How to Write a One-Page Pitch for APS Roles
One-page pitches aren't shorter two-page pitches. They reward different structural choices, a different sentence economy, and a different ratio of evidence to framing. Here are the rules, four worked examples across APS5 and APS6, and a full breakdown of each.
Why one-page pitches reward different choices
The two-page pitch is the format most candidates know best, and the temptation when asked for a one-pager is simply to compress an existing two-page pitch by 50%. The result is usually weak. The two-page pitch and the one-page pitch are structurally different documents, and treating the one-pager as a shrunken version of its longer sibling produces a draft that reads as thin in some sections and bloated in others.
A two-page pitch typically opens with two or three paragraphs of strategic framing — who you are, the value proposition you bring, the lens you apply to the work — before moving into evidence. There is room for that opening because the document is 800 to 1,000 words. A one-page pitch has 400 to 500 words to work with. There is no room for a strategic preamble. The page has to land evidence almost immediately and keep landing it until the bottom margin.
This is not a small difference. It changes everything: the opening paragraph, the proportion of space allocated to each capability, the sentence economy, and the role of framing language. If you are coming to the one-page format from the two-page format, the most useful thing to internalise is that you are writing a different document, not a shorter one. Our two-page pitch guide covers the longer format in detail; this post is the sibling for the one-pager.
One-page pitches are most common at APS3, APS4, APS5, and APS6 — the operational and middle-management bands. At EL1 and above, two-page pitches and dedicated criterion responses dominate. The format you are asked for is a strong signal of the level the agency expects evidence at: a one-pager at EL1 is unusual and worth a call to the contact officer to confirm.
Five structural rules for the one-page pitch
Across thousands of one-page pitches we've drafted and edited, five structural rules consistently separate the strong ones from the weak ones. They are not stylistic preferences — they are the structural choices that make assessor scoring easy.
Open with positioning, not preamble
The first paragraph should be 40 to 60 words and place you against the role: your current level or equivalent, the kind of work you do, and the specific match to the advertised position. That is all. Cut "I am writing to apply for…" Cut "I am a highly motivated…" Cut the autobiographical sweep. Assessors do not need to be told you are applying — they are reading your application. They need to know in three sentences why you fit.
Allocate space by capability weight, not by chronology
A two-page pitch has room to give every capability roughly equal treatment. A one-page pitch does not. Identify the two or three capabilities the panel will weight most heavily — usually signalled in the position description, sometimes confirmed by a call to the contact officer — and allocate the bulk of the page to those. Lighter capabilities get a sentence each, woven into the evidence for the heavier ones.
Build the page around 2–4 detailed STARs
The page is not a survey of capabilities. It is a sequence of specific incidents in which the candidate did something concrete. Two STARs on a one-page pitch lets each go long (~180–220 words) and deep on context. Three STARs is the most common allocation (~120–150 words each) and produces the best balance of depth and capability coverage. Four STARs is workable (~90–110 words each) where the role description demands broad coverage. What does not work is the survey-of-capabilities format — a paragraph each for "communication", "stakeholder engagement", and "analytical skills" — which reads as fluff because the page is asserting capability rather than demonstrating it. Anchor every STAR to a specific dated incident, not a category of work.
Open each STAR with a date and a specific trigger
"In March 2025 the branch was asked to advise the executive on three options for…" beats "Throughout my career I have demonstrated strong policy analysis skills." The first opening commits the candidate to a specific piece of work that the rest of the paragraph then describes. The second commits to nothing and could have been written by anyone. Date-and-trigger openings also force the candidate to draw on real experience — a candidate who cannot name three specific incidents at the level the role asks for is probably pitching at the wrong level.
Close with calibration, not with a sales pitch
The closing two or three sentences should reinforce that your evidence sits at the level being advertised — not below, not above. A short sentence naming the level of work you currently operate at, the scope you currently hold, and the natural step the advertised role represents is far stronger than "I would welcome the opportunity to discuss my application." Closing sales-pitch language is the most common one-pager weakness we see.
After drafting, hold the page at arm's length and read only the first sentence of each paragraph. If those opening sentences alone tell the assessor what you offer against each capability, the pitch is structurally sound. If they read as autobiographical narrative, the structure needs work.
At APS5: two worked examples
APS5 is the volume sweet spot for one-page pitches. The level rewards demonstrated capability in defined work — judgement within an established framework, ownership of specific outputs, and the ability to coordinate with stakeholders on day-to-day delivery. At this level, the calibration challenge is showing that you operate independently within structure, without overclaiming the strategic scope of an APS6 or EL1. The APS5 selection criteria guide covers the level in detail.
Two worked examples follow. The first is a policy officer pitch. The second is an operational officer pitch. Both are calibrated to APS5 and both demonstrate the five rules above — but the way those rules play out differs meaningfully between policy and operational roles, which is the point of running them as a pair.
APS5 policy officer — worked example
Composite candidate. The role: APS5 Policy Officer in a federal regulator's policy and reform branch. The capabilities the panel is weighting are policy analysis, stakeholder engagement, and written communication.
Sarah Whelan
APS5 Policy Officer · Reference: 26/0418
I work at APS5 in the policy and reform branch of a federal regulator, drafting advice that reaches division head level. Three recent pieces of work show how I deliver against the capabilities for this role.
In March 2025 the branch was asked to advise the regulator's executive on three options for reforming the industry licensing regime following a critical review of the existing arrangements. I was given two weeks and the brief was vague — the executive wanted a recommendation, not a survey. I started by reading the review in full and listing the four substantive problems it had identified, then mapped each licensing option against those four problems rather than against generic criteria. I interviewed two state-jurisdiction counterparts whose regimes resembled the second and third options, scoped the operational and IT implications with our implementation team, and produced a 12-page options paper recommending a hybrid model. The branch head cleared it to the executive without amendment, the executive endorsed the hybrid, and that model is now the basis of consultation with the affected industry.
In August 2025 I led the stakeholder engagement for a discrete amendment to the same licensing regime. The peak body had publicly opposed an earlier draft and the relationship had cooled. I asked for a 45-minute meeting with their policy director, declined to defend the earlier draft, and asked instead what specifically had broken the engagement. The answer was process — the peak body had not been given a working draft before public consultation. I built a sequenced engagement plan into the next reform tranche: a working draft to the peak body two weeks before public release, with an explicit window for substantive input. The amendment proceeded without public opposition and the peak body's submission was constructive rather than oppositional.
In November 2025 I drafted the question time brief for the Minister on the regulator's expected response to a media story alleging regulatory under-enforcement. The brief had to be ready in four hours, had to acknowledge the alleged conduct without conceding the framing, and had to leave the Minister room to commit to the regulator's existing review process without pre-empting it. I drafted a one-page brief structured around three defensible lines, sent it to the chief of staff with a covering note flagging two phrases I expected the press gallery to test, and adjusted one of them on the chief of staff's feedback. The Minister used the brief intact at question time the following morning.
The advertised role sits in the same band as my current position. The reform agenda described in the position description aligns with the work I have led in my current branch, and I would bring direct experience drafting at the speed and audience-calibration the role requires.
APS5 operational officer — worked example
Composite candidate. The role: APS5 Operational Officer in a federal service delivery agency, in a team handling complex case escalations. The capabilities the panel is weighting are case management judgement, stakeholder communication, and team support.
Daniel Patel
APS5 Operational Officer · Reference: 26/0522
I work at APS5 in a federal service delivery agency, handling complex case escalations in a team of nine. Three recent cases show the kind of work I do and the judgement I bring to it.
In June 2025 I picked up an escalation involving a client whose payment had been suspended following a data-match discrepancy. The client was in temporary accommodation, had no current ID, and the call notes from the previous officer were sparse. The standard pathway was to require fresh ID before unsuspending the payment, which would have taken at least two weeks given the client's circumstances. I read the file in full, identified that we already held three pieces of identity evidence from earlier interactions that together met the secondary ID threshold under our operational policy, and unsuspended the payment under the existing authority within four hours of taking the case. I documented the reasoning in detail, named the policy clause I had relied on, and flagged the file to my team leader for review the next day. The team leader endorsed the decision and the file has since been cited internally as a precedent for similar circumstances.
In September 2025 I was assigned an escalation from an APS4 colleague who had drafted a refusal letter for a client whose claim involved conflicting medical evidence. The draft letter was procedurally correct but the reasoning was thin — it asserted the conflict without explaining how the agency had resolved it. I rewrote the letter, naming each piece of medical evidence specifically, explaining which the delegate had relied on and why, and setting out the review pathway in language a client without legal representation could follow. The client subsequently sought internal review, the original decision was upheld, and the review officer's notes specifically referenced the clarity of the original reasoning as a factor in the upholding. I have since used the letter as a teaching example with the two APS4s I informally support.
In February 2026 a complex case landed in my queue involving a client with capacity issues, a nominated representative whose authority had lapsed, and a payment overpayment that the client was disputing. The case touched three operational policies that did not cleanly intersect. Rather than work the case in isolation, I drafted a 200-word brief outlining the conflict between the three policies, sent it to my team leader, and asked for a 20-minute conversation with the assistant director who owns the relevant policy area. The conversation produced a documented operational interpretation that I then applied to the case, resolved the overpayment dispute in the client's favour, and submitted the interpretation note for inclusion in the agency's operational precedent library. It was accepted in March.
The advertised role is the same band as my current position with the same mix of escalation work and informal team support. I would bring direct precedent experience in the case framework and an established pattern of documenting reasoning at audit standard.
The opening is shorter than the policy pitch and that's correct
Two sentences. The candidate names the level, the function, the team size, and what the page will do. Operational pitches do not need the audience-calibration that policy pitches do, because the work itself is more concrete and the evidence will calibrate the candidate without preamble. The page moves to the first STAR in sentence three.
Each STAR centres on a specific case, not a category of cases
"In June 2025 I picked up an escalation involving a client whose payment had been suspended following a data-match discrepancy." This is the structural move that the earlier draft of this pitch missed. The earlier version said "I have managed approximately 340 escalated cases" — a volume claim that gestures at evidence without delivering it. This version describes one specific case, then another, then a third. The volume of work is implied by the breadth of cases described; the depth is demonstrated in the detail of each.
The Action in each STAR names a non-obvious decision
In the first case the candidate identified that the agency already held sufficient ID evidence under the secondary ID threshold — a reading of policy that the previous officer had missed. In the second the candidate rewrote the letter to name each piece of medical evidence specifically and explain the resolution of the conflict. In the third the candidate refused to work the case in isolation and instead drafted a brief and asked for a 20-minute conversation with the assistant director. Each Action is a decision that a less experienced officer would not have made — and that is what calibrates the candidate to APS5 rather than APS4.
The Results name verifiable outcomes
The team leader endorsed the decision and the file is cited internally as a precedent. The review officer specifically referenced the clarity of the reasoning. The operational interpretation was accepted into the precedent library. None of these is "delivered excellent client outcomes" — each is a specific event with a specific person attached to it.
The informal supervision is shown, not stated
A weaker version of this pitch would have included a separate paragraph headed "team support" or "mentoring", filled with generalised claims. This version mentions the informal support of two APS4s once, in the context of a specific case where the candidate used a real letter as a teaching example. The supervision is demonstrated rather than asserted, which is the right calibration for APS5 (where supervision is incidental rather than primary).
The closing offers something specific the panel can use
"Direct precedent experience in the case framework and an established pattern of documenting reasoning at audit standard." Two specific value propositions, both demonstrated in the STARs above. This is the closing move that earns the page its keep: not "I would be a strong contributor", but a named offering the panel can weigh against their actual need.
Both pitches use the same five structural rules. But the way the rules play out differs. The policy pitch uses scope-calibrating numbers (options analysed, jurisdictions reviewed, pages produced). The operational pitch uses volume-calibrating numbers (cases handled, period covered, colleagues supported). The policy pitch foregrounds judgement on technical questions. The operational pitch foregrounds judgement on edge cases under operational policy. Same level. Different evidence. Both calibrated.
At APS6: two worked examples
APS6 is a meaningful step up from APS5. The level rewards independent judgement on more complex work, supervisory responsibility for APS3 to APS5 staff, contribution to forward planning, and engagement with stakeholders at deputy director level. At APS6, candidates need to demonstrate not just capability in their function but ownership — of outputs, of decisions, and of the work of others. The APS6 selection criteria guide covers the level in detail, and the APS calibration guide is essential reading if you are unsure whether you are an APS5 stretching upwards or a settled APS6.
Two further worked examples follow — APS6 policy, then APS6 operational. The same five structural rules apply. What changes is the calibration of the evidence and, importantly, the language that signals APS6-level work.
APS6 policy officer — worked example
Composite candidate. The role: APS6 Senior Policy Officer in a federal central agency policy team. The capabilities the panel is weighting are independent policy judgement, stakeholder engagement at senior level, and supervision of APS4–APS5 staff.
Rebecca Chen
APS6 Senior Policy Officer · Reference: 26/0611
I work at APS6 in a federal central agency, leading a portfolio of three policy work streams and supervising one APS5 and two APS4 staff. Three recent pieces of work demonstrate the kind of judgement, engagement, and supervision the advertised role asks for.
In April 2025 I was given carriage of the central agency's response to a cross-portfolio reform affecting three line departments. The departments held materially incompatible positions and the previous central agency lead had become trapped between them. I chose not to broker a middle position. Instead I drafted a 6-page paper that named each department's substantive position, identified the policy question the central agency actually needed to decide, and recommended a path that one department had not been advocating for but that resolved the policy question coherently. The paper was contested at first reading but the recommendation was endorsed at the second deputy secretary meeting in May, and the reform is now in legislative drafting on that basis. The deputy secretary's office asked me to brief the corresponding officers in each line department personally, which I did in three meetings across the following fortnight.
In August 2025 my section was asked to take over a stalled negotiation with a state government counterpart on funding arrangements for a co-funded program. The previous central agency lead had pursued a maximalist position and the state had withdrawn from the working group. I spent the first week reading the file rather than re-engaging, then asked for a meeting with my counterpart on the explicit basis that I wanted to understand what had broken the engagement. I conceded ground on two procedural points in that meeting (sequencing of agreements, scope of the joint communication plan) and held firmly on the substantive funding split. The negotiation resumed within a fortnight and reached agreement in October on terms close to the central agency's original position. The deputy secretary's feedback identified the substantive-versus-procedural separation as the move that recovered the negotiation.
In January 2026 I redesigned how I supervise my section. My APS5 had been drafting supporting analysis for 14 months and was ready to move to first-cut policy advice, but I had been bottlenecking the work by reviewing too closely. I changed the model: the APS5 now drafts to a one-page brief I write up front, then I review structure and analytical approach rather than line-edit. The APS5 has since produced two papers that went to division head clearance with only my structural feedback applied. I have begun the same approach with the more senior of the two APS4s. The supervision change has freed roughly a day a week of my time, which I have re-invested in the cross-portfolio reform stream.
The advertised role sits in the same band as my current position with an additional cross-portfolio reform stream. The recovery of stalled engagements and the supervision approach above are the two specific things I would bring on day one.
The opening calibrates scope, not function
"Leading a portfolio of three policy work streams and supervising one APS5 and two APS4 staff." The APS5 policy pitch opened by naming the function ("I work at APS5… drafting advice"). The APS6 pitch opens by naming scope and supervision. This is the calibration shift between APS5 and APS6 — APS6 evidence is ownership, not contribution — and the page signals it in the first sentence.
The first STAR shows a deliberate refusal to broker
"I chose not to broker a middle position. Instead I drafted a 6-page paper that named each department's substantive position, identified the policy question the central agency actually needed to decide, and recommended a path that one department had not been advocating for." This is the APS6 differentiator. An APS5 policy officer might have produced an options paper. An APS6 policy officer makes a recommendation against the prevailing positions and defends it. The decision named in the STAR — choosing not to broker — is the kind of judgement call APS6 panels reward.
The second STAR demonstrates negotiation judgement, not just engagement
"I conceded ground on two procedural points… and held firmly on the substantive funding split." This is operational specificity about how the candidate runs a negotiation. The "substantive-versus-procedural separation" line is then named explicitly as the recovery move, with the deputy secretary's feedback as the external validation. The STAR is doing two jobs — demonstrating capability and naming a specific analytical approach the candidate can articulate — which is the kind of double-duty work that fits a one-page pitch.
The supervision STAR is the structural move most APS5-to-APS6 stretchers miss
Candidates stretching to APS6 typically mention supervision in passing. This pitch makes supervision a full STAR — Situation (the APS5 was ready to step up but the candidate was bottlenecking), Task (redesign the supervision model), Action (the specific change to drafting and review), Result (two papers cleared to division head, a day a week recovered). Supervision is shown as the core deliverable it is at APS6, with a measurable outcome that calibrates the candidate to the level.
Each Result is named and verifiable
Endorsed at the second deputy secretary meeting in May. Reached agreement in October. Two papers went to division head clearance. None of these is "delivered strong outcomes." Each is something the referee or the deputy secretary's office could confirm without effort.
The closing names two specific things, not a generic offering
"The recovery of stalled engagements and the supervision approach above are the two specific things I would bring on day one." Two named capabilities, both demonstrated above, both relevant to the advertised role. The closing sentence resolves the page — it tells the panel exactly what they would get if they appointed the candidate.
APS6 operational officer — worked example
Composite candidate. The role: APS6 Team Leader in a federal regulatory agency, leading a team of seven across a compliance and enforcement function. The capabilities the panel is weighting are operational leadership, judgement on enforcement decisions, and stakeholder management with regulated entities.
Michael Brennan
APS6 Team Leader, Compliance · Reference: 26/0703
I lead a compliance team of seven at APS6 in a federal regulator, with delegated authority for enforcement decisions up to a defined threshold. Three pieces of work from the past two years show how I run the team, make enforcement decisions, and manage relationships with regulated entities.
In October 2024 I inherited a team that had missed its quarterly compliance workload target for four consecutive quarters. The previous team leader had relied on a monthly allocation model that did not absorb variation in case complexity. In my first month I reviewed the previous twelve months of throughput data and identified two structural changes: a triage discipline classifying incoming assessments into three tiers within 48 hours of receipt, and weekly load-balancing meetings that moved work between officers based on current capacity rather than monthly allocation. I tested both changes with the team before implementation rather than imposing them. The team has cleared its quarterly workload on time in every quarter since, including the most recent quarter which was 18% above the historical average volume. The assistant director has since asked me to brief two other team leaders on the model.
In May 2025 my team referred a major financial services entity for enforcement action over a sustained breach of disclosure requirements. The matter sat above my threshold and required a referral to the assistant director with a recommendation. I drafted the referral with three alternative enforcement pathways named — an enforceable undertaking, an infringement notice with conditions, and a referral to the regulator's enforcement and litigation branch — and recommended the enforceable undertaking on the basis that it would produce a faster remediation outcome with binding terms. The assistant director adopted the recommendation, the entity accepted the undertaking within six weeks, and the remediation is now in its third compliance milestone. I have used the referral structure (three pathways, named recommendation, defended reasoning) as the model for the eight subsequent referrals I have made.
In January 2026 the head of compliance at one of the three largest regulated entities in my segment requested a meeting to raise concerns about the volume of assessments my team had opened on their organisation in the previous quarter. The meeting could have become a complaint forwarded above me to the assistant director. I prepared by mapping every open assessment against the regulatory trigger that opened it and confirmed that each was within the regulator's published assessment criteria. I held the meeting on the explicit basis that I would not discuss individual cases but would discuss patterns. I named two pattern-level concerns the entity could address (consistency of their internal compliance attestations and the timeliness of their breach notifications) and committed to giving the entity 48 hours' notice before any future systemic assessment. The entity did not escalate, has since reduced its breach notification lag, and our working relationship is constructive rather than strained.
The advertised role is in the same band, the same regulatory environment, and with a marginally larger team. I would bring the triage and load-balancing model, the referral structure, and a pattern-level approach to regulated-entity engagement.
The opening names the delegated authority in the first sentence
"With delegated authority for enforcement decisions up to a defined threshold." This is the APS6 operational signal that the APS5 operational pitch could not make. APS5 operational officers make recommendations; APS6 operational officers make delegated decisions. The pitch names the authority in the opening sentence and then demonstrates it in the second STAR.
The first STAR centres on a turnaround, not a routine
"Missed its quarterly compliance workload target for four consecutive quarters." This is the structural move that elevates the STAR. The candidate inherited a problem, diagnosed it (the monthly allocation model did not absorb variation), and made two specific changes. The Result is verifiable and quantified — clean record since, most recent quarter 18% above historical average. The "tested both changes with the team before implementation rather than imposing them" line does additional work, pre-empting the panel's likely question about how the team responded to the changes.
The referral STAR demonstrates judgement structure, not just judgement
The STAR does not just say "I recommended an enforceable undertaking." It names three alternative pathways the candidate considered, names which was recommended and why, and then names the structural model the candidate has used for the eight subsequent referrals. This is judgement made visible — the kind of evidence APS6 panels actively look for, because it demonstrates that the candidate has a repeatable analytical method rather than a one-off win.
The regulated-entity STAR resists the easy framing
An adequate version of this STAR would say "I built a strong working relationship with a major regulated entity." This version names the actual mechanism: meeting on the explicit basis of patterns not cases, two specific concerns raised, a specific procedural commitment (48 hours' notice) given. The Result names both the absence of escalation and the entity's behavioural change (reduced breach notification lag), which together demonstrate that the engagement was substantive rather than cosmetic.
Each Result links to a specific verifiable event
The assistant director has asked the candidate to brief two other team leaders on the model. The entity accepted the undertaking within six weeks and is in its third compliance milestone. The entity did not escalate and has reduced its breach notification lag. None of these is a generic claim — each is something the relevant person in the chain could confirm in a sentence.
The closing names three specific transferable things
"The triage and load-balancing model, the referral structure, and a pattern-level approach to regulated-entity engagement." Three named, demonstrated, and transferable approaches. The closing sentence is doing the same work as the closing of the APS6 policy pitch: it tells the panel what they would actually get, rather than offering "strong contribution" or "valuable addition" language that no panel scores.
Three calibration shifts run through both APS6 examples. First, ownership: the candidates name themselves as decision-makers, not contributors. Second, supervision treated as a core deliverable, not a side-activity. Third, stakeholder engagement at the senior executive end of the line — deputy secretary, assistant director, regulated entity compliance leads. Those three shifts are how the page tells the panel the candidate is APS6, not APS5 stretching upwards.
The one-page pitch mistakes that cost candidates the role
Treating it as a compressed two-page pitch
The most common failure mode. The candidate writes the two-page version first, then deletes paragraphs until it fits on a page. The result is a pitch with the strategic preamble of a two-pager (now too long for the space) and the evidence detail of a two-pager (now compressed past the point of being useful). One-page pitches need to be drafted as one-pagers from the start, with the structural choices made up front.
Padding the page with autobiographical material
"I have always been passionate about service to the community" is a sentence that buys you nothing and costs you 12 words. On a one-page pitch, 12 words is one sentence of evidence. Cut every sentence that does not either calibrate the candidate to the level or demonstrate capability against a named criterion.
Equal-weighting all capabilities
A common temptation is to give each capability one paragraph of roughly the same length, to appear "balanced". This is a misreading of how assessors score. Panels typically weight two or three capabilities much more heavily than the others. Allocate page space accordingly. A pitch that gives equal weight to a heavily weighted criterion and a lightly weighted criterion has under-served the criterion that actually wins or loses the role.
Generic capability language
"Excellent communication skills." "Strong stakeholder engagement." "Proven analytical ability." These phrases score nothing because every applicant claims them. Replace generic capability language with specific operational evidence. "I draft each substantive letter myself rather than relying on templates" is specific and defensible. "Excellent written communication skills" is generic and unverifiable.
Closing with a sales pitch
"I would welcome the opportunity to discuss my application further" is filler. So is "I am confident I would make a strong contribution to your team." The closing two or three sentences of a one-page pitch are valuable real estate. Use them to calibrate the move (lateral, promotional, with which expansion of scope) and to offer specific value the role description signals is wanted. Save the sales language for never.
Misreading the level
Sometimes the page is structurally sound but the candidate has pitched at the wrong level — APS6 language in an APS5 pitch, or APS5 evidence in an APS6 pitch. The result reads as either presumptuous or underweight, and both lose marks. If you are unsure which level your evidence sits at, the APS calibration guide is the place to start. Pitching at the wrong level is the single most common reason capable candidates do not progress.
Adapting the format to other APS levels
The four worked examples sit at APS5 and APS6, which is where one-page pitches are most commonly requested. The five structural rules apply with adjustments at adjacent levels.
APS3 and APS4
At APS3 and APS4, the calibration challenge is the opposite of the APS5–APS6 transition. The evidence available is usually thinner — fewer years of work, smaller projects, less scope — and the temptation is to fill the page with broad claims to capability. Resist that temptation. A short, specific APS3 pitch with three concrete examples scores better than a long, generic one. Numbers calibrating volume of work still help. Calibration to study or training is acceptable where direct work experience is light.
EL1 and above
At EL1 and EL2, one-page pitches are less common — the dominant format is the two-page pitch, sometimes combined with criterion responses. If you are asked for a one-pager at EL1 or EL2, the five rules still apply, but the evidence shifts up another notch: program ownership, contribution to division-level strategy, leadership of teams that include APS6 staff, and engagement at SES level. The SES pitch writing guide covers the senior end of the format, where pitches become a different document again.
A note on the editorial work the page hides
The four worked examples above read as though they were written in a single sitting. They were not — and your pitch should not be either. A strong one-page pitch is usually the third or fourth draft. The first draft is typically 700 to 900 words and sprawls across two pages. The work of getting it to one page is editorial: identifying which sentences are calibrating, which are framing, and which are filler, then cutting the filler and tightening the framing until only calibration and evidence remain.
This is craft work. It is the kind of work where editorial judgement — what to keep, what to compress, what to reorganise — makes the difference between a pitch that scores in the middle of the pack and one that scores at the top. It is also work that most candidates underestimate. The page looks short. The page is short. The work of producing the page is not.
If you would rather have that editorial work done by writers who do it daily, our selection criteria and pitch writing service covers one-page pitches at every APS level. For broader context on the format, the two-page pitch guide and the definitive selection criteria guide are useful companions. The full selection criteria examples library has further worked responses at criterion level. If you are weighing up whether you are applying at the right level at all, the state-by-state government jobs guide is the broader orientation piece.
Want us to write your one-page pitch?
We've drafted one-page pitches at every APS level for thousands of applications across federal departments, regulators, agencies, and central agencies. Each engagement starts with a structured information-gathering session so we can draw out the specific evidence that calibrates you to the level — and then we do the editorial work of compressing that evidence onto a single page. Every pitch is backed by our rewrite guarantee. Typical turnaround is one to two weeks; faster on request.
The opening paragraph is two sentences and stops
"I work at APS5… drafting advice that reaches division head level. Three recent pieces of work show how I deliver against the capabilities for this role." That is the entire introduction. The candidate places themself at level, signals the audience their work reaches, and tells the assessor what the rest of the page will do. No marketing language. No autobiography. The page moves to evidence in sentence three.
Each STAR is anchored to a specific dated incident
"In March 2025… In August 2025… In November 2025…" Every example names a specific month, a specific piece of work, and a specific trigger. This is the structural move that separates a real STAR from a generalised capability claim. "I have drafted ministerial briefs" is a capability claim. "In November 2025 I drafted the question time brief on the regulator's expected response to a media story alleging regulatory under-enforcement" is a STAR — the Situation is named, the Task is implicit and clear, and the Action and Result follow.
Each STAR names a decision the candidate made, not activity they performed
In the first STAR the candidate decided to map options against the four problems the review had identified rather than against generic criteria. In the second they decided to ask the peak body what had broken the engagement rather than defend the earlier draft. In the third they sent the brief to the chief of staff with a covering note flagging two phrases they expected to be tested. Each STAR has a moment of editorial judgement at its centre, and that judgement is the differentiator from a candidate who simply executed tasks.
The Results are specific and verifiable
Cleared to the executive without amendment, endorsed, and now the basis of consultation. Proceeded without public opposition and produced a constructive submission. Used intact at question time the following morning. Each Result is something a referee could confirm in a single sentence, which is the test for whether a Result is doing real work.
The pitch makes no attempt at "balanced capability coverage"
A weaker version of this pitch would have given one paragraph each to policy analysis, stakeholder engagement, and written communication. This pitch lets the three STARs cover all three capabilities incidentally. The options paper STAR demonstrates policy analysis. The peak body STAR demonstrates stakeholder engagement. The question time brief STAR demonstrates written communication. The assessor scoring the page does not need the capabilities labelled — they will recognise each one as it appears. Labelling them would have cost real estate without adding evidence.
The closing paragraph is two sentences
It names the move as lateral, links the candidate's existing work to the role description, and offers a specific value proposition (drafting at speed and audience-calibration). No "I would welcome the opportunity to discuss." No "I am confident I would be a strong contributor." The page ends where the evidence ends.