APS 6 Selection Criteria Example: What Panels Expect at This Level
APS6 is the gateway to executive-level work in the Australian Public Service. Panels assessing APS6 applications are looking for evidence of initiative, risk awareness, stakeholder management, and the capacity to influence outcomes — not just to complete tasks. Responses that demonstrate solid APS5 capability will not score competitively at APS6.
The APS Work Level Standards define APS6 as a classification where officers exercise a significant degree of independence, identify and manage risk within their area of responsibility, and contribute to outcomes that extend beyond their immediate team. A response that lacks this complexity signals to the panel that the applicant may not yet be operating at the target level.
This article provides full APS 6 selection criteria examples, explains what makes them score well, and covers the most frequent mistakes applicants make when applying for APS6 roles.
For a step-by-step guide to drafting any selection criteria response, see how to write APS selection criteria.
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 APS 6 Panels Expect
At APS6 level, panels expect responses to demonstrate:
- Initiative: The applicant identified a problem, gap, or opportunity and acted without being directed to do so
- Risk awareness: The applicant identified risks, assessed their impact, and took action to manage or escalate them
- Stakeholder management: The applicant engaged with parties beyond their immediate team — including senior stakeholders, external organisations, or cross-agency counterparts
- Strategic contribution: The applicant's work had visible consequences beyond their own task list — for a program, branch, or organisational objective
Not every APS6 example needs to demonstrate all four. But a response that contains none of them will struggle to score above "Suitable" — which is rarely sufficient to reach the merit list in a competitive round.
Typical APS 6 Selection Criteria
Common criteria at APS6 level include:
- Influences and builds relationships
- Achieves results in complex environments
- Thinks strategically
- Leads and motivates others
- Communicates with influence
- Demonstrates commitment to the public interest
For applicants moving from APS5 to APS6, the critical shift is in the action section: from coordinating defined inputs to shaping how the work is done. The APS 5 selection criteria example article includes a comparison table that maps these differences at each capability dimension.
Weak vs Strong APS 6 Selection Criteria Comparison
Weak Response
I have extensive experience in stakeholder engagement and have worked with a wide range of internal and external partners throughout my career. I am comfortable engaging with senior executives and adapting my approach to different contexts. I have a strong track record of delivering outcomes and influencing decisions at a senior level.
Why this does not score: Despite the language suggesting seniority, this response contains no named situation, no specific stakeholder, no action, and no result. "Strong track record" is a claim; it is not evidence. Panels can only assess what is on the page.
Strong Response (condensed)
As APS6 Policy Officer in the Department of Finance, I identified that a proposed change to agency reporting templates would create significant compliance costs for twelve smaller agencies that had not been consulted during the policy development phase. I escalated the risk to my branch head, proposed a targeted stakeholder engagement process, and led a three-session consultation with the affected agencies. The final template design incorporated four amendments from the consultation, reducing the estimated compliance burden by approximately 30%. The branch head presented the outcome to the SES as a model for prospective regulatory impact consultation.
What changed: Named role, identified risk proactively, individual action to escalate and resolve, measurable result, and institutional recognition.
Full APS 6 Selection Criteria Example (~370 Words)
Criterion: Influences and builds relationships
As APS6 Senior Policy Analyst in the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, I was responsible for coordinating a cross-portfolio response to a proposed international standard that would affect Australian agricultural export certification requirements. The standard had been developed by an overseas regulatory body and was scheduled for adoption within four months. Three Australian agencies had overlapping jurisdiction, and none had formally designated a lead agency for the domestic response.
I identified that the absence of a lead agency would result in duplicated and potentially conflicting submissions to the international body. I raised this risk with my branch head, who agreed to nominate our agency as the coordinating entity. I then contacted the relevant counterparts at the two other agencies — at director and senior officer level — to establish a working arrangement. One agency was reluctant to cede any coordination role, citing its existing bilateral relationship with the international body. I met separately with that agency's senior officer, acknowledged the value of their relationship, and proposed that they lead the technical submission while our agency coordinated the domestic consultation. This arrangement was acceptable to both agencies.
I facilitated three working sessions across the four-month period, prepared the consolidated technical submission on behalf of all three agencies, and managed the bilateral correspondence with the international body's secretariat. I briefed my First Assistant Secretary on the status at two points during the process and prepared a one-page summary for the Secretary's office at the conclusion.
The Australian submission was accepted by the international body without material amendment. The adopted standard included a transitional provision that our consultation process had identified as necessary for smaller exporters — a provision that was not in the original draft. The two-agency coordination model was recognised by the Department's international engagement team as a template for future multi-agency submissions.
Why this example works at APS6 level:
- Initiative demonstrated: identified the lead-agency gap without being directed to act
- Risk awareness: named the specific risk (conflicting submissions) and the consequence
- Stakeholder management at director level and across agencies, including managing resistance
- Strategic contribution: transitional provision adopted into the international standard
- Named result: outcome accepted without material amendment, model replicated
How APS 6 Differs from APS 5
The table below identifies the key capability shifts between APS5 and APS6. Applicants moving from APS5 should ensure their examples reflect APS6-level scope.
| Capability |
APS 5 |
APS 6 |
| Initiative |
Acts within scope when directed |
Identifies gaps and initiates action independently |
| Risk management |
Identifies and escalates risks |
Assesses risk, recommends management strategy |
| Stakeholder scope |
Coordinates with defined internal and external parties |
Influences senior stakeholders and cross-agency relationships |
| Output ownership |
Delivers defined outputs |
Shapes how outputs are produced |
| Supervision required |
Works with regular guidance |
Significant autonomy; escalates selectively |
| Organisational impact |
Contributes to team outcomes |
Contributes to branch, program, or agency outcomes |
If your APS6 example reads as if you were coordinating defined tasks rather than shaping the approach, revise it before submitting.
Common Mistakes in APS 6 Applications
Demonstrating APS5-level complexity. The most common reason an APS6 application scores below competitive threshold is that the examples reflect solid APS5 performance rather than APS6 scope. Checking your draft against the table above before submitting is a practical diagnostic.
Overclaiming without evidence. Phrases such as "I have consistently delivered strategic outcomes at the executive level" set expectations that the specific example must then meet. If the example is ordinary, the overclaim reduces credibility rather than strengthening it.
Vague stakeholder references. "I engaged with a range of stakeholders" is not evidence. Name the stakeholders, name the agency or organisation, and describe the specific nature of the engagement and its outcome.
Absent or weak result. The result section is where marking weight is concentrated. A response with a strong action section but no result will score below a response with a moderate action section and a clear, quantified result.
For a full breakdown of structural errors with rewrite examples, see common mistakes in APS selection criteria responses.
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
What word limit should I aim for in an APS6 selection criteria response?
Most APS6 roles specify 400–600 words per criterion, or 1,000–1,500 words for a combined statement of claims. Allocate approximately 45–50% of your words to the action section. If you are under the limit but have covered the situation, action, and result clearly, do not pad. Length without evidence does not improve a score.
How do I show strategic thinking at APS6 level without overstating my seniority?
Strategic thinking at APS6 does not require SES-level impact. It means demonstrating that you considered the broader context, identified a risk or opportunity that others had not, and acted on it. The example above illustrates this: the applicant identified a coordination gap, assessed the risk, and proposed a resolution. The scale was manageable at APS6; the thinking was genuinely strategic.
Should I use the same structure for every criterion?
Yes. The STAR structure — Situation, Task, Action, Result — is appropriate for every criterion, regardless of the capability being assessed. The structure does not need to be visible in headings or labels; the evidence within each element is what matters. See the APS STAR method guide for a full explanation.
What if my APS6 example involved a team rather than individual action?
Team examples are acceptable, but the response must clearly identify your individual contribution. Explain what you specifically led, decided, produced, or influenced — distinct from what the team collectively did. If you cannot articulate your individual role, the example may not be strong enough for an individual assessment context.