Bulletin Board - Review and Comment

• Penalty matrix for student general misconduct
• Educative components for general misconduct
• Penalty matrix for student academic misconduct
• Educative components for academic misconduct
• Factors considered in selecting a penalty

(1) This document supports, should be read in conjunction with, and can only be applied as part of a process under the following:

1. Student Misconduct By-laws
2. Student Misconduct Procedure

Penalty matrix for student general misconduct

Educative components for general misconduct

(2) An educative component imposed for a general misconduct finding must be specific, meaningful, and targeted to the conduct found. The educative components available are:

1. an educational conversation between SCCMU and the student;
2. a structured reflective task in which the student identifies the value or values of the Code of Conduct - Students engaged by their conduct and the steps they will take to align future conduct with those standards;
3. completion of a University module relevant to the conduct found, where such a module is available, including a student-conduct or respectful-conduct module and any relevant safety, clinical, or practice training;
4. a written undertaking by the student as to their future conduct;
5. a structured conversation between the student and the affected person, conducted by trained SCCMU staff where SCCMU has the capability, both parties consent, and the matter is suitable for such a conversation;
6. a written apology, where genuinely offered and accepted by the affected person;
7. referral, with the student's consent, to an existing University support service that accepts such referrals, including Student Counselling and, where available, an alcohol and other drug support service;
8. supervised community contribution within the University, proportionate to the conduct, where it serves a genuine educative purpose and its completion can be supervised and verified; and
9. any other specific, meaningful intervention agreed between the decision-maker and SCCMU that addresses the conduct found and that the University is able to deliver or arrange and to verify.

(3) Generic conduct training is not sufficient where the conduct indicates a deeper or more specific issue. An educative component must not require an affected person to participate, and must be consistent with the trauma-informed commitments of the Student Misconduct Procedure.

Penalty matrix for student academic misconduct

Educative components for academic misconduct

(4) Educative components for academic misconduct findings may include:

1. completion of an academic integrity module with evidence of completion and a reflective task;
2. a guided consultation with an academic skills or learning adviser, including a structured review of referencing, attribution, and authorship requirements;
3. a workshop on permitted use of generative artificial intelligence in academic work, with practical exercises;
4. a structured reflective task in which the student identifies the element(s) of the Academic Integrity Policy engaged by their conduct and the steps they will take to align future work with those values;
5. a mentor programme pairing the student with a senior student or academic skills adviser for a specified period;
6. required attendance at academic literacy programmes;
7. for research-related conduct: a workshop on research integrity, authorship, and data management;
8. resubmission of the relevant assessment item with specific guidance, where appropriate and not compromising assessment integrity. Where resubmission is required, the SCCMU notifies the Unit Coordinator or Trainer/Assessor, who specifies the timeframe for resubmission and remarks the resubmitted work in accordance with their normal assessment judgement;
9. for VET students: structured reassessment with assessor guidance on competency requirements, including verbal demonstration of underpinning knowledge where appropriate; and
10. any other specific, meaningful intervention agreed between the decision-maker and SCCMU that addresses the conduct found.

(5) The educative component must be specific, meaningful, and targeted to the conduct found. Generic academic-integrity training is not sufficient where the conduct indicates a deeper or more specific issue.

Factors considered in selecting a penalty

(6) In selecting a penalty, the decision-maker may have regard to mitigating factors, including:

1. early acknowledgement of responsibility;
2. cooperation with the investigation;
3. candid self-disclosure, including disclosure of coercion or exploitation by another person;
4. genuine remorse and a demonstrated willingness to repair harm;
5. the personal, cultural, or linguistic circumstances of the student;
6. the student's stage of study, including whether the student is new to tertiary study in the relevant sector;
7. an isolated departure from an otherwise sound record; and
8. that the conduct arose from carelessness, inexperience, or genuine misunderstanding rather than an intention to deceive or to gain an unfair advantage.

(7) In selecting a penalty, the decision-maker may have regard to aggravating factors, including:

1. premeditation or planning, including, for academic misconduct, an intention to gain an unfair advantage;
2. abuse of a position of trust;
3. targeting of a vulnerable person;
4. a commercial element;
5. concealment, or the falsification of records, to avoid detection;
6. the impact of the conduct on others;
7. the impact on of the conduct on the integrity of an assessment, a unit, and/or a course;
8. conduct occurring on a professional, clinical, or work-based placement; and
9. the student’s prior misconduct history, including any Pathway A records, giving reduced weight to an earlier finding or record where the conduct in the current matter occurred, or the item was submitted, before the student was notified of it.

(8) Where the conduct in an academic matter involves the use of generative artificial intelligence, the decision-maker has regard to where the conduct sits on a spectrum of intent, from inadequate attribution or disclosure at the minor end, to the deliberate outsourcing of authorship, which is captured by the classification of conduct as no less than serious in the Student Misconduct Procedure.

(9) For conduct automatically classified as no less than serious in the Student Misconduct Procedure, mitigating factors may operate to select a penalty within the serious-to-severe range but cannot reduce the classification below serious.

(10) The decision-maker must act consistently with the principles of fairness, proportionality, and non-discrimination. The applicable anti-discrimination law comprises the Commonwealth anti-discrimination Acts, which apply nationally, together with the anti-discrimination statute of the jurisdiction in which the conduct occurred (the Anti-Discrimination Act 1992 (NT), the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW), or the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (SA)). For international students, the decision-maker also has regard to the obligations arising under the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 (Cth) and the National Code of Practice for Providers of Education and Training to Overseas Students 2018.

(11) An educative component must accompany every substantiated finding of misconduct unless the decision-maker records specific reasons why one is not appropriate. The educative component must be specific, meaningful, and targeted to the conduct found.

(12) A penalty must be proportionate to the nature, extent, and gravity of the conduct found, the harm caused, and the circumstances of the student. Penalties may be combined where justified.

(13) In selecting a penalty, the decision-maker has regard to any safety considerations arising from the matter, including the safety of any affected person, the student, and the University community, and selects any condition necessary to manage an identified risk.

(14) Where, in determining a matter, the decision-maker forms a view about classification that differs from the classification on referral:

1. within the range - the decision-maker may impose any penalty within the prescribed range for the referred classification, including at the floor; and
2. reclassify - where the decision-maker considers that a matter has been misclassified, they refer it back to SCCMU with written reasons. SCCMU considers the matter in accordance with the procedure.

(15) The decision-maker considers each factor in this Schedule and weighs those that apply holistically and not arithmetically; a mitigating factor may outweigh an aggravating factor, and an aggravating factor may outweigh a mitigating factor. In the written reasons, the decision-maker must:

1. identify each factor treated as applicable;
2. explain the weight given to it; and
3. explain how the factors collectively support the penalty selected.

(16) Where an admission of responsibility or a statement of contrition has been taken into account, the written reasons must say so and state its effect on the penalty.