  Higher \nDegree  Approve admission applications, \nprovisional registration, and confirmation \nof registration subject to requirements \nbeing met  Doctoral \nResearch \nCommittee  Vice-\nChancellor  Doctoral \nResearch \nCommittee ToR  \n58.  Higher \nDegree  Approve suspensions and extensions of \ncandidature   Docto ral \nResearch \nCommittee  Vice-\nChancellor  Doctoral \nResearch \nCommittee ToR  \n59.  Higher \nDegree  Approve withdrawals and terminations of \ncandidature   Doctoral \nResearch \nCommittee  Vice-\nChancellor  Doctoral \nResearch \nCommittee ToR  \n60.  Higher \nDegree  Endorse the award of the University \nDoctoral Degrees where the Committee \nis satisfied that the University’s \nacademic requirements and regulations \nhave been met   Doctoral \nResearch \nCommittee  Vice-\nChancellor  Doctoral \nResearch \nCommittee ToR  \n61.  Higher \nDegree  Approve failed Doctoral examination \nresults   Doctoral \nResearch \nCommittee  Vice-\nChancellor  Doctoral \nResearch \nCommittee ToR  \n62.  Higher \nDegree  Approve changes to regulations for \nDoctoral Degrees other than those \nrequiring CUAP approval  Academic Board  Vice-\nChancellor  Doctoral \nResearch \nCommittee ToR  \n63.  Policy and \nProcedure  Authority to approve all other non -\nCalendar course amendments, with \ncourse information to be updated in \nuniversity systems on College Academic \nCommittee authority  Doctoral \nResearch \nCommittee  Vice-\nChancellor  Doctoral \nResearch \nCommittee ToR  \n64.  Progress  Approve applications for readmission by \nstudents who are excluded two or more \ntimes over eight academic years - where \nthey were excluded for a minimum \nperiod of three years. Appl ications for \nreadmission must be no earlier than 6 \nmonths prior and no later than 2 months \nprior to the first enrolment period in \nwhich they are eligible and in which they \nseek to re -enrol; permission may be \nwithheld. Applications will not be Provost  Vice-\nChancellor  Academic \nProgress \nRegulation  \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nDelegations of Authority Policy – Page 30 \n \n \nRef Category  Decis ion Delegated \nAuthority  Delegating \nAuthority  Recorded  \naccepted for readmission into Summer \nSchool.  \n65.  Progress  Approve a student to enrol at Massey \nUniversity or transfer from another \nUniversity when their academic record is \nsuch that had they been enrolled at \nMassey University then under these or \nother University Regulations they would \nqualify for exclusion on the grounds of \nUnsatisfactory Academic Progress.  DVC Students \nand Global \nEngagement (or \ndelegate)  Vice-\nChancellor  Academic \nProgress \nRegulation  \n66.  Progress  Re-admit students who were excluded \nfrom specific qualifications due to failure \nto meet satisfactory progress \nrequirements (as stated in the calendar)  Academic Board  Vice-\nChancellor  Academic \nProgress \nRegulation  \n67.  Progress  Re-admit students who were excluded \nfrom Te Aho Paerewa the Postgraduate \nDiploma Teaching and Learning in Māori \nMedium qualifications due to failure to \nmeet satisfactory progress requirements \n(as stated in the calendar)  Pro Vice -\nChancellor  Vice-\nChancellor  Academic \nProgress \nRegulation  \n68.  Progress  Refuse to permit or cancelling the \nenrolment of a person as a student at \nMassey University, on the grounds that \nthe person has made insufficient \nprogress in the person's study or training \nafter a reasonable trial at Massey \nUniversity or at another institution.  Academic \nProgress \nCommittee  Vice-\nChancellor  Academic \nProgress \nRegulation  \n69.  Progress  Make determinations on appeals on the \noutcome of a submission to the \nAcademic Progress Committee  Provost  Vice-\nChancellor  Academic \nProgress \nRegulation  \n70.  Quality \nAssurance  Approval of key dates for the academic \nyear to be published annually in the \nUniversity Calendar  Academic Board  Vice-\nChancellor  Delegations of \nAuthority Policy  \n71.  Research  Review complaints about the \nperformance or the decision -making \nprocesses of the Human Ethics \nCommittees  Human Ethics \nChairs \nCommittee  Vice-\nChancellor  Human Ethics \nChairs \nCommittee ToR  \n72.  Research  Monitor the Terms of Reference of the \nHuman Ethics Committees, including the \nProcedures for Nomination and \nSelection of Academic Members, \nProcedures for Nomination and \nSelection of Community Members, \nHuman Ethics Committees Membership \nDeclaration, Human Ethics Committees \nReconsideration Procedures, Human \nEthics Committees Complaints \nProcedures, Human Ethics Committees \nGuidelines for Annual Report, and \nrecommend changes as necessary  Human Ethics \nChairs \nCommittee  Vice-\nChancellor  Human Ethics \nChairs \nCommittee ToR  \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nDelegations of Authority Policy – Page 31 \n \n \nRef Category  Decis ion Delegated \nAuthority  Delegating \nAuthority  Recorded  \n73.  Research  Report to the Health Research Counci l \non behalf of all Human Ethics \nCommittees  Human Ethics \nChairs \nCommittee  Vice-\nChancellor  Human Ethics \nChairs \nCommittee ToR  \n74.  Scholarships \nand Awards  Approve or ratify the award of \nscholarships according to their criteria, \nguidelines, terms, and provisions  Provost (or \ndelegate)  Vice-\nChancellor  Delegations of \nAuthority Policy  \n75.  Student \nConduct  Impose an appropriate penalty in \naccordance with the limitation \nprescribed, where a Level 3 misconduct \ncomplaint is upheld.  Provost or DVC \nStudents and \nGlobal \nEngagement  Vice-\nChancellor  Student \nDisciplinary \nRegulations  \n76.  Student \nConduct  Impose an appropriate penalty in \naccordance with the limitations \nprescribed, where a Level 2 misconduct \ncomplaint is upheld.  DVC Students \nand Global \nEngagement, Pro \nVice-Chancellor  Vice-\nChancellor  Student \nDisciplinary \nRegulations  \n77.  Student \nConduct  Pending the resolution of a complaint of \nmisconduct, on the advice of the Pro \nVice-Chancellor or Executive Director \nStudent Experience, the Vice Chancellor \nmay suspend the right of a Respondent \nto: \n(a) attend any University premises, \ngrounds, or residential accommodation; \nand/or  \n(b) attend events organised by or for the \nUniversity; and/or  \n(c) otherwise use the resources of the \nUniversity.  Vice-Chancellor, \n(or Campus \nRegistra r or Pro \nVice-Chancellor \nwhere VC \nunavailable)  Vice-\nChancellor  Student \nDisciplinary \nRegulations  \n78.  Student \nConduct  Consider and resolve appeals in relation \nto student disciplinary complaints \nclassified as misconduct  PVCs, or Dean \nResearch, or \nDVC Students \nand Global \nEngagement  Vice-\nChancellor  Student \nDisciplinary \nRegulations  \n79.  Student \nConduct  Consider and resolve appeals in relation \nto   student disciplinary complaints \nclassified as serious misconduct  Provost or DVC \nStudents and \nGlobal \nEngagement  Vice-\nChancellor  Student \nDisciplinary \nRegulations  \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nDelegations of Authority Policy  – Page 32 \n \n \nSUMMARY OF AUTHORITIES BY AUTHORITY BAND  \nAUTHORITY \nBAND  FINANCIAL AUTHORITY  \nSee Financial Authority Schedule for \ndetail.  HR AUTHORITY  \nRefer to HR Schedule for full detail.  ( Each  Band inherits all authorities of the  levels below \nsee Note 1)  CONTRACT COMMITMENTS  \nMust comply with Contract Management \nPolicy.  EXAMPLES  \nA • OPEX $200,000  \n• One-off capital purchase item within \napproved budget and less than \n$200,000 per purchase order total  \n• Credit card  • Establish new positions above  establishment  \n• Appoint to Associate Professor and Professor positions  \n• Appoint to Honorary Academic, Adjunct and Visiting Lecturer or Researcher positions  \n• Appoint where applicant has not passed a pre -employment check, or does not have required level of \nacademic qualifications  \n• Advert ise and appoint Associate Professor & Professor, appointment exceptions  \n• Approve appointment salary or promotion salary at Associate Professor or Professor Level  \n• Academic promotions from Tutor through to Senior Lecturer Range 2  \n• Set appointment salary for ne w appointments, outside of salary band or range  \n • Equipment, consumables, services, non -\nresearch consulting, and commercial \ncontracts (including IT licence agreements): \nWithin approved budget, up to $100,000, less \nthan 3 years in duration.  \n• Research, academic or research related \nconsultancy, and commercia lisation of IP \n(provision and purchase of research and \nconsultancy services by the University): \nLiability and contract value does not exceed \n$200,000, less than 5 years duration, NZ \nonly.  SLT \nB • OPEX $70,000  \n• Credit card  \n• One-off capital purchase item within \napproved budget and less than \n$70,000 per purchase order total  • Establish new academic positions (up to and including Associate Professor level) and all professional \nservices positions within approved establishment FTE (Conditions apply)  \n• Appointment to role where a staff member is in a position to manage a relative  \n• Approve annual, sick, and discretionary leave over and above relevant employment agreement \nprovisions  \n• Approve dismissal of employee  *Authorities provided to specific roles, refer to \nschedu le for full detail.  \n Available to managers with or \nwithout budget management \nresponsibilities (typically with).  \n i.e., HoDs, HoI, HoS  \nDirectors of Units/functions  \nC • OPEX $30,000  \n• Credit card  • Staff transfers and secondments  \n• Approve of leave without pay greater than 30 days  \n• Advertise and appoint within establishment FTE for all professional services and academic positions \nup to Snr Lecturer (Range 2) to approved vacancy or approved new position  \n• Management employment relations hip problems, authorise disciplinary investigations  \n• Approve payment of special allowances  \n• Authorise staff disciplinary investigation  Nil Available to managers with or \nwithout budget management \nresponsibilities, i.e., Managers,  \nTeam Leaders, Senior \nAdmini strators. Note 2,3  \nD • OPEX $10,000  \n• Credit card  • Sign fixed term and permanent employment offer documentation  \n• Prepare and sign casual employment agreement documents for new and existing casual positions  \n• Approve annual, sick, discretionary, bereavement, parental leave, long leave, leave without pay up to \n30 days, and University/overseas duties < 23 days.  \n• Set appointment salary for new appointments, within salary band or range  \n• Approve standard and accelerated salary progression and increments,  performance bonus, and \nsalary reviews  \n• Approval of staff study fees concession  Nil Managers with or without budget \nmanagement responsibilities, \ni.e., Team Leaders, Practice -\nleaders, Senior Administrators. \nNote 2,3  \nE • OPEX $5,000  \n• Credit Card  • (Note: Payment of wages and salaries is an operating expense. Therefore, staff with an \nauthority band E may approve timesheet payments up to the extent of their financial authority.)  \n• Undertake PDPs for nominated staff, verifying renewal of work permits  Nil Admini strative and supervisory \nstaff who support managers – \nno line management \nresponsibility for staff  \nF Nil • Undertake PDPs for nominated staff, verifying renewal of work permits  Nil Supervisory staff  \n \nNote 1.  Each band includes all authorities provided in lower levels, e.g., B includes all B to F.  \nNote 2  HR authorities within each band can only be exercised for staff within delegates area of responsibility and management.  \nNote 3  Managers who have formal line management responsibilities (who have salaried staff reporting to them), must be assigned eithe r A, B, C, or D levels of authori ty.\n  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nDelegations of Authority Policy – Page 33 \n \n \nAPPROVAL OF VICE -CHANCELLOR  \n \n \n \nApproved by  \nProfessor Jan Thomas  \nVice-Chancellor, Massey University  \n \n \n \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Privacy_Policy_PDF_122_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Privacy Policy",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "122 KB",
      "creation_date": "2024-12-11T08:05:09",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220102624+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " Massey University Policy Guide  \n \nPRIVACY POLICY  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \n \n \n \n \nPURPOSE  \nThe purpose of this policy is to ensure that Massey University  maintains  privacy management practices that:  \n \na) Compl y with the Privacy Act 1993, and the 12 Priv acy Principles included therein;   \nb) Promote a culture that protects and respects private information;  \nc) Educate people within the University about information privacy; and  \nd) Monitor privacy compliance and support the development of systems and process that ensure privacy by design.  \nPOLICY  \nPolicy statements are provided for each of the four desired outcomes as follows:   \n \nCompl y with the Privacy Act 1993 , including the 12 Privacy Principles  \n \n1. Collection of personal information (principles 1 -4) \n \n1.1. The University will collect personal information only where it is necessary to do so for a lawful purpose \nassociated with normal university functions and activities , including where required to do so for reporting \npurposes . \n \n1.2. The University will collect personal information directly from the individual concerned where it is practical \nand reasonable to do so unless an exception applies or unless the individual concerned consents otherwise.  \n \n1.3. The University collects information by various means and for a variety of purposes , and is required to be \ntransparent about how, when and why it collects personal information. To achieve this  transparency , the \nUniversity will maintain and publish Privacy Statements which make people aware of the collection of their \ninformation, the purpose for doing so (including intended usage and disclosure), and the rights of individuals \nin respect to access and correct ion of their information.  \n \n1.4. The Privacy Statements will be published in the University Calendar, online at \nhttp://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/privacy  on University websites and/or linked to systems that collect and \nstore personal information, such as: Student Enrolment System; STREAM; Massey Contact Systems; Staff \nrecruitment website; Alumni website; Library website; and HR systems.  \n \n1.5. The Privacy Statement s will be consistent at all times with this Policy, demonstrate good privacy \nmanagement practice, will be maintained and fit -for-purpose at all times.  \n Section  University Management   \nContact  Director Risk and Assurance  \nLast Review  September 2017  \nNext Review  September  2022 \nApproval  C18/09  \nEffective Date  July 2014  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nPrivacy Policy  – Page 2 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n1.6. Collection, use and disclosure of personal information by the University (including people and processes  \nand systems ) must comply with the Privacy Statements.  \n \n2. Storage and security of personal information (principle 5)  \n \n2.1. Personal information , where classified as a record,  will be retained and stored in accordance with the \nInformation and Records Management Policy and Procedures.  \n \n2.2. Access to personal information, will be granted in accordance with the established approval processes for \neach system and/or data repository, and shall only be granted if required as part of a staff member’s role.  \n \n2.3. Business s ystem owners must also ensure that personal  information stored is protected from loss, misus e, \nor inappropriate disclosure , and maintain appropriate levels of access and system security , including \nensuring that  access to personal information is removed when no longer required by a role or individual . At \nall times business systems  must comply with the security requirements or directives of ITS.  \n \n2.4. Security of University networks will be maintained by ITS.  \n \n2.5. Where systems containing personal information are planned, implemented, or significantly upgraded, a \nPrivacy Impact Assessment must be undertaken. The transfer of personal information out of New Zealand \nby the University must comply with New Zealand legisl ation and good practice. A Privacy Impact \nAssessment must be undertaken for any proposed developments where personal information is to be \ntransferred overseas , including use of cloud based services.  \n \n3. Requests for access to and correction of personal information (principles 6 and 7 plus parts 4 and 5 of the Act)  \n \n3.1. The University acknowledges that unless an exception applies , individuals have the right to access their \npersonal information, and the right to request correction of information.  \n \n3.2. Any staff member, student (including prospective student, graduate and alumni where the context applies), \nmember of the public or th eir agent may request access to  personal information about themselves held by \nthe University.  \n  \n3.3. Where such a request  is covered by an approved standard operating procedure  and is a routine request, the \noperational  group in receipt of the request should respond.   \n \n3.4. Non-routine requests, and those not covered by approved standard operating procedures must  be reported \nto the Privacy Officer  and will be handled in accordance with the procedure outlined in the Guidelines for \ndealing with requests and corrections to  personal information .  \n \n3.5. Anyone is entitled to request correction of their own personal information. Where such a request is made the \nUniversity must decide whether or not to correct the personal information. Once it has decided the University \nmust inform the requestor of its deci sion. If the University declines to amend the person’s personal \ninformation, it must inform the person of their right to have their request and the University’s refusal noted on \ntheir personal file.  If a person decides to exercise this right,  then the Uni versity must note the person’s \nrequest and the University’s refusal on the person’s personal file.  \n \n4. Accuracy of personal information (principle 8)  \n \n4.1. The University will take reasonable steps to ensure, prior to its use, that the information is correct, complete \nand up -to-date.   \n \n5. Retention of personal information (principle 9)  \n \n5.1. Records containing personal information will be destroyed confidentially in accordance with the General \nDisposal Schedule (GDA), and the University’s own procedures. Personal information collected that is not a \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nPrivacy Policy  – Page 3 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nRecord requiring retention under the Public Records Act should be disposed of when it is no longer needed \ni.e. when the purpose for which it was collected has expired.   \n6. Use and disclosure of personal information (principles 10 and 11)  \n \n6.1. The University will not disclose personal information for a purpose that is not consistent with that for which it \nwas collected, unless required or permitted to do so by law, or consent has been obtained from individuals \nfor their information to be disclosed for certain other purposes.  \n \n6.2. University s taff must only access and/or use personal  information where  required to carry out a function of \ntheir employment  with the University . In accordance with the Act, staff must also ensure:  \n \n(i) They do not disclose any personal (student or staff ) information to another staff member, unless that \nstaff member also has a professional need to  use the information.  \n \n(ii) They do not disclose any personal (student or staff) information to another individual or organisa tion \nexternal to the University, unless authorised to do so.  \n \n7. Using unique identifiers (principle 12)  \n7.1. A unique identifier will be assigned to each student, which will be used in conjunction with a secondary means \nof identification or password/PIN.  \n \nPromote a culture that protects and respects private information  \n \nTo promote and encourage a culture that protects a nd respects private information  the University endeavour s to model  \nhigh standards of  privacy practice and ensure that respect fo r the privacy of individuals is inherent  in the operations of \nthe University.  Robust privacy practice will be ensured through the following:  \n \n1. Management of Privacy breaches   \n \nAll privacy breaches must be reported to the Privacy Officer. A record of privacy breaches, and their remediation, \nwill be maintained by the Privacy Officer (or delegate). Privacy breaches must be remedied as soon as possible \nin consultation with the secti on where the breach occurred, Risk and Assurance and the Privacy Officer.  \n \n2. Responding to Privacy Complaints  and investigations by the Privacy Commissioner  \n \nAll complaints received must be reported to the Privacy Officer who may delegate the responsibility for \ninvestigation and management of the complaint. Complaints will be managed promptly and remedied as quickly \nas possible.  Legal advice may be sought in respect of complaints that escalate to the Privacy Commissioner.  Any \ncomplaint resulting in a settlement must be approved by the Vice -Chancellor.  \n \n3. All staff hav ing a responsibility to:  \n• maintain good  practice privacy behaviours  \n• report all privacy breaches to the Privacy Officer  \n• understand and comply with obligations in regard to privacy,  relevant to their position  \n• report and/or escalate concerns  or issues  relating to privacy   \n• ensure they are appropriately trained and/or informed of privacy handling practices relevant to their work  \n \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nPrivacy Policy  – Page 4 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nThe Privacy Officer for the University , with responsibilities for legislative compliance , is appointed by the Vice -Chancellor \nand is the AVC Operations, International and University Registrar.  \n \nThe Privacy Officer will receive all requests for information , notification of privacy breaches  and complaints . Investigation \nof breaches and resolution of privacy related complaints is undertaken by the Director Risk and Assurance.  \n \nEducate people within the University about information privacy  \n \nAn annual programme of awareness building and skills training will be provided to staff . The Privacy Policy and best \npractice privacy management practices adopted by the University, will be promoted to staff annually.  \n \nStaff managing systems ( Business system  owners ) and data stewards must attend privacy training to ensure that their \nskill set and understanding is current and up -to-date. Staff operating and accessing such systems are strongly \nencour aged to attend privacy training or to complete an online privacy training module as part of their induction.  \n \nSystems that  hold personal information shall incorporate aspects of best practice Privacy management into their \ntraining and induction materials, consistent with this Policy and the University’s Privacy Statements.  \n \n \nMonitor privacy compliance and support development of systems and processes that ensure privacy by \ndesign  \n \nReports will be provided by the Privacy Officer, or delegate, on progress against any specific privacy management \nworkplans, breaches and complaints, as required or requested.  \n \nCompliance with the Privacy Act 1993 will be reviewed in conjunction with the Legislative Compliance Process each \nyear, and all non -compliance will be reported.  \n \nWhere systems containing personal information are planned, implemented, or significantly upgraded, a Privacy \nImpact Assessment must be undertaken. The transfer of personal information out of New Zealand by the University \nmust comply with New Zealand legisl ation and good practice. A Privacy Impact Assessment must be undertaken for \nany proposed developments where personal information is to be transferred overseas (including use of Cloud based \nservices).  \nSCOPE  \nThis policy applies to all University staff , contractors  and students who interact with all University campuses in New \nZealand, on -line, and worldwide.  \nThe policy also applies to wholly owned subsidiaries and controlled entities of the University, as is required by the \nControlled Entities Governance Framework Policy.  \nSpecific units within the University are effectively health agencies and are obliged to comply with the requirements of \nthe Health Information Privacy Code 1994.  \nThis policy is not intended to be a stand -alone document.  It must be read and applied in conjunction with:  \n \n• The Information Privacy Principles in the Privacy Act 1993.  \n• The agreements between Massey University and its staff . \n• The agreements between Massey University and its students.  \n• The agreements between Massey University and its contractors.  \n• The Privacy Management Framework  \n• Massey University Privacy Statements  \n• All relevant law, including the Privacy Act 1993.  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nPrivacy Policy  – Page 5 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nDEFINITIONS  \nPersonal Information: is any information, on its own or combined with other information, about an identifiable \nindividual.  \nPrivacy Impact Assessment: is a systematic process for evaluating a proposal in terms of its impact upon privacy \nused to identify the potential effects that a proposal may have upon individual privacy, examine how any detrimental \neffects upon privacy might be overcome and ensure tha t new projects comply with the information privacy principles.  \nAUDIENCE  \nThis Policy  applies to all University staff and students who interact with Massey University campuses in New Zealand, \non-line, and worldwide, including wholly owned subsidiaries and controlled entities of Massey University, as is \nrequired by the Controlled Entities Governance Framework Policy.  \nSpecific units within the University are effectively health agencies and are obliged to comply with the requirements of \nthe Health Information Privacy Code 1994.  \n \nRELEVANT LEGISLATION  \nPrivacy Act 1993  \nOfficial Information Act 1982  \nHealth Information Privacy Code 1994  \nPublic Records Act 2005  \n \nLEGAL COMPLIANCE  \nCollection, use and disclosure of personal information, and access to and correction of personal information and the \nuse of unique identifiers, must comply with the  principles of the  Privacy Act 1993 .  The University must appoint a \n‘Privacy Officer’ with responsibilities for compliance with these principles, and to handle requests  for access.  \n \nRequests made under the Official Information Act 1982  by an individual requesting information held about \nthemselves , is deemed to be a request made pursuant to ss 1(b) Principle 6 of the Privacy Act 1993. Requests for \npersonal information about persons other than the requestor will be considered under the Official Information Act 1982 .  \n \nThe Health Information Privacy Code 1994  requires the University  appoint a ‘Privacy Officer’ with responsibilities for \ncompliance with these principles, and to deal with requests for access. Access to all Health Information for identified \nindividuals must be secured.  \nPersonal information must also be r etained and stored in compliance with the Public Records Act 2005  and the records \ncontaining such personal information must be destroyed confidentially in accordance with the General Disposal \nSchedule (GDA),  \n \nRELATED PROCEDURES / DOCUMENTS  \nData Management Policy  \nMassey University Privacy Statements  \nPrivacy Impact Assessment  \nResearch Data Management Policy  \nGuidelines for dealing with a request or correct to  personal information  \nInformation and Records Man agement Policies and Procedures   \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nPrivacy Policy  – Page 6 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nDOCUMENT MANAGEMENT CONTROL  \nOwned by: Assistant Vice -Chancellor Operations, International and  University Registrar  \nAuthorised by:    \nDate issued: 24 May 2006  \nLast review: September 2017  \nNext review: September 2022    \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Rehabilitation_Procedure_PDF_91_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Rehabilitation Policy",
      "policy_type": "Procedure",
      "file_size": "91 KB",
      "author": "jmlochhe",
      "creation_date": "2015-02-09T13:03:03",
      "modification_date": "D:20150209133359+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n Massey University Policy Guide  \n \nREHABILITATION  PROCE DURE S \n \n \n© This Policy is t he property of Massey University   \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \nPurpose :  \nThe purpose of this p rocedure is to provide support for at  work rehabilitation for staff that may be injured.  \nProce dure : \na) Massey University is committed to preventing illness and injuries at the workplace by providing a safe and \nhealthy working environment for all our employees. It is recognised that injury or ill ness may still occur and \ntherefore all incidents will be reviewed and steps taken to prevent recurrence.  \n \nb) The University believes that occupational rehabilitation is of benefit to everyone and the early safe return to \nmeaningful and productive work of an employee, following illness or injury, is critical to the overall treatment \nprogramme.  \n \nc) In consultation with the case managers, endeavours will be made to find suitable alternative duties to enable a \ngradual return to work. For the purposes of occupati onal rehabilitation, the University may provide alternative \nduties outside the employee’s usual job profile. However, appropriate training for such alternative duties will be \ngiven to ensure that safe working practices are followed.  \n \nd) All employees at Masse y University have an important role to play to promote the best possible outcome for \ntheir injured colleagues: successful rehabilitation requires everyone's involvement and commitment. Therefore, \nin consultation with the injured employee, medical informati on may need to be shared to facilitate this process.  \n \nTo achieve successful rehabilitation outcomes, the University will seek to develop a comprehensive Rehabilitation \nPlan for injured employee where this is required. The Rehabilitation Coordinator assist s in this process by providing \nthe necessary link between the employee, treating practitioners, insurance providers and the University.  \n \nFurther information is available in Employment Agreements .  \nAudience:  \nAll staff  Section  People & Organisational Development  \nContact  Health and Safety  \nLast Review  August 2014  \nNext Review  December  2017  \nApproval   AVC – People and Organisational Development  \n \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nRehabilitation Procedures  – Page 2 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  Relevant Legislation:  \n Accident Compensation Act 2001  \nLegal Compliance:  \nThere is a requirement on the employer to assist with  the rehabilitation process.  \nRelated Procedures:  \nEmployment Agreements  \nDocument Managem ent Control : \nPrepared by: University Health and Safety Manager ,  \nOwned by:  Assistant Vice -Chancellor , People and Organisation al Development  \nAuthorised by: Assistant Vice -Chancellor , People and Organisation al Development  \nDate issued: 15 July 2003  \nNext revi ew: December 2017  \n \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Progressive_Procurement_Policy_PDF_301_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Progressive Procurement Policy",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "301 KB",
      "creation_date": "2022-11-07T10:05:03",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220102529+13'00'"
    },
    "content": "    \n Massey University Policy Guide  \n \nPROGRESSIVE PROCUREMENT POLICY  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \n \nPurpose :  \nThe purpose of this policy is to ensure that the procurement of all goods, services or works is \nconducted in an ethical, fair, and transparent manner with consideration of quality, service, value -for-\nmoney, and broader social and environmental outcomes.  \nScope and Applicability:  \nAll University non -pay expenditure is covered by this policy including all purchases of goods, services \nand works made with funds administered by the University or its controlled entities, regardless of the \nsource of funding.  \n \nCommitments entered on behal f of the University must be authorised by an approver with the \nappropriate Financial Delegation.  Any decision to procure goods or services must be based on a \nproperly identified requirement, budget availability and an approval process that complies with t he \nUniversity’s Delegations of Authority Policy.  \n \nAdherence to this policy is both an individual and an institutional responsibility. The roles and \nresponsibilities for staff involved in procurement activity shall be defined and regularly updated in the \nUniversity’s Progressive Procurement Procedures.  \n \nWilful breach of this policy, or unauthorised departure from the associated procurement procedures , is \na serious matter which may lead to disciplinary action in accordance with the University’s Policy on \nStaff Conduct.  \n \nPolicy:  \nThe University’s P rogressive P rocurement Procedures  detail how to comply with this Policy.  \n \nProcurement Methods  \n \nThe University’s standard procurement processes are based on monetary thresholds, complexity, and \nrisk. The thresholds are detailed in the University’s Procurement Methods Guide below:  \n \n \n Section  Procurement  and Contracts  \nContact  Strategic Procurement Director  \nLast Review  October  2022  \nNext Review  October 2025  \nApproval  SLT 22/10/143  \nEffective Date  October 2022  \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nProgressive Procurement Policy – Page 2 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \nIndicative WOL \nContract ValueProcurement \nPlanMarket Approach \n(applicable unless preferred supplier/panel agreement exists, wherever possible use existing preferred \nsuppliers, or suppliers from a relevant panel of suppliers).\n$0 - $5k N/ADirect purchase with confirmed price reasonableness (can buy direct but recommended  staff price compare \nand get quotes when feasible)\n$5k - $20k N/AClosed Competitive Process with at least 2 written quotes is recommended.  Direct purchase with confirmed \nprice reasonableness is acceptable.\n$20k -$50kXtra lite \nProcurement \nPlan Closed Competitive Process with at least 3 written quotes is required.\n$50k - $100kLite \nProcurement \nPlanClosed or Open Competitive Process with at least 3 written quotes is required.\n$100k- $250k Procurement \nPlanOpen competitive RFx IF non-construction related.  A minimum of an open RFQ with quotations from three \nsuppliers is required.                                                                                                                                                                                         \nConstruction Projects leverage Tier 1 and Tier 2 Contractor Panels\n$250k- $2m  Procurement \nPlanOpen & competitive RFx (closed competitive process must be authorised by PCGB)  \nConstruction Projects leverage Tier 1 and Tier 2 Contractor Panels\n$2m+Extensive \nProcurement \nPlanOpen & competitive RFx (closed competitive process must be authorised by PCGB)\nConstruction Projects leverage Tier 1 and Tier 2 Contractor PanelsPROCUREMENT METHODS GUIDE\nBy  Indicative WOL Contract Value \nHigh risk/sensitive expenditure is to be referred to the Strategic Procurement Director and the Director of Governance and Assurance for \nguidance and advice.   If a procurement is deemed high risk, the process to be followed should be raised  by one level on the chart above. Refer \nto Progressive Procurement Procedures f or information on potential exemptions to the above.\nThe division of purchases or splitting of invoices to avoid the requirements of this policy by any method (including Massey credit cards) is \nprohibited.The Total Cost of Ownership, or TCO, is the comprehensive overall cost estimate of the purchase price of an asset plus operating costs for its \nlifespan.  Before choosing to purchase a specific solution, it is extremely important to calculate and determine any direct or indirect costs associated \nwith ownership of the said asset.  Massey staff need to calculate TCO and WOL to gauge how viable the acquisition of an asset or investment will be \nin the long run.\nTCO  metrics include costs associated with purchasing, logistics, manufacturing, quality, risks, and other aspects impacting the supply chain \nperformance. Simply put, TCO is the cost to buy, operate, maintain, recycle and/or dispose of a purchase. \nWOL  contract values include costs associated to the full term of the commitment including any periods of contract renewal (e.g. if annual costs are \nestimated at $50k per annum and a 3-year contract term is planned, the indicative TCO contract value is $150k)\n \n \nA series of reasonably related procurement activities will be treated as a single transaction for \npurposes of determining processes and approval levels required under this Policy.   Dividing the value \nof a procurement activity in two or more parts to evade  a limit of delegated authority or procurement \nthreshold is prohibited and is a violation of this Policy and the University’s Delegations of Authority \nPolicy.   \n \nThe University requires written competitive quotes on all purchases over $20k and a competitiv e \nprocurement process shall be conducted for all procurement of works, goods, or services with a \nWhole of Life (WOL)  value above $100,000 (+GST), unless a Preferred Suppler or Panel Agreement \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nProgressive Procurement Policy – Page 3 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  including collective arrangement such as All of Government (AoG) , Syndicated, or Common \nCapability contracts (CC) can fulfil the requirements.  \n \nPreferred Suppliers  and Panel Suppliers  \n \nThe University has several  contracts with preferred suppliers.  Suppliers to the University may achieve \na Preferred Supplier status based on a range of criteria including, quality, value for money , \nexperience and ran ge of products offered.  The Strategic Procurement and Contacts Office (SPCO) \napproves  Preferred Supplie rs and maintains the list of preferred suppliers .  \n \nWhere the University has entered  contracts with Preferred Suppliers and/or  suppliers on  Panel \nAgreements including collective arrangements such as All of Government (AoG), Syndicated, or \nCommon Capability  contracts (CC), these providers must be used for all procurement within that \ncategory  to ensure that the favourable terms and competitive prices already negotiated are \nmaximised.  At times, there may be a requirement to conduct a secondary procurement pro cess as \npart of a specific Panel A greement.  \n \nWhere a Preferred Suppler or Panel Agreement including collective arrangement such as All of \nGovernment (AoG), Syndicated, or Common Capability contracts (CC), cannot  fulfil the necessary \nrequirements, the minimum quotation and procurement process detailed in the Procurement Methods \nGuide must be followed when procuring goods, services or works on behalf of the University.  \n \nExtension of existing contracts  \n \nWhen the add itional costs of a service or project are small in comparison to the costs of undertaking a \ndiscrete tender process, a contract extension or variation may be used.  An extended contract \napproach can be used to reduce tendering, contract administration and establishment costs for both \nthe University and suppliers.  \n \nThe University may request that current suppliers provide pricing for additional work as variations to \nexisting commercial contracts when all the following conditions are met:  \n \n• the WOL  value of th e new work is less than $100k and is a lower value than the existing \ncontract; and  \n• the supplier has a track record of providing goods and services to a high quality and on time; \nand \n• the existing contract was awarded after a competitive tender process less than three years \nago and the additional goods or services are of a similar nature to the work already contained \nwithin the contract; and  \n• market analysis shows that pricing for the goods and services provided is competitive.  \n \nWhen extension and variations a re not specifically provided for within an existing commercial \ncontract, the extension or re -definition of a commercial contract that increases the originally approved \ncontract value must be reviewed by the SPCO  and approved by the relevant Senior Leadersh ip Team \nmember.  \n \nExemptions to Competitive Tendering  \n \nTo balance the need to be open and competitive with the demands of urgent, specialised, or \nexceptional circumstances, alternative procurement practices for direct sourcing and emergency \nprocurement may be used when supported by justifications defined in th is policy.   Alternative \nprocurement practices must not be used to avoid competition between suppliers or to discriminate \nagainst any specific individual or groups of suppliers.  \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nProgressive Procurement Policy – Page 4 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n \nSole-source/Direct -source  \n \nDirect engagement  of a supplier in the absence of competition may be used in certain circumstances \nwhen:  \n \n• only a single supplier has the required goods or services available in the time required.  \n• the standardisation of services or compatibility requirements with existing equipment require \nthe use of a spe cific supplier.  \n• the goods/services require specialised skills or are very complex, and there are, in the opinion \nof the SPCO , limited qualified suppliers.  \n• necessary parts, repairs or maintenance are only available from one source such as the \noriginal equipment manufacturer or their designated servicing dealer /reseller.  \n• continuity of professional advice is required.  \n• the goods/services are subject to prototype or development work.  \n• the goods/services are identical to those purchased within the la st six months under an open \ntender process.  \n• the goods/services are being acquired through the extension or renewal period within the \nterms and conditions of an existing contract.  \n• there is a legislative requirement to use one supplier.  \n• the cost of a procure ment process is likely to be disproportionate to the value or benefits likely \nto be gained.  \n• in the case of construction work s where, because of a shortage of contractors, shortage of \nworkforce and/or the specialist nature of the work, some contractors may decline to bid on an \nadvertised tender; or  \n• where an unforeseeable situation of urgency exists as a genuine emergency resulting in the \nGoods and Services or Construction not being able to be obtained in time by means of open \nprocurement procedures.  \n \nApprova ls for direct engagement/sole -sourcing must be obtained from the Strategic Procurement \nDirector, DVC University Services and/or Procurement and Contracts Governance Board (PCGB) in \naccordance with the Progressive Procurement Procedures.  \n \nEmergency procure ment  \n \nAn ‘emergency’ is a sudden unforeseen event which may result in injury, loss of life or critical damage \nto property or infrastructure.  Emergency procurement provisions will only be used in genuinely \nunforeseen circumstances.  \n \nIn the event of a genuine emergency, it may be necessary to bypass some aspects of the normal \nprocurement process to procure goods and services which may be required to manage the \nemergency response and maintain operations. A balance is required between the need to act with out \ndelay, against obligations to achieve value for money.  The existence of an emergency does not \npreclude the use of the competitive bidding process in its entirety. The University will leverage \ncompetitive procurement as is practical under the circumsta nces.  \n \nThe Procurement and Contracts Governance Board (PCGB) will provide authorisation to the SPCO  \nwhen emergency procurement is warranted. Appropriate authorisation should be gained from the \nrelevant delegated authority before any emergency procurement i s made.  During an emergency, all \npractical efforts should be made to document and account for any emergency procurement and \nreported to the SPCO  to ensure transparency.  \n \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nProgressive Procurement Policy – Page 5 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \nUnsolicited Proposals  \n \nUnsolicited proposals are unique or innovative proposals initiated by suppliers and not solicited by the \nUniversity. The University wants to encourage innovation and will treat all unsolicited proposals in a \nway that respects the intellectual property rights of the proponent while being fair to everyon e.  \nSerious consideration will generally be given only to ex ceptional  proposals. These should \ndemonstrate unique concepts or benefits that cannot otherwise be obtained in the marketplace or that \nare only able to be provided by a single supplier, (e.g., as a result of IP or capability issues).  \n \nFor an unsolicited proposal to be considered by the University it must:  \n \n• provide a solution to a need that is not otherwise available in the market.  \n• be truly innovative and unique.  \n• demonstrate that the University will  receive the best possible value.  \n• align with the University’s  strategy,  vision,  and priorities  \n \nResponsible Procurement  \n \nThe choices about what and how we buy products and services to meet our needs reflects our values.   \nMassey is committed to generating social value through procurement processes to ensure positive \noutcomes are realised. Massey acknowledges procurement can have a positive impact on  achieving \nMassey’s sustainability goals .   \n \nThis Policy requires Massey staff to integrate social and sustainable procurement considerations into \nprocurement decisions throughout the life cycle of assets and acquired services.  \n \nThe SPCO  will assist staff in identifying and implementing strategies f or maximising the economic, \nenvironmental, cultural,  and social value of purchases.  ‘Responsible Procurement’ considerations are \nto be included in evaluations when they are relevant to a particular procurement ; and given weighted \nconsideration and prioritisation along with other fit -for-purpose, performance , service,  and financial \ncriterion.  Staff  should consider the following  in their procurement decision -making processes:  \n \n• Prioritisati on of suppliers that have social and environmental policies in alignment with this \npolicy.  \n• Prioritisation of purchases that minimise waste, reduce plastic waste and reduce use of \nplastic (especially single -use plastic)  and disposable items,  \n• Prioritisation of pr oducts that conserve water or use water in an efficient way.  \n• Prioritisation of products with recycled content and/or that can be recycled.    \n• Prioritisation of products/assets with long warranties and with low operating, \nmaintenance,  and consumable costs.    \n• Avoidance of purchasing products that contain  hazardous and toxic materials.    \n• Prioritisation of energy efficient products and materials  \n• Minimisation of greenhouse gas emissions generated from  purchases and new facility \ndevelopments.  \n• Prioritisation of purchase of products from local, sustainable sources  and/or Fairtrade \nsuppliers  \n• Prioritisation of e thically sourced and sustainably farmed food (including those harvested from \naquatic ecosystems).  \n• Consideration of suppliers’ capabilities in workforce development including training and \napprenticeship opportunities  for youth and under -represented people      \n• Consideration of use of iwi assets a nd assisting Māori development  \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nProgressive Procurement Policy – Page 6 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  • Consideration of supplier’s values alignment with Massey's strategy and Te Tiriti -led \nprinciples  \n• Consideration of total cost of ownership including use of resources and associated supply \ndelivery and operational costs  \n \n \nEthical behaviour, sustainability and social responsibility must be considerations in all procurement \nactivities. This includes taking steps to identify, evaluate and minimise the risk of modern slavery1 in \nthe University’s operations and supply chain.  \n \nMassey University supports the protection of human rights and is guided by international human rights   \nstandards, including the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, UN Convention on the Rights of \nthe Child, and the International Labour Organisation Core Conventions . Massey is committed to \nsourcing our products and services from suppliers that provide safe  working conditions, treat workers \nwith respect and dignity and conduct business in a socially responsible manner . Massey prohibits \npurchases of goods or services which result from forced labour, modern slavery,  or child labour.  \n \nAs far as practicable, Massey staff must ensure contractual agreements with third parties contain \nrequirements that suppliers comply with all local, national,  and other applicable laws and regulations \nin the areas in which they operate . New suppliers are r equired to attest through signing of contracts \nthat:  \n• They do not  use any form of; forced, compulsory or slave labour  \n• They do not  require employees to post a deposit or bond  \n• They do not  require employees to surrender their passports or work permits as a \ncondition of employment  \n• They have made reasonable efforts to ensure that there is no use of forced, \ncompulsory or slave labour within their supply chains  \nDefinitions : \nAoG refers to All -of-Government  \n \nAnnual Procurement Plan (APP) is a planning document containing a rolling list of \nMassey procurements that are greater than $100,000 (+GST) planned to start in the next \n12 months.  \n \nContract refers to any agreement between two or more parties that commits t he \nUniversity in legal and/or financial terms (including any contract variations or amendments,  \nCompetitive Procurement Process is also known as a contestable procurement process \nwhere a bid is issued publicly with the intent that suppliers will put togeth er their best \nproposal and compete for a specific requirement creating a transparent environment that is \nopen and fair.  Competitive procurement processes may be open or closed. Standard \nmethod for any WOLa  contract value greater than $100,000 (+GST) is to  release a tender \npublicly on the Government Electronic Tenders Service  (GETS).  \nDelegated Authority is the authority to commit expenditure as stated in the University’s \nDelegations of Authority policy. The granting of authority to execute financial transac tions \nfor an agreed purpose within a set financial limit.  \n \n1 Modern Slavery is an umbrella term for several serious exploitative work practices that represent violations of \nhuman rights. Modern Slavery can take many forms, the MSA’s main classifications include  the crimes of human \ntrafficking, slavery,  and slavery l ike practices such as servitude, forced labour, forced or onservile marriage, the \nsale and exploitation of children, deceptive or misleading recruitment for labour or services and debt bondage.  \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nProgressive Procurement Policy – Page 7 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  Method (procurement method ) refers to the way a purchase can be made. The methods \noutlined are subject to the existence of an approved budget and approval by the relevant \ndelegated financial authori ty making the purchase.  \nPanel Agreement/Contract is a contractual arrangement with a group of suppliers to \nprovide goods or services as and when required, under a schedule of rates for each \nsupplier or on a quotation basis under a framework agreement that  governs the \nrelationship between the University and each the suppliers within the panel.  \nPreferred Supplier is a provider preferred by the University  to undertake certain works, \nsupplies or services within a specific category following a  competitive tendering  process \nand entering into a formal contract.  An existing or long -term supplier is not necessarily a \nPreferred Supplier.    \nPrice is the amount o f money that the University pays to initially acquire goods, services, \nor works.  In some cases, the initial price of acquiring a product can be relatively small \ncompared to the set of elements required throughout its useful life.   \nStrategic Procurement and Contracts Office (SPCO) is the University’s centrally \noperated business unit whose role is to provide expert procurement and contracting \nservices, advice and support to the Strategic Procurement Director , the  DVC University \nServices, the  Procurement and Contracts Governance Board (PCGB) and the University.  \nProcurement and Contracts Governance Board (PCGB ) is a centrally operated forum \nwhose role is to approve the release of all tenders with WOL contract values over $100k \nand the subsequent p rocurement process, review significant contracts, and provide other \ngovernance to procurement and contracting strategies, outcomes, compliance, and \nactivities.  \n \nProcurement Plan is a plan to analyse the need for specific goods, services or works and \nthe ou tcome the University wants to achieve. It identifies an appropriate strategy to \napproach the market, based on market research and analysis, and summarises the \nproposed procurement process. It usually includes the indicative costs (budget), \nspecification of  requirements, indicative timeline, specified evaluation criteria and  \nweightings.  \nWhole -of-Life (WOL) is a calculation of the financial costs associated with buying and \nusing a good or service. WOL , is also referred to as Total Cost of Ownership (TCO ), Life \nCycle Costs (LCC) or Maximum Total Estimated Value (MTEV).  Rather than just looking \nat the initial purchase price, WOL  looks at the complete cost from purchase to disposal. \nWOL  value includes every phase of ownership and adds to the initial purchase price other \ncosts expected to be incurred during the life of the product such as subsequent \nconsumables, maintenance, design costs, operating costs, associated financing costs, \ndepreciation, implementation, training, and disposal of assets.   \nWOL  contract value  means the total potential value of the procurement ( WOL cost  for full \ncontract term including any e xtensions).  WOL  contract value is the total cost to buy, \noperate, maintain, recycle and/or dispose of a purchase. WOL  contract values include \ncosts associated to the full term of the commitment including any periods of contract \nrenewal (e.g., if annual co sts are estimated at $50k per annum and a 3 -year contract term \nis planned, the indicative WOL  contract value is $150k).  \n \nValue for Money means the holistic consideration of price as well as other costs and \nbenefits, including life cycle costs and relevant non -price attributes such as quality. Where \napplicable, these non -price attributes can include social and economic benefits to the \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nProgressive Procurement Policy – Page 8 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  commun ity as well as environmental considerations that secure wider environmental and \nsustainability benefits.  \nAudience : \nThis policy applies to all academic and professional staff of the University who are responsible for, or \ninvolved with, p rocurement activitie s (including contractors, consultants, Members of Council, and \nadvisory committees).  \n \nExemptions from this Policy : \n \nThe following procurement activities are exempt from this Policy:  \n \n• Legal Services, Insurance Broker Services. Banking and Audit Services and Insurance \nPolicies  – Staff should consult with Massey’s Legal Services team for a ll legal services, \ninsurance policies, audit, and banking services for, and on behalf of, the University . \n \n• Employment Agreements  - Employment agreements for staff  and faculty are the  \nresponsibility of People and Culture/Human Resources  and outside of the scope of this policy  \n \n• Real Estate  –Acquisitions or leases of real property and related brokerage services are \noutside of the scope of this policy.  \n \n• Research  - Research -related procurement exemptions are detailed in the Progressive \nProcurement Procedures and are at times needed to accommod ate grant or other funding \nrequirements or restrictions related to a specific research project.  \n \n• Membership and affiliation fees  - payments to professional organisations including \nmembership and conference fees.  \n \n• Public sector agreement s - payments to othe r institutions, colleges, schools, governmental \nor regulatory agencies unless they involve the purchase of commercial goods or services.  \n \nProcurement method exemptions related to the procurement method for sourcing Whole -of-Life \n(WOL) contract values up to $25 0k must be approved by the Strategic Procurement Director (or \nequivalent Procurement Lead . Tender process exemptions for contract values greater than $250k \nmust be approved by the Procurement and Contracts Governance Board (PCGB or  equivalent \nBoard).   \n \nAll other exemptions to this policy must be approved by the Vice -Chancellor.  \nRelevant legislation : \n• Financial Reporting Act 1993 and amendments  \n• Health and Safety at Work Act 2015  \n• Official Information Act 1982  \n• Public Finance Act 1989 and amendments  \n• Public Records Act 20 05 \n \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nProgressive Procurement Policy – Page 9 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  Related procedures / documents : \n• Progressive Procurement Strategic Framework  \n• Progressive Procurement Procedures  \n• Procurement and Contract Governance Board Terms of Reference  \n• Class 1 to 4 Contractor Prequalification Guide s  \n• Contract Management Policy  \n• Contract Management Procedure s \n• Conflict of Commitment and Interest Policy  \n• Contractor Health and Safety Induction Check List  \n• Contractors (Academic & Gene ral Staff Duties) Procedures  \n• Costing and Indirect Cost Recovery for Externally Funded Research  \n• Commercial Contracting Policy  \n• Delegations of Authority Policy  \n• Desktop Hardware and Software Acquisition Policy  \n• Financial Monitoring and Control Policy  \n• Fraud and Corruption Policy  \n• Government Procuremen t Rules (Rules of Sourcing) 2019,  \n    Ministry of  Business, Innovation and Employment  \n• Guideline for Health and Safety Protection of  staff, students, contractor’s  \n    employees, subcontractors,  and individuals’  safety in contracting situations  \n• Health and S afety Contractor Management Procedure  \n• Health, Safety and Wellbeing Policy  \n• Policy on Staff Conduct  \n• Research and Consultancy Contracts Policy  \n• Sensitive Expenditure and Gifts Policy   \n• Subcontracting of Teaching Activity Policy  \n• Travel Policy  \n• Vehicle Management Policy  \nDocument Management Control:  \n \nPrepared by:  Julie Pedley  \nAuthorised by:  DVC University Services  \nApproved by:  SLT 22/10/143  \nDate issued:  October 2022  \nLast review:  October 2022  \nNext review:  October 2025  \n \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Reciprocal_Student_Exchange_Programme_Procedures_PDF_126_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Reciprocal Student Exchange Programme Procedures PDF 126 KB",
      "policy_type": "Procedure",
      "file_size": "126 KB",
      "author": "Gregory Huff",
      "creation_date": "2023-07-24T10:05:00",
      "modification_date": "D:20230724105049+12'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n \n \n \n \n \nMassey Universit y Policy Guid e   \n \nRECIPROCA L STUDENT EXCHANGE PROGRAMME PROCEDURES    \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nIntroduction:  \nThis document  brings  together  aspects  of procedu res relating  to student  exchanges.  These procedures  \nshould  be read in conjunction  with the Reciprocal  Student  Exchange  Programme  Policy .   \nGeneral :   \nStudent E xchange will be administered through the Offic e of Global  Engagement . A forma l exchange  \nagreement  must be established  and signed  by both relevant parties before the parties’ select pa rticipants f or \nthe exchange .   \n \nTuition, non -tuition,  and enrolment fees ar e waived for inbou nd exchange students as these fee s   \nare paid by the outbound  students.  Reciprocal  waiving  of fees other than tuition  and non-tuition   \nfees may be negotiated  with a partner  institution  and must  be specified  in the formal  exchange   \nagreement.   \nThe Senior Manager  International  Mobility  will repor t annually  to the Executive Director  Global  Engagement  on \nthe operation of the exchanges and th e number of  students involved in each  exchange.   \nThe Senior Manager  International  Mobility  will review  current  exch ange agreements  annually,  checking  that the \nexchange i s working satisfa ctorily for b oth parties and that the reciprocity requirements are being managed.   \nOperating Proc edures for Outbound Student  Exchanges:   \n1. To be eligible to participate in the Student Exchange P rogramme, student s must:   \na)  Be currently enrolled in a Bachelor ’s, Bachelor ’s with Honours, or Ma ster’s degree at  Massey ,   \nor another Massey progra mme subje ct to approval fr om their College and meeting current   \ncalendar regulations.   \n \nb)  Be enrolled full time while on exchange.   \n \nc)  Normally have a grade point average of a t least “ B” in their Massey studies  to date . However,   \nstudents with a marginally lower grade point average will be considered on a case by case   \nbasis.  \n  \nd)  Be judged by  the selection commi ttee to be able to be  a good ambassador for Masse y and   \nNew Zealand.   \n \ne)  In the cas e of undergraduate exchanges, students mu st have completed a t least 120 credit s   \nof degree -level study at  Massey befor e they are eligible to participate in an e xchange.   Secti on   International   \nContac t   Office of Global Engagement   \nLast Revie w   July 2023    \nNext Revi ew   July 2026  \nAppr oval   AB 20/10/29 1   \nEffect ive Date  July 2023    \n\n \n  \n \n \n \n \nMassey Universit y Policy Guide   \nRecip rocal S tudent Exch ange P rogramme Procedu res – Page 2   \n \nf)  In the cas e of po stgraduate exchanges, student s who have not completed their undergraduate study \nat Masse y must have completed  at least 60 credit s of postgraduate study a t Massey b efore they ar e \neligible to participate in an exchange.   \n2. Current Massey students who meet the eligibility criteria may apply to be considered for the student \nexchan ge programme  by submi tting an application and relevant documentation.   \n3. A selectio n commi ttee, consisting of at least on e representative fro m the student’ s College  or designee and \nat least  one representative from  the Office of Global Engagement, will consider candidates and determine \nwhether they  may be approved  for the student  exchange.  This may involve  a formal  interview  between  \nthe selection committee  and the candidate .   \n4. Students  must obtain  academic  approval  from Mass ey prior to undertaking  the exchange  to ensure  that \ntheir proposed  exchange study will be suitable for credit  to their Massey degree  programme .   \n5. Successful o utbound applicants will b e advised tha t they hav e been nominated an d will the n apply fo r \nadmissi on as an exchange student t o the partne r university .   \n6. Successful outbound applicants are responsible for t he cost s and for making their own travel, \naccommodation, insurance , and visa  arrangements.     \n7. If there are any changes  to the proposed course s to be studied at  the partner universit y, the student must   \nobtain academic approval from Masse y for the new se lection of  course s.   \n8. Successful outbound applicants will be enrolled in the Exchange programme at  Massey . This will appear \non the academic  transcript wit h credit values suppressed.   \n9. On completion of  the seme ster, a formal academi c transcript fr om the partner instit ution mus t be submitted  \nto the  Office o f Global Engagement fo r confirmation of credit by  Masse y.   \nOperating Procedures for Inbound Student  Exchanges:   \n1. Students who have been approved by their hom e university fo r nomination as an exchange studen t to \nMassey may  apply for admission b y submitting  the Masse y application and supporting  documentation.   \n2. Massey’s Office of Global Engagement will assess the  application and determine whether the student \nmeet s the applicable admission  criteria.   \n3. Massey will assist  the student with enrolling into courses at  Massey . It is the students ’ responsibility to \nensure that  the courses the y study at Massey are approved b y their home  institution .   \n4. Course approvals for inbound exchange students will follow Massey’s procedures in a way similar \nto the acceptance  of a student transferring to  Massey  from a nother  university .   \n5. Massey is responsible for all inbound exchange students as  stipulated by The Education (Pastoral \nCare of Tertiary and International Learners) Code of Practice 2021 .   \n6. Massey will provide all inbound exchange students with information on how to submit a  formal \nacademic  transcript  to the partner institution on completion o f the seme ster.   \n \n \n  © This  Policy is  the property o f Masse y University   \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \nMassey Universit y Policy Guide   \nRecip rocal S tudent Exch ange P rogramme Procedu res – Page 3   \n \nAudi ence:   \nAll staf f   \nRelate d procedures / documents:   \nReciprocal Student Exchange Programme  Policy  \nDelegations of Authority Documen t   \nProcesses fo r the Establishment or Renewal of  Off-Shore Academic Agreement s   \nContract Management Polic y and Related Material    \nEducation (Pastoral Care o f International Students ) Code of Pra ctice 2016    \n \nDocu ment Management Control:   \nPrepared by:    Office of G lobal Engagement \nAuthorised by:  DVC Gl obal En gagement   \nApproved by:   AB 20/10/291  \nDate first is sued:  November 2007    \nLast review:    July 2023     \nNext review:    July 2026    \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n  © This  Policy is  the property o f Masse y University  \n\n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Qualifications_Policy__Validation_and_Verification_of_University_Qualifications_of_Staff_PDF_97_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Qualifications Policy  Validation and Verification of University Qualifications of Staff PDF 97 KB",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "97 KB",
      "author": "McMorran, Fiona",
      "creation_date": "2022-11-22T08:02:00",
      "modification_date": "D:20221122082048+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n \n \n \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nSection  People  & Culture  \nContact  Staff Recruitment  Manager  \nLast Review  October  2022 \nNext  Review  October  2025 \nApproval  SLT 18/02/20  \n \nPurpose:  \nTo ensure a high standard of integrity of the information the University holds on the qualifications held by new and \nexisting staff.  \n \n \nScope:  \n \nThe scope  of the policy  applies  to any qualifications  that a prospective  or existing  employee  purport  to hold.  \nThis ensures the integrity of Massey as an academic institution and protects the University’s prestige and reputation, \nincluding with ranking agencies.  \n \nThis applies irrespective of whether the qualification is specified in the job description and whether  it is a requirement  \nof the job, for them  to be included  in publications  such  as the University  Calendar  and the University Expertise \nDatabase.  \n \nThis policy  applies  to all appointments  at Massey  University  except  casual  staff,  unless  there  is a legal  requirement  for \nthe casual employee to hold credentials  to undertake their role e.g., a practising  certificate for a tr ade or a healthcare \nprofessional.  \n \nImplementation  of Policy:  \n \nThis policy also applies to existing staff of the University and as part of its implementation it is necessary to verify or \nvalidate the qualifications of existing staff to ensure a complete and  accurate employment record.  \n \nExisting staff who are already have these qualifications or who are awarded a qualification during  their employment  at \nMassey  University,  must  record  that qualification in  the University’s records and  these  will be subject  to their \nverification and/or validation as detailed in this policy.  \n \nThere  may be instances  where  a qualification  cannot  be verified/validated,  e.g., where  the qualification  is historic  \nand/or the educational institution that approved the course of study cannot be contacted, no longer exists, or cannot \nreadily retrieve  graduate  records.  In this situation  the matter  should  be referred  to the staff member’s  manager  to \ndiscuss  with an HR Advisor.   \nPOLICY  ON VERIFICATION  AND  VALIDATION  OF QUALIFICATIONS  \n\nSLT  \nDefinitions:  \n \nAuthentication:   Checking  the authenticity  of the documentation,  i.e., ensuring  it is an official  document  from the original \nissuing agency/institution.  \n \nCredentials:   Includes (but is not limited to) the following: certificates, fellowships, licences, memberships, \nqualifications, registrations, practicing  certificates.  \n \nCertificate:  An official  document  identifying  the holder  as being  certified  to carry  out business/tra de related activity  \n(e.g., a practicing  certificate for a trade or a healthcare professional).  \n \nEquivalency:    Qualifications awarded to individuals at tertiary institutions overseas should be checked for  \nequivalency against the New Zealand Qualifications Authority Framework (excluding those awarded \nthrough recognised tertiary institutions in Australia and the United Kingdom, as the New Zealand \nqualification system is based on the same model).  \n \nFellowships:   A fellowship is an honour  awarded by a society/group for outstanding excellence in \nscholarship/leadership/research  etc. in a particular  field of expertise.  Fellows  are generally  nominated \nby peers and approved or elected by the society/group e.g., Fellow of the Royal Society of New \nZealand  (FRSNZ)  is to honour  and encourage  outstanding  achievement  in the sciences,  \ntechnologies,  and humanities.  Fellowship  differs from membership  in that people  can choose to \nbecome a member and generally pay a fee to join.  Whereas becoming a fellow is by nomination \nand based on an advanced level of scholarship within the field covered by the fellowship group.  \n \nLicence:  A licence or permit from a government or other agency identifying the holder as being authorized  to \npract ice/perform,  or to carry  out business/trade -related  activity  (e.g., driver’s  licence,  trade  \ncertificate).  \n \nMemberships:  A fully paid up and current  member  of a professional  body  e.g., HRINZ,  IPENZ  etc. \n \nQualifications:    Tertiary qualifications requiring official completion of an approved course of study.  In cases where \nother credentials are a legal  requirement of the job, e.g., a practising certificate for a trade or a \nhealthcare professional, these are deemed to be “qualifications” for the purpo se and application of \nthis policy.  Such credentials include (but are not limited to) the following: certificates, fellowships, \nlicences, memberships, registrations, practising certificates (as defined in this section).  \n \nQualifying  \ndocumentation:  Includes qualifications; current and valid certifications; licences; registrations; fellowships and \nmemberships (excluding expired/withdrawn/cancelled certifications, licences, registrations, \nfellowships,  and memberships).  \n \nRegistrations:    Enlistment into a formal system governed by an external professional body to ensure the minimum \nquality standards and code of ethics are adhered to for a wide range of professions ( e.g., Teachers, \nHealth Care Professionals, Medical Accreditation etc).  \n \nValidate:  Prove the validity of the claimed qualifying documentation.  The Recruitment Team will arrange for \nthe awarding bodies to be contacted to validate the documentation and ascertain equivalency, as \nrequired.  \n \nVerify:  Confirm the existence of the qualifying documentation, achieve d by sighting the original or certified \ncopy of the qualifying documentation.  \n \n \nPolicy  Requirement:  \n \nAs an academic institution, the University is committed to ensuring the integrity of the information held about staff’s \nqualifications. The reputation of the University requires rigorous verification and validation of qualifications (see \ndefinition above) for prospective and existing employees.  \n \nThe table below set out the requirements for verification/validation of qualifications for both pro spective and existing \nemployees.  This includes qualifications obtained by staff during their employment at Massey University.  \nSLT  \nType  of qualification  Level of \nverification/validation \nrequired  Undertaken  by \nTertiary  Undergraduate  Degree  or above, \nAnd / or  \nQualification  that is a legal  requirement  of the job \ne.g., a practising  certificate  for a trade  or a \nhealthcare professional)   \nValidation  and \nVerification   \nRecruitment \nTeam  (POD)  \nAll other  qualifications  \npurported  to be held by the prospective  or existing \nemployee  Verification  Line Manager  \n \n \n \nWhere  a new or prospective  employee’s  qualifying  documentation  is not able to be verified  and validated  in accordance \nwith this policy, the University reserves the right to rescind any offer of employment that may have been made and to \neither exclude from University Publications or to include with a note that the qualification is not validated or verified.  \n \nAudience:  \n \nThis policy  applies  to managers  and staff of Massey  University.  \n \nRelevant  Legislation:  \n \nNone  \n \nLegal Compliance:  \n \nNone  \n \nRelated  Documents:  \n \nPolicy  and Procedures  on Pre-Employment  Checks  for Prospective  Appointees  \n \nDocument  Management  Control:  \n \nPrepared  by: Staff Recruitment  Manager  \nAuthorised by:  The Deputy  Vice-Chancellor  – University Services   \nDate issued:  October 2017  \nLast review:  October  2022 \nNext review:  October  2025 \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Publications_Policy_PDF_91_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Publications Policy",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "91 KB",
      "author": "jmlochhe",
      "creation_date": "2024-07-05T12:05:00",
      "modification_date": "D:20240705125047+12'00'"
    },
    "content": "  \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \n \nPUBLICATIONS POLICY  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \n \nPurpose :   \nThe purpose of this policy is to make the information produced by Te Kunenga ki P ūrehuroa Massey University about \nits own activities and capabilities reliable and consistent across all media and production processes and over time.  \nPolicy:  \nTe Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa  Massey University’s official information will be accurate, consistent, leg ally compliant, \ntimely and accessible. To this end, clear roles and responsibilities will be defined for those who formulate, publish,  \nand maintain this information, whether electronically or in print.  Each publication will have a designated content owner \nwho is responsible for ensuring that the publication complies with this policy. Management and release of publications \nwill be authorised by the designated content manager for specific publications and/or categories of publication. The \nExecutive Director Marketing and Communications will be responsible for the overall administration of the publication \npolicy.  \n \nAll new and existing Massey University publications issued or reproduced in any language and in any medium, \nincluding web, print,  video , digital  and audio, are required to be of a high standard and to represent fairly and \naccurately the university’s operations, services,  and terms of trade. The current standards are defined in the Massey \nUniversity public ation processes & procedures and in the policies and procedures referred to in the section below, \ntitled Related Policies, Procedures and Documents.  \n \nIn keeping with Massey University’s commitment to be ‘ a place where M āori language and culture can flour ish,’ \npublications in both English and Te Reo M āori are included in the publication policy.  \nDefinitions : \nPublishing  \nPublishing is defined as making or assisting to make information publicly available in a manner which purports to \nrepresent Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa  Massey University, its programmes of study, capabilities, activities or interests, \nwhether on the university’s website or by linking from that website, or through access to the university’s data network, \nor printed, electronic or reproduced in a ny form whatsoever.  \n \nPublication types  \n \nPrimary Publications  Section  University Management  \nContact  Marketing and Communications  \nLast Review  May 2023 \nNext Review  May 2025 \nApproval  SLT 14/06/148  \nEffective Date  May 2023  \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nPublications Policy  – Page 2 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nThe primary focus of this policy is on the university’s official information. This is defined as information which is of a \nregulatory or contractual nature and is therefore binding on or relied upon by those who deal with the university. The \npolicy in respect of this information is to manage the authorisation, content , standard  and format of its production so \nthat it can be contractually relied upon to represent or describe the university’s regulations, policies and practices as \nwell as the services and products which the university offers and the terms on which such services and products are \nsupplied. And in addition  demonstrate s the university’s areas of  expertise and enhance s the reputation of the \norganisation.  \n \nPublications which contain this type of information include the following:  \n \nThe Massey University Calendar  (published or reproduced in any medium, including web,  and print).  \n \nAll materials published or reproduced in any language and any medium, including web, print, DVD, digital  and audio, \nwhich are prepared for communicating contractual information to prospective, current,  or past students of the \nUniversity or to those who influence and support them. Examples of such materials in print are: Short guide (for future \nstudents ), Prospectus, Your Guide To  booklets , Accommodation  Guide , Parent & Whanau  Guide,  Internatio nal \nProspectus. The university’s  corporate publication s such as Road to 202 5 and University Profile are also included . \nAlong with e nrolment materials including the  Distance Learning Handbook, College and campus handbooks, \ninformation for international students, programme guides and brochures, leaflets, posters, fliers and the like which are \nproduced for the purpose of promoting programmes and services. Examples of such materials on the web are:  \nmassey.ac.nz /about , massey.ac.nz /study/admission -and-enrolment/ , events.massey.ac.nz /open -days/ , \nmassey.ac.nz/study/distance -and-online -study -at-massey/ , massey.ac.nz /study/fees -and-funding/ , \nmassey.ac.nz /study/international -students/ , massey.ac.nz/study/ , massey.ac.nz /research/ , and college/department \netc pages.  \n \nAll advertising communications, including television, cinema, newspaper, radio, magazine, flyers, leaflets, web \nbanners, posters, electronic recordings, CDs, DVDs, vehicle and outdoor advertising, email, phone, SMS and direct \nmail campaigns and all other advertising formats.  \n \nAll materials published or reproduced in any language and any medium, including web, print  DVD, digital  and audio, \nprepared for the purpose of communicating contractual information to the University’s business partners, research \npartners and stakeholders.  Examples of such materials are information regarding the Copyright Act, research \ninformation booklet, contracting requirements, templates,  and forms to be found in the research.massey.ac.nz \nwebpages.  \n \nSecondary Publications  \nThe secondary focus of this policy is on information,  which is not intended to be regulatory or contractual, but rather is \nteaching material, or is descriptive, interpretative,  or explanatory about people, activities,  and issues of interest to \nthose who interact with the university.  \n  \nSuch publications include Study Guides, teaching/learning materials made available within the university’s on -line \nlearning environment ( Stream  or other on -line or distance teaching/learning media) and staff/researcher personal web \nand blog pages.  \n \nThe publication policy is not intended to cover scholarly public ations such as journal articles and  books which are the \nproduct of normal academic activities.  \nThe policy in respect of this information is to have procedures in place to ensure that it is fit for purpose, without \ncompromising the appropriate exercise of academic freedom of expression. Where the context does not make the \nstatus of the material self -evident, a disclaimer may be required, stating that no representation is being made or \nimplied that the content has official endorsement as Massey University policy or should necessarily be contractually \nrelied upon by those who deal with the university.  \nRoles and Responsibilities:  \nPolicy Owner  \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nPublications Policy  – Page 3 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nThe Executive Director Marketing and Communications is responsible for administration of the publication policy. \nIssues of compliance, policy interpretation, maintenance of the policy, processes and procedures and promulgation of \nthe policy should be referred to the Executive Director Marketing and Communications . Compliance with the policy will \nbe monitored and reported to the Senior Leadership Team (SLT)  on a regular basis.  \n \nImplementation of the processes and procedures that enact the publication policy is the responsibility of the \noperational line managers to whom the internal stakeholders normally report.  \n \n \nContent Managers  \nEnsure that appropriate policies and standards are in place and adhered to by internal stakeholders. Maintain an up -\nto-date list of publications, content owners, editors,  and authors.  \nThe content managers will normally delegate responsibility for particular publications or types of publication to the \nrelevant operational line manager.  \nThe Digital  Content Manager is responsible for the university’s web content management system.  \nThe Executive Director Marketing and Communications is the content manager responsible for the university’s \nprimary publications in print, DVD, video,  and audio.  \nThe Manager Student Information is responsible for the university’s student recruitment, enrolment,  and website \npublications.  \n \nContent Owners  \nA content owner is the most senior manager within the section. They h ave overall responsibility for the accuracy,  \nbranding , consistency,  and timeliness of content in publications under their control as well as for approving content for \npublication. Content owners are responsible for compliance with this policy and the Massey University publication \nprocesses & procedures , as well as with other relevant policies and procedures (eg. for the management of copyright, \nadherence to advertising and branding guidelines and for publication consistent with the Matua Reo Kaupapa – Māori \nLanguage  Policy ).  \n \nA current content owner must be identified for each publication,  and it is their responsibility to ensure they are \nregistered with the appropriate content manager. The owner must be a staff member of Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa  \nMassey University, such as he ads of departments/institutes/schools who delegate the responsibility for the production \nof the publication to an editor.  \n \nEditors  \nAn editor (or coordinating editor) has delegated responsibility for one or more publications which combine materials \nbelonging to several content owners or authors. An example of a coordinating editor is the Student Information Editor, \nStudent Information , who brings together information owned by colleges and service units to produce the student \nrecruitment and enrolment publications.  \nIt is the responsibility of the content owner to nominate and ensure the current editor is registered with the content \nmanager. The editor must be a staff member of Massey University.  \n \nAuthors  \nCreate and maintain content for specific publications in whatever format/medium.  Authors must submit material to \ncontent owners for approval before publication.  \nContent Sources:  \nTe Kunenga ki P ūrehuroa  Massey University has a number of authorised central repositories which serve as the \nprimary locations of official information. These are described in the Massey University publication processes & \nprocedures . Authorisation to place or amend conten t in these repositories and to define templates and formats rests \nwith the executive person or bodies delegated by Massey University to manage each particular type of information. \nFor example, Council through Academic Board is the authorising body for prog ramme and paper information, Council \nis the authorising body for fees, Pro -Vice Chancellors authorise timetable information for their College’s teaching \nprogrammes.  \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nPublications Policy  – Page 4 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nAll publications that use or incorporate official university information must be constructed from (and web pages linked \nto) the primary version of the information contained in the authorised central repositories, since duplication of the \ncontent introduces  risks to the integrity of the information. The content manager has the authority to decline or \nterminate publication of material that places the primacy of the authorised central repositories at unnecessary risk.  \n \nStorage and security  \n \nServers, network infrastructure and databases used to store publicly available web content or files for publication in \nprint and other media must adhere to the university’s current policy and service levels for administration, security, \nbackup,  and maintenance. These requirements are available from Information Technology Services (ITS).  \n \nThe Chief Information Officer  is accountable for the hardware and network integrity and security of the university’s \nauthorised central repositories. Web servers and other infrastructure managed by units other than ITS which are used \nto store publicly available web content or files for publication must adhere to the same policies and to comparable \nservice levels for administration, security, backup,  and maintenance as apply to ITS. Accountability for adherence \nrests with the business owner of the unit concerned.  \n  \nBranding  \n \nAll primary publications are required to comply with Te Kunenga ki P ūrehuroa  Massey University’s current branding \nand design standards , and content must to be written to a high standard   Guidelines  are outlined  in the  Brand \nGuidelines . Approved te mplates and guidelines for print and electronic publication are available from Marketing or the \nBrand Library . \n \nBoth primary and secondary  publications must comply with the Massey University’s current branding and design \nstandards . They  must display the Massey University name and crest,  New Zealand logo  (for domestic publications) , \nan authorised disclaimer and, in the case of web publications, contact for feedback and  links to the Massey home \npage.  \n \nAdvertising  \n \nAll advertising must be constructed from templates and formats made available by  Marketing & Communications , \nwhich are also available  through the Te Kunenga ki P ūrehuroa  Massey University Design Studio. External advertising \nagencies must be instructed to obtain and adhere to these templates and formats. Sign off must be gained from \nExecutive Director Marketing and Communications who has the authority  to decline or terminate publication of \nmaterial that does not comply.  \n \nThird Party Advertising in University Publications  \n \nTe Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa  Massey University will not normally support third party advertising within its p rimary \npublications (eg. banners on its web pages, advertisements in its course booklets, or as enclosures within information \npacks).  \n \nRecognition of sponsors and partners may be incorporated in publications in the form of acknowledgements with prior \napproval from the Executive Director Marketing and Communications . The university does not endorse products or \nservices provided by external parties.  \nAudience:  \nAll staff.  \nRelevant legislation:  \nCopyright Act 1994  \nDefamation Act 1992  \nPrivacy Act 2020  \nConsumer Guarantees Act 1993  \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nPublications Policy  – Page 5 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nFair Trading Act 1986  \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nPublications Policy  – Page 6 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nLegal compliance:  \nCopyright Act 1994  \nCopyright automatically arises upon creation of an original work and is intended to protect the work from plagiarism, \nand unauthorised copying and distribution to the public . Copyright specifically includes, literary works, music, \nartworks, sound recordings, film, and computer programmes. Copyright may extend to graphs, compilations, \nphotographs, logos etc. It is illegal to make or distribute copyright material without the specific authorisation from the \ncopyright owner.  \n \nDefamation Act 1992  \nIt is illegal to make false or malicious statements about others in public. Defamation includes libel (written) and \nslander (verbal). Defamation claims may be made without proof of special damage.  \n \nPrivacy Act 2020  \nIt is illegal to use personal information for any purpose other than that for which it is collected. This includes use of \npersonal information and photographs of individuals without their permission.  \n \nConsumer Guarantees Act 1993  \nThe Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 provides for protection of consumers in relation to supply of faulty goods and/or \nservices.  \nIt is illegal to supply goods or services that do not meet the guarantees under the Act. It is illegal to contract out of the  \nAct (with exception of goods supplied for business purposes)  \n \nFair Trading Act 1986  \nIt is illegal to use misleading or deceptive conduct or to make false representations in relation to goods and services \nsupplied.  \n \nAll publications must comply with university regulations and policies.  \n \nAny issues regarding compliance with or interpretation of this policy should be referred in the first instance to the \nExecutive Director Marketing and Communications .  \n \nNon-compliance  \n \nAdherence to the publication policy is vital in order to conduct the university’s business properly and to avoid \nbreaches of the law.  \n \nThe content manager shall have a uthority to withhold or withdraw the right to publish or to withdraw from circulation \nany material that does not comply with the publication policy  and may cause reputational damage to the university . \nThis authority may be exercised without prior notice if the nature of the non -compliance is such as to place the \nuniversity at serious risk, but normally a procedure and timeframe will be established with the content owner for \nsuitable amendments to be mad e. Corrective action to achieve compliance is the responsibility of the content owner in \nthe fir st instance. The below legal requirements should be adhered at all times : \n \nLegal requirements : \n• All content should adhere to New Zealand law and the regulations and policies of Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa  \nMassey University.  \n• Inconsistent, inaccurate,  and outdat ed information poses a legal risk for the university. Content owners have the \nresponsibility to ensure that content in any Massey University publication is correct, consistent,  and timely.  \n• Owners of content are responsible for ensuring that none of the content in Massey University publications \ninfringes copyright and/or current copyright agreements.  \n• Massey University has a legal duty to maintain the confidentiality of personal information relating to students and \nstaff, including names, addresses,  and photographs taken for ID purposes. Personal information such as names \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nPublications Policy  – Page 7 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nand photographs of students and staff should not be made public without prior documented permission from \npersons concerned.  \n• The inclusion of defamatory, objectionable,  or restricted material in a Massey University publication is prohibited \nand will be treated as misconduct.  \n \n \nRelated procedures / documents:  \nThese include, but are not limited to, the following Massey University publications:  \n \nPublication Processes & Procedures   \nE-mail and Internet Use Policy  \nUse and Access to Information Technology Systems Policy  \nData Network Policy  \nResearch Use of Information Technology Infrastructure Policy  \nMāori@Massey Strategy  \nMatua Reo Kaupapa - Māori  Language Policy  \nCopyright agr eements  \nBrand Guidelines  \nWeb Design Guide   \nDocument Management Control:  \nPrepared by:  Executive Director Marketing and Communications  \nOwned by:  AVC – External Relations  \nApproved:  SLT 14/06/148  \nDate issued:  April 2004  \nLast review:  May 2023 \nNext review:  May 2025 \n \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Reimbursement_of_Expenses_Policy_PDF_150_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Reimbursement of Expenses Policy",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "150 KB",
      "creation_date": "2021-02-03T12:04:02",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220102502+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n \nREIMBURSEMENT O F EXPENSES POLICY  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \n \nPurpose:  \n \nThe purpose of this policy is to provide guidance on what the University considers appropriate costs for \nreimburs ement to a  staff member . \n \nPolicy: \n \nThe University will reimburse a staff member for actual and reasonable expenses  incurred  on the University’s behalf \nby that staff member.  \n \nAny expenses reimbursed must relate directly to University business  and should not  reasonabl y be expected  to ha ve \na Purchase Order raised for the expense  or be paid by Massey  credit card , i.e. one -off transportation costs such as \ntaxis, train fares, meal expenses . \n \nOnly expenses ap proved within University policies and limits will be reimbursed. A fter the expe nse is  incurred, the \nstaff member must complete an online claim through the Electronic Management S ystem  (EMS)  – FlexiPurchase . The \nStaff Reimbursement User  Guide and FlexiPurch ase App User Guide are available on the OneMassey website.  \n \nItemis ed receipts a re nee ded for all expenditure (overseas or New  Zealand) so they can be checked for policy \ncompliance . \n \nAll reimbursements will be made by direct credit into an employee’s bank account.  Reimbursements will not be made \nby cash.  \n \nNo staff member  may approve reimbu rsement of his or her own expenditure . Approval must be authorised by the \ndelegated authoriser as detailed in EMS.   \n \nWhen submitting a reimbursement claim, staff should advise the delegated authoriser  of any instances which do not \ncomply  with the cri teria described in this policy, e.g. expe nses which are not supported by a GST invoice /receipt . The \ndelegated authoriser  must check the staff reimbursement claim  in the EMS  to ensure all expenses are:  \n \n• Coded to appropriate ledger code(s)  \n• Reaso nable and com ply wi th the Sensitive  Expe nditure and Gifts Policy  \n• Supported by itemised GST invoices/ receipts and documentation scanned into EMS  \n \nIf the expense is $50  or over , for any supplier registered for New Zealand GST, there must be a n itemised  GST \ninvoice/receip t. EFTPOS slips and copies of credit card statements do not meet the GST tax invoice requirements and Section  Financ e \nContact  Finance  \nLast Review  November  2020  \nNext Review  November  2023  \nApproval  SLT 20/1 2/194  \n \nMassey University Policy G uide \nReimbursement  of Expenses Policy  – Page 2  \n \n© This Policy is the property  of Massey Unive rsity are therefore not acceptable.  If no GST invoice/ receipt is obtained , reimbursement will not be paid . There is an \nexception for mileage claims  where eviden ce of the reason for the  journey is required . \n \nAny purchases which attract Withholding Tax such as payment for time worked  or services , must not be made on the \nMassey Credit Card  nor should they be made in cash and reimbursement sought . These must be paid on an invoice \naccompanied by an IR330C and forwarded to P ayroll.   Please refer to the Sensitive Expenditure and Gifts Procedures \nfor further information   \n \nExpenses need to be  claimed within one month of incurring the expense, per the Travel Policy and Procedures  and \nSensitive Expenditure and Gifts Policy  and Procedures . \nDelegated authorisers  must comply with Massey  University ’s Delegation s of Authority Policy  and can not authorise the \npayment of any staff reimbursement where they have a financia l interest or  a potential conflict of inte rest. \n \nThere are three level s of approval of expenses : \n- Manager 1 – responsible for a pproving staff reimbursement s up to and including  $5,000  \n- Manager 2 – responsible for approving credit card transactions up to and including $5, 000 \n- Manager 3 – responsible f or approving credit card tra nsactions and staff reimbursement s over $5,000  \nNote : These Manager levels are specific to the EMS and may differ to other delegation levels as specified in the \nUniversity’s Delegations o f Authority P olicy.  \n \nFinance will ensure  that all staff reimbursements  are paid within ten working  days of receipt, provid ed they are \ncomplete and authorised correctly.  \n \nStaff issued with a University credit card should refer to the Credit Card Policy  and use the ir credit card as the \npreferred p ayment method . \nAudience : \nAll staff \nRelevant Legislation : \nNone  \nLegal Compliance:  \nNone  \nRelated Procedures  and Documents : \nStaff Reimbursement  User Guide  \nFlexiPurchase App User Guide  \nCredit Card Policy  \nDelegations of Authority Policy  \nSensitive Expenditure and Gifts Policy  \nSensitive E xpenditure Procedures  \nProcurement Policy  \nTravel Policy   \nFraud  and Corrupti on Policy  \n \nMassey University Policy G uide \nReimbursement  of Expenses Policy  – Page 3  \n \n© This Policy is the property  of Massey Unive rsity  \nDocument Manag ement Control : \nPrepared by:  Chief Financial Officer  \nOwned by : Deputy Vice -Chancellor, Finance and  Technology  \nApproved by: SLT 20/1 2/194  \nDate first issued: 6 May 2011  \nLast review:  Novem ber 2020  \nNext review: November  2023  \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Recording_of_Scholarly_Work_Framework_PDF_162_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Recording of Scholarly Work Framework PDF 162 KB",
      "policy_type": "Framework",
      "file_size": "162 KB",
      "author": "Dysart, Kirsty",
      "creation_date": "2015-03-12T15:02:08",
      "modification_date": "D:20150312152851+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " Massey University Policy Guide  \n \nRECORDING OF SCHOLARLY WORK AND STUDENT WORK FRAMEWORK   \n \n \n  \n \nSection  Academic  \nContact  Academic  Policy  and Regulations  Unit \nLast Review  February 2015  \nNext  Review  February 2018  \nApproval  TLC2014/288  \n \n \nFramework  \n \nThe University  has a responsibility  to ensure that staff, students  and university  guests  understand the rights  and \nresponsibilities  in relation  to any recording of scholarly  work and student  work for teaching,  learning or research \npurposes.  The purpose  of this document  is to outline  the framework  supporting the Recording  of scholarly  work \nand student  work policy to ensure that relevant  legislative  and policy  requirements  are achieved.  \n \nMassey  University  staff, students  and guests  involved in the recording  of scholarly  and student  work  must  also \ncomply with the associated Recording of scholarly work  and student  work  policy  and the Massey University  Code of \nethical  conduct  for research,  teaching and evaluations  involving human participants . \n \n \nRecording refers  to the action or process  of recording sound or a visual  performance for subsequent  \nreproduction or broadcast.  \n \nRecording consent  \n \nThe University  will ensure  that, where it wishes  to record and distribute scholarly  work or student  work for \nteaching,  learning or research purposes , it informs  staff, guest lecturers  and students  of their rights  and obtains  \nthe necessary  consents  or specified permissions.  \n \nA:  The University  will: \n• issue  general  notifications  in all study  material  and on the University  website to advise students  that \nlearning experiences  are regularly  recorded  \n• obtain explicit written consent from staff and guest lecturers before scholarly work is recorded for \ndistribution both within and external to the University . The written consent is to be stored in accordance \nwith the Records  management policy \n• clearly notify students  and other attendees  that scholarly work may be recorded or streamed and \ndistributed, and that their participation in a work being recorded is deemed to be w ith implied consent  \n• ensure that students are aware of their rights in regard to requesting removal of content from a recording \nthat may personally identify them  \n• ensure that students and other audience members are aware that a recording is taking place by clearly \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nRecording of Scholarly Work and Student Work Framework  – Page 2 \n \n  \n• displaying signs in all venues where s cholarly work or student work is recorded. Advice will also be \nprovided at any other location, such as an off -site venue, where a recording is being made  \n• ensure that a “recording light ” that identifies when a recording is taking place is easily able to be seen by \nall students in attendance.  \n \nB:  Staff  will: \n• complete an Authorisation  for recording  form before any recording is made for teaching, learning or \nresearch purposes (this form will include the metadata required for data management and storage \npurposes)  \n• ensure that students provide explicit consent before any recording is made of student work for teaching, \nlearning or research purposes  \n• ensure that g uest lecturers provide explicit written consent before any recording is made for teaching, \nlearning or research purposes. The written consent is to be stored in accordance with the Records \nmanagement policy \n• provide consent to any “reasonable request” from a student to make personal video recordings of a \nlearning experience. In the case of a student with a documented disability, a request may be made by an \nappointed delegate. Reasonable request means a request in which the student undertakes to use the \nrecording solely for the purpose of studying, a valid reason is given of how the recording will support their learning,  and no significant disruption to the class or teaching space will oc cur \n• not use their scholarly work or any other s tudent work recorded by the University in the provision of a \ncourse at any other university or tertiary education provider during the term of their employment, other than \nas reasonably required as part of that staff member’s overseas duties, study leave, secondment or similar \nvisit t o that university or tertiary education provider approved by the relevant line manager for that s taff \nmember.  \n \nC:  Students  will: \n• be able to make a recording of a l earning experience. The recording may only be used for research or \nprivate study purposes and not be re -distributed1.  In the case of a student with a documented disability, a \nrequest may be made by an appointed delegate  \n• stop recording if a staff member or guest lecturer reasonably considers that the recording is intrusive or the \nlearning experience contains information that is sensitive, subject to copyright and/or confidential and is , \ntherefore , inappropriate to record  \n• ensure that t he recording does  not cause any significant disruption to the class or teaching space  \n• provide explicit consent prior to participating in any recording of s tudent work for teaching, learning and \nresearch purposes  \n• access and download recorded l earning experiences and s tudent work that relate only to papers for which \nthey have enrolled or are p ublically available.  \n \nCopyright  \n \nStaff and students  own the copyright  (but no other  intellectual  property  rights)  in recordings , but must  not assign  \nor license  copyright  to their scholarly  work to any other  university  or tertiary  education provider  other  than in \naccordance with the Intellectual  property policy. \n \nA:  The University  will: \n                                                           \n1 For students with  a disability, alternative  recording  and teaching  practices  may already be  provided  under  the University's  disability  services.  \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nRecording of Scholarly Work and Student Work Framework  – Page 3 \n \n  \n• ensure staff, students and guest lecturers understand their responsibilities in relation to material they have \nincluded for which they may not be the copyright holders  \n• accept responsibility for copyright issues arising from the distribution of recorded learning experiences and \nstudent work more widely than to the relevant group or target audience  \n• accept responsibility for ensuring that copyright permissions relating to em bedded material  (for example, \nvideo, audio recordings, and pictures) is obtained where recordings will be distributed, or available, to \nenrolled students and/or persons other than staff through centrally administered University channels  \n• provide copyright w arning and limitation of use notices for any l earning experience or s tudent work it \nrecords and distributes via audio or video for teaching and learning purposes  \n• remind staff that,  due to the automated nature of the recording system, recordings are not monitored or \nedited and the s taff member is responsible for ensuring all material recorded conforms to copyright \nguidelines.  \n \nB: Staff  will: \n• use copyright material of others in accordance with the University’s copyright licensing agreements and \nNew Zealand copyright legislation  \n• obtain permission for use of material not covered by the University’s copyright licences or exceptions \nunder legislation  \n• ensure that copyright permissions relating to embedded material ( for example , video, audio recordings, \npictures) are obtained where recordings will be distributed, or available, to persons other than staff and/or \nenrolled students through channels which are not centrally administered by the University, including \ndepartmental websites  \n• include copyright warning and lim itation of use notices in l earning experiences, student work or g uest \nlectures they record (in audio or video format) and distribute for teaching, learning or research purposes.  \n Staff retain copyright (but no other intellectual property rights) of their s cholarly work and must give explicit \npermission before recording can be made by the University and/or other parties. Permission includes the right to know the purpose of the recording and the opportunity to place restrictions on the unauthorised use and di stribution.  \n \nC:  When the  University records student work  for teaching,  learning or research purposes, students will : \n• use copyright material of others in accordance with the University’s copyright licensing agreements and \nNew Zealand copyright  legislati on. \n• obtain permission for use of material not covered by the University’s copyright licences or exceptions \nunder legislation  \n• ensure that copyright permissions relating to embedded material ( for example , video, audio recordings, \npictures) is obtained where rec ordings will be distributed, or available, to persons other than staff and/or \nenrolled students through channels which are not centrally administered by the University, including \ndepartmental websites.  \n \nStudents  retain  copyright  (but no other  intellectual property  rights)  of their student  work  and must  give \npermission  before  the University  and/or  other  parties  can make  a recording.  Permission  includes  the right to know  \nthe purpose of the recording  and the opportunity  to place restrictions  on the unauthorised use and distribution.  \n \nD:  Guest  lecturers  \n \nGuest  lecturers  retain  copyright  of their work  and must  give explicit  permission  before  the University  and/or  other  \nparties  can record and/or  distribute  their scholarly  work. Permission includes  the right to know  the purpose of the \nrecording  and the opportunity  to place  restrictions  on the unauthorised use and distribution.  \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nRecording of Scholarly Work and Student Work Framework  – Page 4 \n \n  \nIn granting permission for recording of their works  guest lecturers  have the option of: \n• giving intellectual property rights to the Universit y \n• assigning intellectual property rights to a c reative commons license  \n• assigning  restrictions as they require.  \n \nGuest  lecturers  have a number  of responsibilities.  When their  work  is recorded , they will: \n• give explicit written permission prior to any recording  \n• use copyright material of others in accordance with New Zealand copyright legislation \n• obtain permission for use of material not covered by New Zealand copyright legislation.  \nWhen guest lecturers  record other  scholarly work or student  work, they will: \n• make personal recordings only with the permission of the staff member or student who produced the work \nand use such recordings only for private or research purposes  \n• agree to destroy the recorded material at the completion of the purpose for whi ch it was recorded.  \n \nIntellectual property  \n \nThe University  has a non-exclusive,  royalty free, irrevocable,  transferable perpetual  license to use, modify  and \nreproduce  learning  experiences  and student  work recorded for teaching and learning  purposes.  \n \nFor further  detail  on issues relating to intellectual  property  please  refer the University  Intellectual  property \npolicy. \n \nMātauranga  Māori  (traditional  and contemporary  Māori knowledge) \n \nStaff, students,  and guest lecturers  will seek  advice  from the Head of School,  Te Pūtahi -a-Toi, School  of \nMāori  Art, Knowledge and Education if that recording  contains  Mātauranga Māori  (traditional  and contemporary)  \nthat is held in accordance with traditional  values  and practices.  \n \nPublication and  distr ibution  \n \nAll recordings  of scholarly  work for the purposes  of teaching  and learning  shall be classified  as secondary  \npublications  and the staff member  authorising the recording designated as the content  owner  responsible for \nensuring that the publication complies  with the University  Publications  policy.2  \n \nDue to the automated nature of the recording system  in lecture theatres,  recordings  are not monitored or \nedited.  The content  owner  is responsible for ensuring  all material  recorded conforms  to copyright  guidelines prior \nto distribution.  \n \nThe content  manager is responsible  for publishing and distributing the  recording.  \n \nTraining  and professional  development  \n \nProfessional  development  opportunities  will be made  available  to staff to assist  them  to understand the \ndifferent  rights,  responsibilities,  protocols,  and wider  issues  associated with the effective use of recordings for \nteaching, learning or research purposes.  \n Training on technical  aspects  such  as the editing and content  management  of recordings  will also be made \n                                                           \n2 Massey  University (2012)  Publications  Policy  \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nRecording of Scholarly Work and Student Work Framework  – Page 5 \n \n  \navailable to staff.  \n \nOffsite  recording  \n \nThe policy and framework  cover  the recording of scholarly  work or student  work under  the control  of the \nUniversity, both on campus and at  external locations.  For example:  \n• Guest lecturers who are part of a University (teaching, learning or research) event will be covered by the \npolicy. Students being recorded not at the University but as part of their University paper or course will be \ncovered by the p olicy and framework . \n• For e vents that are co -organised or jointly “owned” , University staff and students will be covered by the \nRecording of scholarly work and student work policy and Recording of scholarly work and student work \nframework  (unless there are memoranda of u nderstanding or other agreements in place) . \n \n• Any event that is solely organised by another institution/organisation and held outside University grounds \nwill not be covered by the Recording of s cholarly work and s tudent work policy and framework . \n \nRecording  and data management  \n \nA.  The University  will: \n• advise staff, students and guest lecturers on requirements relating to subsequent distribution and re- use of \nrecordings  \n• ensure all recordings of s cholarly work for the purposes of teaching and learning will conform to data \nmanagement practices at the University and ensure these practices are made available to staff, students \nand guest lecturers  \n• ensure that, while the distribution of any recorded works may be restricted, staff , students and g uest \nlecturers understand that the ability to stop further unauthorised distribution is limited and dependent on \nthe honesty of relevant parties.  \n \nB: Staff  will: \n• ensure metadata for the recording is documented on the Authorisation for r ecording  form, including an \nappropriate disposal date  \n• ensure compliance with the Massey University Records management policy if the recording is deemed to \nbe a record.  \n \nC:  Students  will: \n• not distribute or otherwise circulate to a third party any scholarly work or student work that they access \nand/or download from the University  \n• destroy any recorded material in their possession at the completion of the paper for which they are \nenrolled.  \n \nD:  Guest  lecturers  will: \n• retain copyright (but no other i ntellectual property rights) in his or her scholarly work and grant the \nUniversity non- exclusive, royalty free, irrevocable, transferable perpetual license to use, modify and \nreproduce his or her scholarly works for research and teaching purposes  \n• not distribute or otherwise cir culate to  a third party any s cholarly work or student work recorded during \ntheir time at the University to which they do not hold the copyright.  \n \nCircumstances where recording may not be appropriate \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nRecording of Scholarly Work and Student Work Framework  – Page 6 \n \n  \n \nThere  is a number  of occasions  when it will not be appropriate to record  and/or  distribute a recording of a \nscholarly  work or student  work. These  can include  situations  where students  decline to be recorded and/or  have  \nthe recording  distributed due to their religious  beliefs,  discussions on sensitive  and/or  controversial  issues,  such  \nas case  studies  of client  health issues  which  may not be suitable for later viewing  as the content  may require  \nlecturer  supervision in a group context,  or where the material  is subject  to copyright  and/or  confidential.  Staff \nshould exercise  appropriate  discretion in these circumstances.  \n \nDefinitions  \n \nAudience:  people in the room  (or participating online)  where the recording  (audio and video)  is taking  place,  \nwho are not the primary  focus  of the recording,  but who are there  to participate in the session  being recorded.  \nParticipating  online includes  but is not limited  to making comments  via a  chat function.  \n \nConsent:  \nImplied:  Consent  that is inferred from signs,  actions,  or facts,  or by inaction or silence.3\n \n \nExplicit:   the  individual   is  clearly   presented with  an  option  to  agree  or  disagree verbally  or in writing,  \nincluding email.  \n \nData management:  the function that develops,  manages  and executes  policies,  processes,  standards  and \nframeworks  that collect,  protect,  deliver,  and enhance the value of data and information assets  to meet  the \ndata availability,  quality  and security  needs  of the University.  \n \nGuest  lecturer:  a person who is not an employee or enrolled student  of the University  and is attending or \ncontributing to a teaching and learning event  or activity,  including visitors  and invited  scholars  participating on- \ncampus  and from a distance.  \n \nLearning experiences : academic activities which include but are not limited to, lectures, laboratory classes, \nworkshops, tutorials, seminars, field trips, studios, webinars, simulations, practicum, placements, internships, self -\ndirected learning, etc. Successful completion of some learning experiences may be compulsory for  mastery of the \npaper and its learning outcomes.  \n \nRecord:  information  recorded  in any format  that is created or received and maintained in the transaction  of \nbusiness  activities  and retained  as evidence of such  an activity.  A record may be: a document,  signature,  seal, \ntext, image,  sound,  speech or data (structured  or unstructured).  It can be compiled,  recorded  or stored  in \nwritten  form on any material,  or in file, negative,  tape of other  medium  which  will make  it reproducible,  or by \nmeans  of any recording device  or process,  computer,  or other  electronic  device  or process  which  will make  it \nmachine readable.  \n \nRecording:  The action  or process  of recording  sound  or a visual  performance  for subsequent  reproduction or  \nbroadcast.  \n \nScholarly  work: all literary,  dramatic,  musical  or artistic  works,  sound recordings,  films or communication works  \nproduced by a staff member  in the course  of his or her employment  at the University and includes:  \na. in relation  to a Staff member’s  research  activities,  any scholarly  publications  including  books,  text-books,  \narticles  in scholarly  journals  or conference  proceedings  or other  collections,  research  reports  and book  \nreviews  \nb. in relation  to teaching and other  activities,  any lectures,  lecture  notes  and material,  study  guides,  \nassessment  materials,  images,  multi -media presentations,  web content  and published lectures,  \nbut excludes  software.  \n \n3 http://legal -dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/implied+consent  \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nRecording of Scholarly Work and Student Work Framework  – Page 7 \n \n  \n \nStudent  work: all literary,  dramatic,  musical  or artistic  works,  sound recordings,  films or communication works  \nproduced by a student  in the course  of his or her enrolment  at the University  and includes  reports,  research \npapers,  theses,  dissertations,  books,  journal  articles,  conference  papers  and book  reviews,  but excludes  software.  \n \nUniversity : Massey  University , including  all its constituent  components  such as , colleges,  institutes, and schools .  \nRelevant  legislation  \nCopyright  Act 1994 and Amendments  \nPrivacy  Act 1993 \n \nLegal  compliance  \n \nA:  Privacy  Act  \n \nCollection,  use and disclosure  of personal  information  must  comply  with Principles  1-12 of the Privacy  Act \n1983.  Personal  information is any information about  an identifiable living  individual.  The University  is permitted to \ncollect,  store,  use, and disclose  personal  information  relating  to students  in accordance with the Privacy  Act \n1993 for the purpose of conducting  its proper  business,  but there  are additional  circumstances  where explicit  \npermission is required.  Students  have the right to access  and seek correction of their personal  information.  \n \nB: Copyright Act  \n \nTo adhere to the reproduction and use of material  as per the Copyright  Act, and the University’s  Use of \nCopyright  Material  for Educational  Purposes  Policy,  in relation  to scholarly  work  produced,  and scholarly  (or \nother)  work  used,  work  must  not be reproduced in a manner  which  contravenes  the exclusive  rights  of the \nauthor  or creator.   \nIntended Audience  \nAll staff, students  and guests  using Massey  University facilities  and resources.   \nRelated  procedures  / documents  \n• Code of ethical  conduct  for research,  teaching and evaluations  involving human  participants  \n• Data network  policy \n• Intellectual  property policy \n• Internet  use and digital communications  policy \n• Peer  to peer policy \n• Privacy policy and f ramework  \n• Publications policy \n• Records  management  policy \n• Recording of scholarly work and student  work policy \n• Use and access  to information technology  systems  policy \n• Use of copyright  material for  educational  purposes  policy \n \nDocument management  control  \n \nPrepared  by: Academic  Policy  and Regulations  Unit  \nApproved by: Teaching and Learning Committee (October 2014)  \nDate issued:  February 2015 \nNext review:  February 2018  \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Procedures_for_Pre-employment_Checks_for_Prospective_Appointees_PDF_370_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Procedures for Pre-Employment Checks for Prospective Appointees",
      "policy_type": "Procedure",
      "file_size": "370 KB",
      "creation_date": "2019-09-25T11:05:06",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220102557+13'00'"
    },
    "content": "  \n                       \n                                                               M    \n \nPROCEDURES FOR PRE-EMPLOYMENT CHECKS FOR PROSPECTIVE APPOINTEES  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \n \n    \n  \n \nPurpose:  \nThe purpose of these procedures is to specify the type and manner in which pre- employment checks are undertaken \nto ensure a high standard of integrity, expertise and good character in all staff appointments to Massey University . \nProcedures:   \nPlanning  \n \nHiring managers should plan up- front so that any required pre- employment checks are clearly identified and the \nappropriate forms and procedures are ready to go at the critical time.  This will avoid unnecessary delays  and enable \nthe hiring manager to move quickly to offer employment once a preferred candidate is identified.  \n \n(a) When the Job Description is drafted, the required pre- employment checks  and, if applicable, safety checks of \nchildren’ s workers  under the Vulnerable Children Act 2014,  should be identif ied.  This will ensure the \nUniversity’s expectations are clear to candidates .  \n(b) The following checks may be commenced at the short -listing stage, by –  \n(i) Contacting the HRHelpdesk  to ascertain whether the candidate is currently employed or has previous \nemployment at Massey;  \n(ii) Asking the candidate to bring to the interview or to sign at the interview, the following (as applicable):  \n• Consent f orm for Security Check  \n• Consent form for Credit History Check  \n• Proof of identity  and legal entitlement to work in New Zealand (passport, birth certificate, N ew Zealand \ndriver’s l icence)  \n• Qualifications for copying and certifying or certified copies of qualifications (where verification is \nrequired in accordance with the Policy on Verification and Validation of Qualifications ) \n• Consent to Health Assessment Check (modify the pro-forma letter  to reflect the requirements of the role) . \n(c) The checks remaining to be completed (except the r eferee checks, unless Associate Professor or Professor \nlevel), may then be – \n(i) commenced immediately upon the preferred candidate being identified, or  \n(ii) may even be undertaken for all shortlisted applicants immediately upon shortlisting so that these are \npotentially available at t he time of interview.  \n \nQualification checking must be undertaken in accordance with the Policy and Procedures on Verification and \nValidat ion of Qualifications .  These checks are normally only undertaken for the preferred candidate/s.  \n \nReferee Checks should not be undertaken until the preferred candidate stage (except for Associate Professor \nand Professorial -level academic staff for whom it is conventional to seek referee reports at shortlisting stage).   \nThis does not preclude a hiring manager from seeking Referee Checks prior to the preferred candidate stage \nprovided that the candidate has given permission for their referees to be contacted  at that stage . \n Section  People and Culture  \nContact People and Culture  \nLast Review  November 2018  \nNext Review  June 2023  \nApproval  SLT 19/09/153  \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nProcedure for Pre- Employment Checks for Prospective \nAppointees to Massey University  – Page 2 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nEmployment Offer Documentation  \n \nHiring Managers  are required to complete the relevant Appointment Summary Form  (available through the online \nrecruitment system ).  The recommendation should clearly specif y if the offer is to be made on a conditional basis and, \nif so, which pre- employment check /s the offer is subject to and which check /s have been undertaken or are yet to be \nundertaken.   Following the necessary approval/s, t he completed form and all accompanying documentation should \nthen be forwarded  to People and Culture  via the recruitment system . \n The manager approving the appointment  should satisfy themselves that the required pre- employment checks have \nbeen undertaken or, where the offer is on a conditional basis, that the required check process has been initiated.  \n \nOn receipt of the Appointment Summary  Form and associated documentation,  HR Administration  will produce an offer \nof employment reflecting the specifics set out in the Appointment Summary  Form , including any conditional aspects of \nthe offer.    \nCommencement of Employment \n \nAn employee is unable to commence employment at the University where it would be illegal to do so because they \nhave not provided the required evidence of the legal right to work in New Zealand .  Similarly, a person should not \ncommence employment at the University where proof of identity has not been provided.   \n \nA children’ s worker position should not in any circumstances be able to com mence employment until all the \nrequirements of the safety check have been met.  This is a legislative requirement.   (However, as noted in 8.4 of this \ndocument it is possible to engage the children’s worker in limited duties with limited or no contact with children until \nthe safety check is completed and considered to meet the requirements of the Vulnerable Children Act 2014.)  \n \nWhere any other conditions  of employment specified in the employment offer have  not been satisfied by the agreed \ndate of commencement of employment, the start date will be affected.  However, to enable the employee to commence their orientation to the role and the University, the manager can elect to employ the person on a casual \nemployment agreement until the satisfactory check s have been received at which point the initial employment \nagreement will be in force.  \nDetails of Specific Checks:   \n1.     Criminal and Traffic Convictions (Security) Checks:  \n 1.1 Massey University must comply with the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act 2004 which allows people to \nexclude previous convictions from being disclosed, if the following conditions are met:  \n• No convictions within the last seven years; and  \n• Never been sentenc ed to a custodial sentence (including imprisonment , corrective training, borstal ); and  \n• Never been ordered by a Court following a criminal case to be detained in a hospital due to his/her mental \ncondition instead of being sentenced; and  \n• Not been convicted of a “specified offence” (e.g. sexual offending against children and young people or the \nmentally impaired); and  \n• Paid in full any fine, reparation,  or costs ordered by the Court in a criminal case; and  \n• Never been indefinitely disqualified from driving.  \n Under this Act, when an individual meets all of the eligibility criteria (set out above), he/she is entitled to say “no” \nif asked whether they have criminal convictions.  Further, when the eligible individual requests a copy of their \ncriminal record, either for their own use or to forward to a third party (such as a prospective employer), any \nconvictions they had in the past will simply not be on their criminal history record.  \n 1.2   Any position with a high level of accounting and financial responsibility and any role that has financial delegated \nauthority to approve expenditure and/or has a moral or ethical responsibility and/or an element of pastoral care in \nroles that deal with vulnerable individuals, shall provide a security check of any criminal/traffi c history. This \nprovision shall apply to all positions as identified in Appendix A . \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nProcedure for Pre- Employment Checks for Prospective \nAppointees to Massey University  – Page 3 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n1.3   All positions requiring a Criminal and Traffic Convictions (Security) C heck will have this requirement included in \nthe job description.   \n \n1.4 For clarity , overseas applicants who have had criminal history checks  carried out as part of the New Zealand \nImmigration Service requirement s in order to take up an offered appointment at Massey University , will be \nconsidered to have met the criteria above.  \n \nCriminal and Traffic Convictions Check –  Process (for checks being undertaken in erecruiT, see section 1.9  below ) \n \n1.5  The Chair of the Selection Committee (Manager) will ensure that ‘Section Two: Third Party Details’ of the Ministry \nof Justice Criminal and Traffic Convictions (Security) Checks (Priv/F2) form is completed and attached to the recruitment system  approval documentation. The Priv/F2 form requests details of the preferred applicant’s \ncriminal and traffic history under the Official Information Act 1982 and is available on the Recruitment Section  of \nthe People and Culture  (P&C) website or the Ministry of Justice website www.justice.govt.nz/privacy .  This semi -\ncompleted form will be loaded into the recruitment system  as an attachment by the hiring School/Institute/Service \nso the Chair of the Selection Committee can have access to this document for point 1.6 below.  \n \n1.6   The Chair of the Selection Committee shall ensure the preferred applicant completes a Criminal and Traffic \nConvictions (Security) Check Form (Priv/F2). The preferred applicant will complete Sections 1 and 3 of the form \nand send this to the Ministry of Justice for processing.  \n \n1.7   The Ministry of Justice will process this form free of charge as part of their standard service and provide their \nresponse to the Chair of the Selection Committee usually within 20 working days.   Alternatively, managers may \nchoose to pay for a priority service which has a 5- 8 working day turnaround.  Should this option be chosen, then \nthis cost will be met by the hiring manager ’s budget.  Details for accessing this service can be found on the P &C \nwebsite under Criminal and Traffic Convictions (Security) Checks.  \n 1.8   As the process of requesting this check could potentially add time to the appointment proc ess of up to a \nmaximum of 20 days, managers may consider requesting Criminal and Traffic Convictions (Security) checks for \nall short listed applicants prior to interviewing.  \n \n1.9 Instead of the manual criminal history checking process, if the position is being transacted through the recruitment system, erecruiT, the following process applies:  \n \n• A ‘Request For Criminal Convictions  History By a Third Party'  form is automatically loaded in erecruiT against \na position for which Criminal History Check is indicated as required at the time a ‘Requisition’ (Request to \nrecruit) is raised.  \n• This check is triggered via erecruiT if the panel convenor indicates that the check is to be initiated via the \nrecruitment system  (on the ‘Reference and Additional Pre- Employment Checks Form’  in erecruiT.  \n• The form is sent via e- mail to the candidate to fil l in and return to [email protected] . \n• When the completed form is received, the Staff Recruitment Team will submit  this to Ministry of Justice at  \[email protected] .   \n• Upon receiving the form, the Ministry of Justice will perform the check and forward the result by email to the \nStaff Recruitment  Team  at People and Culture . The result  file will then be uploaded against the candidate in \nthe erecruiT system and the result will be available on the Appoi ntment Summary Form.  \n• (Alternatively, the forms can be sent to the candidate manually  as per the current practice –  see 1.5- 1.8 \nabove. ) \n \nConditional Offers subject to Security Check  \n \n1.10   The normal University approval process for the preferred applicant can commence immediately.  However , if \nthe Criminal and Traffic Convictions (Security) check is not yet received from the Ministry of Justice by the time the offer of employment is ready  to be made in writing, then the offer of employment must be made expressly \nconditional on a satisfactory security check.  Please note that if a conditional offer of employment is made and \naccepted by an employee, the person must not commence duties before  the information has been received \nand considered by Massey University to meet the University standard .  This may affect the commencement \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nProcedure for Pre- Employment Checks for Prospective \nAppointees to Massey University  – Page 4 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \ndate contained within the offer of employment.   In these circumstances, until the results of the security check are \nmade available it is permissible for the manager to engage the person on a casual employment agreement basis  \nwith appropriate limited access to systems, information, people etc (as relevant depending on the role \nrequirements) .   \n 1.11 Wherever the Criminal and Traffic Convictions (Security) check requested provides evidence of the preferred \napplicant having a previous criminal or significant traffic history, the applicant may only be appointed with the \napproval of the relevant manager with Authority Band A delegation (in consultation with the Employment \nRelations Manager) . \n \n1.12 Where a criminal or significant traffic history is evident, the hiring manager will send any appointment files to the \nmanager with Authority Band A dele gation for consideration and will also check the initial application form to \nensure that correct information was disclosed with regard to previous convictions.  \n 1.13 Should the applicant already have signed the letter of offer and the University subsequently receives a Criminal \nand Traffic Convictions (Security) check that provides evidence of the new employee having a previous criminal or significant traffic history which is unsatisfactory to the University, the m anager should consult with their HR \nAdvisor in relation to appropriate proceedings to terminate the employment relationship.  \n \n2.     Credit History Checks: \n \n2.1  Any position with a high level of accounting and financial responsibility and any role that has financial delegated \nauthority to approve expenditure shall provide two credit history checks to identify whether the applicant is under financial stress, whether they have judgments against them , and wheth er they have been classed as bankrupt. \nThis provision shall apply to all positions as identified in Appendix A.  All positions requiring a credit history check \nwill have this requirement included in the job description.  The Credit Check involves two check s: \n• Credit History Check  \n• Insolvency register -  ‘No Asset Procedure” (NAP) Check .  \n \nCredit History Check  – Process \n(for checks being undertaken in erecruiT, see section 2.4  below)  \n \n2.2  A copy of the ‘My Credit File’ Form will be attached to the recruitment system  by the hiring \nSchool/Institute/Service for applicants to view, download and print. The form is available on the provider ’s \nwebsite (currently Equifax: http://www.mycreditfile.co.nz ). \n 2.3  The Chair of the Selection Committee shall ens ure the applicant completes the Credit History Check by \ncompleting the ‘My Credit File’ form. The form requests details of the applicant’s credit history and all sections \nmust be completed by the preferred applicant. With the applicant’s consent having been obtained, the hiring \nmanager has several options for obtaining a credit report, depending on how quickly the report is needed:  \n \nA. Fast Track  \nManagers may choose to pay for the ‘My Credit File’ online which will be dispatched to the applicant within \none working day via email.  Should this option be chosen, then this cost will be met by the hiring manager ’s \nbudget.  Details for accessing this service can be found on the P &C website under Credit History Check .  \nManagers may choose to access the credit details directly via the Equifax site .   \n \nB. Start standard process early, at shortlisting stage  \nAs the process of requesting a credit history check could potentially add time to the appointment process of \nup to a maximum of 20 working days, managers may consider requesting a credit history checks for all short \nlisted applicants prior to interviewing.   \n \nC. Standard process (up to 20 working days ) \nOnce the consent form is completed the applicant will send this to Equifax for processing. The service \nprovider (currently Equifax ) will process this form free of charge and provide their response to the applicant \nwithin 20 working days.  The applicant will then be required to forward this information to the Chair of the \nSelectio n Committee.  \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nProcedure for Pre- Employment Checks for Prospective \nAppointees to Massey University  – Page 5 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n2.4 Instead of the manual credit history checking process, if the position is being transacted through the recruitment \nsystem, erecruiT, the following process applies:  \n \n• A ‘Credit check fast track form’ is automatically loaded against a position for which Credi t Check is indicated \nas required at the time a ‘Requisition’ (request to recruit) is raised in erecruiT.  \n• This check is triggered via erecruiT if the Panel Convenor indicates that the check is to be initiated via the \nrecruitment systenm  on the ‘Reference and Additional Pre -Employment Checks Form’  in erecruiT.  \n• The form is sent via e- mail to the candidate to fill in and return to [email protected] . \n• Once the form is received, the Staff Recruitment Team undertakes the Credit Check directly from the Equifax \nwebsite and uploads the result against the candidate in erecruiT.  \n• The result is available on the Appointment Summary Form.  \n \nInsolvency Register Check  \n \n2.5   In addition, the Chair of the Selection Committ ee will complete a ‘No Asset Procedure (NAP)’  credit history check \nto determine whether the preferred applicant has entered into an insolvency procedure.  In the erecruiT system \nthis check is performed by the Staff Recruitment Team in People and Culture .  This will involve checking the \ninsolvency register on the Insolvency and Trustee Service (Ministry of Economic Development) website \nhttp://www.insolvency.govt.nz/cms .  This is free of charge and results of the check are instant . \n \nConditional Offers subject to Credit Checks  \n \n2.6   The normal University approval process for the preferred applicant can commence immediately.  However , if the \ncredit history check is not yet received from Equifax  by the time the offer of employment is ready to be made in \nwriting, then the offer of employment must be made expressly conditional on a satisfactory credit check.  Please \nnote that if a conditional offer of employment is made and accepted by an employee,  the person must not \ncommence duties before the information has been received and considered by Massey University to \nmeet the University standard .  This may affect the commencement date contained within the offer of \nemployment.   In these circumstances, unt il the results of the credit check are made available it is permissible for \nthe manager to engage the person on a casual employment agreement basis  with appropriate limited access to \nsystems, information, people etc (as relevant depending on the role requi rements) .   \n \n2.7   Wherever the credit history information requested provides evidence of the preferred applicant having a credit \nhistory of significant concern e.g. records of payment defaults (overdue accounts), District and High Court \njudgments, bankruptcy listings, collection agency defaults; the applicant may only be appointed with the \napproval of the relevant manager with Authority Band A delegation (in consultation with the Employment \nRelations Manager) . \n \n2.8   The hiring  manager will send any appointment files where a credit history is evident to the relevant manager with \nAuthority Band A delegation for consideration and will also check the initial application form to ensure that correct \ninformation was disclosed with regard to their credit history.  \n 2.9 Should the applicant already have signed the letter of offer and the University subsequently receives a credit \ncheck that provides eviden ce of the new employee having a credit history of significant concern and this is \nunsatisfactory to the University, the Manager should consult with their HR Advisor in relation to appropriate \nproceedings to terminate the employment relationship.  \n \n3.     Referee Checks:  \n \n3.1   Hiring  managers shall, as a minimum, require every preferred applicant for a staff appointment to provide a \nreferee from either their current employer or last employer .  For current or previous employees at Massey it is \nusual practice for the person’s previous/current immediate line manager to be contacted in relation to the \nperson’s suitability for  employment in the new position.  \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nProcedure for Pre- Employment Checks for Prospective \nAppointees to Massey University  – Page 6 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n3.2 It is good practice but not a strict requirement to undertake three referee checks however in all cases at least one \ndirect referee check should be undertaken.  For more senior or critical roles with organisational impact, it will be \nusual for three (or more) referee checks to be undertaken.  \n \n3.3   Referee contact can only be made with the permission of the applicant.  Contact with the referees of an applicant \nwithout the express permission of the applicant will breach the Privacy Act 1993.  \n \n3.4   Where a reference from a current or last employer is provided in writing, the hiring  manager should seek the \npreferred applicant’s permission to contact the referee directly to confirm that the written reference is their view.  \n \n3.5   If the preferred applicant refuses permission for their current or last employer to be contacted, they must not be \ncontacted.  The hiring  manager may , however, after considering the reasons for refusal, reconsider the preferred \napplicant ’s suitability for the position.  The appointing manager should discuss this circumstance with their HR \nAdvisor.  \n 3.6   All managers should record or note their interactions with referees  The manager is required to make a \ndeclaration in the recruitment system attesting to the completion of referee checks in accordance with the Policy \non Pre- Employment Checks for Prospective Appointees . \n \n3.7 Referee check(s) must be undertaken before  an offer of appointment is confirmed.  Managers are required to \nmake a declaration via the recruitment system confirming that referee check(s) have been completed.  \n 4.     Proof of Identity and Work Permit Checks: \n \n4.1   All prospective appointees to staff positions at Massey University shall provide clear, legible and verified copies \nof the following items prior to commencing duties:  \n Proof of identify, e.g. birth certificate, passport or New Zealand drivers l icence  \n Proof of l egal entitlement to work in New Zealand, e.g. New Zealand citizenship/permanent residency or a \nvalid work permit.  If a work permit  is provided, this must show suitability to work at Massey University and \neligible for the role offered.  \n \n4.2   A verified copy means one that is confirmed as a true and accurate copy of the original by a Justice of the \nPeace, Lawyer, Notary Public , a Massey University People and Culture  staff member or a hiring manager .  It \nmeans that the original document has been sighted by the person providing the verification assurance.    \n \n5.       Qualifications Check:  \n \n5.1   Prior to commencing duties at Massey University all prospective employees must have their qualifications \nverified and/or validated in accordance with the Policy and Procedures on Verification and Validation of \nQualifications .   \n \n5.2  The level of verification/validation and the process for obt aining the same is set out in the Procedures on \nVerification and Validation of Qualifications .  The Staff Recruitment Team will ensure that checks for those \nqualifications that are required for the job are undertaken before an offer of appointment is confirmed.  Other \nqualifications checks are carried out by the Staff Recruitment Team as part of the onboarding process.  \n5.3 Notwithstanding the above, if an offer has been made and it is subsequently  identified that the qualification /s of \nthe applicant cannot be verified or validated in accordance with the policy, the offer of employment may be \nwithdrawn prior to its acceptance.  This should only be undertaken following consultation with an HR \nAdvisor . \n \n5.4 The process for verifying /validating qualifications  that are indicated as required for the job (on the email triggered \nfrom erecruiT)  is set  out below:  \n \n• The Staff Recruitment Team in People and Culture  will check the publicly available information (e.g. \nuniversity websites  and public registers for registration and practising certificate information).  \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nProcedure for Pre- Employment Checks for Prospective \nAppointees to Massey University  – Page 7 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n• Where qualifications  cannot readily be checked, the Staff Recruitment Team will initiate a check undertaken \nby a contracted organ isation, CVCheck.  If this outsourced check is undertaken, the cost is to be met by the \nhiring manager’s department (an internal transfer will be arranged by the recruitment team).  \n• When the result of the check is received, it will be loaded in erecruiT against the candidate’s record.  \n \n6.      Previous Employment at Massey University Check:  \n 6.1   All applicants will be required to complete the Massey University Application for Employment Form that asks \nwhether or not the individual has previously worked for Massey University.  \n \n6.2   At the time of determining the short listed applicants to be interviewed, the Chair of the Selection Committe e will \nnotify the HRHelpdesk  ([email protected] ) of any potential shortlisted applicant(s) who declared they \nhave worked previously at Massey University.  The HRHelpdesk , through the Employment Relations  Team,  will \nconfirm whether the individual’s reason for leaving the University was due to a significant and/or questionable \nprevious employment matter.  Significant and/or questionable previous employment history relates to history of \nsignificant concern i .e. serious misconduct that has resulted in some form of formal discipline for the individual \nand/or dismissal.  Previous Employment at Massey University Checks will not include information regarding \nwritten war nings that have expired or any s ettlement agreement s where it has been agreed that the terms of \nsettlement and all matters discussed remain confidential to the parties.  \n \n6.3   Prior to the applicant being updated to shortlisted on the online recruitment system and being contacted for an \ninterview, the HRHelpdesk  will need to confirm with the Chair of the Selection Committee that the applicant has \ncleared the Previous E mployment at Massey University C heck.  \n \n6.4   Wherever the pre- employment check provides information that the applicant has had a previous questionable \nemployment history of significant concern, the applicant may only be shortlisted and interviewed if the hiring \nmanager has gained the prior approval of  the relevant manager with Authority Band A deleg ation (in \nconsultation with the Employment Relations Manager).  \n \n7.     Health Assessment Pre- Employment Check: \n \n7.1   Where a position requires a particular health capacity status for safe performance of duties, then the health \nrequirement is to be included in the job description prior to appointment.  \n \n7.2   The chair  of the selection committee will be responsible for checking that applicants have the required capacity \nto perform the duties for which they have applied i.e. before the Appointment Details Form is completed.  For \nexample,  colour perception for staff working with electrical systems may be a position requirement, which may \nrequire an applicant to undergo an eye examination or provide information from a registered health professional \nconfirming the job requirement is met . \n 7.3   Professional medical opinion should be sought if there is uncertainty as to an applicant’s capacity to safely \nundertake the health capacity requirement of the position.  Usually the self-disclosure and assessment on the \napplication form by the applicant will be sufficient  to trigger thi s process however new or further information may \ncome to light in the interview process .  A pro -forma letter of request for a health assessment by a registered \nmedical practitioner is available on the P&C  website.  This letter\n will require modifying to reflect the nature of the \njob requirements . \n \nConditional Offers subject to Health Check  \n \n7.4   If a health check is required and the health check is not yet received by the time the offer of employment is ready \nto be made in writing, then the offer of employment must be made expressly conditional on a satisfactory health \ncheck.  Please note that if a conditional offer of employment is made and accepted by an employee, they must \nnot commence duties before the information has been received and considered by Massey University to \nmeet the University standard .  This may af fect the commencement date contained within the offer of \nemployment.   In these circumstances, until the results of the health check are made available it is permissible for \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nProcedure for Pre- Employment Checks for Prospective \nAppointees to Massey University  – Page 8 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nthe manager to engage the person on a casual employment agreement basis  with appropriate limited duties \n(catering for the person’s health issue and/or the physical requirements of the job) .   \n \n8.     Safety Checking of Children’s Workers  under the Vulnerable Children Act 2014 : \n 8.1 The procedures for safety checks on children ’s workers  (including both “core” and “non- core” children’s workers) \nare set out in the V ulnerable Children Act 2014 and the Vulnerable Children (Requirements for Safety Checks of \nChildren’s Workers)  Regulations 2015.  The components of the process are:  \n \n• Identity verification  requires the individual to be sighted together with a primary and a secondary identity \ndocument. The primary identity document will usually be a passport\n1 or birth certificate, and the secondary \ndocument a New Zealand driver licence or New Zealand student ID card. If neither of these contains a photo, \nthen the applicant must provide a photo, authenticated by an identity referee (see regulation 5 in the \nVulnerable Children Regulations 2015).  \n \nAn alternative to this procedure is to use an approved electronic identity credential, such as RealMe (see: \nwww.realme.govt.nz) . \n \nIf the person’s name is different to their identity documents, they must provide sup porting name change \ndocuments.  \n Once the identity documents have been obtained, the specified organisation must also check their records to \nensure that this identity has not been claimed by anyone else within the organisation.  \n \n• New Zealand police vetting  must have been carried out by the specified organisation. The vetting does not \nneed to be repeated if the specified organisation has previously obtained a check within the last three years, \nor if the person is part of a professional organisation that carries out vetting at intervals of not less than three \nyears. It is suggested that this is not done until the student has been provisionally accepted into a course, to prevent multiple vetting of the same individual.  \n \nThe Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act 200 4 does not apply to specified offences for core children’s workers  \n \n• Reference check  At least one referee who is named by the applicant (and not related to the applicant) must \nbe contacted and asked whether the person poses a risk to the safety of children.  This could be done \nelectronically and could use questions such as:  \no In what capacity do you know the applicant?  \no How long have you known the applicant?  \no Do you have any concerns about the applicant’s suitability to work with children?  \no Would you be happy for  the applicant to take care of your children?  \no Are there any other comments you would like to make?  \no Are there any matters you would like to discuss by phone?  \n  \nIf the first referee raises concerns, then obtaining further references would seem appropriate.  \n \n• Interview , in person or otherwise, to inform the assessment of risk. Questions need to be appropriate for the \nwork history of each applicant.  Appropriate questions might be:  \no Is there any reason, including past events, you might be perceived to pose a risk to children?  \no Can you tell us about your experience working with children; throughout this experience have you \nencountered any particular challenges or difficulties; what wer e they and how did you respond to them?  \no Do you have any convictions that would preclude you from being engaged as a children’s worker?  \no Are there any investigations or other matters that may be disclosed in the safety checking process?  \n \n                                                 \n1 The Act is silent as to whether the passport should be current  \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nProcedure for Pre- Employment Checks for Prospective \nAppointees to Massey University  – Page 9 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n• Work history  over the previous 5 years should be documented. Memberships of or licensing/registration by \nrelevant professional organisations must be recorded. If such membership/registration exists, this must be \nconfirmed with at least one of the organisations named.  \n \n• A ris k assessment  of the applicant with respect to the safety of children must be undertaken, based on the \nmaterial from the bullet points above. It is an offence to employ a core worker convicted of offences specified \nin Schedule 2 of the Act. Otherwise, the V CA does not require specific actions in response to information \ngathered. The final decision about whether a person is safe to work with children remains the sole \nresponsibility of the specified organisation, who should act at all times in the best interes ts of children \naccessing the service.  \n \n8.2   All positions that are defined under the Vulnerable Children Act 2014 will have this requirement included in the \njob description.   \n \n8.3  The Chair of the Selection Committee shall be responsible for ensuring the full safety checking of the preferred \napplicant is completed and considered to meet the requirements of the Vulnerable Children Act 2014.   \n \nConditional Offers subject to the completion of the Safety Checking of Children’s Workers  \n 8.4   The normal University approval process for the preferred applicant can commence immediately. However if the \nSafety Checking of Children’s Workers  is not yet completed by the time the offer of employment is ready to be \nmade in writing, then the offer of employment must be made expressly conditional on the successful completion \nof this check. Pl ease note that if a conditional offer of employment is made, and accepted by an employee, they  \nwill be placed on limited duties with work that does not relate to ch ildren until  the information has been received \nand considered to meet the requirements of the Vulnerable Children Act 2014.  \n \n8.5 In the first year in which these procedures are in place, any appointments should be referred to the Employment \nRelations Team first before an offer is made to ensure all the checking as required h as been undertaken.   \n \n8.6   All children ’s workers must undergo a safety check every 3 years.  This periodic check must require the person \nto confirm whether since the last safety check whether their name has changed or is different from any original \ndocumentation supplied, a police vet unless they are register ed by a professional organisation that regularly \ncarries out police vetting every 3 years, check with the professional organisation their current registration or \nlicence and any information that may be relevant to an assessment of the person, a risk assess ment of the \nperson.  \n8.7  Managers undertaking safety checks of children’ s workers must provide all  information pertaining to the employee \nto People and Culture .   \nInformation Storage:  \n \nAll information on applicants will be held securely in accordance with the Privacy Act 1993.  \n \nAt the conclusion of the recruitment and selection process, all pre- employment information (including the outcome of \nthe check/s undertaken) must be provided to People and Culture .  This information must not be retained by the hiring  \nmanager/department.  \n \nConfidentiality:  \n The University is committed to maintaining confidentiality unless there are circumstances involving probable risk to the safety of any person/s, or where maintaining confidentiality would be unlawful, or when this would compromise \nprinciples of natural justice.  \nAudience:  \nAll staff involved in the recruitment and selection process  \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nProcedure for Pre- Employment Checks for Prospective \nAppointees to Massey University  – Page 10 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nRelevant legislation : \nCriminal Records (Clean Slate) Act 2004  \nOfficial Information Act 1982 \nPrivacy Act 1993  \nState Sector Act 1988  \nThe Human Rights Act 1993 \nHealth and Safety at Work Act 2015  \nThe Vulnerable Children Act 2014  \nVulnerable Children’s Regulations 2015  \n \nLegal compliance:  \nThe Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act 2004 binds the Crown (Section 5); therefore any checks requested by \nMassey University must comply with this legislation and abide by the criteria set out in this Act.  \nThe Official Information Act 1982 requires Massey University to comply with the requests and right of access to \npersonal information (sections 12 and 24) when seeking personal information on potential applicants.  \nThe Privacy Act 1993 requires Massey University to comply with its 12 Principles in regards to the collection of personal information, the manner in which it is collected and the storage and security of personal information. In \naddition, Massey University is required to provide the individual concerned with access to their personal information \nand the ability to request correction of information if necessary. The University must adhere to the limits on the use of \npersonal information collected in that the University may only collect personal information for the intended purposes of \nselection for appointment of the individual and this information cannot be used for any other purpose. It is essential \nthat the personal information gathered is checked before use to ensure the information is accurate, up to date, \ncomplete, relevant and not misleading. The personal information obtained shall not be kept for longer than it is \nrequired for the purposes for which the information may lawfully be used.  \nThe State Sector Act 1988 requires Massey University to maintain appropriate standards of integrity and conduct among employees. The pre -employment check process significantly strengthens the key control around employ ment \nrisk to guard against 1) misrepresentation during the recruitment process and 2) the risk of potential fraud within the \norganisation after the person is employed.  \nThe Human Rights Act 1993 prohibits Massey University from discriminating against any em ployee, job applicant or \ncontractor on the grounds of sex, marital status, religious belief, colour, race, ethnic or national origin, disability, age political opinion, employment status, family status or sexual orientation.  \nThe Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 requires practicable steps to be taken to prevent any action (or inaction) that \nmight cause harm to another person. This includes not placing a person in a position which is likely to cause injury to that person or others.\n This obligation makes it legitimate, in appropriate cases, to undertaken a pre- employment \nhealth check to ensure a person is not placed in a position which is likely to cause harm to that person or others.  \n The Vulnerable Children Act 2014 requires safety checking of people employ ed or engaged in work that involves \nworking with vulnerable children as part of a specified organisation providing regulated services in order to reduce the \nrisk of harm to children in support of the Government priorities for improving the wellbeing of vul nerable children.  \n \nThe Vulnerable Children (Requirements for Safety Checks of Children’s Workers) Regulations 2015 detail the various \ncomponents and specific requirements of the safety check required under the Vulnerable Children Act 2014.  \n \n \n \n \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nProcedure for Pre- Employment Checks for Prospective \nAppointees to Massey University  – Page 11 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nRelated Pro cedures  / documents:  \nPolicy on Pre- Employment Checks for Prospective Appointees   \nPolicy on Verification and Validation of Qualifications  \nProcedures on Verification and Validation of Qualifications  \nDelegations of Authority Document –  Human Resource Delegations   \nDocument Management Control:  \nPrepared by: Employment Relations Advisor  \nAuthorised by: DVC People and Culture  \nApproved by: SLT 19/09/153  \nDate issued: 10 May 2011  \nLast review: November  2018 \nNext review: June 2023  \n \n \n \n           \n \n      \n  \n                       \n                                                               Massey University Policy Guide  \n \nPROCEDURES FOR PRE-EMPLOYMENT CHECKS FOR PROSPECTIVE APPOINTEES  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nAPPENDIX A:  \n   Academic  General  Management  \nType of Check  Type of Applicant  When required  .i .ii .iii .i .ii .iii .i .ii .iii \nReferee Check  \nMinimum of current or previous employer  Preferred applicant  Pre Employment           \nQualifications  \n Relevant to Position  \n Trade  \n Professional Body  All applicants \nidentified for short \nlisting  Pre Employment           \nPrevious Employment at Massey University Check  \nLooking to ensure applicant hasn’t been subject to a significant and questionable previous \nemployment matter at Massey e.g. serious misconduct, dismissal, serious natured \nemployment investigation, defendant in a complaint process that has been upheld.   \n All applicants \nidentified for short \nlisting  Pre Employment           \nCredit History  \n Looking to identify whether the  applicant is under financial stress, whether they have \njudgements against them and whether they have been classed as bankrupt.  Preferred applicant  Pre Employment           \nCriminal and Traffic Convictions (Security) Checks  \n All convictions including traffic and fraud  \n Includes sentencing from court appearances  \n Doesn’t include Youth Court Charges or less serious convictions in line with the \nCriminal Records Act 2004  Preferred applicant  Pre Employment  \n          \nHealth Assessment Pre -employment Check  \nLooking to ensure applicant has the required particular health capacity for safe performance of duties of the position\n All applicants \nidentified for short \nlisting  Pre Employment  * * * * * * * * * \nSafety Checking of Children’s Workers under the Vulnerable Children Act 2014   \nAll children’s workers must undergo a periodic safety check every three years and this is a \nlegislative requirement.  All applicants \nidentified for short \nlisting  Pre Employment  + + + + + + + + + \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nProcedure for Pre- Employment Checks for Prospective \nAppointees to Massey University  – Page 13 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \nKey: Level of Verification  \n(i) Generalised population that doesn’t fit into category ii or iii  \n \n(ii) Positions with moral and/or ethical responsibility, areas where people are dealing with vulnerable individuals for example NSATS, Residential Assistants (RA’s), Counsellors, \nInternational student support, Staff who are involved in Student Placements, and positions where individuals may have responsibility for access for research purposes to \ninformation about vulnerable individuals, or sensitive data where the primary sources (e.g. medical data) have yet to be anonomysed, pseudoanonymised and/or keyed.  \nThis shall not apply automatically to academic positions simply by virtue of the inherent relationship which academic staff have w ith students, but may apply to academic \npositions which are determined by the College or School to involve risk of sufficient leve l to warrant use of the check.  \n (iii) Positions with a high level of accounting and financial responsibility and any role that has financial delegated authority to  approve expenditure.    In addition, positions who \nhave high -level access to University systems and  commercially sensitive information such as core IT systems or Treasury functions.  Examples of positions include Business \nManagers, Payroll, Finance and Asset Management, Office of Strategy, Staff with petty cash or ordering responsibility e.g. Re gistry O ffice Petty Cash Administrators, Finance \nAdministrators and external appointments to Heads of Institutes/Schools/Sections.  \n \nThis is not required for:  \n (a) an internal appointee, where the relevant Level 3 manager determines that the position does not involve a significant change in career track (which may include \nappointment to a Head of Institute/School/Section where the scope and scale of financial responsibility is bounded by establi shed robust checks and balances) and the \napplicant has an established record of good character in the University, being well known to the hiring manager through personal, direct, longstanding and current knowledge of the applicant.  \n(b)  one -off, short -term appointments of circa three months duration for which the immediac y of the need to make the appointment makes the check impractible; or the \nwork is  undertaken under ongoing, close supervision which the hiring manager is satisfied makes it improbable that serious w rong -doing would occur.  \n \n(*) The position description sho uld specify any specific health requirements, and applicant assessed on case by case basis by hiring manager relative to the position Job \nDescription   Examples are roles which have tasks that require distinction of colour, visual accommodation, noise or t one distinction, exposure to sensitising chemicals, \nallergy to animals, repetitive movements, strength, stamina, or physical dexterity.  \n \n(+)       All positions that are defined under the Vulnerable Children Act 2014 will have this requirement included in the job description. A children’s worker is defined under the \nAct as one who se work may or does involve regular or overnight contact with a child or children; and  this takes place without a parent or guardian of the child, or of each \nchild, being present. A “core” children’s worker is one whose work allows them to be the only children’s worker present with the child/ren or the worker with primary \nresponsibility for the child/ren in providing a regulated service.  \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Publications_Processes_and_Procedures_PDF_338_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Publications Processes and Procedures",
      "policy_type": "Procedure",
      "file_size": "338 KB",
      "creation_date": "2006-09-12T12:01:09",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220142003+13'00'",
      "review_date": "01/12/2004"
    },
    "content": "DRAFT \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nPublication \nProcesses & Procedures  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nPrepared by:      Frances Burnett, Web Se rvices, Information Technology Services \n      Patrick Sandbrook, Dire ctor National Student Relations \n   \nAuthorised by:    Adrienne Cleland, Registrar \nDate Issued:       March 2004 \nVersion: 1.0 \nReview Date:      01/12/2004 \n \n \n 1\nMassey University  Draft \nPublication Processes and Procedures   \n \n Purpose \nThe purpose of these processes and procedur es is to enact the Massey University \nPublication Policy. The policy is to make the information produced by Massey University \nabout its own activities and capabilities reliable and consis tent across all media and \nproduction processes and over time. \nProcesses and procedures \nThe existing processes and procedures for publication vary according to the historical \ndevelopment of each item and each medium and of the organisational structures within which \nthey have emerged. Current processes and procedures have not been consistently \ndocumented and do not necessarily align.  \n \nThis document aims to describe the generic  process and procedural elements which are \nessential to the purpose of enacting the Massey University Publication Policy, as follows: \n \n• Defines publication of official University in formation as a coherent form of activity. \n• Describes high-level processes in a way that  provides an integrating context for more \ndetailed descriptions of sub-processes and procedures. \n• Identifies roles and accountabilities for stakeholders in each phase of publication.   \n• Outlines the general means and standards by  which any University staff member, \nstudent or provider of contracted services can contribute information to an official Massey University publication.  \n• Ensures that all University publicatio ns adhere to the University’s branding \nguidelines.  \n• Ensures that all publicat ions align with the M āori Communications Strategy [draft] \nand Te Reo Policy [draft] \n• Provides guidelines for the technical, st ylistic and operational  elements of Massey \nUniversity’s publications. \n \nIt is recognised that additional detail is required to under stand the various publication \nprocesses and procedures in full.  Responsibility for defining such  detail will continue to rest \nwith the operational line managers involved. Li kewise, the resources and timelines involved \nin improving the processes and aligning them  appropriately with each other and with the \nUniversity’s policy and required standards rest  with the operational line managers involved. \n \nPublication Processes \nDefinitions of technical terms used in the de scriptions below are included in Appendix 1. \nA list of primary publications is included in Appendix 2. \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nMassey University  Draft \nPublication Processes and Procedures   \n \n ITS\nmanagedrepositories\nLocallymanagedrepositories(pc/server/etc)University networkInput processes:\n Integrated Paper Planning (IPP), timetable, fees information,\npolicy documents, regulations and procedures, format/brand\nmanagement , etc\nOutput processes\nInformation download processes, timelines/milestone dates,\nformat/brand management, etc\nwwwPrint production\nprocessesVideo/\naudio\nproductionCD ROM\nproductionCollege/campus/national shared service authors and editors\nAuthorised central repositories\n are the primary source of\ninformationMassey University Publication Process Management\nMarch 2004\nContent Managers\noversee policy\nand standardsContent Owners\nmanage input/output\nprocesses\n \n \n \n \n \nMassey University  Draft \nPublication Processes and Procedures   \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nAuthor/Editor Content ownerContent\nmanagerPolicy\ngroupTest\nenvironPublic\ndomain\nContent exists in\nauthorised central\nrepository or other\napproved form?\nComplies with\nstandards &\nauthorised data?Initiate new\npublication\nInitiate new\npublication/\nrevision of existing\npublicationDownload from\nauthorised\ncentral\nrepositories\nInput/update dataY\nInput /create new\ncontent\nTemplates/\nguidelines/brandDraft put in test/\nproofing\nenvironment\nSign off draft\n text/updatesN\nManage proofing\ncycle(s)Proof/correct/\namend content and\ntest functionality\nAuthorise to place\npublication in\nproduction\nenvironmentNMassey\nUniversity\nwebsite\nAction user\nfeedback\nMonitor and\nmaintainCreate output files\nand final format(s)Pass to printer/pre-\npress productionPublication in\nprint/other  format\nKeep lists of\npublications &\naccountable staffInitiate content\nreviews\nMonitor & report\npolicy complianceYFinal test of\nfunctionality\nProofing\ncomplete?\nNInitiate new\npublication/\nrevision of existing\npublicationMassey University Publication Process\nMS Visio\nCreated March 2004Y\n \nMassey University  Draft \nPublication Processes and Procedures   \n \n  \nWeb publication (Primary publications) \n \nInitiation:  \nThe process for generating or revising publications can be initiated by a number of different \npeople/functions:  \n- Content manager \n- Content owner \n- Content author \n- Automatic request for revi ew after a set period \n- Other stakeholder \nAll content should be reviewed on a regular  basis, as specified for each primary \npublication, for accuracy, timeliness and quality. \nMany of the primary publications are updat ed or re-issued annually or on other regular \ncycles. The timelines for these production cycles are negotiated with stakeholders in advance and must be adhered to, since they form part of the critic al paths for core \nprocesses such as student enrolment. \n   \nCreating content:  \nThe author must determine what type(s) of content is/are required. \n• If content is available in  one of the authorised centra l repositories, then the \nprimary source in that repository must be referenced. It is  important for the \nintegrity of the system that information is not duplicated. \n• If content already exists (either in the sa me medium or in a different medium) in \nan up-to-date and suitable form but is not  contained in an authorised central \nrepository, then the existing information shoul d be used. If the content exists but is \nout of date or needs to be amended, then the author should contact the owner of \nthe content to arrange for updates or amendm ents. It is important for the integrity \nof the system that informat ion is kept consistent bet ween different versions and \ndifferent media.  \n• If the content does not exist already, the aut hor should collect or  write information \nto create the new content, using the appropriate approved template. \n• If the content does not exist already in Te Reo M āori, the author may contact the \nMāori Communications Manager to develop appropriate content. \n \nCreating web pages:  \nThe author is responsible for adding links,  multimedia elements and navigation to the \ncontent. Pages should integrate with existing navigation structures. Web pages will also comply with approved HTML standards and these standards must be followed for \ndevelopment, including tables, nested tabl es and frames. Pages should normally be \ndesigned for version 4 or higher browsers. \nThe author uploads new content or pages to staging/test/development environment (not \navailable in live environment).  The cont ent owner reviews content/web pages in the \nstaging/test/development environment. \nIf there are changes to be made wh ile in the test environment, t he content owner will liaise \nwith the author about these changes. \nOnce the content owner approves the cont ent/web pages, then these are published to the \nproduction environment (made available on the Massey University website). \n \n \nMassey University  Draft \nPublication Processes and Procedures   \n \n Quality control:  \nThe web content manager will in itiate appropriate content and formatting checks and audits \nto be carried out on  the Massey University w ebsite by such staff as the manager of the \nweb content management system, M āori communications manager, brand manager and \nothers. Content owners will normally be advised  if content is found to be non-compliant \nwith the Massey University Publication Po licy and must take corrective action without \ndelay. The web content manager may remo ve non-compliant pages from the Massey \nUniversity website. This  authority may be exercised without pr ior notice if the nature of the \nnon-compliance is such as to place the university at serious risk, but normally a procedure \nand timeframe will be established with the content owner for suitable amendments to be \nmade. \nContent owners and authors are responsible  for understanding and applying appropriate \ntechnical standards, tone and style. They are also responsible for having in place robust \nprocedures for reviewing and updating content. \n \n \nPrint publication (Primary publications) \n \nInitiation:\nThe process for generating or revising public ations is delegated by the print content \nmanager, the Assistant Vice-Chancellor - Academ ic, to the content owners. The Academic \nManager is the content owner of the Massey University Calendar . The Director, Massey \nMarketing, is the content owner of the co re prospective student materials (eg. annual Short \nGuide, Prospectus, Accommodation and Family Guide ). The Manager, Student Information \nUnit, is the content owner of the core student  administrative publications (eg. approximately \n70 titles comprising the Introducing  course information booklets and student enrolment \nmaterials). The Director, Research Services, is the content owner of the core research \nadministrative materials (eg. information regar ding the Copyright Act, research information \nbooklet, contracting requirements, te mplates and forms to be found at the \nresearch.massey.ac.nz webpages. \n \nThe primary publications are updated and re-issued annually or on other regular cycles. \nThe timelines for these production cycles ar e negotiated with stakeholders in advance and \nmust be adhered to, since they form part of the critical paths for core processes such as \nstudent enrolment. \n   \nCreating content:  \nThe content manager is responsible for determining whether proposed content changes \nare matters of policy requiring formal approv al procedures and, if so, for ensuring that \nappropriate practices are followed. \nThe content manager is also responsible for monitoring copyright requirements and issues \narising under law or from formal agreement s, and where necessary for ensuring that \nappropriate practices are followed. \nThe content owner determines wh at types of content are r equired. Primary publications \ncomprise data elements drawn from the author ised central reposit ories and descriptive, \nexplanatory, interpretative and illustrative ma terial. Normally the publications adhere to \npurpose-built templates.  \nNormally the primary publications have a coor dinating editor located within the relevant \nnational shared service unit and authoring of content is shar ed by authors located in each \ncollege/campus/service unit. \nMassey University  Draft \nPublication Processes and Procedures   \n \n The content manager im plements the processes and time lines necessary to enable the \ncollege, campus and national service units to update or create content  in the authorised \ncentral repositories. At predeter mined dates the repositories are closed off for the relevant \npublication cycle and the data is up-load ed into the publication templates. \nWhere descriptive, explanatory, in terpretative and illustrative content already exists in an \nup to date and suitable form but is not contai ned in an authorised cen tral repository, then \nthe existing information is used. If the content  exists but is out of date or needs to be \namended, then the editor contacts the owners of the content to arrange for updates or \namendments.  \nWorking with the content manager, content owner or authors as appropriate, the M āori \ncommunications manager will be responsible for ensuring that publications align with the \nMāori communications Strategy [dra ft] and Te Reo Policy [draft]. \nIt is important for the integrity of the system that informati on is kept consistent between \ndifferent versions and different media.  \nIf the content does not exist already, the author s hould collect or write information to create \nthe new content, using the appropriate approved template.  \n \nCreating publications : \nMultiple proofing cycles occur as required, including proofing for correct use of Te Reo \nMāori and M āori images, following procedures and timelines negotiated between the \nstakeholders. \nIf there are changes to be made wh ile in the proofing stage, the content manager will liaise \nwith the content owner(s) and/or  the author(s) about these changes. \nOnce the content manager and owner(s) approve the final proof, it is passed to the printer, \nfollowing procedures, technical specifications  and timelines negotiated between the parties. \n \nQuality control:  \nThe print content manager and sta ff delegated responsibility for particular publications or \ntypes of publication, includ ing the brand manager and the M āori communications manager, \nwill conduct appropriate checks and audits on the Massey Univ ersity print, CD ROM, video \nand audio publications. Content owners will normally be advised if content is found to be \nnon-compliant with the Massey University P ublication Policy and must take corrective \naction without delay. \nContent owners and authors are responsible  for understanding and applying appropriate \ntechnical standards, tone and style. They are also responsible for having in place robust \nprocedures for reviewing and updating the content for which they are responsible. \n \nPrint publication (Secondary publications) \n \nSecondary publications include programme-s pecific or event-specific publications \nproduced by colleges, campuses, school s, departments, institutes, etc.  \n \nWhen regulatory or contractual information is included within a seco ndary publication it is \nvital that the information is drawn from the appropriate central authorised repository. \nRecreating material independently leads to the introduction of inconsistencies and errors. \n \nAll publications must adhere to the style gui delines available from Massey Marketing and \nthe Student Information Unit and the prin ciples and practices outlined in the M āori \nCommunications Strategy and Te Reo Policy. \n \nMassey University  Draft \nPublication Processes and Procedures   \n \n For more information about style guidelines, contact [email protected]\nFor publication templates, contact [email protected]   \n \n \nRoles and responsibilities \nPolicy Reference Group \n• Strategic External Relations Group ( SERG), chaired by the Deputy Vice-\nChancellor – Wellington, has responsibility for administration of  the Publication \nPolicy. Issues of compliance, policy in terpretation, maintenance of the policy, \nprocesses and procedures and promulgati on of the policy should be referred to \nSERG. Compliance with the policy will be monitored by SERG and reported to \nVCEC on a regular basis. \n• Implementation of the processes and proc edures that enact the publication policy \nis the responsibility of the operational  line managers to whom the internal \nstakeholders normally report. \n• The Director Information Technolog y and Organisational Development is \nresponsible for technical infrastructure. \n \nContent Managers \n• The role of Web Content Manager is currently assigned to the Deputy Vice-\nChancellor - Wellington. The Web Content Manager is responsible for the content \nof the University’s website. The Web Content Manager is also responsible for \nmedia advertising and materials promoting the University in whatever medium in \nwhich they occur. \n• The role of Print Content Manager is cu rrently assigned to the Assistant Vice-\nChancellor - Academic. The Print Content Manager is responsible for the University’s primary publications in pr int. The Print Content Manager also has \nresponsibility for primary publications which appear in CD ROM, video or audio \nformat. \n• Responsibility for secondary publications rests with the operat ional line managers. \n• Content managers maintain an up-to-date list of publications and of content owners. \n• Content managers authorise disclaimers and ot her such forms of wording for use \nin primary and secondary publications. \n• Content managers authorise production and release of specific publications, either in person or through a document ed process of delegation.  \n• Content managers may withhold or withdraw the right to publish or withdraw from \ncirculation any material whatsoever until such time as it complies with the \npublication policy.  Corrective action to ac hieve compliance is the responsibility of \nthe content owner in the first instance.  \n• Content managers ensure that appropriate po licies and standards are in place and \nadhered to by internal stakeholders.  \n• The Māori Communications Manager is responsible for ensuring that all \npublications in all media are aligned with the M āori Communications Strategy and \nTe Reo Policy, undertaking appropriate checks and audits on publications and \nreporting non-compliance to the content owner. \nMassey University  Draft \nPublication Processes and Procedures   \n \n •\n• st be contactable and res ponsive in case of an emergency. \nny member of staff or po stgraduate student who has permission to use University Content Owners  \n• An owner must be assigned for each content  item / web page / print publication.   \n• All content owners must be registered wi th the Content Manager.  Owners of web \npages are registered upon appl ication for hosting services and/or domain names. \nPrint publication owners must identify themselves to the content manager.  \n• The content / web page / print publicati on must be approved by the relevant \nowner(s) prior to publication. This aut horisation process will be audited.  \n• Accountability must be evident on each pr int publication, CD  ROM or web page. \nThe owner must be an authorised staff member of the University. \n• Once content is released into the public arena it is considered to be official Massey \nUniversity content  and must comply with the relevant Massey University policies.  \n• Content owners are responsible for the accuracy, timeliness and consistency of \ninformation under their control.  \n• The content owner is responsible for t he use of appropriate prose style in the \npresentation of information  \n• It is the responsibility of t he content owner to ensure t hat the content is presented \nin accordance with the Massey University Publication Policy and related \nguidelines. This includes using the corre ct templates for web documents, and \ncomplying with print publication guidelines. \n• It is the responsibility of t he content owner to ensure t hat the content is presented \nin accordance with the M āori Communications Strategy and Te Reo Policy and \nrelated guidelines. \n• Content must also comply with general Masse y University policy and with NZ law.   \n• It is the responsibility of t he content owner to ensure t hat metadata exist and are \noptimised for each content item where applicable. The content owner is responsible for regularly r\n• eviewing content in the public \narena. Outdated content must be updated, re moved or marked as having expired. \nA feedback mechanism (eg. an email address for feedback) must be supplied on   \neach website and owners must commit to an acceptable level of response on feedback. \nOwners mu\n \nA\nfacilities for such purposes may set up pe rsonal web pages. Permission to set up web \npages is granted by the Head of Institute/ School / D epartment or line manager (or \nnominee) for the person concerned. The follo wing statement indicating such approval \nmust be placed on the Home page; ” This web site is approved by [Name, title of \ncontent owner/manager, date]”. In publishing personal web pages on the University network, authors must ensure that they abi de by the policies as described in this \ndocument as well as general University poli cy and NZ law.  Personal web pages do not \nnecessarily reflect the views, policies or opinions of the University and must clearly \nindicate this by way of an authorised disclaimer statement.    \nTo register a new owner of web content, or  to register change of owner, submit the \nonline form at http://webmasters.massey.ac.nz/policy/register.htm   \nAuthors \nuthors create new content  and update existing content. • A\nMassey University  Draft \nPublication Processes and Procedures   \n \n • Authors are responsible for making sure that they link to, or draw from authorised \nprimary sources of content wherever it is possible to do so, in preference to \nreplicating such informat ion, creating new content or using secondary sources \n(such as static down-loads of data from primary sources).  New content should be \nconstructed in such a way that it can be easily re-used by others or in future \niterations. \n• Authors should test links in web document s regularly, ensuring that they are \ncurrent. \n• Authors are responsible for complying with accessibility, design and other guidelines as described by this document. \n• Authors must be registered with the content manager. \n• Authors are responsible for amending content upon request from the content \nowner or the content manager. \n• Authors must ensure that content is presented in a ccordance with the Massey \nUniversity Publication Policy  and related guidelines . This includes using the correct \ntemplates for web documents, and complyi ng with print publication guidelines. \n• Authors must ensure that the content is presented in accordance with the M āori \nCommunications Strategy and Te Reo Policy and related guidelines. \n• Authors must take appropriate steps to  ensure that an appr opriate standard of \nexpression as well as a high standard of accuracy is used in the presentation of \ninformation \n• A feedback mechanism must be provi ded on each website and authors must \ncommit to an acceptable level of response to feedback. \n• Authors must be contactable and res ponsive in case of an emergency. \n•Authors must create and maintain metadat a for each web content item   to enable \nindexing and searching. \n \nTo register a new editor of web content, or  to register change of editor, submit the \nonline form at http://webmasters.massey.ac.nz/policy/register.htm   \nContent sources  \n \nCore content for web and print public ation is stored on centrally managed \ninfrastructure. Authorised central re positories and other  centrally managed \ninfrastructure (such as web servers) ar e supported by ITS and backed up on a regular \nbasis. Content will be served from authoris ed central repositories and central Massey \nUniversity web servers or official publications.  \n \nAll publications must be constructed from (and web pages linked to) the information \ncontained in the authorised central repositor ies where applicable, since duplication of \nthe content introduces risks to the integrity of the information. The content manager \nhas the authority to decline or terminate publicat ion of material that places the primacy \nof the authorised central reposit ories at unnecessary risk.  \n \nA description of authorised central reposit ories is included in Appendix 3. \nStorage and technical  specifications  \n C\nontent owners and authors should use the University’s Document Management \nsystem to make documents available to an in ternal Massey audience. This refers to \nMassey University  Draft \nPublication Processes and Procedures   \n \n servers for any \nollege/Institute/School/D epartment web sites.  \n web servers maintained by \nolleges/Institutes/Schools/Departments.  These web sites should be mounted on documents in formats such as Microsoft Word, PDF, Excel etc. Documents in the \nDocument Management System can be referenced from the Content Management \nSystem via hyperlinks. This reduc es the duplication of documents. \n \nSpace can be allocated on central Massey web \nC\n \nWeb sites may also be hosted on\nC\nprofessionally maintained server s dedicated to WWW publishing. Any \nCollege/Institute/School/Departm ental web server carrying primary content must be \nmaintained and backed up by a formally des ignated administrator so that access to the \ninformation supplied on Web Pa ges by the server will be  consistently and reliably \navailable. The official Massey Universi ty website will only point to College/ \nInstitute/School/Department servers which co mply with the policy outlined in this \ndocument.   \nTo apply fo r hosting space on the central Massey web servers, go to http://its-\nintra.massey.ac.nz/infrastr ucture/webhosting/index.htm  and apply for the service \nonline. \n \nTo apply  for space on the IIS server, go to \nhttp://iismgr-dev.massey.ac.nz/iis_application1.asp  to apply online \n Content must be able to support macronisati on in whatever output m\nedium is being \nsed for text. Information on applications  that can support macronisation can be \nblicationu\nsourced through ITS. \n \nFile Types for web pu  \n number of different file types  can be used to convey cont ent. These include files with \nessing files and web pages \npment, including tables, \nested tables, and frames. As much as possi ble, pages should be designed to be read \nite should be in .g if or jpeg format. It is recommended that \nther file types, such as Office docum ents, be stored in t he Massey University \n \nickly as po ssible, preferably under 15 seconds. \nTherefore, it is impor tant to limit file sizes. The size of individual pages should not A\ntextual content, such as word proc\n The approved HTML 3.2 standar ds must be used for develo\nn\nby at least a version 4.0 browser. T he recommended HTML-gener ating application is \nMacromedia Dreamweaver.  \nImages for use on the web s\no\nDocument Management System. \nWeb pages should load as qu\nexceed 100k.  \n \nTemplates:  \nAll official Massey Universi ty web pages are required to use the approved templates \nle by ITS.  made availab\n \nMassey University  Draft \nPublication Processes and Procedures   \n \n ll official Massey University print pub lications are required to use the approved A\ntemplates, branding standards and style gui des available from Marketing and SIU. \n \nWeb templates can be downloaded from http://webmasters.massey.ac.nz      \nPublication standards \neb \navigation: \nW\n \nN  \nust be taken with the navigat ion properties of websites. This is an \n for the Massey \n• ain Massey University \n• und their collection \n• uld channel visitors to the appr opriate areas with  clear and logical \n• ternal websites should be used sparingly. It is recommended that \nDocumentation:Great care m\nimportant factor in the coherence of  the Massey University websites.  \n• Selected sites will be included in the global navigational  system\nwebsite(s) and made available in the approved templates. \nSecondary web sites must include a link back to the m\nhomepage. This should be designated by a link called ‘Home’. \nAll official Massey web sites must provid e clear navigation aro\nof pages. \nPages sho\nnavigation. \nLinks to ex\nexternal websites open in a new browser wi ndow to preserve the navigation of the \nMassey website. \n \n \n \n Websites should be docum• ented (current pages, updates and site file structure). \nd \n \ncc• Metadata should be used to record extended information about websites (e.g. \nn author, owner, date last reviewed, keywor ds, description etc). Content owners a\nauthors should test the effe ctiveness of metadata by using search engines to \ngauge the visibility of the website. \nessibility:A  \n \n Web acces• sibility refers to the ability of  web pages to be viewed in a variety of \n• \n  \nmages or other elements  \nt-impaired or colour-blind users  conditions, including those experienced by users with disabilities. Accessible web \ndocuments are those which successfully co mmunicate their information via:  \ntext-based browsers  \n-to-speech converters  • screen readers or text\n• various monitor resolutions and colour depths\n• various hardware and software platforms  \n• older browsers  \n• browsing environments configured to omit i\n• browsing by sigh\n \nAuthors should adhere to the web accessibilit y guidelin es as specified by the W3C at \nhttp://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/   \n \nMassey University  Draft \nPublication Processes and Procedures   \n \n You can test the accessibility of your website with the Bobby Scan at \nhttp://bobby.watchfire.com/bobby/html/en/index.jsp   \n \n \nLegal requirements:  \n All content should adhere to NZ law and the regulations and policies of Massey \n•\n• \n• \n  \n•\nUniversity.  \n Inconsistent, inaccurate and outdated in formation poses a legal risk for the \nUniversity. Content owners have the respons ibility to ensure that content in any \nMassey University publication is correct, consistent and timely. \nOwners of content are responsible for ensu ring that none of the content in Massey \nUniversity publications infringes copy right and/or current copyright agreements. \n• Massey University has a legal duty to ma intain the confidentiality of personal \ninformation relating to students and st aff, including names and addresses and \nphotographs taken for ID purposes. Pers onal information such as names and \nphotographs of students a nd staff should not be made accessible on the web or in \nany other form without obtaining audita ble prior permission from the individual \nconcerned.  \nIt is prohibited to include defamatory, objectionable or restricted material in a \nMassey University publication. Contraventi on of this prohibition will be treated by \nthe University as misconduct.  \nFor , use the Massey University Law guide information on New Zealand law\n \n \ndvertising \nvertising must be constructed from templates and formats made available by \n \nhird P\nrd party adver tising within its primary \n \nRel ed ments \nollowing Massey  University publications: \nE-mail and Internet Use Policy  \nA\n \nAll ad  \nMassey Marketing through the Massey University Design Studio.  External \nadvertising agencies must be instructed to obtain and adhere to these templates \nand formats.  The content manager has the authority to dec line or terminate \npublication of material that does not comply. \narty Advertising in University Publications T\n \nMassey University will not nor mally support thi\npublications (eg. banners on its web pages, advertisements in its course booklets, \nor as enclosures within information packs). \nRecognition of sponsors and partners may be incorporated in publications in the \nform of acknowledgements. ‘Recommended supplier’ information is for internal University use and is not for \ngeneral advertising to the public. \n Policies, Procedures and Docuat\n These include, but are not lim ited to, the f\n \nPublication Policy  \nMassey University  Draft \nPublication Processes and Procedures   \n \n gy Systems Policy \nture Policy \ntegy \nes \ngy [draft] \n Access to Informatio n Technolo\nData Network Policy \nResearch Use of Information Technology Infrastruc\nMāori @ Massey Stra\nMāori Communications Strategy [draft] \nTe Reo Policy [draft] \nCopyright agreements \nBrand Identity guidelin\nCommunications Strate\nStyle Guide [draft] \n \nMassey University  Draft \nPublication Processes and Procedures   \n \n  \nAppendix 1  \nDefinitions of terms used in this document \n \nAuthor \nPerson responsible for creating and/or maintaining content in a content management \nsystem, database, specific websit e, web page or print publication. \n \nAuthorised Central Repository \nAn authorised source of information about Ma ssey University or Massey services.  This \nis the primary (most accurate and authorised or  verified) form of the information held \nby the University. Information incorporat ed into publications or called up from web \npages should draw as directly as possi ble from the relevant repository.  \n \nContent Manager \nThese positions have over-arching respon sibility for ensuring that the Massey \nUniversity website and print pub lications comply with the Massey University Publication \nPolicy. The role of Web Content Manager is  currently assigned to the Deputy Vice-\nChancellor, Wellington. The role of Print Content Manager is currently assigned to the \nAssistant Vice-Chancellor - Academic. The Print Content Manager also has \nresponsibility for primary publications whic h appear in CD ROM, video or audio format. \n \nEditor \n An editor or co-ordinating editor has delegated responsibility for one or more \npublications which combine materials belongi ng to several content owners or created \nor manipulated by a number of authors. \n  \nGranularity  \nThe extent to which content consists of separate items (granules). The more content \nitems - or the greater the granularity - the more flexible  it is. For example, instead of \nputting all the information about a project in one content item, the content is divided so \nthat one item contains the introduction; another contains the project deliverables and \nso forth. These content items can then be put together to create a web page or a \npublication.  \n \nMetadata \nData about data. In the context of this  document, the term is used signify the \ninformation used to describe content items. Examples of metadata include a library \ncatalogue, which contains information about  publications. Metadata in a publication \ndescribes characteristics of the publication;  e.g. author, owner, date created, file type, \ncontent status, keywords and summary.  \n \nOptimised metadata \nThis refers to the quality of the metadat a stored for each content item. Clear and \naccurate descriptors are most likely to result successful searches (internal and external \nsearch engines) for web publications. \n \n \nMassey University  Draft \nPublication Processes and Procedures   \n \n Owner \nThe person responsible for the quality and functionality of webs ites web pages and \npublications they own. While the labour of  updating and maintaining the content can be \ndelegated, the ultimate responsibility fo r the quality and accuracy of the eventual \npublication rests with the owner. The ow ner is also responsible for ensuring \ncompliance with the Massey University Publication Policy .  \n \nPage \nA page or web page is a document readable via a web browser. It  may be more than \none printed page in length and may contain hyperlinks, multimedia and other web \nelements. \n \nWebsite / site \nA website is a collection of web pages owned by a department, college, service \ndepartment or individual. \n \nMassey University  Draft \nPublication Processes and Procedures   \n \n  \nAppendix 2 \n \nPrimary publications of Massey University \nas at February 2004 \n1. Web pages \n \nSite name (bold=main site/ non-bold=subsite)  Content Owner Levels Page count \n        \nADMIN TOP LEVEL SITES       \naboutmassey.massey.ac.nz   1 10 \nalbany.massey.ac.nz / auckland.massey.ac.nz   3 200 \nalumni.massey.ac.nz   2 15 \ncalendar.massey.ac.nz   3 323 \ncareers.massey.ac.nz   2 332 \ndepartments.massey.ac.nz   1 1 \ndirectory.massey.ac.nz   1 2 \nenrol.massey.ac.nz   2 23 \nevents.massey.ac.nz   2 9 \nextramural.massey.ac.nz   1 41 \nfees.massey.ac.nz   1 30 \nfoundation.massey.ac.nz   1 4 \nfuturestudents.massey.ac.nz   1 18 \ngraduation.massey.ac.nz   1 9 \nhrs.massey.ac.nz   1 10 \ninternational.massey.ac.nz   3 35 \nits.massey.ac.nz   3 250 \njobs.massey.ac.nz   1 5 \nliaison.massey.ac.nz   2 72 \nlibrary.massey.ac.nz   4 300 \nMassey University  Draft \nPublication Processes and Procedures   \n \n Site name (bold=main site/ non-bold=subsite)  Content Owner Levels Page count \nmasseynews.massey.ac.nz   6 5,100  \npalmerstonnorth.massey.ac.nz   1 14 \npolicyguide.massey.ac.nz   2 76 \nresearch.massey.ac.nz   1 20 \nstaff.massey.ac.nz   1 2 \nstudents.massey.ac.nz   1 15 \nstudent-services.massey.ac.nz   2 110 \nstudy.massey.ac.nz   1 50 \ntdu.massey.ac.nz   2 112 \nwebct.massey.ac.nz   2 2 \nwellington.massey.ac.nz   1 18 \nwww.massey.ac.nz/~muelc   2 30 \nwww.massey.ac.nz/~wwdis   2 30 \nwww.massey.ac.nz/~wwrec   2 14 \nwww.mymassey.com   4 4 \nTOTAL- ADMIN TOP LEVEL SITES     7,286  \n        \nACADEMIC TOP LEVEL SITES       \nbusiness.massey.ac.nz / commerce.massey.ac.nz   2 30 \nwww-accountancy.massey.ac.nz   2 257 \naviation.massey.ac.nz   3 34 \ngsb.massey.ac.nz   2 60 \necon.massey.ac.nz   2 278 \ncollege-of-business.massey.ac.nz/commerce   2 18 \ncommunication.massey.ac.nz   2 66 \nfinance-banking-property.massey.ac.nz   1 1 \nhrm.massey.ac.nz   2 40 \ninfosys.massey.ac.nz   2 860 \nmassey.ac.nz/~wwmansys   2 60 \nMassey University  Draft \nPublication Processes and Procedures   \n \n Site name (bold=main site/ non-bold=subsite)  Content Owner Levels Page count \nmassey.ac.nz/~wwwmib   3 200 \nmarketing.massey.ac.nz   2 12 \ncentre-banking-studies.massey.ac.nz   1 13 \ncbsd.massey.ac.nz   2 17 \nproperty-group.massey.ac.nz   1 19 \nsme-centre.massey.ac.nz   1 8 \nis-alt.massey.ac.nz   3 12 \nmanagement-enterprise-dev .massey.ac.nz   1 9 \nisrc.massey.ac.nz   1 14 \nTotal College of Business     2,008  \n        \ncreative.massey.ac.nz   4 65 \ncreative.massey.ac.nz/html/design/schoolofdesign   5   \ncreative.massey.ac.nz/html/fi nearts/schooloffinearts   2   \ncreative.massey.ac.nz/html/music/conservatoriumofmusic   2   \nTotal College of Design,  Fine Arts & Music     65 \n        \neducation.massey.ac.nz   4 1,514  \neducation.massey.ac.nz/ale   2   \neducation.massey.ac.nz/hhd   2   \neducation.massey.ac.nz/lt   2   \ntekupenga.massey.ac.nz   2 36 \neducation.massey.ac.nz/spse   2   \neducation.massey.ac.nz/tsme   2   \neducation.massey.ac.nz/ote   2   \neducation.massey.ac.nz/gse   2   \neducation.massey.ac.nz/ipder   3   \nkanukagrove.massey.ac.nz   1 7 \nnzplc.massey.ac.nz   1 7 \nMassey University  Draft \nPublication Processes and Procedures   \n \n Site name (bold=main site/ non-bold=subsite)  Content Owner Levels Page count \nTotal College of Education     1,564  \n    \ncohss.massey.ac.nz   2 1,080  \ndefence.massey.ac.nz    2 37 \nems.massey.ac.nz   3 8 \nhealthscience.massey.ac.nz   3 142 \nhpp.massey.ac.nz   2 135 \nlanguage.massey.ac.nz   2 59 \nMāorii.massey.ac.nz   2 170 \npublichealth.massey.ac.nz   2 513 \npep.massey.ac.nz   2 5 \npsychology.massey.ac.nz   2 218 \nsscs.massey.ac.nz   2 226 \nsspsw.massey.ac.nz   2 109 \nwww.shore.ac.nz   2 104 \nTotal College of Humani ties & Social Sciences      2,806  \n        \nsciences.massey.ac.nz   2 14 \nifnhh.massey.ac.nz    2 222 \nifs.massey.ac.nz   2 451 \niims.massey.ac.nz   2 250 \nwww-ist.massey.ac.nz   2 23 \nimbs.massey.ac.nz   2 212 \ninr.massey.ac.nz   2 19 \nite.massey.ac.nz   3 37 \nivabs.massey.ac.nz   3 210 \nTotal College of Sciences      1,438  \n        \nTOTAL - ACADEMIC TOP LEVEL SITES      7,881  \nMassey University  Draft \nPublication Processes and Procedures   \n \n Site name (bold=main site/ non-bold=subsite)  Content Owner Levels Page count \n        \nGRAND TOTAL TOP LEVEL SITES     15,167  \n \nMassey University  Draft \nPublication Processes and Procedures   \n \n 2. Printed publications \n \nStudent Information Unit Publications \n2004 \"Introducing\" Publications \nOwner Publication Name Code No. of pa ges\n    \nBusiness Business (Undergraduate) COB/Intro/04/01 52 \n Business (Professional Development Progs.) COB/Intro/04/02 48 \n Business ( Wgtn. Based Progs.) COB/Intro/04/03 16 \n Aviation  COB/Intro/04/04 12 \n Journalism (brochure) COB/Intro/04/05 6 \n    \nDesign, Fine Arts & Music Music DFAM/Intro/04/01 24 \n Design and Fine Arts DFAM/Intro/04/02 36 \n DFAM (Postgrad.) DFAM/Intro/04/03 16 \n Māorii Performing Arts (brochure) DFAM/Intro/04/04 6 \n    \nEducation Quals in Teaching COE/Intro/04/01 28 \n Quals in Education COE/Intro/04/02 36 \n Postgrad Quals in Education (brochure) COE/Intro/04/03 6 \n    \nHumanities & Social Sciences Humanities & Social Sc iences HSSIntro/04/01 48 \n Nursing & Midwifery HSS/Intro/04/02 12 \n Social Work HSS/Intro/04/03 8 \n Cont. Prof. Education in Health HSS/Intro/04/04 16 \n Resource & Environmental Plann ing (brochure) HSS/Intro/04/05 6 \n Defence Studies (brochure) HSS/Intro/04/06 6 \n    \nSciences Science  COS/Intro/04/01 88 \n Engineering & Technology COS/Intro/04/02 62 \nMassey University  Draft \nPublication Processes and Procedures   \n \n 2004 \"Introducing\" Publications Student Information Unit Publications \nOwner Publication Name Code No. of pa ges\n Vet Science and Equine Studies COS/Intro/04/03 12 \n Science (Prof. Development Progs.)  COS/Intro/04/04 28 \n Food and Nutrition COS/Intro//04/05 12 \n Animals (brochure) COS/Intro/04/06 6 \n Plants (brochure) COS/Intro/04/07 6 \n    \nGeneric Sport  Intro/04/Sport 28 \n Health Intro/04/Health 24 \n Information Technology Intro/04/IT 64 \n Massey Māorii Intro/04/Māorii 72 \n Land and the Environment Intro/04/Environ 84 \n    \n Total Books: 30  Total Pages: 868  \nMassey University  Draft \nPublication Processes and Procedures   \n \nStudent Information Unit Publications \n2004 Stage Three Enrolment Publications  \nOwner Publication Name Code Pages \nCollege of Business Bachelor of  Applied Economics COB/04/01 16 \n Bachelor of Business Inform ation, Graduate Diploma in \nBusiness Computing,NZ Dip Business , Dip Bus Computing COB/04/02 24 \n Bachelor of Business Stud ies, BBS/BSc, BA/BBS, Bachelor \nof Accounting, Bachelor of Business Information Systems, \nCert in Business Studies COB/03/03 52 \n Graduate Diploma of Business Studies, Graduate Dip in \nOSH, Graduate Diploma in J ournalism Graduate Diploma in \nApplied Journalism COB/04/04 40 \n Wellington Specific  Programmes: Diploma in Catering & Hospitality, Diploma in Tourisn & Travel, Legal Executive \nCert. COB/04/05 16 \n Bachelor of Aviation, Bachelor of Aviation Management, \nCertificate in Aviation, Cert ificate in Advanced Aviation COB/04/06 36 \n Bachelor of Sports Studies COB/04/07 16 \n    \nCollege of Science Bachelor  of Applied Science, GDip Rural Studies, DipAg, \nCertApplSc, CertHort, GCertSci&Tech COS/04/01 56 \n Bachelor of Engineering, Bachelor of Technology, GDip in \nTech, GCert in Sci&Tech, CertAgEng, DipDairyTech, \nDipMeatTech, GDipIndustProduction, GDipMeatIndOp, \nGDipQualAssurance, GDipPackTech, GDipTechEd COS/04/02 24 \n Bachelor of EngTech, B Construc tion (QS), DipArchTech, COS/04/03 24 \n \nMassey University  Draft \nPublication Processes and Procedures   \n \nStudent Information Unit Publications \n2004 Stage Three Enrolment Publications  \nOwner Publication Name Code Pages \nDipEle&TelEng, CertPC, GCertSci&Tech, GDipTech \n Bachelor of Information Science, Grad DipInfSc, \nGradDipAppStatistics,Grad Cert Sci & Tech COS/04/04 32 \n Bachelor of Medical Laboratory Science COS/04/05 12 \n Bachelor of Science, BSc/BA, BBS/BSc, GradDipSc, Science \nCert, Cert in Environmental Sc, GCert Sci&Tech COS/04/06 68 \n Bachelor of Veterinary Science, Dip Veterinary Nursing COS/04/07 20 \n    \nCollege of DFAM Design and Fine Arts : B.Design,B.Fine Arts,Grad Dip in \nDesign, Cert.in Art and Design,Bachelor of Performance Design,  CODFAM/04/01 48 \n Music: B.Music, B.Arts(Music), Foundation Cert in Jazz CODFAM/04/02 24 \n Dip Fashion Design & Technology, Dip Photography, \nFoundation Certificate in Design CODFAM/04/03 16 \n    \nCollege of Education Bachelor  of Ed, BEd(AdultEd),BSLT, \nGDipAdultLearning&Teach,  GDipEd, DipAdultEd, \nCertAdultEd, CertAttainment, Cert Completion, \nCertCounsTheory, CertEarly YearsEd, CertHumanDev, \nCertTeacherAides, CertTeachingEngAd dLanguage,CertUniPrep COE/04/01 52 \n Pre-service Education COE/04/02 128 \n Teacher Aides COE/04/03 20 \n \nMassey University  Draft \nPublication Processes and Procedures   \n \nStudent Information Unit Publications \n2004 Stage Three Enrolment Publications  \nOwner Publication Name Code Pages \n    \nCollege of Humanities & \nSocial Sciences Bachelor of Arts,Grad Dip Arts , Cert. in Arts,  Cert.in  Rehab \nStudies, Dip in Police Studies COHSS/04/01 76 \n Bachelor of Defence Studies COHSS/04/02 8 \n Bachelor of M āorii Visual Arts COHSS/04/03 12 \n Bachelor of Midwifery COHSS/04/04 8 \n Bachelor of Resource & Envi ronmental Planning COHSS/04/05 12 \n Bachelor of Social Work, Cert. In So cial & Community Work COHSS/04/06 12 \n Bachelor of Nursing COHSS/04/07 8 \n Bachelor of Health Science, Diploma in Exercise Science, \nCert Rehab Studies COHSS/04/08 32 \nMassey University English \nLanguage Centre (MUELC) Certificate in Introductory English for Speakers of Other Languages, Certificate in Intermediate English for Speakers \nof Other Languages, Certificate in Advanced English for \nSpeakers of Other Languages MUELC/04/01 8 \n    \nCollege of Business College of Busine ss – Postgraduate bookl et COB/PG/04 68 \nCollege of Design Fine Arts and Music College of Design Fine Ar ts and Music - Postgraduate \nbooklet CODFAM/PG/04 12 \nCollege of Education College of Education - Postgr aduate booklet COE/PG/04 152 \nCollege of Humanities and \nSocial Sciences College of Humanities and Social  Sciences -  Postgraduate \nbooklet COHSS/PG/04 156 \nCollege of Science College of Scienc e - Postgraduate booklet COS/PG/04 104 \n \nMassey University  Draft \nPublication Processes and Procedures   \n \nStudent Information Unit Publications \n2004 Stage Three Enrolment Publications  \nOwner Publication Name Code Pages \n    \nAcademic Manager \n(Academic Registry) Massey University Calendar  615 \n    \n Albany paper listing ALB/04/01 64 \n Wellington paper listing WGTN/04/01 52 \n Extramural Handbook EM 04/01 222 \n Extramural Handbook S2/S3 EM 04/02 102 \n Summer School Prospectus SS 04/01 30 \n    \n Total Books: 40  Total Pages: \n2,481 \n \n \n \nMassey University  Draft \nPublication Processes and Procedures   \n \n \n2004 Massey Marketing Publications  \nOwner Publication name No. of pages  \nMassey Marketing Short guide for future students 12 \n Family guide 14 \n Accommodation guide 44 \n Prospectus 60 \n Campus maps  \n   \n Total Books: 4 Total Pages: 130  \n  \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Restricted_Organisms_and_Biological_Products_Procedure_PDF_143_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Restricted Organisms and Biological Products Procedure PDF 143 KB",
      "policy_type": "Procedure",
      "file_size": "143 KB",
      "author": "Banner, Jodie",
      "creation_date": "2024-06-12T10:00:05",
      "modification_date": "D:20240612100554+12'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n \n \n \n \n   \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n \n ENTER PROCEDURE  \n \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n  RESTRICTED ORGANISMS AND BI OLOGICAL PRODUCTS   \n \nSection  University Services  \nContact  Director  Occupational Health & Safety, Wellbeing  \nLast Review  June  2023  \nNext Review  June  2026 \nApproval  Director Occupational Health & Safety, Wellbeing  \n \n \nPurpose:  \n \nTo provide for safe and responsible use of Restricted Organisms and Restricted Biological Products at \nMassey University in a way that protects the environment and the health and safety of people and \ncommunities and to meet our obligations under NZ and international legislation.  \n \n \nScope : \n \nThis procedure covers the use of Restricted Organisms and Restricted Biological Products undertaken \nin appropriate facilities at Massey University.  \n \n \nDefinitions : \n \nA restricted organism is defined as:  \n \na) Any organism regulated under the Biosecurity act 1993 or the HSNO Act 1996.  \ni. An Unwanted Organism or Regulated Pest (section 52 and 53 of the Biosecurity acts 1993)  \nii. A New Organism (section 2A of the HSNO act 1996).  \n \nA new organism is defined as:  \n \na) An organism that arrived in New Zealand after 29 July 1998.  \nb) An organism that became extinct before July 29, 1998.  \nc) An organism with approval to be in containment.  \nd) An organism with approval to be released with controls.  \ne) A qualifying organism approved for release with controls.  \nf) A genetically modified organism.  \ng) An organism that was present in New Zealand before 29 July 1998 in contravention of the \nAnimals Act 1967 or the Plants Act 1970 (except for the rabbit hemorrhagic disease virus (rabbit \ncalicivirus)).  \nh) A risk species.  \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nRestricted Organisms and Biological Products  – Page 2 \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University    \nA restricted Biological Product is defined as:  \n \nA non -viable product derived from an organism requiring direction to a Transitional Facility as under \ndirection of an Import Health Standard (Biosecurity Act 1993).  \n \nHSNO act Approval:  \n \nAlmost all work involving New Organisms requires an approval under the HSNO act from the \nEnvironmental Protection Authority (EPA), any approval gained will stipulate specific controls that must \nbe followed, it is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure all approval conditions are met.  \nThe importation (including storage and use) of New Organisms must only take place with an \nappropriate HSNO approval in place. Refer to the New Organisms at Massey site for more information, \nand applications for permission to work under existing broad HSNO approvals.  \n \nAdditional approvals/controls:  \n \nIn addition to HSNO approval from EPA, the importation or transfer of New Organisms is subject to \nMinistry of Primary Industries (MPI) authorisation under the Biosecurity act. Some New Organisms may \nalso be classified as regulated pests or unwanted organis ms under the Biosecurity act; work with these \norganisms also requires an unwanted organism’s approval from an MPI Chief Technical Officer (CTO) \nunder section 52 and 53 of the Act.  \n \nIn cases where restricted organisms or biological products are applied to plant or animals, specific \nHSNO act approval conditions for that work and/or an MPI CTO approval is also required.  \n \nAppropriate Facilities at Massey University:  \n \nMPI approved Transitional and Containment Facilities have been established at Massey University to \nensure teaching and research involving the import and development of new organisms (including \ngenetically modified organisms), and imported biological produc ts is undertaken in accordance with the \nBiosecurity Act 1993 and the HSNO Act 1996.  \n \nA Ministry of Primary Industries (MPI) approved Transitional and Containment Facility is a grouping of \nphysical containment laboratories and storage areas under a single management structure where work \nwith New Organisms and Restricted Biological Products is undertaken.  \n \nScope of Transitional and Containment Facilities at Massey University:  \n \nTransitional and Containment Facilities ensure compliance with (where applicable):  \n• The Biosecurity Act 1993  \n• The Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act 1996  \nMAF STANDARDS  \n• 154.02.17 Transitional Facilities for Biological Products  \n• 154.02.08 Transitional and Containment Facilities for Invertebrates  \n• 154.03.03 Containment Facilities for Vertebrate Laboratory Animals  \nMAF/ERMA STANDARDS  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nRestricted Organisms and Biological Products  – Page 3 \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University    \n• Facilities for Microorganisms and Cell Cultures: 2007a  \n• Containment Facilities for Plants: 2007  \nAS/NZS 2243.3 safety in laboratories Part 3 microbiological aspects and  containment facilities.  \n \nManagement Structure and Quality Management System:  \n \nTransitional and Containment facilities must have an MPI approved Operator charged with overall \nresponsibility for that Facility. The operator may delegate their responsibilities to a suitable person or \npersons to assist in management of the facility.  \n \nEach Transitional and Containment Facility has a Management structure and Quality Management \nSystem (QMS) approved by MPI, as well as documented procedures for use and movement of goods, \ntraining, physical and operational containment; these are documented in the Transitional and \nContainment Facility Manual for each of the respective Facilities.  \n \nThe Operator (or delegate) ensures that:  \n• An up -to-date manual is maintained for the Facility.  \n• The MPI Facility Inspector holds, or has access to, a current copy of the manual.  \n• All Users of the Facility have easy access to the current Containment Manual.  \n \n \nRelated documents :  \nRelevant Legislation  \n• Hazardous  Substances  and New Organisms  Act \n1996  \n• Biosecurity  Act 1993  \nRelated Procedures  \n• Genetically  Modified  Organisms  Procedures  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Qualifications_Procedure__Validation_and_Verification_of_University_Qualifications_of_Staff_PDF_125_.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Qualifications Procedure  Validation and Verification of University Qualifications of Staff PDF 125 ",
      "policy_type": "Procedure",
      "file_size": null,
      "author": "McMorran, Fiona",
      "creation_date": "2022-11-21T12:03:03",
      "modification_date": "D:20221121123351+13'00'"
    },
    "content": "© This Policy  is the property  of Massey  University    \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nPurpose:  Massey  University  Policy  Guide  \n \nThe purpose of these procedures is to outline the steps and responsibilities of staff, managers and People and \nCulture  (P&C) in ensuring compliance with the Policy on Verification and Validation of Qualifications.  \n \nThe procedures  are separated  out for prospective  staff and existing  staff.  \n \nEffective  Date  of Procedures:  \n \nThe requirement  for staff to  ensure their qualifications are verified  and/or validated  came into effect  1 January 2018.  \n \nIn relation to current staff employed before this date, the University has, since 1 January 2016, been checking \nqualifications and other credentials to ensure they are up to date and where possible original copies of the qualifying \ndocumentation  have  been  sighted  and verified/validated.  However,  not all staff will have  had their qualifications  verified \nand/or  validated  – this will particula rly be the case if  they were  employed  prior to 1 January  2016.  Staff employed  prior \nto this date may voluntarily  trigger a  request  to their manager  for their qualifications (or  other  credentials) to  be verified \nand validated in accordance with the policy and procedures.  \n \nProcedures:  \n \nProspective/New  Staff  \n \nIn accordance with the policy, there are two situations where qualifications (as defined in the policy) must be \nverified/validated prior to the person commencing employment with the University:  \n \na) Validated  and verified  – where  the qualification  purported  to be held by the new or prospective  employee  is – \ni. A tertiary  undergraduate  degree  or above;  and/or  \nii. Any qualification  that is legally  required  to perform  the job. \n \nb) Verified  only – for any other  qualification  purported  to be held by the new or prospective  employee.  \n \nIn addition  to validating  and/or  verifying  the qualification,  it is the responsibility  of the manager  engaged  in the \nrecruitment process to initiate this process through the recruitment system, both where – \n• the qualification  is a requirement  of the role (whether  it is essential  or desirable).  This is normally  only \nundertaken for the preferred candidate/s.  \n• the preferred candidate/s claim to have qualifications, whether  they are relevant to the person’s job or their \nemployment at Massey University.   \nPROCEDURES  FOR  VERIFICATION  AND  VALIDATION  OF QUALIFICATIONS  \nSection  People  & Culture  \nContact  Staff Recruitment  Manager  \nLast Review  October  2022 \nNext  Review  October  2025 \nApproval  SLT 18/02/20  \n \n© This Policy  is the property  of Massey  University    \n \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide \nVerification  and Validation  of Qualifications  \nProcedures  – Page 2 \n \n \nOnce  triggered  through  the recruitment  system,  the validation  process  is undertaken  centrally  by the Recruitment  Team \nin People and Culture . This includes – \n• where  qualifications  can be validated  internally,  for example  by using  graduate  databases  publicly  available  on \nNew Zealand (and some Australian) university websites, or  \n• where  New Zealand  registration  and practising  certificate  information  can be found  on public  registers (where \nthis is a legal requirement of the position as is the case with trades and healthcare professionals), or  \n• where  it is necessary  to outsource  the checks.  \n \nThere is a charge to the hiring managers budget qualification checking process undertaken on an outsourced basis. \nThis is like the current  internal  charge  for credit  checks.  Due to the costs,  it is preferable  that checks  are undertaken \ninternally wherever practicable.  \n \nEvidence  of Checking  \n \nIrrespective  of whether  the qualifications  are checked  internally  or through  the contracted  organisation,  the Recruitment \nTeam  will ensure  that proof  of the check/s  is included  in the appointment  documentation.  For appointments  processed \nthrough  the recruitment  system  and using  the external  company,  this will be via confirmation  from the external  company. \nThe official confirmation must be uploaded to the recruitment system to create a record of the check having been \nundertaken.  \n \nFor any validation undertaken internally, the evidence should be a screenshot or printout from the \ninstitution/organisation  website  that shows  the person’s  name,  the qualification/s  achieved,  and the date this/these  were \nobtained.  This evidence must be included along with the appointment documentation.  \n \nIn all cases, P&C will record the qualification and the level of verification/validation obtained against the employee’s \nrecord in the Human Resource Information System (HRIS).  The documentation relating to the check will be included \non the person’s file in P &C once they have accepted employment at Massey.  \n \nManagers may withdraw an offer of employment prior to its acceptance by the employee if the qualification/s of the \napplicant cannot be verified or validated in accordance  with the policy.  They should do so only following consultation \nwith an HR Advisor.  \n \nAn overview of the procedure for prospective/new staff, including who is responsible for which parts of the \nverification/validation process, is included in Appendix 1 . \n \nCurrent  Staff  \n \nIt is a requirement  that tertiary  qualifications  and legally  required  qualifications  are validated/verified  in accordance with \nthe policy.  It is optional for staff to initiate a request to record other (non-tertiary) qualifications but if staff do not wish \nto do this, the qualifications will  not form part of any official  record  of the University  and will not feature  in the University \nCalendar, staff expertise database etc.  \n \nThe process  outlined  below  will apply  to all existing  staff as at the commencement  of these  procedures.  \n \nCurrent staff will be able to trigger a request in MYHR to have any of their qualifications recorded in the HRIS.  This \napplies to any existing qualifications that the employee holds that are not yet recorded in the HRIS and any new \nqualifications the employee obtains during their employment at Massey University.  \n \nTo initiate any additions to the record held by HR, the staff member should trigger a request through MyHR t o their \nmanager.  Subject  to the manager’s approval, if the request  requires validation of any  qualifications this will be  sent to \nthe Recruitment Team.  For any other qualifications, e.g., non-tertiary qualifications which require verification only, the \nmana ger will need to sight the original certifying document and then attest to the authenticity of this through MyHR.  \n \n \n \n \nNon-Verification  or Validation  \n\n© This Policy  is the property  of Massey  University    \n \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide \nVerification  and Validation  of Qualifications  \nProcedures  – Page 3 \n \n \nWhere  there  is no verification  or validation  as required  of a qualification,  the University  will not support  the qualification \nbeing recorded within the HR System or in other official University documents.  \n \nAn overview  of the procedure  for current  staff,  including  who is responsible  for which  parts  of the verification/validation \nprocess, is included in Appendix 2 . \n \n \nRelated  Documents:  \n \nPolicy  and Procedures  on Pre-Employment  Checks  for Prospective  Appoint ees (to be updated ) \nPrivacy Policy  \n \nDocument  Management  Control:  \n \nPrepared  by: Staff Recruitment  Manager  \nAuthorised by:  The Deputy  Vice-Chancellor  – University Services  \nDate issued:  October 2017  \nLast review:  October  2022 \nNext review:  October  2025 \n\n© This Policy  is the property  of Massey  University    \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nAppendix  1 – Process  for New/Prospective  Staff Massey  University  Policy  Guide \nVerification  and Validation  of Qualifications  Procedures  – Page  4 \n \nType  of qualification  Level of \nverification/validation \nrequired  Undertaken  by Where/how  recorded  \nTertiary Qualifications (or other \ncredentials where these are a legal  \nrequirement  of the job e.g., a practising \ncertificate for a trade or a healthcare \nprofessional)  Validation  \n \nEquivalency  check  may \nbe required (check \ndefinition in policy)  Undertaken  centrally  by the Recruitment  Team  for \nall advertised and non -advertised positions:  \n \n \na. For all advertised positions and those offers \nfacilitated  through  the University’s  recruitment \nsystem, the checking service is facilitated \nthrough the system as part of the pre - \nemployment check process.  The check is \ninitiated by the hiring manager and involves \nthe Recruitment  Team  triggering  the use of an \nexternal contracted organisation to undertake \nthe check/s.  \n \nb. For all other  offers  (where  not adverti sed or not \nfacilitated through the recruitment system – or \nwhere the qualification/s can be validated in - \nhouse by checking the relevant University’s \ngraduate database), this is undertaken by the \nRecruitment Team on behalf of the hiring \nmanager.  The Recrui tment  Team  is responsible  for \nobtaining evidence of the validation:  \n \na. Where the external contracted \norganisation  is engaged  to undertake  the \ncheck/s, confirmation of validation is \nprovided by that organisation.  The \nRecruitment Team will ensure this is \nincluded  in the appointment  paperwork  in \nthe recruitment system.  A record is  \ncreated  in the HRIS  and in the employee’s \npersonal  file by the HR Administrator  once \nthe person commences work.  \n \nb. Confirmation of validation is obtained by \nthe Recruitment  Team  and supplied  to HR \nAdministration as part of the appointment \npaperwork.  A record is created in the \nHRIS and in the employee’s personal file \nby the HR Administrator once the person \ncommences work.  \nAll other \nqualifications/degrees/certificates  etc Verification  The hiring  manager  The hiring  manager  will include  evidence  of the \nverification in the appointment paperwork.  \n \nA record is created in the HRIS and in the \nemployee’s personal file by the HR \nAdministrator  once  the person  commences \nwork.  \n\n© This Policy  is the property  of Massey  University   SLT \n \n \n \nAppendix  2 – Process  for Current  Staff \n \nNB: Existing  staff will be reminded  periodically  to update  their personal  details  in MyHR,  including  their \nqualifications and other credentials.  \n \nType  of qualification  Level of \nverification/validation  \nrequired  Undertaken  by Where/how \nrecorded  \nTertiary Qualifications (or other \ncredentials where these are a \nlegal requirement  of the job e.g., \na practising  certificate  for a trade \nor a healthcare professional)  Validation  \n \nEquivalency  check \nmay be required \n(check  definition  in \npolicy)  Undertaken \ncentrally by the \nRecruitment Team \nfollowing a request \nby the staff member \nin MyHR.  Recorded as \nvalidated or not \nvalidated (in \ncases where \nrecord  of learning \nis unable to be \nconfirmed) \nagainst the \nemployee’s \nrecord in the \nHRIS by the HR \nAdministrator.  \n \nThe HR \nAdministrator  will \nalso ensure the \ndetails are filed \non the \nemployee’s \npersonal file in \nHR. \nAll other \nqualifications/degrees/certifica tes \netc Verification  By the individual’s \nmanager triggered \nthrough a request \nby the staff member \nvia MyHR,  updating \nMy Details.  Recorded as \nverified against \nthe individual’s \nrecord in MyHR \nby the \nindividual’s \nmanager (the \nactual records \nsit within the \nHRIS  but can be \nviewed in \nMyHR).  \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Register_of_Compliance_Obligations_PDF_113_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Register of Compliance Obligations",
      "policy_type": "Unknown",
      "file_size": "113 KB",
      "creation_date": "2012-06-08T13:03:05",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220141511+13'00'"
    },
    "content": "Register of Compliance  Obligations  ‐ 2012 \n \nCompliance  risk rating = high, medium, low, in accordance  with the University   \nREGISTER  OF COMPLIANCE  OBLIGATIONS  ‐ 2012 \nCompliance  Issue or Regulatory  \nrequirement  Level 3 \noversight  Office responsible  for \nensuring compliance  Compliance  achieved by:   Assurance  is obtained by: Training/resources  \navailable Compliance  Risk \nRating \nSTAFF, WORKPLACE  RELATIONS  AND SAFETY \nEmployment  Relations  Act 2000 AVC People and \nOrganisational  \nDevelopment  Employment  Relations  \nManager  Equal Employment  Opportunities  \nPolicy \nHR Policies and procedures  \n(various) \nHR Delegations  \nDocumented  processes  \n(restructuring/redundancy,  \nRecruitment,  disciplinary  etc) \nEmployment  Agreements  (various) \nPRP Policy and Process Monthly ER report to ER \nManager \nHR reporting  to Council (6 \nmonthly) \nReport extent of compliance  \nto EEO in Annual Report \n HR Helpdesk  \nHR website \nTermination  checklist for \nManagers  \nInduction  checklist for \nManagers  \nHR Advisory Services  \nEqual Pay Act 1972 AVC People and \nOrganisational  \nDevelopment  Manager Payroll  Payroll processes   HR reporting  to Council (6 \nmonthly) \n HR website   \nHuman Rights Act 1993 AVC People and \nOrganisational  \nDevelopment  \n(staff) \n \nAVC Research \n(Staff research)  Employment  Relations  \nManager (staff) \n \n \nDirector, Research \nEthics \n Policy on staff Conduct \nRetirement  Policy \n \n \nCode of Practice for research \ninvolving human participants  \n Hr Reporting  to Council (6 \nmonthly) \n \n \nRegional Human Ethics \nCommittee  process and \nreporting  \n HR website \n  \n \nResearch Ethics training   \nHealth and Safety in  \nEmployment  Act 1992 AVC People and \nOrganisational  \nDevelopment  Health and Safety \nManager Health and Safety Policy and \nprocedures  \nContractors  Health and Safety \nPolicy \nMaintaining  Hazard Registers  \nHealth and Safety Induction   \nEmergency  Management  Strategic \nFramework  and Policy Serious Harm incidents to \nDept of Labour \nAnnual Health and Safety  self \nreview \nHealth and Safety Regional \nCommittee  reporting  \nInternal reporting  of \nAccidents/Incidents  \nAnnual H&S Report to Health and Safety Training \nH&S website \nComprehensive  First Aid \nTraining \nProvision  of personal \nprotective  equipment  \nEmergency  Management  \nTraining  \nRegister of Compliance  Obligations  ‐ 2012 \n \nCompliance  risk rating = high, medium, low, in accordance  with the University  VC/Council\nMonitoring  of Staff Health \nExternal Health and Safety \nAudit by ACC (every 2 yrs) \nSector benchmarking  \nHolidays Act 2003 AVC People and \nOrganisational  \nDevelopment  AVC People and \nOrganisational  \nDevelopment  \n Leave Policy \nLeave Regulations  \nEmployment  Agreements  \nMaintenance  of Holiday and Leave \nrecord for each employee  Leave and  Ancillary \nAppointment  Committee  \nprocess \nLeave Management  System \nreports HR Website – leave \ninformation  \nMyMassey  Leave module  \nIncome Tax Act 2004/Income  Tax Act \n2007/Tax  Administration  Act 1994    AVC People and \nOrganisational  \nDevelopment  Payroll ManagerAccurate payment  to IRD  \nMaintenance  of wages, time and \nIncome Tax records for each \nemployee  External Audit \nMonthly schedule to IRD \n(IR348) \nInternal Audit Tax Manual \nTax Advisory Services  \nInjury Prevention,  Rehabilitation  and \nCompensation  Act 2001     AVC People and \nOrganisational  \nDevelopment  Health and Safety \nManager,  ACC \ncoordinator  Injury Prevention  and \nRehabilitation  Policy \nACC Accreditation  Agreement  \nAccurate processing  of ACC claims Reporting  to ACC \nHealth and Safety Regional \nCommittee  processes  \nAnnual H&S Report to \nVC/Council  H&S website   \nMinimum  Wage Act 1983 & \nRegulations  AVC People and \nOrganisational  \nDevelopment  Payroll ManagerHR Remuneration  strategy \nHR recruitment   processes  \nEmployment  Agreements  \nPayroll processes  Payroll reporting  and \nmanagement  review Employment  Agreements   \nParental Leave and Employment  \nProtection  Act 1987 AVC People and \nOrganisational  \nDevelopment  Employment  Relations  \nManager Leave Policy \nEmployment  Agreements  \nApproved  Leave processes  HR reporting  to Council (6 \nmonthly) \n HR Website   \nSmoke‐Free Environments  Act 1990 AVC People and \nOrganisational  \nDevelopment  Health and Safety \nManager Smoke Free Policy  Health and Safety Regional \nCommittee  process \nH&S annual report to \nVC/Council  H&S Website   \nWages Protection  Act 1983 AVC People and \nOrganisational  \nDevelopment  Payroll ManagerCorrect authorisation  of \ndeductions  for staff salaries Payroll reporting   and internal \nreview Payroll procedures    \nRegister of Compliance  Obligations  ‐ 2012 \n \nCompliance  risk rating = high, medium, low, in accordance  with the University   \nACADEMIA, TEACHING & LEARNING, RESEARCH  \nCompliance  Issue or Regulatory  \nrequirement  Level 3 \noversight  Office responsible  for \nensuring compliance  Compliance  achieved by:   Assurance  is obtained by: Training/resources  \navailable Compliance  Risk \nRating \nAnimal Welfare Act 1999  AVC Research and \nEnterprise  Ethics Office \n Code of Ethical Conduct for the Use \nof Live Animals for Teaching and \nResearch  \nEthical farm practices Animal Ethics Committee  \n University  Research \nCommittee  oversight  \n ‐ \n \nHazardous  Substances  and New \nOrganisms  Act 1996 AVC People & \nOrganisational  \nDevelopment  \n Health and Safety \nManager Code of Practice for  ss 33 Exempt \nLabs Compliance  \nRadiation  Safety Plan \nERMA regulations  Self review and management  \nreporting  \nRadiation  Safety Committee  \noversight  \nExternal audit (ERMA/MAF)  \n Genetic Technology  \nCommittee  oversight  and \nreporting  H&S website \nLaboratory  Safety training   \nPatents Act 1993  AVC Research and \nEnterprise  Director \nCommericalisation   Intellectual  Property Policy \nResearch and Consultancy  \nContracts  Commercial  Office processes  \nand reporting  \nContract management   and \nreview processes  ‐   \nTrade Marks Act 2002  AVC Research and \nEnterprise  Director‐ \nCommercialisation  Intellectual  Property Policy \nResearch and Consultancy  \nContracts  Commercial  Office processes  \nand reporting  \nContract management  and \nreview processes  ‐   \nVeterinarians  Act 1994 / Veterinarians  \nAct 2005 PVC College of \nSciences HOD, Institute of \nVeterinary,  Animal and \nBiomedical  Sciences Departmental  procedures    unknown  ‐    \nAgricultural  Compounds  and \nVeterinary  Medicines  Act 1997 PVC College of \nSciences HOD, Institute of \nVeterinary,  Animal and \nBiomedical  Sciences Departmental  procedures   unknown  ‐    \nDesigns Act 1953  AVC Research and \nEnterprise  Director \nCommercialisation  Intellectual  Property Policy \nResearch and Consultancy  \nContracts  Commercial  Office processes  \nand reporting  \nContract management  and \nreview processes  ‐   \nRegister of Compliance  Obligations  ‐ 2012 \n \nCompliance  risk rating = high, medium, low, in accordance  with the University  NZVCC Agreements   Vice‐Chancellor   AVC Academic  and \nInternational  Academic  Audit every 5 yrs \nCUAP Process \nGraduating  year Review NZ Qualifications  Register \nGraduate  Destinations  / \nOutcomes  survey \nSelf review prior to Academic  \nAudit \nProgress report for Academic  \nAudit (1 year post audit) \nAcademic  Audit report ‐   \nRegister of Compliance  Obligations  ‐ 2012 \n \nCompliance  risk rating = high, medium, low, in accordance  with the University   \nSTUDENT WELFARE \nCompliance  Issue or Regulatory  \nrequirement  Level 3 \noversight  Office responsible  for \nensuring compliance  Compliance  achieved by:   Assurance  is obtained by: Training/resources  \navailable Compliance  \nRisk Rating \nNew Zealand Code of Practice for the \nPastoral Care of International  Students AVC Academic  & \nInternational  Director, International   Code of Practice for Pastoral Care \nof International  Students annually \nNZUAA external audit against Code Annual self assessment  against \ncode \nExternal Audit report NZUAA ‐   \nHealth Information  Privacy Code 1994  AVC and \nUniversity  \nRegistrar \n Campus Registrars  \n \n Privacy Policy and Procedures,  to \nprotect the privacy  of student \nhealth records, and staff health \nrecords Management  self‐review ‐    \nHuman Rights Act 1993  AVC People and \nOrganisational  \nDevelopment  \n \nAVC and \nUniversity  \nRegistrar \n Employment  Relations  \nManager \n \n \nCampus Registrars  \n   Policy on Staff C onduct \n  \n \nCode of student Conduct ‐  ‐ \n \nFederal Aid Regulations   AVC Academic  & \nInternational  Director, International   Recertification  of Programme  \nParticipation  Agreement  (PPA) \n(every 6 yrs) \nAnnual FSA Compliance  Audit and \nfinancial statement  audit \n Compliance  Audit report \ncompiled  by Grant Thornton  \n ‐   \nRegister of Compliance  Obligations  ‐ 2012 \n \nCompliance  risk rating = high, medium, low, in accordance  with the University   \nGOVERNANCE AND CENTRAL SERVICES \nCompliance  Issue or Regulatory  \nrequirement  Level 3 oversight  Office responsible  \nfor ensuring \ncompliance  Compliance  achieved by:   Assurance  is obtained by:  Training/resources  \navailable Compliance  \nRisk Rating \nBuilding Act 2004  AVC Finance, \nStrategy and IT Facilities Director(s)   Meeting all obligations  of the \nBuilding Act, and associated  Code \nand regulations  (multiple \nobligations).  \nAsset Management  Plans, and \nCampus redevelopment  plans ‐Campus Management  \nbusiness processes,  and \nreporting.  ‐   \nCommerce  Act 1986  AVC Finance, \nStrategy and IT \nCommercial  Director, Finance and \nAsset Management  Fee Committee  processes   External Audit (Audit NZ) ‐    \nCompanies  Act 1993  AVC Finance, \nStrategy and IT Director, Finance and \nAsset Management  Commercial  Office processes  and \nreporting  External Audit (Audit NZ) ‐    \nCrown Entities Act 2004  AVC Finance, \nStrategy and IT Director, Finance and \nAsset Management  Senior management  oversight  \n External Audit (Audit NZ) ‐    \nEducation  Act 1989   Vice Chancellor   Various Managers   Provision  of information  to TEC \n(SDR etc) \nExternal Audit on TEC requirements  \nInternal self‐review against TEC \nLearner Enrolment  Requirements  \nAffixing University  Seal \nConflicts of Commitment  and \nInterest Policy \n External Audit (Audit NZ) \nSDR produced  by OSM \nReport from self‐review \nLearner Enrolment  Processes  \nto Registrar annually \nAnnual report to Council on \ndocuments  signed under Seal \nConflicts of Interest Reporting  \nWritten Charter of Goals and \npurposes \nContract Management  and \nReview processes  for academic  \nprogrammes  and/or \noutsourcing  Delegation  Statute and \nDelegations  Document   \nElectronic  Transactions  Act 2002  AVC & University  \nRegistrar Director ‐ NSR  Enrolment  regulations  and \nprocedures  Management  self review ‐    \nEstate and Gift Duties Act 1968  AVC Finance, \nStrategy and IT Director ‐MU \nFoundation  Finance policies and procedures   External Audit (audit NZ)   ‐    \nRegister of Compliance  Obligations  ‐ 2012 \n \nCompliance  risk rating = high, medium, low, in accordance  with the University  Financial Reporting  Act 1993  AVC Finance, \nStrategy and IT Director, Finance and \nAsset Management  Financial Policies and procedures   External Audit (Audit NZ)   ‐    \nFire Safety and Evacuation  of Building \nRegulations  1992 AVC and University  \nRegistrar Facilities Director(s)   Fire evacuation  and testing of fire \nprevention  and suppression  \ncontrols Campus Management  business \nprocesses  and reporting  Building warden training \n Training in use of breathing  \napparatus   \nLocal Authorities  Act 1968  AVC & University  \nRegistrar Council Secretariat   Conflict of Commitment  and \nInterest Policy \n Disclosure  processes  \nExternal Audit (Audit NZ) ‐   \nPersonal Property Securities  Act 1999 AVC Finance, \nStrategy and IT Director, Finance and \nAsset Management  ‐  ‐  ‐   \nProtected  Disclosures  Act 2000  AVC and University  \nRegistrar Risk Manager  Protected  Disclosure  Policy and \nProcedure,  and mechanisms  for \ndisclosure  \n \nFraud and Corruption  Control Plan External Audit (Audit NZ)  Fraud Awareness  Training \n Risk Management  website \nAnnual advisory to all staff  \nPublic Finance Act 1989  AVC Finance, \nStrategy ahd bIT Director, Finance and \nAsset Management  Annual Report  External Audit (Audit NZ) ‐    \nPublic Records Act 2005  AVC & University  \nRegistrar Records Manager  Records Management  Policy and \nProcedures  Self‐review of records \nmanagement  against best \npractice \nArchives NZ audit (from 2012) Records Management  training \nRecords Management  website  \nResource  Management  Act 1991  AVC Finance, \nStrategy and IT Facilities Director(s)  ‐   Campus compliance  \nmanagement  ‐   \nState Sector Act 1989  AVC & University  \nRegistrar People and Org \nDevelopment  Council Manual  Self review  Council induction    \nRegister of Compliance  Obligations  ‐ 2012 \n \nCompliance  risk rating = high, medium, low, in accordance  with the University   \nAPPLICABLE ALL AREAS      \nCompliance  Issue or Regulatory  \nrequirement  Level 3 oversight  Office responsible  \nfor ensuring \ncompliance  Compliance  achieved by:   Assurance  is obtained by:  Training/resources  \navailable Compliance  \nRisk Rating \nFair Trading Act 1986  AVC & University  \nRegistrar All SLT  Publications  Policy  \nPublication  Processes  and  \nProcedures  Management  self review  -  \nPrivacy Act 1993  AVC & University  \nRegistrar Risk Manager  Privacy Policy and Procedures  \nControl access to Massey networks  \nActive Directory  Domain Policy \nPassword  auditing \nElectronic  Password  Policy \nData Network policy and \nProcedures  Monitoring  of wireless networks  \nActivity monitoring  \nPrivacy Incident reporting  \n Managers  Privacy Guidelines  \nand resources  \n \nPrivacy training  \nConsumer  Guarantees  Act 1993  AVC & University  \nRegistrar All SLT ‐   ‐   -  \nCopyright  Act 1994 (and \nAmendments)  AVC Academic  and \nInternational  \nAVC Finance, \nStrategy and IT CADeL \nITS Copyright  Expert Group \nmembership  (NZVCC) \nUse of Copyright  Material for \nEducational  Purposes Policy \nPeriodic assessments  and audits of \nsoftware use to identify piracy \nHardware  and Software Policy \nPeer to Peer Policy Screen rights Survey \nNZVCC Copyright  Expert Group \noversight  \nAnnual review of ITS Contracts  \nand software licences \nSampling Surveys Copyright website \n \nCopyright Advisory services   \nContracts  (Privity) Act 1982 / \nContracts  Enforcement  Act 1956 / \nIllegal Contracts  Act 1970  AVC Research and \nEnterprise  Research Management  \nServices Contract \nTeam Leader Creation of Contracts  Policy \nDelegations  Document  \n Research and Consultancy  \nContracts  Policy \nContract management  and \nreview processes  Contract management training  \n \nRegister of Compliance  Obligations  ‐ 2012 \n \nCompliance  risk rating = high, medium, low, in accordance  with the University  Notes to Appendix  Four \n1. Legislation  not included in the obligations  register: \n \nChartered  Professional  Engineers  of New Zealand Act 2002:  \nThis is specific to one programme  offered at Massey. Accreditation  of the Engineering  programme  will ensure \ncontinued  compliance  with this legislation.  Monitoring  compliance  is a departmental  responsibility.  \n \nCivil Aviation Act 1990 and Civil Aviation Rules : \nThis is specific to one programme  offered at Massey. Accreditation  of the Aviation programme  will ensure \ncontinued  compliance  with this legislation.  Monitoring  compliance  is a departmental  responsibility  \n \n Health Practitioners  Competence  Assurance  Act 2004: \nThis is specific to several Health related programmes  offered at Massey. Accreditation  of these individual  \nprogrammes  will ensure continued  compliance  with this legislation.  Compliance  to be managed  through \nindividual  Schools (psychology  etc). \n     \nCriminal Records (Clean Slate) Act 2004: This risk associated  with a compliance  failure under this legislation  is \ndeemed to be very low. Any compliance  activity undertaken  with this legislation  is considered  ‘business as \nusual’ process with People and Organisational  Development.  \n \nKiwiSaver  Act 2006: This risk associated  with a compliance  failure under this legislation  is deemed to be very \nlow. Any compliance  activity undertaken  with this legislation  is considered  ‘business as usual’ process with \nPeople and Organisational  Development.  \n \nSale of Liquor Act 1989: Compliance  is responsibility  of Campus Registrars.  \n \n \nRegister of Compliance  Obligations  ‐ 2012 \n \nCompliance  risk rating = high, medium, low, in accordance  with the University   \n2. List of legislation  Contained  in the Legal Compliance  Application  used by Massey University,  and \nsupplied and maintained  by RussellMcVeagh  \n \n \nAnimal Welfare Act 1999     \nBuilding Act 2004     \nCharities Act 2005     \nChartered  Professional  Engineers  of New Zealand Act 2002     \nCivil Aviation Act 1990 and Civil Aviation Rules     \nCommerce  Act 1986     \nCompanies  Act 1993     \nConsumer  Guarantees  Act 1993     \nCopyright  Act 1994     \nCriminal Records (Clean Slate) Act 2004 \nCrown Entities Act 2004     \nDesigns Act 1953     \nEducation  Act 1989     \nElectronic  Transactions  Act 2002     \nEmployment  Relations  Act 2000     \nEqual Pay Act 1972     \nEstate and Gift Duties Act 1968     \nFair Trading Act 1986     \nFinancial Reporting  Act 1993     \nFire Safety and Evacuation  of Building Regulations  1992     \nHazardous  Substances  and New Organisms  Act 1996     \nHealth & Safety in Employment  Act 1992 \nHealth Information  Privacy Code 1994 \nHealth Practitioners  Competence  Assurance  Act 2004     \nHolidays Act 2003     \nHuman Rights Act 1993     \nIncome Tax Act 2004/Income  Tax Act 2007/Tax  Administration  Act 1994    \nInjury Prevention,  Rehabilitation  and Compensation  Act 2001     \nKiwiSaver  Act 2006    \nRegister of Compliance  Obligations  ‐ 2012 \n \nCompliance  risk rating = high, medium, low, in accordance  with the University  Local Authorities  Act 1968     \nMinimum  Wage Act 1983 & Regulations  \nNew Zealand Code of Practice for the Pastoral Care of International  Students \nOfficial Information  Act 1982     \nParental Leave and Employment  Protection  Act 1987     \nPatents Act 1953     \nPersonal Property Securities  Act 1999 \nPrivacy Act 1993     \nProtected  Disclosures  Act 2000     \nPublic Finance Act 1989     \nPublic Records Act 2005     \nResource  Management  Act 1991     \nSale of Liquor Act 1989     \nSmoke‐Free Environments  Act 1990     \nState Sector Act 1988     \nTrade Marks Act 2002     \nVeterinarians  Act 1994     \nVeterinarians  Act 2005    \nWages Protection  Act 1983   \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Reciprocal_Student_Exchange_Programme_Policy_PDF_156_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Reciprocal Student Exchange Programme Policy PDF 156 KB",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "156 KB",
      "author": "Gregory Huff",
      "creation_date": "2023-07-24T10:04:09",
      "modification_date": "D:20230724104944+12'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n \n \n \nMassey Universit y Policy Guide   \nRECIPROCAL STUDENT EXCHANGE PROGRA MME POLICY    \n     \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nPurpose :   \nThe purpose of  this policy is t o define the cr iteria tha t Massey University (Massey) will apply in entering studen t \nexchange agreements with overseas partner inst itutions, and the procedures  for s etting up and operating the se \nagreements .  \n \nIntroduction:   \n \nStudent  Exchanges  benefit  Masse y University  throu gh diversifying  the student  body,  building  Massey’s  reputation \noverseas, potential re cruitmen t of fee-paying student s from the partne r university , and the enhancement o f a working \nrelationship  with an overseas  partner.  The student  exchange  programme  also adds  value  to Massey’s  programmes  and \ncan help attract and retain quality domesti c student s. Outbound Massey students benefit from engagement with other \ncultures and broadening their worldviews, and many students experience academic advantages by participating in an \nexchange .  \nPolic y:   \n1.  Massey  will establish  and maintain  a limited  number  of formal  student  exchange  relationships  with high-quality   \ninstitutional partners where a ctive exchange i s readily achievable. Proposals for studen t exchanges need t o   \nbe underpinned by a Student Exchange agreement be tween Massey and the partner instit ution. The Studen t   \nExchange agreement mus t be signed by the Vice -Chancellor or nominee .  \n2.  Such exchanges will normally be at the university -to-university level but may, from time to tim e, be agreed    \nto involve only one College of the Universit y provided that College is able to ensure that the Agreemen t is   \nsustainable over the long  term.  \n3.  Criteria  for selection  of overseas  partners  (refer to Section  5) are needed  to ensure  that exchange   \nagreements will be viable. Fo r example, Ma ssey will b e reluctan t to set up an agreement wit h an instit ution   \nin which  our students  have  little interest  in attending,  or where  the language  of instruction  is other  than   \nEnglish, unless there are other  strong mitigating  factor s.  \n4.  The Government  policy  on student  exchange  agreements  requires  that the total number  of incoming  and   \noutgoing exchange students be approximately equal  over a three -year period .  \n5.  Proposed student exchanges mus t meet a number o f criteria,  specifically :   \na)  The partne r institution  must be of high academic  standing  so that the relationship  will assis t in   \nmaintaining and enhancing the standing of Massey . Simple test s are:   \n \n  © This  Policy is  the property o f Masse y University   Secti on   International   \nContac t   Office of Global Engagement   \nLast Revie w   July 2023    \nNext Revi ew   July 2026  \nAppr oval   AB 20/10/29 1   \nEffect ive Date  July 2023    \n\n  \n \n \nMassey Universit y Policy Guide   \nRecip rocal S tudent Exch ange P rogramme Polic y – Page 2   \n \n•  The institution has recognised strengths in research a nd teaching .  \n•  There are special advantages to  the studen t exchange, such as close  compatibility of  courses or   \nunique course offerings that are likely  to be o f interes t to Massey  students .  \n•  Graduates o f that institution would be accepted into ou r Honours, Ma sters or  PhD programmes ,   \nsubjec t to meeting  Massey’s standard entry criteria for  that programme .  \n•  Credit would be granted to individual courses on  transfer .  \nb)  The student exchange  should promot e enhanced relations between Ma ssey an d the partne r university . In   \nparticular:   \n•  The student  exchange  builds  on existing  relations with  the partner institution  in research  and   \nteaching .  \n•  The student e xchange has the potential fo r expansion into other areas suc h as staff exchanges   \nand collaborative  research .  \n•  The student e xchange assists in  the development of a relationship of special character, fo r   \nexample, one relating to meeting Massey ’s Te Tiriti o Waitangi or Treaty of Waitangi, equity,  or \ndiversit y obligations.   \nc)  Massey will manage its po rtfolio o f student e xchange agreements so  that a suitable geographical spread   \nof partner  institutions  is achieved,  and an unsuitable  concentration  of partners  in any one country  is   \navoided .  \nd)  The partne r institution must be in a countr y and location  that will make  it a desirable  destination  for Massey   \nexchange  students , so that we can  realistically  antici pate the exchange  will be balanced. The  relevant   \ncost of living should also be considered, as the cost to the student is a significant factor dete rmining the   \ndesirability of the  location .  \ne)  Suitable  programmes  of study must be available  at the partner  universit y, allowing  full credi t transfer   \ntoward the appropriate Masse y degree .  \nf)     The language  of instruction  at the partner  university  must not present  an obstacle  to the Massey  exchange   \nstudent.  This will usually require th at English b e the la nguage of instruction , or that a reasonable number   \nof courses  are taught  regularly  in English. If the  focus of the  exchange  partnership  is language  study ,   \nthere  should  be strong  support  for the partnership  from Massey’s  College  of Humanities  and Social   \nSciences. Incoming exchange student s from the part ner university mus t also be able to mee t Masse y’s   \nEnglish language entry requirements fo r the relevant  programme .  \n6.  All new student  exchange  agreements  will be set up and  operated  according  to the procedures  set down  in \nthe   \nrelated  document,   “Reciprocal   Studen t  Exchange   Programme   Procedures”,   and  in  accordance   with  the   \nDelegations  Document,  and Creation  of Contrac ts Policy of Masse y University , and will be approved  by \nthe   \nVice-Chancellor (or nominee) on th e recommendation of th e Deput y Vice-Chancellor Students and Global \nEngagement. All student exchange agreements mu st mee t the regulations set b y the New  Zealand Ministry \nof Education .  \n7.  Exchange agreements will be administered through the O ffice o f Global Engagement .  \n8.  All student  exchange  agreements  will be subject  to the normal  Office  of Global  Engagement  review  and renewal   \nprocess .  \n9.  Exchange agreements wher e the numbe r of incoming students significantl y exceeds the numbe r of outgoing   \nstudents  are to be placed  on hold,  and incoming  students  accepted  only as fee -paying  study  abroad  students   \nuntil the reciprocal balance of the exchange has been  restored .  \n \n© This  Policy is  the property o f Masse y University   \n\n \n \n \nMassey Universit y Policy Guide   \nRecip rocal S tudent Exch ange P rogramme Polic y – Page 3 \n \n10. Exchange  students  will pay applicable  tuition  and non-tuition  fees at their home  institution  and have  all tuition   \nand non -tuition fees waived a t the hos t institution. Students will be responsible for th e arrangements and   \ncost o f their own  travel, visa , insurance, acco mmodation and living  costs .  \n11. If a student withdraws from the exchange after arriving at the host in stitution, the exchange is considered a   \ncompleted exchange for the purpose s of calculating e xchange balances. In such circu mstances , the student   \nwill usually be liable for tuition fees in accordance wit h the home institution withdrawal  regulations .  \nOutbound S tudents:   \n12. Massey students ar e eligible to go on exchange even i f they are no t enrolled in courses during the  semeste r   \nprior to their exchange .  \n13. Massey student s participating on an official Masse y exchange programme are bound by the Recognition of   \nForma l and Informal  Prior  Learning  regulations  for Minimum  Credits  to be Completed  through  Massey   \nUniversity and Transfe r of Credit .  \n14. Massey undergraduate students are limited to a maximum of two seme sters of e xchange per Programme of   \nStudy . Thes e seme sters are no t required t o be conc urrent,  and student s can go o n exchange to a different   \ninstitution during their second semeste r.  \n15. Student  Registry  (or nominee)  will undertake  to advise  outgoing  exchange  students  on the requirements of  their \nstudy  courses  at the partner  university.  Approval  for this course  of study will be given  by the appropriate College \nnominee .  \n16. Postgraduate  student s may normally  study overseas  on exchange  for up to 33% of the duration  of their degre e   \nprogramme. Exceptions to this mus t be considered on a case -by-case  basis by Student Registry , who may seek \nadvice from the relevant College nominee .  \n17. Students  will not normally  be approved  for a studen t exchange  to their  countr y of origin  or a count ry of   \nwhich  they are a citizen unless  they have  lived in  New Zealand  for at least  5 years  or there  is a shortfall  in   \nparticipating  students  to that partner  universit y. Priority will be given  to other  applicants  for a given   \ndestination when spaces are  limited .  \n \n18. Domestic  students  studying  at Masse y by distanc e will not normally  be approved  to participat e in an   \nexchange to an institution in the country w here they are  already livi ng or usually li ve.  \n19. A flat tuition fee at a domesti c rate or international rat e will be charged for both domestic and international   \nstudents  on exchange  for 60 credits  per seme ster in their usual  programme  of study,  regardless  of the   \nnumber  of credit s transferre d at the completion  of their exchange.  Permanent  resident  students  will be   \ncharged  the domestic  flat tuition  fee rate for their exchange  study.  There  will be no GST exemption  for   \nInternational students fo r the e xchange study .  \n20. Outbound exchange student s will be charged  the dist ance location non-tuition fee s for the exchange study .  \n21. Outbound Exchange Students may  study one Massey course (15 credits) by distance during an exchange   \nsemester  and study the equivalent  of 45 credit s at the partner  university . The distanc e course  will be charged   \nat the normal domestic or international tuition fee rate. The remaining 45 credits will be charged at the flat   \ntuition  fee rate referred  to in clause 20  above,  but pro-rated  to a 45-credit  fee. Students  will be responsible  for   \norganising  any special  arrangements  required  to sit their Massey  exam  overseas  (if required ) but will be   \nexempt the exa m venue fees for th at course . Masse y tuition fees for the distance course will be included in   \nthe total  tuition fees (60  credits)  for the  semeste r.  \n \n \n \n \n© This  Policy is  the property o f Masse y University   \n\n \n \n \n \nMassey Universit y Policy Guide   \nRecip rocal S tudent Exch ange P rogramme Polic y – Page 4 \n \n \nAudi ence:   \nAll staf f   \nReleva nt legislation:   \nEducation Act 1989 and Amendments \nImmigration A ct 1987   \nLega l compliance :   \nIf exchange  student s are not classified  as Exempt Students  under  the Act, the Educatio n Act 1898:80/15  Code  of \nPractice  for Providers  who enrol  International  Students,  requires  that the University  must ensure  that international \nstudents  are cared  for in accordance  with The Education (Pastoral Care of Tertiary and International Learn ers) Code \nof Practice 2021 . \nAs inbound exchange students do not pa y tuition fees , the reciprocal nature of  the Studen t Exchange Agree ment is   \nessential to meet obligations under Section 159 of the  Education Act 1989 , and Ministry of Education regulat ions.  \nMassey University  must comply with  Immigration New  Zealand regulations including the Generic Temporar y Entry   \nPolicy, and regulations relating to Exchange Scheme s.  \n \nRelate d procedures / documents:   \nInternationalisation Framework 2017 -2025   \nReciprocal Student Exchange Programme  Procedures  Delegations of Authority  \nDocument   \nProcesses fo r the Establishment or Renewal of  Off-Shore Academic Agreement s  \nContract Management Polic y and Related Material   \nEducation (Pastoral Care o f International Students ) Code of Pra ctice 2016   \n \n \nDocu ment Management Control:   \nPrepared  by:         Office of Global Engagement  \nAuthorised  by:       DVC Global Engagement   \nApproved  by:         AB 20/10/ 291  \nDate  first issued :   November  2007    \nLast review:           July 2023     \nNext review :          July 2026   \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Research_Resources_and_Support_for_Postgraduate_Research_Candidates_Policy_PDF_124_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Research Resources and Support for Postgraduate Research Candidates Policy PDF 124 KB",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "124 KB",
      "author": "Whittle, Jo",
      "creation_date": "2021-09-08T11:05:04",
      "modification_date": "D:20210908115458+12'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n \n \n \n \n \n \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \n \n \n \n \n \n \nSection  Office  of the Provost  \nContact  Dean,  Research  \nLast Review  November  2020  \nNext  Review  November  2025  \nApproval  SLT 21 /07/91 \nEffective  Date    July 2021  \n \nPurpose:  \nTo provide  a set of expectations of  resources  and support  for postgraduate  research  candidates  at Massey  University  \n(excluding  supervision).  \n \nBackground:  \nMassey  University  provides  postgraduate  research  candidates  with resources  and support.  Research degree  \ncandidates enrolled in postgraduate research of 90 or more credits should expect a minimal level of resources and  \nsupport, as outlined  in this policy.  \nThis policy  outlines  princip les and expectations  for research  resources  and support  in order  to ensure  \n• Integration  and engagement  of postgraduate  research  candidates  in a research  community;  \n• Facilitation  of the successful  completion of  postgraduate  research;  \n• Equity  of resources  and support  for the diverse  cohort  of postgraduate  research  candidates  at \nMassey  University.  \nThe policy  is guided  by principles  of manaakitanga  and whanaungatanga,  with an expectation  that postgraduate  \nresearchers  will be shown  respect  and care as part  of a research  community  at Massey  University.  \n \nPolicy:  \nCandidates will require differential levels and types of resources and support, dependent upon different contextual  \nfactors, for example, their discipline, research participants or methodo logies. Therefore, it is important that each  \nindividual candidate works with his or her supervisors to develop clear understandings of the necessary and available  \nresources  and support  for research  within  the academic  unit. The head  of unit must  agree  to this provision  of resources  \nand support,  and this is checked  again  at the confirmation  event  (for doctoral  candidates)  and through  regular  progress  \nreporting.  \n \nPostgraduate research candidates have access to Massey University student services, including ac ademic and study  \nskills, library services, career and  employability services, health and counselling,  disability services, sports and  \nrecreation, and chaplaincy and religious services. Candidates can also access support services tailored for Māori,  \nPasifik a and international students. Postgraduate research candidates are represented on governance committees for  \nMassey  University through  the Massey  University  Student  Association.  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n© This Policy  is the property  of Massey  University  \nPOLICY FOR RESEARCH RESOURCES AND SUPPORT  \nFOR  POSTGRADUATE  RESEARCH  CANDIDATES  \n\n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nPolicy for Research Resources and Support for  \nPostgraduate  Research  Candidates  – Page  2 \n \nResearcher  Development  \nPostgraduate research candidates will have opportunities to engage in an induction programme and ongoing  \nresearcher  development  facilitated  by the Graduate  Research  School,  and in academic  units  and Colleges.  Research  \ncandidates can also expect orientation and induction into the academic unit in which they are being supervised,  \nincluding, for example,  a tour of facilities, introduction to key academic and professional staff, and meeting other  \nresearch  students.  \n \nMassey  University  postgraduate  researchers  have  access  to the University’s  researcher  development  programme,  with \nopportunities for workshops, networking and support in relation to knowledge and intellectual abilities; personal  \neffectiveness;  research  governance  and organisation;  and engagement,  influence  and impact.  The Graduate  Research  \nSchool’s  researcher  developme nt programme  is supported  online  through  Stream,  social  media,  videoconferencing  and a \nwebsite, and many workshops are recorded for ongoing access. Doctoral candidates may also engage in teaching - related  \ndevelopment  for accreditation  by the Advance  HE. The Graduate  Research  School  also hosts  social  networking  \nopportunities  and competitive  events like  the 3- Minute  Thesis (3MT).  \n \nPhysical  Space  \nResearch candidates will have access to dedicated research spaces relevant to their studies, such as office spaces,  \ncreative studio spaces, or laboratories. Physical spaces at the University comply with Occupation Safety and Health  \nstandards,and will be in close proximity to academic staff and research activity (wherever possible). Candidates may  be \nin a shared  space,  and will have  24-hour access  to their work  spaces  (unless  there  are overriding Health  and Safety  and \nunavoidable security issues). In units where there are common room facilities for staff, postgraduate research  students  \nmay access  those  facilities,  unless  separate  facilities  are provided.  Having  access  to physical  environment  for research  \nfosters  a productive  and convivial  research  community.  \n \nConsumable  and Electronic  Resources  \nPostgraduate research candidates will have access to Univers ity telecommunications and videoconferencing facilities,  for \nresearch purposes, alongside hardware and software required for the conduct of their research (as agreed in their  \nenrolment  application).  Doctoral  candidates  will be provided  with access  to computing  resources  for their research  use, \nwhich may be shared facilities on campus or by remote access. Office consumables, supplies and photocopying facilities  may \nbe provided  by the academic unit,  as required  for their research.  \n \nFinancial  Support  \nPostgraduate research candidates may have access to funds for research -related expenses, as determined and  \nmanaged by the academic unit. The amount of funding will be discipline -specific, based upon research costs and  \nresource availability. A range of competit ive postgraduate research scholarships, fellowships and awards are also  \navailable,  and information  is provided  through  the University’s  Scholarships  Team  in the Graduate  Research  School  and \nwebsite.  \n \nAudience:  \nDoctoral and Master’s  research students  \nDoctoral and Master’s research supervisors  \nPostgraduate  coordinators  and administrators  \nHeads  of Academic  Units  and Research  Centres  \n \nDocument  Management  Control:  \nPrepared  by: Dean,  Research  \nAuthorised  by: Provost   \nLast review:  November  2020  \nNext review:  November  2025  \n \n \n© This Policy  is the property  of Massey  University  \n \n\n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Performance_and_Development_Review_Planning_Procedures_PDF_439_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Performance and Development Review Planning Procedures",
      "policy_type": "Procedure",
      "file_size": "439 KB",
      "creation_date": "2022-11-22T10:05:01",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220102739+13'00'"
    },
    "content": "© This Policy  is the property  of Massey  University    \n \n \n \n \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \n \n \n \n \n \n \nSection  People  and Culture  \nContact  People  and Culture  \nLast Review  October  2022 \nNext  Review  October  2025 \nApproval  SLT 15/11/239  \n \n1.0 Overview  \n \n1.1 The Performance and Development Planning (PDP) process is a significant part of the University’s way of \naligning individual abilities, activities and aspirations with university  strategic goals and operational needs. \nThe University, as a community, values and encourages self -improvement, personal initiative, and high levels \nof individual responsibility. As far as it is possible to do so, the conduct of the PDP process by both staff \nmembers and managers should emphasise  and reflect those community values.  \n \nThe PDP process is based on an annual planning and review cycle to effectively align individual goals with \nuniversity  objectives. In establishing the PDP, the agreement of clear time defined, performance objectives \nare intended  to reflect  workplace  priorities and  team and  organisational  plans as well  as to  focus  on continued \nimprovement and career development.  \n \n2.0 Purpose  \n \n2.1 To provide  a performance  review  and planning  process  that aims:  \n \n• To help individual staff members to review and improve the perform ance of their duties and to identify career \nand professional development opportunities; and  \n• To align  individual  performance  contributions  to the overall  goals  and objectives  of the University and  their \nunit; and   \nPERFORMANCE  AND  DEVELOPMENT  REVIEW  PLANNING  PROCEDURES  \n\nMassey  University  Policy  Guide \nPerformance  and Development  Review \nPlanning Procedures – Page 2 \n© This Policy  is the property  of Massey  University   \n  \n \n• To provide managers and staff members with a clear understanding of the objectives  and deliverables that  \nhave been agreed for the relevant and agreed planning cycle e.g., the following year; and  \n• To ensure  appropriate  deve lopment,  training  and/or  support  is provided  to assist  continuous  improvement.  \n \n2.2 All Massey University staff employed for more than 12 months duration are required to fully participate in the \nPDP process.  To support the PDP process, managers will annually r eport the number and percentage of \nPDP’s completed to their relevant SLT member.  \n \n \n3.0 Definitions  \n \n3.1 Terms  used  in these  procedures  are defined  as follows:  \n \n• Core  Duties  \nThe three or four most significant areas of work activity for a staff member. For example, for Lecturers \nthrough to Professors, core duties are undertaking research, teaching, academic service including \nmanagement and administration duties, entrepreneurial  activities,  and community service. For \nprofessional/general services staff, core duties will relate specifically to the particular position, the  \nduties of which can range from administrative to specialist and technical functions.  \n \n• Responsibility  \nAn activit y or an area of activity which the staff member has the delegated authority to manage. For \nexample, an academic staff member might be responsible for the design and delivery of a paper \noffering, pedagogic innovation, the  development of a  strategic partneri ng relationship  or activities which \nlink directly to income generation through research or enterprise and a professional/general services \nstaff member may be responsible for the timely outcome of a project or a manager for the combined \noutcome of his/her a rea of work.  \n \n• Accountability  \nA statement setting out the minimum standard of performance for some aspect of the staff member’s \nactivities or responsibilities. It must be clear to both the manager and the staff member what criteria \ncould or would be  used  to determine whether  the set standard has been  met or exceeded.  For example,  \na Head of School might be accountable for the completion of 90% of PDPs  in their School in a  calendar \nyear.  \n \n• Job Profile  \nA document, also called a job description or an accountabili ty statement, which sets out all the core \nduties, the responsibi lities,  and the accountabilities of the staff member. This document should be \nreviewed and updated as necessary and should always be current.  \n \n• Performance  Objective  \nA statement setting out the desired standard of performance for some or all  aspect(s) of the staff \nmember’s core duties and responsibilities that is to be achieved within a clearly defined period of time.  \nIt must be clear to both the manager and the employee what criteria would b e or could be used to \ndetermine whether the set standard has been met or exceeded. For example, an academic staff \nmember might be expected to submit two substantive research papers to international peer -reviewed \njournals in a calendar year, create and exhi bit a major exhibition or publish a major scholarly work.  A \nprofessional/general services staff member may be expected to process a number of applications  \nwithin an agreed timeframe or participate in a major service development project and a manager may \nbe expected to secure operational efficiencies and make targeted savings in a particular area to meet \nhis/her budget by the final quarter of the financial year.  \n \n• Manager  \nThe Head  of a Department,  School,  Institute,  Unit, Centre  or equivalent,  or his/her  delegated  nominee.  \n \n \n• Manager’s  Manager  \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide \nPerformance  and Development  Review \nPlanning Procedures – Page 3 \n© This Policy  is the property  of Massey  University   \n  \n \nPro Vice -Chancellors  and Deputy  Vice-Chancellor of his/her delegated nominee.  \n \n• University  Personal  File \nThe staff member’s  personal  file which  is held by People  and Culture . \n \n• Local  Personal  File \nThe staff member’s  personal  file which  is held by the manager  of his/her  local work  area.  \n \n4.0 Annual  PDP Interviews  \n \n4.1 The PDP interview is a formal process through which the expectations of the manager and staff member are \naligned, agreed/ set, and recorded. It is expected that a line manager and employee will meet on a regular \ninformal basis to discuss and review general progress and resolve issues tha t may be impeding good \nperformance.  Annual participation in the formal PDP process is compulsory and the mutual responsibility of \nthe manager and staff member.  Managers have a responsibility to schedule and facilitate meaningful \nconversations about perform ance and development, with staff that report to them.  \n \n4.2 Ideally, the annual PDP interview should be held before the beginning of the new academic year. It is \ntherefore expected that PDP annual interviews, particularly for academic staff, will take place in October or \nNovember each year.  \n \n4.3 The annual PDP interview should be the formal culmination of formal and/or informal discussions that have \nbeen held during the academic year between the staff member and his/her manager on progress against \nobjective s, identified development needs, further support or changes to the objectives themselves or the PDP \nPlan. These discussions do not have to be by way of a formal meeting, unless either party has concerns or \nissues they wish to raise in a formal meeting. Inf ormal discussions can occur as staff and their managers  \nmeet in a variety of work situations and talk informally about progress towards agreed objectives, challenges, \nissues and their resolution, and the development of emerging opportunities.  \n \n4.4 Informal but  regular discussions during the year are invaluable for ensuring that both parties remain  \ncommitted to the objectives set and are agreeable to the rate of progress being achieved. Further, issues of \ndifference or concern can be raised by either party as th ey occur,  and the parties can look to resolve them.  \n \n4.5 General  requirements  for new employees  are set out in section  8.0 of these  procedures.  \n \n4.6 Checklists which set out the basic requirements for preparing for the annual interview are attached as \nAppendix 4 (f or managers), and Appendix 5 (for staff members).  Prior training is available to managers in \norder for them to understand their role and responsibility  in the PDP process as well as to be able to lead and \nassist their staff in developing meaningful perform ance and development plans.  Further information is \navailable on the POD Development Calendar . \n \n4.7 The PDP interview  must,  amongst  other  things,  address  specifically:  \n• Core  duties,  responsibilities,  and accountabilities.  \n• Evaluations  (including  the use of relevant  benchmarking  tools),  feedback,  concerns,  and issues.  \n• The assessment  and update  of scholarly  academic  work through  an evidence  portfolio  (in accordance \nwith the University Research Strategy, Code of Conduct for Research and Researchers and other \nrelevant agreed processes for academic staff in Lecturer through to Professor positions).  \n• Evaluation of teaching effectiveness, pedagogic innovations etc using a range of data sources (e.g., \nMOST, peer review and observation of teaching, student completion rates, etc).  \n• Workload.  \n• Training,  development,  and support.  \n• Promotion  (where  relevant).  \n• Annual  Leave  \n• Long  Leave  and Short  Leave  with agreed  deliverables  \n• Adherence  to policy  and procedures.  \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide \nPerformance  and Development  Review \nPlanning Procedures – Page 4 \n© This Policy  is the property  of Massey  University   \n  \n \n• Observance  of University  occupational  health  and safety  requirements  (where  relevant)  and any \nhealth and safety concerns.  \n• The capabilities  necessary  for successful  achievement  of performance  objectives.  \n• The extent to which performance objectives have been achieved and the contribution of the outputs \nand outcomes to the University’s goals and objectives.  \n \n4.8 The following  areas  of discussion  are suggested  for the PDP interview:  \n• Whether the core duties and accountabilities as detailed in the job profile, accountability  statement or \njob description, are still current.  \n• The level of achievement  against  the objectives  in the current  performance  plan.  \n• Whether there are any objectives to be completed by the end of the current year  and is progress still \non track.  \n• Whether  either  party  has any concerns  with regard  to the level of achievement  or other  matters \nrelated to the current performance year.  \n• What  is proposed  for next year’s  performance  objectives  and performance  plan.  \n• Is the resulting  workload  reasonable  and manageable.  \n• Does  the staff member  intend  to take reasonable  breaks  during  the year.  \n• Regular review of a staff member’s CV and a determination of the professional development and/or \nsupport the staff member needs to achieve the planned future objectives.  \n• Consideration  of a longer -term (2 – 5 year)  development  plan which  supports  achievement  of wider \nUniversity objectives, career development and promotion (where applicable) aspirations.  \n• Whether  planned  support  and assistance  was provided.  \n \n4.9 The outcome of the formal PDP interview should be formally documented using either the available standard \nforms set out in the appendices to these procedures or a suitable alternative document. The appendices \ninclude: the Performance and Development Plan Form, the Performance and Development Plan Review  \nForm and the Annual Leave Plan Form. These forms should be completed with the aim of encapsulating the \ndiscussions which have occurred during the PDP interview. Relevant additional supp orting information ( e.g., \nan up-to-date CV, summary of scholarly outputs, evidence of income generation, supervision of higher \nresearch degree students, leave reports, other strategic outcomes) can be attached to the forms by either \nparty.  \n \n4.10 In line with what must be addressed in the PDP interview, the Performance and Development Plan forms \nshould reflect the core duties, responsibilities,  and accountabilities of the staff member.  \n \n4.11 During a PDP Interview, a manager and employee may agree that a ny part of the discussions can be \nconfidential and not recorded in the Review. The staff member may bring a support person to their PDP \ninterview. The support person will not be a participant in this meeting,  however.  \n \n4.12 The manager will complete the Performa nce and Development Plan and Review forms/documentation \npromptly, ideally within two weeks following the PDP interview, based on the discussion and agreements \nmade at that meeting. The forms will be sent to the staff member to sign and make further comment . Where \nthere  is agreement,  the signed  forms will  be returned  to the manager for his/her signature.  When  signed  by all \nparties, the original forms/documentation and any attachments will be filed on the staff member’s local \npersonal file held in their Depar tment, School, Institute, Unit Centre or equivalent.  \n \n4.13 If the parties cannot agree on the content of the forms/documentation, the manager and the staff member \nshould meet again to try to resolve any differences. If this does not result in resolution, the is sues in dispute \nshould be escalated to the manager’s manager. The manager’s manager may consider whether assistance \nfrom third party mediators could resolve the dispute. In the event that the matters in dispute are not resolved, \nthe decision of the manager ’s manager will be final. The staff member may be represented in any dispute.  \n \n5.0 Performance  Plans  \n \n5.1 Performance and development plans should be relevant to the staff member’s core duties, responsibilities,  \nand accountabilities.  Core  duties,  responsibilities  and accountabilities  should  be discussed  at the annual  \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide \nPerformance  and Development  Review \nPlanning Procedures – Page 5 \n© This Policy  is the property  of Massey  University   \n  \n \ninterview to ensure they are current and relevant. Specific and identified performance objectives which arise \nfrom these duties, responsibilities and accountabilities should always be measurable, achievable and time - \nbound. \n \n5.2 Performance and development plans must be focused, as a minimum, on the continuous improvement of the \nindividual staff member’s knowledge and application of skills and the alignment of their agreed work plan to \nthe University goals and objectives.  \n \n5.3 Performance and development plans for all staff members should be structured under the key  activities of the \nstaff member’s core duties and accountabilities. For example, the key  areas for performance achievement for \nthe positions of Lecturer through to Prof essor are:  \n• Teaching,  pedagogic  innovation,  curriculum  development  \n• Research  and Scholarship  \n• Administration  \n• Academic  and Community  service  \n• Academic  Enterprise  \n• Contributions  to the wider  University  goals  and objectives,  e.g., internationalisation, \nresponsibility, enabling excellence, income generation.  \n \nSimilarly, the key areas of performance for an Executive Assistant, subject to the particular job profile, could \nbe: \n• Office  and diary  management  \n• Inwards  and outwards  corresponde nce \n• Prioritisation  of work flow and contributions  to key executive  projects  \n• Professional  and appropriate  communication  with both internal  and external  stakeholders  \n \n5.4 As a further  example, the  areas  of performance achievement for managers  should be structured from  their \ncore duties and accountabilities to include:  \n• Staff management  (including  completion  of PDPs  for all staff)  \n• Financial  management  \n• Academic  and professional  leadership  (where  relevant)  \n• Risk management  (including  health  and safety  compliance)  \n• Contributions  to the development  and leadership  of major  strategic  projects  \n• Collaborative  contribution  across  colleges  and/or  services  \n \n5.5 Performance plans should be discussed, debated,  and agreed by the manager and the staff member as part  \nof the PDP interview. However, the plans should also be flexible enough to be changed or adjusted  \nthroughout the performance year wherever the staff member and their manager agree this is necessary or  \nwhere it is determined as necessary to meet changes to College/Service or University priorities, following \nconsultation with the employee.  \n \n5.6 Where agreement on the performance plan cannot be reached between the manager and the staff member, \nthe matters in dispute should be escalated to the manager’s manager. Before escalation however, the \nmanager and the staff member are required to meet again to try to resolve matters.  When the matter is \nescalated, the manager’s manager may  consider whether assistance from  third party  mediators could resolve \nthe dispute. In the event that the matters in dispute are not resolved, the decision of the manager’s manager \nwill be final. The staff member may be represented in any dispute.  \n \n \n6.0 Development  & Support  \n \n6.1 Staff members sho uld be encouraged  to set out their professional and personal development  priorities as part \nof their performance and development plan. These development priorities should be linked to the  \nimprovement or enhancement of their knowledge, skills and/or applica tion in their current position and their \ncareer aspirations within the University sector.  \n \nFor example,  a staff member  may want  to: \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide \nPerformance  and Development  Review \nPlanning Procedures – Page 6 \n© This Policy  is the property  of Massey  University   \n  \n \n• attend  a training  and development  course  or seminar  \n• undertake  papers  related  to their area of work \n• lead a work  project  \n• work  in a different  area to gain wider  experience  \n• secure  experience  in another  professional  environment  \n• access  a mentor  or coach  \n \n6.2 The manager may also put forward professional and personal development options, which the staff member \nmay agree to include in their performance plan. If an improvement in performance is necessary, the man ager \nmay require a staff member to take up a nominated development option as part of their performance and \ndevelopment plan.  \n \n6.3 The manager and staff member should also consider  and agree the level of support that may be needed to  \nachieve the agreed performa nce plan. This support could include:  \n• coaching  \n• mentoring  \n• training  in defined  operational  and technical  functions  \n• teaching  relief \n• temporary  administrative  assistance  \n• regular  meetings  \n• peer review  of work \n• support  for collaboration  with other  Universities  \n• additional  financial  support  for research  and scholarly  activities  \n \n6.4 Provided that the employee is performing their current role to a satisfactory or higher level, the manager and \nstaff member should consider the staff member’s longer -term care er development and (where applicable) \npromotion aspirations and, to the extent that these are supportable by the University, map out and develop a \nsuitable development plan. The focus of the plan should be on the competencies and work experiences that \nwould enhance the staff member’s aspirations.  Examples of such opportunities could include  specific \ntraining, mentoring, job -enrichment and higher duties assignments, special projects, committee service \nopportunities, and job secondments.  For academic staff in particular, the criteria and evidence for enhanced \ncontributions  to Teaching, Researc h/Scholarship, Academic  Service  and Academic  Enterprise  should  be used \nas an informative guide for the establishment of career focused development plans as well as for framing an \nannual Performance and Development Plan.  \n \n7.0 Leave  Management  \n \n7.1 Annual leave mana gement is an important part of planning the distribution and timeframes of performance \nobjectives, in addition to ensuring that the staff member enjoys necessary breaks from the workplace. In \nconjunction with the development of the performance and developm ent plan at the annual interview, \nconsideration should be given to when the staff member intends to take any  annual leave in that performance \nyear or to apply for any leave in accordance with University Duties Overseas Guidelines. These periods can \nthen be  factored into any time -bound objectives.  \n \n7.2 If the staff member is firm on the dates,  he/she wants to take as annual leave in the new performance year \nwhen developing the performance and development plan, and these are agreed by the manager, the dates \ncan be  recorded in the leave plan (attached as Appendix 3), appended to the performance plan,  and entered \ninto the MyHR system.  \n \n7.3 Annual leave is planned and booked as a routine process to manage leave balances. If the staff member has \nan excessive annual leave balance ( e.g., over 30 days) he/she will be required to complete an annual leave \nplan (attached as Appendix 3) as part of his/her performance plan to which he/she will be held. The leave  \nplan will be entered into the MyHR system when completed.  \n \n7.4 For a cademic staff, when establishing performance and development plans, regard may be had to extended \nleave for research, such as sabbatical type  leave or other forms of leave for research.  \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide \nPerformance  and Development  Review \nPlanning Procedures – Page 7 \n© This Policy  is the property  of Massey  University   \n  \n \n8.0 New Employees  \n \n8.1 Staff who join the University  or who take up a new position within the University, can expect to meet with their \nnew manager within four weeks of taking up their position to agree a performance and develop ment plan for \nthe remainder of the current year.  \n \n8.2 Managers of new academic staff members in the Lecturer/Senior Lecturer scales are required to ensure that \nthese  staff members are  met with  formally, at least  quarterly  for the  first two years of their emplo yment  so that \nthey understand what is required of them in terms of their performance, their progress can be regularly \nmonitored,  and they receive the support and assistance to achieve the level of performance required. \nManagers may  nominate a senior academ ic member of staff to  carry  out this support and advisory  role and to \nmeet regularly with new academic employees for the term required.  \n \n9.0 Performance  Review  \n \n9.1 The Performance  Review  should  be completed  by comparing  what was planned  for the current year  with what \nhas been achieved.  \n \n9.2 Each staff member should gather relevant material to support their achievement against the agreed \nperformance and development plan. This material should be presented to their manager before the PDP \ninterview so that it might b e considered by  their manager and discussed with them at the interview. Academic \nStaff in the positions of Lecturer through to Professor shall submit their research evidence portfolios  for \nassessment, other evidence of scholarly work, and other relevant o utputs and outcomes.  \n \n9.3 Supporting material can include evidence of teaching quality, pedagogic innovation, relevant research,  and \nscholarly materials, external or internal comment on the standard of delivery or service achieved, project or \nother documentatio n that attests to progress or completion, customer/client survey information etc.  \n \n9.4 The manager should discuss with the staff member their view of the standard of performance achievement \nand the reasons for that view. These reasons should be supported by fa ctual information including relevant \nbenchmarking reports where available. The discussion on performance achievement should contain no \nsurprises for the employee as any concerns or problems should have been raised and discussed at the time \nthey occurred or  were identified during the performance year as they occurred or were identified.  \n \n9.5 The manager should complete the Performance and Development Plan Review Form or other suitable \ndocumentation promptly, ideally within two weeks of the annual interview and s end it to the staff member. If \nthe staff member agrees with the Review, he/she should sign the form, include any further comment,  and \nreturn it to their manager promptly (within one week). The Review will then be filed with the relevant plan on \nthe staff members  locally held personal file.  \n \n9.6 Where agreement on the Performance and Development Plan Review recorded outcomes and/or comments \ncannot be reached  between  the manager and the staff  member,  the matters in  dispute  should  be escalated  to \nthe manager’s man ager. Before escalation however, the manager and the staff member are required to meet \nagain to try to resolve matters. When the matter is escalated, the manager’s manager may consider whether \nassistance from third party mediators could resolve the dispute . In the event that the matters in dispute are  \nnot resolved, the decision of the manager’s manager will be final. The staff member may be represented in \nany dispute.  \n \n \n10.0 Concerns  About  Performance  \n \n10.1 Wherever a manager considers that a staff member is not meeting the core duties, responsibilities and \naccountabilities  of their  position  or is not making  adequate  progress  on performance  objectives  agreed  in their \nPerformance Plan, the manager must raise the matter directly with the employee. The manager must s et out \nclearly the areas of concern and discuss options for how the staff member’s performance can be improved \nand over what timeframe. The manager must also support and assist the staff member to improve his/her \nperformance in the first instance. The staf f member will be informed that they  may be represented prior to any \ndiscussion on performance concerns.  \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide \nPerformance  and Development  Review \nPlanning Procedures – Page 8 \n© This Policy  is the property  of Massey  University   \n  \n10.2 For those staff covered by the MUCEA or MUIEA, the procedure to be followed for performance causing \nconcern is set out in Clause 10.1  of the employment agreement. For all other staff, the terms and conditions  \nof their agreements will prevail.  \n \n10.3 For those staff covered by the MUCEA and MUIEA, if, after a reasonable period of time and following the \nsupport and assistance of the  manager, th e staff member’s performance  is still  causing  concern,  the manager \nmay consider  using  the provisions  set out in Clause  10.2 of the employment  agreement.  For all other  staff,  the \nterms and conditions of their agreement will prevail.  \n \n10.4 The Performance and Development Planning and Review Meeting cannot to be used as a disciplinary  \nmeeting for unsatisfactory performance. Concerns about performance can however be raised in a \nPerformance and Development Planning and Review Meeting and actions to  improve performance can be \nagreed and recorded in the Performance and Development Plan. The staff member will be informed that they \nmay be represented prior to any discussion on performance concerns.  \n \n11.0 Documentation  \n \n11.1 The Performance and Development Plan and The Performance and Development Plan Review template \nforms are attached to these procedures as Appendices 1 and 2.  \n \n11.2 Signed and completed Performance and Development Plans and Reviews will be held on the staff member’s \nlocal personal fi le, along with any supporting attachments. Performance and Development Plans will be held \nby managers as working documents until completed. At the point they are completed, they will be filed with  \nthe relevant Performance and Development Plan Review form o n the staff member’s local personal file.  All \ninformation held on staff personal files will be held securely and in accordance with the requirements of the \nprinciples of the Privacy Act 1993.  \n \n11.3 The Performance  and Development  Plan Review  documentation  held on the staff member’s local  personal  file \nmay be used to support University processes. The staff member will be advised if this information is to be \nused in this way.  \n \nAudience:  \n \nAll University  managers  and supervisors  \nAll University  staff who have  an employment  agreement  of 12 months  or more  duration.  \n \nRelated  procedures  / documents:  \n \nPerformance  and Development  Planning  Policy  \nManager and Staff Development Policy  \n \nDocument  Management  Control:  \n \nPrepared  by: Employment  Relations  Advisor  \nAuthorised  by: DVC – University Services Development   \nApproved by: SLT 15/11/239  \nDate issued: August 2003  \nLast review:  October  2022  \nNew review:  October  2025 \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide \nPerformance  and Development  Review \nPlanning Procedures – Page 9 \n© This Policy  is the property  of Massey  University   \n Appendix  1 \nPerformance  and Development  Planning  and Review  (PDP) \nPERFORMANCE AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN  \n \nName:  Unit:  \nPosition:  Date  of interview:  \nPeriod  covered  by the plan:   \n \n \n \nList key objectives  for the coming  year:  \n(Set out under  specific  headings  and include  timelines  and expected  outcomes  where  appropriate)  \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide \nPerformance  and Development  Review \nPlanning Procedures – Page 10 \n© This Policy  is the property  of Massey  University   \n  \n \nProfessional  Development:  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nSupport  and Assistance:  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nList any attachments : \n(Such  as the position  description,  project  plan,  etc.) \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nSigned:  Date:  \n(Manager  or Nominee)  \n \n \n \nAdditional  comments  by staff  member  (optional):  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nSigned:  Date:  \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide \nPerformance  and Development  Review \nPlanning Procedures – Page 11 \n© This Policy  is the property  of Massey  University   \n Appendix  2 \nPerformance  and Development  Planning  (PDP)  \n \nPERFORMANCE  AND  DEVELOPMENT  PLAN  REVIEW  \n \n \n \nName:  Unit:  \nPosition:  Date  of interview:  \nPeriod  covered  by the review:   \n \n \nTo be completed  by the Manager  or supervisor  \n \nAchievement  of Performance  Plan  for the Period  Under Review:  \n(Attach  a copy  of the relevant  plan  and comment  on each  objective  set) \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nAchievements  not covered  by the Plan:  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nDetails  of performance  or progress  which  has exceeded  the agreed  Plan  \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide \nPerformance  and Development  Review \nPlanning Procedures – Page 12 \n© This Policy  is the property  of Massey  University   \n  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nOverall  performance  in the position:  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nSigned:  Date:  \n(Manager  or Nominee)  \n \nAdditional  comments  by staff  member  (optional):  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nSigned:  Date:  \n \nNote:  One copy  of the review is  to be given  to the staff member  and the original  is to  be held  on the staff \nmember’s personal file in his/her work area.  \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide \nPerformance  and Development  Review \nPlanning Procedures – Page 13 \n© This Policy  is the property  of Massey  University   \n Appendix  3  \nPerformance  and Development  Planning  (PDP) \nANNUAL LEAVE PLAN  \n \nName:  Unit:  \nPosition:  Date  of Plan  \nAnnual  Leave  Balance :  \n \n \nFrom:   \nTo:  \nNumber  of days  \n   \n   \n   \n   \n   \n   \n   \n   \n   \n   \n \n \nSigned : \n(Staff  Member)   \nApproved:  \n(Manager  or Nominee)   \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide \nPerformance  and Development  Review \nPlanning Procedures – Page 14 \n© This Policy  is the property  of Massey  University   \n Appendix  4 \nPerformance  and Development  Planning  (PDP)  \n \nANNUAL  INTERVIEW  PREPARATION  SHEET  \n \nName:  Unit:  \nPosition  Date  of interview:  \nPeriod  covered  by the plan:   \n \nTo facilitate the PDP interview, staff are encouraged to submit written comments or documentation that \nsupport their achievements, in advance of the annual interview. The manager or nominee can then consider  \nthis information and respond to the staff member du ring the interview.  \n \nCHECKLIST  FOR  MANAGERS  (OR NOMINEES)  \n \nIf the staff member has not previously had an annual interview, you should, about one month in advance of the \ninterview, brief the staff member on how the PDP annual interview will work.  \nPDP forms  should  be distributed  prior  to the annual  interview,  and you should  ensure that the  staff  member  also \nhas a copy of the PDP Procedures.  \nYou are required to have undergone training with People and Organisational Development  before undertaking any \nannual PDP interview.  \nYou should ensure that you have prepared for interview s by collating and considering information/documentation \nrelevant to the staff member’s achievement against the performance objectives agreed in the current plan and the \nframework for setting objectives for the following year.  \nThis information/documentation  could  include:  \na) The University  Charter  \nb) College  or similar  Strategic  plans  and objectives  \nc) Unit  Plans  \nd) The job profile  for the staff  member’s  position  \ne) The agreed  Performance  Plan,  \nf) Staff  member’s  MOST  results,  \ng) Staff  member’s  research  progress,  \nh) Supporting  documentation  provided  by the staff  member  \ni) Previous  meeting  notes  where  applicable  \nj) Information  on relevant  development  options  \nYou should notify staff members of their annual interview time, about two weeks in advance and allo w at least one \nhour for the interview.  A staff member may bring a support person.  \nYou should consider what may be appropriate objectives for the new performance year and be prepared to discuss \nwhy these are relevant and appropriate.  \nYou should consider what development opportunities may be relevant to the staff member and also what support \noptions may be appropriate.  \nAppendix  5 \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide \nPerformance  and Development  Review \nPlanning Procedures – Page 15 \n© This Policy  is the property  of Massey  University   \n Performance  and Development  Planning  (PDP) \nANNUAL INTERVIEW PREPARATION SHEET  \n \nName:  Unit:  \nPosition  Date  of interview:  \nPeriod  covered  by the plan:   \n \nTo facilitate the PDP interview, staff are encouraged to submit written comments or documentation that \nsupport their achievements, in advance of the annual interview. The manager or nominee can then consider  \nthis information and respond to you on those achievements during the annual interview.  \n \nCHECKLIST  FOR  STAFF  MEMBERS  \n \nEnsure  you have  copies  of the PDP forms,  procedures,  and any additional  information  you may  wish  to consider.  \nConsider your job profile, evidence of teaching quality if you teach, curriculum and pedagogic innovation, research,  \nand scholarly outputs (Lecturer’s through to Professors), projects you have worked on and completed or  \nprogressed, systems or proc esses you have modified and improved and/or any other documentation relevant to \nyour work for the past year, including your current Performance and Development Plan.  \nNote what you have achieved against your current Performance and Development Plan and what  has still to be \nachieved.  \nNote  explanation  for objectives  not achieved.  \nSet out any achievements  that were  not documented  as part of your  Performance  and Development  Plan.  \nProvide information/documentation which supports and explains your performance achievement for the current or \nlast year, to your manager or nominee at least 48 hours prior to the annual interview.  \nConsider  and set down  what  you expect  to achieve  in the coming  year  in terms  of performance  objectives.  \nIn view  of your  past  performance  and expected  activities  for the coming  year,  consider  your  training  and \ndevelopment priorities.  \nConsider  and set down  what  support  may  be helpful  to you to achieve  your  future  objectives.  \nProvide  your  manager  or nominee  with  any notes  you have  made  with  regard  to performance  objectives, \nprofessional development or personal support for the coming year at least 48 hours prior to the annual interview.  \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Recording_of_Scholarly_Work_and_Student_Work_Policy_PDF_126_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Recording of Scholarly Work and Student Work Policy PDF 126 KB",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "126 KB",
      "author": "mamacken",
      "creation_date": "2024-07-01T12:02:06",
      "modification_date": "D:20240701122633+12'00'"
    },
    "content": " Massey University Policy Guide  \n \nRECORDING OF SCHOLARLY WORK AND STUDENT WORK POLICY   \n \n \n \n© This Policy  is the property  of Massey  University   \n \n \n \nPurpose  \n \nThe purpose  of this policy  is to establish  the rights  and responsibilities  when  scholarly  work and student  work are \nrecorded  and distributed for teaching,  learning and research  purposes.  \n \nMassey  University  staff,  students  and guests  involved  in the recording  of scholarly  and student  work must  also \ncomply with the associated Recording  of scholarly work and student  work framework  and the  Code  of ethical  conduct  \nfor research,  teaching and evaluations  involving human  participants . \n \nRecording  refers  to the action  or process  of recording  sound  or a visual  performance  for subsequent  reproduction  or \nbroadcast.  \n \nThis policy,  and associated  framework,  relate  only to recording s. Therefore , they  do not apply  to learning  \nexperiences streamed live , which are instead considered to be attend ed in person but from a different location.  \n \nThe p olicy  \nA:          Recording  of learning  experiences  \n1. Students  \n1.1.  Each  student  may make  a recording  of a learning  experience  subject  to Section  2.1. The recording  may \nonly be used for  research or  private  study purposes  and not be re-distributed.  \n1.2.  A student’s  participation  in a learning  experience  that is recorded  by the University,  whether  as an active  \nparticipant  or a member  of the audience,  is deemed  to be with that student’s  implied  consent.  This \nsection is  subject  to sectio n 3.1. \n1.3.  Each  student  who actively  participates  in a learning  experience  recorded  by the University  may request  \nin writing  the removal  from the recording  of any content  that personally  identifies  that student.  This section \nis subject  to section  3.5. \n1.4.  Each  student  may only access  recordings  for papers  they are enrolled  in or that are publicly  available.  \n \n2. Staff  and guest  lecturers  \n2.1.  Staff or guest  lecturers  may require  a student  to stop recording  if they  reasonably  consider  the recording  \nis intrusive,  or the learning  experience  contains  information  that is sensitive,  subject  to copyright  and/or  \nconfidential  and is therefore  inappropriate  to record.  \n2.2.  Staff or guest  lecturers  may request  in writing the  removal  of any content  recorded by  the University.  Section  Academic  \nContact  Academic  Policy  and Regulations  Unit \nLast Review  February 2015  \nNext  Review  February 2018  \nApproval  Academic Board AB15/022  \n Massey University  Policy Guide   \nRecording of Scholarly Work and Student Work Policy  – Page 2 \n \n \n1 Copyright  Act 1994, s  44 (Copying  for educational  purposes  of literary,  dramatic,  musical,  or artistic works or typographical  \narrangements).  \n© This Policy  is the property  of Massey  University  \n  \n \nB: Recording  of scholarly work \n \n3. University  \nRecording  \n3.1.  The University may record  a scholarly  work: \n(i) after clearly  notifying  students  and staff that the learning  experiences  in the paper  in which  the \nstudents  are enrolled  may be  recorded  \n(ii) with the  explicit  written  consent  of any guest lecturer  \n(iii) after informing students  and lecturers  of applicable  cultural  protocols.  \n3.2.  The University  will retain  the recorded  scholarly  work in accordance  with approved  data management  \npractices.  \n \nDistribution  \n3.3.  The University may distribute  a recorded scholarly work for use in a course  of instruction by:1 \n(i) screening  the recording  to a class,  or making  one copy of the recording  available  in the library  to \nstudents  of that class  \n(ii) making  multiple  copies  of the recording  available,  or making  the recording  available  to stream  or \ndownload,  only under  licence  or with the written  consent  of the owners  of any copyright  work used  in \nthe recorded  lecture.  \n3.4.  The University  may distribute  a recorded  scholarly  work other  than for use in a course  of instruction  only \nwith the written  consent  of the relevant  staff member  (e.g. lecturer)  and the owners  of any copyright  \nwork  used in the  recorded scholarly work. \n3.5.  Before  distributing a recorded scholarly work, the University will : \n(i) remove  (or, if the University  has already  distributed  the recording,  remove  from each  copy of the \nrecording  that remains  under the University’s  control)  any content  that the University  considers  is \ninappropriate,  or on accepting a request  under  section  1.3 or 2.2 \n \n(ii) seek  advice  from the  Head  of School,  Te Pūtahi -a-Toi, School  of Māori  Art, Knowledge,  and Education  \nif that recording  contains  Mātauranga  Māori  (traditional  and contemporary)  that is held in accordance  \nwith traditional  values  and practices.  \n(iii) display  on each  copy  of the recording,  or on  the website  from which  the recording  is made  available  to \nstream  or download,  a statement  that acknowledges  the copyrights  in and restrictions  on use of the \nrecording.  \n(iv) All recordings  of scholarly  work distributed  for the purposes  of teaching  and learning  shall comply  \nwith the publications  policy.  \n \nC: Recording  of student  work  \n4. University  \nThe University  will: \n4.1 inform  the student  of the intention  to record  a student  work for the purposes  of teaching,  learning  or \nresearch.  The recording  will be made  with students’  explicit  consent.  \n Massey University  Policy Guide   \nRecording of Scholarly Work and Student Work Policy  – Page 3 \n \n \n2 http://legal -dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/implied+consent  \n \n© This Policy  is the property  of Massey  University  \n  \n4.2 retain a recording of a student  work in accordance  with approved data  management  practices.  \n4.3 distribute  a recording  of a student  work, other  than for the purposes  of teaching , learning , and research,  \nonly with students’  written consent.  \n4.4 seek  advice  from the Head  of School,  Te Pūtahi -a-Toi, School  of Māori  Art, Knowledge,  and Education  if \nthat recording  contains  Mātauranga  Māori  (traditional  and contemporary)  that is held in accordance  with \ntraditional  values  and practices.  \n  \nDefinitions  \n \nAudience:  people  in the room  (or participating  online)  where  the recording  (audio  and video)  is taking  place,  \nwho are not the primary  focus  of the recording,  but who are there  to participate  in the session  being  recorded.  \nParticipating  online  includes  but is not limited  to making comments  via a  chat function.  \n \nConsent:  \nImplied:  consent  that is inferred  from signs,  actions,  or facts,  or by inaction  or silence.2 \n \nExplicit:  the individual  is clearly  presented  with an option  to agree  or disagree  verbally or in writing,  \nincluding email.  \n \nData management : the function  that develops,  manages,  and executes  policies,  processes,  standards,  and \nframeworks  that collect,  protect,  deliver,  and enhance  the value  of data and information  assets  to meet  the data \navailability,  quality,  and security  needs  of the University.  \n \nGuest  lecturer:  a person  who is not an employee  or enrolled  student  of Massey  University  and is attending  or \ncontributing  to a teaching  and learning  event  or activity,  including  visitors  and invited  scholars  participating  on- \ncampus  and from a distance.  \n \nLearning  experiences:  academic activities which include but are not limited to, lectures, laboratory classes, \nworkshops, tutorials, seminars, field trips, studios, webinars, simulations, practicum, placements, internships, self -\ndirected learning, etc. Successful completion of s ome learning experiences may be compulsory for mastery of the \npaper and its learning outcomes.  \n \nRecord:  information  recorded  in any format  that is created  or received  and maintained  in the transaction  of \nbusiness  activities  and retained  as evidence  of such an activity.  A record  may be a document,  signature,  seal,  \ntext, image,  sound,  speech,  or data (structured or unstructured).  It can be compiled,  recorded,  or stored  in written  \nform on any material,  or in file, negative,  tape or other  medium  which  will make  it reproducible,  or by means  of any \nrecording  device  or process,  computer,  or other  electronic  device  or process  which  will make  it machine  readable.  \n \nRecording:  The action  or process  of recording  sound  or a visual  performance  for subsequent  reproduction or  \nbroadcast.  \n \nStudent  work:  all literary,  dramatic,  musical,  or artistic  works,  sound  recordings,  films or communication  works  \nproduced  by a student  in the course  of his or her enrolment  at the University  and includes  reports,  research  \npapers,  theses,  dissertations,  books,  journal  articles,  conference  papers  and book  reviews,  but excludes  software.  \n \nScholarly  work:  all literary,  dramatic,  musical,  or artistic  works,  sound  recordings,  films or communication  works  \nproduced by a staff member  in the course  of his or her employment  at the University and includes:  \n \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nRecording of Scholarly Work and Student Work Policy  – Page 4 \n  \n \n© This Policy  is the property  of Massey  University   \n \na. in relation  to a staff member’s  research  activities,  any scholarly  publications  including  books,  textbooks , \narticles  in scholarly  journals  or conference  proceedings  or other  collections,  research  reports  and book  \nreviews.  \nb. in relation  to teaching  and other  activities,  any lectures,  lecture  notes  and material,  study  guides,  assessment  \nmaterials,  images,  multi-media  presentations,  web content  and published  lectures,  but excludes  software.  \n \nUniversity : Massey  University , including  all its constituent  components  such as , colleges,  institutes,  and schools . \n \nIntended audience.  \n \nThe intended audience for this policy is a ll staff,  students  and guests  using University facilities  and resources.  \n \nRelevant  legislation  \nCopyright  Act 1994   \nPrivacy  Act 2020  \n \nLegal compliance  \n \nA:  Privacy  Act 2020  \n \nCollection,  use and disclosure  of personal  information  must  comply  with Principles  1-13 of the Privacy  Act \n2020 . Personal  information  is any information  about  an identifiable  living  individual.  The University  is permitted  to \ncollect,  store,  use, and disclose  personal  information  relating  to students  in accordance  with the Privacy  Act 2020  \nfor the purpose  of conducting  its proper  business,  but there  are additional  circumstances  where  explicit  permission  \nis required.  Students  have  the right to access  and seek correction  of their personal  information.  \n \nB: Copyright  Act 1994  \n \nTo adhere  to the reproduction  and use of material  as per the Copyright  Act, and the University’s  Use of copyright  \nmaterial  for educational  purposes  policy , in relation  to scholarly  work produced,  and scholarly  (or other)  work used,  \nwork must  not be reproduced  in a manner  which  contravenes  the exclusive  rights  of the author  or creator.  \n \nRelated procedures  / documents  \n \n• Acceptable Use of Technology Policy  \n• Code  of Ethical  Conduct  for Research,  Teaching  and Evaluations  involving Human  Participants  \n• Data  Management  Policy \n• Information and Records Management P olicy \n• Information and Technology  Security Policy  \n• Intellectual  Property Policy \n• Privacy Policy \n• Publications Policy \n• Recording of Scholarly Work and Student  Work Policy  \n• Recording of Scholarly Work and Student Work Framework  \n• Social Media Policy  \n• Use of Copyright  Material for  Educational  Purposes  Policy \n• Web Policy  \n \n \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nRecording of Scholarly Work and Student Work Policy  – Page 5 \n  \n \n© This Policy  is the property  of Massey  University   \nDocument management  control  \n \nPrepared  by: Academic  Policy  and Regulations  Unit \nAuthorised by: Academic Board AB15/022  \nApproved by: Academic Board  \nDate issued:  February 2015  \nNext review:  February 2018  \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Space_Charging_Policy_PDF_50_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Project Name",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "50 KB",
      "author": "Carol Kelly",
      "creation_date": "2008-07-29T15:01:06",
      "modification_date": "D:20080729151732+12'00'"
    },
    "content": " \nSPACE CHARGING POLICY \n \nPURPOSE \nThe purpose of this policy is to support the development of a departmental cost alloca tion regime in order that \ncosts of space are appropriately allocated and are more transparent across the University .  It will also provide \nappropriate behavioural incentives and cost information to decision makers. \nSpace represents a major financial invest ment by the University. Currently there are few mechanisms in place to \nencourage the efficient use of space with central contribut ion costs not allocated to users.  This gives the \nimpression space is a ‘free good’ and there is no drive to us e it efficiently.  Space charging intends to identify the \noperational costs of space assets and therefore more efficient use. \nThe basic premise of space charging is that free assets  are less likely to be effectively managed than those that \ncost.  \nPOLICY \n1. Massey University will implement a Space Charging regime across all Regions and will apply to all Budget \nCentres.  It will be implemented below th e line for 2006 and 2007, and above the line from 2008. \n2. For this process three space types are identified; \na. Permanently Allocated (based on us age as recorded in SpaceMan) \nb. General Teaching Space (based on class size and ‘ bookings’ contained in the timetabling system) \nc. Common Space (not charged) \n3. The allocation methodology is based on Useable Floor  Area (UFA) spatial data held within the space \nmanagement system (SpaceMan) for perm anently allocated space, and bookings  within the timetabling system \nfor General Teaching Space. \n4. Space usage and costs will be calculated separately for each Region, so there is no cross subsidisation \nbetween Regions. This will be re-calculated annually. \n5. Changes in permanently allocated space will be tracked and incorporated into a six-monthly  based review.   \n6. General teaching space utilis ation would be estimated on a semester basis and charges based on class size, in \nagreed bands (see definitions) each band having an hourly rate calculated and the costs allocated based on \ntotal hours, by budget centre for each band, from timetable bookings. \n7. Vacant space costs will borne by the appropriate Region. \n8. Research Centre and Full Cost Recovery Centres, as  budget centres, will be incl uded in the space charging \nprocess. \n9. Small amounts of permanently alloca ted space that have been identified and declared surplus to requirements \nare to be returned to Regional control but will continue to be charged for until the nex t six-monthly data capture \nfrom SpaceMan.  If it is deemed significant space, then a manual correction to the monthly charge may be \nmade. However, the ‘credit’ may not be consumed, but will go towards the Budget Centres contribution target. \n10. Space Charging will be implemented in a phased approac h. Permanently Allocated as phase 1 and after a \nreview of the initial impact, General Teaching Space. \n       DEFINITIONS \nDepartment  – Refers to a/all entities at a Budget Centre level, i.e. Instit utes, Schools, Departments and Sections \nwithin the University. \nGeneral Teaching Space (GTS)  – All rooms that are cent rally controlled and booked thr ough the Regional Facilities \nManagement Timetabling Office/r.  These will mainly be lecture theatres rooms and seminar rooms, but some \ngeneral purpose labs are also included. \nGeneral Teaching Space Bands – Class sizes will be grouped in the following bands: \n Less then 20, 21 – 49, 50 – 99, 100+ \nGross Floor Area  (GFA) - The sum of the Fully Enclosed Cover ed Area (FECA) and the Un enclosed Covered Area \n(UCA) of a building in square metres. GFA = FECA + UCA (m2). \nPermanently Allocated Space  – This is rooms and space assigned to a department/school/institute within \nSpaceMan that indicates the associated budget centre has e xclusive use of that space. It is calculated in meters \nsquared (m2) by totalling all UFA space assi gned by unit code (budget centre). \nSignificant Space - exceeds 200m2 in total UFA of contiguous space. \nSpace  – This generally refers to rooms occupied/owned/controlled by the Univer sity and may be leased to or from \nanother party. \nSpace Charging  - The process whereby relevant space rela ted costs are identifi ed and apportioned to the \nappropriate user. Used synonymously here with ‘cost allocation’. \nSpaceMan  – Massey University’s in-house space management system. \nSpace Related Costs  – These are the total costs associated to a s pecific Region as outlined in section 3.1 of the \nProject Plan. \nUseable Floor Area  (UFA) - The sum of the floor areas measured at floor level fr om the general INSIDE face of \nwalls of all spaces related to the Pr imary Function of the building.  This will normally be computed by calculating \nthe FECA and excluding Common Use Areas , Service Areas, and Non-habitable Areas. \nAUDIENCE \nAll staff. \nRELEVANT LEGISLATION \nNone. \nLEGAL COMPLIANCE \nNone. \nRELATED PROCEDURES/DOCUMENTS \nSpace Charging Procedures\nDOCUMENT MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL \nPrepared by:  University Property & Systems Manager \nOwned by: General Manager, Strategy & Finance  \nApproved by: VCEC 06/09/171 \nDate issued:  September 2006 \nLast review: September 2007 \nNext review: September 2009 \n \n©This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Risk_Management_Policy_PDF_696_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Risk Management Policy",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "696 KB",
      "creation_date": "2019-07-11T11:01:09",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220102406+13'00'"
    },
    "content": "    \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \n \nRISK MANAGEMENT  POLICY  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \n \n \nPurpose : \nMassey University Council and senior management recognise risk manageme nt as an integral part of good management \npractice and an essential component of good governance. Risk Management adds value to the operations of the University by \nidentifying and mitigating events and threats that would otherwise impede the achievement of  our objectives and/or the \ncontinued effectiveness of the University’s  service to our students and communities.   \n \nThe purpose of this Policy is to ensure:  \n  \n Enterprise wide  commitment  and responsibility for risk management  \n Risks are identified, prioritised  and managed in a coordinated, consistent manner  \n A positive risk culture  \n Risk management  activities are embedded into operations  \n \nThis policy should be read in conjunction with the Risk Management Framework.  \n \nPolicy  Principles : \n1. All staff have a role to pla y in the identification and management of risk  \n \nAll staff have a role to play in the management of risk, and it is important that staff at all levels of the University have clearly \narticulated and well communicated roles and responsibilities. Those account able for achieving specific objectives are \naccountable for managing the risks related to achieving those objectives:  \n \nThe University Council both establishes the strategic direction and oversees the University’s operations, including setting \nperformance ta rgets for management and monitoring the achievement of these objectives. In respect of risk management, the \nCouncil is to be assured that the Universities Risk Management Policy and Framework is in place and that risks are being \nappropriately managed.   \n \nThe Vice -Chancellor is responsible for ensuring the effective implementation of the Risk Management Policy and Framework \nwhilst monitoring risk management performance and directing action and resources where relevant.  \n \nThe Senior Leadership Team are respons ible for implementing risk management activities within their reporting lines, and for \nbuilding a positive risk culture across the University. SLT are responsible for the identification and management of risk \nassociated with the achievement of the strategy , and for operational risks within their areas of responsibility and oversight.   Section  Risk Management  \nContact  Director Risk and Assurance  \nLast Review  December 2018  \nNext Review  December 2023  \nApproval  C19/76  \nEffective Date  December 2018  \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nRisk Management  Policy – Page 2 \n \n  \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \nAll Managers (including project managers) have a responsibility in identifying, and managing risks within their areas of \nresponsibility and control.  \n \nIndividual employees h ave a role in the risk management process, and are responsible for identifying risk and notifying and/or \nescalating them as appropriate.  \n \nThe Risk and Assurance Office has responsibility for coordinating risk information, for risk reporting to SLT and Coun cil, and for \nsupporting the implementation of the Risk Management Policy and Framework through advice, specialist support, training, and \nthe development and maintenance of appropriate tools.  \n \n2. Risks are identified, prioritised and managed in a coordinated, consistent manner  \n \nProviding a consistent enterprise approach to risk management enhances the quality and reliability of risk information to \nsupport decision -making. The Risk Management Policy and Framework will be used to assess level of risk, and to iden tify where \nrisks are outside of acceptable tolerance levels, requiring management intervention and action.  \n \nThe risk management process adopted by the University adheres to the ISO 31000 Risk Management Standard and is as follows:  \n \nRisk Management Process:  \n \n \n \nRisk assessments and reporting of risk across different activity areas (i.e. projects, contract risk assessments) must adhere  to the \nrisk assessment process, and utili se the consequence and likelihood  criteria  as prescribed in the Framework.  \n \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nRisk Management  Policy – Page 3 \n \n  \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n3. Massey  University support s a positive risk culture  \n \nTo ensure the values and behaviours that exist within the University support a positive risk culture, the University commits to  \ncreat ing an environment where:  \n \n Risks are openly discussed and raised without fea r or blame  \n The tone is set from top - Council and the Senior Leadership Team  actively encourage risk discussion and seek to make risk -\ninformed decisions  \n Staff are encouraged to take risks in an informed way in the pursuit of objectives, and aligned to the risk tolerance of the \nUniversity , as prescribed in the Framework . \n \n4. Risk management activities are embedded into operations, projects and factored into decision -making processes  \n \nRisk management should not be a stand -alone process, but should be integrated into business -as-usual  activities to support risk -\ninformed decision -making.  \n \nThe University commits to: considering risks as part of the development of strategy; factoring risk into strategic and operat ional \nplanning; including risk as a component of proje ct proposals and business cases; and, incorporating consideration of risk to \nadvice provided to Council.  \n \nRisk monitoring and reporting  \n \nUnder the oversight and direction of SLT and the Vice -Chancellor , Managers  at all levels of the University  will monitor  and \nreview their operational activities, risks and controls to ensure effective and efficient performance, governance, risk \nmanagement and compliance. Monitoring and reviews performed at this level will be the most detailed and generally \nembedded in routi ne operational processes, procedures and activities of front line management  as the first line of defence . \n \nManagement Committees, Steering Groups and Project Boards have responsibility for monitoring risks and controls to ensure \neffective and efficient pe rformance, governance, risk management and compliance within the scope of their terms of reference \nand in relation to the function overseen and/or governed.  \n \nThird line risk assurance may be provided by regulatory bodies, accrediting agencies, and externa l audit review for specific risks \nand controls. The internal audit function and Council are responsible for seeking and providing independent assurance over \ninternal controls and risk management practice.  \n \nRisk Registers and Risk Reporting  \n \nEach reporting  line shall establish suitable formal or informal processes to:  \n1. Demonstrate a positive risk culture by actively monitoring and discussing risk  \n2. Maintain a risk register for consolidation into the University’s enterprise risk monitoring and reporting process es.  \n \nEach reporting line will maintain a risk register, which will be reviewed at no less than six-monthly intervals. The updates to \nthose registers will be scheduled  to align to planning cycles and meet SLT and Council reporting requirements.  \n \nEnterprise  risk reports will be  prepared six -monthly for the Senior Leadership Team detailing:  \n• Those risks which are outside the acceptable tolerance levels  \n• Details of any escalating risks, and emerging risk issues considered during the reporting period  \n• Signif icant project risks  \n \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nRisk Management  Policy – Page 4 \n \n  \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  Council risk reports will be provided on a six -monthly basis detailing:  \n Status of top strategic risks identified in relation to the achievement of the strategy  \n Emerging strategic risk matters  \n Other items as requested by Council  \n \nThe R isk and Assurance Office will oversee  the process for reviewing and updating of risk registers, including setting the  \nschedule for review and reporting.   \n \nScope and Applicability:  \nThis Policy applies to all University staff , including subsidiaries, trusts , and controlled entities.  \n \nDefinitions  \nRisk is the effect of uncertainty on objectives .  \n \nRisk Management : coordinated activities to direct and control and organisation with regard to risk  \n \nRisk management framework : set of component s that provide the fou ndations and organisation arrangements for  designing, \nimplementing, monitoring, reviewing and continually improving risk management throughout the  \norganization.  \n \nRisk management process : systematic application of management policies, procedures and practic es to the  \nactivities of communicating, consulting, establishing the context and identifying, analy sing, evaluating, treating,  \nmonitoring and reviewing risk.  \n \nRisk assessment : overall process of risk identification, risk analysis and risk evaluation  \n \nRisk c ontrol:  Measure that is modifying risk Note 1 - includes any process, policy, device, practice, or other actions which modify \nrisk. Note 2; May not always exert the intended or assumed modifying effect.  \n \nRisk treatment:  Process to modify risk. Note 1. can involve avoiding the risk, accepting the risk to pursue an opportunity, \nremoving the source of risk, changing the likelihood or consequence, sharing risk, and/or retaining the risk by informed deci sion. \nNote 2: may also be known as “Risk Mitigation” . \n \nRelevant Legislation  \nNil \n \nLegal Compliance  \nNil \n \nRelated Procedures / Documents  \nRisk Management Framework  \nProject Management Policy and Framework  \nContract Management Policy  \nFinancial Monitoring and Control Policy  \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nRisk Management  Policy – Page 5 \n \n  \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  Business Case Policy and Framework  \nControlled En tities Governance Framework Policy  \n \nDocument Management Control  \nPrepared by:  Director Risk and Assurance   \nAuthorised by:  DVC Operations  \nApproved by:  C19/76 \nLast review:  December 2018  \nNext review:  December 2023  \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Secure_Cloud_Procurement_and_Use_Policy_PDF_97_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "5 Secure Cloud Procurement and Use Policy 2021 FINAL.doc",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "97 KB",
      "creation_date": "2021-10-18T10:00:08",
      "modification_date": "D:20211018100902+13'00'"
    },
    "content": "s\nSecure Cloud Procurement &UsePolicy\nSECURE CLOUD PROCU REMENT &USE POLICY\n© This Policy is the property of Massey University Page |1Purpose :\nMassey University is committed to thesecu rityof the University’s In formatio n Technology (IT) systems and data while\nenabling employees to carry out their jobs as efficiently as possible through the use of different technologies.  The\nfollowing policy and guidelines outline how end users can procure and usecloud services in a sec ure manner without\ncompromising University data, IT systems, or theability to conduct business.\nEnsuring t hesecurity, privacy and ownership rights of University information held bycloud service providers is\nappropriate, clearly speci fied and are built i nto the contractual arrangements for that service .\nRiskidentification a nd mitig ation that ensures institutional data willnotbedeliberately or inadvertently stored\nor transmitte d, where itcanpotentially be ac cessed by unauthorised partie s.\nParticipa ting via the formalised vendor management program that manages supplier transparency toreduc e\nrisk expos ureacross the supply chain.\nEnsuringcompliance with other relevant Massey policy and legisla tive requirements .\nPolicy :\nThis poli cy applies t o all University staff or anyone performing work on behalf of the University (in cludin gbut not\nlimited to contractors, co nsultant s,volunteer s, and students conducting research on behalf of the Universit y)who\nprocure or commission services th at propose t o use ou tsourced or cloud s ervice provider services .\nThis policy applies to all busine ss processes and data, information systems and components, and physical areas of\nthe University.  It includes all cloud services, all cloud -based email, docum ent storage, Softw are as a Service (Saa S),\nPlatform as a Service (PaaS), Infrastructure as a Servi ce (IaaS) etc.  Employee personal cloud accounts are\nexcluded.\nPolicy Statements :\n1.TheVice-Chancellor has the overall responsibility for the confidentiality , integrity, and ava ilability of\ncorpor ate data.\n2.TheChief Information Officer has delegated execution and maintenance of information technology and\ninformation systems .\n3.TheAssociate Director, ITS Security, Risk, Information & Record swill provide advic e in relatio n to the\nrequirements outli ned in this policy.Section Information Technology Servic es\nContact Chief Information Officer\nLast Review January 2021\nNext Review January 2024\nApproval SLT 21/02/18\nEffective Date August 2016\nSecureCloud Procurement &UsePolicy\n© This Policy is the property of Massey University Pag e|24.Itis the responsibility of staff procurin gsuch services to ensurethat they are aware of, and comply wit h;\nothe relevant end-user or terms of use agreements from the service provider\noUniversit yfinancial del egations , as all costs incu rred by the user are charged to their Budget Centre\noinformation security polici es,procedures, and re levant legislatio n,and\nosecurity protocols normally used in the management of University data (on conventional storag e\ninfrastruc ture) are applied whe nstoring and accessing such resources on Cloud Service s.\nCloud Procurement Guidelines\nAny end users, wo rking groups, or departments looking to use cloud services for either single project based work or\nongoing work, must follow t hese guideli nes:\n1.The use of cl oud services must adhere to existing University security policies\n2.The use of cloud services handli ng Massey University infor mation or data must be authorized by theChief\nInformation Officer (CIO ).ACloud Risk Asses sment to det ermin eif security, privacy , availability, and other IT\nrequirements are being adequately met must be completed.  The approvin g Data Custo dian is ultimately\nresponsible for th e risk inherent of t he cloud services that they choose.\n3.Individua l end users are not per mitted to open cloud service accounts or enter into cloud service contracts\nthat will initiate a new vendor relationsh ip, ma nipulate , or change existing relationships without the direct\napproval and input from the CIO.\n4.For any clou d services that require individual us ers to agree to terms of service or usage, the office of the CIO\nwill review such documents and determin e if e nd users can agree on an individual basis or identify any\nneeded changes. Always check with ITS, Security toseeif any term sof ser vice or usage you a re agreeing to\nhave been reviewed.\n5.Personally owned and managed cloud services may not be used for work -related purposes including the\nstorage, management, manipulation, sharing, or exchange of company related or owned data.\n6.Any usage of cloud serv icesmust include a data backup schedule . This is in effect to secure Massey’s ability\nto continue operations in the event a cloud service provider i s unable to continue service.\nInformation Security Classification andEncryption\n1.Allinformation movi ng to and th rough Massey University’s us age of cloud services is subject to and must\nadhere to the University’s Information Security Classification Policy and Framework .\n2.If at any poi nt the flow of data wi ll contain SENSIT IVE inf ormation, such as, personally identifiable i nformati on\n(PII), cred it card numbers, confidential or any other sensitive or regulated d ata,the data must be encrypted\nbefore being moved to a cloud environment.\n3.Any usage of cloud ser vices must adhere to all applicable laws and regulatio nsgoverning Massey Uni versity.\nSecureCloud Procurement &UsePolicy\n© This Policy is the property of Massey University Pag e|3Definition s:\nAvailability in information securi ty, is th at component of information assu rance that focuses upon providing\nimmediate access to mission critical data when it is needed for d ecisio nmaking. It would, otherwise, n egatively\ninfluence theorganisati on's pr oductivity.\nCloud Risk Assessment is acompreh ensive overview of the cloud application and the risk t he application pose s to\ndata.\nCloud Services means serv ices made available t o user son demand vi a the internet fro m a cloud co mputing\nprovider's ser vers, a s oppo sed to being provided from Massey’s own on-premises servers.\nConfidentiality means t he data storage technology employed at Massey University premises to store, manage and\nprotec tdata and information.  This co uld be mappe d networ k drives, staf f intra net website, or information stored in an\nappli cation that is only available to authorised staff.\nInformation Security Classification in the context of information security, is the cla ssification of data based o n its\nlevel of sensit ivity and th e impact tothe Univer sity sh ould that data be disclosed, altered or destro yed without\nauthorization.  The classification of data determines what baseline security controls are appropri ate for saf eguarding\nthat data.  Masse y University has thre e sensitivit y levels , orclassific ations: UNCLASSIFIED; IN CONFIDENCE;\nSENSITIVE .\nInformation Security directly relates to providing for the confidentiality, integrity and availability of all digi tal resourc es\nfor Massey University. This provides assuranc e that infor mation i s only accessi ble by those who are authorised to\nview it, records a nd data are valid and correct, and mission critical information is accessible when it is needed.\nInfrastructur e as a Serv iceor IaaS, refers to solu tions that provide se rvices such as stora ge,virtual se rver ho sting,\nnetworking, or other infrastructure com ponents via the internet.\nIntegrity in information security, is the component of information assurance that re lates to thevalidity and reliability of\nall of the informa tion assets. The wor d itself direc tly rel ates to the accuracy of the data records used for processing\nand decision making as well as the adherence to a process that guarantees the precision of the data.\nSecur ity Policies refers to info rmation security poli cies accepte d and ad opted by Masse y Unive rsity.\nPlatform as a Service allows users to d evelop, run and manage applications without building and maintaining\ninfrastructure.  PaaS provides methods to interact w ith services like databases and file storage, wi thout having to deal\nwith low leve l requi rements.\nSoftware as a Servi ceor SaaS, is a s oftware licensing and delivery model in which software is licensed on a\nsubscription basis and is hosted by a third-party .It is sometimes referred to as \"on -demand soft ware\". SaaS is\ntypicallyaccessed by user s via a web browser.\nRelevant Legislation:\nPrivacy Act, 1993.\nLegal compliance:\nPrivacy Act 199 3\nSecureCloud Procurement &UsePolicy\n© This Policy is the property of Massey University Pag e|4Establishes a set of privacy princ iples to ensure the prote ction of personal privacy i nrespect of both public andprivate\nsector org anisations. The Act is of prime importance and should be clearly und erstood by all information management\nprofessionals .\nRelated p olicy and p rocedure complia nce:\nAcceptable Use of Techno logy\nInformation Security Classification Policy\nInformation & Technology Security Policy\nDesktop Hardware andSoftwar e Acquis ition Policy\nDevice Security Policy\nPassword Policy\nPrivacy Polic y\nProcure ment Policy\nTelecommunications Po licy\nRelated pro cedures / documents:\nMassey Unive rsity Informa tion Security Manua l\nISO/IEC 27000:2014 –Information te chnology\nDocument M anagemen t Con trol:\nPrepared by: Chief Informat ion Officer\nAuthorised by: Deputy Vice Chancellor, Finance and Technology\nApproved by: SLT 21/02/18\nDate issued: August 201 6\nLastreview: January 2021\nNext rev iew: January 2024\n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Sensitive_Expenditure_and_Gifts_Policy_PDF_147_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Sensitive Expenditure and Gifts Policy",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "147 KB",
      "creation_date": "2022-12-14T09:00:05",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220102243+13'00'"
    },
    "content": "    \n Massey University Policy Guide  \n \nSENSITIVE EXPENDITURE AND GIFTS POLICY  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \nPurpose :  \nThe purpose of this Policy is to:  \n• Set out clearly defined parameters for sensitive ex penditure and  gifts except for Koha which is included in a \nseparate policy.  \n• Ensure  that sensitive  expenditure  and gifts are assessed,  authorised,  and reviewed  consistently  for \nall Massey University (the “University”)  Members.  \n• Ensure all sensitive expenditure and gifts received meet standards of probity expected of a publicly \nfunded organisation. It must have a clearly identifiable and justifiable business purpose or benefit, be \nmade with integrity and be moderate, conservative,  and appropriate in all  respects.  \n \n \nDefinitions:  \n \nSensitive expenditure  is defined as:  \n• Expenditure by the University that provides, has the potential to provide, or has the perceived potential to \nprovide a private benefit to an individual member of the U niversity that is additional to the business benefit of the \nUniversity;  or \n• Expenditure by the University that could be considered unusual when the University’s purpose and/or function \nare considered. Travel, accommodation, gifts, and hospitality are exampl es of sensitive  expenditure.  \n \nBenefit  is defined as anything believed to be of value to the recipient, or that might be perceived by a reasonable person \nto be of benefit to the recipient. A benefit may include preferential treatment in relation to their em ployment or association \nwith the University, such as access to events, functions and information, club membership or discounts in shops.  \n \nGift is defined as articles, items or monies given by one party to another party. A gift can include money, tickets, \nalcohol, or other products. For the purposes of this policy, a gift does not mean a donation and excludes Koha.  \n \n• Gifts of appreciation are generally given to express gratitude or thanks, such as flowers, chocolates, a \nbottle of wine and the like, in appreci ation of performing a specific task or for performing duties in an \nexemplary manner, or as an acknowledgement and appreciation of the relationship or service.  \n• Gifts of hospitality are gifts such as invitations to lunches, dinners,  or other events (such as a  seat in a \ncorporate box at a sporting event) offered to members in relation to work -related functions and similar \nactivities as part of their role in representing the University or managing University business.  \n• Official gifts are gifts that are presented to the University usually from another organisation in \nrecognition of its services or achievements or gifts presented to, or by, the University at an official or a \nceremonial function which might include dedicated plaques, plates, vases, or trophies.  Section  Finance  \nContact  Chief Financial Officer  \nLast Review  August 2022  \nNext Review  August 202 5 \nApproval  FAC 22 /39 \nEffective Date  17 November 2022  \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nSensitive Expenditure and Gifts Policy  – Page 2 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \n \nMember/s  are defined as members of Council, Committee Members, Students, Staff, Board \nMembers of Massey University Controlled Entities and Contractors working for, and on behalf of, the \nUniversity.  \n \nPolicy:  \n \nMassey University is committed to ensuring the highest standards of ethical conduct in its activities and operations, \nincluding ensuring that its resources are used in a responsible, proper manner in line with the expectations of its \nstakeholders. Due to risk of perceived or a ctual personal benefit to the staff member arising from certain expenditure \ncategories, such as travel,  accommodation, gifts and hospitality, the Controller and Auditor -General defines them as \n‘sensitive’ expenditure.  \n \nMembers are expected to exercise prud ent judgement regarding all business expenditure. Members \ninvolved in arranging, accepting, using,  or approving sensitive expenditure:  \n• Must do so only for a justifiable university purpose,  \n• ensures decisions made in relation to the expenditure are impartial – free from bias, preference,  or \nimproper reason,  \n• expenditure decisions are made with integrity and consistent with the expectations of the Code of \nStaff Conduct,  \n• ensure the giving or receiving of such expenditure is moderate and conservative,  \n• ensure the decisions are made transparently, and  \n• that the decisions are made with proper authority.  \n \nThe manager responsible for the relevant budget centre and the approver of any \nexpenditure will be accountable for decisions that breach this policy.  \n \nAll expenditur e relating to this Policy must:  \n• be authorised by a manager with delegated authority as outlined in the Delegations of Authority \nPolicy and in accordance with the Sensitive Expenditure and Gifts  Procedures.  \n• comply with all policies and related documents (li sted on page  3). \n \nUnder no circumstances should staff of equal or less seniority authorise expenses in relation  to \nthis policy.  \nAreas covered by this Policy include:  \n• Entertainment and hospitality (including alcohol) for internal and external  events  \n• Hospitality, gifts,  or other gratuitous benefits received  \n• Hospitality and gifts  given  \n• Farewells and  retirements  \n• End of year  functions  \n• Welfare  payments  \n• Papers and periodicals  \n• Professional  memberships  \n \nRefer to the Sensitive Expenditure and Gifts Procedures for related spend limits and approvals required.  \nRefer to the Koha Policy and Koha Procedures in relation to Koha received or given.  \n \n \n \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nSensitive Expenditure and Gifts Policy  – Page 3 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nReporting of Inappropriate Expenditure – Individual Responsibilities  \n \nStaff who consider there are grounds for enquiry into inappropriate expenditure must advise their manager or \nthe DVC University Services or the Director Governance and Assurance, in accordance with the Fraud and \nCorruption Pol icy. Alternatively, disclosure may be made under the Protected Disclosures Act 2000, refer to \nthe Protected Disclosure Policy and Reporting Procedures.  \n \nMonitoring and Review  \n \nCompliance with this policy will be monitored through a programme of management review and internal audit. \nIn addition, compliance with relevant legislation and “good business practice” is reviewed annually as part of \nthe external audit programme and in ac cordance with good practice guidance detailed in ‘Controlling Sensitive \nExpenditure: Guidelines for Public Entities’ (Office of the Auditor -General, October 2020).  \n \nExceptions  \n \nThe Vice -Chancellor must approve exceptions to this policy.  \n \nAudience:  \n \nThis Po licy applies to all University Members, and to all gifts and benefits received by University Members in the \ncourse of their official duties.  \n \nUniversity controlled entities are expected to adopt this Policy or to have their own Sensitive Expenditure and/o r \nGifts and Benefits Policy in place.  \n \nRelevant legislation:  \n \nPublic Finance Act 1989 and amendments Financial Reporting Act 2013 and amendments  \nProtected Disclosures Act 2000  \n \nLegal compliance:  \n \nPublic Finance Act 1989 – The purpose of the Public Finance Act is to provide a framework for parliamentary \nscrutiny of the Government's expenditure proposals and the Government's management of its assets and \nliabilities. It also clarifies the lines of responsibility for effective and efficient management of public financial \nresources, spells out minimum reporting obligations of Ministers and Departments and safeguards public \nassets by providing control over the borrowing of money.  \n \nFinancial Reporting Act 2013 and amendments – The purp ose of the Financial Reporting Act 2013 and \namendments is to provide a framework for financial reporting. It also clarifies the lines of responsibility for \neffective and efficient reporting and outlines the minimum reporting obligations of parties.  \n \nRelate d procedures / documents:  \n \nSensitive Expenditure and Gifts Procedures   \nKoha Policy  \nKoha Procedures  \nCredit Card Policy  \nDelegations of Authority Policy  \nProtected Disclosure Policy and Reporting Procedure  \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nSensitive Expenditure and Gifts Policy  – Page 4 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nProcurement Policy  \nConflict of Commitment and Interest Policy  \nFraud and Corruption Policy  \nReimbursement of Expenses Policy  Travel Policy  \nTravel Procedures (Domestic and International)  \nControlling Sensitive Expenditure: Guidelines for Public Entities  \n \nDocument Management Control:  \n \nPrepared by: Chief Financial Officer  \nOwned by: Deputy Vice Chancellor – University Services  \nAuthorised b y: Massey University Council  \nDate issued: 17  November 2022  \nLast reviewed: August 2022  \nNext review: August 2025  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n  \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Smoke_Free_Procedure_PDF_139_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Smoke Free Procedure PDF 139 KB",
      "policy_type": "Procedure",
      "file_size": "139 KB",
      "author": "Banner, Jodie",
      "creation_date": "2024-06-12T10:01:06",
      "modification_date": "D:20240612101627+12'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n \n \n \n \n   \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n \n ENTER PROCEDURE  \n \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n  SMOKE FREE PROCEDURE   \n \nSection  University Services  \nContact  Director  Occupational Health & Safety, Wellbeing  \nLast Review  October 2022  \nNext Review  October 2024  \nApproval  Director Occupational Health & Safety, Wellbeing  \n \n \nPurpose:  \nThe aim of this procedure is to provide a healthy and safe environment for everyone who works, studies,  \nvisits, or has business on university campuses, sites, and farmlands.  \nThis procedure supports initiatives aimed at reducing smoking prevalence and tobacco -related harm. Its  \npurpose is to:  \n• Promote “Smoke -free/Auahi kore” as the norm, by encouraging staff, students, contractors,  \nvolunteers, visitors, and their families/whanau to quit smoking.  \n \n• Eliminate second -hand smoke exposure to non -smokers.  \n \n• Promote and support the cessation of smoking due to the inherent health risks to smokers.  \n \n• Support New Zealand’s commitment to being essentially Smoke Free by 2025.  \nThis procedure recognises the uniqueness of the Manawatu and Albany Campuses with their large, \nopen -air environments in rural settings.  \n \n \nScope : \nAll staff, students, contractors, and visitors.  \n \n \nDefinitions : \n \n“Workplace” means an internal area, within a building or on a building or structure occupied by the \nUniversity and used by staff, students, and volunteers.  Workplace includes student accommodation, \ncampus grounds, campus buildings, farms, staff accommodation, vehicles on site (including personal \nvehicles) and vehicles provided for staff.  \n \n“E-cigarettes” include a diverse range of products comprising devices, with or without the e -liquid, which \nare usually flavoured, and which may or may not contain nicotine.  \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nSmoke Free Procedure  – Page 2 \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University    \n“Vaping” refers to the act of using e -cigarettes; the term refers to the vapour cloud which is produced as a \nresult.  \n \n \nProcedure : \n \nAll Massey University workplaces are smoke free and, as such, smoking is not permitted.  \n \nAny staff or students who smoke will be supported in their efforts to quit smoking. This commitment may \ninclude providing access to support services, individualised work plans to accommodate therapies or \ntreatments and/or temporary physical support on site  (e.g., temporary vaping shelters).  \n \nSignage indicating smoke free must be clearly visible in all workplace areas.  \n \nAs part of our commitment to a healthy campus, vaping is not permitted in any areas other than where a \ntemporary shelter may have been established for this purpose.  \n \nOperational concessions may be implemented where circumstances dictate as a short -term arrangement \nin support of smoking cessation efforts and where there is no risk of harm to others.  Any person who  \ncontinues to smoke or vape on campus will be reminded of the support to quit including any operational  \nconcessions which may be available; repeat non -compliances may be treated according to the Policy on \nStaff Conduct or Code of Student Conduct as applicable.  \n \nOperational Concessions : \n \nIt is recognised that, from time to time, operational allowances may be made on Manawatu and Auckland \ncampuses as required to facilitate our commitment to supporting smoking cessation.  This may include the \nestablishment of temporary shelters for vaping on  campus grounds or temporary shelters for smoking at \nour campus perimeters if the need arises.  \n \nThe operational decisions for any concessions such as temporary shelters must be informed, risk -based \nand must not compromise the commitment to a smoke free environment for those who do not smoke. \nWhere they are approved by the Director Occupational Health  & Safety, and Wellbeing, and the Chief \nProperty Officer, preference should always be given to vaping shelters over smoking shelters.  Smoking \nmust not be permitted in any vaping shelters.  \n \nWhere the need arises in accordance with this commitment, any temporary shelters must:  \n• Not be located anywhere where the prevailing wind can carry the smoke or vapour into \nany building  or area of where people gather.  \n• Not be located anywhere visible from main roads or access routes.  \n• Have safe lighting and access, especially for after hours.  \n• Maintain information regarding support for smoking cessation (e.g., quit line, EAP, etc)  \n \nOperational concessions shall be reviewed annually or more frequently as the need arises.  \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nSmoke Free Procedure  – Page 3 \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University    \nRelevant Legislation : \n• Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Act 1990 and amendments.  \n• Ministry of Health issued the Regulatory Impact Statement: Regulation of e -cigarettes and emerging.   \n• tobacco and nicotine -delivery products 2017  \n \nLegal Compliance : \nIn accordance with the Smoke -free Environments Act, any complaint submitted to a person in a position \nof responsibility within the University must be investigated, within 20 days of the complaint, and \nresolution sought if this policy has been contravened.    An assurance that there will be no repeat of the \ncause of complaint (where the complaint i s justified) is sufficient resolution.  Representatives of the \nstudents or employees may be present where resolution processes occur. Unresolved cases must be \nreferred in writing to the relevant Senior Leadership Team member, for resolution under Staff and  \nStudent Disciplinary Regulations. If the complaint cannot be resolved the case must be referred to the \nDirector General of Health within 40 days of the original complaint.  \nIt is recognised that vaping and the use of e -cigarettes is still relatively new and Ministry of Health \nguidelines for their management in workplaces and public spaces has not yet been made available. This \nprocedure will be reviewed when this guidance is p roduced.  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Social_Media_Policy_PDF_111_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Social Media Policy PDF 111 KB",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "111 KB",
      "author": "Ferguson, Rachel",
      "creation_date": "2024-07-05T11:00:05",
      "modification_date": "D:20240705110519+12'00'"
    },
    "content": "  \n   \n   \n   \n \n \n Massey University Policy Guide    \n \n \n    \n  \n \n \n \n \nPurpose:    \nThe purpose of this policy is to provide guidance  to Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa Massey University staff with respect to  \nthe official university use  of social media and  clarify the accountabilities and responsibilities of staff in relation to the \nuniversity's social media  presence .  \nPolicy:    \nThis policy concerns the use of university social media accounts that are owned and managed by staff, for example,  \nan account that represents the university, a College, School, service line or department .  \nThe official  Massey University social media accounts are owned by the Executive Director  Marketing and \nCommunications  and are managed  by the Social Media Team.  \nThe purposes of Massey University ’s social media accounts are to promote the student experience, research,  and \nachievements of teaching staff, to inform, educate and engage with current and future Massey students (both  \ndomestic and international), past and present staff, alumni, our corporate and research partners,  and other key \nstakeholders .  \nStaff seeking to set up an official university social media account or any account using the Massey brand must  contact  \nthe Social Media Team  in the first instance, who will consider the request in consultation  and conjunction with the \nCommunications Manager . New accounts must be approved by the Social Media Manager  and Communications \nManager.  \nAccount owners are responsible for monitoring and maintaining content, complying with this Social Media Policy,  other  \nrelated policies, gaining permissions to publish where relevant, and relevant legislation. Account owners must  ensure \ncontent is factually correct and should be mindful of ensuring they do not bring the university into disrepute . They are \nexpected to act responsibly and will be required to remove content immediately if asked by the Executive  Director  \nMarketing and Communications , Communications Manager, or the Social Media Team .  \nOfficial university accounts are required to have at least three designated administrators with access to the site  (one of \nwhich can be the Social Media Team) . These must be provided to the Social Media Team for administrative purposes.  \nIf one of the administrators leaves their role or  the university, the account password must be changed,  and an \nalternative administrator should be found.  When an account owner is no longer able or willing to manage the account, \nthey are responsible for closing it  appropriately , or arranging a suitable replacement with the necessary skills and \ncapacity to continue managing the  content. They must update the Social Media Team with any changes for \nadministrative purposes. If an official university social media account remains dormant for more than three months, \nthe Executive  Director  Marketing and Communications  has the authority to close the account .  \n \n Section   Students and Global Engagement   \nContact   Executive  Director  Marketing and \nCommunications  \nLast Review   February 2023  \nNext Review   February 2025  \nApproval   SLT 20/08/116  \nEffective Date   February 2023  \nSOCIAL M  \nE \nDIA POLICY  \n  \n\nDefinitions:    \nSocial media  refers to the channels used for the distribution and exchange of content in an online setting, such as, \nbut not limited to, blogs, micro -blogs, media sharing sites, social networks,  and virtual worlds .  \nAccount owner  means the person who, in the course of their employment, creates a social media account and is \nprimarily  responsible for publishing, monitoring, maintaining and appropriately archiving content .  \nDepartment  includes Colleges, departments, divisions, Schools, centres, research groups, committees, and any other  \ncollective administrative body .  \nHeads of Departments  includes PVCs, DVCs, Heads of Departments, Director s of Centres and Research Groups,  \nand Director s or Managers of Service Divisions .  \nMain social media  accounts  mean  the website supplying the social media service including, but not limited to, \nFacebook , Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram, Snapchat , TikTok , Threads  and YouTube .  \nAudience:    \nThis policy applies to all Massey University staff and students .  \nRelevant legislation:    \n• Education and Training Act 2020    \n• Human Rights Act 1993    \n• New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990    \n• Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015    \n \nLegal compliance:    \nExisting legal responsibilities and university policies remain in place when Massey University employees use social  \nmedia .  \nRelated procedures / documents:    \n  \nPolicy on Academic Freedom , Free Speech  and Freedom of Expression    \nPolicy on Staff Conduct    \nCode of Student  Conduct   Brand \nGuidelines    \nDocument Management Control:    \n Prepared by: Executive Director  Marketing and Communications  \nAuthorised by: Provost.   \n Approved by:  SLT 20/08/116  \n Date issued:  February 2021  \n Last review:  February 202 3 \n Next review:  February 202 5  \n  \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n  \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Retirement_Policy_PDF_111_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Retirement Policy",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "111 KB",
      "creation_date": "2022-11-22T11:02:05",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220102413+13'00'"
    },
    "content": "Massey  University  Policy  Guide  \n \n© This Policy  is the property  of Massey  University   \n  \n \n \n \n \n \nSection  People  & Culture  \nContact  People  & Culture  \nLast Review  October  2022 \nNext  Review  October  2025 \nApproval  SLT 17/08/112  \n \nPurpose:  \n \nTo provide guidance and support to staff wishing to plan for retirement, including an opportunity to explore options for \nmanaging a transition from full -time active service to retirement.  \n \nPolicy:  \n \n1. All staff will be subject  to the retirement  provisions  of their employment  agreement.  \n \n2. The University’s definition of a retirement is a staff member permanently withdrawing from the regular paid \nworkforce . This does not exclude retired Massey  University  staff from being  re-employed  by Massey  Univers ity on \na fixed -term basis up to a maximum of two years.  \n \n3. The timing of retirement is a  matter of individual choice and mutual agreement between the University  and the staff \nmember.  \n \n4. Early planning for retirement is mutually beneficial as it provides both t he University and the staff member with \ncertainty about the future and encourages staff to be pro -active with retirement planning.  \n \n5. The University  provides  the following  assistance  to staff to prepare  for and enter  into retirement:  \n \n• Subsidised  Superannuation – subsidised membership to UniSaver (formerly the NZ Universities’ \nSuperannuation  Scheme)  or the KiwiSaver  Scheme  is offered  to staff who meet  the eligibility  criteria.  Staff are \nencouraged to access this benefit as part of their savings pl an for retirement.  \n• Financial Planning & Retirement Seminars – seminars on financial planning and preparation for retirement \nare available to staff from time to time.  \n• Managed Transition to Retirement - the University recognises that a staff member’s employm ent can be \naffected by lifestyle preferences, personal aspirations, health considerations, and changes to individual \ncircumstances.  The availability of flexible employment arrangements can be extremely helpful in assisting a \nstaff member  to prepare  for retirement.  Staff contemplating  retirement  in the foreseeable  future  should  feel free \nto discuss with their manager any proposals which might assist them to manage their transition to retirement. \nFurther information about possible options is provided below  under ‘Options for Managing a Transition to \nRetirement’.  \n• Retirement  Gratuity  – eligibility  for retirement  payments  from the University  is contained  in relevant  staff \nemployment agreements.  \n• Access  to Library  & Other  Services  – retired  University  staff continue  to have  access  to the print only \nmaterial of the University Library, and use is  subject  to University  Library  rules  and regulations.  Access  to  \nRETIREMENT  POLICY  \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \nRetirement  Policy  – Page  2 \n© This Policy  is the property  of Massey  University   \n  \n \nother facilities ( e.g., office/lab space, computer use, etc) will be considered on a case -by-case  basis by the \ndirect line manager.  \n \nOptions  for managing  a transitio n to retirement:  \n \n• Staff wishing  to explore  possible  options  for a managed  transition  to retirement  can do so informally  and \nconfidentially with their manager.  \n \n• It is expected  that any proposal  for a managed  transition  will include  a specific  date for a full and final \nretirement  from employment with Massey  University  within a  timeframe  of no  more  than three  (3) years.  \n \n• Options  for managing  a transition  to retirement  might  include,  but need  not be limited to,  the following:  \n \ni. Reduced  hours  \n \nThis is a reduction in the level of work and time commitment but involves the same or very nearly the same \njob responsibilities. Agreement will need to be reached with the manager about what job responsibilities will \nbe undertaken during the proposed part -time commi tment as well as the pattern of working hours which, \ndepending  on the job responsibilities,  could  be regular or  intermittent  to suit the operational  requirements.  \n \nSalary payments will be pro -rated in line with the part -time level of commitment and there m ay also be \nimplications for annual leave entitlements, eligibility for overseas leave and contributions to superannuation \nschemes.  These  matters  should  be discussed  and clarified  with People  and Culture  and/or the relevant person \ne.g., superannuation scheme provider.  \n \nA staff member who, at the date of the reduction to part -time, has completed continuous full -time University \nservice to qualify for the maximum retiring leave/gratuity available under their employme nt agreement, will \nhave the rate of payment protected and paid at the equivalent full -time salary rate prevailing at the date of \ntheir eventual  retirement. That is, the rate of payment will not be reduced to the level of their part -time \ncommitment.  Other p art-time staff will have their retirement payment calculated on a pro -rated basis.  \n \nii. Re-focusing  responsibilities  (e.g., research -only,  or teaching -only)  \n \nChanges to job responsibilities are to be agreed with the manager. Changes to responsibilities may also \nrequire consideration of changes to the job title and/or remuneration to reflect the revised role. A new job \ndescription  should be documented  and agreed. For academic staff, consideration  may also need to  be given \nto the  University’s  Research  Strategy.  \n \niii. Specified  project  work  \n \nThis would typically involve a change to a fixed -term employment arrangement to undertake and complete a \nspecified project. The change to project work could either be prior to eventual retirement or  involve an  official  \nretirement  and then re-engagement  on a fixed term  up to a maximum  of two years  (see also (vii) below).  \n \niv. Flexible  or different  work  hours  \n \nChanges to the daily start/finish times and/or the days of the week on which work will be performed can be \nmutually agreed but this should only be agreed after reference to the hours of work provisions contained \nwithin  the relevant  employment  agreement.  A ‘compressed’  working  week  in which  the same  number  of hours \nare worked over a fewer number of days may  also be an option, however, careful consider ation needs to be \ngiven to any  potential impact on the health and wellbeing of the staff member.  \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \nRetirement  Policy  – Page  3 \n© This Policy  is the property  of Massey  University   \n  \n \n \nv. Job-sharing  \n \nA reduction  to part-time work  involving  two or more  people  sharing  the working  hours,  responsibilities,  and \ntasks of a  single  full-time position.  To work most  effectively  job-sharing requires  the right match  of job,  job \n“partners” and  manager,  and also requires  more  attention,  flexibility  and communication  than other  work  \noptions.  Any job- sharing arrangement must have the prior agreement of the manager.  \n \nvi. Leave  with/without  pay \n \nSome staff may find it useful to take periods of time away from work to explore or develop post -retirement \npursuits.  This can be with or without pay, depending on the staff member’s leave entitlements.  \n \nvii. Retirement  from  permanent  full-time position  and re-engagement  on a part-time and fixed -\nterm agreement undertaking different responsibilities.  \n \nThis may suit a staff member  seeking  to transition  to retirement  by reducing  to a relatively  low level of part-time \nwork but at the same time needing to access other forms of income such as superannuation benefits.  \n \nThis option  involves  the staff member  formally  retiring  from their current  position  at which  time they receive  any \ncontractual  retirement owing  to them under  their employment  agreement  in addition  to annual  leave  payments \nfrom the  University.  Retiring  in full also  qualifies the  employee to  apply  for a superannuation  benefit.  The staff \nmember can then be re -engaged on a part -time and fixed -term agreement with a job ti tle, grading and salary \ncommensurate with the job responsibilities and professional standing of the individual.  \n \nSuch re -engagements would normally be for limited term of (up to) one year or a maximum of two years and \nwould  usually  be to a role that is markedly  different  to the position  from which  they retired.  If the  staff member \nhas chosen to receive a retirement payment from the University in the form of retiring leave,  then any  such re - \nengagement cannot take place until after the expiry of that leave . Implications for other terms and conditions \nof employment  (e.g., leave,  salary  reviews,  promotions,  overseas  duties)  should  be discussed  and clarified  \nwith People and Culture . \n \n \nOnce a detailed transitional retirement proposal has been developed, a formal written request is to be made by the \nstaff member to their manager, who will add comments as to whether or not they support the proposal, before it is \nsubmitted to the relevant e xecutive manager (PVC/ DVC) for a decision.  \n \nDecisions on any such proposals will include consideration of the relevant department’s future staffing plans, \noperational needs, financial and other resourcing implications and the staff member’s contribution t o the aims and \nobjectives of the department and University.  \n \nIf approved, the People and Culture  section will prepare appropriate written documentation to formalise  the changes  \nto the staff member’s  employment  agreement.  If not approved,  the staff member  will be provided with reasons for \ndeclining the request.  \n \nAudience:  \n \nAll University  staffs  \n \nRelevant  legislation:\nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \nRetirement  Policy  – Page  4 \n© This Policy  is the property  of Massey  University   \n  \n \nHuman  Rights  Act 1993  \n \nLegal compliance:  \n \nWith the exception  of Section  30A of the Human  Rights  Act 1993,  the Act prohibits  aged -based  discrimination  in respect \nof decisions to pay service -based retirement benefits.  \n \n \nRelated  procedures  / documents:  \n \nEmployment  Agreements  \n \nDocument  Management  Control:  \n \nPrepared  by: Employment  Relations  Advisor  \nAuthorised  by: Deputy  Vice-Chancellor  – University Services  \nApproved by: SLT 17/08/112  \nDate issued: 9 May 2012 \nLast review: October  2022 \nNext review:  October  2025 \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Research_Data_Management_Policy_PDF_163KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Research Data Management Policy PDF 163KB",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "163 KB",
      "author": "Riley, Tracy",
      "creation_date": "2024-12-03T11:04:09",
      "modification_date": "D:20241203114922+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n \n____________________________________________________________________________________  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nBackground  \n \nMassey University recognises significant value in the data generated by its researchers, creative practitioners,  and \nresearch students . Durable research data is essential to justify and defend the outcomes of research and  can also \nhave ongoing value for other researchers and the wider community.  Increasingly data sharing is encouraged or \nrequired by research funders , data providers  and publishers. Well-organised, well -documented, preserved,  and shared \ndata are valuable resources to advance academic inquiry and the impact of research, and to increase opportunities \nfor learning and innovation.  \n \nResearch data management is the process of planning and undertaking the collection, organisation, storage, backup, \npreservation and sharing of data and primary materials, throughout the research lifecycle, for current and future \nresearch purposes and uses.  Good data management practices increase transparency, reduce the risks of data loss, \nfacilitate appropriate re -use and sharing of data, enhance transparency and accountability, minimise privacy breaches, \nreduce  reputational harm to researchers/institution s, enhance integrity of research , and support investment decisions \non digital and physical infrastructure.  \n \nPurpose  \n \nThe purpose of this policy is t o articulate the responsibilities of the University community for the management of \nresearch data. The policy:  \n• Describes principles for ensuring the safe, secure and traceable storage and management of research \ndata.   \n• Explains the University’s expectations in relation to the management of research data including the \nresponsibilities of researchers, research students, Heads of Units, and the University  \n• Facilitate s University -wide planning for the development of digital and physical storage infrastructure, \nsystems and support services to enable the efficient and effective management of the University’s research \ndata assets.  \n• Supports the University’s commitment to being a Te Tiriti -led organisation  and provides for the appropriate \ngovernance of M āori data.   \n• Provides for  the appropriate governance of Pacific data.  \n• Position s the University for current and emerging data management issues including the sharing and re -\nuse of publicly funded data collections , and legal, ethical and protective security requirements for research \ndata, and  \n• Advance s the principles of research integrity by ensuring research outcomes are founded on relevant \ninformation capable of verification and review.  \n \nThis policy applies to staff, students, supervisors, and other members of the Massey University who are involved in Section  Research  Management  \nContact  Office of the Provost  \nLast Review  November 2024  \nNext  Review  November  2027 \nApproval  SLT 24/11/129  \nEffective  from  November 2024  \n \nRESEARCH  DATA MANAGEMENT POLICY  \n \n \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nResearch Data Management Policy – page 2 \n             ____________________________________________________________________________________  \nthe collection, creation, re -use and/or management of research data.  \nPolicy  \n \n1. Research data  \n \n1.1 Research data is any information that has been collected, observed, generated , analysed  or created to validate \noriginal research findings.  Data may be numerical, textual, audio -visual, digital or physical, depending on the \ndiscipline and the nature of the research. It may be raw, cleaned or processed, and may be held in any format \nor media.  \n \n1.2 Research data may include:  \n• laboratory and field notebooks  \n• primary research data (including machine data in hardcopy or computer readable form)  \n• databases  \n• clinical data, including clinical records.  \n• completed questionnaires , and interview and observation data.  \n• photographs  \n• audio -visual material  \n• journals or visual diaries  \n• test responses  \n• drawings, or  \n• physical collections of slides, artefacts, manuscripts, specimens or samples.  \n \n2. Research Data Management Plans  \n \n2.1  Making decisions early in the research process about how data will be managed has benefits for researchers \nand research students, and for the University as a whole.  Research Data Management Plans provide for  the \nefficient and responsible storage, governance and disposal  of research data.   \n \n2.2 A Research Data Management Plan is required for r esearch projects involving the collection, creation or reuse \nof sensit ive or restricted research data , or where this is required by the University, a funder , an ethics approval  \nprocess , or other external party.   \n \n2.3 Research Data Management Plans must  comply and be consistent with any relevant national or international \nresearch funding requirements/ contract and with ethics approval for the research project.    \n \n3. Ownership  and custodianship  of research data  \n \n3.1 Data ownership refers to the intellectual property rights over the data collected, created,  or re -used through \nresearch, and may also define rules around data management and use. Ownership may be influenced by \nfunding agreements, commercial potential, and contractual obligations.   \n \n3.2 Where the research is carried out at multiple organisations or with external collaborators, and where there are \nno formal agreements or requirements, ownership of research data should be clarified as soon as possible and \nrecorded in writing.  \n \n3.3 Ownership of intellectual property is governed by Massey’s Intellectual Property Policy.  \n \n3.4 Researchers and research students  working with Māori data  should  be aware of and support Māori data \nsovereignty , and the relevance of manag ing and sharing data in accordance with the CARE Principles for \nIndigenous Data Governance1. \n \n3.5 Researchers and research students working with Indigenous data  including Pacific data should  be aware of the \nrelevance of managing and sharing data in accordance with the CARE Principles for Indigenous Data \n \n1 https://www.gida -global.org/care  \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nResearch Data Management Policy – page 3 \n             ____________________________________________________________________________________  \nGovernance.  \n4 Data sharing and transfer  \n \n4.1 Researchers  and research students are encouraged to share research data and primary materials during their \nresearch, at publication and at completion, subject to any ethical, contractual, intellectual property, cultural, \nprivacy or confidentiality  requirements.  \n \n4.2 To transfer digital research data or records, researchers and research students should use University licensed \nfile transfer and cloud services or other secure service s as advised by Massey’s I nformation Technology \nServices . \n \n \n5 Storage , retention,  and disposal of research data  \n \n5.1 Sufficient metadata must  be recorded to ensure research data are discoverable, and in such a way that metadata \ncan be understood independently without recourse to the creator. Metadata for digital and digitisable data should \nbe designed to meet the FAIR principles to make research data more discoverable.  \n \n5.2 Unless otherwise specifically agreed, research data will be retained by the researcher or research supervisor: \n(a) in their academic unit or College  or as otherwise required by the University , or (b) in the case of digital data, \non University -managed storage infrastructure.  \n \n5.3 Research data will be retained in an accessible form in accordance with the requirements of this Policy, for the \nretention period specified in a funder agreement or contractual arrangement  or research ethics approval  or in a \nResearch Data Management Plan  or as otherwise required by the University . \n \n5.4 At the end of the retention period, researchers and research supervisors may make a recommendation to their \nHead  of Academic Unit to archive or destroy the research data.  \n \n5.5 Where it can be shown that there are no specific arrangements (including  funder agreement or contract,  \nresearch ethics approval , Research Data Management Plan or other University retention provision) associated \nwith a collection of research data , the research data and its supporting metadata  may be destroyed  with the \napproval of the appropriate Head of Academic Unit or as other wise specified by the University.   \n \n5.6 Physical or n on-digital forms of research data created after the commencement date of this policy should be \ndigitised promptly where possible. Where there is no requirement to retain the original physical research data, \na recommendation for its destruction may be made in accordance with Section  5.4.   \n \n5.7 Data (including physical data) with archival, historical  or other long -term value shall be properly curated to remain \naccessible and usable for future research and should not be disposed of or destroyed  without  justification and \napproval  of the appropriate Head of Academic Unit or as otherwise specified by the University .  \n \n5.8 Arrangements for the ongoing storage on University property of physical data that cannot or is not digitised, and \nthat has not been identified as having long -term value under Section 5.7, must be agreed between Heads of \nUnits and researchers, or research supervisors in the case of research students , or as otherwise required by \nthe University . Such arrangements must have an identified retention period after which time the agreement will \nbe reviewed, or a recommendation for its destruction may be made in accordance with Section 5.4.   \n \n \n6 Responsibilities  \n \n6.1 General responsibilities  \n \n6.1.1 Research data management is a shared responsibility.  Researchers, academic units and administrative and \nservice units should work in partnership to implement good practice.  \n \n6.1.2 The University is responsible for ensuring the safe, secure and traceable storage and management of research \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nResearch Data Management Policy – page 4 \n             ____________________________________________________________________________________  \ndata. \n6.1.3 All staff  and students  engaged in research have a responsibility to manage research data well, by addressing \nownership, storage and retention, and access, over and beyond the end of the research project.  \n \n6.1.4 Researchers and research students (in consultation with their research supervisors) are responsible for ensuring \nthat sufficient data and primary materials are retained to justify the outcomes of research and, if necessary, \ndefend them against challenge.  \n \n6.2 Specific responsibilities  \n \nUniversity \nresponsibilities  • Communicating the requirements of this policy and facilitating its adoption through \nthe provision of guidance and support.  \n• Providing the necessary infrastructure, supporting resources and advisory services \nto enable researchers , research students  and research supervisors  to meet their \nresponsibilities for research data throughout the research data lifecycle . \n• Providing advice and guidance on issues connected with good data management, \nsuch as data protection, research integrity, research ethics and intellectual property \nrights.  \nResearcher \nresponsibilities  • Creating and updating required Research Data Management Plans .  \n• Recording and retaining the data underpinning their research in a durable and \nappropriately referenced form.  \n• Where the research is carried out at multiple organisations or with external \ncollaborators, ensuring that there is written agreement between all relevant parties \nthat specifies clearly the arrangements for storage, retention and destruction of \nresearch data within each organisation.  \n• Arranging for the prompt digitisation of physical (non -digital) data where possible.   \n• Ensuring arrangements for sharing, archiving , long-term storage /curation  or \ndestruction of data once the project has been  completed.  \n• Making appropriate arrangements if they require and have rights to continued \naccess to research data after leaving the University.   \nResearch \nsupervisor \nresponsibilities  • Providing guidance and support to research students on the application of this \npolicy to research projects.  \n• Supporting their research students in creating and updating Research Data \nManagement Plans.  \n• In consultation with their research students, establishing and documenting the \nownership of research data and agreed exit procedures.  \nResearch \nstudent \nresponsibilities.  \n \n \n \n • With the support of their researcher supervisors, c reating and updating required \nResearch Data Management Plans.  \n• Recording and retaining the data underpinning their research in a durable and \nappropriately referenced form.  \n• In consultation with their research students, establishing and documenting the \nownership of research data and agreed exit procedures.  \nHeads of \nAcademic \nUnits  • Overseeing the appropriate archiving or destruction of research data at the end of \nthe retention period . \n• In consultation with the researcher, agreeing appropriate storage or destruction of \nphysical data on University property that cannot or should not be digitised or \narchived once the project has been completed.  \n \n \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nResearch Data Management Policy – page 5 \n             ____________________________________________________________________________________  \nDefinitions  \n \nThe following definitions apply to this document:  \n \nCARE  principles  refer to the principles for indigenous data governance  (Collective benefit, Authority to control, \nResponsibility and Ethics)  published by the Global Indigenous Data Alliance.  \n \nData governance  refers to the arrangements put in place to ensure the interests of rightsholders and stakeholders in \nresearch data are protected and that all ethical, legal, data sovereignty and commercial constraints are adhered to \nthroughout the research data lifecycle . \n \nDestruction  means the process of overwriting, erasing or physically destroying information so that it cannot be \nrecovered.  \n \nFAIR  principles  are a set of community -developed guidelines to ensure that data or any digital artefacts are Findable, \nAccessible, Interoperable and Reusable. The principles  can be applied to digital data and artefacts from any disc ipline.  \n \nMāori data  refers to the digital or digiti sable information or knowledge that is about or from Māori people, language, \nculture, resources,  or environments.  \n \nMāori data sovereignty  refers to the inherent rights and interests of Māori in relation to the collection, ownership,  and \napplication of Māori data.   \n \nMetadata  means structured or schematised information about the attributes of an item or collection that enables that \nitem or collection to be identified, retrieved and managed over time. Metadata may include  descriptions, details of \nprovenance, structure and location, and other information which could aid comprehension and re -use. \n \nPacific data  refers to digital or digitisable information or knowledge that is about or from Pacific people, language, \nculture, resources, or environments.  \n \nResearch data  has the meaning given in Section 1 of this policy .   \n \nResearch data lifecycle  means the various stages of creating  the data, from  point of creation or collection through to \ndissemination.  The research data lifecycle typically  continues beyond  the research project during which the data was \ncreated.  \n \nResearch Data Management Plan  means  a document that provides information for the efficient and responsible \nstorage, governance,  and disposal of research data .  \n \nResearch student  means any person enrolled in a degree, diploma,  or certificate course at the University whose \nenrolment includes undertaking research of at least 90 credits.   \n \nResearch supervisor has the meaning set out in Massey’s Policy for Doctoral Supervision and [Master’s supervision].  \n \nResearcher  includes research staff, honorary appointees, adjunct appointees,  and contractors that undertake \nresearch at the University or using University resources, or otherwise on behalf of the University.  \n \nRestricted research data  has the meaning in the New Zealand Government’s classifications for information security.  \n \nRetention  means to retain research data in accordance with the General Disposal Authority for New Zealand \nUniversities.  \n \nSensitive research data  has the meaning in the New Zealand Government’s classifications for information security.  \n \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nResearch Data Management Policy – page 6 \n             ____________________________________________________________________________________  \nTrusted Research -Protective Security Requirements Guid ance  refers to the guidance developed by Te Pokai Tara \nUniversities New Zealand the eight New Zealand universities to manage risks relating to research activities including \nthe misappropriation or misuse of intellectual property, sensitive research,  and personal information.  \n \n \nRelevant legislation:  \n \nCopyright Act 1994  \nHealth Information privacy Code 2020  \nOfficial Information Act 1982  \nPrivacy Act 2020  \nPublic Records Act 2005  \n \nRelated policies and procedures:  \n \nCode of Responsible Research Conduct  \nCode of Ethical Conduct  for Research, Teaching, and Evaluations Involving Human Participants  \nCode of Ethical Conduct  for the Use of Animals for Research, Testing, and Teaching  \nData Management Policy  \nDevice Security Policy  \nGeneral Disposal Authority for New Zealand Universities  \nInformation and Technology  Security  Policy  \nInformation and Records Management Policy  \nIntellectual Property Policy  \nOfficial Information Policy  \nPolicy for Doctoral Supervision  \nThesis Embargo Policy  \nPrivacy Policy  \nResearch and Consultancy Activities Policy  \nResearch and Consultancy Activities Procedures  \nHealth Information Privacy Code 2020  \n \nDocument Management Control:  \n \nPrepared by:  Research Management  \nAuthorised  by: Office of the Provost  \nApproved by:  SLT 2 4/11/129  \nDate issued:  November 2024  \nLast review:  November 2024  \nNext review:    November 2027  \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Research_and_Consultancy_Activities_Policy_PDF_175KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Research and Consultancy Activities Policy",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "175 KB",
      "creation_date": "2025-02-13T09:00:00",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220102448+13'00'"
    },
    "content": "  \n \n \n  Massey University Policy Guide  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nPurpose:  \n \nResearch is a central characteristic of what defines a university.  It is a core part of Massey  University’s mission \nand purpose, as expressed in the University Strategy. Research informs our teaching, creates new knowledge, \nsolves critical problems , and builds future research capacity and capability. The University encourages academic \nstaff to engage in Research and Consultancy activities, as aligned with their employment duties and expectations.   \n \nThe purpose of this policy is to provide guidance for staff engaged in funded Research and Consultancy activities  \n(including funded professional and/or academic consultancy) at Massey University.   It sets out good practice for the \nmanagement of funded Research and Consultancy activities to ensure that: \n• Staff are encouraged  and enabled to undertake funded Research and Consultancy activities , while \nprotecting  the University and providing measured discretion to  their managers.  \n• Funded Research and Consultancy activit ies maintain and/or enhance the reputation of the University.  \n• There is transparency and accountability in relation to funded research, consultancy and commercial \ncontracting where Massey University is the supplier of these services.  \n• Procedures for the management of funding and costs support sustainable and successful Research and \nConsultancy activities.  \n• Staff undertaking Research or Consultancy activities receive appropriate workload relief from normal duties \nand/or recognition for additional duties.  \n• There is a responsibility on staff who intend to undertake Private Research or Consultancy activities to \ndisclose the ir proposed research with their Head of Unit prior to commencing the research so as to ensure \ntransparency  and trust, and to protect the interests of the University.  \n• Funds from Research and Consultancy activities are used appropriately and in a way that does not expose \nthe University, the funder or staff members to undue risk or liability.  \n• There is accurate reporting of financial and project data on Research and Consultancy activities; and  \n• Funded Research and Consultancy activities contribute to the academic and/or professional development \nof Massey staff, to the advancement of knowledge and mātauranga Māori, and do not compromise \nacademic freedom or critic -and-conscience responsibilities of  staff or students.  \n \nThe policy is supported and supplemented by the separate Research and Consultancy Activities Procedures  (the \nProcedures ). \n \n \nPolicy:  \n \nGuiding principles for the management of Research and Consultancy activities  \n \n(i) Staff are encouraged to undertake  funded Research and Consultancy activities in accordance with the \nprinciples  and processes outlined in this Policy, and the University endeavours to create a supportive  and \nenabling environment for such activities.  Section  Research  \nContact  Office of the Provost  \nLast Review  January 2025  \nNext  Review  July 2026  \nApproval  SLT 25/01/1 40 \nEffective Date  15 January 2025  \nRESEARCH  AND  CONSULTANCY  ACTIVIT IES POLICY  \n \n \n \nMassey  University  Policy Guide \nResearch and Consultancy Policy  – Page 2 \n_______________________________________________________________________________ ___ \n \n \n \n(ii) All Research and Consultancy  activities  carried out by staff at Massey University, including research and \nconsulting contracts with third parties, should maintain or enhance the  reputation  of the University,  and \nshould  not compromise  either  the University, the staff members  who undertake  this work , or the units within \nwhich they work.   Such a ctivities should  have relevance to the particular  staff member’s teaching, research, \nservice,  or professional dutie s. \n \n(iii) It is important therefore that a ll funded Research and Consultancy activities are negotiated, managed and \ndelivered  in accordance with this Policy  and the Procedures . \n \n(iv) The University is accountable for Research and Consultancy activities  by staff and  is expected to make fair \nand accurate representations  of its research capacity and the ability of its employees to undertake lawful \nresearch investigations  and/or consultancy activities .   \n \n(v) Funders  reasonably e xpect value for money and optimal benefit s to end users from funded  Research and \nConsultancy activities . It is critical that a ll parties to funding arrangements ensure that they understand and \nrespect their respective obligations.  \n \n(vi) To protect the interests of the University, staff member(s) and funder(s), and to  reduce exposure to  risk, \nstaff involved in Research and Consultancy activities  are required to manage a ll funds associated with  \nResearch and Consultancy  activities  with care,  integrity and honesty , in accordance with University policies \nand procedures , and in a way that reflect s the University’s  commitment to  Te Tiriti o Waitangi  and without \nexposing the University or the funder to undue risk .  \n \n(vii) Staff undertaking externally funded Research or Consulting activities  that cannot reasonably be completed \nwithin their normal full workload , and at the discretion of the Head of Unit,  may receive appropriate workload \nrelief from normal duties and/or recognition for additional duties.  \n \n(viii) Externally funded Research and externally funded Consultancy activities  should  provide for the full costs \n(including indirect costs ) necessary to support such activities , to contribute to the ongoing provision of \nservices to support research and researchers at the University.   \n \n(ix) The University is obliged  to maintain accurate  financial and project data  on funded Research and \nConsultancy activities  to provide reasonable assurance as to the integrity and reliability of internal and \nexternal reporting.  \n \n \n1.0 Appl ications , approvals , and advisement of  Research and Consultancy funding  \n \n1.1 Researchers are encouraged to apply for Research and Consultancy funding, and to undertake  funded \nResearch and Consultancy activities.  \n \n1.2 Approval is required from the relevant Head of  Unit (or nominee) before Research and Consultancy \nactivities commence . \n \n1.3 Processes and responsibiliti es for the application , approval  and advisement  of funded Research and \nConsultancy activities  are set out in the Procedures . \n \n1.4 The University is required to maintain complete and auditable records with respect to applications, \napprovals, advisements, and transactions relating to Research and Consultancy activities and funding.  \nResponsibility for maintaining records is set out in the Procedures.  \n \n \n2.0 Costing and indirect cost recovery for funded Research and Consultancy  projects  \n \n2.1 Research  and Consultancy proposals should be costed as accurately and comprehensively as possible , \nand all reasonable steps should be taken to recover the full direct and indirect  costs of Research and \n \n \n \nMassey  University  Policy Guide \nResearch and Consultancy Policy  – Page 3 \n_______________________________________________________________________________ ___ \n \n \nConsultancy  activities  within the agreed price , in accordance with the process set out in the Procedures . \n \n2.2 In accordance with the University’s budget allocation framework, Research and Consultancy  income is \nrecognised within the College and Budget Centre where it is generated, including the indirect cost \nrecoveries for externa lly funded research.  \n \n2.3 Research and Consultancy activities  where the full direct and indirect costs  are not recovered may still be \nsupported by the University, as outlined in the Procedures . \n \n \n3.0 Contracting of Research and Consultancy activities  \n \n3.1 It is important that funded Research and Consultancy activities  are supported  by a duly authorised written \nAgreement, negotiated , managed and concluded in accordance with this Policy and the Procedures . \n \n3.2 Complete and auditable records need to be retained in respect of all Research and Consultancy activities  \ncontracts, variation of such contracts, and  any information pertinent to the conclusion or fulfilment of those \ncontracts.   Responsibility for maintaining records is set out in the Procedures.  \n \n \n4.0 Opening  Research and Consultancy project accounts  \n \n4.1 It is required that  all externally and internally funded Research and Consultancy activities  be recorded  and \nmanaged in  a Research or Consultancy project  account in the Massey University research management \nsystem , in accordance with the process outlined in the Procedures . \n \n \n5.0 Administering Research  and Consultancy project accounts  \n \n5.1 It is expected that Research or Consultancy activities  are undertaken in accordance with a pplicable  ethical \nand regulatory requirements, Massey University policies and procedures, and the financial and contractual \nobligations of any Agreement s that relate to such  Research or Consultancy activities . \n \n5.2 Staff involved in Research and Consultancy activities  are responsible for communicating any variations to \nthe terms of Research or Consultancy Agreements  to the Research Office in writing .  The Research Office \nis responsible for ensuring such variations  are recorded  in the Massey University research management \nsystem . \n \n5.3 All staff involved  in Research and Consultancy activities are obliged to  manage  the revenue, expenses, \nobligations  and reporting relating to those  activities  in accordance with the Procedures . \n \n6.0 Project reporting obligations  \n \n6.1 Any reporting requirements to funders need to  be undertaken by the dates  and person (s) or entities  \nspecified in the Agreement and  administered in accordance with the Procedures .   \n \n \n7.0 Appropriate expenditure of Research and Consultancy income  \n \n7.1 Research and Consultancy funding shall be spent in accorda nce with the  relevant Agreement  (including \nany approved Variations) and any associated budget . \n \n7.2 It is expected that  all expenditure  in relation to Research and Consultancy activities  is authorised in \naccordance with the relevant financial delegations  and managed as set out in the  Procedures . \n \n \n \n \nMassey  University  Policy Guide \nResearch and Consultancy Policy  – Page 4 \n_______________________________________________________________________________ ___ \n \n \n \n8.0 Closing Research and Consultancy project accounts  \n \n8.1 Responsibilities and processes for closing project accounts are set out in the Procedures . \n \n8.2 As far as reasonably practicable , all transactions and commitments relating to  Research or Consultancy \nproject s will be finalised by the agreed project end date . Where this is not possible, the  Procedures  set out \nthe relevant requirements, responsibilities,  and actions . \n \n \n9.0 Reimbursements for extra duties (‘overload compensation’)  \n \n9.1 Reimbursement for extra duties (‘overload compensation’) provides for the appropriate re muneration of \nstaff carrying out externally funded Research or Consultancy activities  that cannot reasonably be completed \nwithin the normal full workload.  Subject to the approval of their Head of Unit, staff members may apply for \nreimbursement for extra duties. The process for requesting and criteria for approving applications for \nreimbursement for extra duties are set out in the Procedures.  \n \n \n10.0  Private research and consultancy  \n \n10.1 It is a requirement of the University that funded Research and Consultancy activities  by staff are provided \nthrough the University  and managed in accordance with this Policy  and the Procedures , with the exception \nof Private Research and Consultancy activities .   \n \n10.2 It is understood and accepted that  staff undertake private activities (including personal consultancies and \nentrepreneurial activities) which rely on the special knowledge and expertise of the staff member,  and which \nenhance the academic status of the individual concerned and the reputation of the University . Subject to \nthe approval of their Head of Unit, staff members may undertake funded Research  and Consultancy  work \noutside the University . The process for requesting and criteria for approving applications for Private \nResearch and Consultancy activities  are set out in the Procedures.    \n \n10.3 Staff members engaging in Private Research or Consultancy activities assume personal responsibility for \nthe legal management of their activit ies (including indemnity insurance) as outlined in the Procedures . \n \n \n11.0 Dispute resolution  \n \n11.1 Any conflict or dispute in relation to a funded Research or Consultancy activity arising between an individual \nstaff member and the Head of Unit , or between partners to the Agreement, will be managed as set out in \nthe Procedures . \n \n \nDefinitions:  \n \nThe following terms are used  commonly throughout this Policy  and the Research and Consultancy Activities \nProcedures , and, unless indicated otherwise, have the meanings ascribed to them  below.  \n \nAgreement : a written  contractual document that is negotiated and usually signed between the University and other \nrelevant parties including external funders. This may be a Research or Consultancy Contract , an indicative \nagreement, a n email/ letter offering/confirming a funding award, or an email/ letter offering funds for a non -exchange \ntransaction.   \n \nConflict  of Commitment : as defined in the Massey University Conflict of Commitment and Interest Policy : a situation \nin which the activities of a staff member interfere with that staff member's fulfilment of obligations to students, \ncolleagues, or the University.  \n \n \n \nMassey  University  Policy Guide \nResearch and Consultancy Policy  – Page 5 \n_______________________________________________________________________________ ___ \n \n \n \nConflict of Interest : as defined in the Massey University Conflict of Commitment and Interest Policy : a situation in \nwhich the activities of a staff member outside their employment obligations to the University lead to material \npersonal benefit to the staff member concerned, either directly or indirectly (e.g. through a family member, \nassociated entity o r external agency), to the detriment of the University . \n \nConsultancy  Contract : means  the provision  by Massey  staff,  other  than as private  individuals  (when  all provision  is \noffered independently  of any  connection  to, or with Massey), of consultancy  services to a third party, where those \nservices do not meet the definition of research.  \n \nDirect  costs : costs that can clearly  and solely  be attributed  to the project . \n \nExchange Transactions : transactions funded or supported by a party external to Massey University  in exchange for \noutputs and reporting obligations (including goods, services,  and use of assets) that are defined in an Agreement \nbetween the parties . \n \nFunded Research and Consultancy activity : means the provision by Massey University staff of expert or \nprofessional advice, information and/or service to individuals or organisations (whether internal or external), or \nresearch as agreed by contract and resulting in the receipt of a negotiated fee or payment.  \n \nFull costs : the total direct  and indirect  costs  of providing  the services  incurred  by the University.  \n \nHead of Unit : this term refers to the appointed manager of a division of the University including a unit, school or \nresearch or specialist centre, and should be taken to mean line manager where the Head of Unit is the Project Lead \nor otherwise a Massey staff member undertaking or planning to undertake funded Research and Consultancy \nactivity.  \n \nIndirect costs : costs necessary to support the research activities for which external funding has been supplied  that \ncannot be readily attributed to the project . These include central administrative costs (e.g. financial services, HR \nservices) and central facilities like libraries, rooms,  and laboratories.  \n \nNon-exchange Transactions : transactions funded or supported by a party external to Massey University where an \nAgreement does not define expected outputs that must be produced in exchange for the funding provided (for \nexample gifts and donations).  \n \nPrice : consideration  agreed with the client. This may  be above (surplus) or below (loss) the full cost of the service.  \n \nPrivate Research and Consultancy  means any work undertaken by Massey University staff (as private individual s) \nfor any person or body other than the University that does not materially or legally involve the University.  \n \nProcedures : the R esearch and Consultancy Activities Procedures . \n \nProject Leader : the person nominated to lead a research or consultancy project (such as a principal investigator or \nconsultancy holder), and who is entered as such in the University’s research management system . \n \nResearch : The definition of research is as defined by the Tertiary Education Commission , namely : investigation or \ninquiry leading to new, recovered, or reinterpreted knowledge or understanding which is  effectively  shared  and \ncapabl e of rigorous assessment by the appropriate experts . \n \nResearch and Consultancy  activities/ services/ work means the provision by Massey University staff of expert or \nprofessional advice, information and/or service to individuals or organisations (whether internal or external), or \nresearch as agreed by contract and resulting in the receipt of a negotiated fee or payment . \n \nResearch and Consultancy  account : refers t o a specific account for  each  research or consultanc y contract , which \nis opened and operated for the purpose of  managing all receipts of funds and payments in relation to that research \nor consultancy contract.  \n \n \n \n \nMassey  University  Policy Guide \nResearch and Consultancy Policy  – Page 6 \n_______________________________________________________________________________ ___ \n \n \nResearch Project Request e -form or equivalent : refers to an electronic form completed prior to the submission of \nall applications for externally funded Research and Consultancy activity, to ensure the necessary information is \nprovided for approval, support and reporting purposes.  \n \nResearch Office : a generic term to describe the main department or unit tasked with the management of research \nat a university and which at Massey University is known as Research Operations . \n \nResearch  Contract  means  a legally binding agreement that govern s the provision  by Massey  staff of research -based  \nand related  academic  services  to a third party.   \n \nVariation : A change to the nature, quantity or quality of work to be undertaken, made after execution of the \nAgreement  and after the price is agreed , and which may r esult in additional time being allowed and/or an increase \nin the agreed cost . \n \n \nAudience:  \n \n• Massey University staff and students engaged in funded Research and/or Consultancy  activities  \n• Research Office staff, College Business Managers and other professional staff engaged in the support of \nfunded Research and/or Consultancy  \n• Non-Massey University staff , students and contractors  engaged in Research and/or Consultancy activities  \nhosted by Massey University , or in terms of a  Research or Consultancy Contract  \n \nRelevant Legislation:  \n \n \nLegal Compliance:  \n \n \nRelated  Policies and Procedures:  \n \n• Academic Freedom Policy  \n• ''Massey University Staff Collective Employment Contract\" and any other  conditions of employment staff \nmight have with Massey University  \n• Code of Responsible Research Conduct  \n• Delegations  of Authority Policy  \n• Intellectual  Property  Policy  \n• Research  and Consultancy  Activities Procedures  \n• Financial Monitoring and Control Policy  \n• Policy on Staff Conduct  \n• University Workloads Policy  \n• Conflict of Commitment and Interest Policy  \n• Fraud and Corruption Policy  \n• The Code  of Conduct  for Research  or Teaching  involving  the Importation  or Development  of New  Organisms  \nUsing Recombinant  DNA.  \n• The Code  of Ethical  Conduct  for the Use of Live Animals  for Teaching  and Research  \n• The Code  of Ethical  Conduct  for Research,  Teaching  and Evaluations  Involving  Human  Participants  Creations \nof Contracts Policy  \n• Any relevant Service Level Agreements  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nMassey  University  Policy Guide \nResearch and Consultancy Policy  – Page 7 \n_______________________________________________________________________________ ___ \n \n \nDocument Management Control:  \n \nAuthorised  by: Office of the Provost  \nApproved by:  SLT 25/01/140  \nDate issued:  15 January 2025  \nLast review:  January 2025  \nNext review:   July 2026  \n \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Sponsorship_Policy_PDF_116_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Sponsorship Policy PDF 116 KB",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "116 KB",
      "creation_date": "2023-03-08T13:01:09",
      "modification_date": "D:20230308131905+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n \n  \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nPurpose : \n \nThe purpose of this polic y is to establish guidelines for:   \n \n1. Investments in sponsorships b y Te Kunenga Ki Pūrehuroa  Masse y Universit y.   \n2. Procurement of sponsorships to Te Kunenga Ki Pūrehuroa Masse y Universit y. \n \nPolicy:  \n \nMasse y Universit y has determined that when entering into a sponsorship  agreement with a third part y, that its staff will \ntake all practical care to ensure that it enhances the university’s reputation and engagement with future students, while \ndelivering on the university’s  Strategy and Mission - the advancement of knowledge and the dissemination and maintenance \nof teaching and research.  \n \nThe universit y’s objectives when investing or procuring sponsorships are:   \n \n1. Increasing the university’s profile and reputation.  \n2. Increasing lead generation of future students with domestic and international audiences.  \n3. Showcasing the university’s commitment to being a Tiriti -led university.  \n4. Showcasing our leadership on matters of interest.  \n5. Showcasing the university’s research.  \n6. Showcasing our leadership in online and blended pedagogy and delivery . \n7. Increasing the profile of the leaders within the university.  \n8. Providing opportunities to connect with industry across the unive rsity’s diverse portfolio.  \n9. Some other benefit that has been agreed with the DVC SaGE or VC.  \n \nWhere possible, all sponsorships are to be industr y exclusive. The universit y will not engage with sponsorships or \npartnerships where:  \n \n1. They are overtly religio us.  \n2. They are sexuall y exploitative.  \n3. They promote gambling, drinking or drug consumption.  \n4. They are  not political ly neutral  in nature.  \n \nPrior to agreement of any sponsorship, departments should ensure they have the correct funds to leverage the sponsorship \nand the resource to do it. Without resource and leverage funds, it is highly likely that sponsorships will fail to meet busin ess \nobject ives.  \n Section  University Management  \nContact  DVC Students and Global Engagement  \nLast Review  February 2023  \nNext  Review  February 202 6 \nApproval  SLT 23/01/07  \nEffective  from  February 2023  \n \n SPONSORSHIP POLICY  \n \n \n  \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nSponsorship Policy  – Page 2  \n \nThe following levels of approval are required to engage with a sponsorship .  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nThis delegation does not replace the Budget Manager’s Delegated Authorit y but is to be used in conjunction with.   \n \nWhere sponsorship investments are $5,000 or more, the sponsorship will require approval from the Deputy Vice-\nChancellor,  Students and Global Engagement  and the National Events and Sponsorship Team should be advise d to \nensure leverage and benefits are maximised and conflicts of interest are avoided.  \n \nDefinitions:   \n \nSponsorship   \n \nSponsorship is defined as a form of pr omotion where a partnership to support an activit y or an event is form ed from which \nthe sponsor expects to derive tangible benefits.   \n \nExclusivity   \n \nExclusivit y means that the sponsorship agreement specifies that Masse y Universit y is the onl y sponsor.   \n \nIndustr y Exclusivity   \n \nIndustr y Exclusivit y means that the sponsorship agr eement specifies that Massey Universit y is the onl y Tertiar y Education \nsector provider that is a sponsor.   \n \nNaming Rights   \n \nNaming Rights means that the sponsorship agreement specifies that Masse y Universit y is the naming right sponsor , and \nthe activit y or event will be kno wn as ‘Te Kunenga Ki Pūrehuroa  Massey University’s…   \n \nSponsorship  Investments  \n \nSponsorship Investments are the full costs for the rights to the sponsorship.  \n \nLeverage Funds   \n \nLeverage Funds are classed as an y costs or resources that go to wards promotion of the Masse y brand  in association with \nthe sponsorship and includes an y resources the universit y needs to help leverage the event (costs associated with hosti ng \nand / or delivering the event, staff time and an y in-kind offering to the event).  \n \nCharitable Donation   \n \nCharitable Donations are defined as a pa yment to an organisation  / event with no expectation of a commercial return. \nThese are not covered under th is polic y.   \n \n \nSponsorship Procurement  \n  \nSponsorship Procurement is where Masse y Universit y requests sponsorship funding from an external part y. Support from \nthe National Events and Sponsorship Team is available for procurements.  Sponsorship \nInvestment  Delegated \nAuthority  \nUp to $ 50,000  \n(and under two \nyears)  \n DVC , SaGE    \n$50,000 and over  \n(or over two years)  Vice-Chancellor   \n \n \n  \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nSponsorship Policy  – Page 3  \n \n \nAudience : \n \nAll staff  \n \nRelevant legislation:  \n \nNone  \n \nLegal compliance : \n \nNone  \n \nRelated policies and procedures:  \nSponsorship Procedure  \nTe Kunenga Ki Pūrehuroa - Masse y Universit y Strategy 2022 -2027  \nConflict of Commi tment and Interest Policy   \nFinancial Monitoring & Control Policy   \nDelegations of Authority Policy  \n \nDocument Management Control:  \nPrepared b y:   National Events and Sponsorship Manager   \nAuthorised b y: DVC Students and Global Engagement    \nApproved b y:   SLT February 2023  \nDate issued:   February 2023  \nLast review:   February 2023  \nNext revie w:   February 2026  \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Staff_Recruitment_Policy_PDF_154_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Staff Recruitment Policy PDF 154 KB",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "154 KB",
      "creation_date": "2023-08-03T07:03:01",
      "modification_date": "D:20250708130807+12'00'"
    },
    "content": "    \n Massey University Policy Guide  \n \nSTAFF RECRUITMENT POLICY  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  Purpose\nThe purpose of this policy is to ensure we attract and appoint the right people for the right roles at the right time, to \nenable those people to help us to make a difference in the world as a place of higher learning.\nPolicy\nAll appointments to vacancies are to be made on the basis of relevant merit, while ensuring we meet our legislative \nresponsibilities, contractual responsibilities and agreed obligations, and are able to move decisively to minimise \nrisk and to secure talent in a competitive marketplace. We are committed to upholding Tiriti o Waitangi principles through \nour attraction, recruitment and selection practices.\nContext\nAny opportunity to bring new people into our University, is an opportunity to enhance our capabilities and the quality of \nour outputs as well as an opportunity to enhance the mana of the University with all who touch the recruitment \nand selection process. Each and every person employed at Te Kunenga Ki P ūrehuroa contributes to our vision for the \nfuture and is an important addition to our wh ānau, regardless of what role they perform.  The function of recruiting new \nstaff is an investment for the future of the University.\nPosition\nKo Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa te kaupapa e tū ngātahi ai tātou hei waihanga i ngā momo mātauranga ki te pae o \nangitū. He ara putanga tauira, he ara  e hua ai ngā tini kaupapa ki Aotearoa puta noa i te ao whānui. Kia toi te mana \nmotuhake o te iwi Māori, kia toi te reo Māori, kia toi te ora o te tangata, te rangi me te whenua mā reira e whakatinana  \nai te mana o Te Tiriti o Waitangi.\nAt Massey University we are Tiriti-led, upholding Tiriti o Waitangi principles through our practices in all aspects of our \nlearning, teaching and research and our citizenship; we work together with mutual respect and caring; and we are \nfuture-focused, results-oriented and strive for excellence.\nLocated in the South Pacific Ocean, Aotearoa New Zealand is an influential leader in many fields of academia across  \nOceania and the wider Asia Pacific region, as well as a major contributor across the globe. As a leading practical and \napplied tertiary education institution, Te Kunenga Ki Pūrehuroa (Massey University) is ideally positioned to be an \ninnovative leader through our pursuit to provide world class teaching, learning and research through the quality of our \npolicies, our practices and most importantly, our people.Section People and Culture \nContact Staff Recruitment Manager \nLast Review June 2024\nNext Review June 2029\nApproval 27 February 2020\nEffective Date June 2024\n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nStaff Recruitment Policy  – Page 2 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \nOur policies are created to appreciate the connections our people have to whānau, to whenua and Te Tai Ao in which \nwe operate and by recognising the importance of our people, their ability to grow and the whakapapa they descend \nfrom. This is summed up in this whakataukī:  \n \n“Hutia te rito o te harakeke Kei whea to kōmako e kō?  \nKi mai ki ahau He aha te mea nui o te Ao?  \nMaku e kī atu,  \nhe tāngata, he tāngata, he tāngata...\"  \n \n“If the heart of the harakeke was removed, whe re would the bellbird sing?  \nIf I was asked what was the most important thing in the world?  \nI would be compelled to reply,  \nit is people, it is people, it is people…”  \nEqual Opportunities  \nTe Kunenga Ki Pūrehuroa is an equal opportunities employer as we embra ce diversity and inclusion and are \ncommitted to providing a safe environment to provide equal opportunities for all, while openly encouraging \nunderrepresented groups to join us.  \n \n All reasonable care must be taken to avoid bias through each step of the process including:\n• An unbiased Job Description and Person Specification;\n• Neutral wording in advertising for all diversity categories;\n• Recognition of the added value of flexible work practices; \n• A balanced and appropriate selection panel.\nResponsibilities under the Education and Training Act 2022\nTo meet our responsibilities under the Education and Training Act 2022, all permanent and fixed-term vacant positions \nmust, where practicable, be advertised in a manner sufficient to enable suitably qualified persons to apply for the posi-\ntion, except:\n• Positions of twelve months duration or less, or;\n•  When the Executive Director People and Culture or their delegate accepts a recommendation for\nappointment by invitation, or;\n• Where the position has been advertised recently (within the last 9 and as much as 12 months for senior or\nhard-to-fill roles), such that it is highly unlikely that further advertising will draw additional suitable applicants \nthan were received on the earlier occasion, and a suitable candidate has been identified.\nResponsibilities under the Immigration Act 2009\nTe Kunenga Ki Pūrehuroa has High 9olume employer accreditation with Immigration NZ  to support visa applications. \nNew Zealand applicants (and our ability to train and develop those applicants) must be considered before offering \nemployment to any non-New Zealand candidates.\nAll new migrants, and managers of new migrants, must successfully complete the Employment NZ online training \nmodules provided by Immigration NZ, within one month of the new migrant commencing employment at Massey.\nObligations to Tangata Whenua\nAs a Te Tiriti- led university, Te Kunenga Ki Pūrehuroa has stated objectives to increase the numbers of Māori staff. \nThe emphasis to attract, recruit and select Māori s taff must be a prime consideration for all vacant positions. \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nStaff Recruitment Policy  – Page 3 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  Obligations to Pacific Peoples\nTe Kunenga Ki Pūrehuroa has specified obligations to increase the numbers of Pacific staff. Every vacant position \nshould be seen as an opportunity to employ Pacific peoples.\nObligations to Existing Staff\nTo provide opportunities for existing staff, all vacant positions at grade 3 or below should be advertised internally for at  \nleast one week prior to being advertised externally (if deemed necessary), unless it is clearly evident that no current \ninternal staff would be suitable to fill a particular vacancy.\n \nInternal secondment opportunities should be considered prior to creating any vacancy.  \n \nOpportunities for redeployment for staff undergoing restructuring must be considered when filling any vacancy.\nStaff Recruitment Software\nAll vacancies are to be processed through our HR on-line staff recruitment and selection management tool.\nUse of External Search or Recruitment Agencies\nApproval to utilise the services of any external search or recruitment agency must be obtained from the Staff \nRecruitment Manager prior to any commitment, and shall only utilise providers endorsed by the Staff Recruitment \nManager. Te Kunenga Ki P ūrehuroa is a member of the All of Government Talent Acquisition Services contract, so \nwe must also comply with the requirements of this contract in relation to use of recruitment agencies.\nPrinciples of Recruitment\n• The attraction, recruitment and selection process should be transparent, timely and appropriate to the\nvacancy.\n• Candidate care and well-timed communication is essential.\n• Candidate confidentiality must be maintained at all times.\n• Interviewed candidates are to be assessed equitably and transparently.\n• All evaluative material is to be collected by the panel chair and disposed of accordingly (with the exception\nthat where candidates include staff who are affected by change, the recruitment file should be retained for 12 \nmonths from the appointment decision, and then disposed of).\n• All pre-employment checks must be carried out in accordance with the Policy on Pre-Employment Checks for\nProspective Employees.\n• All relevant qualifications must be validated or verified in accordance with the Policy on Verification and\nValidation of Qualifications.\nProcess Responsibilities\nHiring managers are responsible within the framework provided by People and Culture, for the overall staff \nrecruitment and selection process for each vacancy.\nStaff Recruitment Support and Advice\nPeople and Culture have a team of specialist staff available to advise and assist with all staff recruitment needs. \nContact: [email protected] or ext 86000 or (06) 951 9000\n \n• The services provided include:  \n\n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nStaff Recruitment Policy  – Page 4 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  • Advice, support and training on the use of our HR on-line staff recruitment and selection management tool \n• Advice and support for all attraction and recruitment strategies:\no Key Success Factors\no Advertising copy\no Vacancy marketing\no To identify candidate markets\no Proactive candidate searches\no Talent pipeline management\no Careers videos and marketing material\no Development of vacancy landing sites and candidate information booklets\n• Advice on selection processes:\no Selection panel make-up\no Shortlisting\no Interviews\no Offer and Acceptance\nAudience:\nAll managers who have staff reporting to them and all staff who support the attraction, recruitment and selection of \nstaff.\nRelevant legislation:\nEducation and Training Act 2022 \nEmployment Relations Act 2000 \nHuman Rights Act 1993 \nImmigration Act 2009\nPrivacy Act 2020\nNZ Bill of Rights Act 1990\nRelated procedures / documents:\nAppointment to Supernumerary Academic Positions Policy \nEqual Employment Opportunities Policy\nInduction Policy\nDelegated Authority Policy\nPolicy on Pre-Employment Checks for Prospective Employees \nPolicy on Verification and Validation of Qualifications\nStaff Conduct Policy\nConflict of Interest Policy\nDocument Management Control:\nPrepared by:  Staff Recruitment Manager\nAuthorised by:   Deputy Vice-Chancellor People and Culture \nApproved by:     SLT 27 February 2020\nDate issued:  27 February 2020\nLast review:  June 2024\nNext review:  June 2029\n\n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Sponsorship_Procedure_PDF_124_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Sponsorship Procedure PDF 124 KB",
      "policy_type": "Procedure",
      "file_size": "124 KB",
      "creation_date": "2023-03-08T13:00:07",
      "modification_date": "D:20230308130714+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n \n  \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nPurpose : \n \nThe purpose of these procedures is to:  \n \n1. Ensure Te Kunenga Ki Pūrehuroa  Masse y Universit y gains the greatest benefit from sponsorship investments.  \n2. Ensure the National Events and Sponsorship Team are notified of an y external sponsorships or partnerships being \nagreed or procured b y Internal Stakeholders to ensure there is no conflicting activit y.     \n \nProcedure:  \n \nMasse y Universit y has determined that when entering into a sponsorship agreement with a third part y, the following \nprocedures must be followed:  \n \n1. Identify sponsorship opportunities and Return on Investment for the university, as outlined below.  \n2. Undertake appropriate legal due diligence, prior to any verbal agreement or written agreement being signed.  \n3. Comp lete the sponsorship application form at Appendix 1 of this document, and obtain relevant sign off, prior to any \nagreement being signed in accordance with the Delegations of Authority policy.   \n \n \nSponsorship Opportunit ies/Risks :   \n \nIdentifying sponsorship opportunit ies and risks is critical to ensuring the university is investing in sponsorships that will \nenhance the university’s reputation and engagement with future students, while delivering on the university’s strategic p ou: \n \n1. Te Pou Rangahau - Research  \n2. Te Pou Ako - Teaching and Learning  \n3. Te Pou Tangata - People  \n4. Te Pou Hono - Connection  \n \nOpportunities to be considered:  \n \n• Benefits and value for the universit y \n• Brand promotion opportunities  \n• Communication opportunities  \n• Lead generation  \n• Target audiences and expected numbers of attendees  \n  Section  University Management  \nContact  DVC Students and Global Engagement  \nLast Review  February 2023  \nNext  Review  February 202 6 \nApproval  SLT 23/01/07  \nEffective  from  February 2023  \n \n SPONSORSHIP P ROCEDURES  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nSponsorship Procedures  – Page 2  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nRisks to be considered  for investment in and procurement of sponsorships :  \n \n• Sponsorship costs  \n• Leverage costs  \n• Resource to service the agreement  \n• Department budget available  \n• Length of agreement  \n• Risks identified (cancellation, negative brand image, negative media)  \n• Contractual conflicting events  \n• Partner exclusivity  \n• Histor y and success  \n \nOther considerations:  \n \n• Exchanging large amounts of money for logo placements only - low benefit to university  \n• Limited reach beyond the event (no digital footprint)  \n• One off event where the investment is costly and generic benefits provided:  \n• Logo placement in programme / invites  \n• Banner in event spaces  \n• Tickets to event  \n• One minute speech  \n \nApproval to Enter a Sponsorship Agreement:   \n \nWhen seeking approval to enter a sponsorship agreement at $5,000 or more, the Sponsorship Application form  at \nAppendix 1 must be completed and then:  \n \n1. Signed off b y the relevant Senior Leadership Te am member.  \n2. Appropriate legal due diligence undertaken.  \n3. Forwarded to the NEST Manager for approval and registration on the database.  \n4. The National Events and Sponsorship Manager will then forward Appendix 1 and the contract to the DVC SaGE or \nVice-Chancellor for final sign off (depending on delegation).  \n \nAll sponsorships are to use the Finance Item Code of 1264 so that reporting can be done at a universit y level.   \n \nPost -Sponsorship E valuation:   \n \nAt the conclusion of the sponsorship term, all sponsorships are to be evaluated against their business objectives, and \ntherefore reviewed prior to the universit y committing to a further sponsorship period.   \n \nDocument Management Control:  \nPrepared b y:   National Events and Sponsorship Manager   \nAuthorised b y: DVC Students and Global Engagement    \nApproved b y:   SLT February 2023  \nDate issued:   February 2023  \nLast review:   February 2023  \nNext revie w:   February 2026  \n \n \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nSponsorship Procedures  – Page 3  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nAppendix 1   \nSponsorship Application Form   \n \nUniversit y Department/College/Office: __________________________________________________  \n    \nCampus :  National   |   Auckland   |   Manawatū   |   Wellington   |   International  \n \nUniversit y Contact: _________________________________________________________________  \n \nEmail: ___________________________________________________________________________  \n \nPhone Number : _____________________________________________________________________  \n \nDetails of  the Sponsorship; include contact name, organisation and an y previous sponsorship or partnerships held:  \n \n_________________________________________________________________________________  \n \n___________________________________________________________________ ______________  \n     \n_________________________________________________________________________________  \n \nRationale for Sponsorship: ___________________________________________________________  \n(What does MU get in return)    \n__________________________________________________________________________________  \n \n__________________________________________________________________________________  \n \n__________________________________________________________________________________  \n \nSpon sorship Benefits: _______________________________________________________________  \n \n_________________________________________________________________________________  \n \n_________________________________________________________________________________  \n \nSponsor ship Term :  from ___/___/20___ to ___/___/20___ for a number of terms:___________  \n \nSponsorship Cost:    $  \n \n       In-Kind:  \n \nDate of Event(s) if applicable:  ________________________________________________________  \n \nEvent Location(s) if applicable:  _______________________________________________________  \n \nFunded b y:     GL ________________ 1264 ___________ $ ______________________  \n  \n       PR/RM _____________12 64 ___________ $ ___________________ ___ \n \n \nSponsorship: ______________________________________________________________________  \n(Cop y from previous page of application form)    \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nSponsorship Procedures  – Page 4  \n \n \n \n \nSLT Approval:  Approved    Not Approved    \n \nComments : _______________________________________________________________________   \n \n_________________________________________________________________________________  \n \n_________________________________________________________________________________  \n \nSignature: ___ ____________________________________ Date:  ___/___/_________  \n \n             _______________________________________         Nam e      \n Position   \n \nPleas e emai l this applic ation to the National Events and Sponsorship Manger . \n \nNEST Approval:    Approved    Not Approved    \n \nComments : _______________________________________________________________________  \n \n_________________________________________________________________________________  \n \n_________________________________________________________________________________  \n \nSignature: _______________________________________ Date:  ___/___/_________   \n \nDVC SaGE / Vice -Chancellor Approval:    Approved    Not Approved   \n \nComments: _________________ ______________________________________________________  \n \n_________________________________________________________________________________  \n \n_________________________________________________________________________________  \n \n \nDVC SaGE / Vice -Chancellor’s Sign ature: _________________________ Date:  ___/___/_________   \n \nOffice Use Onl y:   \nSponsor Register Updated:   Date:  ___/___/___B y: \n____________________________  \n \nCopy of Approval Sent to Department:  Date:  ___/___/___B y: \n____________________________   \n \nApplication Filed:      Date:  ___/___/___B y: ____________________________  \n \n \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Space_Use_Policy_PDF_123_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Space Use Policy",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "123 KB",
      "creation_date": "2024-04-18T12:03:03",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220102231+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n \n \n \n \n     \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n \nSPACE USE POLICY  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \n \nPurpose : \nThis policy  provides formal direction on the design objectives, allocation,  and utilisation of existing spaces and new or \nproposed spaces within the Massey University campus development projects (refurbishment and new construction).   \nThis document  should be read in conjunction with the Space Use Procedures.   \nPolicy:  \nThe Massey Estate is significant in its scale, value and contribution to the teaching, learning and research outcomes \nof the  university. It also plays a role in the student and staff experience and can influence the attraction and retention \nof students and staff. The principles of a ppropriate design, allocation and utilisation of space should be followed to \nsupport Massey University in: \n• striving to create and maintain  buildings and spaces that are high-quality and  fit-for-purpose  to support  the \nuniversity’s core functions of  teaching, learning and research ; \n• keeping buildings in good condition ; \n• providin g accessible  and inclusive  spaces  and facilities ; \n• increas ing space  utilisation rates;  \n• reducing gross floor area; and  \n• decreas ing operating costs.  \nThese factors have a material impact on the university’s operating result  and will enable greater investment in \nteaching and research . Improving the  effectiveness and  efficiency of the estate will also make a significant \ncontribution to the achievement of the Climate Action Plan and Net Zero Carbon goals.  \nKey principles for the Allocation and Utilisation of space at Massey University  \n• Space is a centrally managed resource of the university  and is generally the responsibility of Estates \nManagement1. \n \n1 There are some areas of the university campus that are not managed by Estates, for example farms.  Section  DVC University Services  \nContact  Executive Director Estates  \nLast Review  April 2024   \nNext Review  April 2027  \nApproval  12 April 2024  \nEffective Date  23 April 2024  \n \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nSpace Use Policy  – Page 2 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n• Estates Management may assign blocks of space to a business unit for  their management  and coordination.  \n• Where a block of space has been allocated or assigned to a college/ school/ business unit, the specific \nallocation of workstations/points within that block shall be the responsibility of the HoS/HoD/PVC /DVC .  \n• The allocation of space is conducted in a consistent and strategic manner, designed to optimise the \nproductive use of this resource.  \n• Space allocation decisions will align with the strategic priorities of Massey  as outlined in the  Te Kunenga ki \nPūrehuroa – Massey University Strategy 2022 –2027  and will be subject to change as required, to ensure \nworkplace satisfaction, maximal efficiencies and best practice is maintained.   \n• The efficient use of existing space, including shared use of specialist facilities will take precedence over the \nconstruction/provision of new space.   \n• New, refurbished and existing spaces will be designed, configured and allocated to provide for flexible use in \norder to assist in maximising space utility and utilisation while supporting innovation and collaboration.  \n• New, refurbished and existing spaces will be designed, configured and allocated in ways that align with \nMassey University’s Equal Employment Opportunities Policy . To do this, r easonable endeavours  will be made \nto ensure that staff and students have work and study spaces that are accessible and inclusive.  Massey \nUniversity is committed to upholding its responsibilit ies under the Human Rights Act 1993  and Health and \nSafety at Work Act 201 5 and as an Equal Employment Opportunities employer.  \n• In alignment with the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 and Massey University’s Health, Safety and \nWellbeing Policy – Ohu Hauora, Haumaru, Massey is committed to providing a safe, healthy, and protected \nplace to work, learn and play  in the way it designs, builds, refurbishes , and operates  its spaces.  \n• Under -utilised space (of any type) that is assigned to a college , school  or department  shall be returned to the \ncentral pool for reallocation. In considering this action, efforts must be made to identify a contiguous block of \nspace that can then be meaningfully reallocated.  \n• University space (of any type or categorisation) may not be assigned to non -Massey persons/entities without \na formal lease or licence being established by the Executive Director Estates . Such arrangements are to be \non commercial terms unless otherwise approved by the Executive Director Estates . All such requests are to \nbe referred to the Estates Property Manager in the first instance.  \n \n \nKey principles for s taff and postgraduate workspaces  \n \n• No staff member or postgraduate student will have more than one dedicated workspace (located at their \nprimary campus), irrespective of the number of roles performed or number of campuses they work at.  When \nworking at their secondary campuses they will have access to ‘hot -desk ’ facilities, coordinated through their \nBusiness Unit/College/School.  \n \n• Part-time staff  and staff  who have remote  working arrangements , and postgraduate students , will normally be \nassigned space in a shared workspace arrangement  and, where possible , that will be within a neighbourhood  \ndesign  in accordance with the Space Procedures (Table 1, pages 3 -4). \n \n• If an assigned dedicated space is going to be unoccupied for a  period of four weeks or longer,  it is expected \nthat the space will be made available for others to use during that period and that the university will provide \nspace for the safe storage of the incumbent’s work -related belongings while away.  \n \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nSpace Use Policy  – Page 3 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \n• When assigning or allocating space, whether it be centrally or at a local  (business unit)  level, it is required that \nthe allocation meets good practice benchmarks for space efficiency, consistent with sector benchmarking \n(i.e., TEFMA).  \n \n \nStaff workspaces :   \n• Staff work arrangements and roles may change over time and allocations should be reviewed on a regular \nbasis (annually is suggested) for validity and alignment.  \n \n• Staff are expected to understand that their space allocation may change if their circumstances change, or the \nprioriti sed needs within their unit change. Electronic data for the purpose of evaluating space utilisation is \nincreasingly available to assist in this exercise . Electronic access control and people counter technology is \navailable in some but not all areas.  \n \n• Staff that work from home will receive campus space arrangements in accordance with the Space \nProcedures.  \n \n \nPostgraduate student workspaces:  \n• Workspaces will be made available for postgraduate students in dedicated shared work areas depending on \nthe postgraduate student’s research activities undertaken, and space availability.   \n \n• Postgraduate student spaces may be reviewed regularly according to the number and  academic needs of the \nstudents at various stages of their research. The space allocation location should consider space availability \nand efficiency and may result in postgraduate students across multiple disciplines being collocated.   \n \n \nNeighbourhood design  \n• As spaces are refurbished over time , due consideration will be given to the type of space that aligns to  how it \nwill be used by students, staff and visitors. T he neighbourhood design  is one of the option s. Features of t he \nneighbourhood  design include open, light spaces that enable collaboration  and can host multiple functions or \nteams. These spaces may be a mix of dedicated workspaces, hot -desks and visitor spaces.  \n• Private meeting areas will be available for booking to ensure that confidential conversations can take place.  \n• There are bookable Button Studios  on each campus , which are fully equipped  with facilities to record lectures .  \n• Secure storage  requirements  for physical records and teaching resources can be discussed with Estates \nManagement. As refurbishments progress, swipe card access for spaces will be a priority, to ensure a \nreasonable level of security for people and their belongings.  \n• Sharing space is encouraged in locations where the neighbourhood design is not used, as this will support the  \noptimisation of the university’s gross floor area.  \n \n \n \nSpace Design and Allocation Authority    \n \n• The need for refurbished or new space and the nature and quality of that space will be aligned with the  \nuniversity’s Strategic Plan as interpreted in the  Campus Master Plan  and will be carried out in accordance \n \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nSpace Use Policy  – Page 4 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nwith the Space Use Procedures.  Development of the Massey  Estate is the responsibility of  Estates \nManagement . \n \n• Those wishing to add or reduce  space should be referred to the  Estates Management  National Space and \nProperty Manager in the first instance  in accordance with the Space Use Procedures .  \n \nTeaching rooms  \n \n• Teaching Rooms (excluding teaching laboratories  and specialist studios ) will be centrally allocated and \nmanaged by Estates Management .  All Teaching Room s will be managed through the University Timetable \nand Room Booking system .  Teaching laboratories and specialist teaching spaces  will be managed by the \nCollege/School/Business Unit to whom  they are allocated.  \n• Estates  will maximise the efficient use of all teaching spaces , and spaces will be shared wherever possible  in \naccordance with the Timetabling and Room Booking Policy .   \n \n• Space utilisation will be monitored with suitable technology and/or annual audits.  Privacy and respect for staff , \nstudents  and visitors  is a critical consideration in decision -making regarding which technology is used to \ndetermine the occupancy of spaces.  \n• Timetable management will be centrally undertaken by  Estates  Management  (in consultation with colleges \nand schools) according to the space’s fitness for purpose, capacity, location, and availability.  \n• Academic constraints on class times, room preference, staff availability , etc., shall be minimised  to achieve \noptimum space utilisation outcomes.  \n• Teaching rooms (and other spaces)  may be booked for purposes other than teaching. However, teaching will \ntake priority during standard hours  in accordance with the Timetable and Room Booking Policy . \n \nDefinitions : \n• Building  – temporary or permanent movable or immovable structure.2 \n• Dedicated workspace  – an allocation  of space  that is for the exclusive  use of a particular  role or for a \nspecific project. D edicated workspaces may be shared or single occupancy.  \n• Hot-desk space  – a workspace that is not allocated to a particular occupant and is available for use by \nanyone with access to that workplace.  A hot -desk may be bookable or ad hoc in its use.   \n• Neighbourhood – the default design for staff solutions, which enables collaboration and is an open, light \nspace. This design is suitable for general use where similar activities are being undertaken, so can host \nmultiple functions or teams. Access to convenient enclosed space s for privacy and meetings is available. \nSpaces may be a mix of dedicated workspaces, hot -desks and visitor spaces.  \n• Shared workspace  – an allocation  of space  assigned  to two or more  users.  Spaces  in the shared \nworkspace may or may not be dedicated spaces and may or may not be enclosed spaces.   \n \n2 Building Act 2004  \n \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nSpace Use Policy  – Page 5 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n• Single occupancy  – a space that is utilised by one user at a time only, single occupancy workspaces   \ncan be dedicated, shared or hot desk workspaces .   \n• Space  – the built environment owned or leased by Massey  University.   \n• Teaching Room  – A room with the primary purpose for the  delivery  of lectures, seminars, tutorials , \npresentations,  and practical teaching , to students.  A room will be defined a s a Teaching Room in the Maximo \nspace allocation system.  \n• Workspace  – a space allocated to support work activities , e.g., workstation in activity -based workspace, desk \nin shared room, or single occupancy office . \nAudience : \nMassey University staff, students and external parties involved in the development, design, refurbishment,  or \nconstruction of the  university estates.  \nRelevant legislation : \nHealth and Safety at Work Act 2015  \nLegal compliance : \nNil. \nRelated procedures / documents : \nSpace Use Procedures  \nTimetabling and Room Booking Policy  \nEqual Employment Opportunities Policy  \nHealth, Safety and Wellbeing Policy – Ohu Hauora, Haumaru  \nFlexible Working Arrangement s Information  \n \n \nDocument Management Control:  \nPrepared by:  Executive Director Estates  \nAuthorised by:  DVC University Services  \nApproved by:  Senior Leadership Team  \nDate issued:  April 2024  \nLast review:  April 2024  \nNext review:  April 2027  \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Student_Debt_Collection_Policy_PDF_122_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Student Debt Collection Policy",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "122 KB",
      "creation_date": "2022-06-08T09:05:09",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220102120+13'00'",
      "review_date": "july 2025"
    },
    "content": " \n Massey University Policy Guide  \n \nSTUDENT DEBT COLLECTION POLICY  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n IN CONFIDENCE   \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \nPurpose :  \nThe purpose of this policy is to define the  process regarding the payme nt of student fees and how the U niversity will \ndeal with non-payment . \nPolicy : \nUniversity fees are due prior to commencement of study unless fees will be paid by student loan or the student makes \nother arrangements with the University.  \n \nStudents paying by student loan must lodge their st udent loan application within 20 days of commencing study. Students \nmay be asked to prove that their application has been lodged. The responsibility for ensuring payment of fees is received \nby the university remains with the student.  \n \nStudents enrolling in multiple study periods, not paying by student loan, may elect to defer payment for subsequent  \nstudy periods so long as payment is received prior to commencement of the study period.  \n \n \nFees  for full paying International S tudents must be paid before enr olment is deemed to be complete .  \n \n \nSystem generated messages are sent to students when they have  an outstanding balance, Students must log into \ntheir student portal to view any overdue balance and associated debt letter and ensure that any outstanding debt is \npaid.  \n \nThe following action may be taken against students with outstanding debt.  \n \n(i) grade s for papers may be withheld  \n(ii) academic records may be withheld  \n(iii) students will be unable to enrol in future study periods and where such an enrolment has processed, confirmation \nmay be withdrawn.  \n(iv) student s may be unable to graduate.  \n \nDebts ou tstanding for more than 90 days  may be placed with a debt collector (appoi nted by Finance ).  \n \n \nThis action is not taken with PhD students un til the accounts receivable team receive  approval from the  Graduate \nResearch School . \n  Section  Finance  \nContact  Chief Financial Officer  \nLast Review  July 2022  \nNext Review  July 2025  \nApproval  SLT 20/10/158  \n \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nStudent Debt Collection Policy  – Page 2 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n IN CONFIDENCE  In the case of hardship, students are required to contact Accounts Receivable  to discuss available options.  \n \nInstalment payments will be allowed in cases of hardship and may be applied for within two weeks of commencing \nstudy. Where instalments are allowed , full payment of fees must be made within the study period.  \n \nInstalment payments are not available to International Students.  \n \nAudience : \nAll staff and students  \nRelevant Legislation : \nNil \nRelated Procedures  and Documents : \nUniversity fee payment regulations disclosed in the University Calendar .  \nStudent Refund and Fee Protection Policy  \nStudent Refund P rocedures   \nDocument Management Control : \nPrepared by:    Chief Financial Officer  \nAuthorised by:  DVC University Services  \nApproved by:    SLT 20/10/158  \nDate Issued:      July 2022  \nLast Reviewed:   July 2022  \nReview Date:  July 2025  \n \n \n \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Sensitive_Expenditure_and_Gifts_Procedures_PDF_187_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Discretionary Expenditure and Gifts Procedures",
      "policy_type": "Procedure",
      "file_size": "187 KB",
      "author": "gfell",
      "creation_date": "2023-03-01T13:00:08",
      "modification_date": "D:20230301130858+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n \nSENSITIVE EXPENDITURE AND GIFTS PROCEDURES  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n IN CONFIDENCE   \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \n \nScope:  \nThe objective  of this document  is to ensure a clear and consistent understanding of procedures for sensitive  expenditure \nand gifts , to ensure all sensitive expenditure and gifts received meet standards of probity expected of a publicly funded \norganisation.  These procedures are consiste nt with the Controlling Sensitive Expenditure: Guidelines for Public Entities, \npublished by th e Office of the Auditor General . Koha is excluded as Koha is covered in the Koha Procedures.  \n \nThe procedures aim to clearly identify those expenses considered to be legitimate and appropriate.  \n \nThe procedures stipulate the way in which sensitive  expenditure may be incurred  and how offers of gifts and gratuitous \nbenefits must be managed . Members  are expected to exercise prudent judgement in relation to all business expenditure \nand gifts  received.  \n \nMassey University (t he “University ”) will pay for sensitive  expenditure that is actual and reasonable , and incurred as a \nconsequence of conducting University business.  \n \nAll amounts quoted in these Procedures are GST inclusive. Valid GST invoices and other supporting documentation \nmust be maintained/submitted for all sensitive  expenditure.  \n \nThese Procedures are to be read in conjunction with the Sensitive Expenditure and Gifts Policy.  \n \nNote the amounts in these procedures take precedence over any standard delegations as outlined in the delegations \nof authority policy.  \nProcedures:  \n1. Entertainment Related Expenditure  \n \nEntertainment related expenditure is defined as food/refreshment and function expenses. This may be incurred where \nan external party is involved and the purpose of the expenditure is to represent the University, provide reciprocity of \nhospitality or build business relationships in pursuit of university  goals.  \n \nPrudence and moderation should be exercised when providing entertainment and hospitality to visitors. The level of \nexpenditure should be appropriate to the relationship between the University and tho se being entertained.  \n \nThe University will not pay for entertainment related expenditure for spouses or other family members accompanying a \nstaff member.  \n Section  Finance  \nContact  Chief Financial Officer  \nLast Review  August 2022  \nNext Review  August 2025  \nApproval  SLT 19/07/112  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nSensitive Expenditure and Gifts Procedures  – Page 2  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n IN CONFIDENCE  University members  should not entertain other University members , e.g., when having a meeting over coffee or lunch it \nis expected that this is paid personally.  \n \nPayment is to be made with a university  credit card (where possible) and should be accompanied with a detailed \ndescription including all attendees.  \n \nAll entertainment  related documentation must identify the date, venue, costs, recipients , benefits derived and/or reasons \nfor the event.  \n \nEntertainment related expenditure should be included in pre -approved budgets.  \n \nThe following guidance relates to both external and in ternal events:  \n• Up to $2 ,000 per event must be approved by a Head of Department/Institute/School (HOD/I/S) or their delegate.  \n• Over  $2,000 per event, the approval of a Senior Leadership Team (SLT) member is required.  \n \nNote: External or internal events organised by the Event Management team may be an exception to the guidance above \nbut are not exempted or excepted from any other of the Unive rsity policies.  \n \nReimbursements for entertainment must be submitted within one month of the expense being incurred.  \n \nWhere entertainment related expenditure is considered unreasonable  by the Chief Financial  Officer, Finance,  or their \nnominee, they will seek further explanation from the approvers of the payment or may refer the query to an SLT member.  \n \n \nExternal Events (Official Entertainment)  \n \nThese are e vents where there is a valid and justifiable business reason to entertain external guests in an official capacity \nincluding, but not limited to,  meals, meetings , and functions . The University will pay for food and beverages provided to \nstaff and their guests who are being entertained in an official capacity .  \n \nIf it is  appropriate to purchase alcohol for official entertainment/external events, prior approval must be obtained from \nthe Head of Department/Institute/School (HOD/I/S) or Senior Leadership Team (SLT) member.  \n \nThe expense incurred must be reasonable and justif iable with regard to the nature of the event  and have a beneficial \nconnection with the University’s interest. (For example, no more than $65.00  spent on a bottle of wine) . It is not expected \nthat the expenditure would be a substitute for business meetings.  \n \nInternal Events  \n \nEntertainment related  events for which the attendees are predominately University members  often take place on \nuniversity  prem ises, but they may also occur elsewhere.  \n \nInternal events include , but are not limited to , the following:  \n \n(a) Internal Meetings (including Internal Training Sessions)  \n• Generally, the University will only provide tea and coffee for internal  meetings, including those held across the \ntimes of morning tea, afternoon tea or lunch periods.   \n• If meetings are for a full day, meeting organisers should allow sufficient time for breaks including lunch.  \n• Lunch may be provided if insufficient time is allocated for a lunch break or it is an official event (e.g., People \nand Culture  training etc.)  or a full day event .  \n• If attendees have travelled from another location , they will generally be permitted to claim the approved daily \nallowance if away for more than 24 hours  or actual and reasonable expenses to cover any meals  not provided.   \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nSensitive Expenditure and Gifts Procedures  – Page 3  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n IN CONFIDENCE   \n(b) Non-Monetary Recognition of Staff  \n• Any morning and afternoon tea costs should be limited to a maximum of $200 per even t and authorit y is to be \nsought from the relevant delegated financial authority within the budget centre  in advance of the expenditure .  \n• Expenditure which will result in a Fringe Benefit Tax (FBT) liability is generally not considered appropriate. As a \ngeneral rule, any entertainment benefit that members  consume or enjoy when they choose, and that is outside their \nemployment duties, is subject to FBT.  FBT will be charged to the relevant budget centre in addition to the actual \nexpenses incurred.  \n \n2. Acceptance of Hospitality , Gifts or Benefits   \n \nNote there is a separate Koha Policy and Koha Procedures for Koha received.  \n \nMembers should consider both the value, frequency and the purpose of the gift or benefit which is being offered. \nMembers must also look at the range of perceptions that might apply to a situation regarding the acceptance of a \ngift or benefit . In particular, offers of gifts of hospitality for members who, because of the nature of their work, are \nexpected to develop strong relationships with external partie s, must take particular care to ensure those \nrelationships do not result in preferential treatment or a perception of preferential treatment.  \n \nMembers should not seek or accept any payment, gift or benefit intended or likely to influence, or that could be \nreasonably perceived as intended or likely to influence, the member:  \n \n• to act in a particular way (including making a particular decision related to university  business ). \n• to fail to act in a particular circumstance; or  \n• to otherwise deviate from the p roper exercise of their duties at, or with, the University.  \n \nIn addition, members should take reasonable steps to ensure that their immediate family members and friends are \nnot the recipients of gifts, hospitality,  or other gratuitous benefits, which could  give the appearance of an indirect \nattempt to secure the influence or preferential treatment of a member.  \n \nMembers must refuse all offers of gifts, benefits or hospitality from people or organisations about whom they are \nlikely to make decisions involving:  \n \n• Procurement and Tender processes (including early discussions about a possible procurement ). \n• Funding arrangements.  \n• Price negotiations or payment terms; or  \n• Contract terms and conditions.  \n \nAny offer of a gift in relation to, or in conjunc tion with, the above processes (even when the gift or benefit is declined) \nshould be reported to the Director of Governance and Assurance.  \n \nOutside of the circumstances listed above, members may accept hospitality and corporate gifts as long as there is \nno perceived or actual conflict, the receipt of gifts is infrequent, reasonable in number and value and/or has been \nreceived as part of important networking opportunities.   \n \nAll gifts or benefits or prizes received by members at conferences and trade shows are to be considered as gifts or \nbenefits under this policy. This includes random draws (e.g., lucky draw or raffle prizes). However, this does not \napply to academic 'prizes' awarded for excellence or competence based on merit, such as for a paper or \nprese ntation.  \n \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nSensitive Expenditure and Gifts Procedures  – Page 4  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n IN CONFIDENCE  Reporting and Recording Offers, Gifts or Benefits  \nA reportable gift includes any item or benefit with a fair value over $75, or any cash gift regardless of the amount, \nwhether it has been accepted or declined . Gifts less than the nominal value of $75 should be discussed with the \nemployee’s manager or in the first instance as to whether it is appropriate to be accepted or declined.  \n \nAny official gifts are normally considered the property of the University and if suitable they should be displayed  in \nan appropriate and secure location as determined by the Vice -Chancellor.  \n \nAll reportable gifts or benefits should be disclosed in the Gift Register within 5 business days.  \n \nThe following guidelines apply to acceptance of hospitality , gifts,  or other gr atuitous benefits : \n• Items considered to be a m inor item or of low value ( i.e., less than $ 75), are not normally required to be declared. \nExamples of low -value gifts are invitations to lunches, promotional products, small gift baskets, a moderately priced \nbottle of wine and items such as office calendars.  However , items of a sensitive nature or perceived higher \ncumulative value should be declared to the staff member’s manager and reported and recorded in the gift register . \n• Gifts with values of $75 and up to $125  – Members  must have HOD/I/S approval prior to acceptance.  \n• Gifts with values of  $125 and up to $ 500 – Members must have SLT member approval prior to acceptance .  \n• Gifts with values o ver $500 or any official gifts  – Members must have approval from the Vice -Chancellor prior to \nacceptance.  \n• All cash  gifts, regardless of the amount, must be declared and recorded.  \n \nAttendance at functions or events such as sports or cultural events that involve si gnificant work time for the employee \nand/or expenses for the host of up to $100, may be accepted subject to notification and the approval of HOD/I/S. Annual \nleave and travel cost reimbursement  by the traveller  may be required where the HOD/I/S consider these to be significant . \n \nConsiderations to be used by approvers  \nThe monetary value of gifts, hospitality or other gratuitous benefits received is not the only factor in deciding whether to \naccept it. Approvers m ust also consider:  \n• The reason for hospitality or gifts being received and whether there may be an explicit or implicit expectation of \nreciprocation . \n• Whether the value of hospitality or gifts is both appropriate and reasonable for the circumstances in which  it is \nbeing received . \n• The frequency of hospitality or gifts and their cumulative value. Even small hospitality or gifts received \nrepeatedly may be inappropriate . \n• Whether the receipt of hospitality or gifts is likely to receive adverse publicity or that th e intention could be \nmisconstrued . \n \n3. Hospitality  and Gifts Given  \n \nNote there is a separate Koha Policy and Koha Procedures for Koha given .  \n \nIt may be considered appropriate to provide hospitality and/or gifts where the expendit ure dep icts the University’s  \nbranding and/or is a token gift, wh ich would  not be seen  by others as an inducement  or a reward. \n \nAll hospitality and/or  corporate gifts given must be approved in advance and paid  from existing departmental  budgets : \n• Up to $500  per recipient – HOD/I/S approval  is required  \n• $501 to $2,000  per recipient – CFO approval is required  \n• Over $2,000  per recipient – Vice-Chancellor approval is required  \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nSensitive Expenditure and Gifts Procedures  – Page 5  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n IN CONFIDENCE  The HOD/I/S or their nominee is required to ensure the online gift register is complete d with all gifts given.  \n \nGifts to staff members  are limited to farewells and retirements as well as births and deaths related to staff members and \ntheir immediate family . \n \nEach SLT member will have access to the online  gift register for their reporting line. This register should be reviewed \nby each SLT member monthly and any anomalies investigated.  \n \nGifts \n \n• Business -related gifts should, where appropriate, be selected from the University Alumni Office memorabilia.  \n• All gi fts to staff members are subject to FBT.  \n• Gifts to non -staff are non -taxable as long as they are reasonable in the context of the event and the recipient has \nno expectation of receiving a gift.  \n• Staff gifts need to be coded to item code 1322 “Gifts and Benef its – Work Related” and non -staff gifts to 1317 \n“Vouchers/Flowers/Cards – Non-Work Related”.  \n• Expenditure for gifts should be made using a university  credit card.  \n \nVolunteer (Non -staff) Payments  and Refreshments  \n \n• Cash payments to volunteers are not allowed.  \n• Non-cash ( e.g., gift vouchers etc.) payments to volunteers are tax -free to the extent they  are offered as a \nreimbursement of expenses incurred or as a mere token of appreciation, but not as compensation for time or effort.  \n• It is normal practice f or some research projects to give survey participants, focus group participants etc, a gift in \nrecognition of their out-of-pocket expenses . This is usually in the form of a supermarket or petrol voucher . \n• In the absence of specific proof of out -of-pocket ex penses, $30-$50 is considered to be a reasonable estimate of \nthe out -of-pocket expenses for a full day of volunteer work.  \n• Payments in excess of out -of-pocket expenses are subject to 33% withholding tax. Any such items must be advised \nto the Financial Repor ting Team  via Assyst . In some instances, gift vouchers/cards can be exchanged for cash, so \nbecome subject to strict cash hand ling requirements .  \n• Volunteer payments need to be coded to item code 1317 “Vouchers/Flowers/Cards – Non-Work Related”.  \n• On rare occasions the University will pay for minor hospitality like a non -alcoholic beverage or food that is actual \nand reasonable that is categorically required to be incurred as a consequence of conducting University business, \nbut prudent judgement must  be exercised at all times. This policy acknowledges such payments as university  \nbusiness expenses. These are non -taxable gifts as long as they are reasonable, and recipients have no expectation \nof receiving a reward in return for their service.  \n \nWe unders tand there will be circumstances where the $30 -$50 is not appropriate, and rigid application of these \nprocedures could impede research work undertaken. Accordingly, when a gift/ voucher in excess of $50 is to be \nprovided.  \n• There is an annotation of rational e for the higher amount to be provided in the on -line gift register; and  \n• The University must ensure it has voluntarily provided the gift/ voucher and offered it to the recipient, and confirms \nthe amount has no direct correlation to the time or effort expe cted from the recipient.  \n \n4. Farewells and Retirements  \n \nThe University  may cover or reimburse up to $50  (GST inclusive) for farewell gifts for retiring or fare -welling staff with \nless than 5 years  of service ; and up to $100  (GST inclusive) for farewell gifts for retiring or fare -welling staff with over \n5 years of service . Farewell gifts are otherwise funded by private donation .  \n• Farewell functions for retiring  senior or long -serving staff must be authorised by the relevant SL T member . The \nexpenditure for the function should be commensurate with the person ’s length of service with the University \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nSensitive Expenditure and Gifts Procedures  – Page 6  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n IN CONFIDENCE  and not be extravagant or inappropriate to the occas ion. It is not expected that a formal function would be held \nfor a member with less than 10 years ’ service.  \n \n5. End of Year Functions  \nThere will be no University wide function and staff may only attend one University function each year  during work time . \nThe amount of contribution will be confirmed by SLT each year. The budget allocation per staff member must not be \nexceeded . Costs above this amount must be funded by private contribution. Partners in attendance are not paid for by \nthe University. If for any reason the budget centre manager wants to exceed this limit prior written approval from the \nDeputy Vice Chancellor – Unive rsity Services  must be obtained.  \n \nUp to two alcoholic drinks per person may be provided at an End of Year function.  \n \n6. Welfare Payments  \n \nThe University  may cover or reimburse up to $100  (GST inclusive) for flowers or gifts for births and deaths  related to \nstaff members and their immediate family (excludes delivery fee s). Special events such as milestone birthdays are not \nconsidered appropriate .  \n \nThe University will cover or reimburse expenditure that improves working conditions such as the cost  of flu injections.  \n \nGST and FBT will apply to all staff gifts.  \n \nAll such expenditure must be reported to the HOD/I/S, identifying the date, costs, recipients,  and the reason for the \nexpenditure , and be made at the discretion of the relevant HOD/I/S or SLT member . \n \n7. Papers and Periodicals  \n \nAny purchase of papers (newspapers and weeklies) and periodicals must:  \n• Be approved by the respective HOD/I/ S. \n• Be able to be demonstrated as being appropriate and necessary to the performance of university  duties.  \n• Demonstrate that efforts have been made to ensure opportunities for elimination of duplications through circulation, \nwhere this is feasible in a timely m anner, has been taken; and  \n• Where appropriate, be sent to the central library once the recipient  has finished reading/using the item.  \n \n8. Professional Memberships  \n \nProfessional memberships must be:  \n• For th e respective  staff member only.  \n• For no longer than one year with possible exemption where significant discounts are available , and it is reasonable \nto expect a two -year subscription to be to the advantage of the University.  \n• Budgeted for and approved  by the budget centre manager  \nProfessional memberships pai d are for the benefit of the University and are not intended to be a personal benefit to \nstaff members and, accordingly, are not liable for FBT.  \n \nWhere a university  employment contract includes provision for payment of professional memberships, the employm ent \ncontract will take precedence over this policy.  \n \nMemberships must be cancelled or transferred to a replacement University staff member should employment with the \nUniversity be terminated. The decision to cancel or transfer membership is at the discreti on of the HOD/I/S. Transferral \nof membership must be authorised by HOD/I/S.  \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nSensitive Expenditure and Gifts Procedures  – Page 7  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n IN CONFIDENCE  Any refund of fees as a result of  cancellation of membership belongs to the University and must be refunded to the \nUniversity.  \n \nSubscriptions (prepayments) must be for no more than two years and require the prior approval of the HOD/I/S.  \nAudience : \nAll member s as defined in the Policy ( members of Council, Committee Members, Students, Staff, Board Members and \nContractors working for, and on behalf of, the University ) and applies to all gifts and benefits received by University \nMembers in the course of their offi cial duties.  \n \nUniversity controlled entities are expected to adopt this Policy or to have their own Sensitive Expenditure and/or Gifts \nand Benefits Policy in place . \nRelated Procedures/ Documents : \nCredit Card  Policy  \nDelegations of Authority Policy  \nSensitive Expenditure and Gifts Policy  \nKoha Policy  \nKoha Procedures  \nProcurement Policy  \nConflict of Commitment and Interest Policy  \nFraud and Corruption Policy  \nReimbursement o f Expenses Policy  \nTravel Policy  \nTravel Procedures (Domestic and International)  \nTax Procedures Manual  \nDocument Management Control:  \nPrepared by:  Chief Financial Officer  \nOwned by:  Deputy Vice Chancellor – Unive rsity Services  \nAuthorised by:  SLT 19/07/112  \nDate issued:  August 2022  \nLast reviewed:  August 2022  \nNext review:  August 2025  \n \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Staff_Health_Monitoring_Guideline_PDF_95_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Staff Health Monitoring Guideline",
      "policy_type": "Guideline",
      "file_size": "95 KB",
      "creation_date": "2015-02-09T14:00:07",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220102155+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " \nMassey University Policy Guide \n \nSTAFF HEALTH MONITOR ING GUIDELINE  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Mas sey University   \n \n   \n  \n \nGuideline :  \nThis guideline outlines the processes  required for monitoring the adequacy and effectiveness of precautions taken to protect staff health from occupational \nand environmental hazards. The guideline supports the following documents  which should be consulted for responsibility requirements;  \n• Monitoring Staff Health Procedure  \n• Pre employment Checks on Prospective Employees Policy  \n \nThe basis of monitoring is to assess exposure to those hazards and, where necessary, the health effects to staff that may have been exposed.    This \nguideline includes requirements and rationale for pre- employment, task and exit assessments.  \n1. Types of Monitoring  \n \n• Occupational environmental monitoring  \nOccupational environmental  monitoring involves environmental measurements, for example, air or dust sampling, sound levels and so on.  Environmental \nmonitoring must be representative of the process using appropriate sampling methods.  \n Section  Health and Safety  \nContact University Health and Safety Manager  \nLast Review  August  2014  \nNext Review  December 2017  \nApproval  University Health and Safety Manager  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide \nStaff Health Monitoring Guideline  – Page 2  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  • Health monitoring  \nHealth monitoring involves di rect monitoring of an individual’s health indicators such as blood, urine or lung function tests, audiometric tests and so on.   \nHealth monitoring is required where there is an identifiable disease or health effect that is related to the occupational expos ure.  There must be valid \ntechniques for detecting the indicators of the effect of the hazard on the individual’s health.  \n \nThe process and type of health monitoring in teaching and research are detailed in the table below which is based on Australasian Uni versity practice and \nthe Department of Labour publication “Guidelines for Workplace Health Surveillance” (available at http://www.osh.dol.govt.nz/ ). \n2. Health Monitoring Assessment and Process  \n \nThe purpose of health monitoring is to determine if the precautions taken to protect staff from occupational hazards are adequate and effecti ve.   \n \nHealth Monitoring Assessment Procedure  \n \n1.  Supervisors and/or Managers are to ensure that all identified hazards are place d in the Department/ College Hazard Register and are fully \nassessed and controlled through the hierarchy of controls. This is essential as health monitoring requirements are dependent on hazard control \nmethods.  \n \n2. Where control for a significant hazard i s to minimise exposure and personal protective equipment use is required, Supervisors/ Managers are to \nensure health monitoring if practicable is undertaken.   The assessments recommended below are only invoked if the hazard cannot be eliminated, \nisolated,  or minimised to a safe(1) level.  \n \n3.  Despite the mandatory requirement, health monitoring can only be used in the following situations(2): \n There must be an identifiable disease or health effect related to the exposure  \n There is evidence a health risk exi sts \n Health surveillance techniques are available  \n \n4.  The information details the recommended types of health monitoring (as applicable, and once permission is obtained by the staff member in \nquestion) is to be arranged and continued as detai led in the tab le below. Campus Health and Safety Advisors can provide specialist services to \nassist with monitoring(3). \n \nMassey University Policy Guide \nStaff Health Monitoring Guideline  – Page 3  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  5. If the requirements detailed in point 3 above cannot  be met, a general Health & Hazard Assessment Questionnaire can be used by staff working in \nareas and in positions where hazards may impact health in a non- determinable way.  \n \nNotes  \n(1) Safe in this context means not likely to cause Serious Harm. Serious harm has a specific legal definition.   \n(2) Based on Department of Labour Guidelines, 1997, Management of substances hazardous to health, An introduction to the guidelines for workplace \nsurveillance.  \n(3) The Centre for Ergonomics, Occupational Safety and Health; and Public Health Research, also have relevant services and inform ation.  \n3. Health Monitoring Process  \n \nWhere a task or a position exposes a staff member to a significant hazard that affects their health, and where minimisation and personal \nprotective equipment is used as the control method, then arrangement must be made for monitoring. Monitoring needs to be undertaken \nprior to, during and at completion of the exposure period.  Such monitoring may be throughout the term of employment or may be limited to a particular task or research activity undertaken by the exposed staff member.  \n \nHazard  Staff at High Risk  \n(is not limited to the examples given)  Initial Checks/ Assessment  Monitoring Required \n \nManual handling & Ergonomics: Supervisors/ Managers to organize manual handling training and workplace assessment through the Health & Safety Office.  \n \nManual handling and repetitive work.  Past history of back/joint injury  \nChildcare workers  \nVeterinarians  \nNurses  \nCustodians  \nGardeners  \nPrintery staff  \nExtramural dispatch  \nWorkshop staff  Check past injury or problems.  \nCheck musculoskeletal status.  \nEnsure correct  equipment is available in Department for \nassistance with lifting/ manual handling \nProvide information on correct manual handling \ntechniques.  \nEnsure training and awareness of correct lifting techniques.  \n Manual handling risk assessment  \nReview on individual basis when \ndiscomfort is reported.  \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide \nStaff Health Monitoring Guideline  – Page 4  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  Work station; repetitive and extended periods in a \nrestricted position. Word processing, data entry & \nextended periods working with computers.  \n \n Past history of over use or upper limb injury.  \nEmployees who work on c omputer keyboards for \nextended periods  \n Contact University Rehabilitation and ACC Administrator  \nto arrange occupational capacity assessment if high risk.  \nRefer to the following website guidance: \nhttp://[email protected]  Professional advice or assessment \non workplace and job design  \nReview on individual basis when \nmusculoskeletal discomfort \nreported, provide workplace \nassessment.  \n \nNoise & Respiratory Haz ards:  Supervisors/ Managers to ensure staff obtain hearing and lung function testing within 3 months of commencement provided pre- existing \ncondition does not restrict ability to undertake proposed duties . Testing can be arranged through Campus Health & Saf ety Advisors.  \n \nHigh noise levels requiring hearing protection.  Previous exposure to high noise. Existing hearing loss.  \nOngoing exposure to high noise.  \nMusicians  \nFarm staff  \nStaff using hand held noisy petrol power tools  Ensure training and awareness of sa fety procedures  \nBaseline Audiometry within 3 months of commencing \nemployment.  \nCheck previous noise exposure history and audiograms.  Audiometry every 2 years, more \nfrequently if previous hearing loss is \nindicated.  \nExit monitoring to be conducted in \nemployee’s final month of \nemployment  \nOperations producing dust including lung irritants, \nanimal dander, welding; glass blowing, epoxy \nresins.  History of Asthma or other respiratory disorders.  \nOngoing exposure to lung irritating products.  \nStaff with exposure to contaminants in the air, isocyanates, dust, silica and so on  \nLaboratory and intensive animal handlers  \nStaff using welders  \nGlass blowing \nDesign studios  Ensure training and awareness of safety procedures  \nBaseline Lung Function Testing (spirometry) within 3 \nmonths of commencing employment.  \nCheck previous exposure history and spirometry records.  \n \n Spirometry every year, more \nfrequently if previous respiratory \ndisorders are indicated as present.  \nSkin macular symptoms if heavy metal exposure  \nExit monitoring to be conducted in \nemployee’s final month of \nemployment.  \n \nHazardous Substances:  Supervisors/ Managers to ensure staff have appropriate training and screening where applicable within 3 months of commencement .  The following \nguidelines pertain to wor k situations where specific causative materials are predominately used. The WES should be consulted for what substances have biological monitoring indices    \n \nHeavy Metals,  (e.g. aluminium, chromium, lead, \nmanganese, mercury,  Past history of illness (af fecting the liver, \nkidneys, any malignancy or immune deficiency \ndisorders, including leukaemia).  \nHeavy past exposure  Base line test and period.  \nOther tests as required by Hazardous Chemical protocols, (this may include pathologies and spirometry).  \n Biologi cal monitoring as detailed in \nWES  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide \nStaff Health Monitoring Guideline  – Page 5  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  Carcinogens  Any past occupational exposure to carcinogenic \nsubstances  Ensure past occupational exposure is documented, and \npre employment checks*, training and awareness of \nsafety procedures.   * Other tests as required (t his may \ninclude pathologies, spirometry and x -rays).  Confirmed histology and causative as per ACC schedule 2    \nOrganic material with long half life identifiable \nmetabolites e.g., n-Hexane, Methanol, MEK, PCP, \nStyrene, organo phosphates, trichochoro ethyl ene  Heavy past exposure.  \nPesticide users  \nHistopathology lab staff  \nStaff using degreasers, printery solvents  Pathology testing as indicated by nature of substance \nand biological indices  \n Biological monitoring as detailed in \nWES. Testing as indicated by \nnature of substance and level of \nexposure  \nCarbon monoxide Users of internal combustion engines, gas or fuel \nburners in enclosed spaces   Not applicable  Biological monitoring as detailed in WES  \nSkin or eye hazardous substances  Laboratory staff, cleaners, studio staff, health workers  Ensure past allergenic or dermatitis problems documented  Self reporting by staff  \n \nMicrobial/Biological:  Supervisors/ Managers to ensure staff arrange for appropriate vaccination (where available) within 3 months of commence ment.   \n \nRecombinant DNA.  Past history of malignancy and \nImmunosuppressed individuals.  \n PC 3 and above to seek medical opinion.  As indicated by PC level.  \nScreening as required for \nexposures/risks identified  \nInfectious micro- organisms  Laboratory staff wor king with Risk Group 2 and \nabove microorganisms and/or samples which \nmay contain Risk Group 2 or above \nmicroorganisms (e.g. human or animal faecal or \nblood samples)  \nChildcare workers.  \nCatering: Food preparation  \nFood labs, food pilot plant staff  \nHealth staf f/Nurses  \nFemale and pregnant/trying for pregnancy.  \nStaff/students travelling to higher risk countries  \nPrevious vaccinations  \n For individual assessment relating to exposures/risks \nand previous vaccinations.  \nCheck immunisation history and upgrade as necessary.  \nCheck history of Hepatitis, skin complaints or recent \noverseas travel  \nSOS travel advisories and vaccination/precautionary requirements  \nImmunisation may be required for: Hep A and B, \nTetanus, Measles, Mumps, Rubella, V aricella (Chicken \nPox), Pertussis (Whooping cough), Meningococcal \nMeningitis, and Polio.  \nSuggested annual Influenza vaccination.  \nVaccinat ion against zoonotic organisms - where available  Screening as required for \nexposures/risks identified. May \nrequire annual screening.  \n \nEnsure immunisation kept up -to-\ndate \n \nMassey University Policy Guide \nStaff Health Monitoring Guideline  – Page 6  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  Use or care of animals; (rats, mice, rabbits, guinea \npigs, cats, bats, fowl/birds, primates, native fauna, \ncattle, sheep, goats and other furry animals).  History of asthma, hay fever, eczema and \nallergies.  \nLaboratory and intensive animal handlers  \nVeterinarians  Spirometry, RAST (radioallergosorbent blood test)  may \nbe required for identification of allergy susceptibility.  \n Spirometry testing.  \n \n \nVisiting an abattoir or working with samples from an \nabattoir.  \n Past exposure.  Immunisation for  specified animals (cattle, sheep, goats). \nVaccination against zoonotic organisms (where \navailable).   \nWorking with unfixed human blood or tissue.  Persons working with unfixed human tissue, First \nAiders and persons involved with injury \ntreatment.  \nResearche rs taking or working with human \nsamples  Check Hep B Status. Immunise if required.  \nMay require Hep A (if working with GI tissue and faecal \nmatter).  Hep B titre, (HIV and Hep C screen \nif requested but not compulsory).  \nHep B booster if required.  \n \nExposure to sewerage or rubbish collection.  Plumbers  \n Check Hep A Serology.  \nCheck Tetanus status.  Booster(s) if required.  \nTetanus vaccination reviewed at \ntime of commencement, booster \nrequired at 10 years, or if Tetanus \nprone injury occurs.  \nIncidental work requiring any of the above.   Ensure appropriate training and awareness of safety \nprocedures  \nCheck immunisation history and upgrade as necessary.  \nSeek advice from Health & Safety Advisors regarding \nany hazards not mentioned above.  Ensure immunisation kept up -to-\ndate. \n \nRadiation:  For Radiation Safety Information refer to: http://hrs.massey.ac.nz/massey/staffroom/national -shared- services/health- safety/managing- hazards/radiation.cfm   \n \nIonizing Radiation:  History of malignancy or immune deficient \ndiseases.  \nPilots  \nX-ray \nSome lab workers  \n Ensure training and awareness with safety procedures  Self monitoring within department.  \n \nUV Radiation i.e. Ex posure to sun.  History of Melanomas.  Check for history of Melanomas  Yearly skin monitoring for changes \n \nMassey University Policy Guide \nStaff Health Monitoring Guideline  – Page 7  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  Gardeners/ staff who work outdoors  \nField workers  Ensure appropriate clothing, eyewear and hat.  \nEnsure frequent application of sunscreen  \nEncourage skin check (mole mapping)  programme with \nown doctor  to moles and lesions.  \n \nOther Risks  \n \nOther hazardous equipment being used.   Seek advice from Campus Health & Safety Advisors \nregarding any hazards not mentioned above   \nOther potential hazards not mentioned above. Associated with Overseas Travel.  Past history of Malaria, Dengue Fever, Yellow Fever  Check basic immunisations for all destinations, Polio, MMR, Hep A & B, and Tetanus should be considered.  \nOther immunisations and anti -malarials should be \ndiscussed w ith personal doctor at least 6 weeks prior to \ndeparture.  \n Ensure immunisations and \nantibiotics are kept up -to-date. This \nmust be done on an individual \nbasis. Recommendations change \nregularly, refer to SOS\n travel \nadvisories for up to date advice.  \n \n \n \n4.  Funding of monitoring costs  \n \nThe extent of staff monitoring is dependent on the activities within a particular work area, environment or professional disc ipline and the methods used by \nmanagers to control hazards.  W here low -level and last -resort controls such as personal protective equipment or clothing are used, then monitoring costs \nwill be higher. Where more sophisticated controls such as isolation or elimination of hazards are used, staff monitoring cost s will be  less.  However, some \nhazards cannot be eliminated or isolated, and so monitoring in those situations becomes inevitable.  \n \nFunding arrangements are as follows:  \n• The cost of routine environmental and medical health monitoring is to be factored into departmental/unit budgets as a part of their operations.   \nInitial determinations of the need for environmental monitoring may be funded from the Health and Safety office or from regional budgets.  Campus \nHealth and Safety Advisors can assist with initial determinat ions of monitoring and advise on appropriate methods for where there is an ongoing \nrequirement.  \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide \nStaff Health Monitoring Guideline  – Page 8  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  • Monitoring of vision with visual display use, and discomfort, pain and injury workplace assessments, which are common to all University activity, is \nfunded centrally by the Health and Safety office.  \n \n5. Pre–employment monitoring (informative) \n \nThe Pre-employment  Checks on Prospective Employees Policy  contains responsibility for pre employment monitoring. The rationale for the pre \nemployment questions are detailed below.  \n \nThe University uses a self disclosure question in its Employment Application form to determine the above matters, i.e. “Have you had an injury or medical \ncondition caused by gradual process, disease or infection –  for example hearing loss, sensitivity to chemicals, repetitive strain injury –  which the task of this \njob may aggravate or contribute to?”  \n \nIn addition there are specific physical, visual, and working condition requirements within any position.  As these requirements vary considerably within any \nposition, the Universi ty relies on the applicant to self disclose any mismatch between these requirements and their individual capacity.  The Emplo yment \nApplication forms ask – “Have you any condition which may affect your ability to carry out effectively and safely the functions and responsibilities of this \nposition?”  \n \nThe onus, therefore, is on the job applicant to be open and honest in disclosing any condition that may prevent them from car rying out any aspect of the \nposition – as stated in the Job Description, or to the spec ifications outlined in the Person Specification.  The appointment panel must be vigilant in \nassessing all applications and questioning any areas where an acknowledged condition may be problematic, and to arrange basel ine testing to establish \ncertainty.      \n \nHowever  if a hazard is still significant after minimisation and personal protective equipment is used as the control method,  then baseline \nhealth monitoring  (i.e. the health status at time of engagement) is strongly recommended.  \n \n \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide \nStaff Health Monitoring Guideline  – Page 9  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  6.  Recording of m onitoring results  \n \nMonitoring results : Managers are to ensure that the results of environmental monitoring  are presented to affected staff and any other staff who ask for \nthem.  The data must be interpreted by a suitably qualified person who has an unders tanding of the hazards as well as occupational safety and health \nimplications or potential.  Results shall not identify individual staff. The results are to be held within the Department and copied to the Campus Health and \nSafety Advisor.   \n \nResults of health monitoring  are to be made available to the individual staff member, and interpreted by a suitably qualified person who has an \nunderstanding of the hazards as well as occupational safety and health implications or potential.  Under no circumstances are results of one employee to \nbe given to other employees.  The results are to be held on a personnel file either in Human Resources or Organisational unit s, and copied to the \nUniversity Accident Register held at the Health and Safety Office.  Unit held monit oring results are to be submitted to Human Resources at the cessation of \nthe monitoring period or employment.    \nSub-optimal results : If monitoring results show that an employee’s health is affected by the hazard(s), then the following is to occur:  \n• Substandard results are entered in accident register and investigated.  Hazard controls are reviewed as part of an accident investigation.  Campus \nHealth and Safety Advisors, the affected employee(s) and manager should be involved in the review process.  The purpose of the review is to identify \ncauses of the sub- optimal results and make recommendations to reduce exposure.  \n Referral to the ACC and Rehabilitation Administrator (to ensure that medical and vocational needs are addressed.  \n Notification to Department of Labour if significant harm has occurred.  \n \nAudience : \nStaff managers.  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide \nStaff Health Monitoring Guideline  – Page 10  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \nThe term “manager” covers any staff member with authority to supervise other staff, visitors, and persons with business at Massey University. Manager \nincludes titles such as; Vice Chancellor, Registrar, Pro Vice Chancellor, Assistant Vice Chancellor, Head of Department, Head of School, Head of Institute, \nHead of College, Head of Section, Director, Manager, team leader and equivalent titles.  \nRelated procedures / documents : \nPolicy on Pre- employment Checks for Prospective Ap pointees.   \nEmployment agreements  \nDocument Management Control:  \nPrepared by: University Health and Safety Manager  \nOwned by: Assistant Vice Chancellor –  People and Organisational Development  \nAuthorised by: University Health and Safety Manager  \nApproved by: SLT 16 April 2012  \nLast review: August 2014  \nNext r eview: December 2017  \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Scholarships_and_Bursaries_Policy_PDF_127_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Section",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "127 KB",
      "author": "jmlochhe",
      "creation_date": "2025-06-23T11:01:05",
      "modification_date": "D:20250623111529+12'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n \n \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nPurpose : \n \nThe primary purpose of scholarships and bursaries is to assist students with their education . Scholarships and \nbursaries attract and retain high quality students; increase research output  at postgraduate level; and provide financial \nassistance to students.  \n \nThe purpose of this policy is to ensure clarity and consistency of practices and processes for the development , \nadministration,  and awarding of scholarships  and bursaries  at Massey University. The policy provides guidance for \nMassey  University  staff,  students,  and benefactors  to ensure  an equitable , consistent,  and robust  approach  to financial  \nsupport  for students  in undergraduate and postgraduate study . To provide a consistent framework, Massey University \noperates central ised system s by which all scholarships and bursaries are established and considered .  \n \nPolicy : \n \nThis policy outlines  responsibilities and processes in relation to the management and administration of  financial  support  \nprovided to  Massey  University  students  through  scholarships  and bursaries , which are  internally funded or externally \nfunded or co -funded  (as defined below).  \n \nTo ensure prudent financial and legal management and to mitigate the associated risks, Massey  University operate s \na consolidated  system by which all scholarships  and bursaries  are established and  managed.  \nMassey University staff provide support and guidance for applicants, recipients and benefactors of scholarships, and \nbursaries to ensure fair, robust,  and consistent administrative practices.  Scholarships and bursaries are offered to \nstudents based on the principles of equitable access to education, as detailed in the Human Rights Act 1993, the New \nZealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and Te Tiriti o Waitangi.  \nThose responsible for the administration of any scholarship  or bursary  will ensure the integrity of the information, \nsystems,  and processes to facilitate safe and effective practices for all concerned . \n \nDefinitions:  \n \nFinancial  support  at Massey  University  is provided  to students  through  scholarships  and bursaries, defined as:  \n \nA scholarship i s a sum of money, or its equivalent  (e.g., fees or in -kind support) granted to a person for the primary \npurpose of assisting them with their education where the recipient is selected on merit and, some times,  other factors \n(e.g., gender , disability, cultural affiliation ). Usually, a scholarship is awarded based on excellence – academic, \ncreative, sporting, leadership or cultural. At Massey, the term ‘scholarship’ is used in reference to a range of funds \ndirected towards supporting students, including what might be called fellowships, awards,  or grants, with the \ndistinguishing factor a basis on merit.  \n \nSCHOLARSHIPS  AND  BURSARIES  POLICY  \nSection  Provost  \nContact  Dean, Postgraduate Research  \nLast Review  June 2022 \nNext  Review  May 2028 \nApproval  SLT 25/06/39  \nEffective  Date June 2025  \n \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide \nScholarships,  Fellowships,  Bursaries  and Awards  Policy  \n– Page  2  \n \n  \nA bursary  is granted to a person meeting certain criteria (often need -based), also for the primary purpose of assisting.   \n \nthe recipient with funding their education. At Massey, bursaries are most often granted based on the financial  need of \nstudents and m ay be called grants or hardship funds. In addition to financial need, bursaries may also include other \nfactors like merit, leadership , culture,  or research.  \n \nCo-funded means a scholarship or bursary partially funded by Massey University and partially funded by a third party.  \n \nExternally funded means a scholarship or bursary funded by a third party.  \n \nInternally funded means a scholarship or bursary funded or managed by Massey University and/or Massey University \nFoundation , including research g rants and awards . \n \n \nResponsibilities : \n \nThe Provost  has delegated authority to approve or ratify the award of scholarships  and bursaries according to their \ncriteria, guidelines, terms,  and provisions, and may further delegate such authority or specific responsibilities.  \n \nThe Dean Postgraduate Research  (in the Provost’s Office ) has responsibility for scholarships  and bursaries  and leads \nthe Scholarships and Scholar Development Team . The Dean is the Chair of the University Scholarships Advisory \nCommittee and Chair of the University Scholarships Selection Committee. The Dean, Postgraduate Research has \noverall strategic and operational, including budgetary, responsibility for scholarships  and bursaries . \n \nThe Scholarships and Scholar Development Team works within the Graduate Research School  and Ethics . The \nScholarships and Scholar Development Team has operational responsibilities for the management of scholarships  \nand bursaries  across all levels of study . The team is responsible for overseeing advertisements , applications,  screening  \nprocesses,  offers,  payments, monitoring budgets , reporting, monitoring , monitoring , evaluation,  and any required  follow -\nup (e.g.,  student  reporting,  recording  on transcripts ). \n \nThe Scholar Development  Coordinator  in the Scholarships and Scholar Development Team  is responsible  for \nproviding support for applicants through the provision of advice and information and  supporting  all scholarship  \nrecipients by facilitating scholar development opportunities.  \n \nThe Massey  University  Foundation fosters  philanthropy  to enable  excellence  at Massey  University.  The Foundation \nattracts donations to support scholarships  and bursaries. The Foundation builds and develops relationships with \ndonors, fund -manages gifts,  and donations, and disburses annual  funds to the Scholarships and Scholar Devel opment \nTeam for distribution to approved recipients.  \n \nThe Research Operations  team is responsible for any research agreements providing for student scholarships . The \nResearch Operations team ensure agreements are retained against the relevant research project accounts in Massey \nUniversity’s research management syste m and funding for scholarships is spent in accordance with agreements and \nany variations of those. The Research Operations team works  with the Scholarships and Scholar Development Team \nto administer externally funded  research scholarships for students.  \n \nResearch supervisors  of students holding research scholarships have responsibility for ensuring students meet \nadmissions requirements for their programme of study prior to scholarship selection. Research supervisors and \nstudents are responsible for ensuring any changes to the ir research programme or enrolment status are communicated \nto Research Operations and the Scholarships and Scholar Development Team.  \n \nThe Colleges  have  responsibility  for ensuring  representation  on the University  Scholarships  Advisory Committee,  and \nUniversity Scholarships Selection Committee, managing any funding support that is administered within the College or \nits academic units (including tuition fees discounts , and paid teaching/research opportunities ), engaging  in selection \nprocesses on behalf of the University Scholarships Selection Committee and providing academic and operational \nsupport to ensure responsive engagement with the Scholarships Team.  \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide \nScholarships,  Fellowships,  Bursaries  and Awards  Policy  \n– Page  3  \n \n  \nMassey University Central Service Lines (including, amongst others, University Services, DVC Students and Global \nEngagement, DVC Māori, and the Pacific Student Success Team) will be engaged to provide advice and assistance \nin relation to selection and awarding of scholarships  and bursaries and  will provide operational support to ensure \nresponsive engagement with the Scholarships  and Scholar Development Team.  \n \nThe University Scholarships Selection Committee  reviews applications against the criteria for the awarding of \nscholarships and recommends recipients to the Dean, Postgraduate Research for the offer of scholarships1.  \nThe University  Scholarships  Advisory Committee provides strategic advice to the Dean, Postgraduate Research \nand Scholarships and Scholar Development Team  in the Graduate Research School  and Ethics  on scholarships and \nscholar development as a collective, representative body of staff and students from the Colleges, central services,  and \nFoundation.  \n \nStudent Applicants are responsible for ensuring they 1) read and understand the application process and scholarship \nor bursary regulations; 2) follow  instructions  for application  completion;  3) seek assistance  before the  deadline  date;  4) \ncomplete  application  and submit all required documentation on time; 5) have refere es, if required, who meet \nexpectations and meet deadlines; and 6) ensure all information provided is current and the Scholarships and Scholar \nDevelopment Team  are informed of any changes.  \n \nStudent Recipients are responsible for 1) adhering to the  conditions of the scholarship  or bursary , and 2) enrolling  in \nMassey  University  coursework or  research  for the tenure  of the financial  support.  It is the responsibility  of the recipient  \nto inform the  Scholarships  and Scholar Development Team of  any changes in their circumstances which might affect \ntheir eligibility for support (e.g., change in enrolment status, employment, receipt of additional  funding). Recipients are \nexpected to participate and contribute to Massey’s scholars’ community  through Scholars Massey, led by the Scholar \nDevelopment Coordinator.  \n \nScholarship and Bursary Regulations : \n \nRegulations  (or Contracts for externally funded  student research) set out the purpose and conditions of award and  will \nbe developed  by the Scholarships  and Scholar Development Team , or Research Operations, working  collaboratively  \nwith funder s, the University Scholarships Advisory Committee,  and key stakeholders.  Regulations, and the application \nof them , are expected to be  guided by principles of equitable access.  \n \nRegulations  approved  by the Team Leader, Scholarships and Scholar Development or Dean, Postgraduate Research. The \nregulations are  made  available  on the university website by the Scholarships  and Scholar Development Team.  \n \nRegulations  are reviewed  annually,  at the time  of advertising . Changes  to regulations  do not affect  current  scholarship \nor bursary holders, unless recommended  by the University Scholarships Advisory Committee  and approved by the \nProvost (or delegate) . \n \nRegulations  are interpreted  and applied  by the University  Scholarships Selection Committee  in the nomination  process  for \nthe awarding  of financial support . However, the Provost (or delegate)  approves the recipients of financial support, and \ntheir decision is final.  \n \nValue  of Scholarships and B ursaries : \n \nAs a general guide , the minimum  values  for any new scholarships  or, bursaries2 should be : \n \n• Undergraduate  – a minimum  of $2,000 per annum  for scholarships, and a minimum of $500 per annum for \nbursaries . \n• Postgraduate  (excluding doctoral)  – a minimum  of $3,000 per annum  for scholarships, and a minimum of $1,000 \n \n1 Note: The Delegations of Authority Policy delegates the ratification and awarding of scholarships to the Provost (or delegate).  \n2 Note: These minimum values do not apply to externally funded research contracts, which are dealt with under the University’s Research and \nConsultancy Contracts Policy.  \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide \nScholarships,  Fellowships,  Bursaries  and Awards  Policy  \n– Page  4  \n \n per annum for bursaries . \n• Doctoral - a minimum of $30,000 per annum  for scholarships, and a minimum of $1,000 per annum for bursaries . \n \nMinimum values  do not include  the value  of indirect  benefits  (e.g.,  administration  fees,  guaranteed  accommodation, \nscholar development programmes).  \n \nDonations for the purpose of scholarships or bursaries of lesser  value than those  set out above may still be considered \nby Massey University. The Scholarships  and Scholar Development Team will in such case s work with the applicable \ndonor (including the Massey Foundation)  to determine the most appropriate use of the donation, and will have a \ndiscretion, subject to relevant delegations of authority, to accept the donation.  \n \nMonitoring  and Support : \n \nRecipients  are monitored  against  relevant  regulations  or contractual agreements  by the Scholarships  and Scholar \nDevelopment Team.  In cases  of recipients not meeting enrolment criteria , making inadequate  progress  or performance, \nfailing to meet expectations, or failing to adhere  to conditions, the funding may be suspended or terminated.  \n \nRecipients  are provided  with ongoing  support  and learning  through  a scholar  development  programme  facilitated  by \nthe Scholar Development Coordinator  and Scholars Massey.  \n \nReporting  and Evaluation : \n \nThe Scholarships and Scholar Development Team reports  quarterly to the University  Scholarships  Advisory Committee  \nand annually  to the University Scholarships Selection Committee . \n \nEvaluations  of the impact  of specific  financial  support  for scholars,  including  their progress  and achievements,  may be \nundertaken on behalf of the University Scholarships Advisory Committee by the Scholarships and Scholar \nDevelopment Team . \n \nReview  Process : \n \nSelection  panel  decisions  are final. An unsuccessful  applicant  may only seek review  of the decision, in writing, based \nupon the following grounds:  \n \n1) Eligibility:  If an applicant  is deemed  ineligible,  they may seek a  review  if they believe  the assessment  to be \nincorrect or that an error has been made in applying the eligibility criteria.  \n2) Late or incomplete  application,  incorrect  information,  technical  issues  beyond the control of the applicant  \n \nReviews  of scholarship  and bursary  decisions  on procedural  grounds  should  be made  in writing  to the Team  Leader of \nthe Scholarships and Scholar Development Team within 30 days of the decision. The Team Leader , or such other \nperson assigned by the Dean , Postgraduate Researc h, will review the evidence to determine whether there were \nprocedural deficiencies. If no deficiencies are found, the applicant will be notified in writing.  \n \nWhere  deficiencies are  found  to have  materially  impacted  the applicants’  case  for a  scholarship  or bursary, the \napplication and supporting evidence will be provided to the Provost (or delegate)  for re -consideration. The Provost (or \ndelegate) will ensure that funding is available should an appeal be upheld on procedural deficiencies . Applicants who \nhave requested a review will be notified in writing of the decision.  \n \nThe principles of procedural fairness, also referred to as Natural Justice, apply to all appeals made under th is Policy , \nincluding that staff do not adjudicate an appeal  in which they have, or may be perceived to have, an interest or prior \nknowledge.  \n \nDecisions on appeals will be based exclusively on the consideration of written submissions and supporting evidence \nprovided to the Team Leader by or  on behalf of the student making the appeal and the University. Oral submissions \nwill only be permitted in exceptional cases.  \n \n \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide \nScholarships,  Fellowships,  Bursaries  and Awards  Policy  \n– Page  5  \n \n Audience : \n \nAll staff, students , prospective students,  and benefactors . \n \nRelevant  legislation : \n \nEducation and Training Act, 2020  \nIncome Tax Act 2007  \nOfficial Information Act, 1982  \nPrivacy Act, 2020  \n \nLegal  compliance : \n \nUnder section CW36 of the Income Tax Act 2007, “A basic grant or independent circumstances  grant under regulations \nmade under section 645 of the Education and Training Act 2020 is not exempt income, but any other scholarship or \nbursary for attendance at an educational institution is exempt income. ” \n \nRelated  policies  and procedures : \n \nDelegation of Authority Policy  \nKaupapa Here Tiriti O Waitangi - Tiriti O Waitangi Policy  \nStudent Complaints and Grievance Procedures  \nResearch and Consultancy Activities Policy  \nResearch and Consultancy Activities Procedures  \n \n \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Massey_University_Strategic_Emergency_Management_Framework_PDF_723_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Massey University Strategic Emergency Management Framework PDF 723 KB",
      "policy_type": "Framework",
      "file_size": "723 KB",
      "author": "Chris Schraders",
      "creation_date": "2015-05-14T10:01:05",
      "modification_date": "D:20150514101623+12'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n \n \n \n  \n \n \n   \n \n \nMassey University Strategic  Emergency  \nManagement Framework  \n \n  \n \n  \n \n \n \nVersion 3 \nLast Review:  August  2014 \nNext  Review:  September  2016 \nApproved:  C15/01 – March: 4.1.1   \n \n1  \n \n \nPart 1: Background and Overarching Documents  ................................................................................... 4 \n1. Introduction  ............................................................................................................................................... 4 \n1.1. Context  .............................................................................................................................................................. 4 \n1.2. Purpose  of the Framework .................................................................................................................................  4 \n1.3. Target  Audience  ................................................................................................................................................. 4 \n1.4. Definition, Vision, Mission  and Principles  of Emergency  Management  at Massey  University  ............................ 4 \n1.5. Goals and Objectives  of Emergency  Management  at Massey  University  ........................................................... 5 \n1.6. Structure  of the Framework  for Emergency  Management  ................................................................................. 6 \n1.7. Relationship with External Documents  .............................................................................................................. 7 \n2. Overarching Documents  ............................................................................................................................ 7 \n2.1. Emergency Management Policy  ......................................................................................................................... 8 \n2.2. Massey University  Strategic Emergency  Management  Framework.................................................................... 8 \nPart 2: Phases  of Emergency  Management  ............................................................................................. 9 \n3. Introduction  to the  Phases of Emergency  Management  ........................................................................... 9 \n3.1. Relationship between  the Phases  of Emergency  Management  and Massey  University’s  Emergency  \nManagement  Goals and Objectives  ................................................................................................................................ 10 \n4. Reduction  ................................................................................................................................................. 10 \n4.1. Introduction to the Reduction Phase  ............................................................................................................... 10 \n4.2. Relationship between Emergency  Management and  Risk Management  ......................................................... 10 \n4.3. Reduction  Principles  ......................................................................................................................................... 10 \n4.4. Goals  and Objectives of the Reduction Phase  .................................................................................................. 11 \n4.5. Reduction  Initiatives ......................................................................................................................................... 11 \n5. Readiness  ................................................................................................................................................. 11 \n5.1. Introduction to the Readiness Phase  ............................................................................................................... 11 \n5.2. Readiness Principles  ......................................................................................................................................... 11 \n5.3. Goals  and Objectives of the Readiness Phase  .................................................................................................. 12 \n5.4. Training  and Professional  Development  .......................................................................................................... 12 \n5.5. Testing and Exercising  ...................................................................................................................................... 13 \n5.6. Equipment  and Facilities  .................................................................................................................................. 14 \n5.7. Inter -Agency Relationships ............................................................................................................................... 14 \n5.8. Tenants  and Service Providers ......................................................................................................................... 15 \n6. Response .................................................................................................................................................. 16 \n6.1. Introduction to the Response  Phase  ................................................................................................................ 16 \n6.2. Response  Principles .......................................................................................................................................... 16 \n6.3. Goals  and Objectives of the Response  Phase  ................................................................................................... 17 \n6.4. System for Managing Emerg ency  Events  ......................................................................................................... 17 \n6.5. Emergency Response Plans  .............................................................................................................................. 20 \n6.6. Review  of Emergency  Response Plans  ............................................................................................................. 21 \n2  \n \n \n7. Recovery  .................................................................................................................................................. 21 \n7.1. Introduction to the Recovery  Phase  ................................................................................................................. 21 \n7.2. Recovery Principles  .......................................................................................................................................... 21 \n7.3. Goals  and Objectives of the Recovery  Phase  .................................................................................................... 22 \n7.4. Relationship between  Risk Management,  Emergency  Management,  IT Disaster  Recovery  and Business  \nContinuity Planning and Management  ........................................................................................................................... 22 \nPart 3: Management  and Maintenance  ................................................................................................ 23 \n8. Governance and Management  ................................................................................................................ 23 \n8.1. Introduction  ..................................................................................................................................................... 23 \n8.2. Governance  ...................................................................................................................................................... 24 \n8.3. Management  of Emergency  Management  during  the Reduction and Readiness Phases  (Day -to-Day \nManagement)  .................................................................................................................................................................  25 \n9. Monitoring and Evaluation  ...................................................................................................................... 27 \n9.1. Introduction  ..................................................................................................................................................... 27 \n9.2. Monitoring  and Evaluation Plan  ....................................................................................................................... 27 \n10. Appendices  .......................................................................................................................................... 28 \n10.1. Appendix  A: Emergency  Management Definitions  ........................................................................................... 28 \n10.2. Appendix  B: Bibliography  ................................................................................................................................ . 32 \n3  \n \n \nPart  1: Background  and Overarching  \nDocuments  \n \n \n \n1. Introduction  \n1.1. Context \n“Massey  University  aims  to become  a leader  in the academic  emergency  management  sector  by \ndeveloping good practice s based on empirical evidence  and contemporary  research in  emergency \nmanagement”  (Emergency Management  Policy,  2014, p. 1.). \n \n1.2. Purpose  of the Framework  \nThis document  provides  the foundation for  a coordinated and effective  approach  to emergency  \nmanagement  across  all of Massey  University’s  Campuses  and effective  integration with external  \nlocal,  regional  and national  emergency management  arrangements.  \nIt includes  key information  from policies,  procedures  and plans  related  to emergency  management  at \nthe University.  \n1.3. Target  Audience  \nThis document  is intended for all Massey  University staff,  students,  stakeholders , tenants  and critical  \nsuppliers  and will be made  available  accordingly.  \n1.4. Definition,  Vision,  Mission  and  Principles  of Emergency Management  \nat Massey  University  \n1.4.1.  Definition  of Emergency  Management  \nFor the purpose  of this framework; emergency management  is defined as:  \n \n“the application of  knowledge,  measures,  and practices  that:  are necessary  or desirable  for \nthe safety  of the public or property;  and are designed  to guard against,  prevent,  reduce,  or \novercome  any hazard or harm  or loss that may  be associated with any  emergency; and  \nincludes,  without  limitation,  the planning,  organisation , co-ordination,  and implementation  of \nthose  measures,  knowledge,  and practices”  (New  Zealand Government,  2002,  s. 4.)1 \nAdditional  key terms  are defined in Appendix  A: Emergency  Management  Definitions . \n \n1.4.2.  Vision  for Emergency  Management  \nMassey  University’s  vision for  emergency management  is: \nResilient  organisation, resilient  people: University  communities  understanding and \nmanaging their  hazards  and risks2. \n \n \n1 This definition  is the same  as that used  in the Civil Defence  Emergency  Management  Act (2002)  to define Civil Defence  \nEmergency Management  (CDEM) ; however,  as the term  CDEM is not used  outside  of New  Zealand,  and only  used  to a limited  \nextent  within,  the term  emergency  management  is used  at Massey  University  instead.  \n2 The National  Civil Defence  Emergency  Management Strategy  lists the vision  for emergency  management  in New  Zealand  \nas “Resilient  New Zealand – Communities  understanding  and managing  their  hazards” (Ministry  of Civil Defence  & \nEmergency  Management,  2008a,  p. 1.). \n4  \n \n \n \n \n1.4.3.  Mission  of Emergency  Management  \nEmergency management  protects  the University  and its  communities  by coordinating and  \nintegrating all  activities  necessary  to build,  sustain,  and improve  the capability to reduce  risks,  \nprepare  for, respond to,  and recover  from threatened  or actual  emergencies3. \nBy developing coordinated  and effective  emergency  management  arrangements  that are conveyed  \nto the University Community , Massey  University  reduces  the level  of risk related to  emergencies  \nwhich may  negatively  impact  on the seven  big goals  listed in  The University Strategy: The Road to \n2025 (Massey University 2014).    \n \n1.4.4.  Principles  of Emergency Management  \n \n \n \n1.5. Goals  and  Objectives  of Emergency Management  at Massey  University  \nMassey  University’s  goals  for emergency management  describe  what  the University would like to \nachieve.  The emergency management  goals  support  successful  achievement  of the big goals  \noutlined in The  University Strategy: The  Road to 2025 (Massey University 2014)  by reducing the  \nlikelihood of an emergency,  and/or  consequence  that an emergency  would have  on the  operations  \nof the University.  \nThe objectives  provide  more  specificity  to the goals  and form  the basis  for monitoring and evaluating \nthe success  of emergency  management  at Massey University.  \nThe goals  and objectives  are to: \n \n 3 Adapted from  the mission promoted  by the International Association  of Emergency  Managers (Blanchard  et al., 2007)  Massey  University  endorses  and adopts  the principles  of emergency  management  as published by the \nInternational  Association  of Emergency  Managers,  which,  contextualised to Massey  University’s  situation,  \nare: \nThat emergency  management  must  be: \n1. Comprehensive – all hazards,  all phases  [risk reduction,  readiness,  response and recovery],  \nall stakeholders  and all impacts  relevant  to emergencies  are considered.  \n2. Progressive  – future emergencies  are anticipated and preventive and preparatory  measures  \nare taken to build  disaster -resistant  and disaster -resilient  communities.  \n3. Risk- driven – sound risk management  principles (hazard identification,  risk analysis,  and \nimpact  analysis)  are used in assigning  priorities  and resources. \n4. Integrated – unity  of effort  is ensured among all levels  of government  and all elements  of a \ncommunity.  \n5. Collaborative – broad and sincere  relationships  with individuals and organisations  are created  \nand sustained to encourage trust,  advocate  a team  atmosphere,  build consensus,  and \nfacilitate communication.  \n6. Coordinated – activities of all relevant  stakeholders  are synchronised to achieve a common  \npurpose.  \n7. Flexible  – creative  and innovative approaches  are used  to solve  emergency  challenges.  \n8. Professional  – a science  and knowledge- based approach based on education,  training,  \nexperience,  ethical  practice,  public  stewardship and continuous  improvement  is valued.  \n \nEmergency  Management  Policy,  2014  \n5  \n \n \n \n1.5.1.  Goal  1: Reduce  the risks  from hazards  on University  property  and  areas  that  may  \naffect  the University’s  operations.  \nObjectives  \n1a: Effectively  integrate  emergency  management  and risk  management  activities.  \n1b: Develop evidence -based  knowledge  of the emergency  hazards  and risks  that face the \nUniversity.  \n1c: Actively  apply the  outcomes  of research and evidence -based  practice  to the reduction  of \nhazard risk.  \n1d: Support  all Campuses, Colleges , Schools, and Departments to reduce  risks  from  hazards  to levels \nacceptable within the University ’s risk appetite.  \n 1.5.2.  Goal  2: Increase University -wide  awareness,  understanding,  preparedness  and  \nparticipation  in emergency  management.  \nObjectives  \n2a: Increase  the level  of awareness  and understanding  of risk at all levels  of the University.  \n2b: Improve  individual,  departmental,  Campus  and University -wide  emergency  preparedness.  \n2c: Improve  the level  of participation in emergency management  within the  University.  \n2d: Provide  a framework  for communicating with  staff,  students  and visitors  regarding  what  to do \nduring an emergency.  \n1.5.3.  Goal  3: Enhance  the University’s ability  to respond to emergencies.  \nObjectives  \n3a: Enable  and coordinate  ongoing emergency  management  training and professional  development.  \n3b: Enhance  the University’s  ability  to prepare  for and manage  emergencies.  \n3c: Develop closer  working relationships  with emergency  services  and external  emergency  \nmanagement  organisations.  \n1.5.4.  Goal  4: Enhance the University’s ability  to recover  from emergencies.  \nObjectives  \n4a: Effectively  integrate  emergency  management,  IT disaster  recovery  and business  continuity  \nactivities.  \n \n1.6. Structure  of the Framework  for Emergency  Management  \nThe following figure  shows  the key documents  that form  the emergency management  framework  \nand the  relationships  that exist  between  these  documents.  \n6  \n \n \n \n \n \nFigure  1: Key documents  that form  the emergency management  framework.  \n \nEmergency \nManagement Policy\nMassey University \nStrategic Emergency \nManagement \nFramework\nMassey University \nCrisis Management \nPlan\nEmergency \nCommunications Plan\nSub-Plans (e.g. \nDepartment \nEmergency Response \nPlan)Campus Emergency \nResponse PlanTOR * – University \nEmergency \nManagement \nCommitteeTOR * – Campus \nEmergency \nManagement \nCommittee\nUniversity Emergency \nManagement Work \nPlanCampus Emergency \nManagement Work \nPlan\n* TOR = Terms of Reference .Overarching documents\nReduction and readiness related documents\nResponse and recovery related documentsSub-Plans (e.g. Napier \nSite-Emergency \nResponse Plan )\n \nOther  key documents  may  be added to  the emergency management  framework  in the  future.  \n \n1.7. Relationship with External  Documents  \nThe vision,  mission,  goals  and objectives  are consistent  with  those  specified in:  \n \n• The National  Civil Defence  Emergency Management  Strategy,  \n• The Manawatu -Wanganui  CDEM  Group Plan,  \n• The Auckland CDEM  Group Plan,  \n• The Wellington  Region  CDEM  Group Plan.  \n \n \n2. Overarching  Documents  \nThere are two overarching  internal  documents  within  the emergency  management  framework  which  \nare not tied to a particular  phase  of emergency management.  These  are \n• The Emergency Management  Policy  \n• The Massey  University  Strategic  Emergency Management  Framework  (this  document).  \n \nThere are also a multitude  of external  documents,  from  statute and regulations,  through to  plans,  \nguidelines  and codes  of practice  that need to  be factored in to  Massey  University’s  emergency  \nmanagement  arrangements,  these  include,  but are not limited to:  \n7  \n \n \no Civil Defence Emergency Management  Act (2002)  \no National Civil Defence  Emergency  Management  Strategy  (2008a)  \no National Civil Defence  Emergency Management  Plan  (2005)  \no Guide  to the National Civil Defence Emergency Management  Plan  (2006)  \no Civil Defence  Emergency  Management  Group (such as Auckland  CDEM Group,  \nManawatu -Wanganui  CDEM  Group,  and Wellington  CDEM Group)  plans  \no Local  Civil Defence Emergency  Management  Plans  where  these exist (such as a city’s  \nCDEM  Welfare Plan)  \n• Animal Welfare Act (1999)  \n• Crimes  Act (1961)  \n• Education Act (1989)  \n• Fire Service  Act (1975)  \n• Fire Safety  and Evacuation of Buildings  Regulations  (2006)  \n• Hazardous  Substances  and New  Organisms  Act (1996)  \no Hazardous  Substances  (Emergency Management)  Regulations  (2001)  \n• Health Act  (1956)  \no New  Zealand Influenza  Pandemic  Plan: A framework  for action  (2010)  \n• Health and Safety  in Employment  Act (1992)  \no ACC Workplace  Safety  Management  Practices  \n• Policing Act  (2008)  \n• Radiation  Protection Act  (1965)  \n• AS/NZS ISO  31000  Risk Management: Principles  and Guidelines  (2009)  \n• AS/NZS4801 Occupational  Health and Safety  Management  Systems  (2001)  \n \nMany  of these documents  were  considered  while  developing this  framework,  but should also be \nreferred  to when developing  emergency plans,  business  plans,  work  programmes  and as  appropriate  \nto the content  of the plans  or programmes  of work.  \n \n2.1. Emergency Management  Policy  \nThe Emergency  Management  Policy outlines  the University’s  position  on emergency  management;  \nprovides  an overview  of the delegated authority that  exists  during an incident  or emergency; and  \ngives  an overview  of the governance  and management  of the emergency management  function at \nMassey  University.  \n \nThe Emergency Management  Policy can be  found  on the Massey University  Policy  Guide.  \n \n2.2. Massey  University Strategic  Emergency Management  Framework   The \nMassey  University  Strategic  Emergency Management  Framework  (this  document)  adds  specificity  to \nthe policy  by: outlining the vision,  mission,  principles,  goals  and objectives  of emergency \nmanagement  at Massey University; outlining the  phases  of emergency  management;  introducing the  \nvarious  emergency plans;  and further  describing the  governance  and management  arrangements.  \n8  \n \n \nPart  2: Phases  of Emergency  \nManagement  \n \n \n \n3. Introduction  to the Phases  of Emergency  Management  \nFor emergency management  to be effective  it needs  to cover  “all phases”  rather  than only focus  on \nresponse  (as per section 1.4.4.  Principles  of Emergency  Management ). \nNew  Zealand’s  approach to emergency  management  lists four phases  which are:  \n \n• Reduction  (Risk  reduction)  \n• Readiness  \n• Response  \n• Recovery  \n \nThe phases  are sequential  in theory  (though exceptions  exist)  and are cyclical  in nature  (New  \nZealand Fire  Service  Commission,  1998).  \n \nThe following figure  shows  the phases  of emergency  management.  \n \n \n \n \n \nFigure  2: Phases  of emergency management4. \n \n \n \n4 Figure  taken  from  National  CDEM  Planning  poster  (Ministry  of Civil Defence  & Emergency  Management,  2008b).  \n9  \n \n \nEach of the phases  is explained in more  detail  in the following sections.  \n \n3.1. Relationship between  the Phases  of Emergency Management  and  \nMassey  University’s  Emergency Management  Goals  and  Objectives  \nThe four goals  outlined in section  1.5 Goals  and Objectives  of Emergency  Management  at Massey  \nUniversity  generally  align  with the  four phases  of emergency  management;  however,  activities  that \nenable  Goal  3: Enhance  the University’s  ability  to respond to emergencies are achieved  through  \nReadiness  activities  and as  such,  Goal  3 and its  objectives  are listed under  5.3 Goals  and Objectives  \nof the Readiness  Phase.  \n \n \n4. Reduction  \n \n4.1. Introduction  to the Reduction  Phase  \nIn the  University  context,  the reduction phase  of emergency  management  consists  of identifying and  \nanalysing long -term  risk to human life  and property  from natural,  social and technological  hazards;  \ntaking steps  to eliminate  these risks  if practicable,  and,  if not, reducing the  magnitude  of their impact  \nand the likelihood  of them occurring5. \n4.2. Relationship between  Emergency Management  and  Risk  Management  \nMassey  University  has an established and robust  framework  for risk management  which is  based on \nthe principles,  framework  and process  outlined in the  Joint  Australian New Zealand  International  \nStandard on risk management  – AS/NZS  ISO 31000:2009 Risk management – Principles  and \nguidelines  (Standards  Australia/Standards  New  Zealand,  2009).  \nThe emergency  management  arrangements  at Massey University  have  been set  up to work  \ncollaboratively  with  the risk management  arrangements  and each provides  information to  the other  \nand takes  actions  that enable  successful  achievement  of the goals  and objectives  of both groups.  \n \n4.3. Reduction  Principles  \nThe key principles  of risk reduction are6: \n \n• That  there is a framework  for the identification,  assessment  and treatment  of risk, ongoing \nmonitoring and review  of progress,  and communication and consultation regarding risk.  \n• That  risk treatment  measures  and controls  are managed by  the risk owner  and appropriately  \nsupp orted by the  University.  \n• That  risks  that cannot  be reduced to a tolerable  level  through reduction activities  are \nmanaged through readiness,  response,  and recovery arrangements.  \n• That the University emergency m anagement system benchmarks positively against \nthe Emergency Management Accreditation Programme (EMAP)  \n• That  the University  seeks  to meet  Tertiary  accreditation against  the Accident  Compensation  \nCorporation’s  (ACC’s)  Workplace  Safety  Management  Practices  (ACC  Workplace  Safety  \nManagement  Practices,  2008) . \n \n \n \n5 Adapted from  National  CDEM  Planning  poster  (Ministry  of Civil Defence  & Emergency  Management,  2008b).  \n6 Adapted from  the Massey  University  Risk Management  Framework  (Massey  University,  2010)  and the AS/NZS  \nISO 31000:2009  Risk Management:  Principles  and Guidelines  (Standards  Australia/Standards  New Zealand,  \n2009).  \n10  \n \n \n4.4. Goals  and  Objectives  of the Reduction  Phase  \nThe following goals  and objectives  relate  to the reduction phase  of emergency  management.  \n \nGoal 1: Reduce  the risks  from  hazards  on University  property and areas that  may affect  the \nUniversity’s  operations. \nObjective  1a: Effectively  integrate  emergency  management  and risk  management  \nactivities.  \nObjective  1b: Develop  evidence -linked  knowledge  of the emergency hazards and risks \nthat face  the University. \nObjective  1c: Actively  apply  the outcomes  of research and  evidence -linked practice  to the \nreduction of hazard  risk. \nObjective  1d: Support  all Colleges,  Campuses  and Divisions  to reduce  risks from  hazards  \nto acceptable  levels.  \n \n4.5. Reduction  Initiatives  \nThe University  Emergency  Management  Committee  and the Campus  Emergency Management  \nCommittees  are responsible  for, periodically  determining  priorities  for emergency management  \n(including reduction initiatives)  and developing an  emergency management  work  plan based on \nthese priorities.  For more  information  about  these  committees  refer  to sections  8.3.3  University  \nEmergency  Management  Committee  and 8.3.4  Campus  Emergency  Management  Committees . \n \n \n5. Readiness  \n \n5.1. Introduction  to the Readiness  Phase  \nIn the  University  context,  the readiness  phase  of emergency  management  consists  of developing  \noperational systems  and capabilities  before  an emergency  happens,  including self-help  and response  \nprogrammes  for staff  and students,  and specific  programmes  for formal  emergency  responders  \nwithin the  University as  well as operational practices  to enable  effective  integration  with  external  \nemergency  management  organisations7. \n5.2. Readiness  Principles  \nThe key principles  of emergency  readiness  are8: \n \n• That  emergency management  should form  part of normal  University operations.  \n• University -wide  plans  should:  \no describe  responsibilities  of the University  as a whole; and \no support  Campus -level  response to emergency  events.  \n \n \n \n \n7 Adapted from  National  CDEM  Planning  poster  (Ministry  of Civil Defence  & Emergency  Management,  2008b).  \n8 Adapted from  Part 7 of the National  Civil Defence  Emergency  Management  Plan  (New  Zealand  Government,  2005).  \n11  \n \n \n5.3. Goals  and  Objectives  of the Readiness  Phase  \nThe following goals  and objectives  relate  to the readiness  phase  of emergency  management.  \n \nGoal 2: Increase  University -wide  awareness,  understanding,  preparedness and participation  in \nemergency  management. \nObjective  2a: Increase  the level of awareness  and understanding of risk at all levels of  the \nUniversity.  \nObjective  2b: Improve  individual,  departmental,  Campus  and University -wide  emergency  \npreparedness. \nObjective  2c: Improve  the level  of participation in  emergency  management  within  the \nUniversity.  \nObjective  2d: Provide  a framework  for communicating with  staff,  students  and visitors  \nregarding  what  to do during an  emergency.  \nGoal 3: Enhance  the University’s ability to respond to emergencies.  \n \nObjective  3a: Enable  and coordinate  ongoing  emergency management  training and  \nprofessional  development. \n \nObjective  3b: Enhance  the University’s  ability to prepare  for and manage  emergencies.  \n \nObjective  3c: Develop  closer  working  relationships with emergency services and  external  \nemergency  management  organisations. \n \n5.4. Training  and  Professional  Development  \n \n5.4.1.  Training Needs Analysis \nEach Campus  shall  conduct  a risk-based,  or functional,  training needs  analysis  not less than  every  \nthree  years  that includes  an analysis  of gaps  between  intended and actual  capability  (depth of \nknowledge  and skills)  and capacity  (quantity of trained  personnel).  \nCampus -level  needs  analyses  should be aligned  with any university -wide  needs  analyses9.  \n \n5.4.2.  Development  Strategy  and  Annual  Training Plans  \nThe University  will develop  an Emergency  Management  Development  Strategy  – a mid-long -term  \nplan  for emergency management  training,  professional development  and exercising.  In the  absence  \nof a comprehensive  development  strategy,  the University  may  release  an annual  training plan.  \nEach Campus  shall,  through discussion  with  other  Campuses  and consistent  with the  Emergency  \nManagement  Development  Strategy  (or University -level  training plan),  develop an annual  training  \nplan  for emergency management.  \n \n \n9In 2011,  the Emergency  Management  Preparedness Project  developed an initial  capability needs  analysis.  The report \nproposed a capability  development  framework which included  an analysis of training  and development  needs . \n \n12  \n \n \n5.4.3.  Training and Professional  Development  \nWhere competency  standards  exist,  and have been identified as essential , preference  should be  \ngiven to  formal  training that  meets  these competency  standards.  \nWhere capability standards  align  with the learning objectives  set out in the  Emergency  Management  \nDevelopment  Strategy  or annual  training  plans,  a process  will be developed and  documented which \nwill outline  how  participants  can meet  the additional  requirements  of the competency  standards  if \nthese are required . \nNot all training and professional development  needs  to be standards -based.  A mix of formal and \ninformal  training and development  is often the  most  effective  and efficient  way of  developing  \ncapability.  \n \n5.4.4.  Revalidation  of Competence  \nWhere current  industry  practice  requires  revalidation  of skills  and knowledge  in a particular topic,  \ncourse,  or series  of learning  outcomes  (such as  First  Aid, Breathing Apparatus,  Confined Space  Entry  \netc),  Massey University  endorses  and supports  this approach and will  provide  resourcing accordingly.  \n \n5.4.5.  Credentialing  \nCredentialing is  the process  of identifying competencies  and qualifications  of emergency  \nmanagement  staff and recording and maintaining this  information.  \nIn order  to adequately  manage  training,  professional  development  and response  activities  related  to \nemergency management,  it is important  to build and  maintain a database  of credentials.  The \ndatabase  will allow  for: \n• Identification  of any shortfall in capability  and capacity  of trained  staff  (gap  analysis).  \n• Effective  management  of the delivery  of training and  professional  development  sessions.  \n• The ability to  record,  in a centralised database,  training activity  and schedule  \nrefresher/revalidation training.  \n• Storage  of contact  details  of trained and competent  emergency  management  / \nemergency response  personnel  and research expertise  (possibly  through integration \nwith th e University’s  HR Management  System).  \n• The ability to  query  the database  to return the  names  and contact  details  of competent  \nemergency management /  emergency response  personnel  based  on various  criteria.  \n• Integration  with systems to allow  for automated activation  of identified personnel.  \n• Reporting  on level  of capability  and capacity for the purpose  of monitoring  and \nevaluation   \n \n5.5. Testing  and  Exercising  \nThe University  will develop   a coordinated  Testing and Exercise Plan  which is  designed to:  \n \n• Test  planning and  operational  arrangements  and highlight:  areas  of improvement,  and;  \nareas  of commendable  practice.  \n13  \n \n \n• Meet  applicable  legally  prescribed testing requirements10. \n• Provide  assurance  that planning  and operational  arrangements  are working effectively  \nand are  being continuously improved.  \n• Provide  learning and development  opportunities  for the people  involved.  \n \nThis plan must  be consistent  with  the Emergency Management  Development  Strategy  and should b e \nincluded in Campus  annual  emergency management  training plans.  \n5.6. Equipment  and  Facilities  \nThe University  commits  to developing its  caches  of equipment  for emergency  management  and \naccess  to facilities  needed during training,  exercising  and testing,  and emergency  response  in line \nwith the  level  and type  of training  identified by the  training needs  analysis  and annual  training plans  \nand following recommendations from post exercise /event  debriefs.  \n \n5.7. Inter -Agency  Relationships  \nIn order  to be able  to respond effectively  to an emergency  event,  pre-event  relationships  between  \norganisations  are crucial  in order  to develop an  understanding of other  organisations’  mission,  goals,  \nobjectives,  work  programme,  operating systems  and technologies.  \nInvolvement  of Campus  staff  in the  relevant  Civil Defence  Emergency  Management  (CDEM)  Groups’  \nCo-ordinating  Executive  Group (CEG)  and/or  its sub-committees  or sub-groups  is key to \nstrengthening these relationships11. \nMassey  University  Campuses  should also consider  engaging with other  Tertiary  Education Institutes  \n(TEIs) in their  region to  develop possible  synergies  and economies  of scale  and determine  mutual  aid \narrangements.  \n \n5.7.1.  Compatible  Systems \nIn order  to ensure  effective  emergency  response,  Massey  University  needs  to work  with  Civil \nDefence Emergency Management  and emergency response  organisations,  to develop  business \nsystems and technologies  that are compatible  with these  external  agencies , where practical.  \n \n5.7.2.  Joint  Training and  Exercises  \nWhenever  Massey  University  arranges  or runs  training  or exercises which support  its internal  \nemergency management  arrangements,  attendance  by staff  (or students,  if appropriate)  from other \nMassey  Campuses  should be considered.  It is also worth considering whether  or not staff  from  \nexternal  agencies  should be invited to  attend the training,  or take  part in or  observe  the exercise  to \nstrengthen the relationship  between  Massey  University  and external  agencies  that have  an \nemergency management  mandate.  \n \n \n10 Such  as the requirements  described in the Fire Safety  and Evacuation  of Buildings  Regulations (2006)  and the Hazardous  \nSubstances  (Emergency  Management)  Regulations  (2001).  \n11 Each  CEG comprises  senior  managers from  the regional  council,  local  authorities,  Police,  Fire Service  and hospital  or \nhealth service.  \n14  \n \n \nIt is at the University’s  discretion  whether  or not costs will be recovered from,  or disbursements  \nreimbursed  to, these  organisations  for their  involvement;  however,  if they  will, this must  be agreed  \nwith the  external  agency  in advance  of the training session  or exercise.  \n \n5.7.3.  Mutual  Aid \nThe University  may  seek  to develop  Mutual  Aid agreements  with  other  TEOs  or external  agencies  to \nsupport  one another  during  an emergency  that directly  impacts  one or both  parties.  \n5.8. Tenants  and  Service Providers  \n \n \n \n \nThe details  of sections  5.7.1  Compatible  Systems  and 5.7.2  Joint  Training and  Exercising  should also \napply  to tenants  and contracted critical service  providers.  \n5.8.1.  Memoranda of Understanding and Critical  Supplier  Emergency  Arrangements  \nMassey  University  may  seek  to develop  memoranda  of understanding (MoU)  or contracts  for the \nprovision  of goods  and services,  related  to emergency  response,  prior  to any emergency  event  \noccurring.  \n \nSome  (hypothetical)  examples  include:  \n \n• The University  signs  a MoU  with the supplier  of flood  barriers  on the terms  that the supplier  \nwill deliver the barriers  to the University in the  case  of severe  flooding,  in exchange  for \npayment  of a retainer  while  the product  is not being  used,  and an agreed day  rate when the  \nbarriers  are deployed.  \n• The University  signs  a contract  with its existing  catering provider for the provision  of \nadditional  catering during an emergency  event that  affects  the University.  This critical  \nsupplier  must  develop  an Emergency Response  Plan  or Business Continuity Plan  which  \nexplains  how  it will meet  its contracted  service  delivery  during an emergency  event.  \n \nAll MoU  and contracts  for goods  and services  will be subject  to any instructions  from the  National,  \nGroup or  Local  CDEM  Controller  during a declared  state  of Civil Defence Emergency  (refer  to sections  \n8, 9 and 28 of the Civil Defence  Emergency Management  Act (2002)  for details).  External  organisations  that provide contracted services to Massey  University  and organisations  who are \ntenants  of Massey  University must  develop emergency  plans  that are consistent  with those of the \nUniversity.  These organisations  are responsible for their own equipment  and training;  however,  Massey  \nUniversity  will provide access to relevant  documentation which  supports  their emergency  planning.  \n \nEmergency  Management  Policy,  2014  \n15  \n \n \n6. Response  \n \n6.1. Introduction  to the Response  Phase  \nIn the  University  context,  the response  phase  of emergency  management  consists  of actions  \nimmediately  before,  during,  or directly  after  an emergency  to save  lives  and property,  and to  help  \nUniversity  communities recover12. \n6.2. Response  Principles  \nThe key principles  of emergency  response  are13: \n \n• That  organisations  should respond to  an emergency  by activating  their  own  plans  and \ncoordinating with  the lead  agency.  \no Within the  constraints  that the emergency creates,  the University,  operating  within \nits own  jurisdiction,  must  coordinate  with interdependent  agencies  to— \no assess  the impact of an event  on its own  staff,  assets,  and services;  and \no activate  its own  continuity  and emergency arrangements;  and \no maintain  or restore  the services  it provides;  and \no communicate  with lead agencies,  other  responders,  staff,  visitors,  students  and the  \npublic;  and \no align response  activities  with other  agencies  to avoid  gaps  and duplications  \n• General  emergency  response  objectives  include12 — \no preservation  of life; and  \no prevention  of escalation  of the emergency;  and \no maintenance  of law and order;  and \no care  of sick,  injured,  and dependent  people  (first  aid, medical,  and evacuation  \nfacilities,  provision  of medical  services);  and \no provision  of psychological  and welfare services  to affected people;  and,  \no provision  of essential  services  (lifeline  utilities,  food,  shelter,  information for staff,  \nstudents,  visitors,  the public,  and media,  remuneration);  and \no preservation  of governance  (continuity of the machinery of government);  \no protection  of accident  scenes  in accordance  with legislation; and  \no asset  protection,  including  buildings  and historic  heritage  assets  (including  \nstructures,  areas,  landscapes,  archeological  sites, and wahi  tapu); and  \no protection  of natural and physical  resources  (to the  extent  reasonably  possible  in \nthe circumstances);  and \no preservation  of economic  activity.  \n• The University’s  structures  and actions  must  not be inconsist ent with these  objectives.  \n• Response  structures  for large -scale  emergency  events  (e.g.  Local  Emergencies  and University  \nEmergencies:  see section 6.4.2  The Massey  University  Emergency  Management  System  \n(MUEMS)  for details)  must  allow  for space  for strategic  thinking during the  response  to allow  \nopportunities  to be exploited (Vargo &  Seville,  2008).  \n• Essential  business  functions  are able  to continue  to operate  during an emergency  event,  \neven  if this is at a reduced  capacity.  \n \n \n12 Adapted  from  National  CDEM  Planning  poster  (Ministry  of Civil Defence  & Emergency  Management,  2008b).  \n13 Adapted from  section  59 of the National  Civil Defence  Emergency  Management  Plan  (New  Zealand  Government,  2005).  \n16  \n \n \no University -level  essential  business  functions  are appended to the Massey  University  \nEmergency Response  Plan.  \no Campus -level essential  business  functions  are appended to each  Campus  Emergency  \nResponse  Plan.  \n \n6.3. Goals  and  Objectives  of the Response  Phase  \nWhile  Goal  3: Enhance  the University’s  ability to respond to emergencies relates  directly  to the \nresponse  phase,  this goal is achieved by successful  completion  of its objectives  through readiness  \nactivities.  Refer  to section  5 Readiness  for details.  \n \n6.4. System  for Managing  Emergency Events  \n \n \n \n \n6.4.1.  The Co-ordinated Incident  Management  System  (CIMS)  \n“The  CIMS structure  is based on the following elements:  \n \n• Common terminology  \n• A modular  organisation  \n• Integrated communications  \n• Consolidated incident  action plans  \n• Manageable  span of control  \n• Designated incident  facilities  \n• Comprehensive  resources  management” (Ministry of Civil Defence & Emergency  \nManagement,  2008c,  p. 107).  \n \n6.4.2.  The Massey  University  Emergency  Management  System  (MUEMS)  \nThe Massey  University  Emergency Management  System  (MUEMS)  is scalable,  and can be  used  for \nmanaging all events  from small  incidents  through to University -wide  emergencies.  The three  levels  \nof emergency event  are: The University  endorses  and adopts  the Co-ordinated Incident  Management  System  (CIMS)  as the \nbasis  for the Massey  University  Emergency  Management  System  (MUEMS).  \n \nThe Massey  University  Emergency  Management  System  (MUEMS)  is used for the management  of all \nemergency  events,  including  Incidents  (Level  1), Local  Emergencies  (Level  2) and University  \nEmergencies  (Level  3). \n \nAny directions  given  by the National  CDEM  Controller  or a CDEM  Group Controller  or Local  CDEM  \nController  during a state  of emergency,  takes  precedence over those of the University Crisis \nManagement  Team  Leader and/or  the Vice-Chancellor, or delegate.  \nEmergency  Management  Policy,  2014  \n17  \n \n \n \nLevel 1: Incident  Refers  to any event  that affects  a person or people  in one  location14 \n(such as  a building or campus ) and requires  an immediate,  formal  \nemergency  response,  but can be  managed effectively by  local \nmanagement  and response  personnel,  has little  or no impact  on the \noperations  of a campus  or the University  and there  is no need for  \nemergency  communications.  \n \nIncidents  are often  managed in accordance  with sub- plans  / \ndepartmental  emergency response  plans  and using  business  as \nusual  structures.  \nLevel 2: Local  Emergency  Refers  to an event  that directly  affects  people  in one location  \n(such as  a campus)  and:  has a significant  impact  on the operations  \nof one campus; places a high level of demand on local \nmanagement and response  personnel; or, requires  significant  \ncoordination  of internal  and external  resources  and may result in \nthe activation of the E mergency Communications Plan and/or the \nUniversity Crisis Management Team . \n \nLocal  Emergencies  are generally  managed in  accordance  with  the \n       \n  Level 3: University  Emergency  Refers  to an event  that directly  affects  people  in more  than one \nlocation and /or has a significant  impact  on the operations  of the \nUniversity  and cannot  be effectively managed by  local \nmanagement  and response  personnel,  or requires  significant  \ncoordination  of internal  and external  resources  and results in \nactivation of the Emergency Communications Plan and the \nUniversity Crisis Management Team  \n \nUniversity  Emergencies  are generally  managed in accordance  with  \nthe University  Crisis Management Plan,  Campus  Emergency  \nResponse  Plan and the  Emergency Communications  Plan.  \n \n \nThe level of an emergency  event  can change  as the situation develops  and/or  more  information  \nbecomes  available.  Key decision  makers  are encouraged to determine  the level of emergency  event  \nquickly,  based on the information to  hand,  and then escalate  or de-escalate  the level as the situation  \nevolves  and/or  more  information becomes  available.  \nThe MUEMS  structure  is based on getting the right  people  for each role  and ensuring that  \nappointments  to each role  are made  for primary and alternate  positions.  Where possible  the \npositions  in the  MUEMS are  linked  to “business  as usual”  positions,  so as to ensure continuity of \nknowled ge, experience and authority is sustained . \n \nThe MUEMS  comprises  three  tiers  of emergency response  management  – each relates  a team:  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n14 Refer  to Appendix  A: Emergency  Management  Definitions  for the definition  of “location”.  \n18  \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nFigure  3: Tiers  of emergency response  management.  \n \n \nIt is important  to note  that the tiers  do not necessarily relate  to the levels  of emergency event,  for \nexample,  during a Local  Emergency (Level  2), the University Crisis Management  Team   may  be \nactivated to  provide  support  to the Campus  Emergency  Management  Team.  \n \nThe key function  of each  of the teams  is listed below:  \n \n• Tier 3: University  Crisis Management  Team – provides  strategic  and tactical  oversight  of \nemergency events.  \n• Tier 2: Campus  Emergency  Management  Team/s  – provides  operational  management  and \ndecision  making for emergency  events.  \n• Tier 1: Incident  Management  Team/s  – provides  operations  control  and decision making,  \ngenerally  in the field,  for emergency  events.  \n \nFor more  information about  the MUEMS,  refer  to the Massey  University  Campus Emergency  Response  Plan.  \n \n6.4.3.  Delegations  of Authority  specific  to Emergency  Response  and  Recovery \nAdditional  delegations  of authority exist  during a declared emergency  (Local  Emergency – Level  2, or \nUniversity  Emergency – Level  3). Details  of these  delegations  are included  in the Massey  University  \nCrisis Management  Plan  and Campus  Emergency  Response  Plan.  Location  Quantity  \nTier 3: University  Crisis  \nManagement  Team  \nTier 2: Campus  Emergency  \nManagement  Team  \nTier 1: Incident  Management  Team  University Crisis \nManagement \nCentre  \n \nOne only Campus  Emergency \nOperations  Centre  \n \nOne per Campus  if \naffected  Incident  Control \nPoint  \nOne per affected \nlocation  \n19  \n \n \n6.5. Emergency Response  Plans  \nThere are three  key plans  that relate  to emergency  response; these  are: \n \n• The Massey  University  Crisis Management  Plan  \n• The Emergency  Communications  Plan  \n• Campus  Emergency Response  Plan  (covers  the Manawatu,  Wellington  and Albany  \nCampuses).  \nEmergency Response  Plans  should be  developed using a functional  approach  to planning  rather  than  \na scenario -based approach.  Scenario -based emergency  plans  may  be appended to the Emergency  \nResponse  Plan  for high -risk and/or  time -critical emergency  event  scenarios  if the plan  owner \nbelieves this will add value.  \n \n6.5.1.  Massey University  Crisis Management  Plan  \nThe Massey  University  Crisis Management  Plan provides  direction regarding the  University -level  \nresponse  to an emergency  event.  \nUnder  the Health and Safety  in Employment  Act (1992)  and the  Fire Safety  and Evacuation  of \nBuildings  Regulations  (2006)  employers  are required  to develop and  maintain local  emergency  \nprocedures.  Procedures  are considered  “sub -plans” within the  context  of emergency  management  \nat Massey  University  and accordingly  are addressed in  section  6.5.4  Sub-Plans . \n \n6.5.2.  Emergency  Communications  Plan  \nThe Emergency  Communications  Plan  provides  guidance  to University staff with  a responsibility  for \ncommunicating  internally or externally  to reduce  the anxiety  of staff,  students  and stakeholders  and \nreduce  reputational  damage.  \n \n6.5.3.  Campus  Emergency  Response  Plans  \nThe Campus  Emergency  Response  Plan (Campus  ERP)  is a generic  campus -level plan  for responding \nto identified and unidentified  incidents  and emergencies.  Campus -specific  information,  in the form  \nof procedures,  guidelines,  checklists,  action plans  etc.,  are appended to the  Campus  ERP,  as \nrequired  by each  Campus.  \n \n6.5.4.  Sub -Plans \nThe term “Sub -Plan”  (also sometimes  referred to  as a “Local  Plan” or “Departmental  Emergency  \nResponse  Plan”)  refers  to any additional  plan,  procedure,  Standard Operating  Procedure  (SOP)  or \nsimilar  document,  related to  the emergency  response  to hazards  or to mitigate  emergency  risks  \nwithin the  University.  \nLocal  emergency  procedures  are mandatory  under  the Health and Safety  in Employment  Act (1992)  \nand the  Fire Safety  and Evacuation  of Buildings  Regulations  (2006).  Other  legislation  may  also \nrequire  local emergency procedures  depending upon the nature  of activities  undertaken e.g.  \nHazardous  Substances  and New  Organisms  Act (1996).  Any sub-plan developed without  the use of a \nUniversity  template  (refer  below)  must  comply with all relevant  legislation.  \nSub-plans  must  be subordinate  to the Campus  Emergency  Response  Plan   \n \n \n \nAll sub-plans  must  be verified  by the University  Emergency  Management  Committee  or may be \ndelegated to  Campus  Emergency Management  Committee s in respect of Departmental Emergency \nResponse Plans  (refer  to section  8.3 Management  of Emergency  Management  during the  Reduction \nand Readiness  Phases  for more  information  about  emergency management  committees).  \nThe Campus  Emergency  Management  Committees  may  develop  and/or approve sub- plan templates  \nand may  require  staff  to use those  templates  for emergency planning.  \nWhere a sub-plan template  has been approved by  one of the emergency management  committees,  \nit shall  state  either:  \n1. That  completion of the plan  in accordance  with the  template  and guidance  notes  constitutes  \nverification  by the relevant  emergency management  committee.  Or, \n2. That  upon completion of the plan,  it must  be tabled at  the next  meeting of the relevant  \nemergency management  committee  for verification.  \nIn the  absence  of any existing plan,  all new  plans  shall  be considered to be ‘approved’  whilst  waiting  \nverification from  a relevant  emergency  management  committee.  \n \n6.6. Review  of Emergency Response  Plans  \nAll emergency  response  plans  will be reviewed periodically,  at intervals  not exceeding two  years.  \n \nAll emergency  response  plans  will be reviewed after  any emergency  event  for which a Massey  \nUniversity emergency  response  plan  was used , with recommendations from the Post Event Debrief \nbeing incorporated into the Emergency Response Plan at the time of the review   \n \n \n7. Recovery  \n \n7.1. Introduction  to the Recovery Phase  \nIn the  University  context,  the recovery phase  of emergency  management  consists  of the coordinated  \nefforts  and processes  used  to bring about  the immediate,  medium -term,  and long- term holistic  \nregeneration  of the University  community  following  an emergency15. \n7.2. Recovery Principles  \nThe key principles  of emergency  recovery  are16: \n \n• Recovery  is a developmental  and remedial  process  encompassing the  following activities:  \no minimising  the escalation  of the consequences  of the emergency  \no regeneration  of the emotional,  social and physical  well-being of the University \nCommunity  \no taking opportunities  to adapt  to meet  the physical,  environmental,  economic  and \npsychosocial  future  needs  of the University Community  \n \n \n15 Adapted from  National  CDEM Planning  poster  (Ministry  of Civil Defence  & Emergency  Management,  2008b).  \n16 Adapted from  Recovery  Management:  Director’s  Guidelines  for CDEM  Groups  [DGL  4/05] (Ministry  of Civil Defence  & \nEmergency  Management,  2005)  and AS/NZS  5050:2010 Business continuity  – Managing  disruption- related  risk (Standards  \nAustralia/Standards  New  Zealand,  2010).  \n \n \n \no reducing future  exposure  to hazards  and their  associated risks.  \n• The establishment  of recovery  activity  begins  immediately  after  the impact  of an event  and \nworks  in parallel with response  activities.  \n• The affected University Community  need to be actively  involved in  recovery  efforts.  \n• University  recovery  structures  should link  effectively with  those  in place  through  national,  \nregional and local Civil Defence  Emergency Management  arrangements.  \n \n7.3. Goals  and  Objectives  of the Recovery Phase  \nThe following goals  and objectives  relate  to the recovery  phase  of the emergency  management.  \n \nGoal  4: Enhance the University’s  ability  to recover  from  emergencies.  \n \nObjective  4a: Effectively  integrate  emergency  management,  IT disaster recovery and  \nbusiness  continuity activities. \n7.4. Relationship between  Risk  Management,  Crisis Management, \nEmergency Management,  IT Disaster  Recovery and  Business  \nContinuity  Planning and  Management  \nThe emergency  management  framework  supports  effective:  \n \n• IT Disaster  Recovery  \n• Business  Continuity  Planning and Management.  \n \nIt is important  to note  that both  emergency management  and risk  management  are broad,  holistic  \nareas  of practice;  effective emergency management  supports,  and is  supported  by, effective  risk \nmanagement.  \n \n \n \nFigure  4: The  Relationship  between Crisis Management, Emergency Management,  IT \nDisaster Recovery and  Business  Continuity Planning and  Management.  \n \n \n \nPart  3: Management  and Maintenance \n \n \n \n8. Governance  and  Management  \n8.1. Introduction  \nEmergency management  covers  all phases  of an emergency  – reduction,  readiness,  response  and \nrecovery.  As such,  there  must  be structures  for: \n• Business  as usual  activities:  \no Governance  of the emergency  management  function is addressed in  section  8.2 \nGovernance  for more  information.  \no The day-to-day management  of the emergency  management  function (primarily  the \nreduction and readiness  phases)  at Massey  University is  addressed in  section  8.3 \nManagement  of Emergency  Management  during the  Reduction and  Readines s \nPhases  for more  information.  \n• Management  during emergency events:  \no The effective  management  of the response  and recovery  phases  is addressed in \nsection 6.4.2  The Massey  University  Emergency  Management  System  (MUEMS)  for \nmore  information.  \n \nThe governance  and management  of the emergency management  function at Massey University is  \noutlined in Figure  5: Governance  and management  of the emergency  management  function.  \n \n \n \nWorking  groups  as\nrequired\nconstituted  from\nCampus EMC\nmembership  \nAlbany  Campus\nEmergency\nManagement\nCommittee \nWellington\nCampus\nEmergency\nManagement\nCommittee \nWellington\nCampus\nEmergency\nManagement\nTeam  \nIncident\nManagement\nTeams  \n \nCouncil  \n \nAudit  and Risk\nCommittee \nVice-Chancellor  \nSenior  Leadership Team  \n \nRisk Management\nCommittee \nUniversity\nEmergency\nManagement\nCommittee \nUniversity\nCrisis\nManagement\nTeam  \nManawatu\nCampus\nEmergency\nManagement\nCommittee \nManawatu\nCampus\nEmergency\nManagement\nTeam  \nMU Represented  on respective \nCDEM Group’s  Co-ordinating  Executive Group\nand/or  sub-groups  or sub-committees  \nIncident\nManagement\nTeams   \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n  \n \n \n \n \n \n \nGovernance  \nDay-to-day  management  \nResponse management  \n \n \nFigure  5: Governance and management  of the emergency management  function.  \n \n \nNote  the clear  delineation  between Emergency Management  Committees,  in green boxes  on the \nleft-hand side  of the diagram,  and Emergency Management  Teams  in the red boxes  on the right -\nhand side.  \n \nThe business  as usual  structures  are described in the  following sections.  \n \n8.2. Governance  \nThe governance  function is  performed  by the Universit y Council . \n \n8.2.1.  University  Council \nThe University  Council  has the following role  in relation to  emergency  management  at Massey  \nUniversity:  Albany  Campus  \nEmergency \nManagement  \nTeam  \n  \nIncident  \nManagement  \nTeams  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nIn relation  to emergency management,  the Audit  and Risk sub-committee:  \n \n• Recommends to Council the approval of the  Emergency  Management  Policy.  \n• Receives  reports  on the Emergency Management and Business Continuity Work plans  \n• Outlines  the strategic  direction for  emergency management  activities  at Massey  University.  \n \n8.3. Management  of Emergency  Management  during  the Reduction  and  \nReadiness  Phases  (Day -to-Day  Management)  \nThe following groups  have  responsibility  for effective  and coordinated  emergency  management  at \nMassey  University:  \n• Senior  Leadership  Team  \n• Risk Management  Committee  \n• University  Emergency Management  Committee \n• Campus  Emergency Management  Committees  \n• Managers  \n \n8.3.1.  Senior  Leadership Team  \nIn relation  to emergency management,  the Senior  Leadership Team  (SLT),  including the  Vice - \nChancellor:  \n• Owns  the emergency  management  arrangements.  \n• Provides  financial and non -financial resources  to enable  successful  completion of agreed \nImprovement  Action Plans,  work  plans  and business  plans.  \n• Reports  to the Audit  and Risk  Committee  of Council  on the  effectiveness  of the University’s  \nemergency management  arrangements  and level  of prepared ness.  \n \n8.3.2.  Risk  Management  Committee  \nThe Risk Management  Committee  is an approved  sub-committee  of SLT. The functions  of the Risk \nManagement  Committee  in relation  to emergency  management  are: \n• Monitor  and review  the effectiveness  of emergency  management  arrangements.  \n• Facilitate  University -wide  involvement  in emergency  management.  \n• Receive  reports  from  the University  Emergency Management  Committee.  \n• Report  to SLT on the effectiveness  of the University’s  emergency  management  \narrangements  and level  of preparedness.  Approves  the Massey  University  Emergency  Management  Policy.  Seeks  periodic  assurance  from \nmanagement  that the Strategic  Emergency  Management  Framework  has been implemented and is \noperative.  \n \nEmergency  Management  Policy,  2014  \n \n \n \n8.3.3.  University  Emergency  Management  Committee  \nThe University  Emergency  Management  Committee  is a sub-committee of the Risk Management  \nCommittee.  Its role is to: \n \n \n \n \n8.3.4.  Campus  Emergency  Management  Committees  \nThere are three  Campus  Emergency  Management  Committees,  one for each Campus.  The role of the \nCampus  Emergency Management  Committees  is to: \n \n \n \n \nAs noted above,  the University,  through its  Campuses,  is expected  to be an active  participant  in the \nCivil Defence Emergency Management  Groups  within  which its  Campuses  sit. These  are: • Approve the University  emergency  management  work  plan,  consistent  with the strategic  direction  \nset by the Council,  as advised by SLT,  and the Emergency  Management  Policy,  and Strategic  \nEmergency  Management  Framework.  \n• Monitor  and review  progress  of sub-projects  established as necessary  as part of the emergency  \nmanagement  work  plan.  \n• Periodically  review  the University  Emergency  Management  Committee Terms  of Reference.  \n• Ensure the maintenance of the University Emergency  Response Plan.  \n• Approve an annual  Testing and Exercising  Plan.  \n• Recommend the appointment of staff for the roles  of the University  Crisis  Management  Team  \n(both primary  role holders  and alternates)  for approval  by the Vice-Chancellor.  \n• Ensure effective  coordination  of resources  and effort  across  all Campuses.  \n• Provide input  to University -level and Campus -level emergency  management  planning,  initiatives  \nand documents.  \n• Ensure that appropriate communication avenues  about  emergency  management  occur  across  all \nparts  of the University,  and that, where issues are identified  and assessed  as requiring action,  \nappropriate action is taken and monitored.  \n• Receive  reports  from all Campus  Emergency  Management  Committees.  \n• Report  to the Risk Management  Committee on the state of emergency  management  activities  and \npreparedness  across  the University.  \n \nUniversity  Emergency  Management  Committee:  Terms  of Reference,  August 2014  \n• Prepare  and approve a campus  emergency  management  work  plan,  consistent  with the University - \nwide emergency  management  priorities  and work  plan,  as described in the Emergency  \nManagement  Policy,  and Strategic  Emergency  Management  Framework.  \n• Monitor  and review  progress  of sub-projects  (if any) and tasks  established  as necessary  as part of \nthe emergency  management  work  plan.  \n• Periodically  review  the Campus  Emergency  Management  Committee Terms  of Reference.  \n• Ensure maintenance of the Campus  Emergency  Response Plan.  \n• Facilitate delivery  of Campus  emergency  response training,  exercising  and testing plans  and \nensure effective  implementation of these plans.  \n• Nominate staff for the roles  of the Campus  Emergency  Management  Team  (both primary  role \nholders  and alternates)  for approval  by the Chair  of the Campus  Emergency  Management  \nCommittee.  \n• Provide input  to University- level emergency  management  planning,  initiatives  and documents. \n• Ensure that appropriate communication avenues  about  emergency  management  occur  across  all \nparts  of the Campus,  and that, where issues are identified and assessed as requiring action,  \nappropriate action is taken and monitored.  \n• Ensure campus  participation in the local Civil Defence  Emergency  Management  Group.  \n \nCampus  Emergency  Management  Committee:  Terms  of Reference,  May 2014  \n \n \n \n• Manawatu -Wanganui  CDEM  Group \n• Auckland CDEM  Group  \n• Wellington  CDEM  Group.  \n \nAnd if  justified (e.g.  staffing  numbers  deem  it appropriate),  may  also include:  \n \n• Taranaki  CDEM  Group  \n• Hawke’s  Bay CDEM Group.  \n \n8.3.5.  Senior Managers \nSenior Managers  at Massey  University  are individually  and collectively responsible  for: \n \n \n \n9. Monitoring  and  Evaluation  \n9.1. Introduction  \n“It is important  for agencies  to continually  monitor and measure  progress  in order  to know  when  \nthey  have  successfully  reached  their  current  goals  and objectives  and to  ensure  they  have  the \ncapacity and capability necessary to  be able to perform  their...  roles  and responsibilities.  This \nrequires  a programme  of monitoring and  evaluation”  (Ministry of Civil Defence & Emergency  \nManagement,  2006  s. 1.11 ). \n \n9.2. Monitoring  and  Evaluation  Plan  \nThe University recognises the Emergency Management Accreditation Programme as a sound \nbenchmark for its emergency management system.  \nA comprehensive  evaluation shall  be conducted  every  two years,  which should involve  the \nparticipation  of external  experts  such as risk/emergency  management  staff  from  another  university  \nand/or  local  Civil Defence  Emergency  Management  staff.  \nThe Risk Management  Committee  will develop and  oversee  the implementation  of the University’s  \nMonitoring and Evaluation  Plan17. \n \n \n17The Emergency  Management  Preparedness Project  (2011)  produced a baseline measure  of emergency management  \npreparedness  which can be used as  a start  point  for the development  of a monitoring and evaluation  plan.   The  baseline \nwas created using  two key tools:  \n1.  A Self-Assessment  Survey  based  on the Emergency  Management  Accreditation Program’s  (EMAP)  Emergency \nManagement  Standard,  completed  by members of the project  team and  validated by the project  team  as a whole.  \nRefer  to www.emaponline.org  for more  information.  \n2. A Self-Assessment  Survey  for all staff  seeking their  understanding of their  own  level  of emergency \npreparedness.  ... the implementation of the Massey  University  Strategic  Emergency  Management  Framework,  including  \nresourcing,  planning,  training,  testing,  monitoring and review  of the Emergency  Management  Preparedness  \nat Massey  University.  \n \nEmergency  Management  Policy,  2014  \n \n \n \n10. Appendices  \n \n10.1.  Appendix  A: Emergency  Management  Definitions  \n \n10.1.1.  Levels  of Emergency  Events  \nLevel 1: Incident  refers  to any  event  that affects  a person or people  in one  location (such as a building \nor campus)  and requires  an immediate,  formal  emergency response,  but can be  managed  effectively \nby local  management  and response  personnel,  has little  or no impact  on the operations  of a campus  \nor the University  and there  is no need for emergency communications.  \n \nNOTES:  1.   Incidents are often managed in accordance with Sub- Plans/Departmental Emergency  \nResponse Plans and using business as usual structures.  \n \nNOTES :    2.        Refer  to definitions  of “location”.  \n \nLevel 2: Local  Emergency refers  to an event  that directly  affects  people  in one location  (such as  a \ncampus) : has a significant  impact  on the operations  of one campus; place a high level of demand on \nlocal management and response  personnel;  or, requires  significant  coordination  of internal  and \nexternal  resources  and may result in the activation of the Emergency Communications Plan and/or \nthe University Crisis Management Team . \n \nNOTES:  1.  Refer  to definitions  of “location”.  \n \nLevel 3:  University Emergency  refers  to an event  that directly  affects  people  in more  than one \nlocation and /or has a significant  impact  on the operations  of the University  and cannot  be effectively  \nmanaged by local  management  and response  personnel,  or requires  significant  coordination  of \ninternal  and external  resources  and results in the activation of the Emergency Communications Plan \nand the University Crisis Management Team . \n \nNOTES:  1.  Refer  to definition  of “location”.  \n \n10.1.2.  Alphabetical  Listing of Terms  \nBusiness  Continuity  is “the  uninterrupted availability  of all key resources  supporting essential  \nbusiness  functions” (Australian  National  Audit  Office,  2000).  \nCampus  Emergency Management  Team  is the group  of incident  management  personnel  carrying  \nout the key functions  of Response  Coordination,  Recovery  Coordination,  Finance,  Planning and  \nIntelligence,  Operations  and Logistics  in support  of Incident  Management  Teams  across  the Campus.  \nCampus  Emergency Response Plan (Campus  ERP)  is a generic  campus -level  plan  for responding to  \nidentified and unidentified  emergencies.  Campus -specific  information,  in the  form of procedures,  \nguidelines,  checklists,  action plans  etc.,  are appended to the Campus  ERP,  as required by  each \nCampus.  \nCommunities  are groups  of people  organised around common  values  and attributed with social  \ncohesi on. \nCoordinated Incident  Management  System  (CIMS)  is “a structure  to systematically  manage  \nemergency incidents”  (New  Zealand Fire Service  Commission,  1998).  \nNOTE:  1. Massey University has adopted the CIMS structure for use primarily during Local \nEmergencies (Level 2) and University Emergencies (Level 3).   \n \n \n \n   \nEmergency communications  refers  to internal or external  communications  that are intended  to \nreduce  the anxiety  of staff,  students  and stakeholders  and reduce  reputational  damage.  \nEmergency Communications  Plan provides  guidance  and templates  with regard to communications.  \n \nEmergency management  means  the application  of knowledge,  measures,  and practices  that:  are \nnecessary or desirable  for the safety  of the public  or property; and are  designed to  guard against,  \nprevent,  reduce,  or overcome  any hazard  or harm  or loss that may  be associated  with any  \nemergency;  and includes,  without  limitation,  the planning,  organisation,  co-ordination,  and \nimplementation  of those  measures,  knowledge,  and practices.  \nEmergency Management  Policy  is a Council -approved  statement  that defines  the University’s  \nposition on emergency  management.  It can be found on the Massey University  Policy Guide.  \nEmergency response  management  means  the management  of the response  phase  of an emergency  \nevent.  \nEmergency Event  refers  to any occurrence,  whether  natural,  social  or technological  that impacts  on \none or more  staff  members,  students  or stakeholders  of Massey University,  but does  not include  \noccurrences  that affect  only information communications  technology  systems  (as these are managed \nin accordance  with the  IT Disaster  Recovery  Plan).  \nNOTES:  1.  The term “ emergency event” covers  Incidents  (Level  1), Local  Emergencies  \n(Level  2) and University  Emergencies  (Level  3). \n2.  The terms  “event”  and “emergency event” are  used interchangeably,  and their  \nusage  depends  on the audience  of the document  – “emergency  event”  should be \nused where  there  is a possibility  that “event” may  be confused with a scheduled  \nactivity  or function such  as a graduation ceremony.  \nHazard refers  to “a potentially  damaging physical  event,  phenomenon or  human  activity,  which  may  \ncause  the loss of life or injury,  property  damage,  social and economic  disruption  or environmental  \ndegradation”  (Inter -Agency Secretariat  of the International  Strategy  for Disaster  Reduction United  \nNations,  2004,  p. 16) \nNOTES:  1.  At Massey University  the term “hazard” is used  to define  both  an actual and a \npotential  event.  \nHolistic  recovery means  (in the context  of Emergency  Management  at Massey  University)  the broad  \nactivities  required to  restart,  rebuild and regenerate  the affected community,  not just the restart  of \nbusiness  operations.  \n \nIncident  (Level  1) refer to “Levels  of Emergency Events”  at the beginning of this appendix.  \n \n \nC14/154 -  December  \nPart I  \nAppendix Two  \n \nStrategic Emergency Management Framework – Version 3.0 -  November 2014  Page  30 of 33 Incident  Controller  is the person delegated to  direct  and control  the response  to an Incident  in the \nfield (Level  1) or an incident site as part of a wider emergency  \n \nInterdependent  agencies  are organisations  that depend on each  other  during emergency  events.  \nInterdependent  agencies  may  include,  but are not limited  to: the  New  Zealand  Police,  New  Zealand  \nFire Service,  ambulance  service  providers,  District  Health Boards,  Territorial  Authorities,  Tertiary  \nEducation Commission,  Ministry  of Education,  Ministry  of Civil Defence  & Emergency  Management,  \nMinistry of Social  Development,  commercial  tenants.  \nIT Disaster  Recovery  relates  to policies,  procedures,  plans  and systems  for the recovery of \ninformation  technology  systems  immediately  after an emergency event.  \nLocal  Emergency (Level  2) refer  to “Levels  of Emergency  Events” at the beginning of this appendix.  \n \nLocation refers  to any of the following:  a workplace, building, campus  (Manawatu,  Albany,  \nWellington),  site (such as  Hokowhitu,  East Precinct,  Keeble’s  Block,  the site of a field trip)  or non-\ngeographic  grouping (such as  extramural  students).  \nMassey  University Strategic  Emergency Management  Framework  (“the  Framework”)  – this \ndocument  – is an overarching document  that outlines  the vision,  mission,  principles,  goals  and \nobjectives  of emergency  management  at Massey University;  how  emergency  management  \narrangements  at the University  relate  to other  (internal  and external)  arrangements.  \nMassey  University Emergency  Management  System  (MUEMS)  is a structure for managing  \nemergency events  which is  based on the Co-ordinated  Incident  Management  System.  \nRisk means  “the  effect  of uncertainty on objectives”  (Standards  Australia/Standards  New  Zealand,  \n2009,  p. 1). \nRisk Management  means  “coordinated activities  to direct  and control  an organisation  with regard  to \nrisk” (Standards  Australia/Standards  New  Zealand,  2009,  p. 2). \nRisk Management  Framework  outlines  a risk management  framework  process  for Massey  University  \nthat provides  the foundations  and organisational arrangements  for designing,  implementing,  \nmonitoring,  reviewing and  continuously  improving risk management  processes  throughout  the \nUniversity.  Massey  Univertsity’s  Risk Management  Framework  can be found on the Policy Guide.  \nStakeholders  are those  people  and organisations  that may  affect,  or be affected  by, or perceive  \nthemselves  to be affected  by, a decision  or activity.  \nTertiary education institutions  (TEIs)  are public  providers  of tertiary education.  There  are five kinds  \nof tertiary  education institutions  as defined in section  159 of the Education Act 1989: \n• Universities  \n• Polytechnics  \n \n \nC14/154 -  December  \nPart I  \nAppendix Two  \n \nStrategic Emergency Management Framework – Version 3.0 -  November 2014  Page  31 of 33 • colleges  of education  \n• wānanga,  and \n• ‘specialist  colleges’  (Ministry  of Education,  2010).  \n \nUniversity Communities  are communities  that have  a tie to the University; these  include  students,  \nstaff  and stakeholders  and their  sub-communities.  \nUniversity Emergency  (Level  3) refer  to “Levels  of Emergency Events”  at the beginning  of this \nappendix.  \nUniversity Crisis  Management  Team  refers to the team that may be activated during level two \nemergencies, and that will be activated to respond to level three University emergenc ies. This \nteam  is responsible  for implementing the  University  Crisis Management  Plan  and the  Emergency  \nCommunications  Plan.  \nUniversity  Crisis Management  Team Leader  is the person appointed to manage  the strategic  \nresponse  and recovery  to an emergency  and provide  input  into emergency communications.  This \nrole is usually  performed  by the AVC Operations, International & University Registrar.  \n \n \nC14/154 -  December  \nPart I  \nAppendix Two  \n \nStrategic Emergency Management Framework – Version 3.0 -  November 2014  Page  32 of 33 10.2.  Appendix  B: Bibliography  \nACC Workplace  Safety  Management  Practices.  (2008).  Measuring  you capabilities  in workplace   \nsafety management: ACC  workplace  safety management  practices  audit  standards.  ACC New  \nZealand.  \nBlanchard,  B. W., Canton,  L. G., Cwiak,  C. L., Goss,  K. C., McEntire,  D. E., Newsome,  L., Selves,  M. D., \net al. (2007).  Principles  of emergency management:  Supplement.  International  Association  \nof Emergency  Managers.  \nInter -Agency  Secretariat  of the International  Strategy  for Disaster  Reduction  United Nations.  (2004).  \n \nLiving with  risk: A global  review  of disaster  reduction initatives . Geneva,  Switzerland.  \n \nMassey  University.  (2010).  Risk management  @ Massey  University:  Risk management  framework,  \nversion 9.1.  Massey  University.  \nMassey  University.  (2011).  The road  to 2020,  2011 Update . Palmerston North:  Massey University.  \nMassey  University.  (2012).  The road  to 2020: Te ara whakamua,  2012  Update . Palmerston North:  \nMassey  University.  \n \nMinistry of Civil Defence & Emergency Management.  (2005).  Recovery  management: Director’s  \nguidelines  for CDEM  Groups  [DGL 4/05] . Wellington,  New  Zealand: Ministry  of Civil Defence  \n& Emergency Management.  \n \nMinistry of Civil Defence & Emergency Management.  (2006).  Guide  to the National CDEM Plan.  \nMinistry of Civil Defence & Emergency Management.  (2008a).  National  Civil Defence  Emergency  \nManagement  Strategy.  Ministry  of Civil Defence  & Emergency Management.  \n \nMinistry of Civil Defence & Emergency M anagement.  (2008b).  National  CDEM  Planning poster . \n \nMinistry of Civil Defence & Emergency Management.  (2008c).  Response  management: Director’s  \nguideline  for CDEM Group  and Local  Controllers  [DGL06/08] . Wellington,  New  Zealand:  \nMinistry of Civil Defence & Emergency Management.  \nMinistry of Education.  (2010).  10. Definitions  - Education Counts.  Retrieved April  12, 2011,  from  \nhttp://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/publications/series/2531/79975/3  \n \n \nC14/154 -  December  \nPart I  \nAppendix Two  \n \nStrategic Emergency Management Framework – Version 3.0 -  November 2014  Page  33 of 33 Ministry of Health.  (2010).  New  Zealand  Influenza Pandemic Plan: A framework  for action . \n \nWellington,  New  Zealand:  Ministry of Health.  \n \nNew  Zealand Fire  Service  Commission.  (1998).  The New  Zealand Co-ordinated Incident  Management  \nSystem  (CIMS): Teamwork  in emergency  management . Wellington,  New  Zealand:  New  \nZealand Fire  Service  Commission.  \nNew  Zealand Government  Health Act.  , Pub.  L. No.  65 (1956).  \nNew  Zealand Government  Crimes  Act. , Pub.  L. No.  43 (1961).  \nNew  Zealand Government  Radiation  Protection Act.  , Pub.  L. No. 23 (1965).  \nNew  Zealand Government  Fire Service  Act. , Pub.  L. No. 42 (1975).  \nNew  Zealand Government  Education Act.  , Pub.  L. No. 80 (1989).  \n \nNew  Zealand Government  Health and Safety  in Employment  Act. , Pub.  L. No. 96 (1992).  \n \nNew  Zealand Government  Hazardous  Substances  and New  Organisms  Act. , Pub.  L. No.  30 (1996).  \nNew  Zealand Government  Hazardous  substances  (emergency management)  regulations  (2001). \nNew  Zealand Government  Civil Defence Emergency Management  Act (2002).  \nNew  Zealand Government  National Civil Defence  Emergency Management  Plan  Order  2005 (2005).  \nNew  Zealand Government  Fire safety  and evacuation  of buildings  regulations  (2006).  \nNew  Zealand Government  Policing Act.  , Pub.  L. No. 72 (2008).  \n \nStandards  Australia/Standards  New  Zealand.  (2001).  AS/NZS  4804:2001 Occupational  Health and  \nSafety  Management  Systems: General  guidelines  on principles,  systems and supporting  \ntechniques . Wellington,  New  Zealand: Standards  New  Zealand.  \nStandards  Australia/Standards  New  Zealand.  (2009).  AS/NZS  ISO 31000:2009  Risk management:  \nPrinciples  and guidelines . Wellington,  New  Zealand:  Standards  New  Zealand.  \nStandards  Australia/Standards  New  Zealand.  (2010).  AS/NZS  5050:2010 Business  continuity:  \nManaging disruption- related risk . Wellington,  New  Zealand:  Standards  New  Zealand.  \nVargo,  J., & Seville,  E. (2008).  Crisis  strategic  planning: Finding the  silver  lining.  Presented  at the 18th  \nWorld Conference  on Disaster  Management,  Toronto,  Canada.  \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Space_Use_Procedures_PDF_143_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Space Use Procedures",
      "policy_type": "Procedure",
      "file_size": "143 KB",
      "creation_date": "2024-04-18T12:03:02",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220102225+13'00'"
    },
    "content": "    \n Massey University Policy Guide  \n \nSPACE  USE PROCEDURES  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \n \nPurpose :  \nThis document  provide s direction on the type, configuration , allocation,  and utilisation standards for spaces Massey  \nUniversity provides for staff and students.  \n \nThese procedures  should be read in conjunction with the Space Use Policy.  \nAllocation  and Utilisation of Space at Massey University  \nNew builds, refurbishments, or design:  \n \n1. The university will strive to create and maintain high-quality and fit -for-purpose buildings and spaces.  \n \n2. When considering new builds or major refurbishments, staff must adhere to the following:  \n \n• Staff developing Strategic Assessments or Business Cases proposing new facilities or major \nrefurbishments of existing spaces are to liaise with Estates  Management at the outset for advice and \nalternative solutions.  \n• Asset data (typically held in MAXIMO) relating to space condition, utilisation and occupancy will be used \nto inform decisions relating to rationalisation, new build, refurbishment or redesign.   \n• Decisions relating to teaching (specialised and general) and meeting spaces will be further informed by \ndata from the central student timetabl e regarding the availability and utilisation of similar existing and fit -\nfor-purpose spaces.  \n• Space will be designed to comply with the New Zealand Building Code . \n \n3. New buildings will be designed to achieve the following:   \n \n• Green Building Council of New Zealand 5 Star Green Building rating  \n• Appropriate NABERS NZ1 rating   \n• Energy efficien cy and low carbon content  \n• Flexible and efficient floorplans that maximise utilisation rates.  \n• A mix of workspace solutions, including  the neighbourhood model  \n• Reduced single -purpose dedicated space in favour of shared spaces.   \n• The inclusion of a Te Tiriti cultural narrative by design . This means that spaces will be designed in ways \n \n1 National Australian Built Environment Rating System (NABERS) adapted for New Zealand.  Section  DVC University Services  \nContact  Executive Director Estates   \nLast Review  April 2024  \nNext Review  April 2027  \nApproval  12 April 2024  \nEffective Date  23 April 2024  \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nSpace Use Procedures  – Page 2 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nthat reflect  cultural values  and weave in te ao Māori , whakapapa, and local history.   \n• Reduction in circulation and non -useable areas  \n• Increased shared use of spaces such as staff rooms, kitchens, social and informal meeting spaces.  \n• Enhanced student experience and learning outcomes.    \n• Enabling high -quality teaching and research   \n• Provi sion of  the optimum service level throughout the life of the asset . \n• New Zealand legislative requirements  \n \n \nTeaching and research space utilisation : \n \n4. The university will monitor space utilisation using electronic people counters and/ or periodic  utilisation \naudits . Utilisation data will inform space planning and rationali sation and will benchmark  against  the \nindicative Space Utilisation Rates in the Tertiary Education Facilities Management Association (TEFMA) \nSpace Planning Guidelines2 (SPG) as a minimum target.    \n \n5. TEFMA’s S PGs recommend targeting 75% room frequency . This is a shift from analysing space utilisation \nby means of the calculation U% = RF x Occ (utilisation equals frequency multiplied by room occupancy). \nIn other words, r ather than using room bookings  or manual audits only , for example, the use of more \naccurate electronic methods will help to enable optimum space use.  \n \n6. For effective space utilisation, all student -facing teaching spaces are centrally managed by Estates  \nManagement  timetabling/scheduling team . Normal hours of teaching are 8:00  am to 6:00  pm (i.e., the last \nclass scheduled at 5:00  pm) from Monday to Friday. Later classes are available on request. See the \nTimetabling and Room Booking Policy for further details.  \n \n7. Activities such as block courses and wananga may also be booked through the Timetabling /scheduling  \nteam.  \n \n \nAllocation of workstations/points:  \n \n8. Where space is created  as part of a new build project, initial bulk allocations will be made by the Project \nDelivery Team in consultation with stakeholders and the approval of the Project Steering Group (PSG) . \nThe specific allocation of workstations/points will remain with the HoS/HoD/PVC /DVC  as part of the \nassigned space process.  \n \n9. Where space is shared by different departments, the Project Delivery Team (for new builds) will facilitate \nstakeholder forums to identify and resolve the operational aspects required for successful shared use.  \n \n10. Where the stakeholders are unable to reach an agreement on the parameters of shared use , the matter \nwill be raised with the PSG  for final determination.  \n \n11. The PSG may invite HoS/HoD/PVC /DVC  non-members to attend as appropriate in the interests of \nresolving any remaining issues. In considering the allocation of workstations/points in a shared -use \nenvironment , the criteria described in Table 1 shall apply.  \n \n12. In some situations, there are limitations on the type and quantity of space available.  In those \ncircumstances , staff will be allocated a workspace type on a prioritised basis, per Table 1.  \n \n13. Table 1 below describes the types of workspaces provided by Massey and provides prioritisation criteria \n \n2 http://www.tefma.com/uploads/content/26 -TEFMA -SPACE -PLANNING -GUIDELINES -FINAL VER 4.0  \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nSpace Use Procedures  – Page 3 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nfor the local allocation of space, where that space is part of a larger block assigned to a College/School or \nBusiness Unit (or assigned to multiple units in a shared arrangement).  These criteria are a prioritisation \ntool only and may not be reverse  engineered  as a ‘standard’ or rationale for a particular type of space to \nbe provided in any other circumstance.  \n \nTable 1:  \n \nType of workspace  Description of use  Allocation Criteria  \nDedicated Workspace  \n(Desk space ) Space (desk) that is for the \nexclusive use of a particular \nrole or for a specific project. A \ndedicated workspace may be \nshared or single occupancy.   \nThis will likely be part of a \nneighbourhood design.  • Staff who typically spend three  days per \nweek or more on campus  \nOR \n• Post-graduate  students (shared \noccupancy or neighbourhood layout)  \n• 3 full -time equivalent days per week = dedicated workspace  \nShared Workspace  \n(Desk space ) An allocation of space  (desk)  \nassigned to two or more users.  \nSpaces may or may not be \ndedicated.  • Staff who typically spend 1 -2 days per \nweek on campus  \nOR \n• Staff with flexible work arrangements \nthat attend campus less than 22.5 hours \nper week.  \nOR \n• Staff who have shared workspace on an \nalternate campus.  \nOR \n• Staff who are unable  to have a \ndedicated workspace  due to space \nlimitations.   \nOR \n• Staff who are ineligible because they do  \nnot meet the allocation criteria  \n• Less than 3 full -time equivalent days per week = shared workspace  \nHot-desk Spaces  Multi -occupant workspace  is \npossible across departments or \ncolleges where no individual is \nassigned a particular seat. This \nmay take the form of a central \nBusiness Centre model.  • Staff who have dedicated space on an \nalternate campus.  \nOR \n• Staff who typically spend less than three \ndays per week on campus  and are not \nsharing a space.   \nOR \n• Staff who are unable  to have a \ndedicated workspace  due to space \nlimitations.  \nOR \n• Staff who are ineligible because they do  \nnot meet the allocation criteria  \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nSpace Use Procedures  – Page 4 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nVisitor Spaces  Bookable space is assigned for \nthe use of visitors. Visitor \nspaces may be shared/multiple \nor single occupancy . • Visitors requiring interim space for a \nshort visit or a fixed duration. This may \nalso include hot desk space if \nappropriate.  \nOR \n• Fixed -term relocation (of 3 days or more \nper week) of a staff member onto an \nalternate campus  \nNeighbourhood \nSpaces  Default design for staff \nsolutions, enabling \ncollaboration, open light space. \nSuitable for general use where \nsimilar activities are being \nundertaken. Access to \nconvenient enclosed space s \nfor privacy and meetings is \nimportant. Spaces may be a \nmix of dedicated, hot desk and \nvisitor s. • Suitable for all, depending on the mix \nwithin the space  \n \n \n \nEnclosed Workspaces  General Principles  \nThis may take the form of a walled office, or ‘pod’ \nallowing for future floor reconfiguration. May be single \nor multiple occupancy.  \n \nTypically, not an efficient design solution and to be used \nsparingly to compliment the neighbourhood layout.  • Enclosed workspaces m ay or may not \nbe available in a particular area.  \n• Genuine and high -volume \nprivacy/confidentiality requirements \n(relative to other BAU users)  may justify \nthe use of an enclosed workspace.  \n• However, an enclosed workspace is not \na right.  \n• Quiet space for ‘write -ups’ or research is \nnot a criterion  for an enclosed \nworkspace ; however, there are spaces \nacross the campuses that can be used \nfor this purpose.  \n• Quiet/private space required for work \nand/or study is being accommodated by \nspace design.  \n• Staff are expected to adjust to using \nprivacy/meeting rooms when required \nfor confidential conversations or specific \nquiet activity  \n \n \nSpace Design and Allocation Authority :   \n \n14. Oversight and review of development proposals (Strategic Assessments, Business Cases and Campus \nDevelopment Plans) is vested in the Estates and Infrastructure Advisory Committee (EIAC). The EIAC is \npart of the semi -annual business case submission process a nd will interrogate submissions before \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nSpace Use Procedures  – Page 5 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nmaking recommendations to SLT for final approval.  \n \n15. The design of new and refurbished space will be in accordance with the relevant CDP and this procedure  \nand is the responsibility of Estates Management  in consultation with the key stakeholders and the \nsponsor of the project (typically via the Project Steering  Group forum).  \n \n16. The development of the floorplans will be undertaken by the Project Delivery Team and represent a mix of \nfunctional spaces appropriate to the project business case. The accommodation layouts will represent \nefficient use of space and evolve over the design development stage as stakeholder details and needs \nare understood. Stakeholder input  does not take precedence over the design principles of th e Space Use \nPolicy  and Procedures  or the strategic goals of the university.  \n \n17. Allocation of available spaces to individual staff will be made by the HoS/HoD (or PVCs /DVCs  where \nmultiple units are involved) using the criteria at Table 1 but noting their discretion to make a unique \ndetermination if required. The relevant Project Steering  Group (or sub -group) will approve the final \nallocations.  \n \n18. In the event that agreement cannot be reached, the proposed allocations (and counter proposal ) will be \nreferred to the EIA C for resolution. The decision of the EIA C will be binding on all participants.  \n \n19. Space allocations and relocations within existing buildings are the responsibility of Estates Management , \nexcept where that movement is occurring within an ‘assigned’ area of space. If the movement is with in an \nassigned area, then the HoD/HoS/PVC /DVC  can make that reallocation and simply notify Estates \nManagement  of the change.  \n \n20. Those who wish to reduce space  should be referred to the  Estates Management National Space and \nProperty Manager in the first instance , utilising the request process  via AssystNET - Request a room or \nbuilding move (axiossystems.com) . This form feeds into the university’s  space management process.  \n \n21. Space optimisation initiatives  including  significant  building alterations, spatial consolidations and \nrelocations  will be reported to the EIAC .  Initiatives  will be planned and managed by Estates Management \nin consultation with affected stakeholders.  Planning and implementation of space optimi sation initiatives \nwill adhere  to the Space Use Policy and the procedures within this document.   \nDefinitions : \nEnclosed workspace  A cellular workspace that is fully enclosed; such space may be single \nor shared occupancy.  \nDedicated workspace  An allocation  of space  that is for the exclusive  use of a particular  \nrole or for a specific project. Dedicated workspaces may be shared or \nsingle occupancy.   \nHot-desk space  A workspace that is not allocated to a particular occupant and is \navailable for use by anyone with access to that workplace.  A hot desk  \nmay be bookable or ad hoc in its use.  \nActivity -based workspace  A floor plan without fully enclosed spaces or distinct rooms with a \nvariety of spaces tailored to meet needs of a specific activity e.g. , quiet \nwriting, collaborative discussion, etc.  \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nSpace Use Procedures  – Page 6 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nNeighbourhood workspace  This is the d efault design for staff solutions , which enabl es \ncollaboration  and is an open , light space. This design is s uitable for \ngeneral use where similar activities are being undertaken , so can host \nmultiple functions or teams. Access to convenient enclosed space for \nprivacy and meetings  is available . Spaces may be a mix of dedicated  \nworkspaces , hot-desk s and visitor  spaces.  \nShared workspace  An allocation  of space  assigned  to two or more  users.  Spaces  in \nthe shared workspace may or may not be dedicated spaces and may \nor may not be enclosed spaces.   \nSingle occupancy  A space that is utilised by one user at a time only, single occupancy \nworkspaces  can be dedicated, shared or hot -desk workspaces .   \nSpace  The built environment owned or leased by Massey University.   \nVisitor  A person other than a university staff member or student who is given \ntemporary access to or use of  university resources and facilities.   \nVisitor Space  Workspaces  assigned for the use of visitors may be shared/multiple or \nsingle occupancy.     \nWork point  A place for someone to work i.e. , workstation, booth, café style table.  \nWorkspace  A space allocated to support work activities , e.g., a workstation in \nactivity -based workspace, desk in shared room, or single occupancy \noffice . \nAudience : \nMassey University staff, students and external parties involved in the development, design, refurbishment or \nconstruction of the Massey  Estate.  \nRelevant legislation : \nHealth and Safety at Work Act 2015  \nNew Zealand Building Code  \nBuilding Act 2004  \nBuilding (Earthquake -prone Buildings) Amendment Act 2016  \nLegal compliance : \nNil. \nRelated procedures / documents : \nSpace Use Policy  \nTimetabling and Room Booking Policy  \nEqual Employment Opportunities Policy  \nHealth, Safety and Wellbeing Policy - Ohu Hauora, Haumaru  \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nSpace Use Procedures  – Page 7 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nFlexible Working Arrangements Information  \nAssystNET – Request a room or building move (axiossystems.com)    \nDocument Management Control:  \nPrepared by:  Executive Director Estates  \nAuthorised by:  DVC University Services  \nApproved by:  Senior Leadership Team  \nDate issued:  April 2024  \nLast review:  April 2024  \nNext review:  April 2027  \n \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Social_Media_Guidelines_PDF_166_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Social Media Guidelines PDF 166 KB",
      "policy_type": "Guideline",
      "file_size": "166 KB",
      "author": "Ferguson, Rachel",
      "creation_date": "2024-07-05T10:02:06",
      "modification_date": "D:20240705102636+12'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n \n \n \n \n \nMASSEY SOCIAL MEDIA GUIDELINES FOR STAFF  \nThese guidelines are designed to give Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa Masse y University staff members who use \nsocial media in a personal  capacity an overview on how  to engage on these channels appropriately. They  sit \nalongside our Social Media  Policy,  Media  Commentary  Policy,  Brand  Guideline sand specific  social  media  \nguidance  available  directly  from  the Social Media Team . They  should  be read in conjunction  with thePolicy  on \nAcademic  Freedom,  Free Speech  andFreedom of Expression.   \nPersonal use of social media   \nStaff are encouraged to use social media personally and to engage with Massey content . Freedom of   \nexpressio nremains a core right on social media and we support academic staff using social platforms to   \nundertak etheir responsibilities a s critic and conscience of society in their field of expertise.   \nBasic principles to follow:   \n1. Read our  policies . Adhere to our Media Commentary Policy and Social Media Policy. All staff are.  \nsubject to these policies in every public setting including on social media.   \n2. Be transparent . If you identify yourself as a Massey University academic and  use social media   \nina personal capacity, consider stating in you r account bio or description that your views are your   \nown and don’t represen t those o f your employer/Massey University.   \n3. Use good judgement . Exercise  sound judgment and common sense when you engage with content   \nas your actions can also impact on the university. Let subject matter experts respond to negative.   \nposts. You may come across critical posts about Massey or its activitie s - unless you are an   \nauthorised spokesperson, avoid the temptation to react and respon d yourself. Anything you post can   \npotentially damag eyour reputatio nandthat of th e univers ity.  \n4. Maintain confidentiality . Never disclose internal information from the university (especially if it is   \nsensitive or confidential, including public -excluded reports and/or commercially sensitive information).   \nRemember to respect the privacy of students and colleagues and don’t disclose personally   \nidentifiable information without permission. Be aware that bringing the university into disrepute might   \nlead to disciplinary action.   \n5. Be an advocate for compliments and criticism . Even if you are not an official spokesperson for   \nMassey, you are one of our most embedded online advocates. If you find positive or negative Massey   \ncommentary you believe is reputationally important, consider sharing it with the Social Media Team   \[email protected] .  \n6. Do not comment on behalf of Masse yunless you are specifically authorised to do so. If you  \nare approached by media via social media for comment on corporate university matters, refer them  to the  \nCommunications Team vi [email protected] .  \n \nNeed additional support or advice?   \n \nContac t [email protected] .  \n \nGuidanc e for Massey channels an d account operators   \nOur Massey -branded  social  media  channels  aim to foster  engagement  on our specific  research,  student  \nactivity  and university  news.  They  are also the main  communications  channels  for student  enquiries  and \nrecruitment activity. Massey’s branded accounts speak and engage on behalf of the university. Engagement  \nat a university level should be managed by these accounts where technically possible and appropriate.   \nThe Social Media Team can work with you to create, edit, and promote content to engage students and other  \nstakeholders on Massey activities through these channels. This depends on:   \n \n \n \nMassey University |   massey.ac.n z | 0800  MASSEY  1  \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n• Your end goal e.g., event registrations, website traffic, engag ing with  stakeholders on university activity.  \n• Your target audience   \n• Audience behaviours: The channels your audience use, how they engage on each platform and   \nchannel content best practice.   \nOur national channels include:   \n• Facebook (Main audience: prospective and current students, staff, alumni)   \n• Instagram (Main audience: prospective and current students)   \n• Linked In (Main audience: staff, alumni , university stakeholders )  \n• Twitter (Main audience: academics, staff, university stakeholders)   \n• YouTube (Purpose: Video hostin g for our website ) \n• TikTok (Main audience: prospective and current students)  \n• Other smaller channels include Snapchat, Weibo, WeChat , YouKu,  among others.   \nManaging social media accounts as a university group/department   \nAs per the Social Media Policy, new accounts need approval first. New social media accounts representing  our \nbrand  (including the use of the Massey University name and logos) need  to be approved by the Communications \nManager and the Social Media Manager. New account s alsoneed to fill  an organisational  gap that is not already  \nbeing  filled by existing  accounts.  Contac [email protected]  in the first instance for proposal \ninformation and advice.   \nSome  groups /departments  have  active  legacy  social  media  accounts . Existing  social  media  account  \nadministrators can seek content, engagement,  and additional advice from the Social Media Team. The team is  \navailable to support you with your work and assist with best practice advice.   \nBasic principles for the management of existing social media accounts within Massey:   \nAccount Management   \n• Uphold  the brand . Accounts  using  the Massey  brand  must  adhere  to the Brand  Guidelines . This   \nincludes  advice  on using  the Massey  logo,  colours  and fonts.  This way all channels  have  unique   \ncontent but give a united front as one recognisable and consistent brand.   \n• Staff appropriately . Allocate  two to three  staff members to be administrators of  your account(s) to  \ncater for  workload and content, staff absence, internal changes,  and crisis management.   \n• Have a strategy . Have a plan on what you want to achieve with the account, how you will engage   \nyour audiences,  an ongoing  content  plan,  and a consistent  tone of voice  and visuals.  The Social Media  \nTeam can help you with this.   \n• Have  an exit plan. Do not hold onto dormant  accounts.  Accounts  using  the university  name  or  \nbranding that are no t active must be unpublished or removed from the platform.   \n \nMonitoring and engagement   \n• Monitor regularly . Balance how often your channel is monitored with the amount of engagements   \nyour channel receives. Regularly check on engagements and private message s to be as responsive   \nand timely as possible. Consider turning on notifications to ensure you’re notified of new activity.   \n• Engage your audience . Engaging with channel comments and activity is encouraged as it  can boost   \nyour presence based on certain platform algorithms. Consider creating posts that foster engagement   \nsuch as asking questions, polls, quizzes,  and activity that encourages sharing among your audience.   \n \n \n \n \n \nMassey University |   massey.ac.n z | 0800  MASSEY  2  \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \nContent and permissions   \n \n• Focus on quality over quantity.  Ensure your content fits your channel, looks like a quality product,  and \nis fit for representing the university . Stay upskilled on best practice content formats e.g., length, style,  \nand specs  (e.g., 4:5 vertical  videos  or 1080x1080px  images).  Best practice  can change  regularly.  \nAdhere  to the Brand  Guidelines  when  creating  content  containing  logos  or fonts.  An end slide for \nbranded videos can be accessed via the Social Media Team.   \n• Be mindful  of endorsements.  Only share  content  that Massey  is formally  or informally  willing  to  \nendorse. This includes linking to commercial products or external organisations.   \n• Paid  advertising  needs  prior  approval.  All paid advertising  and boosted  content  needs  to be discussed   \nwith the  Social Media Team or the  Marketing Team in advance ( [email protected] ). This \nensures al l univers ity advertising activity complements each other and doesn’t saturate specific markets.   \n• Always have permission.  Make sure you always have permission to publish content ( i.e., you are the   \ncontent  creator,  have  consent  from the content  owner,  the content  license  allows  for creative  commons   \nbusiness use or you  have  purchased  the content under a license  for commercial  use from  a stock   \nimage site).   \n• It is vital to get consent,  or in some cases appropriately notify, anyone who features in content before   \nthe content is published.   \n• Written consent ( i.e., talent release forms) is required for all participants featuring in   \ncontent that is advertised or boosted on any channel .  \n• If participants are over the age of 16 and attending  a Massey event, we need to notify   \n• and inform them via the event registration terms and conditions or  have notices available.   \n• and easily visible at the event. The statement needs to state what media is being   \ncollected and for what purpose w e intend to use it. It’s good practice for the   \nphotographer/videographer to clarify this verbally with the participants before capturing   \nany media if the situation allows .  \n• If participants are under the age of 16 and attending a Massey event, we must obtain the   \nrelevant parent or legal guardian’s consent. Consent should be obtained in writing and   \n• kept as a matter of record. If consent is likely to be required for any event o r activity y ou  \nare organising, it is best to organise this as early as possible.   \n• Accessibility.  Ensure  your content  is watchable and  readable  for people with all abilities. Caption your   \nvideos and use alt text (image descriptions) wherever possible . More on accessibility standards .  \n \nManaging risk   \n• Be professional . Reputational or challenging issues can often occur. It’s important to be responsive.   \nto questions,  act with integrity,  authenticity,  and professionalism,  and respond  to appropriate  \nmessages   \nas soon  as time allows.  Correct  mistakes  or acknowledge  issues  quickly.  Treat  every  message  like it’s  \npublic (even  if it is a private message  as these  can be screen grabbed  and shared). If  the conversation   \nneeds  to continue, aim to  move  the conversation off social  media e.g., continue the dialogue by  phone   \nor email.   \n• Include Community Guideline s. We suggest including a link to ou r Community Guideline s in your   \nchannel’s  description  or about  section.  This outlines  appropriate  audience  behaviour  and the threshold   \nfor moderation.   \n• Moderate . Don’t  delete  or hide messages  if you don’t  agree  with them – consider  responding   \nprofessionally instead. Only remove messages if they breach the Community Guidelines or the terms   \nand conditions of the social media platform.   \n• Escalate . Significant  issues  concerning  Massey’s  reputation  should  be escalate d to the Social \nMedia Team for help.   \n \n \nMassey University |   massey.ac.n z | 0800  MASSE  \n\n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Student_Survey_Policy_PDF_49_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Student Survey Policy PDF 49 KB",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "49 KB",
      "creation_date": "2023-09-08T11:01:04",
      "modification_date": "D:20240212124254+13'00'"
    },
    "content": "Massey Univer sity P olicyGuide\nUNIVERSITY STUDENT SURV EYPOLICY\n© This Policy is the property of Massey UniversityPurpose :\nThe university is committed to thecollection of student feedback onall aspects of their experience .This policy\nrecognises that surv eysare an important part of understanding student voice, and thus seeks to ensure that all\nactivities related to the collection of student feedback viathe use of surveys are clearly defined . Itsupports:\nthe university’s commitment to te Tirit i and a commitment t odata sovereignty\ncoordination of university student surveys to reduce the risk of survey fatigue\neffective provision and sharing of data forthequality enhancement of teaching and learning, student support\nand the overall student exp erience of services across the univers ity\nethical and appropriate design, delivery, data collection, privacy and storage of surveys\nrepresentative, valid and reliable student voice in university decision -making processes and in the quality\nenhancement of teaching a nd learni ng.\nScope :\nThis policy applies to all formal surveys of current or previous students initiated by a member of the university\ncommunity ;administ ered by the university on behalf of a third party or conducted by a third party on behalf of the\nuniver sity.\nOutof scope:\nThis policy excludes :\nsurveys of students in an individual course or programme for academic research or for internal college\nassurance and review purposes.\nsurveys of prospective students related to market research and brand awareness\noptional service -rating forms such as those provided after engagement with university services or third-party\nproviders\nother mechanis ms for ga thering student voice, such as focus groups and Teaching Evaluations Through\nStudent Dialogue .\nPolicy:\nAll surveys of students initiated by a member of the University community must comply with existing university\npolicies, and withtheprinciples andprocedures outlined in the University Student Survey Procedures .Contact Centre for Education Transformation\nLast Review October 2 023\nNext Review\nApproval\nEffective DateAB23 /10/242October 2026\nOctober 2023\nMassey University Policy Guide\nUniversity Student Survey Policy–Page 2\n© This Policy is the property of Massey UniversityAudience :\nAll staff and students\nRelevant legislatio n:\nLegal compliance :R\nelated procedures / documents:\nMassey University Strategy\nPaerangi Learning and Teaching Plan\nPolicy on the Engagement of Students in the Assurance and Enhancement of Teaching and Learning\nUniversity Student Survey Procedures\nData Management Policy\nDocument Management Control:\nPrepared by: Director Education Futures \nAuthorised by: Provost\nDate issued:  October 2 023\nLast review: October 2 023\nNext review:  October 2 026\n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Research_and_Specialist_Centres_Policy_PDF_191_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Research and Specialist Centres Policy PDF 191 KB",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "191 KB",
      "author": "Whittle, Jo",
      "creation_date": "2021-09-08T10:02:08",
      "modification_date": "D:20210908102817+12'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n \n \n \n \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \n \nRESEARCH  AND  SPECIALIST  CENTRES  POLICY  \n \n \n \nSection  Research  \nContact  Office  of Provost  \nLast Review  July 2021  \nNext  Review  July 2026  \nApproval  SLT 21/07/92  \nEffective  Date     July 2021  \n \n \nPurpose:  \n \n• To develop  and maintain  a range  of high-quality  research  and specialist  platforms  aligned  with the University’s  \naspiration  to be Tiriti o  Waitangi -led and the strategic  objectives  for research  activity  within  the University.  \n• To provide  for the orderly  establishment,  operation,  risk management  and exit for all Centres  located  within  \nColleges or hosted  by Massey  University.  \n• To provide  operational  guidelines  for Research  and Specialist  Centres  with reference  to existing  University  \npolicies  and procedures.  \n• To ensure  that the management  and financial  operations  of all Centres  are transparent  for all parties.  \n \n \nPolicy:  \n \n1. Strategic  purpose  of Centres  \n \nThe University recognises formal research and teaching platforms as being integral to its strategic vision to  \ndeliver world -class research, conducted in partnership with industries and the communities it serves, and to its  \naspiration to be Tiriti o Waitangi -led in the enactment of this work. The University also seeks to build upon  existing \nresearch expertise by encouraging and supporting the development, formalization and visibility of  groups of \nacademic staff working in common areas through the creation and recognition of collaborative  interdisciplinary  \nresearch  groups.  \n \nOne way in which  to achieve these  strategic  goals  is the establishment  of formal  Centres.  Such  Centres usually  \nwill have  research  as their main  focus;  however,  some  may be involved  in the provision  of services  or educational  \nresources. The University supports the establishment and operation of a range of Research and Specialist  \nCentres that  contribute  effectively  to the University’s strategic  goals.  \n \nThe principles  and processes  set out in this policy  apply  to new and existing  Centres  at Massey  University.  \n \n2. Categories  of Centres  \n \nThe University  recognises  and enables  the following  categories  of formal  research  and specialist  platforms:  \n• College  Research  or Specialist  Centres  \n• University  Research  or Specialist  Centres,  and \n• National  Research  or Specialist  Centres.  \n\nMassey University Policy Guide  \nResearch  and Specialist  Centres  Policy  – Page  2  \n \n \n2.1 College  Centres  \n \nA College Centre is established by a group of academic or research staff, whose objective is to lift the  \nprofile of a disciplinary or multi -disciplinary area of strategic relevance to the teaching and/or research  \nstrategies  of the University,  with a view to enhancing  reputation,  student  success  in postgraduate  research  \ndegrees,  and collaboration.  \n \nA College Centre may be supported by external income or by funding awarded at University or College  \nlevel; however, the approval for and ongoing operation of a College Centre is not dependent on such  \nfunding.  \n \nIt is not a Budget  Centre  as defined  in this policy,  and operates  financially  within  an Academic  Unit. It has \na reporting  line to  the Provost,  via the appropriate  Pro Vice -Chancellor  or designate.  \n \nA College Centre will meet or develop the necessary characteristics to align with the principles for  \nestablishing and  operating  Centres.  In addition,  a College  Centre:  \n \na) is established around a suite of research activities and projects and/or equipment (College  \nResearch Centres) or focuses on specific teaching and/or technical expertise (College  \nSpecialist  Centres)  \nb) is aligned with the strategic goals  of the College  and University  \nc) is led by academic  staff member(s)  established  as expert  in the relevant  field \nd) includes  sufficient  staff contribution,  generally  no fewer  than three  Massey  University  \naffiliated researchers, to maintain a sustainable, collaborative team that can achieve the  \npurpose and  aims of  the Centre  \ne) provides a supportive environment for the development of postgraduate students and  \nemerging researchers  \nf) may be engaged  with external  stakeholders  such  as government,  industry,  iwi/Māori  or \ncommunity  and in national  and international  collaborations  \ng) may attract  external  research  and/or  consultancy  income,  and \nh) plans  for, captures,  and monitors  research  engagement  and impact.  \n \n2.2 University  Centres  \n \nA University Centre generally is interdisciplinary and focuses on major national and international issues,  \nwith world -class research carried out by academics working in partnership with external collaborators. It  \nis likely to include st aff members from more than one Academic Unit or College. Normally, a University  \nCentre  reports  through  to the Provost,  via a Pro Vice-Chancellor  who collectively  oversee  the activities  in \nthe University Centre. Other arrangements may exist for University Research Centres in terms of line  \nmanagement and reporting; where this is the case, this should be clearly articulated in the Centre  \nAgreement.  \n \nA University Centre is a Budget Centre, funded through a combination of externally funded projects,  \nprogrammes or consultancy, and internal investment. It will operate in a business -like manner but must  \nretain  an emphasis  on the academic  and research  nature  of the University’s  business.  As noted  above,  it \nis accountable  to the  Provost  and/or  nominee  as set out in the Centre Agreement.  \n \nA University Centre will meet or develop the necessary characteristics to align with the principles for  \nestablishing and operating Centres. In  addition,  a University  Centre  will: \n \n(a) generally  include a significant group of University scholars, with an integrated research  \nand/or  academic  platform,  who have already  achieved recognition for  excellence in a  \nparticular  area \n(b) involve  a range  of experienced  and emerging  researchers  across  a range  of disciplines  \n(c) be likely  to include  staff from other  research  and/or  academic  organisations  in New Zealand  \nand overseas  through  adjunct  or honorary  appointments  and co-supervision  of students  \n(d) provide a supportive environment for the development of research and/or academic  \ncapabilities of  postgraduate students  and emerging  scholars  \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nResearch  and Specialist  Centres  Policy  – Page  3  \n \n \n(e) generally  engage  with external  stakeholders  such  as government,  industry,  iwi/Māori  or \ncommunity  and in  national and  international  collaborations  where  appropriate  \n(f) be substantial in terms of staff contribution, postgraduate students, external revenue and  \npublication rates  \n(g) generally  be likely  to attract  more  than $2M funding  per annum  from sources  external  to the \nUniversity  \n(h) generally  have  demonstrable  international  recognition  \n(i) have  a clear  governance  and management  structure  including  dedicated  director(s)  \nestablished as an expert of international standing in the relevant field as specified in the  \nCentre Agreement  \n(j) where  appropriate,  may have  a Governanc e and/or  Advisory  Board  and a Director  (or joint or \nco-directors); the terms of reference, including the membership (selection criteria, term of  \nservice  etc.) and responsibilities  of any Board  must  be set out clearly  in the Centre  Agreement  \n(k) plan for, capture  and monitor  research  engagement  and impact,  and \n(l) make a fair contribution to the University in terms of support provided for operational costs as  \nspecified in  the Centre  Agreement.  \n \n2.3 National  Centres  \n \nA National  Centre  is a fully funded  entity  with established  funding  streams  from external  research  or other  \ncontracts and sources. Normally it is a Government or industry sponsored group whose role as a Centre  \nis set out in contractual  obligations  to a funding  agent  and, as part of this, is  formally  linked  to \nresponsibilities that extend explicitly to external Centre partners and to the public good. It is a Budget  \nCentre, with  a reporting  line through  to the Provost.  \n \nThe process for establishing and operating a National Centre may vary depen ding on the nature of the  \npartner organisations. National Centres at Massey University will align with the provisions in this policy  \nand the Related Procedures for the Research and Specialist Centres Policy. When partner organisations  \nare involved in the p roposal to establish a National Centre it must be supported by the University Vice - \nChancellor  and submitted  to the University Council  for approval.  \n \nA National Centre may be formed by the merging or expansion of existing large platforms such as  \nUniversity  Centres. It will have established funding streams from external research contracts and other  \nsources  including  endowments.  \n \nA National Centre makes a fair contribution to the University in terms of support provided for operational  \ncosts.  \n \nNational Centres  must have a Governance Board and a Director. The Director will normally be a Massey  \nUniversity employee and report through to the Provost. The terms of reference, membership (selection  \ncriteria, term of service, etc.) and responsibilities of the Governanc e Board must be set out clearly in the  \nCentre  Agreement.  A Massey  University  representative  will be appointed  to the Governance  Board  by the \nMassey  University  Vice-Chancellor.  \n \n3. Principles  for establishing  and operating  Centres  \n \nThe following  principles  guide  decisions  on the establishment,  operation,  and review  of Centres.  \n \n3.1 Centres  act as “flagship”  platforms  that promote the  University’s  profile to external  stakeholders.  \n \n3.2 Activities represent academic endeavors and opportunities at a level over and above what could be  \nachieved  if the staff  involved operated individually  or in small  groups  within existing Academic  Units.  \n \n3.3 All research outputs and any publications, reports or other outputs and activities associated with Centres  \nare clear ly attributed to Massey University. All research publications should be affiliated to ‘Massey  \nUniversity,  New Zealand’.  \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nResearch  and Specialist  Centres  Policy  – Page  4  \n \n \n3.4 There is a focus on unified, whole -of-centre projects, platforms, programmes and/or equipment that  \ndepend  for their success  on the combined  contributions of  the experts  involved.  \n \n3.5 Centres  contribute  additional  benefits  to the University,  including  building  revenue  and enhancing  research  \nand teaching  reputation.  \n \n3.6 Centres  provide  flexible  structures  that facilitate  interaction  and collaboration  with a range  of stakeholders  \ninternal  or external  to the University.  \n \n3.7 New and existing  Centres  will: \n• align with the University’s  aspiration  to be Tiriti o  Waitangi -led \n• align  with the University’s  Strategy , Research  Strategy  and other  strategic  goals  \n• build  on acknowledged  expertise  and a proven  record  of academic  achievement,  and \n• be held in high esteem  internally  and externally  to the University.  \n \n3.8 The University may offer support to establish and maintain its Centres, including but not limited to  \nadministrative, financial, or public relations/marketing support. By virtue of providing this support, the  \nUniversity agrees to promote the work of a Centre; this is in the spirit of mutual and reciprocal benefits  \nthat should  accrue  both to the University  and any Centre.  \n \n3.9 Centre status does not imply permanency of structure in the same way that Academic Unit status does.  \nRegular reviews are undertaken, and their continuance is contingent on performance, relevance, and  \nsustainability.  \n \n3.10 University  Research  and National  Research  Centres  are normally  supported  by a Centre  Agreement  that \nspecifies  the objectives,  operating  requirements,  and performance  targets  of the Centre.  In the event  of a \ndifference between the operating requirements and performance targets in the Centre Agreement and  this \npolicy,  then the Centre  Agreement  specific  to that Centre  shall take precedence.  \n \n3.11 Centres provide a supportive platform and space for collegial research, structured mentoring, and  \ncapability  building.  \n \n4. Centre  naming  and branding  \n \nThe titles ‘Research Centre’ and ‘Specialist Centre’ may only be used by entities that have received formal  \napproval  through  the process  set out in the Related  Procedures  for the Research  and Specialist  Centres  Policy.  \nThe title ‘National’ may only be used by National Centres as defined in this policy and with the approval of the  \nProvost.  \n \nWhere a Centre includes or plans to include Te Reo Māori in its name, the name must be submitted for  \nconsideration and support by the Convener of Māori Language Advisory Group, Office of the Deputy Vice - \nChancellor  Māori.  \n \nName changes to approved College Centres must be  approved by the relevant Pro Vice -Chancellor. Name  \nchanges to  approved University and  National  Centres  must  be approved by  the Provost.  \n \nAll current and future Centres must contain the word ‘Centre’ in their titles and branding. The word may be  \nincluded in a tag or subtitle (for example: ‘A Research Centre of Massey University’). All promotion material by  \nan approved Centre, including all letterhead, brochures, publications, internet sites and other publicity material,  \nmust  display  the University ’s official  logo and must  clearly  indicate  affiliation  with Massey  University.  \n \nApproved  Centres  will be listed  in Massey  University  publications  and on the University  website,  as arranged  by \nResearch  Operations.  Centres  will be expected  to promote  their own research,  teaching  and other  activities  within  \nMassey University through relevant organisations, public addresses, specialist comments and opinion in the  \nmedia, in  accordance  with University  policies.  \n \nThe names (and any relevant, associating branding such as logos) of approved Centres will be registered as  \ntrademarks with  the New  Zealand Intellectual Property  Office.  \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nResearch  and Specialist  Centres  Policy  – Page  5  \n \n \n \n5. Establishment  of Centres  \n \nA Research or Specialist Centre is eligible for establishment if it m eets the strategic purpose and principles for  \nestablishing and  operating  Centres,  as set out in this  Policy.  \n \nNo unit, group or platform within the University may describe or designate itself as a Research Centre or  \nSpecialist Centre except  as it has recei ved formal approval through the process set out in the Related  \nProcedures for the  Research  and Specialist  Centres  Policy.  \n \nNo Centre may change its Centre category (for example, from a College to a University Centre) without approval  \nthrough  the process  set out in the Related  Procedures  for the Research  and Specialist  Centres  Policy,  except  \nas its category is changed because of a formal Centre review process as set out in the same Procedures and as  \nformalized in  a new Centre  Agreement.  \n \n6. Risk  manag ement  \n \nRisk assessment and management of Centres must be addressed as set out in the Related Procedures for the  \nResearch  and Specialist  Centres Policy.  \n \n7. Budget  and Financial  Performance  \n \n7.1 College  Centres  \n \nAll costs associated with the College Centre (letterhead, stationery, secretarial services and other operating  \nexpenses) will be a cost to the host Academic Unit. College Centres do not have a unique budget centre  \ncode  and will operate  financially  within  an Academic  Unit. \n \n7.2 University  Centres  \n \nUniversity Centres will have a unique Budget Centre code and are required to fully meet all costs, including  \nMassey  University  space  charges  and indirect  cost levies  as specified  in the Centre  Agreement.  They  are \nrequired to meet all contractual requirements with funders, the provisions of the Centre Agreement and  \nall Massey University policies. Operating and capital expenditure must proceed in accordance with the  \nannual  University planning  and budgeting  process.  \n \n7.3 National  Centres  \n \nNational  Centres  will have  a unique  Budget  Centre  code  and are required  to fully meet  all costs,  including  \nMassey University space charges and indirect cost levies. They are required to meet all contractual  \nrequirements of the funder, the provisions of the Centre Agreement and all Massey University policies.  \nOperating and capital expenditure must proceed in accordance with the annual University planning and  \nbudgeting process.  \n \n8. Operation  of Centres  \n \nThe Provost  reserves  the right to review  and amend  the terms  and conditions  and/or  the operation  of a University  \nor College  Centre  Agreement  at any time.  Changes  to the terms  and conditions  of any Centre  must  be discussed  \nwith the Centre leader(s) and the Pro Vice-Chancellor of the host College, and changes to National Centre  \nAgreements must  be negotiated  with the external  partners.  \n \nAny change  in leadership  of a College  or University  Centre  or significant  change  of direction  by a Centre  during  \nthe term of the Agreement  will require  a formal  amendment  to the Agreement  and will be subject  to approval  by \nthe Provost.  Similar  changes  to a National  Centre  will be subject  to approval  by the Vice-Chancellor  or nominee.  \n \nAll activities of the Centres will be deemed to contribute to the research and/or academic outputs of Massey  \nUniversity  and must  be managed  and reported  accordingly.  Where  any Centre  has external  partners,  \narrangements  regarding  research  outputs  for each  of the parties  will be specified  in the Agreement  Schedules.  \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nResearch  and Specialist  Centres  Policy  – Page  6  \n \n \n \nCentres may promote their activities through the relevant Academic Unit/College or University websites, and  \nthrough printed material. Where relevant, Centres are encouraged to work with communication support teams , \nas appropriate, to find opportunities to raise their profiles, increase their impacts or influence, or position  \nthemselves for future  growth.  \n \nA Research  Centre  will contribute  to the PBRF  rating  of the University  through  its research  and/or  postgraduate  \nteaching programme.  \n \nAll new IP resulting from activities within a Centre should be declared to the Dean Enterprise and ownership will  \nvest in the University unless otherwise  agreed  by the  Provost.  \n \n9. Annual  Reporting  \n \nThe overall  performance  of a College  Centre  is monitored  by the Pro Vice-Chancellor  of the host College.  \n \nCollege and University Centres must submit an annual report to the Pro Vice -Chancellor of the host College by  \n31 March each year, as set out in the Related Proced ures for the Research and Specialist Centres Policy. A  \ncopy of the annual report will also be provided to Director Research Operations for referral to the Provost. In  \naddition,  a Research  Centre  will provide  a copy  of its annual  report  to the relevant  College  Research  \nDirector/Deputy  Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research).  \n \nNational Centres will conform to the requirements of external funding agencies or organisations with respect to  \nreporting. Such  reports will be  submitted  to the Vice-Chancellor  or nominee.  \n \n10. Review  of Centres  \n \nThe University will review every College and University Centre on a three to five -year cycle, to assess viability,  \nperformance  and the degree to which it has met its objectives and the strategic goals of the University. Where  \nexternal partnerships exist, reviewing arrangements will be coordinated to take account of the requirements of  \nboth internal and external partners and stake holders. The review will follow the process set out in the Related  \nProcedures for the  Research  and Specialist  Centres  Policy.  \n \nThe review  process  will act as the normal  mechanism  for re-categorizing  Centres.  An outcome  of the review  will \nbe a recommendation on the future status of the Centre. Any Centre that has ceased activity or has low levels  \nof activity may be disestablished, or re -categorized as appropriate, in consultation with the Pro Vice -Chancellor  \nof the host College  and/or  Provost.  \n \n11. Disestablishment  of Centres  \n \nA Centre may be disestablished through the process set out in the Related Procedures for the Research and  \nSpecialist  Centres  Policy.  \n \nGeneral:  \n \nThis policy must be read in conjunction with any general terms of reference issued by the Provost or nominee, and/or  \nany specific  contract  agreement  already  entered  into between  the University  and the Centre  or external  partners.  \n \nAll Centres are bound by the policies of the University, unless otherwise stated in their respective Centre Agreements.  \nThe Policies are available on -line at the following link:  \nhttps://masse yuni.sharepoint.com/sites/RiskAssurancePoliciesProcedures  \n \nDefinitions:  \n \nA College Centre is defined as a group of senior academic or research staff, whose objective is to lift the profile of a  \ndisciplinary or multi -disciplinary area of strategic relevance to the teaching and/or research strategies of the University,  \nwith a view to enhancing  reputation,  post graduate  research  degree  student  success  and collaboration.  \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nResearch  and Specialist  Centres  Policy  – Page  7  \n \n \n \nA University Centre generally is interdisciplinary and focuses on major national and international issues, with world - \nclass research carried out by academics working in partnership with external collaborators. It is likely to include staff  \nmembers  from more  than one Academic Unit  or College. It is normally  supported  by a Centre  Agreement.  \n \nA National Centre is a fully funded entity with established funding streams from external research or other contracts  \nand sources. Normally it is a Government sponsored group whose role as a Centre is s et out in contractual obligations  \nto a funding agent and, as part of this, is formally linked to responsibilities that explicitly extend to external Centre  \npartners and  to the public good.  \n \nA Research  Centre  is established  around  a suite  of research  activities  and projects  and/or  equipment.  \n \nA Specialist Centre is established around a group of Massey University staff which has an established academic  \nidentity  in the provision  of services or educational  resources.  \n \nAcademic Unit refers to the host unit and this is a Department, School or Institute. For some University Centres the  \nAcademic  Unit may be a College  and for National  Centres  the Administrative  Unit will be the Provost  or nominee.  \n \nA Budget Centre is defined as a distinct accounting line entity within the University’s financial system which has  \naccountability for a budget. The budget usually includes both revenue and expenditure lines. A budget centre has its  \nown unique general  ledger  code  and would  normally  have  both staff and assets attached to  it. \n \nA Centre Agreement is specific to each Centre and outlines the objectives, operating requirements and performance  \ntargets  for the  Centre.  \n \nBoard  refers  to a board  associated  with the Centre,  such  as a Management  Board,  Advisory  Board  or similar.  \n \nCommercial Centres are stand -alone entities with cost centre responsibilities and are not subject to this policy as they  \ndo not meet the definition of a Research Centre. Commercial Centres operate under their own establishment a nd \noperation  policy.  \n \n \nAudience:  \n \nAll University  academic  and research  staff.  \n \n \nRelevant  Legislation:  \n \nNil. \n \n \nLegal  Compliance:  \n \nNil. \n \n \nRelated  Policies  and Procedures:  \n▪ Related  Procedures  for the Research  and Specialist  Centres  Policy  \n▪ Research  and Consultancy  Contracts  Policy  \n▪ Intellectual  Property  Policy  \n▪ Research  and Consultancy  Activity  Proposals Policy  \n▪ Freedom  of Expression  Policy  \n▪ Media  Commentary  Policy  \n▪ Social  Media  Policy  \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nResearch  and Specialist  Centres  Policy  – Page  8  \n \n \n▪ Risk Management  Policy  \n \n \nDocument  Management  Control:  \n \nPrepared by: Research Operations  \nOwned by:  Provost  \nApproved  by: SLT 21/07/92  \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Staff_Safety_and_Security_Support_Guidelines_Psychosocial_Risks_PDF.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Staff Safety and Security Support Guidelines Psychosocial Risks",
      "policy_type": "Guideline",
      "file_size": null,
      "creation_date": "2024-12-18T09:00:02",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220102135+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n \nSTAFF SAFETY AND SECURITY  SUPPORT GUIDELINES  (PSYCHOSOCIAL \nRISKS )  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nIntroduction   \nThe Staff Safety and Security  Support  Guidelines are designed to sit alongside the university’s existing policies , in \nparticular, the university’s Academic Freedom Policy  which takes a justice -based approach to the exercise of academic \nfreedom.  The Staff Safety and Security Support Guidelines are designed  to support the safety and wellbeing of all s taff. \n \nA justice -based approach to supporting academic freedom recognises the broader context in which we operate, \nincluding acknowledging the history of Aotearoa New Zealand and the role of place, and paying attention to vulnerability, \nespecially for historicall y marginalised groups.  Furthermore a justice -based approach responds to the intersecting \ncontexts of colonisation, racism, patriarchy, and cis -normativity and calls attention to the power imbalances that have \nhistorically silenced academic inquiry. It mea ns attending to unequal power structures, reducing inequities and \nchallenging unjust power and social relations  \nThese Guidelines have been developed by the university in its efforts to take all reasonably practicable steps to ensure \nthe elimination of harm (or minimisation where this is not possible) to workers and others associated with the university. \nFurthermore, where actual or potential harm is identified, the university will support staff in exercising academic freedom \nin response to staff being targeted by individuals and groups who use threats of harm and abuse to intimidate staff, their \ncolleagues, and/or wh ānau with the aim being to deter and prevent staff member’s academic voice.  \nPhysical, psychological, social or cultural threats of harm  on academic staff covered by these Guidelines need to be \nclearly recognised as unacceptable practices  in situations  where public or academic discourse can be reasonably \nrecognised as normative disagreement or scholarly debate. These Guidelines are designed to assist management \nenquiry and response to ensure the safety of workers and others, and support staff where there is eviden tial indication  \nof real or perceived threats  of harms  to the safety and wellbeing to staff (including colleagues and whānau) , both on and \noff campus. Th ese guidelines included  anticipated and actual abuse and/or targeted campaigns of a political , ideological  \nand organised nature.  \nDetermination of Risk : \nThe Guidelines are specifically designed to ensure that workers and others  are supported by appropriate university \ninterventions and services when indications of evidential  threats  of harm , abuse and/or targeted campaigns of a n \nideological or political nature are present  and where the staff members cultural, social, mental or physical health and/or \nbodily security, and/or that of their colleagues and/or whānau are deemed at risk.  \nUnderstanding management of risk exposure involves (1) identification of threats of harm, (2) assessment of risk \nconsequence outcomes, (3) recognition of existing mitigation control effectiveness, and (4) review of future risk \nmitigations that ensures the elimination or minimisation of harm to workers and others.  Section  Health, Safety & Wellbeing  \nContact  DVC University Services  \nLast Review  September 2024  \nNext Review  September 2026  \nEffective from  September 2024  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n Staff Safety and Security  Support Guidelines  (Psychosocial Risks ) – Page 2  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nRisks can be either internal or external to the university and may include :  \n(a) online or in person abuse or threats of harm  \n(b) digital disinformation campaigns  \n(c) disinformation distributed on mainstream media  \n(d) targeted campaigns directed at academics  \n(e) political pressures  \n(f) threat of lawsuits,  \n(g) the vexatious use of university processes, such as formal complaints processes or OIA requests, to reproduce and \ncirculate disinformation targeting academics.  \nIt is also noted that understanding management of risk exposure is not necessarily subject to any of these risk exposures \nemanating from New Zealand or undertaken by persons resident in New Zealand. It is understood that risk exposure \ncan originate from outside New Zealand’s borders.   \nThreat of Harm Categories and Guidelines for Manag ing Risk and Provid ing Support for Staff  \n \nWithin this context these Guidelines aim to outline for staff the services available to them under different categories  of \nthreat of harm . It is recognised that the categories presented will not be exhaustive and, in some cases, will overlap. In \neach case there remains an expectation that affected staff would first liaise with their line manager who would provide \nadvice, guidance, and suppo rt the staff member in accessing available university, and where applicable, external \nservices. Additionally , the university will seek to understand the source of the threats of harm in  order to improve control \nmitigations and systems necessary to eliminate the risk of harm to workers and others. The clarification of categories, \nidentification of key university officers responsible for the provision of related services, and identification of the servic es \nthemselves, are expected to provide staff and their managers with an understanding of what resp onses can be enacted \nand by whom.  \n \n1. Cyberbullying  threats of harm  \nCyberbullying can range from offensive or cruel online posts or digital pictures, to online threats, harassment, and \nnegative comments, to stalking through emails, websites, social media platforms and text messages \n(https://staysafeonline.org/online -safety -privacy -basics/cyberbullying/ ). In a situation where a staff member feels \nthey are subject to cyberbullying there are steps they can take:  \ni. Advise their line manager and provide evidence of the material in question  \nii. Initiate safety protocol risk management procedures for the identification, assessment, control and review \nof the risk category as it affects the Occupational Health, Safety and Wellbeing Policy. Where necessary \nseek the advisory support of the Office of Occupational Health, Safety and Wellbeing.  \niii. If there is agreement (seeking the advice of the Director Governance  & Assurance, or Executive Director \nPeople & Culture in addition to the C hief Information Officer  (CIO) ) that the material is deemed to constitute \ncyberbullying the line manager would contact the Head of Security (IT)  and provide details.  \niv. The Head of Security (IT)  would consider the information provided with the staff member and line manager \nand may:  \na. Deem that no action is warranted  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n Staff Safety and Security  Support Guidelines  (Psychosocial Risks ) – Page 3  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nb. Facilitate access to Netsafe, a free and confidential service to help people experiencing online \nbullying, abuse and harassment. Netsafe can also explain how the Harmful Digital Communications \nAct (HDCA) may apply to you as this law deals with image based abuse (like revenge porn), \nincitement to suicide and extremely offensive, abusive or harassing content \n(https://www.netsafe.org.nz/bullying -abuse -support/ ) and, depending upon outcome:  \nc. Apply for a harmful digital communication order through a District Court \n(https://www.justice.govt.nz/courts/civil/harmful -digital -communications/ ), and/or  \nd. Establish web, social media and email protocols that will effectively shield the staff member and other \naffected parties from the cyberbullying activity.  \n \n2. Online and traditional media  threats of harm  \n \nBullying via traditional and online media in a contemporary setting can be blurred given the often -seamless \ninteraction between media types. This area is further complicated by social media within online and traditional \nmedia settings. As such details prov ided above under the cyberbullying heading are likely to be relevant in \ncases where staff are being unreasonably targeted via online and traditional media. As such similar processes \nshould be followed. In addition, in situations where staff consider themse lves to be the focus of unreasonable \nattacks from traditional or online media they should:  \n \ni. Advise their line manager and provide evidence of the material in question  \nii. Initiate safety protocol risk management procedures for the identification, assessment, control and \nreview of the risk category as it affects the Occupational Health, Safety and Wellbeing Policy. Where \nnecessary seek the advisory support of the Office of O ccupational Health, Safety and Wellbeing.  \niii. If there is agreement that the material is deemed to fall within the remit of the staff safety and security \nguidelines the line manager would contact the CIO and/or the Executive Director Marketing  and \nCommunications  (EDMC) and provide details.  \niv. The CIO and/or EDMC , staff member and line manager would consider the information provided with \nthe staff member and line manager and may:  \na. Deem that no action is warranted  \nb. Implement steps b, c and/or d under ‘cyberbullying’ above  \nc. Support a complaint to the New Zealand Media Council ( https://www.mediacouncil.org.nz/ )  \n \n3. Physical threats to personal safety and wellbeing  \nPhysical threats and a concern for a staff member’s personal safety can emanate from online, traditional media, \nor physical environments. In addition to the steps outlined above in response to cyberbullying or attacks via \nonline or traditional media, physical threats, and concerns regarding personal safety, require further \nconsideration and potentially action. In a situation where a staff member feels that they are subject to physical \nthreats an d that their personal safety is at risk, or that their colleagues and/or family’s safety is at risk, there are \nsteps they can take:  \ni. Advise their line manager and provide evidence and / or provide an outline of the threats and risk to \npersonal safety  \nii. Initiate safety protocol risk management procedures for the identification, assessment, control and \nreview of the risk category as it affects the Occupational Health, Safety and Wellbeing Policy. Where \nnecessary seek the advisory support of the Office of O ccupational Health, Safety and Wellbeing.  \niii. If there is agreement that there is a potential risk to personal safety the line manager would contact the \nEmergency and Security Lead .  \niv. The Emergency and Security Lead  would consider the information provided with the staff member and \nline manager and may:  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n Staff Safety and Security  Support Guidelines  (Psychosocial Risks ) – Page 4  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \na. Institute on -campus security protocols with the agreement of the staff member  \nb. Institute off -campus security measures that may be deemed reasonable with the agreement of the \nstaff member. E.g. being escorted to and from the office after hours, having locked/swipe -card \naccess to university office space, or a panic alarm fitted under workstation or desk.  \nc. Advise local police and provide a briefing to them for assessment and potential follow up actions  \nd. In any situation where a staff members physical safety may be at risk as part of any offshore \nactivities a comprehensive security assessment would need to be undertaken, and associated \nactions agreed to with the staff member prior to any approval for trave l being granted.  \nOther Services / Actions  \ni. Occupational Health Safety and Wellbeing  \na. Employee Assistance Programme (EAP) services are available to staff to help navigate issues at work \nor home and are there to support your general health and wellbeing \nhttps://masseyuni.sharepoint.com/sites/OccupationalHealthAndSafety/SitePages/Employee -\nAssistance -Programme.aspx   \nb. Workplace safety includes physical, psychological and cultural risks.  Workplace safety is about the \nnature of relationships between people, organisation and threats of harm that arise out of workplace \nactivity. Massey contacts and resources can be located at \nhttps://masseyuni.sharepoint.com/sites/OccupationalHealthAndSafety   \nc. Managers and workers of the university need to be familiar with the Occupational Health and Safety \nManagement Framework . In particular the Standards for Workplace Preventative and Curative Care , \nand Hazards and Risk Management and Management of Change.  \nii. People and Culture  \na. Executive Director P&C, Director ER & Advisory / Legal Counsel  and HR Advisory team can provide \nadvice and guidance https://masseyuni.sharepoint.com/sites/WorkingAtMassey/SitePages/Contact -\nHR.aspx   \niii. Freedom of Information (FOI)  \na. Provide staff with information outlining FOI conditions and expectations with links to relevant policies \nand guidelines both internal and external  https://www.justice.govt.nz/about/official -information -act-\nrequests/   \n \niv. Advocacy strategies and actions  \n Consider the implementation of advocacy strategies using internal and possibly external resources to counter \n domestic or international trolling and false claims in general that may be impacting upon staff members.  \n \nRelated procedures / documents:  \nAcademic Freedom Policy  \nEmployee Support Services Policy  \nHarassment and Discrimination at Work Policy  \nHarassment and Discrimination Resolution Procedures  \nHealth, Safety and Wellbeing Policy  \n \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n Staff Safety and Security  Support Guidelines  (Psychosocial Risks ) – Page 5  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nDocument Management Control:  \nPrepared by: Professor Giselle Byrnes, Ms Shelley Turner  \nAuthorised by: Deputy Vice Chancellor University Services  \nDate issued: 30 September 2024  \nLast review: September 2024  \nNext review: September 2026  \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Subcontracting_of_Teaching_Activity_Policy_PDF_108_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Subcontracting of Teaching Activity Policy",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "108 KB",
      "creation_date": "2017-09-19T11:02:08",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220102111+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n \nSUBCONTRACTING OF TE ACHING ACTIVITY POLI CY  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \nPurpose :  \nTo ensure that Massey University manages the risk associated with the subcontracting of teaching activ ity to other \ntertiary providers . \nPolicy:  \n1. Massey University is responsible for all subcontracted provision as if it delivered the provision itself.   \n2. If the subcontracted provision is intended to attract Student Achievement Component funding, it must be \nformally declared in Massey University’s Investment Plan.  \n3. All subcontracting of teaching activity to an external agency must  be covered by an appropriate written \ncontract. Staff should be aware that the absence of a written contract does not protect the Unive rsity from \nliability and indeed may increase its potential liability since, under these circumstances no agreement exists \nas to limitations on liability.  \n4. Subcontracting must  comply with the Approval Pathways and Quality Assurance Guidelines for Domestic an d \nInternational Subcontracting of Teaching Activity . \n5. The appropriate University subcontracting template (as set out in the documents related to this Policy) must \nbe used for all subcontracted teaching activities.  \n6. Completion of contracts for subcontracted t eaching activity shall be in accordance with University’s Creation \nof Contracts Policy .  \n7. Only those staff who hold the necessary delegated authorit y (as per the Delegations of Authority Document ) \nwill have the right to enter into contracts for subcontracting of teaching activities on behalf of  the University.  \n8. A register of subcontracting activities will be maintained by the Risk Management Section and reviewed on an \nannual basis.  \nDefinitions : \nSubcontracting refers to situations where another provider offer s all or part of a Massey University qu alification \nthrough a contractual arrangement (such as a memorandum of understanding, articulation or twinning agreement, or \nfranchise arrangement ).  A ‘provider’ can include any other education organisation.  \n \nThis definition of subcontracting specificall y excludes:  \n teaching activity contracted to individuals  \n learning that occurs within vocational placements such as workplace placements  \n research activities, and  \n student and staff exchange agreements  \n Section  Academic  \nContact  Academic Strategy  Manager  \nLast Review  July 2011  \nNext Review  July 2014  \nApproval  AB11/95 -October: 3.2.1.1  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nSubcontracting of Teaching Activity Policy  – Page 2  \n \n© This Policy is th e property of Massey University  Audience : \nAll staff (with contract management responsibil ities) . \nRelevant Legislation:  \nNil \nLegal Compliance : \nContracts must comply with all relevant legislation including:  \nFair Trading Act 1986  \nCommerce Act 1986  \nSale of Goods Act 1908  \nConsumer Guarantees Act 1993  \nHealth and Safety in Employment Act 1992  \nPrivacy Act 1993  \nCopyright Act 1994  \nResource Management Act 1991  \nRelated procedures / documents : \nApproval Pathways and Quality Assurance Guidelines for Domestic and International Subcontracting of Teaching \nActivity  \nCreation of Contract Policy   \nDelegations of Authority Document  \nTEC Funding Rules for Subcontracting on -Plan delive ry (Condition SAC356)  \nTEC Funding Rules for Subcontracting off -Plan delivery (Condition SAC357)  \nLaw Guide (available on Massey Staffroom)  \nTeaching and Learning Policy  \nDocument Management Control:  \nPrepared by: Academic Strategy Manager  \nAuthorised by: AVC (Academic & Inte rnational)  \nApproved by: AB11/95 - October: 3.2.1.1  \nDate issued: 20 July 2011  \nLast review: July 2011  \nNext review: July 2014  \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Student_Survey_Procedure_PDF_111_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Student Survey Procedure PDF 111 KB",
      "policy_type": "Procedure",
      "file_size": "111 KB",
      "creation_date": "2023-09-08T11:01:04",
      "modification_date": "D:20240212124339+13'00'"
    },
    "content": "Massey University Policy Guide\nMASSEY UNIVERSITY STUDENT SURVEY PROCEDURE\n© This Procedur eis the property of Massey UniversityPurpose :\nThe university is committed to the collection of student feedback on all aspects of their experience. Th ese\nprocedures recognise that surveys are an important part of understanding student voice, and thus seek to\nensure that all activities related to the collection of student feedback via the use of surveys are clearly\ndefined and appropriately implemented .\nThese procedures are governe d by the Massey University Student Survey Policy.\nProcedure s:\nPurposes of Student Surveys:\nSurveys of students are used for:\n1. Quality assurance and enhancement.\nResults from student surveying contribute to the academic quality assurance framework through:\na) Feedback loops . Data from student surveys is essential to the cycle of quality improvement,\nand should therefore inform academic programme planning, academic delivery and\ndevelopment and provision of student support and other university services.\nb) Benchmarking for improvement .  Data collected systematically and consistently enables us to\nbenchmark, both internally and externally, and again provides useful information to inform\nimprovement decisions.\nc) Graduate O utcomes . Seeking information from gr aduates is an important aspect of the overall\nquality framework. Evaluating the success of students in gaining suitable, relevant employment\ninforms decisions about the nature and quality of the programmes and services w e offer. We\nare also required to rep ort on this to various external bodies including the Tertiary Education\nCommission, the Ministry of Education and Universities New Zealand.\n2. Massey brand and reputation.\nResearch in relation to the Massey brand helps to understand what the respondents think Massey\nstands for, how they rate our academic reputation and what they consider our main strengths to be.\nThis allows us to ascertain whether our communication and marketing messages are having an impact\non the market and to identify areas where we need t o improve or alter perceptions, and to identify\nmisconceptions in the market. It also allows us to determine potential new markets.Contact Centre for Education Transformation\nLast Review \nNext Review\nApproval\nEffective Date October 2023October 2026\nAB23 /10/242October 2023\nMassey Univers ity Policy Guide\nMassey University Student Survey Procedure –Page 2\n© This Procedure is the pr operty of Massey UniversityPrinciples Underlying Student Surveys:\n1. Alignment: university -level surveying should be aligned with and inform the Unive rsity’s strategy. All\nother surveying should have a clear purpose aligned with the focus of the relevant college or service\narea.\n2. Systematic: an agreed “core” set of university -wide student survey instruments should be as\ncomprehensive as possible. It is important for planning and consistency that we adopt and retain a\ncore set of instruments for a specified number of cycles so that we can assess the suitability of the\ninstruments and demonstrate improvements over tim e in a reliable way. This also minim ises\nduplication and coordination of administration.\n3. Triangulation: multiple methods of data collection avoids survey duplication and fatigue. Multiple\nmethods may include focus groups, Teaching Evaluations Through Student Dialogue (TESD ), peer -\nrevie w, self -reflection, and qualitative data collection and analysis (both fo rmal and informal).\n4. Valid, reliable and ethical: all surveys must meet or exceed minimum standards of survey design\nand administration (e.g., statements of purpose, feedback to pa rticipants, and ethical requirements\nwhich will vary depending on the instruments used and their purposes) so that we can hav e some\nassurance of both validity and reliability in terms of the outputs. Ensuring data quality will provide\nconfidence in the res ults.\n5. Accountability. Mechanisms need to exist that report the survey results to the appropriate audience\nmindful that th ere are a variety of audiences requiring a range of survey outputs.  Arguably the most\nimportant aspect of university -wide student surveying is the commitment from colleges and other\nservice providers that actions will always be taken in response to the su rvey findings. The actions will\nvary in accordance with the purposes of the instruments themselves.\n6. Voluntary : Student particip ation in surveys is always voluntary\n7. Confidentiality :All data must be collected, analysed and reported in accordance with the Privacy Act\n2020. Survey administrators must undertake to protect student anonymity and the confidentiality of\ntheir response to the fullest possible extent. All respondent information must be de -identified by the\nsurvey administrators. Information about how student privacy and confidentiality will be protected in\ndata collection and reporting must be provided to students as par t of the invitation to participate.\n8. Transparency: Aggregated data and r eports will be shared with the student body.\nResponsibility :\nResponsibility for academic peer review of the survey instruments and for oversight of the administration and\nreporting of all surveys sits with the University Student Survey Steering Group (USSS G). See Appendix A for\nthe USSSG Terms of Reference. The schedule of current standard university surveys is available in\nAppendix B.\nExemptions to USSSG oversight:\nNote that althou gh these are not overseen by the USS SG, they are nevertheless expected to meet the\nrequirements of the University Student Survey Policy.\n1.Surveys of students in an individual course or programme for academic research or for internal\ncollege assurance and re view purposes.\n2.Student -to-student sur veys such as those initiated by the Student Association.\nMassey Univers ity Policy Guide\nMassey University Student Survey Procedure –Page 3\n© This Procedure is the pr operty of Massey UniversityUniversity Survey Processes\nUniversity student surveys are large activities where a modest mistake may have significant consequences\nand thus they generate a sig nificant administration load. All surveys are undertaken using a standard\nstructured process of design, testing, scale choi ce and delivery. These are all done via:\nA project plan outlining the survey populations, limitations, timing, incentivisation, etc .;\nMeasurement booklet describing in detail all survey items the logic used.\nOnline testing which usually becomes the production instrument.\nConsultation with Student Associations for advice on the creation of invitation emails , improving\nparticipation rat es and provision of feedback .\nProcess related to S tudent Experience Survey and Postgraduate Research Experience\nQuest ionnaire\nIn the past, additional question blocks targeting feedback from specific cohorts were included in the SES.\nThe development of th ese ad hoc question blocks is complex and prevents the development of a standard\nreporting dashboard via Rapid. It is proposed that ad hoc blocks are no longer included in the SES, and that\nseparate surveys are developed when additional information is requ ired.\nThe standard SES/PREQ question set will be reviewed on a five -year cycle commencing in Q1, 202 4.\n1.The survey population includes all students currently enrolled in a programme of study. Currently\nenrolled is defined as a student enrolled in one or m ore courses in the current year.\n2.The survey is administered in late September or early October each yea r.\n3.The survey contains a standard question set which has been in place since 2013. Data generated\nfrom this survey is included in the University Annual Report and thus any changes to the question\nset must be carefully reviewed with this in mind.\n4.Quantitati ve data from the SES is shared via a Rapid dashboard. A series of filters extracted from\nSMS in the download allow the filtration of the data set by a series of student demographic and\nprogramme variables.\n5.Detailed qualitative data analysis is undert aken every year in the two SES close -out questions “best\naspects” and “needs improvement”. These comments are coded against an existing Massey coding\nframe work. These reports are shared via the Learning and Teaching Committee.\nProcess related to G raduate Destination Survey\nThe standard GDS question set will be reviewed on a five -year cycle commencing in Q1, 202 5.\n1.The survey population includes graduates fr om all the undergraduate and postgraduate\nqualifications.\n2.The survey is administered in August eac h year to those eligible to graduate in the period from July\nof the previous year to May of the current year. In -council graduates are included in the surv ey\npopulation.\n3.Employment calculations are not adjusted to account for respondents’ availability fo r work. Results\nfor the survey item “How can Massey help to improve graduates’ transition?” are coded frequencies\nof qualitative responses to this open -ended question.\n4.Job titles are adjusted to count only one specific role where respondents may have des cribed their\njob in different ways, e.g., clinical nurse, nurse and registered nurse are all described as registered\nnurse. Nurse practitioner or nurse edu cator are reported separately as they are different from each\nother and from registered nurses. Thus, the total count of job titles included in the summary is based\non these assumptions.\n5.The industry group in which graduates are employed is based on the A ustralia and New Zealand\nIndustrial Codes, 2006, version 1.0 (ANZSIC06v1.0), with the addition of an option for Defence and\nVeterinary medicine employees. Normally these two groups would b e aggregated into higher -level\nMassey Univers ity Policy Guide\nMassey University Student Survey Procedure –Page 4\n© This Procedure is the pr operty of Massey Universitycategories and would not appear in th e list, but for Massey it is appropriate to report them\nseparately.\nProcess related to I nternational Student Barometer\n1.The survey population includes currently enrolled international s tudents, including study abroad and\nexchange students at all years a nd levels of study (but not including students studying offshore at\noverseas campuses, distance learners or students enrolled in English language preparatory courses,\nwho complete separate surveys).\n2.Preparation for the survey is initiated by IGrad. Confirm ation of the survey questions and terminology\nchanges is completed no less than three weeks before the launch of the survey.\n3.IGrad provides the university with a link which is then sent to all eligible students via email.\n4.The survey usually opens in April and closes in June. Reports are shared with the university in\nAugust.\nProcess related to Course Evaluation Surveys\nThe question set used in the Course Evaluation Survey is to be reviewed every 5 years starting in 202 4.\nReviews are be led by the USSSG for ratification by Learning and Teaching Committee.\nCourse evaluation Process\n1.Course evaluations are automatically run on every offering of a course where there are five or more\nstudents enrolled.\n2.In week 9 of semester, course coordinators inform students v ia course Stream sites that the course\nevaluation survey w ill be running the following week and encourage student participation. Guidelines\nfor suitable messaging are provided via the Educator Resource Hub.\n3.Student facing communications promoting engagemen t with the course evaluation survey are posted\nto social m edia and shared via class reps.\n4.In week 10 of semester, the survey tool automatically accesses the class lists from SMS, enables\nsurveys, and sends relevant notifications to all users via email.\n5.A reminder is automatically sent to all students who have not responded, a week before the survey\ncloses.\n6.The survey tool assesses the validity of a survey based on the number of student responses. Valid\nsurveys are those where there are more than 5 responses to 8 or more of the quantitative questions.\nValid surveys prompt the generation of a Student Summary Report and include data which flow into\nthe aggregate reports.\n7.For valid surveys, the course coordinator receives an email requesting comments on the surv ey\nresults. Provision of comments is mandatory. Guidance o n appropriate commentary is provided via\nthe Educator Resource Hub. Course coordinator feedback is included on the student summary\nreport underneath the aggregate percentage agreement of the student s to each quantitative\nquestion.\n8.If a survey is not valid, a full report is still generated and shared with the course coordinator, but\nresponses are not aggregated and no student summary report is generated. Students are notified\nthat there were too few r esponses to generate a valid report.\n9.Course coordinators, lecturers, and student respondents are notified when reports are published.\n10.HoI/S work with their DTL or other college nominee together to review all survey reports for the\ncollege and generate a su mmary report with commentary and remedial actions as requi red for any\nitems showing as ‘red’, for presentation to the relevant college committee. A copy of this report is\nshared for discussion by the University Learning and Teaching Committee.\nMassey Univers ity Policy Guide\nMassey University Student Survey Procedure –Page 5\n© This Procedure is the pr operty of Massey UniversityProcess for requesting ad hoc surveys\n1. Application for the approval of a non-standard university student survey must be made through the \n[non-standard student survey request form1 . Applicants can expect a response within 10 working \ndays.\n2. On completion of the project associated with the survey, applicants must submit a report of their\nfindings to the USSSG. \nAudience:\nAll staff and students.\nRelated policies / procedures / documents:\nMassey University Strategy\nPaerangi Learning and Teaching Plan\nPolicy on the Engagement of Students in the Assurance and Enhancement of Teaching and Learning \nUniversity Student Survey Procedures\nData Management Policy\nDocument Management Control:\nAll procedures should have a footer, which indicates the document number (if any); person who prepared the \ndocument; person/body who authorised the document (owner); the date the document was issued or\nrevised; the date the procedure is to be reviewed and a statement that this procedure is the property of \nMassey University. This information should be set out as follows:\nPrepared by: Director Education Futures \nAuthorised by: Provost\nDate issued:     October 2023\nLast review: October 2023\nNext review:      October 2026\n1Form should include details such as college or HoS approval, alignment with university strategic pri orities, as well as\nquestion set, rationale, details about data collection, management and repo rting, sampling, MUHEC approval etc [this\nwould also be necessary for MUHEC so does not represent substantial additional work.]\n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Staff_Conduct_Policy_PDF_119_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Staff Conduct Policy",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "119 KB",
      "creation_date": "2022-11-21T12:01:00",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220102204+13'00'"
    },
    "content": "© This Policy  is the property  of Massey  University    \n \n \n \n \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nSection  People  and Culture  \nContact  People  and Culture  \nLast Review  November  2022 \nNext  Review  November  2025 \nApproval  SLT 19/06/101  \n \nPurpose:  \n \nThe purpose  of this policy  is to inform all  staff members  of Massey  University  (“the University”)  of the standards  of \nconduct expected of them as university  employees.  \n \nPolicy:  \n \n1. Principles  \n \n1.1 The role of the University  is to serve  its community  in the manner  described  in its Investment  Plan.  \n \n1.2 In accepting  and remaining  in employment  at the University,  a staff member  is considered  to be committed  to \nthe role of the University and the sentiments expressed in the University’s Investment Plan and shall ensure \nthat he/she does not bring the University into disrepute, defined as either wilfully  or deliberately discrediting \nthe University publicly, through his/her conduct, when acting on University business or when claiming \naffiliation with the University.  \n \n1.3 The Univer sity accepts its  responsibilities  as critic and conscience  of society,  fostering  and encouraging  the \ntesting of received truths and the creation of new knowledge, and the dissemination of these views with \nintegrity and respect.  \n \n1.4 The University  firmly  supports,  and seeks  to give effect  to, the exercise  of academic  freedom,  which  includes \nthe rights to teach and assess students in the manner that academic staff consider best promotes learning, \nto undertake research, to question received wisdom, and to pu t forward or state ideas even if they are \nunconventional or unpopular. Academic freedom is circumscribed by the law, by the ethics of a staff \nmember's profession, and by the need to ensure the proper use of, and accountability for, the University's \nresourc es. \n \n1.5 The University  does  not condone  and will not defend  any unlawful  act by a staff member.  \n \n2. Application  \n \n2.1 This policy  shall apply  to all staff members  of the University,  including  casual  staff.  \n \n2.2 Contractors,  adjunct  and visiting  academic  staff and any other  persons  carrying  out work for  the University \nare required to comply with the standards set out in this policy regarding  their employment at the \nUniversity.  \n \nPOLICY  ON STAFF  CONDUCT  \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \nPolicy  on Staff Conduct  – Page  2 \n© This Policy  is the property  of Massey  University   \n  \n \n3. Work  Environment  \n \n3.1 The University endeavours  to provide a safe, healthy, supportive,  and equitable work environment that \nenables  all staff members  to carry  out and meet  their obligations and  responsibilities  as staff members  of the \nUniversity.  \n \n3.2 In line with this, staff members  can expect  the University  to: \n▪ Comply  with all relevant  legislative  and contractual  requirements,  including  employment  agreements, \nand with university  policies, procedures, rules,  and regulations.  \n▪ Inform staff  members  of new or changed  University  policies,  procedures,  rules,  and regulations  \nrelevant to his/her employment.  \n▪ Act honestly,  reasonably  and in good  faith.  \n▪ Take  all reasonable  steps  to provide  a safe and equitable  working  environment.  \n▪ Ensure  that discrimination  and harassment  are not tolerated  within  the working  environment.  \n▪ Provide  an environment  conducive  to the development  and effectiveness  of staff members.  \n▪ Recognise  the need  to balance  work  with external  life and commitments.  \n▪ Supply  the resources  necessary  to fulfil agreed  work  obligations.  \n▪ Work  co-operatively  with staff unions.  \n \n3.3 If a staff member  does  not consider  the University  has met  the expectations  set out in this clause,  he/she \nshould raise the issues he/she is concerned about with his/her manager, or his/her manager’s manager, \neither directly or through his/her representative.  \n \n4. Principal  Standards  of Conduct  \n \n4.1 The University  expects  a staff member  to be, and continue  to be, a fit and proper person  in relation  to his/her \nspecific employment role and responsibilities.  \n \n4.2 In line with this a staff member  is expected  to carry  out his/her  duties,  at all times: - \n \n4.2.1  Diligently  \na) By being  present  at work  as required,  defined  as: \n▪ In the case  of General  staff,  being  absent  only with the approval  of his/her  manager.  \n▪ In the case  of Academic  staff,  ensuring  that his/her  manager  is informed  of his/her  whereabouts when \nhe/she are deemed to be working (this includes when working from home ). \n▪ In the case  of all staff,  ensuring  any leave  is recorded  and approved  before  being  taken.  \nb) By maintaining  satisfactory  standards  of work and  a standard  of personal  conduct  appropriate  to his/her \nrole and responsibilities.  \nc) By taking  responsibility  to read and understand  University  policies,  procedures,  rules,  and \nregulations relevant to his/her employment.  \nd) By complying  with lawful  and reasonable  management  instructions  and University  policies,  procedures, \nrules,  and regulations.  \ne) By not being  impaired  by alcohol  or any prohibited  substances  during  work hours  or in a university  vehicle; \nor consuming or being in possession of prohibited substances while on university  premises, i n university  \nvehicles or at university  functions.  \n \n4.2.2  In Accordance  with the Law \na) By neither  using,  nor allowing  the use of university  property, resources,  or funds for  unauthorised  and/or \nunlawful purposes.  \nb) By complying  with the terms  and conditions  of his/her  employment  agreement.  \nc) By ensuring  that his/her actions or  inactions  (including  written  or oral communications)  do not result  in harm \nto themselves or to others.  \nd) By ensuring  that he/she  does  not act in a way that is discriminatory,  violent,  abusive,  harmful,  or \nthreatening to others in the workplace.  \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \nPolicy  on Staff Conduct  – Page  3 \n© This Policy  is the property  of Massey  University   \n  \n \n4.2.3  In Good  Faith  \na) By acting  honestly,  fairly,  and reasonably  in all dealings  with managers,  colleagues,  staff,  and students.  \nb) By maintaining  the standards  of confidentiality  required  for his/her  position.  \nc) By maintaining  honest  and true records.  \nd) By not taking  advantage  of universit y systems,  processes  and/or  property  for personal  gain or use. \n \n4.2.4  In accordance  with the Commonly  Accepted  Standards  of the University  and for his/her  Profession  \na) By maintaining  all qualifications  (including  registration  and annual  practicing  certificates)  necessary  for the \nperformance of his/her duties.  \nb) By ensuring  his/her  actions  and behaviour  are always  ethical  and professional.  \nc) By declaring  all conflicts of  interest  and ensuring  that any relationships  (whether formed  or conducted  in the \nworkplace or outside the workplace) do not compromise the professional standards expected of him/ her. \nd) By respecting  the rights,  interests  and diversity  of colleag ues and students,  and working  harmoniously  and \ncourteously with them in mana -enhancing ways.  \n \n5. When  standards  are not met \n \n5.1 The university recognises that the majority of  staff members maintain personal standards of conduct and  \nwork performance that exceed those laid out above (clauses 4.1 and 4.2). Nevertheless, where the university \nhas cause to believe that a staff member has fallen below these standards the university m ay, depending on \ngravity,  regard  the staff member’s  actions  (or lack of  them)  or behaviour,  as misconduct  or serious  misconduct \nand invoke formal disciplinary procedures in accordance with the university’s policies and the relevant \nemployment agreement. Fo r those staff joined to the Massey  University  Collective Employment Agreement or \nthe Massey University Individual Employment Agreement, these procedures are set out in clause 10.2.  \n \n5.2 The university  is more likely to regard a failure to meet expected standar ds as serious ( i.e., serious \nmisconduct) if it is persistent, wilful, abusive, harmful, dangerous, dishonest,  or repeated; damages the \nUniversity’s  reputation;  or prevents  the staff member  or other  staff members  from carrying  out their duties \neffectively.  \n \n5.3 Wherever  a staff member  acts in a way that causes  concern  for the university  and that action  or behaviour is \nnot specifically set out under the principal standards of conduct in clause 4 of this policy, but is of a similar \nnature or seriousne ss, the University may invoke the formal disciplinary procedures in the same way as if it \nhad been a principal standard of conduct that had been breached.  \n \n6. Implementation  \n \n6.1 All existing  staff members  are covered  by this policy.  \n \n6.2 All new staff members will be provided with a copy  of this policy  along with their offer of employment and will \nbe required  to confirm they  have  read and understood  the policy  and agree  to comply  with it as a condition  of \nemployment.  \n \nAudience:  \n \nAll University  staffs  \n \nRelevant  legislation:  \n \nHealth  and Safety  at Work  Act 2015 \nHuman Rights Act 1993 \nEmployment Relations Act 2000  \nEducation  Act 1989  and its Amendment  \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \nPolicy  on Staff Conduct  – Page  4 \n© This Policy  is the property  of Massey  University   \n  \n \nLegal  compliance:  \n \nThe H ealth and Safety at Work Act 2015 requires Massey University to ensure that, as far as reasonably practicable, \nthe health and safety of workers and of other persons is not put at risk from work carried out by Massey University \n(Section 36).  Massey Uni versity also has a duty to eliminate risks to health and safety so far as is reasonably \npracticable, and if it is not able to eliminate risks to health and safety, to minimise those risks as far as is reasonably \npracticable (Section 30).  \n \nThe Human  Rights  Act 1993  prohibits  Massey  University  and its employees  from discriminating  against  any employee, \njob applicant or contractor on the grounds of sex,  marital status, religious belief, colour, race, ethnic or national origin, \ndisability, age, political opinio n, employment status, family status or sexual orientation.  \n \nThe Employment  Relations  Act 2000  requires  Massey  University  to comply  with Part 9 - Personal  grievances,  disputes, \nand enforcement and Part 10 - Institutions and abide by the criteria set out in this Act.  \n \nThe Education  Act 1989  requires Massey  University  to recognise  and exercise  academic  freedom,  which  includes  the \nrights to teach and assess students in the manner that academic staff consider best promotes learning, to undertake \nresearch,  to question  received wisdom and  to put forward  or state  ideas  even  if they  are unconventional  or unpopular \n(Part 14, Section 161).  \n \nRelated  procedures  / documents:  \n \nMassey University Collective and Individual Employment Agreements  \nAll other  Massey  University  Policies,  Procedures,  Rules,  and \nRegulations  \n \nDocument  Management  Control:  \n \nPrepared  by:  Employment  Relations  Advisor  \nAuthorised  by: Deputy  Vice-Chancellor  – University Services   \nApproved by:  SLT 19/06/101  \nDate issued:    February 2011  \nLast review:   November  2022  \nNext review:    Nove mber  2025 \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Student_Refund_Procedures_PDF_223_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Student Refund Procedures PDF 223 KB",
      "policy_type": "Procedure",
      "file_size": "223 KB",
      "creation_date": "2022-05-19T12:02:09",
      "modification_date": "D:20220519122926+12'00'"
    },
    "content": "                                           Massey University Policy Guide  \n \nSTUDENT REFUND PROCEDURES  \n \n \n IN CONFIDENCE   \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \nTitle:  \n \nStudent Refund Procedures  \nPurpose:  \nThe purpose of these procedures is to outline the specific factors to be taken into account when processing refunds of \nfees paid by students or on behalf of students.  \nProcedures:   \nWhere a staff member is referred a student withdrawal or request for fee ref und, they must incorporate the following \nfactors into their assessment of funds due:  \n \nFee categories for Refund  \nThe quantum of Refund will depend on the following factors:  \n \n▪ the student type (e.g. International/ New Zealand Domestic)  \n \nBoth New Zealand (domestic) and International students will normally qualify for a full refund of tuition fees paid if their \nwithdrawal is prior to the date for Withdrawal without Financial Penalty or 1 7% of an enrolment period (as defined by \nthe course st art and end dates), International students may be charged the International Administration Fee  if they \nwithdraw from all their courses in an Academic Year.  \n \nNew International students who meet the criteria above, but withdraw after Receipt of Payment and prior to \ncompleting 1 7 of their first enrolment period will be charged the International Administration Fee  if they withdraw from \nall their courses in an Academic Year.  \n \nInternational Students who change their status to Domestic upon being awarded NZPR may apply to have the \ndifference between the relevant international fee and domestic fee refunded, provided they qualified for such change \n(evidenced by the date of award in  their passport) prior to the start of study date  for the paper for which they are \napplying for the refund. Verified evidence of the award must be presented to Student Registry  staff prior to the \ncompletion of the relevant enrolment period for which the re fund is requested.  \n \nInternational student refunds are managed by Student Registry . This includes the refund of StudentSafe insurance \nbased on the criteria outlined in the International Student Insurance – StudentSafe section below.  \n• the tuition fee type (International or Domestic)  \n \nRefunds for new International students paying domestic tuition fees, e.g. those paying Study Abroad Fees or \ninternational students with diplomatic status, will remain subject to the International Administr ation Fee  where the \nstudent withdraws from all their courses in the Academic Year of their enrolment prior to completing 1 7% of their first Section  Student Registry  \nContact  February 2022  \nLast Review   February 2025  \nNext Review  SLT  \nApproval  Student Registry  \n \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nStudent Refund Procedures  – Page 2 \n \n \n \n IN CONFIDENCE  enrolment period. Australian citizens who are studying in New Zealand are classified as domestic students and are \ntherefore subject to the domestic student withdrawal fee.   \n \n \nOutbound exchange students are subject to Massey’s standard refund policy. Inbound Exchange students are subject \nto the agreement with the Exchange partner.  \n \nNew Zealand students paying Internati onal Fees, such as NZ Permanent Residents studying overseas, will be eligible \nfor a full refund of tuition fees should they meet the refund criteria.  \n \n• the fee category (e.g. compulsory non -tuition fee)  \n \nSome fees such as the International Administration Fee (if charged) are non -refundable, and the current status of all \nfees should be checked prior to a refund being made.  \n \nOther compulsory non -tuition fees are generally refundable if withdrawal is prior to the date of withdrawal without \nfinancial penalty, or 1 7% of the enrolment period, in any enrolment period, and non -refundable for withdrawals after \nthis date. Some Compulsory non -tuition fees recalculate and become partially refundable if a change in enrolment \nreduces the course load.  \n \n• International Student Insurance – StudentSafe  \n \nInternational Student Insurance purchased through Massey University, is non -refundable for withdrawals prior to the \ndate for withdrawal without financial penalty if a claim has been made. If no claim has been made and the student has \ntravelled to New Zealand, then the refund will be pro -rated based on the time spent in New Zealand.  \n \nA withdrawal after the date of withdrawal without financial penalty will also render the insurance premium non -\nrefundable.  \n \n \n• any obligations made to third parties on the student’s behalf  \n \nAny commission paid to a Recruitment Agent in good faith by Massey University in relation to a student’s study \nyear/semester/term, will be deducted from the amount of any refund payable to a stud ent who applies to withdraw for \nthat period of study.  \n \nFee Appeal Process  \nOnce the date for withdrawal without financial penalty for each enrolment period has passed, any refund requests will \nonly be considered under the Fee Appeal process.  \n \nWhere a programme does not proceed, or there is evidence that the programme was misrepr esented by Massey or its \nagents, fees will be considered for waiver under the Fee Appeal process.  \n \nInternational students whose enrolment has been cancelled due to their student visas expiring following the date for \nwithdrawal without financial penalty, an d who fail to obtain the renewal of the appropriate student visa, will not be  \n \neligible for a fee refund and will not be considered under the Fee Appeal process.  \n \nNew international students who do not hold a visa should not be enrolled. In the event that a student has enrolled and \npaid fees and does not obtain a visa then that student will be withdrawn from papers without financial or academic \npenalty (PWMR) and a refund will be granted.  \n \n \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nStudent Refund Procedures  – Page 3 \n \n \n \n IN CONFIDENCE  Mode of Refund  \nWhere tuition fees have been paid by student loan or scholarship and the University is party to such agreement (e.g. \nStudylink, Saudi Arabian Government Scholarship) the refund will be made directly to the third party involved, or in a \nmanner directed by the specific agreement.  \n \nWhere tuition fees h ave been invoiced to a third party the refund will be made via credit note to the debtor concerned.  \n \nWhere tuition fees have been paid by credit card, wherever possible the refund will be made to the credit card \nconcerned.  \n \nStudents under the age of 18 w ill be required to show evidence of parental/guardian permission for withdrawal and/or \nrefund prior to a refund being made to the student.  \n \nInternational student refunds will be made to a bank account in the student’s name in their home country unless the  \namount is inconsequential, the student is still enrolled as an internal student, or they provide evidence of having \nobtained a suitable visa/permit to remain in New Zealand long term (other than a visitor visa/permit). If for exceptional \ncircumstances the  refund cannot be paid into the bank account from the home country, then the student will be asked \nto complete a statutory declaration to have the refund paid into a New Zealand bank account.  \n \nInternational students seeking to transfer to another New Zeala nd tertiary institution will have their refund transferred \nto the institution concerned on evidence of an Offer of Place and appropriate student visa/ permit.  \n \nInternational students who have paid their fees from their home country, but have transferred m ore than what is \nrequired to cover their tuition, non -tuition, and living expenses, and apply to have the remaining balance refunded, will \nhave that balance refunded back to their home country bank account (or under exceptional circumstances to a New \nZeala nd bank account if a home country bank account is not feasible).   \n \nMore detailed information about International student refunds are outlined on a checklist – Appendix one . \n \nIn all other cases the refund will be made to a New Zealand bank account in the n ame of the student who is registered \nfor tuition.  \n \nWhere a programme or course is unable to proceed due to destruction or damage to buildings, plant and equipment \nor other tangible assets, fees will be refunded to the students affected from insurance proc eeds. In this case the fee \nrefund would be covered by the University's Industrial Special Risks Insurance policy and be classified as a \nconsequential loss. Under such conditions the University may be unable to meet normal timeframes for Fee refunds.  \nDefini tions:  \nNew Zealand Student:  \n• A New Zealand citizen, which includes citizens of the Cook Island, Niue and Tokelau  \n• A New Zealand permanent resident currently living in New Zealand  \n• An Australian citizen currently living in New Zealand  \n• An Australian permanent resident who has a returning resident’s visa and is currently living in New Zealand  \n \nInternational Student:  \nAll other students. The following categories of International stude nt may still be eligible to pay domestic fees \n(Domestic tuition type):  \n• Certain exchange students  \n• Certain dependants of diplomatic personnel  \n \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nStudent Refund Procedures  – Page 4 \n \n \n \n IN CONFIDENCE  • A learner with refugee status who is required to undertake a prescribed course of study or training to satisfy \nresidency requirements  \n• An international student enrolling in a recognised doctor of philosophy (PhD) programme in a New Zealand \nuniversity from 19 April 2005 and supervised by a leading New Zealand university researcher.  \n \nEnrolment Period:  \n• Is defined by c ourse start and end dates  \n \nAudience:  \nAll students and staff.  \nRelated procedures / documents:  \nUniversity fee payment regulations disclosed in the University Calendar.  \nDelegations Document  \nAviation Practicum Policy  \nStudent Refund and Fee Protection Policy  \nAcademic Grievance Procedures  \nDocument Management Control:  \nPrepared by: Head of Student Registry  \nAuthorised by: SLT \nDate issued:  \nLast review:  \nNext review:  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Tax_Risk_Management_Policy_PDF_93_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Treasury Policy",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "93 KB",
      "author": "jmlochhe",
      "creation_date": "2022-11-02T08:04:06",
      "modification_date": "D:20221102084658+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " Massey University Policy Guide   \n \nTAX RISK MANAGEMENT  POLICY  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \n \nIntroduction :  \nMassey University (including its owned  New Zealand subsidiaries) is exempt from New Zealand income tax. However, \nMassey University is registered for GST, is liable for FBT and withholding taxes, and must deduct employment -related \ntaxes and other lev ies (such as PAYE, ACC levies and KiwiSaver deductions). In New Zealand, the tax risk focus is \nprimarily these operational tax types.  \n \nNotwithstanding Massey University’s New Zealand income tax exemption, it may have income tax (and operational tax) \nobligations in overseas jurisdictions due to operations or employee presence in those countries and regions. Tax risk \nmay also arise in relat ion to ventures entered  with non -tax exempt third parties, both in New Zealand and overseas .  \nPurpose:   \nThe purpose of this policy is to document Massey University ’s expectation of how tax and tax risks should be managed \nwithin Massey University and to guide management as to what level of tax risk is acceptable.  \nPolicy:  \nResponsibility for tax governance monitoring has been delegated by the Council to the Finance and Assurance \nCommittee FAC).  \n \nThe Council, through FAC, has set the following overarchin g objectives fo r Massey University  with respect to tax:  \n \n• Massey University should maintain a low appetite to tax risk ; any exposure to tax underpayment and Reporting \nRisk and Tax Reputation Risk should be minimised. Management responsible for the tax function should act in \naccordance with this approach to effectively manage overall tax risk .  \n• Ensuring Massey University complies with all tax l aws applicable to its activities in all relevant jurisdictions it \noperates or has a presence in.  \n• Ensuring there is appropriate engagement at all levels of the organisation to ensure that tax risk is effectively \nmanaged and reported on.  \n• Ensuring that exte rnal tax advisor assistance is sought, where applicable, to ensure potential tax risks are well \nunderstood, and any tax positions that will be taken are robustly supportable and will not damage the \norganisation’s reputation with tax authorities or the wide r public.  \n• There is regular reporting on tax matters both within the university and to the FAC. The scope and frequency \nof such reporting is detailed in this policy document.  \n \nThe Tax Risk Management Framework contains details as to how tax risk is to be managed.  Section  Finance   \nContact  Chief Financial Officer  \nLast Review  September 2022  \nNext Review  September 2025  \nApproval  C22/80  \nEffective date  22 September 2022  \n Tax Risk Management – Page 2 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \nThe Tax Risk Management Framework must be reviewed every three years by FAC, with input from Management . Any \nchanges to Massey University’s broader risk management fr amework, including due to changes in its operations (if \nany), and changes to legislative requirements, which have an impact on tax should be incorporated into this framework.  \n \nImplementation of the Tax Risk Management Framework  is the responsibility of the DVC University Services (DVC US), \nand all Taxation functions must operate in accordance with the approved framework.  \n \nAudience : \nAll staff  \nRelevant Legislation  and Legal Compliance : \nIncome Tax Act 2007  \nGoods and Services Act 1985  \nCrown Entities Act 2004  \nEducation and Training Act 2020  \nPublic Finance Act 1989  \n \nThe Tax Risk Management  Policy of the university must be prepared, interpreted,  and acted upon in compliance with \nthe above legislation . \n \nRelated Procedures  and Documents : \nTax Risk Management  Framework  \nDelegations of Authority Policy  \nTax Manual  \nDocument Managemen t Control:  \nPrepared by:   Chief Financial Officer  \nAuthorised by:    DVC U S \nApproved by:  Council  \nDate issued:  22 September 20 22  \nLast review:   September 2022  \nNext review:  September 2025  \n \n \n \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Qualification_Review_Policy_PDF_60_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Qualification Review Procedures",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "60 KB",
      "creation_date": "2024-07-01T12:00:04",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220141519+13'00'"
    },
    "content": "  \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n \n \n \n \nQUALIFICATION REVIEW PROCEDURES  \nSection  Academic  \nContact  Academic Policy and Regulations  Unit \nLast Review  October  2014 \nNext  Review  October  2017 \nApproval  AB14/109  \n \n \nContents  \n Page  \n1. Introduction  1 \n2. Overview of Qualification Review Procedures  2 \n2.1 Overview Summary (Table 1)  2 \n3. Review Planning (Stage 1)  3 \n3.1 Review Schedule  3 \n3.1.1  Exemption from a Qualification Review  3 \n3.2 Resourcing  3 \n3.3 Information Generation  3 \n3.4 Review Participation  3 \n3.5 Self-Review  4 \n3.6 Identifying a Review Convenor and Review Panel  4 \n3.6.1 Composition and Functions of a Review Panel  (Table 2)  5 \n4. Review Implementation (Stage 2)  5 \n4.1 Staff Preparation  5 \n4.2 Terms of Reference  5 \n4.2.1  Terms of Reference Details (Table 3)  6 \n4.3 Writing the Review Report  6 \n5. Monitoring and Improvement (Stage 3)  7 \n5.1 Consideration of the Review Report  7 \n5.2 Review Report Response  7 \n5.3 Progress Toward Implementation  7 \nAppendix 1 :  List of Review Documents  9 \nAppendix 2:  Qualification Review Report Template  10 \n \n \n \n1. Introduction  \n \nQualification  reviews  are a key element  of the University’s  quality  assurance  and enhancement  framework  which  \nprovide  a basis  for evaluation  of an entire  qualification,  or group  of related  qualifications  based  upon engagement  \nwith a variety of individuals, groups  and units, and evidence from multiple sources.  \n \nReviews  of university  qualifications  are complex  and there  will always  be some  degree  of subjectivity  when  it comes  \nto judgements  of acceptability  and quality.  The Massey  University  Qualification  Review  Procedures  seek  to \nacknowledge  the complexity  of qualification  evaluation  by providing  flexibility  in some  areas  and standards  to ensure  \nconsistency  in others.  Fundamentally,  the success  of any qualification  review  depends  upon  the knowledge  and \nexperience of those  entrusted with the task.  \n \n \n \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \nQualification  Review  Procedures  – Page  2  \n \nThese  procedures  take into account the following considerations  relating to qualification reviews at Massey  University:  \n \n• qualifications  that require  review  for professional  accreditation  and/or  approval  may be eligible  for exclusion  from \nthe Massey  University  Qualification  Review  Procedures  if it can be demonstrated  that the external  review  \nprocedures  are equivalent  (refer  Section  2.1.1). Applications  for exclusion  must  be approved  by the Academic  \nPolicy & Regulations Unit (APRU) on behalf of the Assistant Vice -Chancellor  with portfolio responsibility for \nAcademic matters . \n• in addition  to a Massey  University  Qualification  Review,  new qualifications  are subject  to a Graduating  Year \nReview  in accordance  with the Universities  New Zealand  Committee  on University  Academic  Programmes  \n(CUAP) Academic Programmes Handbook . Where  a qualification is reasonably well established, it may be \nappropriate to combine the Graduating Year Review and the Qualification Review. In these cases  a \nsingle  panel  (as per the Qualification  Review  Procedures  (Section  2.6) which  comprise s staff members  \noutside  the qualification  to be reviewed)  may be constituted  to undertake  a review  which  meets  both the \nGraduating  Year Review  and Qualification  Review  requirements.  In such instances  the panel  will prepare  a \nGraduating  Review  Report  (as per CUAP requirements)  as well as a Qualification  Review  Report.  \n \n \n2. Overview of Qualification Review  Procedures  \n \nThe Qualification  Review  Process  can be divided  into three  stages  – Planning,  Implementation  and Monitoring  / \nImprovement which are described  in these Procedures  according to the groupings that appear in Table  1. \n \n2.1 Overview  Summary  \n \nTable 1:  Procedures Section  Number  Responsibility  \nStage 1:   \nPlanning  3.1 Review  Schedule  APRU in consultation  with senior  College  \nofficers  \n3.2 Resourcing  APRU  \n3.3 Information generation  \n APRU in consultation  with Colleges  and the \nStudent Evaluation and  Engagement  Unit \n3.4 Self-Review  College with assistance from APRU  \n3.5 Identifying  a Review  Convener  and \nReview Panel  College/s in conjunction with APRU  \nStage 2:   \nImplementation  4.1 Staff preparation  College/s in conjunction with APRU  \n4.2 Terms of  Reference  Overview  APRU and College/s  \n4.3 Writing  the Review Report  Review  Panel  \nStage 3:   \nMonitoring and  \nImprovement  5.1 Consideration of the Review  Report  AVC with portfolio responsibility for \nAcademic matters , Academic  Committee,  \nCollege  Boards , Colleges  \n5.2 Review Report response – includes \naction plan to address the \nrecommendations  from the Report.  College  Boards  in consultation with PVCs  \nand the College  Executive  \n5.3 Monitoring of Progress Toward  \nImplementation  of Action Plan  College  Boards  and Academic  Committee  \n \n  \n \n \n \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \nQualification  Review  Procedures  – Page  3  \n3. Review  Planning  (Stage 1)  \n \n3.1 Review  Schedule  \n \nThe review  schedule is  developed by the Academic Policy and Regulations Unit (APRU)  and the College s (in \nconsultation with other  College s as appropriate ). Every qualification  offered  by Massey University  will be formally  \nreviewed via the qualifications  review  process  (or equivalent review  approved  via the exemption process) at least once \nevery seven years.  \n \nThere  may be good  academic reasons to group reviews in the case of qualifications and specialisations that have a \ncommon structure, overlap, or share significant  resources.  The decision to proceed with a grouped review  should be \nmade at the College  level and advised to APRU . Suites of qualifications should normally be reviewed together.  \n \n3.1.1 Exemption from a Qualification Review  \nIn the event that a qualification  is regularly reviewed  and accredited by a professional body, Colleges  may apply \nfor an exemption from the Massey University  Qualifications  Review . To be considered for an exemption,  the PVC \nor their nominee must submit a brief memorandum to APRU,  stating  the reasons for exemption.  In all cases,  a \ncopy of  the existing external body procedures  for review  and accreditation must  be attached . In some cases it may \nbe beneficial to conduct a QR in addition to the accreditation process . This is possible and Colleges should contact \nthe QR Administrator to add this to the Review Schedule.  \n \n3.2 Resourcing  \n \nFinancial r esources for the qualification reviews  are set aside as  part of the budget of the  AVC with portfolio responsibility \nfor Academic matters . Budgeting  procedures  are reviewed  on an ongoing  basis . APRU provides organisational  \nresources . Panel Convenors assign areas of interest from the ToR to Panel members who are then  responsible for \nnotetaking  and writing up a record of panel deliberations that wi ll form the review report . Staff associated with the \nqualifications being reviewed are invited to provide a confidential written submission and/or meet with the panel . \nQualification Coordinators are responsible for preparing the self -review (see section 3.4 below).  \n \n3.3 Information Generation  \n \nAPRU will consult with the relevant Pro Vice-Chancellor’s Office(s)  and/or Qualification Coordinator (or equivalent)  in \norder to identify any specific information /documentation  to include  in the Review . Information  and statistics relevant to \nthe qualifications  under review  are compiled and confidential s ubmissions from stakeholders  (staff, students,  graduates  \nand other interested individuals and groups, for example professional  bodies  and employers) are  sought . The panel also \nhas available to it relevant Massey University policies, procedures,  and strategies.  \n \nA summary of information  that is normally collated for consideration  during the review is provided in Appendix 1. The \nQualification Review Administrator  will distribute the collated information to the panel members prior to the panel  meeting . \nThe information, excluding confidential submissions, is also sent to the College/s.  \n \nDuring the course of the review, members of the review  panel will have access to a great deal  of information  about a \nparticular qualification,  some of which may be sensitive . The Review  Panel  is expected to treat as confidential  any \npersonal or  commercially sensitive material provided to it, including  individual  submissions from staff, students,  or \nexternal communities of interest.  \n \n \n3.4 Review Participation  \n \nAll staff teaching into the qualification are encouraged  to provide a confidential written submission to the Panel . \nInvitations for submissions will also be extended to other staff with an interest in the qualification . Submissions may be \nsent by individuals or groups.  \n \nWhere the qualification has relatively small numbers of teaching staff all these staff will be invited to meet with the panel . \n \n \n \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \nQualification  Review  Procedures  – Page  4  \nWhere the qualification has a large teaching staff, key and/or senior staff and qualification/ specialisation coordinators \nwill be invited to meet with the Panel . Other staff as appropriate (or their nominees) are also invited to meet with the \nPanel . This includes the Pro Vice -Chancellor/s, senior College members, AVC Maori & Pasifika, administrative staff, \nmarketing/external relations, international, library, centre for teaching and learning and central services . Staff may meet \nwith the Panel individually or in groups.  \n \nRecent and current students and recent graduates will also be invited to provide a written submission . The Qualification \nReview Administrator liaises with the qualification coordinator to identify a range of students to meet with the Panel.  \n \nIndustry/employer participation is important . Colleges will be consulted in order to identify appropriate groups and \nindividuals to invite to either provide a submission or meet with the Panel . These groups might include employers of our \ngraduates, organisations involved in placement/internships, members of advisory boards, guest lecturers/speakers and \nindustry organisations.  \n \n3.5 Self-Review  \n \nA process of self -review  in relation to the Review  Terms of Reference  (see Section  4.2) is includ ed in the Qualification \nReview p rocess . The self -review  is run by the College hosting  the qualification with assistance  and guidance  provided \nby APRU . Appropriate information, documents and statistical data will be provided by APRU in a similar fashion to that \nprovided for the QR. A QR Guide for Self -reviews is available to assist Colleges in conducting the self -review.  \n \nThe self -review  has two purposes:  (1)  to assess the impact of the actions initiated to address the recommendations \nfrom the previous Qualification Review offering a commentary as to the effectiveness of the actions, and providing an \nupdate on implementation ; and (2)  to evaluate the qualification in preparation for the next QR ,  Colleges are encourage d \nto self -identify areas for improvements that can be presented to the QR Panel with comments on how the College plans \nto rectify or support any identified pro blem areas or strengthen any areas of good practice.   Where a qualification is \nnew, has not had a QR conducted before, or the previous QR is out of date, the self -review will focus on looking forward \nand be used as a starting point for the next QR.  \n \nColleges should look critically at the qualification and specialisations taking account of the QR ToR . The self -review \nmay recommend further action to be taken in relation to the previous QR findings and / or make new recommendations \nfor supplementing the previous actions . It should also where appropriate consider areas that need improvement or \nrefinement and make suggestions to address these areas . In this way the QR Panel has the opportunity to gain a better \nunderstanding of the qualification and the College’s vision for that qualification . The self -review report will be include d \nin the QR documentation,  and the Review Panel can be expected to be guided by the self -review as providing a direction \nfrom the College.  \n \nThe self-review comes in year five of the seven -year Qualification Review cycle : \nQualification Review conducted  (Year 1)  \nSix months after the Review Report is released the College responds to the Report.  \nOne year after the release of the Review Report an update on action taken is provided.  \nColleges progress action plan  \nSelf-review is conducted five years after the previous  QR and two years prior to the next QR.  \nFurther information on conducting a self -review can be obtained through APRU.  \n \n \n3.6 Identifying a Review  Conven or and Review Panel  \n \nThe Qualification Review Administrator from APRU coordinates the identification of the Review Convenor and Panel \nmembers . The Qualification Coordinator and/or senior College staff provide nominations for each position on the panel .  \n \nThe proposed  Review  Panel  is approved  by the Pro Vice-Chancellor(s)  of the relevant  College(s)  and panel  members  \nshould  include  people  with relevant  experience  and expertise . The number  of panel  members  will vary depending  \nupon  the size of the review,  the availability  of panel members , the number of students in the qualification/s under \nreview  and the subject  area. As a guideline,  the composition  of a panel  is outlined  in Table  2, but it is accepted that \na review panel with a different  composition may be appointed  where this is appropriate.  \n \n \n \n \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \nQualification  Review  Procedures  – Page  5  \n 3.6.1 Table 2:   Composition and Functions of  a Review  Panel  \n \nPosition  Description  Function  \nConvener  Normally a staff member (current or \nrecently retired) from outside of the  \nqualification(s)  to be reviewed .  Chairs the Review and oversees writing  \nthe Review  Report.  \nOverseas  \nRepresentative  Normally a senior staff member of an  \noverseas  university, related \nprofessional  group,  or business.  Representation on panels will vary \naccording to the features  and context of  \nthe qualification(s)  to be reviewed . For \nexample, for a qualification  seen as  \nhaving  potential to attract international \nenrolments,  the inclusion of an \noverseas  representative  may be \nimportant  for benchmarking  purposes.  \nReviews of qualifications  preparing \ngraduates  for entry into  professional  \npractice are likely to include  \nrepresentation from the relevant  \nprofessional  group . Graduate \nrepresentation provide s an important \nstudent/stakeholder perspective . \n \nThe Review  Panel  members are \nexpected  to assist the Convener in  \ndrafting  the Review Report.  Following  \nreceipt of  information pertinent to the \nqualification  review, panel  members \nmay request  additional information.  External NZ  \nRepresentatives(s)  Normally a staff member from another \nNZ university and/or a senior  member  \nof a related  professional group  or \nbusiness.  \nInternal Representatives  Staff members  from Massey  \nUniversity  and outside the qualification  \nunder review.  Consideration  should \nalso be given to the appropriateness \nof a Māori  representative on the \nReview Panel.  \nStudent  Representative s Normally one or two recent graduate s \nor senior students  of the qualification.  \nAdministrator  Qualification Review Administrator  The Qualification Review Administrator  \nprovides all organisational  support for \nthe review .  \n \n \n4. Review  Implementation  (Stage 2)  \n \n4.1 Staff  Preparation  \n \nThe Qualification Review Administrator provides staff participating in the review  (eg. staff teaching in the qualification)  \nwith the  appropriate information . This includes the Terms of Reference, Panel membership information and access to \nthe review documentation (excluding confidential submissions) . An induction session is usually held at the beginning of \nthe year for staff directly involved in a QR. A QR Quick Guide for Staff is available for staff participating in a Review.  \n \n4.2 Terms  of Reference  \n \nA qualification  review  involves  an examination  of numerous  aspects  of qualification  management  and delivery  that \ninteract  and contribute  to the overall  quality  and acceptability  of the qualification,  and these are reflected in the Review \nTerms of Reference . Not all of the considerations under the ToR may apply to all qualifications . Colleges may wish to \ninclude additional ToR that are specific to the qualification/s under review . These  Broad  Areas,  Considerations  and their \nassociated  information  requirements  are summarised in Table  3. \n  \n \n \n \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \nQualification  Review  Procedures  – Page  6  \n \n 4.2.1  Table 3:  Terms  of Reference  Details  \n \nBroad  Area  Considerations  \nQualification Objectives  1. Consistency with University Policy  \n2. Consistency with University and  College  Strategic  Plans  \n3. Acceptability to communities of interest  including academic, industrial , \npublic sector, non -profit and professional  communities  \nQualification Structure and \nManagement  4. Relevance and appropriateness of  qualification  regulations  \n5. Consideration of the ways in which  curriculum design and papers  contribute  \nto the overall qualification  objectives  and Graduate Profile  \n6. Appropriateness of admission procedures   \n7. Appropriateness of e nrolment procedures  \n8. Procedures for equivalence  \n9. Links to other qualifications and  disciplines  \n10. Processes to support continuous  improvement.  \n11. Marketing and recruitment  \n12. Existing  plans for future  development  \nTeaching, Learning and \nAssessment  13. Physical  and IT resources   \n14. Library  resources and information literacy development  \n15. Staff numbers, qualifications, expertise,  and staff development  \n16. Interdependence of research and  teaching  \n17. Research supervision and  research  profile (for  postgraduate  qualifications  \nin particular)  \n18. Student  assessment including moderation  procedures.  \n19. Student retention, progression , completion,  and employability  \n20. Student  support  \n21. Health and safety in terms of qualification  content and delivery . \n(Consideration should be given to physical, cultural,  and psychological \nfactors.)  \nOverarching  \nConsiderations  22. Application of Treaty of Waitangi  principles  \n23. Enables E quity of  educational  opportunity  \n24. Internationalisation  \n \n4.3 Writing the Review  Report  \n \nThe Review Panel is responsible for writing the Report.  The Report is set out under headings aligned with the Terms \nof Reference and comments under each of these are made as appropriate to the qualifications under review . The Panel \nis expected to put forward recommendation’s  commendation s and observations .  \n \nRecommendations provide specific targeted guidance to the College in areas the panel has identified as being \nappropriate for improvement . The recommendations might specify particular activities for the College to undertake or \nthey might identify the area and the College determines the activity that will address the recommendation.  \n \n \nCommendations are areas of good practice the Panel has observed through the Review . Commendations can relate to \nany facet of the qualification objectives, management, structure, teaching, learning or overarching considerations . Areas \nof good practice will be shared with a wider university audience.  \n \nObservations are areas the Panel has identified that further investigation and action might support the development of \nthe qualification or that include issues that should be addressed at a university -wide level . Specific activities are not \nexpected to be detailed under observations . These are suggestions for exploration by the College and/or University of \nidentified matters.  \n \n \n \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \nQualification  Review  Procedures  – Page  7  \nThe Review  Report is standardi sed in order to increase comparability across the University  offerings and facilitate  the \nimplementation of the recommendations.  The factual details for the qualification/s are provided to the Panel in the \nReport template by APRU as part of the initial documentation . The template  for the Review  Report is  provided in \nAppendix 2 of these  procedures.  \n \nThe timeframe for completion of the Review Report is within three months following the conclusion of the Review.  \n \nA QR Quick Guide for Review Panel Members is available to provide guidance to panels in conducting a QR.  \n \n5. Monitoring and  Improvement  (Stage 3) 2 \n \n5.1 Consideration of the Review  Report  \n \nThe Draft  Review  Report  is submitted  to the AVC ( A, R & E ) and relevant  PVC(s)  for comment  on factual accuracy . \nAppropriate  staff within  the qualification  may be consulted at this point . Appropriate  revisions  are made  by the Review  \nConvenor  in consultation  with the Review  Panel, and the Final Report is submitted to APRU . \n \nAPRU  submits  the report  to Academic  Committee  (Part  II) for noting,  brief comment,  and referral  to the relevant  PVC(s)  \nand College Board(s) . Colleges are responsible for disseminating the report to appropriate staff within the College.  \n \n5.2 Review Report Response   \n \nThe Review  Report  is considered  by the relevant  College  Board(s)  which  will be responsible  for overseeing and \nmonitoring  progress towards the implementation of  the recommendations  as appropriate.  \n \nWhere  additional  resources  are required  for implementation  of the recommendations,  implementation  will be \ndependent  on the qualification’s  alignment  with the College  Strategic  and University  Investment  Plans.  Resource  \nallocation  will be at the discretion  of the relevant  PVC(s)  in consultation  with the College  Executive.  \n \nSix months  after receiving  the review report,  the College  will be required  to submit  a College Response Report  to \nAcademic  Committee  outlining  the actions  planned,  or underway,  as a result  of the Review  recommendations.  This \nshould include a timeline for implementation of initiatives.  \n \n5.3 Progress  Toward Implementation  \n \nOne year after the College Response report is sent to Academic Committee a progress report is required to be submitted \nto Academic Committee outlining progress made on achieving the initiatives outlined in the response .  \n \nPrior to the next Qualification Review a final progress report will be required . This final report is to enable the College \nand the next review panel to sign off on achieved plans, pick anything up that may need further consideration at the next \nreview or close off issues that may no longer be relevant.  \n \nAudience:  \n \nAll staff  \n \nRelated Procedures / Documents:  \n \nQualification Review Policy  \nQualification Review Procedures  \nMassey University Qualification s Policy  \nMassey University Qualification Framework  \nTeaching & Learning Policy  \nKaupapa Here Tiriti o Waitangi – Tiriti o Waitan gi Policy  \n \nEquity of Access to Educational Opportunity Policy  \n \n \n \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \nQualification  Review  Procedures  – Page  8  \n \nDocument  Management  Control:  \n \nPrepared by:  Academic Policy and Regulations  Unit  \nAuthorised by:  AVC ( Research,  Academic  & Enterprise )  \nApproved by:  AB14/109 - Academic Board  \nDate issued:  20 July 2011   \nLast review:  October 2014  \nNext review:  October 2017  \n \n2 In the  case of  a partnership  arrangement  with another provider,  consideration  of the  Review  Report  and implementation  of \nrecommendations  will include  the CEO  (or equivalent) of  the partner provider.   \n \n \n \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \nQualification  Review  Procedures  – Page  9  \n \nAppendix  1: List of Review  Documents  \n \nDuring  the course  of the review,  members  of the review  panel  will have  access  to a great  deal of information  about  a \nparticular  qualification,  some  of which  may be sensitive.  The Review  Panel  is expected  to treat as confidential  any \npersonal  or commercially  sensitive  material  provided  to it, including  individual  submissions  from staff,  students,  or \nexternal  communities  of interest.  The following  document  list summarises  information  likely  to be of value  during  the \nreview . Not all the documentation / information listed below will be provided to every review . Some may not be available \nor relevant . In some cases access to the information / documentation will be through the web rather than hard copy.  \n \n• Massey University Qualification Review  Policy and Procedures*  \n• Massey University Investment Plan  \n• Organi sation  flow charts of  the University,  College / department  (where available)  \n• Enrolment and Calendar Regulations and Information  from the Massey  University  Web pages  \n• CUAP Proposals  (where appropriate – if a qualification is more than 10 years old these may no longer be relevant)  \n• Staff Profiles  \n• Paper Outlines  (where appropriate – where the number of papers in a qualification or suite of qualifications is large \nthis may not be feasible to provide outlines for every paper . In these cases only core paper outlines may be \nprovided.  \n• Student  Demographic Information  \n• EFTs , Headcount and Completion Data  \n• Results of Student Evaluations  (e.g. GDS , SES)  \n• Graduate Profiles  \n• Library Report  \n• Confidential submissions from s tudent s, graduate s, staff,  and other  stakeholder s (these are voluntary and are \nconfidential to the submission maker and the Review Panel only . The submission maker may, if they wish, circulate \ntheir own submission further)  \n• College / department / central unit reports (these differ from the confidential submissions in that they are usually \nmore widely circulated outside the Panel and form the collective vision / view of the unit)  \n• Self-Review  Report  \n• Qualification Committee information (eg ToR, Minutes, Membership)  where a committee  exists.  \n• Other reports as appropriate – these may be from other units within the University with an interest or active role in \nthe qualification/s.  \n \nThe Panel also has available to it University  policies, procedures, strategies,  and documents  which include  ((but may \nnot be limited to) : \nShaping the Nation Taking the Best to the World the Road to 2025  \nUniversity Calendar  \nQualifications Policy  \nQualifications Framework  \nEquivalence Policy  \nHealth & Safety Policy  \nAssessment Strategy , Principles and Guidelines , \nEquity of Access to Educational Opportunities Policy  \nTeaching & Learning Policy  \nTeaching & Learning Framework  \nTreaty of Waitangi Policy  \nKia Marama - Māori@Massey 2020 Strategy  \nGrowing Pearls of Wisdom – Pasifika@Massey 2020 Strategy  \nResearch Strategy  \nInternationalisation Strategy  \nAnnual Report   \n \n \n \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \nQualification  Review  Procedures  – Page  10  \n \nAppendix  2: Qualification Review  Report  Template  \n \n \n \nQualification Review Report  \n \n \n \nName of qualification/s  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nMonth and Year of Report  \n  \n\n \n \n \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \nQualification  Review  Procedures  – Page  11  \nTable of Contents  \n1. OVERVIEW  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  12 \n1.1 Qualification/s  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............................  12 \n1.2 Specialisations  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............................  12 \n1.3 Study modes / locations  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  12 \n1.4 Brief qualification aim  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  12 \n1.5 Brief qualification content  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............  12 \n1.6 Main assessment methods  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  12 \n1.7 Entry requirements  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................  12 \n1.8 College(s)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......  12 \n1.9 Qualification coordinator / director  ................................ ................................ ................................  12 \n1.10  Review convener  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................  12 \n1.11  Review date  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............................  12 \n1.12  Review panel  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................  12 \n2. INTRODUCTION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 12 \n2.1 Review objective  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................  12 \n2.2 Terms of reference ................................ ................................ ................................ .........................  12 \n2.3 Materials submitted to the review panel  ................................ ................................ ........................  13 \n2.4 Submissions  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 13 \n2.5 List of people meeting with the review panel  ................................ ................................ .................  13 \n2.6 History and development of the qualification/s  ................................ ................................ ..............  13 \n3. QUALIFICATION OBJECTIVES  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................  13 \n3.1 Consistency w ith University and College  strategic plans ................................ ................................ .. 14 \n3.2 Acceptability to communities of interest including academic, industrial and professional communities  14 \n3.3 Quality and adequacy of qualification objectives  ................................ ................................ ............  14 \n4. QUALIFICATION STRUCTURE AND MANAGEMENT  ................................ ................................ ..................  14 \n4.1 Relevance and appropriateness of qualification regulations ................................ ............................  14 \n4.2 Consideration of the ways in which curriculum design and papers contribute to the overall qualification objectives\n 14 \n4.3 Appropriateness of admission and enrolment procedures  ................................ ..............................  14 \n4.4 Procedures for equivalence  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  14 \n4.5 Links to other qualifications and disciplines  ................................ ................................ ....................  14 \n4.6 Processes to support continuous improvement  ................................ ................................ ..............  14 \n4.7 Marketing and recruitment  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  14 \n4.8 Existing plans for future development  ................................ ................................ ............................  14 \n4.9 Quality and adequacy of qualification structure and management ................................ ..................  14 \n5. TEACHING, LEARNING AND ASSESSMENT  ................................ ................................ ...............................  14 \n5.1 Physical and IT resources (including library)  ................................ ................................ ....................  14 \n5.2 Staff and staff development  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........  14 \n5.3 Interdependence of research and teaching ................................ ................................ .....................  14 \n5.4 Research supervision and research profile (for postgraduate qualifications in particular)  ................  14 \n5.5 Student assessment including moderation procedures  ................................ ................................ ... 14 \n5.6 Student progression and completion  ................................ ................................ ..............................  14 \n5.7 Student support  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................  14 \n5.8 Health and safety in terms of qualification content and delivery  ................................ .....................  14 \n5.9 Quality and adequacy of teaching, learning and assessment  ................................ ...........................  14 \n6. OVERARCHING CONSIDERATIONS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........  14 \n6.1 Treaty and Equity of Educational Opportunity:  ................................ ................................ ...............  15 \n6.2 Internationalisation: ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................  15 \n7. CONCLUSIONS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  15 \n7.1 Commendations: ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................  15 \n7.2 Recommendations:  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................  15 \n \n \n \n \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \nQualification  Review  Procedures  – Page  12  \n<Remove all italicised notes before submission.  Sections in the Overview that are not relevant may be deleted.>  \n \n1. OVERVIEW  \n \n1.1 Qualification/s  \n \nQualification/s  Credits  Code  Length (Full -time)  \n    \n    \n \n \n1.2 Specialisations  <if applicable>  \n \n1.3 Study modes / locations  \n \n1.4 Brief qualification aim  \n \n1.5 Brief qualification content  \n \n1.6 Main assessment methods  \n \n1.7 Entry requirements  \n \n1.8 College(s)  \n \n1.9 Qualification coordinator / director <or equivalent>  \n \n1.10 Review convener  \n \n1.11 Review date  \n \n1.12 Review panel  \n \n2. INTRODUCTION  \n \n2.1 Review objective  \n \n This is a report of the review of the <insert qualification/specialisation name/s>  within the College of <insert \nCollege name/s> .   \n \n The objective of the review was to assess the numerous aspects of qualification management and delivery that \ninteract and contribute to the overall quality and acceptability of the qualification ; and to recommend any \nadministrative and programme changes that would strengthen and support the qualifications.  \n \n2.2 Terms of reference  \n \nBroad  Area  Considerations  \nQualification Objectives  1. Consistency with University Policy  \n2. Consistency with University and  College  Strategic  Plans  \n3. Acceptability to communities of interest  including academic, industrial , public \nsector, non -profit and  professional  communities  \n \n \n \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \nQualification  Review  Procedures  – Page  13  \nQualification Structure and \nManagement  4. Relevance and appropriateness of  qualification  regulations  \n5. Consideration of the ways in which  curriculum design and papers  contribute  \nto the overall qualification  objectives  and Graduate Profile  \n6. Appropriateness of admission procedures   \n7. Appropriateness of e nrolment procedures  \n8. Procedures for equivalence  \n9. Links to other qualifications and  disciplines  \n10. Processes to support continuous  improvement.  \n11. Marketing and recruitment  \n12. Existing  plans for future  development  \nTeaching, Learning and \nAssessment  13. Physical  and IT resources   \n14. Library  resources and information literacy development  \n15. Staff numbers, qualifications, expertise,  and staff development  \n16. Interdependence of research and  teaching  \n17. Research supervision and  research  profile (for  postgraduate  qualifications  in \nparticular)  \n18. Student  assessment including moderation  procedures.  \n19. Student retention, progression , completion,  and employability  \n20. Student  support  \n21. Health and safety in terms of qualification  content and delivery . (Consideration \nshould be given to physical, cultural,  and psychological factors.)  \nOverarching  Considerations  22. Application of Treaty of Waitangi  principles  \n23. Enables E quity of  educational  opportunity  \n24. Internationalisation  \n \n \n2.3 Materials submitted to the review panel.  \n \n The Review Panel had available to it:  <add or delete as appropriate>   \n The Road to 2025, MU 2014  Calendar, Review Terms of Reference, College Profile, statistical and demographic \ndata, student headcounts, EFTS, grade distribution, qualification overview, programme information from website, \ncourse regulations, staff profiles, original CUAP proposal, p aper outlines and submissions.  The following Massey \nUniversity policies and procedures were also made available:  Qualification Review Policy, Qualification Review \nProcedures, Equivalence Policy, Health & Safety Policy, Assessment Strategy, Principles and  Guidelines, Equity \nof Access to Educational Opportunities Policy, Teaching & Learning Policy, Teaching & Learning Framework, \nTreaty of Waitangi Policy, Māori @massey Strategy, Pasifika@massey Strategy, Internationalisation Strategy, \nResearch Strategy 2012 – 2014, Qualifications Policy, Qualifications Framework and the 2012 /3 Annual Report.  \n \n2.4 Submissions  \n \n The Review Panel received <insert number> written submissions, <insert number> from staff and <insert \nnumber> from students.  \n \n2.5 List of people meeting with the review panel  \n Insert list of people and school/department/institute/group  \n \n2.6 History and development of the qualification/s  \n <Significant points about the history and development of the qualification/s may be added here.>  \n \n \n3. QUALIFICATION OBJECTIVES  \n <An introduction to the report or general comments may be added here>  \n \n \n \n \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \nQualification  Review  Procedures  – Page  14  \n3.1 Consistency w ith University and College  strategic plans  \n \n3.2 Acceptability to communities of interest including academic, industrial,  and professional communities.  \n \n3.3 Quality and adequacy of qualification objectives  \n <Summary comment>  \n \n \n4. QUALIFICATION STRUCTURE AND MANAGEMENT  \n \n4.1 Relevance and appropriateness of qualification regulations  \n \n4.2 Consideration of the ways in which curriculum design and papers contribute to the overall qualification \nobjectives.  \n \n4.3 Appropriateness of admission and enrolment procedures  \n \n4.4 Procedures for equivalence  \n \n4.5 Links to other qualifications and disciplines  \n \n4.6 Processes to support continuous improvement.  \n \n4.7 Marketing and recruitment  \n \n4.8 Existing plans for future development  \n \n4.9 Quality and adequacy of qualification structure and management  \n<Summary comment>  \n \n \n5. TEACHING, LEARNING AND ASSESSMENT  \n \n5.1 Physical and IT resources  \n \n5.2 Library  resources and information literacy development  \n \n5.3 Staff and staff development  \n \n5.4 Interdependence of research and teaching  \n \n5.5 Research supervision and research profile (for postgraduate qualifications in particular)  \n \n5.6 Student assessment including moderation procedures.  \n \n5.7 Student progression and completion  \n \n5.8 Student support  \n \n5.9 Health and safety in terms of qualification content and delivery  \n \n5.10 Quality and adequacy of teaching, learning and assessment.  \n<Summary comment>  \n \n \n6. OVERARCHING CONSIDERATIONS  \n \n \n \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \nQualification  Review  Procedures  – Page  15  \n \n6.1 Treaty of Waitangi and Equity of Educational Opportunity:  \n \n6.2 Internationalisation:  \n \n \n7. CONCLUSIONS  \n \n<An Executive Summary  will be added here>  \n \n7.1 Commendations:  \n<Collated list of all commendations, sequentially numbered>  \n \n7.2 Recommendations:  \n<Collated l ist of all recommendations with narrative if appropriate and reference to duplication > \n \n \n \n \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Study_Abroad_Programme_Procedures_PDF_102_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Study Abroad Programme Procedures PDF 102 KB",
      "policy_type": "Procedure",
      "file_size": "102 KB",
      "author": "Gregory Huff",
      "creation_date": "2023-07-24T10:04:08",
      "modification_date": "D:20230724104853+12'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n \n \n \n \n \n \nMassey Universit y Policy Guide   \n \nSTUDY ABROAD PROGRAMME PROCEDURES    \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n1.Introduction:   \nThis document brings  together aspect s of procedures relating to overseas student s at Massey under  the Massey \nUniversity  Study  Abroad and Virtual Stud y Abroad programmes .  \nThese procedures should be read in conjunction with  the Study Abroad Programme Policy .  \n2. Gene ral:   \n2.1  Students  pay a set programme  fee and can select  a variety of courses  across  colleges  and disciplines  and are   \nenrolled as full -time student s Study Abroa d student s. Virtual Stud y Abroa d student s can enrol a s full o r part-  \ntime student s.  \n \n2.2  Study Abroad student s are liable for the Study Abroad  Programme fee , health and travel insurance that  meets   \nMassey’s minimum insurance requirements , visa and travel costs , accommodation and living cost s, and any   \nadditional local administrative  levies . Virtual Study Ab road students are liable for a per course  fee based o n the   \nStudy Abroad Progra mme fee and any additional local administrative levies .  \n \n2.3  The Stud y Abroad and Virtual Study Abroad Program mes will be administered through the Office of Global   \nEngagement .  \n3. Steps in the Study Abroad Agreement A pproval Process:   \n3.1  It is not essential that a Study Abroad agreement be established with a home institution to enable students to   \nattend  Massey  University  on either  programme . However,  an overseas  institution  can request  that a forma l   \nagreement be  established .  \n3.2  Study  Abroa d and Virtua l Study Abroad  agreement s with home  institutions  or third-party provider s will be   \nadministered through the Office o f Global Engagement .  \n3.3  These agreements are championed by  the Office of Global Engagement .  \n3.4  All proposed Study Abroad and Virtual Study Abroad agreements are referred  to the Office o f the Deput y Vice-  \nChancellor Students and Global Engagement with a recommendation for approval or r ejection . Should a \nproposed agreement not meet the University’ s criteria  for an acceptable agree ment (as specified in th e \nprocedures for e stablishment o f new offshore academic agreements ), the Deputy Vice -Chancellor Students \nand Global Engagement may decline the proposal .  \n  © This  Policy is  the property o f Masse y Universit y   Secti on   International   \nContac t   Office of Global Engagement   \nLast Revie w   July 2023  \nNext Revi ew   July 2026  \nAppr oval   AB 20/10/29 1   \nEffect ive fro m   July 2023    \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nMassey Universit y Policy Guide   \nStud y Abroad P rogramme Procedu res – Page 2   \n \n3.5  Two copies of  the approved agreement will be signed by the Vice -Chancellor (or nominee  as appropriate) .  \n3.6  The agreement  documents  will then be  forwarded  to the overseas  party  or parties  for co-signature .  \n4. Procedu re for Operating the S tudy Abroad Programme:   \n4.1  Study Abroad and Virtual Study Abroad students comi ng to Masse y University apply  for admission ad   \neundem. The student’s choice of course s must be app roved by the home inst itution prior to a rrival at Massey.  \nif the student is enrolled in a foreign te rtiary institution and not on a gap period .  \n4.2  Course approvals for these students will follow Massey ’s established procedures in a way simi lar to the   \nacceptance of a student transferring to  Massey  from a nother  university .   \n4.3  On completion of  the programme of study,  Massey Un iversity will provide students with information on how to  \nsubm it a formal academic transcript  to the home institution or third -party provider, a s appropriate .  \n4.4  The Senior Manage r International  Mobility will repor t annually to the Executive Director  Global Engagement o n \nthe operation of the Study Abroad and Virtual Study Abro ad programmes .  \nAudi ence:   \nAll staf f   \nRelate d procedures / documents:   \nStudy Abroad Progra mme Polic y   \nProcedures for Establishment o f New Offshore  Acade mic Agreement s   \nDocu ment Management Control:   \nPrepared by:  Office of Global Engagement  \nAuthorised by:    DVC  Global Engagement   \nDate issued:  AB 20/10/ 291.  \nLast review:       July 2023   \nNext review:      July 2026    \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n  © This  Policy is  the property o f Masse y Universit y  \n \n\n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Related_Procedures_for_the_Research_and_Specialist_Centres_Policy_PDF_178_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Related Procedures for the Research and Specialist Centres Policy PDF 178 KB",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "178 KB",
      "author": "Whittle, Jo",
      "creation_date": "2021-09-08T12:01:06",
      "modification_date": "D:20210908121650+12'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nProcedures:  \n \n1. Establishment  of Centres  Massey  University  Policy  Guide  \n \n1.1 Application  and approval  process  for establishment  of College  Research  and Specialist  Centres  \n \nA proposal to establish a new College Centre can be submitted for consideration at any time to the Pro  \nVice- Chancellor  of the relevant  College.  The proposal  must  be made  on the template  Proposal  to Establish  \na College  Research/Specialist  Centre  available  on the Research  Operations  website,  and should  contain  \nthe following  information:  \n \n(a) proposed  name  of the College  Centre  \n(b) brief purpose  statement  \n(c) statement  of strategic  value  of the proposed  Centre,  including  alignment  with the University’s \nStrategy , Research Strategy and other strategic goals of the College and the  University \n(including commitments to role -modelling excellent practice as a Tiriti o Waitangi - led \ninstitution)  \n(d) sufficient information to show that the proposed Centre meets the principles for establishing  \nand operating  Centres  as set out in the Research  and Specialist  Centres  Policy,  in particular:  \nevidence  that creation  of the Centre  is likely  to promote  academic  endeavors  and \nopportunities  at a level  over and above  what  could  be achieved  if the staff involved  operated  \nindividually  or in small  groups  within  existing Academic  Units  \n(e) description of planned activities, with a focus on whole -of-centre projects/programmes and/or  \nequipment that depend for their success on the com bined contributions of the experts  \ninvolved  \n(f) key performance  indicators  for the initial  three  years  of operation  \n(g) indicative  timeline  of key activities,  milestones  and expected  outputs  for initial  three  years  of \noperation  \n(h) indicative  annual budget  for the initial three  years  of operation,  showing  likely  revenue  and \ncosts  \n(i) host Academic  Unit(s),  and a list of all Academic  Units  the Centre  will work with and across  \n(j) name and position of the academic staff member or members who will lead the Centre, and  \nname and position  of line manager(s)  of the leader(s)  \n(k) where  appropriate,  staffing  plan including  total number  of core staff,  identified  staff members  \n(where  known),  and plans  for the support  and development  of emerging  \nresearchers/academic staff  and postgraduate  students  \n(l) evidence that establishment of the Centre is supported by the relevant head(s) of Academic  \nUnit(s)  \nRELATED  PROCEDURES  FOR  THE RESEARCH  AND  \nSPECIALIST  CENTRES  POLICY  \nSection  Research  \nContact  Office  of Provost  \nLast Review  July 2021  \nNext  Review  July 2026  \nApproval  SLT 21/07/92  \nEffective  Date     July 2021  \n \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \nRelated  Procedures for  the Research  and Specialist  \nCentres  Policy  – Page  2  \n \n(m) where  relevant,  proposed  physical  location  of the Centre  and plans  for access  to any key \nfacilities  (for example, laboratories,  equipment)  \n(n) where  relevant,  an initial  plan for the ‘virtual’  or online  presence  of the Centre  including  \nwebsite  location,  and \n(o) where  appropriate, evidence of  consultation  with relevant  internal  or external  stakeholders.  \n \nThe Pro Vice-Chancellor  will consider  the proposal  to establish  a Centre  against  the following  criteria:  \n \n(a) the strategic purpose and principles for establishing and operating Centres as set out in the  \nResearch  and Specialist  Centres  Policy  \n(b) the objectives and charac teristics of College Centres as set out in the Research and  \nSpecialist  Centres  Policy,  namely:  lifting  the profile  of a disciplinary  or multi -disciplinary  area \nof strategic relevance to the teaching and/or research strategies of the University, with a  view \nto enhancing  reputation,  post graduate  research  degree  student  success,  and collaboration  \n(c) the strategic  value  of the proposed  Centre,  including  alignment  with the University’s  Strategy  \nand Research  Strategy  and other  strategic  goals  of the College  and the University  \n(d) the extent to which the proposed Centre name reflects the strategic purpose and scope of  \nthe Centre,  and \n(e) the extent  to which  the proposal  presents  a robust  case  for the establishment  and \nsustainable  operation  of a Centre.  \n \nThe Pro Vice-Chancellor  may:  \n \n(a) recommend  to the Provost  that the proposal  be accepted  and that the Centre  be established  \n(b) request additional information or that the applicant(s) make amendments before  \nresubmitting  the proposal  for reconsideration,  or \n(c) decline  the proposal.  \n \nThe Pro Vice-Chancellor’s  decision  (accompanied  by any comments  or feedback)  will be notified  in writing  \nto the applicant(s).  \n \nIn the event that that the Pro Vice -Chancellor recommends that a new Centre be established, this  \nrecommendation must be notified in writing to the Provost, accompanied by a signed, supporting statement  and \na copy  of the proposal.  The recommendation  must  confirm  that all costs  associated  with the proposed  \nCentre  will be a cost to the host Academic  Unit(s).  The Provost  will consider  the recommendation  against  \nthe criteria  above,  and will: \n \n(a) confirm  the recommendation  of the Pro Vice-Chancellor  \n(b) request additional information or amendments to the proposal and its further consideration,  \nor \n(c) decline  the proposal.  \n \nAny decision will be made after full consideration of the advice of, and in close consultation with, the Pro  \nVice-Chancellor. The Provost’s decision (accompanied by any comments or feedback) will be notified in  \nwriting to the Pro Vice-Chancellor.  \n \nThe approved proposal template provides the basis for the College Centre Agreement, the template for  \nwhich  can be found  on the Research  Operations  website.  It must  be signed  by the leader(s)  of the Centre,  \nthe Pro Vice-Chancellor and  the Provost.  \n \n1.2 Application  and approval  process  for establishment  of University  Research  and \nSpecialist  Centres  \n \nThe establishment  of a University  Centre  is as significant  as the  establishment  of a new Academic Unit,  \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \nRelated  Procedures for  the Research  and Specialist  \nCentres  Policy  – Page  3  \n \nand therefore  requires a rigorous process for approval. University Centres are subject to all Commercial  \nActivities Group requirements and must also identify and assess risk in accordance with the Risk  \nManagement  Policy  and report  risk via the Performance  and Risk Report  for their host Academic  Unit(s).  \n \nThe application  and approval  process  for University  Centres  is set out here.  \n \nA preliminary proposal to establish a new University Centre can be submitted at any time to the Provost  \nfor consideration by the Universi ty Research Committee at the next ordinary meeting. The preliminary  \nproposal  should  include:  \n \n(a) proposed  name  of the University  Centre  \n(b) brief purpose  statement  \n(c) brief statement  of strategic  value  of the proposed  Centre,  including  alignment  with the \nUniversity’s Strategy , Research Strategy and other strategic goals of the University (including  \nour commitment  to role-modelling  excellent  practice  as a Tiriti o Waitangi -led institution)  \n(d) name and position of the academic staff member or members who will l ead (or co -lead) the  \nCentre, and name and  position of line  manager(s)  of the leader(s)  \n(e) a list of proposed staff who will be involved and their relevant expertise and level of  \ninternational  recognition  \n(f) an indication  of likely  external  partners  \n(g) indicative  budget  model,  staffing  levels  and reporting  lines (including  an indication  of staff \nsalaries,  equipment,  student  EFTS  apportionment,  overheads  and operating  costs)  \n(h) evidence that establishment of the Centre is supported by the relevant heads of Academic  \nUnits  and Pro Vice-Chancellor(s)  \n(i) existing  or planned  funding  sources  \n(j) existing  or planned  stakeholder  or end-user involvement,  and \n(k) statement on how the proposed Centre meets the principles for establishing and operating  \nCentres  as set out in the Research  and Specialist  Centres  Policy,  and in particular,  evidence  \nthat creation of the Centre is likely to promote academic endeavors and opportunities at a  \nlevel over and above what could be achieved if the staff involved operated individually or in  \nsmall groups within  existing Academic  Units.  \nThe University Research Committee will consider the preliminary proposal to establish a Centre against  \nthe following  criteria:  \n \n(a) the strategic  purpose  of Centres  as set out in the Research  and Specialist  Centres  Policy  \n(b) the principles for establishing and operating Centres, and the requirements for University  \nCentres,  as set out in the Research  and Specialist  Centres  Policy  \n(c) the strategic  value  of the proposed  Centre,  including  alignment  with the University’s  Strategy  \nand \nResearch  Strategy  and other  strategic  goals  of the University  \n(d) a preliminary  assessment  of potential  risks and risk management  strategies,  and \n(e) the extent to which the preliminary proposal indicates the potential to establish and operate  \na sustainable  Centre.  \n \nThe University  Research  Committee  may invite  the applicant(s)  to submit  a full proposal  for consideration  \nor decline the preliminary proposal. The decision of the Committee (accompanied by any comments or  \nfeedback)  will be notified  in writing  to the applicant(s)  and relevant  Pro Vice -Chancellor(s).  \n \nThe full proposal  to establish  a new University  Centre  is submitted  to the Provost  for consideration  by the \nUniversity  Research  Committee  at its next ordinary  meeting.  The proposal  will be developed  in \nconsultation  with internal  and external  stakeholders  (including  where  appropriate  end-users,  \ncollaborators, and partner  organizations). The Research Operations  office will provide  advice  and \nassistance  with the development  of the proposal  as required.  \n \nThe full proposal  must  be submitted  within  three  months  of the date of the approval  of the preliminary  \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \nRelated  Procedures for  the Research  and Specialist  \nCentres  Policy  – Page  4  \n \nproposal.  It must  be made  on the template  Proposal  to Establish  a University  Research/Specialist  Centre  \navailable  on the Research  Operations  website,  and must  contain  the following  information:  \n \n(a) copy  of the preliminary  proposal  \n(b) proposed  research  or specialist  objectives  and outcomes  for a three  to five-year period  \n(c) description of planned activities, with a focus on whole -of-centre projects/programmes  \nand/or equipment that depend for their success on the combined contributions of the  \nexperts  involved  \n(d) key performance  indicators  for the initial  three  years  of the Centre  \n(e) timeline  for milestones  for the initial  three  years  of the Centre  \n(f) clear  evidence  of engagement  with external  stakeholders  (for example,  government,  \nindustry,  iwi/Māori  or community)  \n(g) details  of international  collaborations  \n(h) details  of governance  and management  structure  including  the name  and position  of Centre  \ndirector(s) (if known) and the name and position of the line manager of the director(s), and,  \nwhere relevant, proposed terms of reference and membership of the Governance Board o r \nequivalent  \n(i) details of an initial marketing plan and/or approach to increasing the reputation and impact  \nof the Centre  \n(j) where relevant, details of proposed or existing Memoranda of Understanding with partner  \norganisations  \n(k) annual  budget  for the initial  three  years  of operation,  showing  all revenue  and costs  \n(l) external  funding  plan for a three  to five-year period,  and statement  of expected  return  on \ninvestment  \n(m) host College,  and a list of all Academic  Units  and Colleges  the Centre  will work with and across  \n(n) signed agreements with the Pro Vice -Chancellor of the host College and, as relevant, with  \nthe Pro Vice-Chancellors  of other  participating  Colleges,  setting  out the budget  and operating  \nmodels  (including arrangements for  cost and revenue  sharing)  \n(o) staffing plan including total number of core staff, identified staff members (where known), and  \nplans  for the support  and development  of emerging  researchers/academic  staff and \npostgraduate  students  \n(p) proposed physical location of the Centre and plans for access to any key facilities (for  \nexample, laboratories, equipment),  and \n(q) publication, IP management (including Indigenous Data Sovereignty), knowledge transfer and  \ncommercialization  plans (where  relevant).  \nThe University Research Committee will consider the full proposal to establish a Centre against the  \nfollowing  criteria:  \n \n(a) the strategic  purpose  of Centres  as set out in the Research  and Specialist  Centres  Policy  \n(b) the principles for establishing and operating Centres, and the requirements for University  \nCentres,  as set out in the Research  and Specialist  Centres  Policy  \n(c) the strategic  value  of the proposed  Centre,  including  alignment  with the University’s  Strategy  \nand \nResearch  Strategy  and other  strategic  goals  of the University,  \n(d) a full assessment  of potential  risks and risk management  strategies  \n(e) the extent to which the proposed Centre name reflects the strategic purpose and scope of  \nthe Centre,  and \n(f) the extent to which the proposal presents a robust case for the establishment and  \nsustainable  operation  of a Centre.  \nThe University  Research  Committee  may:  \n \n(a) accept  the proposal  and confirm  the establishment  of the Centre  \n(b) request  additional  information  or that the applicant(s)  make  amendments  before  \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \nRelated  Procedures for  the Research  and Specialist  \nCentres  Policy  – Page  5  \n \nresubmitting  the proposal  for reconsideration,  or \n(c) decline  the proposal.  \n \nThe decision  of the University  Research  Committee  (accompanied  by any comments  or feedback)  will be \nnotified  in writing  to the applicant(s)  and relevant  Pro Vice-Chancellor(s).  \n \nThe approved proposal template provides the basis for the University Centre Agreement, the template  \nfor which can be found on the Research Operations website. It must be signed by the leader(s) of the  \nCentre, the Pro  Vice-Chancellor  of the host College  and the Provost.  \n \n1.3 Application  and approval  process  for establishment  of National  Research  and Specialist  \nCentres  \n \nThe establishment of a National Centre is normally initiated through a successful funding application by  \nthe University  to host such  a Centre.  Massey  University  participation  in a National  Centre  requires  careful  \nevaluation of the associated benefits and risks. The term ‘participation’ comprises instances where  \nMassey University is considering being part of a  consortium bidding for such a Centre, whether as the  \nlead or as a collaborating  organisation,  or is invited  to join an  existing  Centre.  \n \nThe decision to participate in a National Centre will be made by the Vice -Chancellor or nominee. When  \npartner organisa tions are involved in the proposal to establish a National Centre it must be supported by  \nthe University Vice -Chancellor and submitted to the University Council for approval. When seeking  support  \nfor participation  in a National  Centre,  the Massey University  proposer  must:  \n \n(a) obtain in -principle support in writing from the relevant Head(s) of Academic Unit(s) and Pro  \nVice- Chancellor  who will provide  oversight  of the Centre  that Massey  University’s  \nparticipation  in the proposed  Centre  will be of strategic  value  to the University,  and \n(b) provide the Vice -Chancellor or nominee with sufficient information to evaluate the risks and  \nbenefits  of participation,  including:  \n(i) the magnitude  and type of funding  expected  \n(ii) the likely  number  of research  students  involved  \n(iii) the scale  of the research  and/or  other  programmes  or activities  envisaged  \n(iv) a list of potential benefits, costs, and risks to Massey University of participation in the  \nNational  Centre,  and \n(v) the extent to which the purpose, role and composition of the Governance Board or  \nequivalent is likely to ensure good governance and the operation of the Centre in a  \nbusiness -like manner.  \n \nSuccessful  applications  for National  Centres  do not require  a formal  application  and approval  process  for \nestablishment as set out in these procedures. Sign -off by the Vice -Chancellor or nominee on the funding  \napplication  and the subsequent  contract  is sufficient.  All National  Centres  must  have  an approved  Centre  \nAgreement. All reasonable steps must be taken t o ensure that the application and any post award  \nnegotiation and subsequent contract are as consistent as possible with  Massey University  policy,  \nespecially  in respect  to costing and  cost recovery.  \n \n2. Annual  reporting  \n2.1 Each College and University Centre will submit an annual report to the Pro Vice -Chancellor of the host  \nCollege by 31 March each year. A copy of the annual report will also be provided to Director Research  \nOperations for referral to the Provost. In addition, a Research Centre will provide a copy of its annual  \nreport to the relevant College Research Director/Deputy Pro Vice -Chancellor (Research). The Provost  \nwill provide  an annual  report  on Centres  to the University Research  Committee.  \n \nNational Centres will conform to the requirements of exte rnal funding agencies or organisations with  \nrespect  to reporting.  Such  reports will  be submitted  to the Vice-Chancellor  or nominee.  \n \n2.2 Annual  reports  must  be completed  using  the annual  reporting  template  available  from the Research  \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \nRelated  Procedures for  the Research  and Specialist  \nCentres  Policy  – Page  6  \n \nOperations  website,  and must  contain  the following  information  for the relevant  year:  \n \n(a) name  of the Centre  \n(b) name  of the Centre  leader(s)  \n(c) brief description  of the general  aims of  the Centre  \n(d) names  and Academic  Units  of participating  members  \n(e) names of postgraduate students involved in the Centre and list of research degree  \ncompletions  \n(f) brief summary  of the year in perspective  (maximum  300 words)  \n(g) a report  against  the key performance  indicators  \n(h) activities of international and national significance, including international visitors or  \ncollaborations, commercial activities, conference contributions, seminars, courses, or  \nworkshops  \n(i) a report  against  the specific goals  for the year \n(j) details  of publications  and other  outputs  \n(k) budget  report,  including  external  revenue  generation  where  appropriate,  and \n(l) an outline  of plans  for the  next year,  noting  any resource  implications.  \n \n3. Review  of Centres  \n3.1 The University will carry out formal reviews of all College and University Centres on a three to five -year \ncycle.  The purposes of  a review  are to assess:  \n \n(a) the role of the Centre by reviewing its objectives, to ensure they are internally consistent,  \nand that they are aligned with the strategic goals of the University and the host Academic  \nUnit and/or  College,  and with the Strategic  Purpose  and Principles  for Centres  as outlined  in \nthe Research  and Specialist  Centres  Policy  \n(b) the Centre’s level of activity to ensure that the Centre is appropriately categorized and named,  \nand to ensure  that Centres  with low levels  of activity are  formally  disestablished  \n(c) the appropriateness of the Centre’s governance and administrative processes (including  \nsuccession planning) to ensure that such arrangements will serve the Centre adequately in  \nthe future  \n(d) the Centre’s  adherence  to reporting  and accountability  requirements,  and \n(e) the level of support being provided to the Centre and the extent to which additional support  \nmay be required  in the future.  \n \nIn addition,  a review  will recommend  improvements, re -categorization,  re-naming  or disestablishment of  \nthe Centre  as appropriate.  \n \nA review  of a College  or University  Centre  may also be requested  by the Centre  leader(s)  or by the Pro \nVice- Chancellor  of the host  College,  to the Provost.  \n \nNational Centres will conform to the requirements of external funding agencies or organisations with  \nrespect  to reviews.  Any review  requests,  procedures  and reports  will be notified  to the Vice-Chancellor  or \nnominee.  \n \n3.2 The terms of reference for t he review of College Centres will be established and maintained by the  \nUniversity Research Committee, with the approval of the relevant Pro Vice -Chancellor, and will be  \ncommunicated  not less than  six months  in advance  of any review.  \n \n3.3  The terms of reference for the review of University Centres will be established and maintained by the  \nUniversity Research Committee and will be communicated not less than six months in advance of any  \nreview.  \n \n3.4 The Chair and members of the review panel for a College Centre will be appointed by the host Pro Vice - \nChancellor,  in consultation  with the Provost  and the College  Research  Director/Deputy  Pro Vice- \nChancellor  (Research).  \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \nRelated  Procedures for  the Research  and Specialist  \nCentres  Policy  – Page  7  \n \n3.5 The Chair and members of the review panel for a University Cent re will be appointed by the Provost, in  \nconsultation  with the host Pro Vice-Chancellor,  the College  Research  Director/Deputy  Pro Vice- \nChancellor  (Research)  and, as relevant, with  the Pro  Vice-Chancellors  of other  participating  Colleges.  \n \n3.6 The composition  of any review  panel  should  reflect  an understanding  of the cultural  context  of the Centre.  \nWhere  appropriate,  a representative  from a related  external  partner  or stakeholder may  be included  on a \nreview  panel.  \n \n3.7 Centres  will be invited  to prepare a self -review  report for  consideration by  the review  panel.  \n \n3.8 Reviews will include an assessment of the extent to which the Centre meets the Strategic Purpose of  \nCentres and the Principles for establishing and operating Centres, as outlined in the Research and  \nSpecialist Centres Policy. In addition, the review may include assessment of the following additional  \ncriteria, as  appropriate:  \n \n(a) delivery  against  the characteristics  of the relevant  category  of Centre  \n(b) international  and national  levels  of influence  \n(c) level of external  funding  and progress  towards/maintenance  of self-sufficiency  \n(d) level of staff development,  including  capacity  building,  mentoring  and succession  planning  \n(e) numbers  of postgraduate  students  (and degree  completions)  \n(f) appropriateness  of Centre’s  objectives,  goals,  and future  development  plans  \n(g) extent  to which  the Centre  has met its objectives  \n(h) achievement  against  the Centre’s  key performance  indicators  \n(i) appropriate  and effective  levels  of activity  given  the category  of the Centre  and the number  \nof staff involved  \n(j) extent  to which  administrative  and financial  arrangements  are well understood  and \nfunctioning appropriately  \n(k) regularity  and adequacy  of annual  reporting  \n(l) appropriateness  of Centre  name  and branding  \n(m) comparative  national  and international  standing  and reputation  of the Centre,  and/or  \n(n) financial  viability  of the Centre.  \n \n3.9 The review  panel  must  conduct  the review  in accordance  with its terms  of reference  and the requirements  \nof confidentiality. It may invite the director and/or other members of the Centre to meet with the panel. It  \nmust complete and submit a review report to the University Research Committee. A copy of the review  \nreport must be provided to the relevant Pro Vice -Chancellor(s). The report should include any examples  \nof good or exemplary practices, and recommendations for improvement, re -categorization, re -naming  \nand/or  disestablishment  of the Centre.  \n \n3.10 The University  Research  Committee  will consider  the recommendations  of the review  panel  and, in \nconsultation  with the relevant  Pro Vice-Chancellor(s),  make  a determination  that the Centre  should:  \n(a) continue  in its current  form,  or \n(b) continue with changes (actions, support, milestones, key performance indicators and/or  \ntimeframes,  and any necessary  amendments to the  Centre Agreement,  to be specified),  or \n(c) be disestablished  (reasons  to be specified).  \n \n4.0 Risk  management  \n \n4.1 College  Centres  \n \nNo specific  measures  required.  \n \n4.2 University  Centres  \n \nUniversity Centres are subject to all Commercial Activities Group requirements and must also identify  and \nassess  risk in accordance  with the Risk Management  Policy  and report  risk via the Performance  and Risk \nReport  for their  host Academic  Unit. \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \nRelated  Procedures for  the Research  and Specialist  \nCentres  Policy  – Page  8  \n \n4.3 National  Centres  \n \nNational  Centres  for the purposes  of the Commercial  Activities  Group  are deemed  to be high risk and are \nsubject to all Commercial Activities Group reporting requirements associated with this risk level. These  \nCentres  must also identify  and assess  risk in accordance  with the Risk Management  Policy  and report  risk \nvia the Performance  and Risk Report.  \n \n5.0 Change  of status  of a Centre  \n \n5.1 College  and University  Centres  \n \nA Centre’s  status  may be changed  following  formal  review  (as outlined  in these  Procedures),  or directly  by \nthe Provost  in the event  of serious  or repeated  breaches  of University  policy.  \n \nThe decision to change the status of a College or University Centre will require a clear plan, including  \ndisestablishment  timetable,  communication  with Centre  staff and students,  funding  agencies  and \nUniversity  and external  stakeholders  where  relevant.  This plan will be developed  in consultation  between  \nthe Provost and the host Pro Vice -Chancellor, Centre Lea der(s), relevant Heads of Academic Units,  \nCollege  Research  Directors/Deputy  Pro Vice-Chancellors  (Research),  and Pro Vice-Chancellors  of other  \nparticipating  Colleges.  \n \n5.2 National  Centres  \n \nAny change of status for a National Centre would normally involve agreement of both the Host and the  \nfunder  and would  normally  be triggered  by a change  in funding  status.  As with the process  for \ndisestablishment, it is expected that the Director of the Centre will establish whether continued funding  for \nthe Centr e is available at least 18 months prior to the termination of the contract for which full funding  is \nprovided. If funding is to be withdrawn, the Director must negotiate a formal exit plan with the funder  and \nthe Provost or nominee at least a year in advan ce of the end of the contract for which full funding is  \nprovided.  \n \n6.0 Disestablishment  of Centres  \n \n6.1 College  and University  Centres  \n \nA Centre may be disestablished following formal review (as outlined in these Procedures), or directly by  \nthe Provost  in the event  of serious  or repeated  breaches  of University  policy.  \n \nThe decision  to disestablish  a College  or University  Centre  will require  a clear  plan for the orderly  winding  \ndown of the Centre operations, including: disestablishment timetable, communication w ith Centre staff  \nand students, funding agencies and University and external stakeholders where relevant; provisions for  \nadequate storage and treatment of data or equipment, and removal of the Centre website. This plan will  \nbe developed in consultation between the Provost and the host Pro Vice -Chancellor, Centre Leader(s),  \nrelevant  Heads  of Academic  Units,  College  Research  Directors/Deputy  Pro Vice-Chancellors  (Research),  \nand Pro  Vice-Chancellors of  other participating  Colleges.  \n \nWhere  a Centre has been  disestablished,  it may continue  to be named  as a Massey  University  Research  \nCentre  for a period  of not more  than two years from  the date  of decision.  \n \n6.2 National  Centres  \n \nWind  down  of National  Centres  will normally  occur  at the discretion  of the funder.  However,  it is expected  \nthat the Director  of the Centre  will establish  whether  continued  funding  for the Centre  is available  at least  \n18 months prior to the termination of the contract for which full funding is provided. If funding is to be  \nwithdrawn, the Director must negotiate a formal exit plan with the funder and the Provost or nominee at  \nleast a  year in advance  of the end of the contract  for which  full funding  is provided.  \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \nRelated  Procedures for  the Research  and Specialist  \nCentres  Policy  – Page  9  \n \nDocument  Management  Control:  \n \nPrepared by: Research Operations  \nOwned by:  Provost  \nApproved by: SLT 21/07/92  \nDate issued: July 2021  \nLast review: July 2021  \nNext review:  July 2026  \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Treasury_Policy_PDF_97_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Treasury Policy",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "97 KB",
      "author": "jmlochhe",
      "creation_date": "2022-09-21T11:05:02",
      "modification_date": "D:20220921115209+12'00'"
    },
    "content": " Massey University Policy Guide  \n \nTREASURY POLICY  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \n \nPurpose :  \nThe purpose of this policy is to provide a framework for the banking, borrowing and investment requirements of the \nUniversity, which maintains the flow of essential finance to operations and for the capital investment, in a manner that \nmanages the risks in herent in these activities.  \nPolicy : \nThe Treasury function at Massey University has two major roles:  \na) The University Banker  \nb) Financial Risk Management  \n \nMassey University has a documented Treasury Framework, which details the requirements of these two role s.  \n \nThe Treasury Framework contain s explicit direction in respect of: -  \n• Operations including  Banking relationships, cash management, cash forecasting, funds management  \n• Borrowing  \n• Investing/Lending  \n• Risk management  \n \nThe Treasury Framework must be reviewed triennially .  \nThe implementation of the Treasury Framework is the responsibility of the DVC University Services  (DVC US ), and all \nTreasury functions must operate in accordance with the approved Treasury Framework.  \n \nIt is an express provision of this policy that any two of the Vice Chancellor , DVC US, and Chief Financial Officer (CFO)  \ncan open a bank account on behalf of the University.  \nAudience : \nAll staff  \nRelevant Legislation  and Legal Compliance : \nCrown Entities Act 2004  \nEducation and Training Act 2020   \nPublic Finance Act 1989  \n Section  Finance   \nContact  Chief Financial Officer  \nLast Review  July 2022  \nNext Review  July 2025  \nApproval  C26/58 \nEffective date  21 July 2022  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nTreasury Policy  – Page 2 \n \nThe Treasury policy of the University must be prepared, interpreted,  and acted upon in compliance with the above \nlegislation . \n \nSpecifically, a ll financial activities of the University must comply with the above legislation.  \nS282 (4) of the Education and Training Act 2020  requires written consent from the Secretary of Education to:  \n• sell or dispose of assets or interest in assets  \n• mortgage or ch arge assets or interests in assets  \n• grant leases of land or buildings or parts of buildings  \n• to borrow, issue debentures or otherwise raise money . \n \nHowever, there are some exemptions to the above in S 282 (5) as follows:  \n \nSubsection (4) does not prohibit an institution, without the consent of the Secretary, from:  \n(a) selling or otherwise disposing of, or mortgaging or otherwise charging, an asset or an interest in an asset, \nwhere the value of the asset or interest does not exceed an amount determi ned by the Minister or an amount \nascertained in accordance with a formula determined by the Minister:  \n(b) granting a lease for a term that does not exceed, and when added to any term for which the lease may be \nrenewed does not exceed, 15 years:  \n(c) borrowi ng, issuing debentures, or otherwise raising money, where the amount to be borrowed, the amount \nof the debentures, or the amount to be raised, does not exceed an amount determined by the Minister or \nascertained in accordance with a formula determined by th e Minister.  \n \n \nThe Education and Training Act 2020 also regulates the Debt -to-Equity  ratio, and Debt Servicing ratios.  \n \nS65I of the Public Finance Act 1989 prohibits investment in shares and fixed interest securities other than \nGovernment Stock, Treasury Bills, and investments or bank bills held with banks  approved by the Minister . \nRelated Procedures  and Documents : \nTreasury Framework  \nDelegations Document  \nDocument Management Control : \nPrepared by:  Chief Financial Officer  \nAuthorised by:  DVC US   \nApproved by:  C26/58 \nDate issued:  30 September 2003   \nLast review:   July 2022  \nNext review:  July 2025  \n \n \n \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Teaching_and_Learning_Policy_PDF_178_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Teaching and Learning Policy",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "178 KB",
      "creation_date": "2024-07-01T12:04:04",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220102053+13'00'"
    },
    "content": "  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n \nTEACHING AND LEARNING POLICY  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \nPurpose  \nThe purpose of the Teaching and Learning Policy is to articulate the University’s commitment  to teaching and learning \nand to identify how this commitment is supported.   \nPolicy  \nThe University aims to provide higher education of a quality and kind that will enhance the capabilities, potential and \nintellectual independence of its students, on a life -long basis.   \n \nThe University’s continued commitment to respect, preserve and enhance knowledge through teaching and learning \nwill be demonstrated through:  \n \na) Integrity and quality in the delivery of teaching, research supervision and assessment of student learning \noutcomes comprising the graduate profile.  \nb) The award of qualifications that are research -led, accessible and consistent with requirements for a university  \neducation within a bicultural context with multicultural student populations from diverse backgrounds.  \nc) Ongoing review and revision of qualifications and their delivery based upon peer review and including input \nfrom students, internal and external disciplinary experts,  and appropriate national and international accrediting \nbodies; and  \nd) Assurances of appropriate staff and student supports necessary to meet the requirements of the teaching and \nlearning process irrespective of mode or location of tuition and study.  \n \nAnd supported by:  \n \ni. Academic staff who are committed to delivering quality programmes and support staff who provide the \nservices necessary for academic success and retention.   \nii. Qualifications at undergraduate and postgraduate degree level that reflect the interdependence of research \nand teaching, and that are taught mainly by persons engaged in research, as defined by national \nbenchmarks and international standards of research ex pectations appropriate for a university . \niii. Quality assurance of study resources such as  paper descriptions , paper guides  and online learning \nenvironments , and any other materials formally made available as part of tuition and course requirements.  \niv. Published standards of equivalence across papers within a multi -modal and multi -campus university.  \nv. Professional and teaching support provided to staff in the preparation, delivery and ongoing revision and \nquality assurance of qualifications, courses,  and materials.  \nvi. Access to  appropriate pastoral care, academic advice,  and student learning support available to students \nregardless of mode or locus of study.  Section  Academic  \nContact  Academic Strategy Manager  \nLast R eview  May 2013  \nNext R eview  May 2016  \nApproval  AB13/73 – July: 3.2.1   \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nTeaching and Learning  Policy  – Page 2  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nvii. Infrastructural facilities and services to be provided for delivery of tuition internally or by distance including \nIT, production, printery and learning spaces . \nviii. An environment where there is academic freedom1. \nAudience:  \nAll staff, students and members of the wider university community and students.  \nRelevant Legislation:  \n Education and Training Act 2020  \nLegal Compliance  \nEducation and Training Act 2020 : Part 4 (sub-part 3) ,  \n• Section 267 \n“(1) It is the intention of Parliament in enacting the provisions of this Act relating to universities and wānanga \nthat academic freedom and the autonomy of those institutions are preserved and enhanced.  \n(2) In exercising their academic freedom and autonomy, institutions must act in a manner that is consistent \nwith— \n(a) the need for institutions to maintain the highest ethical standards and the need to permit public scrutiny to \nensure the maintenance of those standards; and  \n(b) the need for institutions to be accountable and make proper use of resources allocated to them.  \n(3) In performing their functions, the councils and chief executives of institutions, Ministers, and authorities \nand agencies of the Crown must act in all respects so as to give effect to the intention of Parliament as \nexpressed in this section.  \n(4) In this section,  academic freedom , in relation to an institution, means — \n(a) the freedom of academic staff and students, within the law, to question and test received wisdom, to put \nforward new ideas, and to state controversial or unpopular opinions:  \n(b) the freedom of academic staff and students to engage in research:  \n(c) the freedom of the institution and its staff to regulate the subject matter of courses taught at the institution:  \n(d) the freedom of the institution and its staff to teach and assess students in the manner that they consider \nbest promotes learning:  \n(e) the freedom of the institution through its chief executive to appoint its own staff.  \n(5) This section does not apply to Te Pūkenga —New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology (for which \nsection 318 provides). ” \n \n• Section 268(2)(d) Establishment of Institutions on  characteristics of universities  the Minister must take into \naccount . \n“(d) take into account — \n(i) that universities have all the following characteristics and other institutions have 1 or more of them:  \n \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nTeaching and Learning  Policy  – Page 3  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n(A)  they are primarily concerned with more advanced learning, the principal aim being to develop \nintellectual independence:  \n(B)  their research and teaching are closely interdependent and most of their teaching is done by \npeople who are active in advancing knowledge:  \n(C)  they meet international standards of research and teaching:  \n(D)  they are a repository of knowledge and expertise:  \n(E)  they accept a role as critic and conscience of society; and  \n(ii) that— \n(A) a university is characterised by a wide diversity of teaching and research, especially at a higher \nlevel, that maintains, advances, disseminates, and assists the application of knowledge, \ndevelops intellectual independence, and promotes community learning. ” \n \nConsumer Guarantees Act 1993  \n• (Section 29 ): “Subject to section 41, where services are supplied to a consumer there is a guarantee that the \nservice, and any product resulting from the service, will be — \n(a)  reasonably fit for any particular purpose; and  \n(b)  of such a nature and quality that it can reasonably be expected to achieve any particular result, — \nthat the consumer makes known to the supplier, before or at the time of the making of the contract for the \nsupply of the service, as the particular purpose for which the service is required or the result that the \nconsumer desires to achieve, as the case ma y be, except where the circumstances show that — \n(c)  the consumer does not rely on the supplier’s skill or judgment; or  \n(d)  it is unreasonable for the consumer to rely on the supplier’s skill or judgment. ” \n \nRelated Procedures/Documents:  \nAssessment Strategy, Principles and Guidelines  \nDigital Plus Policy  \nEquity of Access to Educational Opportunities Policy  \nIntellectual Property Policy  \nEquivalence Policy  \nGraduating Year Review Procedures  \nMassey University Qualification s Policy  \nMassey University Qualifications  Framework  \nPolicy on Student Engagement in the Assurance and Enhancement of Teaching and Learning  \nPolicy Relating to Paper Information and Study Resources  \nQualification Review Policy  \nQualification Review  Procedures  \nTeaching and Learning Framework  \nPeer Review Framework  \nMassey University Research Plan 2024 -2027  \nMicro Credentials and Short Courses Policy  \nNo and Low Enrolments Policy  \nNo and Low Enrolments  Procedures  \nPaerangi Learning and Teaching Plan 2023 -2027  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nTeaching and Learning  Policy  – Page 4  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nDocument Management Control : \nPrepared by:   Academic Strategy  Manager  \nAuthorised by:  AVC Academic & International  \nApprova l:    AB13/73 – July: 3.2.1  \nDate Issued:   16 February 2005  \nLast review:   May 2013  \nNext Review  May 2016  \n \n \n \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Timetabling_and_Room_Booking_Policy_PDF_177_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Timetabling and Room Booking Policy",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "177 KB",
      "creation_date": "2016-09-21T12:01:09",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220102004+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n \nTIMETABLING AND ROOM  BOOKING POLICY   \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n \n \n \n  \n  \n \n \nPurpose :  \nThe purpose of this policy is to govern the resource management process associated with the scheduling of Masse y \nUniversity’s academic offerings and ad hoc room bookings.   \nPrinciples:  \nThe policy is based on the fundamental principles of:  \n effective teaching and learning;  \n efficient utilisation of resources; and  \n equitable and impartial allocation of resources.  \nPolicy : \nTimetables and room bookings are to be constructed in accordance with the following thirteen (13) policy statements:  \n1. All scheduled teaching activities within each region are to be timetabled and managed by the relevant \nRegional Facilities Management Offi ce, with all teaching space  recorded on a national database. \nRegional timetabling will allow for both exclusive  and preferential  usage, where justified and authorised \nat the Campus Registrar  level (or a suitable delegated authority).  \n Regional timetabling and management is essential for the efficient utilisation of teaching space. This will avoid \nunnecessary clashes of staff and facilities and will enable the University to better focus on and adapt to trends \nin space utilisation. Recent audits of teaching s pace indicate under -utilisation and a mismatch between the \nrooms required and the rooms currently available. It is recognised that some Colleges/Sections have valid \nexclusive and preferential claims over certain teaching or meeting spaces, however, these r equirements can be \neffectively managed regionally.  \n Regional scheduling of teaching space does not preclude Colleges/Sections from claiming exclusive or \npreferential usage of particular venues such as science labs or other venues with specialised facilitie s. \nHowever, such claims would need to be both reasonable and justifiable.  \n2. In scheduling teaching activities, priority will be given to matching the size and nature of the teaching \nspace with the nature of the teaching activity and the number of students  expected in the class.  Section  Campus Facilities  \nContact  National Timetabl e Office   \nLast Review  July 2010  \nNext Review  March 2017  \nApproval  VCEC 04/64  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nTimetabling and Room Booking Policy – Page 2  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   Effective teaching and learning takes place in an appropriate environment. To the extent that this can be \nfacilitated through the allocation of suitable teaching space this should clearly be a priority. It makes no sense to \nhave a  class of ten in a room designed for forty when staff in need of a room for forty are unable to find one. \nRequests for rooms based on historical use or preference for proximity cannot take precedence over the need \nto ensure staff are allocated the teaching  spaces most suited to their mode of teaching and class size.  \n3. Where possible, the location of the teaching space be matched with the location of the College making \nthe request.  \n While the first priority is to ensure the most appropriate teaching spaces are allocated for the teaching/learning \nactivity, it needs to be recognised that the campuses are quite spread out and there is a significant distance to \ntravel from one end to the other. For this reason it is desirable for staff to be allocated teaching s pace within \nreasonable proximity of their College.  It is also desirable for students studying papers in a course to be within \nreasonable proximity and their timetable needs may outweigh the staff needs in some cases.  \n4. There be a clear description of all  teaching spaces with details recorded of design features, facilities \nand suitability for various teaching modes, the maximum student numbers for each mode, and \ndisability access.  \n This information will enable a better matching of teaching space requiremen ts to staff/student needs for \nteaching and learning. Rooms are currently described via their seating capacity for lecture or traditional tutorial \nmode and this is not appropriate for different teaching styles. A room currently described as seating thirty \nstudents may only be suitable for twenty as a more interactive workshop venue. The characteristics of each \nteaching space, the audio -visual and other facilities available, wheel -chair access etc all need to be recorded on \na national database. Staff can then  make more informed requests therefore minimising dissatisfaction and the \nneed for changes.  \n5. The teaching mode, required facilities and expected class size be clearly stated by staff when lodging a \nrequest for teaching space.  \n This goes hand -in-hand with  3 above. The clearer the requests for teaching space, the more likely it is to be \ndelivered. It must, however, be possible for staff to make their requirements known within a framework of clearly \ndefined options.  \n6. Available teaching space and the character istics of that space, to be viewed via the Massey University \nwebsite.   \n This will improve efficiency in the room -booking process by enabling staff to determine what space is available \nfor a given time before making a request. The University has implemente d an on -line room booking facility.  \n7. In accordance with University policy, there be provision within each Region for one common non -\nteaching break per week.  \n This is already current practice within each Region.   \n8. Normal hours of teaching are 8:00am to 6:00p m (i.e. the last class scheduled at 5.00pm) from Monday to \nFriday.  Later classes available on request.   \nThis statement does not preclude the scheduling of teaching activity beyond 6:00pm or Saturdays, particularly \nwhere this is necessary to cater for the  needs of part -time students or where teaching space is scarce.   \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nTimetabling and Room Booking Policy – Page 3  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  9. The teaching and examination timetables be constructed with reference to one another and within a \nconsistent policy framework.  \n Many of the problems and issues experienced in scheduling t he teaching timetable are also experienced in the \nexamination timetabling process, with the logical conclusion being that these two processes be linked. The \nneed to avoid clashes is inherent in both processes, and knowledge gleaned from the development of one \ntimetable should enhance the efficiency of developing the other. This having been said, the complexities \ninvolved in developing the teaching timetable should not be allowed to restrict the scheduling of examinations \nwhich is a much more straight -forwar d process.  Within the current University framework, the scheduling of \ndates and times for examinations is a national responsibility, and the allocation of rooms is a regional \nresponsibility.   \n10. Teaching and examination timetables be published to studen ts concurrently with the release of \nenrolment publications (generally 1 -Oct each year).  Teaching locations, as a function of class size, to \nbe advised as soon as practicable and prior to the commencement of the teaching period.  \n Early finalisation of the teaching timetable is essential to enable both staff and students to plan their activities \nfor the subsequent teaching period. Students invariably have commitments other than study such as \nemployment and child -care, and staff have a wide variety of non -teaching responsibilities including research, \nadministration, university and community service. Where teaching and learning commitments can be \nestablished well in advance of the teaching period, staff and students have the opportunity to organise and \ncoordina te these activities in an efficient manner.  \n11. All post -publication timetable change requests must be authorised by the Academic Director (or a \nsuitable nominee eg Head of Department/School/Institute or Regional Timetabling Committee) in \nconsultation with  the Departmental/School/Institute Head and advised to the relevant Timetabling \nOfficer for consideration and action.  \n Allocations must be done on an impartial and equitable basis with regard to the principles of effective teaching \nand learning and efficie nt utilisation of resources. This will mean that all Colleges will receive a share of both \npopular and unpopular teaching times and staff must not be given the opportunity to seek to change one for \nanother without proper authorisation. Timetable changes ha ve significant flow -on effects for others, both staff \nand students, and result in confusion, inconvenience and inefficient planning.  \n Bearing in mind the ramifications, changes to the teaching timetable should only be made in extenuating \ncircumstances afte r all other available options have been considered. All changes need to be authorised to \nensure the impact has been properly evaluated, and to enable changes to be made in a coordinated manner.  \n12.  The teaching timetable includes the names of Paper Coordi nators.  \n This information would enable students to seek accurate information concerning papers in a timely and effective \nmanner. It should also serve to reduce confusion and the level of distress experienced by students seeking to \nsatisfy information needs  unable to be handled by general or academic staff unfamiliar with the study discipline.  \n13. That the approval process for all new degree/programmes and/or papers include an assessment of the \nteaching and examination timetabling implications.  \n Before new p rogrammes or offerings are approved, or variations are permitted to existing programme \nstructures, there should be an “administrative impact study” to determine the effect on demand for facilities, \ntimetabling issues, room utilisation and suitability.  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nTimetabling and Room Booking Policy – Page 4  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  Definitions : \nAll teaching space includes:  \n Teaching rooms (lecture theatres/rooms, tutorial/seminar rooms)  \n Scientific laboratories and workshops  \n Computer laboratories  \n Workshops/work rooms  \n Meeting/board rooms  \nThe following criteria are to be used for assessing w hether a College/Section shall have preferential  or exclusive  use \nof a teaching space.  \nPreferential use  \n The College/Section had paid a substantial amount from its own budget for the upgrading of facilities or for \nequipping them, and they have current teach ing and learning in them  \n The space has been purpose -built for particular teaching related activities of the College, and they have \ncurrent teaching and learning in them  \n The space houses expensive equipment which requires special security or where there are  occupational \nhealth and safety issues  \nExclusive use  \n The security or occupational health and safety arguments are overwhelming, and the venue is secure \noutside teaching times  \n The venue is unsuitable for use by others  \nAudience:  \nAll staff  \nHowever it is reco gnised that to produce effective teaching timetables requires an understanding of the teaching \nspace available and relevant operational issues within each Region. This may mean each Region has different \nrequirements and constraints.  These must be given du e consideration, and built into the timetabling business rules \nfor each Region.  \nRelevant Legislation:  \nNone  \nLegal Compliance:  \nNone  \nRelated Procedures:  \n Post-Publication Change Request Process  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nTimetabling and Room Booking Policy – Page 5  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  Document Management Control : \nPrepared by:  Regional Registrars  \nOwned by: AVC Finance, IT, Strategy & Commercial  \nAuthorised by: VCEC 04/64  \nDate issued:  1 April 2004  \nLast review: July 2010  \nNext review: July 2012  \n \n \n \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Qualification_Review_Procedures_PDF_450_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Qualification Review Procedures",
      "policy_type": "Procedure",
      "file_size": "450 KB",
      "creation_date": "2024-07-01T12:00:04",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220141519+13'00'"
    },
    "content": "  \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n \n \n \n \nQUALIFICATION REVIEW PROCEDURES  \nSection  Academic  \nContact  Academic Policy and Regulations  Unit \nLast Review  October  2014 \nNext  Review  October  2017 \nApproval  AB14/109  \n \n \nContents  \n Page  \n1. Introduction  1 \n2. Overview of Qualification Review Procedures  2 \n2.1 Overview Summary (Table 1)  2 \n3. Review Planning (Stage 1)  3 \n3.1 Review Schedule  3 \n3.1.1  Exemption from a Qualification Review  3 \n3.2 Resourcing  3 \n3.3 Information Generation  3 \n3.4 Review Participation  3 \n3.5 Self-Review  4 \n3.6 Identifying a Review Convenor and Review Panel  4 \n3.6.1 Composition and Functions of a Review Panel  (Table 2)  5 \n4. Review Implementation (Stage 2)  5 \n4.1 Staff Preparation  5 \n4.2 Terms of Reference  5 \n4.2.1  Terms of Reference Details (Table 3)  6 \n4.3 Writing the Review Report  6 \n5. Monitoring and Improvement (Stage 3)  7 \n5.1 Consideration of the Review Report  7 \n5.2 Review Report Response  7 \n5.3 Progress Toward Implementation  7 \nAppendix 1 :  List of Review Documents  9 \nAppendix 2:  Qualification Review Report Template  10 \n \n \n \n1. Introduction  \n \nQualification  reviews  are a key element  of the University’s  quality  assurance  and enhancement  framework  which  \nprovide  a basis  for evaluation  of an entire  qualification,  or group  of related  qualifications  based  upon engagement  \nwith a variety of individuals, groups  and units, and evidence from multiple sources.  \n \nReviews  of university  qualifications  are complex  and there  will always  be some  degree  of subjectivity  when  it comes  \nto judgements  of acceptability  and quality.  The Massey  University  Qualification  Review  Procedures  seek  to \nacknowledge  the complexity  of qualification  evaluation  by providing  flexibility  in some  areas  and standards  to ensure  \nconsistency  in others.  Fundamentally,  the success  of any qualification  review  depends  upon  the knowledge  and \nexperience of those  entrusted with the task.  \n \n \n \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \nQualification  Review  Procedures  – Page  2  \n \nThese  procedures  take into account the following considerations  relating to qualification reviews at Massey  University:  \n \n• qualifications  that require  review  for professional  accreditation  and/or  approval  may be eligible  for exclusion  from \nthe Massey  University  Qualification  Review  Procedures  if it can be demonstrated  that the external  review  \nprocedures  are equivalent  (refer  Section  2.1.1). Applications  for exclusion  must  be approved  by the Academic  \nPolicy & Regulations Unit (APRU) on behalf of the Assistant Vice -Chancellor  with portfolio responsibility for \nAcademic matters . \n• in addition  to a Massey  University  Qualification  Review,  new qualifications  are subject  to a Graduating  Year \nReview  in accordance  with the Universities  New Zealand  Committee  on University  Academic  Programmes  \n(CUAP) Academic Programmes Handbook . Where  a qualification is reasonably well established, it may be \nappropriate to combine the Graduating Year Review and the Qualification Review. In these cases  a \nsingle  panel  (as per the Qualification  Review  Procedures  (Section  2.6) which  comprise s staff members  \noutside  the qualification  to be reviewed)  may be constituted  to undertake  a review  which  meets  both the \nGraduating  Year Review  and Qualification  Review  requirements.  In such instances  the panel  will prepare  a \nGraduating  Review  Report  (as per CUAP requirements)  as well as a Qualification  Review  Report.  \n \n \n2. Overview of Qualification Review  Procedures  \n \nThe Qualification  Review  Process  can be divided  into three  stages  – Planning,  Implementation  and Monitoring  / \nImprovement which are described  in these Procedures  according to the groupings that appear in Table  1. \n \n2.1 Overview  Summary  \n \nTable 1:  Procedures Section  Number  Responsibility  \nStage 1:   \nPlanning  3.1 Review  Schedule  APRU in consultation  with senior  College  \nofficers  \n3.2 Resourcing  APRU  \n3.3 Information generation  \n APRU in consultation  with Colleges  and the \nStudent Evaluation and  Engagement  Unit \n3.4 Self-Review  College with assistance from APRU  \n3.5 Identifying  a Review  Convener  and \nReview Panel  College/s in conjunction with APRU  \nStage 2:   \nImplementation  4.1 Staff preparation  College/s in conjunction with APRU  \n4.2 Terms of  Reference  Overview  APRU and College/s  \n4.3 Writing  the Review Report  Review  Panel  \nStage 3:   \nMonitoring and  \nImprovement  5.1 Consideration of the Review  Report  AVC with portfolio responsibility for \nAcademic matters , Academic  Committee,  \nCollege  Boards , Colleges  \n5.2 Review Report response – includes \naction plan to address the \nrecommendations  from the Report.  College  Boards  in consultation with PVCs  \nand the College  Executive  \n5.3 Monitoring of Progress Toward  \nImplementation  of Action Plan  College  Boards  and Academic  Committee  \n \n  \n \n \n \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \nQualification  Review  Procedures  – Page  3  \n3. Review  Planning  (Stage 1)  \n \n3.1 Review  Schedule  \n \nThe review  schedule is  developed by the Academic Policy and Regulations Unit (APRU)  and the College s (in \nconsultation with other  College s as appropriate ). Every qualification  offered  by Massey University  will be formally  \nreviewed via the qualifications  review  process  (or equivalent review  approved  via the exemption process) at least once \nevery seven years.  \n \nThere  may be good  academic reasons to group reviews in the case of qualifications and specialisations that have a \ncommon structure, overlap, or share significant  resources.  The decision to proceed with a grouped review  should be \nmade at the College  level and advised to APRU . Suites of qualifications should normally be reviewed together.  \n \n3.1.1 Exemption from a Qualification Review  \nIn the event that a qualification  is regularly reviewed  and accredited by a professional body, Colleges  may apply \nfor an exemption from the Massey University  Qualifications  Review . To be considered for an exemption,  the PVC \nor their nominee must submit a brief memorandum to APRU,  stating  the reasons for exemption.  In all cases,  a \ncopy of  the existing external body procedures  for review  and accreditation must  be attached . In some cases it may \nbe beneficial to conduct a QR in addition to the accreditation process . This is possible and Colleges should contact \nthe QR Administrator to add this to the Review Schedule.  \n \n3.2 Resourcing  \n \nFinancial r esources for the qualification reviews  are set aside as  part of the budget of the  AVC with portfolio responsibility \nfor Academic matters . Budgeting  procedures  are reviewed  on an ongoing  basis . APRU provides organisational  \nresources . Panel Convenors assign areas of interest from the ToR to Panel members who are then  responsible for \nnotetaking  and writing up a record of panel deliberations that wi ll form the review report . Staff associated with the \nqualifications being reviewed are invited to provide a confidential written submission and/or meet with the panel . \nQualification Coordinators are responsible for preparing the self -review (see section 3.4 below).  \n \n3.3 Information Generation  \n \nAPRU will consult with the relevant Pro Vice-Chancellor’s Office(s)  and/or Qualification Coordinator (or equivalent)  in \norder to identify any specific information /documentation  to include  in the Review . Information  and statistics relevant to \nthe qualifications  under review  are compiled and confidential s ubmissions from stakeholders  (staff, students,  graduates  \nand other interested individuals and groups, for example professional  bodies  and employers) are  sought . The panel also \nhas available to it relevant Massey University policies, procedures,  and strategies.  \n \nA summary of information  that is normally collated for consideration  during the review is provided in Appendix 1. The \nQualification Review Administrator  will distribute the collated information to the panel members prior to the panel  meeting . \nThe information, excluding confidential submissions, is also sent to the College/s.  \n \nDuring the course of the review, members of the review  panel will have access to a great deal  of information  about a \nparticular qualification,  some of which may be sensitive . The Review  Panel  is expected to treat as confidential  any \npersonal or  commercially sensitive material provided to it, including  individual  submissions from staff, students,  or \nexternal communities of interest.  \n \n \n3.4 Review Participation  \n \nAll staff teaching into the qualification are encouraged  to provide a confidential written submission to the Panel . \nInvitations for submissions will also be extended to other staff with an interest in the qualification . Submissions may be \nsent by individuals or groups.  \n \nWhere the qualification has relatively small numbers of teaching staff all these staff will be invited to meet with the panel . \n \n \n \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \nQualification  Review  Procedures  – Page  4  \nWhere the qualification has a large teaching staff, key and/or senior staff and qualification/ specialisation coordinators \nwill be invited to meet with the Panel . Other staff as appropriate (or their nominees) are also invited to meet with the \nPanel . This includes the Pro Vice -Chancellor/s, senior College members, AVC Maori & Pasifika, administrative staff, \nmarketing/external relations, international, library, centre for teaching and learning and central services . Staff may meet \nwith the Panel individually or in groups.  \n \nRecent and current students and recent graduates will also be invited to provide a written submission . The Qualification \nReview Administrator liaises with the qualification coordinator to identify a range of students to meet with the Panel.  \n \nIndustry/employer participation is important . Colleges will be consulted in order to identify appropriate groups and \nindividuals to invite to either provide a submission or meet with the Panel . These groups might include employers of our \ngraduates, organisations involved in placement/internships, members of advisory boards, guest lecturers/speakers and \nindustry organisations.  \n \n3.5 Self-Review  \n \nA process of self -review  in relation to the Review  Terms of Reference  (see Section  4.2) is includ ed in the Qualification \nReview p rocess . The self -review  is run by the College hosting  the qualification with assistance  and guidance  provided \nby APRU . Appropriate information, documents and statistical data will be provided by APRU in a similar fashion to that \nprovided for the QR. A QR Guide for Self -reviews is available to assist Colleges in conducting the self -review.  \n \nThe self -review  has two purposes:  (1)  to assess the impact of the actions initiated to address the recommendations \nfrom the previous Qualification Review offering a commentary as to the effectiveness of the actions, and providing an \nupdate on implementation ; and (2)  to evaluate the qualification in preparation for the next QR ,  Colleges are encourage d \nto self -identify areas for improvements that can be presented to the QR Panel with comments on how the College plans \nto rectify or support any identified pro blem areas or strengthen any areas of good practice.   Where a qualification is \nnew, has not had a QR conducted before, or the previous QR is out of date, the self -review will focus on looking forward \nand be used as a starting point for the next QR.  \n \nColleges should look critically at the qualification and specialisations taking account of the QR ToR . The self -review \nmay recommend further action to be taken in relation to the previous QR findings and / or make new recommendations \nfor supplementing the previous actions . It should also where appropriate consider areas that need improvement or \nrefinement and make suggestions to address these areas . In this way the QR Panel has the opportunity to gain a better \nunderstanding of the qualification and the College’s vision for that qualification . The self -review report will be include d \nin the QR documentation,  and the Review Panel can be expected to be guided by the self -review as providing a direction \nfrom the College.  \n \nThe self-review comes in year five of the seven -year Qualification Review cycle : \nQualification Review conducted  (Year 1)  \nSix months after the Review Report is released the College responds to the Report.  \nOne year after the release of the Review Report an update on action taken is provided.  \nColleges progress action plan  \nSelf-review is conducted five years after the previous  QR and two years prior to the next QR.  \nFurther information on conducting a self -review can be obtained through APRU.  \n \n \n3.6 Identifying a Review  Conven or and Review Panel  \n \nThe Qualification Review Administrator from APRU coordinates the identification of the Review Convenor and Panel \nmembers . The Qualification Coordinator and/or senior College staff provide nominations for each position on the panel .  \n \nThe proposed  Review  Panel  is approved  by the Pro Vice-Chancellor(s)  of the relevant  College(s)  and panel  members  \nshould  include  people  with relevant  experience  and expertise . The number  of panel  members  will vary depending  \nupon  the size of the review,  the availability  of panel members , the number of students in the qualification/s under \nreview  and the subject  area. As a guideline,  the composition  of a panel  is outlined  in Table  2, but it is accepted that \na review panel with a different  composition may be appointed  where this is appropriate.  \n \n \n \n \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \nQualification  Review  Procedures  – Page  5  \n 3.6.1 Table 2:   Composition and Functions of  a Review  Panel  \n \nPosition  Description  Function  \nConvener  Normally a staff member (current or \nrecently retired) from outside of the  \nqualification(s)  to be reviewed .  Chairs the Review and oversees writing  \nthe Review  Report.  \nOverseas  \nRepresentative  Normally a senior staff member of an  \noverseas  university, related \nprofessional  group,  or business.  Representation on panels will vary \naccording to the features  and context of  \nthe qualification(s)  to be reviewed . For \nexample, for a qualification  seen as  \nhaving  potential to attract international \nenrolments,  the inclusion of an \noverseas  representative  may be \nimportant  for benchmarking  purposes.  \nReviews of qualifications  preparing \ngraduates  for entry into  professional  \npractice are likely to include  \nrepresentation from the relevant  \nprofessional  group . Graduate \nrepresentation provide s an important \nstudent/stakeholder perspective . \n \nThe Review  Panel  members are \nexpected  to assist the Convener in  \ndrafting  the Review Report.  Following  \nreceipt of  information pertinent to the \nqualification  review, panel  members \nmay request  additional information.  External NZ  \nRepresentatives(s)  Normally a staff member from another \nNZ university and/or a senior  member  \nof a related  professional group  or \nbusiness.  \nInternal Representatives  Staff members  from Massey  \nUniversity  and outside the qualification  \nunder review.  Consideration  should \nalso be given to the appropriateness \nof a Māori  representative on the \nReview Panel.  \nStudent  Representative s Normally one or two recent graduate s \nor senior students  of the qualification.  \nAdministrator  Qualification Review Administrator  The Qualification Review Administrator  \nprovides all organisational  support for \nthe review .  \n \n \n4. Review  Implementation  (Stage 2)  \n \n4.1 Staff  Preparation  \n \nThe Qualification Review Administrator provides staff participating in the review  (eg. staff teaching in the qualification)  \nwith the  appropriate information . This includes the Terms of Reference, Panel membership information and access to \nthe review documentation (excluding confidential submissions) . An induction session is usually held at the beginning of \nthe year for staff directly involved in a QR. A QR Quick Guide for Staff is available for staff participating in a Review.  \n \n4.2 Terms  of Reference  \n \nA qualification  review  involves  an examination  of numerous  aspects  of qualification  management  and delivery  that \ninteract  and contribute  to the overall  quality  and acceptability  of the qualification,  and these are reflected in the Review \nTerms of Reference . Not all of the considerations under the ToR may apply to all qualifications . Colleges may wish to \ninclude additional ToR that are specific to the qualification/s under review . These  Broad  Areas,  Considerations  and their \nassociated  information  requirements  are summarised in Table  3. \n  \n \n \n \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \nQualification  Review  Procedures  – Page  6  \n \n 4.2.1  Table 3:  Terms  of Reference  Details  \n \nBroad  Area  Considerations  \nQualification Objectives  1. Consistency with University Policy  \n2. Consistency with University and  College  Strategic  Plans  \n3. Acceptability to communities of interest  including academic, industrial , \npublic sector, non -profit and professional  communities  \nQualification Structure and \nManagement  4. Relevance and appropriateness of  qualification  regulations  \n5. Consideration of the ways in which  curriculum design and papers  contribute  \nto the overall qualification  objectives  and Graduate Profile  \n6. Appropriateness of admission procedures   \n7. Appropriateness of e nrolment procedures  \n8. Procedures for equivalence  \n9. Links to other qualifications and  disciplines  \n10. Processes to support continuous  improvement.  \n11. Marketing and recruitment  \n12. Existing  plans for future  development  \nTeaching, Learning and \nAssessment  13. Physical  and IT resources   \n14. Library  resources and information literacy development  \n15. Staff numbers, qualifications, expertise,  and staff development  \n16. Interdependence of research and  teaching  \n17. Research supervision and  research  profile (for  postgraduate  qualifications  \nin particular)  \n18. Student  assessment including moderation  procedures.  \n19. Student retention, progression , completion,  and employability  \n20. Student  support  \n21. Health and safety in terms of qualification  content and delivery . \n(Consideration should be given to physical, cultural,  and psychological \nfactors.)  \nOverarching  \nConsiderations  22. Application of Treaty of Waitangi  principles  \n23. Enables E quity of  educational  opportunity  \n24. Internationalisation  \n \n4.3 Writing the Review  Report  \n \nThe Review Panel is responsible for writing the Report.  The Report is set out under headings aligned with the Terms \nof Reference and comments under each of these are made as appropriate to the qualifications under review . The Panel \nis expected to put forward recommendation’s  commendation s and observations .  \n \nRecommendations provide specific targeted guidance to the College in areas the panel has identified as being \nappropriate for improvement . The recommendations might specify particular activities for the College to undertake or \nthey might identify the area and the College determines the activity that will address the recommendation.  \n \n \nCommendations are areas of good practice the Panel has observed through the Review . Commendations can relate to \nany facet of the qualification objectives, management, structure, teaching, learning or overarching considerations . Areas \nof good practice will be shared with a wider university audience.  \n \nObservations are areas the Panel has identified that further investigation and action might support the development of \nthe qualification or that include issues that should be addressed at a university -wide level . Specific activities are not \nexpected to be detailed under observations . These are suggestions for exploration by the College and/or University of \nidentified matters.  \n \n \n \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \nQualification  Review  Procedures  – Page  7  \nThe Review  Report is standardi sed in order to increase comparability across the University  offerings and facilitate  the \nimplementation of the recommendations.  The factual details for the qualification/s are provided to the Panel in the \nReport template by APRU as part of the initial documentation . The template  for the Review  Report is  provided in \nAppendix 2 of these  procedures.  \n \nThe timeframe for completion of the Review Report is within three months following the conclusion of the Review.  \n \nA QR Quick Guide for Review Panel Members is available to provide guidance to panels in conducting a QR.  \n \n5. Monitoring and  Improvement  (Stage 3) 2 \n \n5.1 Consideration of the Review  Report  \n \nThe Draft  Review  Report  is submitted  to the AVC ( A, R & E ) and relevant  PVC(s)  for comment  on factual accuracy . \nAppropriate  staff within  the qualification  may be consulted at this point . Appropriate  revisions  are made  by the Review  \nConvenor  in consultation  with the Review  Panel, and the Final Report is submitted to APRU . \n \nAPRU  submits  the report  to Academic  Committee  (Part  II) for noting,  brief comment,  and referral  to the relevant  PVC(s)  \nand College Board(s) . Colleges are responsible for disseminating the report to appropriate staff within the College.  \n \n5.2 Review Report Response   \n \nThe Review  Report  is considered  by the relevant  College  Board(s)  which  will be responsible  for overseeing and \nmonitoring  progress towards the implementation of  the recommendations  as appropriate.  \n \nWhere  additional  resources  are required  for implementation  of the recommendations,  implementation  will be \ndependent  on the qualification’s  alignment  with the College  Strategic  and University  Investment  Plans.  Resource  \nallocation  will be at the discretion  of the relevant  PVC(s)  in consultation  with the College  Executive.  \n \nSix months  after receiving  the review report,  the College  will be required  to submit  a College Response Report  to \nAcademic  Committee  outlining  the actions  planned,  or underway,  as a result  of the Review  recommendations.  This \nshould include a timeline for implementation of initiatives.  \n \n5.3 Progress  Toward Implementation  \n \nOne year after the College Response report is sent to Academic Committee a progress report is required to be submitted \nto Academic Committee outlining progress made on achieving the initiatives outlined in the response .  \n \nPrior to the next Qualification Review a final progress report will be required . This final report is to enable the College \nand the next review panel to sign off on achieved plans, pick anything up that may need further consideration at the next \nreview or close off issues that may no longer be relevant.  \n \nAudience:  \n \nAll staff  \n \nRelated Procedures / Documents:  \n \nQualification Review Policy  \nQualification Review Procedures  \nMassey University Qualification s Policy  \nMassey University Qualification Framework  \nTeaching & Learning Policy  \nKaupapa Here Tiriti o Waitangi – Tiriti o Waitan gi Policy  \n \nEquity of Access to Educational Opportunity Policy  \n \n \n \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \nQualification  Review  Procedures  – Page  8  \n \nDocument  Management  Control:  \n \nPrepared by:  Academic Policy and Regulations  Unit  \nAuthorised by:  AVC ( Research,  Academic  & Enterprise )  \nApproved by:  AB14/109 - Academic Board  \nDate issued:  20 July 2011   \nLast review:  October 2014  \nNext review:  October 2017  \n \n2 In the  case of  a partnership  arrangement  with another provider,  consideration  of the  Review  Report  and implementation  of \nrecommendations  will include  the CEO  (or equivalent) of  the partner provider.   \n \n \n \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \nQualification  Review  Procedures  – Page  9  \n \nAppendix  1: List of Review  Documents  \n \nDuring  the course  of the review,  members  of the review  panel  will have  access  to a great  deal of information  about  a \nparticular  qualification,  some  of which  may be sensitive.  The Review  Panel  is expected  to treat as confidential  any \npersonal  or commercially  sensitive  material  provided  to it, including  individual  submissions  from staff,  students,  or \nexternal  communities  of interest.  The following  document  list summarises  information  likely  to be of value  during  the \nreview . Not all the documentation / information listed below will be provided to every review . Some may not be available \nor relevant . In some cases access to the information / documentation will be through the web rather than hard copy.  \n \n• Massey University Qualification Review  Policy and Procedures*  \n• Massey University Investment Plan  \n• Organi sation  flow charts of  the University,  College / department  (where available)  \n• Enrolment and Calendar Regulations and Information  from the Massey  University  Web pages  \n• CUAP Proposals  (where appropriate – if a qualification is more than 10 years old these may no longer be relevant)  \n• Staff Profiles  \n• Paper Outlines  (where appropriate – where the number of papers in a qualification or suite of qualifications is large \nthis may not be feasible to provide outlines for every paper . In these cases only core paper outlines may be \nprovided.  \n• Student  Demographic Information  \n• EFTs , Headcount and Completion Data  \n• Results of Student Evaluations  (e.g. GDS , SES)  \n• Graduate Profiles  \n• Library Report  \n• Confidential submissions from s tudent s, graduate s, staff,  and other  stakeholder s (these are voluntary and are \nconfidential to the submission maker and the Review Panel only . The submission maker may, if they wish, circulate \ntheir own submission further)  \n• College / department / central unit reports (these differ from the confidential submissions in that they are usually \nmore widely circulated outside the Panel and form the collective vision / view of the unit)  \n• Self-Review  Report  \n• Qualification Committee information (eg ToR, Minutes, Membership)  where a committee  exists.  \n• Other reports as appropriate – these may be from other units within the University with an interest or active role in \nthe qualification/s.  \n \nThe Panel also has available to it University  policies, procedures, strategies,  and documents  which include  ((but may \nnot be limited to) : \nShaping the Nation Taking the Best to the World the Road to 2025  \nUniversity Calendar  \nQualifications Policy  \nQualifications Framework  \nEquivalence Policy  \nHealth & Safety Policy  \nAssessment Strategy , Principles and Guidelines , \nEquity of Access to Educational Opportunities Policy  \nTeaching & Learning Policy  \nTeaching & Learning Framework  \nTreaty of Waitangi Policy  \nKia Marama - Māori@Massey 2020 Strategy  \nGrowing Pearls of Wisdom – Pasifika@Massey 2020 Strategy  \nResearch Strategy  \nInternationalisation Strategy  \nAnnual Report   \n \n \n \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \nQualification  Review  Procedures  – Page  10  \n \nAppendix  2: Qualification Review  Report  Template  \n \n \n \nQualification Review Report  \n \n \n \nName of qualification/s  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nMonth and Year of Report  \n  \n\n \n \n \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \nQualification  Review  Procedures  – Page  11  \nTable of Contents  \n1. OVERVIEW  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  12 \n1.1 Qualification/s  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............................  12 \n1.2 Specialisations  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............................  12 \n1.3 Study modes / locations  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  12 \n1.4 Brief qualification aim  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  12 \n1.5 Brief qualification content  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............  12 \n1.6 Main assessment methods  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  12 \n1.7 Entry requirements  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................  12 \n1.8 College(s)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......  12 \n1.9 Qualification coordinator / director  ................................ ................................ ................................  12 \n1.10  Review convener  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................  12 \n1.11  Review date  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............................  12 \n1.12  Review panel  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................  12 \n2. INTRODUCTION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 12 \n2.1 Review objective  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................  12 \n2.2 Terms of reference ................................ ................................ ................................ .........................  12 \n2.3 Materials submitted to the review panel  ................................ ................................ ........................  13 \n2.4 Submissions  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 13 \n2.5 List of people meeting with the review panel  ................................ ................................ .................  13 \n2.6 History and development of the qualification/s  ................................ ................................ ..............  13 \n3. QUALIFICATION OBJECTIVES  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................  13 \n3.1 Consistency w ith University and College  strategic plans ................................ ................................ .. 14 \n3.2 Acceptability to communities of interest including academic, industrial and professional communities  14 \n3.3 Quality and adequacy of qualification objectives  ................................ ................................ ............  14 \n4. QUALIFICATION STRUCTURE AND MANAGEMENT  ................................ ................................ ..................  14 \n4.1 Relevance and appropriateness of qualification regulations ................................ ............................  14 \n4.2 Consideration of the ways in which curriculum design and papers contribute to the overall qualification objectives\n 14 \n4.3 Appropriateness of admission and enrolment procedures  ................................ ..............................  14 \n4.4 Procedures for equivalence  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  14 \n4.5 Links to other qualifications and disciplines  ................................ ................................ ....................  14 \n4.6 Processes to support continuous improvement  ................................ ................................ ..............  14 \n4.7 Marketing and recruitment  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  14 \n4.8 Existing plans for future development  ................................ ................................ ............................  14 \n4.9 Quality and adequacy of qualification structure and management ................................ ..................  14 \n5. TEACHING, LEARNING AND ASSESSMENT  ................................ ................................ ...............................  14 \n5.1 Physical and IT resources (including library)  ................................ ................................ ....................  14 \n5.2 Staff and staff development  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........  14 \n5.3 Interdependence of research and teaching ................................ ................................ .....................  14 \n5.4 Research supervision and research profile (for postgraduate qualifications in particular)  ................  14 \n5.5 Student assessment including moderation procedures  ................................ ................................ ... 14 \n5.6 Student progression and completion  ................................ ................................ ..............................  14 \n5.7 Student support  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................  14 \n5.8 Health and safety in terms of qualification content and delivery  ................................ .....................  14 \n5.9 Quality and adequacy of teaching, learning and assessment  ................................ ...........................  14 \n6. OVERARCHING CONSIDERATIONS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........  14 \n6.1 Treaty and Equity of Educational Opportunity:  ................................ ................................ ...............  15 \n6.2 Internationalisation: ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................  15 \n7. CONCLUSIONS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  15 \n7.1 Commendations: ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................  15 \n7.2 Recommendations:  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................  15 \n \n \n \n \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \nQualification  Review  Procedures  – Page  12  \n<Remove all italicised notes before submission.  Sections in the Overview that are not relevant may be deleted.>  \n \n1. OVERVIEW  \n \n1.1 Qualification/s  \n \nQualification/s  Credits  Code  Length (Full -time)  \n    \n    \n \n \n1.2 Specialisations  <if applicable>  \n \n1.3 Study modes / locations  \n \n1.4 Brief qualification aim  \n \n1.5 Brief qualification content  \n \n1.6 Main assessment methods  \n \n1.7 Entry requirements  \n \n1.8 College(s)  \n \n1.9 Qualification coordinator / director <or equivalent>  \n \n1.10 Review convener  \n \n1.11 Review date  \n \n1.12 Review panel  \n \n2. INTRODUCTION  \n \n2.1 Review objective  \n \n This is a report of the review of the <insert qualification/specialisation name/s>  within the College of <insert \nCollege name/s> .   \n \n The objective of the review was to assess the numerous aspects of qualification management and delivery that \ninteract and contribute to the overall quality and acceptability of the qualification ; and to recommend any \nadministrative and programme changes that would strengthen and support the qualifications.  \n \n2.2 Terms of reference  \n \nBroad  Area  Considerations  \nQualification Objectives  1. Consistency with University Policy  \n2. Consistency with University and  College  Strategic  Plans  \n3. Acceptability to communities of interest  including academic, industrial , public \nsector, non -profit and  professional  communities  \n \n \n \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \nQualification  Review  Procedures  – Page  13  \nQualification Structure and \nManagement  4. Relevance and appropriateness of  qualification  regulations  \n5. Consideration of the ways in which  curriculum design and papers  contribute  \nto the overall qualification  objectives  and Graduate Profile  \n6. Appropriateness of admission procedures   \n7. Appropriateness of e nrolment procedures  \n8. Procedures for equivalence  \n9. Links to other qualifications and  disciplines  \n10. Processes to support continuous  improvement.  \n11. Marketing and recruitment  \n12. Existing  plans for future  development  \nTeaching, Learning and \nAssessment  13. Physical  and IT resources   \n14. Library  resources and information literacy development  \n15. Staff numbers, qualifications, expertise,  and staff development  \n16. Interdependence of research and  teaching  \n17. Research supervision and  research  profile (for  postgraduate  qualifications  in \nparticular)  \n18. Student  assessment including moderation  procedures.  \n19. Student retention, progression , completion,  and employability  \n20. Student  support  \n21. Health and safety in terms of qualification  content and delivery . (Consideration \nshould be given to physical, cultural,  and psychological factors.)  \nOverarching  Considerations  22. Application of Treaty of Waitangi  principles  \n23. Enables E quity of  educational  opportunity  \n24. Internationalisation  \n \n \n2.3 Materials submitted to the review panel.  \n \n The Review Panel had available to it:  <add or delete as appropriate>   \n The Road to 2025, MU 2014  Calendar, Review Terms of Reference, College Profile, statistical and demographic \ndata, student headcounts, EFTS, grade distribution, qualification overview, programme information from website, \ncourse regulations, staff profiles, original CUAP proposal, p aper outlines and submissions.  The following Massey \nUniversity policies and procedures were also made available:  Qualification Review Policy, Qualification Review \nProcedures, Equivalence Policy, Health & Safety Policy, Assessment Strategy, Principles and  Guidelines, Equity \nof Access to Educational Opportunities Policy, Teaching & Learning Policy, Teaching & Learning Framework, \nTreaty of Waitangi Policy, Māori @massey Strategy, Pasifika@massey Strategy, Internationalisation Strategy, \nResearch Strategy 2012 – 2014, Qualifications Policy, Qualifications Framework and the 2012 /3 Annual Report.  \n \n2.4 Submissions  \n \n The Review Panel received <insert number> written submissions, <insert number> from staff and <insert \nnumber> from students.  \n \n2.5 List of people meeting with the review panel  \n Insert list of people and school/department/institute/group  \n \n2.6 History and development of the qualification/s  \n <Significant points about the history and development of the qualification/s may be added here.>  \n \n \n3. QUALIFICATION OBJECTIVES  \n <An introduction to the report or general comments may be added here>  \n \n \n \n \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \nQualification  Review  Procedures  – Page  14  \n3.1 Consistency w ith University and College  strategic plans  \n \n3.2 Acceptability to communities of interest including academic, industrial,  and professional communities.  \n \n3.3 Quality and adequacy of qualification objectives  \n <Summary comment>  \n \n \n4. QUALIFICATION STRUCTURE AND MANAGEMENT  \n \n4.1 Relevance and appropriateness of qualification regulations  \n \n4.2 Consideration of the ways in which curriculum design and papers contribute to the overall qualification \nobjectives.  \n \n4.3 Appropriateness of admission and enrolment procedures  \n \n4.4 Procedures for equivalence  \n \n4.5 Links to other qualifications and disciplines  \n \n4.6 Processes to support continuous improvement.  \n \n4.7 Marketing and recruitment  \n \n4.8 Existing plans for future development  \n \n4.9 Quality and adequacy of qualification structure and management  \n<Summary comment>  \n \n \n5. TEACHING, LEARNING AND ASSESSMENT  \n \n5.1 Physical and IT resources  \n \n5.2 Library  resources and information literacy development  \n \n5.3 Staff and staff development  \n \n5.4 Interdependence of research and teaching  \n \n5.5 Research supervision and research profile (for postgraduate qualifications in particular)  \n \n5.6 Student assessment including moderation procedures.  \n \n5.7 Student progression and completion  \n \n5.8 Student support  \n \n5.9 Health and safety in terms of qualification content and delivery  \n \n5.10 Quality and adequacy of teaching, learning and assessment.  \n<Summary comment>  \n \n \n6. OVERARCHING CONSIDERATIONS  \n \n \n \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \nQualification  Review  Procedures  – Page  15  \n \n6.1 Treaty of Waitangi and Equity of Educational Opportunity:  \n \n6.2 Internationalisation:  \n \n \n7. CONCLUSIONS  \n \n<An Executive Summary  will be added here>  \n \n7.1 Commendations:  \n<Collated list of all commendations, sequentially numbered>  \n \n7.2 Recommendations:  \n<Collated l ist of all recommendations with narrative if appropriate and reference to duplication > \n \n \n \n \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Study_Abroad_Programme_Policy_PDF_112_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Study Abroad Programme Policy PDF 112 KB",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "112 KB",
      "author": "Gregory Huff",
      "creation_date": "2023-07-24T10:04:06",
      "modification_date": "D:20230724104610+12'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n \n \n \n \n \n \nMassey Universit y Policy Guide   \n \nSTUDY ABROAD PROGRAMME POLICY    \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nPurpose:   \nThe purpose o f this policy i s to define the criteria tha t the University will apply in hosting Study Abroad students from \noverseas .  \nIntroduction:   \nWhereas  Governmen t policy  on student  exchange  agreements  requires  that the number  of incoming  international \nstudents  and outgoing New Zealand students for each exchange be equal , on an  average over three years , Stud y Abroad \ncarrie s no such limit ations. The main distinguishing factor i s that Stud y Abroad students pay the current  Study  Abroad  \nProgramme  fee, enrolment  fees and, normally,  all other  attendant  course  costs  and costs  of accommodation  at the \nhost universit y.  \nPolic y:   \nMassey  University  will actively  develop  its study  abroad  market  with the aim of hosting  international  students  for periods \nof study ranging from less  than one semeste r through to two seme sters.  \nProposed arrangements for Study Abroad students c oming to Masse y from overseas inst itutions mu st addre ss \nseveral  criteria, specifically :   \n(i)  Students applying to Study Abroad a t Massey Universi ty who have completed secondary school in a   \nforeign country and are taking gap  time prior t o enrolling in a degree programme at a tertiar y institution   \nmust :   \na.  Be 18 years old by  the tim e they arriv e at Massey Uni versity .  \nb.  Meet the academic e ntry criteria for  the course s they w ish to undertake .  \nc.  Meet the  English language criteria to study a t the level  at which they wish  to study.  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n  © This  Policy is  the property o f Masse y University   Secti on   International   \nContac t   Office of Global Engagement   \nLast Revie w   July 2023    \nNext Revi ew   July 202 6 \nAppr oval   AB 20/10/29 1   \nEffect ive Date   July 2023  \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nMassey Universit y Policy Guide   \nStud y Abroad P rogramme Polic y – Page 2   \n \n(ii)  Students enrolled in a foreign tertiar y institution who a pply to Stud y Abroad a t Massey Universi ty mu st:   \na.  Be studying  toward  a bachelor’s or master’s  degree  at a tertiary  institution  whose academic   \nstandards  ensure  that the studen t should  be able to manage  the course s he or she  intends to   \nundertake at Masse y.  \nb.  Meet the academic e ntry criteria for  the course s they w ish to undertake .  \nc.  Meet the  English language criteria to study a t the level  at which they wish  to study.  \nd.  Have permission from  their home university  to study a t Massey .  \n(iii) All Study Abroad students are liable for the Study Abroad Programme fee, health,  and travel insurance   \nthat meet s Massey’s minimum insurance requirement s, visa and travel co sts, accommodation and living   \ncosts , and any additional local administrative levies. S tudents must pa y all fees prior t o arrival, either to   \nMassey  directl y, or to the relevant  third-party  provide r according  to the terms of any formalised  agreement .  \nWhere required, Masse y will then invoice the third -party provider .  \nVirtual Stud y Abroad:   \nVirtual  Study  Abroad  exists  within  the Study  Abroad  framework  and operates  in a similar  manner.  The differences  between \nVirtual Study Abroad and Study Abroad are:   \n(i)  Offshore  students  remain  at their home  campuses  while  participating  in Distance  courses  at Massey   \nUniversity .  \n(ii)  Students  can enrol  in from one to four Distance  courses per semester  that do not have  a compulsory   \ncontact component .  \n(iii) Students are no t limited to enrolling in a maximu m of two semester s.  \nVirtual Study Abroad  must  meet  the same en try requirements as  Study  Abroad students  to enrol in the progr amme .  \nVirtual Study Abroad students are  charged a per cour se fee based on one -quarter o f the Study Abroad progr amme fee .  \nThese student s will be charged non -tuition fees in ac cordance with Massey’ s standard policies regarding fees fo r online \ncourses .  \nStud y Abroad A rrangements:   \nStudy  Abroad  arrangements  will be set up and operated  according  to the Procedures  Relating  to Overseas  Students \nStudying at Massey Universit y Under the Stud y Abroad Programme, and in accordance with the Delegations Document , \nand Creation  of Contract s Polic y of Masse y Univers ity, and will be approved  by the Deput y Vice-Chanc ellor \nStudents and Global Engagement .  \nThe Study Abroad  Programme  and Study Abroad  agreements  with home institution s or third-party  provi ders will be \nadministered through the Office o f Global Engagement .  \nAll incoming Study Abroad students mus t follow Mass ey’s established procedures in a way similar to  the acceptance of a \nstudent tran sferring to Ma ssey from another universit y.  \nAny international studen t studying at Massey Universi ty for a period of one  semeste r or more  must be formally  enrolled at \nMassey  as a full-time student .  \nInternational students who hold New Zealand citizenship or permanent residency and who arrive at Massey under the \nStudy  Abroad  Programme  are prohibited  from withdrawing  from the Programme  and enrolling  as domestic  students  under \nthe domestic student fe e structure.  \n \n \n© This  Policy is  the property o f Masse y University   \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nAudi ence:   \nAll Staf f   \nReleva nt Legislation:   \nEducation A ct 1989 and Amendment s   \nImmigration A ct 1987   \nLega l compliance :    \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nMassey Universit y Policy Guide   \nStud y Abroad P rogramme Polic y – Page 3  \nIf Study Abroa d student s are not classified  as Exempt Students  unde r the Act, the Education  Act 1989:80/ 15 \nCode of Practice for Provider s who enrol International Students , the Universit y must ensure t hat international \nstudents are cared fo r in accordance wit h The Education (Pastoral Care of Tertiary and International Learners) \nCode of Practice 2021 .  \nStudy Abroad students must meet New Zealand Imm igration Service regulations in relation to Visa and  other \nrequirements .  \nMassey  University  must  comply  with New Zealand  Immigration  Service  regulations  including  the Generic \nTemporary En try Polic y, and any applicable regulations relating to Study Abroad Scheme s.  \nRelate d procedures / documents:   \n \nInternationalisation Framework 2017 -2025  \nStudy Abroad Progra mme Procedure s   \nDocu ment Management Control:   \nPrepared by:  Office of Global Engagement \nAuthorised by:   DVC Global Engagement   \nApproved by :  AB 20/10/ 291. \nDate issued:  April 2005    \nLast review :  July 2023  \nNext review :  July 2026    \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n© This  Policy is  the property o f Masse y University  \n \n\n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Trust_Funds_Policy_PDF_93_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Trust Funds Policy",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "93 KB",
      "creation_date": "2022-09-21T08:04:02",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220101952+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n \nTRUST FUNDS POLICY  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \n \nPurpose :  \nTo ensure that Trust F unds established and administered by the University are managed:  \n• In accordance wi th the wishes of the settlors/ testators . \n• In compliance with legal, audit and good governance/ best practice requirements ; and   \n• in a manner that minimises the potential liabil ity or loss by the University or its Council and its staff.  \n \nTrust Funds include the following:  \n• Intervivos Trusts.  \n• Char itable Trust s; and  \n• Testamentary Trust s. \nPolicy:  \nTrust Funds must only be accepted, transferred to the University,  or otherwise established with the approval and \nresolution of the University’s Council. This may be delegated to the Vice -Chancellor , or. \n \nAll Trust Funds accepted must be admi nistered  in accordance with the terms of the Will or the Trust  Deed as the case \nmay be so as t o properly and fully meet the wishes of the settlo r and/or testator and which  govern the obligations and \nresponsibility of the trustees and Massey University.  \n \nProcedures must be implemented, followed,  and audited to ensure compliance with settlo r’s wishes , Trust Deeds,  and \nlegal and financial r eporting requirements.  \n \nTrust F unds and their  administration , including disbursements , must be in compliance with university  policies and \nprocedures.  \n \nTrust Funds and their administration m ay be audited from time to time in accordance with their respective Trust Deed.   \n \nIt is preferable for  Trust Funds  to be administrated by the Massey University Foundation  Trust (MUF ); a charitable \ntrust established  by the University.  \n \nThe University will m aintain restricted cash reserves, to an amount equal to the value of the Trust, other than those \nadministered by M UF. Section  Finance  \nContact  Chief Financial Officer  \nLast Review  May 2022  \nNext Review  May 2027 \nApproval  C22/59 \nEffective Date  21 July  2022 \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nTrust Funds Policy  – Page 2  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nAudience : \nAll University s taff, council members , professional advisors,  and potential benefactors/ settlor s. \nRelevant Legislation : \nCrown Entities Act 2004  \nPublic Finance Act 1989  \nTrusts Act 2019   \nThe Friendly Societies and Credit Union Act 1982,  \nCharities Act 2005  \nLegal Compliance:  \nTrusts Act 2019 set s out the core principles of the law relating to trusts and their administration, including the powers, \nduties and obligations of Trustees.  \nRelated Procedures  and Documents : \nDelegations  of Authority Policy  \nTreasury Policy  \nCompliance Policy  \nDocument Management Control : \nPrepared by:  Chief Financial Officer  \nOwned by:  DVC University Services  \nApproved by:  C22/58 \nDate issued:  6 May 2011   \nLast review:  May 2022 \nNext review:  May 20 27 \n \n \n \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Terms_of_Trade_Policy_PDF_95_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Terms of Trade Policy",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "95 KB",
      "creation_date": "2022-06-10T09:02:07",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220102012+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " Massey  University Policy Guide  \n \nTERMS OF TRADE  POLICY  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \nPurpose :  \nTo ensure appropriate and consistent terms of trade are available to customers of Massey University  (the University ). \n \nThis policy w ill apply to the provision of all goods and services provided by the University, except goods and services \nprovided to student debtors, or to Contract Research clients for which other contractual provisions apply.  \nPolicy : \nTerms of Trade have been drafted f or the provision of all goods and services (Massey University Terms of Trade). \nProvision of all goods and services to customers must comply wi th the provision s laid out in this document.  \n \nDetails of the University’s terms of trade must be made available to  the customers, either in hard copy or \nelectronically, prior to the customer entering into a contract to purchase goods or services.  \n \nAll quo tations must inc lude a copy of the Massey University Terms of Trade.  \n \nAll invoices must include reference to the M assey University Terms of Trade.  \n \nPayment Terms  \n \nAll payments, where a credit facility has been established with the University, are due in fu ll on 20th day o f the month \nfollowing the date of the invoice. If a credit facility  has not been established, paym ent must be upon receipt of the \ngoods or service. Any exception to these payment terms must be approved by the Chief Financial Officer in adv ance \nof any cont ract being signed.  \nAudience : \nAll staff  \nRelevant Legislation : \nConsumer Guarantees Act 1993  Section  Finance  \nContact  Chief Financial Officer  \nLast Review  May 2022  \nNext Review  May 2028  \nApproval  SLT 22/06/69  \n Massey University Po licy Guide   \nTerms of Trade Policy  – Page 2 \n \n© This Policy is the propert y of Massey University  Related  Procedures  and Documents : \nMassey University Terms of Trade  \nDocument Management Control : \nPrepared by:  Chief Financial Officer  \nApprove d by:  SLT 22/06/69  \nDate Issued:  May 2022  \nLast Review: May 2022  \nNext Review:  May 2028  \n \n \n \n \nTERMS OF TRADE\nMASSEY UNIVERSITY\nThe terms of trade set out below , together with any qu otation (the\"contract \"),govern the supply o f all products and services\n(\"deliverables \")supplied by MA SSEY UN IVERSITY to you (‘ customer/s ’)andrepresent allofthe terms and conditions that\ngovern the supply of the deliverab les, and supersede all previous agreements, communications, arrangements a nd\nunderstandings between the parties (whether written or o ral) re lating to the deliverab les. Your accept ance of a nyquotations\nor delivera bles from Massey University is deemed to be acceptance of these Terms of Trade.\n1.Quotat ions.Anyquotation is ba sed on an interpretation of\nthe customer 'swritten and verba linstructions .By accepting a\nquotation, th e Customer con firms it has carefully checked the\ndetail s in the quotation and agree s that they are corre ct.\n2.Supplied materials: Massey University a ccepts no liability\nwhatsoever and howsoever for errors or o missionsresulting\nfrom anymaterials or informati on suppl ied by t he customer .\n3.Variations/Alterations: Specifications are li sted clearly on\nthe quotation forms. Any variation to the deliverable smust be\nagreed in writing by the parties. Unless any such variation\nrecords an yagreed revise dcharge or price, Mass ey University\nmay charge the Customer to reflect any additional work at its\nstandard charge out rates current at the time .\n4.Acceptance o f Quotation :Any quotati on will lapse if not\naccepted within 30 da ys.\n5.GST: All q uotations are exclusive of GST and any other\ntaxes and d uties charged or levied in connection with th e\nsupply of deliverables .GST and allsuchother taxes and duties\nwill b e charged to ,and borne by ,thecustomer .\n6. Payment : Paymen tis dueprior to the suppl y of the\ndeliverables unless a credit facility has been established or as\notherwise specified in a qu otation (which may require\nalternative payme nt arrangeme nts, such as a deposit or full\npayment in advance ).A surcharge of 2% maybe charged f or\npayments made by c redit card .If a credi t facility has been\nestablished, and unless otherwise agreed in writing, payment is\ndue in full on or before the 20thof the month following the date\nofa val id tax invoice. The customer sh all not beentitled to\nwithho ldpayment by reason of any claim to a counterclaim or\nset off whether legal or equitable. Massey University may\nrequire payments against work completed and value of\nmaterials to hand up to 90% of th e quoted pri ce-details of any\nrequiredpayment instalments will be set out inthe quotation .\n7. Proof Appro val:Massey University is not liable for e rrors in\nthe finished work where a proof has been submitted and\napproved by the customer.\n8. Delivery :Any freight costs incurred by Massey U niversity\nwill be charged to the customer inaddition to th e charges\ndetailedin the quotation unless the charges are expressly\nnoted to include freight costs in the quotation. The method of\ntransport used for deliver y will be notified by Massey University\nunless specified in the q uotation.\n9.Title and Risk: Mass ey Univers ity warrants that it has title to\nany good s provided as deliverables (\"goods \"). Massey\nUniversity shall retain title to the goods until all amounts owing\nto Massey University by the custo merin respect of the goods\nare pai d infull.  Title in the goods will only pass to the customer\nonce pa yment for such goods has been made in full, unless\npayment is made in full before delivery in which case title w ill\npass to the customer upon delivery. Riskin the goods passes\nto the customerondelivery. Good s are deemed tobedelivered\nwhen they arrive at the customer's address (as specified in the\nquotation )or, if thegoods are collected by the customer (or a\ncarrier engaged by the customer) from MasseyUniversity ,\nwhen collected .Massey University will use itsreasona ble\nendeavours to provide the deliverables on time with reasonable\ncare and skill and material ly in accord ance with any\nspecifications set out in the quotation but wi ll not be li able to\nthecustomer for any loss or damage whatsoever andhowsoev er caused ar ising in any wa y from any delay in delivery\nor performance. Delay in deliv eryor performance does not\nentitle the customer to cancel this contract.\n10. Claims: The custo mer agrees to in spectanygoods and\nadvise Massey Unive rsity of any proble mswith the\ndeliverab les, within 48 hours of delivery.\n11. Illegal or Defamatory Material: Mass ey University is not\nrequired to reproduce any material that is, initsopinion, illegal\nordefama toryinnature, or that isa breach of any statute.\nMassey Uni versity wil l  be indemnified by the customer in\nrespect of any and all claims, cos ts and/or expenses arising out\nof any defamation or any breach of statute or third-party rights\n(including infringem entof copyr ight, patent or design )arising\nfrom materials supplied by the customer.\n12. Limitation on Liability :If the customer is not a consumer\nas defined in the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (\" CGA \")or\nthecustomer acquires or holds itself out as ac quiringthe\ndeliverables for the purposes of a business, nothi ng in the C GA\nwill apply to the supply of the deliverables. In the case of any\nother c ustomer the provisions of this contract will only apply to\nthe extent that such provisions do not limit or exc ludeany\nprovisions of the CGA and will take effect s ubject to the\nprovisions of the CGA. Massey University’s liability for the\nsuppl y of deliverable sis limited to the quoted price o fthe\ndeliverables . Massey Unive rsity and its employees, contrac tors,\nor a gents'liability for any loss or damage of any kind\nhowsoev er and what soever caused under or in connection with\nthe contract is limited to the quoted price ofthe deliverables .To\nthe ext ent p ermitted by law, noguarantee is given that the\ngoods supplied a refit for any purpose . Massey University shall\nnot be resp onsible for anyloss or damage resulting from any\nindustri al dispute, accidents, acts of God, e quipment failure or\nintentional damage or any other cause beyon d  M assey\nUniversity’s reasonable contro l.\n13.Security Interest :Thecustom er grants Massey Uni versity\na secu rity interest in th egoods (and any proceeds of the\ngood s) as security for all amounts owing by the customer to\nMassey University under this contract or under any other\nagreement.  The customer waives a ny right it may have to\nreceive from Mas sey University acopy of any fina ncing\nstatement or verification statement that is registered, issued or\nreceived in relation to any good s supplied under this contract .\nThe customer will do all thing sreasonably requ ested b y\nMassey Uni versity for Massey U niversity to p erfect its security\ninterest as a purchase money security interest in the good s\nincluding, if applicable, to register a financing statement on the\nPersonal Property Securities Register. Thecustomer waives\nanyrights it m ay have under sectio ns114(1)(a), 116, 120(2),\n121, 1 25, 126, 127, 129, 131, 133, and 134 of the Personal\nProperty Securities Act 1999.\n14Non-paymen t:Interestshall accrue on any unpaid amounts\ndue and payable at the r ateof 1.5 per cent per month. In\naddition. Massey Universi ty shall be entitled to recover any\nreason able costs in cluding legal costs in the recovery of\namounts owing to Massey University.\n15. Intellectual Proper ty.Allintellectual property owned by\neithe rparty and developed inde penden tlyfrom thiscontract by\naparty shall  remain the exclusive propert y of that par ty. Any\nintellectua lproperty created by Massey Univ ersity in\nconnection with this contract shall be owned by Massey\nUniversity. The customer g rants Massey University a licence to\nuse th ecustomer's intellectual property for the purposes of\nfulfilling its obligations under this contract .\n16.  Health and Safety :Each party acknowledges its\nobligat ions under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015. To\nthe extent Massey University and the customer have\noverl apping heal thand safety duties, the parties will consult,\nco-operate and co -ordinate their a ctivities so far as reasonably\npracticable. When accessing Massey Un iversity's premises,\nthecustomer w illcomply with Massey Universi ty'spolicies and\nprocedures and reason able directions notified to the customer\nfrom time to time, including inrelation tohealth and s afety,\nsecurity andbuilding access .\n17.Termination :Either party (Party A) may terminat ethe\ncontract immediately by notice to the other party (Pa rty B), and\nmay cancel any outstanding provision of deliverables , if Party\nB: (a) is in breach of the contract, and th at breach is either not\ncapable of remedy or has not been remedied within 10 da ysof\nnotice of the breach; or (b) is or becomes insolvent or bankrupt ,\ngoes into receivership or liquidation, or suffers any analogous\nevent; or (c) assi gns or nov ates it s righ ts and obligations under\nthecontract (including by way of a change of corporat econtrol)\nwithout Party A's consent.\nEither party may te rminate the contract for any reason on one\nmonth's written notice to the other party. If the customer elects\nto terminate t hecontract under thi s clause 17, the customer\nmust pay Massey Universit yfor any costs incurred by Massey\nUniversity prior to termi nation in connection with the supply of\nthedeliverables including , to avoi d doub t,amounts committed\nto third parties .\n18.Dispute Resolution: Anydispute bet ween the partie s must\nfirstbediscussed between them in an attempt to resolve thedispute by ne gotiation. In the event that resolution of the\ndispute by negotiat ionis not pos sible, either party may initiate\nmediation by giving writte nnotice to the other party. The par ties\nwill agree ona suitable person to act as mediator within seven\n(7) days or will ask the Arbitrators’ and Mediators’ Institute of\nNew Zealand Inc. to appoin t a mediator. If the mediation fails\nthen either party may in itiate arbitration by giving writt en notice\nto the other party with a single arbitrator tobeagreed by the\nparties or failing agreement, by an arbitrator appointed by the\nArbitrato rs’and M ediato rs’ Institute of New Zealand Inc. This\ndispute resolution pr ocedure shall not preclude Massey\nUniversity at itselectio n,seeking summary judgement for any\nunpaid amounts due and payabl eorseeking urgent\ninterlocut ory re lief before a court.\n19: Privacy: Personal informat ionmay be collected ,stored,\nand used by Mas sey Universi tyin accordance with thePriva cy\nAct2020 and Massey University's pr ivacy notice available , as\nat th e date of these Terms of Trade on\nwww.massey.ac.nz/massey/p rivacy .cfm.\n20. General: Massey Univers ity reserves the right to change\nthese Terms of Trade from time to time .Theupdated Terms of\nTrade wi ll take effect from the date on which Massey University\ngives notice to the customer of such change in respect of any\nquotations acc epted after the date of that notice .Theremedies\nprovided in thiscontract are cum ulative and additional to any\nother remedies provided at law. A waiver of any right under\nthiscontract is ineffective u nless it is in writing and signed by\nthatparty. If any provision of thiscontract isillegal, invalid, or\nunenforceable, that provision shall be read down to the ex tent\nnecessary to make it legal, valid and enforceable\n21.  Gove rning law :thiscontract isgoverned by New Zealand\nlaw.\n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Thesis_Embargo_Policy_PDF_163_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "security classification - if required]",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "163 KB",
      "author": "Information Technology Services",
      "creation_date": "2024-12-09T13:03:03",
      "modification_date": "D:20241209133358+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n \nTHESIS  EMBARGO POLICY  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \n \nPurpose:   \nTo provide guidance for postgraduate research students and their supervisors in relation to applications for \nan embargo to be placed on public access to theses.  \n \nPolicy :  \n \nMassey University holds to the principle that research undertaken by students and presented as a thesis in \npartial or complete requirement for the award of a postgraduate research degree should be in the public \ndomain. Postgraduate  research  students  should  therefore undertake  research  which  results  in a thesis  that is  \navailable for public use and access through Massey Research Online, the University’s open access digital \nrepository.  \nIn principle, postgraduate research should not proceed unless eventual disclosure is possible.  \nThe university recognises that student researchers have a right to request under exceptional circumstances \nthat conditions be imposed restricting  access  to theses and  requires  students  to consult  with their supervisors  \nbefore  applying  for an embargo . \nThe conditions  under  which  a student  may, with supervisory support, request an embargo be placed on public \naccess are:  \n• Disclosure  of sensitive  information  that might  breach  contractual  arrangements  or \nconfidentiality agreements.  \n• Disclosure of information that might prevent or jeopardise an application for a patent, \nlicense, registration, or other intellectual property rights (including plans to publish all or part \nof the thesis).  \n• Disclosure  of information  that might  constitute  a breach  of law, or a threat to public safety and \norder.  \n• Disclosure of information that is personal, private, sacred, or indigenously/culturally sensitive \nor disrespectful.  \n• Exceptional circumstances which may necessitate, in the opinion of the Dean: Research, \nthe withholding of information.  \n \n \n \n Section  Research  \nContact  Provost  \nLast Review  March 2014  \nNext Review  February 2027  \nApproval  AB24/02/06  \nEffective from  February 2024   \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nThesis Embargo Policy  – Page 2  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nWhere an application for embargo is approved, the minimum embargo  period  is one  year,  and the \nmaximum  is normally two  years from the date on which the thesis is entered into the student’s \nacademic record.  However,  grounds for a longer period of embargo or an extension of an approved \nembargo may be considered under exceptional circumstances.  \n \nThe embargoed thesis may be released earlier with the approval of the Dean Research, following an \napplication from the student and supervisor.  \n \nApplications  for embargo and extension of an embargo period, as the case may be, must be  made  to the \nDean,  Research  for approval using  the ‘Application for Approval to Embargo a thesis’  form. \n \nDuring  the period  of the embargo  the thesis will  be treated  as confidential  and access  restricted.  \nWhere a full  digital copy is held by  the University, only  the author, title,  abstract and  metadata will be \npublicly accessible through  the Massey Research Online while the embargo remains in place.  \n \nWhilst embargo may be sought to delay the publication of a completed thesis if a strong case is made \nunder any of the grounds for embargo in this Policy, no person or body, other than the student whose \nthesis is in question, may under any circumstances req uire any modification to the student’s thesis. \nFor avoidance of doubt, a request for any section or part of a thesis to be deleted would be a \n‘modification’ within the meaning of this section.  \n \nThe Schedule to this Policy contains the principles for making and managing applications for \nembargo, which are to be followed by students, supervisors,  and staff as meticulously as reasonably \npossible.  \n \nSchedule: Good Practice Principles for Embargo Applications  \n \nThis schedule provides the principles for making and managing applications for embargo of a \npostgraduate thesis.  \n \n1. Making an application  \n \nUniversity research should be open to scrutiny, and an essential part of that process is an assessment \nof the evidential basis of the research. Research projects should therefore be conducted in a manner \nwhere issues regarding disclosure are minimised, and close attention should be pai d to this issue at \nthe commencement of a thesis. It is advisable that students and supervisors choose research topics \nand information sources carefully upfront, so that this issue does not arise.  \n \nStudents and their supervisors are strongly advised to also consider issues of accessibility or \navailability, particularly regarding the student’s ability to publish. Evidence of the student’s scholarly \nabilities and research skills should be available for  public scrutiny and to potential employers. It is \ntherefore important that embargoes be the exception rather than the norm.  \n \nStudents, with the support of their supervisors, may apply for embargo, and must state the applicable \nground(s) and provide appropriate evidence to support the application, in the ‘ Application for Approval \nto Embargo a thesis’ form , which is available online. It is advisable for students and supervisors to \nagree that it would be appropriate to make an application before submitting it, and to state as such in \ntheir application.  \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nThesis Embargo Policy  – Page 3  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nThe Dean Research will determine the outcome of the application for embargo after considering \nwhether sufficient grounds for embargo exist under the Thesis Embargo Policy . Where deemed \nappropriate, the Dean Research will consult the University’s Legal Services team, the Privacy Officer, \nand/or the Enterprise Office before determining the outcome. The application should where possible \nbe processed before the final approved thesis is submitted via Massey University Doctoral Thesis \nUpload.  \n \nStudents and supervisors should note that the university cannot guarantee to maintain an embargo if \ndisclosure is granted in the ‘public interest’ under the Official Information Act (1982).  \n \n2. Grounds for embargo  \n \n2.1 Disclosure of sensitive information that might breach contractual arrangements or \nconfidentiality agreements.  \n \nWhere a student participates in research which is or may become subject to confidentiality obligations \nto any third party, the supervisors should advise students before they commence their research \nwhether a confidentiality agreement is in place, or may be come applicable, and its potential \nimplications. The student and/or supervisor(s) should contact the Graduate Research School for \nadvice where they have any concerns or questions.  \n \nStudents must not use or disclose confidential information for any unauthorised purpose. It is a \nprimary responsibility of supervisors and candidates to report research carefully in such a way that \nthe confidentiality of participants is protected.  \n \nIn some instances, research may only be possible if supported through external government, NGO, \nphilanthropic or commercial funding. However, the funding of research should not be allowed to \ncompromise its integrity and independence. Potential funders and candidates should be made aware \nof the overriding obligation of the university to conduct disinterested enquiry and to disseminate the \nresults of research as soon as practicable.  \n \nWhere an embargo has been approved for a thesis prior to examination, all examiners should be \nrequired to sign confidentiality agreements.  \n \n2.2 Disclosure of information that might prevent/jeopardise an application for a patent, license, \nregistration, or other intellectual property rights (including plans to publish all or part of the \nthesis)  \n \nIf the basic principles of immediate dissemination and careful research planning are followed, there \nshould be little need for exemption on this ground. However, in some instances there may be a risk \nfor the student if release of the thesis would enable a rival researcher or group to publish competing \nmaterial first.  \n \nStudents should refer to the Intellectual Property Policy  prior to the commencement of any work which \nmay be deemed commercially sensitive and must ensure they understand the obligations they are \nbound to under that Policy. Students and supervisors should seek patent protection for all/any \ninventions described i n the thesis at the earliest point to avoid unnecessary delays in publication of \nthe thesis or of papers derived in part or wholly from the thesis.  \n \nStudents should discuss with and must notify the Research and Enterprise Office as soon as is \npracticable about any Intellectual Property that they develop, create, or conceive (whether totally or \nin part) that is related to the business of Massey Universi ty in any way and/or that may be of \ncommercial interest to the university. The student must be advised of their right to obtain independent \nlegal advice in respect of any agreement concerning intellectual property rights and be allowed \nsufficient time and opportunity to obtain such advice.  \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nThesis Embargo Policy  – Page 4  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nStudents who are writing a Thesis with Publications should discuss with their supervisor the \nadvisability of applying for an embargo sufficient to cover the period of embargo specified by the \nrelevant publisher/s.  \n \n2.3 Disclosure of information that might constitute a breach of law, or a threat to public safety and \norder.  \n \nStudents and supervisors should consider the impact of the Official Information Act (1982), the Privacy \nAct (2020) and any other law or legislation that may be pertinent to their research. They should \nconsequently choose research topics and information sou rces carefully, and should not, without good \nreason, make any undertakings to suppliers of information.  \n \nSimilarly, students and supervisors should consider the potential impact of their research and/or \ninformation disclosed in it on public safety and order. Appropriate safeguards should be sought and \nput in place where the research proceeds.  \n \n2.4 Disclosure of information that is personal, private, sacred, or indigenously/culturally sensitive \nor disrespectful.  \n \nUnderstanding different personal and cultural perspectives around the collection, use and disclosure \nof sensitive information, which is often complex, variable, and may be influenced by a number of \ndifferent factors, is critical for completing responsible research and publication.  \n \nSafe, transparent, and responsible handling of sensitive information of this nature not only benefits \nthe student, the university, and the providers of the information, but also society as a whole. Students \nand supervisors should therefore consider careful ly how they could make their processes for the \ncollection, handling, and dissemination of sensitive information of this nature more culturally and \nsocially responsible.  \n \n \n2.5 Exceptional circumstances which may necessitate, in the opinion of the Dean: Research, the \nwithholding of information.  \n \nPublic access to a thesis may be withheld if the Dean Research is satisfied that there are exceptional \ncircumstances, that are not otherwise covered by the grounds for embargo in the Policy, and that \nthose exceptional circumstances necessitate the withhold ing of information.  \n \nApplications for embargo under these circumstances should provide full details of those exceptional \ncircumstances, and a compelling motivation supporting the application for embargo.  \n \n3. Period of an embargo  \n \nWhen applying for a thesis to be embargoed, students and supervisors should indicate clearly  the \nfactors that would determine an appropriate length of time for their thesis to be embargoed.  \n \nThe period of embargo will not normally exceed two years from the date on which the thesis is entered \ninto student’s academic record.  \n \nExtensions to this limit may be granted only in the most exceptional circumstances, and where the \nlack of an extension would cause significant disadvantage to the student. An application for extension \nof an embargo will be required to be made by the studen t and supervisor, using the ‘ Application for \nApproval to Embargo a thesis’  form.  \n \n \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nThesis Embargo Policy  – Page 5  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n4. Management of thesis during an embargo period  \n \nDuring the period of the embargo, the embargoed thesis will be treated as confidential, and access to \nit will be restricted to supervisors, examiners, and appropriate Library staff, and the student. The \nsubmitted digital copy of the thesis will be held sec urely by the library until the end of the agreed \nembargo period.  \n \nIn the case of an embargo of the full digital copy held by the university, only the author, title, abstract \nand metadata will be publicly accessible through the university’s digital repository while the embargo \nremains in place.  \n \nAudience:  \n \nPostgraduate research students  \nPostgraduate  research  supervisors  \n \nRelevant  legislation : \n \nOfficial Information Act, 1982  \nPrivacy Act, 2020  \n \nRelated policies and procedures:  \n \nResearch D ata Management Policy  \nResearch Practice Policy  \nIntellectual Property Policy  \n \nDocument Management Control:  \nPrepared by:  Provost  \nReviewed by:   Provost  \nAuthorised by:   AB24/02/06  \nDate issued:  March 2014    \nLast review:   February 2024  \nNext review:   February 2027  \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Venue_and_Space_Use_Terms_of_Use_Agreement_PDF_120_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Venue and Space Use Terms of Use Agreement PDF 120 KB",
      "policy_type": "Unknown",
      "file_size": "120 KB",
      "author": "Barnes, Melanie",
      "creation_date": "2019-11-08T10:00:04",
      "modification_date": "D:20191108100408+13'00'"
    },
    "content": "C19/160 - November \nConfidential   VENUE AND \nSPACE USE \nTERMS OF USE \nAGREEMENT  \nAgreed Details For Use of Venue/Space  \nVenue or Space  [insert specific description]  \nTerm of Use / Commencement and End   \nPurpose for Use   \nEquipment / Other Resources Provided   \nSpecial Conditions   \n \nClient – Authorised Signatory  \nI hereby  agree  and confirm  that I understand  and agree  to the Terms of Use  for a venue  or \nspace at Massey University set out below and that I am authorised by the Client to sign \nthis Agreement.  \nOrganisation:  Click here to enter text.  \nPosition/Title:  Click here to enter text.  \nPrint Name:  Click here to enter text.  \nSignature:   \nDate:  Click here to enter text.  \n  \nMassey University – Authorised Representative  \nI acknowledge that all documents pertaining to venue and space bookings have been \nreceived from the Client and are in order. I hereby approve this venue/ space booking.  \nPosition/Title:  Click here to enter text.  \nDepartment:  Click here to enter text.  \nPrint Name:  Click here to enter text.  \nSignature:   \nDate:  Click here to enter text.  \n\nC19/160 - November \nConfidential   Terms of Use for Venue or Space Booking at Massey University: In signing above, the Client \nagrees:  Initial  \nTo do all things necessary to require compliance with these Terms of Use by all members, guests, \nagents and invitees of the Client and all other per sons associated with the Client’s use of the venue \nor space.   \nTo be responsible for security of any property or like items brought to the venue or space and \ninsurance cover for property or like items that are directly coordinated by the Client.  \nThat the Client is responsible for ensuring that all property brought int o the venue or space by or on \nbehalf of the Client, its guests, attendees, or contractors is removed from the venue or space at the \nconclusion of the event. Massey University accepts no responsibility for any property that is left in \nthe venue or space.   \nAdhere to, and advise users of, Massey University Emergency Management procedures .  \nAdhere to, and advise users of, Massey University’s Health and Safety policies .  \nEnsure the Client’s use of the venue or space does not conflict with the Massey University Strategy  \n2018 – 2022 , including but not limited to, recognising the values of a Tiriti o Waitangi -lead \norganisation.   \nWill not engage or facilitate behaviour or activities that Massey University, acting reasonably, would \nadversely affect its operations or the security or reputation of the Massey University, its staff or any \nmember or members of the public.  \nMassey Universi ty may cancel this licence at any time prior to the commencement of the Venue or \nSpace Term if the Client cannot satisfy Massey University that its use would not adversely affect its \noperations or the security or reputation of the Massey University, its st aff or any member or \nmembers of the public.   \nReport any incidents relating to this event to the University as promptly as reasonable.   \nThat the Client shall not permit any use of Massey University’s legal name, brand name, or logo \nunless it has first obtained authorisation in writing from Massey University.   \nThat the Client will comply with all legal requirements, including all regional and local authority by \nlaws, in relation to the use of the venue or space. The Client will obtain all permits, licences, special \ninsurance and all other requirements required for the safe and lawful use of the venue or space.   \nThat the rights licensed under this Agreement to the Client are personal to the Client and cannot be \nassigned or sub -licensed or otherwise made available to any other person unless the Client first \nobtains consent in writing from Massey University.   \n \nMassey University may cancel this booking at any time prior to the commencement of the Venue or \nSpace Term if the Client cannot satisfy Massey University that its use would not adversely affect its \noperations or the security or reputation of the Massey Uni versity, its staff or any member or \nmembers of the public.  \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Teaching_and_Learning_Framework_PDF_378_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Teaching and Learning Framework",
      "policy_type": "Framework",
      "file_size": "378 KB",
      "creation_date": "2024-07-01T12:03:09",
      "modification_date": "D:20250220102101+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n \nTEACHING AND LEARNING FRAMEWORK  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \nPurpose  \nThe Teaching and Learning Framework combines the Massey Model of Teaching and Learning with Defining  \nPlatforms to guide the continuing development, enhancement and renewal of the qualification portfolio and  strategic \ndevelopments in teaching and learning .  \nThe Massey Model of Teaching and Learning  \nThe Massey Model of Teaching and Learning (Figure 1) identifies our key points of difference in both orientation and \noperation . Central to the Model is the goal of engendering a strong culture of creativity, innovation and connectedness \nof our students, our staff, and our curriculum . Defining elements (Applied, Research -Led, Digital, Distance & Life -Long \nLearning, International and Comprehensive) are those that the University is committed to strengthening via the \ndevelopment and implementation of appropriate strategies underpinned by r elevant quality assurance and \nenhancement processes.  \n \n \nFigure 1:  The Massey Model of Teaching & Learning  \n \n  \nSection  Academic  \nContact  Academic Strategy Manager  \nLast Review  January 2013  \nNext Review  January  2014  \nApproval  TLC 2011/63  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nTeaching and Learning Framework  – Page 2  \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nApplied  \n \nMassey intends to build its reputation for providing applied, real -world, problem -solving learning opportunities  so that \ngraduates have an advanced ability to transform ideas into material outcomes . Students learn to communicate and \nconnect knowledge and practice as they engage with curricula informed by research and enriched by applied learning \nopportunities . Our staff are committed to embedding applied learning within the curriculum so that our students \nexperience higher education of a quality and kind that enhances their confidence, flexibility, employability, and \nintellectual independence.  \n \nTo advance this element an Applied Learning at Massey Strategy is being developed that identifies the range of \nexperiential learning opportunities provided for students to apply theory in practice including work integrated learning, \nservice learning, simulations, laboratory experimentation, scenarios, practice -based learning, and to exp lore and \ndevelop relationships between research and teaching.  The Applied Learning Strategy will foster best  practice in \n‘learning by doing’1 and establish effective mechani sms for knowing and sharing what we do . \n \nResearch -Led \n \nResearch that fosters innovation is our responsibility . Driven by curiosity, our students and staff work together to \ntransform the boundaries of their disciplines and define what their professions should be . By engaging with inherited \nsources of knowledge and  transforming their interpretation in ways that meet the needs of contemporary society and \nlocal communities, Massey’s people drive change at local, national,  and global levels.  \n \nTo advance this element we will review our understanding of research -led teaching, the teaching research nexus, and \nacademic scholarship, toward defining the academic role in the 21st Century . We will explore and articulate the \nscholarship of and for teaching, enhance connections between the Teaching & Learning Framework and the \nResearch Strategy, and provide professional development to support curriculum design that integrates teaching and \nresearch, and which views knowledge transfer as negotiated flows of knowledge, for collective benefit.  \n \nDigital  \n \nMassey’s staff and students are part of a contemporary and future -focused university at the forefront of online, \nblended and distance education . Massey’s leadership in digitally mediated  teaching and learning provides a basis for \ninnovation in curriculum design, extends our reach far beyond physical and geographical boundaries, and equips \ngraduates with experience in media -rich environments . To strengthen the ‘Digital’ element we will continue to advance \nthe Digital Teaching and Learning  Strategy, extend our blended learning approaches, enrich the ‘Stream’ experience \nwith further mobile learning opportunities and approaches, and enhance learning interactions with the use of video -\nlinked teaching, web -conferencing,  and presentation tools.  \n \nComprehensive  \n \nOnly by being open to a range of ideas from a variety of sources is new and innovative thinking provoked . Our \nacademic staff and our students engage with disciplines that are both classic and contemporary, examining the world \nand its phenomena as well as ourselves and the ways in which we interact locally and globally . Our curricula are \ndevised to enhance student engagement with disciplinary and transdisciplinary dialogue, exposing them to ways of \n \n \n \n1 See, for example, Kolb (1984) on Experiential Learning http://www.learning -theories.com/experiential -learning -kolb.html  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nTeaching and Learning Framework  – Page 3  \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nthinking that they may not be familiar with . As a result, our graduates are conversant with ways of generating ideas, \ndeveloping,  and refining them, and transforming them into innovative work .  \n \nTo strengthen the ‘Comprehensive’ element we will provide expanded support for curriculum innovation and whole -of-\nprogramme approaches to curriculum design . We will also continue to enhance our structures for academic \nengagement in the strategic planning of disciplines and qualifications across the Campuses, making available regular \nreporting on the qualification portfolio, its alignment with the University’s Defining Platforms , and any changes to the \ndistribution of Platforms  across the Campuses . Connections between the Teaching & Learning Framework, Kia \nMarama and the Pasifika@Massey strategies will be identified and enhanced.  \n \nInternational  \n \nInternationalisation is a critical element of Massey’s economic, academic,  and cultural vitality which goes far beyond \njust the recruitment of international students . Massey students and staff benefit from engagement with other cultures \nand from exposure to a globalised economic and social environment . Massey staff will be further supported to build \ninternationalised curricula, to engage in international research collaborations and to develop strategic relationships \nwith overseas institutions and governing bodies . Our Alumni, whether onshore or offshore, have experienced a unique \neducation with a distinctive New Zealand flavour and represent Massey in all corners of the world .  \n \nTo advance this element we are implementing the Internationalisation Strategy which includes objectives, approaches \nand targets for student marketing and recruitment, international relations, student support and engagement, building \ncapacity, international ising the academic environment,  and learning experience, and transnational and offshore \ndistance education.  \n \nDistance & Life -Long Learning  \n \nOur tradition of distance education lies at the core of the University’s mission of providing opportunities for life -long \nlearning directed towards students of all ages and cultures, and stages of their learning pathway . Expanded offerings \nin the professional and continuing education area provide an important platform for educating diverse groups, \ngenerating income, and promoting the creativity, innovation and connectedness of Massey University and its staff . \nSupport and services are aligned to the life -long personal and professional needs of our people.  \n \nTo further enhance this element we are implementing the Student Success Strategy, and objectives, targets and \nexpanded offerings in the Professional and Continuing Education (PaCE) area . The ‘Distance Education and Learning \nFutures Alliance’ (DELFA) has been established to facilitate and foster innovation and development in online, blended \nand distance education, and consolidate and enhance the University’s reputation as one of the world’s leading \ndistance and blended education providers.  \n \nQuality Assurance and Quality Enhancement  \n \nTransparent quality assurance and enhancement procedures  serve an important purpose in assuring ourselves, our \nstudents, and our external stakeholders (e.g., funders, professional bodies, employers) that our curriculum is \nthoughtfully designed, effectively delivered, rigorously reviewed, and continuously improv ed.  \n \nIn addition to the quality assurance and enhancement processes underpinning each of the elements of the Massey \nModel of Teaching and Learning, we are strengthening our processes with ongoing  implementation of our \nQualifications Policy and Framework and review and renewal of our existing policies and procedures . New or \nsubstantively redesigned policies and procedures for assessment, evaluation of teaching, paper information and study \nmaterials , equivalence and the use of graduate profiles have  or are being established . An Academic Development \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nTeaching and Learning Framework  – Page 4  \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nFramework, led by the National Centre for Teaching and Learning and the Campus Centres at Albany, Manawatu, \nand Wellington is being implemented.  \nDefining Platforms  \nMassey’s Defining Platforms identify the core disciplinary and curricula contexts within which students can engage \nwith and focus their learning. The Platforms align with the Massey University Research  Plan 2024 -2027  in a number \nof areas in which the University has identified capacity to be a world -leader.  For example, agri -technology, animal \nhealth and welfare (aligned with Agriculture, Veterinary and Life Sciences, and Industrial Innovation through \nEngineering and Food Technology), human food and nutrition (aligned with Health), creative and sustainable design \n(aligned with Creative Arts), 21st century citizenship (aligned with Humanities, Social Sciences and Business) and \ninnovations launched through Te Mata o te T au and research relating to whanau well -being (aligned with Maori & \nPasifika Indigenous Knowledge).  \n \nMassey University’s Defining Platforms  \n \n \n \nMassey operates across three major campuses located in Auckland, Palmerston North, and Wellington, \ncomplemented by a comprehensive distance learning platform.  Our campus locations each have distinctive and \ncomplementary academic profiles.  Massey@Manawatu  leads the vitally important development of agri -food and \nrelated industries both in New Zealand and internationally.  Massey@Albany leads innovation by bringing together \nscience, information technology, education, humanities, engineering,  and business.  Massey@Wellington leads \ncreativity and design.  Underpinned by national shared operating systems and services, Massey provides an \nextraordinary breadth of access to expertise and cooperative exchange across disciplines and geographic locati ons. \n \n  \nAgriculture, Veterinary \n& Life Sciences\nBusiness\n Communication\n Design\n Education\n Fine Arts\nHealth\n Humanities\nIndustrial Innovation \nthrough Engineering \nand Food Technology\nInformation \nSciences/Technology\nLand, Water & the \nEnvironment\nMaori & Pasifika \nIndigenous Knowledge\nNatural and \nFundamental Sciences\nProfessional & \nContinuing Education\nSocial Sciences\n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nTeaching and Learning Framework  – Page 5  \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nDefining Platforms by Campus  \n \nAlbany\nBusiness\nCommunication\nEducation\nHealth\nHumanities\nIndustrial Innovation \nthrough Engineering & \nFood Technology\nInformation \nSciences/Technology\nMaori & Pasifika \nIndigenous Knowledge\nNatural Sciences\nProfessional & \nContinuing Education\nSocial Sciences\nDistance\nAgriculture, Veterinary \n& Life Sciences\nBusiness\nCommunication\nEducation\nHealth\nHumanities\nInformation \nSciences/Technology\nLand, Water & the \nEnvironment\nMaori & Pasifika \nIndigenous Knowledge\nSocial Sciences\nManawatu\nAgriculture, Veterinary \n& Life Sciences\nBusiness\nCommunication\nEducation\nFundamental Sciences\nHealth\nHumanities\nIndustrial Innovation \nthrough Engineering & \nFood Technology\nLand, Water & the \nEnvironment\nMaori & Pasifika \nIndigenous Knowledge\nProfessional & \nContinuing Education\nSocial Sciences\nWellington\nBusiness\nCommunication\nDesign\nFine Arts\nHealth\nHumanities\nProfessional & \nContinuing Education\n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nTeaching and Learning Framework  – Page 6  \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nTeaching and Learning Framework  – Page 7  \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nImplementation of the Teaching & Learning Framework  \nImplementation of the Teaching & Learning Framework and associated strategies will necessarily involve all sections \nof the University.  The AVC (Academic & International) has responsibility for monitoring and overseeing the \nimplementation, for leading some activities, and for offering advice and support to colleges .  However, it is expected \nthat the Framework and strategies will be primarily owned by colleges  and will be reflected in college  strategies and \nplans.  An annual review of the Framework and associated strategies and initiatives will be undertaken by the AVC \n(Academic & International) and reported to SLT.  \nAudience : \nAll staff  \nRelevant legislation : \nEducation and Training Act 2020  \nLegal compliance : \nNil \nRelated procedures / documents : \nAcademic Integrity Policy  \nAcademic Outputs Policy  \nAcademic Progression Policy  \nAssessment Strategy, Principles  and Guidelines  \nCOCA Retrieval Policy  \nEquity of Access to Educational Opportunities Policy  \nEquivalence Policy  \nGraduating Year Review  Procedures  \nIntellectual Property Policy  \nMassey University Assessment Handbook  \nMassey University Qualifications Policy  \nMassey University Qualifications Framework  \nMicro -credentials and Short Courses Policy  \nMicro -credentials and Short Courses Procedures  \nNo and Low Enrolments Policy  \nNo and Low Enrolments Procedures  \nPaerangi Learning and Teaching Plan  \nPolicy relating to P aper Information and Stud y Resources  \nPolicy on Student Engagement in the Assurance and Enhancement of Teaching and Learning  \nRecording of Scholarl y Work and Student Work Policy  \nRecording of Scholarly Work and Student Work Framework  \nStudent Survey Policy  \nTeaching and Learning Policy  \nTeaching and Learning Framework  \nUse of Artificial Intelligence in Assessment Policy  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nTeaching and Learning Framework  – Page 8  \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nUse of Copyright Materials for Educational Purposes Policy  \n \nDocument Management Control:  \nPrepared by: Academic Strategy Manager  \nAuthorised by: AVC (Academic & International)  \nApproved  by:  Teaching and Learning Committee  \nUpdated  by: Senior Leadership Team  (SLT Planning December 2012)  \nDate issued: December 2012  \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "University_Workloads_Policy_PDF_103_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "University Workloads Policy PDF 103 KB",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "103 KB",
      "author": "Williams, Lauren",
      "creation_date": "2021-05-06T12:05:04",
      "modification_date": "D:20210506125409+12'00'"
    },
    "content": " Massey University Policy Guide  \n \nUNIVERSITY WORKLOADS POLICY  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \nPurpose:  \nTo ensure the total workload allocated to individual members of staff is reasonable, safe and equitable.  \n \nPolicy:  \nStaff members will be allocated equitable, reasonable and safe workloads through a mechanism that is comprehensive \nand transparent, that takes account of work requirements of the department and contributes to the efficient and effective \napplication of its resources and those of the University as a whole.  \n \nIt is recognised  that individual  staff at any one time are at different  stages  of their careers,  have  different career and/or \nresearch objectives, and contribute to the University in a variety of ways. The application of  this policy  should be  based  on \nconsultation with  staff and take account  of these  factors  along with  the needs of the department, including financial \ndirections, staff and student profiles, and development needs. Special consideration should be given to new and early \ncareer  staff. \n \nDefinitions:  \nEquitable:  means that staff members with comparable levels of appointment and responsibilities should have si milar \nworkloads. Casual, part -time and fixed -term staff members shall have workloads that are equitable \nrelative to full -time staff in the same area of  work.  \n \nReasonable:  means that in allocating the workload all practical steps were taken to facilitate c areer progression;  that \nthe workloads  so allocated  can be managed  within  the timeframes  and deadlines set for the performance \nof the duties, and will allow staff to maintain a reasonable balance between their professional and personal  \nlife. \n \nSafe:  means that all practical steps will be taken to minimise the hazards which could  cause  physical or mental \nharm to  staff. \n \nDepartment:  the term “department” is used generically to apply to the terminology used to designate administrative \nunits in the Colle ges, and Services.  \n \nTransparent:  means the mechanism for the allocation of workload is clear and open to scrutiny, and that for academic \nstaff information on the average and range of workloads in the department is available, and for \nprofessional services staff that they can compare their workload with staff in the same or similar \noccupational class in their department.  Section  People & Culture  \nContact  Employment Relations Manager /Legal \nCounsel  \nLast Review  January 2021  \nNext Review  January 2026  \nApproval  SLT 21/04/48  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nUniversity Workloads Policy – Page 2 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \nPolicy Requirements : \n \nThe Pro Vice -Chancellors and Deputy  Vice-Chancellors /Provost  will ensure that mechanisms for t he allocation of \nworkloads are implemented in the departments of the Colleges and Services for which they are responsible.   Following \nconsultation with affected staff the heads of departments in the Colleges and Services will ensure that staff members \nare allocated workloads through an appropriate mechanism that is comprehensive  and transparent.   \n \nFor academic staff,  the mix of research,  teaching  and academic  citizenship may vary between and across \nschools/institutes/Colleges and for individual academic staff, recognising that a wide variety of proportions of these \nacademic duties may be agreed and changed from time to time over the course of a  career.   Indicative parameters, \nwithin which an individual academic’s workload allocation would general ly be allocated, are set out in the procedures \ndocument.   \n \nIn terms of workload allocation:  \n \nThe head of a department/school is responsible for:  \n• Discussing with staff workload allocation within the school, the setting of work priorities and strategic goals;  \n• Ensuring that, as part of the annual allocation of workloads, the person responsible for a staff member’s PDP \nappraisal will check the current and proposed workload in relation to the duties of the staff member and the \nrequirements and goa ls of the  department;  \n• Consulting with staff in respect of the allocation of duties;  \n• Monitoring changes in workload and ongoing evaluation of the impact of workload;  \n• Taking all reasonable attempts to reach agreement with staff on their  workload;  \n• Making the workload allocation and mechanism available to staff.  \n \nThe staff member is responsible for:  \n• Working effectively within their allocation and working towards individual and department/university goals;  \n• Participating in discussions concerning workl oads with the aim of reaching a common understanding of the issues;  \n• Reporting any workload difficulties and variations to their manager.  \n \nThe allocation  of work to Māori  staff must  recognise,  and take account  of, the specific  skills and expertise which these \nmembers of staff apply to their place of employment and their community. This recognition should also include the diverse \nobligations of iwi, hapū and whanau and may also include their involvement in consultative processes of the Univ ersity in \nrelation to the fulfilment of its obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and involvement and participation in formal ceremoni es \nas required by tikanga Māori  and include time required to deliver, participate in and/or support wānanga as an integra l \npart of Massey academic programme.  \n \nThe workload allocation mechanisms used by the department will be ratified by the relevant senior manager  (Pro Vice-\nChancellor,  Deputy  Vice-Chancellor,  or their nominee)  who will then ensure  that a copy of the document describing the \nmechanism for each department for which they are responsible  is filed with the Office of the respective Pro Vice -Chancellor \nor Deputy  Vice-Chancellor /Provost . \n \nThe mechanism for allocating workloads should be reviewed from time to t ime and will be reviewed at least once every \nthree years and, where necessary, amended. The workload allocation arrangements should be generally understood and \nsupported by the majority of staff within the school/institute through consultation with the sta ff.  The workload mechanism \nand basis for allocation must be available for perusal by any member of staff in the department.  \n \nAny review should take account of the balance, distribution and priorities associated within an area’s workload, taking into \naccou nt previous years’ experience,  strategic  goals  and anticipated  resources  for the period  the workload  mechanism  will \napply.  \n \nThese elements of the review will be checked by the relevant line manager after consultation with staff.  \n \n \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nUniversity Workloads Policy – Page 3 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \n \n \nAudience:  \n \nAll University staff  \n \n \nRelevant legislation:  \n \nHealth and Safety at Work Act 2015  \n \n \nLegal compliance:  \n \nNone  \n \n \nRelated procedures / documents:  \n \n• University Workloads Procedures  \n• Allocation of Workloads Disputes Procedures (Appendix 1)  \n• Summer School Guidelines  \n• Acad emic Staff Promotions Guidelines and Criteria  \n• Health and Safety Policy  \n \n \nDocument Management Control:  \n \nPrepared by:  Deputy Vice -Chancellor People and Culture  \nAuthorised by:  The University Senior Leadership Team  \nConsultation and Approval: Consultation with the Combined Unions and Approved by the Vice -Chancellor and Senior \nLeadership Team  \nDate issued: July 2015  \nLast review:  January 20 21 \nNext review:  January 202 6 \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Use_of_Copyright_Material_for_Educational_Purposes_Policy_PDF_160_KB_1.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Use of Copyright Material for Educational Purposes Policy",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "160 KB",
      "author": "jmlochhe",
      "creation_date": "2024-03-11T13:01:07",
      "modification_date": "D:20240311131732+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n \nUSE OF COPYRIGHT MATERIAL FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES POLICY  \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \n \n \n \n \n  \n \nPurpose:   \nThe purpose of this policy is to : \n \n• facilitate  the lawful and appropriate use of copyright material s in the activities of the university.  \n• reduce the risks to staff and students associated with the use of copyright materials.  \n• protect the university’s reputation in relation to the use of copyright material.   \n• protect the rights of copyright owners.  \n• clarify exceptions to the Act, including under the Marrakesh Treaty , which allow for the reproduction, \ndistribution and exchange of copyright works in accessible formats for individuals with print disabilities; and  \n• identify responsibility for copyright compliance.  \nPolicy Statement : \n1. All staff and student users of cop yright materials for educational purposes must c omply with the \nrequirements of the Copyright  Act 1994  and subsequent  amendments , and with the requirements of the \ncopyright licenses  held by the university.   \n2. Electronic journals, e -books and other digital materials provided by the library  are covered  by publishers ’ \nlicenses , and an y restrictions on these licenses  prevail over cop yright la w, even for educational purposes.    \n3. All copyrighted materials copied for general teaching and learning purposes must be provided to students \nthrough the university’s electronic copyright managing and reporting system (eReserve).  \n4. Copying and/or conversion of materials into accessible formats under the Marrakesh Treaty must be done \nwithin the terms of the Act.  \n5. Records in relation to the use of copyright material for educational purposes must be kept and disposed of \nin accordance with the General Disposal Authority for New Zealand Universities.  \n \n Section  Academic  \nContact  University Copyright Officer  \nLast Review  January 2024  \nNext Review  January 2027  \nApproval  AB24/02/05   \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nUse of Copyright Material for Educational Purposes Policy  – Page 2  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nResponsibility:  \nStaff are responsible for ensuring continued compliance with  all copyright requirements in  their areas of activity. Staff \nwith teaching or learning -support activities are also responsible for ensuring  that students  are aware of copyright  \nrequirements  pertaini ng to them.  This includes  referr ing to  information   available   via  the  student copyright \ninformation  page on the website  and  seeking   advice   from the University Copyright Officer \n([email protected] ) or the staff copyright information pages   if there is an y uncertaint y  regarding cop yright \nrequirements.    \nDefinitions : \nThe Act : The Copyright  Act 1994  and subsequent  amendments  \nAccessible format copy : defined in the Act as: “a copy of a published literary, dramatic, musical, or artistic work, or \na part of the work, in an alternative manner or form that gives persons who have a print disability access to the work.”  \nCopying : reproducing or recording a work in any material form (including any digital format). This includes scanning, \nphotocopying, retyping, transferring, duplicating from any format to any other format, and sharing across systems (e.g., \nStream).    \nCopyright:  Copyright protects the expression of an idea, rather than the idea itself. It is intended to protect a \nparticular work , such as a painting or a written work, fr om unfair plagiarism or unauthorised cop ying.    \nCopyright licences : The University has a range of licences which support the use of copyright works and extend the \nallowances of certain materials under the Act. Information about these is available here.  If a copyright licence does \nnot explicitly permit an activity or use, the provisions of the Act apply.  \nCopyright materials: Any materials in which copyright exists, irrespective of format or purpose, and including printed, \ntextual, digital, educational, literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, typographical, film and /or sound materials.  \nEducational purposes : refers to m aking copies of cop yright material as part of educational learning resources \nincluding , but not limited  to, study guides,  student  notes,  handouts,  audio,  video  and other  digital  resources.  This \nincludes  uploading cop yright works to online environments. Educational purposes also includes cop yright works used \nfor instructional  purposes in the  classroom,   for  example,   including   artistic   works  (graphs,   diagrams,   illustrations,  \nimages), pla ying music, sho wing a video or including works  from the internet and digital media.    \nMarrakesh Treaty : The Marrakesh Treaty is an international agreement that allows for the reproduction of copyright \nworks in accessible formats such as braille, audio,  and large -print books.  \nPrint disability : The Act defines a print disability, in relation to a person as:  \n• An impairment that prevents the person from enjoying a printed copyright work to the same degree as a person \nwho does not have that impairment; but  \n• Excludes an impairment of visual function that can be improved, using  corrective lenses, to a level that is \nnormally acceptable for reading without a special level or kind of light.  \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nUse of Copyright Material for Educational Purposes Policy  – Page 3  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nStaff : Refers to any individual working at, for, or on behalf of, the University (whether paid or unpaid), including but \nnot limited to permanent staff, contractors, subcontractors and their employees, guest lecturers, interns,  and \nvolunteers.  \nStudent : Any individual enrolled  in a programme of study at Massey University, including those enrolled in short \ncourses and/or micro credentials.  \nAudience:  \nAll staff and students  \nRelevant Legislation:  \nCopyright Act 1994  \nLegal Compliance:  \nFurther to the definition of Copyright provided earlier in this document, there are no registration requirements for \ncopyright.   Copyright arises automatically on creation of a work provided various criteria are met, such as originality  \nRelated Procedures/Documents:  \neReserve and reading lists. \nGeneral Disposal Authority for New Zealand Universitie s. \nIntellectual Propert y Polic y.  \nIndividual licences held.   \nRecording of Scholarl y Work and Student  Work Framework .  \nRecording of Scholarl y Work and Student  Work Policy .  \nStudent Copyright Information . \nDocument Management Control:  \nPrepared by: Academic Strategy Manager  \nAuthorised by: University Cop yright Manager  \nApproved by:  AB24/02/05  \nLast review: January 2024  \nNext review: January 2027  \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Use_of_Copyright_Material_for_Educational_Purposes_Policy_PDF_160_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Use of Copyright Material for Educational Purposes Policy",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "160 KB",
      "author": "jmlochhe",
      "creation_date": "2024-03-11T13:01:07",
      "modification_date": "D:20240311131732+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n \nUSE OF COPYRIGHT MATERIAL FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES POLICY  \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \n \n \n \n \n  \n \nPurpose:   \nThe purpose of this policy is to : \n \n• facilitate  the lawful and appropriate use of copyright material s in the activities of the university.  \n• reduce the risks to staff and students associated with the use of copyright materials.  \n• protect the university’s reputation in relation to the use of copyright material.   \n• protect the rights of copyright owners.  \n• clarify exceptions to the Act, including under the Marrakesh Treaty , which allow for the reproduction, \ndistribution and exchange of copyright works in accessible formats for individuals with print disabilities; and  \n• identify responsibility for copyright compliance.  \nPolicy Statement : \n1. All staff and student users of cop yright materials for educational purposes must c omply with the \nrequirements of the Copyright  Act 1994  and subsequent  amendments , and with the requirements of the \ncopyright licenses  held by the university.   \n2. Electronic journals, e -books and other digital materials provided by the library  are covered  by publishers ’ \nlicenses , and an y restrictions on these licenses  prevail over cop yright la w, even for educational purposes.    \n3. All copyrighted materials copied for general teaching and learning purposes must be provided to students \nthrough the university’s electronic copyright managing and reporting system (eReserve).  \n4. Copying and/or conversion of materials into accessible formats under the Marrakesh Treaty must be done \nwithin the terms of the Act.  \n5. Records in relation to the use of copyright material for educational purposes must be kept and disposed of \nin accordance with the General Disposal Authority for New Zealand Universities.  \n \n Section  Academic  \nContact  University Copyright Officer  \nLast Review  January 2024  \nNext Review  January 2027  \nApproval  AB24/02/05   \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nUse of Copyright Material for Educational Purposes Policy  – Page 2  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nResponsibility:  \nStaff are responsible for ensuring continued compliance with  all copyright requirements in  their areas of activity. Staff \nwith teaching or learning -support activities are also responsible for ensuring  that students  are aware of copyright  \nrequirements  pertaini ng to them.  This includes  referr ing to  information   available   via  the  student copyright \ninformation  page on the website  and  seeking   advice   from the University Copyright Officer \n([email protected] ) or the staff copyright information pages   if there is an y uncertaint y  regarding cop yright \nrequirements.    \nDefinitions : \nThe Act : The Copyright  Act 1994  and subsequent  amendments  \nAccessible format copy : defined in the Act as: “a copy of a published literary, dramatic, musical, or artistic work, or \na part of the work, in an alternative manner or form that gives persons who have a print disability access to the work.”  \nCopying : reproducing or recording a work in any material form (including any digital format). This includes scanning, \nphotocopying, retyping, transferring, duplicating from any format to any other format, and sharing across systems (e.g., \nStream).    \nCopyright:  Copyright protects the expression of an idea, rather than the idea itself. It is intended to protect a \nparticular work , such as a painting or a written work, fr om unfair plagiarism or unauthorised cop ying.    \nCopyright licences : The University has a range of licences which support the use of copyright works and extend the \nallowances of certain materials under the Act. Information about these is available here.  If a copyright licence does \nnot explicitly permit an activity or use, the provisions of the Act apply.  \nCopyright materials: Any materials in which copyright exists, irrespective of format or purpose, and including printed, \ntextual, digital, educational, literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, typographical, film and /or sound materials.  \nEducational purposes : refers to m aking copies of cop yright material as part of educational learning resources \nincluding , but not limited  to, study guides,  student  notes,  handouts,  audio,  video  and other  digital  resources.  This \nincludes  uploading cop yright works to online environments. Educational purposes also includes cop yright works used \nfor instructional  purposes in the  classroom,   for  example,   including   artistic   works  (graphs,   diagrams,   illustrations,  \nimages), pla ying music, sho wing a video or including works  from the internet and digital media.    \nMarrakesh Treaty : The Marrakesh Treaty is an international agreement that allows for the reproduction of copyright \nworks in accessible formats such as braille, audio,  and large -print books.  \nPrint disability : The Act defines a print disability, in relation to a person as:  \n• An impairment that prevents the person from enjoying a printed copyright work to the same degree as a person \nwho does not have that impairment; but  \n• Excludes an impairment of visual function that can be improved, using  corrective lenses, to a level that is \nnormally acceptable for reading without a special level or kind of light.  \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nUse of Copyright Material for Educational Purposes Policy  – Page 3  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nStaff : Refers to any individual working at, for, or on behalf of, the University (whether paid or unpaid), including but \nnot limited to permanent staff, contractors, subcontractors and their employees, guest lecturers, interns,  and \nvolunteers.  \nStudent : Any individual enrolled  in a programme of study at Massey University, including those enrolled in short \ncourses and/or micro credentials.  \nAudience:  \nAll staff and students  \nRelevant Legislation:  \nCopyright Act 1994  \nLegal Compliance:  \nFurther to the definition of Copyright provided earlier in this document, there are no registration requirements for \ncopyright.   Copyright arises automatically on creation of a work provided various criteria are met, such as originality  \nRelated Procedures/Documents:  \neReserve and reading lists. \nGeneral Disposal Authority for New Zealand Universitie s. \nIntellectual Propert y Polic y.  \nIndividual licences held.   \nRecording of Scholarl y Work and Student  Work Framework .  \nRecording of Scholarl y Work and Student  Work Policy .  \nStudent Copyright Information . \nDocument Management Control:  \nPrepared by: Academic Strategy Manager  \nAuthorised by: University Cop yright Manager  \nApproved by:  AB24/02/05  \nLast review: January 2024  \nNext review: January 2027  \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Working_in_a_Situation_Likely_to_Cause_Serious_Harm_Procedure_PDF_134_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Working in a Situation Likely to Cause Serious Harm Procedure PDF 134 KB",
      "policy_type": "Procedure",
      "file_size": "134 KB",
      "author": "Banner, Jodie",
      "creation_date": "2024-04-24T12:05:03",
      "modification_date": "D:20240424125359+12'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n \n \n \n \n   \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n \n ENTER PROCEDURE  \n \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n  WORKING IN A SITUATION LIKELY TO CAUSE SERIOUS HARM  PROCEDURE  \n \nSection  University Services  \nContact  Director  Occupational Health & Safety, Wellbeing  \nLast Review  November  2023  \nNext Review  November  2025  \nApproval  Director Occupational Health & Safety, Wellbeing  \n \n \nPurpose:  \n \nThe purpose of this procedure is to identify:  \n1. The right that staff members have to refuse to do work that they believe may cause them serious \nharm, and  \n2. The process to be followed when refusing to do such work.  \n \n \nScope  \n \nAll Massey University Managers and staff members.  \n \nThe term “Manager” covers any staff member with authority to supervise other staff, visitors,  and \npersons with business at Massey University. Manager includes titles such as: Vice Chancellor, Pro \nVice Chancellor, Assistant Vice Chancellor, Head of Department, Head of School, Head of Institute, \nHead of College, Head of Section, Director, Manager,  and equivalent titles.  \n \n \nProcedure  \n \n1. A staff member may refuse to do work if they believe that the work that they are required to \nperform is likely to cause serious harm to themselves or others.  \n \n2. A staff member who refuses work as described above may continue to refuse to do the work \nprovided:  \n2.1. The staff member attempts to resolve the matter with the University as soon as    \npracticable after first refusing to do the work; and  \n2.2. The matter is not resolved; and  \n2.3. The staff member believes on reasonable grounds that the work is likely to cause \nserious harm.  \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nWorking in a Situation Likely to Cause Serious Harm  Procedure  – Page 2 \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University    \n(Note: reasonable grounds would include a situation where a Health and Safety Representative \nhas advised the staff member that the work that the staff member is required to perform is likely \nto cause serious harm. However, the Health and Safety Representat ive must not give such \nadvice unless they have reasonable grounds for believing that the work that the staff member \nis required to perform is likely to cause serious harm).  \n \n3 A staff member may not refuse to do work that, because of its nature, inherently or usually \ncarries an understood risk of serious harm unless the risk has materially increased beyond the \nunderstood risk.  \n \n4 A staff member who refuses to do work must do any other work within the scope of the staff \nmember’s employment agreement that the University reasonably requests.  \n \n5 This document does not limit a staff member’s right to refuse to do work under another \nenactment or the general law.  \n6 To avoid doubt  —  \n6.1.   In situations to which this document applies, the University, staff member, and \nHealth and Safety Representative must deal with each other in good faith; and  \n6.2.  A question about the application of this document to a particular situation is an \nemployment relationship problem for the purposes of the Employment Relations \nAct 2000 (except for members of the Armed Forces), and a right of employees to \nrefuse to perform w ork likely to cause serious harm for the purposes of the Health \n& Safety at Work Act 2015.  \n \n \nRelated documents  \nLegislation  \n• Health and Safety at Work Act 2015  \n• Employment Relations Act 2000  \nLegal Compliance  \n• Statutory requirement of Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 Section 83, 84, and 86.  \n \n• Employment Relations Act 2000 Section 54 and 65.  \nRelated procedures  \n• None  \n \n \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Workplace_First_Aid_Kit__Suggested_Minimum_Content_PDF_242_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Workplace First Aid Kit  Suggested Minimum Content PDF 242 KB",
      "policy_type": "Unknown",
      "file_size": "242 KB",
      "author": "Ashleigh Nicholson",
      "creation_date": "2023-03-06T12:05:05",
      "modification_date": "D:20230308085237+13'00'"
    },
    "content": "WorkSafe’s First Aid for Workplaces – A Good Practice Guide  \n \n© Massey University | For Internal Use Only – Not Controlled When Printed  \nRevision 1 |  6 March 2023  \n 1 \nSuggested Minimum Content for a Workplace First Aid Kit  \n \nThe figure below shows  recommended contents for first aid kits for workplaces with no special \nrisk:  \n \n \nThis is a suggested contents list only, you may want to use equivalent but different items.  \n\nWorkSafe’s First Aid for Workplaces – A Good Practice Guide  \n \n© Massey University | For Internal Use Only – Not Controlled When Printed  \nRevision 1 |  6 March 2023  \n 2 \nWhen you do your Needs Assessment you may identify a need for additional items. This could \ninclude, for example:  \n• Scissors  \n• Adhesive strips or band -aids for minor w ound dressing  \n• Non-allergic adhesive tape  \n• Disposable aprons  \n• Forceps or tweezers to remove foreign bodies  \n• Individually wrapped moist wipes or saline solution  \n• Plastic bags for waste disposal  \n• Hand sanitiser  \n \nIdeally, these items are stored inside the first aid kit. But if necessary they may be stored \nseparately as long as they are available for use as required.  \n \nRemote Workers  \n \nIf you have workers in remote or isolated locations, you must provide them with a basic first aid \nkit (described on the previo us page) as well as extra first aid equipment if required.  \n \nThe figure below shows some extra contents for a first aid kit for remote or isolated workers. \nYou may also want to consider including a small notebook and pen to record things such as \ndates, time s, observations, equipment used. This is a suggestion only – the actual contents will \ndepend on the nature of the work carried out and its risks.  \n \nWorkSafe’s First Aid for Workplaces – A Good Practice Guide  \n \n© Massey University | For Internal Use Only – Not Controlled When Printed  \nRevision 1 |  6 March 2023  \n 3 \n \n\n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Research_and_Consultancy_Activities_Procedures_PDF_247KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Section",
      "policy_type": "Procedure",
      "file_size": "247 KB",
      "author": "jmlochhe",
      "creation_date": "2025-02-13T08:05:07",
      "modification_date": "D:20250213085722+13'00'"
    },
    "content": "Massey  University  Policy  Guide  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n  \n \nPurpose:  \n \nResearch is a central characteristic of what defines a university.  It is  a core part of Massey University’s mission and \npurpose, as expressed in the University Strategy. Research informs our teaching, creates new knowledge, solves \ncritical problems, and builds future research capacity and capability. The University encourages ac ademic staff to \nengage in Research and Consultancy activities, as aligned with their employment duties and expectations.  \n \nThe Research and Consultancy Activities Procedures ( the Procedures)  cover:  \n• Applications and approv als for funded Research and Consultancy activities.  \n• Costing and indirect cost recovery for externally funded Research and Consultancy activities.  \n• Contracting of Research and Consultancy activities.  \n• Opening, administrating, and closing Research and Consultancy project accounts.  \n• Appropriate expenditure of Research  and Consultancy income.  \n• Distribution of balances of Research and Consultancy accounts at project end date.  \n• Project reporting obligations.  \n• Reimbursement for extra duties.  \n• Private Research and Consultancy activities , and  \n• Dispute resolution.  \n \n \n1.0 Applications , approvals and advi sement of R esearch or Consultancy activit ies and \nfunding  \n \n1.1 Responsibilities  \n \n1.1.1  Except as may be directed otherwise in these Procedures , staff are required to  undertake  all Research and \nConsult ancy  activities  through the University  and in accordance with the Research and Consultancy Policy  \nand these Procedures . This offers the following  general advantages to staff: \n• expertise and support services of the Research Office  \n• professional  indemnity  insurance and access to specialised advice available from indemnity authorities  \n• advice regarding Te Ao Māori, Vision Mātauranga and Māori health achievement  \n• access to licensed digital and educational resources including Library databases and services  \n• support (secretarial and financial) to secure  contracts  \n• use of office  and telephone  facilities  at the University  \n• access  to technicians  and research  infrastructure  \n• client  billing  and follow -up service  \n• support  for dispute  resolution  \n• taxation  services, and  \n• income may be eligible for any external research assessment -related funding.  \n Section  Research  \nContact  Office of the Provost  \nLast Review  January 2025  \nNext  Review  July 2026 \nApproval  SLT 25/01/140  \nEffective Date  15 January 2025  \n \nRESEARCH  AND  CONSULTANCY ACTIVIT IES PROCEDURES  \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \nResearch  and Consultancy  Activities  Procedures  – Page  2  \n \n \n \n_____________________________________________________________________________________  \n1.1.2  Project Leaders are responsible for developing a complete, accurate and timely application , proposal  or \ntender , and for advising  and seeking approval for Research or Consultancy activit ies as outlined in th ese \nProcedures .  Alongside Heads of Units , Project Leaders are responsible for the quality of the research content .  \nProject Leaders are responsible for liaising with the Research Office for support (in particular see Sections \n1.1.5 to 1.1. 7). In addition, Research Leaders developing proposals/applications for any of the major \ngovernment funders (as specified  in Section 1.1.5) are responsible  for liaising with  the Research Office  about \nany issues relating to the funder or funding process  and the Research Office  is responsible for communicating \nissues to the funder .  \n  \n1.1.3  Project Leaders are responsible for seeking approval from their Head of Unit for participating in any Research \nor Consultancy activit y that is led by another organisation and that is submitted to one of the major Government \nfunders (as specified in Section  1.15). In such cases staff are also responsible for advising the Research \nOffice  before  the proposal is submitted.  \n \n1.1.4  Heads of Units or their delegates are responsible for :  \n• approving the submission of applications by Project Leaders for internally and externally funded Research \nor Consultancy activities  \n• approving the submission of applications for private Research or Consultancy activities  \n• approving the submission of applications by Massey University staff to participate in funded Research or \nConsultancy activities led by another organisation as outlined in Section  1.1.3, and \n• recommending approval for reimbursement for extra duties, as outlined in these Procedures . \n \n1.1.5  The Research Office oversees Research and Consultancy activit ies at Massey University and is responsible \nfor the submission of research proposals/applications to the following major government funders : \n• Royal Society Te Apārangi   \n• Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment  \n• Health Research Council of New Zealand  \n• The New Zealand Lotteries Commission ,  \nand to any other research proposals/applications submitted via application portals that require Massey \nUniversity institutional sign-in (rather than individual staff member sign -in). \n \nThe Research Office is responsible for communications between the se funder s and Massey University, and  \nfor the provision of support t o ensur e that: \n• the development of research proposals follows Massey University’s internal processes and timeline s (which \nare developed so as to ensure conformation with the timelines and processes of the funder ) \n• the proposal/application and applicant meet  funder eligibility requirements  \n• the content is appropriate for the fund including assessors, is suitably evidenced, and addresses details on \nthe assessment rubrics  that are necessary to score highly , and  \n• any issues arising around funder requirements, portals  or submission processes are reported to the funder \nas soon as practicable.  \n \nThe Research Office may also advise the Head of Unit where a proposal/application has the potential to meet \nthe criteria listed in Section 1.3.4.   \n \n1.1.6 The Research Office at any time may specify its responsibilities to support the development, eligibility, quality \nand submission of research proposals/applications for other funders including international funders.   This \nincludes the specification of any forms, processes  or electronic tools for submitting and tracking the \ndevelopment, approval and management of research proposals/applications (for example a Research Project \nRequest e -form or similar ). \n \n1.1.7 The Research Office , where requested  or at its own initiative,  may support the development, quality and \nsubmission of other proposals/applications or tenders for Research or Consultancy activit ies as negotiated \nwith Project Leader s. \n \n1.2 Advisement of intention to apply for or carry out externally funded  Research or Consultancy activit ies \n \n1.2.1  Project Leaders are expected to  advise the Research Office of their intention to apply for, or to carry out, \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \nResearch  and Consultancy  Activities  Procedures  – Page  3  \n \n \n \n_____________________________________________________________________________________  \nextern ally funded Research or Consultancy activities in advance of the submission of any application or \nproposal to an external funder or organisation  to:  \ni. Royal Society Te Apārangi  (including Marsden Fund , Aotearoa New Zealand Tāwhia te Mana Research \nFellowships ) \nii. Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment  \niii. Health Research Council of New Zealand  \niv. The New Zealand Lotteries Commission  \nv. International fund ers \nvi. Other funders  as specified by the Research Office. \n \n1.2.2  Project Leaders should advise the R esearch Office of their intention to participate in any externa l Research or \nConsultancy activit y that is led by another organisation and that will be submitted to funders listed in Section \n1.2.1 (including any funders specified under Section 1.2.1  (vi)), in advance of the submission of any application \nor proposal.  \n \n1.2.3 Project Leaders are expected to advise the Research Office of  the result  (successful or otherwise) of any \nsubmitted proposal , application or tender for external Research or Consultancy activit ies as soon as \npracticable .  \n \n1.2.4 Project Leaders  should  advise the Research Office of the result (successful or otherwise) of any  application \nfor external Research or Consultancy activity  submitted to one of the funders listed in Section 1.2.1 (including \nany funders specified under Section 1.2.1 (vi))  led by another organisation and in which they are participants , \nas soon as practicable.   \n \n1.3 Approval for Research and Consultancy activit ies proposals, applications and tenders  \n \n1.3.1  Project Leaders are required to  notify the Research Office and to provide any and all information requested \nprior to submitting an application, proposal or tender for any externally funded Research or Consultancy \nactivities  to: \ni. Royal Society Te Apārangi  (including Marsden Fund, Aotearoa New Zealand Tāwhia te Mana Research \nFellowships ) \nii. Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment  \niii. Health Research Council of New Zealand  \niv. The New Zealand Lotteries Commission  \nv. International funders  \nvi. Other funders as specified by the Research Office. \n \n1.3.2 Project Leaders are required to obtain  the approval of their Head of Unit or delegate for Research or \nConsultancy activit ies prior to engaging in any such activities .     \n \n1.3.3 Massey University staff members are required to obtain  approval of their Head of Unit or delegate before \nparticipating in an application or proposal for externally funded Research or Consultancy  activity (including \ninternational funding) led by another organisation. Finance  Business Partners or delegates are responsible for \nproviding financial advice to Project Leaders as part of their role to oversee the financial management of the \nCollege including the management of funding for indirect costs.  Head s of Unit s, drawing on advice from their \nFinancial Business Partner s or delegates , are responsible for final approval.  The Research Office is \nresponsible for advising on any accompanying Memorandum of Understanding or equivalent.  \n \n1.3.4  After notification of a proposal  (including notification of intention to participate in an application or proposal for \nexternally funded Research or Consultancy activity led by another organisation) the Head of Unit shall inform \nthe staff member as to whether the work may proceed. The Head of Unit may decline work if any of the \nfollowing apply to the proposal:  \n• it is likely to bring the University into disrepute and/or is illegal  \n• there are unmanaged conflict s of commitment s or interest (as defined in the Massey University Conflict of \nCommitment and Interest Policy)  \n• the work falls outside the bounds of the University’s Charter and Profile  \n• the work falls outside the strategic intent of the unit, College, or University  \n• the work will breach or is likely to breach standards set out in the University’s ethics, research practice or \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \nResearch  and Consultancy  Activities  Procedures  – Page  4  \n \n \n \n_____________________________________________________________________________________  \nhealth and safety policies  \n• the proposal does not comply with the provisions in these Procedures and, upon being informed of non -\ncompliance, the Project Leader had not provided the relevant information or otherwise resolved the \ncompliance issues  \n• the work is of a trivial nature that offers no benefit to the staff member, unit, College or University  \n• if the w orkload may have an adverse impact on the health o r safety of the staff member  \n• the staff member concerned does not have the skill to undertake the work  (although the work may be \nallowed where skill gaps are offset by a partnership with those of appropriate skills and/or with assistance \nfrom subcontractors  or from other staff members who do have relevant skills and competencies either within \nor outside the unit)  \n• the work may impair the performance of the staff member as an employee of the University , and/or  \n• where any subsidy by the University of the research and consulting work (e.g. in terms of unpaid staff time \nor indirect cost reimbursement) fails to meet the rationale for this practice as set out in the Research and \nConsultancy Activity Policy  and in Section 2 of these Procedures . \n \n1.3.5  The Head of Unit will inform the Project Leader of the  decision to approve or decline to support the application, \nproposal or tender for Research or Consultancy activit ies in a timely manner  including  the grounds for the \ndecision.   \n \n1.3.6 Staff may undertak e the following funded activities without approval: occasional radio, television,  or online \nmedia appearances  or performances ; hobby or recreation related  work ; preparation of books or articles ; \nrefereeing of articles in learned journals ; examining and minor opinion work , and other  such work for which \nhonoraria are received.  \n \n1.3.7  Non-compliance with the provisions of this Section may result in delays in processing projects or remedial \nactions by the director of the Research Office or delegates on behalf of the University.  Such actions include \nbut are not limited to a request for withdrawal or suspension of Head of Unit support for the application.  \n \n \n2.0 Costing and indirect cost recovery for funded Research and Consultancy activities  \n \n2.1 Externally funded Research and externally funded Consultancy activities should provide for the full costs \n(including indirect costs) necessary to support such activities, to contribute to the ongoing provision of services \nto support research and researchers at the University.   \n \n2.2 Project Leaders are responsible for ensuring applications, proposals and tenders to provide Research or \nConsultancy services to external funders or organisations (including private companies/industry) identify and \nrecord all direct and indirect costs associated with the service to the full extent that this is known at the time of \nthe application.  \n \n2.3 The indirect cost recovery components of externally funded research and consultancy activity are calculated \nby applying the University’s official audited indirect costs rate to the salary and professional time components \nof the costs of the projects, or at  the upper cap of the funder guidelines.   The official indirect costs rate can be \nfound by applying to the Research Office .  \n \n2.4 It is acknowledged that some externally funded Research or Consultancy activit ies will not cover fully or \ncontribute towards the indirect costs of the University in relation to those activities  (‘fully funded’) . Where \nfunders  do not pay the full costs of Research or Consultancy activit ies (for example where funder guidelines \ndo not allow for indirect costs), identifiable costs (such as project management and coordination, laboratory \noperational expenses, a share of technical time, or other expenses for use of University facilities and \nresources) should be included wherever possible  as direct costs . \n \n2.5 Activity that is not priced to recover the full costs of Research or Consultancy may be supported where  it: \n• supports the wider strategic objectives of the unit, College and/or the University.   \n• enhanc es the reputation of the University.  \n• represent s grants in aid for existing or intended academic research.  \n• provid es direct and clearly stated education benefits to students.  \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \nResearch  and Consultancy  Activities  Procedures  – Page  5  \n \n \n \n_____________________________________________________________________________________  \n• bring s high prestige for the University (e.g. national or international fellowships and awards) , and/or  \n• allow s for the University to capture a significant share of the IP ownership or benefits arising from the \nactivity.   \nStaff should not be dissuaded by applying for such activities  solely on the basis of their partial ly funded  nature.   \n \n2.6  Head of Unit or delegate  approval for applications , proposals or tenders for external Research or Consultancy \nactivit ies that are not fully funded must record (a) the reason(s) for supporting the activit ies and (b) the \nprovisions to meet indirect costs (e.g. the unit will subsidise  the remaining costs ).   \n \n2.7 Where staff are engaged in externally funded Research or Consultancy activit ies that include reimbursement s \nfor salary recovery ( professional time ), this is used towards the salary costs of those staff and such transfers \nfrom project account s are coded as salary. At the discretion of the Head of Unit, those staff may be granted \nworkload release from normal duties . Consideration  should be  given to maintaining the  staff members’ duties \nor services  by appointing suitably qualified replacement s. Where replacement s cannot be readily found the \nfunds are applied  at the discretion of Heads of Units.    \n \n3.0 Contracting of Research and Consultancy activit ies \n \n3.1 Responsibility for contracting Research or Consultancy activit ies \n \n3.1.1  Project Leaders are responsible for ensuring that all external ly funded  Research or Consultancy act ivity is \nsupported by a written Agreement that include s: the nature of the activity, expected outputs, conditions of \nservice, start and end dates, reporting requirements, budget/funding amount, and expectations for the return \nof any unspent funds.  Project Leaders should seek the advice of Finance Business Partners or delegates and \nthe Research Office when developing budgets (including budgets for externally s ubcontracted activity).  All \nwritten agreements must be reviewed by the Research Office . All Massey University staff members are \nresponsible for ensuring Agreements are signed by relevant parties  and in accordance with the Delegations \nof Authority Policy . Project Leaders  must seek the advice of the Research Office to ensur e that  Agreements \nare appropriate and legally sound  prior to such Agreements being signed . \n \n3.1.2 Project Leaders are responsible for ensuring any Variation to the terms of the original Agreement (for example \nchanges or delays to budgets, milestones, outputs, or project end dates) are agreed and signed by all parties \nto the original Agreement in accord ance with Section 3.1.1 of these Procedures .  Unless otherwise specified  \nunder the terms of the original Agreement, Variations must be signed by all parties before any changes are \ninitiated and prior to the end date of the original Agreement.   Project Lead ers should contact the Research \nOffice for advice about  the process or need for a Variation . \n \n3.1.3 The Research Office is responsible for providing timely advice to ensure that Agreements and any subsequent \nVariations are appropriate and legally sound , and that Agreements and any subsequent Variations are retained \nagainst the relevant Research or Consultancy project account in Massey University’s research management \nsystem.  The Research Office  is responsible for entering the data from approved budgets into the University’s \nresearch management system in a timely manner.  \n \n3.1.4  It is th e responsibility of the Project Leader to ensure that, before any student is recruited or included as part \nof any  Research or Consultancy Agreement,  prior confirmation in writing is obtained that the student meets \nthe applicable academic entry requirements for Massey University.   \n \n3.2 Authority for approving Research and Consultancy Agreement s \n \n3.2.1 It is required that a ll Research and Consultancy Agreements  and any subsequent Variations  are approved by \nthe Vice -Chancellor or duly authorised delegate, in accordance with  the provisions of the Delegations  of \nAuthority Policy . This is normally the director of the Research Office or delegate .  \n \n \n3.2.2 Those  with delegated  authority  can conclude  Research  or Consultancy  Agreements  for the provision of \nservices subject to the following conditions:  \n• All relevant c riteria  in Massey  University  Policies  on research  practice,  intellectual  property,  financial  and \nlegal liabilities, health and safety , and ethical conduct are met . \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \nResearch  and Consultancy  Activities  Procedures  – Page  6  \n \n \n \n_____________________________________________________________________________________  \n• The Agreement  is clearly identified as Research  or as Consultancy  activity . Where both activities occur in \nthe same Agreement , the dollar amount agreed for each must be  recorded . \n• The Agreement is identified either as an Exchange or a Non-exchange Transaction  (as required to meet \nUniversity annual financial reporting and audit rules) . \n• The Agreement  details  are stored  in Massey University’s research management system . \n \n \n4.0 Opening Research and Consultancy project accounts  \n \n4.1 To ensure accountability , it is required that a ll externally and internally funded Research and Consultancy  \nactivit ies must be managed through a project account in Massey University’s research management system.   \n \n4.2 Project Leaders are responsible for providing the Research Office with full and accurate information regarding \nthe project, in a timely manner, including  budget, payment schedules, invoicing details and the names or roles \nof Massey University staff,  students  and other parties  involved in the project.   Project Leaders can seek the \nadvice of the Research Office in negotiating with external parties to provide the required information.  \n  \n4.3 Research and Consultancy  accounts will be opened by the director of the Research Office or delegates  upon \nreceipt of a signed Agreement and all relevant  project information  (as specified in the Research and \nConsul tancy Policy  and these Procedures ). \n \n4.4 The Research Office may open project accounts for internally funded  scholarships for named students at the \nrequest in writing of the Head of Unit. In such cases, f unds must be transferred from the Unit account and may \nnot be transferred directly from another research project account. The Research Office may also open \nexpenses -only project accounts for named students at the request in writing of the Head of Unit where the \nproject timeframe extends beyond one calendar year and where the budget is no less than $30,000. In such \ncases, f unds must be transferred from the Unit ac count and may not be transferred from another project \naccount.  No other internally  funded unit -level project accounts may be opened.  \n \n4.5 At its discretion the Research Office may open project accounts for externally funded Consultancy activity \nbelow a specified value.  These accounts, known as School Small Consultancy Accounts or ‘SCON Accounts’, \nwill be operated in accordance with these Procedures  and any additional conditions set by the Research Office .  \nSCON  Account s will be reviewed annually by the Research Office . Unauthorised operation may lead to the \nclosure of accounts.  \n \n \n5.0 Administ ering  research and consultancy project accounts  \n \n5.1 It is important f or risk management and accountability  that internal funding is spent as agreed by the awarding \ncommittee or equivalent in the letter/notification of approval. Similarly,  and to ensure the University meets its \nlegal obligations, external funding must  be spent in accordance with the Agreement and any subsequent \nVariation, regardless of any unit, College or University guidance or Massey  University  policy.  \n \n5.2  Project Leaders are responsible for managing their approved projects  to ensure that: \n• funding  for direct costs  is spent in accordance with  the Agreement  and any subsequent Variation.   \n• all expenditure  is authorised  in accordance  with the financial  delegations  for the relevant  Unit and as per \nthe Agreement , and   \n• all staff and other parties participating in the project understand and abide by  the terms , obligations  and \nresponsibilities of the Agreement , any ethics and regulatory requirements that may be applicable, and any \nconditions imposed on administering or managing  costs, revenue,  and activities of the project.  \n \n5.3 All transactions and commitments relating to Research or Consultancy project accounts should  be finalised \npromptly by the project end date.  In situations where it is not possible to meet project commitments by the \nend date in the Agreement, it is the responsibility of the Project Leader  (with the support of the Research \nOffice ) to negotiate a Variation to the end date as set out in these Procedures.   \n \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \nResearch  and Consultancy  Activities  Procedures  – Page  7  \n \n \n \n_____________________________________________________________________________________  \n5.4 Finance Business Partners  or delegates are responsible for providing financial advice to Project Leaders as \npart of their role to oversee the financial management of the College including the management of funding for \nindirect costs.  College administrators are responsible for providing all operational support to Project Leaders \nthroughout the duration of the project.  \n \n5.5 The Research Office oversees the monitoring  of funding activity through project accounts  to ensure funding is \nspent in accordance with Agreements and any subsequent Variations, and also oversees the provision of \nsupport to Project Leaders to ensure project accounts are managed in accordance with the Research and \nConsultancy Activities Policy  and these Procedures  and reporting  of any issues arising to Project Leaders.   \n \n5.6 All invoicing  for Research and Consultancy activities will take place  through  the Research Office , in \naccordance with provisions in signed Agreements.  \n \n5.7 Project Leaders are required to  take all reasonable steps to ensure that contracts, invoices, and payments \nassociated with Research or Consultancy activit ies are stated in New Zealand dollars, to minimize any foreign \nexchange risk. Where payments are required in a foreign currency,  these are charged at the exchange rate \non the day the invoices are generated/funds transferred.  The effects of any fluctuations in the exchange rate \nover the life of a project are the responsibility of the  unit.  \n \n5.8 Where  an Agreement  involve s the  use of Massey University capital research equipment , this should  be paid \nfrom the Research or Consultancy project account at the appropriate usage rate or rates for the equipment set \nat the time the Agreement  was signed.  \n \n5.9 The University recognises external Research and Consultancy revenue at the point it is expended .  Project \nLeaders are required to  advis e the Research Office of any significant delays in completion of milestones or \nany factors that might affect when and what funding is invoiced.    \n \n5.10 Project Leader s of externally funded  Research or Consultancy  activities  (including Fellowships) intend ing to \nleave Massey University  employment must notify the Research Office in writing at least one month prior to the \ndate of termination of their employment , to ensure that appropriate  steps and any necessary  Variations  can \nbe agreed and finalised with funders  to ensure the orderly exit of the project (e.g. completion , transfer, \ntermination or other form of management process) .   \n \n6.0  Appropriate expenditure of Research and Consultancy income  \n \n6.1  Expenditure must be for the purposes of achieving the contracted or agreed objectives or deliverables of the \nproject, should not exceed the project budget, and must comply with the University’s audit and financial \nreporting requirements. Accurate evidence must be retained and provided in respect of all transactions (e.g. \ninvoices coded to correct item codes) for audit purposes.  Should a n account for Research or Consultancy \nActivities be in deficit at the end date of the project, any s uch deficits are the responsibility of the relevant Unit  \nas specified in Section 8.2 . \n \n6.2 Direct costs should align closely with the budget categories established in the Agreement with the funder.  \nWhere  this is not possible , a Variation  will be required, approved through the Research Office as set out in the \nProcedures . In determining what can or cannot be charged to a specific project account, it is important to \nconsider  (a) whether the cost is essential to achieving the contracted or agreed objectives or deliverables of \nthe project, and (b) whether, if the cost had been itemised in the original application or budget, it would have \ncomplied with the funder’s requirements.  \n \n6.3 Direct costs must be charged to the actual project they relate to and not to any other projects , even where \nsuch projects may be associated for the same funder and for related research.   \n \n6.4 Where f unded Research activity includes p ayments or other tokens of appreciation (often in the form of gift \ncards) to research participants in acknowledgement of their expenses and  the knowledge the contribute to the \nresearch project, such tokens of appreciation should be appropriate to the commitment and the level of \nexpertise  they contribute to the research, the purpose of the research and the situation of the recipients .  Any \nsuch tokens of appreciation  must be consistent  with University policies including the Sensitive Expenditure \nand Gifts Policy and the Koha Policy . \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \nResearch  and Consultancy  Activities  Procedures  – Page  8  \n \n \n \n_____________________________________________________________________________________  \n6.5 Funds are not to be transferred (journaled) between project accounts unless it is to correct errors in the original \ncharging. The College administrator or delegate  is required to  notify any such correctional transfers to the \nProject Leader in writing, including information on the purpose and implications of the transfer.   \n \n6.6 Salaries for staff solely employed to work on a Research or Consultancy activity  is charged directly to the \nproject account.  Where staff are paid from the General Ledger, a salary recovery  transfer may be charged to \nthe project account.   \n \n6.7 Non-compliance with the provisions of this Section may result in delays to processing expenditure or remedial \nactions by the director of the Research Office or delegates on behalf of the University .  Remedial actions will \nbe determined  in consultation with Heads of Units as  appropriate.  Such actions includ e but are not limited to \nfreezing the relevant project account(s).  \n \n \n7.0 Project reporting obligations  \n \n7.1 Reporting dates for Research or Consultancy activities  are specified when the project account is established  \nor as a result of a Variation .  Project Leaders are responsible for fulfilling the reporting requirements of the \nfunder by the dates specified in the Agreement  or any subsequent Variation . This includes ensuring the \nfulfilment of any obligation to report in collaboration with community groups where  these are participants in the \nResearch or Consultancy activity .  Project Leaders reporting to the major government funders (as listed  in \nSection 1) are responsible for liaising with the Research Innovation and Impact team in the Research Office \nregarding  reporting requirements and the Research Innovation and Impact team is responsible for \ncommunicating with the funder  (see Section 7.3) . \n \n7.2 For activities  funded by the major government research funders (as specified in Section 1), the Research \nOffice is responsible for advising Project Leader s of upcoming reporting dates a month in advance of due \ndates, and for follow ing up (initially with Project Leaders, then to Heads of Unit or delegates) if draft reports \nare not submitted.  Project Leaders  are required to provide d raft reports to the Research Office at least 10 \ndays in advance of due dates.  The Research Office will work with Project Leader s to ensure the report s fulfil \ncontractual obligations and that the content is suitable for the funder. Project Leaders should always  advise \nthe Research Office well in advance of reporting deadlines  of any factors that might mean they cannot meet \nreporting dates  and outline  how they propose to do to address the issue s.  The Research Office will seek to \nidentify any remedial measures  and, where appropriate, work with Project Leaders to negotiate a Variation.  \n \n7.3  The Research Office is responsible for liaising with the main government funders ( as outlined in  Section 1.1. 5) \nregarding project reporting including any associated issues . The Research Office will  liaise  between  Project \nLeaders and the funders to resolve issues.  \n \n7.4 The Research Office  is responsible for the monitoring and reporting of Research  or Consultancy activit ies for \nthe University, including income received, and external research income that meets the eligibility criteria for \nfunding under the Performance Based Research Fund (or any equivalent Government funding mechanism) .   \n \n \n8.0 Closing Research and Consultancy project accounts  \n \n8.1 The Research Finance team in the Research Office is responsible for closing Research and Consultancy \nproject accounts.  \n \n8.2 Project accounts for Research and Consultancy activit ies should not be in deficit at the end date of the project  (as \nspecified in the Agreement or any subsequent Variation ).  Any deficits are the responsibility of the relevant Unit.  \n \n8.3 Project a ccounts for internally funded Research activities will remain open for a maximum of three months \nafter the project end date as specified in the award notice, to allow for the processing of  financial commitments \nmade up to the  project end date . Any credit balance  remaining in an account at the time it is closed will be \nreturned to the originating funding source .  \n \n8.4 The project end date for e xternally funded Research and Consultancy activity is the date specified in the \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \nResearch  and Consultancy  Activities  Procedures  – Page  9  \n \n \n \n_____________________________________________________________________________________  \nAgreement. Unless otherwise specified in the contract, externally funded projects will remain open for a \nmaximum of three months after the expiry date so that financial commitments made up to the  project end date \ncan be processed.  \n \n8.5 Credit b alances remaining in externally funded Research or Consultancy project  account s after all financial \ncommitments have been processed will be treated as specified in the Agreement or as may otherwise be \nagreed in writing with the funder.  \n \n8.6 Where an externally funded Research or Consultancy project account has a  credit balance at the end date of \nthe project and the funder has agreed  that these are not to be returned but instead may be spent on a further \nprogramme of work, the balance will be retained in the project account. Such an arrangement requires either  \na new Agreement or  a Variation, including updated budget and project end date,  recorded in Massey \nUniversity’s research management system.  \n \n8.7 Where an externally funded  Research or Consultancy project  account has a  credit balance at the end date of \nthe project and where the Agreement does not specify a further programme of work or  return to funder of such \ncredit , the balance will be transferred to the nominated Budget Centre  (under item code 1208) on the basis \nthat the project has been completed to the satisfaction of the funder and all objectives met . \n \n \n9.0 Reimbursements for extra duties (‘overload compensation’)  \n \n9.1 Applications for overload compensation from staff carrying out externally funded Research or Consultancy \nactivities must be  made in writing to the relevant Head of Unit.   \n \n9.2 The Head of Unit may recommend approval of an application for overload compensation where:  \n• the work is clearly separate from and in addition to the normal full workload for the staff member.  \n• it is understood that the overload compensation is an extraordinary and temporary arrangement for a \nspecified  and limited period.  \n• the period  is stipulated in the relevant contract.  \n• the work will not and is unlikely to breach standards set out in the University’s ethics, research practice or \nhealth and safety policies.  \n• the w orkload will not have an adverse impact on the health or safety of the staff member.  \n• the work does not in any way impair the performance of the staff member as an employee of the University.  \n• total time commitment for  compensation  does not exceed 350 hours or 20% of the base salary or equivalent \n(whichever occurs first)  in any one University financial year.  \n• the work is fully costed and fully funded according to the provisions in these Procedures , and  \n• the proposed arrangements for compensation do not conflict  with terms set out in the staff member’s  \nemployment agreement or the University’s legal obligations . \n \nIn addition, where an application for compensation is made by a part -time staff member, the Head of Unit \nshould  consider instead a temporary extension of the staff member’s normal workload to cover the externally \nfunded activity.  \n \n9.3 The recommendation by a Head of Unit for approval of applications for overload compensation must be made \nin writing to the relevant Pro Vice -Chancellor (or equivalent). The approval by the  Pro Vice -Chancellor (or \nequivalent) must also be made in writing  prior to signing any contract for compensation .  The Head of Unit is \nrequired to  confirm to the relevant staff member that the  application has been approved by the Pro Vice -\nChancellor, and to note any conditions imposed.   The Head of Unit is also responsible for retaining  a record \nof the decision.  \n \n9.4 Overload  compensation will be paid at a level which is calculated as total revenue, less overheads, expenses, \nand personal income tax.  \n \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \nResearch  and Consultancy  Activities  Procedures  – Page  10  \n \n \n \n_____________________________________________________________________________________  \n10.0 Private research and consultancy  \n \n10.1 The University  acknowledges that staff may conduct some  Private Research or Consult ancy work outside  of \ntheir employment with  the University , where such work relies  on the ir special knowledge and expertise, and \nwhere it may enhance the reputation of the University . In such cases staff are required to  ensure that \nmechanisms are in place to manage any Private Research and Consultancy activities  in a way that create s \nvalue and reduces risk for both the University and staff .  \n \n10.2 In all cases where staff wish t o engage in Private  Research or Consultancy activit y, this : \n• must  take place outside staff members ’ paid hours of employment , and  \n• must  not entail any use of the University ’s facilities or  branding , and \n• must not use Library licensed digital  resources , and   \n• must  not impinge on  staff members ’ conduct of their  work as University employees or be in conflict with \nactivities that should be or are being pursued through the University , and \n• must  not be for any institution or organisation  which can be considered to be in competition with any part \nof Massey University , or to constitute an unmanaged conflict of commitment  or interest (as defined in the \nMassey University Conflict of Commitment and Interest Policy) , and  \nstaff undertaking Private Research or Consultancy activity are required to  ensure that they do not imply or \nstate that such work relates to  their employment by the University.  \n \n10.3 Staff wishing to carry out any Private Research or Consultancy activit ies are required to  obtain the written \napproval of their Head of Unit  prior to engaging in  such activity . Staff should provide sufficient information on \nthe proposed activity to enable the Head of Unit to make an informed decision .  In making a decision  the Head \nof Unit should take into account the current research workload commitments (including any overload \ncompensation) of the staff member in their University employment . \n \n10.4 Staff may need to submit a suitable Conflict of Interest Declaration to the Office of Governance and Assurance \nprior to commencing any approved Private Research or Consultancy activities.  To avoid a conflict of interest, \nno staff member may lead or participate in Private Research or Consultancy activity funded by major New \nZealand or international funders (including those identified under Section  1 of these Procedures ) regardless \nof whether the activity is led by Massey University staff members or by members of an external organisation.  \n \n10.5 The use of the University ’s facilitie s, equipment or resources  (including those specified in Section 1 .1.1, and \nexcluding Library licensed digital resources  as specified in Section 10.2 ) will only be permitted for Private \nResearch and Consultancy activities where  agreement for such use is received in writing from the relevant  \nHead of Unit beforehand, and specific details pertaining to the  particular facilities, equipment and/or resources \nare set out clearly in such agreement . Normally, where University facilities and resources are used for the \npurposes of Private Research  and Consultancy , then the University should be recompensed for that time and \nuse of facilities,  and this should operate as a standard commercial agreement.  \n \n10.6 Intellectual Property  created through Private Research or Consultancy activities  may be subject to the \nUniversity’s  Intellectual  Property (IP) Policy . It is the responsibility of staff members engaging in Private Research \nor Consultancy activities to  familiarise themselves with the provisions of the University’s IP Policy , and in \nparticular with the University’s rights to claim ownership of  Intellectual Property, including copyright under certain \ncircumstances . This is particularly relevant where staff members engage in Private Research  and Consultancy  \nactivities for financial benefit where the University has a clear interest in sharing the outcomes of that research \nor has an I P interest in that research. Such arrangements need to be disclosed by the staff member and approved \nwith the Head of Unit prior to the commencement of the research.  \n \n10.7 Heads of Units are responsible for maintaining a record of staff engaged in Private Research and Consultancy \nactivities including details of approved and declined requests , staff names and the grounds for decisions and, \nfor approved requests , staff time commitments , the nature of the activity including the funding organisation,  \nand specific details of approved  use of the University’s facilities, equipment or resources.  \n \n10.8 Staff members engaging in Private Research or Consultancy activities assume personal responsib ility and \nliability including for: \n• the preparation,  signing  and fulfilment  of any Agreement  to which  they are, or become,  a party  \n \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \nResearch  and Consultancy  Activities  Procedures  – Page  11  \n \n \n \n_____________________________________________________________________________________  \n• the maintenance  of records  of any financial  transactions/accounts  relating  to their research or consultancy  \nactivities  \n•  insurances and i ndemnity  against  liability  and access to specialised advice from indemnity authorities , and  \n•  tax liability  arising  from their activities  (including Income  Tax, and Goods  and Services  Tax).  \n \n10.9 In the absence of an agreement  regarding Private Research or Consultancy activities  between the University \nand the relevant staff member, all other  research or consultancy  activities will be  deemed  University Research \nand Consultancy  activity . \n \n10.10 Continued  involvement  by a staff member in any approved Private Research or Consultancy activity is dependent  \nupon  evidence  of that staff member’s  acceptable  performance in teaching, research, and administrative duties .  \nWhere the time taken on private Research or Consultancy activity is such that the staff member is not able to \nmeet their University duties, the staff member must either negotiate a fractional appointment with the University \nor cease some of their outside activities.  \n \n \n11.0 Dispute  resolution  \n \n11.1 In the event  of a conflict  or dispute  arising  between  an individual  staff member  and the Head  of Unit or University  \nin relation  to the approval of Research or Consultancy activit ies (either University or Private), and/or fulfilment \nof a University Research or Consultancy contract, and/or the use of University resources in relation to fulfilment \nof a private contract,  resolution of this  dispute  shall be sought in accordance with the  procedures set  out in  \nMassey University employment agreements for staff.  \n \n11.2 Where no resolution is reached within a reasonable time, the matter may be referred to the Provost for \nresolution . \n \n11.3 In the event of any conflict or dispute between partners to an externally funded Research or Consultancy \napplication or activity, the Project Leader should seek advice as soon as possible from the Research Office in \nthe first instance.  \n \n \nDefinitions:  \n \nThe following terms are used commonly throughout these Procedures  and the  Research and Consultancy  Activity \nPolicy , and, unless indicated otherwise, have the meanings ascribed to them below.  \n \nAgreement : a written contractual document that is negotiated and usually signed between the University and other \nrelevant parties including external funders.  This may be a Research or Consultancy Contract, an indicative \nagreement, a n email/ letter offering/confirming a funding award, or a n email/ letter offering funds for a non -exchange \ntransaction.  \n \nConflict  of Commitment : as defined in the Massey University Conflict of Commitment and Interest Policy: a situation \nin which the activities  of a staff member interfere with that staff member's fulfilment of obligations to students, \ncolleagues,  or the University.  \n \nConflict of Interest : as defined in the Massey University Conflict of Commitment and Interest Policy: a situation in \nwhich the activities of a staff member outside their employment obligations to the University lead to material \npersonal benefit to the staff member concerned, either directly or indirectly (e.g. through a family member, \nassociated entity or external agency), to the detriment of the University . \n \nConsultancy  Contract : means  the provision  by Massey  staff,  other  than as private  individuals  (when  all provision  is \noffered independently  of any  connection  to, or with Massey), of consultancy  services to a third party, where those \nservices do not meet the definition of research.  \n \nDirect  costs : costs that can clearly  and solely  be attributed  to the project  or programme.  \n \n \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \nResearch  and Consultancy  Activities  Procedures  – Page  12  \n \n \n \n_____________________________________________________________________________________  \nExchange transactions: transactions funded or supported by a party external to Massey University in exchange for \noutputs and reporting obligations (including goods, services,  and use of assets) that are defined in an Agreement \nbetween the parties.  \n \nFull costs : the total direct  and indirect  costs  of providing  the services  incurred  by the university.  \n \nFunded Research and  (or) Consultancy activity : means the provision by Massey University staff of expert or \nprofessional advice, information and/or service to individuals or organisations (whether internal or external), or \nresearch as agreed by contract and resulting in the receipt of a negotiated fee  or payment.  \n \nHead of Unit : this term refers to the appointed manager of a division of the University including a unit, school or \nresearch or specialist centre, and should be taken to mean line manager where the Head of Unit is the Project \nLead er or otherwise a Massey staff member undertaking or planning to undertake funded Research and \nConsultancy activity.  \n \nIndirect costs : costs necessary  to support the research activities for which external funding has been supplied  that \ncannot be readily attributed to any one project or programme. These include central administrative costs (e.g. \nfinancial services, HR services) and central facilities like libraries, rooms,  and laboratories.  \n \nNon-exchange transactions : transactions funded or supported by a party external to Massey University where an \nAgreement does not define expected outputs that must be produced in exchange for the funding provided (for \nexample gifts and donations).  \n \nPrice : consideration agreed with the client. This may  be above (surplus) or below (loss) the full cost of the service.  \n \nPrivate Research and  (or) Consultancy  means any work undertaken by Massey University staff (as a private \nindividual) for any person or body other than the University that does not materially or legally involve the University.  \n \nProcedures : the R esearch and Consultancy Activities Procedures . \n \nProject Leader : the person nominated to lead a research or consultancy project (such as a principal investigator or \nconsultancy holder), and who is entered as such in the University’s research management system . \n \nResearch : the definition of research is as defined by the Tertiary Education Commission, namely : investigation or \ninquiry leading to new, recovered, or reinterpreted knowledge or understanding which is effectively shared  and \ncapable of rigorous assessment by the appropriate experts.   \n \nResearch and  (or) Consultancy  activities/services/ work means the provision by Massey University staff of expert \nor professional advice, information and/or service to individuals or organisations (whether internal or external), or \nresearch  as agreed by contract and resulting in the receipt of a negotiated fee or payment.  \n \nResearch and  (or) Consultancy  project account  refers to a specific account for each research or consultancy \ncontract, which is opened and operated for the purpose of managing all receipts of funds and payments in relation \nto that research or consultancy contract.  \n \nResearch Project Request e -form or equivalent : refers to an electronic  form completed prior to the submission of \nall applications for externally funded Research and Consultancy activity, to ensure the necessary information is \nprovided for approval, support and reporting purposes.  \n \nResearch Office : a generic term to describe the main  department or unit tasked with the management of research \nat a university  and which at Massey University is known as Research Operations . \n \nResearch  Contract  means  a legally binding agreement that govern s the provision  by Massey  staff of research -based  \nand related  academic  services  to a third party.   \n \nVariation : a change to the nature, quantity or quality of work to be undertaken, made after execution of the \nAgreement  and after the price is agreed , and which may r esult in additional time being allowed and/or an increase \nin the agreed cost . \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \nResearch  and Consultancy  Activities  Procedures  – Page  13  \n \n \n \n_____________________________________________________________________________________  \nAudience:  \n \n• Massey University staff and students engaged in funded research and/or consultancy  \n• Research Office staff, Finance Business Partners and other professional staff engaged in the support of funded \nresearch and/or consultancy  \n• Non-Massey University staff, students and contractors engaged in research and/or consultancy activity hosted \nby Massey University, or in terms of a Research or Consultancy Contract  \n \nRelevant Legislation:  \n \n \nLegal Compliance:  \n \n \nRelated  Policies and Procedures:  \n \n• Academic Freedom Policy  \n• ''Massey University Staff Collective Employment Contract\" and any other  conditions of employment staff might \nhave with Massey University.  \n• Code of Responsible Research Conduct  \n• Delegations  of Authority Policy  \n• General Disposal Authority for New Zealand Universities  \n• Intellectual  Property  Policy  \n• Research  and Consultancy  Activit y Policy \n• Policy on Staff Conduct  \n• University Workloads Policy  \n• Conflict of Commitment and Interest Policy  \n• Fraud and Corruption Policy  \n• The Code  of Conduct  for Research  or Teaching  involving  the Importation  or Development  of New  Organisms  \nUsing  Recombinant  DNA.  \n• The Code  of Ethical  Conduct  for the Use of Live Animals  for Teaching  and Research  \n• The Code  of Ethical  Conduct  for Research,  Teaching  and Evaluations  Involving  Human  Participants  Creations \nof Contracts Policy  \n• Sensitive Expenditure and Gifts Policy  \n• Koha Policy  \n• Any relevant Service Level Agreement  \n \nDocument Management Control:  \n \nAuthorised  by: Office of the Provost  \nApproved by:  SLT 25/01/140  \nDate issued:  15 January 2025  \nLast review:  January 2025  \nNext review:     July 2026  \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Treaty_of_Waitangi_Kaupapa_Here_Tiriti_o_Waitangi__Tiriti_o_Waitangi_Policy_PDF_233_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Treaty of Waitangi Kaupapa Here Tiriti o Waitangi  Tiriti o Waitangi Policy PDF 233 KB",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "233 KB",
      "author": "Jodie Banner",
      "creation_date": "2023-12-15T12:04:05",
      "modification_date": "D:20231215124512+13'00'"
    },
    "content": "     \n  \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n \n KAUPAPA  HERE  TIRITI  O WAITANGI  - TIRITI  O WAITANGI  POLICY  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \nSection  University Management  \nContact  Office of the DVC Māori  \nLast Review  July 2023  \nNext Review  July 2027  \nApproval  C23/52  \nEffective Date  July 2023  \n \nPurpose:   \nThis policy outlines Massey University’s commitment to uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its associated principles.   \n \nIntroduction:  \nMassey University is “committed to demonstrating authentic leadership in contemporary Aotearoa New Zealand as we \nuphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the founding document of our nation, and its principles through our practice. We see this as \na critical requiremen t to advance more inclusive and socially progressive outcomes for Aotearoa New Zealand” ( MU \nStrategy  2022 -2027 , p. 6). While sec. 281(1)(b) of the Education and Training Act 2020 requires tertiary councils “to \nacknowledge the principles of Te Tiriti”, the University further embraces the overarching vision of the Act to progress \nan education system for Aotearoa New  Zealand that “honours Te Tiriti o Waitangi” (sec. 4(d)) and the benefits of this \nvision for our staff, students,  and wider communities.  \n \nAs a foundation for Massey University’s practice and development into the future, Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its associated \nprinciples are reflected across all of the University’s four pou, or strategic pillars: Pou Tangata – People; Pou Rangahau \n– Research;  Pou Ako – Teaching and Learning and Pou Hono – Connection.    \n \nMassey University further upholds Te Tiriti o Waitangi as a commitment to be embraced by all staff, where both Tangata \nWhenua (Māori)  staff and Tangata Tiriti (Pākehā, Pacific and Tauiwi / New migrant) staff have valuable contributions to \nmake towards achieving our Te Tiriti aspirations. We pursue the attainment of these aspirations in the spirit of solidarity, \ncooperation and openness to new understandings and exploration of Te Tiriti as a framework unique to  Aotearoa that \nhelps define us within the world.   \n \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nKaupapa Here Tiriti o Waitangi – Tiriti o Waitangi policy  \n– Page 2 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nWe further undergo this work knowing our understandings and efforts to implement Te Tiriti will change and evolve over \ntime as society changes and evolves, to build on our strengths and achievements and to meet new challenges and \nopportunities in the futur e.   \n \nDefinitions:  \nTe Tiriti o Waitangi refers to the Te Reo Māori (Māori Language) text of the treaty between hapū and the British Crown \nfirst signed at Waitangi in 1840. The Treaty of Waitangi (English language texts) is relevant to this policy where the \nprovisions of the Treaty support and in form current day application of Te Tiriti, such as the Treaty principles.       \n  \nProvisions in this policy refers to the specific terms and phrases from the Te Tiriti texts.  \n \nPrinciples in this policy refers to the principles that assist with the contemporary application of the provisions of Te Tiriti \nand, where relevant, the Treaty, as defined by the Waitangi Tribunal, New Zealand courts, government policy and other \nCrown entities.  \n \nPolicy:  \nThe University acknowledges the following Te Tiriti o Waitangi provisions and associated principles:  \n \n● From  Article One: the provision of Kāwanatanga (Governance)  and the principles of Good governance, \nFiduciary duty and Partnership . \n● From Article Two: the provision of Tino Rangatiratanga (Independence)  and the principles of Māori Authority, \nAutonomy, and Self-determination . \n● From Article Two: the provision of Taonga (Māori treasures)  and the principles of Active Protection  and \nDevelopment . \n● From Article Three: the provision of Ngā tikanga katoa rite tahi (All the rights)  and the principles of Access, \nParticipation, Options, Equity and Equal outcomes . \n● From Article Four: the provision of Te ritenga Māori (Māori customs) and the principle of Honouring  Māori \ncultural -spiritual values and practices . \n \nSpecifically, the University will uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi through our:  \n \n1. Kāwanatanga:  Good governance, Fiduciary duty,  and Partnership  \n● progression, innovation,  and leadership of the University as a vehicle for strategic Māori and national \ndevelopment.   \n● decision -making, funding and resource allocation cognisant of Māori development goals, priorities, needs , and \naspirations as determined by Māori;  \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nKaupapa Here Tiriti o Waitangi – Tiriti o Waitangi policy  \n– Page 3 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n● partnerships with iwi representations (mana whenua) of each of the university's three campuses, including: Te \nRūnanga o Ngāti Whātua (Ōtehā Campus); Rangitāne o Manawatū (Manawatū Campus); Te Rūnanganui o Te \nĀtiawa o Te Ūpoko o Te Ika Inc (Pukeahu Campus).    relationships with Māori authorities, such as iwi, hapū, \nmarae, urban Māori authorities and other Māori expertise collectives, to partner in the advancement of Māori \ndevelopment goals, and.   \n● creation and further development of opportunities and spaces for dialogue and development of new knowledge \nand understandings about Te Tiriti, and our collective responsibilities in honouring its provisions and principles.      \n \n2. Tino Rangatiratanga:  Māori Authority, Autonomy and Self -determination  \n● acknowledgement of the special status of Māori as Tangata Whenua (the Indigenous peoples of Aotearoa) with \nrights to authority and autonomy over matters pertaining to Te Ao Māori (the Māori world ).   \n● recognition of the right , and support of , Māori to determine, represent and advance Māori development goals, \npriorities, needs and aspirations both at and through the work of the University.  \n● ongoing development of Māori leadership and expertise at and through the work of the University, for the greater \nrealisation of Māori self -determination at the University, locally and nationwide, and.  \n● commitment to increasing the presence and progression of Māori staff across and at all levels of the University.  \n \n3. Taonga: Active Protection and Development  \n● acknowledgement of the special status of taonga, including te reo Māori (the Māori language), mātauranga \nMāori (Māori knowledges), ako Māori (Māori pedagogies) and toi Māori (Māori creative works and processes) \nas unique treasures Indigenous to Aotearoa Ne w Zealand.    \n● efforts to actively restore, revitalise and protect taonga Māori, both tangible (such as lands, waterbodies, \ncreative works) and intangible (such as language, knowledges, pedagogies, worldviews) at and through the \nwork of the University.  \n● recognition of the right , and support of , Māori to restore, maintain and further develop taonga Māori through \naccess to , and utilization and development of , current and emerging technologies, and. \n● recognition of , and provisions for , the right of Māori learners to access taonga Māori as valued and everyday \naspects of teaching, learning, research,  and life at the University.    \n \n4. Ngā tikanga katoa rite tahi: Access, Participation, Options, Equity and Equal outcomes  \n● work to enhance Māori learner access, participation, success,  and excellence, as determined by Māori, at all \nlevels of provision (undergraduate and postgraduate) of the University.   \n● commitment to achieving more equitable outcomes for all Māori learners and their whānau, hapū, iwi, and \ncommunities to whom they belong, at and through the work of the University, in wider society.   \n● ongoing provision of and investment in kaupapa Māori (Māori language, knowledges and pedagogy) pathways \nof study as essential options for Māori learners and their whānau engaging in tertiary education in Aotearoa \nNew Zealand, and.  \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nKaupapa Here Tiriti o Waitangi – Tiriti o Waitangi policy  \n– Page 4 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n● ongoing provision of, investment in, and exploration of practices, services, initiatives and activities known to \nimprove tertiary education outcomes for Māori learners.  \n \n5. Te ritenga Māori: Honouring Māori cultural -spiritual values and practices  \n● acknowledgement of the special status of tikanga and kawa (Māori laws and protocols) and Māori philosophies \nand practices pertaining to hauora (health and wellbeing) as Indigenous to Aotearoa New Zealand.   \n● recognition of the centrality of Māori philosophies and worldviews, such as Te Whare Tapawha  that \nacknowledges spiritual, physical, mental/ emotional,  and collective/relationship elements, to the provision of \ntertiary education that is responsive to the health and wellbeing needs and aspirations of Māori learners and \ntheir whānau.   \n● commitment to nurture the wellbeing and potential of Māori learners throughout all aspects of university  life, \nand to reflect th is commitment  in the policies and practices at the University, for example the Academic Freedom \nPolicy (2022) that states the freedoms of academic speech and expression “ ought not to contravene, \nundermine, or diminish ” (p. 5) the status or rights of Māori as Tangata whenua, and.  \n● work to progress University spaces, systems and processes that provide for Māori cultural -spiritual values and \npractices as a valued, everyday characteristic of life at the University for all staff, students, whanau/families and \nour wider communities.  \n \nImplementation:  \nImplementation of this policy will be guided by specific commitments in University strategies, planning and projects \nacross all areas of the University: Pou Tangata – People, Pou Rangahau – Research, Pou Ako – Teaching and \nLearning, and Pou Hono – Connecti on. Please see Appendix A for examples of current commitments made within the \nMassey University Strategy 2022 -2027 .  \n \nResponsibility for progressing the University’s Te Tiriti commitments will rest with all leaders and managers of the \nUniversity and  is to be accounted for in their annual planning and reporting.  \n \nThe Office of the DVC Māori office will be available to provide Te Tiriti advice and guidance and to support the \ndevelopment of Te Tiriti plans, projects and initiatives as required.   \n \nAudience:  \nMassey University Council, staff, students, and external stakeholders including mana whenua, iwi, hapū and whānau \nassociated with the University.    \n \nRelevant legislation:  \nEducation and Training Act 2020  \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nKaupapa Here Tiriti o Waitangi – Tiriti o Waitangi policy  \n– Page 5 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nTreaty of Waitangi Act 1975  \n \nRelated procedures / documents:  \nAcademic Freedom Policy (2022).  \nMatua Kaupapa Reo – Māori Language  Policy (2014).  \nMassey University Strategy 2022 -2027.  \n \nDocument Management Control:  \nPrepared by: Office of the DVC Māori  \nApproved by: Council C23/52   \nNext review:  July 2027  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nKaupapa Here Tiriti o Waitangi – Tiriti o Waitangi policy  \n– Page 6 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nAPPENDIX A: TE TIRITI COMMITMENTS 2022 -2027  \nExamples of Te Tiriti commitments made by the University within the Massey University Strategy 2022 -2027  include:  \n \nArt. Provisions and  \nPrinciples  Commitment  Reference within  \nMU Strategy  \n \n \n1  \n \nKĀWANATANGA:  \nGood governance  \nFiduciary duty  \nand  \nPartnership  Developing University governance models, policies, \nprocedures,  and regulations in accordance with Te Tiriti \nresponsibilities.  Ō Āpōpō , p. 6.  \nAn emphasis on Māori research and teaching and \nlearning to support Māori development goals.  Ō Āpōpō , p. 7.  \nGiving effect to Te Tiriti through the design and content \nof our curricula, pedagogies, and academic decision -\nmaking, and teaching and learning approaches, \nregulations,  and procedures.  Pou Ako , p. 11.  \nGraduates and staff with knowledge, understanding and \nawareness of Te Tiriti, and our individual and collective \nTe Tiriti responsibilities.  Pou Ako , p. 12; Pou \nTangata, pp. 13 -14; see \nalso Ō Āpōpō , p. 6.  \nWell-resourced Te Tiriti education (for students and staff) \nsupported by research, teaching and learning, and Te \nTiriti-informed collaborations.  Ō Āpōpō , p. 6; Pou \nTangata, pp. 13 -14.  \nAn emphasis on Māori staff capacity and capability \nbuilding across all levels of the University and  building \npathways to support the development and trajectory of \nMāori staff.  Ō Āpōpō , p. 7; Pou \nTangata , p. 14.  \n \n \n2 \n  \n \nTINO \nRANGATIRATANGA:  \nMāori Authority \nAutonomy  \nand  \nSelf-determination  \n Supporting Māori leadership and proportional \nrepresentation in key decision -making bodies and \nprocesses at the University.   Pou Tangata, p. 15.  \nMaintaining relationships and developing partnerships \nwith the mana whenua of each campus.  Pou Hono , p. 16; see \nalso Ō Mua , p. 3.  \nRecognising iwi and Māori organisational and community \nleaders as key stakeholders.  Pou Hono , p. 16.  \nConnecting with iwi and hapū across Aotearoa to explore \nnew opportunities for collaboration.   Pou Hono, p. 16.  \nSupporting Māori development research priorities and \nemphasising the importance of positive impacts.  Pou Rangahau , p 10.  \nContributing to new opportunities for Māori research and \nresearch leadership, at the University and in partnership \nwith iwi.  Pou Rangahau , p 10.  \nPromoting iwi as a destination for graduate employment.  Ō Āpōpō , p. 7.  \n  \n \n Massey University Policy Guide  \nKaupapa Here Tiriti o Waitangi – Tiriti o Waitangi policy  \n– Page 7 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n3  \nTAONGA:  \nActive Protection  \nand  \nDevelopment  Promoting, advancing,  and protecting Te Reo and \nTikanga Māori.  Ō Āpōpō , p. 7.  \nAcknowledging the place and status of Mātauranga \nMāori and  championing further Māori knowledge \ndevelopment and leadership.  Pou Rangahau , p. 10.  \nDeveloping of Mātauranga Māori research capacity and \nexpertise at and through the work of the University.  Pou Rangahau , p. 10.  \nIncreasing Mātauranga -centred learning pathways, \nincluding through Kaupapa Māori provisions.  Pou Ako , p. 12; see \nalso Ō Āpōpō , p. 7.   \nDevelopment of all students' understanding of a range of \nknowledge systems, including Mātauranga Māori.  Pou Ako , p. 11.  \nProviding to all Māori students opportunities to develop \ntheir understanding of Te Reo and Tikanga Māori.  Pou Ako , p. 12.  \nBuilding staff knowledge of Te Ao Māori and \nopportunities to learn Te Reo Māori me ōna tikanga.  Pou Tangata , p. 14  \nAligning graduate qualification attributes with cultural \ncapability and awareness.  Pou Ako , p. 12.  \n \n4  \nNGĀ TIKANGA \nKATOA RITE TAHI:  \nAccess  \nParticipation  \nOptions  \nEquity  \nand  \nEqual outcomes  Upholding Te Tiriti to advance more inclusive and socially \nprogressive outcomes nationally.  Ō Āpōpō , p. 6.  \nContributing to positive and transformative outcomes for \nwhānau, hapū, iwi and Māori communities.  Ō Āpōpō , p. 7.  \nActively contributing to research that supports positive \noutcomes for the University’s mana whenua, and \nwhānau, hapū, iwi and Māori communities.  Pou Rangahau , p 10.  \nThe provision and ongoing development of Kaupapa \nMāori programmes and qualifications.  Ō Āpōpō , p. 7.  \nThe provision and ongoing development of Kaupapa \nMāori student support, success and excellence models \nand initiatives.,  Pou Ako, p. 12; see \nalso Ō Āpōpō , p. 7.  \nReducing inequities and barriers to Māori access, \nparticipation,  and success at undergraduate and \npostgraduate level.  Pou Ako, p. 12; Pou \nRangahau , p 10.  \nIncreasing the focus on whānau engagement and \nconnecting with iwi and hapū to enhance student support.   Pou Ako, p. 12; Pou \nHono, p. 16.  \n \n5  \nTE RITENGA Māori:  \nHonoring Māori \ncultural -spiritual \nvalues and practices  Ongoing development of culturally informed  \nenvironments (physical and digital/online).  Pou Hono, p. 17.  \nAcknowledging the importance of Māori roles and \nresponsibilities in the provision of a study and work \nenvironment where students and staff feel safe, \nrespected, dignified,  and able to flourish.  Pou Tangata, p. 13.  \nDeveloping leaders whose management capabilities \nprioritise manaakitanga.  Pou Tangata, p. 15.  \nForegrounding of health, safety and wellbeing for all staff \nand students, including diversity and inclusion.  Pou Tangata, p. 13.  \n \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Workplace_First_Aid_Needs_Assessment_Checklist_PDF_115_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Workplace First Aid Needs Assessment Checklist PDF 115 KB",
      "policy_type": "Unknown",
      "file_size": "115 KB",
      "author": "Ashleigh Nicholson",
      "creation_date": "2023-03-06T12:05:05",
      "modification_date": "D:20230308085222+13'00'"
    },
    "content": "WorkSafe’s First Aid for Workplaces – A Good Practice Guide  \n \n© Massey University | For Internal Use Only – Not Controlled When Printed  \nRevision 1 |  6 March 2023  \n \n 1 \nWorkplace First Aid Needs Assessment Checklist  \n \nThis checklist provided by WorkSafe will help you work out what first aid is needed in your workplace  \n \nIssue  Suggested Impact on First Aid Provision  Action  \nWhat likelihood is there of injury and ill \nhealth arising from work?  Higher likelihood: train more first aiders \nand expand first aid stock.   \nAre there any job or task -specific \nsignificant hazards, e.g.:  \n• Hazardous substances  \n• Hazardous tools  \n• Hazardous machinery  \n• Hazardous loads  \n• Hazardous animals  \n• Working at height  \n• Large industrial sites  \n• Commercial diving  \n• Adventure tourism  Consider:  \n• Specific or advanced training for \nfirst aiders  \n• Extra first aid equipment  \n• Precise locations of first aid \nequipment  \n• Making prior arrangements with \nemergency services  \n• A first aid room   \nAre there parts of the workplace where \ndifferent significant hazards can be \nidentified, e.g. an office compared with a \nprocessing factory?  Alternative levels of first aid provision for \ndifferent parts of the organisation.   \nAre large numbers of people employed?  Extra first aiders, more equipment and \npossibly a first aid room to cope with the \nhigher likelihood of an accident occurring.   \nAre there employees with reading, \nhearing or langu age difficulties?  Provide specialised training to ensure \nthat they know how to access first aid \nprovisions when required.   \nWorkSafe’s First Aid for Workplaces – A Good Practice Guide  \n \n© Massey University | For Internal Use Only – Not Controlled When Printed  \nRevision 1 |  6 March 2023  \n \n 2 \nWhat sorts of accidents and illnesses \nhave occurred and where did they occur \nin the workplace?  Locate first aid provisions in areas where \naccidents are more likely to happen, and \nstock specific first aid items.   \nAre there inexperienced workers on site, \nor employees with disabilities and special \nneeds?  Consider:  \n• special equipment  \n• locating equipment to ensure \nready emergency access by \npeople with restricted mobility   \nIs the workplace spread out over a wide \narea, e.g. are there several buildings or \nmulti -floor buildings?  Provision should be made for each \nbuilding and each floor. First aid rooms \nshould be located on ground floors where \npracticable for disability and emergency \naccess.   \nIs shift work, overtime or out -of-hours \nwork provided?  First aiders and first aid equipment must \nbe available when people are at work.   \nIs the workplace remote from emergency \nservices?  Consider:  \n• informing medical services of your \nlocation and the types of injury \nand work -related illness that may \nbe expected  \n• prior special arrangements with \nemergency services   \nDo employees travel for work in \ncompany -supplied vehicles or work \nalone?  Issue first aid kits and train staff in their \nuse; consider communication issues.   \nDo employees work at sites occupied by \nother employers?  Determine first aid provisions for \nemployees with the other employers.   \nDo members of the public or non-\nemployees visit or spend time at the \nworkplace?  It is recommended that workplace first \naid provisions are adequate to cover their \nneeds.   \nWorkSafe’s First Aid for Workplaces – A Good Practice Guide  \n \n© Massey University | For Internal Use Only – Not Controlled When Printed  \nRevision 1 |  6 March 2023  \n \n 3 \nDoes the workplace have any work \nexperience employees, apprentices or \nvolunteers?  \n Workplace first aid provisions  must cover \nthese people.   \nOther Issues at your Workplace  Suggested Impact on First Aid Provision  Action  \n   \n   \n   \n   \n   \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Student_Refund_and_Fee_Protection_Policy_PDF_394_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Student Refund and Fee Protection Policy PDF 394 KB",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "394 KB",
      "creation_date": "2022-05-18T09:05:02",
      "modification_date": "D:20220519122901+12'00'"
    },
    "content": " \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n \nSTUDENT REFUND AND FEE PROTECTION POLICY   \n \n \n \n IN CONFIDENCE   \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \n1. Purpose:   \nThe purpose of this policy is to ensure there is a consistent approach to refunds of fees paid by students or on behalf \nof students.  \n2. Definitions:  \nEnrolment Period:  \nIs defined by course (paper) start and end dates.  \n \nRefund of Fees:  \nThe withdrawal of a charge from a student account – either through the process of reversing the transaction, such \nas enrolment in a paper, on which the original charge was predicated, or via the issuing of a credit note.  A Refund of \nFees will not necessar ily result in the student’s account being in credit, i.e. a surplus of funds paid over fees charged.  \n \nRefund of Funds:  \nThe payment of a credit balance of a student account, i.e. the surplus of funds paid over fees charged, to the student \nor other relevant party in accordance with this policy and related procedures.  \n \nStudent:  \nThe criteria for definition as an international or domestic student for fee charging purposes may be found in the \nEducation Act 1989 and the University regulations.  \n \n3. Policy:  \n \n3.1 Credit  of fees  \n \nA credit  of Fees (tuition and non -tuition fees) shall be made to a student account where the eligibility criteria for \ncredit  are met.  The eligibility criteria include:  \n \n• Where a student formally withdraws from their paper(s) before 17% of the study period has elapsed ) (as \ndefined by the paper start and end dates) in accordance with the Enrolment Regulations  on student \nwithdrawal;  Contact  Student Registry  \nLast Review  February 2022  \nNext Review   February 2025  \nApproval  SLT  \n \n IN CONFIDENCE  • Where a doctoral student withdraws  from their  programme before they have consumed the fees they have \npaid for their given year of enrolment.  \n• Where a student is granted a Fee Appeal in accordance with the Fee Appeal regulations which results in \nagreement to credit  fees;  \n• Where the programme or course is cancelled by the University;  \n• Where the student’s enrolment is cancelled by the University;  \n• Where the criteria for incurring a charge or fee is not met;  \n• Where disputed charges are upheld in the student’s favour.  \n• Where the appeal failed  to meet the  standard fee  appeal  guidelines  but due to extenuating circumstances  \nhas the approv al grounds.  \n \nA credit of fees may be unavailable, in full, or partial – commensurate with how the fee is charged.  Factors include:  \n \n• The fee category, e.g. whether the fee is compulsory or non -refundable;  \n• Where fees are pro -rated on another basis;  \n• Where fees are pro -rated and time has elapsed;  \n• Where partial criteria has been met  \n• Where the fee is charged by a partner university under an exchange programme, the conditions of that \nagreement will apply  \n• Where the fee is charged on behalf of a third party under agreement, any  refund will be subject to the \npublished terms of that party.  \n \n3.2 Refunds of funds  \n \nRefunds of Funds may be made where an account is in credit  \n \nRefund of funds may be in full or partial.  Factors include:  \n \n• Where costs have been incurred by the University – in which case an approved fee may be charged;  \n• Where commissions have been paid to an International agent in good faith;  \n• Where fee charges may be pending.  \n \nRefunds of funds must be refunded safely and appro priately.  Factors include:  \n \n• Prevention of money laundering and compliance with banking regulations;  \n• Payments made by third parties are returned to third parties where practicable;  \n• Payments made under contractual arrangements are refunded in accordance wit h the terms of the \nagreement;  \n• Compliance with Immigration NZ requirements;  \n• Supporting students to transfer institutions where appropriate.  \n \n3.3 Specific Conditions – International Students  \n \nInternational students must hold sufficient funds in their student account to cover the relevant tuition and related \nfees for the duration of their visa.  \n \nRefunds of credit balances will not be made to enrolled international students within their first academic year, or \n120 credits, of study.    \n \nTuition fee credits  following the official university withdrawal date will not be granted to returning students who \nhave not obtained the appropriate study visa. Renewing  the appropriate study visa through Immigration New \nZealand is the responsibility of the international student, and failure to renew  the visa may not of itself warrant a \n \n IN CONFIDENCE  tuition fee credit . New i nternational students who do not hold a visa should not be enrolled. In the event that a \nstudent has enrolled and paid fees but does not obtain a visa then that student will be withdrawn from papers \nwithout financial or academic penalty (PWMR) and a credit  will be granted.  \n \nAny accommodation bond payment made to Massey will be retained by Massey for the purpose of the \naccommodation. Accommodation b onds will not be refunded to students unless the terms of the tenancy have been \nmet and the refund is approved by the Accommodation and Welfare Advisor, from the appropriate campus.  \n \nInternational students seeking to transfer to another New Zealand tertia ry institution may have their refund of funds \ntransferred to the institution concerned on evidence of an Offer of Place.  \n \nIf additional funds have been paid to Massey by or on behalf of an International Student to cover their living \nexpenses for Visa purpo ses, the student is entitled to receive a refund of those living expenses in full upon request. \nIf the student is enrolled and based in New Zealand, the refund of living expenses will be made to their New Zealand \nbank account.  The first years 120 credit t uition fees however must be retained if the student has not yet enrolled in \n120 credits to ensure visa requirements are met.  \n \nInternational students who  decide not to continue with their enrolment at Massey University, the refund will be \nmade to the bank account from which the payment was made.  They may be subject to an International \nAdministration Fee.  \n \nRefund of surplus funds to International students will be made to a bank account in the student’s name in their \nhome country unless the amount is inconse quential, the student is still enrolled as an internal student, or they \nprovide evidence of having obtained a suitable visa/permit to remain in New Zealand long term (other than a visitor \nvisa/permit).  \n \n \n3.4 Mode of Refund  \n \nWhere tuition fees have been paid by student loan or scholarship and the University is party to such agreement (e.g. \nStudyLink , Home Government Scholarship) any credit  of fees that results in a credit balance in the fee account, the \nrefund of surplus funds held will be made directly t o the third party involved, or in a manner directed by the specific \nagreement.  \n  \nWhere tuition fees have been invoiced to a third party the refund of fees will be made via credit note to the debtor \nconcerned.  Refund of a credit account balance will be made to the relevant debtor on request.  \n \nWhere tuition fees have been paid by credit card, wherever possible the refund of a credit balance will be made to \nthe credit card concerned.  \n \nWhere tuition fees have been paid via a bank transfer, where practicabl e a refund of a credit balance will be made \nto the same bank account.  \n \nStudents under the age of 18 will be required to show evidence of parental/guardian permission for withdrawal \nand/or refund of fees prior to a refund of funds being made to the student.  \n \nOther than the exceptions detailed above the refund of funds will be made to a New Zealand bank account in the \nname of the student who is registered for tuition.  \n \n3.5 Timing  \n \nAll refunds of fees  will be made as soon as possible after the withdrawal, cha nge of circumstances, identification or \nerror, or fee appeal resulting in a refund decision.    \n \n IN CONFIDENCE  Refunds of funds  will be made as soon as practicable upon request.  \n \n3.6 Extent of Liability  \n \nNo liability will be accepted for the payment of interest or other consideration in respect to monies held, nor does \nMassey University acknowledge any liability for student losses arising from exchange rate movement, conversion \ncharges, bank fees, or fees paid to recruitment agents.  \n \n \n \n4. Fee Protection  \n \nMassey University is governed by the Public Finance Act, the Education Act, and University Council regulations in \nregard to student fees. An individual fee account is maintained for each enrolled student.  \nAny programme or course offered by the University and listed in its calendar may be cancelled by the University as a \nresult of insufficient resources or student demand. The Vice Chancellor confirms that Massey University has the \nfinancial resources availab le to credit  fees to students enrolled in any cancelled programme or course.  \nIf a programme or course is unable to proceed due to destruction or damage to buildings, plant and equipment or \nother tangible assets, fees may be refunded to the students affect ed, from insurance proceeds.  \nIn this case the fees refund would be covered by the University's Industrial Special Risks policy and be classified as a \nconsequential loss.  Under such conditions the University may be unable to meet normal timeframes for Fee  \nrefunds.  \n \n5. Authority  \n \nAll credit  of fees and refunds of funds will be made and actioned in accordance with approved delegations as \nnotified from time to time.  \n \nCommunication  \n \nAll students will be informed of the conditions for refunds at the commencement o f each enrolment period, \nincluding any timeframes which apply, and the required process to be followed and information to be supplied.   \n \nThird party payees will be communicated with in accordance with the terms of any agreement in place, and will be \nadvised of any refunds due with regard to accounts that they have paid.  \n \nWhere refunds are granted which impact on immigration conditions and t he University is party to authenticating \nsuch immigration requirements, Immigration New Zealand may be advised.   \n \nWhere refund requests do not appear commensurate with Anti -Money laundering requirements, the relevant banks \nmay be advised.  \nAudience:  \nAll staff and students  \nRelevant Legislation:  \nEducation Act 1989  \nEducation (Pastoral Care of International Students) Code of Practice 2016 – New Zealand Qualifications Authority  \nImmigration New Zealand Student Visa Requirements  \n \n IN CONFIDENCE  Related Procedures and Documents:  \nUniversity fee payment and Enrolment regulations disclosed in the University Calendar . \nDelegations Document   \n \nStudent Complaints and Grievance Procedures  \nAviation Practicum Policy  \nStudent Refund Procedures  \nFee Appeal Gui delines  \nInternational Student Insurance Cover Policy  \nInternational Student Insurance Operational Procedures  \n \nDocument Management Control:  \n \nPrepared by:  Head of Student Registry  \nOwned by: Deputy Vice -Chancellor Students and Global Engagement  \nAuthorised by: SLT  \nDate issued:  \nLast review:  \nNext review:  \n                                           Massey University Policy Guide  \n \nSTUDENT REFUND PROCEDURES  \n \n \n IN CONFIDENCE   \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \nTitle:  \n \nStudent Refund Procedures  \nPurpose:  \nThe purpose of these procedures is to outline the specific factors to be taken into account when processing refunds of \nfees paid by students or on behalf of students.  \nProcedures:   \nWhere a staff member is referred a student withdrawal or request for fee ref und, they must incorporate the following \nfactors into their assessment of funds due:  \n \nFee categories for Refund  \nThe quantum of Refund will depend on the following factors:  \n \n▪ the student type (e.g. International/ New Zealand Domestic)  \n \nBoth New Zealand (domestic) and International students will normally qualify for a full refund of tuition fees paid if their \nwithdrawal is prior to the date for Withdrawal without Financial Penalty or 1 7% of an enrolment period (as defined by \nthe course st art and end dates), International students may be charged the International Administration Fee  if they \nwithdraw from all their courses in an Academic Year.  \n \nNew International students who meet the criteria above, but withdraw after Receipt of Payment and prior to \ncompleting 1 7 of their first enrolment period will be charged the International Administration Fee  if they withdraw from \nall their courses in an Academic Year.  \n \nInternational Students who change their status to Domestic upon being awarded NZPR may apply to have the \ndifference between the relevant international fee and domestic fee refunded, provided they qualified for such change \n(evidenced by the date of award in  their passport) prior to the start of study date  for the paper for which they are \napplying for the refund. Verified evidence of the award must be presented to Student Registry  staff prior to the \ncompletion of the relevant enrolment period for which the re fund is requested.  \n \nInternational student refunds are managed by Student Registry . This includes the refund of StudentSafe insurance \nbased on the criteria outlined in the International Student Insurance – StudentSafe section below.  \n• the tuition fee type (International or Domestic)  \n \nRefunds for new International students paying domestic tuition fees, e.g. those paying Study Abroad Fees or \ninternational students with diplomatic status, will remain subject to the International Administr ation Fee  where the \nstudent withdraws from all their courses in the Academic Year of their enrolment prior to completing 1 7% of their first Section  Student Registry  \nContact  February 2022  \nLast Review   February 2025  \nNext Review  SLT  \nApproval  Student Registry  \n \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nStudent Refund Procedures  – Page 2 \n \n \n \n IN CONFIDENCE  enrolment period. Australian citizens who are studying in New Zealand are classified as domestic students and are \ntherefore subject to the domestic student withdrawal fee.   \n \n \nOutbound exchange students are subject to Massey’s standard refund policy. Inbound Exchange students are subject \nto the agreement with the Exchange partner.  \n \nNew Zealand students paying Internati onal Fees, such as NZ Permanent Residents studying overseas, will be eligible \nfor a full refund of tuition fees should they meet the refund criteria.  \n \n• the fee category (e.g. compulsory non -tuition fee)  \n \nSome fees such as the International Administration Fee (if charged) are non -refundable, and the current status of all \nfees should be checked prior to a refund being made.  \n \nOther compulsory non -tuition fees are generally refundable if withdrawal is prior to the date of withdrawal without \nfinancial penalty, or 1 7% of the enrolment period, in any enrolment period, and non -refundable for withdrawals after \nthis date. Some Compulsory non -tuition fees recalculate and become partially refundable if a change in enrolment \nreduces the course load.  \n \n• International Student Insurance – StudentSafe  \n \nInternational Student Insurance purchased through Massey University, is non -refundable for withdrawals prior to the \ndate for withdrawal without financial penalty if a claim has been made. If no claim has been made and the student has \ntravelled to New Zealand, then the refund will be pro -rated based on the time spent in New Zealand.  \n \nA withdrawal after the date of withdrawal without financial penalty will also render the insurance premium non -\nrefundable.  \n \n \n• any obligations made to third parties on the student’s behalf  \n \nAny commission paid to a Recruitment Agent in good faith by Massey University in relation to a student’s study \nyear/semester/term, will be deducted from the amount of any refund payable to a stud ent who applies to withdraw for \nthat period of study.  \n \nFee Appeal Process  \nOnce the date for withdrawal without financial penalty for each enrolment period has passed, any refund requests will \nonly be considered under the Fee Appeal process.  \n \nWhere a programme does not proceed, or there is evidence that the programme was misrepr esented by Massey or its \nagents, fees will be considered for waiver under the Fee Appeal process.  \n \nInternational students whose enrolment has been cancelled due to their student visas expiring following the date for \nwithdrawal without financial penalty, an d who fail to obtain the renewal of the appropriate student visa, will not be  \n \neligible for a fee refund and will not be considered under the Fee Appeal process.  \n \nNew international students who do not hold a visa should not be enrolled. In the event that a student has enrolled and \npaid fees and does not obtain a visa then that student will be withdrawn from papers without financial or academic \npenalty (PWMR) and a refund will be granted.  \n \n \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nStudent Refund Procedures  – Page 3 \n \n \n \n IN CONFIDENCE  Mode of Refund  \nWhere tuition fees have been paid by student loan or scholarship and the University is party to such agreement (e.g. \nStudylink, Saudi Arabian Government Scholarship) the refund will be made directly to the third party involved, or in a \nmanner directed by the specific agreement.  \n \nWhere tuition fees h ave been invoiced to a third party the refund will be made via credit note to the debtor concerned.  \n \nWhere tuition fees have been paid by credit card, wherever possible the refund will be made to the credit card \nconcerned.  \n \nStudents under the age of 18 w ill be required to show evidence of parental/guardian permission for withdrawal and/or \nrefund prior to a refund being made to the student.  \n \nInternational student refunds will be made to a bank account in the student’s name in their home country unless the  \namount is inconsequential, the student is still enrolled as an internal student, or they provide evidence of having \nobtained a suitable visa/permit to remain in New Zealand long term (other than a visitor visa/permit). If for exceptional \ncircumstances the  refund cannot be paid into the bank account from the home country, then the student will be asked \nto complete a statutory declaration to have the refund paid into a New Zealand bank account.  \n \nInternational students seeking to transfer to another New Zeala nd tertiary institution will have their refund transferred \nto the institution concerned on evidence of an Offer of Place and appropriate student visa/ permit.  \n \nInternational students who have paid their fees from their home country, but have transferred m ore than what is \nrequired to cover their tuition, non -tuition, and living expenses, and apply to have the remaining balance refunded, will \nhave that balance refunded back to their home country bank account (or under exceptional circumstances to a New \nZeala nd bank account if a home country bank account is not feasible).   \n \nMore detailed information about International student refunds are outlined on a checklist – Appendix one . \n \nIn all other cases the refund will be made to a New Zealand bank account in the n ame of the student who is registered \nfor tuition.  \n \nWhere a programme or course is unable to proceed due to destruction or damage to buildings, plant and equipment \nor other tangible assets, fees will be refunded to the students affected from insurance proc eeds. In this case the fee \nrefund would be covered by the University's Industrial Special Risks Insurance policy and be classified as a \nconsequential loss. Under such conditions the University may be unable to meet normal timeframes for Fee refunds.  \nDefini tions:  \nNew Zealand Student:  \n• A New Zealand citizen, which includes citizens of the Cook Island, Niue and Tokelau  \n• A New Zealand permanent resident currently living in New Zealand  \n• An Australian citizen currently living in New Zealand  \n• An Australian permanent resident who has a returning resident’s visa and is currently living in New Zealand  \n \nInternational Student:  \nAll other students. The following categories of International stude nt may still be eligible to pay domestic fees \n(Domestic tuition type):  \n• Certain exchange students  \n• Certain dependants of diplomatic personnel  \n \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nStudent Refund Procedures  – Page 4 \n \n \n \n IN CONFIDENCE  • A learner with refugee status who is required to undertake a prescribed course of study or training to satisfy \nresidency requirements  \n• An international student enrolling in a recognised doctor of philosophy (PhD) programme in a New Zealand \nuniversity from 19 April 2005 and supervised by a leading New Zealand university researcher.  \n \nEnrolment Period:  \n• Is defined by c ourse start and end dates  \n \nAudience:  \nAll students and staff.  \nRelated procedures / documents:  \nUniversity fee payment regulations disclosed in the University Calendar.  \nDelegations Document  \nAviation Practicum Policy  \nStudent Refund and Fee Protection Policy  \nAcademic Grievance Procedures  \nDocument Management Control:  \nPrepared by: Head of Student Registry  \nAuthorised by: SLT \nDate issued:  \nLast review:  \nNext review:  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n                                               Massey University Policy Guide  \n \nFEE APPEAL GUIDELINES  \n \n \n IN CONFIDENCE   \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \n \nDEFINITIONS:  \nDefinitions used in these guidelines are defined by the glossary to the calendar.  \nPROCEDURES:   \nThe Fee Appeal Guidelines guide staff in the consideration and processing of Fee Appeals.  \n \nThe following principles will apply:  \n1. Applications must be consistent with the timeframes outlined in the Enrolment and Fee Appeal Regulations;  \n2. Applications will be considered on th e merits of, the context of, and the evidence for, each situation;  \n3. Where appropriate a Credit  of Fees is the preferred option for redress.  \n \nThe diagram below outlines the options available to students:  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n Section  DVC SaGE  \nContact  Student Registry  \nLast Review  February 2022  \nNext Review   February 2025  \nApproval  SLT \n \n  \n \n IN CONFIDENCE   \n \n \nConsistency with Enrolment and Fee Appeal Regulation Timeframes  \nCheck that the student has withdrawn from the course(s) between the Dates for Withdrawal without Financial \nPenalty and the Final Examination, or end -date for the paper if no examination.  The Enrolment Regulat ions specify \nthe Dates for Withdrawal without Financial Penalty and the Dates for Withdrawal without Academic Penalty.  These \nmay change from time to time and staff are advised to check these regulations periodically to ensure activities are \nundertaken in accordance with approved timeframes.   \n \nIf no withdrawal has occurred, the student should be referred to the Academic Standing process so an appeal can be \nmade via this route.  Should the Academic Standing Hearings Committee refer a student appeal to the F ee Appeal \nprocess, the requirement to comply with withdrawal timeframes may be waived.  \n \nAt a glance:  \nDate of Withdrawal  Mitigating Factor  Outcome  \nPrior to Date of Withdrawal without \nFinancial Penalty   No Financial Penalty applies \ntherefore not eligible for Fee Appeal  \nWithdrawal between Date of \nWithdrawal without Financial \nPenalty and the Final Examination, \nor end -date for the paper if no \nexamination   Eligible to be considered for Fee \nAppeal if other criteria met  \nNo withdrawal or late withdrawal  Referred to Fee Appeal process by \nUniversity staff.  \nExtenuating factors considered to \nexplain non withdrawal  Eligible to be considered for Fee \nAppeal if other criteria met  \n \nExceptional Personal Circumstan ces \n \nFee Appeals are considered when Exceptional Personal Circumstances prevent the student from completing their \nstudy.  A check must be made that the student has not already applied for and received a concession, an Aegrotat or \nImpaired Performance, or a Fee Appeal, on the same grounds.   \n \nSituational Merit, Context, and Evidence  \nThere are three factors to consider:  \n\n \n  \n \n IN CONFIDENCE   \n1. Student Enrolment/ Academic Standing History  \n2. Situation Experienced by Student  \n3. Specific Programmes  \n \n1. Student Enrolment History  \nIt is important that Fee Appeals are not used to avoid the justified application of an academic penalty or an \nacademic progress restriction.  If a student submits a Fee Appeal and there is any evidence of the following, \nconsultation should take place with the Di rector of Teaching and Learning for the relevant College, or nominee, and \nthe Student Success and Engagement Coordinator:  \n \n▪ Repeated Fee Appeal(s)  \n▪ Repeated Enrolment and Withdrawal  \n▪ Previous Exclusion status  \n▪ Academic Standing is ‘At Risk’  \n \nThis will ensure t hat a multiple applications/appeals are not submitted on the same grounds and if so, that the \nstudents application for consideration is referred to the most appropriate route, i.e. AEG/IP, Study extension, \nAcademic Standing/ Exclusion Appeal, or Fee Appeal , for consideration.  \n \n2. Situation Experienced by Student  \nThe following are some common situations identified by applicants, the evidence that may be sought to support \nthese, and the options for outcomes:  \n \nSituation  Procedure to Verify  Potential Outcomes  \nFinancial Reasons:  \nPersonal Bankruptcy  Court records  Advise Credit Control  \nCan’t Afford  N/A     Not generally an acceptable reason \nfor Fee Appeal; however the \nunderlying cause may be.  If not \nupheld, WD or DNC is awarded.   \nThird party (e.g. e mployer) \nrefuses to pay/ scholarship falls \nthrough  Evidence that an agreement was in \nplace that should have reasonably \nbeen able to be relied upon.  If Massey is party to the agreement, \npursue payment through contractual \nmeans.   \nIf Massey is not a party to the \nagreement, a fee appeal may be \nconsidered.  If upheld, the enrolment \nmay be cancelled as not a valid \nenrolment.  \nRedundancy  Evidence including the date of advice \nand the date redundancy has \noccurred/will occur must be supplied \non official letterhead from the \nemployer.   A fee appeal may be considered; if \nupheld a WD may be awarded.  \nEnrolment Issue   \nLate Enrolment  Enrolment records, transaction \ndates, advice provided, \ncorrespondence.    If the  student has elected to enrol \nlate and has been advised of possible \nconsequences, award of WD or DNC \nis appropriate outcome.  \nIf student has enrolled late with no \ncounselling a fee appeal may be \n \n  \n \n IN CONFIDENCE  considered; an award of WD may be \ngranted if upheld.  \nIf student enrolment was delayed by \nUniversity  a fee appeal may be \nconsidered; if upheld, the enrolment \nmay be cancelled as not a valid \nenrolment.    \nFailed attempt at Withdrawal  Check contact records, system log, or \nrequest online log from ITS to \ndetermine whether a  withdrawal has \nbeen requested.   \n If the student has attempted to \nwithdraw prior to 17%  of the elapsed \ncourse, the enrolment may be \ncancelled as not a valid enrolment.    \n \nIf the Student has attempted to \nwithdraw after 17%  of the elapsed \ncourse, a fee appeal may be \nconsidered; an award of  WD may be \ngranted if upheld.  \nIf no evidence of withdrawal \nattempt, the likely outcome is a \ndecline.  \nStudy Concern  \nCourse Content different to \nExpectation  Explanation/ evidence of how course \nis inconsistent with published \nmaterial or advice provided; seek \nvalidation from relevant College \nDirector of Academic Programmes or \nsimilar.   Refer to Student Complaints and \nGrievance Procedures .  If other \nfactors to consider also, may be \ngrounds for Fee Appeal.  If upheld, \nthe enrolment may be cancelled as \nnot a valid enrolment.    \nIf not upheld, WD or DNC may be \nawarded.  \n \nStudy Materials/ Texts not \navailable  Check availability of Stream site, \nstudy materials, or textbooks (via \nUniversity bookseller).  Grounds for Fee Appeal.  If upheld, \nthe enrolment may be cancelled as \nnot a valid enrolment.    \nIf not upheld, WD or DNC may be \nawarded.  \nMassey has admitted faul t, \nstudent tried to persevere with \nstudy, but now withdrawn.  Seek relevant evidence:   \nNames of Massey staff they have \nreceived advice from . \nCopies of correspondence . \nDetailed written explanations.  \nContact records, Student letters  \n Refer to Student Complaints and \nGrievance Procedures .   If other \nfactors to consider also, may be \ngrounds for a Fee Appeal.  If upheld, \nthe enrolment may be: cancelled as \nnot a valid enrolment, or a WD may \nbe awarded.    \n \n \nGrievance – action of the \nUniversity has caused the student \ndisadvantage   Refer to Student Complaints and \nGrievance Procedures  \nOther Commitments  \nWork Commitments  Request letter on official letterhead \nfrom employer including dates that \nwork circumstances changed and if A fee appeal may  be considered; if \nupheld a WD may be awarded.  \n \n \n  \n \n IN CONFIDENCE  possible when work commitments \nare likely to ease.  \nIf the student is self -employed or the \nDirector/CEO of the company \nrequest a sworn affidavit. This  must \nbe signed and dated by a Lawyer, \nJustice of the Peace.  Corroborating \nevidence may assist.  \nWith appropriate evidence a \npartner’s change in work \ncircumstances may be considered if \nit impacts heavily on the students’ \nability to study.  \n Confirm that previous fee appeals \nhave not been made on this ground.  \nAttending another Training/ \nEducational Institute  Request evidence  of attendance  \n(NB: Evidence of enrolment only is \nnot enough) at other \ntraining/educational institute. \nAcceptable evidence is verified \ncopies of academic transcripts, exam \nresult slips, and a letter from the \ntertiary institute’s registry office. \nEvidence of fee payment is not \nsufficient.  \n Grounds for Fee Appeal.  If upheld, \nthe enrolment may be cancelled as \nnot a valid enrolment.    \nIf not upheld, WD or DNC may be \nawarded.  \n \nSporting, Military, Navy, Airforce, \nand Police commitments  Request evidence of reason from \ncommanding officer, superior, \ncoaches or union of sport with \nreason for inability to continue \nstudy, including dates that the \nstudent’s ability to study was \naffected and if possible when they \nwill be able to commence study.  A fee appeal may be considered; if \nupheld a WD may be awarded.  \n \nConfirm that previous fee appeals \nhave not been made on this ground.  \nMedical  \nTemporary Medical Condition \n(including immediate family)  Request medical evidence on official \nletterhead from the  student’s DR, GP \nor medical professional detailing the \ndates that the student’s ability to \nstudy was affected.  \n \nIf the student’s evidence advised \nthat their illness was less than one  \nweek the student must provide a \nletter/email from their paper co -\nordina tor stating that the student \nhad fallen too far behind due to the \nillness and is not able to catch up \nwith the work.  \n \nEnsure an AEG/IP has not been \nsubmitted.  A fee appeal may be considered; if \nupheld a WD may be awarded.  \n \nConfirm that previous fee appeals \nhave not been made on this ground.  \n \n  \n \n IN CONFIDENCE   \nLong Term Medical Condition \n(Physical, Terminal illness – \nincluding family and close friends)  Request medical evidence from the \nstudent’s Medical Professional on \nofficial letterhead including the date \nof incapaci ty and the fact that the \nstudent will not recover sufficiently \nto be able to resume studying.  \n A fee appeal may be considered; if \nupheld a WD may be awarded.  \n If the student is appealing on the \ngrounds of a family member or close \nfriend’s illness they wil l need to \nsupply evidence stating that their \nability to study has been affected by \nthis, including dates from when this \naffected their study . \n A fee appeal may be considered; if \nupheld a WD may be awarded.  \n \nConfirm that previous fee appeals \nhave not been m ade on this ground.  \nTemporary Mental Health \nCondition (Stress, etc.)  Request medical evidence from a \nGeneral Practitioner, Medical \nProfessional, Psychiatrist or \ncounsellor, including the date that \nthe student’s ability to study was \naffected.  \n  \nEnsure tha t the counsellor is suitably \nqualified.  \n A fee appeal may be considered; if \nupheld a WD may be awarded.  \n \nConfirm that previous fee appeals \nhave not been made on this ground.  \nLong Term Mental Health \nCondition  Request evidence from Dr, GP, \npsychiatrist or medical professional \non official letterhead that includes a \nstatement regarding the fact that this \nis a long -term mental illness and the \nstudent is unfit for study. If the \nstudent suffered from the mental \nillne ss before they enrolled the \nstatement must include dates that \nthe illness affected the student ability \nfor the current academic year.  \n A fee appeal may be considered; if \nupheld a WD may be awarded.  \n \nConfirm that previous fee appeals \nhave not been made on this ground.  \n \nPersonal Matter  \nRelationship Breakdown \n(Student/ Student’s Parents)  Request evidence from an \nappropriate source – medical, \ncounsellor or solicitor, sworn \naffidavit , church counsellor, court \ndocuments, women’s refuge. This \nevidence must state dates that the \nrelationship breakdown affected the \nstudent’s ability to study.  \n A fee appeal may be considered; if \nupheld a WD may be awarded.  \n \nConfirm that previous fee appeal s \nhave not been made on this ground.  \nRelationship Breakdown (Close \nfamily and friends)  Request evidence from the above \nlist, or if that is not possible a sworn \naffidavit. This evidence must state \ndates that the relationship A fee appeal may be considered; if \nupheld a WD may be awarded.  \n \n \n  \n \n IN CONFIDENCE  breakdown affected the student’ s \nability to study and if possible a date \nthat the student may resume study.  \n Confirm that previous fee appeals \nhave not been made on this ground.  \nSensitive Issue – Student’s family \nmembers included (sexual abuse \netc) Request evidence from a Dr, GP, \nMedical Professional, Councillor or \nACC on official letterhead including \ndates that the student’s ability was \naffected.  Stress to student that \ninformation will remain confidential. \nIf the  student requests the \ndocumentation back do not keep a \ncopy and send all evidence back.  \nRecord on student notes on the Fee \nAppeal Restricted area that the \nevidence has been cited.  \n A fee appeal may be considered; if \nupheld a WD may be awarded.  \n \nConfirm that previous fee appeals \nhave not been made on this ground.  \nBereavement  \nDeath of Student  Request the Death Notice of the \nstudent from the University Library. \nIf there is not a death notice, request \na copy of the death certificate.  Set student fl ag appropriately so no \ncontinued contact from University.  \nInform Te Paepoto to instiga te \ndeceased student process.  \nFee Appeal may be upheld with WD \nawarded.  Send letter/Card to the \nnext of Kin advising.  \n \nDeath of a family member or \nfriend  Need evidence of the relationship \nand death certificate. Contact the \nLibrary for the death notice. The \nfuneral service sheet is a lso \nacceptable if includes name of \nstudent. If student is unable to prove \nrelationship then a sworn affidavit is \nacceptable.  \n A fee appeal may be considered; if \nupheld a WD may be awarded.  \n \nConfirm that previous fee appeals \nhave not been made on this ground.  \nDisaster  \nNatural Disaster/ Act of God (Fire \netc) Request evidence of insurance \ninspectors report, police report or \nreport from Civil defence or a \nnewspaper article naming the \nstudent.  \n A fee appeal may be considered; if \nupheld a WD may be awarde d. \n \nConfirm that previous fee appeals \nhave not been made on this ground.  \nCivil Unrest – Riots and Mutiny  Request evidence that proves the \nstudent was in that country/region \nat the time. Travel documents are \nacceptable, letter from the New \nZealand consulat e or a sworn \naffidavit.  \n A fee appeal may be considered; if \nupheld a WD may be awarded.  \n \nConfirm that previous fee appeals \nhave not been made on this ground.  \nImmigration Criteria  \nA returning student was not \ngranted a visa  N/A Not generally grounds for appeal.  \nStudent is required to hold valid visa \n \n  \n \n IN CONFIDENCE  prior to commencement of \nenrolment period.  Award of WD or \nDNC is appropriate.  \nVisa not obtained  N/A New International students should \nnot be enrolled without a visa. In the \nevent a student enrol s and pays fees \nwithout obtaining a visa then the \nstudent will be withdrawn without \nacademic or financial penalty, and a \nrefund will be provided.  \nVisa Revoked  Correspondence from Immigration \nNew Zealand.  A fee appeal may be considered; If \nupheld, the enrolment may be \ncancelled as not a valid enrolment, \nor a WD may be awarded.  \n \nConfirm that previous fee appeals \nhave not been made on this ground.  \nUnable to study in mode offered  Verification from International \nStudent Support or International \nAdmissions.  Grounds for Fee Appeal.  If upheld, \nthe enrolment may be cancelled as \nnot a valid enrolment.    \n \n \nOutcomes of Fee Appeals  \nThe outcomes listed above are only a guide and the decision will be based on the factors outlined in the sections \nprior.  Possible outcomes include:  \n \nDecision  Evaluation  Award  Fees  \nFee Appeal Upheld  Does not meet threshold \nfor valid enrolment  N/A: withdraw enrolment  Full refund  \n Meets threshold for valid \nenrolment  WD Fullrefund  \nFee Appeal Declined  Withdrawal prior to Date \nfor Withdrawal without \nAcademic Penalty  WD No refund  \n Withdrawal after Date for \nWithdrawal without \nAcademic Penalty  DNC  No refund  \n \nAudience:  \nUniversity Staff.  \nRelated procedures / documents:  \nStudent Complaints and Grievance Procedures  \nUniversity Enrolment and Fee regulations disclosed in the University Calendar . \nAcademic Progress regulations disclosed in the University Calendar.  \nDelegations Document   \nStudent Refund and Fee Protection Policy  \n \n \n  \n \n IN CONFIDENCE  Document Management Control:  \nPrepared by: Head of  Student Registry  \nAuthorised by: SLT \nDate issued:  \nLast review:  \nNext review:  \n \n \n \nAppendix 2 Previous Policy, Procedures and Guidelines  \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Web_Policy_PDF_108_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Web Policy",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "108 KB",
      "author": "SPMO",
      "creation_date": "2023-07-24T11:00:03",
      "modification_date": "D:20230724110314+12'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n Massey University Policy Guide  \n \nWEB POLICY  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \n \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \nPurpose:  \nMassey’s websites  are the university’s primary medium for reaching all new, existing markets,  and enrolling new \nstudents. The se website s are a platform for promoting Massey University and communicating our research  and \nteaching  to the communities we serve . Massey’s web presenc e is a key communication platform for enacting our  role \nas critic and conscience .  \nThe purpose of this policy is to ensure that the university’s website s conform to web best practice s, serve their users, \nand ensure that the Massey brand is used in a profes sional, consistent manner.  \nTe Reo Māori, Te Ao Māori and Kaupapa Māori will be an integral part of Massey’s we b presence in accordance with \nthe Matua Reo Kaupapa – Māori Language Policy and in alignment with Massey’s aspiration to be a Te Tiriti o \nWaitang i-led institution.  \nPolicy:  \nThis policy provides a set of principles that will enable effective marketing and audience engagement to meet the \nexpectations of an increasingly digitally savvy population, and to support the strategy of the university. Upholdi ng our \nresponsibility as critic and conscience, Massey University aims to provide user -centric, informative, accurate, \nconsistent , compliant,  and up -to-date website s that promote  the teaching, research, values,  and culture of the \nuniversity.  \nAudience:  \nThis policy applies to the online presence of any department, group, centre,  or other organisational unit that is a part \nof, or owned, managed,  and staffed by the university, or funded via the university, includin g platforms that are  hosted \nwholly on Massey platforms  or with a different service provider.  \nPolicy statements  \n1. It is expected that a ll staff involved with the university’s website s will comply with the laws of New Zealand \nand the regulations and policies of Massey University.  \n2. Content publishers are responsible for ensuring compliance with the Web Policy to maintain the  quality and  \nintegrity of the university’s website s.  Section  Marketing and Communications  \nContact  Executive Director, Marketing and Communications  \nLast Review  August 202 3 \nNext Review  August  2025 \nApproval  SLT 21/03/36  \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nWeb Policy  – Page 2 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  3. The Digital Content team is responsible for providing services to assist content owne rs on the public Massey \nwebsite ( www.massey.ac.nz ) and the Massey events website ( events.massey.ac.nz ) to ensure that best \npractice  content standards are met  as per Massey Web Content Standa rds.  \n4. ITS will support and assist website owners on designated  Massey platforms to  help them  comply with the \nWeb Policy and ensure best practice technical standards are met  as per the Massey Web Security Standard s. \n5. Websites and web content hosted outside o f Massey’s designated  systems are the responsibility of the \nwebsite owner and  are not supported by the Digital Content team or ITS.  Website owners are responsible to \nensure  their websites comply  with the Web Policy  and Massey Web Security Standards . \n6. It is expected that a ll staff involved in the university’s website s will comply with its governance structure and \nworkflows.  \n7. The Digital Content Manager, Executive Director, Marketing  and Communications , Chief Information Officer \nand/or the Deputy Vice -Chancellor Students and Global Engagement  as their representative may take \nappropriate steps to remove content and/or functionality that may result in legal liability , damage to the \nreputation of the university,  or breaches to web se curity,  and for managing the process of taking appropriate \nsteps to restrict access to, or take down, websites or online applications where they may pose a risk to the \nuniversity.  \n8. The Digital Content Manager is responsible for the review of this Web Polic y and the Massey University Web \nContent Standards, as required under the university’s Policy Framework.  \n9. Adherence to the Web Policy is essential to conduct the university’s business and avoid breaches of law  and \nsecurity . The Digital Content Manager, the Executive Director, Marketing  and Communication , and/or the \nDeputy Vice -Chancellor Students and Global Engagement as their representative have the authority to \nwithhold or withdraw the right to publish or to withdraw from circulation any material that does  not comply with \nthe Publication and/or Web Policy or material that may bring the university into disrepute. This could occur  \nwithout prior notice if the nature of the material  may place  the university at serious risk; however, in ordinary \ncircumstances a procedure and timeframe will be established with the Content Owner for suitable \namendments to be made. This is the responsibility of the Content Owner in the first instance.  \n \nBranding  \n \nAll content should  comply with the Massey University brand, be clearly identifiable as part of the university, and reflect \nMassey values. It should conform to the current branding standards as outlined in the Massey Brand Guidelines and \nMassey University Style Guide.  \n \nWebs ite content  \n \nThe university ’s website s will maintain high standard s of content by managing the publication, review, maintenance \nand archiving of content according to this policy. All content should  adhere to Massey’s Web Content Standards. \nConfidential or sensitive content will be restricted to the appropriate audience.  \nContent should  be:  \n• Up to date  (no older than 12 months)  and accurate  \n• Clear and unambiguous  \n• Written in a tone and language appropriate for its audience , and appropriate to the web medium.   \n• Consistent with web accessibility standards  \n• Sourced from primary o fficial sources and  have been fact -checked with permission to publish.   \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nWeb Policy  – Page 3 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  • Archived when no longer current.  \n \nWebsite accessibility  \nThe university’s website s will provide a high standard of accessibility for all users, including those with disabilities and \nphysical impairments , and will meet the New Zealand Government Web Standards.  \nFunctionality and security  \nThe university’s website s will:  \n• Be built and operated using Content Management System s designated by the Digital Content Manager and \nInformation Techn ology Services.  \n• Adhere to current applicable web standards and use syntactically correct code in accordance with Massey \nUniversity’s Web Content Standards and Web Security Standards  \n• Be hosted on and served up through the university’s network or through oth er services/networks designated  \nby Information Technology Services and adhere to the university’s Security  and Information Record’s \nManagement  Policies and Standards to prevent insecure websites and online applications creating risk or \ncausing damage to th e university.  \n• Not request personal information or allow the submission of personal information through any means without \nthe prior approval of the university’s Privacy Officer.  \nRelevant legislation:  \nCrimes Act 1961  \nDefamation Act 1992  \nFilms, Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993  \nHuman Rights Act 1993  \nPrivacy Act 2020   \nCopyright Act 1994  \nUnsolicited Electronic Messages Act 2007  \nHarmful Digital Communications Act 2015  \nThe General Data Protection Regulation 2016/679  \nRelated procedures  and documents : \nPolicy on Academic Freedom, Free Speech,  and Freedom of Expression  \nInternet Use and Digital Communications Policy  \nCloud Policy  \nData Classification Policy and Framework  \nInformation Records Management Policy  \nPrivacy Policy  \nResearch  Use of Information Technology Infrastructure  Policy  \nMedia Commentary Policy  \nSocial Media Policy  \nPublications Policy  \nMatua Reo Kaupapa – Māori Language Policy  \nPolicy on Staff Conduct  \nBrand Guidelines  \nMassey University Style Guide  \nMassey University Web Standards  \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nWeb Policy  – Page 4 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  Massey University Web Security Standards  \nNew Zealand Government Web Standards  \nWeb Accessibility Standard 1.1  \nWeb Usability Standard 1.3  \nMāori@Massey Strategy  \nCopyright agreements  \nDocument Management and Control:  \nPrepared by:  Digital Content Manager  \nAuthorised by:  Executive Director, Marketing  and Communication  \nApproved by:  SLT 21/03/36  \nDate issued:  August 202 3 \nNext review:  August 202 5 \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "University_Workloads_Procedure_PDF_160_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "University Workloads Procedure PDF 160 KB",
      "policy_type": "Procedure",
      "file_size": "160 KB",
      "author": "Williams, Lauren",
      "creation_date": "2021-05-06T12:05:04",
      "modification_date": "D:20210506125424+12'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n Massey University Policy Guide  \n \nUNIVERSITY WORKL OADS PROCEDURES  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \nPurpose:  \nTo outline the procedures and factors relevant in the allocation of workload to staff at Massey University. The University \nanticipates a range of work profiles will be identified within the available allocation model.  \n \nProcedures for the Allocation of Workloads:   \nWorkload allocation will be carried out annually and in consultation with staff. The manager and staff member will \nendeavour to reach agreement. Individual work allocation will be in accordance with the appropriate College/Department \nworkload mechanism.  \n \nThe allocation of work and any changes to that allocation shall reflect the strategy of the University, the needs of the \ndepartment, the demands of the work, and the staff member’s strengths, capabilities, responsibilities and development \nplans. Individual circumstances will also be considered in the work allocation process.  \n \nWhere the staff member and their manager are unable to reach agreement on the allocation of work or any changes to \nthat allocation, the manager shall decide the workload, provided that the staff member shall be entitled to seek a review \nof that decision using the Workload Dispute Procedure (Appendix 1).  \n \nThe allocation of work to tangata whenua staff must recognise, and take account of, the specific skills and expertise which \nthese membe rs of staff bring to their place of employment and their community. This recognition should also include their \ndiverse obligations to iwi, hapū and whanau and may also include their involvement in consultative processes of the \nUniversity in relation to the  fulfilment of its obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and involvement and participation in formal \nceremonies as required by tikanga Māori  and include time required to deliver, participate in and/or support wānanga as \nintegral part of a Massey academic  programme.  \n \nInformation about the workload allocation for each member of staff will be held on file in the department so that it can be \nused as a source of information for promotion applications, if required. The department will maintain information on av erage \nand range of workloads in the department. The workload mechanism and basis for allocation must be available for perusal \nby any member of staff in the department.  \n \nOn behalf of the Vice -Chancellor as the employer, senior managers will use best endeavo urs to ensure that the  \nmechanisms  used  by departments  for allocating workloads  promote  the wellbeing  and safety  of staff and meet the needs \nof departments and the  University.  \n \n \n Section  People & Culture  \nContact  Employment Relations Manager / \nLegal Counsel  \nLast Review  January 20 21 \nNext Review  January 202 6 \nApproval  SLT 21/04/48  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nUniversity Workloads Procedures  – Page 2 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nAcademic Workload Allocation  \n \nAcademic  Workload  Allocation  shall take account  of the following  factors/principles  and will  generally  be set having regard \nto the parameters set out in the Table below, recognising that those proportions may vary by agreement between the \nmanager and the staff  member. These are guidelines only a nd it is for the manager and staff member to discuss the \nappropriate percentage variation of any one factor within the role taking account of the staff member’s job description and \nother factors pertinent to the role and workload allocation.  \n \nFor academic  staff, the mix of research, teaching and academic citizenship may vary between and across \nschools/institutes/Colleges and for individual academic staff, recognising that a wide variety of proportions of these \nacademic duties may be agreed and changed from  time to time over the course of a career. The percentages are based \naround a notional annual number of hours being 1687.5 . This reflects the realities and practicalities of staff needed to take \nsick leave or their full year’s entitlement to annual holidays. This figure is used for administrative ease in allocating workload \nrecognizing the flexible nature of academic work and t he flexibility of managing workload on an individual basis. The \nmaximum and minimums are guideline percentages only and may vary following individual discussion.  \n \n \nRole focus  Research  Teaching  Academic citizenship  \nResearch/Enterprise and \nTeaching/Supervision  15% minimum  15% minimum  5% minimum  \nResearch intensive  95% maximum  Not required to assign a \nweighting but may do so if \nrelevant, with a maximum \nof 15%  5% minimum  \nTeaching Scholar  20% maximum  70% maximum  10% maximum  \nClinical professional  10% maximum  90% maximum  10% maximum  \nTutors and Senior Tutors  N/A 95% maximum  5% minimum  \n \nThere is an underlying assumption that each department will have adequate controls on teaching and academic \ncitizenship, to enable adequate time for research.  \n \nNew initiatives or changes in academic processes should be fairly and properly considered in relation to the impact (if any) \non academic workload.  \n \nTeaching and Supervision:  \n \n1. Staff should teach within areas in which they have ongoing research activity and/or recognised expertise.  \n2. Staff would normally participate in a variety of teaching such as lectures, tutorials, online teaching etc in each \nsemester and/or  year.  \n3. Academic staff who do not have research intensive appointments should ex pect to contribute to the department \nteaching commitments across the academic year. The Summer School Guidelines shall continue to apply.  \n4. Any variation  to teaching  and supervision  would  be the result  of agreement  with the manager  to have a heavier or \nlighter proportion of workloads in other areas such as research/enterprise, academic citizenship or clinical and \nprofessional practice, depending on the particular circumstances of the staff member and the needs of the school, \ninstitute or  college.  \n5. It is expected  that periods  of high teaching  loads  within  semesters  (including  Summer  Schools) will balance with \nperiods of lower teaching loads outside of semester commitments, however teaching workloads during teaching \nweeks of the year should not normally exceed the hours of a normal working  week.  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nUniversity Workloads Procedures  – Page 3 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n6. An individual’s teaching allocation should be discussed and negotiated with the relevant person/s in the school \nor institute.  \n7. Where  a staff member  takes  a leadership  role in the delivery  of high-quality  learning  this may be recognised in the \nworkload  allocation.  \n8. If a leadership  role is accounted  for in terms  of teaching  it will not count  for academic  citizenship.  \n9. Supervision of students may be allocated as part of teaching workload or, if this significantly  supports their own \nresearch outputs, then as part of research and enterprise.  \n10. Teaching -only roles e.g. tutor and senior tutor should be accounted for within a   model.  \n11. Teaching Scholar roles should be accounted for within a model, recogni sing that these are limited roles across \nthe whole University recognising that these roles also undertake a level of research or  scholarship.  \n \nResearch and Enterprise:  \n \n1. All academic staff, exception of teaching -only appointments eg tutor/senior tutor, are expected to be research  \nactive.  \n2. Research activities will vary depending on the discipline and the faculty. In some cases, student \nsupervision research student supervision  that involves writing a paper, lab work etc can be research or in other \ncases can be teaching in terms of  workload.  \n3. Research  expectations  may be relevant  in assessing  and reviewing  research  workload  allocation but research \nperformance should not be confus ed with research workload. Research under -performance is dealt with as a \nseparate  process.  \n4. It is recognised that staff engaged in significant enterprise activities are also normally expected to contribute to \nresearch but the workload allocation will take account of the enterprise activity.  \n5. Short -course teaching and consultancy undertaken within allocated workload can count for Research and \nEnterprise contribution.  \n \nAcademic Citizenship:1 \n \n1. All academic staff are expected to engage actively in the activities of the school, institute, University, the person’s \nrelevant profession, and the wider community. This academic citizenship should demonstrate a direct benefit to \nthe school, institute or University.  \n2. Some citizenship activities may be counted as teaching and some citizenship work is given teaching relief. \nWhether citizenship is allocated in teaching or citizenship, it should not be counted  twice.  \n3. The manager  should  consider  what  proportion  of the academic  citizenship  as may be agreed  as part  of the mix of \nduties,  may be used  for personal  activities  which  may enable  the staff member to meet appropriate requirements \nfor promotion. However, there would still need to be some citizenship allocated to the school, institute or  \nUniversity.  \n4. Administrative activities directly associated with teaching and research should not be included within the \ncitizenship  allocation.  \n5. Recognition of the contribution of Māori to iwi, hāpu and community interests or in supporting University \nobligations under t he Tiriti o Waitangi should be included as academic  citizenship.  \n \nClinical Practice:  \n \n1.  It is recognised that staff undertaking clinical practice mainly work in clinics but may also undertake service and \nundertake some teaching; they supervise students a nd contribute to the running of clinics. Their workload allocation \nshould reflect their main responsibility in undertaking clinical practice.  \n \nPrivate work:  \n \nAny private work undertaken within any permissions allowed by University policy or guideline from time to time in force, \nwhich is over -workload and for which the staff member is remunerated from non -Massey  sources,  shall not count  for the \npurposes  of research,  teaching,  enterprise  or academic citizenship.  \n \n1 Academic Citizenship in this context does not include private practice or personal community service.   \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nUniversity Workloads Procedures  – Page 4 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \n \n \nAudience:  \nAll University staff  \n \nRelevant legislation:  \nHealth and Safety at Work Act 2015  \n \nLegal compliance:  \nNone  \n \nRelated Procedures / documents:  \n• University Workloads Policy  \n• Allocation of Workloads Disputes Procedures (Appendix 1)  \n• Summer School Guidelines  \n• Academic Staff Promotions Criter ia and Guidelines  \n• Health, Safety and Wellbeing Policy  \n \nDocument Management Control:  \nPrepared by:  Employment Relations Manager  \nAuthorised by:  Vice -Chancellor  \nConsultation & Approval:  Consultation with the Combined Unions and Approved by the Vice-Chancellor  \nDate issued:  May 2015  \nLast review: January 2 021 \nNext review: January 202 6 \n \n \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nUniversity Workloads Procedures  – Page 5 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \nAppendix 1:   Allocation of Workloads Disputes Procedure  \n \nIn case of any difference  arising  between  a staff member  and his/her  manager  in relation  to the allocation of work or a change \nto the workload allocation to an individual staff member, the following procedures applies.  \n \nThe process  is designed  to provide  a speedy  and informal  resolution  wherever  possible  and is consistent with the Massey \nUniversity process for the resolution of employment relationship problems and grievances  and with the principles  of the \nEmployment  Relations  Act 2000  and the Health and Safety at work Act 2015 . This process will be followed as a means \nof internal resolution prior to any grievance or dispute being lodged under the Employment Relations Act 2000. Staff \nmember(s) are able to seek support and advice at any stage of this  process.  \n \nTo ensure  the speedy  resolution  of differences,  these  procedures  should  be initiated  with 14 days of  the notification of the  \ndifference.  \n \nStep 1 – Resolution Between the Parties  \n \nIn the first instance the employee should raise concerns with their manager with the intention that the manager and \nemployee will attempt to resolve their differences by direct resolution, including as deemed appropriate using a facilitated \nprocess to supp ort the manager and employee to agree a sustainable solution to the issue. The manager will provide \nreasons for the allocation and discuss how consistent it is with the workload model and the equitable distribution of the \nworkload with the unit or area. Th e employee may request in writing a worksheet comparing the employee’s workload \nallocation in percentage time with other staff.   \n \nIf the employee genuinely believes on reasonable grounds that their health and safety is, or is reasonably likely to be \nimpai red by the workload issues they are concerned about, the employee may use the University’s Incident and Hazard \nReporting System in MasseySAFE to raise their concern and the matter will be subject to the usual incident investigation \nprocess, which is a no -blame process. Following any such process, the findings and any recommendations will be referred \nto the manager and employee to inform their joint resolution of the issues.  \n \nStep 2 – Review  \n \nIf the matter remains unresolved, it will be referred to the relev ant Pro Vice -Chancellor of the College, Deputy  Vice-\nChancellor /Provost or equivalent line manager.  \n \nThe manager concerned will review the matter and make a decision to amend or confirm the allocation of  work to the \nemployee  concerned.  Both the decision  and the reasons  for it will be communicated in writing to the parties to the  dispute.  \n \nStep 3 – Mediation and Resolution Procedures  \n \nWhere the employee remains dissatisfied with the outcome of their workload allocation the matter may be referred to \nmediation. Mediation may be provided by the Massey Dispute Resolution service, the Ministry of Business Innovation and \nEmployment, or by a private mediator.  \n \nMediation is voluntary and the parties will mutually agree the mediator. Any resolutio n reached is mutually agreed between \nthe parties. In limited circumstances mediators with the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) have \nstatutory authority to make a final and binding decision if requested by the parties.  This must be agr eed to in advance of \nthe mediation.  \n \nIf mediation of a workload dispute is unsuccessful and the matter remains unresolved the matter may be referred through \nthe normal processes available under the Employment Relations Act 2000 by way of a personal grievan ce or dispute.  \n \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nUniversity Workloads Procedures  – Page 6 \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nInterim Situation  \n(NOTE: THE REASON FOR THIS IS TO PROTECT THE OPERATION OF THE UNIVERSITY, THE HEALTH, SAFETY \nAND WELLBEING OF THE EMPLOYEE, AND THE INTERESTS OF THE STUDENT STAKEHOLDERS UNTIL THE \nDIFFERENCE IS RESOLVED.)  \n \nIn the case of a difference arising between an employee and their manager in relation to the allocation of work or a \nchange to that allocation, the workload as specified by the manager shall operate as if no difference existed until the \nmatter is resolved through the procedures outlined above unless the manager is able to reassign the contested workload \npending resolution and without undue disruption to staff and students.  \n \nIn exceptional circumstances where there are genuine concerns on reasonable grounds for health or safety of the \nemployee, an interim situation may include an adjustment to the workload while the matter is subject to the \nappropriate process.  \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Working_After-hours_or_Alone_Guideline_PDF_111_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Working After-hours or Alone Procedure",
      "policy_type": "Guideline",
      "file_size": "111 KB",
      "author": "jmlochhe",
      "creation_date": "2014-12-18T16:01:09",
      "modification_date": "D:20141218161923+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " \nMassey University Policy Guide \n \nWORKING AFTER -HOURS OR ALONE GUIDELINE  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \nWhen working after -hours the risks of certain hazards may be increased d ue to the reduction in immediate assistance \nin the event of an incident. Outside of university core working hours, trained on site emergency response personnel \nmay be unavailable. These may include: building and floor wardens for building evacuation, first  aid trained staff, \nfacility staff such as Laboratory Managers and student medical centres.  Other services such as telephony and custodial services may not be available.  \n \nRisks may also be increased when working alone during working hours due to availabil ity of immediate assistance.  \n \nPrior to allowing students or staff to work after -hours, their supervisor should assess the hazard or the work or facility \nusing the following steps:  \n• Hazard risk assessment  \no Identify, assess, control the hazards  \no Determine supervision requirements  \no Determine emergency arrangements  \n• Competency of worker  \n• Approval to undertake the work  \n• Review of after -hours approval if activity or workplace changes.  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \n \n \nEach of the above steps is explained in more detail belo w. Section  Health and Safety  \nContact University Health and Safety Manager  \nLast Review  December 2014  \nNext Review  December 2017  \nApproval  University Health and Safety Manager  \nNote:  \nThe way the above requiremen ts are met is flexible. Existing mechanisms that provide the intent of the \nsteps in the procedure should continue to be used.   \n Examples are:  \n• Laboratories using hazardous substances will have determined appropriate after -hours controls \nin Safe Methods of Use, as required by Code of Practice for CRI and University Exempt \nLaboratories.  Laboratory managers should control approval.  Competency assessment should \nbe done in conjunction with student supervisors.  \n• Risk assessment for education outside the class ro om, field work, and practicum assessments \nshould have determined hazards. If not already included, competency and approvals can be \nadded to those existing systems.  \n• Ethics approval to work with drug users with a risk of violent behaviour may have already \nidentified hazards, supervision, and approval requirements.  \n• Design workshop studios will have already determined which machinery is moderate to high risk, \nassessed student competency and access to the machinery.  \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide \nWorking After -hours or Alone Guideline  – Page 2  \n \nHazard assessment  \nA hazard risk assessment should be conducted for the work and after -hours work before the work commences. The \nhazard assessment should cover:  \n identification of all foreseeable hazards arising from the work ,  \n assessment the risk(s) o f each hazard,  \n control of the hazard to a level that is acceptable (reasonably practicable) , \n availability of support in an emergency situation.  \n \nThe hazard risk assessment identifies a rating for each hazard in the task or process eg low, moderate, high, or \nextreme. This rating is used to determine:  \n the level of supervision required,  \n the type of authorisation required,  \n if the task is permitted to be undertaken by students or workers . \nAppendix 1 details suggested types of approvals for each level of risk.  \n \nThe following items may influence the hazard risk assessment outcome for after -hours  or alone  work:  \n the number of people working in the area after -hours;  \n security in the area where work is being undertaken;  \n the level of emergency personnel assistance a vailable after -hours in the event of an incident, e.g. fire \nwardens and first aid qualified staff;  \n requirement to complete a building after -hours log book for evacuation checking;  \n consequences of unattended experiments or equipment during after -hours wor k; \n competency and level of experience, skill and training of the individual undertaking the work;  \n whether the substance, equipment or work is too hazardous or dangerous to be used after -hours;  \n availability and requirement for a “buddy” for backup support or communication;  \n ability of buddy to render assistance, support, or raise alarm;  \n access to communication (e.g. phone, mobile phone, 2 way radio);  \n the journey to and from where the work is being conducted and the mode of transport.  \n \nHazard assessments must take into account the possible increase in risk because of reduced access to experienced \nstaff and emergency services for after -hours work.  \n \nMore detailed information on how to undertake a hazard assessment is available on the Health and Safety web s ite. \n \nCompetency of the worker  \nFor moderate to high risk activities, the supervisor must determine and validate that the worker undertaking the after -\nhours work is competent to undertake the work.  The supervisor should record the competency assessment.   \n \nApproval to undertake work  \nSupervisors should record approval given to undertake after -hours work.  The record should include:  \n duration of approval,  \n procedure, equipment, areas that can be accessed/used,  \n tasks that can be undertaken, and  \n for moderate to high risk activities, detail of required controls in the hazard assessment , including monitoing \nand emergency procedures . \nAn example approval form for use with moderate and high risk hazards is at the end of this guidline.  \n Review of the after -hours ap proval if activity or workplace changes  \nA review of the after -hours approval is required when there is a change in the workplace or activities being \nundertaken.  \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide \nWorking After -hours or Alone Guideline  – Page 3  \n \n \nTable 1: Example list of high risk hazards that may occur in laboratories. (Based on NZS/A S 2243.1 -2005)  \n \nHigh risk hazards which could be encountered include the following:  \n Operating apparatus capable of inflicting serious injury.  \n Handling venomous reptiles, insects, arthropods or fish.  \n Working with, or near, toxic or corrosive substances where there is a significant risk of exposure to the \nsubstance, taking into account the volume used.  \n Using apparatus that could result in explosion, implosion, or the release of high energy fragments or significant \namounts of toxic or environmentally damaging hazardous material.  \n Working with exposed energized electrical or electronic systems with nominal voltages exceeding 50 V AC or \n120 V ripple- free DC. NOTE: These limits are for dry, indoor conditions and a more conservative approach \nshould be taken in  other conditions.  \n Working with radio nuclides requiring a high level laboratory in accordance with National Radiation Laboratory \nCode of safe practice for the use of unsealed radioactive materials, NRL C1.  \n Working with microorganisms of Risk Group 3 and  higher, or which require the use of containment level 3 \nfacility or higher.  \n Other general laboratory process as relevant  \n \n \nTable 2: Example list of high risk hazards that may occur in non laboratory activities.  \n \nExamples of high risk hazards which could be encountered are:  \n Operating equipment or machinery, including workshop machinery, capable of inflicting serious injury, such as \nchainsaws, firearms, lathes and power saws.  \n One on one interview with people where there is a high probability of violent behaviour.  \n Work involving climbing towers or high ladders.  \n Operating pyrotechnics –  other than for emergency use.  \n Working in environments not at atmospheric pressure.  \n Aerobatic use of aircraft.  \n Working with large animals other than for the purpose of feeding or observation.  \n Operating equipment which could explode, implode, or release of high energy fragments or significant amounts of toxic or environmentally damaging hazardous material.  \n Working with live mains electricity.  \n Working near or in active natural hazards.  \n Experimental extreme sports or experiences.  \n Exhaustive fitness testing.  \n Individual or student led research or field work in high risk activity.   \n Working in oxygen reduced environments, or contaminated atmosphere.  \n Working in enclosed spaces.  \n Work in countries with high risk ISOS classification.  \n Environments with extreme temperatures.  \n Lone work on large expanses of water.  \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \n DEPARTMENT : \n APPROVAL FOR WORKING AFTER -HOURS OR ALONE  \nTo be used for moderate or high risk activities  \nName(s):   Title /Group:   \nActivity:   \nTime \nRestrictions:   \nLocation:   \nSECTION 1  HAZARD ASSESSMENT - Supervisor / Manager in control of work area to complete:  \n \n \n              \n \nSECTION 2  COMMUNICATION PLAN   \nRoutine Checks By:   Frequency:   \nMethod:  Visual       Phone     Other:  \nContact Phone Numbers:  A/H Worker:   Checker:   \nEmergency Actions & \nContact Numbers:   \n \nSECTION 3  SIGN OFF  \nPerson working after -hours / alone  Lab Manager / Supervisor approval  \nThe risks determined by the hazard assessment are adeq uately \ncontrolled and I will ensure all hazard control measures are \nimplemented and after -hours registers are filled in. I also understand \nthe emergency procedures for this activity.  \nSigned:    Date:  The hazards associated with this after -hours / alone wor k \nhave been adequately addressed and I believe it safe for this work to be undertaken in this manner.  \n Signed:    Date:  \nDISEMMINATION  \n• Those working after hours and those checking must have a copy of this approval.  \n• Block approvals may also be posted in t he work area,           \n• Copy to file for future   YES NO \nReview assessment and if required add additional \ncontrols for working after -hours / alone. Consider \nhow an emergency would be handled in the \nabsence of “normal” emergency personnel. \nEnsure personnel are aware of updated control \nmeasures  \nIndicat e appropriate  \ncontrols using hazard \ncontrol plan or cease \nactivity.  Has this activity \nhad a hazard \nassessment \nundertaken \npreviously? \nCan the activity cause \nserious harm ?  \nConsider the impact of \nminimal emergency \nresponse after hours \nand/or the risks of \nisolation if working \nalone  NO YES’ \nMedium  or \nhigh risk  \nComplete Section 2 \nand Section 3 below  Attach hazard assessment to this approval form  \nComplete Section 2 and Section 3 below  \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide \nWorking After -hours or Alone Guideline  – Page 5  \n \nGUIDELINES FOR PERSO NAL SAFETY WHEN WORKING AFTER -HOURS  \nUniversity facilities used after -hours may hold items of value or be attractive to others, who may gain forced \nentry or wait for a staff member to arr ive with keys or access codes.  Examples of items which are \nattractive include: cash, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, apparatus, machinery, artwork, valuables, AV and \ncomputing equipment, research material, intellectual property.  The attraction may be to gain an item for \nalternative use, or ideological such as disrupting a process that is not agreed with.  \n When staff or students are working after -hours, it is preferable to have at least two staff or students working \ntogether if possible.  \n \nSecurity needs to be informed when alarms are deactivated after -hours.  Security can provide escort for \nstaff to their vehicles when work has finished if they have concerns, or workers should relocate vehicle or \ntransport to facilitate safe exit from the building and vicinit y.  \nMeasures to enhance safety for after -hours lone working are:  \n• Ensuring the building can be adequately secured from the inside.  \n• Keeping doors locked to prevent casual entry, if appropriate.  \n• Knowing location of help point locations, or arranging a remote control device, that can be used to activate an audible alarm and alert Security, if safety is threatened.  \nIf you arrive early:  \n• If you are the first person to arrive at work check for any sign of forced entry.  \n• Where any signs of force are observed the facility should not be entered, as an intruder could be \npresent. The Police or Security should be called, and any other employees warned when they arrive  \nIf you will be f inishing late:  \n• Park as near to your building as possible in an area that will be wel l lit at night.  \n• Consider other transport options if the only parking available is at an isolated location.  \n• Let someone know you will be working late.  \n• Check that you are secure inside the building and that no doors or windows have been left open or \nunlock ed.  \n• When leaving the building check the immediate area outside for any people loitering, before \nopening the door.  \n• Use the best lit route to your car and have someone walk with you if possible.  \nOff campus appointments:  \nSome activities require meeting cli ents in their homes or in other isolated situations.  If you have this kind of \nwork consider what practices you could adopt to reduce any potential risks to your safety.  \n• Leave a written record at work of where you are going, the client's name, and the est imated time of \nyour return.  \n• When visiting a house or other place, be guided by your instincts. If the person opening the door \nhas a manner which makes you feel uneasy or uncomfortable, don't go inside. Make an excuse and \nleave immediately.  \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide \nWorking After -hours or Alone Guideline  – Page 6  \n \n• If you enter a place and later start to feel uncomfortable with the person you are talking to, leave as \nsoon as possible. Be aware of potential escape routes.  \n• Carrying a mobile telephone will enable you to advise a colleague of your arrival in the presence of \nthe client. Any person posing a potential threat to your safety would be deterred by the fact that \nothers are aware of your location, and identity of the person you are with.  \n• You can also arrange a distress code word for telephone use which lets your office know i f you are \nin a risk situation.  \n• When responding to any requests for a meeting, job advertisement, or similar situation, consider the time and place for the proposed appointment.  \n• If you feel that the situation is potentially unsafe, arrange to take a colleague or buddy with you.  \n \nMore specific information on interviewer safety in drug and alcohol field work is available on the health and \nsafety website.\n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Student_Complaints_and_Grievance_Procedures_PDF_145_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Student Complaints and Grievance Procedures PDF 145 KB",
      "policy_type": "Procedure",
      "file_size": "145 KB",
      "author": "Neil Ulrich",
      "creation_date": "2024-04-08T08:02:06",
      "modification_date": "D:20240408085619+12'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n \n \n \n \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide   \n \nSTUDENT  COMPLAI NTS AND GRIEVA NCE PR OCEDURES   \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n1.  Purpose:   \nMassey University’s Student Complaints and Grievance Procedures are for all domestic and in ternat ional students  and \ncover all programmes including not-for-credit, undergraduate and postgraduate programme s, and related servi ces.  \nThey are designed to ensure students receive a quality educ ation an d that relations  betwee n staff and students  are \nequitable.   \n2.  Objective:   \n2.1.   To foster the fair, speedy, and informal resolut ion of disputes  at Massey  University,  and an academic  \nculture which will preve nt such  grievances .   \n3.  Definition :   \n3.1.   A Grievance  means  any griev ance, which  a student  (whet her that person has any other role within the \nuniversit y) has  against the Universi ty and/or  a staff  mem ber be cause o f a claim that they have  \nsustain ed acad emic disadv antage.  This includes  claims  which are sometime s referred to  as Student  \nComplaints .   \n3.2.   Such  grievances  may include but are not confined  to:   \n(a)  The unfair assessment of course work not otherwise  governed by University  assessment  and \nexaminati on regulation s.   \n(b)  An unfair  refusal or failure  of the staff member to make  themselves  available  to assist  a student  \nwith difficulties  regarding their course work . \n(c)  Unreason able delay s in the assessment  of course work .   \n(d)  Inadequate  course  materials.    \n(e)  Inadequate teaching.    \n(f)  Defic ient performance of associated  adminis trative  services .   \n3A. International  Student s   \n3A.1  International st udents  must follow these  proced ures if t hey have  a Griev ance with t he University.  \nHowever, sh ould Int ernatio nal Students f ind that their Grievance is  not resolved b y the Univ ersity, \nstudents ca n elect to  use th e Student C omplaints Scheme set  up by t he Gov ernment to  resolve \ncontract ual and financial dispute s. Furt her information is  available a t http://www.ist udent. org.nz/   \n \n \n \n \n Section   Academic   \nCont act   Provost   \nLast Review   July 202 1   \nNext  Revie w   July 202 6   \nApprova l   AB16/061   \n\n \n \n \n \n \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide   \nStudent  Complaints and Grievance  Procedures – Page  2 \n \n \n4. Jurisdiction:  \n4.1.   The Stude nt Complaints and Grievan ce Proced ures are distin ct from,  and may not be used with respect  \nto, any questions relating to the followin g rules,  regulations, statutes, or procedures  of the Universi ty \nincluding :   \n(a)  Cases  of hardship  - Vice-Chancell or’s Powers .   \n(b)  Disciplinary procedures.    \n(c)  Harassment procedures.    \n(d)  Examination regulations.   \n(e)  Registration regulations.   \n(f)  Student fees.    \n5.  Principles  of Ap plication:    \n5.1.   At all times  the proce dures will be carried out according  to the following  principles :   \n5.2.  Protection  of pers ons   \n5.2.1.   When a Grie vance is ta ken to the University  Grievance C ommitt ee all per sons who  may b e \naffected shall have thei r rights  prote cted.   \n5.2.2.   Persons who  may need  protect ion are:   \n(a)   The Complainants.   \n(b)   The Subject(s) of Complaint (Respondents).   \n(c)   Heads  of Departments, Institu tes & Schools.   \n(d)   Pro Vice-Chancellors (or their nominees) of colleges   \n(e)  Provost, Deputy Vice-Chancellors (or their nominees)   \n(f)  The University.    \n(g)   Student representatives.   \n(h)   Staff representatives.    \n(i)  The chairperson of the University Grievance Committee .   \n \n5.3.  Statutory  Protection   \n5.3.1.  The affect ed persons  are entitled  to the protec tion provided  by:   \n(a)   The Official  Information Act 1982 .   \n(b)   The Local Gover nment Official  Information and Meeting s Act 1987 .   \n(c) The Emplo yment  Relations Act  2000.   \n(d)   The Hum an Rights Act 1993.   \n(e) The Privacy  Act 2020 .   \n(f)  Consumer  Guarantees Act 19 93.   \n(g)   The Prote cted Disclos ures Act  2000.   \n(h)   The Education (Pastoral Care of Tertiary Learners) Code of P ractice  2021 .   \n(i)   Any other rele vant sta tutes.   \n \n \n \n  © This Policy  is the property  of Massey  Unive rsity   \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide   \nStudent  Complaints and Grievance  Procedures – Page  3 \n \n \n5.4 Due dispatch  \n5.4.1.    The rights of all affected  persons are enhance d by a prompt  investigation  and resolution  \nof the Grievance .   \n5.5. Due pr ocess   \n5.5.1.  The proced ures will follow  the principles  of natural  justic e, namely :   \n(a)   Notice  of any  Grievance  shall be given to the party/p arties as so on as reason ably \npracticab le (subject  to consistency  with “T ime L imits” be low).   \n(b)   Any persons d irectly adv ersely af fected b y a Grievanc e shall be ad equately inf ormed of the \nGrievan ce arising  and be give n an opportunity  to respond.   \n(c) The process for resolving the  Grievance will  be conduc ted fairly .   \n(d)   The avoidance  of bias or conflic t of interest .   \n5.6. Time Limits   \n5.6.1.  A grievan ce should be brought to the at tention of the Univ ersity within one year of the occurren ce \nor circumstances  to which  the grievance  refers (Note  that assessm ents (including  major tests) and \nexamination  scripts not routinely  returned to students  should  be retained  by acad emic \ndepa rtments  for a period of 12 months ).  Thereaf ter a grievance may be consid ered only with the \ncons ent of the Provost . In deciding whether a griev ance will be considered, the Provost  will \nconsider :   \n(a)   The seriousness  of the alleg ed grievance.   \n(b)   The availability  of relevant  information includi ng witnesses and documents .   \n(c) The prejudice  to any other parties ; and   \n(d)   Any reason s for the delay  in bringing the grievance  to the  attention of the Univ ersity.   \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n  © This Policy  is the property  of Massey  Unive rsity   \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n6.  Procedures:    \n \n \n \n \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide   \nStudent  Complaints and Grievance  Procedures – Page  4 \n \n \n \n \nStep  1:   \nThe student(s) and or their representative app roach  the staff member concern ed. If \nthe approa ch is in writing the staff member should a cknowledge the rec eipt of the \ncomplaint  within 7  days. (Medi ation is the preferred fo rum for resolution).   \nStudents may approach their Students Associ ation r epresentative for  support, advice  \nand advocacy .  \n     \n  Unive rsity Disputes  Advisor for  \n  referral to a Me diator agre ed upon by   \n the parties .   \n \nStep  2:   \nIf no resolution or St ep 1 is in appropriate, co mplainant(s) approa ch He ad of \nDepa rtment/S chool/Institut e/Section or, where  the Head  is the respond ent or \nthere is no settlem ent of the  grievance, the Pro Vice -Chancellor of  the coll ege.  \n(Medi ation is the preferr ed forum for resolution) .   \n \nUnive rsity Disput es Adviso r   \n \nStep  3:   \nIf no re solution, com plainant(s) a pproach the Pro vost, or their nominee who \nmay either determine an outcome, or , after consult ation with the  University  \nDisputes  Advisor, initi ate the convening  of the Unive rsity Grievance \nComm ittee.   \n \n \n \nStep  4:   \nUnive rsity Griev ance Comm ittee decision whi ch is final and binding .   \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n  © This Policy  is the property  of Massey  Unive rsity   \n\n \n \n \n \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \nStudent  Complaints and Grievance  Procedures – Page  5   \n \n6.1.  Students, w henev er practic able, s hould in the  first instanc e approach the University  staff m ember \nconcern ed about  any Grievance.   \n6.2.  If the Grievance is unresolved with  the staff member concerned, students may approach the relevant Head \nof Departm ent/School/In stitute/Section,  or where this is inappro priate,  the relevant  Pro Vice-\nChancellor.  It is anticipated that the  vast majority  of Grievances will  be resolved  at this  stage.  The preferred \nforum for  grievance resolutio n is mediat ion.   \n6.3.  In the absence of extraordinary circumstances, the presen ce of which  will be determined (if necessary) \nby the Provost,  a complain t relating solely  to the grade of a piece  of course work will not proceed  beyond  \nthe relevan t Pro Vice-Chancellor .   \n6.4.  The following  may at any time request  throug h the University  Disputes Advisor the assistan ce of a \nUniversit y Mediato r:   \n(a)   Complainant s   \n(b)   Staff member s affect ed or   \n(c) Head  of Depar tment/School/ Institute/Secti on or   \n(d)   Relevant  Pro Vice -Chan cellor (or their nominee)   \n6.5.  If a Grievance is unresolved at the Pro Vice -Chancellor level, it may be refe rred to the  Provost. The \nProvos t or their nomin ee will review  the case, determine  that all reasonable  steps for resolution have  been \naddress ed, and may then either  determine an outcome, or conv ene the Uni versity Griev ance C ommitt ee. \nThat step will n ot be taken    unless and until the University Disputes Advisor has established that all \nreasonable steps to resol ve the problem consensually  have been  attempted a nd exhausted.   \n6.6.  The Univ ersity Grievance C ommitt ee will hav e the responsibility  of enquir ing into the subje ct matter of \nthe grievance  and determining  the outcom e of the complaint .   \nIt may:   \n6.6.1.  Conduct that inqu iry (includi ng the he aring of the respective ca ses of the stu dent comp lainant and  \nthe staff member  affecte d) in such  manner as, consiste nt with the princip les of natural justice,  \nit thinks  fit.   \n6.6.2.  Receive  such  material relevant  to the subject  of the inquiry as it thinks  fit.   \n6.6.3.  Meet  with the parties and any other persons  considered  able to assist  the inquir y.   \n7.  The Universit y Griev ance Co mmittee  may meet with th e parties sepa rately o r together. H owever, any  \nmaterial relevant  to the complaint  receiv ed from one party in the absence  of the other must  be either:   \n(a)  Disclosed to  the other party and an opportunity to commen t given  or;   \n(b)  Excluded  from consid eration .   \n8.  Each  party  will have the right to have  a support person  present at any meeti ng wit h the University  \nGriev ance Committee .   \n9.  The Universit y Griev ance Co mmittee  may de legate to  and authorise  its chair person  to ca rry out such \naspects of  its investig atory function s as it thinks  fit.   \n10.  The University  Grievance  Committe e will, following the  inquiry,  prepare a report which  will be issued  to \nthe parties  and contain  its decisi on on the compla int.   \n \n \n \n  © This Policy  is the property  of Massey  Unive rsity   \n\n \n \n \n \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide  \nStudent  Complaints and Grievance  Procedures – Page  6   \n \n11.  The decisi on of t he University Grievance Committee will be fi nal and bi nding.  There will be no right o f \nfurther appeal  or review .   \n12.  The proceedings  of the University Grievance  Committee  shall be private,  confidential  and privileged.    \n13.  Any student  with a Grievanc e shoul d try and keep notes  of details, includin g times,  dates,  places and  \nkeep copies  of any docum entation  related  to the Grievance .   \n14.  Notes to  Procedures:   \n14.1.   Students may in the first instance approach their Student Association representative for supp ort, advice  \nand ad vocacy. Students may either act alone or be acco mpanied by  a representati ve through all steps o f \nthese Grievance  proced ures.   \n14.2.   The complai nant should also specify  the remedies sought  to resolve the submitt ed Grievan ce.   \n(a)  Outcomes arising from t he procedu res pri or to the conven ing of the Universit y Grievan ce \nCommittee will  be such  as the partie s may agree consen sually.  These  may includ e but are not \nconfin ed to:   \ni)  a written  or verbal apology   \nii)  opport unity to receive  a second  opinion on assessed  work   \niii)  substitution  of a highe r mark   \niv)  opportunity to resubmit  an assig nment   \nv)  initiation  of a student  feedback mechanism   \nvi)  extensions of deadlines for assignme nt   \nvii)  opportunity to  re-sit an examination  (subject  to University  regulations)    \n(b)  If the Grievan ce come s for resolut ion to the University  Grievance  Commit tee it may make such  \ndecisions  and give such  direction s as it think s fit.   \n14.3.   If not resol ved at a lower level,  the Grievan ce must be presented in writing to the Provost.  The \ndocument ation provided to the Univ ersity Grie vance C ommit tee shou ld contain  the following  informati on:   \n(a)   The complainant’s full home address contact  phone  number and student ID number .   \n(b)   Where appr opriate th e title and number of the cours e, the name of the depa rtment or t he nam e of \nthe College  in which the Grievance concern s.   \n(c) The nature of the Grievan ce including the specific academi c disadva ntage claime d.   \n(d)   As many  details reg arding ex amples  and instances of the Griev ance a s possible  (e.g. date s, \ntimes) .   \n(e) Any other  relevan t informatio n.   \n14.4.   On recei pt of the written complaint,  the University Grievance  Committee  shall within  14 days:   \n(a)   Acknowledge  the receipt  of the  complaint.   \n(b)   Inform  the partie s of their right to access  a representative  or other  support person if they have not \nalread y done so .   \n(c) Provide  all relev ant written  docu mentation  to the staff  member(s) conce rned for written response .   \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n  © This Policy  is the property  of Massey  Unive rsity  \n\n \n \n \n \n \nMassey  University  Policy  Guide   \nStudent  Complaints and Grievance  Procedures – Page  7   \n \n15.  University  Grievance  Committee:   \n15.1.   Memb ership   \n \nThe University Grievance  Committee  is a committee  of Academic  Board  and shall consist  of:   \n \n(a)   An independent  chairperson appoin ted by the Vice-Chancellor  in accordance  with Note (i), who \nshall have  both a deliberati ve and casting v ote.   \n(b)   One staff member nomina ted by the P rovost .   \n(c) One mem ber nominat ed by the appropriate  student organization .   \n \nNote:   \n(i)  The independent chairperson shall in any specific case be selected from a panel of not less than 3 \npersons  (who shall not be current  students  or staff members)  of appropriate  standing,  qualifications  and \nexperience , appointed  by the Vice-Chancell or.   \n(ii) Members  of this panel  shall be appointed  annually  by the Vice-Chancellor,  upon  the recommendation  \nof the Chair  of Academic  Board.   Members shall be eligible  for reappointment.   The independ ent \nchairpersons shall sit in rotation .   \n(iii)   Memb ers of t he University Grievanc e Commit tee shall op erate i ndepe ndently a nd imp artially and \nnot as  represe ntatives  of those  responsible  for appointing,  nominat ing or electi ng them.   \n15.2.   Powers   \nThe Committee,  subject  to compliance  with the principles  of natural justice,  shall:   \n(a)  (i) Determine  the con duct o f its ow n procedures and ;   \n(ii) Receive  such  informat ion, as it consid ers relevant  to the Grievance .   \n(b)   Receive  and investigate  Grievances  at all Massey  University campuses  and through  all modes  of delivery   \nof acad emic pro grammes.   \n(c)   Make  decisions  relating  to Grievances .   \n(d)   Report a nnually to the Vice -Chan cellor t hrough Academic Boar d on the nat ure of Grievan ces and \npolicy issues that ha ve risen during the year.   \n \n16.  Audience:   \nAll staff and student s   \n17.  Document  Management  Control:   \nPrepared  by: Provost     \nAuthorised  by: Provos t   \nApproved  by: Academic  Board  AB16/061    \nDate issued: March 2005   \nLast review: July 2021    \nNext review: July 2026    \n \n  © This Policy  is the property  of Massey  Unive rsity  \n \n\n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Travel_Policy_PDF_440_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Travel Policy PDF 440 KB",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "440 KB",
      "author": "Fiona Nissen",
      "creation_date": "2023-12-12T12:04:00",
      "modification_date": "D:20231212124012+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nTRAVEL POLICY  \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nSection  Travel and Transport  \nContact  Strategic Procurement and Contracts Office (SPCO)  \nLast Review  November 2023  \nNext Review  November 2026  \nApproval  SLT 23/10/105  \nEffective Date  20 November 2023  \n \nPurpose:  \nThis policy,  and the associated procedural  guidance, sets out the University’s requirements regarding all \nUniversity -sponsored travel.  \nThe objectives of the policy are to:  \n• specify the principles governing University -sponsored  travel.   \n• ensure that expenditure on travel includes only the necessary and reasonable costs incurred and \nrepresents value for money  for genuine ly required travel  in a manner that avoids unnecessary or \nexcessive travel expenditure . \n• ensure travel risks are identified , managed  and the University's duty of care is maintained.  \n• better manage the University’s carbon emissions and the associated environmental impacts of travel \nactivities.   \n• support equity of access to travel.  \n• ensure compliance with external and internal requirements to make certain University -sponsored travel \nand related activities are properly planned, approved, purchased, and paid in accordance with Massey \npolicies ; and  \n• support the safety, wellbeing, and reasonable comfort of those travel ling on university  business . \nIn facilitating University -sponsored travel, the University is committed to:  \n• maintaining its duty of care for staff and students.  \n• achieving value for money in relation to travel expenditure.   \n• supporting University strategies and growth.  \n• supporting and progressing staff careers and opportunities.  \n• minimising the environmental impact of travel; and  \n• meeting its legal and tax obligations.  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nTravel Policy  – Page 2   \n \n \n  \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nIt is the University’s responsibility to provide access to the policy and supporting procedur al \nguidance , and it is the University Traveller ’s (anyone participating in university -sponsored travel \nactivities) responsibility to comply with this policy.  \nWhy this Policy is Needed  \nThe University acknowledges  the importance of staff undertaking research, teaching, study , \nand professional and organisational duties beyond their home location (normal work location or place of \nresidence). These duties contribute to their research work, assist them to maintain and develop their teaching and \nacademic career and can contribute to  the overall standing and reputation of the University. Similarly professional \nservices staff contribute to the work of the University and will have specific travel needs related to their roles and \nprofessional development. These activities are a form of duty to the University and are granted for those purposes \nthat are consistent with the basic purposes for which the University is constituted.  \nThe University also recognises the need for students to travel to undertake internships or research as part of their \nauthorised studies or to participate in travel associated to student organisations of Massey University. The \nUniversity has a duty to take reasonable care for the safety and welfare of students when authorising travel for \nuniversity -approved activities that are part of their enrolment as a Massey University student.   \nScope   \nThis policy applies to all University  Travellers  and Travel Approvers  (defined as anyone participating in , or \napproving,  University -sponsored travel activities) including all permanent, fixed term or temporary staff, faculty, \nstudents, visitors, guests and other non -University personnel who have been authorised and /or directly funded to \ntravel on behalf of the University. This includes adjunct staff, casual employees, post -doctoral fellows, research \nassistants, teaching fellows, visiting academic staff, graduate assistants, tutors, senior tutors , and research \nofficers.  University -sponsored  Travel can be done by foot, bicycle, scooter, automobile, train, boat, bus, airplane, \nship or other means, with or without luggage, and can be one way or round trip.  Travel is most often conducted \nto reach a distant location, but travel can also include single or  successive activities within short distances . \nFor t ravel to be funded and sponsored by the University, it must have a defined benefit that contributes to \nachieving the  goals of the University , College, Unit and/or individual .  \nAll Massey -related travel decisions and planning must be climate -conscious, guided by the environmental impact \nof how we get to our destination and our actions once we are there, and weighed against the expected benefits \nof such travel.  \nEach application for travel is determined on its merits.  There is no automatic entitlement to the provision of time \naway from the University in accordance with these provisions.  The University reserves the right to deny any travel \nrequest that does not m eet the University’s needs , contractual obligations  or budget constraints. Managers may \nelect to impose stricter budgetary controls over travel expenditures than those required by this policy.  \nGrants received by the University from external parties are considered to be University funds and must be \nadministered in accordance with this policy  and any contractual terms and conditions . In cases where  a grant's \nprojected budget includes travel and associated expenses, e.g., airfares or accommodation  that have  been \njustified and approved pre -award, this contractual obligation will be observed post -award.  In cases where  a grant \nhas specific terms and conditions or compliance requirements that are stricter than this policy  the terms and \nconditions or compliance requirements of the grant supersede this policy.    \nThis policy is not to be considered in isolation. It is to be read in conjunction with all related policies and other \ndocuments, including, but not limited to, those specifically listed in the body of this policy.   Please refer to the \nVehicle Management Policy for information related to Massey vehicle fleet bookings.  For travel to be funded \nand sponsored by the \nUniversity, it must have \na defined  benefit that \ncontributes to \nachieving the  goals of \nthe University .  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nTravel Policy  – Page 3   \n \n \n  \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nUniversity -sponsored travel  \nUniversity -sponsored travel includes all travel conducted on behalf of the University  irrespective of the funding \nsource. With contributions to the University as a prerequisite, University -sponsored travel includes, but is not \nlimited to, the following travel purposes:  \n• attendance at conferences to promote and/or present research to wider audiences to contribut e to global \nknowledge.  \n• attendance at conferences/workshops/training for professional development directly related to making \nfuture contributions to the University.  \n• delivering a speech or lecture for university  purposes  that cannot be effectively delivered virtually.  \n• research related travel including early career research.  \n• contractual commitments  \n• academic meetings  \n• fieldwork for research  \n• internships  \n• recruitment of university  staff or students  \n• student activities (examinations, field trips, placements, etc.)  \n• travel to University’s sites and properties for university  purposes  \n• business and governance meetings   \n• fundraising activities and initiatives  \n• institutional Partnerships  \n• overseas assignments  \n• study leave  \nFor clarity, University -sponsored travel does not include:  \n• staff travelling from  home to the workplace  (i.e., commuting ). \n• personal travel  (travel for leisure or other non -University  or work -related reasons ). \n• student travel to/from the University at the start/end of a term ; or  \n• travel for individuals or employees of organisations who provide services under contract to the University.  \nWhere required, travel provisions of such contract personnel should be set out in the relevant contract.  \nWhere travel is not in scope as defined  as university -sponsored travel, University  Travellers  are encouraged to \nadhere to the principles of the Policy.  \nTravel Hierarchy Principles  \nThe University recognises that virtual collaboration methods are not always an effective alternative to in -person \ninteractions, and therefore some travel is essential for supporting academic, research, business and educational \nobjectives. However, wherever possible, the number of individuals wh o travel should be limited.  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nTravel Policy  – Page 4   \n \n \n  \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nThe University acknowledges the significant carbon impact of travel activities. The Sustainable Business T ravel \nhierarchy promotes walking, cycling, public transport and car sharing in preference to single occupancy car use \nfor movement of people.  Flying is the mode of travel with the highest and most detrimental environmental impact.  \nWhere  a low carbon  alternative  to air travel can  be found  it is preferred  over air travel. When travelling by air, \nEconomy  class travel is the default method as it has the lowest  carbon footprint due to the  allocation of less space \non the plane  as compared to other classes of  travel .  \n \nTravel should be planned in advance  and wherever possible multiple trips between campuses within the same \nweek should be avoided through ‘batching’ and consolidating travel.  \nCar-pooling in University Fleet cars for trips between Wellington and Palmerston North are preferred to single \noccupant trips.  \nWhere available, a lternatives to travel must be considered prior to booking travel and clearly shown during the \napproval process.  Examples of alternatives include use of virtual collaboration tools, as well as examining whether \nother colleagues from across the University are attending an event and are able to effectively carry out and \nachieve the purpose of the travel.   The availability of virtual attendance /collaboration  does not automatically \npreclude in-person attendance /attendance , but University Travellers should give full consideration  to alternatives \nto travel whenever possible.  \nTravellers' responsibilities  \nPrior to making a travel commitment, Travellers must communicate with their line manager  or relevant University  \nauthority  about their intended travel plans. University Traveller’s must:  \na. demonstrate  that University business is the dominant purpose of travel  and secure pre -trip approval \nor authorisation prior to embarking on travel and/or incurring travel expenses.  \nb. estimate anticipated expenditure  and confirm  University funds will be spent in a reasonable and \ntransparent manner.  \nc. demonstrate that alternatives to travel have been considered and evaluated.  \nd. confirm that the funding source is clearly identified and has funds available to cover the travel expense.  \ne. ensure travel is booked or logged through the University’s Travel Management Company ’s booking \nsystem.  \nf. ensure appropriate travel insurance is organised and is in effect for all University -sponsored travel \nactivities prior to travel commencing.  \ng. confirm awareness of legal, personal safety and cultural sensitivities of their host country and/or \norganisation.   \nh. conduct self -assessment to ensure  Traveller is physically , mentally  and medically fit to travel .  \ni. arrange for any required vaccinations, including any COVID -19 vaccination, required for the travel \ndestination.  \n\n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nTravel Policy  – Page 5   \n \n \n  \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nj. confirm appropriate risk mitigation will be undertaken including risk controls related to communication \nplans, emergency plans, fitness for travel, high risk activities, and maintaining awareness of relevant \ntravel advisories.   \n• confirm travel documents are current and valid for the travel. Travellers  are responsible for \nobtaining their own passport and visas  prior to travel commencing  and are responsible for the \ncosts of obtaining a passport.  \n• communicate any plans to incorporate personal travel with university -sponsored  travel to both \nline/approving manager and Travel Management Company (TMC ); and  \na. if relevant, confirm there will be no negative impact on personal and team workload, and faculty/school \nactivities such as teaching and research supervision ; and  \nb. complete any post -travel documentation required ( i.e., post-travel report documenting the \noutcomes/benefits of the travel ). \nTravellers receiving funding for travel from an external body must ensure that their travel complies with the \nconditions of the relevant external body.  \nTravellers must ensure that they comply with the University’s policies and that any expenditure they incur while \ntravelling is for a legitimate University purpose.  University Traveller s are expected to consider and adapt their \ntravel methodologies to reduce the environmental impacts of their travel.   \nRefer to the Travel Procedural Guidance for further information on Travellers’ responsibilities.  \nTravel Approver s’ Responsibilities  \nA University Traveller  must not approve their own University -sponsored  travel or expenses. Any application to \nundertake travel must be approved by the University Traveller ’s line manager and/or Head of \nSchool/Institute/Department. All international travel must be approved by the relevant Senior Leadership Team \n(SLT) member.  \nAll approvals must be in line with delegated authority policies .  \nTravel Approvers are required to ensure that University resources are used appropriately to ensure safe, prudent \nand effective travel. Travel Approvers are responsible for considering and verifying the below four factors before \napproving any University Travel.  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nTravel Policy  – Page 6   \n \n \n  \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \nTravel Approvers are responsible for ensuring compliance with the University’s travel policies and procedural  \nguidance.  Approvers must ensure that travel is in accordance with this policy and in a manner that ensures that \nthe University is  able to maintain its employer duty of care . \nTravel Approver r esponsibilities include:  \n• confirming Travellers understands their responsibilities in accordance with this policy.  \n• confirm ing that the travel is being undertaken for legitimate  and official University -purpose activities . \n• if there is a personal component to the travel, that the primary  purpose of travel is for university  business.  \n• ensuring documentation of Travel Purpose sufficiently communicates the need for the expense  and that \nalternatives to traveling have been appropriately considered and evaluated.  \n• directing the University Traveller to book flights and accommodation through the University’s TMC and \nendorsed booking system.  \n• ensuring  that any University -purpose travel expense charged to or paid by the University is in accordance \nwith the Delegations of Authority  Policy , and the requirements of any relevant funding body.   \n• confirming,  subject to the nature of risk, travel risks and risk controls, communication plans and \nemergency plans have been appropriately identified, assessed and managed such that that any residual \nrisk is acceptable to the Travel Approver.  \n• in the case of travel to high risk level destinations, ensure the University T raveller has : \no taken into account relevant travel advisorie s (including those related to the Traveller’s personal \ncircumstances and personal characteristics ); and \no completed th e Risk Assessment and Risk Management steps of the Travel Authorisation process ; \nand \no assessed and managed  travel risks such that any residual risk is acceptable to the Traveller.  \n• ensuring that expense reimbursement requests are  handled in a  timely and accurate  manner including \nsubmission of required receipts . \n• ensuring expenses are in compliance with the U niversity and/or funder’s policies for allowable costs.  \nTravel to countries with high -risk ratings (as identified on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade ( MFAT) Safe \nTravel website during the time period of proposed travel) requires approval from th e Vice Chancellor (VC) .  In the \ncase of destinations  identified by MFAT as “ avoid non -essential travel”  the VC shall : \n• ensure the University T raveller has taken into account , relevant travel advisories, including those related \nto the traveller’s personal circumstances and personal characteristics . \n• completed the appropriate risk assessment and authorisation forms ; and  \n• assessed and managed  travel risks such that that any residual risk is acceptable.   \n\n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nTravel Policy  – Page 7   \n \n \n  \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nTravel to countries identified by MFAT as “do not travel” will not be approved under any circumstances due to the \nextreme risk associated with these areas . \nBooking  Travel  \nIn order to maintain and manage the University’s duty of care for University Travellers, a ll University -sponsored  \ntravel must be booked and paid for via the University's approved T MC in accordance with the Travel Procedural \nGuidance.  \nThe exception to booking through the TMC is if the University -sponsored  travel is wholly funded by an external \nsource which mandates the use of their own travel agent. However, where possible, the University Traveller  \nshould seek the option to book through Massey’s TMC and  invoice the external source for the cost.  \nMassey University is a participatory to All of Government (AoG) Agreement s including fo r air travel services.  The \nTMC will in  the first instance, endeavour to quote and book travel through preferred agreements .  Where the \npreferred suppliers  are unable to service the Traveller’s requirement or the destination, the TMC will provide \nalternative solutions for review and approval.  \nPersonal Travel /Dual -Purpose Travel  \nA manager may approve adding on a personal trip to a work trip provided the: \n• University -sponsored  Travel component is the dominant purpose of the travel.  \n• all private expenses are paid for from the traveller’s personal funds.  \n• there is no additional  cost to the Universit y; and  \n• a Massey Finance  Business Partner, or the Chief Financial Officer,  has confirmed that any Fringe Benefit \nTax implications are appropriately managed.  \nManagers should ensure this provision is not overused such that a perception could be created that work trips are \nbeing undertaken to supplement holiday time.  \nApproval may be given to University Traveller s being accompanied by a partner on a work trip provided : \n• manager  approval has been received prior to making any commitments; and  \n• any additional expenses incurred for the accompanied travel are privately funded.  \nRefer to Guidelines for Dual -Purpose and Multi -Purpose Travel  for further information . \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nTravel Policy  – Page 8   \n \n \n  \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \nSustainab ility considerations   \nThe University  is committed to managing travel \nrequirements in a fair, consistent, and efficient manner, \nreducing our carbon footprint and being mindful of the \nvarious impacts of travel.  \nThe University acknowledges that any travel has an \nimpact on the environment in terms of the use of fuel or \nenergy, and through the generation of emissions.  \nUniversity -sponsored travel is one of the University’s \nprincipal sources of carbon emissions and has a \nsignificant impact on the delivery of the Climate Action \nPlan and our commitment to the University’s NetZero \nCarbon by 2030 goal.  \nTravellers should refer to the Low Carbon Travel \nGuidelines on ways to reduce carbon footprint.  \n \nWell-being considerations   \nThe University recognise s that travelling has an impact on staff wellbeing and work -life balance. It is the University \nTraveller ’s responsibility when seeking Universit y-sponsored  travel approval to conduct a self -assessment to \nensure they are physically and medically fit to travel.  \nIn making this assessment, staff  are strongly encouraged to seek medical advice and clearance from a doctor for \npre-existing medical conditions prior to travelling overseas.  Where a pre -existing condition requires medical \nattention while travelling, the i nsurer may require medical evidence that you were ‘fit to travel’ upon \ncommencement of travel.  \nAny documentation pertaining to a Traveller’s medical status is to be retained by the University  Traveller for use \nif required.  \nSafety Considerations  \nThe safety and security of University Traveller s is a matter of the highest concer n. The University has a duty of \ncare to all University Travellers and will act reasonably in our aim of protecting the health, safety and welfare of \nUniversity Travellers.  University Traveller s will comply with all travel -related duty of care and personal safety and \nsecurity requirements as determined necessary by the University .  The University needs to be assured that those \ntravelling have fully considered the risks and put appropriate precautions into place.   \nMFAT  provides advice on security and safety concerns in many destinations.  This advice is based on information \nfrom a number of sources. It reflects potential risks, and our assessment of what these might mean for New \nZealanders.  \n \n \n\n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nTravel Policy  – Page 9   \n \n \n  \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \n \nMFAT Travel website classification  University Policy  \nCountries and territories that are \nclassified as Do Not Travel  on the \nMFAT Safe Travel website  University Travellers must not visit under any circumstances due to the \nextreme risk associated with these areas  \nCountries or territories classified as \nAvoid non -essential travel  are \ndeemed high risk  Should only be visited under exceptional circumstances and must be \napproved by the Vice -Chancellor prior to booking  \nFor other cautionary classifications  The travel approver needs to demonstrate a high degree of conviction \nin the need for the trip and that other alternatives (video conference, \nhost relevant meetings in another country etc) are not readily \napplicable.  \n \nUniversity Traveller s are advised to review the risk assessment prior to commencing travel to ensure it remains \naccurate.  While conducting travel activities, University Traveller s should access up to date travel information and \nadvice and real time alerts on breaking news globally that may impact the safety and security of travelling in \nspecific locations.    \nThe University encourages University Traveller s to seek medical advice before travelling any long distance or \noverseas.    \nThe University  continues to strongly encourage all Travellers to comply with travel guidance issued by local public \nhealth departments and governments, whether travel is for University -sponsored travel or personal \ntravel.  Travellers must adhere to constraints on travel defined in associated policies (including Pandemic/Covid -\n19 policies) . \nMassey has engaged the services of a Travel Risk Management Service Provider (TRMSP).  The services provide \nUniversity Traveller ’s 24 -hour expert advice and assistance before you travel, while abroad, and/or in an \nemergency.  \nAs some of the services available are contingent on the University being able to report travel arrangements to the \nservice provider, this is dependent on utilising the University’s Travel Management Company for booking.   \nTravel Policy Approval and Changes  \nThis policy is subject to approval by SLT and any amendments or changes to the policy can only be implemented \nwith the approval of SLT and following a reasonable period of consultation with staff.  \nThe VC acting through the appropriate SLT member may vary or suspend any of the Travel Policy or associated \nprocedural guidance  at any time to meet any unforeseen event. Such events include issues associated with the \nHealth and Safety of the Traveller, financial considerations, and any statutory or regulatory changes or \nguidelines.    \nEmergency Exemption to the Policy   \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nTravel Policy  – Page 10   \n \n \n  \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nAn exemption  to this policy  may be provided only in emergency situations where, due to unforeseen \ncircumstances, or to preserve the safety of university  staff.  For example, a natural disaster or where global ports \nhave been close d emergency rebooking  outside of standard approvals may be necessitated . \nFor information on guidance for Travellers during emergencies, please refer to Travel Procedural Guidance.  \nNon-Compliance   \nWhen undertaking University travel, University Traveller s are representing the University and therefore must \nensure that their behaviour is at all times appropriate to the purpose of the travel, compliant with local laws and \nconsistent with the Massey University Policy on Staff Conduct and Massey University Cod e of Student Conduct.  \nWhere it is identified that an individual has failed to comply with this Policy, they may be subject to disciplinary \naction, up to and including dismissa l, withdrawal or suspension  in line with the relevant Code of Conduct.    \nAdditional Guidance    \nThe Travel Procedur al Guidance  document has been designed to help determine the process for gaining \napproval and completing travel and is illustrated below. This guidance provides detailed information to support \nthe travel  process  and ensure appropriate steps are taken to plan, book, conduct and report on travel activities .  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nThe Travel Procedural Guidance should be referred to prior to seeking any travel approval.  \nAudience:  \nAll Staff . \nRelevant Legislation:  \nNone . \n\n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nTravel Policy  – Page 11   \n \n \n  \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \n \nRelated Procedures and Documents:  \nThis policy is not to be considered in isolation. It is to be read in conjunction with all related policies and other \ndocuments, including, but not limited to the below documents : \n• Travel Procedural  Guid ance  \n• Guidelines for Dual -Purpose and Multi -Purpose Travel  \n• Low carbon Travel Guidelines  \n• MFAT Safe Travel Website   \n• TMC Travel Booking  system and documentation.   \n• Staff Long Term Travel Assignments Offshore  \n• Procedures for Course Related Student Travel Overseas   \n• Chubb Business Travel Insurance  \n• Vehicle Management Policy    \n• Reimbursement of Expenses Policy    \n• Credit Card Policy  \n• Sensitive Expenditure and Gifts Policy and Procedures    \n \nOther related policies/documents : \n• Delegations of Authority Policy  \n• Policy on Staff Conduct    \n• Code of Student Conduct    \n• Health, Safety and Wellbeing Policy    \n• Leave Policy and Regulations    \n• Guidelines for Leave while performing duties beyond home location.   \n• Massey University Strategy    \n• Staff Travel Insurance Policy Summary  \n• Student Travel Insurance Policy Summary  \n• Field Trip Health and Safety guidelines  \n• Guidelines on Research, Teaching, Study and Professional and Organisational Periods/Duties Overseas \nand in New Zealand  and Professional and Organisational Periods/Duties Overseas and in New Zealand    \nFurther Information    \nThe University’s travel policies, procedures, protocols, and processes are supported by the Strategic Procurement \nand Contracts office (SPCO) in University Services, in conjunction with the University’s preferred Travel \nManagement Company (TMC) and Travel Risk Management Service Provider (TRMSP).  \nDocument Management Control  \nOwned by:    Strategic Procurement and Contracts Office (SPCO)  \nApproved by:   SLT 23/10/105  \nDate issued:   August 2019  \nLast review:   November 2023   \nNext review:   November 2026  \n  \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Massey_University_Qualifications_Framework_PDF_632_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Massey University Qualifications Framework PDF 632 KB",
      "policy_type": "Framework",
      "file_size": "632 KB",
      "author": "Scott, Jennifer",
      "creation_date": "2023-03-17T13:02:01",
      "modification_date": "D:20230317132102+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n \n \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n \n \nMASSEY UNIVERSITY QUALIFICATIONS FRAMEWORK  \n \n \n \n \n \n \nPurpose:  \nThe Qualifications Framework sets out how Massey University will incorporate the principles outlined in the \nQualifications Policy into deliverable qualifications .  \nTable of Contents  \nList of Figures  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  3 \nList of Tables  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........  3 \n1. Introduction  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 4 \n2. Context  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  4 \n2.1 Legislation  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............................  4 \n2.2 New Zealand Qualifications Framework (NZQF)  ................................ ................................ .... 4 \n2.3 University Statutes and Regulations  ................................ ................................ .......................  5 \n2.4 University Calendar  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  6 \n2.4.1  Regulations applying to all qualifications  ................................ ................................ ........  6 \n2.4.2  General Regulations for undergraduate, graduate, and postgraduate qualifications  ..... 6 \n2.4.3  Qualification Regulations  ................................ ................................ ................................  7 \n2.5 Academic Governance at Massey  ................................ ................................ ..........................  7 \n2.6 Definitions and Terminology  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 8 \n3 Massey Qualification Types and Levels  ................................ ................................ ........................  10 \n3.1 Doctoral Qualifications  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  10 \n3.2 Postgraduate Qualifications  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 10 \n3.2.1  Master’s Degree  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  10 \n3.2.2  Postgraduate Diplomas and Certificates  ................................ ................................ ....... 11 \n3.2.3  Bachelor’s Honours and Bachelor’s with Honours Degrees  ................................ .........  12 \n3.3 Undergraduate and Graduate Qualifications  ................................ ................................ ........  12 \n3.3.1  Graduate Diplomas and Certificates  ................................ ................................ .............  12 \n3.3.2  Bachelor’s Degrees  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 12 \n3.3.3  Diplomas and Certificates  ................................ ................................ .............................  12 \n3.4 Pre-Degree Qualifications  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 13 \n3.5 Study without Qualifications  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 13 \n3.5.1  Certificate of Proficiency (COP)  ................................ ................................ ....................  13 Section  Academic  \nContact  Office of Academic Quality, Reporting and Assurance  \nLast Review  October 2022  \nNext Review  March 2024  \nApproval  AB13/104 – October: 3.1.2  \nY  \n \n  \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nQualifications Framework  – Page 2  \n \n \n \nPage 2 of 44 3.5.2  Micro -credentials  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........  13 \n3.5.3  Short Course  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  14 \n3.5.4  Certificates of Completion, Participation, and Attendance  ................................ ............  14 \n3.5.5  Internship  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................  14 \n3.6 Articulating and Conversion Qualifications  ................................ ................................ ...........  15 \n3.6.1  Articulation pathways  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 15 \n3.7 Qualification Availability  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  15 \n4. Qualification Design  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  17 \n4.1 Graduate Profiles and Attributes  ................................ ................................ ...........................  17 \n4.2 Qualification Structures  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  19 \n4.2.1  Parts -based qualifications  ................................ ................................ .............................  19 \n4.2.2  Flexible qualifications  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 19 \n4.2.3  Transitional Requirements  ................................ ................................ ............................  19 \n4.3 Courses  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 20 \n4.3.1  Course Classifications  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 20 \n4.3.2  Course design and assessment  ................................ ................................ ....................  20 \n4.4 Course Formats ................................ ................................ ................................ .....................  21 \n4.4.1  Practicum and internship courses  ................................ ................................ .................  21 \n4.4.2  Work experience courses  ................................ ................................ ..............................  21 \n4.4.3  Research courses  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  21 \n4.4.4  Special Topic courses  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 22 \n4.4.5  Independent Study Courses  ................................ ................................ ..........................  23 \n4.4.6  Course Coding  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............  24 \n4.5 Specialisations  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  24 \n4.6 Approaches to Delivery  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  26 \n4.6.1  Course Delivery:  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  26 \n4.6.2  Qualification Delivery:  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 26 \n4.7 Credits and Study Hours  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 27 \n5 Qualification Approval  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................  29 \n5.1 Internally Approved Qualification Proposals  ................................ ................................ .........  30 \n5.2 Internally Approved and Externally Reported Qualification Proposals  ................................ . 30 \n5.3 External Accreditation via CUAP ................................ ................................ ...........................  30 \n5.4 Other External Approval and Accreditation Processes  ................................ .........................  31 \n5.4.1  NZQF  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................  31 \n5.4.2  Professional accreditation  ................................ ................................ .............................  31 \n5.4.3  University and other funding bodies  ................................ ................................ ..............  31 \n5.4 Proposal Development  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  33 \n5.4.1  Early Notices  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  33 \n5.4.2  Market research  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  34 \n5.4.3  Stakeholder engagement  ................................ ................................ ..............................  34 \n6 Qualification Delivery  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  37 \n6.1 Progression Tools  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  37 \nY  \n \n  \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nQualifications Framework  – Page 3  \n \n \n \nPage 3 of 44 6.1.2  Qualification entry requirements  ................................ ................................ ...................  37 \n6.1.3  Grading  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........................  37 \n6.1.4  Academic Progress  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 39 \n6.1.5  Completion timeframes  ................................ ................................ ................................ . 40 \n6.1.6  Abandonment of study  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 41 \n6.1.7  Graduation and conferment of qualifications  ................................ ................................  41 \n7. Qualification Lifecycle  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................  42 \n7.2 Qualification Reviews  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  43 \n7.3 Graduating Year Reviews (GYR)  ................................ ................................ ..........................  43 \n7.3 Low and No Enrolments Policy and Procedures ................................ ................................ ... 43 \n \nList of Figures  \n \nFigure 1. Approval and Amendment Pathways and Documentation  ................................ ..................  328 \nFigure 2. Qualification Lifecycle  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  38 \n \nList of Tables  \n \nTable 1. Massey Course Alignment with NZQF Levels  ................................ ................................ ..........  5 \nTable 2. NZQF Outcome Statements  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 16 \nTable 3. Making Changes to a Course  ................................ ................................ ................................ . 25 \nTable 4. Massey Marking Scheme  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 373 \nTable 5. Timeframes for Completion  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 36 \nTable 6. Qualification Lifecycle Quality Assurance  ................................ ................................ ...............  39 \n \nY  \n \n  \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nQualifications Framework  – Page 4  \n \nPage 4 of 44 1. Introduction  \nQualifications that offer a coherent educational experience are central to the overall quality of teaching \nand learning at Massey University . As a multi -College, multi -campus institution that delivers \nqualifications in a variety of modes, the Qualifications Framework helps articulate  and evidence quality \nassurance of all qualifications, to ensure the best possible learning experience for all Massey students.  \nThe Framework sets out how Massey University will incorporate the principles outlined in the \nQualifications Policy into deliver able qualifications . Using the various stages of the qualification \nlifecycle, the Framework provides guidance to university  staff for the development of qualifications, \nincluding aspects of design, approval, implementation, delivery, and review as they pertain to \nqualification development .  \n2. Context  \nQualifications in New Zealand and at Massey University are created within lega l and regulatory \nframeworks, both internal and external to the University. Understanding this context, and the parties \nthat shape it, will assist understanding of the environment in which the Qualifications Policy and \nFramework are created and implemented.  The term qualification is protected and cannot be used \noutside this context.  \n2.1 Legislation  \nMassey University is an autonomous (independently managed and governed) institution and is \nincorporated under the Education and Training Act 2020  “for the advancement  of knowledge and the \ndissemination and maintenance thereof by teaching and research .”  \nThe Massey University Council is empowered under the Education and Training Act 2020  to “determine \nthe courses of study and training to be provided .” This authority is exercised through internal approval \nprocesses in accordance with the Qualifications Policy, this Qualifications Framework, and the \nUniversity Regulations.  \nThe Education and Training Act 2020  also creates a quality assurance framework for New Zealand \nqualif ications : the New Zealand Qualifications Framework (NZQF ), under which any programme of \nstudy that results in a New Zealand qualification must be externally quality assured . For many \ninstitutions , this is administered and audited by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA ); \nhowever, the Education and Training Act 2020  authorises the New Zealand Vice Chancellors’ \nCommittee (NZVCC ), now known as Universities New Zealand – Te Pōkai Tara (UNZ) “to exercise in \nrelation to universities ... the powers of the Qualifications Authority .”    \nThe UNZ Committee on University Academic Programmes (CUAP ) is the body responsible for the \napproval and accreditation of qualifications, on which Massey University cooperates with the seven \nother New Zealand universities to maintain and enhance the standards and reputation of New Zealand \nuniversity qualifications. Qualifications may not be taught or awarded without such accreditation.  \nMassey University qualifications  (along with their constituent courses) will follow the CUAP approval \nprocesses . Study without qualification  (Section 3.5)  is not subject to CUAP approval but  must be \napproved by the Academic Board . \n2.2 New Zealand Qualifications Framework (NZQF)  \nAll quality -assured qualifications  are reported on the NZQF in a summarised and prescribed format . \nThis is the register of quality -assured qualifications for New Zealand and is relevant for students and \nother external parties to verify the genuineness of a n advertised qualification.  \nThe credit value and type of qualification is determined in accordance with the NZQF . The NZQF covers \npre-school to tertiary education and comprises 10 levels . Massey University offers  some Pre -Degree \nqualifications; however, the qualifications offered mainly comprise those at Levels 5 -10, which include \nY  \n \n  \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nQualifications Framework  – Page 5  \n \nPage 5 of 44 Undergraduate Certificates, Undergraduate Diplomas, Bachelor’s Degrees , Graduate Certificates , \nGraduate Diplomas , Bachelor’s Degrees wi th Honours, Bachelor’s Honours  Degrees , Postgraduate \nCertificates , Postgraduate Diplomas, Master’s Degrees,  and Doctora l Degrees .   \n \nA broad indication of the NZQF levels mapped to the course levels at Massey University is provided in \nTable 1.  \n \nTable 1. Massey Course  Alignment with NZQF Levels  \nNZQF Level  Course Level at Massey University  Funding Status * \nLevel 5  100 level courses  \nUndergraduate  Level 6  200 level courses  \nLevel 7  300, 400, and 500 level courses  \nLevel 8  400 and 500 level courses  \nLevel 8  700 level courses  \nPostgraduate  Level 9  800 level courses  \nLevel 10  900 level courses  \n*For funding purposes , 700-level courses are returned to the Tertiary Education Commission \n(TEC) as having postgraduate status and therefore eligible to be funded at the (generally) \nhigher level . It is very important that the University does not return undergraduate courses in \nthis category – whether they are taught at level 8 or not . For a course to  be classified at 700 \nor postgraduate level, the students enrolled must have graduate, or at least graduand, status . \nThis means where a 700 -level course is delivered as part of a four -year degree, there must \nbe a distinct honours stream to which students a re specifically admitted.  \nGuidelines for the definitions and requirements of qualifications offered by Massey University are set \nout in the NZQF, and in the CUAP Handbook .  \n2.3 University Statutes and R egulations  \nUniversity Statutes and Regulations articulate how Massey University intends to exercise the powers \nconferred under the Education and Training Act 2020 , including the powers to establish and quality -\nassure programmes, enrol and exclude students (including international students), and charge and \ncollect fees .  \nRegulations legitimise the award of qualifications and specify the rules that determine qualification \nstructure and the way that students’  progress into, within, and from qualifications . Well-designed \nregulations are easy to understand, enhance decision making, and eliminate ambiguity , creating a safe \nworking environment for staff in which to exercise delegations and a safe study environment for students \nin which they are informed of the expect ations the University has of them.  \nY  \n \n  \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nQualifications Framework  – Page 6  \n \nPage 6 of 44 2.4 University Ca lendar  \nThe Calendar is the only official statement of all Regulations . Any supplementary publications carrying \nRegulations (including the website  and marketing publications ) are required to acknowledge the pr e-\neminence of the Calendar in this regard .   \nRegulations applying to all Qualifications and General Regulations are subject to annual review and \nmust be approved by Academic Committee in liaison with the Office of Academic Quality, Reporting \nand Assurance , as specified under the Terms of Reference for Academic Committee.  \nThe University Calendar  includes the following  regulations :  \n2.4.1  Regulations applying to all qualifications  \n \nAll qualifications offered by the University (including their delivery and  administration) will be \nsubject to the following Regulations as specified in the University Calendar:  \n• Admission  \n• Enrolment  \n• Recognition of Formal and Informal Prior Learning  \n• Assessment and Examination  \n• Cases of Hardship  – Vice-Chancellor's Powers  \n• Academic P rogress  \n• Student Contract  \n• Student Complaints and Grievance Procedures  \n• Student Discipline Regulations  \n• Graduation  \n• Use of Information  \n• Code of Student Conduct  \n• University Fees  \n2.4.2  General Regulations for undergraduate , graduate, and postgraduate qualifications  \n \nAs specified in the University Calendar, all undergraduate, graduate, and postgraduate \nqualifications offered by the University are to be subject to either:  \n \nI. General Regulations for Undergraduate Degrees, Undergraduate Diplomas, \nUndergradua te Certificates, Graduate Diplomas , and Graduate Certificates ; or \nII. General Regulations for Postgraduate Degrees, Diplomas , and Certificates.  \n \nThe General Regulations specify rules relating to:  \n• Admission  \n• Academic Requirements  \n• Specialisations  \n• Student Progression  \n• Maximum Time to Completion  (postgraduate only)  \n• Variations and Personal Programme Approvals  \n• Transitional Provisions  \n• Limitation of Entry  \n• Research Reports and Theses (postgraduate only)  \n \nY  \n \n  \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nQualifications Framework  – Page 7  \n \nPage 7 of 44 2.4.3  Qualification Regulations  \n \nQualification Regulations are specific to individual programmes and build on the General \nRegulations to provide information or rules that are specific to the qualification and its structure , \nor that create a different standard than the General Regulations.  \nIn addition to the above, q ualification Regulations may stipulate (as applicable):  \n \n• Additional  or specialist entry criteria  \n• Selection criteria and procedures for qualifications with limited places  \n• English Language Competency criteria , if higher than those required for general admission  \n• Relevant professional registration eligibility requirements  \n• Specific staircasing and exit strategies  \n• Qualification schedules including core, elective, practicum , and specialisation \nrequirements  \n• Progress ion tools  and parameters that are additional to those specified in the University \nRegulations applying to all qualifications  \n \nWhere external regulatory requirements are supported by processes  that differ from Massey’s  \nthat may be subject to change beyond the University’s control , they should be outcome focussed \nto avoid the need for frequent change. For example, the admission requirement to be “of good \ncharacter” may be supported externally by a referee process which is then changed to a police \ncheck proce ss internally . The qualification regulations need not specify all such processes; \nhowever, prospective students must have access to this information.  \n \nSupport is provided by the Office of Academic Quality, Reporting and Assurance  to draft \nregulations in ac cordance with the standard format . \n2.5 Academic Governance  at Massey  \nIn exercising its authority to determine the programmes of study and training to be provided and to meet \nits quality  assurance obligations under The Education and Training Act 2020 , Massey University Council \nhas instituted internal approval processes. Academic peer -review and decision -making is facilitated via \nvarious committees, with the functions and responsibilities o utlined in each committee’s Terms of \nReference . Committee Terms of Reference are located on the University website.  \nAll qualification -related proposals (some of which also require external review and approval via CUAP) \nmust be reviewed and approved via the  University’s academic governance  structures . Depending on \nthe specific proposal, a committee’s function may be either to recommend, approve, or receive for \ninformation.  Further information on the approval processes can be found in Section 5.  \nThe University Council  has delegated specific powers regarding the approval of academic \nprogrammes to Academic Board, which in turn  provides reports, advice, and recommendations to \nCouncil with respect to major academic directions.  \nAcademic Board  has been established by Council in accordance with the Education and Training Act \n2020, to advise  Council and the Vice -Chancellor on all academic matters  relating to teaching, learning \nand research . This include s the consideration, approval, and adoption o f, or approval for forwarding to \nthe VC for approval and forwarding to CUAP:  \n \n• Proposals for the introduction of new and significantly amended academic specialisations and \nqualifications  \n \nAcademic Committee  is a sub -committee of the Academic Board . Academi c Board has delegated \nsome  functions to Academic Committee, including:  \nY  \n \n  \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nQualifications Framework  – Page 8  \n \nPage 8 of 44 • Approval of non -CUAP academic proposals including, but not limited to closing qualifications and \nspecialisations to new enrolments, adding,  or removing compulsory courses to qualification and \nspecialisation schedules, and adding or changing transition regulations . \n• Acceptance of Qualification Review Reports and College respo nses and Graduating Year \nReview Reports.  \n• Reviewing and approving new and amended academic regulations, policies,  and procedures \ninsofar as they relate to the content of the academic offer.  \n• Reviewing and approving key dates for the academic year to be published annually in the \nUniversity Calendar.   \n• Non-CUAP Changes to Qualification Regulations  (other than those identified in delegated \nfunctions identified below)  \n• Approval of new courses  \n• Retirement of courses  \n \nEach of Massey University’s Colleges  has an established College  Board  which are subcommittees of \nAcademic Board . These College Boards have sub -committees with specific responsibilities for the \nreview of academic proposals prior to their consideration by College Board . Sub-committees make \nrecommendations to the relevant College Board, which in turn forwards qualification -related proposals \nand makes recommendations to Academic Committee .  \nAcademic Committee has assigned the following functions to College Boards, with outcomes to be \nforwarded fo r noting at Academic Committee:  \n• Course amendments:   \nLearning outcomes, course design and assessment methodologies (including weightings), \nprimary programme, location of delivery (onshore and/or offshore), title or prefix, prescription, \nprerequisites, co -requisites and restrictions.  \n• Non-CUAP Qualification amendments:   \nAdding a non -compulsory existing course to, or removing it from, any qualification or \nspecialisation schedule.  \n• Consideration of proposed micro -credentials and short courses . \n \nIn most cases these amendments need to be approved by June before the year they are to be \nimplemented – in the case of non -CUAP amendments – or July before the year they are to be \nimplemented – in the case of CUAP amendments. Exceptions include changes to courses  that have no \nCalendar implications, such as  changes to  Learning Outcomes and Assessments.  These changes can \nbe approved by College Board  up to two weeks  before the start of the relevant semester1. \n2.6 Definitions and Terminology  \nThere are several  phrases associated with qualification design, which are employed throughout this \nFramework , including : \n• Articulating qualification s: qualifications at different levels that have the same discipline and \nnaming conventions . Broadly speaking there are two types of articulating qualifications : nested \nand staircasing . Nested  qualification s are  where a lower -level qualification consists of courses  \nthat are nested within  a higher -level qualification , for example, the  DipBus is nested in the BBus  \n– the t wo qualification s share courses at the 100 - and possibly 200 -levels . A staircasing \nqualification  is one which  is normally necessary to complete before entry into a  higher -level \nqualification, for example,  students must first complete a BA before entering an MA . \n• Conversion qualification s: qualifications that are open to students from different backgrounds, \nfor example,  the Master of Clinical Practice (Nursing)  can be completed by holders of any \n \n1 However,  after students have already enrolled in a course, changes to it need to be carefully managed to avoid \ndisadvantage to students and these changes should be minimised so far as is possible.  \nY  \n \n  \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nQualifications Framework  – Page 9  \n \nPage 9 of 44 undergraduate degree  – see 3.6 for more information on  articulating and conversion \nqualifications . \n• Discipline : a branch of knowledge which is researched and taught at a university . For the \npurpose of this Framework, the term, when used, refers to disciplines at Massey University.  \n• Discipline prefix : the first three digits of the course code , denot ing the discipline to which the \ncourse is attached. For example, 200161 is Introduction  to Politics – 200 is the Politics discipline \nprefix . \n• Graduating Year Review  (GYR) : a formal review , conducted internally and approved by CUAP,  \nof new qualifications, generally conducted within three years of the first cohort of students \ngraduating .  \n• Progression tools : the various means by which students’  progress through their studies, both \nbetween and within qualifications . For example, the minimum grade average that will allow a \nstudent to progress from Part 1 to Part 2 of a Master’s degree .  \n• Qualification Lifecycle : the different stages through which a qualification goes during its \n‘lifetime’ , including  design , approval , imple mentation , delivery , and review.  \n• Staircasing : qualification design which facilitates student progression into higher qualifications.  \nFor other definitions of terms used at Massey University please refer  to the Glossary of Terms in the \nUniversity Calendar . It is important to refer to the relevant year of the University Calendar, as definitions \nare refined over time to reflect current and approved usage.   \nY  \n \n  \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nQualifications Framework  – Page 10  \n \nPage 10 of 44 3 Massey Qualification Types and Levels  \nMassey University offer s the following qualifications , which are classified a t doctoral, postgraduate, \ngraduate, undergraduate, or pre -degree level . In addition , the University offers some  programmes \nwhich do not result in a formal qualification , such as the Certificate of Profic iency .  \n3.1 Doctoral Qualifications  \nA doctoral degree requires at least 360 credits of advanced research at NZQF l evel 10  and typically \nincludes:  \n• a thesis ; or \n• an exegesis in combination with a creative work ; or \n• a thesis in combination with coursework and a pr ofessional practicum ; or \n• published work.  \nThe f our doctoral degree types offered by the University  include :   \nThe Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)  is awarded for a thesis or for an exegesis and creative work, which \nis an integrated and coherent report that demonstrates a candidate’s ability to carry out independent \nresearch, analysis , and presentation of original research  or creative  work at an advanced level , making \nan original  contribut ion to a particular discipline.  \nNamed Doctorates  are awarded for a structured suite of high-level courses, which may include training \nin an applied setting and a thesis investigation, which is likely to be applied, creative, or strategic in \nemphasis . Named doctorates support the ongoing professional developm ent and education of existing \nand prospecti ve leaders in specific sectors.  \nHigher Doctorates  (the Doctor of Literature and Doctor of Science)  are the highest academic awards \nof the University and  are awarded for original contributions of special excellence to knowledge as \nevidenced by examination of a portfolio of publications.  \nHonorary Doctorates  are conferred by the University to persons the University Council deems worthy \nof the honour . The criteria shall be exceptional distinction shown by outstanding scholarship or by \noutstanding service to the University or to the public.  \n3.2 Postgraduate Qualifications  \n3.2.1  Master’s Degree  \nA Master’s Degree is  an NZQF level 9 qualification that is at least 240 credits except:  \n• where it builds on a bachelor’s degree with honours or an equivalent qualification, or \nsignificant relevant professional experience, in which cases it can be fewer than 240 but \nno fewer than 120 credits  \n• where it builds on a three -year bachelor’s degree or an equivalent qualification completed \nat a specified level of attainment, in which cases it can be fewer than 240 but no fewer \nthan 180 credits.  \n• A 120 -credit Master’s builds on:  \n• a 480 -credit or 600 -credit Bachelor’s Degre e, or \n• a Bachelor’s Honours Degree, or \n• a Postgraduate Diploma, or \n• a 360 -credit Bachelor’s Degree plus professional or scholarly experience .  \n \nThe master’s degree must comprise a minimum of 40 credits at level 9 (800-level) with the \nremainder at level 8 (700-level) and where at least some of the level 9 credits are preceded by \nlevel 8 credits.  \nY  \n \n  \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nQualifications Framework  – Page 11  \n \nPage 11 of 44 Master’s Degrees are normally parts -based programmes . This means  that progression into the \nsecond part is conditional upon achievement in the first part . The first part of a Master’s Degree \nusually comprises taught courses at 700 -level. In the case of a compressed master’s degree , \nfor example 120 credits , the period of offer does not allow for progression  – see below \nfor more details .  \nMassey University has three forms of Master’s Degrees:   \n• by coursework and thesis, or \n• by thesis , or \n• by coursework only (Taught or Applied Master’s).  \nBy Coursework and Thesis  \nFor Master’s degrees by coursework and thesis, Part One consists of taught 700 -level courses, \nand generally includes a research methods course. Part Two consists of either a 90 or 120 credit \nthesis  or work or creative work and exeg esis.  \nBy T hesis  or Primarily by Thesis  \nMaster’s degrees by thesis, or primar ily by thesis, fall into two categories:  \n1. 120 credit Master’s degrees, which entail a thesis only such as the Master of Engineering.  \n2.  A Master’s degree whi ch allows entry via an Honours D egree or a Postgraduate Diploma. \nIn this case the candidate is granted a concession whereby they need only complete 120 \ncredits, either a 120 -credit thesis or a 90 -credit thesis and 30 credits of courses from Part \nOne – see 3. 2.2 for more informat ion. \nBy Coursework Only  \nMaster’s degrees by coursework only (taught or applied master’s) comprise taught courses at \n700- and 800 -level. The second part will generally include  a 45 or 60 -credit research report, or a \ncreative or scholarly work, such as a capstone, project, or praxis course . Where entry is from a \nnon-cognate discipline, any research component will normally be restricted to a maximum of 60 \ncredits.  \nA Master’s prog ramme that  builds on a specified undergraduate degree may be awarded as a \nMaster of Philosophy if the student has completed a different undergraduate degree to that \nspecified for entry.  \n3.2.2  Postgradu ate Diplomas and Certificates  \nPostgraduate Diplomas and Postg raduate Certificates (NZQF level 8) are open to graduates to \nbuild on attainment in the prior degree, or to those who have been able to demonstrate extensive \npractical, professional, or scholarly experience of an appropriate kind. Students may use these \nqualifications for employment purposes as evidence of a higher level of learning or practice in a \ndiscipline that extends their undergraduate qualification , or in a new discipline area .  \nA Postgraduate Diploma comprises a coherent programme with  a total value of not fewer than \n120 credits at the 700 -level or above. A Postgraduate Certificate comprises a coherent \nprogramme with a total value of not fewer than 60 credits at the 700 -level.  \n \nBoth the Postgraduate Certificate and Postgraduate Diploma  can be used as exit qualifications \nfor students who are ineligible for , or who elect not to proceed to , Part Two  of a Master’s \nprogramme . They can also be used for entry into a Master’s programme . Candidates may credit \ncourses completed under a PGCert or PGDip to a Master’s degree in accordance with the \nRecognition of Formal and Informal Prior Learning Regulations.  Students must complete at \nMassey all the research or professional practice credits required for the Masters.  \nY  \n \n  \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nQualifications Framework  – Page 12  \n \nPage 12 of 44 3.2.3  Bachelor’s Honours and Bachelor’s with Honours Degree s \nA discrete Bachelor’s Honours Degree is NZQF level 8 and completed upon the conclusion of a \nBachelor’s degree . Courses totalling up to  90 credits are completed at 700 -level, with a research \ncomponent of at least 30 credits  at 800 -level. Students are eligible  to pursue the Honours year \nbased on achieving a specified average grade in relevant undergraduate courses . Achieved to \nan appropriate standard, a Bachelor’s Honours degree will p repare graduates for consideration \nfor entry to doctoral studies.  \nA Bachelor’s Degree with Honours  is a 480 -credit degree that results in an NZQF level 8 \nqualification. A Bachelor’s Degree with Honours:  \n• is awarded to recognise outstanding achievement, meritorious achievement, or a pass \n(first class honours, second class honours: first and second divisions, and third-class  \nhonours) in courses which include the highest 120 credits ; and \n• has a minimum of 120 credits at level 8 with a research component of at least 30 credits, \nand which requires a particular level of achievement (i.e., a specified grade average) ; and  \n• has an exit qualification of a Bachelor’s Degree if the specified grades are not achieved .  \n3.3 Undergraduate and Graduate Qualifications  \n3.3.1  Gradu ate Diplomas and Certificates  \nGraduate Diplomas and Graduate Certificates are NZQF level 7 and open to graduates or to \nthose who have been able to demonstrate equivalent practical, professional, or scholarly  \nexperience of an appropriate kind and deemed equivalent to that obtained through completion of \na degree. The Graduate Diploma comprises a coherent programme totalling at least  120 credits , \nof which a minimum of 75 credits must be at 300 -level or above . The Graduate Certificate \ncomprises a coherent programme with a total value of not fewer than 60 credits , of which a \nminimum of 45 credits must be at 300 -level or above .    \n \nA Graduate Diploma is generally used by students for employment purposes , as eviden ce of \nspecialisation in an area to complement an existing qualification or to formalise practical or work \nexperience through a programme of study . Alternatively , it is used as a bridging programme to \nenable students to proceed to postgraduate study in the same discipline as the Graduate \nDiploma.  \n3.3.2  Bachelor’s Degree s \nA Bachelor’s Degree is an NZQF level 7 qualification and requires a minimum of 360 credits at \n100- to 300 -level, including a minimum of 75 credits at 300 -level. Some Bachelor’s Degrees may \nencompass additional credits and  would normally  require a longer period of study  (e.g., the \nBachelor of Veterinary Science comprises 600 credits at 100 -500 level ). \n \nBachelor’s Degrees prepare students for the workplace  and to be contributing members of \nsociety, and in some cases are accredited with professional bodies to prepare students \nacademically for registration by, or membership of, professional bodies, under which they c an \npractise as professionals . Graduating students are also eligible to pursue gra duate  and \npostgraduate  study.  \n3.3.3  Diplomas and Certificates  \nDiplomas and Certificates are q ualifications at the undergraduate level with a value of not fewer \nthan 120 credits for a Diploma and not fewer than 60 credits for a Certificate . Credits are normally \ntaken at 100 to 300 -level. Most Diplomas and Certificates at Massey University are at NZQF level \n5 (100 -level courses ) to enable them to function as articulating and exit qualifications.  \nY  \n \n  \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nQualifications Framework  – Page 13  \n \nPage 13 of 44 3.4 Pre-Degree Qualifications  \nAlthough Massey University’s core qualifications are delivered at undergraduate level and above, pre -\ndegree qualifications are offered in circumstances in which they can  support the University’s overall \nstrategic direction or to enable students to matriculate.  \nUniversity Preparation are qualification s at the pre -degree level (NZQF levels 3 -4) with a total value \nof not fewer than 60 credits . Credits are normally taken from 000 -level courses .  \n \nFoundation Studies  are qualification s at the pre -degree level (NZQF levels 3 -4) with a total value of \nnot fewer than 120 credits . Credits are normally taken from 000 -level courses . \n \nIn both cases, admission is subject to meeting numeracy and literacy requirements within National \nCertificate o f Educational Achievement (NCEA) or equivalent.  \n3.5 Study without Qualifications  \nTo create opportunities for external parties to participate in the University, a number of programmes of \nstudy may be created that will generally not lead to a qualification . Thes e options allow the University \nto be flexible, responsive, and to take advantage of commercial opportunities.  \n3.5.1  Certificate of Proficiency (COP)  \nA COP is for students who are matriculated to enter the University and wish to take a course  or \ncourses  without crediting them to a named qualification . This may be for personal interest, \nemployment,  or professional reasons, or for transfer to a qualification at another provider (e.g., a \nstudent attending Massey University under Study Abroad or S tudent Exchange, or because they \nare not permitted to re -sit a specified course at their home university) . A course passed under a \nCOP may subsequently be credited to an approved qualification, provided it is appropriate for \nthat qualification . Only course s from CUAP -approved qualifications can be incorporated into a \nCOP . The University’s Enrolment Regulations in the University Calendar include rules governing \nCOP enrolments.  \n3.5.2  Micro -credentials2 \nMicro -credential  has been defined by NZQA and adopted by CUAP as:  \n• certifying the achievement of a specific set of skills and knowledge  \n• having a statement of purpose and clear learning outcomes  \n• having demonstrable support from relevant industries, employers, or communities  \n• having a credit value from 5 to 40 credits (inclusive)  \n• typically,  not duplicating current quality assured learning already approved.  \nIn addition to the above definition, t he following principles have been designed by CUAP to \nensure the consistency and quality of university micro -credential offerings . The university sector \nshould only recognise and/or offer micro -credentials where five criteria are met:  \na) Level – they have been objectively and consistently assessed as being at an appropriate \nlevel relative to the qualification’s  framework.  \nb) Credit – they have a credit value that has been derived consistent with the credit value of \nother comparable courses offered by universities.  \nc) Assessment – there are adequate mechanisms for verifying that students themselves have \nsuccessfully completed neces sary work and assessment.  \n \n2 It should be noted that Massey University does not current draw f unding from TEC for micro -credentials and \npeople learning in these arrangements are not defined as ‘students’ but as participants.  \nY  \n \n  \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nQualifications Framework  – Page 14  \n \nPage 14 of 44 d) Quality assurance – there is credible quality assurance behind the design, delivery, and \nassessment of whatever is being offered.  \ne) Industry, employer,  and community support  – there is support from the relevant industries, \nemploye rs, or communities.  \n \nMicro -credentials may be used to award formal credit towards a university qualification. \nPublished university policies on credit transfer limits will apply to credits from micro credentials  \nand credits from other sources.  \n \nWhere univ ersities offer micro -credentials:  \na. The university should have a micro -credential framework detailing clear policies and \nprocedures for developing micro -credentials, assessing their level and credit value, quality \nassuring them, and for delivering them and assessing skills and capabilities o f students.  \nb. Universities should adhere to the ‘Quality assurance of university courses and \nprogrammes not leading to a qualification’ appendix of the CUAP Handbook in their \ndevelopment and approval of micro -credentials, along with other courses not leadin g to a \nqualification.  \n3.5.3  Short Course3  \nDefined as a short form of learning which may include assessment and does not normally lead \nor articulate into a qualification unless by way of a micro -credential.  \n3.5.4  Certificates of Completion, Participation, and Attendance  \nThese  are not qualifications but  are provided to participants to recognise the learning undertaken \nthrough defined pieces of study . Certificates of Completion are provided to participants who have \nsuccessfully completed assessments that have been designed to evaluate participants’ learning \nagainst programme objectives . Certificates of Participation and Certificates of Attendance are not \nassessed but  may require a stated minimum attendance .   \n3.5.5  Internship  \nThese  enable a student to meet the practical experience requirement of their qualification from \ntheir home university, through a period of supervised practical work under a supervising staff \nmember . Internships can also be undertaken through short courses, study a broad and as part of \nstudy at Massey University even though a qualification is not completed. This is different to \npractica  and internship courses , which relate to students completing Massey University \nqualifications .  \n \nDepending on the nature of the internship, the agreement may be between the student and the \nsupervisor, or between the two Universities and the student – effectively forming a tripartite \nagreement .  \nAny agreement regarding an internship should cover roles,  responsibilities, outcomes, means of \nmeasuring outcomes, consequences of non -achievement, payment, duration, dispute resolution \nand termination, and any regulatory requirements, e.g., insurance/visa . All internship agreements \nshould be differentiated from  employment agreements.  \nInterns may attend lectures on a casual basis. If the intern wishes to sit courses and receive \ncredit, they must be formally admitted to the University and enrolled.  \n \n3 It should be noted that Massey University does not current ly draw funding from TEC for short courses and \npeople learning in  these arrangements are not defined as ‘students’ but as participants.  \nY  \n \n  \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nQualifications Framework  – Page 15  \n \nPage 15 of 44 3.6 Articulating and Conversion Qualifications  \nAll Massey University degree qualifications should be designed with staircasing and exit strategies in \nplace . Staircasing will assist students to progress into higher qualifications and  exit strategies will \nsupport  completions  in circumstances where students cannot complete the full degree programme .  \nArticulation describes the transition of students into, between, and from qualifications, and is strongly \nassociated with the notion of portability of qualifications and their com posite parts, as defined in the \nMassey University Qualification Policy . \nAn articulating qualification  provides the necessary background to allow a student to progress directly \ninto a higher qualification. Broadly speaking there are two types of articulatin g qualifications: nested \nand staircasing. Nested qualifications share courses with other qualifications . For example, a first year \nUndergraduate Diploma may share courses with a Bachelor’s Degree or a Postgraduate Diploma may \nshare courses with a Master’s Degree . Under the RPL Regulations , courses from the original \nqualification , may be credited  into the higher qualification.  \nThis enables direct progression, but also provides exit points from within Degree programmes if \nstudents are unable to, or elect not to, complete . (See definition of exit qualification below) .  \nStaircasing qualifications are qualifications which are necessary to complete before entry into  higher \nlevel qualifications. For Example, admission into an MA is predicated upon completion of a BA.  \nA conversion qualification  provides students with pathways into disciplines that are different to their \nbackground of study. For example, completing a Graduate Diploma in Arts may equip an individual who \nhas a business or science background with the requisite knowledge to enrol in postgraduate study \nwithin the social science s and humanities.  \nAn exit qualification  provides an exit point from a degree programme for students who are unable or \nunwilling to complete . Some exit qualifications may be openly advertised and therefore act as \narticulating qualifications, while others  may be reserved solely for exit purposes.  For example, a student \nwho does not complete all the requirements of a Bachelor of Design with Honours, but who has met the \nrequirements of a Diploma of Design through courses in the  BDes  (Hons), may be offered the Diploma \nof Design as an exit qualificati on.  \n3.6.1  Articulation pathways  \nNoting that an articulation pathway may include qualifications of a different name (e.g., an exit \npathway for a Master of Engineering could be  a Postgraduate Diploma in Science), Massey \nUniversity qualifications will normally art iculate according to the following general pathways *: \n• Undergraduate Certificate, Undergraduate Diploma, Bachelor’s Degree . \n• Graduate Certificate, Graduate Diploma, Postgraduate Qualification.  \n• Postgraduate Certificate, Postgraduate Diploma, Master ’s Degree, Doctoral Degree . \n• Honours degree, Master ’s Degree,  or Doctoral degree .  \n*Entry  requirements for some qualifications may reflect different pathways to those depicted \nabove, for example, a bachelor’s degree followed by a Graduate Certificate followed b y a \nPostgraduate Qualification.  \nArticulating pathways also commonly exist where a partner organisation’s qualification has been \nmapped to provide entry and pathways to Massey qualifications.  \n3.7 Qualification A vailability  \nTo communicate the availability of qualifications and specialisations (in terms of campus and mode ) \nand allow for effective College planning, Massey University has implemented  procedures for identifying \nqualification availability. The University adopted the Qualification Availability Definition  and \nY  \n \n  \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nQualifications Framework  – Page 16  \n \nPage 16 of 44 Qualification Availability Descriptor  to provide an accurate and useful assessment of availability , to \nassist and enhance the acade mic planning cycle and to provide students with a clearer picture of the \nlocation and mode through which they can complete their programme of study . The result is that for \neach semester of each academic year the available qualification/specialisation offerings are identified. \nStudents select one of these offerings as part of the admission process.  \nA Qualification/Specialisation Availability Test consists of seven steps to determine if all \ncore/compulsory and compulsory sele ction courses, and sufficient other courses, are available at a \nlocation, intake semester and mode of delivery to complete a programme of study. The full procedures, \nincluding the Qualification Availability test, are available in the Qualification Availabi lity procedures, on \nthe online Policy Guide.  \nQualification Availability Definition : A Qualification or Qualification and Specialisation may be \ndefined as available in a specified location/mode when sufficient core , compulsory, compulsory \nselection,  and el ective courses permit a student to complete the qualification as described in the stated \nmode at the stated location, in the manner described by the Regulations, and within the expected \ntimeframe. Timeframes are defined by the minimum completion time for t he qualification ( postgraduate \nonly) and expected completion dates are defined by the student intake ( e.g., for a 360 -credit \nundergraduate degree, Semester One intake students should be able to complete by the end of \nSemester Two of their third year of stu dy).  \nWhen onshore international students are offered qualifications and specialisations on a campus, they \nmust be able to study from the campus of enrolment without  having to enrol in distance courses or \nhaving to change campuses to complete their studies. It is particularly important for international \nstudents, that they are not required to study courses by distance as completion by internal study \nmethods is a condi tion of their student visas. \nY  \n \n  \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nQualifications Framework  – Page 17  \n \nPage 17 of 44 4. Qualification Design  \nMassey University qualifications are research -informed and led by research -active staff , with some \nqualifications requir ing additional  leadership from staff who hold relevant professional registration s. \nWell-designed qualifications have clear regulations and pathways to completion, establish a reasonable \nworkload, and provide opportunities for students to graduate within established timeframes. In each \ncase , qualifications should be designed in accordance w ith the principles outlined in the Qualification s \nPolicy: coherence, consistency, relevance, efficiency, integrity, sustainability, equity, and Treaty of \nWaitangi .  \nImpacts on revenue streams is also a consideration when designing a qualification . Different subject \nclassifications – as defined by the Tertiary Education Commission – are funded at different levels, \nenrolling cohorts attract different levels of funding, and the credit value will impact whether research \ncourses are eligib le for Performance Based Research Funding (PBRF ) – funding for research which \nincludes 90 and 120 -credit thesis courses . Programme and course design can also have funding \nimplications for students , as there may be different implications for domestic and in ternational student \nloan and allowance programmes .  \nOverall curriculum design of a qualification (e.g., the interrelation between disciplines, course topics, \nand the vertical integration of learning skills or scaffolding of content between levels , i.e., the way \nknowledge from higher levels builds on knowledge from lower levels ) is the preserve of academic staff \nbased in each of the Colleges . In some cases, this also includes the professions from which they seek \naccreditation for the qualifications . Quali fications may comprise relevant courses from a range of \ndisciplines . In designing qualifications, various s trategies for teaching and learning should be \nundertaken in accordance with university  policies .  \n4.1 Graduate P rofiles  and Attributes  \nGraduate Attributes  are defined as the high -level qualities, skills, and understandings that a student \nshould gain because of the learning and experiences they engage with, while studying at university . \nThey reflect the values and aspirations of the University for graduates w ho contribute to New Zealand \nand the world through their creative thinking, innovative approaches, and connections with industry . \nGraduate Attributes are particularly important to ‘signpost’ and make visible through the first -year \nofferings to ensure stude nts can navigate the curriculum and achieve their learning outcomes in \npartnership with the University.  \nAll qualifications and specialisations offered by Massey University have a Graduate Profile that:  \n• articulates the educational aims of the qualification and/or specialisation and the \ncapabilities and attributes expected of graduates.  \n• informs curriculum design and qualification review, including the alignment of teaching, \nlearning and assessment activiti es within the courses that contribute to the Profile.  \n• is publicly available, via the University’s website and other publications as appropriate, to \ncommunicate the intended outcomes of the qualification and/or specialisation to current \nand potential studen ts and staff, employers, industry, the professions, alumni, and the \nwider community . (Currently  they are not available publicly,  but this will be addressed)  \nThe broad domains that would normally be addressed in the Graduate Profile include:  \n• Personal capabilities  \n• Discipline -specific competencies  \n• Professional attributes  \n• Ethical and social attributes  \nGraduate Profiles are required to be summarised in the following manner for registration on the N ZQF, \nshown in the NZQF Outcome Statements in Table  2. \nY  \n \n  \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nQualifications Framework  – Page 18  \n \nPage 18 of 44   \nY  \n \n  \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nQualifications Framework  – Page 19  \n \nPage 19 of 44 Table 2. NZQF Outcome Statements  \nOutcome statement:  \nGraduate Profile  A succinct statement outlining expected learning outcomes of a \nqualification capturing what the learner will know, understand , and \nbe able to do when they achieve the qualification  \nEducation Pathways  A succinct statement identifying other qualifications that a graduate \ncould enrol into after completing the qualification. Where \nqualifications are standalone and do not prepare gra duates for \nfurther study, the statement should make this clear  \nEmployment Pathways  A succinct statement identifying areas in which a graduate may be \nqualified to work or the contribution they may make to their \ncommunity  \n4.2 Qualification S tructures  \nMassey University recognises the following  types of qualification structure s, as follows:  \n4.2.1  Parts -based qualifications  \nCourses for the qualification, and for each part of the qualification, are prescribed . There may or \nmay not be provision for electives . Students normally progress as a cohort, usually completing \nthe whole of one part before progressing to the next . In some qualifications, s tudents may be \neligible for a Combined Pass if all courses are not passed, or in limited circumstances may be \npermitted to repeat a course whilst continuing to the next level . Supplementary exams to facilitate \nthe completion of the whole of one part before progressing to the next may be possible in some \nqualifications.  If students are  unsuccessful via this mechanism,  they repeat the entire year.   \n4.2.2  Flexible qualifications   \nThe essential characteristic of a flexible qualification is that the order in which courses are taken \nis flexible and only limited by pre -requisite and co -requi site requirements, and restrictions. While \ngenerally courses are not prescribed within flexible qualifications there are some where all \ncourses are compulsory. Where this is the case there is still flexibility when comes to the order \nin which courses are t aken, with the only limits being those described above.  \n4.2.3 Transitional Requirements  \nTo graduate, students from all three types of qualifications are assessed against the regulations \nin place during the year they completed their studies. For parts -base d and fixed qualifications, \nstudents are assessed against the current year of regulations to progress to the next part.  \nIn some  cases,  the regulatory requirements in place when a student starts studying can be quite \ndifferent to when they finish studying. For example, one or more of the compulsory courses which \na student has taken may have been removed, while  new compulsory courses, whic h the student \nwill not  have the opportunity to take , may have been added. This would mean the student no \nlonger meets the regulations. In cases like this, transition regulations are used to provide \nconcessions to ensure students are not disadvantaged.  \nThe regulations of all qualifications will clearly indicate the number of credits required for \nsuccessful completion, including the number of credits at all levels.  \nY  \n \n  \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nQualifications Framework  – Page 20  \n \nPage 20 of 44 All regulations relating to curriculum development and programme structure will be framed \naccording to sound academic and pedagogical reasoning to guide student choice and \nprogression .  \n4.3 Courses  \nA course is the basic building block of a qualification and , therefore , is subject to approval and quality  \nassurance processes .  \n4.3.1  Course Classi fications  \nAs composite parts of a qualification, courses may be described as:  \nCore  – A course that must be passed as part of a particular qualification . In some cases, there \nis a choice between courses within the core.  \nCompulsory  – A course that must normally be passed or credited as part of the specialisation. \nIn some cases, there is a choice between courses within the compulsory section of a \nspecialisation. This is known as compulsory selection . \nSpecialisation  – The courses in a specific discipline area that form the specialisation (major, \nminor, subject, endorsement) of the qualification  – see 4.5 for more details on specialisations . \nQualification regulations usually define the list of courses or prefixes whic h apply to the \nspecialisation.   \nElectives  – Non-compulsory courses chosen by students (with certain guidelines usually \nprovided) . Elective courses contribute to the qualification, but not to the specialisation .   \nIn addition, courses may have a relationshi p with other courses which comprise the same \nqualification; where explicit, these include:  \nPre-requisite  – A course that must be completed to a defined standard before a student’s \nenrolment in another course is confirmed . For this purpose,  the minimum grade required is a C -\n, except where a different grade is specified.  \nCo-requisite  – A course that must generally be completed in the same semester as another \ncourse unless the co -requisite course has already been passed or waived as a requirem ent due \nto prior completion of an equivalent course.  \nRestriction  – Some courses, similar in content, are restricted against each other . Therefore, \nstudents may not credit both courses to a qualification.  \nTo ensure that decision making is simple and the pro gress that students are making toward their \nchosen qualification is transparent and can be easily monitored, the interrelationship between \nthe courses that comprise a qualification should be stated clearly in the Qualification Regulations .  \nCourses may hav e limits on the number of times they may be taken.  \n4.3.2  Course design and assessment  \nAn outline of each course (Course Description) is maintained  within the Curriculum Management \nSystem  and summary details of these are made available to students  (via the university website)  \nto provide information that will assist them to make good enrolment choices . More detailed \ninformation (Course Guide) is made available to enrolled students , via Massey University’s online \nlearning environment, Stream, to ensu re students are fully informed of the course completion \nrequirements . Equivalence across all offerings of a course  must be maintained in accordance \nwith the Equivalence Policy. \nY  \n \n  \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nQualifications Framework  – Page 21  \n \nPage 21 of 44 Course titles, prescriptions, learning outcomes, assessments (type, weightings,  relationship to \nlearning outcomes), pre -requisites, co -requisites, and restrictions may be changed only via the \nappropriate academic governance approval process . Student advisory information such as \nrecommended pre -knowledge, self-assessment tests, and other promotional material must also \nbe subject to peer -review , as per college processes . \nAll courses, including content, delivery, and assessment should be reviewed at leas t every five \nyears using a range of evaluation methods a nd sources  including  student surveys  which support \nongoing evaluations of teaching and course design.  \nSupport to assist academic staff to design and assess programmes  is provided by the Centre for \nCurriculum Transformation  via learning modules and individual staff consultations .  \n4.4 Course Formats  \n4.4.1 Practicum and internship courses  \nQualifications may include practicum or internship courses, which are supervised placements in \nan approved setting in which students engage in pre -planned activities in practice relevant to \ntheir programme of study and for which assessment is undertaken in accordance with the Course \nDescription .  \nWhere a practicum or internship course is required, this will be stated in the Qua lification \nRegulations . All placements will be approved via a documented process and carefully managed \nto ensure that a safe and quality experience is provided . Levels of student engagement and other \nexpectations will be documented and communicated to all involved (including students, \nproviders, assessors) . Assessment criteria will be established and communicated to the student \nand those undertaking any assessment.  \nPracticum and internship courses generally carry credit but can also be zero value, while sti ll \ncomprising a mandatory part of a qualification . Some practicum activities may require or result in \nadditional awards such as First Aid certification, or have conditions set, such as requiring Police \nclearance.  \n4.4.2  Work experience courses  \nQualification s may include a non -assessed practical assignment of a set number of days or hours \nin a defined workplace setting . This requirement is different from a practicum course, due to the \nlack of formal assessment; instead,  the practical assignment may be self -reported.  \n \nWhere work experience requirements exist, these must be specified in the Course Description or \nQualification Regulations . A process for approval and documentation of workplace placements \nwill be established . A written outline of any expectations or limitations in relation to the experience \nwill be provided for both students and workplace staff . Work experience is generally zero credit \nbut may still comprise a mandatory part of a qualification.  \n4.4.3  Research courses  \nQualifications may include cour ses that allow the student to undertake supervised work on a \nthesis or research report . These courses may range from 30 to 120 credits, depending on the \nproportion of the qualification the work is expected to comprise .  Funding is different at each level, \nwith only 90 – 120 credit research courses attracting Performance -Based Research Funding \n(PBRF ) funding.  \nA thesis  is an integrated and coherent report that demonstrates a candidate’s ability to carry out \nindependent research, analysis, and presentation of this research at an advanced level in a \nparticular discipline . At doctoral level , the thesis should make an origi nal contribution to the \nY  \n \n  \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nQualifications Framework  – Page 22  \n \nPage 22 of 44 knowledge of the subject  concerned , and in all cases the candidate should understand the \nrelationship of the thesis to the wider context of knowledge to which it belongs . A thesis course \nshould be either 90 or 120 credits at NZQF le vel 9 or 10.  Thesis courses are split into two parts \nto facilitate them occurring over two enrolment periods.  \nWhen a qualification requires submission of a creative work at NZQF level 9 or 10, it will normally \nbe accompanied by an exegesis , which is a crit ical explanation or interpretation of the creative \nwork.  \nA research report  is a detailed examination of a specific topic, which may include aspects of \noriginal research, problem investigation, and/or study of pre -existing data or published literature . \nWork  leading to a research report typically includes minor data collection, validation, and \nanalysis, as well as writing an original  document . Research reports  are typically 30 - 60 credits \nand are at NZQF level 8 or 9.  Some research reports are split into two parts to facilitate them \noccurring over two enrolment periods.  \n \nA research methods  course is an examination of research methods, traditions,  and techniques, \nwhich develops understanding of the research process and the relevance of research, knowledge \nof, and the ability to deploy relevant research methods, reviewing literature, and awareness of \nethical and safety considerations . Research methods courses do not qualify as research courses \nfor funding purposes and at postgraduate level are established at NZQF level 8 (700 -level \ncourses).  \n \nIn the design of research courses, staff should ensure that the relevant Codes of Conduct are \nintegrated into the curriculum to ensure all research is conducted in a responsible, ethi cal, and \nsafe manner that complies with all external requirements .  \n \nAt Master’s level, students may be enrolled in successive thesis courses over multiple  years to \nmeet the required level as specified in the qualification regulations . Enrolment practice i s to enrol \nall students in Part One and Part Two thesis courses to facilitate extensions (N.B. Part One and \nPart Two courses, as these are known, must be linked in the student record for funding \npurposes) . Extension or suspension of study, including releva nt dates, is noted on the student \nrecord.  \nDoctoral students are enrolled in 120 credits for each year they are enrolled: up to 4 years for \nfull-time students, and up to 6 years for part -time students.  \n4.4.4  Special Topic courses4 \nSpecial Topic courses are managed at college -level to allow groups of students to undertake a \nspecifically tailored programme of study in an area not available through existing course offerings. \nThere are three broad categories of Special Topic courses : \n1. Academic Exploration:  deployed to take advantage of contemporary developments \nwithin a discipline, capitalise on expertise of a visiting academic or trial a new course. \nLimited to a cohort of 5 or more students.  \n2. Special Interests of a Student:  limited to courses at 300-level and above and requiring a \ncohort of 5 or more students . When taken at undergraduate level , this should be in \npreparation for postgraduate study . \n3. Anomalous Situations:  deployed to manage an anomalous situation (e.g., prior deletion \nof a compulsory course in a group of students’ programme of study ). For a cohort of fewer \nthan 5 students, a personal variation  may be  a more appropriate response. Special Topic \ncourses are an alternative if there are no suitable existing courses.  \n \n4 Adopted at Academic  Committee, AC17/08/270  \nY  \n \n  \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nQualifications Framework  – Page 23  \n \nPage 23 of 44 College responsibilities for deploying Special Topic courses:  \n1. A minim al number of Special Topic courses will be maintained in order to meet Co llege \nrequirements, with the number of Special Topic courses within colleges  varying based on \nthe following:  \na) nature of specific academic programmes (i.e., the extent to which entirely new \ndirections/pilot projects are introduced to cohorts of students on a n ongoing basis ). \nb) number of categories of SAC funding within a college.   \nc) different credit value of courses required at any level; and \nd) number of undergraduate and postgraduate levels at which Special Topic courses \nare used.   \n2. The College will be responsible for the development and approval of the content and scope \nof the topic (including identifying which of the three broad categories applies), the learning \noutcomes, and the assessment requirements for each offering of a Special Topic course, \nwhich must also be mapped back to the graduate profile.   \n3. The College will only deploy a Special Topic course for a minimum cohort of five students, \nunless otherwise approved by the College Pro Vice Chancellor.  \n4. Topics offered under Special Topics courses have limited lives ; a developed Special Topic \ncourse can be offered for a maximum of three years before the topic is either made into a \npermanent course or is no longer offered as a Special Topic course; and \n5. Colleges will maintain equivalence for a single cohort of students  studying a Special Topic \ncourse, for whom there is a single prescribed set of learning outcomes and assessment \nrequirements .  \nStudent enrolment into Special Topic courses:  \n1. The topic undertaken by the student will be noted on their textual record; and \n2. No s tudent may enrol more than once in the same Special Topic course (i.e., with an \nidentical course number) unless it is to:  \na) achieve a passing grade in the course they had previously failed.   \nb) convert an historical R grade to a higher grade where this is required for progression \npurposes; or  \nc) it is a course from which they had previously withdrawn  \n3. Students may enrol in a Special Topic  course within the College responsible for their \nprimary prog ramme of study, with the approval of the College, taking account of course \ndelivery resource requirements and the fit of the course within the student’s programme of \nstudy ; or  \n4. Students may enrol in a Special Topic course at the same level in another Colle ge, if \nnecessary, to address exceptional circumstances in which more than one Special Topic \ncourse is required for the completion of an individual student’s programme of study.  \n4.4.5  Independent Study Courses  \nIndependent Study courses are managed at college -level to allow individual students to \nundertake a specifically tailored, individual  programme of study.  \nIndependent Study courses enable students to work on a negotiated topic, including the setting \nof obje ctives, research or project work, and the presentation of appropriate written or practical \noutcomes.  \nIndependent Study courses are not included in the Schedules of Qualifications; they are made \navailable to students via a Personal Course Variation . They mu st be approved as an offering by \nthe College responsible for resourcing the course .  \nCollege responsibilities for deploying Independent Study courses:  \nY  \n \n  \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nQualifications Framework  – Page 24  \n \nPage 24 of 44 1. A minim al number of Independent Study courses will be maintained in order to meet \nCollege requirements, w ith the number of Independent Study courses within colleges  \nvarying based on the following:  \na) number of categories of SAC funding within a college.   \nb) different credit value of courses required at any level; and \nc) number of undergraduate and postgraduate levels at which Independent Study \ncourses are used  \n2. The College will be responsible for arranging, planning, and managing the agreed -upon \ngoals that are pr oposed by the student and refined and approved by the supervising course \ncoordinator . This includes the learning outcomes and the assessment requirements for \neach offering of an Independent Study course, which must also be mapped back to the \ngraduate profi le.  \nStudent enrolment into Independent Study courses:  \n1. The topic undertaken by the student will be noted on their textual record.   \n2. Students may enrol in an Independent Study course within the College responsible for \ntheir primary programme of study, with t he approval of the relevant individual responsible \nfor resourcing the course delivery.   \n3. No more than a total of 30 credits of approved Independent Study can be used toward the \nrequirements of a qualification:  and \n4. No student may enrol more than once in the same Independent Study course (i.e., with an \nidentical course number) unless it is to:  \na) achieve a passing grade in the course they had previously failed;  or \nb) it is a course from which they had previously withdrawn.  \n4.4.6  Course Coding  \nEach Massey University course has a six -figure number code to distinguish its discipline, level, \nand identity, e.g., 150214 where '150' denotes the discipline of Māori Studies, the '2' shows it is \na 200 -level course and the final two digits '14' identify t he specific course.  \nEach course is allocated to a host college.  \nCourse coding will be consistently applied, reflecting the appropriate discipline and level . The full \nlist of discipline codes is available in the Calendar and from the Office of Academic Qual ity, \nReporting and Assurance . Course numbers are  allocated  in the Curriculum Management system  \nby the  Office of Academic Quality, Reporting and Assurance  in consultation with the academic \nunit. \n4.5 Specialisations  \nSpecialisation is the collective term covering a concentration of study in a specific discipline for a \nqualification . Massey University recognises only four types of specialisation structure:  \nMajor - A substantial component of an undergraduate (Bachelor’s) degree ( usually at least one -third \nand often consisting of one subject area [discipline] only) selected by the student, in accordance with \nthe regulations, as the principal area of study for the degree . A major will normally appear on the \ngraduation scroll and on the student transcript.  \nMinor - A component of an undergraduate degree (usually a minimum of 60 credits with at least 45 \ncredits above 100 -level and at least 15 credits at 300 -level and often consisting of one subject area \n[discipline] only) selected by the student, in accordance wi th the regulations, as the secondary area of \nstudy for the degree . A minor will normally appear on the student transcript, but not on the graduation \nscroll.  \nY  \n \n  \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nQualifications Framework  – Page 25  \n \nPage 25 of 44 Subject  - An academic discipline, such as economics, anthropology, physics, offered through courses  \nat various levels, which are taken at Bachelor’s (Honours) or Master’s level, through a combination of \nprescribed courses in a specific discipline that comprises most or all of the qualification requirements \nwithin the regulations for that qualification. A subject will normally appear printed on the graduation \nscroll and on the student transcript.  \nEndorsement - An academic discipline, such as economics, anthropology, physics, offered through \ncourses at various levels, which are taken at undergraduate diplo ma or certificate , or post/graduate \ndiploma or post/graduate certificate level, through a combination of prescribed courses in a specific \ndiscipline that comprises most or all of the qualification requirements within the regulations for that \nqualification (i.e., normally 75%). An endorsement will normally appear printed on the graduation scroll \nand on the student transcript.  The exception is if it comprises less than 40% of the diploma/certificate.  \nPathways within Qualifications - In addition to specialisations, there are pathways within \nqualifications. These are distinct from articulation pathways, described under section 3.6.1. Pathways \nwithin qualifications define a programme of study for students; they are not specialisations an d are not \ndisplayed on a scroll. The most common example is the research and taught (sometimes known as \nprofessional or applied) pathway s within Master’s degrees. These pathways prescribe programmes of \nstudy which conform to the taught/applied and research  Master’s definitions described under Section \n3.2.1. Research pathways include a thesis of either 90 or 120 credits with either 60 or 90 credits of \ntaught courses. On occasion they can include a 60-credit  research report when the corresponding \ntaught pathw ay requires a taught 800 -level course.  \nTaught/professional/applied pathways include either a 60-credit  research report or 60 credit applied \ncourse, with the remaining credits taught at 700 -level.  \nPathways can exist in other contexts too. For example, reg ulations might define a programme of study \nfor students who wish to gain accreditation of some sort; this could apply to several different \nqualifications, though generally they are at graduate or postgraduate level.  \nOptions within qualifications can also a ct as pathways if they are pr escribed within the regulations. For \nexample, students may be required to take a certain number  of credits from two or three different \noptions. Options should not be confused with specialisations: they don’t meet the definition s of a \nspecialisation as defined by CUAP and they don’t appear on a student’s scroll.  \nSometimes qualification schedules may be divided into different themes; this is often the case for \nqualifications without specialisations. Themes should not be confused w ith pathways as students are \nnot required to take a certain amount from each one. They are there to guide a student’s choice, \nespecially within a qualification without specialisation.  \nSpecialisations and associated regulations should be developed in accord ance with the following \nrequirements:  \n• Where a qualification can be completed with a specialisation, requirements for completion must \nbe clearly set out within the Qualification Regulations and must explicitly include all requirements, \nincluding course pre - and co -requisites and restrictions.  \n• Where a qualification includes multiple specialisations, each specialisation should be \nrecognisably different from other specialisations at the same level within the qualification . \nGenerally,  this means that at least 50 % of the courses listed for a given specialisation  (within the \nsame qualification)  should be unique to that specialisation . There may, however, be times when \nit is appropriate for two specialisations to share more than 50% of courses. Where this is the \ncase, the regulations for the qualification should specify that combinations of these \nspecialisations are invalid. The same wou ld also be true where there is substantial overlap \nbetween a major and a minor. If you are proposing a new specialisation that shares more than \nY  \n \n  \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nQualifications Framework  – Page 26  \n \nPage 26 of 44 50% of courses with another specialisation (whether that other specialisation is also \nnew/proposed or already ex ists) you should justify this overlap in the proposal.  \n• Where a degree allows both a major and a minor, the major and minor should be from different \nsubject areas/disciplines.  \n4.6 Approaches to D elivery   \nQualifications, Specialisations and Course s may be offered at Massey  University  in a variety of modes . \nEquivalence of teaching, learning, and assessment will be maintained between modes of delivery in \naccordance with the Equivalence Policy. Standardisation of terminology will assist in the communication \nof offerings and will inform and enhance decision making.  \n4.6.1  Course  Delivery5: \nInternal mode  - University study undertaken on -campus via face -to-face delivery , which  are \nscheduled on a regular basis, normally weekly (and not less than fortnightly), throughout the \nenrolment period . This mode may include  online learning and the use of digital and print \nresources.  \nDistance mode  - University study undertaken off -campus delivered primarily online or via \ncorrespondence u sing digital and print resources . This mode may include some  face-to-face \ndelivery via one or more contact workshops during the enrolment period . \nBlock mode  - University study undertaken on -campus (or at an o ff-campus location ) via face -to-\nface delivery compressed over one or more specific periods during the enrolment period. This \nmode may include  online learning  and the use of digital resources.  \n4.6.2  Qualification Delivery:  \nQualifications can also be deliver ed in different ways , some of which  are governed by CUAP \nrules . Where a qualification is offered in some sort of partnership with an external organisation, \nthey are subject to the Institutional Partnerships Policy.  \nOffshore Delivery – in-person  \nOffshore in-person delivery are programmes that are delivered in countries other than New \nZealand by Massey . This includ es those that are licensed or sub -contracted to alternative \nproviders . Qualifications that are jointly awarded with offshore partner ins titutions are also within \nscope, as are dual award agreements . Offshore delivery in -person qualifications are subject to \nCUAP accreditation. Where a partner institution is involved, any changes to the agreement of the \nparties must be submitted to CUAP for re-approval.  \nOffshore Delivery - Distance  \nThis is where the University provides distance delivery of New Zealand -based qualifications and \ncourses to international and domestic students living abroad. This is not within the scope of CUAP \noffshore delivery a ccreditation requirements.  \nDual Award s \nA programme offered by Massey and another tertiary institution which is validated jointly or by \neach institution separately, in which a programme and assessment regime allows a student to \nqualify for two awards, usually in different national systems . Typically, t he qualification is divided \ninto three parts with students studying the first part at one institution, the second at the other \ninstitution and then choosing which institution they choose to study t he third and final part at. \nCredits passed at the partner institution are treated as equivalent to credits passed at Massey  \n \n5 There is ongoing discussion on modes . \nY  \n \n  \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nQualifications Framework  – Page 27  \n \nPage 27 of 44 and recorded as RPL for completion purposes . Quality assurance is jointly shared between \nMassey and the partner institution . These c an be delivered offshore or in New Zealand  or both . \nJoint Award s – With a New Zealand Partner  \nMassey may partner with a New Zealand tertiary institution ( non-university  or university)  to offer \na jointly awarded qualification . The institutions collaborate in the design and operation of a \nprogramme with one assessment regime, leading to one award jointly conferred. These are \nqualifications where the contribution of each partner is substa ntial. For non -university \npartnerships this  is subject to both CUAP and NZQA approval and accreditation . For university \npartnerships this is subject to CUAP approval and accreditation.  \nJoint Awards – With an Offshore Partner  \nSee Offshore Delivery – in-person above.  \nJointly Delivered Awards – With a New Zealand University Partner  \nThese are qualifications made up of courses taught by the University and courses taught by \nanother institution and credited towards the Massey qualification. Staffing and resour ce matters \nare the responsibility of the participating institutions, regulated by agreement between them . \nThese are subject to CUAP approval and accreditation.  \nPathway Articulation  \nAn arrangement where Massey guarantees places and entry under defined circu mstances or for \na defined number of students for a specific programme of study from a partner institution.  \nMixed Delivery  - Students may enrol in a programme of study which includes courses delivered  \nin different modes.  \n4.7 Credits and Study H ours  \nEvery course has a credit value that indicates its specific contribution to the qualification(s) to which it \ncontributes . Courses normally have a value of 15 credits, or multiples of 15 (usually 15, 30, 45, 60, 90 , \nor 120), depending on the course size. The standard undergraduate course is 15 credits delivered over \none or two semesters, except in some fixed or parts -based qua lifications , which may split the full -time \nprogramme -load of 120 credits over fewer courses.  \nThe value of a course in credits gives an indication of the total amount of time (including lectures, \nlaboratories, tutorials, visits, online engagement, contact and block courses , self-directed learning,  and \nstudy time) that students might reasonably expect to have to spend in order to meet the assessment \nrequirements satisfactorily . This is converted into average hours of study per week for the purposes of \nreport ing to the TEC.  \nFor a standard undergraduate (15 -credit) single -semester course, a commitment of a minimum of 10 \nhours of study time per week is expected, including exams, lectures, labs, assignments, and self -\ndirected study . For postgraduate qualifications, where 30 -credit single semester courses are the norm, \na commitment of an average of 20 hours per week per 30 -credit course is expected , while the same \nvalue course (30 credits) delivered as a double semester course would reasonably translat e into a \nminimum 10-hour commitment per week . Note this is the minimum and for student s to achieve higher \ngrades, or for some disciplines they may need a higher time commitment.  \nThe standardisation of credit values enhances the portability of courses, whic h may be credited to \nalternative qualifications where the respective Qualification and Recognition of Formal and Informal \nPrior Learning Regulations  allow. The courses contributing to some selected -entry professional \nqualifications are not easily portable and specific regulations must be written into exit qualifications to \npermit their transfer for exit purposes.  \nY  \n \n  \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nQualifications Framework  – Page 28  \n \nPage 28 of 44 Equivalent Full -Time Student  (EFTS ) \nThe EFTS value is used as a measure of the size of a qualification or programme of study and \nthe courses of which it is comprised. 1.0 EFTS equates to one full -time year of study or 120 \ncredits. A 360 -credit qualification will have an EFTS value of 3.0.  \nIndividual student loads can be calculated in EFTS ( e.g., an academic year enrolment in \ncourses to the value of 60 credits equates to 0.5 EFTS) , and, while headcount figures reflect \nthe total number  of individual students in a specified grouping (e.g. , course or programme), \nEFTS values for those same groupings reflect the cumulated EFTS of all of the (p art and full -\ntime) students in the group. If, for example, in a programme with a n academic year headcount \nof twenty, ten of the students are undertaking 120 academic year credits (1.0 EFTS) and the \nremaining ten students 60 credits (0.5 EFTS) each, the tot al academic year EFTS for that \nprogramme will be 15 EFTS.  \nEFTS are key units used for reporting to the Ministry of Education; they are used in the \ncalculation of the funding that is allocated to each tertiary education provider.  \nY  \n \n  \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nQualifications Framework  – Page 29  \n \nPage 29 of 44 5 Qualification Approval  \n \nThere are different approval phases depending on the specific nature and level of the proposal  (e.g., \nnew qualification, change to qualification, or deletion of qualification ). In general , there are three distinct \ntypes of approval process . Some proposals will stop at step one or at a particular phase within the \ninternal approval process, whereas other pr oposals will include all three steps .  \n1. Internal to Massey University  \n2. External accreditation via CUAP  \n3. Other external accreditation processes (e.g. , for funding or professional accreditation)  \n \nWhen developing or revising qualifications, staff should conside r the approval processes that a ll Massey \nUniversity qualifications , specialisations, and courses  must  follow (i.e., the appropriate academic \ngovernance approval process es as shown in Figure 1) . Advice relating to specific type s of proposal s is \navailable from the Office of Academic Quality, Reporting and Assurance . \nConsideration should also be given, when making a proposal, as to whether the changes require a new \ncourse or a course amendment.  \n \nCourses change over time to reflect the latest knowl edge, research,  and pedagogies, but these should \nnot change that course’s focal point, depth of learning (i.e., level) and credit value. A change in these \nor other areas would necessitate creation of a new course. Table 3 illustrates this.  \nTable 3. Making Changes to a Course  \nProposed change to course  Is a new course required?  \nChange in credit value  Yes \nChange in level of learning – e.g., 200 \nto 300 level  Yes \nChange of topic focus, for example, \nfrom ‘ The Vikings’ to ‘Viking influence \non Poetry’  Yes \nChange in overall approach, e.g., from a \ntheoretical approach to a practica  Yes \nChange of title  Not usually but  depends on whether this \nreflects a change of focus for the course. If \nother changes are also proposed ( e.g., to \nPrescription, Lea rning Outcomes, \nAssessments) consider whether or not this \nreflects a focus change; if so, a new course \nwould be required.  \nAmendment to incorporate new \nresearch findings  No \nAmendment to utilise new teaching \nmethods and/or technologies  No \nAmendment to learning outcomes  Not usually, but depends on whether this \nreflects a change of focus for the course (see \nChange of title above)  \nY  \n \n  \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nQualifications Framework  – Page 30  \n \nPage 30 of 44 5.1 Internally A pproved Qualification Proposals  \nSome qualification and course -level proposals can be approved internally (i.e., the final approval \nprocess occurs within the University ), with no further steps required  and do not need to be submitted to \nCUAP for approval. These include:  \n• Alterations to the content of the qualification schedules  \n• Changes to the content or sequencing of existing majors, or regulation changes not affecting the \nqualification’s structure in a substantial way  \n• Introduction of new courses (where not part of a CUAP  qualification proposal)  \n• Course amendments  \n• Minor non-CUAP qualification amendments  \n• The introduction of an endorsement in an undergraduate, graduate or postgraduate qualification \nwhen the concentration of study in the area of the endorsement comprises less than 40% of the \nqualification and when the endorsement is not stated on the graduation certificate  \n• Retirement  of a course  \n5.2 Internally Approved and E xternal ly Reported Qualification Proposals  \nQualification proposals that are approved internally but must also be reported to CUAP  include : \n• The introduction of a postgraduate diploma, postgraduate certificate, graduate diploma,  or \ngraduate certificate, only when the university already has an established bachelor’s honours or \nmaster’s programme in the subject and the new qualification draws on existing courses. This \nwould include the introduction of a certificate where there is a n established diploma.  \n• The introduction of an undergraduate diploma or a certificate, only when the university already \nhas an established bachelor’s degree in the subject and the new qualification draws on existing \ncourses.  \n• The introduction of a minor sub ject in an undergraduate degree only when the university has an \nestablished major in that subject. The university must show that the structure of the minor subject \ncomplies with the CUAP definition.  \n• The retirement of entire qualifications, major subjects, minor subjects where there is no \nestablished major subject, or endorsements.  \n5.3 External Accreditation via CUAP  \nSome qualification proposals are approved internally and must also be submitted for quality  assurance \nthrough CUAP’s peer -review process  and approv al. Qualifications cannot be delivered until such \naccreditation is obtained.  \n \n1. The introduction of a new academic qualification, including any that are the property of an \noverseas institution.  \n2. The introduction of a new subject. A new subject may be define d as:  \na. at the undergraduate level: a collection of courses with a common theme offered at \n100-, 200 - and 300 -levels, constituting a ‘major’ (whether or not that term is used by \nthe university concerned) for a degree or diploma. The introduction of a limited \nnumbe r of courses with an intention to increase the offering in future years into a \n‘major’ also comes into this category.  \nb. at the graduate level: any new subject, option or programme for honours and \nmaster’s degrees or graduate and postgraduate diplomas/cer tificates. A \n‘programme’ that in effect amounts to a ‘major’ is also treated as such, even if \ncomponent parts have been previously approved by the institution or CUAP.  \n3. The introduction of a minor subject when there is no established major in the subject.  \n4. The introduction of an endorsement when the concentration of study is 40% or greater and \nthe endorsement is stated on the graduation certificate.  \nY  \n \n  \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nQualifications Framework  – Page 31  \n \nPage 31 of 44 5. The introduction of a new conjoint programme or a new programme consisting of existing \nqualification or subj ects.  \n6. Substantial changes to the structure of a qualification such as changes to the duration or \ncredit/EFTS value of a programme and extensive changes to the courses that comprise \nthe programme.  \n7. Changes lowering the minimum entry requirements for a prog ramme.  \n8. A change in the name of a qualification or subject.  \n9. Transfer of credit, cross -crediting or exemption regulations falling outside regulations \ncurrently in place.  \n10. Qualifications with significant contributions from overseas and/or delivered offshore  may \nneed to be submitted to the committee.  \nAs qualifications must appear in the University Calendar at the earliest opportunity in the form in which \nthey have been approved , any q ualifications that are pending approval may be included in the Calendar \nand in any other publications identified as ‘Subject to CUAP Approval .’   \n5.4 Other External Approval and Accreditation Processes  \nFollowing the CUAP quality  assurance process, further approval and reporting are sometimes required \nbefore the approval process can be concluded.  \n5.4.1  NZQF  \nOn behalf of the University, the Office of Academic Quality, Reporting and Assurance  \nrecommends wording to Universities New Zealand, who then approve such wording and refer it \nfor inclusion on the NZQF database.  \n5.4.2  Professional accreditation  \nFrom time to time the University will seek some form of accreditation  for its qualifications  in \naddition to CUAP accreditation . Professional a ccreditation , which  may be for the University, a \nCollege, or a specific programme , may be used to ra ise the prestige of the University, facilitate \nstudent membership of professional bodies upon graduation, or may be mandatory before a \nprogramme can be offered.  \nQualifications aimed at preparing graduates who are eligible to apply for professional registra tion \nnormally require professional body approval  or accreditation . CUAP will not approve such \nqualifications unless evidence of appropriate consultation with the relevant authority is provided . \nQualifications of this nature are submitted for approval  or accreditation by both CUAP and the \nrelevant professional authority , processes that can normally  be undertaken in parallel.  \nOnce accreditation has been obtained, a monitoring and review process is established which \nmust be complied with to retain accreditatio n. The Office of Academic Quality, Reporting and \nAssurance  maintains a database of all accreditations.  \n5.4.3  University and other funding bodies  \nIt is important that any qualification the University offers can be funded . For each quality -assured \ncourse or qualification that is eligible , the University will seek Student Achievement Component \n(SAC) funding from the TEC .  \nThe Office of Academic Qualit y, Reporting and Assurance  completes a funding application with \nTEC on behalf of the University and at the same time requests that the qualification be approved \nfor Student Loan and Student Allowance funding from Study Link.  \nConversely, when a qualificatio n is retired , an application is submitted to TEC to cease such \nfunding.  \nY  \n \n  \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nQualifications Framework  – Page 32  \n \nPage 32 of 44 In many cases a student who seeks alternative loans, scholarships, and allowances from sources \nother than Study Link will require a form to be submitted by the University verifying the student ’s \nenrolment . However, from time to time it may be relevant to seek accreditation for a particular \nqualification, or for the University in whole or part, from an alternative student funding body . In \nmost cases this would be in relation to internatio nal students and is managed by the Office of \nGlobal Engagement  on behalf of the University.  \nThe external approval , accreditation, and r eporting process es are shown in Figure 1. \n \nFigure 1. Approval and Amendment Pathways and Documentation    \n\nY  \n \n  \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nQualifications Framework  – Page 33  \n \nPage 33 of 44 5.4 Proposal Development  \nAll academic proposals are managed in the Curriculum Management system (CM) .  \nThe Curriculum Management System  \nThe Curriculum Management (CM) system is the main repository of all approved \ncurriculum information, including but not limited to learning  outcomes; assessment \npatterns; course entry rules; funding information; pre -requisites and restrictions; course \npubli cation notes; graduate profiles; qualification regulations; qualification and \nspecialisation schedules; courses; qualifications and specialisations.  \nProposals for change – qualifications, specialisations,  and courses – are made within \nCM. Each proposal go es through various different stages, in accordance with the \nproposal type. The following illustrates this:  \n• CUAP Change (New courses only and Qualifications and specialisations)  \n• Non-CUAP Change (Qualifications and specialisations only)  \n• Schedule Amendment (Q ualifications and specialisations only  \n• Course Amendment (Courses only)  \n• Retirement Workflow (All Entities)  \n \nWorkflow Stages  \n \nThe workflow stages within CM reflect the different stages through which a proposal \ngoes.  \n• Draft  \n• HOD Approval  \n• College Sub Committee A pproval  \n• College Board Approval: course amendments; minor schedule changes  \n• Academic Committee Approval: CUAP and non -CUAP proposals  \n• Academic Board Approval: CUAP proposals  \n• CUAP Approval: CUAP proposals  \n• Approve  \n \n5.4.1  Early Notices  \nAn Early Notice provides the University with advance notice of a new or substantially amended \nqualification or specialisation. Each Early Notice should include the following : \n• Implications for the College  and University  – Alignment with the University Strategic \nPlan, how the proposal will enhance the University’s profile and reputation, how it fits within \nthe College research profile and suite of offerings, and how it will contribute to the \nUniversity financially , partic ularly in a capped environment.  \n• Implications for Students  – How the proposal will attract students (and of which profile) , \nsupport their learning  and future employment needs (including professional registration \nrequirements), and how the proposal fits with  student funding criteria.  \n• Administrative Processes  – How the proposal will be supported by existing University \nprocesses and services, including  the impact on the Office of Academic Quality, Reporting \nand Assurance , Student Finance, the Office  of Global E ngagement , Student \nAdministration, the University Library, and the National Centre for Teaching and Learning.  \n• Futureproofing  and Sustainability  – How the proposal is linked to current research, how staffing , \nphysical , and intellectual resources will be acquired and maintained, and SWOT (Strengths, \nY  \n \n  \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nQualifications Framework  – Page 34  \n \nPage 34 of 44 Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) and PEST (Political, Economic, Social and \nTechnological)  analyses.  \n \nAs a precursor to  the development of a new or substantially amended qual ification/specialisation , \nColleges will need to ensure that the proposal is financially viable. To this end a business case \nshould be developed  and considered by the designated person/s in the College Executive before \nthe Early Notice is formally dissemina ted to ensure that the proposal is sustainable.  \n5.4.2  Market research  \nAll new qualification  and specialisation  proposals are expected to include a market analysis ; in \nsome cases,  this may also be appropriate for significant amendments .  \n5.4.3  Stakeholder engagement  \nEvidence of adequate consultation is a  required for  qualification approval processes , both within \nand external to the University . Effective  consultation will  ensure any risk s or weaknesses in the \nqualification proposal are identified and remedied and will ensure affected parties are on -board \nwith a proposal , or at a minimum, understand why a particular path (i.e., to proceed with, modify, \nor abandon a proposal) has been chosen .  \nConsultation may help attract potential collaborators to enhance the design and implementation \nof the qualification proposal.  If a decision has already been taken, a consultation process should  \nnot be instigated; instead, an effective communication strategy should be initiated, so that there \nis clarity about the intentions regarding the qualification.  \n5.4.3.1  Consultation process  \nEarly , informal engagement allows any major concerns to be identified in a timely manner  and \nprevents wasted effort if there is no support for a proposal . A more formal and well -documented \nconsultation exercise will be  undertaken  by the time a qualification prop osal reaches the \nconsideration and adoption phases in the Committee process . \n \nA good consultation process incorporates the following steps:  \n• Determine whether consultation is needed  \n• Decide at what stage to consult  \n• Clarify the purpose of consultation  \n• Dete rmine the scope of the consultation  \n• Plan the consultation  \n• Conduct the consultation  \n• Analyse and report results  \n• Provide feedback  \n• Evaluate the consultation  \nOther Colleges  – The development of a new qualification or specialisation offers many chances \nfor collaboration across colleges , particularly in fields that span more than one discipline (e.g., \nHealth, with its science, socio -economic, and cultural facets) . Cross -Colleg e collaborations may \ntake the form of sharing courses, co -delivering a programme, or the development of a new \ninstitute, centre, or school to advance cross -discipline teaching and research .  \n \nInnovations in programme formats, delivery modes, or teaching and assessment practice are \nuseful to share among colleges  so that new trends can be identified and rolled out across the \nUniversity to ensure that a degree of parity is maintained between quali fications at the same \nlevel.  \n \nY  \n \n  \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nQualifications Framework  – Page 35  \n \nPage 35 of 44 Even retiring a course could be of significance to another College as it may be on a list of \napproved electives for another programme or  may be a popular choice for students on an informal \nbasis. In some cases,  it might actual ly be compulsory or a compulsory option. The Office of \nAcademic Quality, Reporting and Assurance can provide further guidance on cross -college \nconsultation, including cross -college elective course communication, and a resource containing \nseveral different scenarios and the type of consultation that may be required.  \n5.4.3.2  Specific consultation  \nThere are a number of university  offices and stakeholders that  may contribute to the consultation \nprocess . For those units where consultation is  not compulsory, consideration should be given to \nthose which can contribute to a quality proposal and/or where  the nature of the qualification \nrecommends it .  \n \nMāori Communities  – In some disciplines , partnerships with Māori for research and teaching \nare well-established; however, there is increasing overlap between Te Ao Māori and other \ndisciplines . Consultation with Māori may occur at several  levels, depending on the degree Māori \nwish to engage with an initiative .  \n \nAll qualification proposals should inc lude consideration of how delivery will engage with Māori \nstudents in accordance with the Kia Mārama: Te Rautaki Māori@Massey me te Kaupapa here \nReo 2020 Strategy and Language Policy, including the option of submitting assessments and \nsitting exams in Te R eo.  \n \nThe Office of the DVC Māori can provide support and advice on engagement with Māori students, \nscholars, and communities.  \n \nOffice of Pacific Student Success  – The Office of Pacific  Student Success  is under the Office \nof the Provost  and can offer advice on engaging with and supporting Pa cific students and \ncommunities in accordance with the Growing Pearls of Wisdom Pasifika@Massey Strategy  2020 . \n \nOffice  of Global Engagement  – The Office  of Global Engagement  is able to advise on the li kely \nimpact on international students and may be able to provide information on other similar initiatives \nin the international marketplace. They can advise on any implications or restrictions under The \nEducation (Pastoral Care of  Tertiary and  International  Learners ) Code of Practice 20 21 to which \nthe University is a signatory. They can also advise on whether a proposal is likely to be affected \nby student -funding restrictions or by immigration issues (e.g., international students may not be \npermitted to stud y part -time).  \n \nOffice of Academic Quality, Reporting and Assurance  – This Office can provide advice and \nsupport regarding qualification design, Regulations, and approval and accreditation processes . \nThe Office of Academic Quality, Reporting and Assurance  is also aware of trends and innovations \nacross the University, and the wider academic, political, and regulatory environment and \nprocesses.  \n \nThe Data Maintenance Team  – This team, which is part of the Office of Academic Quality, \nReporting and Ass urance, codes regulations into the Student Management System and will be \nable to provide early advice on implement ation matters . They can suggest approaches that will \nmake transition plans, enrolment,  and completion easier for students and reduce costs to the \nUniversity.  \n \nCurriculum Transformation Team  – Early consultation with this group when designing or \nrefreshing qualifications is very important . The team can assist with  innovations in teaching, \nresource design, and assessment, and may assist in identifying critical areas where students will \nrequire additional learning support.  \n \nY  \n \n  \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nQualifications Framework  – Page 36  \n \nPage 36 of 44 Centres for Learner Success  – This Centre has a presence  on each campus and provide s \nlearning support for students, including disability services . The Disability Services team have an \nimportant function in ensuring students with disabilit ies are able to participate to meet their \nacademic potential . Centre staff  should be consulted if there are specific learning outcomes with \nwhich students may require assistance.  \n \nUniversity Library – Consultation with the University Library occur s when introducing new \ncourses and programmes or when changing or extending mandat ory texts , to ensure sufficient \nand relevant resources are available . It is particularly important to consult with the library  when \namending or extending programme delivery to ensure that licenses and resources are relevant \nand adequate for alternative jur isdictions .  \n \nStudent Registry  – The Student Registry  team are responsible for the operationalisation of the \nRegulations , as they relate to students under delegation from colleges . Student Registry  staff \ncan also assist programme and course coordinators with any monitoring and reporting \nrequirements . It is important that domestic and international admission teams are advised of new \nqualifications and significant changes to qualifications so they can manage  the effects on \nstudents  within their areas of responsibility . \n \nStudent Association  – Students are active partners in the University community and their \nrepresentation is formalised through the student association . Other less formal student groups \ninclude class representatives and individual programme student groups . Obtaining and \nresponding to the student perspective during the consultation process can be both meaningful \nand enlightening and can yield better results in quality  assurance reviews.  \n \nProfessi onal Bodies  – Accreditation by a professional body is critical to the success of some \nqualifications . Consultation with the relevant bodies should start early and be maintained over \ntime to ensure the qualification remains relevant for the profession in pr actice and is compliant \nwith any upcoming regulatory changes. It is also important to consider the requirements of \nprofessional bodies in other countries, to ensure the portability of qualifications for international \ngraduates and domestic graduates workin g abroad .  \n \nCommercial  and Industry Sectors  and Employers  – Ensuring that graduates are workplace -\nready and have acquired skills and attributes that are adaptable within different settings and \ntechnologies is vital to the employability of graduates and to the needs of employers and the \neconomy . Knowing where gra duates gain employment and understanding the needs of those \nemployers and sectors can help shape the content of qualifications.    \nY  \n \n  \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nQualifications Framework  – Page 37  \n \nPage 37 of 44 6 Qualification Delivery  \n6.1 Progression Tools \nThere are a number of tools, measures, and remedies available to guide and monitor st udent progress \nin qualifications . Incorporating these tools into qualifications is important for students to self -assess their \nprogress against expectations, facilitate their decision making, and to keep them motivated and striving \nfor academic excellence and achievement of their educational goals .  \nThe same tools are important for staff as they facilitate measurement of anticipated teaching outcomes  \nand the  success of delivery and  assist in the communication of expectations.  \nFor the University, use of and adherence to appropriate progression tools ensure s that the reputation \nof the University for academic excellence is maintained, and that course and qualification completion \nrates are commensurate with TEC requirements.  \n6.1.2  Qualification entry requir ements  \nThe criteria for admission to a qualification should reflect the status of the programme, the \nopportunities it creates, and the expectations upon students entering the programme.  \nMinimum admission criteria , including the standards applied and the way they are calculated , are \nincluded in Qualification Regulations .  \nAdmission may be granted to candidates who hold alternative qualifications or experience under \nthe Discretionary Entrance, Admission with Equival ent Status, and Special Admission \nRegulations . These processes require an assessment of the student’s prior learning and \nexperiences to determine how these matches  with the required admission criteria outlined in the \nQualification Regulations .  \n6.1.3  Grading  \nA grade is the assessment of performance in a course . The University -wide marking scheme is \nshown in Table 6. The final mark for a course will always be a whole numbe r, achieved via \nSwedish rounding.  \nTable 4. Massey Marking Scheme  \n Grade   Marks  \nPass Grades  A+ First Class Pass  90-100 \nA 85-89.99  \nA- 80-84.99  \nB+ Second Class Pass  75-79.99  \nB 70-74.99  \nB- 65-69.99  \nC+ Pass  60-64.99  \nC 55-59.99  \nC- 50-54.99  \nR *Restricted Pass.   \nAG (formerly  AEG)  Aegrotat Pass   \nP Ungraded Pass   \nFail Grades  D Fail 40-49.99  \nE Low Fail  0-39.99  \nF Ungraded Fail  or where completion \nrequirements not met   \nDC (formerly  DNC)  Did Not Complete   \nY  \n \n  \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nQualifications Framework  – Page 38  \n \nPage 38 of 44 Other Entries  WD Withdrew   \nNF Not Finalised   \nCT Continuing Enrolment   \n* The awarding of R grades was discontinued in 2017 but are included here because they are \nstill on students’ academic record.  There is a transition period for which R grade courses may be \ncredited to an incomplete qualification.  This option expires at the end of 2025.  \nAegrotat  consideration applies when a student is unable to sit a fixed time and place \nexamination, compulsory co mponent, or assessment activity due to illness, injury, bereavement, \nor other critical personal circumstances . An AG or DC grade will be the normal outcome of an \napplication , unless there is sufficient justification for a letter grade , and the student has completed \nat least 60% of the assessment . A DC is awarded in response to an Aegrotat application where \na passing grade is not able to be awarded because the student has not demonstrated that they \nhave met the learning outcomes of the course.  \nImpaired performance  applies when a student does complete the examination or assessment  \nactivity , but their performance in, or preparation for such, has been seriously impaired . A student \nwho is granted Impaired Performance will be awarded a modified letter grade or AG . The \nUniversity’s Assessment and Examination Regulations specify the rules in relation to Aegrotat \nand Impaired Performance.  \nA Did Not Complete (DC) grade  is awarded to students who withdraw from a course after the \nfinal date fo r withdrawing, who fail to complete all compulsory elements, who fail to complete \nassessment components totalling 51% or more of the total assessment, or whose Aegrotat \napplication is unsuccessful.  \nGuidelines for the use of Not Finalised (NF) entries are o utlined in the Procedures for \nWithholding Grades.  \nA Combined Results Pass  is a pass that is granted to a student for a ‘Part’ or year -cohort of \ncourses within a qualification even though all courses within the part have not been passed . The \nconditions for this type of pass are set out in the qualification regulations and the pass allows a \nstudent to progress into the next ‘Part’ . Students who are granted a combined results pass retain \ntheir original grades.  \nAchievement can be recognised and motivated by the  awarding of qualifications with recognition \nof academic excellence  based on grade  or grade average and completion timeframes . For \nexample, four-year Bachelor’s Degrees with Honours, Bachelor’s Honours Degrees and 240 \ncredit Master’s Degrees  may be graduated with First-Class Honours, Second -Class Honours  \nDivision I, Second Class Honours Division II, Third Class Honours or, in some cases, a pass . \nPostgraduate Diplomas , 120-credit,  and 180 -credit  Master’s Degrees may be awarded with \nDistinction or Merit to recognise achievement . The option to graduate with academic recognition, \nand the criteria which will apply, must be  incorporated into the Qualification Regulations.  \n6.1.3.1  Average Grade6 \nAverage grade requireme nts (e.g. , B+ average) are commonly used as a progression tool and \nmeans of defining expectations . The alternative is the Grade Point Average GPA , which is more \nwidely used in US schools and therefore has a cultural context with connotations and implications \nthat may not be fully understood or anticipated if expressed in the New Zealand setting . Other \nacademic jurisdictions also use different number ing systems for calculation of GPA rendering \ncomparisons meaningless.  \n \n \n6 The University is revisiting the calculating of GPA and how this is used in different circumstances . \nY  \n \n  \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nQualifications Framework  – Page 39  \n \nPage 39 of 44 An average grade requirement is generally used as a pre -requisite for entry into a higher -level \nprogramme from a lower level one  (e.g., from an undergraduate degree into a Bachelor’s \nHonours Degree, or from a Postgraduate Diploma into a Master’s Degree ). In this case it is quite \ncommon to calculate the average grade from a subset of courses taken (e.g., the courses in the \nundergraduate major, or the relevant 300 -level courses ). An averag e grade can also be used as \na ranking tool for selecting into a programme that has a capped student enrolment.  \n \nThe GPA  (Individualised GPA on SMS) is simply a mechanism for calculating an Average Grade . \nThe Grade Point Average is converted to an Average G rade by simple reference to the table \nbelow ; for example,  if a GPA of 5 is achieved, then the student has maintained a B average,  and \na GPA of 3 .3 is a C+ average.  \n \nGrade Point Average GPA  \nGPA is calculated according to the sum of the weighted grade point credit value divided by the \nsum of the credit values of all courses contributing to the qualification . Unless stated otherwise \n(i.e., where the GPA is to be used for a discrete purpose) a GPA will include all courses \nattempted that have not been attr ibuted to a conferred qualification. (The Swedish Rounding \nsystem is applied here ) \n \nGPA =  Sum (credits completed x GPA value of grade)   \n Sum of credits completed  \n \nWhere the GPA value of Grade is assigned according to:  \n \nD, E, DC  0 \nC- 1 \nC 2 \nC+ 3 \nB- 4 \nB 5 \nB+ 6 \nA- 7 \nA 8 \nA+ 9 \n \nGrades of A+, A, A -, B+, B, B -, C+, C, C -, and R* will be counted towards grades earned. \nGrades attempted will include the above as well as the grades of D, E, and DC . Grades of WD \n(withdrawal) , P and F ( a non-graded pass or fail ) and AG are neutral and will not be counted \ntowards grades earned or attemp ted. \n \n*Rs are no longer available  but are included here because they still count towards the GPAs \nof students who were awarded them in the past.  \n \n6.1.4  Academic Progress  \nAcademic Progress is determined by the Evaluating Student Academic Progress (ESAP) \nprocess. The ESAP process involves regular evaluation of results based on general thresholds \nof expectation which are outlined in the Academic Progress Policy. These evaluat ions will result \nin determining whether a student is excelling, achieving satisfactory performance,  or performing \nat levels below expectation. Specific processes exist, which are outlined in both the Academic \nY  \n \n  \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nQualifications Framework  – Page 40  \n \nPage 40 of 44 Progress Regulations and Academic Progress Poli cy, to assist students whose performance is \nbelow expectation.  \nSome Professional and Accredited qualifications also have additional requirements that students \nmust meet. Where these exist,  they are listed in the qualification regulations . \n6.1.5  Completion timefr ames  \nMassey University support s student achievement and the commitment of students to their \nstudies . The University  will sustain an environment that promotes educational opportunity , while \nfacilitating student progression to qualification completion.  \nPostgraduate q ualifications will follow the time to completions specified in the General \nRegulations for postgraduate qualifications  – these are show n in Table 5 below . While there is \nno official time to completion for undergraduate or graduate qualifications , based on students \nsuccessfully completing an average of 45 credits per year, it is recommended that 360-credit \ndegrees are completed within a maximum of 8 years . Smaller sized qualifications would usually \nbe completed more quickly.  \nTime  limits  for completion of postgraduate qualifications are shown in Table 5.  \n \nTable 5. Time  limits  for Completion  (part -time)  \nQualification Type  Maximum  Maximum Part -time \nHonours, Merit, \nDistinction  Maximum Full -time \nHonours, Merit, \nDistinction  \n60-credit Postgraduate Certificate  2 years  Not available  Not available  \n120-credit Postgraduate Diploma  4 years  3 years – M/D 1 year – M/D \n120-credit Master’s degree  4 years  3 years – M/D 1 year – M/D \n180-credit Master’s degree  5 years  4 years – M/D 18 months – M/D \n240-credit Master’s degree  6 years  5 years - H 2 years - H \n120-credit Bachelor’s Honours Degrees  3 years  3 years – H 1 year – H \nTime limits may be pro -rated where credit has been transferred into the qualification . In \ncircumstances where qu alifications have been articulated by formal transfer of credit, the time \nlimit for the higher credit qualification will apply if the student exits or is exited with a lower credit \nqualification.  \nWhere there is a deviation from the standard timeframe speci fied in the General Regulations \n(e.g., where shorter completion timeframes are required in order to fulfil professional registration \nrequirements), this will be clearly stated in the Qualification Regulations .  \nIn the event that a student does not complete  within the required timeframes, the student’s \nongoing enrolment will be subject to review. In such circumstances the student may, where \npossible, be graduated with an exit qualification in accordance with existing articulation pathways \nor, in cases of sus tained engagement and achievement, offered an extension on the basis of an \nagreed study plan . In doctoral qualifications, suspensions of study may be negotiated, which will \nhave the effect of extending the time to completion.  \nY  \n \n  \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nQualifications Framework  – Page 41  \n \nPage 41 of 44 6.1.6  Abandonment of study  \nIndividual student activity is closely monitored and , where students are identified as inactive for \na period of three academic years , they will be deemed to have abandoned their place in the \nqualification . This release s the University from any obligation t o keep a place open for such \nstudents . If the qualification has been disestablished or significantly amended, there is no \nobligation on the University to continue teaching and graduating these students under expired \nRegulations .  \nWhere the student has met the criteria for graduating in an exit qualification, they may be \ngraduated with such.  \nRe-enrolment and continuation with the original  (abandoned)  qualification or specialisation (if \ncurrent), or transfer of credit to an alternative qualification  or sp ecialisation (if discontinued)  may \noccur at the University’s discretion, upon an assessment of the student’s eligibility for admission \nin accordance with current Regulations . Courses passed , which are to be used for cross credit  \nmust be assessed against th e current Regulations . They will be subject to the Recognition of \nFormal and Informal Prior Learning Regulations  if an exit qualification was awarded in lieu . In \naddition, permission to re -enrol in a current qualification may be withheld if there are insuf ficient \nplaces available or the student no longer meets admission criteria, including current English \nLanguage requirements.  \n6.1.7  Graduation and conferment of qualifications  \nGraduation is an important progression tool , as it signifies achievement to a particula r level and \ncompletion of a qualification . A focus on achievement will require a focus on proactive graduation \n(i.e., once a student has been assessed as eligible to graduate in the qualification for which they \nare enrolled, they will be graduated ).  \nAssessment of completion for graduation will be in accordance with the regulations of a student’s \nfinal year of study, or in accordance with an approved and documented pathway to completion \n(e.g., under transitional arrangements or under a prior year’s Regulations) .  \nA student may be graduated with an exit qualification, in accordance with existing articulation \npathways  providing that they:  \n• Would have met the entry requirements for the exit qualification had they been enrolled in \nit; and \n• Have met the progr amme requirements, i.e., completed all required courses and credits ; \nand \n• Graduate after the date approved for commencement of teaching of the exit qualification \n(normally the year following CUAP approval ). \nFor example, a student may exit with an undergraduate Certificate after completing 60 credits \ntowards a Bachelor’s degree. Students may exit because they :  choose not to complete their \noriginal qualification; exceed acceptable timeframes for completion; are indefinitely excluded; or \nbecome inact ive in their enrolment. If students meet the requirements for an exit qualification, \nthey will be permitted to be graduated with that qualification without having been explicitly \nenrolled  in it. \nOnce a qualification has been awarded it cannot be re-issued under a new or alternative \nqualification title . \nThe University shall consider the awarding of posthumous undergraduate and postgraduate \nqualifications to a student who has died prior to their programme of study being completed and/or \nprior to any  final compulsory elements of their qualification being completed    \nY  \n \n  \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nQualifications Framework  – Page 42  \n \nPage 42 of 44 7. Qualification Lifecycle  \nIn order to demonstrate Massey University’s commitment to providing an integrated portfolio of \nqualifications that are relevant, research -informed, appropriately resourced, and effectively delivered, \nall qualifications are subject to rigorous quality -assurance processes throughout the lifecycle of the \nqualification.  \nQualifications should be developed with the qualification lifecycle  in mind (depicted in Figure 2) to \nensure the demand and context for the qualification are well understood and that review processes are \nplanned for to ensure that the continued relevance of the qualification is monitored and responded to.  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nFigure 2. Qualification Lifecycle  \nThe cornerstone of the quality assurance process within New Zealand universities is the peer -review \nprocess. Other elements complement the peer -review process, such as student surveys, national and \ninternational benchmark ing, and accreditation processes for professional qualifications.  \nThe Office of Academic Quality, Reporting and Assurance provides advice and support to staff, units, \nand committees to facilitate the development, amendment, and approval of qualifications, and the \ndevelopment, implementation, and review of academic policies and Regulations . The CUAP approval \nprocess is a quality assurance function and provides a peer review of qualification proposals.  The \nfollowing sections of the Qualifications Framework provide the structure within which staff develop \nqualifications. This structure ensures they progress through the various qualification lifecycle phases in \naccordance with required quality assurance ac tivities, while adhering to the principles of the \nQualifications Policy.  \n  \n\nY  \n \n  \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nQualifications Framework  – Page 43  \n \nPage 43 of 44 The qualification lifecycle and its attendant quality assurance activities are:   \n \nTable 6. Qualification Lifecycle Quality Assurance  \nStage  Internal QA  External QA  \nProgramme Development  Support from Office of Academic \nQuality, Reporting and Assurance  \nConsultation within college, other \ncolleges.  External Consultation  \nProgramme Approval  Committee Approval Process  CUAP Accreditation Process  \nProfessional Accreditation \n(where relevant)  \nFirst Graduating Cohort   CUAP Graduating Year \nReviews  \nOngoing Delivery  Benchmarking  \nStudent Engagement/Surveys  \nQualification Reviews  \nRegulation Reviews  \nDiscipline/subject Reviews  Benchmarking  \nTEC (Completion Reporting)  \nProfessional Accreditation \n(where relevant)  \nProgramme \nredevelopment/change  Support from Office of Academic \nQuality, Reporting and Assurance  \nImpact and Transition assessment  \nReport of ongoing delivery reviews  External consultation  \nCUAP Accredita tion process  \nProfessional Accreditation \n(where relevant)  \nProgramme Closure  Transitioning Procedures  CUAP Retirement Process  \n7.2 Qualification Reviews  \nAll Massey University qualifications must be reviewed at least once every seven years, in order to \nensure that University qualifications are fit for purpose and are delivered in accordance with University \npolicies and strategies.  \nIt is important that both  qualifications and discipline portfolios are reviewed holistically alongside other \nqualifications in the same suite, so that the overall pattern of engagement, completion, and transfer \nbetween articulating qualifications can be assessed, and the generatio n of new qualifications occupying \nthe same space avoided. The Office of Academic Quality, Reporting and  Assurance manages the \nqualification review  process . \n7.3 Graduating Year Reviews (GYR)  \nCUAP has given the name Graduating Year Review (GYR) to its moderation process. The committee \nrequires a follow -up programme review of all successful proposals involving the introduction of new \nqualifications, and major subjects and endorsements comprising 40% or more of a qualification. Where \na cluster of related qualifications have been approved the GYR review report may cover all those \nqualifications, and up to one extra page per qualification is allowed in such cases. (Higher doctorates \nand PhDs are exempted from this process, and reviews are not required for mi nor subjects or for \nendorsements when they comprise less than 40% of the qualification.)  \n7.3 Low and No Enrolments Policy and Procedures  \nMassey University’s No and Low  Enrolments  Policy and Procedures  are designed to ensure the \nUniversity meets CUAP’s requirement that qualifications and specialisations with low or no enrolments \nY  \n \n  \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nQualifications Framework  – Page 44  \n \nPage 44 of 44 are re -evaluated. The procedures support decision -making, with three possible courses of action: \nrevitalise a qualification  or specialisation where enrolments are declinin g; confirm the strategic, \nacademic , or community importance of those qualification s or specialisations that only attract low \nenrolments ; or close them where appropriate.  \nThe Policy  define s no enrolments as a qualification or specialisation in which no stud ent has enrolled \nin any one academic year. The following EFTS are considered low enrolments:  \n• Bachelor’s degree: 50 EFTS or less per year  \n• Sub-degree – diploma or certificate: 20 EFTS or less per year  \n• Undergraduate specialisations: 30 EFTS or less per year \n• Undergraduate courses: 7.5 EFTS or less per offering at 100 -level; 5 EFTS per offering at 200 -\nlevel; and 2.5 EFTS per offering at 300 -level \n• For a Postgraduate Diploma or Master’s: 15 EFTS or less per year  \n• For A nested Postgraduate Diploma and Master’s : 20 EFTS or less per year  \nQualifications or specialisations with these numbers won’t necessarily be disestablished; rather, this \nestablis hes a threshold for monitoring.  \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Working_After_Hours_or_Alone_Procedure_PDF_230_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Working After Hours or Alone Procedure PDF 230 KB",
      "policy_type": "Procedure",
      "file_size": "230 KB",
      "author": "Banner, Jodie",
      "creation_date": "2024-06-11T12:05:02",
      "modification_date": "D:20240611125231+12'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n \n \n \n \n   \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n \n ENTER PROCEDURE  \n \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University   \nWORKING AFTER HOURS OR ALONE PROCEDURE  \n \nSection  University Services  \nContact  Director  Occupational Health & Safety, Wellbeing  \nLast Review  October 2023  \nNext Review  October  2025  \nApproval  Director Occupational Health & Safety, Wellbeing  \n \n \nPurpose:  \n \nTo ensure that when working outside core working hours compliance is achieved with all Health & \nSafety, statutory and University  regulations, while at the same time providing an open and safe \nenvironment that contributes towards meeting the teaching and research objectives of the University . \nThe procedure details University  steps for:  \n \n• Managing flexible working hours  \n• Managing after -hours occupational health and safety hazards  \n• Supporting safe access to the workplace at night, and  \n• Ensuring safety and security of students, staff, visitors, facilities, and equipment.  \n \nScope : \n \nAll Massey University staff, students, and visitors to a Campus.   \n \n \nProcedure : \n \nMassey University is committed to ensuring the health, safety and welfare of workers, students and \nvisitors at all times while working, including flexibility to undertake work outside conventional hours or \nalone.  \n \nWhen working after -hours, the risks of certain hazards may be increased due to the reduction in \nimmediate assistance in the event of an incident. Outside of University  core working hours, trained on \nsite emergency response personnel or experienced staff may be unavailable. These may include \nbuilding and floor wardens for building evacuation, first aid trained staff, facility staff such as Laboratory \nManagers, student me dical centres and custodial services.  \n \nWorkers and students are responsible for taking all reasonably practicable steps to ensure their own \nhealth, safety, and facility security in University  facilities and when working off site, after -hours, at night, \nor alone. Additional requirements may be set by workers or supervisors and such requirements may be \nongoing or imposed for short periods from time to time.  \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nWorking After Hours or Alone Procedure  – Page 2 \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University    \nSupervisors must be aware of workers or students working after -hours, at night or alone and ensure \nregular and ongoing after -hours work is monitored to ensure it is reasonable, justified, and not likely to \ncause ill health. All after -hours or alone work by  workers is to include vigilant contact to ensure the \nwellbeing of the worker. The extent of vigilance is to be based on the risk of the activity.  \n \nSupervisors must approve after -hours or alone access using the following strategies:  \n• Low risk activities - approval can be open -ended and ongoing. Approval may be implicit \nin course material, conditions of employment, or equivalent.  After -hours work may be \nunsupervised.  \n• Moderate, high, or extreme risk activities must have a risk assessment.  \n•  \nThe approval must include contact processes and frequency should an emergency occur.  \n \nYoung students, in the first two years of an undergraduate degree are permitted to undertake low risk \nactivities alone after -hours.  If the risk is moderate or high, supervision or an equivalent control must be \narranged.  \n \nCompetent mature students, final year (3 -year degree) and higher students or equivalent, honours \nyear, post graduate students, and staff are permitted to work alone after -hours. For moderate and high -\nrisk activities, approval and conditions of access must be documented.  \n \nNo unauthorised persons are permitted into the University  facilities. Staff and students working after -\nhours must carry their University  identification card. In the case of persons approved as a buddy who \nare not staff or students at the University , a written authority must be carried. All staff and students are \nentitled to ask to see the University  identification card or appropriate authority of any person(s) they \nencounter on University  premises at any time. Any persons found without their University  identification \ncard or appropriate authority can be asked to vacate the area by Security.  \n \nThis procedure is not intended to be a stand -alone document. It must be read and applied in \nconjunction with:  \n \n• The agreements between Massey University and its staff.  \n• The agreements between Massey University and its students.  \n• Other University  policies and procedures.  \n \n \nRisk Assessment : \n \nPrior to allowing students or staff to work after-hours or alone, Supervisors should complete a risk \nassessment to:  \n \n• Identify, assess, and control the hazards arising from the work.  \n• Determine any supervision or authorisation requirements.  \n• Determine emergency arrangements including contact processes and frequency.  \n• Consider competency, experience, and skill of the worker and if the task permitted is to \nbe undertaken by students or workers.  \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nWorking After Hours or Alone Procedure  – Page 3 \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University    \nMore detailed information on how to undertake a risk assessment is available on the MySafety website.  \n \nApproval to Undertake Work : \n \nSupervisors should record approval given to undertake after -hours work. The record should include:  \n• Duration of approval,    \n• Procedure, equipment, areas that can be accessed/used,    \n• Tasks that can be undertaken, and   \n• For moderate to high -risk activities, detail of required controls in the risk assessment, \nincluding monitoring and emergency procedures.   \n \nAn example approval form for use with moderate and high -risk hazards is attached below as Appendix \n2. \n \nReview of the After -Hours Approval and Risk Assessment : \n \nThe after -hours risk assessment and approval must be reviewed if the activity or workplace changes.  \n \n \nPersonal Safety When Working After -Hours : \n \nUniversity  facilities used after -hours may hold items of value or be attractive to others, who may gain \nforced entry or wait for a staff member to arrive with keys or access codes.  Examples of items which \nare attractive include: cash, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, ap paratus, machinery, artwork, valuables, AV \nand computing equipment, research material and intellectual property. The attraction may be to gain an \nitem for alternative use, or ideological such as disrupting a process that is not agreed with.    \n \nWhen staff or students are working after -hours, it is preferable to have at least two staff or students \nworking together if possible.    \n \nSecurity must be informed when alarms are deactivated after -hours. Security can provide an escort for \nstaff to their vehicles if they have concerns, or workers should relocate their vehicle or transport to \nfacilitate safe exit from the building and vicinit y.    \n \nMeasures to Enhance Safety for After -hours Lone Working Include:    \n \n• Ensuring the building can be adequately secured from the inside.    \n• Keeping doors locked to prevent casual entry, if appropriate.    \n• Knowing location of help point locations, or arranging a remote -control device, that can \nbe used to activate an audible alarm and alert Security, if safety is threatened.  \n \nIf you Arrive Early:   \n \n• If you are the first person to arrive at work, check for any sign of forced entry.    \n• Where any signs of force are observed the facility should not be entered, as an intruder \ncould be present. The Police or Security should be called, and any other employees \nwarned when they arrive.  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nWorking After Hours or Alone Procedure  – Page 4 \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University    \n \nIf you are Finishing Late:   \n \n• Park as near to your building as possible in an area that will be well lit at night.   \n• Consider other transport options if the only parking available is at an isolated location.    \n• Let someone know you will be working late.    \n• Check that you are secure inside the building and that no doors or windows have been \nleft open or unlocked.    \n• When leaving the building check the immediate area outside for any people loitering, \nbefore opening the door.    \n• Use the best lit route to your car and have someone walk with you if possible.   \n \nOff Campus Appointments:    \n \nSome activities require meeting clients in their homes or in other isolated situations. If you have this \nkind of work, consider what practices you could adopt to reduce any potential risks to your safety.    \n \n• Leave a written record at work of where you are going, the client’s name and the \nestimated time of your return.  \n• When visiting a house or other place, be guided by your instincts. If the person opening \nthe door has a manner which makes you feel uneasy or uncomfortable, don’t go inside. \nMake an excuse and leave immediately.  \n• If you enter a place and later start to feel uncomfortable with the person you are talking \nto, leave as soon as possible. Be aware of potential escape routes.  \n• Carrying a mobile phone will enable you to advise a colleague of your arrival in the \npresence of the client. Any person posing a potential threat to your safety would be \ndeterred by the fact that others are aware of your location, and identity of the perso n you \nare with.  \n• You can also arrange a distress code word for phone use which lets your office know if \nyou are in a risk situation.  \n• When responding to any requests for a meeting, job advertisement, or similar situation, \nconsider the time and place for the proposed appointment.  \n• If you feel that the situation is potentially unsafe, arrange to take a colleague or buddy \nwith you.  \n• If you enter a place and later start to feel uncomfortable with the person you are talking \nto, leave.  \n \nDefinitions:  \n \nAfter -hours: After -hours is usually any time between the hours of 6pm – 7am Monday to Friday, all day \nSaturday, Sunday, statutory holidays, and University  holidays. This definition may be varied in \nemployment agreements with staff. (Note: The purpose of the time definition is to indicate when \ninfrastructural support from other staff presence is not provided. Infrastructural support during working \nhours incl udes support processes such as reception, first aiders, building wardens, technical support, \ntelephony, custodial service, access to specialist advice, “licensed” supervision. Some after -hours work \nmay need to arrange alternative support).  \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nWorking After Hours or Alone Procedure  – Page 5 \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University    \nBuddy:   \nA person who accompanies a student or staff member after -hours in a support role. A buddy is not \nnecessarily another staff member or student. The buddy should be able to provide assistance and \nsummons support should this be required.  \n \nLow risk, moderate, high -risk activities: See examples in Appendix 1.  \n \nNight:   \nHalf an hour after sunset and half an hour before sunrise.  \n \nWork:   \nActivity undertaken by students enrolled in papers in order to meet learning requirements of those \npapers or on behalf of the University  such as laboratory processes, teaching, research activity, clerical \nwork, maintenance, or study.  \n \nSupervisor:   \nCovers any staff member with authority to supervise other staff, students, visitors, and persons with \nbusiness at Massey University. Manager includes titles such as: Vice Chancellor, Pro Vice Chancellor, \nAssistant Vice Chancellor, Chief Executive, Head of Department, Head of School, Head of Institute, \nHead of College, Head of Section, Director, Manager, Supervisor, Laboratory Manager, Containment \nand Transitional Facility Manager, Course supervisors, Lecturers, and equivalent titles.  \n \nWorker:   \nAll people undertaking University  work in any capacity including employees; contractor or \nsubcontractor, employees of a contractor or subcontractor, employees of labour hire companies \nassigned to work in the University , outworkers (including homeworkers), apprentices or a trainee, \npersons gaining work experience or undertaking a work trial, and volunteers.  \n \nWorking alone:   \nA situation, where normal supervision or peer support is not readily available.  \n \n \nRelated documents : \nRelevant Legislation  \n• Health, Safety at Work Act 2015  \n• Employment Relations Act 2000  \n• Education and Training Act 2020  \n \nRelated Procedures  \n• None  \n \n \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nWorking After Hours or Alone Procedure  – Page 6 \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University    \n \n \nAppendix One – Risk Level and Approval Performance Requirements  \nSuggested Type of Approval  Notes and Performance Requirements  \nOpen ended or “Block Approval” can be given for \nthis type of work, e.g.  \n• Work in an office environment.  \n• Using computer laboratories.  \n• Studio work not involving hazardous \nsubstances, hazardous mains powered \nmachinery, or high-risk work.  \n• Interview/survey work with communities except \nhigh-risk groups.  \n• Lone working where other support is readily \navailable.  \n• Readings or observations from low-risk \nexperiments  \n• Work in seminar rooms, study areas, libraries, \nand accommodation facilities.  • Office work hazards are low.  \n• Workers/students should arrange a contact \nto advise safe return.  \n• It is advisable to have arrangements to \nensure safe lone night working, such as \nparking near office or security escort to \nvehicle.  \n• Low risk work in a laboratory or studio work \nmay be deemed as a moderate risk due to \nthe surrounding hazards.  \n“Block Approval” may be given for this type of work, \ne.g. a competent worker who is:  \n• Using hazardous workshop machinery,  \n• Interviews with alcohol or drug dependents in a \npublic place,  \n• Undertaking laboratory low risk work in a \nmoderate risk laboratory  \n• Working in a remote area.  • Some moderate risk activities require \nappropriate supervision, e.g. students \nundertaking work with hazardous \nsubstances, radiation, or operating \nworkshop machines.  \n \n“Individual Approval” may be given to a worker \nprovided the hierarchy of controls has been used \nand adequate controls have been implemented and \ndocumented.  \n • Students should not undertake work where \nthe risk is identified as high without \nsupervisor written approval.  \n• Every effort should be made to reduce the \nlevel of risk.  \n• Where an after -hours worker is alone, \ncontact should be made on a regular and \nplanned basis. The frequency should be \ndependent on the nature of the activities \nand the perceived hazards. Contact might \ntake the form of periodic visits by the \nsupervisor or re gular communication by \ntelephone, radio, or monitoring device.  \nNo approval . Every effort should be made to reduce \nthe level of risk. • No staff or student should undertake very \nextreme risk activities  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nWorking After Hours or Alone Procedure  – Page 7 \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University    \n \n \nAppendix 2 - Approval for Working After -Hours or Alone  \nTo be used for Moderate or High -Risk Activities  \nName(s):   Title/Group:   \nActivity:   \nTime \nRestrictions:   \nLocation:   \nSection 1  Risk Assessment  – Supervisor/Manager in control of work area to complete:  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nSection 2  Communication Plan  \nRoutine Checks \nBy:  Frequency:   \nMethod:  Visual               Phone               Other:  \nContact Phone \nNumbers:  After Hours Worker:   Welfare Checker:   \nEmergency \nActions & \nContact \nNumbers:   \nSection 3  Sign Off  \nPerson Working After -Hours/Alone  Lab Manager/Supervisor  \nHas this activity had a risk \nassessment undertaken \npreviously?  \n \nNo \n Yes \nCan the activity  cause serious harm?  \n(If working alone, consider the risks of working in \nisolation and the impact of minimal emergency \nresponse)  \nNo \n Yes \nComplete \nSection 2 & \nSection 3 below  \nComplete a risk \nassessment and identify \ncontrols or cease activity  \nReview assessment and if required, add \nadditional controls for working after \nhours/alone.  \nConsider how an emergency would be handled \nin the absence of \"normal” emergency \npersonnel. Ensure personnel are aware of \nupdated control measures . \nAttach risk assessment to this approval form  \nComplete Section 2 and Section 3 below  \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nWorking After Hours or Alone Procedure  – Page 8 \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University    \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n The risks determined in the risk assessment are adequately \ncontrolled and I will ensure all hazard control measures are \nimplemented and after -hours registers are completed. I also \nunderstand the emergency procedures for this activity.  \nSigned:  \n \nDate:  The hazards associated with this after -hours/alone work \nhave been adequately addressed and I believe it safe for \nthis work to be undertaken in this manner.  \n \nSigned:  \n \nDate:  \nDissemination  \n• Those working after -hours and those completing welfare checks must have a copy of this approval.  \n• Block approvals may also be posted in the work area.  \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Student_Disciplinary_Regulations__English_PDF_248_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Student Disciplinary Regulations",
      "policy_type": "Regulation",
      "file_size": "248 KB",
      "author": "Riley, Tracy",
      "creation_date": "2024-08-01T12:04:02",
      "modification_date": "D:20240820104555+12'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nPurpose  \n \nMassey University expects  students to act, responsibly , and respectfully  towards one another , and to the University  \nand all staff and guests  of the Universit y. The University also expects that  students will uphold the reputation, integrity , \nand values of the University, and that all students must comply with the University’s statutes, regulations , policies, \nprocedures , and directives.  \nThe University aims to primarily address student disciplinary issues  within an educative  context (including  teaching , \nlearning  and research ), but recognises that  a disciplinary response may be required in  some instances .  \nThe purpose of these Regulations  is therefore to provide  a fair, efficient  and flexible process for resolv ing allegations \nof student misconduct.  \nScope  \n \nThe Student Disciplinary  Regulations apply to all students at Massey  University and  will continue to apply to  former \nstudents wh o may no longer be enrolled at the University in respect of  alleged misconduct which may have occurred \nwhile the student was still enrolled at the University.  \nThese Regulations do not apply to Poor Academic Practice or a Minor B reach  of academic integrity , or any other \nallegations which do not reach the threshold to be considered as possible misconduct.  \nExcept for the Ta te Tauira Kirimana/Student Contract , in the event of any inconsistency between these Regulations  \nand any other  University regulations,  policy, code, procedures, gui delines, or other University regulatory document,  \nthese Regulations  will prevail  unless specifically directed otherwise  in any of those documents . \nPrinciples  \n \nThe University recognises that the majority of students maintain high standards of conduct and that students make \nan important contribution to the positive culture of its community. The University also  recognises its responsibility to  \nact where  those expected standards of conduct might be compromised by  unacceptable behaviour.   \nStudents are expected to comply with University statutes, regulations, rules, policies, codes, procedures, other \nregulatory documents, and any lawful instructions and directions.  Students are also expected not to engage in \nactivities or behaviours that may constitute Academic Misconduct  or Non-academic  Misconduct . \nWhenever the University receives a n allegation of misconduct , irrespective of whether it relates to Academic \nMisconduct or Non-academic  Misconduct,  it will consider all relevant information and seek to resolve th e allegation :   Section  Student Administration and Sup port \nContact  Provost  and DVC Students and Global Engagement  \nLast Review  July 2024  \nNext  Review  April 2027 \nApproval  C24/79  \nEffective  from  July 2024  \n \n STUDENT DISCIPLINARY  REGULATIONS  \n \n \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nStudent Disciplinary Regulations  – Page  2  \n \n(a)  in accordance with th ese Regulations  and other relevant policy documents . \n(b)  in a fair and timely manner . \n(c)  wherever possible, through consultative  processes  aimed at educative  and respectful  resolution.   \n(d)  by following all processes in a way that seeks to safeguard physical , emotional , and cultural  well-being and \nthe safety and integrity of the University’s staff and students , and any other affected party .  \n(e)  in accordance with the principles of procedural fairness (also referred to as natural justice)  as described  \nbelow in these Regulations .  \nNo allegation of Academic Misconduct or Non-academic  Misconduct wi ll be upheld  without due proce ss having been  \nfollowed.  \nA student against whom an allegation of Academic Misconduct or Non-academic  Misconduct has been made, shall \nbe presumed innocent until  they have either admitted to the allegation or the allegation is found to have been \nsubstantiated . \nThe standard of proof required to substantiate Academic Misconduct and Non-academic  Misconduct is on the \nBalance of Probabilit ies. This means that the decision -maker  must be  satisfied, on the evidence, that the alleged \nbehaviour  or event was more likely than not  to have occurred . \nThe University views all allegations it  receive s seriously  and is mindful of the interests of all parties who may be \naffected by an allegation, including the University, its staff,  and its students.  Accordingly, where a n allegation  is made, \nthe relevant staff member s should endeavo ur to assess the risk to and protect the interests of all affected parties . \nThe University will not tolerate any threat s, retribution , victimi sation,  or undue pressure against a person who makes \nan allegation  in good faith .  \nThe University is committed to  being a Te Tiriti o Waitangi -led institution. As such, it may be suitable  in some cases  \nto seek culturally appropriate options for resolution  of Academic Misconduct  or Non-academic  Misconduct  \nallegation s, and  to consider the relevant cultural beliefs , values,  and customs  where relevant . \nDefinitions  \n \nAcademic Integrity Officer  (AIO) : Staff who are appointed by their respective Pro Vice -Chancellor  or the Dean: \nResearch,  with delegated authority to manage suspected  breaches of academic integrity, to support staff with  advice \nand assistance in all matters pertaining to academic integrity, and to ensure that rules pertaining to academic integrity \nare applied consistently and fairly.  \nAcademic Misconduct :  a breach of academic integrity when :  \n• any one or more of the criteria used to categorise the breach, namely the experience of the student, the \nnature of the breach or the extent of the breach, is higher than in the case of a Minor Breach ; or  \n• none of the criteria used to categorise the breach is higher than in the case of a Minor Breach, but the \ncumulative impact of a combination of any of those three criteria are considered to be higher than a Minor \nBreach.  \nAllegation : refers to a stated concern  that a student has possibly committed  Academic M isconduct  or Non -academic \nMisconduct . \nBalance of Probabilit ies refers to the standard of proof used to determine whether misconduct h as occurred. It means \nthat the decision -maker must be satisfied, on the evidence, that the alleged behaviour or event was more likely than \nnot to have occurred . \nInvestigation : means the process  of identification, collection , and analysis  of relevant evidence to assess whether \nAcademic Misconduct or Non -academic Misconduct  may have occurred, and to inform appropriate next steps . \nMisconduct Appeals Committee : a Committee constituted by Council, with delegated authority to hear and adjudicate \nappeals against Academic Misconduct and Non -academic Misconduct decisions.  \n \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nStudent Disciplinary Regulations  – Page  3  \n \nMinor Breach :  a breach of academic integrity when any of the criteria used to categorise the breach, namely the \nexperience of the student, the nature of the breach or the extent of the breach, is higher than in the case of Poor \nAcademic Practice but none reach the threshold of Academic Misconduct ; or non -academic  student behaviour which \ndoes not  reach the threshold to be considered  Non-academic  Misconduct .  \nMisconduct Register : a centrally held , confidential register of all cases where students have been found to have \ncommitted a Minor Breach, A cademic Misconduct , or Non -academic Misconduct . Access to the Misconduct Register \nis restricted to authorised staff only, who will provide specific information to an AIO or the University Proctor, upon \nrequest, regarding any record in respect of a particular student who has been found to have committed a Minor \nBreach, Academic Misconduct, or Non -academic Misconduct, in order for the AIO or University Proctor to take that \nrecord into account wh en determining an appropriate outcome in the subsequent case.  \nNon-academic Misconduct means any conduct  other than Academic Misconduct which:    \na)  is in breach of the Kaupapa Here Aratohu /  Code of Student Conduct; and/or any other relevant University \npolicy, code, regulation,  or procedure; or    \nb)  could otherwise reasonably be held to be prejudicial to the functioning or interests of the University and/or \nits students (provided that nothing in this paragraph shall prevent persons reasonably exercising their rights \nto freedom of expression and pe aceful assembly ).   \nand which    \nc)  occurs upon University premises, grounds,  or residential accommodation; or    \nd)  is otherwise connected with the student 's programme of studies; or    \ne)  is otherwise related to that student 's status as a student at the University and which in any case may be \nsubject to disciplinary consequences; and which can be dealt with by the relevant staff member as provided \nin these Regulations .  \nStudent  in this policy refers to:  \na)   a person who is enrolled in a course, a subject,  or a group of subjects (including micro -credentials  and short \ncourses ) at the University.  \nb)   a person who was a student at the time of any alleged misconduct.  \nc)   a person who is seeking admission or enrolment at the University.  \nd)   a person who became a student after having allegedly done so by misleading or false means.  \ne)   a person who has consented in writing to be subject to the statutes, regulations,  and policies of the \nUniversity as a student.  \nf)   a person who is on suspension or leave of absence from or who has deferred enrolment in a course, subject \nor group of subjects, at the University.  \nUniversity Proctor :  the person who is designated by the University to provide advice  and support to staff in relation \nto Academic Misconduct  and Non -academic Misconduct , and to investigate cases of possible  Academic Misconduct \nor Non -academic Misconduct when such an Investigation is referred to the University Proctor .  \nReporting Academic  Misconduct  \n \nWhere a report of an  alleged  breach of  academic  integrity is  made to an  AIO under the Academic Integrity: \nProcedures for Managing Student Breaches , and the AIO  determines that the alleged  breach of academic integrity \nmay meet the criteria for Academic M isconduct, the AIO may contact the University Proctor for support and guidance. \nThe AIO may either manage the case themselves  in accordance with these Regulations , or may refer the case to the \nUniversity Proctor for Investigation and management where:  \na) the case may involve procedural or substantive complexities.  \nb) the commission of a crime is alleged; or  \nc) the allegation is made against a doctoral candidate.  \nThe report to the AIO must be made in writing and  must as far as reasonably possible  be accompanied by evidence \nsupporting  the suspicion or allegation of a breach of academic integrity.  Where a  report  is made anonymously  or by  \n \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nStudent Disciplinary Regulations  – Page  4  \n \na person who wishes for their identity not to be disclosed , the student’s inability to challenge the person making the \nanonymous allegation and the implications for ensuring a fair process must be considered carefully  before a decision \nis made to investigate the allegation or put it to the student.  \nWhere an allegation is made later than one year after the occurrence of the alleged Academic  Misconduct, the \nallegation may only be considered with the consent of the  applicable Pro Vice -Chancellor.  \nReporting Non-academic  Misconduct  \n \nNon-academic  Misconduct generally relates to inappropriate  behaviour  or actions . Although this is not an exhaustive \nlist, this includes  inappropriate comments, rudeness, bullying, harassment, discrimination, threats, physical violence , \ncommitting a crime , damaging property, or financial irregularities . \nAny person may make an a llegation  of Non-academic  Misconduct against a student  in good faith. This includes :    \na)    other students at the University; or   \nb)   staff of the University; or    \nc)  persons outside the University who may have been affected by the actions of a student  that relate  directly \nto their enrolment with the University .  \nAllegations of Non-academic  Misconduct must be made in writing and  must as far as reasonably possible be \naccompanied by evidence supporting the allegation . Where an allegation is made anonymously , the student’s inability \nto challenge the person making the anonymous allegation and the implications for ensuring a fair process must be \nconsidered carefully before  a decision is made to  investigate the allegation or put it to the student.  \nAllegations of Non-academic  Misconduct must be made to the University as  soon  as reasonably possible . Where an \nallegation is made  later than one year after  the occurrence of the  alleged Non-academic  Misconduct, the allegation \nmay only be considered with the consent of the Executive Director : Student Experience . \nThe Reporting Process  \n \nThe report ing of an allegation may be made via the University’s online portal for making complaints, or  may be made \nin writing to  one of the following staf f members:  \na) the Pro  Vice-Chancellor of the relevant College ; or \nb) the Executive Director: Student  Experience ; or \nc) the University Proctor . \nAny other  staff member  receiving the initial report of alleg ed m isconduct will triage  the allegation and will then refer \nthe allegation and evidence  to the following  staff member to deal with the allegation  under these Regulations : \na) Alleged Academic Misconduct: to the AIO of the applicable College  or Unit; or \nb) Alleged Non-academic  Misconduct: to the Executive Director : Student Experience . \nThe interests of all parties reasonably affected by an allegation must be considered  and protected appropriately . \nAffected persons may include:  \na) the person making the allegation . \nb) the person against whom the allegation is made . \nc) staff member s of the University . \nd) (other) students at the University . \ne) persons who are not staff or students at the University.  \nf) the University.  \nWhere the allegation involves behaviour which might reasonably be considered to warrant the imposition of interim \nmeasures to protect the interests of any affected party or the fairness of an Investigation, the Executive Director:  \n \n \n \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nStudent Disciplinary Regulations  – Page  5  \n \nStudent Experience  in consultation with the Pro Vice -Chancellor(s) of the College(s) within which the student’s \nstudies takes place, will consider what, if any,  appropriate interim measures should  be imposed , taking into account:  \na) the health, safety, wellbeing, and reputation of any  students, staff, or visitors of the University . \nb) the orderly conduct of teaching and learning at the University . \nc) the protection of property , facilities,  and resources  of the University . \nd) the potential impact of a suspension or restriction on the student and their studies . \ne) any other matters considered appropriate in the  circumstances.  \nThe Executive Director: Student Experience  will recommend  any interim measures to the Vice-Chancellor , who will \nimpose such interim measures as may be reasonable and  will inform the student accordingly . The interim measures \nmay include suspending the right of the student to attend any University premises, grounds, or residential facilities; \nor attend events organised by or for the University; or use any resources of the University.  The student will as far as  \npracticable be given a reasonable opportunity to comment on any proposed interim measures  before the measures \nare implemented or at any time thereafter, and those comments will be duly considered.  \nProcedural fairness  \n \nThe principles of procedural fairness (also referred to as natural justice) apply to managing and investigating cases \nof alleged Academic Misconduct and Non-academic  Misconduct . These principles encapsulate the hearing rule \n(providing an opportunity to be heard), the rule against bias (decision -makers  are impartial, unbiased, and have not \nmade any predetermination) and the evidence rule (decisions are based on evidence). It is expected that staff must \nconsider, investigate, and deal with allegations of Academic Misconduct and Non-academic  Misconduct  in a timely, \naccessible, culturally safe, and competent manner , and in a way that is:  \n \n• Proportional:  Investigations and subsequent actions , including the outcome imposed , need to be \nproportional to the alleged breach.  In determining that Academic Misconduct  or Non-academic  Misconduct  \noccurred, the finding must be based on the evidence  considered, and on a Balance of Probabilit ies. \n• Fair: Investigations need to afford procedural fairness to students and, where appropriate, staff and others \nwho may be adversely affected by any Investigation. Students must  be advised of their right to  be \nrepresent ed and support ed by a person or persons of their choice  during the process.  \n• Impartial : Investigators and decision -makers must  be impartial and must therefore not have  any prior \nknowledge or any interests that do, may, or may  be perceived , to jeopardise their impartiality. They must \nalso act in a way that upholds specific individual and cultural needs or circumstances of the parties . \n• Timely : Investigations into allegations of Academic Misconduct and Non-academic  Misconduct  should be \nconducted in a timely manner to avoid undue delays , and to mitigate the impact on those involved .  \n• Transparent : Information about  the complaint(s), evidence and p rocess must  be provided to students , staff, \nand any other persons impacted by an allegation, and they must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to \nrespond to the allegation(s) . Accurate records are to be maintained for all parts of the process, in \naccordance with the University’s r ecord keeping system (as defined in the Information Records \nManagement Policy ).  \n• Confidential : Information will be treated as confidential and will only be disclosed : \no when  required  by law , regulation, or legal process ; or \no to university staff who may have a legitimate need  to know such information for the purpose of \nfulfilling their duties ; or \no when the student consents to disclosure . \n \n \n \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nStudent Disciplinary Regulations  – Page  6  \n \nProcedures  \n \nWherever possible, an AIO (in the case of Academic Misconduct ) or the Executive Director: Student Experience  (in \nthe case of Non-academic  Misconduct) , or their  nominees,  should in the first instance connect with  the student \nagainst whom an allegation of Academic Misconduct  or Non-academic  Misconduct ha s been made , aimed at \nachieving appropriate and consensual educative and /or disciplinary resolution . This may include, where the parties  \nagree, mediation.  Where either of the parties involved do not agree to engage in this consultative process , or that \nprocess does not result in resolution  the process as outlined below shall be followed . \nWhere any report or allegation  is under investigation at the time  of approval of these Student Disciplinary Regulations , \nand in the absence of an agreement between the parties to follow the procedures set out in these Student Disciplinary \nRegulations , the procedures as  set out in the previously approved version of the Student  Disciplinary Regulations in \neffect at the time when the report or allegation was made, will be followed.  \nWhere a n allegation  of Academic Misconduct or Non-academic  Misconduct  is resolved through  the consultative \nprocess referred t o above, including mediation, the outcome is not appealable.  Student s must be informed  of this  in \nwriting before finalising  the resolution.  \nWhere appropriate, or where specifically requested by a student against whom an allegation of Academic Misconduct \nor Non-academic  Misconduct has been made, a process may be followed which is  more culturally appropriate . Where \nsuch a process is considered or requested, the Deputy Vice -Chancellor  Māori must be approached  beforehand , for \nthe Deputy Vice -Chancellor Māori or nominee to  determine an appropriate process to be followed in that case.  Where \neither of the parties involved do not agree to the alternative process determined by the Deputy  Vice-Chancellor Māori  \nor nominee, the process as outlined below shall be followed.  This does not  limit the student’s right to be supported \nby a support person  or person s, including appropriate cultural support.  \nWhen an AIO (in the case of Academic Misconduct) or the Executive Director: Student Experience  (in the case of \nNon-academic  Misconduct)  considers that an allegation may constitute a criminal offence, they may at any stage \nrefer the matter and any evidence collected to the appropriate law enforcement agency , and inform the student \naccordingly . Such a referral shall not however prevent the matter from being investigated and processed further  in \nterms of these Regulations , including the imposition of an outcome  and/or such interim measures as may reasonably \nbe required . \nAcademic Misconduct  \n1. Where an AIO is of the opinion  that an alleged breach of academic integrity may meet the criteria for Academic \nMisconduct, set out in the  Academic Integrity: P rocedures for Managing Student Breaches , the AIO may contact \nthe University Proctor for support and guidance. The AIO may either manage the case themselves, or may refer \nthe case to the University Proctor for Investigation and management where:  \na) the case may involve procedural or substantive complexities.  \nb) the commission of a crime is alleged; or  \nc) the allegation is made against a doctoral candidate.  \n2. The AIO or University Proctor, as the case may be,  must  complete an Investigation . \n3. The Investigation must be conducted in accordance with the  principles of procedural fairness described above.  \n4. Where the AIO or University Proctor is of the opinion, after completion of the Investigation , that the evidence \ncollected does not  substantiate the allegation , the matter must be closed without any further action being taken \nagainst the student concerned.  Although records of all relevant documentation collected must be kept in \naccordance with the University’s Information Records Management Policy , no record will be  entered in the \nMisconduct Register . \n \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nStudent Disciplinary Regulations  – Page  7  \n \n5. Where the AIO or University Proctor is of the opinion that the evidence collected supports  the allegation, the \nAIO or University Proctor must  inform the student of the allegation, and must provide the student with:  \na) sufficient d etails of the allegation  to allow the student to reasonably respond  to it. \nb) copies of all evidence collected during the Investigation . \nc) details of the process which will be followed.  \nd) references to relevant University policies , procedures, regulations,  and codes.  \ne) refere nces to support and advocacy services available to the student.  \nand the AIO or University Proctor must advise the student  of: \nf) their right to be represented  and/or supported throughout the process.  \ng) their right to be heard , respond to the allegation and evidence, to  make  representations , and not to \nanswer questions or make representations . \nh) the possible consequences of not  responding to the allegation or evidence.  \ni) the possible outcomes should the allegation be substantiated.  \n6. If the student  accepts responsibility for the alleged Academic Misconduct, or does not respond or make \nrepresentations to the allegation or evidence , the AIO or University Proctor , as the case may be, must determine \nan outcome  on the available evidence , in accordance with the  options  listed in Appendix 1, and must inform the \nstudent of the outcome.   \n7. If the student does not accept responsibility  for the alleged Academic Misconduct, and respond s to or make s \nrepresentations regarding  the allegation or evidence, the AIO or University Proctor, as the case may be, must  \nconsider the available evidence including any responses and representations the student makes, and any \nevidence the student  presents, and any further investigation  required, before determin ing an outcome, in \naccordance with the options listed in Appendix 1. The AIO or University Proctor  must inform the student of the \noutcome  in writing .  \n8. After finding that the evidence substantiates  Academic Misconduct, and b efore determining the outcome, the \nAIO or University Proctor must consult the Misconduct Register  to confirm whether the student has committed \nAcademic Misconduct before, and this information may be taken into account when determining an appropriate \noutcome in that case.  \n9. Where Academic  Misconduct was substantiated, details of the  allegation  and outcome will be recorded in the \nMisconduct Register , and the outcome will be actioned by the University promptly.  This applies to any outcome \nreached , irrespective of whether  it has been reached  by means of a decision by the AIO or University Proctor , \nthrough mediation or other culturally appropriate process, or agreed upon.  \n10. The student must be informed  in writing  of their right to appeal and  be referred to the applicable appeal process  \nand grounds for appeal as set out below.  \nNon-academi c Misconduct  \n1. Allegations of Non-academic  Misconduct will be investigated and managed by  the Executive Director: Student \nExperience  (or their nominee) , or by the University Proctor.  The University Proctor will only investigate and \nmanage the al legation where:  \na) the case may involve procedural or substantive complexities;  or \nb) the commission of a crime is alleged; or  \nc) the allegation is made against a doctoral candidate.  \n2. Where an allegation is investigated by the Executive Director: Student Experience  (or their nominee), they may \ncontact the University Proctor for support and guidance.  \n3. The Executive Director: Student Experience  (or their nominee)  or the University Proctor , as the case may be, \nmust complete an Investigation.  \n \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nStudent Disciplinary Regulations  – Page  8  \n \n4. The Investigation must be conducted in accordance with the principles of procedural fairness described above.  \n \n5. Where the  Executive Director: Student Experience  (or their nominee) or the University Proctor is of the opinion, \nafter completion of the Investigation, that the evidence collected does not  support  the allegation, the matter must  \nbe closed without any further action being taken against the student concerned. Although records of all relevant \ndocumentation collected must be kept in accordance with the University’s Information Records Management \nPolicy , no record will be entered in the Misconduct Register .  \n6. Where the Executive Director: Student Experience  (or their nominee) or University Proctor is of the opinion, after \ncompletion of the Investigation, that the evidence collected supports  the allegation, the Executive Director: \nStudent Experience  (or their nominee) or University Proctor must inform the student of the allegation, and must \nprovide the student with:  \na) sufficient details of the allegation to allow the student to reasonably respond to it.  \nb) copies of all evidence collected during the Investigation.  \nc) details of the process which will be followed.  \nd) references to relevant University policies, procedures, regulations,  and codes.  \ne) references to support and advocacy services available to the student.  \nand the Executive Director: Student Experience or University Proctor must advise the student of:  \nf) their right to be represented and/or supported throughout the process.  \ng) their right to be heard, respond to the allegation and evidence, to make representations, and not to \nanswer questions or make representations.  \nh) the possible consequences of not responding to the allegation or evidence.  \ni) the possible outcomes should the allegation be substantiated.  \n7. If the student accepts responsibility for the alleged Non-academic  Misconduct, or does not respond or make \nrepresentations to the allegation or evidence , the Executive Director: Student Experience  (or their nominee) or \nUniversity Proctor, as the case may be, must determine an outcome on the available evidence, in accordance \nwith the options listed in Appendix 2, and must inform the student of the outcome.  \n8. If the student does not accept responsibility for the alleged Non-academic  Misconduct, and responds to or makes \nrepresentations regarding the allegation or evidence, the Executive Director: Student Experience  (or their \nnominee) or University Proctor, as the case may be, must consider the available evidence including any \nresponses and representations the student makes, and any evidence the student presents, before determining \nan outcome, in accordance with the options listed in Appendix  2. The Executive Director: Student Experience  (or \ntheir nominee) or University Proctor must inform the student of the outcome.  \n9. After finding that the student has committed Non-academic Misconduct, and before determining the outcome, \nthe Executive Director: Student Experience  (or their nominee) or University Proctor must consult the Misconduct \nRegister  to confirm whether the student has committed Non-academic  Misconduct before, and this information \nmay be taken into account when determining an appropriate outcome in that case.  \n10. Where Non-academic  Misconduct was substantiated, details of the allegation and outcome will be recorded in \nthe Misconduct Register , and the outcome will be actioned by the University promptly. This applies to a ny \noutcome reached, irrespective of whether it has been reached by means of a decision by the Executive Director: \nStudent Experience  (or their nominee) or University Proctor, through mediation or other culturally appropriate \nprocess, or agreed upon.  \n11. The student must be informed - in writing  of their right to appeal and  referred to the applicable appeal process \nand grounds for appeal as set out below.  \n \n \n \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nStudent Disciplinary Regulations  – Page  9  \n \nAppeals  \nA student against whom  an allegation of Academic Misconduct or Non-academic  Misconduct has been upheld  may \nappeal against that decision or outcome . The appeal must be made within ten (10) working days of the date of th at \ndecision and  must be  made in writing to the Misconduct Appeals Committee.   \nThe Misconduct Appeals Committee may consider applications  for appeals to be made later than the 10-day period \nin exceptional cases . When seeking to make an appeal later than the 1 0-day period , the student making the appeal \nmust provide a  reasonable explanation  why the appeal could not have been made within the 1 0-day period.  \nThe principles of procedural fairness  outlined above apply to  all appeals made under these Regulations , including \nthat members of the Misconduct Appeals Committee may not be involved with matters in which they have , or may \nbe perceived to have , an interest or prior knowledge.  \nAn appeal may only be made on one or more of the following grounds , and is not intended to allow a mere \nreconsideration  of the case by a different decision -making entity : \na) That the process for investigating and/or determining the outcome was procedurally unfair.  \nb) That the finding  could not reasonably  be sustained on the evidence , on a balance of probabilities . \nc) That the outcome imposed is disproportionate  to the Academic Misconduct or Non-academic  Misconduct.  \nd) That significant new evidence , which was not reasonably available before , has become available  since the \ndecision that is being appealed against, and which could reasonably be expected to have a material  effect \non the finding  or outcome . \nOutcomes which have been reached  by agreement  with the student , whether through consultation, mediation,  cultural  \nprocess , or other  agreed manner, may not be appealed  against .  \nThe Misconduct Appeals Committee  is delegated with the authority to consider  and adjudicate  all appeals in relation \nto Academic Misconduct and Non-academic  Misconduct.  Where applicable, t he standard of proof required for an \nappeal to succeed  is on the Balance of Probabilit ies. \nDecisions on appeals will be based exclusively on the consideration of  written submissions  and supporting evidence \nprovided to the  Misconduct Appeals Committee  by or on behalf of the student making the appeal , and the University . \nOral submissions will not be permitted  unless in exceptional cases . To initiate an appeal, a student  must submit a \nwritten appeal which  include s an explanation of the grounds for appeal, along with any supporting evidence . \nThe Misconduct Appeals Committee is comprised  of three members, being:  \na) one staff member with appropriate expe rience  appointed as Chairperson for a designated term by the Vice -\nChancellor . \nb) one staff member  appointed by the Chairperson of the Misconduct  Appeals Committee , from a pool of \nseven  staff members  nominated as below to serve on the Misconduct Appeals Committee for terms of up \nto three years  each:  \ni. One nominee by the Pro Vice -Chancellor of the College of  Creative Arts . \nii. One nominee by the Pro Vice -Chancellor of the College of  Health . \niii. One nominee by the Pro Vice -Chancellor of the College of  Humanities and Social Sciences . \niv. One nominee by the Pro Vice -Chancellor of the College of  Sciences . \nv. One nominee by the Pro Vice -Chancellor of the Massey Business School . \nvi. One nominee by the Deputy  Vice-Chancellor Students and Global En gagement . \nvii. One nominee by the  College Director of the Massey University College . \nc) one staff member appointed by the Chairperson of the Misconduct Appeals Committee , from a pool of four \nstaff members nominated to serve on the Misconduct Appeals Committee  by the Deputy Vice -Chancellor \nMāori.  \n \n \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nStudent Disciplinary Regulations  – Page  10  \n \nThe Chairperson of the Misconduct  Appeals  Committee may appoint an adviser or advisers to assist at a hearing in \nrelation to particular aspects of a n appeal, including procedure  and any culturally appropriate  processes agreed to . \nSuch  advisor or advisors will not have any voting powers on the outcome of the appeal.  \nThe Misconduct Appeals Committee  may, by a majority decision : \na) determine that the grounds for appeal are not met, and dismiss the appeal, or  \nb) determine that the grounds for appeal are met, and:  \ni. uphold the appeal and set aside the decision  appealed against;  or \nii. dismiss the appeal and uphold the decision appealed against;  or \niii. vary the decision appealed against; or  \niv. vary the outcome appealed against  to any of the possible outcomes listed in Appendix 1 (in the \ncase of Academic Misconduct) or Appendix 2 (in the case of Non-academic  Misconduct) , \nirrespective whether the new outcome is regarded as more or less severe  than what was originally \nimposed.  \n \nDecision s of the Misconduct Appeals Committee  shall be by simple majority  of the members adjudicating an appeal.  \nDecisions of the  Misconduct Appeals Committee  shall be the final decision and  must be notified to the student who \nmakes the appeal in writing as soon as is reasonably possible.  \n \nRecordkeeping  \nRecords of all documents relating to cases managed as Academic Misconduct  and Non-academic  Misconduct  must \nbe kept securely and confidentially in accordance with the requirements set out in the University’s Information \nRecords Management Policy . This includes:  \na) copies of the notice of any allegation(s) and meeting s with the student.  \nb) all relevant evidence collected and correspondence.  \nc) any documents provided by the student in response to allegations and evidence.  \nd) the letter(s) informing the student of the finding and outcome.  \ne) all documents relating to an appeal.  \nThose records will be disposed of in accordance with the General Disposal Authority for New Zealand Universities . \nThe University will record information relating to all cases where students have been found to have committed \nAcademic Misconduct  and Non-academic  Misconduct , in the Misconduct Register . The Misconduct Register  will be \ncentrally managed, and access to it will be restricted to authorised staff only.  \nDetails of every case where either Academic Misconduct or Non-academic  Misconduct has been  substantiated must \nbe provided to the staff member authorised to manage the Misconduct Register , at the time when the student is \nnotified of the outcome  and must  be recorded in the Misconduct R egister .  \nAll processes and decisions under these Regulations  must be treated  as confidential to the parties involved and to \nrelevant University staff, including  for purposes of an appeal, and shall not be disclosed  unless lawfully  required  or \nagreed to.  The University shall be allowed to  notify any external agency lawfully interested in the student’s  record, of \nany records appearing  in the Misconduct Register  in relation to the student.  \n \nAudience : \n \nAll staff and students.  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nStudent Disciplinary Regulations  – Page  11  \n \n \nRelevant legislation:  \n \nEmployment Relations Act 2000  \nHealth and Safety at Work Act 2015  \nHuman Rights Act 1993  \nOfficial Information Act 1982  \nPrivacy Act 2020  \nPublic Records Act 2005  \n \nRelated policies and procedures:  \n \nAcademic Freedom Policy  \nAcademic Integrity  Policy \nCode of Ethical Conduct  for Research, Teaching  and Evaluations Involving Human Participants  \nCode of Ethical Conduct for  the Use of Animals  for Research, Testing and Teaching  \nCode of Responsible Research Conduct  \nCode of Student Conduct/ Kaupapa Here Aratohu  \nHarassment and Discrimination at Work Policy  \nHarmful Sexual Behaviour Policy  \nHealth, Safety and Wellbeing Policy  \nInformation Records Management Policy  \nIntellectual Property Policy  \nPaerangi: Massey University Learning and Teaching Plan \nAcademic Integrity: Procedures for Managing Student Breaches  \nStudent Complaints and Grievance Procedures  \nStudent Contract / Tā te Tauira Kirimana  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nStudent Disciplinary Regulations  – Page  12  \n \nAppendix 1: Determining the Outcome for Academic Misconduct  \n \nExclusion from the University  \nAcademic  Misconduct :  \nAcademic Integrity Officer  or University Proctor  Period of suspension from the University  \nFail the course in which the breach occurred  \nZero for the whole assess ment  in which the breach occurred  \nReduced mark  (up to  zero)  for the assessment component  in which the breach occurred , or for \na whole assessment where the assessment makes out less than 5% of the course mark  \nRepeat the assessment (in whole or in part) , with or without  a reduced maximum mark  \nRecommendation to undertake an appropriate learning support activity  \nRemedial/educative advice  \nWarning  \nDismiss the allegation as not proved, or for being trivial or vexatious  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nMassey University Policy Guide  \nStudent Disciplinary Regulations  – Page  13  \n \nAppendix 2: Determining the Outcome for Non-academic  Misconduct  \n \n \nExclusion from the University  \nNon-academic  Misconduct :  \nExecutive  Director: Student Experience  (or nominee)  or University Proctor  \nPeriod of suspension from the University  \nA financial penalty or order for restitution which shall not exceed $5,000  \nRecommendation to undertake an appropriate restorative or support activity  \nRemedial/educative advice  \nWarning  \nDismiss the allegation as not proved, or for being trivial or vexatious  \n \n \n \n \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Tax_Risk_Management_Framework_PDF_257_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Tax Risk Management Framework PDF 257 KB",
      "policy_type": "Framework",
      "file_size": "257 KB",
      "author": "Hunter, Haylee",
      "creation_date": "2022-11-01T13:01:02",
      "modification_date": "D:20221101131204+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " \nLast updated : June 2022   \n \n \n \nMassey University  \nTax Risk Management  Framework  \n \n \n  \n\nMassey University  Group Limited  \nTax Risk Management Policy  \n \n \n1 \n 1. Introduction  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 2 \n1.1. Purpose & overview  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 2 \n1.2. Background  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  2 \n1.3. Scope and application  ................................ ................................ ................................ . 2 \n2. Tax at Massey University  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  3 \n2.1. Tax profile  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  3 \n2.2. Tax objectives  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............  3 \n2.3. Definition of tax risk  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 3 \n2.4. Tax risk appetite  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  4 \n2.5. Identification of tax risks  ................................ ................................ ..............................  6 \n2.6. Relationship with Inland Revenue  ................................ ................................ ...............  6 \n2.7. Global tax developments  ................................ ................................ .............................  7 \n3. Responsibilities and accountabilities  ................................ ................................ .............................  7 \n3.1. Role of the internal team responsible for tax  ................................ ..............................  7 \n3.2. The Finance and Assurance Committee of C ouncil  ................................ ...................  9 \n3.3. External tax advisor/specialist engagement ................................ ................................  9 \n4. Tax controls and procedures  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......  10 \n4.1. Monitoring and reporting ................................ ................................ ............................  10 \n4.2. Key risk indicators ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 11 \n4.3. Monitoring of the tax risk management framework  ................................ ...................  11 \n4.4. Mitigation and prevention of tax risks  ................................ ................................ ........  11 \n4.5. Response when a tax risk arises  ................................ ................................ ..............  12 \n4.6. Overseas tax risk management ................................ ................................ .................  13 \n  \nMassey University  Group Limited  \nTax Risk Management Policy  \n \n \n2 \n 1. Intro duction   \n1.1. Purpose & overview   \nThe purpose of the T ax Risk Management  Framework ( the Framework) is to outline  the \napproved procedures in respect of all  tax related  activity to be undertaken by Massey \nUniversity.  The formalisation of such procedures will enable t ax related  risks within Massey \nto be prudently managed.  \nAs circumstances change, the procedures outlined in this Framework will be modified to \nensure that t ax risks within Massey continue to be well managed.   \n \n1.2. Background  \nA priority of the Council  is to ensure  that Massey University  maintains the highest standards \nwhen  complying with its tax obligations , in New Zealand and overseas . As a leading New \nZealand university , it is critical that Massey University maintain s its social licence to operate , \nboth in New Zealand and in all overseas jurisdictions  that it has a n educational presence. \nBeing , and being seen as , a good and compliant tax citizen , is a k ey aspect of achieving this.  \nThis framework ensures Massey University ’s tax risk is effectively managed  in accordance \nwith the  Tax Risk Management Policy .  The Tax Risk Management  Policy and Fram ework  \napplies to all employees  working within Massey University  and other entities ( collectively the \n“Group” ), in New Zealand and overseas . Therefore, references to Massey University in this \ndocument should be read as covering all such Group entities (unless the context specifically \nrequires otherwise) . \nThe framework  is intended to provide clear guidance for those working within the Massey \nUniversity  Group that have tax compliance  or tax reporting  obligations  while also fostering \nmutual understanding between the Finance and Assurance Committee of Council (“ FAC”), \nwhich has delegated responsibility for tax governance  monitoring , and all Massey University  \nstaff, including Management,  responsible for the tax func tion on the timely and effective \nmanagement of and reporting on tax issues.  \n1.3. Scope  and application  \nThis document provides guidance and principles on tax risk management by which all \nMassey University  staff representing entities within the Massey University  Group should \nabide.    \nThis framework  also applies to the management of tax obligations and tax ris k in overseas \njurisdictions by Massey University (therefore, references to Inland Revenue and New \nZealand  taxes, where applicable, should be substituted for the relevant local tax authorities’  \ntaxes where appropriate ). Part 4.6 outlines the management of overseas tax risk.  \nThis document sets out:  \n‣ The framework for tax risk management at Massey University ; \n‣ The definition of  tax risks;  \nMassey University  Group Limited  \nTax Risk Management Policy  \n \n \n3 \n ‣ Massey University ’s tax risk appetite;  \n‣ How sources of tax risk will be  identified;  \n‣ How tax risks will be assessed and responded to;  \n‣ How processes and controls will be established to combat tax risk; and  \n‣ How the risk identification procedure is monitored at different levels of the organisation \nso that action can be taken where appropriate.  \n2. Tax at Massey University  \n2.1. Tax profile  \nMassey University (including  its wholly owned New Zealand subsidiaries) is exempt from \nNew Zealand income tax. However, Massey  University is registered for  GST, is liable \nfor FBT and withholding taxes, and must deduct employment -related taxes and other levies \n(such as PAYE, ACC levie s and KiwiSaver deductions). In New Zealand, the tax risk focus is \nprimarily these operational tax types.  \nNotwithstanding Massey University’s New Zealand income tax exemption, it may have \nincome tax (and operational tax) obligations in overseas jurisdicti ons due to operations or \nemployee  presence in  those countries and regions. Tax risk may also arise in relation to \nventures entered into with non -tax exempt third parties, both in New Zealand and overseas.  \n2.2. Tax objectives  \nThe Council, through FAC,  has set the following overarching objectives for the organisation \nwith respect to tax:  \n‣ Ensur ing Massey University  complies with all tax laws applicable to its activities  in all \nrelevant jurisdictions  it operates or has a presence in.   \n‣ Ensuring there  is appropriate engagement at all levels of the organisation to ensure that \ntax risk is effectively managed  and reported on .  \n‣ Ensuring that external tax advisor assistance is sought, where applicable , to en sure \npotential tax risks are well understood, and any tax positions that will be taken are \nrobustly supportable and will not damage the organisation’s reputation with tax \nauthorities or the wider public . \n‣ There is regular reporting on tax matters both within the University and to the FAC. The \nscope  and frequency  of such reporting is detailed in this policy document .  \n2.3. Definition of tax risk  \nFor Massey University, tax risk is the risk of  additional amounts to  pay to tax authorities  \n(including in the form of tax penalties and/or interest)  and, most importantly,  the adverse \nimpact on its reputation and social licence to operate, in the event that the organisation:  \n‣ Makes a material error in the calculation of  it tax liabilities  that adversely impacts either \nthe organisation  itself and/or  any key stakeholders, such as staff (“Tax Underpayment \nand Reporting Risk ”); \nMassey University  Group Limited  \nTax Risk Management Policy  \n \n \n4 \n ‣ Incurs a tax cost materially in excess of the expected tax cost  including by failing to \nidentify legitimate ways to optimise tax  position s (“Excess Tax Cost  and Tax \nOverpayment  Risk ”); \n‣ Fails to exercise good governance and oversight of the organisation’s conduct in relation \nto tax, resulting in lasting adverse perception of the organisation by different stakeholder  \ngroups  (“Tax Reputation Risk ”); \n‣ Undertakes non -routine transactions , including new ventures in New Zealand or \noverseas , without adequate consider ation  of the exposure to tax risk (“ Tax Transaction \nRisk ”); \n‣ Undergoes a change in personnel or experiences a lack of experienced resources  to \neffectively manage the tax function  and day -to-day compliance  (“Tax Management \nRisk”); and  \n‣ Misses any compliance deadlines set by the tax authorities or incurs any shortfall \npenalties or interest as a result of the failure to comply in an accurate or timely manner \n(“Tax Compliance Risk ”). \n2.4. Tax risk appetite  \nMassey University  should maintain a low  appetite to tax risk and, in particular, any exposure \nto Tax Underpayment and  Reporting Risk and Tax Reputation Risk  should be minimised .  \nManagement responsible for the tax function should act in accordance with this approach to \neffectively manage overall tax risk.    \nIn summary, this means that while Management  should look for opportunities to manage \nExcess Tax Cost and Tax Overpayment Risk, all resultant tax risks should be managed \nthrough comprehensive tax policy and procedure documentation, clear sign -off expectations \nand regular reporting  to the FAC on tax risk .  Further, risks should be monitored through the \nuse of key risk indicators (“KRIs”) pursuant  to Part 4. 2, as well as any other risk indicators \nthat Management  and the FAC agree to be  appropriate.   \nSpecifically, Massey University ’s approach to  the tax risk s identified above should be as \nfollows:  \nTax Underpayment and Reporting Risk  \nObjective : \nAll tax returns, internal tax documentation and financial reporting tax note s and disclosures , \nwill be prepared  accurately, honestly and in line with all applicable legal and regulatory \nrequirements . \nMassey University  implements and maintains systems, processes and controls  (including \nsign-off requirements outlined in section 3 below)  to achieve this within acceptable levels of \naccuracy .  \nThis will primarily be measured through any late payment penalties/interest imposed  by \nInland Revenue  or overseas tax authorities , and the number and quantum of late return \nfilings or payments.  \nExcess Tax Cost and Tax Overpayment Risk  \nMassey University  Group Limited  \nTax Risk Management Policy  \n \n \n5 \n Objective:  \nMassey University  should  seek to optimise its tax position, but this will  always  be within the \nguidelines set  by the level of Tax Reputation Risk that is desired and subject to a rigorous \nassessment of the commercial benefits of potential transactions and appropriate signoffs  on \nthe tax risk .  \nThis will primarily be measured through the comparison of the Total Tax Contribution in a \nyear compared to the average of previous years (as an acceptable standard).  \nTax Reputation Risk  \nObjective:  \nMassey University  will always look to actively manage  this risk  to ensure the organisation’s \nbrand and reputation  with all stakeholders  is strong  and maintained .  Massey University  will \nalso seek to have a good  and professional  relationship with  tax authorities  in all jurisdictions \nwhere the University  has compliance obligations . \nThis will primarily be measured through any adverse media reports in relation to Massey \nUniversity’s tax affairs as well as the quantum of any financial penalties  or interest  imposed \nby Inland Revenue or overseas tax authorities.  \nTax Transaction Risk  \nObjective : \nMassey University  will ensure that these risks are mitigated to the extent possible  when \nconsidering new opportunities and ventures with external advice sought , where applicable,  to \nensure tax risks are well understood prior to entering into such transactions .  Any tax risk \nassumed must be based  on a rigorous assessment of the commercial  benefits and the \npotential adverse impact on Tax Reputation Risk . It is not the FAC’s intention that Massey \nUniversity  will enter into any transaction solely for tax reasons.  \nThis will primarily be measured through the quantum of any financial penalties or interest  \nimposed by Inland Revenue or overseas tax authorities.  \nTax Management Risk  \nObjective :  \nMassey University  will take appropriate action to ensure this risk  is limited and  will seek to \nminimise  it through appropriate internal training  for Massey University staff involved in day -\nto-day compliance obligations and by seeking external advice as required.  Guidelines will be \nmaintained in relation to the a ppropriate use of, and access to, digital  tax tools , such as \nInland Revenue’s myIR tax account porta l.  \nTax Compliance Risk  \nObjective:   \nMassey University  will endeavour to meet all Group/ Organisation tax compliance \nresponsibilities within the required statutory timeframes .  This includes ensur ing all tax \nreturns are filed and potential tax liabilities are paid by the required due date s. \nMassey University  Group Limited  \nTax Risk Management Policy  \n \n \n6 \n This will primarily be measured through the number and quantum of late return filings or \npayments  and any resulting financial penalties or interest imposed by tax authorities . \nForeign Tax Risk  \nObjective:   \nMassey University , through its foreign subsidiar y(ies) and through  foreign ventures, may \noperate  in certain  high-risk foreign environment s. Accordingly, it will ensure that particular  \ncare is taken in relation to complying with its foreign tax obligations.  \nWhen considering the taxation impacts of new transactions and/or ventures (such as in a \nnew foreign jurisdiction or the presence of staff in a new overseas  location ) external advice \nshould general ly be  sought to ensure  the foreign tax risks (if any) are well understood  and \ncan be appropriately managed . This should be the case where external tax advisor \nassistance has not previously been sought for transactions of a similar nature, and/or other \ntax policies and precedents are not available as a guide to the tax impacts.  \nThis includes, particularly, in re lation to matters such as  compliance with foreign payroll \ntaxes and tax withholding obligations that may arise  in a new jurisdiction  (such as in relation \nto GST, or its foreign equivalents) , to ensure that these will be complied with correctly  and \nwill not  adversely impact on Tax Reputation Risk for Massey  University  in New Zealand or \noverseas . Compliance with personal taxation liabilities for Massey staff travelling to overseas \njurisdictions remains the responsibility of the individual, not Massey.  \nThis wi ll primarily be measured through the quantum of financial penalties and interest  \nimposed by overseas tax authorities.  \n2.5. Identification of  tax risks  \nTax r isks set out in 2. 3 will be identified with reference to their likelihood and impact. \nOngoing risk identification will happen continuously,  and monitoring of risks identified (as \nwell as consideration of the appropriateness of the risk management process itself ) will be \ncarried out in accordance with  the steps set out in section 4. \n2.6. Relationship with Inland Revenue  \nMassey University  will maintai n an open and transparent relationship with Inland Revenue  \non any applicable tax matters, including in response to any requests for information, risk \nreviews and/or audits .   \nMassey University  should have a professional and constructive dialogue during any \ndiscussions or correspondence  with Inland Revenue .  As pa rt of this, Massey University  \nshould proactively engage with Inland Revenue regarding issues of tax uncertainty when \nappropriate  (such as consideration of taxation rulings) . \nThe responsibility for maintaining the relationship with Inland Revenue lies with the  Chief \nFinancial Officer (“ CFO ”) as part of their overall responsibility for Massey University ’s day-to-\nday tax compliance . To enable effective relationship management, there should be regular \nreporting to the CFO on any interactions with Inland Re venue by staff members in relation to \nany specific tax compliance matters (other than those of a routine nature).  \nMassey University  Group Limited  \nTax Risk Management Policy  \n \n \n7 \n If Inland Revenue initiate s a tax  dispute with Massey University , the FAC  should  be notified  \nas part of the regular reporting as outlined in Part 4.1.   \nThese principles for tax authority engagement and relationship management will also apply \nto foreign tax authorities.  \n2.7. Global tax developments  \nThe global tax landscape is constantly evolving. As an organisation  with international reach, \nManagement should be fully cognisant of the need to ensure that it keeps  fully up to date \nwith current and future tax global developments, such as “digital taxes ” or in-country  sales \ntaxes, which may impact Massey University’s operations . Similarly, with a large and diverse \nstaff base , there is the need to ensure that foreign taxation implications are fully considered \nwhen Massey University employees may be operating cross -border.  \n3. Responsibilities and accountabilities  \nMassey University ’s tax risk management , responsibilit y and accountabilit y policies are set \nout below, highlig hting the responsibilities and accountabilities both internally and through \nthe use of external guidance  and advisor engagement .   \nAdditionally, Massey University  will have documented p rocesses  in place for the preparation \naround key operational tax areas.    \n3.1. Role of the internal team responsible for tax  \nThe following Massey University  staff have responsibility over the various tax functions of the \norganisation (noting  that this is also to be read in conju nction with Part 3.3): \nTax risk management  \nMassey University ’s tax function is primarily managed by the CFO  with assistance from  the \nFinancial Reporting Manager  and the Payroll Team . The CFO has overall responsibility for \nthe operation of the tax function , tax compliance  and sign -off on  material  tax matters, \ninclud ing tax sign -off in  relation to new ventures or transactio ns (such as the setup of new \nsubsidiaries or entities) and tax issues relating to  the placement of Massey University staff  in \nNew Zealand and overseas .   \nAs a general rule, if  a potential  transaction is identified  where material tax uncertainty  \nexists  (as defined below ), sign off  that would be required  that the tax consequences have \nbeen appropriately considered , based on the  level of potential cash tax risk is as follows : \n‣ Less than  NZ$50,000: the CFO will engage external tax advisor  assistance , and formally  \nsign off prior to proceeding .  \n‣ NZ$50,000  or more : the DVC US or delegate will engage external tax advisor \nassistance ,and formally sign off  prior to proceeding . \nTax compliance  \nThe Financial Reporting Manager is  responsible for ensuring Massey University  meets its \nday-to-day New Zealand tax obligations  in relation to :  \n‣ GST returns  and payments ; \n‣ Non-resident withholding tax returns  and payments ; \nMassey University  Group Limited  \nTax Risk Management Policy  \n \n \n8 \n ‣ FBT returns  and payments ; and  \n‣ Any other taxes which the Payroll Team and the Financial Reporting Manager agree is to \nform part of the Financial Reporting Manager’s responsibility.  \nThe Payroll Team manages the day-to-day New Zealand employment related tax \ncompliance obligations, including employment income reporting  and payments to Inland \nRevenue. The Executive Director, People and Culture has responsibility for ensuring payroll  \ntax related compliance obligations are met.  \nWhere Massey University has o verseas  tax compliance obligations, for example in relation to \nforeign  subsidiaries , external advisors are engaged to ensure these obligation s are met.  \nBoth the  Financial Reporting Manager and Executive Director, People and Culture have \nreporting obligations to the CFO, who has ultimate respons ibility for all tax compliance \nobligations .  This reporting should be undertaken consistent with section  4.1. \nTransactions  \nPrior to  entering into transactions , consideration should be given to what levels of sign-off on \nthe tax consequences are required , including whether appropriate external taxation advice \nhas been sought . To assist Management  in assessing tax risk :  \nFor new contracts or projects  where there is material tax uncertainty  (as defined below) \nfor which income or expenditure  is expected to be : \n‣ Less than NZ$500,000 : the CFO must formally sign off prior to proceeding;  \n‣ NZ$500,000  or more :  the CFO will engage external tax advisor assistance prior to \nproceeding.  \nFor unusual or one-off income or expenditure  where material tax uncertainty  (as \ndefined below) exists:    \n‣ Less than NZ$1 million:  the CFO  must formally sign off prior to proceeding;  \n‣ NZ$1 million  or more : the DVC US or delegate  will engage external tax advisor \nassistance prior to proceeding.  \nMaterial  Tax Uncertainty    \nIt is important that the tax risk management approach is proportionate to the tax risk. It is not \nexpected that CFO or external tax advisor sign -off will be required for every transaction.  Only \ntransactions or matters that give rise to material tax uncertainty should be subject to the \nsign-off thresholds cont ained in this policy.  \nWhether a potential transaction  or issue  has material  tax uncertainty will be assessed by the  \nCFO , based upon factors such as the  complexity of the issue /transaction, availability of past \ntax advice  or precedent as a guide,  and potential quantum of  tax at risk.  \nThe CFO may delegate responsibility for making such assessment s to the Financial \nReporting Manager , or other Massey University staff members, for their areas of direct \nresponsibility  on day-to-day tax matters.  In making s uch a delegation the CFO will have \nregard to the competence of the staff member to make such an assessment.  Where such a \ndelegation is made and an issue is identified that gives rise to material tax uncertainty, the \nCFO must be notified as part of the regu lar reporting obligations  under Part 4.  \nMassey University  Group Limited  \nTax Risk Management Policy  \n \n \n9 \n As a general guide, where  the tax implications have been  considered by Massey University \nfor issues/transactions of a similar nature (including where external tax advice has previously \nbeen sought and/or where a tax policy or tax precedent exists ), this should generally not give \nrise to material  tax uncertainty.   \n3.2. The Financ e and A ssurance  Committ ee of Council  \nThe FAC considers that the key priorities  of Management, in managing the  tax function  at \nMassey University , should be :  \n‣ Filing complete and accurate tax returns on tim e; \n‣ Managing Inland Revenue (and other tax authority) interactions and relationships \nprofessionally ; and \n‣ Engaging with different parts of Massey  University  (including its foreign operations)  to \nidentify and manage tax risk  in relation to the different activities and operations at a \nGroup level.  \nCommunication  with Management  \nCommunication between FAC and Management  is important for accurate and responsible \nmanagement and minimi sation of  any tax risks facing the organisation.  To maintain the \neffective lines of communication , the FAC : \n‣ Will be advised of  any proposed tax law changes that are expected to have a  significant \nimpact on future tax positions  of Massey  University.  \n‣ Will be notified of any material tax risks (potential or actual)  as defined in section 3.1 ; and  \n‣ Will be kept informed, on a timely basis, of any significant tax issues or disputes \nimpacting the organisation . \n3.3. External tax ad visor /specialist  engagement  \nWhile Massey University is exempt from New Zealand income tax, it is registered and liable \nfor a range of operational ” tax types in New Zealand : Goods and Services Tax , Fringe \nBenefit Tax, employment and payroll -related taxes and levies (including  Pay-As-You-Earn, \nEmployer Superannuation Contribution Tax, ACC and KiwiSaver deductions) and \nwithholding taxes on certain payments. In addition,  Massey University has tax obligations in \na range of overseas  jurisdictions.  \nThe role of external tax advisors , both in New Zealand and overseas,  is therefore critical to \nmanaging Massey University’s  overall tax risk.  \nAs there is no dedicated internal tax team resource , Massey University  engages external tax \nadvisors on issues/transactions with material tax uncertainty and, as needed , in relation to  \ncertain operational tax issue s to determine th e tax impacts . In additio n, Management and \nstaff engaged in day -to-day tax compliance has access to  a comprehensive set of  New \nZealand tax policy documents , drafted and kept up to date  by its  current  external tax advisor.  \nWhere there is material  tax uncertainty  (as defined in Part 3.1), Massey University  will \nobtain external tax advisor sign -off, including  in the following circumstances:  \nMassey University  Group Limited  \nTax Risk Management Policy  \n \n \n10 \n ‣ A new  venture , activity or employee placement  (where similar ventures/activities/  \nplacements have not been considered before) in a foreign jurisdiction . \n‣ A new contracts or projects for which forecast/estimated income or expenditure will \nexceed NZ $500,000 , or where the estimated cash tax risk is NZ$50,000 or greater , and \nwhere similar contracts have not been entered into previously . For contracts or projects \nbelow th ese threshold s, the CFO should determine whether external tax advisor \nengagement is required.  \n‣ Unusual or one -off income or expenditure when the forecast /estimated quantum is above \nNZ$1 million . For contracts or projects below this threshold, the CFO should determine \nwhether external tax advisor engagement is required.  \n4. Tax c ontrols and procedures  \nAt Massey University , there should be a “no surprises” attitude towards risk management \nand, as such , robust policies, procedures and controls should be  in place to achieve this.   \nThis policy operates alongside other tax policy  procedures to provide Massey University  with \na robust and effective approach to managing tax and the associated risks.  Where \nappropriate, both the New Zealand and overseas tax risks should be the focus of relevant \ndocumentation , such as the library of tax policies created by the external advis or for use by \nMassey University .  \nAll sign -off requirements must be performed as outlined  under section 3 of this policy.  \n4.1. Monitoring and reporting  \nMaterial t ax risks will be reported to the Council through the Massey University risk register , \nas required in the Risk Management Policy . In addition to inclusion of material tax risks on \nthe risk register, Management will also report to the FAC on the tax matters outlined below .    \nTiming and scope  of tax reporting to the FAC  \nThere  will be six monthly  reporting to the FAC on  any material tax risks identified in the risk \nregister as well as the general status of compliance with tax payment and filing obligation s, \nboth in New Zealand and foreign jurisdictions .  \nThe reporting will include:  \n‣ assurance to be provided by the CFO to the FAC in relation to Massey University’s tax \ncompliance obligations (such as timely filing of tax returns and tax payments) ;  \n‣ any material adverse tax matters (such as tax calculation/payment errors or late tax \nreturn filings or payments  that exceed agreed thresholds ); \n‣ any significant incidents that arose in the reporting period that required external tax \nadvisor  engagement  or engagement  with Inland Revenue at the level of a voluntary \ndisclosure or higher ; and  \n‣ identi fication of any specific material tax risk areas not otherwise discussed as part of \nother reporting.  \n \nMassey University  Group Limited  \nTax Risk Management Policy  \n \n \n11 \n Reporting lines  and responsibilities  \nThere will be clear reporting lines established within the Group to enable transparent \nreporting on all tax matters within Massey University and ultimately by the CFO to the FAC.  \nIn particular, there  will be appropriate and timely sharing of information between Massey \nUniversity Group entities  and the CFO , for example in relation to new ventures under \nconsideration, to ensure tax risk s can be considered , prior to sign -off by the FAC . This will \nensure that the tax implications of any arrangement which the University enters into are \nmonitored and planned effectively to avoid adverse tax implications (including reputational \nrisks) . \nTo enable reporting to the FAC, Management responsible for different parts  of the day -to-\nday tax compliance will regularly report to the CFO on matters pertaining to their areas of \ndirect responsibility.   The frequency and  form of this reporting will be at the discretion of the \nCFO.   These compliance reports should cover all are as of tax risk, including any exposure to \noverseas tax obligations, including, but not limited to, risks associated with staff travelling to \noverseas tax jurisdictions for an extended period of time.  \n4.2. Key risk indicators  \nThe CFO  will monitor the KRIs on an ongoing basis in order to anticipate whether a risk \nevent has had an impact.  These key risk indicators  may include:  \n‣ The number and quantum of tax penalties and interes t charged  by Inland Revenue or \nanother tax authority ; \n‣ The number and quantum  of late tax return filings and tax payments;  \n‣ Any adverse media in relation to Massey University’s tax affairs;  \n‣ The change in Total Tax Contribution  of Massey University  (the total for all types of tax \nthat Massey University  pays in New Zealand and globally ) each year ; and  \n‣ Any other risk indicators to be agreed between the FAC  and Management . \nWhere KRIs fall outside of the acceptable  or expected ranges  as agreed with  FAC (in \naccordance with the risk appetite outlined in section 2. 4), Management  should  report this \nwith an explanation of any reasons why to FAC. \n4.3. Monitoring of the tax risk management framework  \nManagement will keep track of current and future developments to domestic and relevant \ninternational tax law .  Developments identified will be compared against current risk ratings.  \nFollowing  a thorough review , changes will be made to tax compliance proce sses if required .  \nExternal tax specialists will be engaged as required, based on the complexity/expected tax \nrisk identified ( Part 3.3 details when tax specialists will be required).  \n4.4. Mitigation  and prevention of tax risks  \nThe following mitigation and pre vention measures are in place to reduce the tax risks of \nMassey University : \nTax compliance: p reparation and sign -off procedures  \nMassey University  Group Limited  \nTax Risk Management Policy  \n \n \n12 \n All tax compliance obligations  are subject to the  preparation and  sign-off procedure s outlined \nin section 3 of this policy document.  \nExternal tax specialists will be utilised for sign -off and advi ce as outlined i n section 3.3 \nabove .  \nClear  tax policies and process documentation to guide Management  and Massey University \nstaff responsible for key tax compliance tasks,  as to compliance with both New Zealand and \noverseas tax laws, will be maintained . \nTax compliance: m eeting tax filing and payment deadlines  \nManagement will maintain a clear  and defined  plan for upcoming tax return  filing and \npayment obligations .  A priority of Management should be the filing of tax returns  and the \npayment of tax liabilities  by their respective due dates  in New Zealand and all overseas \njurisdictions where such obligations arise . \nInternal controls  \nControls should be in place to ensure Massey University employees  who have a role in the \ntax compliance function  have the skills and knowledge required to adequately perform their \nroles as outlined within this policy.    \nIndividuals’ roles and responsibilities in relation to specific tax types and compliance \nprocesses will be  documented to ensure clarity of responsibilities and reporting lines.   \nRegular systems review s and tax health checks  \nManagement should undertake a n independent  review of Massey University’s accounting \nand transaction s systems on a regular basis  to ensure that the systems are correctly \naccounting for the relevant operational tax types, including GST, FBT, employment -related \ntaxes and withholding taxes .    \nA goal of reviewing each of these  operational  tax type s at least once every five years  should \nbe pursued . Reviews should also be considered following a major system change (including \nchanges to system providers or adoption of new technology  platforms ). The results of the \nreviews will be communicated to the FAC as part of the routine tax reporting.  \nThis review should be undertaken in a way to demonstrate to  Inland Revenue  that the \ncorrect amounts are returned in the relevant tax returns  and Massey Universit y’s processes \nare robust . \nInternational tax compliance  \nManagement  should ensure it is receiving regular international tax updates in relation to  \noverseas jurisdictions that Massey University is operating in, to ensure effective compliance.  \n4.5.  Response when a tax risk arises  \nIn the event that tax risks develop into potential tax liabilities  and penalty and interest \nexposures , Management should be cognisant of  the following : \nInland Revenue (or other tax authority) initiated dispute s \nMassey University  Group Limited  \nTax Risk Management Policy  \n \n \n13 \n In its dealings with Inland Revenue all Massey University staff are expected to act with \nintegrity, honesty and transparency.  In the event of an Inland Revenue  (or other tax \nauthority) dispute  (including a tax audit  or risk review ), Management must notify the FAC  as \npart of its regular tax reporting . \nWhere an Inland Revenue dispute arises, external tax advisors should be engaged  to assist \nwith the response . \nVoluntary disclosure s \nWhere an error in a tax calculation that relates to a prior period has been identified, a \nvoluntary disclosure will be filed where the potential tax shortfall is  estimated to be \nsignificant .   \nWhere a mat erial error in a tax calculation  or tax return  filed with a tax authority has been \ndiscovered, it should be considered whether external tax advisors should be engaged to \nassist in mitigating any risks relating to this.   \nOther  tax authority communications   \nAny other correspondence, documentation or communications in relation to, an Inland \nRevenue (or other tax authority) dispute or miscalculated tax position, will be prepared \ndepending on the specific risks and shortfalls identified.    \nExter nal tax specialists will also be engaged depending on the specific risk and shortfalls of \nthe particular circumstances  in accordance with section 3.3 above . \nMassey University  will endeavour to prevent/mitigate any potential tax risks in the first \ninstance, rather than attempting to minimise the potential damage.  \n4.6. Overseas  tax risk management  \nThe principles outlined in this tax risk management policy will apply equally to the \nmanagement of offshore tax risks that Massey University faces, including for its  foreign \nsubsidiaries or other foreign  operating entities.  \nResponsibilities for foreign tax compliance  \nThe CFO has responsibility for ensuring Massey University’s compliance with all foreign tax \nobligations  Foreign tax obligations within group entities rest with the respective Boards.   \nHaving regard to the complexity and dynamic nature of international tax obligations, to \nensur e effective compliance, Management is expected to engage external tax \nadviso r/specialist assistance.   \nTax c ontrols and procedures    \nMassey University will ensure that its foreign tax compliance  obligations and  procedure s are \nindependently reviewed periodically  unless external advisors are engaged to help meet \nthese obligations .  \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Travel_Procedural_Guidance_PDF_469_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Travel Procedural Guidance",
      "policy_type": "Unknown",
      "file_size": "469 KB",
      "author": "jmlochhe",
      "creation_date": "2024-10-08T11:03:05",
      "modification_date": "D:20241008131841+13'00'"
    },
    "content": " Massey University Policy Guide  \n \nTRAVEL PROCEDURAL GUIDANCE  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \nScope:  \nThis Travel Procedural Guidance applies to all University -sponsored travel by University Travellers.  \n \nUniversity Travellers  are defined as anyone participating in university -sponsored travel activities (including all \npermanent, fixed term or temporary staff, faculty, students, visitors, guests, and other non -university personnel who \nhave been authorised and directly funded to travel on behalf of the university. This includes adjunct staff, casual \nemployees, post -doctoral fellows, research assistants, teaching fellows, visiting academic staff, graduate assistants, \ntutors, senior tutors, and research officers ). \n \nUniversity -sponsored Travel can be done by foot, bicycle, scooter, automobile, train, boat, bus, airplane, ship, or \nother means, with or without luggage, and can be one way or round trip.  Travel is most often conducted to reach a \ndistant location, but travel can also include single o r successive activities within short distances.  \n \nUniversity -sponsored Travel includes all activity days that deliver a benefit to the university, where this includes travel \nand recovery days.   \n \nDual -purpose travel  is defined as a combination of part University -sponsored travel and part private/personal travel.  \n“Private Travel ” is personal/private travel which occurs in conjunction with university -sponsored travel when a \npersonal/private portion of a journey combined with, but secondary to, University -sponsored travel.  \n \nMulti -purpose travel  is defined as university -sponsored travel that combines more than one travel activity \nassociated to more than one Massey initiative, event, goal or business objective (e.g. University Traveller attends a \nconference overseas in a location where their resea rch project is being conducted).   \n \nThis guidance is not to be considered in isolation. It is to be read in conjunction with all related policies and other \ndocuments, including, but not limited to, those specifically referenced in this document.  \n \nPurpose : \nThe Travel Procedural Guidance details processes and procedures University Travellers and University Travel \nApprovers are expected to follow and maintain.  \nThis Guidance is divided into the following sections:  \n1. Planning Travel  \n2. Booking Travel  Section  Travel  \nContact  Procurement Manager  \nLast Review  Septem ber 2024  \nNext Review  November 2026  \nApproval  SLT 2 4/09/105  \n Massey University  Policy Guide   \nTravel Procedural Guidance  – Page 2 \n \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n3. Travelling  \n4. Reporting  \n5. Frequently Asked Questions  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nPlanning Travel : \n \nIDENTIFY TYPE OF TRAVEL  \n \nUniversity -Sponsored Travel  \nFor travel to be funded and sponsored by the University, it \nmust have a defined benefit that contributes to achieving \nthe goals of the University.  \nIf multiple University objectives are being achieved with \ntravel to multiple locations in a single journey, \neach  independent segment of the travel must have a \ndefined benefit to the University to be  considered as Multi -Purpose Travel. If a segment of travel has been added \nwithout a pre -identified  and approved benefit to the University, that segment will not be considered University -\nsponsored  Travel,  and it will  be managed as personal travel/personal leave.  \n \nThe University recognises that staff and students are best placed to form and evaluate their rationale for their travel \nactivities and associated carbon emissions, but they should refer to the guidance below to help them to identify the \ntypes of travel tha t are essential and justifiable.  \n \n\n Massey University  Policy Guide   \nTravel Procedural Guidance  – Page 3 \n \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nStaff are encouraged to utilise the resources of administrators and administration hubs to assist in the planning and \nbooking of university -sponsored travel.  \n \nWell-justified  travel  \n \nTravel that is associated to goals.  \nand objectives that can only be successfully  \nmet through in -person collaboration/on -site \npresence. Travel must  provide  benefits  to the \nUniversity  through  knowledge sharing, networking, \nor developing new skills.  \n Poorly  justified  travel  \n \nTravel that is associated to goals or objectives that \ncan be successfully met through virtual \ncommunication or achieved with low -cost or low -\ncarbon alternatives)  \n• Externally funded fieldwork/lab -\nwork/research/study trips that cannot be carried \nout locally or virtually.  \n• Presenting and promoting work/research  at \nconferences, meetings, workshops.  \n• Attending  key training  not available locally or \nvirtually.  \n• Conferences/meetings  where  there are significant \nassociated opportunities and outputs with clearly \nmeasurable outcomes or benefits to be delivered \nto Massey in the near -term.  \n• Critical or essential opportunities for networking \nincluding meetings to establish important \ncollaborations and trust.  \n• Long  stays  at other  institutions  for research, \nstudy, or business purposes.  \n• Travel subject to contractual obligations  with \nexternal  partners or funding organisations . \n• Some legally or commercially sensitive \nnegotiations or discussions,  where  these  cannot \nbe carried out locally or online.  \n• Some  public  outreach/engagement activities  that \ncannot  be carried  out locally or online.  \n • Frequent,  routine,  or administrative meetings \nwith colleagues/collaborators.  \n• Travelling  without  presenting  new research \nresults.  \n• Travelling for very short durations without \nsignificant associated opportunities  or outputs  \n(e.g.,  to give a talk or keynote address that will \nnot have defined  outcomes or benefits to \nMassey).  \n• Conferences/meetings  where  no new results \nare presented and there are limited associated \nopportunities or outputs.  \n• In-person examinations (recommended  default  \nis online  when examiner travel involves air \ntravel).  \n• When  goals  could  be achieved  with fewer \nTravellers.  \n• Attending  a workshop  or meeting  not directly \nrelated to own research, study, or business \nprojects.  \n• Speeches  and lectures  that could  be given \nvirtually instead.  \n• Any circumstances where cost of travel is \nprohibitive or excessive.  \n \n \nDual Purpose Travel / Personal Travel : \n \nDual-purpose travel (combining travel for university purposes and personal travel) may be deemed acceptable \nwhen:    \n• The primary reason for the trip is for university purposes and meets criteria for well -justified University -\nsponsored travel. Managers will be required to ensure this provision is not overused such that a perception \ncould be created that work trips are being undertaken to supplement personal travel.  \n Massey University  Policy Guide   \nTravel Procedural Guidance  – Page 4 \n \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n• The ‘University -sponsored  portion’ of the travel has been authorised and  the ‘personal portion’ of the travel \nhas been approved in compliance with the university’s leave policies.  \n• Any costs associated with personal travel will not be incurred by the University. The private travel component \nmust not be paid for using University funds. Payment of the private travel portion of any Dual -Purpose travel \nis the University Traveller’s responsibility.  If the University’s Travel Management Company (TMC ) is used \nfor personal bookings, payment must be made  directly to the TMC  by the University Traveller prior to \ndeparture.  \n• The University Traveller will pay for all private costs relating to the private travel portion which includes any \nexcess airfare, accommodation or other cost differential caused solely by adding a private travel component \nto a university -sponsored travel b ooking. For example, where adding dates for personal travel results in \nairfare increases.   \nUnless specifically provided for in any other University Policies, the University will not fund the travel costs of persons \naccompanying the University Traveller, unless that person is clearly contributing to the University’s business.  \n \nThe University Traveller should inform  their manager if they intend any family member to accompany them on work -\nrelated travel regardless of whether the University contributes to costs. This is to ensure that there is proper \nconsideration of any perceived personal benefit  or conflict of interest.  \n \nPersonal travel details are required to be recorded in the travel request form and will be supplemented with indicative \nquotes of costs that are to be covered by the Traveller.  \nPlanning and assessment of risks:  \n \nTravelers should be prepared for potential travel delays or disruptions and have contingency plans in place to address \nany issues that may arise.   By planning ahead and having contingency plans in place, University Travellers can \nminimize the impact of any delays or disruptions on their travel plans and the associated outcomes they are working \nto achieve.  \nInternational Risk Assessment:  \n \nAll international travel requires a Risk Assessment to be completed prior to booking, considering the risk of travel to \nthe University Traveller, to the chosen destination, for the activity being undertaken, at the time of the trip and any \nsteps taken to m inimize the risk.   Completing a Risk Assessment prior to making an international booking is essential.   \nThe University has engaged the services of a Travel Risk Management Service Provider ( TRMSP ), Healix \nInternational.  Healix is a global leader in international medical, security and travel advisory services.   The services \nprovide University Traveller’s 24 -hour expert advice and assistance before your travel, while abroad, and/or in an \nemergency.  \n  \nVarious services include but are not limited to:   \n• Security advice, Traveller tracking and assistance.   \n• Emergency medical services.   \n• Emergency extraction services.   \n• Translation services; and   \n• Travel advice   \n Massey University  Policy Guide   \nTravel Procedural Guidance  – Page 5 \n \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nAs some of the services available are contingent on the University being able to report travel arrangements to the \nservice provider, this is dependent on utilising the University’s TMC for booking.  \nUniversity Travellers are advised to review the risk assessment again prior to commencing travel to ensure it \nremains accurate.  While conducting travel activities, University Travellers should access up to date travel information  \nand advice and real time alerts on breaking news globally that may impact the safety and security of travelling in \nspecific locations.    \nWhile conducting travel activities, University Travellers are encouraged to utilise the Healix Travel Oracle App to \naccess up to date travel information and advice and real time alerts on breaking news globally impacting the safety \nand security of travelin g in specific locations.  \nRefer to Massey’s Support services Travel Advice  for information on the Healix Travel Oracle App.  \nThe Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) provides advice on security and safety concerns in many \ndestinations. This advice is based on information from several sources. It reflects potential risks, and our assessment \nof what these might mean for Ne w Zealanders.  \n \nMFAT Travel website classification  University Policy  \nCountries and territories that are classified as \nDo Not Travel  on the MFAT Safe Travel \nwebsite  University Travellers must not visit under any \ncircumstances due to the extreme risk \nassociated with these areas  \nCountries or territories classified as Avoid non -\nessential travel  are deemed high risk  Should only be visited under exceptional \ncircumstances and must be approved by the \nVice-Chancellor prior to booking  \nFor other cautionary classifications  The travel approver needs to demonstrate a \nhigh degree of conviction in the need for the trip \nand that other alternatives (video conference, \nhost relevant meetings in another country etc.) \nare not readily applicable.  \nComplete Approval Process : \n \nApproval for travel must be provided prior to finalising the booking and completing the travel.  \n \nIt is the University Traveller’s responsibility  when seeking University Travel approval to:  \n• comply with Travellers’ Responsibilities and the Travel Policy in its entirety . \n• inform their manager if any part of their trip changes before commencement, or during their trip. \n• ensure they are issued with a university credit card with an appropriate limit if undertaking international travel.  \n• ensure budget is available to cover the expected travel costs prior to requesting travel approval and  \n• have the correct documentation to enter planned destinations and perform the required business activities, prior to \ndeparture.  \nThose making travel -related decisions must consider the following:   \n• The environmental impact of travel activities.  \n• The primary reason for travel and whether the outcomes can be effectively achieved by other means such as virtual \nmethods or using local or low carbon transport methodologies.  \n Massey University  Policy Guide   \nTravel Procedural Guidance  – Page 6 \n \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n• The assurance of value -for-money when making travel expenditures that consider benefits, outcomes, and \nappropriate use of resources (time and money).  \n• Any potential risks related to the health, safety, and security of University Travellers.  \n• Whether the travel falls within budget and delegated authority.  \n• If it is planned sufficiently in advance to minimise costs; and  \n• The compliance to all internal procedures and external regulations or requirements.   \nReasonable Travel Time/Days in Transit:   \nDays in transit may be considered working time where it is associated with the intended University -sponsored Travel, \nGuidelines related to Days in Transit are below:  \n• For travel within New Zealand, University Travellers will typically require four to eight  hours  of a working day \nas a ‘day in transit’; or  \n• For travel outside of New Zealand, the University expects that reasonable time spent travelling overseas and \nreturning to New Zealand will typically be no more than two calendar days one -way (being 48 hours one -way). \nAny itineraries in excess of two days transit one -way must be approved by the University Traveller’s \nline/approving manager prior to booking.  \nSubmitting Travel Request:  \nWhen seeking approval for a travel request, the University Traveller should include:  \n• details of travel location.  \n• reason for travel.  \n• travel dates.  \n• estimated cost of trip. \n• details of any private/personal days.  \n• details of any intended leave to be taken; and  \n• details of any travellers accompanying the University Traveller on any portion of their itinerary.  \nThe University Traveller must ensure the necessary budget is available to cover the estimated travel expenses before \nseeking their Line Manager’s approval.  \nTravel Approval  \nIt is the responsibility of the University Traveller’s Line Manager or relevant approving authority to:  \n• comply with Travel Approvers’ Responsibilities  and the Travel Policy in its entirety.  \n• ensure travel is approved in the shortest timeframe possible (typically within two-three  working days ). \n• confirm the purpose of travel is legitimate and for official University business activities.  \n• confirm the benefit to be gained by the trip justifies the expense.  \n• confirm the relevant documentation has been completed and considered, if applicable.  \n• ensure the University Traveller’s day -to-day work responsibilities are covered during their absence.   \n• if undertaking international travel, ensure the University Traveller has a Massey issued  credit card with an \nappropriate limit; noting temporary limits can be considered.  \n• ensure the travel expenditure is allocated to the correct budget codes; and  \n• review and ensure travel expenses incurred and submitted for reimbursement are reasonable, necessary and \nin compliance with the University’s policies before granting approval.  \n Massey University  Policy Guide   \nTravel Procedural Guidance  – Page 7 \n \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nOrganise travel documentation and requirements : \nPassports and visas  \nIt is the University Traveller’s responsibility to determine if a passport, visa or other travel documentation  is required .  \nUniversity Travellers are responsible for obtaining their own passport , entry visa or travel authorisation documents.  \nUniversity Travellers are responsible for the costs to obtain their own passport. The University will reimburse  the cost of \nany other travel entry documentation required for University -sponsored  travel.  University Travellers should u se the \nMFAT website and seek guidan ce from the TMC to determine if a country requires a visa and to process the application.  \nVaccinations : \nTravelling to different climates and environments can expose University Travellers to disease and health risks. Advice \non vaccinations varies from one country to another. Further information is available from the MFAT website, the TMC, \nyour general medical  practitioner or an appropriate travel clinic. Costs of vaccinations  will be covered by the University \nfor University -sponsored  travel to countries which require vaccination.  \nIf University Travellers knowingly refuse medical advice, the University will not be held responsible should any injury \nor illness occur.  \nInsurance:  \n• Automatic international travel insurance coverage applies to a University  Traveller s on approved University -\nsponsored  Travel when booked through the TMC.   Individuals travelling on behalf of the University must use \nthe University’s travel insurance coverage. The TMC will  automatically  arrange insurance for international \ntravel, not domestic travel.  \n• Travel to certain high -risk destinations may require an additional premium.   \n• In the case of Dual -Purpose travel, University Travellers  may elect to  be covered by the University insurance \nfor the entire itinerary (including personal portions  of a trip ). The University Traveller must work with the TMC \nto ensure the insurance expense of the personal portion of a trip is reimbursed to the University .  Travel \ninsurance for the personal/private segment of a journey can be arranged independently from Massey’s TMC, \nbut staff are encouraged to utilise the services of the TMC.  \n• The University’s insurance policy is only available to those travelling on behalf of the University and does not \nextend  to cover family members or others travelling with the University Traveller.  \n• Insurance needs associated to travel of family members or others not travelling on behalf of the University \nmust be arranged separately and is the responsibility of the University Traveller.  \n• Rental vehicles hired in New Zealand for approved University -sponsored travel are covered under the \nUniversity’s insurance policy. The domestic rental company’s insurance cover must be declined.  \n• The University’s insurance only covers the excess on international vehicle rental insurance policies up to a \nvalue of NZD $5,000. Excess waivers under this value should be declined when purchasing international \nvehicle insurance.   \n• Where travel includes equipment other than personal effects (e.g. specialist University equipment) or specific \nitems the University Traveller must advise the TMC so that the additional cover can be organised.  \n• For more information regarding Massey travel insurance coverage, claims and exclusions, refer to the Staff \nTravel Insurance Policy Summary  or the Student Travel Insurance Policy Summary .  \nExemptions from Procedural Guidance : \nThere may be occasions when it is not possible to follow the above principles. Appropriate criteria for deviation from \nthe travel guidance  include:   \n• safety considerations (e.g., in some countries/regions public transport may not be sufficiently safe ). \n• caring responsibilities, where a longer time away would mean you are unable to make the trip. \n Massey University  Policy Guide   \nTravel Procedural Guidance  – Page 8 \n \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n• when following the sustainable business travel guidelines would be detrimental due to disability, health or \nwellbeing conditions; and  \n• when contractual obligations from external partners (e.g., funding bodies) make following the travel \nexpectations impossible.   \nWritten approval of any exemption must be sought from the relevant SLT member.  \n \n \nBooking Travel : \nFollow Booking Procedures : \nTravel should be planned in advance and wherever possible \nmultiple trips to similar destinations should be consolidated.  \nPlanning and approval must occur early enough to allow \nappropriate lead times for booking once approval is granted.  \nIt is expected that whenever possible, University Travellers will \nseek approval a minimum of six weeks in advance for \ninternational travel and minimum of four weeks for domestic \ntravel for all air travel approval applications.  \n \n \nUse of Massey University Travel Management Company (TMC)  \nAll University travel must be booked and paid for via the University's approved TMC. The TMC manages travel bookings \nfor the University including flights, accommodation, car hire, some ground transport (e.g., rail passes) and other travel \nservices such as visas.  \n \nThe TMC provides an online booking tool which should be utilised for domestic and simple Tran -Tasman international \ntravel  by the travel bookers within Massey’s  administration hubs . \n \nThe payment method to the TMC includes:  \n• Massey Travel Account (applicable to domestic bookings made in the Online Booking Tool).  \n• . \n• Direct payment by the Traveller when personal travel is included in the trip.  \nMassey University is a participant to the All of Government (AoG) travel agreements including for air travel services. The \nTMC will in the first instance, endeavour to quote and book travel through preferred agreements. Where the preferred \nsuppliers are un able to service the Traveller’s requirement or the destination, the TMC will provide alternative solutions \nfor review and approval.  \n \nExceptions to booking via the University’s chosen TMC are limited to:   \n• If the University -sponsored Travel is wholly funded by an external source which mandates the use of their own \ntravel agent. However, in most cases, the University Traveller should be able to book through the TMC and \ninvoice the external source for the cost.   \n• Emergency situations where exemptions to the Travel Policy are required. For example, natural disaster.  \n\n Massey University  Policy Guide   \nTravel Procedural Guidance  – Page 9 \n \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nIf the TMC is not used, there may be an inability to support the University Traveller through emergency situations or \nwhen travel is disrupted. In addition, if the TMC is not used the reimbursement of travel costs could be adversely \nimpacted.  \nThe TMC has contractual obligations to the University. University Travellers may submit feedback to the Strategic \nProcurement and Contracts Office regarding any service level matters related to the TMC.  \nLoyalty programmes and lounge memberships : \nParticipation in supplier loyalty programmes is the University Traveller’s choice, therefore the Traveller is personally \nresponsible for the payment of any membership fees including Koru membership.  \nAirline lounge memberships are at the personal cost of the University Traveller.  \nUtilisation of the ‘Best Fare of the Day’ in relation to the itinerary and any applicable health and safety requirements \nmust override all personal airline preferences and/or accrual of frequent flyer or membership points.  \nAir Travel :  \nThrough the TMC, the University Traveller should select the most economical airfare available at the time of booking \n(best fare of the day) whilst also meeting the business, itinerary and any applicable health and safety requirements of \nthe University Trav eller.  \nIf best fare of the day in relation to the itinerary requirements is not selected, the University Traveller may be requested \nto provide the rationale for non -selection, and this, along with the cost differential will be reported to the University.  \nTravel should be planned in advance and wherever possible multiple trips to the same location should be consolidated.   \nDomestic Air Travel :  \nUniversity Travellers are required to obtain simple written approval (usually via email) from their Line Manager or relevant \napproving authority prior to booking domestic travel, in accordance with this Guidance.   \nCompletion of a Risk Assessment is not required for domestic travel.  \nThe University encourages the use of ridesharing  or taxi services when ground transport is needed to an airport from \none of the university’s three campuses.   \nDomestic air travel must be booked at Economy Class for all University travel.  Air travel within three hours driving \ndistance of a University Campus is not permitted.  \nThe University encourages the use of ridesharing  or taxi services when ground transport is needed to an airport from \none of the university’s three campuses.   \nInternational Travel :  \nIt is expected all University Travellers will travel Economy Class for all international flights.  \nCompletion of a Risk Assessment is required for international travel.  \nUpgrade of Flights : \nIf a University Traveller wishes to upgrade air travel to a higher class, they must do so with their own personal funds or \nloyalty/frequent flyer points. This can be arranged through the TMC.  \nIn exceptional circumstances upgraded travel may be permitted, subject to written prior approval from the Vice -\nChancellor (VC) or relevant SLT member.  \nAn exception may occur where a specific class of travel is explicitly defined in contractual arrangements between the \nUniversity Traveller and the University.   In general, the benefits to the University of travelling Premium Economy or \nBusiness Class must  clearly address extenuating circumstances and outweigh the costs involved.  \nCharter Flights : \nWhere destinations are not readily accessible by normal commercial carriers and/or it is economical to do so, requests \nto use charter or personal aircraft can only be authorised by both the relevant SLT member and the VC.   \n Massey University  Policy Guide   \nTravel Procedural Guidance  – Page 10 \n \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nOnly charter companies registered with Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), or similar regulatory bodies can be used. Multi -\nengine aircraft are recommended. University Travellers should work with the TMC to confirm details of charter are part \nof the Traveller’s  booking record and to ensure appropriate insurance coverage.   \nBaggage  \nThe University will not pay excess baggage fees for additional personal effects (additional items which are not required \nfor the purposes of the University -sponsored travel). If excess baggage is a likely requirement of a University -\nsponsored trip, the Tra veller must advise the TMC, as it is less expensive to pre -book excess baggage. Failure to do \nso may result in the application for reimbursement being declined.  \nAdditional insurance cover may also be required and the TMC will provide guidance.  \nAccommodation : \nFor domestic accommodation, all bookings should be booked through the TMC to access the University negotiated \naccommodation discounts and/or ensure the university’s duty of care obligations Where possible accommodation \nshould be booked at the same time as airfares to reduce the booking fees paid by the University.  \nAccommodation for a conference package is to be booked through the TMC. In circumstances where the required \naccommodation isn’t available to book via the TMC, or where a preferential rate has been negotiated for conference \nparticipants, then the University  Traveller may use a University credit card (or paid by the Traveller and reimbursed \nthrough the University’s Flexipurchase system with submission of receipts).   \nIn the instance where an accommodation provider will not accept the TMC’s virtual credit card or charge back options, \nthe accommodation must be paid for by the traveller via a Massey -issued  credit card at the time of stay.    \n When undertaking field work and research trips that involve non -commercial accommodation such as camping, the \ndetails of this activity should be considered Student fieldwork.  \nWhen selecting accommodation, the TMC will provide options,  and the University Traveller is expected to confirm the \nselected accommodation is:  \n• meets reasonable professional standards.  \n• is cost-effective.  \n• is in a suitable location relative to where travellers are working; and  \n• the standard and type of accommodation does not present any safety or security issues.  \nThe University understands certain factors such as location, seasonality, lead time of booking etc. can influence the \nprice of accommodation. As a guide, $NZD200 -$350 (or local currency equivalent) per night would be considered a \nreasonable amount .  \nStaying with family or friends :  \nThe University recognises that there are times when staying with family or friends is a preferred option for University \nTravellers.   This is acceptable and encouraged by the University provided that overall work performance is not \naffected by any discomfor t, distraction or inconvenience created by the home visit.   \nCosts associated with arranging private accommodation with relatives, friends or colleagues while away for University \nPurpose Travel may be eligible for reimbursement.   Where applicable, further information regarding living and incidental \nallowances are av ailable in MUCEA and MUIEA, Part 6 Allowances (Clause 6.1).   \nGround Transport :  \nThe University encourages the use of ridesharing  or taxi services when travel originates from one of the three campuses.  \nTravel should be planned in advance and wherever possible multiple trips between campuses within the same week \nshould be avoided through ‘batching’ travel.  \nCar-pooling in University Fleet cars for trips between Wellington and Palmerston North is preferred to single occupant \ntrips.   \n \n Massey University  Policy Guide   \nTravel Procedural Guidance  – Page 11 \n \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nThe University Traveller should consider using public transport (buses or trains) where time permits to reduce emissions. \nWhen travelling with other Travellers or transporting large materials by vehicle, rental vehicles or Massey Fleet vehicles \nare often m ore cost -effective than other forms of ground transport.  \n \nThe use of private vehicles for University business is strongly discouraged and private vehicles should be used only \nwhen the use of a private vehicle is the most reasonable, sustainable and economical option.   Where University \nTravellers choose to use the ir own private vehicle for University purposes, it is the University Traveller’s responsibility \nto ensure the vehicle has appropriate business insurance cover and is in a roadworthy state for the duration of the trip.    \nThe University traveller must observe all traffic laws and will be personally liable for any breaches of those laws \n(including parking and speeding offences).  \n \nRental vehicles hired in New Zealand for approved University -sponsored travel are covered under the University’s \ninsurance policy. The domestic rental company’s insurance cover must be declined.   \nRefer to Vehicle Management Policy  for more information regarding Massey fleet vehicle bookings.  \nParking  \nWhenever possible, University Traveller’s traveling to the same location should share ground transportation.  \nLong -term parking facilities are mandatory to be used for trips over two days (replacing terminal parking).  \nWherever possible, University Travellers should seek an economical parking arrangement (e.g.: early -bird or pre -\nbooking).  \n \nTravelling :  \nGuidance while travelling : \nMeals and incidentals : \nThe University will reimburse all reasonable costs for meals \nand incidentals or out of pocket expenses that have been pre -\napproved or indicated through the approval process.  \nThe University understands that certain factors can influence \nthe price of travel. We expect University Travellers to act \nresponsibly when making purchases to ensure only \nnecessary and reasonable expenses are incurred and such \nexpenses are capable of withs tanding audit scrutiny.  \n \nTravel reimbursements : \nThe University will reimburse the actual cost of meal expenses while the University Traveller is away on University -\nsponsored travel activity.   Staff are expected to exercise moderation and prudent judgement, including consideration of \nthe following:  \n• the actual and reasonable cost of meals appropriate to the travel will be reimbursed.  \n• the cost of meals to be paid for by the University must be in the mid -range both in respect to the eating \nestablishment concerned and the menu of the eating establishment.  \n• the cost of meals is only reimbursable when travelling outside your home city/location, as travel concludes once \nyou have returned to your home location; and  \n• the University will not routinely reimburse for mini -bar expenditures. These are treated as a personal expense \nof the Traveller. However, the minibar may be used as an alternative to, or as part of, other sustenance \n\n Massey University  Policy Guide   \nTravel Procedural Guidance  – Page 12 \n \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \narrangements such as drinking water where there is none supplied freely in the room.   Snacks are not \nreimbursable unless the snack is in lieu of a meal.   \nAs a guide, the following amounts (for meal expenses) are deemed reasonable (including any applicable tax/GST or \ngratuities when applicable):  \n• Breakfast will be paid where the traveller has an early start to their business travel or is staying overnight ($25 \nNZD per person domestically, $40 NZD internationally).  \n• Lunch will be paid where a business activity involves an overnight stay and lunch has not been provided ($25 \nNZD per person domestically, $40 NZD internationally).  \n• Dinner will be paid where a business activity involves an overnight stay and dinner has not been provided ($70 \nNZD per person domestically, $80 NZD internationally).  \n• This includes University Travellers with other parties or peers.   \n• The only exception to the above is where a University traveller hosts visitors while away on business and such \nhosting is expected to be part of the business conducted (refer to the Sensitive Expenditure and Gifts \nPolicy ). Full details for the event must be provided, including:   \no The nature and business purposes of the entertainment and or/ hospitality.   \no Number and names of attendees, their positions and the business they represent.   \no Names of the Massey University Travellers attending the event.  \no Copies of all receipts; and  \no If the cost is likely to be more than $80 NZD per attendee, it should be included in the estimate provided \nat the time of travel authorisation.   \n \n• Actual daily expenses claimed should be reasonable and appropriate> (Some areas of the University may claim \nper diem for travel).  \nUniversity travellers are expected to exercise moderation and prudent judgement, to ensure they only incur \nnecessary and reasonable expenses, and such expenses are capable of withstanding audit scrutiny. When \nsound business reasons necessitate that busines s meals exceed the daily expenses ($120 NZD for domestic \nand the equivalent conversion amount for international), the excess cost of the daily food and beverage expense \nmust be approved by the relevant SLT member.  \nConsumption of alcohol : \nIn the interest of health and safety, the consumption of alcoholic drinks should be kept to levels recommended by the \nMinistry of Health.  \nTravellers are also reminded of their responsibility to ensure that they are not affected by alcohol while working for and \nrepresenting the University, driving university -owned or rental cars or operating machinery.   \nGroup Meals and Business Hospitality :  \nIn situations where a University Traveller is conducting business with one or more guests, reasonable meals and \nentertainment expenses are allowable. Business meals and entertainment must be directly related to University \nbusiness.   \nTravel Disruptions/Changes : \nDisrupted Travel : \nWhen a confirmed trip is cancelled or if tickets are lost or stolen, the University Traveller must immediately advise the \nTMC.  \nUnused airfare credits (credits on hold) must be used for subsequent bookings, where possible and will be managed \nthrough the TMC.  \n Massey University  Policy Guide   \nTravel Procedural Guidance  – Page 13 \n \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nTravel Changes : \nShould there be any changes or cancellations to a request that has already been approved and/or booked, they must \nbe made through the TMC. Changes that incur costs greater than 10% of the original portion of the quote approved \nmust also be approved by the Approval Manager . \nLost Baggage  \nIn all instances, if baggage is lost or damaged while travelling on University -sponsored travel, the Traveller must make \nan immediate insurance claim against the local airline or carrier at the airport of destination. The ultimate responsibility \nfor retrie ving and compensating lost baggage lies with the airline. The University will not reimburse Travellers for \npersonal items lost whilst travelling. If an insurance claim to the University is made, any excess may be incurred by the \nTraveller.  \n \nIf bags are lost enroute and the University Traveller wishes to make a claim to the University insurance provider, the \nfollowing procedures are recommended.  \n• obtain a lost luggage report form from an airline representative in the local baggage claim area.  \n• itemise the contents of the bags, including receipts, wherever possible.  \n• include a copy of the airline ticket and baggage claim documentation; and  \n• keep a copy of the report, airline ticket and claim stubs.  \nFor current guidance and information related to travel disruptions or emergencies, please refer to the  \nTravel insurance SharePoint  page  \nHealth and Safety while Travelling :  \nThe University recognises that travelling has an impact on staff wellbeing and work -life balance. Managers are expected \nto consider the health, safety and wellbeing of University Travellers (and others) at all times and make the appropriate \ndecisions regar ding travel.  \n \nThe University understands the need to accommodate travellers with health issues or physical limitations and has a duty \nto make reasonable adjustments to ensure disabled people do not face any substantial disadvantage in comparison with \nnon-disabled people  when participating in travel activities.   \n \nIt is the University Traveller’s responsibility when seeking University travel approval to conduct a self -assessment to \nensure they are physically and medically fit to travel. In making this assessment, University Travellers are strongly \nencouraged to seek medical advice and clearance from a doctor for pre -existing medical conditions prior to travelling \noverseas.  Where a pre -existing condition requires medical attention while travelling, the insurer may require medical \nevidence that you were ‘fit to travel’ upon commencement of travel. Any documentation pertaining to a Traveller’s \nmedical status is to be retained by the Traveller for use if required.  \n \nWhile travelling, the University Traveller must provide their contact details to their Manager and the TMC. It is strongly \nrecommended the Traveller keep in regular contact with their Manager, particularly if changes occur to the original travel \nplan.  \n \nWhere driving time and expected work hours exceed 10 hours in one day, alternative arrangements shall be given \npreference,  such as staying overnight, reducing work hours flying, or sharing the driving with another approved driver.  \n Massey University  Policy Guide   \nTravel Procedural Guidance  – Page 14 \n \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nEmergency Support during travel :  \n• The University has engaged the services of a Travel Risk Management Service Provider (TRMSP) (refer to the \nearlier section on Risk Assessment). The services provide University Traveller’s 24 -hour expert advice and \nassistance before your travel, while overseas, and/or in an emergency.  \n• Should there be a need to contact the TRMSP, use the contact information provided as part of your travel \nitinerary documentation.  \n• In addition, it is highly recommended you contact your Manager to advise them of the circumstances to ensure \nyour well -being is well supported.  \n• University Travellers should be vigilant with their personal safety whilst on University travel and should avoid \ntaking unnecessary risks.  \nAccidents :  \nAll vehicle accidents and/or incidents involving rental or University -owned vehicles require the immediate reporting of all \ndamage regardless of whether other vehicles are involved. Collisions with animals, fence posts, gates, debris from \nhighway, vandalis m, etc. will require immediate notification to the insurance company. If the accident or incident involves \nother vehicles; third -party driver's/owners name, license plate numbers, driver's license numbers, names and addresses \nof witnesses should be obtaine d where possible. Travellers must report all incidents to their Manager, the TMC, the \nStrategic Procurement and Contracts Office, and any relevant insurance provider.  \nFor current guidance and information related to travel disruptions or emergencies, please refer to the  \nTravel insurance SharePoint  page  \n \n Reporting  \nFinalising Travel Process : \nTravel Expense Claims : \nUniversity Travellers should complete the expense \nreimbursement process in compliance with the \nReimbursement of Expenses Policy.  \nWherever possible, University Travellers must keep all \nreceipts for all expenses incurred during travel and submit \nthese for timely reimbursement. The University will reimburse \nall reasonable costs for travel and accommodation, meals and \nincidentals or out of pocket expenses that have been pre -\napproved. However, the University assumes no obligation to \nreimburse for expenses that have not been approve d or that \nare not compliant with this policy. This includes excess baggage costs that are not pre -approved.  \nReconciliation of all travel expenses must be completed within 30 days of completion of travel.  \n \nTravel Outcome Reporting : \nUniversity Travellers will be asked to provide a record or report on the achievement of the objectives related to the \npurpose of the University -sponsored travel. This should clearly identify how the travel aligned with the University’s \nstrategy, enhanced t he goals of the University, College, or Unit.  \n \n\n Massey University  Policy Guide   \nTravel Procedural Guidance  – Page 15 \n \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \nFrequently Asked Questions : \nCan I utilise my loyalty programmes when booking travel?  \nUniversity Travellers are welcome to use their own loyalty schemes if it does not interfere with the lowest -priced logical \nchoice available, or the payment methodology set by the University.  \nWhat types of costs are covered by the University?  \nThe University will fund reasonable travel costs including:  \n• air travel (e.g., commercial airlines, airport taxes and fees ). \n• accommodation (e.g., hotels, hostels ). \n• non-commercial accommodation (e.g., camping grounds, Airbnb ). \n• ground transportation (e.g., hire car, taxi, bus, train, road tolls ). \n• taxi charges (including Uber but excluding gratuities ). \n• other modes of transport (e.g., ferry ). \n• car parking costs or costs  to transfer to airport.  \n• meals (fair and reasonable ). \n• conference or function packages (packages may include \naccommodation, meals etc. ). \n• incidentals (e.g., drinks such as water and coffee/tea, gratuities ). \n• other personal expenses (e.g., internet and phone charges) and \nvisas and vaccinations if required for destination specific overseas \ntravel.   \n• excess baggage charges (only when excess is due to traveller \ncarrying University equipment/materials); and  \n• corporate Hospitality Entertainment for legitimate business reasons \n(prior approval from your Manager is required).  \nRecreational activities such as sightseeing tours, cinema, theatre, in room movies, sporting and cultural events will not \nbe funded by the University, unless approved by a manager as legitimate University -sponsored travel.  \nIf you are unsure, please seek approval prior to incurring the cost or the reimbursement may be declined.  \nCan I provide a gratuity/tip?  \n• Tipping or gratuities provided during travel in New Zealand or Australia will not be paid under any \ncircumstance. In overseas locations where tipping is the usual practice such expenditure will be reimbursed \nwhere the amount is modest and reasonable and in  alignment with the customary range of local tipping \nstandards/expectations as detailed in worldwide tipping guide  website. Cash tips must be documented with \ndetails of the service provider a tip was provided to and the details related to the date of when the tip was \nprovided.  \nWhat are some ways I can travel in a more sustainable manner?   \n• Selecting accommodation and transport providers that demonstrate efficient and sustainable management of \nenergy, waste, and water.   \n• Pack light (this helps airlines cut down on fuel usage and reduces your carbon footprint on flights)   \n• Minimise onboard airplane waste.   \n• Bring your own headphones.   \n\n Massey University  Policy Guide   \nTravel Procedural Guidance  – Page 16 \n \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n• Refill a personal water bottle/reusable hot/cold cup.   \n• Use a personal neck pillow instead of the plastic -wrapped airline pillows.  \n• Use electronic boarding passes and e -tickets for flights/events if possible.  \n• Pack small liquids in a clear, reusable bag.  \n• Keep the window shade down when flying (helps keeps the air cabin cool and uses less energy).  \n• Avoid plastic packaging at grocery stores/markets.  \n• Be mindful of water use for showers/baths.   \n• Skip the daily towel replacement and turn down services at your accommodation.  \n• Eat fresh and local foods; limit consumption of imported foods (This can be a money saver too).  \n \nSustainable Business Travel  (SBT) : \n• As part of the Massey Climate Action Plan, the University has committed to be Net Zero Carbon by 2030, and \nit aims to measure and reduce our travel -related carbon emissions.   \n• To achieve Massey’s climate neutrality goals, University Travellers are expected to consider the \nenvironmental impacts of their travel.   \n• We encourage University Travellers to adopt sustainable travel practices when choosing their transportation \nmode.  Greater utilisation of remote interaction (for example, video conferencing) should be considered as an \nalternative to University -sponsored tra vel. \n• University Travellers should refer to the Low Carbon Travel Guidelines on ways to reduce carbon footprint.  \n• Staff are encouraged to bundle their travel needs as much as feasible (e.g., if you often travel between the \nsame locations, have multiple events and meetings in the same region, plan to combine trips — especially \nwhen travelling by air).  \n• Where a low carbon alternative to air travel can be found it is preferred over air travel. When travelling by air, \nEconomy class bookings are the default method as Economy class bookings produce less emissions due to \nthe allocation of less space on the pla ne. \n \nWhere can I get more information?  \nThe University’s travel policies, procedures, protocols, and processes are supported by the Strategic Procurement and \nContracts office (SPCO) in University Services, in conjunction with the University’s preferred Travel Management \nCompany (TMC) and Travel Risk Management Service Provider (TRMSP).   \nThis document should be read alongside the University’s Travel Policy, the Massey University Policy on Staff Conduct , \nthe Massey University Code of Student Conduct  and other relevant University policies including:  \n \n• Guidelines for Dual -Purpose and Multi -Purpose Travel  \n• Low carbon Travel Guidelines  \n• Sustainable Travel Guidelines   \n• MFAT Safe Travel Website   \n• TMC Travel Booking  system and documentation  \n• Procedures for Course Related Student Travel Overseas   \n• Chubb Business Travel Insurance  \n• Vehicle Management Policy    \n• Reimbursement of Expenses Policy    \n Massey University  Policy Guide   \nTravel Procedural Guidance  – Page 17 \n \n \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n• Sensitive Expenditure and Gifts Policy and Procedures    \n• Other related policies/documents:  \n• Policy on Staff Conduct    \n• Code of Student Conduct    \n• Health, Safety and Wellbeing Policy    \n• Leave Policy and Regulations    \n• Massey University Strategy    \n• Staff Travel Insurance Policy Summary  \n• Student Travel Insurance Policy Summary.  \n• Delegations of Authority Policy / Credit Card Policy  \n• Guidelines on Research, Teaching, Study and Professional and Organisational Periods/Duties Overseas and \nin New Zealand  and Professional and Organisational Periods/Duties Overseas and in New Zealand    \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Vehicle_Management_Policy_PDF_471_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Vehicle Management Policy",
      "policy_type": "Policy",
      "file_size": "471 KB",
      "author": "jmlochhe",
      "creation_date": "2024-11-22T12:03:08",
      "modification_date": "D:20241122123854+13'00'"
    },
    "content": "© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nMassey University Policy  Guide – Page  1  \n \n \n \n  \nSection  DVC Finance and Technology  \nContact  Strategic Sourcing Manager  \nLast Review  November 2024  \nNext Review  November 2027  \nApproval  SLT 21/03/38  \nEffective Date  November 2024  \n \nPurpose  \nTo direct decision making in relation to the establishment and operation of the University Fleet; and \nprocurement  and management of all University Vehicles . \n \nPolicy  \n1. Fleet Management is established as the University’s sole Procurement and Service \nManagement  Unit of University Vehicle s. \n2. Fleet Management is responsible for the management of University Vehicle s in accordance with \nthe Vehicle Management Policy and Procedures.  \n3. Vehicle s may be allocated to departments upon approval of a suitable  rationale , justifying the \nneed .  The case is to present a detailed financial analysis and justification for the acquisition.  \nThe use and management of these vehicles must adhere to these Policy and Procedure s.  \n4. The only vehicles to be purchased by Massey  are University Fleet Vehicles.  For this purpose, \npurchased includes  Massey owned vehicles,  long term leasing and those offered to the \nUniversity on loan or  donated.  \n5. All users  of University Vehicles  are to  adhere to the Vehicle Management Policy  and \nProcedures , and the Critical Risk Standard - Driving . \n6. University Vehicles  are to be used in the following order of precedence, depending on availability  \nof appropriate vehicles  and cost effectiveness:  \ni) University  Vehicle s \nii) Public Transport, Contracted Transport, Rental Cars and  Taxis \niii) Private Vehicle s1 \n• University  Vehicles are bookable via https://ubookit. EROAD .com/  \n• Public transport and contracted transport can be booked via the University’s designated \nTravel Management Company (TMC)  where appropriate  \n• The Vehicle Management  Policy and Procedures must be adhered to at all times  \n• For definitions , please refer page s 11-12 \n \n7. University  Vehicles are to be used for University business only .  \n \n1 If a Massey staff member or student’s p rivate vehicle is fitted with  Enable NZ approved accessibility modifications that cannot be \nmet by a Massey vehicle , then they can use their own vehicle and be reimbursed as per Massey policy .  \nVEHICLE MANAGEMENT POLICY  \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nMassey University Policy  Guide – Page  2  \n \n \n \n 8. University  Vehicles cannot be booked or used  for personal purposes . \n9. Driver Agreement : All University traveler  (s) intending to use a vehicle for University business \nmust complete this form and have it AUTHORISED (refer page 1 3).  A copy is to be retained by \nFleet Management.  \n10. EROAD  GPS  Monitoring : All University  Vehicles are to be fitted with EROAD  GPS monitoring \nto provide data on the use and location of vehicles.  This information shall be used for the \nfollowing purposes:  \n• Locate any vehicle which is overdue to ensure safety, or identify location where vehicles \nmay have been stolen or used inappropriately  \n• Monitor any unsafe driving behaviors  such as speeding, heavy braking and acceleration, or \nunsafe cornering  \n• Provide data on utilization of the fleet, fuel usage, locations and distances  travelled  to assist \nFleet Management in the planning and management of fleet assets  \n \nFleet  Management  \n1. All University Vehicles  are to be managed by Fleet Management.  \n2. Fleet Management will deliver services to the P rocurement  and Contracts Group  at the strategic \nlevel and to departments at the operational level.  \n3. Specific Fleet Management Services provided include:  \n• EROAD  GPS and EROAD  U-Book -it \n• Fleet maintenance management  \n• Optimisation  and utlisation studies will be undertaken  from time to time  to determine the \nmake -up of the fleet, inform replacement/ divest ment  planning , and assist in supporting \nMassey’s commitment to our sustainability goals by  providing data to inform the EV pathway   \n• Providing a 24 -hour contact number for drivers  \n• Providing reports to the Procurement and Contracts Group  and other users as required  \n• NZTA Registrations  and Road User Charges  \n• Servicing and repairs  \n• Paying related invoices  \n• Support with vehicle sourcing and disposals  \n• Warrant of Fitness  (WoF), Certificate of Fitness (CoF)  \n• Assisting with accident management  \n4. No maintenance or repair work of any sort is to be carried out on a University vehicle , without \nfirst contacting Fleet Management  except in an emergency . \n \nEROAD  U Book -It – Fleet  Car bookings  \n5. All University  Vehicle travel must be booked via  https://ubookit. EROAD .com/ .  EROAD ’s web -\nbased vehicle booking system provides an easy -to-use booking calendar that enables staff to \nbook University  Vehicles.    \n6. When booking a University  Vehicle, a Cost Centre Account Number must be supplied before \nthe vehicle booking process can be completed.  \n \n \n7. University  Vehicle bookings are charged at the University rates, as published  from time to time.  \nRates are ‘all inclusive’ rates,  including fuel, insurance, maintenance and unlimited kilometres.  \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nMassey University Policy  Guide – Page  3  \n \n \n \n 8. All University  Vehicles must be  refueled  at BP service stations using the fuel card provided in \neach vehicle  before  return.  \n9. Prior to booking a University  Vehicle, please contact Fleet Management to register as a booker \nby emailing [email protected]  and/or phoning (06) 951-8050 . \n \nEROAD  GPS  - Massey  Driver  Login  \n10. All University  road-going v ehicles  are to be  fitted with GPS monitoring to provide data on the \nuse and location of vehicles, monitor unsafe driving behaviours, improve safety outcomes and \nassist with the optimisation and management of Fleet assets.   All Massey travelers  are required \nto log in to EROAD  at the commencement of their journey.  Details  of how to log in are provided \nin each vehicle . \n \nEROAD  Drive  Buddy  \n11. Drive Buddy is an  in-vehicle device providing visual and easy -to-understand feedback in real \ntime to support better driving.  Feedback helps avoid speeding, harsh braking, harsh \nacceleration, sharp cornering,  and unnecessary engine idling.  \n \nEROAD  ETrack Wired  and EROAD  Where  Tag \n12. ETrack Wired and EROAD Where Tag s will be utilized to track and manage powered assets \nand equipment e.g. trailers etc.  It is a durable, watertight and IP  (Ingress Protection)  rated \nenclosure with a small footprint.  It has a long-life battery that provides an anti -theft function.  \n \n Driver  Licences  \n13. To drive a Massey University owned vehicle,  you must hold a full and valid NZ driv er licence or \nan international licence that is valid for you to drive without restrictions in New Zealand .   \n \nFringe  Benefit  Tax (FBT)    \n14. The University Vehicle Fleet is subject to Fringe Benefit Tax and the University is therefore,   \nrequired to meet its legal obligations as defined by the Inland Revenue Department’s   \nActs and Regulations ( refer Fringe Benefit Tax Guide ).    \n15. Fringe Benefit Tax means no private use of University Fleet Vehicles will be permitted, except   \nin special circumstances  when parking vehicles at a private residence overnight , which must be \napproved in advance by your Line Manager.  \n \nDepartment  Dedicated  University  Vehicle s \n16. A centralized management model customized to best meet department needs for the use  of \nthese vehicles will be agreed between Heads of Department and Fleet Management.  \n17. A Dedicated Vehicle  will not be supplied to a staff member on a permanent basis to carry out \ntheir duties unless  this is approved by a member of the Senior Leadership Team (SLT).  \n  \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nMassey University Policy  Guide – Page  4  \n \n \n \n  \n18. Specific responsibilities of departments in relation to their Dedicated Vehicle s are as follows , \ninformation from centralized Fleet Management will provide or support this : \n• All vehicles used for Massey University purposes (including personal vehicles) must have \na valid Warrant of Fitness (WOF), or Certificate of Fitness (COF), issued by an approved \nauthority  \n• The vehicle should not be driven if any issues are known to exist with the vehicle that would \nnot meet the conditions of the WOF or COF, even if current  \n• Maintain and ensure all Dedicated Vehicle s are clean and tidy (internally and externall y) \n• Undertake regular visual checks of the vehicle and report all defects and other concerns to \nFleet Management promptly  \n• Provide necessary data required by the lease vehicle provider, such as odometer readings, \nto the Fleet Management Office as required , to ensure accurate records of all vehicle use, \ncosts and maintenance are kept  \n• Assist vehicle users as necessary in the event of breakdowns and accidents, working in co -\noperation with the Fleet Management Office  \n• Take all reasonable steps to ensure the physical security of the Dedicated Vehicle  \n• The alteration or fitting of accessories to Dedicated Vehicle s is prohibited unless authorised \nby the Fleet Management Office in writing  \n \nRental  Cars  \n19. Rental cars must be justified as a business need rather than a personal convenience.  \n• When the use of a rental car is judged to be appropriate it should be of a small to medium \nstandard  \n• Electric vehicles should be considered  \n• Car rental agreements should not be taken up for cars in excess of 3000cc  \n• Under no conditions are luxury vehicles to be rented  \n• Car rental hire reservations must be made via the University’s designated TMC  (refer below)  \n• At the time of rental, the car should be inspected and any damage found should be noted \non the contract before  the vehicle is accepted  \n \nRental Car Insurance - Domestic  \n• The University has made provisions for insuring rental cars against damage , therefore, \ntravelers  must decline  all rental company insurance coverage  \nRental Car Accidents  \nShould an accident occur, travelers  should immediately contact:  \n• The Car Rental Company  \n• The University Insurance Office  \n• Rental car cancellation  \n• Travelers  are responsible for communicating cancellations of reservations  \n• Travelers  should request and record the cancellation number in case of billing disputes  \nReturning Rental Cars  \nEvery reasonable effort must be made to return the Rental Car:  \n• To the original hire city unless approved for a one -way rental  \n• On time, to avoid additional hourly charges , with a full tank of petrol  \n \n  \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nMassey University Policy  Guide – Page  5  \n \n \n \n  \nThe preferred booking method is through the  TMC  \n \nRelated Procedures/Documents : Travel Policy  and Travel Procedures (Domestic and \nInternational)  \n \nTransporting  Staff  and Student  Groups  on University  Business  \n20. For transportation of groups of 12 or more people (including the driver) transport to be used \nshould be either contracted transport from an appropriate provider or a University Vehicle , \nprovided the driver has an appropriately endorsed driver licence.  \n \n \nPrivate  Vehicle  / Motor  Vehicle  Expenses  (refer  Massey  University  Employment  Agreement,  \nClause  6.2) \n21. “Clause 6.2.1, Where the use of a private vehicle for official business has been approved, you \nshall be paid a motor vehicle allowance in accordance with rates as promulgated by the Inland \nRevenue Department from time to time.  A motor vehicle allowance will normally onl y be paid \nfor authorised short local trips, where the hire of a rental car would be clearly inappropriate. A \nmotor vehicle allowance will also not be paid where it is reasonable and practicable to use a \nUniversity Fleet Vehicle.   \n22. Clause 6.2.2,  Where a private vehicle is used,  and the cost of a suitable and available rental \ncar would have been less you will be reimbursed at the economy rental car rate plus $13.87 per \n100 km petrol reimbursement effective 13 January 2020.  This rate increases to $14.21 from 11 \nJanuary 2021.   \n23. Clause 6.2.3,  The motor vehicle allowance includes an element to cover insurance, therefore \ninsurance on private motor vehicles is your responsibility.  However, your employer will cover \nthe cost of any insurance excess, up to a maximum of $400, which you may have to p ay in the \nevent of an accident while using your own vehicle on official University business.   \n24. Clause 6.2.4,  Traffic Infringement fines resulting from driver error are the personal responsibility \nof the driver. Any such fines incurred in a vehicle provided by the University must be met by \nyou.”   \n \nVehicle  Sourcing  \n25. All University  Vehicle s are to be procured by the Procurement and Contracts Group.  Fleet \nManagement will provide information and advice as necessary in the preparation of  application s \nfor the acquisition of Dedicated Vehicle s by departments.  \n26. All University Vehicles  (primarily cars, vans, minibuses and utilities) are to be sourced centrally \nby Fleet Management in consultation with a member of the Procurement and Contract’s Group  \nand Vehicle Administrators in departments.  \n27. The sourcing event is to include Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) or Total Cost of Leasing (TCL) \nanalysis which will assist in determining whether to purchase or lease for that particular sourcing \nevent , at that point in time.   Note : This analysis takes into consideration purchase price, \nenvironmental impacts, carbon costs, safety ratings, servicing costs and disposal costs.  \n \n28. The sourcing event will consider a range of vehicles that would meet the requirements and will \nalso consider fit -out requirements.   Additional options may be fitted only if required to ensure \nthat the vehicle is fit -for-purpose.   \n29. If the vehicle is leased, approval must be obtained from the lease company prior to fitting  the \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nMassey University Policy  Guide – Page  6  \n \n \n \n relevant GPS device . \n30. As a general principle, University Vehicles  will be replaced every three years or 60,000 \nkilometres, whichever is sooner.   \n31. All sourcing decisions will have regard of the need to ensure that vehicles are fit -for-purpose \nand consider  Massey’s vision of being a leader in sustainability; minimising GHG emissions  by \nshifting mode of transport from higher emitting transport modes to lower emitting ones  and \nreplacing existing campus based and city bound ICE vehicles with EVs.  \n32. Prior to selecting a vehicle for lease or purchase by Massey University, an assessment must be \nundertaken that considers:  \n• Active and passive safety features  \n• Vehicle ergonomics and driving characteristics  \n• Access and Egress  \n• Visibility  \n• ANCAP Safety Ratings  \n33. As far as practical the University’s Fleet will be standardised.   The following is the minimum \nspecification of vehicles procured for the University Fleet:  \n• Saloon cars to be hatchbacks, minimum size 1800 -2000 cc  \n• Station wagons to be a minimum of 2000 cc engines  \n• Larger vehicles to be a minimum of 2400 cc engines, to seat 5 people comfortably  \n• Vans should provide minimum seating for 8 plus driver and ease of access to rear seating  \n• 4WD Ute to be supplied with Wrangler MTR tyres (mud grip), manual hubs, tow bar , \nprotective coating (liner or splayfooted ) on Ute tray or flat deck as required  \n34. All vehicles that are purchased or leased by Massey University must be selected with a \npreference for the inclusion of the following safety features, wherever appropriate for the type \nof vehicle:  \n• Adaptive cruise control  \n• Airbags - driver and passenger side  \n• Air conditioning  \n• Anti-lock braking system  \n• Automatic transmission unless otherwise requested  \n• EV options to be considered  \n• Electronic stability control  \n• First aid kit and s eat belt cutter / glass breaker  / fire extinguisher  \n• Load restraint systems  \n• Pre-tensioned seatbelts for all passengers  \n• Reversing cameras and parking sensors  \n• Side impact protection systems  \n• Tow bar  \n• Traction control  \n• Tyres to be New Zealand specific for New Zealand conditions  \n \n Insurance  \n35. All vehicles purchased on behalf of the University must be reported to the  Procurement and \nContracts Group and the Insurance Office  for insurance purposes  and maintaining the \nUniversity’s Vehicle Declaration Register . \n36. Staff must provide all information and disclosure requirements, as requested by the DVC \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nMassey University Policy  Guide – Page  7  \n \n \n \n Finance and Technology , or delegate, in order to ensure the completion of an insurance \ncontract . \n37. The University insurance premiums will be paid annually and expenses transferred to the budget \ncentre with responsibility for management of the assets or activities covered by the insurance.    \n38. A centralized register of all University Vehicles  will be held by the Procurement and Contracts \nGroup.  \n \nVehicle  Disposal  \n39. Please refer Asset Disposal Write Down Policy  and Asset Finance Procedures  \n• To ensure compliance with University accounting policies and financial reporting standards : \no Finance must be advised of all asset disposals where the original purchase cost of the \nasset exceeds $2,000 or the asset is recorded on the University’s central fixed assets \nregister  \no Proceeds from the sales of assets must be correctly and expediently recorded in the \nUniversity’s Finance System (Currently TechnologyOne)  \n• Any write downs must comply with the University’s accounting policies. Please contact the \nChief Financial Officer (or delegates) for further information in this regard  \n• Budget centres disposing of assets should consult the Asset Financial Procedures or contact \nthe Finance Team for guidance on the financial requirements of the disposal process  \n \nSignage  \n40. With the exception of trailers, road -going University Vehicles  must have University signage \npermanently affixed to the vehicle.   \n41. To ensure consistency of both the University brand and the location of signage, Fleet \nManagement  is responsible for organizing  all signage.  \n \nVehicle  Safety  Devices  \n42. All vehicles are to be fitted with a first aid kit  and seat belt cutter/glass breaker.  The first aid kit \nmust be checked by the responsible Vehicle Administrator  every six months for completeness \nand expiry.  \n43. If the vehicle is fitted with a fire extinguisher ; Health , Safety  and Wellbeing  must ensure that the \nfire extinguisher is serviced in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications.  \n44. Additional safety features such as reversing beeper, cages or spot lights, may be fitted to each \nvehicle as deemed appropriate and in consultation with Fleet Management and Health , Safety  \nand Wellbeing . \n \nFuel Cards  \n45. University Vehicles  are to be issued with a vehicle -specific fuel  card which can be used to obtain \na discount with the University ’s fuel provider.  \n46. Each fuel card is assigned to a specific University  Vehicle and may only be used to purchase \nfuel and oil for that vehicle.  Fuel cards may not be used to purchase fuel for vehicles other than \nUniversity  Vehicles , or to purchase other items .  All costs pertaining to repairs, servicing, tyres \netc are to be covered by a Massey purchase order.  \n47. Fuel cards are managed by Fleet Management . \n48. Fuel transactions  are recorded by both EROAD  and BP and  managed by Fleet Management.  \n49. Fuel card  usage pertaining to University  Vehicles will be audited on a regula r basis.  \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nMassey University Policy  Guide – Page  8  \n \n \n \n  \nVehicle  Allocation  \n50. The day -to-day administration of Fleet  Vehicles is the responsibility of Fleet Management  to \nwhom the vehicles have been nominally allocated, with each vehicle being the responsibility of \nthe approved driver when in use.  \n51. University Vehicles  may only be allocated to a driver or task if the vehicle is fit for purpose.   \n \nNote : Some University Vehicles  may not be suitable for the transportation of sensitive, expensive or \nhazardous equipment and materials, or be able to be operated off road.   Hazardous equipment and/or \nmaterials cannot be transported in University Vehicles . \n \nApproved  Drivers  / Driver  Competency  (please  refer  Critical  Risk  Standard  – Driving)  \n52. Staff members, students or other individuals who are allocated a University vehicle must have:  \n• Read, understood and accepted this policy  \n• Completed  the Driver Agreement Form and submitted it to Fleet Management  prior to their \nfirst use of a Massey Vehicle  \n• All travelers  driving a vehicle for University  purposes must hold and maintain a current , full, \ndriver licence for the vehicle they are allocated  \n• If a driver’s licence has been suspended or cancelled, the driver must not operate any \nvehicle (including personal vehicles for work purposes), including off road or on campus  \n \nNote: Overseas licences will be accepted only in accordance with NZTA guidelines  - \nhttps://www.nzta.govt.nz/driver -licences/new -residents -and-visitors/driving -on-nz-roads/  \n \n53. The approved driver is responsible for:  \n• The custody and condition of the vehicle while it is under their control  \n• The safe operation of the vehicle  \n• Ensuring the correct fuel is used in the vehicle  \n• All Fleet Vehicles must be refuel ed before return  \n• Advising Fleet Management if their licence has been cancelled or has had restrictions \nimposed  \n• Complying with any licence conditions (e.g. wearing of corrective lenses ) \n• Ensuring that they are familiar with the operating procedures for the vehicle (for example \nmanual or automatic gear box) and that they are competent in this regard  \n• Where co -drivers are required (such as in the case of long-distance  driving) that co -drivers \nare competent to operate the vehicle and comply with any licence conditions  \n• Approved drivers must check the standard safety features such as seatbelts, headlights and \nindicators are functioning prior to commencing a journey, by using the EROAD Inspect App  \n• The EROAD Inspect APP allows the driver to do a pre -check of the vehicle prior to using; \ncovering the basic lights, glass, body work, tyres, indicators etc  \n  \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nMassey University Policy  Guide – Page  9  \n \n \n \n  \n• The inspection also includes that rego, WoF, CoF are current,  and that the driver is fit to \ndrive the vehicle.  The driver can pass, attention or fail a vehicle upon inspection.  They can \nalso add notes and photos of any damage or issues that need to be attended to.  Once the \nreport is completed the driver submits via the APP and the information is sent to the Massey \nEROAD Depot for review.  \n \nFines  and Infringements  \n54. The approved driver is responsible for any penalties or fines imposed, including speeding, traffic \ninfringements and parking fines that they incur,  and any further charges incurred by the \nUniversity as a result of non -payment of fines.  \n \nParking  and Security  \n55. Where possible, the University will provide secure lock -up garaging or parking on University \ncampuses.  \n56. Vehicle Administrator s are to make appropriate arrangements for the security and parking of \nUniversity Vehicles  where this is not possible.  \n57. University Vehicles  must be locked when parked.  \n58. Under no circumstances are keys to be left in an unattended vehicle.  \n59. Drivers are to remove all valuable items from the vehicle whilst parked or ensure valuables are \nplaced out of sight to remove temptation from would -be thieves.   \n60. Any personal items left in a University Vehicle are left at the risk of the owner.   The University \nwill not assume responsibility for any loss or damage to personal items.  \n \nIncidents  and Accidents  \n61. Any incident or accident involving a University Vehicle or a vehicle hired for University travel \nmust be reported as follows:  \n• If any person is injured, the Police must be notified within 24 hours – this is the driver’s \nstatutory responsibility  \n \nThe main points for drivers to be aware  of: \n• Make no admission of fault or liability or offer payment to any other party concerned \nirrespective of the circumstances  \n• Obtain the following details from the other  party : \na. Registration  number , make and colour of vehicle  \nb. Name and address of the driver and  owner  \nc. Owner and insurance company of any other vehicle involved in the  accident  \nd. Where damage involves other property, the identity of the property owner must be \nestablished  \ne. Obtain the name and addresses of any witnesses  \nf. Take photos using the EROAD  Inspect App  \n \n• Immediately report to the staff member’s Line Manager or in the case of students, visitors, \nhonorary academics to their lecturer, reporting supervisor, host or department/school \nmanager; and  \n• Comply with the University’s Accident Reporting  requirements by submitting an incident \nreport via https://massey.donesafe.com/  \n \n62. All vehicle accidents must be reported to Fleet Management within 12 hours or the next working \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nMassey University Policy  Guide – Page  10  \n \n \n \n day (whichever is sooner) of the incident, who will assist the driver in completing the vehicle \ninsurance claim form.  \n \n63. The insurance claim form is to be forwarded to the Insurance Advisor, Finance as soon after the \nevent as is practicable.  \n64. No repairs are to be undertaken without first contacting Fleet Management.  \n65. Where a driver is charged with a criminal or traffic offence as the result of an accident and the \nUniversity’s insurers will not cover the claim , the driver of the vehicle will be liable for any costs \nrelating to the accident.  \n \nHealth , Safety  and Wellbeing  (please  refer  Critical  Risk  Standard  – Driving)  \n66. Smoking is not permitted in any University Vehicle s, at any time.  \n67. Drivers must not be intoxicated or impaired by the influence of any substance such as medicines \nor drugs.  \n68. Drivers must not pick up hitch hikers.  \n69. Drivers must satisfy themselves that standard safety features such as seatbelts, headlights and \nindicators are functioning prior to commencing a journey, by using the EROAD  Inspect App.   \n70. Drivers must be aware of and comply with the Critical Risk Standard - Driving , including : \n• Speed  \n• Alcohol or drug -affected driving  \n• Driver fatigue  \n• Driver distraction  \n• Giving way at intersections  \n• Safety belts  \n• All other aspects of road code compliance  \n \nRefer NZTA's  website  for further advice on safe driving , https://www.nzta.govt.nz/safety/driving -\nsafely/  \n \n Maintenance  \n71. If any faults occur during the operation of the vehicle, the driver is to take appropriate action.   \n72. Minor faults need to be reported as soon as possible, while in the case of an engine light \nappearing or other major fault, the vehicle is to be stopped as soon as it is safe to do so and \nphone roadside assistance , as per the 0800 number located in the vehicle.  \n73. University Vehicles  are to be returned in a clean and tidy condition.   \n74. All approved drivers must ensure that maintenance needs, faults or damage are reported \npromptly to Fleet Management . \n75. It is the Vehicle Administrator ’s responsibility to ensure that all maintenance and servicing \nrequests by Fleet Management are complied with and ensure the vehicle is displaying a current \nwarrant of fitness and registration.  \n76. The vehicle must be made available for inspection by Fleet Management or other nominated \nperson as and when required.  \n77. Vehicle service personnel are permitted to operate University Vehicles  for servicing \nrequirements without the need to be allocated the vehicle.  \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nMassey University Policy  Guide – Page  11  \n \n \n \n  \n \nDefinitions:  The following definitions apply to this document  \nApproved Driver  A person who has a  verified and current Driver Agreement form and full \ndriving licence . \nContracted \nTransport  A larger capacity vehicle such as a coach or mini bus  hired from a \ncommercial rental company as  required . \nDedicated \nVehicle s A vehicle owned or leased by the University assigned to a specific \ndepartment and held by that department on a permanent basis, usually \nphysically located at that  department . \nDriver Agreement  All University Traveler  (s) intending to use a vehicle for University business \nmust complete this form and submit it to Fleet Management . \nEROAD  New Zealand’s leading transport technology and service company and \nlargest electronic RUC provider. They are the first provider to offer a \ngovernment -approved electronic road user charging solution delivered \nthrough one integrated technology platform . \nEROAD  Depot  \nGlobal Positioning \nSystem (GPS)  University  Fleet V ehicles  and Dedicated Vehicles  are to be fitted with GPS \nmonitoring to provide data on the use and location of vehicles, monitor \nunsafe driving behaviours, improve safety outcomes and assist with the \noptimisation and management of fleet assets  \nEROAD Drive \nBuddy  \n Is your drivers’ in -vehicle companion providing visual and easy -to-\nunderstand feedback in real time to support better driving.  Feedback helps \navoid speeding, harsh braking, harsh acceleration, sharp cornering and \nunnecessary engine idling. With Drive Buddy on the team, good driving just \nbecom es a habit.  \nEROAD E Track \nWired  Will be utilized to track and manage powered assets and equipment e.g. \ntrailers etc.  It is a durable, watertight and IP rated enclosure with a small \nfootprint.  It also has a long-life battery that provides an anti -theft function.  \nEROAD  Inspect \nApp EROAD  Inspect is an APP based solution that allows the driver to do a pre -\ncheck of the vehicle prior to using; covering the basic lights, glass, body \nwork, tyres, indicators etc.  This inspection also includes the rego, WoF, CoF \nare current,  and that the driver is fit to drive the vehicle.  The driver can pass, \nattention or fail a vehicle upon inspection.  They can also add notes and \nphotos of any damage or issues that need to be attended to.  Once the report \nis completed the driver submits v ia the APP and the information is sent to \nthe Massey EROAD  Depot for review.  \nEROAD  U Book -It \nhttps://ubookit. ER\nOAD .com EROAD ’s Web-based Vehicle Fleet  Booking System that integrates with \nEROAD  Depot to help improve utilisation  and management of the \nUniversity ’s Vehicle Fleet .  It provides an easy -to-use booking calendar that \nenables staff to book Fleet  Vehicles . \nFleet Management  Fleet Management Offices located on each campus e.g. Wellington, \nManawatū  and Auckland . \nFleet Manager  Personnel appointed by  the Procur ement and Contracts  Group  to manage \nthe University’s Vehicle Fleet . \nFringe Benefit Tax  Tax imposed on non -cash benefits provided to past, present and future \nemployees. FBT is, generally, payable if the University provides an \nemployee with a non -cash benefit. The conditions under which FBT is \npayable vary widely, but generally apply in circum stances such as private \nuse or enjoyment of a motor vehicle, or its availability for such use; \nsubsidized  transport; gifts, prizes and gift vouchers; Entertainment . \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nMassey University Policy  Guide – Page  12  \n \n \n \n  \nLine Manager  The Manager that the Massey traveler  reports to . \nMassey Traveler  \n(s) Any person who travels on approved University business or who travels as \nan approved representative of the University . \nNZTA  New Zealand Transport Agency . \nPrivate Vehicle  A privately owned vehicle used by the driver for a particular journey for which \nexpenses are reimbursed by the  University . \nPublic Transport  Includes train, airport shuttle, bus service and the  like. \nRental Car  A car hired from a commercial rental company on a daily basis as  required . \nStaff Member  Refers to an individual employed by the University on a full or part time basis . \nUniversity  Massey University and includes all subsidiaries . \nUniversity \nBusiness  Any activity associated with the University. It includes activities such as \nteaching, research, administration, cultural and sporting  activities . \nUniversity Fleet \nVehicle  The Fleet of Vehicles owned or leased by the University and managed by \nFleet Management . \nUniversity Vehicle \n(s) Any vehicle used on University Business i ncludes but is not limited to: Fleet \nVehicles, Dedicated Vehicles, Private Vehicles, and Rental  Cars.  P rimarily \npeople -carrying, including saloons, station wagons, hatchbacks, estate \nvehicles), vans (primarily not people -carrying), utilities, trucks, trailers, boat \ntrailers, motorcycles, motor scooters, quad bikes, forklifts, and minibuses  \nthat are owned or leased by the University . \nVehicle \nAdministrator (s)  Is nominated by the department as the vehicle ‘owner’ and is responsible for \nliaison internally with the Strategic Sourcing Manager, Office of the DVC \nFinance and Technology and Fleet Management. Manage all online \nbookings, maintenance of logbooks  and processing driver agreement forms . \n \nAudience:  \nAll staff, students, and users of University Vehicles  \n \nRelevant  Legislation:   \nLand Transport Act (2004)  \nHealth and Safety at Work Act 2015  \n \nLegal  Compliance:  \nYou must abide by the Land Transport Act (2004)  \n \nRelated  Procedures:  \nCritical Risk Standard / Driving  \nMassey University Travel Policy  \nMassey University Travel Procedures  \nMassey University Health, Safety and Wellbeing Policy  \n \nDocument  Management  Control:  \nPrepared by:  Strategic Sourcing Manager  \nAuthorised  by: Deputy Vice -Chancellor, Finance and Technology  \nApproved by:  SLT 21/03/38  \nDate issued:  January 2021  \nLast review:  February 2009  \nNext review:  January 2024  \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nMassey University Policy  Guide – Page  13  \n \n \n \n  \n \nMassey University Driver Agreement  \nAll University Traveler  (s) intending to use a vehicle for University business must complete this form prior to \nbooking /using a vehicle  for the first time .  Please complete th is form and forwarded it to email : \[email protected]  . \n \nFirst Name:  ________________ ________ _______ Last Name:  ________________________________ _  \n \nDriver Licence Number: ______________ ________  Country of Issue:   _____________________________   \n \nDriver Licence Issue Date: ___________ _________   Driver Licence Expiry Date:  _____________________   \n \n \n I confirm I have a full valid NZ driv er licence with no conditions that restrict my ability to drive a Massey \nvehicle ; or \n \n As a holder of an international driver licence , I confirm that my licence meets NZ licensing requirements.  \n \nPlease note: If you do not meet the requirements stated above, you w ill not be able to use a Massey  \nvehicle.     \n \n   I acknowledge that any change  of circumstance related to the above information , or my driving ability , must \nand will be advised to Fleet Management  as soon as reasonably practical, or  if there is an y change in \ncircumstances that I do not wish to advise Fleet Management of for privacy reasons , I will not drive for \nMass ey business . I acknowledge that failure to do so may invalidate insurance cover and may constitute \nmisconduct .  If an accident occurs and I am found to be negligent , I may be asked to reimburse Massey \nUniversity.  \n \n   I acknowledge that I have been provided with a copy of the University’s Vehicle Management Policy and \nProcedures and Critical Risk Standard – Driving and have read and understood it ; and agree to abide by \nthe Policy. If the vehicle I am driving is not a University vehicle it must be privately insured, have a current \nWOF and be fit -for-purpose.  \n \n \nNOTE: In addition to Massey’s Vehicle Management Policy and Procedures, there may be particular \nrequirements determined by individual departments regarding vehicle usage. It is the Driver’s responsibility to \nensure they locate these instructions and comply .  \n \n \n \nDriver’s Signature:  ________________________________ ________________________________ ______   \n \nDate:  ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________   \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Transition_Procedures_PDF_193_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": " ",
      "policy_type": "Procedure",
      "file_size": "193 KB",
      "author": "Sandra Dunkinson",
      "creation_date": "2024-07-01T12:05:00",
      "modification_date": "D:20240701125037+12'00'"
    },
    "content": " \n Massey University Policy Guide  \n \nTRANSITION PROCEDURES  \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n \n \n \n \n \n  \n \n \nTable of Contents  \n1. Purpose  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........................  1 \n2. Definitions:  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .....................  1 \n3. Procedures:  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  2 \n 3.1 Overview  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................  2 \n 3.2 Close a Qualification/Specialisation:  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 3 \n 3.3 Identify Students Enrolled in the Qualification/Specialisation:  ................................ ................................ .. 3 \n 3.4 Determine Information for Students:  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 4 \n 3.5 Notify Students:  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 4 \n 3.6 Teach out a Closed Qualification/Specialisation:  ................................ ................................ .....................  5 \n 3.7 Delete a Closed Qualification/Specialisation:  ................................ ................................ ..........................  5 \n 3.8 Calendar Regulations:  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................  5 \nAudience:  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 5 \nRelevant Legislation:  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  5 \nRelated procedures/documents:  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 6 \nAppendix A : Overview of Qualification/Specialisation Closure /Change  Notification Sample  Letters  ......................  7 \n Qualification/Specialisation Closure/Change Notification Sample Letters  ................................ .........  8 \n \n1. Purpose  \n \nThese procedures detail the process to follow when a decision has been made to close or significantly change a \nqualification/specialisation. They address the notification of affected students of the closure /change , provision of \nacademic advice to transition students to completion and , where closed,  the subsequent deletion of the \nqualification/specialisation.  \n \n2. Definitions:  \n \nQualification:  May be an undergraduate or postgraduate degree, diploma,  or certificate.  \n \nSpecialisation:  May be major, minor, endorsement or subject.  \n \nSignificantly Changed  Any c hange  that requires transition pr ocedures and/ or ap proval by the \nCommittee on University Academic Programmes  (CUAP) .  \n \nDiscontinued/Closed qualification/specialisation : \n Qualification /specialisation in which no new enrolments are currently being \naccepted and for which the intention is to delete the \nqualification/specialisation.   \n Section  Academic  \nContact  Academic Policy & Regulations Unit  \nLast Review  December 2015 \nNext Review  December 2018  \nApproval  AC15/12/431 Rev 1  \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nTransition Procedures  – Page 2 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nDeleted qualification/specialisation:  Qualification/specialisation which has been taught out as fully as possible and \nfor which the University will delete, or has already deleted, through the CUAP \nprocess.  \n \nDeleted paper:  A paper that is no longer required as a result of the closure of a \nqualification/specialisation and is removed from the \nqualification/specialisation, Massey University Calendar,  and Integrated \nPaper Planning Database (IPP).   \n \n3. Procedures:  \n \n3.1 Overview  \n \nThe following summarises the steps required to transition students from a discontinued or significantly changed \nqualification/specialisation.  Discussion and analysis of the future of the qualification/specialisation will have already \ntaken place within the host College(s) and the process described follows from the point where the decision to close or \nchange the qualification/specialsiation has been made  and approved .  Specific details for each of these steps and \nresponsibilities are described in the follow ing sections.  \n \nProcess overview  for closed qualification/ specialisation.  \n \n \nClose Qualification/Specialisation to New Enrolments  \n \n \n \nIdentify Students Affected  \n \n \n \nDetermine Information for Students  \n \n \n \nNotify Students  \n \n \n \nTeach out Qualification/Specialisation  \n \n \n \nDelete Qualification/Specialisation  \n \n \n \nCUAP Deletion Process  \n \n \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nTransition Procedures  – Page 3 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nProcess overview for changed qualification/ specialisation.  \n \n \nChange Qualification/Specialisation  \n \n \n \nIdentify Students Affected  \n \n \n \nDetermine Information for Students  \n \n \n \nNotify Students  \n \n \n \nTeach Changed Qualification/Specialisation  \n \n \n \n3.2 Close a Qualification/specialisation:  \n \nA proposal to close a Qualification/specialisation for Enrolments is submitted through the appropriate College channels \nto College Board and Academic Committee for final approval. The appropriate proposal template is a ‘ Non-CUAP \nQualification Amendment ’.  Consideration should be given to the timeframes for communicating information to the \nappropriate people and should take account of, but may not be limited to, the effect of the closure on units within the \nCollege, other academic and service units withi n the University and external bodies, relevant publications (including the \nUniversity Calendar) and the IPP database.  \n \nIf during the period between when a qualification/specialisation is closed and deleted, circumstances warrant the re -\nopening of the qualification/specialisation this may occur.  Serious consideration of any consequences of this re -opening \nneed to be assess ed and the justification for re -opening needs to be compelling.  Affected parties including students \nnotified of the closure need to be notified of the re -opening, in particular if it affects any time limits for completion.  \n \n3.3 Identify Students Enrolled in the Qualification/specialisation:  \n \nAll students enrolled in the qualification/specialisation at some point during the three years preceding the closure  or \nchange  need to be identified.  This is in order to provide the appropriate advice to enable them to complete the \nqualification/specialisation or transfer to an alternative qualification/specialisation .   \n \nAs part of the General Regulations applying to undergraduate and postgraduate qualifications, any student who has \nbeen inactive for three consecutive years is deemed to have abandoned their study.  This provision releases the \nUniversity from any obligation  to ensure the student can complete the qualification/specialisation.  Hence, students who \nhave not been enrolled at any point during this three -year period fall under the abandoned category and are not normally \nidentified as students to be contacted.  Students who have completed the qualification/specialisation should also be \nremoved from the list of students to provide advice to.  \n \n3.4 Determine Information for Students:  \n \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nTransition Procedures  – Page 4 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nInformation to be provided to students should be determined at this stage and may include:  \n \n• notification of the closure /change  of the qualification/specialisation  \n• teaching out or transition arrangements  \n• study completed toward the qualification/specialisation thus far. \n• options or requirements for completion  \n• options for transfer to an alternative qualification  \n• options for graduating with an alternative qualification.  \n• the final date for completion of the qualification  \n• date by which a response is required.   \n• consequences of not responding  \n \nSome of these options may not be relevant or appropriate in every case.  The information provided, level of detail and \nvariety of options will depend on a number of factors.  These include:  \n \n• how long the qualification as it is will continue.   \n• whether students require  their exact completion details or generic completion information  \n• whether or not there are alternative options available  \n• whether or not the student can complete the qualification on the campus and mode of their choice  \n \nIn some cases a student may not have passed any papers toward a qualification.  In these cases it needs to be \ndetermined whether or not it is feasible and/or appropriate for them to begin and complete the necessary papers within \nthe closure /transition  timeframe.  If not, these students will be notified that the qualification/specialisation is closed to \nthem effective immediately.  \n \nIt is critical  to have a final date for completion  or transition .  Leaving this open -ended allows students to drift on and has \nthe potential to tie up resources.  The final date also gives students a deadline to focus on and aim for.  For some \nstudent’s  completion may not be achievable so alternative pathways should be identified and offered wherever possible.   \n \nFactors to take into consideration when determining a reasonable timeframe for completion are:   \n \n• the University’s time limits for completions.   \n• the part -time vs full -time study patterns of the students in the qualification/specialisation  \n• the credit value of the qualification/specialisation  \n• the reason for the closure /change  \n• the resources required to continue to offer.  \n• any implications delaying the closure /change  might have.  \n \nFor example, for a 360-credit  degree a reasonable timeframe  might be three years, however a shorter or longer period \nmight be determined to be appropriate when all factors have been considered.  The transition period would not normally \nexceed four years.  \n \n3.5 Notify Students:  \n \nA series of sample  letters to use to notify and advise students that the qualification/specialisation is being \ndiscontinued /changed  are provided in Appendix A.  These are:  \n \nSample  letter One  Current Enrolment; May Continue  \nSample  letter Two  Historic Enrolment – Student Has Passed Some Papers; May Continue  \nSample  letter Three  Historic Enrolment – Student Has Not Passed Any Papers; May Continue  \nSample  letter Four  Historic Enrolment – Student Has Not Passed Any Papers; Cannot Continue  \nSample  letter Five  Historic Enrolment – Student Has Changed Qualification/ specialisation.   \n \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nTransition Procedures  – Page 5 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nThese sample  letters should be adjusted to fit specific circumstances of the qualification/specialisation and not all \nsample  letters may be appropriate in all cases .  \n \nMost of the letters to students require a response and include a response date .  After  this date has passed it is important \nthat every student contacted has a note added to their student file in the Student Management System (SMS).  This \nincludes non -responses.  For responding students the option they have chosen and completion requirements, if \nprovided, should be noted where appropriate .  Such records will enable staff involved in future contact with the student \nto know what has been agreed and provide app ropriate advice.   \n \n3.6 Teach out a Closed Qualification/specialisation:  \n \nPapers contributing to the closed qualification/specialisation should be taught as usual (unless paper substitutions are \nin place).  For papers associated only with the specific qualification/specialisation resources should be kept available \nto teach the p apers to either the final date for completion of the qualification/specialisation or until all eligible students \nhave completed the paper, whichever comes first.  Once either of these events occurs the papers should be deleted \nusing the Paper Deletion  template.   \n \nFor papers that are also available to other qualifications/specialisations these will continue beyond the final date for \nclosure of the qualification/specialisation.  \n \n3.7 Delete a Closed Qualification/specialisation:  \n \nOnce the final date for completion has been reached  in the closed qualification/specialisation , or all students have \ncompleted, Colleges must complete the template for the Deletion of a Qualification/specialisation .  This deletion \nproposal is submitted through the appropriate College channels and Academic Committee to Academic Board for final \napproval. The deletion document is then forwarded to CUAP for noting as part of one of the two CUAP rounds per year.  \nCUAP no tify the Tertiary Education Commission and New Zealand Qualifications Authority of the deletion.  \n \nThe University may close a qualification/specialisation to new enrolments without notifying CUAP but once a \nqualification is to be deleted CUAP must be notified .  \n \n3.8 Calendar Regulations:  \n \nThe University Calendar, University website and other student facing information require sufficient notice of any changes \nto qualifications/specialisations.  Once the qualification/specialisation closure has been approved, a note is added to \nthe relevant q ualification regulations stating that there will be no new enrolments from the date of closure.  This  \ninformation  should be included in all other appropriate sources of information regarding the qualification/specialisation.  \nOnce the qualification/special isation has been deleted all reference to it will be removed from the Calendar, all \npublications and website and the qualification should no longer be awarded.   For a changed qualification/specialisation \nthe revised  regulations will be in place,  and these may include specific transition regulations.  These revised regulations \nwill be included in the appropriate sources of information.  \n \nAudience:  \nAll staff associated with the administration of qualifications.  \n \nRelevant Legislation:  \n \nFair Trading Act 1986   \nIt is illegal to engage in misleading or deceptive conduct in trade, or to make false representations in relation to goods \nand services supplied.   \n \nRelated procedures/documents:  \nAward of Alternative Qualification Procedures  \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nTransition Procedures  – Page 6 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nMassey University Qualifications Framework  \nMassey University Qualifications Policy  \nNo and Low Enrolments Policy  \n \nDocument Management Control:  \nPrepared by:  Accreditation Consultant  \nAuthorised by: Assistant Vice -Chancellor, Research, Academic and Enterprise  \nApproved by: Academic Committee,  AC15/12/431  Rev1, December 2015  \nDate issued: 2010.  \nNext review: December 2018  \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nTransition Procedures  – Page 7 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nAppendix A :  Overview of Qualification/specialisation Closure /Change  Notification Sample  \nLetters  \n \nThese sample  letters provide examples but may not cover every situation.  Modifications may be required depending \non whether the closure /change  is for a qualification or specialisation , to accommodate any specific circumstances or \nrequirements  and in the changed qualification/specialisation letters will depend on the regulations changed and \ntransition arrangements that may also be written into the regulations .    \n \nLetter  Sample  Letter  Scenario  Action  \n1 Current Enrolment; \nMay Continue  • Student is currently enrolled.  \n• May have passed some papers.  \n• Could feasibly complete within the \ntimeframe for closure /transition  • Advise of closure /change  \n• Advise end date for \ncompletion /transition.  \n• Advise academic progress to date.  \n• Provide completion requirements.  \n• Response required by student  \n2 Historic Enrolment – \nHas Passed Some \nPapers; May \nContinue  • Student was enrolled in the \nqualification/specialisation at some \npoint during the past three years \nbut is not currently enrolled.  \n• Has passed some papers.  \n• Could feasibly complete within the \ntimeframe for closure /transition  • Advise of closure /change  \n• Advise end date for \ncompletion /transition.  \n• Advise academic progress to date.  \n• Provide completion requirements.  \n• Response required by student  \n3 Historic Enrolment – \nHas Not Passed Any \nPapers; May \nContinue  • Student was enrolled in the \nqualification/specialisation at some \npoint during the past three years \nbut is not currently enrolled.  \n• Has not passed any papers.  \n• Could feasibly complete within the \ntimeframe for closure /transition  \n(may not be appropriate for 3–4-\nyear qualifications)  • Advise of closure /change  \n• Advise end date for \ncompletion /transition.  \n• Advise academic progress to date.  \n• Provide completion requirements.  \n• Response required by student  \n4 Historic Enrolment – \nHas Not Passed Any \nPapers; Cannot \nContinue  \nFor closed \nqualifications/  \nspecialisations only  • Student was enrolled in the \nqualification/specialisation at some \npoint during the past three years \nbut is not currently enrolled.  \n• Has not passed any papers.  \n• Could not feasibly complete within \nthe timeframe for closure  • Notify of closure  \n• Advise cannot re -enrol in closed \nqualification/specialisation and if \nthey wish to return to study,  they will \nneed to enrol in a different \nqualification/ specialisation.  \n• No response required from student.  \n• Intervention may be required to \nprevent student automatically \nenrolling in \nqualification/specialisation  \n5 Historic Enrolment – \nHas Changed \nQualification/  \nspecialisation  • Student was enrolled in the \nqualification/specialisation at some \npoint during the past three years.  \n• Is not currently enrolled AND has \nchanged qualification/  \nspecialisation since the last \nenrolment in the closed /changed  \nqualification/ specialisation.  \n• May have passed some papers  • Notify of closure /change  \n• Note change of enrolment  \n• Advise may re -enrol in closed / \nchanged qualification/specialisation \nonly if feasible but note time limit.  \n• Response required from student only \nif they wish to re -enrol in \nclosed /changed  \nqualification/specialisation  \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nTransition Procedures  – Page 8 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nClosure /change  Notification Sample  Letters  \n \nSample  Letter One:   \nQualification/Specialisation Closure - Current Enrolment; May Continue  \n \n \n \nDear <student name>  \n \nThis letter affects  your enrolment in the < qualification/specialisation >.  After careful consideration, a decision has been \ntaken to close the < qualification/specialisation  > to new enrolments from < Semester XX of  year> , and to permanently \ndiscontinue the < qualification/specialisation  > from the end of the < year>  academic year.   \n \nI want to assure you the University is committed to ensuring a path to completion for all students who are currently \nenrolled in the < qualification/specialisation  >.  Even though no new enrolments in this qualification will be accepted, you \nmay continue to enrol in this qualification until the end of the < year>  academic year in order to complete the qualification \nrequirements.  Please be aware that if you do not complete all of the requirements for the < qualification/specialisation  \n> by the end of the < year> academic year then transfer to an alternative < qualification/specialisation>  will be required.  \n \nI have reviewed your academic progress in the < qualification/specialisation  >, and note that you have passed, or gained \ncredit for < number>  credits.  You therefore now require a further < number>  credits.  These should comprise the \nfollowing:  \n<list specific or generic completion requirements> .   \n \nIf you do not wish, or are not able, to complete the < qualification/specialisation  >, then you may be eligible for the award \nof an alternative qualification.  If you have completed < insert minimum requirement for alternative qualification/s> , then \nyou may be eligible for the award of the < alternative qualification> .  I would be happy to discuss this option with you.  \n(Depending on the number of students affected it may not be feasible to provide detailed alternative options, in these \ncases students must be advised to contact the University individually to discuss their options.)  \n \nIn order to assist the University manage the closure of the < qualification/specialisation  >, and to provide students who \nintend to continue studying with appropriate ongoing academic advice regarding completion, or transfer to an alternative \nqualification, we ask that you complete and return the enclosed response form by  email to < insert email address> by \n<date> .  Please note if you do not return the response form by this date,  we will assume that you do not intend to \ncomplete the < qualification/specialisation > and this will be recorded on your academic record.   \n \nIf you have any questions or concerns about your study, please contact me at < contact details>.  \n \nFinally, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for choosing to study at Massey University and  extend my best \nwishes to you for successful completion.  \n \n \nYours sincerely  \n \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nTransition Procedures  – Page 9 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nSample Letter One:   \nChanged Qualification/specialisation - Current Enrolment; May Continue  \n \n<guide only, amendments to the letter according to the specific changes to the qualification/specialisation may be \nrequired>  \n \nDear <student name>  \n \nThis letter affects  your enrolment in the < qualification/specialisation >.  A decision has been taken to make the following \nchanges to  the < qualification/specialisation > from < date>: \n<list changes>   \n \nI want to assure you the University is committed to ensuring a path to completion for all students who are currently \nenrolled in the < qualification/specialisation  >.  You may continue to enrol in this qualification until the end of the < year>  \nacademic year in order to complete the qualification requirements.  Please be aware that if you do not complete all of \nthe requirements for the < qualification/specialisation  > by the end of the < year>  academic year then transfer to the \nrevised regulations or an alterna tive < qualification/specialisation>  will be required.  \n \nI have reviewed your academic progress in the < qualification/specialisation  >, and note that you have passed, or gained \ncredit for < number>  credits.  You therefore now require a further < number>  credits.  These should comprise the \nfollowing:  \n<list specific or generic completion requirements> .   \n \nIf you do not wish, or are not able, to complete the < qualification/specialisation  >, then you may be eligible for the award \nof an alternative qualification.  If you have completed < insert minimum requirement for alternative qualification/s> , then \nyou may be eligible for the award of the < alternative qualification> .  I would be happy to discuss this option with you.  \n(Depending on the number of students affected it may not be feasible to provide detailed alternative options, in these \ncases students must be advised to contact the University individually to discuss their options.)  \n \nIn order to assist the University manage the changes to  the < qualification/specialisation >, and to provide students who \nintend to continue studying with appropriate ongoing academic advice regarding completion, or transfer to an alternative \nqualification, we ask that you complete and return the enclosed response form by email to < insert email address> by \n<date> .  Please note if you do not return the response form by this date,  we will assume that you intend to complete \nthe < qualification/specialisation > under the revised regulations and this will be recorded on your academic file.   \n \nIf you have any questions or concerns about your study, please contact me at < contact details>.  \n \nFinally, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for choosing to study at Massey University and  extend my best \nwishes to you for successful completion.  \n \n \nYours sincerely  \n \n \n \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nTransition Procedures  – Page 10 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n<qualification/specialisation  > \n \nStudent Response Form to Current Enrolment  \n<this form is to accompany the Sample  Letter One >  \n \n \nFull Name:  \n \nMassey Student ID Number:  \n \nAddress:  \n \nDate of Birth:  \n \nTelephone:  \n \nEmail:  \n \n \nPlease indicate which of the following options applies to you:  \n \na. I intend to complete the < qualification/specialisation  > requirements by the end of the < year>  academic \nyear.  \n \nb. I intend to transfer to an alternative qualification or  apply for the award of an alternative qualification.  \n \nc. <for changed qualifications/specialisations only> I intend to transfer to the revised regulations.  \n \nd. I do not intend to complete the < qualification/specialisation  >. \n \n \nPlease return this form by <date>  to the following:  \n \n<name>  \n<email address > \n \n \n<If the student has been provided detailed completion or transfer information in the letter, the following sentence should \nbe deleted.  If not keep this sentence in>   \nIf you select Option A or Option B, you should contact the University to discuss your completion (A) or your transfer to, \nor award of, an alternative qualification (B).  \n \n \n \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nTransition Procedures  – Page 11 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nSample  Letter Two:   \nQualification/Specialisation Closure - Historic Enrolment – Has Passed Some Papers; May \nContinue  \n \n \n \nDear <student name>  \n \nThis letter affects your enrolment in the < qualification/specialisation >.  After careful consideration, a decision has been \ntaken to close the < qualification/specialisation > to new enrolments from < Semester XX of year> , and to permanently \ndiscontinue the < qualification/specialisation > from the end of the < year>  academic year.   \n \nOur records show you have not enrolled in the < qualification/specialisation>  since <semester/ year>.  However, I want \nto assure you the University is committed to ensuring a path to completion for all students who have completed partial \nrequirements toward the < qualification/specialisation >.  Even though no new enrolments in this qualification will be \naccepted, you may continue to enrol in this qualification until the end of the < year>  academic year in order to complete \nthe qualification requirements.  Pleas e be aware that if you do not complete all of the requirements for the \n<qualification/specialisation > by the end of the < year>  academic year then – should you wish to continue study – transfer \nto an alternative qualification will be required.  \n \nI have reviewed your academic progress in the < qualification/specialisation >, and note that you have passed, or been \ngiven credit for < number>  credits.  You therefore now require a further < number>  credits.  These should comprise the \nfollowing:  \n<list specific or generic completion requirements> .   \n \nIf you do not wish, or are not able, to complete the < qualification/specialisation >, then you may be eligible for the award \nof an alternative qualification.  If you have completed < insert minimum requirement for alternative qualification/s> , then \nyou may be eligible for the award of the < alternative qualification> .  I would be happy to discuss this option with you.  \n<Depending on the number of students affected it may not be feasible to provide detailed alternative options, in these \ncases students must be a dvised to contact the University individually to discuss their options.  \n \nIn order to assist the University manage the closure of the < qualification/specialisation >, and to provide students who \nintend to continue studying with appropriate ongoing academic advice regarding completion, or transfer to an alternative \nqualification, we ask that you complete and return the enclosed response form by email to < insert email address> by \n<date> .  Please note if you do not return the response form by this date,  we will assume that you have do not intend to \ncomplete the < qualification/specialisation > and this will be recorded on your academic record.   \n \nIf you have any questions or concerns about your study, please feel free to contact me at < contact details>.  \n \nFinally, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for choosing to study at Massey University and  extend my best \nwishes to you for successful completion.  \n \n \nYours sincerely  \n \n \n \n \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nTransition Procedures  – Page 12 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nSample Letter Two:   \nChanged Qualification/Specialisation - Historic Enrolment – Has Passed Some Papers; May \nContinue  \n \n \n \nDear <student name>  \n \nThis letter affects your enrolment in the < qualification/specialisation >.  A decision has been taken to make the following \nchanges to the < qualification/specialisation > from < date> :   \n \nOur records show you have not enrolled in the < qualification/specialisation>  since <semester/ year>.  However, I want \nto assure you the University is committed to ensuring a path to completion for all students who have completed partial \nrequirements toward the < qualification/specialisation >.  You may continue to enrol in this qualification until the end of \nthe < year>  academic year in order to complete the qualification requirements.  Please be aware that if you do not \ncomplete all of the requirements for the  <qualification/specialisation  > by the end of the < year>  academic year then \ntransfer to the revised regulations or an alternative < qualification/specialisation>  will be required.  \n \nI have reviewed your academic progress in the < qualification/specialisation >, and note that you have passed, or been \ngiven credit for < number>  credits.  You therefore now require a further < number>  credits.  These should comprise the \nfollowing:  \n<list specific or generic completion requirements> .   \n \nIf you do not wish, or are not able, to complete the < qualification/specialisation >, then you may be eligible for the award \nof an alternative qualification.  If you have completed < insert minimum requirement for alternative qualification/s> , then \nyou may be eligible for the award of the < alternative qualification> .  I would be happy to discuss this option with you.  \n<Depending on the number of students affected it may not be feasible to provide detailed alternative options, in these \ncases students must be a dvised to contact the University individually to discuss their options.  \n \nIn order to assist the University manage the changes to the < qualification/specialisation >, and to provide students who \nintend to continue studying with appropriate ongoing academic advice regarding completion, or transfer to an alternative \nqualification, we ask that you complete and return the enclosed response form by email to < insert email address> by \n<date> .  Please note if you do not return the response form by this date,  we will assume that you have do not intend to \ncomplete the < qualification/specialisation > and this will be recorded on your academic file.   \n \nIf you have any questions or concerns about your study, please feel free to contact me at < contact details>.  \n \nFinally, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for choosing to study at Massey University and  extend my best \nwishes to you for successful completion.  \n \n \nYours sincerely  \n \n \n \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nTransition Procedures  – Page 13 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n<qualification specialisation > \n \nStudent Response Form  \n<This form is to accompany Sample  Letter Two >  \n \n \n \nFull Name:  \n \nMassey Student ID Number:  \n \nAddress:  \n \nDate of Birth:  \n \nTelephone:  \n \nEmail:  \n \n \nPlease indicate which of the following options applies to you:  \n \na. I intend to complete the < qualification/specialisation > requirements by the end of the < year>  academic \nyear.  \n \nb. I intend to transfer to an alternative qualification or  apply for the award of an alternative qualification.  \n \nc. <for changed qualifications/specialisations only> I intend to transfer to the revised regulations  \n \nd. I do not intend to complete the < qualification/specialisation >. \n \n \nPlease return this form by <date>  to the following:  \n \n \n<name>  \n<email address > \n \n \n<If the student has been provided detailed completion or transfer information in the letter, the following sentence should \nbe deleted.  If not keep this sentence in.  \nIf you select Option A or Option B, you should contact the University to discuss your completion (A) or your transfer to, \nor award of, an alternative qualification (B).  \n \n \n \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nTransition Procedures  – Page 14 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nSample  Letter Three:   \nQualification/Specialisation Closure - Historic Enrolment – Has Not Passed Any Papers; May \nContinue  \n \n \n \nDear <student name>  \n \nThis letter affects your enrolment in the < qualification/specialisation >.  After careful consideration, a decision has been \ntaken to close the < qualification/specialisation > to new enrolments from < Semester XX of year> , and to permanently \ndiscontinue the < qualification/specialisation > from the end of the < year>  academic year.   \n \nOur records show you have not enrolled in the < qualification/specialisation>  since < semester /year>.  I have reviewed \nyour academic progress in the < qualification/specialisation > and  note that you have not passed any papers towards \nthis < qualification/specialisation>.  Even though no new enrolments in this qualification will be accepted, the University \nis offering students who have previously been enrolled in the < qualification/specialisation > the opportunity to continue \nto enrol in this qualification until the end of the < year>  academic year in order to complete the qualification requirements.  \nPlease be aware however, that if you do not complete all of the requirements for the < qualification/specialisation > by \nthe end of the < year>  academic year then – should you wish to continue study – transfer to an alternative qualification \nwill be required.  Please note you do not have to return to study the < qualification/specialisation> .  This letter is to advise \nyou of the intention to close the < qualification/specialisation>  and to provide you the option to return to study if you wish.  \n \nYou will require the following in order to complete the < qualification/specialisation> : \n<list specific or generic completion requirements> .   \n \nIn order to assist the University manage the closure of the < qualification/specialisation  >, and to provide students who \nintend to continue studying with appropriate ongoing academic advice regarding completion, or transfer to an alternative \nqualification, we ask that you complete and return the enclosed response form by email to < insert email address> by \n<date> .  Please note if you do not return the response form by this date,  we will assume that you do not intend to \ncomplete the < qualification/specialisation  > and this will be noted on your academic record.   \n \nIf you have any questions or concerns about your study, please feel free to contact me at < contact details>.  \n \nFinally, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for choosing to study at Massey University and  extend my best \nwishes to you for successful completion.  \n \n \n \nYours sincerely  \n \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nTransition Procedures  – Page 15 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nSample Letter Three:   \nChanged Qualification/Specialisation - Historic Enrolment – Has Not Passed Any Papers; \nMay Continue  \n \n \n \nDear <student name>  \n \nThis letter affects your enrolment in the < qualification/specialisation >.  A decision has been taken to make the following \nchanges to the < qualification/specialisation > from <date >.   \n \nOur records show you have not enrolled in the < qualification/specialisation>  since < semester /year>.  I have reviewed \nyour academic progress in the < qualification/specialisation > and  note that you have not passed any papers towards \nthis < qualification/specialisation>.  The University is offering students who have previously been enrolled in the \n<qualification/specialisation > the opportunity to continue to enrol in this qualification until the end of the < year>  \nacademic year in order to complete the qualification requirements  under the current regulations .  Please be aware \nhowever, that if you do not complete all of the requirements for the < qualification/specialisation > by the end of t he \n<year>  academic year then – should you wish to continue study – transfer to the revised regulations or a n alternative \nqualification will be required.  Please note you do not have to return to study the < qualification/specialisation> .  This \nletter is to advise you of the intention to make the changes to  the < qualification/specialisation>  and to provide you the \noption to return to study if you wish.  \n \nYou will require the following in order to complete the < qualification/specialisation> : \n<list specific or generic completion requirements> .   \n \nIn order to assist the University manage the changes to  the < qualification/specialisation  >, and to provide students who \nintend to continue studying with appropriate ongoing academic advice regarding completion, or transfer to an alternative \nqualification, we ask that you complete and return the enclosed response form by email to < insert email address> by \n<date> .  Please note if you do not return the response form by this date,  we will assume that you do not intend to \ncomplete the < qualification/specialisation  > and this will be noted on your academic file.   \n \nIf you have any questions or concerns about your study, please feel free to contact me at < contact details>.  \n \nFinally, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for choosing to study at Massey University and  extend my best \nwishes to you for successful completion.  \n \n \n \nYours sincerely  \n \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nTransition Procedures  – Page 16 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n<qualification/specialisation > \n \nStudent Response Form  \n<This form is to accompany Sample  Letter Three>  \n \n \n \nFull Name:  \n \nMassey Student ID Number:  \n \nAddress:  \n \nDate of Birth:  \n \nTelephone:  \n \nEmail:  \n \n \nPlease indicate which of the following options applies to you:  \n \na. I intend to complete the < qualification/specialisation > requirements by the end of the < year>  academic \nyear.  \n \nb. I intend to transfer to an alternative qualification.  \n \nc. <for changed qualifications/specialisations only> I intend to transfer to the revised regulations  \n \nd. I do not intend to complete the < qualification/specialisation >. \n \n \nPlease return this form by <date>  to the following:  \n \n \n<name>  \n<email address>  \n \n \n<If the student has been provided detailed completion or transfer information in the letter, the following sentence should \nbe deleted.  If not keep this sentence in.  \nIf you select Option A or Option B, you should contact the University to discuss your completion (A) or your transfer to \nan alternative qualification (B).  \n \n \n \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nTransition Procedures  – Page 17 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nSample  Letter Four:   \nQualification/Specialisation Closure - Historic Enrolment – Has Not Passed Any Papers; \nCannot Continue  \n \n \n \nDear <student name>  \n \nThis letter concerns your enrolment in the <qualification/specialisation> .  After careful consideration, a decision has \nbeen taken to close the < qualification/specialisation>  to new enrolments from < Semester XX of <year> , and to \npermanently discontinue it from the end of the < year>  academic year.   \n \nOur records show you were enrolled in the < qualification/specialisation>  in <last year and semester of enrolment> .  I \nhave reviewed your academic progress and  note that you have not passed any credits towards the \n<qualification/specialisation> requirements.  Therefore, it will not be possible for you now to complete the \n<qualification/specialisation> .   \n \nIf you have any questions or concerns about your study, please feel free to contact me at < contact details>.  \n \n \n \nYours sincerely  \n \n \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nTransition Procedures  – Page 18 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nSample  Letter Five:   \nQualification/Specialisation Closure - Historic Enrolment – Has Changed \nQualification/ specialisation.  \n \n \n \nDear < student name > \n \nThis letter concerns your enrolment in the < qualification/specialisation > for which you were enrolled in < last year of \nenrolment in qualification> .  After careful consideration, a decision has been taken to close the \n<qualification/specialisation > to new enrolments from < Semester XX of <year> , and to permanently discontinue the \n<qualification/specialisation > from the end of the < year>  academic year.   \n \n<If student has passed some papers use this paragraph and delete the next paragraph>  \nI have reviewed your academic progress in the < qualification/specialisation > and note that although you passed some \ncredits towards the < qualification/specialisation >, you have now changed to the < alternative \nqualification/specialisation> .  It is assumed, therefore, that you no longer intend to complete the \n<qualification/specialisation> .  If this assumption is incorrect, please contact me urgently no later than <date>  in order \nto discuss any options that may be available to you for completion of the qualif ication/specialisation.  \n \n<If student has NOT passed any papers use this paragraph and delete the above paragraph>  \nI have reviewed your academic progress in the < qualification/specialisation  > and note that although you have not \npassed any credits towards the < qualification/specialisation >, you have now changed to the < alternative \nqualification/specialisation> .  It is assumed, therefore, that you no longer intend to complete the \n<qualification/specialisation> .  If this assumption is incorrect, please contact me urgently no later than <date>  in order \nto discuss any options that may be available to you for completion of t he qualification/specialisation.  \n \nPlease be aware however, that if you do wish to return to the < qualification/specialisation > and do not complete all of \nthe requirements by the end of the < year>  academic year then – should you wish to continue study – transfer to an \nalternative qualification will be required.  Please note you do not have to return to study the \n<qualification/specialisation> .  This letter is to advise you of the intention to close the < qualification/specialisation>  and \nto provide you the option to return to study this if yo u wish.  \n \nIn order to assist the University manage the closure of the < qualification/specialisation >, and to provide students who \nintend to continue studying with appropriate ongoing academic advice regarding completion, or transfer to an alternative \nqualification, we ask that you complete and return the enclosed response form by email to < insert email address> by \n<date> .  Please note, if you do not return the response form by this date, we will assume that you have do not intend \nto complete the < qualification/specia lisation > and this will be noted on your academic record.   \n \nIf you have any questions or concerns about your study, please feel free to contact me at < contact details>.  \n \nFinally, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for choosing to study at Massey University and  extend my best \nwishes to you for successful completion.  \n \n \n \n \n \nYours sincerely  \n \n \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nTransition Procedures  – Page 19 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \nSample Letter Five:   \nChanged Qualification/Specialisation - Historic Enrolment – Has Changed \nQualification/ specialisation.  \n \n \n \nDear < student name > \n \nThis letter concerns your enrolment in the < qualification/specialisation > for which you were enrolled in < last year of \nenrolment in qualification> .  A decision has been taken to make the following changes to the \n<qualification/specialisation > from <date >:   \n \n<If student has passed some papers use this paragraph and delete the next paragraph>  \nI have reviewed your academic progress in the < qualification/specialisation > and note that although you passed some \ncredits towards the < qualification/specialisation >, you have now changed to the < alternative \nqualification/specialisation> .  It is assumed, therefore, that you no longer intend to complete the \n<qualification/specialisation> .  If this assumption is incorrect, please contact me urgently no later than <date>  in order \nto discuss any options that may be available to you for completion of the qualif ication/specialisation.  \n \n<If student has NOT passed any papers use this paragraph and delete the above paragraph>  \nI have reviewed your academic progress in the < qualification/specialisation  > and note that although you have not \npassed any credits towards the < qualification/specialisation >, you have now changed to the < alternative \nqualification/specialisation> .  It is assumed, therefore, that you no longer intend to complete the \n<qualification/specialisation> .  If this assumption is incorrect, please contact me urgently no later than <date>  in order \nto discuss any options that may be available to you for completion of t he qualification/specialisation.  \n \nPlease be aware however, that if you do wish to return to the < qualification/specialisation > and do not complete all of \nthe requirements by the end of the < year>  academic year then – should you wish to continue study – transfer to the \nrevised regulations, or an alternative qualification will be required.  Please note you do not have to return to study the \n<qualification/specialisation> .  This letter is to advise you of the intention to make the changes to the \n<qualification/specialisation>  and to provide yo u the option to return to study this if you wish.  \n \nIn order to assist the University manage the changes to the < qualification/specialisation >, and to provide students who \nintend to continue studying with appropriate ongoing academic advice regarding completion, or transfer to an alternative \nqualification, we ask that you complete and return the enclosed response form by email to < insert email address> by \n<date> .  Please note, if you do not return the response form by this date, we will assume that you have do not intend \nto complete the < qualification/specia lisation > and this will be noted on your academic file.   \n \nIf you have any questions or concerns about your study, please feel free to contact me at < contact details>.  \n \nFinally, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for choosing to study at Massey University and  extend my best \nwishes to you for successful completion.  \n \n \n \n \n \nYours sincerely  \n \n \n  \n Massey University Policy Guide   \nTransition Procedures  – Page 20 \n \n \n© This Policy is the property of Massey University  \n<qualification/specialisation > \n \nStudent Response Form  \n<This form is to accompany Sample  Letter Five>  \n \n \n \nFull Name:  \n \nMassey Student ID Number:  \n \nAddress:  \n \nDate of Birth:  \n \nTelephone:  \n \nEmail:  \n \n \nPlease indicate which of the following options applies to you:  \n \na. I intend to complete the < qualification/specialisation > requirements by the end of the < year>  academic \nyear.  \n \nb. <for changed qualifications/specialisations only> I intend to transfer to the revised regulations.  \n \nb. I do not intend to complete the < qualification/specialisation >. \n \n \nPlease return this form by <date>  to the following:  \n \n \n<name>  \n<email address>  \n \n \nIf you select Option A, please contact the University to discuss your completion options.  \n \n \n \n \n"
  },
  {
    "filename": "Treasury_Framework_PDF_504_KB.pdf",
    "metadata": {
      "title": "Treasury Management Framework",
      "policy_type": "Framework",
      "file_size": "504 KB",
      "author": "jmlochhe",
      "creation_date": "2022-09-22T12:03:00",
      "modification_date": "D:20220922123008+12'00'"
    },
    "content": "  Treasury Framework  \n  IN CONFIDENCE   \n \n \n \n \nMASSEY UNI VERSITY  \n \n \n \nTREASURY  FRAMEWORK  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nJULY 2022 \n \n \n \n \n \n  Treasury Framework  \n  IN CONFIDENCE  Table of Contents  \n \n1.0 INTRODUCTION  3 \n1.1 PURPOSE OF TREASURY FRAMEWORK  3 \n1.2 PHILOSOPHY  3 \n2.0 SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES  4 \n2.1 SCOPE  4 \n2.2 OBJECTIVES  4 \n3.0 MANAGEMENT  RESPONSIBILITIES  7 \n3.1 OVERVIEW OF MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE  7 \n3.2 UNIVERSITY COUNCIL (COUNCIL ”) 7 \n3.3 FINANCE AND ASSURANCE COMMITTEE (FAC)  8 \n3.4 SENIOR LEADERSHIP TEAM (SLT)  8 \n3.5 TREASURY FORUM  8 \n3.6 VICE CHANCELLOR (VC) 9 \n3.7 DEPUTY VICE CHANCELLOR UNIVERSITY SERVICES (DVC  US) 9 \n3.8 CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER (CFO)  (OR EQUIVALENT ROLE ) 10 \n3.9 FINANCIAL OPERATIONS MANAGER (OR EQUIVALENT ROLE ) 11 \n3.10  TEAM LEADER - ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE AND TREASURY (TL–AR&T)  (OR EQUIVALENT ROLE ) 11 \n3.11  FINANCIAL REPORTING MANAGER (OR EQUIVALENT ROLE ) 11 \n3.12  DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY AND AUTHORITY LIMITS  11 \n4.0 DEBT MANAGEMENT  13 \n4.1 GENERAL FRAMEWORK  13 \n4.2 BORROWING OBJECTIVES  13 \n4.3 LIQUIDITY /FUNDING RISK 13 \n4.4 FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS  14 \n4.5 BORROWING RATIOS AND LIMITS  15 \n4.6 NEW BORROWING  15 \n4.7 SECURITY ARRANGEMENTS  15 \n4.8 DEBT REPAYMENT  15 \n5.0 INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT  16 \n5.1 GENERAL FRAMEWORK  16 \n5.2 INVESTMENT OBJECTIVES  16 \n5.3 TRUST FUNDS  16 \n5.4 RELATED PARTY LENDING  16 \n6.0 RISK RECOGNITION/IDENTIFICATION/MANAGEMENT  17 \n6.1 INTEREST RATE RISK 17 \n6.2 FOREIGN EXCHANGE RISK 19 \n6.3 COUNTERPARTY CREDIT RISK 20 \n6.4 OPERATIONAL RISK 22 \n6.5 LEGAL RISK 24 \n7.0 MEASURING TREASURY PERFORMANCE  25 \n8.0 CASH MANAGEMENT  26 \n9.0 REPORTING – PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT  27 \n9.1 TREASURY REPORTING  27 \n9.2 ACCOUNTING TREATMENT OF FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS  27 \n9.3 VALUATION OF FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS  28 \n10.0  FRAMEWORK REVIEW  28 \nAPPENDIX 1:  29 \nAPPENDIX 2:  30 \n  Treasury Framework  \n Page 3\n  IN CONFIDENCE  1.0 INTRODUCTION  \n \n1.1 Purpose of Treasury Framework  \n \n The purpose of the Treasury Framework  (Framework) is to outline approved policies and \nprocedures in respect of all treasury activity to be undertaken by Massey University  (Massey ).  \nThe formalisation of such policies and procedures will enable treasury ris ks within Massey  to be \nprudently managed.  \n \n As circumstances change, the policies and procedures outlined in this Framework  will be \nmodified to ensure that treasury risks within Massey  continue to be well managed.  In addition, \nannual  reviews will be condu cted to test the existing Framework  against the following criteria:  \n \n◼ Best practices  within the tertiary sector . \n◼ The risk bearing ability and tolerance levels of the underlying revenue and cost drivers , \nand statutory  stakeholder requirements . \n◼ The effectiveness and efficiency of the Treasury  Framework  and treasury  function to \nrecognise, measure, control, manage and report on Massey ’s financial exposure to \nmarket interest and foreign exchange rate risks, funding risk, l iquidity , treasury \ninvestment  risks, counterparty credit risks  and other associated risks.  \n◼ The operation of a pro -active treasury function  in an environment of control and \ncompliance.  \n◼ The robustness of the Framework ’s risk control limits and risk spreading  mechanisms \nagainst normal and abnormal financial market movements and conditions.  \n◼ Consistency in achieving Massey’s strategic o bjectives and financial plans/budgets . \n \n It is intended that the Framework  be distributed to all personnel involved in any aspect of the \nMassey ’s financial management.  In this respect, all staff must be completely familiar with their \nresponsibilities under the Framework  at all times.  \n \n Adherence to the Treasury  Framework  is man datory.  Changes to th e Framework  can only be \nmade by Massey’s  Council  or the Finance  and Assurance  sub-committee  of Council  under \ndelegation of Council . \n \n1.2 Philosophy  \n \n A core principle  of Massey University’s Treasury Framework  is to minimise risk arising from its \ntreasury activities.  M assey’s finance function in relation to its treasury activity is a risk \nmanagement function focussed on protecting its financial budgets  and stabilising its income and \nexpense lines. Accordingly, all treasury activity manages and protects legitimate underlying \nexposures,  and activity that may be construed as speculative in nature is expressly forbidden.  \n \n  Treasury Framework  \n Page 4\n  IN CONFIDENCE  2.0 SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES  \n \n2.1 Scope  \n \nThis document identifies the policy  and procedures of Massey  in respect of treasury  activities  \nand applies to all Massey staff .  The Framework encompasses the treasury activities of Massey . \n \n2.2 Objectives  \n \n The objective of this Treasury  Framework  is to control and manage costs and treasury \ninvestment returns that can influence long-term plans, operational budgets and financial  equity.   \n \n Specifically:  \n \n Statutory Objectives  \n \n Massey is required to comply with the following relevant legislation:  \n  \n◼ Crown Entities Act 2004;  \n◼ Education  and Training  Act 2020 ; and  \n◼ Public Finance Act 1989.  \n \n Massey  must comply with Section 2 97 of the Education  and Training  Act 2020 , which prescribes \nthat:  \n \n◼ The Council  of an institution may establish, maint ain and operate bank accounts in the \nname of the institution at any registered bank or any registered building society with \nwhich a Crown entity may establish, maintain, or operate a bank account under section \n158 of the Crown Entities Act 2004.  \n \n◼ As soon as is practicable after receiving any money, the Council  shall pay it into one of \nthe institution's bank accounts.  \n \n◼ The Council  or delegated authority shall properly authorise every withdrawal and \npayment of money from any of the institution's bank accounts.  \n \n  \n \nUnder the Education and Training Act 2020 , Massey  is also required to target and maintain a \nnumber of financial metrics / ratios subject to the Tertiary Education Commission (TEC) \ndefinitions. The TEC’s reporting regime, the Tertiary Education Institution Financial Monitoring \n(TEIFM) return focuses on a range of financial targets, of which several are directly applicable \nto the management of treasury risks.  \n  \n Investment Activity  \n \n The intention is that Massey’s investment powers are conservative and expected to be risk \naverse.  \n \n Massey’s  authority to invest is governed by Section 65I (1) and (2) of the Public Finance Act \n1989 . \n \nSection 65I(1) of the Public Finance Act 1989 permits the investments of any money held in a \nbank account:  \n◼ On deposit with a bank (whether in New Zealand o r elsewhere) approved by the Minister \nfor Education; or  \n◼ In public securities; or  \n◼ In any other securities that the Minister for Education may approve.  \n \n  Treasury Framework  \n Page 5\n  IN CONFIDENCE   Public securities are defined under Section 2 of the Public Finance Act and  include s any loan \nor credit agreement, guarantee, indemnity, bond, note, debenture, bill of exchange, Treasury \nbill, Government stock and any other security representing part of the public debt of New \nZealand.   \n  \n Section 65I (2) of the Public Finance Act 1989 al lows Massey  to: \n◼ Invest money for any period and on any terms  and conditions  that it thinks fit; and  \n◼ Sell, or convert into money, any of its securities.  \n \n Investing in any other term investments and investments in shares, derivatives, gold, silver or \nany other commodities require the advance approval of the Minister for Education.   \n \n These restrictions do not apply to Trust Funds provided there are formal d ocuments such as a \nTrust Deed.  These exemptions apply to trust funds held by another legal entity for which Massey  \nis the Settlor.   When acting as a trustee or investing money on behalf of others, the Trust s Act  \n2019 highlights that trustees have a duty t o invest prudently and that they shall exercise care, \ndiligence and skill that a prudent person of business would exercise in managing the affairs of \nothers.  \n \n Borrowing Activity  \n \n Section 282(4)(d) of the Education  and Training  Act 2020 states that an institution shall not \nexercise the power to borrow, issue debentures, or otherwise raise money without the  written  \nconsent of the Secretary of the Minister of Education . \n \nUnder section 282(5)(c) of the Education and Training Act 2020 , the Secretary’s conse nt to \nborrow is not required if the amount to be borrowed does not exceed an amount determined by \nthe Minister or ascertained in accordance with a formula determined by the Minister.  \n \nIn accordance with the Ministerial Determination of Exempt Borrowing (Ne w Zealand Gazette, \nMay 2014 publication, notice number 2014 -go2538), tertiary educational institutes (TEIs) are \nallowed to borrow subject to the stated criteria and conditions. Within this framework there are \ntwo levels of exempt borrowing; tier one allows  TEIs to borrow up to 2% of the TEI’s group \nconsolidated total revenue while tier two allows TEIs to borrow up to $50 million or 10% of  the \nTEI’s group consolidated total revenue (whichever is less).  \n◼ All projected borrowings are to be approved by  Massey’s Council  as part of the annual \nbudgeting  process or by resolution of Council  before the borrowing  is affected . \n◼ All legal documentation in respect to borrowing , investment  and financial instruments \nwill be approved by Massey’s  in-house legal team or  solicitors prior  to the transaction \nbeing executed . \n◼ Massey  will not enter into any borrowings denominated in a foreign currency.  \n \n General Objectives  \n  \n◼ This framework outlines processes and procedures for Massey to: Undertake financial \nmanagement activity to ensure Massey achieves its long -term financial  strategy and \nplans.  \n◼ Maintain appropriate liquidity levels and manage cash flows within Massey  to meet \nknown and reasonable unforeseen funding requirements.  \n◼ Manage investments to optimise returns in the medium term whilst balancing risk and \nreturn considerations.  \n◼ Minimise costs and risks in the management of its borrowing.  \n◼ Minimise exposure to adv erse wholesale interest rate movements.  \n◼ Proactively manage interest rate risks.  \n◼ Arrange and structure long -term funding at the lowest achievable interest margin from \ndebt lenders.  Optimise flexibility and spread of debt maturity.  \n  Treasury Framework  \n Page 6\n  IN CONFIDENCE  ◼ Monitor and report on borrowing  financial  covenants and ratios under the obligations of \nlending/security arrangements , and Tertiary Education Commission (“ TEC”) \nrequirements . \n◼ Comply with financial ratios and limits stated within this Framework . \n◼ Managing net foreign cu rrency payments protecting the NZD financial budget .  \n◼ Invest, b orrow and transact risk management instruments within an environment of \ncontrol and compliance . \n◼ Monitor, evaluate and report on treasury compliance and performance.  \n◼ Maintain the professional treasury competency of all personnel engaged in \nimplementing this policy.  \n◼ To minimise exposure to counterparty credit risk by dealing with and investing in credit \nworthy counterparties . \n◼ Ensure that all statutory requirements of a financial nature are adhered to.  \n◼ To ensure adequate  internal controls exist to protect Massey ’s financial assets , prevent \nunauthorised transactions , and project a professional image of financial and \nmanagement control . \n◼ Maintain strong relationships with external  treasury -related stakeholders.  \n \n \n \n  \n  Treasury Framework  \n Page 7\n  IN CONFIDENCE  3.0 MANAGEMENT  RESPONSIBILITIES  \n \n3.1 Overview of Management Structure  \n \n The following diagram illustrates those individuals and bodies who have treasury \nresponsibilities.  Authority levels, reporting lines and treasury duties and responsibilities are \noutlined in the following section : \n \n \n \n3.2 University Council  (Council ”) \n \n Council  has ultimate responsibility for ensuring that there is an effective framework  for the \nmanagement of its risks.  In this respect Council  decides the level and nature of risks that are \nacceptable, given the underlying objectives of Massey . \n \n Council  is resp onsible for approving the Treasury  Framework .  While the Framework  can be \nreviewed and changes recommended by the V ice Chancellor , the authority to make or change \nthe Framework  can only be made by Council . \n \n In this respect, the Council  has responsibility to: \n \n◼ Approv e the annual financial budget and long-term financial plan/ strategy of Massey . \n◼ Approv e borrowing by resolution during the annual budgeting process or at other times \nas required.  \n◼ Delegate authority to the Finance and Assurance Committee  (FAC)  and management . \n \n  \n \nCouncil  \n \nFinance  and Assurance \nCommittee  \n \nDVC University Services  \nChief Financial Officer  \nFinancial Operations \nManager  \n Financial  Reporting \nManager  \nTeam Leader – Accounts \nReceivable & Treasury  \n \n Financial Reporting \nAccountant  \n \nVice Chancellor  \n \n \nSenior Leadership Team  \n \nTreasury Forum  \nFinance Officer - Treasury  \n  Treasury Framework  \n Page 8\n  IN CONFIDENCE  3.3 Finance and Assurance  Committee  (FAC)  \n \n The FAC’s  terms of reference are to review and monitor the Treasury  Framework  and treasury \nactivities , and report to Massey’s Council .  The FAC’s responsibilities include:   \n \n◼ Approving the Treasury  Framework  incorporating the following delegated authorities:  \n \no borrowing, investment and financial market  limits and the respective authority levels ; \no counterparties and credit limits;  \no risk management approach  and benchmarks;  and \no guidelines for t he use of financial i nstruments.  \n \n◼ Evaluating and approving amendments to Treasury  Framework . \n \n◼ Receives and reviews internal treasury reports.  The FAC receives regular information \nfrom the CFO  on treasury matters, risk exposure s and financial instrument usage in a \nform that  is understood and enables  oversight of compliance to the Framework.   \n \n◼ Issues raised by auditors (both internal and external) in respect of any significant \nweaknesses in the treasury function .  \n \n◼ Receives submis sions  from the CFO  notifying of Framework  breaches , other than those \nbreaches considered temporary ( refer to responsibilities of DVC University  Services \n(DVC US)  below)  and requesting approval for one -off transactions falling outside \nguidelines.  \n \n◼ Receive  bi-annual reporting on compliance the Treasury Framework and review the \nTreasury Policy and Framework triennially . \n \n \n3.4 Senior Leadership Team (SLT)  \n \nThe SLT has a review and monitoring function across Massey including management and \nreporting line functions. The SLT reports and provides recommendations to Massey’s Council  \neither directly or indirectly through the FAC. The reports are noted in 3.3 above . \n \n \n3.5 Treasury Forum  \n \n The Treasury F orum  facilitates a senior finance management focus on the day -to-day treasury \nfunction, and the monitoring, managing of treasury risks with in the approved Treasury \nFramework .  The Treasury Forum  ensur es efficient and effective treasury  management and \nperformance.  \n \n The forum assist s the DVC US  and CFO  to manage borrowing, investment and financial market \nrisks by discussing/testing , strategies/decisions made.  \n \nResponsibilities of the Treasury F orum  are; \n◼ Discuss and monitor the liquidity, treasury investment, borrowing , interest rate and \nforeign currency risk position (actual and projected) against limits, and the treasury  \nstrategies being implemented by management.  \n◼ Examine economic and financial market trends and their impact on  risk positions and  \nrecommended strategie s. \n◼ Consider treasury  strategies and test to financial and treasury  objectives.  \n◼ Through the CFO , review/discuss the triennial Treasury  Framework review.   \n \n The Treasury F orum  meets on at least a two monthly  basis.  Permanent m embers comprise; \nthe DVC US , CFO and National Facilities’ Director and external treasury advisor on an ex -officio \nbasis.  Other members may be invited by the CFO  as necessary to provide advice or expertise \nto support the Committee.  The meeting is chaired by the CFO .   \n \n  Treasury Framework  \n Page 9\n  IN CONFIDENCE  3.6 Vice Chancellor ( VC) \n \n While the Council , through the FAC of Council,  has final responsibility for the Framework  and \ngoverning the management of Massey’s treasury risks, it delegates overall responsibility for \ntreasury  to the VC.  The VC delegates day-to-day management responsibility to the DVC US  \nwho has delegated this responsibility to  the CFO . \n   \n In respect of treasury  activities, t he VC’s responsibilities include:  \n \n◼ Ensur ing the Treasury Framework  compl ies with existing and new legislation . \n◼ Recommend the annual financial budget and long-term financial plan/ strategy to the \nCouncil . \n◼ Receive advice of breaches of  the Treasury Framework , other than temporary breaches \n(refer to responsibilities of the DVC US  below)  and signific ant treasury events from the \nDVC US . \n◼ Approve treasury transactions in accordance with delegated authority.  \n◼ Approve opening and closing of bank accounts  (with either the DVC US  or CFO) . \n◼ Approve new borrowing and bank loan/facilities  in ac cordance with  Council ’s borrowing \nresolution.  \n \n3.7 Deputy Vice Chancellor University Services  (DVC US )   \n \nThe DVC US  is responsible for the management of treasury activities. The DVC US  delegates \nday-to-day treasury responsibilities to the CFO. The DVC US ’ responsibilities include:  \n \n◼ In conjunction with the VC, d evelop the annual financial budget and long-term financial \nstrategy /plan . \n◼ Manage the long -term financial position as out lined in the financial plan/ strategy.  \n◼ Ensure management procedures and policies are implemented in accordance with this \nTreasury Framework . \n◼ Reporting to  the Finance and Assurance  Committee  on treasury matters . \n◼ Advise the V C and Finance and Assurance  Committee  of significant treasury events . \n◼ Recommend to the VC authorised signatories and delegated authorities in respect of all \ntreasury dealing and banking activities . \n◼ Approve opening and closing of bank accounts  (with either the VC or CFO).  \n◼ Approve authorised bank signatories.  \n◼ Approve re-financing of existing bank loan /facilities.  \n◼ Approve  borrowing, treasury investment and risk management strategy.  \n◼ Recommend changes to the Treasury Framework  to the Finance and Assurance  \nCommittee . \n◼ Approve ne w counterparties and counterparty limits . \n◼ Approve all amendments to Massey  records arising from checks to external bank \ncounterparty confirmations.  \n◼ Approve treasury transactions in acco rdance with delegated authority.  \n◼ Monitor and review the performance of the treasury function in terms of achieving its \nobjectives.  \n◼ Review  treasury repor ting from the CFO . \n◼ Approve any temporary breaches; any breach of policy rectified within a period of one \nmonth from the date of breach can be considered temporary.  \n \n  Treasury Framework  \n Page 10\n  IN CONFIDENCE  3.8 Chief Financial Officer  (CFO ) (or equivalent role)  \n \nThe CFO  is responsible for the day -to-day management of treasury activities. T he CFO ’s \nresponsibilities are as follows:  \n◼ Management responsibility for cash management,  liquidity,  borrowing , treasury,  \ninvestment and risk management activities . \n◼ Recommend Framework  changes to the DVC US . \n◼ Convene and chair the Treasury Forum  at least two monthly.  \n◼ Primary responsibility for managing bank relationships . \n◼ Negotiation of bank funding and financial market dealing facilities  \n◼ Approve treasury transactions in accordance with delegated authority . \n◼ Approve opening and closing of bank accounts  (with either the VC or CFO).  \n◼ Propose new borrowing requirements to the DVC US  for consideration and approval.  \n◼ Review and make recommendations on all aspects of the Treasury Framework  to the \nDVC US , including dealing limits, approved instruments, counterparties, and general \nguidelines for the use of financial instruments . \n◼ Monitor tre asury exposure on a regular basis, including current and forecast cash \nposition,  cash and  treasury investment portfolio, borrowings, and interest/foreign \nexchange rate exposures . \n◼ Design, r ecommend and implement cash management , liquidity  treasury investment , \nborrowing  and risk management  strategy . \n◼ Design, analyse, evaluate, test and implement risk management strategies to position \nMassey’s  interest and foreign exchange rate risk position  to be protected against \nadverse market movements wi thin the approved Framework  limits . \n◼ Execute  risk management  treasury transactions  by email instruction to the respective \nbank  in accordance with set limits  and authorities . \n◼ Approve cash management , borrowing  and treasury investment transactions.  \n◼ Review and approve  any discrepancies in the monthly bank reconciliations.  \n◼ Complete the medium -term cash flow forecast s. \n◼ Monitor credit ratings of approved counterparties . \n◼ Account for all treasury transactions in accordance with legislation and generally \naccepted accounting principles . \n◼ Review  monthly treasury report . \n◼ Check compliance against limits and prepar e report on an exception basis.   \n◼ Approve or delegate approval of external bank deal confirma tions, treasury spreadsheet \nand reconciliation to the general ledger.  \n◼ Approve or delegate approval of the monthly NZD and foreign currency bank \nreconciliations    \n◼ Forecast s future cash  requirements . \n◼ Ensure internal communication channels and systems for identifying, notifying and \nrecognising treasury exposures to Finance are efficient, accurate and working.  \n◼ Conduct a  periodic (triennial) review  of the Treasury Framework , Treasury Procedures  \nand counterparty limits.  \n◼ Provide Treasury reporting to the DVC US  and the Finance and Assurance  Committee . \nIn addition , the CFO may undertake any of the responsibilities of the DVC US  in relation to \ntreasury  as delegated by the DVC US . \n \n \n  Treasury Framework  \n Page 11\n  IN CONFIDENCE  3.9 Financial Operations Manager (or equivalent role)  \n  \n Responsibilities are as follows:  \n◼ Execute cash management, treasury investment  transactions  in accordance with set \nlimits  and authorities.  \n◼ Settle all cash management, borrowing , treasury investment, interest rate and foreign \ncurrency transactions . \n◼ Update treasury spreadsheet (s) for all new, re -negot iated and maturing transactions.  \n◼ Receive external bank deal confirmation s.  Check all deal confirmations against emailed \ndeal instructions  and report any irregularities immediately to the CFO .    \n◼ Handle all administrative aspects of bank counterparty agreements and documentation \nsuch a s loan agreements and ISDA documents . \n◼ Reconcile monthly summaries of outstanding financial contr acts from banking \ncounterparties to internal records . \n◼ Complete  the weekly  cash position report . \n◼ Complete  the short -term cash flow forecast s. \n◼ Provide daily  (as required) , weekly, monthly, quarterly treasury reporting to Financial \nServices  and CFO . \n◼ Prepare  monthly treasury report . \n◼ Act as the b ack-up treasury dealer in absence of the CFO .  \n◼ Complete monthly treasury spreadsheet reconciliation to general ledger.  \n◼ Complete monthly interest accrual  and treasury  journal s. \n \n3.10 Team Leader - Accounts Receivable and Treasury (TL–AR&T ) (or equivalent role)  \n◼ Back -up to Financial Operations Manager . \n◼ File external bank confirmation  and deal ticket.  \n◼ Manage the operation of all bank accounts . \n◼ Reconcile monthly NZD bank reconciliations.  \n◼ Reconcile monthly foreign currency bank reconciliations.  \n \n \n3.11 Financial  Reporting Manager (or equivalent role)  \n◼ Approves monthly  interest and treasury  journals . \n◼ Review and approve  monthly bank reconciliations.  \n \n \n3.12 Delegation of Authority and Authority Limits  \n \n Treasury transactions entered into  without the proper authority are difficult to cancel given the \nlegal doctrine of “apparent authority”.  Also, insufficient authorities for a given bank account or \nfacility may prevent the execution of certain transactions (or at least cause unnecessary de lays).  \n \n To prevent these types of situations, the following procedures must be complied with:  \n \n◼ All delegated authorities and signatories must be reviewed at least annually  to ensure \nthat they are still appropriate and current.  \n◼ A communication  must be sent to all bank counterparties at least annually to confirm \ndetails of all relevant current delegated authorities empowered to bind Massey . \n \n Whenever a person with delegated authority on any account or facility leaves Massey , all \nrelevant banks and other counterparties must be advised in writing  in a timely manner  to ensure \nthat no unauthorised instructions are to be accepted from such persons.  \n \n  Treasury Framework  \n Page 12\n  IN CONFIDENCE    \n Massey’s Council  has the following responsibilities, either directly itself, or via the following \nstated delegated authorities.  \n \nActivity  Delegated Authority  Limit  \nApproving and changing Framework  University Council /FAC Unlimited  \nApproving borrowing programme  University Council  Subject to statutory  and TEC \nlimitations . (1) \nAcquisition and disposition of \ninvestments other than financial \ninvestments  University Council  Subject to statutory  and TEC \nlimitations . \nApproval for charging a ssets as \nsecurity  University Council  Subject to statutory  and TEC \nlimitations . \nApproval for use of risk \nmanagement instruments  University Council  Subject to statutory  and TEC \nlimitations . \nApproval of strategies/transactions \nincluding interest rate option \ninstruments  University Council  Subject to statutory  and TEC \nlimitations . \nApproval new borrowing and bank \nloans/facilities/risk management  VC and DVC US   Per borrowing resolution  \nProvision of negative pledge \narrangements to bank \ncounterparties  VC Unlimited  \nOverall day -to-day treasury  VC  \nCFO (delegated by VC and \nDVC US ) Subject to Framework  \nRe-financing existing borrowing and \nbank loans/facilities  DVC US   Subject to Framework  \n \nApproving transactions outside \nFramework  DVC US   Unlimited  \nAdjust debt interest rate risk profile  CFO  Per risk control limits  \nManaging debt and investment \nmaturities in accordance with \napproved risk control limits  CFO  Per risk control limits  \nMaximum daily  transaction amount \n(investing and cash management)  University  Council  \nVC (delegated by Council ) \nDVC US   \nCFO  \n Unlimited   \n$70M \n$40M \n$20M (term up to 12 months)  \nMaximum daily transacti on amount \n(borrowing,  interest rate risk \nmanagement) excludes roll -overs \non floating rate , borrowing, and \ninterest rate roll -overs on swaps  University  Council  \nVC (delegated by Co uncil) \nDVC US   \nCFO  \n Unlimited   \n$50M \n$30M \n$5M (term up to 10 years)  \nMaximum daily NZD transacti on \namount (foreign exchange rate  \nmanagement)  University  Council  \nVC (delegated by Council ) \nDVC US   \nCFO  \n Unlimited   \n$30M \n$15M \n$5M (term up to 12 months)  \nTransfer and register of security  University Council  Subject to statutory and TEC \nregulations  \nAuthorising lists of signatories  DVC US   Unlimited  \nOpening/closing bank accounts  Any two of VC, DVC US , \nCFO  Unlimited  \nTriennial  review of Framework  DVC US   N/A \nEnsuring compliance with \nFramework  CFO  N/A \n \n(1) Section 282 (4) (d) of the Education and Training Act 2020 states that an institution shall \nnot exercise the power to borrow, issue debentures, or otherwise raise money without the \nwritten consent of the Secretary of Education.   The term borrowing includes any form of \n  Treasury Framework  \n Page 13\n  IN CONFIDENCE  borrowing and includes such items as bank loans, finance leases and arrangements with \nanother party for the deferral of payments for the purchase of material assets or expenditure.  \n \n All management delegated limits are authorised by the VC.  \n \n4.0 DEBT MANAGEMENT  \n \n4.1 General Framework  \n \n Massey  is currently a net investor of funds but may move at some time into a borrowing  position \ndue to the need to fund capital investments .  \n \n Short -term operational funding requirements to fund gaps or cash flow deficits are discussed in \nSection 8.0, Cash Mana gement . \n \nAll borrowing requires the written approval of the Secretary to the Minist er of Education under \nSection 282 (4) of the Education and Training Act 2020 .  Subject to subsection (5) of this section, \nan institution shall not exercise any of the following powers without the written consent of the \nSecretary:  \n \n(a) The power to sell or otherwise dispose of assets or interests in assets:  \n \n(b) The power to mortgage or otherwise charge assets or interests in assets:  \n \n(c) The power to grant leases of land or buildings or parts of buildings:  \n \n (d) The power to borrow, issue debentures, or otherwise raise money.  \n \nWithin statutory , TEC, and bank lender requirements , the borrowing programme is approved by \nresolution of the Council , during the financial budgeting process , or otherwise as required .  \nThere may be prior scrutiny by the FAC. The objectives of a borrowing programme are to ensure \nthat Massey  has sufficient funds to prudently carry out its short and long -term activities.  \n \n Approved bor rowing instruments are set out in Section 6.1.2.  \n  \n Where possible, Massey will utilise its treasury investment portfolio to meet capital investment  \nrequirements, unless there is a compelling reason to borrow specifically. Investment  funds are \nsourced from University reserve funds, trust funds and operational cash surpluses.   \n \n4.2 Borrowing Objectives  \n \n Massey’s borrowing objectives are as follows : \n◼ All borrowing and risk management activities are in compliance with statutory and TEC \nregulations , and approved by resolution of  Council ; \n◼ Provide on-going  liquidity and funding support to enable Massey to achieve its \neducation objectives and financial plan/strategy;  \n◼ Minimise costs and risks in the management of its borrowing ; \n◼ Minimise exposure to adverse wholesale interest rate movements;  \n◼ Arrange and structure long -term borrowing  at the lowest achievable interest margin.  \nOptimise flexibility and spread of debt maturi ties; and \n◼ Comply with statutory, TEC, bank lenders, financial ratios and limits . \n \n4.3 Liquidity /Funding Risk  \n \n4.3.1 Risk Recognition  \n \n Funding gaps or deficits in various future periods identified in debt forecasts are reliant on the \nmaturity structure of cash, treasury  investments  and committed bank loans/ facilities.   \n \n  Treasury Framework  \n Page 14\n  IN CONFIDENCE   Liquidity risk management focuses on the ability to access  cash,  treasury investments, and \ncommitted bank funding at that future time to fund the gaps. A liquidity buffer amount is also \nmaintained to manage any unforeseen or unknown requirements.   \n \n Funding risk management centres on the ability to re -finance or raise new debt at a future time \nat the same or more favourable pricing (fees and interest  margins) and maturity terms , of \nexisting bank loans/ facilities.   The management of funding risks is im portant as several risk \nfactors can arise to cause an adverse movement in borrowing margins, term availability and \ngeneral flexibility . \n \n \n A key factor of funding risk management is to spread and control the risk to reduce the \nconcentration of risk at one point in time so that if any of the above events occur, the overall \nborrowing cost is not unnecessarily increased and desired maturity prof ile compromised due to \nmarket conditions.  \n \n4.3.2  Liquidity/Funding Risk Control Limits  \n \nThe liquidity and funding risk control limits are as follows:  \n◼ Sufficient liquid funds and/or committed bank facilities are available for at least 110% of \nthe next month’s net cash expenditure requirements. Liquid funds are either held in \novernight bank cash deposits, registered certificates of deposit and bank term d eposits \nmaturing within a 30 day period.  \n◼ Funds  from related parties (e.g. trust funds) should not be included within the liquidity \nmeasure unless formal documentation of a committed debt facility/loan is executed \nbetween the parties  and free cash has been  allocated to provide liquidity to Massey by \nthat party.  \n◼ The VC has the discretionary authority to re -finance existing debt on more favourable \nterms.  Such action is to be reported and ratified by Council  at the earliest opportunity.  \n◼ The maturity profile  of the total committed funding in respect to all bank loans and \ncommitted facilities, is to be controlled by the following system  and apply when external \ncore debt exceeds $10 million : \n \nPeriod  Minimum  Maximum  \n0 to 2  years  20% 60% \n2 to 5 years  20% 60% \n5 years plus  0% 40% \n \nThe amount and expiry date of all bank loans, committed bank facilities, term debt will \nnot exceed the maximum amount and term of the Consent to Borrow or Ministerial \nDetermination of Exempt Borrowing (whichever is applicable).  \n \nCore debt is defined as external debt expected to remain outstanding for greater than \n12 months.  \n \nApproved borrowing instruments are set out in section 6.1.2.  \n \nThe maximum borrowing term is 10  years.  Terms beyond 10 years will require specific \nCouncil  approval.    \n \nA maturity schedule outside these limits will require specific Council  approval.    \n \n4.4 Financial Arrangements  \n \n Financial arrangements between Massey  and a third party, including hire purchase and any \nleasing transactions, may not be entered unless approved by the DVC US .  \n  Treasury Framework  \n Page 15\n  IN CONFIDENCE   \n4.5 Borrowing  Ratios and Limits  \n \n Borrowing  will be managed within the financial ratios and limits  required by bank lenders and \nthe TEC .  Financial ratios and limits are outlined in Appendix 1.  \n \n The CFO  ensure s that these requirements are complied with .  Where these limits are likely to \nbe exceeded, prior approval of Council , TEC and bank lenders  is necessary.   \n \n In approving new debt Council  considers the impact on its borrowing ratios and limits .   \n \n4.6 New Borrowing  \n \n In evaluating strategies for new borrowing (in relation to source, term, size and pricing) the CFO, \ntakes into account the following:  \n \n◼ The TEC business case, strategic/ capital plan and approved borrowing programme;  \n◼ The size, economic life, income earned, of the specific project/asset /expenditure ;  \n◼ Current and forecast i mpact on borrowing ratios and limits;  \n◼ Available terms from bank  lender s and other sources ; \n◼ Repayment terms and requirements;  \n◼ The overall debt maturity profile, to ensure concentratio n of debt is avoided ; \n◼ Prevailing interest rates and margins relative to term for borrowing ; \n◼ The market’s outlook on future interest rate movements as well as its own ; \n◼ The terms  and conditions  such as cost/risk /certainty/flexibility;  \n◼ Security arrangements;  and \n◼ Legal documentation and financial covenants.  \n \n Massey’s  ability to attract cost effective borrowing is driven by its ability to maintain a strong financial \nstanding and operating position , maintain and manage its strong relationship with the Ministry of \nEducation, TEC, and financial institutions.   \n \n4.7 Security  Arrangements  \n \n Massey generally offers an unsecured /negative pledge  security arrangement for all its \nborrowing and risk management obligations.  \n \nBorrowing will only be secured by way of a charge over land and buildings  upon approval of \nCouncil . Physical assets may be charged where:  \n◼ There is a direct relationship between the borrowing  and the purchase or construction \nof the asset, which i t funds;  \n◼ Massey considers a charge over physical assets to be appropriate ; and  \n◼ Any pledging of physical assets must comply with requirements of the Treasury \nFramework . \n \n \n4.8 Debt Repayment  \n \n Funds from fees/interest income, operating surpluses and asset sale  proceeds , will be applied \nto the reduction of debt and/or a reduction in borrowing requirements, unless  Council  \nspecifically directs that the funds will be put to another use.   \n \n Massey  will manage debt on a net portfolio basis and will only externally borrow when it is \ncommercially prudent to do so.  \n \n \n  Treasury Framework  \n Page 16\n  IN CONFIDENCE  5.0 INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT  \n \n5.1 General Framework  \n \n Massey will utilise its treasury  investment portfolio to meet operational funding and future capital \nspending  requirements unless  there is a compelling reason to borrow  specifically . Investment  \nfunds are sourced from University reserve funds, trust funds and operating  cash surpluses \narising from normal operations.   \n \n Section 305(4) of the Education  and Training  Act 2020  provides that Massey  must invest funds \nin accordance with s65I ( 1) and (2) of the Public Finance Act 1989.  The intention is that Massey’s \ninvestment powers are conservative and expected to be risk averse.  Massey recognises that \nall investments held,  should be low risk  which generally means lower returns.  \n \n5.2 Investment Objectives  \n \n For the foreseeable future, Massey  will be in a net investment position and until such time that \nMassey  become s a net borrower , treasury  investment s will be prudently invested as follows:  \n◼ Massey ’s primary objective when investing is the protection of its investment  capital . \nAccordingly, Massey  may only invest in approved creditworthy counterparties.  \nCreditworthy counterparties and investment restrictions are covered in section  6.3. \nCredit ratings are monitored and reported quarterly to Council .  \n◼ Treasury investments  will be arranged to provide sufficient liquid funds for planned \nexpenditures and allow for the payment of obligations as they fall due.  \n◼ Massey  invest s in approved financial instruments as set out in  section 6.1.2 .   \n◼ Massey’s  treasury investment  maturity and  interest rate profile will be managed within \nthe parameter s outlined in section 6.1.3 . \n◼ Other than Trust funds, all interest income is credited to general funds  which are held \nin a Crown Bank Account . \n \n5.3 Trust Funds  \n \n Where Massey  holds funds as a trustee  or manages funds for a Trust  then such funds must be \ninvested on the terms provided within the Trust Deed . If the Trust ’s investment Framework  is \nnot specified,  then this Framework  should apply.  \n \n5.4 Related party lending  \n \nUnder the Education and Training  Act, s305 (4)(b), Massey  is permitted to provide funding to \nrelated entities and subsidiaries for purposes that are not for monetary gain, i.e. educational. If \nthe purpose is for monetary gain, approval  from the Minister of Education  is required.  \n  Treasury Framework  \n Page 17\n  IN CONFIDENCE  6.0 RISK RECOGNITION/IDENTIFICATION/ MANAGEMENT  \n \n The definition and recognition of interest rate, liquidity, funding, treasury investment, \ncounterparty credit, market, operational and legal risk will be as detailed below . \n \n6.1 Interest Rate Risk  \n \n6.1.1  Risk Recognition  \n  \n Interest rate risk is the risk that treasury investment returns or borrowing  costs (due to adverse \nmovements in market interest rates) will materially exceed  or fall short of  planned/budgeted \nprojections , adversely impact ing revenue, cost control  and capital  investment decisions  and \nfeasibilities.  \n \n The primary objective of interest rate risk management is to reduce uncertainty relating to \ninterest  rate movements through fixing of treasury investment returns or borrowing  costs.  With \nthe treasury inves tment portfolio utilised for capital spending  purposes matching investment \nmaturities to expenditure is of primary importance.  Certainty around borrowing  costs is achieved \nthrough the active management of underlying interest rate exposures.  \n \n6.1.2  Approved Financial Instruments  \n \n Approved financial  instruments are as follows:  \n \nCategory  Instrument  \nCash management  and core borrowing  Bank overdraft  \nCommitted bank cash advance /revolving  facilities  \nBank term loans and term loan facilities  \nFinance and operating leases  \nCash  management  – investment  (terms \nof no more than 30 days)  Overnight and bank term deposits  \nBank certificates of deposit ( RCDs)  \nTreasury bills  \n \nTreasury investment (terms of no more \nthan 2  years)  Overnight and bank term deposits  \nBank certificates of deposit (RCDs)  \nTreasury bills  \nNZ Government   \nNZ Government guaranteed securities.  \nInterest rate management  (borrowing \nonly)  Forward rate agreements (“FRAs”) on:  \n− Bank bills  \nFloating and fixed rate bank loans  \nInterest rate swaps  \n− Forward start swaps  \n− Swap extension, shortening, blend & extend \nstrategies  \nForeign exchange management  Spot foreign exchange  \nForward exchange contract  (including par forwards)  \nForeign currency  deposit account  \nForeign exchange shortening or extension  strategies  \n \n Any other financial instrument must be specifically approved by Council  on a case -by-case basis \nand only be applied to the one singular transaction being approved .  This includes specifically;  \n \n Interest rate options on:  \n− Bank bills (purchased caps and one -for-one collars)  \n− Government bonds  \n− Interest rate swaptions (purchased swaptions and one -for-one collars only)  \n  Treasury Framework  \n Page 18\n  IN CONFIDENCE   \nIn using interest rate options,  the following conditions apply;  \n◼ Interest rate options must not be sold outright.  However, 1:1 collar option structures are \nallowable, whereby the sold option is matched precisely by amount and maturity to the \nsimultaneously purchased option.  During the term of the option, on ly the sold side of \nthe collar can be closed out  (i.e. repurchased) otherwise , both sides must be closed \nsimultaneously.  The sold option leg of the collar structure must not have a strike rate \n“in-the-money”.  \n◼ Purchased bor rower swaptions mature within 18  months.  \n◼ Interest rate options with a maturity date beyond 12 months that have a strike ra te \n(exercise rate) higher than 2 .00% above the appropriate swap rate, cannot be counted \nas part of the fixed rate /hedged  percentage calculation.  \n \n All investment securities must be secured or senior /unsecured  in ranking.  No other financial \ninvestments are permitted.   \n \n6.1.3  Interest Rate Risk Control Limits  \n \n Treasury  Investment Interest Rate/Maturity Limits   \n  \nThe following control limits are designed to manage interest rate and maturity risk on the \ntreasury  investment portfolio . \n \n A primary objective of the treasury investment portfolio is to match the portfolio’s maturity term \nto planned expenditure thereby ensuring that investments are liquid when required .  The control \nlimits are as follows : \n \nTerm  Minimum  Maximum  \n0 – 6 months  20% 100%  \n6 – 12 \nmonths  0% 50% \n1 – 2 years  0% 30% \n \n Borrowing Interest Rate Limits  \n \n The following risk control limits will only apply  where 12 month forecast  core debt exceed s $10  \nmillion. Massey  debt/borrowings should be within the following fixed/floating interest rate risk \ncontrol limit:  \n \nMaster Fixed / Floating Risk Control Limits  \nMinimum Fixed Rate  Maximum Fixed Rate  \n50% 90% \n \n “Fixed Rate” is defined as an interest rate repricing date beyond 12 months forward on a \ncontinuous rolling basis.  \n \n “Floating Rate” is defined as an interest rate repricing within 12 months.  \n \n The percentages are calculated on the rolling  12 month forecast  core debt level calculated by \nmanagement (signed off by the  VC).  This allows for pre -hedging in advance of projected \nphysical drawdown  of new /refinance d debt.  When approved forecasts are changed, the amount \nof fixed rate /hedging in place may have to be adjus ted to ensure compliance with the Framework  \nminimums and maximums . \n \n \n \n \n \n  Treasury Framework  \n Page 19\n  IN CONFIDENCE   \n The fixed rate amount at any point in time should  be within the following maturity bands:  \n \nFixed Rate Maturity Sub-Limit  \nPeriod  Minimum  Maximum  \n1 to 3 years  \n3 to 5 years  \n5 to 10 years  20% \n20% \n0% 60% \n60% \n40% \n \n◼ Floating rate debt may be spread over any maturity out to 12 months.  Bank advances \nmay be for a maximum term of 12 months.  \n◼ Forward start period on swaps and collar strategies to be no more than 24 months , \nunless the swap/collar starts on the expiry date of an existing swap and the notional \namount is no greater than that of the existing swap/collar . \n \n \n6.2 Foreign Exchange Risk  \n \n6.2.1  Risk recognition  \n \nForeign exchange risk is defined as the adverse impact on the NZD expenses and asset \npurchases (e.g. purchase of library supplies) from foreign exchange rate movements.  Foreign \nexchange exposure based on continually updated forec ast payments is recognised on the basis \nof:  \n◼ Forecast payments, based on 12 -month rolling payment forecasts for each currency, \nreviewed and updated on a monthly basis. Any foreign currency receipts are netted \nagainst same currency payments.  \n◼ Value in curren cy of payment.  \n◼ Month or date of purchase.  \n◼ Value expressed in NZD calculated at market exchange rates prevailing on the day of \nrecognition.  \n◼ Foreign currency exposures are recognised and managed when total annual net \npayments for an individual currency exce ed NZD 2.0m. \n \n6.2.2  Annual Budget Exchange Rates \n \nWhen setting exchange rates in the annual financial budgeting process, Massey’s policy is to \napply the contracted exchange rates per forward contracts held and maturing in the  budgeted  \nfinancial year. Any additional budgeted payments that are not hedged are to be applied at the \nmarket forward month -end exchange rate on the day the budget is finalised.  \n \n \n6.2.3  Risk Management Policies and Limits  \n \nThe DVC US  is responsible for hedging strategies/decisions . The DVC US  has discretionary \nauthority to position hedging percentages near to the minimum or maximum of the risk control \nlimits depending upon foreign exchange market trends/influences and anticipated changes to \npayment forec asts.   \nForecasts of exposures:  It is the CFO ’s responsibility to ensure that up -to-date and accurate \nrolling 12-month forecasts are available each month.  \n  \n  \n  Treasury Framework  \n Page 20\n  IN CONFIDENCE   \nMassey’s Framework  is to maintain hedging contracts in place for all net foreign currency \npayments at all times to conform to the following risk control limits:  \n \nForeign Exchange Hedging Risk Control Limits  \n \n Minimum  \n Maximum  \n \nConfirmed/Contracted  100%  100%  \nForecast/Uncontracted Period    \n0-3 month  50% 80% \n3-6 month  25% 50% \n6-12 month  0% 25% \nConditional l ong-term Hedging    \n12-18 month*  0% 25% \n*Hedging only allowable when achievable rate is 15% (10%  & 7.5% ) above  7-year rolling average spot \nrate f or the NZD/USD (NZD/EUR  & NZD/AUD ) exchange rate.  \n \nConfirmed /contracted foreign currency exposures are fully protected upon an appro ved \npurchase order being raised, the exposure is legally committed and the currency type, amount \nand timing are known . \nThe DVC US  is able to approve a foreign exchange hedging position outside the above limits \nthat self corrects within 30-days . It is reported  as an approved exception to the Policy . However, \nmaintaining a foreign exchange hedging position breach beyond 30-days requires specific  \nCouncil approval.  \n \nApproved instruments  are noted in Section 6.1.2 . \n \nMassey  will not borrow in a currency other than the New Zealand Dollar . \n \n6.3 Counterparty Credit Risk  \n \n Counterparty credit risk is the risk of losses (realised or unrealised) arising from a counterparty \ndefaulting on a financial instrument where Massey  is a party.  The credit risk to Massey  in a default \nevent will be weighted differently depending on the ty pe of instrument entered into.  \n \n Credit risk will be regularly reviewed by the FAC.  Treasury related transactions would only be \nentered into with organisations specifically approved by  Council . \n \n Counterparties and limits can only be approved on the basis of a long-term Standard & Poor’s  \ncredit rating ( or Fitch , Moody’s  equivalent ) being A or  above , and a short -term rati ng of  A-1 or \nabove . \n \n Bank borrowing will be from NZ registered banks that have  a long-term Standard & Poor’s ( or \nFitch, Moody’s equivalent) credit rating of A or  above . \n \n  \n  \n  Treasury Framework  \n Page 21\n  IN CONFIDENCE  The following matrix guide will determine limits.  \n \nCounterparty/Issuer  Minimum long \nterm / short \nterm credit \nrating  Investments \nmaximum per \ncounterparty  \n \n \n($m)  Risk \nmanagement \ninstrument \nmaximum per \ncounterparty \n($m)  Total \nmaximum per \ncounterparty  \n \n \n($m)  \nNZ Government  N/A Unlimited  none  Unlimited  \nNZ Registered Bank \n[name] * A/A-1 60.0 10.0 70.0 \n*Subject to a maximum exposure no greater than 5 0% of the  cash and treasury investment portfolio  \nbeing  invest ed in one bank counterparty at any one point in time , except for Massey’s  transactional \nbank ing counterparty which may have a maximum exposure up to 100%  (excluding Term Deposits)  for \nup to five business days . \nWhere the cash and treasury investment portfolio is $25 million or less, the 50% maximum exposure \nlimit does not apply.  \nThis summary list will be expanded on a counterparty named basis which will be authorised by the DVC \nUS.  \n \n In determining the usage of the above gross limits, the following instrument  weightings will be \nused:  \n \n◼ Investments ( e.g. Bank Deposits) – Transaction Notional  Weighting 100%.  \n◼ Interest Rate Risk Management ( e.g. swaps, FRAs) – Transaction Notional   (Maturity \n(years)   3%). \n◼ Foreign Exchange – Transactional face value amount x (the square root of the Maturity \n(years) x 8%). \n \n Each transaction should be entered into the treasury  spreadsheet and a quarterly report \nprepared to show assessed counterparty actual exposure versus limits.  \n \n Individual counterparty limits are kept on a spreadsheet  by management and up dated on a day-\nto-day basis .  Credit ratings should be reviewed by the CFO  on an ongoing basis and in the \nevent of material credit downgrades;  this should be immediately reported to the  DVC US  and \nassessed against exposure limits.  Counterparties exceeding limits should be reported to the \nCouncil.  \n \n If a credit ratings downgrade is to a level below A, the deposit and/or financial instruments are \nclosed down and replaced. If this were to occur, management would propose a solution to \nCouncil to progressively reduce t he exposure in the most cost-effective  manner.  \n \n Investments are normally held to maturity date.  Where investments are liquidated before legal \nmaturity date, approval is obtain ed from the DVC US .   \n \n To avoid undue concentration of exposures, financial instruments should  be used with as wide \na range of approved counterparties as possible.  Maturities should be well spread  and matched \nto expenditure requirements . The investment process must take into ac count the liquidity of the \nmarket securities where  appropriate.  \n \n \n \n  Treasury Framework  \n Page 22\n  IN CONFIDENCE  6.4 Operational Risk  \n \n Operational risk is the risk of loss as a result of  human error (or fraud), system failures and \ninadequate procedures and controls.  \n \n Operational risk is very relevant when dealing with financial instruments given that:  \n◼ Financial instruments may not be fully understood ; \n◼ Too much reliance is often placed on the specialised skills of one or two people ; \n◼ Most treasury instruments are executed by email ; and   \n◼ Operational risk is minimised through the adoption of all requirements of this \nFramework . \n \n6.4.1  Dealing Authorities and Limits  \n \n Transactions will only be executed by those persons and within limits approved by Council .   \n \n Any use of interest rate option instruments must have specific approval of Council .  \n \n6.4.2  Segregation of Duties  \n \n As there ar e a small number of people involved in  the treasury function , adequate segregation \nof duties among the  cash management, treasury  investment , borrowing and risk management  \nfunctions of deal execution, confirmation, settling and accounting/reporting  is not strictly  \nachievable.  The risk will be minimised by the following process:  \n \n◼ The CFO  report s directly to the DVC US . \n◼ There is a  documented approval process for  cash management , borrowing , treasury \ninvestment and interest /foreign exchange rate activity . \n◼ The Financ ial Operations Manager  reports  immediately to the CFO if Policy limits are \nbreached.  \n \n6.4.3  Procedures  \n \n All tre asury instruments  should  be recorded and diarised within a treasury  spreadsheet , with \nappropriate controls and checks over journal entries into the general ledger.  Deal capture and \nreporting must be done immediately following execution/confirmation.  Details of procedures \nincluding templates of deal tickets should be compiled in a t reasury procedures manual separate \nto this Framework .   \n \n Procedures should include:  \n \n◼ Regular management reporting . \n◼ Regular risk assessment, including review of procedures and controls as directed by \nCouncil  or FAC. \n◼ Organisational, systems, procedural and reconciliation controls to ensure:  \n- All cash management , borrowing , treasury investment  and risk management  \nactivity is bona fide and properly authorised ; \n- Checks are in place to ensure  accounts and records are updated promptly, \naccurately and completely ; \n- Risk positions are update d, reviewed and reported on a regular  basis ; and  \n- All outstanding transactions are re -valued regularly and independently of the \nexecution function to ensure accurate reporting and accounting of outstanding \nexposures and hedging activity . \n \n  \n  Treasury Framework  \n Page 23\n  IN CONFIDENCE  6.4.4  Organisational Controls  \n \n◼ The CFO  or equivalent  has responsibility for establishing appropriate structures, \nprocedures and controls to support  cash management  borrowi ng, interest rate  and \ninvestment activity.  \n◼ All cash management , borrowing, treasury investment and risk management activity is \nundertaken in accordance with approved delegations authorised by Council . \n \n Cheque/Electronic Banking Signatories  \n \n◼ Positions approved by the VC as per register.  \n◼ Dual signatures are required for all cheques and electronic transfers.  \n◼ Cheques must be in the name of the counterparty crossed “Not Transferable”, “Account \nPayee Only”, via the Massey bank account .  \n \n Authorised Personnel  \n \n◼ All counterparties are provided with a list of personnel approved to undertake \ntransactions, standard settlement instructions and details of personnel able to receive \nconfirmations.   \n  \n Recording of Deals  \n \n◼ Deal summary records for cash management, borrowing , treasury  investments, interest \nand foreign exchange rate management (on spreadsheets) are maintained by the \nFinancial Operations Manager  and updated promptly following completion of \ntransaction.  \n \n Confirmations  \n \n◼ All inward deal confirmations are received and checked by the Financial Operations \nManager  against email instructions  and the treasury  spreadsheet records to ensure \naccuracy.  \n◼ All deliverable securities are held on file . \n◼ Deals, once confirmed, are filed ( email  and attached confirmation) by the TL-AR&T  in \ndeal date/number order.  \n◼ Any discrepancies arising during deal confirmation checks which require amendment to \nMassey  records are signed off by the VC. \n \n Settlement  \n \n◼ All cash management,  borrowing , interest and foreign exchange rate and treasury  \ninvestment payments are settled by direct debit authority  or through electronic funds \ntransfer in case required by the bank  \n \n Reconciliations  \n \n◼ Bank reconciliations are performed monthly by the TL-AR&T , reviewed  and approved \nin the system  by the Financial Reporting Manager .  Any unresolved , unreconciled items \narising during bank statement reconciliation which require amendment to Massey  \nrecords ar e signed off by the Financial Reporting Manager . \n◼ A monthly reconciliation of the treasury spreadsheet  to the general ledger is carried out \nby the Financial Operations Manager  and reviewed and approved by the  Financ ial \nReporting Manager . \n  Treasury Framework  \n Page 24\n  IN CONFIDENCE  ◼ Interest income from the treasury spreadsheet is reconciled to bank statements by the \nTL-AR&T , when completing the monthly bank reconciliations.  \n◼ Monthly treasury journals are completed by the Financial Operations Manager  and \napproved by the Financial Repor ting Manager . \n \n6.5 Legal Risk  \n \n Legal and regulatory risks relate to the unenforceability of a transaction due to an organisation \nnot having the legal capacity or power to enter into the transaction usually because of \nprohibitions contained in legislation.  While legal risks are more rel evant for banks, Massey  may \nbe exposed to such risks , in the event that Massey  is unable to enforce its rights due to deficient \nor inaccurate documentation.  \n \n Massey  will seek to minimise this risk by:  \n \n◼ Ensuring all Massey authorities regarding  treasury transactions are approved as \nrequired by legislation.  \n \n◼ The use of standing dealing and settlement instructions (including bank accounts, \nauthorised persons, standard deal confirmations, contacts for disputed transactions) to \nbe sent to counterpar ties. \n◼ The matching of third-party  confirmations and the immediate follow -up of anomalies.  \n◼ The use of expert advice . \n \n \n6.5.1  Agreements  \n \n Funding arrangements, investments and f inancial instruments can only be entered into with \nbanks that have in place an approved and executed legal agreement or ISDA Master \nAgreemen t.   \n \n Massey’s  internal/appointed legal counsel must sign off on all legal documentation .  \n \n6.5.2  Financial Covenants and Other Obligations  \n \n Massey  must not enter into any transactions where it would cause a breach of bank or TEC \nfinancial covenants /ratios  under existing contractual arrangements.  \n \n Massey  must comply with all obligations and reporting  requirements under existing funding \nfacilities and legislative requirements.  \n \n \n  Treasury Framework  \n Page 25\n  IN CONFIDENCE  7.0 MEASURING TREASURY PERFORMANCE  \n \n In order to determine the success of Massey’s  treasury  function, the following benchmarks and \nperformance measures have been prescribed.  \n \n Those performance measures that provide a direct measure of the performance of treasury staff \n(operational performance and management of investment, borrowing  and interest /foreign \nexchange  rate risk) are to be reported to Council  or the Finance and Assurance  Committee  on \na regular  basis.  \n \n Operational Performance   \n \n All treasury limits must be complied with , including (but not limited to) counterparty credit limits, \ncontrol  limits and exposure limits.  \n \n All treasury deadlines are to be met, including reporting deadlines.  \n \n Management of Treasury Investment  Returns  \n \n The actual investment income  for Massey  should be above  the budgeted YTD/annual interest \nrevenue amount.  \n \n Management of Borrowing Costs  \n \n The actual borrowing  cost (taking into consideration any costs /benefits  of entering into  interest \nrate management transactions) should be below the budgeted YTD/annual interest cost  \namount.  \n \n Management of Foreign Exchange Rate Risk  \n \nThe actual monthly NZD, conversion rate should outperform the budget foreign exchange rate.  \n  Treasury Framework  \n Page 26\n  IN CONFIDENCE  8.0 CASH MANAGEMENT  \n \n The CFO  has the responsibility to carry out the day -to-day cash management activities.  All cash \ninflows and outflows pass through bank accounts controlled by the finance function.  \n \n◼ The CFO  will calculate and maintain rolling cash flow forecasts on a dail y (three month  \nforward), weekly (12 months forward) and annual ( five years  forward ) basis.   These \ncash flow forecasts determine Massey ’s borrowing requirements and surpluses for \ninvestment.  Forecasts are linked to approved financial budgets and plans where  \nrelevant.  \n◼ The Finance Officer, Treasury , electronically download s all bank account information  \ndaily. \n◼ The TL-AR&T , co-ordinate s all daily cash inflows and outflows with the objective of \nmanaging the cash position within approved parameters.  \n◼ The TL-AR&T , upon approval of the CFO  executes all cash management and treasury \ninvestment transactions.  \n◼ Massey  will hold $100 in the current  account, with surplus cash automatically swe pt to \nan interest -bearing  overnight call  account.   \n◼ Sufficient liquid funds and/or committed bank facilities are available for at least 110% of \nthe next month’s net cash expenditure requirements. Liquid funds are either held in \novernight bank cash deposits, registered certificates of deposit or bank term de posits \nmaturing within a 30-day period.  \n◼ An amount is maintained to manage unknown and unforeseen cash requirements.  \n◼ Interest rate management on cash management balances is not permitted.   \nTo ensure an efficient and effective cash management function the CFO : \n◼ Match es future cash in/out flows to smooth the overall timeline  profile . \n◼ Minimise s fees and bank charges by optimising bank account/facility structures.  \n◼ Maximise s the return from available funds by ensuring significant payments are made \nwithin the vendor’s payment terms, but no earlier than required, unless there is a \nfinancial benefit from doing so.  \n◼ Reports detail actual cash flows during the month compared with t hose budgeted.  \n◼ Maintains a ccurate cash flow forecast s using spreadsheet modelling.  \n \n \n  Treasury Framework  \n Page 27\n  IN CONFIDENCE  9.0 REPORTING – PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT  \n \n When budgeting borrowing  costs /investment returns , the actual amount o f existing bank loans , \ninvestments  and risk management instruments  must be taken into account.  \n \n9.1 Treasury Reporting  \n \n9.1.1  Reporting  \n \n The following reports are produced:  \n \nReport Name  Frequency  Prepared by  Recipient  \nCall Account Analysis  \nInvestment Schedule  \nInvestment Movement  \nTreasury Spreadsheet  Weekly  FOM  \nFOM  \nFOM  \nFOM  CFO  \nCFO  \nCFO  \nCFO  \nTreasury Exceptions Report  As required  CFO  DVC US   \nTreasury Report  \nInvestment limits  \nBorrowing limits  \nFunding and Interest Position  \nFunding facility /usage  \nNew treasury transactions  \nCash  flow forecast report  \nLiquidity position  \nForeign currency  \nCounterparty credit  \nFinancial ratios  (bank and \nTEC)  \nReconciliation of Investments  \nInvestment Schedule  \n At each \nTreasury \nForum \nmeeting  FOM /CFO  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nFA \nFOM DVC US   \nTreasury Forum  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \nCFO  \nCFO  \nTreasury Report  \nInvestment limits  \nBorrowing limits  \nFunding and Interest Position  \nFunding facility /usage  \nNew treasury transactions  \nCash  flow forecast report  \nLiquidity position  \nForeign currency  \nCounterparty credit  \nFinancial ratios  (bank and \nTEC)  \nDerivative valuations  \nTreasury performance  \nMarket/strategy \ncommentary/update  \n As \nrequired.  FOM /CFO DVC US /Finance \nand Assurance  \nCommittee  \n \n. \n \n9.2 Accounting Treatment of Financial Instruments  \n \n Massey  uses financial market instruments for the primary purpose of reducing its exposure to \nfluctuations in financial market pricing .  \n \n The accounting treatment for such financial instruments is to follow PBE IPSAS  accounting \nstandards  or the equivalent for the public sector .  \n \n  \n  Treasury Framework  \n Page 28\n  IN CONFIDENCE  9.3 Valuation of Financial  Instruments  \n \n All financial instruments are re-value d at market prices, every three months for risk management \npurposes.   \n \n Underlying rates to be used to value instruments are as follows:  \n \n◼ Official daily settlement prices for established markets ; \n◼ Official daily market rates for short term instruments ( e.g. FRA settlement rates \ncalculated by Reuters from price maker quotations as displayed on the BKBM page) ; \n◼ Relevant market mid -rates provided  by a bank (s) at the end of the business day \n(5.00pm) for other over -the-counter instruments ; and \n◼ For markets that are illiquid, or where market prices are not readily available, rates \ncalculated in accordance with procedures approved by the FIS. \n \n10.0 FRAMEWORK  REVI EW \n \n This Treasury Framework  is to be formally reviewed every three years, or earlier should \nsignificant changes require.  \n \n The CFO  has the responsibility to prepare a review report that is presented to the FAC. The \nreport will include:  \n \n◼ Recommendation as to changes, deletions and additions to the Framework ; \n◼ Overview of the treasury  function in achieving the stated objectives ; Summary of \nbreaches and one -off approvals to highlight areas of tension ; \n◼ Analysis of bank and lender service provision, share of financial instrument transactions  \netc.; \n◼ Comments and recommendations from the internal/ external auditors on the treasury \nfuncti on, particularly internal controls, accounting treatment and reporting ; and  \n◼ An annu al audit of the treasury spreadsheets  and procedures should  be undertaken.  \n \n The FAC receives the report, approves the changes and/or reject s recommendations for \nchanges.  \n \n \n \n \n  \n  Treasury Framework  \n Page 29\n  IN CONFIDENCE  APPENDIX 1:  \n \nBank and TEC Financial Ratios and Limits  (as at the date of the Framework)  \n \nBank Lenders Financial Ratio  \n \no A requirement of the Bank of New Zealand is that the ratio of total debt  to total debt plus \ntotal equity should not exceed 0.075 , but tested only at the end of each calendar month \n(where “total debt” is defined as  the aggregate principal amount of all indebtedness for \nborrowed money (which would be disclosed by a statement of financial position if one \nwere prepared as at that date in accordance with NZ GAAP) ; and “ total equity” is defined \nas the aggregate of: consolidated retained earnings; consolidated reserves; and any \nother amount that, in accordance with NZ GAAP, would be classed as Equity as at that \ndate - less any amount included that is attributable to: any revaluation of assets; \ngoodwill or other intangibles; or minority assets ). \n \no Total debt servicing should be governed by a times covered requirement. Interest paid \nto EBITD should be no less than 3 times covered.  \n \n \nTEC Ratios  (to 31 December 2024)  \n \n \nMeasure  TEC breach level targets  \nNet s urplus  ratio 1 At least 0% \nInterest cover ratio  2 No less than 2.5 times  \nCash flow from operations  ratio 3 At least 111% \nLiquid ity ratio 4 At least 5% \nDebt equity ratio  5 No more than 7.5%  \n \n1 Surplus as a percentage of total revenue  (no covenants set for 2021 and 2022)  \n2 EBIT divided by interest expense  (no covenants set for 2021 and 2022)  \n3 Operating cash receipts divided by operating cash payments  \n4 Liquid resources divided by  cash outflow from operations  (no covenants set for 2021 and 2022)  \n5   Total borrowings divided by total borrowing plus equity  \n \n \nMonitoring Reporting  \n \nIn addition to the financial covenants above, the Consent provides for Massey to provide its full Audit \n(Finance) and Risk Committee meeting papers to the TEC  should Massey borrow or draw down funds \non any facility  This requirement will be reviewed in June 2023.   \n  Treasury Framework  \n Page 30\n  IN CONFIDENCE  APPENDIX 2 : \n \nGlossary  of Terms  \n \nBank Registered Certificate of Deposit  \nRegistered certificates of deposits (RCD) are securities issued by banks for their  \nborrowing needs or to meet investor demand. RCD are paperless securities that are  \npriced on a yield rate basis and issued at a discount to face value. They are generally  \npreferred over term deposits as investors can sell them prior to maturity.  \n \nBasis Point(s)  \nIn financial markets it is normal market practice to quote interest rates to two decimal places e.g. \n6.25% - one basis point is the change from 6.25% to 6.26%, one hundred basis points is the change \nfrom 6.25% to 7.25%.  \n \nBid–Offer Spread  \nThe exchange points (FX) or basis points (interest rates) difference between the bid and offer rate \nwhen quoted by a bank is known as the “bid -offer spread”.  Banks make their profits from dealing at \ntheir own bid and offer prices, thus earning the spread.  \n \nBid Rate  \nExchange rates and interest rate securities/instruments that are traded between banks are always \nquoted as a two -way price.  One rate is where the quoting bank will buy – the bid rate, the second \nrate or price where the bank will sell at – the offer rate.  \n \nBKBM  \nThe Forward Rate Agreement (FRA) settlement rate as determined at 10:45am each business day \non Reuters page BKBM.  \n \nCall Option  \nThe owner or buyer of a call option has the right, but not the obligation, to buy the underlying debt \nsecurity/currency/commodity at the price stated in the option contract.  \n \nCap \nA series or string of bought interest rate put options whe reby a borrower can have protection against \nrising short -term interest rates, but participate in the lower rates if market rates remain below the \n“capped rate.”  A cap is normally for more than one 90 -day funding period.   \n \nCertificate of Deposit “CD”  \nA de bt instrument (normally short term) issued by a bank to borrow funds from other \nbanks/investors.  \n \nClosing -Out \nThe cancellation/termination of a financial instrument or contract before its maturity date, resulting \nin a realised gain/loss as the current ma rket rate differs from the contract rate.  \n \nCollar  \nTwo option contracts linked together into the one transaction or contract.  A borrower’s collar is \nnormally a bought “cap” above current market rates and a sold “floor” below current rates.  Over the \nterm of the collar contract, if rates go above the cap the borrower is protected and pays an interest \ncost no more than the cap rate.  Likewise, if market rates fall below the floor, the borrower pays the \nfloor rate and does not participate in the lower market  rates.  Also called a “cylinder”.  \n \nCollateral  \nA legal term, means “security”.  \n \nCommercial Paper (CP)  \nThe debt security instrument issued by a prime (and normally credit -rated) borrower to raise short -\nterm funds (30, 60, 90 or 180 days).  Also called “one-name paper” and “promissory notes” issued \nby competitive public tender to investors, or by private placing to one investor.  \n \n  \n  Treasury Framework  \n Page 31\n  IN CONFIDENCE  Corporate Bonds  \nThe security instrument that is issued by a borrower whereby they promise to repay the principal \nand interes t on the due dates.  A bond’s interest rate is always fixed.  Bonds issued by private sector \nentities (including banks).  \n \nCoupon   \nThe interest rate and amount that will be paid on the interest due dates of a bond.  The coupon will \nnormally differ from the purchase or issue yield/interest rate on a bond instrument.  \n \nCounterparty   \nThe contracting party to a financial transaction or financial instrument.  \n \nCovenants  \nSpecial conditions and financial ratios required to be met or maintained by a borrower for a len der \nunder the legal security documents.  \n \nCover   \nA term used to describe any action of entering financial instruments that reduces risk or puts \nprotection in place against adverse future price movements.  \n \nCredit Margin  \nThe amount Massey  pays above the BKBM -Bid Interest Rate to reflect the banks perceived credit \nrisk.  Credit margin excludes establishment and commitment fees.  \n \nCredit Risk   \nThe risk that the other party to a financial transaction (bank deposit, interest rate swap contract) will \ndefault on or before the maturity date and not be able to fulfil their contractual obligations.  \n \nDebenture  \nA debt instrument similar to a bond whereby a borrower (normally a finance company) borrowers \nfor a longer term at a fixed rate.  Also a legal instrument provided as security to a lender.  \n \nDelta  \n“Greek” letter that measures how the price of an option (premium) changes given a movement in \nthe price of the underlying asset/instrument.  \n \nDerivative(s)   \nA “paper” contract whose value depends on the value of some “underl ying” asset e.g. share market  \nstocks, bank bills, bonds or foreign currency.  Also called a “synthetic.”  The value of the assets will \nchange as its market price changes;  the derivative instrument will correspondingly change its value.  \n \nDiscount   \nA bond or  bank bill is discounted when the interest rate is applied to the face value of the security \nand the net proceeds after deducting the interest is paid out to the borrower.  Investors pay for the \ndiscounted (NPV) value at the commencement of the investment and receive the interest coupon \npayments along the way and the full face value at the maturity date.  \n \nDuration  \nNot the simple average maturity term of a debt or investment portfolio, but a measure of the interest \nrate risk in a portfolio at a particular p oint in time.  The duration of a portfolio is the term (measured \nin years and months) if the total portfolio of bonds/fixed interest investments was revalued at market \nrates and expressed as one single bond.  The profit/loss on revaluation of a one basis p oint \nmovement being the same in both cases.  \n \nEvent Risk  \nThe risk of a major/unforeseen catastrophe e.g. earthquake, political electi ons, adversely affecting \nthe financial position or performance.  \n \nExchange – Traded  \nA currency, debt or financial instrument that is quoted and traded on a formal exchange with \nstandardised terms, amounts and dates.  \n \nExercise Date/Price   \n  Treasury Framework  \n Page 32\n  IN CONFIDENCE  The day and fixed price that an option contract is enforced/actioned or “exercised” because it is in \nthe interests of one of the parties to the contract to do so.  \n \nFair Value  \nThe current market value of an off -balance sheet financial instrument should it be sold or closed -\nout on the market rates ruling at the balance date.  \n \nFederal Reserve   \nThe US Government’s central bank and/or monetary authority.  \n \nFixed Rate   \nThe interest rate on a debt of financial instrument is fixed and does not change from the \ncommencement date to the maturity date.  \n \nFloating Rate   \nThe interest rate on a loan or debt instrument is re -set at the ruling market interest rates on the \nmaturity date of the st ipulated funding period (usually 90 -days).  \n \nFloor  \nThe opposite of a “cap.”  An investor will buy a floor, or a series/string of call options (the right to \nbuy) to protect against falling interest rates, but be able to invest at higher interest rates if rat es \nmove upwards.  A borrower may sell a floor as part of a collar structure to generate premium to pay \nfor the “linked” bought cap.  \n \nForward Foreign Exchange Contract  \nAn agreement between Massey  and a counterparty (usually a bank) to exchange one currency for \nanother currency at an agreed future date (other than spot) at an agreed rate.  \n \nForward Rate Agreement  \nAn agreement between Massey  and a counterparty to protect Massey  against future adverse \ninterest rate movements. Massey  and the counterparty agree to  a notional future principal, the future \ninterest rate, the benchmark dates and the benchmark rate (BKBM)  \n \nForward Start Interest Rate Swap  \nMay also be called a Deferred Start Swap. An interest rate swap (given below) of which the start \ndate is in the futu re. E.g. a 5-year swap starting one year from today.  \n \nFunding Risk   \nThe risk that a borrower cannot re -finance its debt at equal or better terms at some date in the future, \nin terms of lending margin, bank fees and funding time commitment.  Funding risk ma y increase \ndue to the company’s own credit worthiness, industry trends or banking market conditions.  \n \nHedging   \nThe action of reducing the likelihood of financial loss by entering forward and derivative contracts \nthat neutralise the price risk on underlying financial exposures or risks.  The gain or loss due to \nfuture price movements on the underlying exposure is of fset by the equal and opposite loss and \ngain on the hedge instrument.  \n \nGovernment Bonds  \nNew Zealand Government bonds are denominated in New Zealand dollars and have a maturity date \nof greater than one year. There are two categories of New Zealand Governme nt bonds. The first \ncategory has a fixed interest coupon paid semi -annually in arrears. The bonds are redeemable at \npar on maturity. The other category is inflation -indexed bonds  (IIB).  \n \nImplied Volatility  \nUsed in option pricing.  To estimate the future volatility of the underlying asset or instrument, the \noption pricing models use historical volatility (expressed as a percentage) as a key variable to \ncalcul ate the option premium amount.  The movement in option prices is therefore a good indicator \nof future market volatility, as volatility is “implied” in the option  price.  \n \nInterest Rate Collar Strategy  \nThe combined purchase of a cap or floor with the simulta neous purchase of another floor or cap.  \n \n  Treasury Framework  \n Page 33\n  IN CONFIDENCE  Interest Rate Options  \nA contract that gives the holder (in return for the payment of a premium) the right but not the \nobligation to borrow (described as a cap) or invest (described as a floor) at a future date. Massey \nand the counterparty agree to a notional future amount, the future interest rate, the benchmark dates \nand the benchmark rate (BKBM).  \n \nInterest Rate Swap  \nAn agreement between Massey  and a counterparty whereby Massey  pays (or receives) a fixed \ninterest ra te and receives (or pays) a floating interest rate. The notional principal, start date of \ncontract, duration of contract, fixed interest rate and benchmark rates (BKBM) are agreed to by \nMassey  and the counterparty.  \n \nISDA   \nInternational Security Dealers Ass ociation: a governing body that determines legal \ndocumentation/standards for over -the-counter swaps/options/FRAs and other derivative \ninstruments for interest rates, currencies, commodities etc.  Corporate users of such instruments \nsign an ISDA Master Agre ement with banking counterparties that covers all transactions.  \n \n“In-the-Money” Option   \nAn option contract that has a strike price/rate that is more favourable or valuable than the current \nmarket spot or forward rate for the underlying currency/instrument.  \n \nInverse Yield Curve   \nThe slope of the interest rate yield curve (90 -days to 10 years) is “inverse” when the short -term rates \nare higher than the long -term rates.  The opposite, when short -term rates are lower than long -term \ninterest r ates is a normal curve or “upward sloping.”  In theory, a normal curve reflects the fact that \nthere is more time, therefore more time for risk to occur in long term rates;  hence they are higher to \nbuild in this extra risk premium.  \n \nLiability Management  \nThe policy, strategy and process of pro -actively managing the treasury exposures arising from a \nportfolio of debt.  \n \nLIBOR  \nLondon Inter -bank Offered Rate, the average of five to six banks quote for Eurodollar deposits in \nLondon at 11:00 am each d ay.  The accepted interest rate -fixing benchmark for most offshore loans.  \n \nLimit(s)  \nThe maximum or minimum amount or percentage a price or exposure may move to before some \naction or limitation is instigated.  Also called “risk control limits”.  \n \nLiquidity B uffer  \nA combination of approved financial investments and committed unutilised bank facilities.  \n \nLiquidity Risk   \nThe risk that Massey  cannot obtain cash/funds from liquid resources or bank facilities to meet \nforeseen and unforeseen cash requirements.  The management of liquidity risk involves working \ncapital management and external bank/credit facilities.  \n \nMarked -to-Market   \nFinancial instruments and forward contracts are revalued at current market rates, producing an \nunrealised gain or loss compared to the book or carrying value.  \n \nMedium Term Notes   \nA continuous program whereby a prime corporate borrower has (MTN) issuance documentation \npermanently in place and can issue fixed rate bonds at short notice under standard terms.  \n \nNetting  \nMethod of subtracting cu rrency receivables from currency payables (and vice versa) over the same \ntime period to arrive at a net exposure position.  \n \nOption Premium   \n  Treasury Framework  \n Page 34\n  IN CONFIDENCE  The value of an option, normally paid in cash at the commencement of the option contract, similar \nto an insurance premium.  \n \nOrder   \nThe placement of an instruction to a bank to buy or sell a currency or financial instrument at a pre -\nset and pre -determined l evel and to transact the deal if and when the market rates reach this level.  \nOrders are normally placed for a specific time period, or “good till cancelled.”  The bank must deal \nat the first price available to them once the market level is reached.  Some banks will only take \norders above a minimum dollar amount.  \n \n“Out -of-the-Money” Option   \nAn option contract which has a strike price/rate that is unfavourable or has less value than the \nunderlying current spot market rate for the instrument.  \n \nOver -the-Counte r \nFinancial and derivative instruments that are tailored and packaged by the bank to meet the very \nspecific needs of the corporate client in terms of amount, term, price and structure.  Such financial \nproducts are non -standard and not traded on official ex changes.  \n \nPre-Hedging  \nEntering forward or option contracts in advance of an exposure being officially recognised  or booked \nin the records of Massey . \n \nPrimary Market  \nThe market for new issues of bonds or MTNs.  \n \nPut Option  \nThe right, but not the obligation t o sell a debt security/currency/commodity at the contract price in \nthe option agreement.  \n \nRevaluation  \nThe re -stating of financial instruments and option/forward contracts at current market values, \ndifferent from historical book or carrying values.  If the contracts were sold/bought back (closed -out) \nwith the counterparty at current market rates, a realised gain or loss is made.  A revaluation merely \nbrings the contract/instrument to current market value.  \n \nRevolving/Evergreen Facilities  \nMassey  will have the annual right to seek the bank lender’s consent to extend the Facility’s term for \na further year.  \n \nRoll-over   \nThe maturity date for a funding period, where a new interest rate is reset and the debt re -advanced \nfor another funding period.  \n \nSecondary Market  \nThe market for securities or financial instruments that develops after the period of the new issue.  \n \n“Short” Position  \nSelling of an asset or financial instrument in anticipation that the price will decrease or fall in value \nto buy later at  a profit.  \n \nSpot Exchange Rate  \nAn agreement between Massey  and a counterparty (usually a bank) to exchange one currency for \nanother currency in two working days’ time  at an agreed rate.  \n \nStrike Price   \nThe rate or price that is selected and agreed as the ra te at which an option is exercised.  \n \nStrip  \nA series of short -term interest rate FRAs for a one or two year period, normally expressed as one \naverage rate.  \n \nSwap Spread   \n  Treasury Framework  \n Page 35\n  IN CONFIDENCE  The interest rate margin (in basis points) that interest rate swap rates trade above Go vernment bond \nyields.  \n \nSwaption  \nThe purchase of a swaption gives Massey  the right but not the obligation to enter into an interest \nrate swap, at a future date, at a specific interest rate.  \n \nTime Value  \nOption contracts taken for longer -term periods may stil l have some time value left even though the \nmarket rate is a long way from the strike rate of the option and the option is unlikely to be exercised.  \n \nTranches  \nA loan may be borrowed in a series of partial drawdowns from the facility, each part borrowing is \ncalled a tranche.  \n \nTreasury  \nGeneric term to describe the activities of the financial function within Massey  that is responsible for \nmanaging the cash resources, financial investments, debt, and interest rate risk.  \n \nTreasury Bills  \nNew Zealand Government Treasury bills are denominated in NZ dollars, are sold at a discount  to \nthe nominal value  and carry no coupon. The bills are redeemable at par on maturity. Treasury bills \nare normally issued with a maturity date between one month and one year.  \n \nVanilla Foreign Exchange Option  \nThe purchase of a for eign exchange option gives the holder (in return for the payment of a premium) \nthe right, but not the obligation to buy (described as a call) or sell (described as a put) one currency \nfor another currency at a future date at an agreed rate.   \n \nVega  \nAnother  “Greek” letter that is the name given to the measure of the sensitivity of the change in option \nprices to small changes in the implied volatility of the underlying asset or instrument price.  \n \nVolatility  \nThe degree of movement or fluctuation (expressed as a percentage) of an asset, currency, \ncommodity or financial instrument price over time.  The percentage is calculated using mean and \nstandard deviation mathematical techniques.  \n \nYield   \nRead - interest rat e, always expressed as a percentage.  \n \nYield Curve   \nThe plotting of market interest rate levels from short term (90 -days) to long term on a graph i.e. the \ndifference in market interest rates from one term (maturity) to another.  \n \n \n \n \n \n"
  }
]