# Australian universities set different rules for AI in marking

> Newcastle, Melbourne and UNSW set different boundaries for AI-assisted marking. Their rules also differ on disclosure, opt-outs and academic responsibility.

By BIG CHANGE Editorial

Published: 2026-09-27T18:05:31.973Z
Updated: 2026-09-27T18:05:31.973Z
Canonical: https://bigchange.ai/blog/australian-university-ai-marking-rules

![Conceptual charcoal illustration of an academic viewed from behind, reviewing a document with orange feedback marks on a desktop monitor in a generic office.](https://bigchange.ai/api/media/file/australian-university-ai-marking-hero-v1.png)
AI-generated conceptual illustration by BIG CHANGE.

[The Guardian reported on September 28 in Australia](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/sep/28/university-ai-marking-academic-overworked-staff-student-shortcut) that some universities let staff use AI in marking and feedback, prompting questions from academics and students about the quality of assessment. The universities' own documents draw distinct lines. AI may help prepare feedback, contribute to an assessment process or be barred from marking altogether. A student still needs to know whether an academic read and judged the work.

## The big change

- **What changed:** Australian universities are spelling out where generative AI can enter assessment. Newcastle allows its use in marking under review, notice and opt-out conditions; UNSW tells markers, as a rule, not to use AI platforms for marking or grading.
- **Why it matters:** A student can receive AI-assisted feedback without an AI system having final authority over a mark. The difference rests on what the academic actually checks and what the student is told before submitting work.
- **What to watch:** Newcastle and Melbourne require notice and an opt-out route when staff use generative AI in assessment. Their public guidance does not show how often students receive that notice or how staff review the output.

## Newcastle gives students a specific opt-out

The University of Newcastle's [current policy on generative AI in teaching, learning and assessment](https://policies.newcastle.edu.au/document/view-current.php?id=369) says AI should not be used to mark student work unless the course marker or coordinator reviews and approves its output before sharing it with the student. Staff should tell students about use in the marking process before the submission deadline and explain how to opt out. Work submitted by a student who opts out should not be marked using generative AI. The policy covers coursework teaching, learning and assessment; [its current version took effect on April 29, 2025](https://policies.newcastle.edu.au/document/status-and-details.php?id=369).

Newcastle's [staff FAQ, last updated February 10, 2025](https://www.newcastle.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/1044824/GenAI-at-UON-FAQs-v2.pdf), adds that staff retain responsibility for the accuracy of marks. It describes educators using AI to draft feedback that they review and edit, while noting unanswered questions about effectiveness, privacy and intellectual property. Those are examples and cautions in guidance, rather than a published measure of how many assignments are marked this way.

## Melbourne permits support, with approval and student choice

The [University of Melbourne's staff guidance](https://www.unimelb.edu.au/ai/home/staff/teaching-and-learning/menu-items/assessment) says staff may use secure university tools to support assessment or feedback after seeking their faculty associate dean's endorsement. They must tell students what tools will be used and how they can opt out. The guidance says staff remain responsible for evaluative judgments and feedback, must review AI output, and should not use a new generative AI tool alone to allocate marks or grades.

Melbourne also distinguishes its existing enterprise assessment tools, including automated multiple-choice marking, from proposed uses of new generative tools. Its opt-out guidance says a student should be able to rely solely on academic staff judgment for assessment and feedback.

By comparison, [UNSW's staff teaching guidance](https://www.teaching.unsw.edu.au/ai/ai-assessment-guidance) says that, as a rule, markers must not use AI platforms for marking or grading. It separately tells course convenors to brief markers, including casual staff, on what AI use a particular course permits. Approval of tools for other teaching tasks does not overturn that marking instruction.

## Western Sydney puts assessment duties on staff

Western Sydney University's [current AI policy](https://policies.westernsydney.edu.au/document/view.current.php?id=386), effective July 30, 2024, applies to staff and students and calls for clear guidance wherever AI rules differ by setting or role. It does not itself set out a Newcastle-style marking opt-out or a detailed rule for AI-generated grades. Its [assessment policy](https://policies.westernsydney.edu.au/document/view.current.php?id=227), effective January 1, 2026, puts the quality of feedback and consistent marking under academic staff and school responsibilities. A Western Sydney spokesperson [told the Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/sep/28/university-ai-marking-academic-overworked-staff-student-shortcut) that staff may use AI for certain aspects of assessment and feedback, but academic judgment and responsibility for marks, grades and feedback remain with teaching staff. That is an institutional statement reported by the newspaper, not detail written into the AI policy.

## Deakin sets human-led principles

Deakin's [AI Responsible Use Policy](https://policy.deakin.edu.au/document/view-current.php?id=274), effective March 12, 2026, applies to staff, students and associates. It calls for human-led decisions, evaluation of AI output and transparent communication when AI is used in teaching. It does not specify an opt-out for AI-assisted marking or define a permitted marking workflow. The Guardian reports Deakin's position as allowing AI to support assessment but not assign grades. That specific grade boundary comes from the newspaper's reporting; the publicly available policy sets broader principles.

The distinction matters to staff as well as students. In the Guardian's interviews, Western Sydney law and technology lecturer Armin Alimardani raised concern that a requirement to verify AI output could weaken in practice, and QUT academics described worries about casual marking work. Those are reported concerns, not observed rates of missed errors or evidence of job cuts. Neither the documents compared here nor those interviews establish that AI marking saves time or improves accuracy.

Australia's regulator, TEQSA, [says it does not mandate a particular form of assessment](https://www.teqsa.gov.au/students/artificial-intelligence-advice-students); higher education providers must assess students' knowledge and understanding. Its [generative AI resource hub](https://www.teqsa.gov.au/guides-resources/higher-education-good-practice-hub/gen-ai-knowledge-hub/gen-ai-academic-integrity-and-assessment-reform) shares institutional approaches for consideration, rather than a national rule authorizing or banning AI marking. For a student, the operative answer is therefore the university's current rule and the notice attached to the particular assessment.

## Sources & further reading

- [University of Newcastle, Policy on the use of Generative AI in Teaching, Learning and Assessment](https://policies.newcastle.edu.au/document/view-current.php?id=369), current version effective April 29, 2025: sets review, advance notice and opt-out expectations for marking in coursework. Its [status page](https://policies.newcastle.edu.au/document/status-and-details.php?id=369) records the effective date and later administrative amendment. The [February 2025 staff FAQ](https://www.newcastle.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/1044824/GenAI-at-UON-FAQs-v2.pdf) adds staff responsibility for mark accuracy and describes possible feedback workflows; it predates the current policy and does not report usage or outcomes.
- [University of Melbourne, Using AI for student assessment and feedback](https://www.unimelb.edu.au/ai/home/staff/teaching-and-learning/menu-items/assessment): distinguishes endorsed, reviewed support from sole use of new generative tools to allocate grades, and specifies disclosure and opt-out. The public page did not display an update date when checked September 27, 2026.
- [UNSW, Guidance on AI in assessment](https://www.teaching.unsw.edu.au/ai/ai-assessment-guidance): gives markers the rule against AI platforms for marking or grading, while discussing AI use in other teaching tasks. The public page did not display an update date when checked September 27, 2026.
- [Western Sydney University, Use of Artificial Intelligence Policy](https://policies.westernsydney.edu.au/document/view.current.php?id=386), current version effective July 30, 2024, and [Assessment Policy](https://policies.westernsydney.edu.au/document/view.current.php?id=227), current version effective January 1, 2026: establish broad AI principles and academic assessment responsibilities. Neither supplies the detailed marking permission or opt-out described by Newcastle. The university's more specific position is attributed to its spokesperson in the Guardian.
- [Deakin University, Artificial Intelligence Responsible Use Policy](https://policy.deakin.edu.au/document/view-current.php?id=274), effective March 12, 2026: establishes scope, human-led decision making, output evaluation and transparency. It does not itself state the specific grade boundary reported by the Guardian.
- [Joe Hinchliffe, The Guardian, September 28, 2026 Australia edition](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/sep/28/university-ai-marking-academic-overworked-staff-student-shortcut): original interviews and institutional responses that prompted this comparison. The page is dated September 27 in US Eastern time; it supplies reported positions and concerns, not a substitute for current university documents or measured outcomes.
- [TEQSA, AI advice for students](https://www.teqsa.gov.au/students/artificial-intelligence-advice-students) and [Gen AI academic integrity and assessment reform hub](https://www.teqsa.gov.au/guides-resources/higher-education-good-practice-hub/gen-ai-knowledge-hub/gen-ai-academic-integrity-and-assessment-reform): regulatory context. The hub says its case studies and resources share approaches, rather than binding guidance or a single national AI-marking policy.

## Sources

- [University of Newcastle, Policy on the use of Generative AI in Teaching, Learning and Assessment](https://policies.newcastle.edu.au/document/view-current.php?id=369) — Current policy clauses 35–38 establish review, approval, advance notice and student opt-out for use of GenAI in marking. The status page records the effective date and July 2025 amendment. It is a rule, not evidence of implementation.
- [University of Newcastle, GenAI at UON FAQs](https://www.newcastle.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/1044824/GenAI-at-UON-FAQs-v2.pdf) — Staff FAQ says staff retain responsibility for mark accuracy and discusses draft feedback and its risks. It predates the current policy and contains no adoption or outcome data.
- [University of Melbourne, Using AI for student assessment and feedback](https://www.unimelb.edu.au/ai/home/staff/teaching-and-learning/menu-items/assessment) — Staff guidance on secure tools, faculty endorsement, disclosure, opt-out, human review and the bar on sole use of new GenAI tools to allocate marks or grades. Distinguishes existing enterprise assessment tools.
- [UNSW, Guidance on AI in assessment](https://www.teaching.unsw.edu.au/ai/ai-assessment-guidance) — Staff guidance says that, as a rule, markers must not use AI platforms for marking or grading. Other tool approvals are for teaching purposes.
- [Western Sydney University, Use of Artificial Intelligence Policy](https://policies.westernsydney.edu.au/document/view.current.php?id=386) — Current broad AI policy applies to staff and students and requires clear context-specific guidance. It gives no detailed AI marking opt-out.
- [Western Sydney University, Assessment Policy](https://policies.westernsydney.edu.au/document/view.current.php?id=227) — Current assessment policy states academic staff feedback duties and school responsibility for marking consistency and moderation. It is not a detailed GenAI marking policy.
- [Deakin University, Artificial Intelligence Responsible Use Policy](https://policy.deakin.edu.au/document/view-current.php?id=274) — Current policy covers staff, students and associates and establishes human-led decisions, output evaluation and transparency. It does not expressly define AI marking permission, grade assignment or opt-out.
- [Joe Hinchliffe, The Guardian, Academics and AI marking](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/sep/28/university-ai-marking-academic-overworked-staff-student-shortcut) — Original reporting, interviews and institutional responses. Supports attributed Western Sydney and Deakin positions and reported concerns. It is not a primary university policy or outcome study.
- [TEQSA, Gen AI academic integrity and assessment reform](https://www.teqsa.gov.au/guides-resources/higher-education-good-practice-hub/gen-ai-knowledge-hub/gen-ai-academic-integrity-and-assessment-reform) — Regulatory resource hub shares institutional approaches for consideration, rather than binding AI marking guidance. TEQSA's student advice separately says it does not mandate a particular form of assessment.