Writing Selection Criteria for Government Jobs (APS & State)
A complete guide to addressing key selection criteria for Australian Public Service and state government roles, with examples, frameworks, word count tips, and common mistakes.
Government jobs in Australia — whether at the federal (APS), state, or local level — almost universally require applicants to address formal selection criteria. Many highly qualified candidates fail at this stage not because they lack the skills, but because they do not understand what assessors are looking for or how to structure their responses effectively.
What Are Selection Criteria?
Selection criteria are specific statements of the skills, knowledge, and experience an employer considers essential for a role. They are used to assess all candidates on the same basis and form the foundation of the merit principle in public sector hiring.
For most APS roles, criteria align to the APS Work Level Standards and the Integrated Leadership System (ILS). State government roles use similar competency frameworks — for example, NSW uses the NSW Public Sector Capability Framework, while Victoria uses Victorian Public Service Work Level Standards.
Always download and read the relevant capability framework for the level you are applying for. Your response language should mirror the framework's vocabulary.
The STAR Method for Selection Criteria
The same STAR framework used in interviews applies directly to written selection criteria responses. Each criterion response should tell a clear story: what happened, what you were responsible for, what you specifically did, and what changed as a result.
Many experienced applicants also use a variant called STAR + L — adding a Lesson at the end to demonstrate self-awareness and professional growth. This is particularly valued at EL1 and EL2 level in the APS.
Word Limits and Format
Most selection criteria have either a word limit per criterion or an overall word/page limit for the entire statement. Treat these as absolute:
- APS3–APS5: Typically 200–350 words per criterion
- APS6: Typically 300–400 words per criterion
- EL1: Typically 400–500 words per criterion
- EL2 and SES Band 1: Typically 500–600 words per criterion; some use a 2-page pitch
- State government roles: Vary widely — read the application instructions carefully
Exceeding word limits is an automatic disqualifier at many agencies. Going significantly under the limit signals that you do not fully understand what is being asked. Aim to use 90–100% of the permitted words.
APS Example Responses
Criterion: Achieves Results (APS5)
Word limit: 300 words
In my current role as a Policy Officer at the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, I was tasked with leading the consolidation of two legacy databases into a single, accessible repository to support a departmental review.
The project had stalled before I inherited it due to unresolved technical requirements between two business units. I convened a structured workshop with stakeholders from both teams to identify the minimum viable dataset required for the review, which reduced the scope to a manageable level. I developed a project plan with fortnightly milestones and provided regular written updates to both SES officers overseeing the work, escalating risks transparently and early.
The consolidated database was delivered three weeks ahead of the revised schedule, allowing the policy review team to begin analysis earlier than projected. The final review report was subsequently cited as high quality by the independent advisory panel. Through this process I also identified two data quality issues that were referred to the data governance team for remediation.
This experience reinforced the importance of scoping work clearly before committing to timelines, and of proactive communication with senior stakeholders to maintain confidence in delivery.
Criterion: Communicates with Influence (EL1)
Word limit: 450 words
As Branch Manager of a 12-person regulatory team, I was responsible for presenting a proposed change to enforcement procedures to a sceptical group of senior legal officers who held significant influence over whether the change would be approved by the agency's Executive Committee.
The legal team had concerns about procedural fairness implications of the new approach and had previously blocked a similar proposal under the previous manager. Rather than presenting a finalised proposal, I first arranged individual meetings with the three most influential legal officers to genuinely understand their objections. I then worked with the team to redesign two aspects of the proposal in response to their feedback and prepared a comparative analysis that addressed each concern directly with reference to case law and APS procedural fairness guidelines.
My formal presentation to the group used plain language supplemented by a one-page visual summary, with the detailed evidence in an annex. I acknowledged the previous failed proposal and explained clearly what had changed and why. I also invited the most senior legal officer to co-present the final recommendation to the Executive Committee — a gesture that built genuine trust.
The proposal was endorsed unanimously by the legal team and subsequently approved by the Executive Committee without amendment. Implementation of the revised procedures reduced average case processing time by 18% in the first quarter. This experience strengthened my understanding that influence in government requires genuine engagement with opposing views, not just persuasion through presentation.
State Government Example — NSW Capability Framework
Capability: Manage Self (Intermediate level)
NSW's framework asks candidates to demonstrate self-management and personal drive. A well-structured response at the intermediate level should show proactive professional development, resilience under pressure, and the ability to manage workload independently.
During a period of significant organisational change at Service NSW, I managed an increased workload when two team members left simultaneously and recruitment was delayed. I prioritised tasks by impact and urgency, communicated honestly with my manager about realistic delivery timelines, and identified two administrative processes I could streamline to recover capacity.
I completed all high-priority deliverables on schedule across the eight-week period and used the experience to develop a workload prioritisation template that was adopted by the broader team. This period reinforced my ability to remain solution- focused under pressure and to communicate proactively rather than waiting for problems to escalate.
Common Pitfalls to Avoid
- ✗Writing in the third person: Use "I" throughout — you are writing about your own actions
- ✗Describing what your team did rather than what you personally contributed: Always use "I" not "we" — assessors cannot score what the team did
- ✗Generic or vague examples: Use specific, real examples with dates, numbers, and outcomes
- ✗Addressing the criterion in the abstract without an example: Every criterion response must include at least one concrete STAR example
- ✗Not reading the duty statement carefully: Mirror the language and specific requirements of the duty statement in your responses
- ✗Copying the same response across multiple criteria: Each criterion requires a distinct example demonstrating the specific capability
- ✗Leaving responses until the last day: Criterion writing takes 2–4 hours per response for strong applications. Build in time to redraft
Practical Checklist
- Read the duty statement, capability framework, and position description in full
- Identify 8–10 strong career examples before starting — you need a 'story bank' to draw from
- Draft each criterion response using the STAR structure
- Check word count — adjust to fit within 90–100% of the limit
- Have someone not in your field read it — if they understand it, the language is clear enough
- Proofread for spelling, grammar, and consistency (Australian English throughout)
- Submit well before the deadline — late submissions are not accepted in most agencies