How can public leaders exercise ethical leadership, and how can we promote clean government, given the many excuses for 'dirty hands' made by government leaders? This course provides students with an introduction to debates over public sector ethics, focusing on the roles and responsibilities of public servants and their relationships to politicians and others sharing public power. The unit uses practical examples and case studies of ethical problems from across the public sector, blending Australian and international material so that students can learn from a variety of policy frameworks appropriate to the regulation of public conduct. Students will examine core theories of ethics with the aim of relating these to prevailing theories of public policy and practices of public administration.  They will also examine various approaches to codifying and enforcing public sector ethics.

Learning Outcomes

Upon successful completion, students will have the knowledge and skills to:

1. critically understand the main concepts and theories in public sector ethics;
2. critically apply ethical concepts and theories to examples of public sector practice;
3. access relevant source materials on public sector ethics;
4. critically understand the role of ethics in professional public sector practice;
5. apply critical analytical capacity to answering questions on public sector ethics.

Required Resources

Set readings available online

Recommended Resources

See further reading under Topics and Readings. Also see useful websites listed below:

Electronic Journals:

Australian Journal of Public Administration

Ethical Theory and Moral Practice

Ethics and International Affairs

Ethics and Information Technology

Ethics and the Environment

Journal of Applied Philosophy

Journal of Political Philosophy

Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

Philosophy and Public Affairs

Philosophy and Public Policy Quarterly

Public Administration Review

Public Administration

Public Administration and Development

Public Integrity

 

Websites:

Australian Association for Professional and Applied Ethics: www.arts.unsw.edu.au/aapae

Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, ANU: www.cappe.edu.au

Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), NSW Government www.icac.nsw.gov.au/publications-and-resources/

Australian Public Service Commission www.apsc.gov.au

American Society for Public Administration (ASPA) www.aspanet.org

Center for Public Integrity: www.publicintegrity.org

Center for Global Ethics and Politics: City University of New York (CUNY): cgep.ws.gc.cuny.edu

UK Committee on Standards in Public Life: www.public-standards.gov.uk

Government of Canada: Public Service Integrity Office: www.psic-ispc.gc.ca

Institute for Global Ethics: www.globalethics.org

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD): Directorate for Public

Governance; ethics and anti-corruption program: www.oecd.org/governance/ethics

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University, USA: http://plato.stanford.edu

US Office of Government Ethics: www.usoge.gov

Transparency International (TI): www.transparency.org

World Bank: Topics: Governance and public sector management www.worldbank.org/en/topic/governance

Staff Feedback

Students will be given feedback in the following forms in this course:

• Written comments
• Verbal comments
• Feedback to the whole class, to groups, to individuals, focus groups

Student Feedback

ANU is committed to the demonstration of educational excellence and regularly seeks feedback from students. Students are encouraged to offer feedback directly to their Course Convener or through their College and Course representatives (if applicable). The feedback given in these surveys is anonymous and provides the Colleges, University Education Committee and Academic Board with opportunities to recognise excellent teaching, and opportunities for improvement. The Surveys and Evaluation website provides more information on student surveys at ANU and reports on the feedback provided on ANU courses.

Other Information

COURSE DESCRIPTION

Like most subject headings in the social science, 'ethics' has a variety of meanings and is impossible to define categorically. In this course, we will understand it to refer to decision-making which involves the application of moral values or principles in professional contexts ('moral, of course, is another, equally slippery term). 'Public sector ethics', thus, refers to decision-making by professionals in the public sector. All decisions involve some value component, if it is only the pursuit of political goals, such as winning elections, or personal objectives, such as advancing one's career. In practice, we reserve 'ethics' for those decisions and values that have a wider, moral purpose, such as the pursuit of the public interest or public value. More specifically, public sector ethics covers a range of values, many of them relating to the proper conduct of government processes, values such as 'fairness', 'impartiality' and 'integrity'. It can also refer to values more concerned with the outcome of government actions, such as 'efficiency' and 'the public good'.

Public sector professionals include a number of different professions that may share the same basic values but also have different public expectations placed on them. One important division is between career public servants or public 'officials' and politicians, particularly elected politicians in democratic governments. The focus of this course is primarily on the ethics of public officials, but we also cover some ethical policy choices which politicians may be asked to make, as well as the ethical tensions that can arise between career public servants and their political masters. However, we do not directly consider the professional ethics of other professions, such as lawyers, teachers and health professionals, some of whom are employed in the public sector but whose members have their own independent sets of values. The initial sessions of the course after the introduction (topics 2 and 3) therefore concentrate on the nature of public service professionalism and the contrast between ethical expectations in the public and private sectors.

Problems of professional ethics come in two broad categories. The first covers ethical dilemmas, where the issue is to decide the ethically best course of action. Ethical dilemmas typically involve a difficult choice between competing principles or values, where there is no obviously right answer. For example, is it ethical for government leaders or officials to deceive the public in the interests of public safety? When, if at all, should a subordinate official disobey a lawful instruction from a superior? When does a conflict of interest arise? Such questions have formed part of the traditional subject matter of the branch of philosophy known as 'ethics' or 'moral philosophy'. We devote a number of sessions to some of these questions (topics 5-9). 

Ethical dilemmas raise fundamental issue issues about the nature of ethical reasoning. Without going into too much technical philosophical detail, we need to be aware of the main varieties of ethical theory, including consequentialism (utilitarianism), deontology (Kantianism) and virtue-based ethics (Aristotelianism) and how they affect the approach taken to resolving ethical dilemmas (topic 4). 

The second category of ethical problem concerns not so much the clash of competing conceptions of what is right as the contrast between doing what is right (assuming that is agreed on) and doing what is wrong. Here we move away from applied philosophy to more practical issues in political science and public administration. How can ethical values be enforced ? Are they more a matter of institutional culture and education or is there a role for strict rules and external enforcement? What part can be played by formal codes of conduct for public servants (topic 10) and for politicians (topic 11)? How can external integrity agencies help enforce a culture of ethical practice (topic 12)?

All important and interesting question in ethics are open-ended and cannot be answered conclusively. Teaching sessions will therefore place an emphasis on questions and discussion, both in the full class, and in small groups. The success of the class depends on everyone's willingness to contribute to discussion.  The system of class assignments will provide a core of well-prepared participants for each session but all students are encouraged to study the readings and questions before each class. Attendance at classes is not compulsory but is expected, particularly for those who have prepared assignments on the week's topic(s). To assist with note-taking, PowerPoints covering the main points will be available after the class, but not before.

Class Schedule

Week/Session	Summary of Activities	Assessment
1	Topic: Introduction This week we introduce the administration of the course, setting out its objectives and allocating assignments. We also introduce the contested subject matter of ethics in public policy, defining it as a study of the ethical problems that may confront those engaged in the public sector, both public officials and politicians. Ethics covers both ethical dilemmas between competing values (alternative conceptions of the right or the good) as well as the choice between right and wrong. Examples of both types of issue are discussed.	Sullivan, H. (2021). Integrity and Ethics in Public Service Among Public Servants: An introduction In H. Sullivan et al. (Des). The Palgrave Handbook of the Public Servant. Springer International. Winston, K. (2012). Educating for moral competence. Issues in Legal Scholarship 10(1). East Timor: Betrayal and cover-up In S. Charles & C. Williams. Keeping them honest. Melbourne:Scribe (pp.19-27).
2	Topic: The ethically responsible public servant This week we gain an overview of the role played by ethics in the professional life of the public official, particularly in liberal democracies, and identify the classic values associated with bureaucracy in such regimes. We examine their source in the necessity of administrative discretion and the extent of such discretion. Press, Baltimore.	Dobel, J P 2005, ‘Public management as ethics’ in E Ferlie, LE Lynn & C Pollitt (eds), The Oxford handbook of public management, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 156-81. Thompson, D F 1985, ‘The possibility of administrative ethics’, Public Administration Review vol. 45, no. 5, pp. 555-61. Busuioc, M. (2009). Accountability, control and independence: The case of European Agencies. European Law Journal 15 (5): 599-615. For wk 2 assignment (tba) DiFrancesco, M. (2020). A signal failure: Sports grants, public servants and traffic lights. Australian Journal of Public Administration. 79: 584-591 Online video material.
3	Topic: The contrast between the public and private sectors This week we consider the contrast between ethical and accountability demands on managers in the public and private sectors respectively. Some of the values and ethical standards that public officials need to observe are common to organisations in all sectors, but some are distinctive, or distinctively prominent, in only one. How far is the ‘new public management’ (NPM), which advocates private sector practices in government, compatible with public service values?	van der Wal, Z, de Graaf, G and Lasthuizen, K 2008, ‘What’s valued most? Similarities and differences between the organizational values of the public and private sector’, Public Administration vol. 86, no. 2, pp. 465-82. Mulgan, R 2000, ‘Comparing accountability in the public and private sectors’, Australian Journal of Public Administration vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 87-97 Sands V. & O'Neil, D.; & Hodge, G. (2019). Cheaper, better, and more accountable? Twenty five years of prisons privatisation in Victoria. Australian Journal of Public Administration 78(4): 577-595. Grosser, K. & Moon, J. (2016). Corporate Social Responsibility and Multi-Stakeholder Governance: Pluralism, Feminist Perspectives and women’s NGOs. Journal Business Ethics. 137:65-61 Case study for in-class interaction (on wattle) Case studies: Lotus Glen Prisons
4	Topic: Theories of ethical judgment This week we consider three approaches to ethical reasoning which have been used in public sector ethics: consequentialism/utilitarianism, deontology/Kantianism, and virtue-based/Aristotelianism. We identify the main differences between each approach and how each approach contributes to analysing different types of ethical problem.	Sullivan, E and Segers, M 2007, ‘Ethical issues and public policy’, ch. 21 in F. Fisher, G. Miller and M. Sidney eds, Handbook of public policy analysis CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp. 309-27. Christensen, T and Laegrid, P 2011, ‘Ethics and administrative reforms’, Public Management Review vol. 13, no. 3, esp pp. 460-63. Beauchamp, T and Childress, J 2001, ‘Utilitarianism’, ‘Kantianism’, ‘Moral Excellence’, selected extracts from Principles of Biomedical Ethics. 5th edition. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 340-355, 43-51 To support wk 4 assignment (online video material) Po-En Tseng & Wang Ya Heng. (2021) Deontological or Utilitarian? An eternal ethical dilemma in outbreak International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 18 (pp.8654 - 8565). Bellazzi, F. & van Boyneburgk, K. (2020). Covid-19 calls for virtue ethics. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, pp.1-8.
5	Topic: The problem of 'dirty hands' This week we look at one of the core ethical dilemmas in public ethics, whether the wider public interest requires political leaders to make decisions, such as sacrificing innocent lives, which would be considered immoral if made by individual citizens. We look at the classic exposition of this view in the Italian political theorist Machiavelli, as well as some modern applications of what has become known as the problem of ‘dirty hands’ and consider whether ‘dirty hands’ are an inevitable part of political life.	Price, T 2008, ‘Machiavellian necessity’, from Leadership Ethics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 145-151. Uhr, J 2015, 'Leadership dilemmas: debating dirty hands', ch. 4 in Prudential Public Leadership, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp. 61-5, 80-2. Borelli, LM. & Lindberg, A. (2018). The creativity of coping: alternative tales of moral dilemmas among migration control officers. Migration and Border studies. 4(3): 163- 178. Tigard, DW. (2019). Moral Distress as a symptom of Dirty Hands. Res Publica 25: 353-371.
6	Topic: Truth, Lies and Spin This week we look at the issue of truth and deception in public life. This is another application of the ‘dirty hands’ argument that political leaders may sometimes be justified in breaking moral rules in the public interest. It also arises in relation to the question of political rhetoric or ‘spin’ which can involve misleading the public without necessarily engaging in outright falsehood.	Bok, S 1978, ‘Lies for the public good’, ch. 12 in Lying: moral choice in public and private life. Pantheon Books, pp. 165-181. Edyvane, D 2105, 'The ethics of democratic deceit', Journal of Applied Philosophy vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 310-25. Mulgan, R 2007, ‘Truth in government and the politicization of public service advice’, Public Administration vol. 85, no 3, pp. 569-86. Dixon, P. (2002). Political skills or lying and manipulation? The choregraphy of the Northern Ireland Peace Process. Political Studies 50:725-741.
7	Topic: Public servants and politicians This week we further examine the relationship between career public servants and elected politicians, particularly under ‘Westminster’ conventions of public service neutrality (already touched on in topics two and five). How far should officials be responsive to their political masters? Are they ever entitled to resist political instructions in the public interest? What form can such resistance take?	Mulgan, R 2008, ‘How much responsiveness is too much or too little?’, Australian Journal of Public Administration vol. 67, no 3, pp. 345-56. Maley, M. (2011). Temporary partisans, tagged officers or impartial professionals: Moving between ministerial offices and departments. Public Administration 84(4):1469-1488. Munk Christiansen, P.; Niklasson, B. & ohberg, P. (2016). Does politics crowd out professional competence? The organisation of ministerial advice in Denmark and Sweden. West European Politics 39 (6): 1230-1250. Poocharoen, O. & Brillantes, A. (2013). Meritocracy in Asia Pacific: Status, Issues and Challenges. Review of Public Personnel Administration. 33(2):140-163. In class case discussion/empirical case lecture background: Grafton, RQ.; Colloff, M.; Marshall, V., & Williams, J. (2020). Confronting a 'Post Truth Water World' in the Murray Darling Basin Australia. Water Alternatives 13 (1):1-28. Stewardson, MJ. et al. (2021). The politicisation of science in the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia: discussion of 'Scientific Integrity, public policy and water governance. Australian Journal of Water Resources 5(2): 141-158
8	Topic: Whistleblowing This week we look further at the issue of whistleblowing or public interest disclosure, which we have already touched on with the Ponting affair and the limits to public service responsiveness. Whistleblowing can take many forms, not all of them public or sensational. Whistleblower laws seek to protect whistleblowers from adverse consequences but how successfully?	Dusseyer, I, Mumford, S and Sullivan G, 2011, ‘Reporting corrupt practices in the public interest: innovative approaches to whistleblowing’ ch. 23 in in A Graycar and R G Smith (eds), Handbook of global research and practice in corruption Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 429-62. Taylor, J 2018, 'Internal whistle-blowing in the public service: a matter of trust', Public Administration Review vol. 778, no. 5, pp. 717-26. Loyens, K. (2013). Why police officers and labour inspectors (do not) blow the whistle. A grid group cultural theory perspective. Policing: An international journal of Police Strategies and Management. 36(1): 27-50. Wilson, J. & Pender, K. (2019). Whistleblower protections. Recent developments. Ethos. Law Society of the ACT Journal. 254:36-40. In class research design assignment 3 and further discussion (wk8). Macintosh, A.; Butler, D.; Evans MC. (2022). We blew the whistle on carbon credits. Here's what a probe must fix. Gelber, K. The precarious protection of free speech in Australia: the Banerji case. Australian Journal of Human Rights, 25(3): 511-519.
9	Topic: Conflicts of interest This week we look at a familiar issue in public sector ethics, the need to avoid conflicts of interest, which concerns both politicians and public servants. What are the interests between which conflict is problematic? How are conflicts to be identified and how are they to be dealt with?	Saeed Jafari Nia et al. (2022). Systematic Review of Conflict of Interest Studies in Public Administration. Public Integrity Early view, 1-16. Howard, C. & Seth_Purdie, R. (2005). Governance Issues for Public Sector Boards. Australian Journal of Public Administration. 64(3): 56-68. Dobel, J P 2017, ‘The strategic advantage of conflict of interest laws’, Public Integrity, DOI: 10.1080/10999922.2017.1331635
10	Topic: Codes of Conduct (public servants) This week we look at the trend for drawing up codes of ethics which accelerated in the 1990s in both the public and the private sectors. We discuss the reasons behind this trend and its link with the managerial movement. Do the codes enshrine traditional values or do they also include more managerial values? What role do codes play in encouraging public sector integrity? We also look at the issue of receiving gifts.	OECD 2000, Trust in government. Ethics measures in OECD countries, OECD, Paris, pp. 28-39. Mulgan, R and Wanna, J 2011, ‘Developing cultures of integrity in the public and private sectors’ ch. 22 in A Graycar and R G Smith (eds), Handbook of global research and practice in corruption Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 416-28. Kumasey, A K, Bawole, N. & Hossain, F 2016, ‘Organizational commitment of public service employees in Ghana: do codes of ethics matter’, International Review of Administrative Sciences, vol. 83, pp. 59-77.
11	Topic: Codes of Conduct (politicians) This week we continue our examination of codes of conduct by looking at the case of parliamentarians/legislators as distinct from public service officials. Politicians have always adopted looser standards of ethical behaviour than public servants and have resisted external supervision of their conduct. We discuss recent moves to codify their ethical principles and to introduce a form of external monitoring. We also examine the ethical status of lobbying and the issue of post-government employment ('the revolving door')	Williams, R 2002, ‘Conduct unbecoming: the regulation of legislative ethics in Britain and the United States’, Parliamentary Affairs vol . 55, no. 4, pp. 611-25. Commonwealth Parliament, House of Representatives Standing Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests 2011, chs. 3 and 5 in Draft code of conduct for members of Parliament http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_Committees?url=pmi/cocreport.htm Goldberg, F. 2018, 'Corruption and lobbying; conceptual differentiation and gray areas', Crime, Law and Social Change vol. 70, pp 197-215. Durrant, T. & Haddon, C. (2022). Reinforcing ethical standards in government. Institute of Government. Institute for Government. UK. For inclass discussion Maley, M 2021, ‘Problematic Working Conditions for Female Political Staffers: What Can Be Done?’ Australasian Parliamentary Review. Spring/Summer 2021 Vol 36 No 2 pp 54-69
12	Topic: Integrity systems This week we look at government-wide systems that encourage public sector integrity, particularly ‘integrity agencies’ that monitor and punish breaches of public sector ethics. Some of these agencies are longstanding, such as government auditors, others are more recent but well-established, such as ombudsmen. Many such agencies have other, wider regulatory tasks as well as integrity monitoring. Some are more custom-built for integrity purposes, such as anti-corruption agencies which have become very popular over the last decade. We conclude with consideration of the main strategies for combatting corruption.	Aulich, C & Wettenhall, R 2017, 'Developing an ethical culture in public sector governance; the role of integrity agencies', Australasian Parliamentary Review vol. 32, no. 2, pp 51-62. de Sousa, L 2010, ‘Anti-corruption agencies: between empowerment and irrelevance’, Crime, Law and Social Change col. 53, pp. 5-22. Six, F et al. (2012. Conceptualizing Integrity Systems in Governments and Banking, Public Integrity, 14 (4): 361-382. Maeeschalck, J. (2004). Approaches to Ethics Management IN the Public Sector: A proposed extension of the Compliance Integrity Continuum. Public Integrity 7(1): 20-41 To support assignment (tbc) online video material (wattle) Discussion Paper: Australia's weakest watchdog. The Centre for Public Integrity.

Assessment Summary

Assessment task	Value	Due Date	Return of assessment	Learning Outcomes
Short papers (four short papers)	40 %	*	*	1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Presentation	10 %	*	*	1,2, 3, 4, 5
Final evaluative research paper	50 %	07/11/2022	01/12/2022	1, 2, 3, 4, 5

* If the Due Date and Return of Assessment date are blank, see the Assessment Tab for specific Assessment Task details

Policies

ANU has educational policies, procedures and guidelines, which are designed to ensure that staff and students are aware of the University’s academic standards, and implement them. Students are expected to have read the Academic Misconduct Rule before the commencement of their course. Other key policies and guidelines include:

• Student Assessment (Coursework) Policy and Procedure
• Special Assessment Consideration Policy and General Information
• Student Surveys and Evaluations
• Deferred Examinations
• Student Complaint Resolution Policy and Procedure

Assessment Requirements

The ANU is using Turnitin to enhance student citation and referencing techniques, and to assess assignment submissions as a component of the University's approach to managing Academic Integrity. For additional information regarding Turnitin please visit the ANU Online website Students may choose not to submit assessment items through Turnitin. In this instance you will be required to submit, alongside the assessment item itself, hard copies of all references included in the assessment item.

Moderation of Assessment

Marks that are allocated during Semester are to be considered provisional until formalised by the College examiners meeting at the end of each Semester. If appropriate, some moderation of marks might be applied prior to final results being released.

Participation

See assessment 2

Assessment Task 1

Short papers (four short papers)

You are required to submit four short papers over the duration of the course. The due dates for the papers are respectively in: week 2 (02/08/22), week 4 (16/08/22), week 8 (27/09/22), and week 12 25/10/22). The short papers require you to answer questions about the weekly readings (week 2, 4, 12), or to prepare a brief research outline (week 8), and, will also be used for in class discussions in the relevant weeks.

The short papers due in week 2, week 4, and week 12 have a common rubric and 750 word (max) limit. The week 8 short paper has a separate rubric and a 500 word limit. The rubrics for the short papers will be made available on wattle. The premium is on clear and concise expression, focus on the questions asked and demonstrated understanding of the concepts and reading material. The relevant questions or research design queries for each of the short papers will be made available on wattle.

Assignments must be submitted online by the due date. Students may also bring a copy of the assignment to class to aid with discussion. Convenor feedback on assessment 1 will be provided to students within 1 week of submission. This means students can learn from the feedback over the period of the course and for the consecutive assessments that comprise assessment 1 eg. 1-4 short papers.

Assessment Task 2

Presentation

Together in a group, you must contribute to one presentation over the duration of the course. Depending on class numbers, these presentations will occur in weeks 5, 6, 9, 10 and 11. The presentation relates to the weekly themes and you will be allocated a group in week 1 of the course. The group presentation should not be longer than 10 minutes and will be a maximum of 6 slides. A member of the group should submit the power-point on wattle the day before the presentation by 5pm. For the presentation the group needs to:

1. Meet online or in class to work out their presentation and roles/tasks, and maintain contact about the undertaking of the presentation.
2. Identify (a) key concept/s or aspects of weekly readings, it can also be that you develop your own question to discuss from the readings, and present in-class. Presentation topics should be different to, and deepen, the material in the weekly readings eg. Codes of conducts for public servants and how they vary across countries.
3. Identify, at least one other (public administration/policy) scholarly reference, that discusses that concept and include its relevance in your presentation.
4. Provide one or more 'real-life' examples that illustrates the concept eg. from a specific public agency/organisation.
5. Where relevant identify actions that could be introduced to mitigate any ethical challenges arising from application of the chosen topic/concept.
6. Identify a discussion question or theme from your presentation for the class.

Feedback on group presentations will be provided within 2 weeks of the date of the group presentations.

Assessment Task 3

Final evaluative research paper

Identify a particular ethical issue in an existing public agency or regulatory agency that needs attention. (You may select to focus on a different type of institution or issue outside of these bodies/agencies, but then you need to consult and obtain agreement from the Convenor about your topic by week 9 at the latest). Use concepts and arguments in the course (and other relevant scholarly/practitioner material), to develop a framework from which to evaluate the nature of the ethical issue (or challenges it presents) and provide prescriptions (about the design of the agency, other actions or policy initiatives) that could be implemented to respond to the ethical issue (max. 2500 words, excluding references). Due date Monday 7 November, 2022

Academic Integrity

Academic integrity is a core part of our culture as a community of scholars. At its heart, academic integrity is about behaving ethically. This means that all members of the community commit to honest and responsible scholarly practice and to upholding these values with respect and fairness. The Australian National University commits to embedding the values of academic integrity in our teaching and learning. We ensure that all members of our community understand how to engage in academic work in ways that are consistent with, and actively support academic integrity. The ANU expects staff and students to uphold high standards of academic integrity and act ethically and honestly, to ensure the quality and value of the qualification that you will graduate with. The University has policies and procedures in place to promote academic integrity and manage academic misconduct. Visit the following Academic honesty & plagiarism website for more information about academic integrity and what the ANU considers academic misconduct. The ANU offers a number of services to assist students with their assignments, examinations, and other learning activities. The Academic Skills and Learning Centre offers a number of workshops and seminars that you may find useful for your studies.

Online Submission

The ANU uses Turnitin to enhance student citation and referencing techniques, and to assess assignment submissions as a component of the University's approach to managing Academic Integrity. While the use of Turnitin is not mandatory, the ANU highly recommends Turnitin is used by both teaching staff and students. For additional information regarding Turnitin please visit the ANU Online website.

Hardcopy Submission

For some forms of assessment (hand written assignments, art works, laboratory notes, etc.) hard copy submission is appropriate when approved by the Associate Dean (Education). Hard copy submissions must utilise the Assignment Cover Sheet. Please keep a copy of tasks completed for your records.

Late Submission

Late submission of assessment tasks without an extension are penalised at the rate of 5% of the possible marks available per working day or part thereof. Late submission of assessment tasks is not accepted after 10 working days after the due date, or on or after the date specified in the course outline for the return of the assessment item. Late submission is not accepted for take-home examinations.

Referencing Requirements

Accepted academic practice for referencing sources that you use in presentations can be found via the links on the Wattle site, under the file named “ANU and College Policies, Program Information, Student Support Services and Assessment”. Alternatively, you can seek help through the Students Learning Development website.

Extensions and Penalties

Extensions and late submission of assessment pieces are covered by the Student Assessment (Coursework) Policy and Procedure The Course Convener may grant extensions for assessment pieces that are not examinations or take-home examinations. If you need an extension, you must request an extension in writing on or before the due date. If you have documented and appropriate medical evidence that demonstrates you were not able to request an extension on or before the due date, you may be able to request it after the due date.

Privacy Notice

The ANU has made a number of third party, online, databases available for students to use. Use of each online database is conditional on student end users first agreeing to the database licensor’s terms of service and/or privacy policy. Students should read these carefully. In some cases student end users will be required to register an account with the database licensor and submit personal information, including their: first name; last name; ANU email address; and other information. In cases where student end users are asked to submit ‘content’ to a database, such as an assignment or short answers, the database licensor may only use the student’s ‘content’ in accordance with the terms of service — including any (copyright) licence the student grants to the database licensor. Any personal information or content a student submits may be stored by the licensor, potentially offshore, and will be used to process the database service in accordance with the licensors terms of service and/or privacy policy. If any student chooses not to agree to the database licensor’s terms of service or privacy policy, the student will not be able to access and use the database. In these circumstances students should contact their lecturer to enquire about alternative arrangements that are available.

Distribution of grades policy

Academic Quality Assurance Committee monitors the performance of students, including attrition, further study and employment rates and grade distribution, and College reports on quality assurance processes for assessment activities, including alignment with national and international disciplinary and interdisciplinary standards, as well as qualification type learning outcomes. Since first semester 1994, ANU uses a grading scale for all courses. This grading scale is used by all academic areas of the University.

Support for students

The University offers students support through several different services. You may contact the services listed below directly or seek advice from your Course Convener, Student Administrators, or your College and Course representatives (if applicable).

• ANU Health, safety & wellbeing for medical services, counselling, mental health and spiritual support
• ANU Diversity and inclusion for students with a disability or ongoing or chronic illness
• ANU Dean of Students for confidential, impartial advice and help to resolve problems between students and the academic or administrative areas of the University
• ANU Academic Skills and Learning Centre supports you make your own decisions about how you learn and manage your workload.
• ANU Counselling Centre promotes, supports and enhances mental health and wellbeing within the University student community.
• ANUSA supports and represents undergraduate and ANU College students
• PARSA supports and represents postgraduate and research students