APS 5 Selection Criteria Example: What Panels Expect and How to Respond
APS5 is a classification where panels expect to see independent contribution — not just task execution. A response that describes following directions and completing assigned work will not score competitively at APS5, even if the work was done well. Panels are assessing whether the applicant is operating at the APS5 level as defined in the APS Work Level Standards: coordinating with others, exercising judgment within their area of responsibility, and producing outputs with visible individual contribution.
This article provides full APS 5 selection criteria examples in STAR format, explains what panels are rewarding at this level, and identifies the most common mistakes applicants make.
For a broader overview of APS selection criteria examples across levels, see the APS selection criteria example guide.
Generate Your APS Selection Criteria Responses
Paste the job ad and describe your experience.
APS Selection Helper will generate structured STAR responses aligned to APS selection criteria.
You can preview the draft before unlocking the full version.
Generate Selection Criteria Draft →
What Panels Expect at APS 5 Level
The APS Work Level Standards describe APS5 officers as working with a degree of independence, applying specialised knowledge, and coordinating with internal and external stakeholders to achieve defined outputs.
In practice, this means panels at APS5 expect to see:
- A situation that involves some genuine complexity or competing demands
- Evidence that the applicant identified what needed to be done — not simply followed instructions
- Coordination with other teams, units, or external parties
- A result that the applicant can attribute to their own actions
An APS5 response need not demonstrate strategic leadership or organisational-level impact. That is the EL1 standard. But it must go beyond task completion under close supervision.
Typical APS 5 Selection Criteria
While criteria vary by agency, the following are common at APS5 level:
- Communicates with influence
- Works collaboratively
- Achieves results
- Applies expertise and commits to continuous learning
- Supports productive working relationships
- Shows judgment in ambiguous situations
Each of these requires specific, named evidence. A claim that you "communicate effectively" is not a response to "Communicates with influence." The response must describe a situation where communication led to a measurable change.
Weak vs Strong APS 5 Selection Criteria Comparison
Weak Response
I have a strong track record of delivering results in fast-paced environments. I work well under pressure and have experience managing multiple competing priorities at once. I consistently meet deadlines and produce high-quality work.
Why this does not score: There is no named situation, no specific action, and no result. This is a character description, not evidence. A panel member cannot allocate a score to this response.
Strong Response (shortened for contrast)
As APS5 Project Coordinator in the Department of Health, I managed a six-week deliverable window during which three of five project workstreams fell behind schedule due to a staff transition in one supplier organisation. I re-sequenced the remaining workstreams to protect the critical path, escalated the supplier issue to my EL1 with a recommended response, and drafted a revised project schedule. All five workstreams met the final delivery milestone. The project manager cited the revised schedule in the post-project review as the key factor in avoiding a deadline extension.
What changed: Named role, named department, specific complexity, individual judgment demonstrated, result is attributable and verifiable.
Full APS 5 Selection Criteria Example (~350 Words)
Criterion: Achieves results
As APS5 Grants Administration Officer in the Department of Education, I was responsible for coordinating the assessment phase of a competitive grants round for a regional infrastructure program. The round involved thirty-two applications, a six-member assessment panel with members from three different agencies, and a statutory decision deadline of eight weeks from application close.
In the third week of assessment, two panel members from one of the partner agencies withdrew due to an internal restructure. The remaining four members did not have sufficient quorum to proceed under the assessment guidelines, and no mechanism existed in the grants manual for managing a mid-assessment panel vacancy.
I reviewed the governing legislation and the agency's grants administration framework and identified that the Secretary had discretion to vary assessment procedures where there were exceptional circumstances. I prepared a briefing paper setting out the circumstances, the legal basis for variation, and three options for restoring quorum — including a recommended option to appoint two senior officers from the remaining agencies on an ad hoc basis. I obtained input from the agency's legal team to confirm the approach and sought clearance from my EL1 before forwarding the paper to the First Assistant Secretary.
The recommended option was approved within two business days. I coordinated the appointment of the replacement panel members, prepared a short induction brief on the program and assessment criteria, and revised the assessment schedule to absorb the delay without extending the statutory deadline. All thirty-two applications were assessed and recommendations submitted to the SES decision-maker four days before the statutory deadline.
The grants round was the first in that program to meet the statutory timeline without an extension in three years. The approach to managing mid-assessment panel vacancy was subsequently incorporated into the agency's grants administration manual.
Why this example works at APS5 level:
- Named role, department, and program context
- Demonstrates APS5 judgment: identifying a problem not covered by procedure and recommending a solution
- Actions are individually attributed and sequenced
- Result is specific, time-bound, and verifiable: statutory deadline met by four days
- Institutional benefit noted: approach incorporated into the grants manual
APS 5 vs APS 6: Where the Line Falls
Many applicants applying for APS6 roles submit responses that read as APS5. Understanding the difference helps calibrate both levels.
| Capability |
APS 5 |
APS 6 |
| Initiative |
Identifies gaps within defined scope |
Identifies gaps across scope and proposes structural changes |
| Stakeholder engagement |
Coordinates with named parties |
Influences decision-making across agencies or with senior stakeholders |
| Risk handling |
Escalates with a recommended option |
Identifies, assesses, and manages risk with limited escalation |
| Output ownership |
Produces defined deliverables within a process |
Designs or improves the process itself |
| Autonomy |
Exercises judgment within established guidelines |
Operates with significant independence; sets own direction within policy |
In the example above, the APS5 applicant escalated with a recommended option and sought clearance before proceeding. At APS6 level, the expectation would be that the applicant had sufficient authority to drive the recommendation forward without needing clearance at every step.
For a full APS6 example demonstrating this level of autonomy, see APS 6 selection criteria examples.
Common Mistakes at APS 5 Level
Describing team achievements without individual contribution. An APS5 example that reads "our team delivered the project on time" provides nothing for a panel to mark. Clarify what you specifically did, decided, or produced within the team's work.
Using process as the result. A result is not "I established a process" — it is the outcome of the process. What did the process achieve? How many, how much, by when?
Under-calibrating complexity. APS5 panels expect to see coordination with other teams or parties, judgment in ambiguous situations, or competing demands managed simultaneously. If your example contains none of these, it may score as APS4.
Listing criteria at the start. Beginning a response with "I demonstrate this criterion by…" followed by a list is not evidence. Write a narrative that shows the evidence directly.
If You're Struggling to Structure Your Response
Structuring APS responses clearly and concisely is often harder than it looks.
APS Selection Helper generates structured drafts aligned to your job ad and experience. You remain in control of editing before submission.
Generate Selection Criteria Draft →
Frequently Asked Questions
How many examples should I include in an APS5 selection criteria response?
One strong, specific example is usually more effective than two weaker ones. If you have space and a distinct second example that demonstrates a genuinely different aspect of the criterion, a brief second instance can add value — two to three sentences covering action and result only. Do not include a second example at the expense of developing the first one fully.
What is the typical word limit for APS5 selection criteria?
Most APS5 roles specify between 300 and 500 words per criterion, or 800–1,200 words for a combined statement of claims. If no limit is stated, treat 400 words as a working ceiling per criterion. Allocate approximately 45–50% of your words to the action section, as this is where the majority of marking occurs.
How do I demonstrate judgment at APS5 level without claiming to have made decisions above my authority?
Describe what you identified, what you recommended, and what you did. Judgment does not require autonomous final decision-making. Identifying a gap, proposing a solution, seeking appropriate clearance, and implementing the approved approach demonstrates sound APS5 judgment. The key is showing that you thought through the problem — not that you acted unilaterally.
Can I use examples from a previous employer or a different APS agency?
Yes. Evidence from previous roles — including private sector or not-for-profit experience — is entirely acceptable. Panels assess capability, not employment history. Contextualise the example briefly (one sentence on the organisation and your role) so the panel understands the setting, then describe your actions and result using the STAR structure.