Selection Criteria Response Example (Australia): State and Uni Roles

If you are applying for a state government or university job, you will often be asked to address selection criteria. This post gives you a selection criteria response example for Australia outside the federal Australian Public Service (APS), with notes explaining why each part works. It also gives you a structure you can reuse for your own responses.

The examples are invented for illustration. Copy the structure, not the content. Your evidence has to be yours.

How non-APS selection criteria differ

Federal APS jobs have their own conventions. State agencies and universities set their own rules, and those rules change. Always read the role description and the applicant guidelines for the specific job before you start.

Here is what you are likely to see:

Employer type	Common format	What to check in the ad
NSW Government	Targeted questions (often 1-3) linked to capabilities in the NSW Public Sector Capability Framework, plus a CV and cover letter	Word limit per question, whether a cover letter is wanted, which capabilities are "focus" ones
Victorian Government	Key selection criteria (KSC) in the position description; some roles ask for a cover letter covering them instead of separate responses	Whether to respond to each criterion or summarise in a letter, page limits
Queensland Government	"How you will be assessed" section; often a short cover letter (around 1-2 pages) addressing the key attributes	Page limit, whether separate responses are required
Universities	Selection criteria listed in the position description, often split into essential and desirable	Whether you must address all criteria, separate document or within cover letter, page limits

Other states and territories (WA, SA, Tasmania, ACT, NT) have their own formats. Official job boards include I Work for NSW, Careers Victoria and Smart Jobs Queensland. Universities advertise on their own careers pages.

If you are applying from overseas, check the ad for work-rights requirements. Many state roles require Australian citizenship or permanent residency, and some university roles accept other visa holders. Check the Department of Home Affairs for visa information; this post is not immigration advice.

The structure that works for most criteria

Assessors usually want evidence, not adjectives. A reliable way to provide it is a version of STAR (Situation, Task, Action, Result), weighted heavily towards Action and Result.

A rough split for a 250-300 word response:

1. Opening claim (1 sentence): state your capability in the language of the criterion.
2. Situation and task (2-3 sentences): enough context for someone outside your workplace.
3. Action (most of the response): what you did, in first person, with specific steps.
4. Result (1-3 sentences): what changed, with numbers only if you can stand behind them.
5. Link back (optional, 1 sentence): how this applies to the new role.

Use "I", not "we", for your own contributions. Assessors cannot credit you for what your team did.

Selection criteria response example: state government role

Role: Customer Service Officer, state government transport agency (illustrative)

Criterion: Demonstrated ability to resolve complex customer enquiries and complaints, including with distressed or difficult customers.

I resolve complex enquiries by listening first, clarifying what the customer needs, and following through until the matter is closed. [1]

In my current role as a customer service officer at a regional council, I handle phone, counter and email enquiries about rates, permits and waste services. I am also the first escalation point for complaints on my shift. [2]

Last year a resident contacted us after receiving a rates penalty notice while she was in hospital. She was upset and had already been transferred twice. I took the call through to completion rather than transferring her again. I acknowledged the frustration, confirmed her details, and checked the account history while she was on the line. I found that a payment arrangement form she had emailed had not been attached to her file. [3]

I explained what had happened without blaming colleagues, told her what I could do immediately and what needed approval, and gave her a timeframe. I then prepared a short brief for my team leader recommending the penalty be waived under the hardship policy, attached the original email as evidence, and called her back within the promised two business days. [4]

The penalty was waived and the arrangement set up. I also suggested our team add a check for email attachments when logging hardship requests, which my team leader adopted. [5]

I would bring the same approach to transport customers, where delays and fines can be equally stressful. [6]

Why it works

• [1] Opening claim mirrors the criterion's wording ("resolve complex enquiries") so an assessor scanning against a scoring sheet sees the match.
• [2] Context is brief and gives scale: channels, subject matter, escalation role.
• [3] Action, part one shows empathy and problem-solving. The detail about not transferring her again is specific and believable.
• [4] Action, part two shows judgement: knowing what you can approve yourself and what needs a manager. Government assessors often look for awareness of policy and delegation.
• [5] Result has two parts: the individual outcome and a process improvement. No inflated percentages.
• [6] Link back is one line. Skip it if you are near the word limit.

In NSW, a targeted question might be phrased as "Describe a time when..." rather than as a criterion. The same structure applies; just answer the question as asked and keep within the word limit.

Selection criteria response example: university role

Role: Research Administration Officer, university research office (illustrative)

Criterion (essential): High-level organisational skills, including the ability to manage competing priorities and meet deadlines.

I manage competing deadlines by planning backwards from fixed dates, sharing progress early, and flagging risks before they become problems. [1]

As faculty administrator in a school of health sciences, I coordinate grant application support for about 20 academic staff. During one funding round, I was supporting six applications to the same national scheme while also organising the school's annual research day. [2]

I built a shared tracker listing each application's internal and external deadlines, required documents and responsible person. I set internal deadlines a week before the university's research office cut-off and sent reminders at fixed points. When two applicants fell behind on budget sections, I booked a joint session with the research office finance contact rather than waiting for drafts to arrive late. [3]

For the research day, I delegated catering and room bookings to a casual staff member with a checklist, and kept speaker liaison myself because it needed academic judgement. [4]

All six applications were submitted to the research office by the internal deadline, and the research day ran on schedule. The tracker has since been used by the school for later rounds. [5]

Why it works

• [1] Again, it uses the criterion's language: "competing priorities", "deadlines".
• [2] Universities value familiarity with research processes. Naming grant support and a research office signals relevant knowledge without jargon overload.
• [3] Concrete tools and timing (internal deadlines, joint session) prove organisation instead of claiming it.
• [4] Delegation shows priority-setting, which the criterion explicitly asks about.
• [5] The result is factual. It does not claim the grants were funded, because that was not the candidate's achievement to claim.

For desirable criteria, a shorter response (100-150 words) is often enough. If you genuinely do not meet a desirable criterion, it is usually better to say briefly what related experience you have, or leave it, than to stretch the truth.

Match your language to the ad, honestly

Many state agencies and universities use online recruitment systems. Some screen applications electronically, and some rely entirely on a panel. Either way, using the same terms as the criterion helps a human assessor scoring against a sheet.

To do this:

1. Copy each criterion into a document and underline the key nouns and verbs (e.g. "stakeholders", "policy", "deadlines", "accuracy").
2. Check your response uses those words where they accurately describe what you did.
3. Check your CV uses the same terms in the relevant role, so the documents support each other.
4. Remove any keyword you added that you cannot back up with an example in an interview.

If you want a second pair of eyes on step 3, the QuickApplyPilot keywords tool compares your CV with a job ad and highlights terms that appear in the ad but not your CV. Its score is QuickApplyPilot's own estimate, not the employer's screening result, and it does not predict shortlisting. Only add a missing term if it is true; our guide on how to tailor a CV without lying explains where the line is.

For layout norms on the CV itself (Australians usually call it a resume), see our Australian resume format guide.

Common mistakes to avoid

• Repeating your CV. The response should add the story behind a CV line, not restate it.
• Ignoring the format. If the ad says "two-page cover letter addressing the key attributes", separate responses to each criterion may count against you.
• Going over limits. Panels may stop reading at the limit or treat it as not following instructions.
• Using the same example everywhere. Use different examples across criteria where you can, to show range.
• Vague results. "Improved efficiency" means little. Say what changed, even if it is not a number.
• Overclaiming. If your team achieved it, say what your part was.

Checklist before you submit

• I have read the applicant guidelines and know the required format.
• Each response opens with a clear claim using the criterion's wording.
• Each response includes a specific example with my actions in first person.
• Results are accurate and I could explain them in an interview.
• Word or page limits are met.
• My CV uses consistent terms and dates.
• I have checked work-rights requirements for the role.
• Spelling uses Australian/British English ("organise", "behaviour").
• Someone else has proofread it, or I have read it aloud.

Keep your examples somewhere safe. If you are shortlisted, panels for state and university roles commonly ask behavioural questions closely linked to the same criteria, so your written responses double as interview preparation.