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 ResumeA selection criteria writer in Australia helps you turn your work history into clear, evidence based responses that match the role requirements, capability framework, and employer expectations. The best ones do not just “make your application sound better”. They extract the right examples, structure them properly, remove weak claims, and show the hiring panel how your experience proves you can do the job. That matters because selection criteria are not a writing exercise. They are an evidence test. If your response sounds polished but does not prove capability, it still fails. I see this often: capable candidates undersell themselves, while less suitable candidates move forward because their application is clearer, sharper, and easier for the panel to score.
A good selection criteria writer helps you address the selection criteria in a way that is targeted, specific, and credible. That sounds simple, but the work is more strategic than most people realise.
Selection criteria responses are used heavily across Australian government, public sector, education, health, community services, universities, councils, and some large organisations. They may appear as key selection criteria, capability statements, targeted questions, a statement of claims, an expression of interest, or a short pitch.
Different employers use different language, but the core purpose is usually the same: they want evidence that you meet the role requirements.
A selection criteria writer should help you:
Understand what each criterion is really asking
Identify the strongest examples from your background
Structure each answer clearly
Show actions, judgement, impact, and relevance
Align your response with the position description
Selection criteria matter because they create a structured way to compare candidates. In many Australian public sector and government style recruitment processes, your application is not judged only on whether you seem generally qualified. It is assessed against specific requirements.
That means a strong resume alone may not save a weak criteria response.
I have seen candidates with excellent backgrounds lose momentum because their responses sounded like position descriptions copied back to the employer. I have also seen candidates with less traditional backgrounds get shortlisted because they gave strong, relevant, well structured examples.
This is where many applicants misunderstand the process.
They assume the employer will read between the lines.
They assume their job title explains their capability.
They assume the panel will understand how complex their work was.
They assume broad statements like “I have excellent communication skills” are enough.
They are not.
A hiring panel needs to see the evidence. Not because they are being difficult, although sometimes the process does feel like it was designed by a committee after too much instant coffee. They need evidence because selection processes are often documented, comparative, and merit based.
A good response shows:
What situation you handled
What your responsibility was
Remove vague claims and generic career language
Keep the tone professional without sounding inflated
Make the application easier for a hiring panel to assess
The part candidates often miss is that selection criteria writing is not about sounding impressive. It is about making the assessor’s job easier.
Hiring panels are usually comparing multiple applicants against the same criteria. They are looking for evidence. They are also looking for risk. If your response is hard to follow, too broad, too senior, too junior, too vague, or too disconnected from the role, they may not give you the benefit of the doubt.
That is the uncomfortable bit. Recruiters and panels do not sit there trying to decode your potential. They assess what you have actually shown them.
What action you personally took
Why your approach was suitable
What changed because of your work
How the example connects to the role you want
The word “personally” matters. Many weak responses describe what the team did. The panel needs to know what you did.
You should consider using a selection criteria writer when the role matters, the application is complex, or you are struggling to translate your experience into strong evidence.
This does not mean every candidate needs one. Some people write very well, understand public sector language, and can confidently align their examples to the job requirements. Lovely. Keep going.
But many strong candidates get stuck because they know their work too well. That sounds strange, but it is common. When you are deep inside your own career, everything feels obvious. You forget what needs explaining. You assume the reader understands the context. You leave out the decision making because it felt normal to you. You underplay the result because you were just “doing your job”.
A selection criteria writer can help when:
You are applying for APS, state government, council, university, health, education, or community sector roles
The application asks for key selection criteria, targeted questions, or a statement of claims
You are moving into a higher level role
You are changing sectors and need to translate your experience
You have strong experience but struggle to write about yourself
You keep applying and getting no interviews
Your responses sound too generic or too long
You are unsure which examples best match the role
You are applying for a competitive role where clarity matters
One of the biggest signs you need help is when your response explains your duties instead of proving your capability.
Duties tell me what your job involved. Evidence tells me whether you can perform this role well.
That distinction is where applications often succeed or fail.
A strong selection criteria response is clear, specific, evidence based, and relevant to the role. It does not ramble. It does not hide behind buzzwords. It does not use five paragraphs to say “I communicate well”.
A strong response usually has a clear example, enough context, specific action, and a result that shows impact.
It should answer the criterion directly, but it should also show how you think.
That is the part candidates often miss. Hiring panels are not only assessing what happened. They are assessing your judgement, problem solving, communication style, stakeholder awareness, level of responsibility, and maturity.
For example, if a criterion asks about stakeholder engagement, the panel does not just want to know that you spoke to stakeholders. They want to see how you managed competing interests, adapted your communication, handled resistance, clarified expectations, and achieved an outcome.
Weak Example
“I have excellent stakeholder engagement skills and regularly work with internal and external stakeholders. I communicate effectively, build positive relationships, and ensure all parties are informed throughout the process.”
This sounds fine at first glance. It is also forgettable. It gives no proof. It could belong to almost anyone.
Good Example
“In my role as a project officer, I coordinated input from policy, operations, and customer service teams during the rollout of a new internal reporting process. The main challenge was that each team had different priorities and concerns about workload. I set up short consultation sessions, summarised the main objections, and worked with the project lead to adjust the implementation timeline. I also prepared a plain English guidance note so frontline staff understood what was changing and why. As a result, the process was adopted with fewer follow up queries than expected, and managers had clearer reporting data within the first month.”
This works better because it shows context, action, judgement, communication, and outcome. It also gives the panel something to score.
Notice the difference. The weak version says, “Trust me.” The good version says, “Here is the evidence.”
Not every selection criteria writer is good. Some produce polished but empty responses that sound like they were assembled from a government phrase bank. That can hurt you.
The most common issue I see is overprofessionalised writing. By that I mean writing that sounds impressive but does not say much.
You know the type:
“Demonstrated capacity to foster collaborative stakeholder relationships”
“Proven ability to deliver outcomes in a dynamic environment”
“Strong commitment to continuous improvement and organisational excellence”
None of these phrases are automatically wrong, but they become useless when they replace evidence.
A poor selection criteria writer may:
Rewrite your resume into longer paragraphs
Use generic public sector language without real examples
Overuse buzzwords
Ignore the level of the role
Make you sound more senior than your evidence supports
Make you sound too junior for the role
Miss the actual capability being assessed
Write responses that feel detached from your real experience
Focus on grammar instead of strategy
The biggest red flag is when the response sounds good but could apply to anyone.
Selection criteria should not read like a motivational LinkedIn post wearing a blazer. They should show specific, role relevant proof.
A good writer asks questions. A weak writer decorates.
A strong selection criteria writer should not start by asking only for your resume and the job ad. That is not enough.
Your resume shows the outline. It does not always show the evidence needed for selection criteria.
A proper writer should ask questions that uncover the real substance of your experience.
They should ask about:
The role you are applying for
The level and classification of the role
The position description and capability requirements
Your strongest recent examples
Problems you solved
Stakeholders you worked with
Decisions you made
Results you achieved
Constraints you managed
Mistakes, risks, or pressure points you handled
Why you want this role
How your background matches the employer’s needs
This is where the recruiter brain matters.
When I look at a selection criteria response, I am not only asking, “Is this well written?” I am asking, “Would this make sense to a panel?” “Is the example strong enough for the level?” “Does this answer the actual criterion?” “Is there enough evidence?” “Is the candidate claiming more than they can prove?” “Would I shortlist this?”
That is the kind of thinking a selection criteria writer should bring.
Pretty sentences are not the product. Better judgement is the product.
A selection criteria writer and a resume writer are not always doing the same job.
A resume writer helps position your career history, achievements, skills, and professional value in a clear document. A selection criteria writer helps build evidence based responses against specific role requirements.
The overlap is obvious, but the thinking is different.
A resume gives a broad picture of your background.
Selection criteria responses go deeper into selected examples.
A resume may say you managed stakeholder relationships.
A selection criteria response needs to prove how you managed them, under what conditions, what action you took, and what outcome followed.
A resume may show you led a team.
A selection criteria response may need to show how you handled conflict, coached staff, improved performance, or managed competing operational priorities.
A resume may show you delivered projects.
A selection criteria response may need to show planning, governance, risk management, consultation, reporting, and impact.
This is why copying resume bullet points into a selection criteria response rarely works. The resume might point to the evidence, but the selection criteria response has to unpack it.
Choosing the right selection criteria writer is not about finding someone who promises the fanciest wording. It is about finding someone who understands Australian hiring expectations and can turn your experience into credible evidence.
Look for someone who can explain their process clearly. If they cannot explain how they identify examples, structure responses, and align content to the position description, be careful.
A good selection criteria writer should be able to:
Explain what the criterion is assessing
Identify whether your example is strong enough
Push back if an example is too weak or too vague
Understand Australian government and public sector style applications
Write in clear, natural Australian English
Keep your responses authentic to your actual experience
Adapt tone to the role level
Avoid exaggerated claims
Make the application easy for a panel to assess
The best writers do not simply ask, “What do you want me to say?” They help you work out what is worth saying.
That is important because candidates are not always the best judges of their own examples. Some choose the most dramatic example, when the strongest one is actually more relevant. Some choose the biggest project, when the better example shows sharper judgement. Some choose an old example because it sounds impressive, when a more recent example would carry more weight.
A good writer helps you choose evidence strategically.
You will get a better result if you prepare properly before working with a selection criteria writer. This does not mean doing all the writing yourself. It means giving the writer enough raw material to work with.
Before you start, gather:
The job advertisement
The full position description
The selection criteria or targeted questions
Your current resume
Any previous application responses
Notes on your strongest work examples
Key achievements, projects, or outcomes
Performance feedback or measurable results if available
Details about the role level you are targeting
Any word limits or submission instructions
You should also think about examples that show different capabilities. Do not give the writer five versions of the same teamwork story. That creates a narrow application.
Strong selection criteria responses usually draw from a mix of examples, such as:
Problem solving
Stakeholder management
Communication
Leadership
Policy or procedure work
Service delivery
Project coordination
Risk management
Conflict resolution
Process improvement
You do not need all of these. You need the ones that match the role.
The more specific your examples are, the stronger the final response will be.
The biggest selection criteria mistake is writing statements instead of evidence.
A statement says, “I have strong organisational skills.”
Evidence says, “Here is a situation where I managed competing deadlines, prioritised work, communicated changes, and delivered the outcome.”
Other common mistakes include:
Repeating the wording of the criterion without proving it
Using examples that are too old or too weak
Writing about the team instead of personal contribution
Giving too much background and not enough action
Forgetting the result
Using vague adjectives instead of concrete examples
Trying to cover every career achievement in one response
Ignoring the level of the role
Writing too much because the application feels important
Writing too little because the example feels obvious
One mistake I see often is candidates explaining the organisation’s process instead of their own role in the outcome.
For example, they might spend half the answer describing a project governance structure, then give only one sentence about what they actually did. That is backwards. Context matters, but the panel is assessing you, not the org chart.
Another mistake is overclaiming. Candidates sometimes write as though they single handedly transformed an entire department when their actual role was more limited. Panels can smell that. It creates doubt.
Good selection criteria writing is confident, not inflated.
Hiring panels read selection criteria responses more practically than candidates imagine.
They are not usually admiring beautiful writing. They are trying to work out whether you meet the criteria and whether your evidence is strong enough compared with other applicants.
They notice:
Whether you answered the question
Whether the example is relevant
Whether your role is clear
Whether the action shows appropriate judgement
Whether the result is credible
Whether the level matches the position
Whether the response is easy to follow
Whether there are gaps, exaggerations, or unclear claims
They also notice when a response feels manufactured.
That does not mean you cannot get help. It means the response still needs to sound like a real person with real experience. If your written application sounds like a policy document but your interview sounds completely different, that disconnect can create problems.
A strong selection criteria writer should help you sound like the best professional version of yourself, not like a stranger with a thesaurus and unresolved feelings about “stakeholder engagement”.
The goal is not to impress the panel with language. The goal is to help them understand your evidence quickly.
A selection criteria writer can improve how your experience is presented. They cannot invent experience, guarantee an interview, or turn an unsuitable background into a perfect match.
This matters because some candidates approach selection criteria writing as if it is a magic workaround. It is not.
A writer cannot honestly fix:
Missing mandatory qualifications
No relevant examples for core criteria
A career level mismatch
Lack of required technical experience
Poor alignment with the role
Weak motivation for the position
Unrealistic salary or classification expectations
They can, however, help identify transferable experience. That is different from pretending.
For example, a private sector candidate applying for a government role may not have public sector experience, but they may have strong examples in compliance, reporting, stakeholder engagement, service delivery, process improvement, or complex customer environments. A good writer helps translate that experience into the employer’s language without making it fake.
That is the line.
Good selection criteria writing clarifies the truth. Bad selection criteria writing decorates a weak fit and hopes nobody notices.
A selection criteria writer can be worth it if the role is important, the application is competitive, and you need help presenting your evidence properly. It is especially useful for government, public sector, university, health, education, council, and community sector applications where written responses carry real weight.
It is less useful if you expect someone to do the thinking for you without your input.
The best outcomes happen when the candidate and writer work together. You bring the experience. The writer brings structure, positioning, clarity, and hiring judgement.
From a recruitment perspective, the value is not just better wording. The value is better selection of evidence.
A strong application can help you:
Avoid underselling your experience
Present your examples clearly
Match the role requirements more closely
Reduce generic or unfocused content
Improve your chances of being properly assessed
Prepare better for interview because your examples are already clear
That last point is underrated. A well written selection criteria response can also become interview preparation. If your examples are strong enough for the written application, they often become useful stories to expand on in the interview process.
But be sensible. If a writer promises guaranteed government job success, run. Selection criteria can improve your application. They cannot control the candidate pool, panel preferences, budget changes, internal applicants, or the mysterious hiring delays that make everyone question reality.
If you are looking for a selection criteria writer in Australia, do not choose based only on who sounds the most confident online. Choose someone who understands how selection decisions are made.
You want someone who can look at your experience and say, “This example is strong,” “This one is too vague,” “This does not answer the criterion,” or “This needs a clearer result.”
That kind of honesty matters.
The best selection criteria responses are not necessarily the longest or the most polished. They are the clearest, most relevant, and most evidence based.
Before you submit any application, ask yourself:
Have I answered the exact criterion?
Have I used a specific example?
Is my personal contribution clear?
Have I shown action and judgement?
Is the result included?
Does the response match the level of the role?
Would a busy panel understand why I am suitable?
If the answer is no, the application needs more work.
Selection criteria are frustrating because they force candidates to prove things that may feel obvious. But that is also the opportunity. Most applicants write too generally. If you can give clear, specific, relevant evidence, you immediately become easier to shortlist.
And in recruitment, easy to assess often means easier to progress.
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.
Cultural awareness
Data, reporting, or analysis
Upload Resume
Import from Linkedin