Choose from a wide range of NEWCV resume templates and customize your NEWCV design with a single click.
Use ATS-optimised Resume and resume templates that pass applicant tracking systems. Our Resume builder helps recruiters read, scan, and shortlist your Resume faster.
Use professional field-tested resume templates that follow the exact Resume rules employers look for.
Create Resume
Use professional field-tested resume templates that follow the exact Resume rules employers look for.
Create ResumeTo address selection criteria in Australia, you need to show clear evidence that you meet the skills, experience, knowledge, qualifications, and behaviours required for the role. That usually means writing short, targeted responses using real workplace examples, not repeating your resume or making broad claims like “I have excellent communication skills”.
The strongest selection criteria responses explain the situation, what you were responsible for, what action you personally took, and what changed because of it. In recruitment terms, the panel is not looking for a polished essay. They are looking for proof. They want to see whether your experience matches the role closely enough to justify shortlisting you for interview.
This is where many applicants get it wrong. They treat selection criteria like a writing task. It is actually an evidence task.
Selection criteria are the requirements used to assess whether you are suitable for a job. In Australia, they are especially common in government, council, education, healthcare, university, public sector, and not for profit roles, although private employers can use them too.
They usually describe the capability areas the employer needs, such as communication, stakeholder management, policy knowledge, leadership, administration, problem solving, technical skills, cultural awareness, or ability to work under pressure.
What candidates often miss is that selection criteria are not just “nice things to mention”. They are usually part of the assessment framework.
That means your application may be reviewed against each criterion before anyone decides whether you should be interviewed. In some processes, the panel scores responses. In others, they discuss whether your examples are strong enough. Either way, vague claims rarely survive.
When I review selection criteria responses, I am usually asking:
Has this person actually done this before?
Is the example relevant to the level of the role?
Did they explain their own contribution clearly?
Is the result strong enough to show impact?
Are they writing about the same capability the employer asked for?
Does this response make shortlisting easier or harder?
That last question matters more than candidates realise. A good application makes the panel’s job easier. A weak one forces the panel to guess. In competitive recruitment, guessing usually works against you.
Australian job ads do not always use the same wording, which is where applicants get confused.
You may see phrases such as:
Address the selection criteria
Provide a statement of claims
Submit a suitability statement
Respond to the targeted questions
Provide a cover letter addressing the essential requirements
Demonstrate how your skills and experience meet the role requirements
These are related, but they are not always identical.
Traditional selection criteria usually ask you to respond to each criterion separately. A statement of claims is often a shorter, combined document where you explain your suitability across the role requirements without separate headings for every criterion.
The practical difference is this:
Separate selection criteria responses usually need one response per criterion
A statement of claims usually needs a concise summary of your strongest evidence across the role
Targeted questions usually need direct answers to specific behavioural or technical questions
A cover letter addressing criteria usually needs a persuasive but evidence based application letter
Here is the hiring reality. The wording matters less than the assessment logic. Whether the employer asks for a statement, a claim, a cover letter, or individual responses, they still want the same thing: relevant evidence that you can do the job.
Do not submit a generic cover letter when the instructions ask you to address selection criteria. That tells the panel you either did not read the instructions or did not understand the process. Neither helps your case.
Most candidates imagine the panel reading their application slowly, appreciating every sentence, and carefully interpreting the deeper meaning behind their experience.
That is not how shortlisting usually works.
Panels are often reviewing many applications while balancing their normal workload. Recruiters and hiring managers are looking for evidence quickly. They scan for relevance, level, clarity, and credibility.
A strong selection criteria response helps them find the answer fast.
A weak response creates friction. It may be beautifully written, but if the evidence is buried, vague, or unrelated, it becomes hard to score.
Here is what the panel is usually trying to establish:
Eligibility: Do you meet the basic requirements?
Capability: Have you demonstrated the skill in a real situation?
Level match: Was your example complex enough for the role level?
Ownership: Did you personally do the work, or were you near the work?
Judgement: Did you make sensible decisions?
Impact: Did your actions improve, solve, deliver, prevent, support, or influence something?
Communication: Can you explain your experience clearly and professionally?
That final point is underrated. Selection criteria are not only assessing what you have done. They also reveal how you think, structure information, interpret instructions, and communicate under formal application conditions.
If your response is messy, generic, or full of buzzwords, the panel may quietly wonder whether your workplace communication is the same. Harsh? Maybe. Common? Absolutely.
The safest structure for most selection criteria is the STAR method, but with one important adjustment: do not make the “Situation” section too long.
Candidates often spend half the response setting the scene, then rush through the actual work they did. The panel does not need a documentary. They need enough context to understand the example, then clear evidence of your action and result.
Use this structure:
Situation: What was happening?
Task: What were you responsible for?
Action: What did you personally do?
Result: What changed because of your work?
For selection criteria, I usually recommend thinking of STAR this way:
Situation and task: Keep this brief
Action: Make this the strongest part
Result: Make this specific and credible
The “Action” section is where hiring decisions are made. This is where you show your judgement, method, communication, leadership, technical skill, problem solving, or stakeholder handling.
A good response does not just say, “I communicated with stakeholders”. It explains who the stakeholders were, what made the situation difficult, how you adapted your communication, what information you provided, what objections or risks you managed, and what outcome was achieved.
That is the difference between a claim and evidence.
Before you write anything, read the job ad, position description, and application instructions properly. Not casually. Properly.
Look for:
Essential criteria
Desirable criteria
Key responsibilities
Capability frameworks
Required qualifications
Technical skills
Behavioural expectations
Level of seniority
Application length limits
Required format
Do not only read the selection criteria in isolation. The best responses connect the criteria to the actual role.
For example, “strong communication skills” means something different in a call centre role, a policy role, a nurse unit manager role, a project officer role, and a school leadership role.
This is where generic advice fails candidates. The same criterion can require completely different evidence depending on the role.
Selection criteria are often written in vague employer language. Your job is to translate them.
When an employer says demonstrated ability to communicate effectively with diverse stakeholders, they may really be asking:
Can you explain complex information clearly?
Can you manage difficult conversations?
Can you adapt your communication style?
Can you work with internal and external stakeholders?
Can you influence without authority?
Can you document information accurately?
Can you avoid creating more problems through poor communication?
When an employer says ability to work in a high pressure environment, they may really be asking:
Can you prioritise?
Can you stay calm?
Can you manage competing deadlines?
Can you make decisions with incomplete information?
Can you ask for help appropriately?
Can you keep quality under pressure?
When an employer says strong attention to detail, they may really be asking:
Do you catch errors before they become expensive?
Can you follow process?
Can you handle compliance, records, data, or documentation accurately?
Can the team trust your work without checking everything twice?
Selection criteria are rarely as simple as they look. The better you decode the criterion, the stronger your answer becomes.
This is one of the biggest mistakes I see. Candidates pick an example because it is easy to remember, not because it is the strongest evidence.
Your example should be:
Recent enough to feel relevant
Similar to the role you are applying for
Specific rather than general
Complex enough for the job level
Clearly connected to the criterion
Focused on your personal contribution
Strong enough to show a result
For a junior role, a simple but clear example may be enough. For a senior role, the panel expects more complexity, judgement, leadership, risk management, or stakeholder influence.
This is where candidates often undersell themselves. They choose “safe” examples that sound neat, but not impressive. A senior candidate writing about basic diary management for a role requiring operational leadership is not helping themselves.
The question is not, “Can I answer this criterion?”
The better question is, “Which example gives the panel the strongest reason to shortlist me?”
Selection criteria do not need theatrical language. They need clarity.
Avoid phrases like:
I am passionate about communication
I have excellent interpersonal skills
I always go above and beyond
I thrive in fast paced environments
I am a team player
I possess a proven track record
These phrases are everywhere, which means they prove very little.
Use plain language that shows what you actually did.
Weak Example:
I have excellent communication skills and regularly work with stakeholders to achieve positive outcomes.
Good Example:
In my role as a project officer, I coordinated weekly updates between the operations team, external vendors, and senior management during a system rollout. Several stakeholders had conflicting priorities, so I created a simple issue tracker, clarified ownership for each action, and summarised decisions after each meeting. This reduced repeated queries and helped the project team resolve outstanding issues before launch.
The second version works because it gives the panel something to assess. It shows context, action, judgement, and outcome.
One quiet red flag in selection criteria responses is when the applicant writes “we” too much.
Teamwork matters, but the panel needs to know what you personally contributed.
Compare these:
Weak Example:
We implemented a new process that improved customer response times.
Good Example:
I reviewed the existing enquiry process, identified that requests were being duplicated across two inboxes, and proposed a single tracking spreadsheet. I trained three team members on the new process and monitored response times over the following month.
The good example still shows teamwork, but it makes the applicant’s role clear.
If the panel cannot separate your contribution from the team’s work, they may discount the example. Not because they are being difficult, but because they cannot assess what you personally bring to the role.
Results matter, but they do not always need to be dramatic.
A useful result can be:
A time saving
A risk reduced
A process improved
A complaint resolved
A stakeholder relationship strengthened
A deadline met
An error prevented
A customer experience improved
A team supported
Not every result needs a percentage. In fact, fake sounding metrics can hurt your credibility.
If you have numbers, use them. If you do not, explain the practical outcome.
Weak Example:
This resulted in a great outcome for the organisation.
Good Example:
As a result, the team had one source of truth for urgent requests, response times became easier to track, and managers could identify delays before they affected service delivery.
That is more believable and more useful.
Criterion: Demonstrated ability to communicate effectively with internal and external stakeholders.
Weak Example:
I have excellent communication skills and have worked with many stakeholders throughout my career. I can communicate well in person, over the phone, and by email. I am confident dealing with people at all levels and always try to maintain a professional approach.
This is weak because it makes claims without evidence. It sounds acceptable at first glance, but there is nothing for the panel to assess.
Good Example:
In my role as an administration officer, I supported a service team that received enquiries from clients, contractors, and internal managers. During a period of increased demand, several clients were frustrated by delayed updates. I created a simple response template for common enquiries, prioritised urgent matters, and provided daily status updates to the team leader. I also adjusted my communication style depending on the audience, using plain language for clients and more detailed operational notes for internal staff. This helped reduce repeated follow up emails and gave stakeholders clearer expectations about timeframes.
This works because the example shows audience awareness, practical communication, pressure, judgement, and a useful outcome.
Criterion: Demonstrated ability to identify problems and implement practical solutions.
Weak Example:
I am a strong problem solver and enjoy finding solutions. In previous roles, I have solved many problems by thinking creatively and working with my team.
This is the kind of response that sounds fine until you compare it with stronger candidates. It is too broad.
Good Example:
While working as a customer service coordinator, I noticed that the team was receiving repeated complaints about missing order updates. I reviewed recent enquiries and found that customers were contacting us because dispatch information was not being sent consistently. I raised the issue with the warehouse supervisor, updated the customer communication checklist, and introduced a daily check for orders waiting on dispatch confirmation. Within the next few weeks, the number of repeat enquiries reduced and the team spent less time chasing information manually.
This response is stronger because it shows the applicant noticed a pattern, investigated it, involved the right people, changed a process, and achieved a practical improvement.
Criterion: Ability to manage competing priorities and work effectively under pressure.
Weak Example:
I work well under pressure and can manage competing deadlines. I am organised and able to prioritise my workload.
Again, this is a claim. The panel has no evidence.
Good Example:
In my previous role, I supported two managers during a period when one team member was on unexpected leave. I had to manage meeting coordination, urgent reporting deadlines, and daily client enquiries at the same time. I reviewed all outstanding tasks each morning, separated urgent work from routine administration, and confirmed deadline priorities with both managers to avoid assumptions. I also prepared draft responses for common enquiries so I could maintain service levels while completing higher priority tasks. This approach helped the team meet reporting deadlines without leaving client requests unanswered.
This works because it shows prioritisation, communication, workload control, and practical judgement.
Your resume tells the panel where you worked and what you were responsible for. Selection criteria should show how you performed.
If your selection criteria response simply repeats your job duties, it does not add much.
A duty says:
Evidence says:
One is a responsibility. The other is a hiring argument.
Generic responses are the fastest way to blend into the pile.
The problem is not that generic responses are always terrible. It is that they are forgettable. They sound like every other application written by someone trying to be professional but not specific.
Selection panels remember evidence. They do not remember “excellent verbal and written communication skills”.
A response suitable for an entry level role may not be strong enough for a senior role.
For example, if you are applying for a manager role, your examples should usually show leadership, decision making, influence, risk management, resource planning, or team outcomes.
If you are applying for a project role, your examples should show coordination, deadlines, stakeholders, risks, documentation, and delivery.
If you are applying for a client facing role, your examples should show communication, judgement, resilience, service quality, and issue resolution.
The panel is not only asking, “Can this person do the skill?”
They are asking, “Can this person do the skill at the level we need?”
STAR is useful, but some candidates use it like a school worksheet.
They write:
Situation
Task
Action
Result
Then they fill each part with stiff, unnatural sentences.
You do not always need to label every STAR section unless the application asks for it. You can use STAR as the internal structure while writing in clean paragraphs.
The aim is not to show the panel that you know the STAR method. The aim is to give them a clear example.
Many candidates write a decent situation and action, then stop before explaining the outcome.
This leaves the panel thinking, “And then what happened?”
The result is important because it shows whether your action worked. It also helps the panel understand the value you created.
Your result does not need to be heroic. It just needs to be clear.
Some applicants think longer responses look more serious. Usually, they just look harder to read.
If the employer gives a word limit, respect it. If no limit is provided, keep responses focused. A long response with weak evidence will not beat a concise response with strong evidence.
Panels appreciate applicants who can communicate clearly. Rambling is not a competitive advantage, despite what some job applications seem to suggest.
A strong response usually has five things.
This sounds obvious, but it is not always done.
If the criterion asks for stakeholder management, do not write mainly about teamwork. If it asks for analytical skills, do not write mainly about customer service. If it asks for leadership, do not only write about being reliable.
Related is not the same as relevant.
Real examples create credibility. They show the panel what you have actually done.
A good example usually includes:
Your role
The workplace context
The problem or requirement
The action you took
The people involved
The tools, systems, processes, or methods used where relevant
The result
Hiring managers care about judgement because skills without judgement can create problems.
A strong response shows how you made decisions, prioritised, adapted, escalated, communicated, checked information, managed risk, or considered stakeholder needs.
This is where good candidates separate themselves. They do not just say what they did. They show how they thought.
A strong response feels like it belongs to the job being advertised.
For example, if the role involves policy, your response should show written analysis, consultation, briefing, research, government context, or complex information handling where possible.
If the role involves frontline service, your response should show customer interaction, empathy, boundaries, conflict handling, documentation, and service outcomes.
If the role involves administration, your response should show accuracy, coordination, systems, deadlines, records, and reliability.
The best applications make the panel think, “This person understands the work.”
This is the underrated part.
A response can be impressive and still fail if it is hard to follow.
Use clear sentences. Keep paragraphs manageable. Put the strongest evidence where the reader will see it. Do not hide the outcome in the final vague sentence.
The panel should not need to work hard to understand why your example matters.
The correct length depends on the application instructions. Always follow the employer’s word limit, page limit, or formatting requirements first.
If there is no guidance, a practical range is:
Around 150 to 250 words per criterion for standard applications
Around 250 to 350 words per criterion for complex or senior roles
Around one to two pages total for many statement of claims applications
Shorter responses for targeted online questions with strict limits
The real issue is not length. It is evidence density.
A 180 word response with a strong example can outperform a 500 word response full of polished nothing. Panels are not awarding marks for decorative adjectives.
When editing, remove:
Repeated claims
Long background explanations
Generic personal qualities
Unnecessary company history
Sentences that do not prove the criterion
Soft phrases that add no evidence
Keep:
Role context
Specific action
Relevant detail
Decision making
Result
Link back to the criterion
Most candidates panic when they do not meet every criterion perfectly. The reality is more nuanced.
If the criterion is essential and technical, such as a required qualification, licence, registration, security clearance, or specific system experience, you need to be careful. You either meet it, are in the process of meeting it, or you do not.
But if the criterion is capability based, you may be able to use transferable experience.
For example:
Customer service experience can support stakeholder communication
Volunteer coordination can support leadership
University projects can support research and analysis for graduate roles
Retail supervision can support conflict resolution and team management
Small business experience can support administration, prioritisation, and problem solving
The key is to be honest without underselling yourself.
Do not write, “Although I do not have experience in this area...” unless you absolutely need to. That puts the weakness first.
Instead, write from the transferable strength:
Good Example:
While my experience has been in retail operations rather than government administration, I have managed high volume enquiries, maintained accurate records, resolved customer issues, and coordinated daily priorities across a busy team environment.
That gives the panel something useful to consider.
You are not pretending to have experience you do not have. You are helping the panel understand the relevance of what you do have.
Government selection criteria often feel more formal because the process is usually structured around merit, transparency, and documented assessment.
This does not mean you need to write like a policy robot.
In fact, plain English is usually stronger. The panel needs clear evidence, not bureaucratic fog.
For Australian government applications, pay close attention to:
The capability framework
The classification level
The wording of the role description
Whether the application asks for a statement of claims or individual responses
Whether the criteria are essential, desirable, or targeted questions
Whether there is a page or word limit
Whether examples should be recent or role specific
Government panels often care about fairness and consistency. That means your application needs to make your claims easy to compare with the requirements.
Do not assume the panel will connect the dots from your resume. Spell out the relevance.
For example, instead of saying:
Weak Example:
My resume shows extensive experience in administration and stakeholder support.
Write:
Good Example:
My administration experience is directly relevant to this role because I have managed confidential records, coordinated competing requests, prepared written correspondence, and supported internal stakeholders in a deadline driven environment.
That is much easier to assess.
Before submitting your application, review each response against this checklist.
Have I answered the actual criterion?
Have I used a specific workplace example?
Is my personal contribution clear?
Have I explained the result?
Is the example matched to the role level?
Have I avoided vague claims?
Have I removed repeated information from my resume?
Have I followed the word or page limit?
Have I used plain Australian English?
Have I checked spelling, grammar, names, dates, and job titles?
Have I addressed all required criteria?
Have I submitted the documents requested in the job ad?
A final recruiter tip: read your response and ask, “Could someone else say the exact same thing?” If yes, it is probably too generic.
Your application should not sound like every candidate. It should sound like your actual experience, clearly translated into the employer’s requirements.
The best selection criteria responses are not the fanciest. They are the clearest, most relevant, and easiest to assess.
Think of each response as a small business case for shortlisting you. The panel has a requirement. You provide evidence. You show the level of your experience. You make the decision easier.
Do not waste space telling employers you are hardworking, passionate, reliable, or professional unless you can prove it through an example. Those words are not useless, but they are weak without evidence.
What gets candidates shortlisted is usually not perfect wording. It is strong matching.
Show that you understand the role. Choose examples that prove the right capability. Explain what you personally did. Include the result. Keep it concise. Follow the instructions.
That is how you address selection criteria in Australia properly.
Not by sounding impressive. By being assessable.
Written by Simar Malhi, a recruiter and headhunter with international recruitment experience. I write about CVs, job applications, hiring decisions, and the reality behind recruitment processes. My goal is to help candidates understand more honestly how employers, recruiters, and hiring managers actually select candidates.
A decision made easier
A compliance issue addressed
A clearer handover created
Upload Resume
Import from Linkedin