APS · Selection criteria · APS6 pitch writing
APS6 Selection Criteria and Pitch Writing
A senior writer's guide to writing APS6 selection criteria and one-page pitches that calibrate to the level the panel is actually scoring against — neither under-pitching to APS5 nor over-pitching to EL1.
In thirty seconds
- APS6 is the highest classification before the executive layer begins — the ceiling of the APS general workforce, the floor of senior advisory work. Most APS6 applications fail because they're calibrated wrong: written like an APS5 stretching up, or like an EL1 stretching down.
- The APS6 application format is a one-page pitch (around 750 words) addressing the role's selection criteria together — not separate STAR responses. Most agencies will accept up to two pages but the strongest pitches stay tight.
- The five ILS capability clusters at APS6 use the verbs "Supports" and "Displays" — not "Shapes" or "Exemplifies" (those are EL/SES verbs). Calibration to the right verb signals you understand the level.
- The single most common reason candidates fail to convert from APS6 to EL1 isn't capability — it's that the pitch describes doing complex work rather than leading complex work. The transition table further down shows the specific shifts.
- Below: a comparison matrix of APS5 / APS6 / EL1, the five ILS clusters with APS6-specific behavioural indicators, the official WLS APS6 descriptor, the critical transition points to EL1, a worked APS6 pitch, and a side-by-side showing the same response calibrated at all three levels.
In this article
The APS6 sweet spot
Australian Public Service Band 6 sits in a particular position. It's the highest classification before the executive layer begins. APS6 officers are senior subject matter specialists — relied on for deep technical advice, expected to lead complex work without daily oversight, and expected to brief executives on the work they own. They're not yet executives. But they're past being workers.
That position is also why APS6 applications are uniquely hard to calibrate. The level above (EL1) is about leading complex work and shaping outcomes across teams; the level below (APS5) is about contributing to complex work under direction. APS6 is squarely about owning complex work — operating with limited direction, exercising initiative and judgement, and providing the technical backbone that allows executives above to make decisions.
Most APS6 applications fail to convert because they sit on the wrong side of one of those neighbouring levels:
- Under-pitched applications sound like APS5 work dressed up. Lots of "I assisted with," "I supported," "I contributed to." Executive readers hear an APS5 reaching for a stretch role, not an APS6 articulating the level they already operate at.
- Over-pitched applications sound like EL1 work claimed prematurely. Strategy-shaping language, vision statements, "I led the transformation." Executive readers hear an APS6 hoping no one will check the underlying work, or an EL1-aspirant pitching the wrong role.
The pages that convert are the ones written squarely at APS6 — owning complex work, exercising sound judgement under limited direction, providing technical advice senior staff can rely on. This article shows you how to get there.
APS5 vs APS6 vs EL1: the official differences
The Australian Public Service Commission's Work Level Standards (WLS) define classifications by complexity, autonomy and accountability — not by activity. The same activity can be APS5, APS6 or EL1 depending on the conditions under which it's done. Use this table to position your example correctly.
The shaded middle column is APS6 — work that's complex but bounded, owned with limited direction, producing technical or policy advice, with management responsibilities stopping short of strategic leadership. Calibrating to that profile — neither softer nor harder — is the single most important thing your pitch can do.
The five ILS clusters at APS6
The APSC's Integrated Leadership System (ILS) is the capability framework that selection panels score APS applications against. It uses five capability clusters across all APS levels — the same five at APS1 as at SES Band 3. What changes is the verb and the level of expected behaviour.
At APS6 the verbs are "Supports" and "Displays" (at EL2 and SES they become "Shapes," "Cultivates," "Exemplifies"). The five clusters and what they mean at APS6 specifically:
Supports Strategic Direction
At APS6 this looks like
Understanding how your work and your team's work connect to the agency's vision and broader policy objectives. Identifying the relationship between organisational goals and operational tasks. Considering implications beyond your immediate work area when making recommendations.
Achieves Results
At APS6 this looks like
Owning complex work end-to-end. Setting priorities and managing workflows. Identifying issues early and bringing them to resolution. Marshalling resources to deliver outcomes within agreed timeframes. Knowing when to escalate and when to absorb.
Supports Productive Working Relationships
At APS6 this looks like
Building and maintaining stakeholder relationships across and outside the agency. Resolving moderately complex conflicts constructively. Sharing information and learning across teams. Supervising or mentoring junior staff effectively. Recognising and valuing diversity in working approaches.
Displays Personal Drive and Integrity
At APS6 this looks like
Providing impartial and forthright advice — including when the advice is unwelcome. Justifying your position when challenged. Acknowledging mistakes and learning from them. Demonstrating the APS Values in practice, especially under pressure. (This cluster has gained particular weight post-Robodebt.)
Communicates with Influence
At APS6 this looks like
Communicating clearly across written, verbal and presentation contexts. Adapting to audience — front-line stakeholders one moment, senior executives the next. Negotiating confidently within defined parameters. Translating technical complexity into language that supports decision-making. At APS6 this is where the "briefing the executive" muscle becomes load-bearing.
A note on accuracy
Earlier versions of this article listed six ILS clusters and included a fictional cluster called "Translate strategy into operational objectives." That was incorrect. The official ILS uses five clusters at every APS level — the five above. We've corrected the framework here. If you've referenced our older version in your application, replace those references with the five clusters in this version.
The Work Level Standard for APS6
The Work Level Standards (WLS) are the APSC's official definitions of each APS classification. They define the work, not the worker. Selection panels use them to calibrate whether an applicant's examples are pitched at the right level. The APS6 descriptor in full:
"An APS Level 6 employee would generally be required to undertake work that is complex in nature, work under limited direction with the opportunity for reasonable autonomy and accountability. Employees at this level exercise both initiative and judgment in the interpretation of policy and in the application of practices and procedures. APS 6 employees provide detailed technical, professional, and/or policy advice in relation to complex problems and may assist in strategic planning, program and project management and policy development. Employees may have a considerable level of public contact in relation to difficult or sensitive issues and may liaise with a range of stakeholders in a representational role. Work may involve management responsibilities requiring the setting of priorities and managing workflows."
— Australian Public Service Commission, Work Level Standards: APS Level and Executive Level classificationsRead that carefully and pull out the load-bearing words: complex, limited direction, reasonable autonomy, initiative and judgement, detailed technical advice, complex problems, difficult or sensitive issues, management responsibilities. Those are the words your pitch needs to demonstrate by example — not by repetition. A pitch that shows the candidate operating under limited direction is far stronger than one that says they "operate with autonomy."
Critical transition points: APS6 → EL1
The APSC has explicitly documented "critical transition points" between APS6 and EL1 — the points where genuinely new behaviours appear at the higher level. Understanding these is essential for two reasons. If you're applying at APS6, your pitch should demonstrate the APS6 behaviours without over-claiming the EL1 ones (panels treat over-claim as a calibration failure). If you're applying for an EL1 role from APS6, your pitch needs to evidence at least one example of each of these EL1 behaviours, even if not in your current substantive role.
The transition isn't from doing complex work to doing harder complex work. It's from doing complex work to leading it. Every cluster bends in that direction at EL1.
If you're applying for an EL1 role, this is the bend your pitch has to evidence. You don't have to currently occupy an EL1 substantive role to write a successful EL1 pitch — but you do need at least one strong example for each of the five clusters where the EL1-level behaviour is visible. Acting roles, secondments, project leadership and discretionary stretch assignments are all legitimate sources. (For the EL → SES version of the same calibration discussion, see SES pitch writing.)
Structuring the APS6 pitch
Most APS6 roles request a one-page pitch (around 750 words) addressing the role's selection criteria together — not a series of separate STAR responses. Some agencies will accept up to two pages but the strongest pitches stay tight. The structure that converts:
- Opening (10–15% — about 100 words). A confident statement of suitability anchored to the role you're applying for, with one or two pieces of headline evidence (years of experience, signature outcomes, alignment with values). Mentions any clearance, registration or qualification the role requires.
- Body (75–80% — about 550–600 words). Two to four worked STAR examples, each addressing one or more selection criteria. Each example: situation in two sentences, task in one, action in three to five sentences (the bulk), result in one or two sentences with a quantified outcome where possible. Examples are distinct — don't draw twice from the same project.
- Close (5–10% — about 75 words). A short paragraph reiterating fit and naming a track record. Standard interview-availability sign-off.
The biggest structural mistake at APS6 is over-spending on Situation and Task and under-spending on Action. The Action is the only part the panel scores you on — the Situation and Task only exist to make the Action interpretable. If your draft has more sentences in S+T than in A, the architecture is wrong. (For the deeper STAR primer, see how to structure a STAR response for public sector jobs.)
Worked APS6 pitch example
The pitch below is for an APS6 Senior Policy Officer role at a fictional federal department, with selection criteria covering policy advice, stakeholder management, and complex project coordination. It uses anonymised employer descriptors throughout — a senior writer's convention for showing real client-quality work without identifying organisations.
Worked APS6 pitch — approximately 720 words
Opening (~110 words)
I apply for the role of APS6 Senior Policy Officer with confidence in my ability to deliver complex policy advice and lead workstreams that contribute directly to the Department's strategic objectives. I bring nine years' experience across a federal regulatory agency, a state-based health authority, and most recently a federal social policy department, where I have built a track record of producing impartial advice on contested policy matters and managing stakeholder relationships across portfolio, central agency and ministerial offices. I hold a current Negative Vetting 1 clearance as required for the role, and my approach to policy work is grounded in the APS Values of impartiality, accountability and integrity.
Body example one — policy advice and judgement (~180 words)
In my current role at a federal social policy department, I lead policy development on a sensitive cross-portfolio reform with potential implications for vulnerable cohorts. The drafting timeline was compressed to three weeks following a Ministerial decision, and the original scoping consultation had not surfaced material concerns from a major delivery partner. I identified the gap and made the call to delay one round of internal sign-off by 48 hours to consult the partner directly. The consultation surfaced an implementation risk that would have affected approximately 12,000 service recipients had the original draft progressed unchanged. I redrafted the relevant section, briefed up through my EL1 to the SES with a clear summary of the risk and the trade-off the delay had bought, and the revised version was endorsed without further amendment. The Minister's office accepted the policy without query and the partner has remained engaged in implementation. My EL1 cited the escalation and redraft as an example of "the kind of forthright advice we need at this level."
Body example two — leading complex work (~190 words)
At my previous federal regulatory agency, I led the delivery of an internal review of how the agency handled a category of complainant-driven cases following a critical Ombudsman finding. I was the substantive APS6 lead reporting to an EL2 Director, with a working group of seven across two branches. I scoped the review in week one, redesigned the approach in week three after early data showed the original framing was too narrow, and delivered final recommendations to the agency Executive Board in week ten — three weeks ahead of the agreed timeline. The review identified four process failures and recommended a change to the agency's case-triage methodology that has since been adopted. I managed two team members through the period (one APS5, one APS4) including weekly check-ins and a development conversation that resulted in the APS5 successfully moving to an EL1 acting opportunity at the end of the review. The Executive Board minute formally noted the quality of the review and its delivery ahead of timeline.
Body example three — stakeholder management (~150 words)
While at the state-based health authority, I represented our division on a cross-jurisdictional working group with four other state and territory health agencies, on a contested funding methodology. I was the most junior representative at the table by classification, and the working group had stalled for six months over a particular methodological dispute. I spent the first two meetings listening, identified that the dispute was actually about three different unstated concerns, and proposed a structured side-document that addressed each separately. The proposal moved the working group from deadlock to agreement in two further meetings, and the methodology I had drafted was adopted in substantially the form I proposed. The senior official from the chairing jurisdiction subsequently invited me to brief their Minister's office on the implementation, which I did in consultation with my own SES.
Close (~85 words)
I offer to the role a track record of delivering technically rigorous advice under compressed timelines, leading complex work across teams and portfolios, and maintaining impartiality and integrity on contested matters. I particularly value the Department's focus on evidence-based policy and the published commitment to policy work that takes time to consult deeply with delivery partners. Thank you for considering this application; I would welcome the opportunity to discuss it further at interview and can be contacted on the details above.
What this pitch does well: each example shows complex work owned with limited direction (APS6 calibration), specific decisions the candidate made (causality), real stakes (Ombudsman finding, vulnerable cohorts, ministerial timeline, deadlocked working group), and integrity-in-action (escalation, forthright advice). It doesn't claim EL1 behaviours that would be over-pitched at APS6 — there's no "shaping the strategic direction" or "transforming the agency culture." It also doesn't sit at APS5 — every example shows the candidate owning work, not contributing to it.
The same criterion at three levels
Below is the same selection criterion — "Demonstrated ability to lead complex work and produce quality outcomes within agreed timeframes" — answered three ways. Same situation in each. The only difference is the calibration. This is the single most useful exercise for understanding what level your pitch is reading at.
"I contributed to the delivery of an internal review of complaint handling at my agency, working under the direction of an EL2 lead. I attended weekly working group meetings, drafted sections of the analysis I was assigned, and provided support to the lead in coordinating responses from contributors. The review was delivered on time and the recommendations were adopted by the Executive."
"I led the delivery of an internal review of complaint handling under the direction of an EL2 Director, scoping the review in week one and redesigning the approach in week three when early data showed the original framing was too narrow. I delivered final recommendations to the Executive three weeks ahead of timeline, and the recommendations have since been adopted. I managed two team members through the period including a development conversation that supported one to a stretch opportunity at the end."
"I led the agency's response to a critical Ombudsman finding by designing and delivering a six-month review programme across two branches, balancing the operational demands of business-as-usual with the political imperative to land defensible recommendations. I shaped the framing of the review with the SES sponsor, redirected scope mid-stream when emerging evidence challenged our initial hypothesis, and built sponsor consensus around four process changes that have reshaped how the agency handles a category of approximately 4,000 cases per year."
Each of these is a legitimate response — at the right level. The APS5 version under-claims relative to the actual situation (the candidate did more than "contribute"). The EL1 version over-claims (the candidate didn't "shape the framing with the SES sponsor" — that was the EL2 Director's job). The APS6 version is honest about what the candidate did: led delivery, redesigned the approach, delivered ahead of timeline, managed two team members. That's APS6 work.
This is what the TRW Response Strength Framework calls Calibration — and at APS6 specifically, it's the dimension that decides most outcomes. If your pitch reads as APS5 stretching, you'll convert at APS5 next time the position closes. If it reads as EL1 over-reaching, executive reviewers will quietly mark you as not-yet-ready. The APS6 voice — owning complex work under limited direction — is the one that gets shortlisted.
2026 context: what's changed at APS6
Three things have shifted since this article was originally written in 2023 that materially affect how APS6 applications are scored:
- Post-Robodebt integrity weighting. Following the Royal Commission's report and the APSC's subsequent integrity reforms, panels are now reading the "Displays Personal Drive and Integrity" cluster more carefully — particularly at APS6 and above. Examples that show you provided forthright advice (especially when unwelcome), escalated something at risk of being uncomfortable, or held a line on the APS Values when the easier path was to drop it, now carry weight they didn't before 2023. Generic "I demonstrate integrity" claims do the opposite.
- AI-detection at the screening stage. Around 49% of resumes generated using AI are dismissed in the first round of screening, according to a 2025 study of 3,000 hiring managers. APS panels are no exception — and the patterns AI generates (stock language, hedged claims, grammatically perfect but emotionally flat narrative) are exactly what the WLS calibration test fails on. If you're using AI to draft, the editing job is making the response specific, causal and evidenced. See how to edit AI output to read as human.
- Hybrid work has changed what "leading a team" means at APS6. Most APS6 roles now involve some combination of co-located, remote and rotating staff. Examples that show distributed coordination, async working, and managing performance without daily in-person observation now read as more current than examples that assume traditional team structures.
Common APS6 pitch pitfalls
The patterns we see most often when reviewing APS6 client drafts. Each maps to a specific failure mode and has a specific fix.
Under-pitching: APS5 work in APS6 prose
The pattern: heavy use of "contributed to," "supported," "assisted with." Examples describe being part of work rather than owning it. The candidate is doing APS6 work but writing about it as though they were an APS5.
The fix: rewrite every "contributed to" sentence as "I [did the specific thing]." If the specific thing was small, the example may not be a strong APS6 example — find a different one. The verb you use is the level you write to.
Over-pitching: EL1 vocabulary at APS6
The pattern: "I shaped the strategic direction," "I transformed the team culture," "I led the agency's response." Vocabulary borrowed from EL1/EL2 work that the candidate didn't actually lead at APS6.
The fix: if the example is a real EL1 acting role or stretch assignment, keep the language. If it's an APS6 role being described in EL1 voice, calibrate down. Honest APS6 examples beat over-claimed EL1 examples every time.
ILS-by-numbers: each cluster as a separate paragraph
The pattern: the pitch is structured as five short paragraphs, one per ILS cluster, each making generic claims about that cluster. Reads as a checklist rather than a narrative. Panels skim past it.
The fix: structure around two to four worked examples, with each example demonstrating multiple clusters simultaneously. A single strong example showing forthright advice, complex problem-solving and stakeholder navigation can score across three clusters. That's how senior-grade pitches work.
Generic departmental voice
The pattern: the pitch references "the Department," "various stakeholders," "key projects" but never anchors any of it in real specifics. Could have been written for any APS6 role at any agency.
The fix: name the specific portfolio area, the specific stakeholder type, the specific reform, the specific number of cases or staff. (If confidentiality is a concern, anonymise as we do — "a federal regulatory agency" — but keep the texture.)
No integrity example
The pattern: all the examples are about successful delivery and good relationships. No example shows the candidate exercising judgement under pressure, providing unwelcome advice, or holding a line on the APS Values. In 2026, this is a material gap.
The fix: include at least one example where you escalated a concern, declined to do something, redrafted under pressure, or otherwise put the APS Values into action when there was a cost to doing so. The "Displays Personal Drive and Integrity" cluster is now scored harder than it was pre-Robodebt.
A closing note
APS6 is a particular kind of pitch to write because it's a particular kind of work to do. You're not yet shaping strategy. You're not yet leading the leadership layer. You're owning complex work, providing technical advice senior staff rely on, and operating with the autonomy and judgement that distinguishes the senior-specialist tier of the APS from the generalist mid-tier below it.
The pitches that convert — to APS6 substantive roles, to EL1 acting opportunities, to long-listings for selection panels — are the ones that calibrate honestly to that level. Not under-pitched. Not over-pitched. APS6 work, written in APS6 voice, evidenced through specific decisions and behaviours that show the candidate being that level.
Read more
Or have us write yours
An APS6 pitch calibrated by a senior writer who knows the level
A senior writer interviews you for an hour, identifies the strongest examples from your career to evidence each capability cluster, and writes a one-page pitch calibrated specifically to the APS6 work-level standard — neither under-pitching to APS5 nor over-pitching to EL1. Every pitch is custom-built. No AI. No offshore. No templates. View our selection criteria service →
