APS Selection Criteria Example: Full Sample and Writing Guide
If your response does not contain verifiable evidence of your capability, it cannot score competitively. Panels do not infer — they score what is written on the page.
Understanding what panels reward, and what they overlook, is the difference between reaching the merit list and not. This article provides full APS selection criteria examples at APS4, APS5, and APS6 level, explains what makes each score well, and shows the contrast between a weak and a strong response.
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 Selection Criteria Are
Selection criteria are structured written responses that allow panels to assess whether an applicant meets the capability requirements of a role. They are distinct from resumes. Where a resume lists experience chronologically, a selection criteria response demonstrates capability through evidence.
Most APS roles at APS4 to EL1 level require written responses to one or more criteria. These may be structured as individual criterion responses or as a single statement of claims. Understanding how to write APS selection criteria before you draft is essential.
How Panels Assess APS Selection Criteria
Panels allocate marks against each criterion independently. A typical assessment process involves:
- Each panel member reads all responses for a single criterion
- Responses are rated against a behavioural scale — for example: Unsuitable, Suitable, Well Suited, Highly Suitable
- Ratings are discussed and reconciled across panel members
- A merit list is generated from aggregated scores
For roles at EL1 and above, panels reference the Integrated Leadership System (ILS) to assess leadership and strategic capability. For APS 4–6 roles, the APS Work Level Standards define what panels expect to see demonstrated at each classification.
What panels cannot mark up is potential, personality, or enthusiasm. They mark evidence.
What a Scorable APS Selection Criteria Example Contains
A scorable response contains three elements:
- A real workplace situation with named context
- A clear description of the action you took — and why
- A measurable or verifiable result
The absence of any one of these reduces the score. Panels cannot award marks for evidence that is not present.
Typical APS Selection Criteria by Level
Selection criteria vary by agency and role, but most APS positions draw on a consistent set of capability areas. The following are typical criteria at each level, aligned to the APS Work Level Standards.
Typical APS 4 criteria:
- Supports productive working relationships
- Communicates clearly and concisely
- Delivers on time within established procedures
- Shows personal drive and integrity
Typical APS 5 criteria:
- Works collaboratively
- Communicates with influence
- Achieves results under competing priorities
- Applies knowledge and demonstrates relevant expertise
Typical APS 6 criteria:
- Influences and builds relationships
- Achieves results in complex environments
- Thinks strategically about operational risks
- Leads and motivates others
For applicants writing a combined statement across all criteria, see APS statement of claims examples for guidance on addressing multiple criteria in a single document.
Weak vs Strong: The Contrast
Understanding this contrast is one of the most practical steps in your preparation. For a more complete breakdown of errors to avoid, see common mistakes in APS selection criteria responses.
Weak Response
I have strong communication skills and regularly work with stakeholders across the organisation. I am comfortable presenting to senior staff and adapting my style to different audiences.
Why this does not score: There is no situation. There is no specific action. There is no result. The panel has nothing to assess against the criterion. This reads as a claim, not evidence.
Stronger Response
In my role as APS5 Policy Officer in the Department of Infrastructure, I led stakeholder consultation with three state government counterparts ahead of a ministerial briefing deadline. I identified conflicting data in their submissions, escalated to my EL1, and drafted a consolidated position paper that reconciled the discrepancies. The briefing was delivered on time with no factual corrections required from the minister's office.
Why this scores: Named role, named department, named stakeholders, visible complexity, clear individual action, and a verifiable result. A panel member can read this and assess against the criterion.
APS 4 Selection Criteria Example (~300 Words)
Criterion: Supports productive working relationships
As APS4 Client Service Officer at Services Australia, I was assigned a client case in which an income support payment had been suspended following an automated data-matching discrepancy. The client had been waiting fourteen days without resolution and was experiencing financial hardship.
I reviewed the case file and identified that the discrepancy had originated from an employer reporting an incorrect end date in the online payroll reporting system. I contacted the employer's payroll team directly, confirmed the correct employment dates, and requested written confirmation of the correction. Once received, I updated the record in the case management system and submitted a manual payment release request to my supervisor with a full documented explanation of the resolution.
The payment was approved and released within two business days of my involvement. I also documented the full resolution sequence in the case notes using the team's standard template, so the pathway would be available to any officer dealing with a similar discrepancy. My team leader referenced the case in the following fortnight's team meeting as an example of proactive case resolution.
Why this example works at APS4 level:
- Named role, agency, and client context
- Demonstrates procedural judgment appropriate to APS4: identifying root cause, escalating correctly, following established process
- Individual action is distinct from team or supervisor action
- Result is specific and verifiable: payment released within two business days
- Institutional benefit noted: documentation adopted by the team
APS 5 Selection Criteria Example (~350 Words)
Criterion: Communicates with influence
As APS5 Communications and Policy Officer in the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, I was responsible for coordinating stakeholder input into a regulatory consultation report involving eleven external industry bodies and three internal business areas.
Midway through the process, two major industry associations submitted conflicting positions on proposed reporting thresholds. Both positions had merit, and a unilateral decision would likely alienate one group. I proposed and arranged a facilitated roundtable — the first of its kind in that program area — to allow the associations to present their positions to one another and identify shared ground.
I prepared the agenda, drafted the background paper, and briefed my EL1 manager prior to the session. During the roundtable, I asked structured clarifying questions and documented areas of emerging agreement in real time. After the session, I drafted a summary that reflected the consensus position, which both associations endorsed.
The consolidated position was incorporated into the final regulatory consultation report without further amendment. The report was submitted to the relevant legislative committee six days ahead of the scheduled deadline. The branch manager noted the quality of stakeholder coordination in the team's end-of-year performance review.
In a separate instance, I applied this facilitated approach for an internal cross-divisional working group, where three teams had developed duplicated project proposals. The process resulted in one combined project with shared resourcing, saving an estimated 80 hours of analytical work across the three teams.
Why this example works at APS5 level:
- Named role and department
- Specific stakeholder context — eleven external bodies, three internal areas
- Visible problem requiring judgment at APS5 level
- Individual action described in concrete terms
- Two measurable results: deadline met with margin, 80 hours saved
- Closes with a direct link to the criterion
APS 6 Selection Criteria Example (~350 Words)
Criterion: Achieves results in complex environments
As APS6 Senior Program Officer in the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications, I was assigned responsibility for coordinating a cross-agency data alignment project involving three state government bodies and two Commonwealth departments. The project had stalled for six months prior to my involvement due to unresolved disagreements over data classification standards.
I began by reviewing each agency's existing data framework and mapping the points of divergence. I identified that the core dispute was not about the data itself but about ownership of the harmonised standard — each agency expected another to absorb the transition cost. I proposed a governance model in which the Commonwealth held the authoritative standard but each agency retained control of their own reporting systems, removing the ownership dispute while maintaining the technical objective.
I drafted a working paper setting out the proposed model and circulated it to all parties before convening a structured two-hour working session. During the session, I facilitated discussion of the three main objections raised and documented agreed modifications in real time. Following the session, I revised the paper, obtained written endorsement from each agency's relevant director-level delegate, and presented the agreed framework to the SES steering committee.
The framework was formally adopted by all five agencies within six weeks. The department's annual capability review noted that the project had resolved a data duplication problem estimated to cost the sector approximately 140 hours of reporting effort annually. One participating state agency subsequently adopted the governance model for a separate cross-agency initiative.
Why this example works at APS6 level:
- Named role, department, and multi-agency context
- Demonstrates APS6 initiative: identifying the root cause of a blockage and proposing a resolution independently
- Stakeholder management across state and federal agencies
- Risk identification embedded in the action (ownership dispute as the real obstacle)
- Multiple verifiable results: framework adopted, 140 hours saved annually, model replicated elsewhere
- Complexity and scope appropriate to APS6 Work Level Standards
Word Limit Guidance
Most APS roles at APS5–EL1 specify 300–500 words per criterion, or 1,000–1,500 words for a combined statement of claims. Where a word limit is given, treat it as a ceiling, not a target.
Allocate your words as follows:
- Context and situation: approximately 20%
- Task and complexity: approximately 15%
- Action taken: approximately 45%
- Result and impact: approximately 20%
If you are over the limit, cut context first. Panels mark actions and results — not background.
For a detailed breakdown by word limit range, read APS selection criteria word limits explained.
Common Mistakes to Avoid
- Writing in general terms without a specific situation
- Describing team actions without clarifying your individual role
- Omitting the result, or describing a result without a measure
- Repeating the same example across multiple criteria
- Writing below the complexity expected at your classification level
Structure Template
Use this structure as a starting point:
- Named role, department, and context
- Specific situation or challenge
- Your individual task within that situation
- The actions you took — including reasoning and decisions made
- The outcome, with a measurable or verifiable result
This structure aligns with the STAR method used in APS applications, which explains how to apply each element at different classification levels.
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 long should an APS selection criteria response be?
Most APS agencies specify word limits in the position description. Common limits are 250–500 words per criterion, or 1,000–1,500 words for a combined statement. If no limit is specified, aim for 350–400 words per criterion and focus on evidence density rather than length.
Can I use the same example for multiple criteria?
Panels read all your responses together and will notice if you use the same situation repeatedly. It is better to use different examples. If you must reuse an example, approach it from a different angle and emphasise different actions and decisions in each response.
Does the panel check whether my example is real?
Panels do not typically fact-check individual claims during the written assessment phase. However, if you progress to interview, you will be asked to discuss your examples in depth and panel members will probe for detail. Fabricated or exaggerated examples are likely to collapse under questioning.
What does "measurable result" mean in an APS selection criteria example?
A measurable result is one that can be verified or quantified. Examples include: a deadline met, a percentage reduction, a dollar saving, a number of stakeholders engaged, a document completed and endorsed, or a named decision-maker's approval. If your result cannot be expressed in concrete terms, it is weaker than one that can. Attach a number, a date, or a named outcome to every example where possible.