APS3 selection criteria examples and how to write an APS3 application.
APS3 is often your first federal application. The work level standards expect supervised, procedural work with working knowledge of established systems. The responses below show what "calibrated at the APS3 level" actually looks like — with five worked STAR examples covering the capabilities most APS3 panels assess.
What APS3 actually is.
An APS3 role sits two rungs above the entry-level APS1. The APSC work level standards describe APS3 work as "procedural, clerical, administrative, operational, technical or supervisory work under general direction." Translated out of public-service language: you work largely under supervision, you apply established procedures, you might supervise one or two staff or trainees, and you're expected to know your area well enough to handle routine matters without escalation but to recognise when something needs to go up.
APS3 is also the level at which formal selection criteria responses usually start mattering. APS1 and APS2 roles often hire on resume and interview alone. APS3 typically asks for either a short pitch (250–500 words), a statement of claims, or written responses to two or three application questions.
The most common mistake at APS3 is writing too operationally — describing tasks rather than judgement — or writing at the wrong level. APS3 isn't APS2 (which is more closely supervised), and it isn't APS4 (which has clearer ownership of work and contributes to procedural improvement). Get the level wrong and the panel will note "claims pitched too low" or "claims pitched above level." Either kills the application.
At APS3 you're demonstrating: I can do the work reliably under general direction. I know enough about my area to handle routine matters confidently. I escalate appropriately. I can supervise junior staff or trainees if needed. I deliver consistently to standard.
You're not trying to demonstrate: strategic thinking, organisation-wide influence, leading change initiatives, or managing significant resources. Those are APS5+ claims. Making them at APS3 reads as overreach.
What APS3 panels are actually testing.
APS3 selection criteria usually circle four capabilities. Get strong worked examples for each of these and you have most of what you need for most APS3 applications.
Communication. Written and verbal. Clarity, accuracy, appropriate audience adjustment. Often tested as "ability to communicate clearly with internal and external stakeholders."
Working in a team. Collaboration, supporting colleagues, contributing to team objectives. Sometimes phrased as "ability to work effectively as part of a team."
Attention to detail and quality. Accuracy under volume, checking your own work, following procedures consistently. Tested as "attention to detail" or "ability to produce accurate work."
Customer or client service. Responsiveness, judgement on what to escalate, professionalism with members of the public or internal stakeholders. Tested as "client service skills" or "ability to provide quality service."
The fifth and sixth capabilities you'll occasionally see — problem solving and time management — round out the set. Examples for all six are below.
Six worked APS3 selection criteria examples.
Each example below uses the STAR structure (Situation, Task, Action, Result). Target length is 180–250 words per response — APS3 responses are shorter than higher-level responses because the scope being described is smaller. Italicised gold tags mark the STAR sections so you can see the structure as you read.
Written and verbal communication
Demonstrated ability to communicate clearly and effectively in writing and verbally with internal and external stakeholders.
I communicate clearly with internal and external stakeholders in both written and verbal contexts (restate the criterion). In my current role as an Administrative Officer with a community services provider, I respond to around 25 client enquiries each day by phone and email (situation). Many enquiries involve sensitive matters — financial hardship, family circumstances, or service eligibility questions (task).
To handle these well, I structure my written responses with a clear acknowledgement of the client's question, a plain-language explanation of the relevant policy, and a single specific next step. I avoid jargon and check that every email reads at the same level as a face-to-face explanation. For verbal calls, I listen for the underlying question before responding, paraphrase back what the caller has said to confirm I have understood, and keep my tone steady when the call is difficult. When a query falls outside my knowledge or authority, I tell the client clearly that I will need to refer it and confirm a callback timeframe rather than guessing (actions).
As a result, my team leader has consistently noted my communication as a strength in performance discussions, and our recent client satisfaction survey for the team showed 92% rated communication as "good" or "very good" — up from 84% the previous year (result).
Teamwork and contributing to team objectives
Demonstrated ability to work effectively as part of a team and contribute to team objectives.
I contribute reliably to team objectives and support my colleagues to deliver shared work on time (restate the criterion). In my current role, I sit within a team of six handling case management for a federally funded program (situation). During a recent staff shortage, two colleagues were on extended leave at the same time, which left the team with around 30% more work than usual across a four-week period (task).
I volunteered to take on additional case files in the areas I was most familiar with, which freed our senior team members to focus on the more complex cases that only they could handle. I also took on the daily case-status update for the team meeting, which had previously been the team leader's responsibility — this saved her around 30 minutes each day and let her focus on resource planning. When I needed help working through a more complicated case, I asked our team leader specifically rather than struggling silently, which kept the work moving. I made a point of acknowledging colleagues' contributions in the team meeting at the end of each week, which kept morale steady during a stretched period (actions).
The team cleared its backlog two days ahead of the recovery plan, and my team leader noted my contribution in the team's quarterly review (result).
Producing accurate work under volume
Demonstrated attention to detail and ability to produce accurate work to a high standard.
I produce accurate work consistently, particularly under volume and time pressure (restate the criterion). In my current role I am responsible for processing client eligibility records into our case management system (situation), with a daily target of around 40 records and an accuracy benchmark of 98% on quarterly audits (task).
To meet this consistently, I built a simple personal checklist that walks me through each record in the same order — client identifiers, eligibility dates, document scans, system flags — so I do not rely on memory to catch the same mistakes repeatedly. When I notice my own attention slipping after a long run of records, I deliberately switch to a different task for 15 minutes before returning. I have also developed the habit of cross-checking dates in any document that has more than one date field, because dates are where I have seen the most errors in others' work. When I find an inconsistency in source documentation, I flag it through to the case officer rather than choosing a default value (actions).
Over the past three quarterly audits my accuracy rate has been 99.4%, 99.1% and 99.7% — consistently above the team benchmark. The team leader asked me to share my checklist approach with two newer team members (result).
Service to members of the public
Demonstrated ability to provide quality client service and respond to enquiries with professionalism.
I provide considered, professional service to clients including in situations where the client is frustrated or the answer is not the one they were hoping for (restate the criterion). In my previous role as a customer service officer with a local council, I handled the rates and waste enquiry line (situation). Many calls involved disputes about rates notices, missed bin collections, or unexpected fees (task).
When a caller is upset, I let them describe their issue fully before I respond, so they feel they have been heard rather than processed. I then summarise their issue back to confirm I have understood the actual question. If I can resolve it within my authority, I do so on the call. If I cannot, I explain plainly what I can do, what the next step is, and the timeframe. I never promise something I am not certain I can deliver. When a caller's frustration is genuinely outside my ability to fix — a council policy they disagree with, for example — I tell them clearly that I cannot change the policy on the call but I can record their feedback and refer it to the relevant team (actions).
Quarterly mystery shopping surveys placed me in the top 10% of officers on the line for client handling during my time in the role (result).
Resolving issues within established procedures
Demonstrated ability to identify and resolve routine issues within established procedures.
I resolve routine issues within established procedures and escalate when something falls outside what I am authorised to handle (restate the criterion). In my current role, I noticed over a fortnight that our case management system was generating duplicate records when client applications were submitted through two different channels on the same day (situation). The duplicates were creating downstream confusion for the case officers (task).
I worked through five examples of the duplicates to confirm the pattern, then checked our standard operating procedure for guidance — which addressed duplicates within a single channel but not cross-channel ones. I documented what I had observed clearly — the channels involved, the trigger condition, the downstream effect, and what I had ruled out as causes. I flagged it to my team leader with a one-page summary rather than just raising it in the team meeting, because I knew she would need the detail to escalate to the system administrators. I also suggested a temporary workaround that I and other team members could use while the issue was being investigated formally (actions).
The team leader took my summary directly to the system team, who confirmed it was a known issue under investigation but appreciated the additional pattern data. The workaround I had suggested was adopted across the team while a permanent fix was implemented six weeks later (result).
Managing competing priorities under deadline
Demonstrated ability to manage competing priorities and meet deadlines.
I manage competing priorities reliably and meet deadlines, including during peak periods (restate the criterion). In my current role, our team handles a quarterly reporting deadline that coincides with our highest-volume client enquiry period (situation). During the most recent cycle, I was responsible for two reporting components plus my normal enquiry workload across a two-week window (task).
At the start of the period I mapped both reporting components against the daily enquiry pattern and identified that the first hour and the last hour of each day were my lowest-volume enquiry windows. I blocked those windows for the reporting work and treated my mid-day hours as enquiry-focused, which kept the queue moving for the clients. I let my team leader know my plan upfront so she could redirect work if my approach was not going to suffice. I built in a buffer day before each reporting deadline rather than aiming exactly at the deadline itself, which let me handle the small last-minute corrections that always emerge. When I noticed I was at risk of slipping on the second component, I raised it with my team leader two days out rather than the day of, which let her reallocate one piece of supporting work to a colleague (actions).
Both reporting components were submitted on time, my enquiry handling did not drop below the team average, and my team leader noted the approach as one she would share with the team for the next cycle (result).
Common APS3 pitfalls and how to avoid them.
The mistakes APS3 candidates make most often are not about effort — they are about calibration. Watch for these.
Writing at APS4 or APS5 level
Candidates from private-sector backgrounds often overshoot. They write about leading initiatives, influencing strategy, managing change — claims pitched at APS5 or above. The panel reads it as either misjudgement of the role or as someone unwilling to do APS3 work. Calibrate down. APS3 is about doing the work reliably under general direction, not about reshaping the way the work is done.
Writing at APS1 or APS2 level
The opposite mistake. Candidates underclaim, describing themselves as following instructions and doing what they are told. APS3 work is performed under general direction, which means you have some autonomy and exercise some judgement — on what to escalate, how to prioritise, when to ask. Show that judgement in your examples.
Describing tasks instead of demonstrating capability
"I answered phone calls and emails" is a task. "I structure my written responses to acknowledge the question, explain the policy plainly, and provide a single next step" is a demonstrated capability. Panels score the second one and tune out on the first.
Inventing scale you do not have
If your real scope is 25 enquiries a day, say 25. If your accuracy target is 98%, say 98%. Honest, modest numbers calibrated to APS3 work read as truthful. Inflated numbers either ring false to the panel or commit you to claims you cannot back up in interview.
Using one example for every criterion
It is easier to reuse one strong example, but panels notice. Different examples across criteria signal breadth of experience. Aim for at least three different examples across a typical four-criterion application.
Application formats you'll see at APS3.
APS3 applications come in several formats. Read the application instructions carefully — the wrong format gets you screened out before content matters.
Short pitch (250–500 words). The most common APS3 format. A single piece of writing addressing all the selection criteria together, with the strongest two or three examples integrated rather than separated. Length matters — if the ad says 500 words, do not submit 800.
Statement of claims. A separate document with each criterion addressed under its own heading. Each response 100–200 words. Less common at APS3 than at APS5+, but still appears.
Application questions. Several short responses to specific questions, often capped at 200–400 words each. Common in PageUp ATS submissions. Treat each as a mini-STAR response.
Cover letter and resume only. Some APS3 ads — particularly in lower-volume agencies — ask only for a cover letter and resume. The cover letter should still demonstrate the capabilities the role is testing for, just in less structured form.
If you are not sure whether your existing experience pitches as APS3, APS4 or APS5, the APSC's work level standards are the authoritative reference. For most candidates moving from private sector, what reads as "supervised work with some autonomy and judgement" sits at APS3. Work with "clear ownership and discretion over how routine work is delivered" sits at APS4. Work that "contributes to procedural improvement and supervises others" sits at APS5.
What if you're applying for APS4 but currently at APS3?
Common situation. You are doing APS3 work but the next vacancy you want is APS4. The calibration shift to keep in mind: APS4 work involves clearer ownership of routine work, increased discretion, more contribution to procedural improvement, and more regular supervision of junior staff or trainees.
To pitch credibly at APS4 from an APS3 base, find examples in your current role where you have already done APS4-shaped work — even if your formal classification doesn't reflect it yet. Acting roles, higher-duties periods, projects where you supervised newer staff or contributed to procedural improvement — these are the examples that demonstrate APS4 readiness.
See our APS6 selection criteria and pitch writing guide for the full calibration shift between operational and senior operational levels, and how to structure a STAR response for the underlying technique.
Want us to write your APS3 application?
Our writers calibrate every response to the level you are applying for — APS3 reads as APS3, APS5 reads as APS5. One-hour information-gathering session, drafts within three business days of payment, 14-day editing window with unlimited revisions.