April 6, 2026 | PS Careers

April 6, 2026April 6, 2026

Mastering the Australian Government Style Manual for Your Job Application

Applying for a position within the Australian government is a competitive and typically rigorous process. Candidates invest considerable time polishing their curriculum vitae, crafting compelling cover letters and preparing for behavioural interviews. Yet one of the most consistently overlooked advantages available to job seekers is a thorough understanding of the Australian Government Style Manual — a resource that, when applied correctly, can meaningfully distinguish your application from the rest of the field.

Whether you are responding to selection criteria, completing a written task as part of an assessment centre, or corresponding professionally with a hiring panel, your written communication will be scrutinised. Aligning your materials with the standards set out in the Style Manual signals to hiring managers that you already understand how the public sector communicates — and that you are ready to hit the ground running from day one.

What Is the Australian Government Style Manual?

The Australian Government Style Manual — sometimes referred to as the Commonwealth Style Guide — is the authoritative reference for written communication across the Australian Public Service (APS) and broader Commonwealth government. It covers a comprehensive range of topics, including grammar, punctuation, spelling conventions, plain English principles, inclusive language, document formatting and referencing standards.

Earlier editions of the manual existed as printed volumes, most notably the sixth edition published in 2002. However, the manual has since transitioned to a fully digital format, hosted at stylemanual.gov.au. This shift has transformed it into a living document, updated regularly to reflect contemporary usage, evolving terminology and changes in government communication practice.

This is an important practical consideration: if you are applying for government roles intermittently over an extended period of time, it is worth revisiting the online manual to ensure your understanding of its guidance remains current.

Why Job Seekers Should Engage With the Style Manual

Many candidates assume the Style Manual is solely a resource for public servants already working within government. In reality, engaging with it during the application process offers several distinct advantages.

It Demonstrates Cultural Alignment

Government departments place enormous value on consistency, clarity and professionalism in all written communication. These are not merely aesthetic preferences — they reflect the APS Values and Code of Conduct, which emphasise accountability, impartiality and respect. When your application materials reflect the same standards that public servants are expected to uphold daily, you signal to hiring managers that you understand the culture of the APS and can operate within it effectively.

Candidates who submit applications written in an informal, inconsistent or unnecessarily verbose style may be inadvertently signalling that they are unfamiliar with how government agencies function. Even strong candidates with relevant experience can be undermined by application materials that feel misaligned with the professional environment they are seeking to enter.

It Encourages Clearer, More Effective Writing

One of the central principles of the Style Manual is the use of plain English. This means preferring short, direct sentences over complex constructions, choosing common words over technical jargon where possible, and structuring information so that it is immediately accessible to the reader. For job applicants, this is particularly valuable when addressing selection criteria, where clarity and conciseness are essential.

Consider the difference between these two approaches to a selection criteria response:

- - - Unclear: “I possess a wide range of experience that encompasses an extensive breadth of capabilities with respect to engaging with and communicating effectively across diverse stakeholder groups.”
    - Clear: “I have extensive experience engaging with diverse stakeholders across government and industry, including senior executives, community representatives and cross-agency working groups.”

The second version is not only easier to read — it is also more specific and persuasive. Plain English forces writers to commit to concrete claims rather than hiding behind vague, inflated language.

It Reflects Attention to Detail

In the public sector, attention to detail is not simply desirable — it is often listed explicitly as a key capability in APS work level standards. Spelling errors, inconsistent formatting or grammatical inaccuracies in your application may cause a hiring manager to question your suitability for roles that require the production of accurate and professional written work. Applying the Style Manual’s conventions consistently throughout your materials is a straightforward way to demonstrate this capability before you have even set foot in an interview room.

Key Style Principles to Apply in Your Application

The Style Manual covers a broad range of guidance, but several principles are particularly relevant to job seekers preparing application materials.

Australian English Spelling

This is a fundamental requirement. Australian English differs from American English and errors in this area are immediately noticeable to experienced public sector recruiters. Key conventions include:

- - - Use -ise rather than -ize (e.g., organise, recognise, prioritise)
    - Retain the -our ending (e.g., labour, behaviour, colour)
    - Use -re rather than -er (e.g., centre, litre)
    - Abbreviations for well-known bodies do not require full stops (e.g., APS, APSC, ATO)
    - Dates should follow the day–month–year format (e.g., 27 March 2026)

Plain English and Active Voice

The Style Manual strongly favours active voice over passive constructions, and for good reason — active voice is more direct, more engaging and easier to follow. In the context of selection criteria responses, this matters significantly.

- - - Passive: “The project was managed across three government agencies.”
    - Active: “I managed the project across three government agencies, coordinating deliverables with the Department of Finance, Services Australia and the ATO.”

Active voice also pairs naturally with the STAR method (Situation, Task, Action, Result), which is the standard framework for addressing behavioural selection criteria in the APS. Keeping your language active and your sentences direct helps ensure your responses remain concise and impact-focused.

Inclusive Language

The Style Manual provides detailed guidance on inclusive language, reflecting the APS’s commitment to respectful and equitable communication. When writing your application, avoid any gendered assumptions and outdated terminology. For example:

- - - Use they/them as a singular pronoun where gender is unknown or unspecified
    - Use people with disability rather than disabled people (the Style Manual follows the convention preferred by many Australian disability advocacy organisations)
    - Avoid terms that centre a particular cultural perspective as the default

Demonstrating awareness of inclusive language principles in your application is especially important for roles involving community engagement, policy development or communications functions.

Document Formatting

Formatting choices send signals about your professionalism and your familiarity with government document standards. The Style Manual recommends:

- - - Sans-serif fonts such as Arial or Calibri for digital documents, at a readable size (typically 11 or 12 point)
    - Left-aligned text throughout — centred body text is not consistent with government formatting conventions
    - Clear, consistent headings with a logical hierarchy
    - Minimal use of bold, italics, and underlining — reserve these for genuine emphasis rather than decoration
    - Bullet points used purposefully to present lists or sequential information, not as a substitute for coherent prose

Applying the Style Manual Across Your Application Documents

Curriculum Vitae

Use bullet points to present responsibilities and achievements clearly, leading each point with a strong action verb (managed, developed, coordinated, delivered, analysed). Ensure date formatting is consistent throughout and that your contact details are clearly presented at the top of the document.

Avoid decorative formatting elements such as coloured text, shaded tables or graphical elements that may not render correctly across different systems.

Cover Letter

A cover letter for a government role should be no longer than one page. Open with a clear statement of the position you are applying for and a concise articulation of the value you bring. The body of the letter should connect your experience directly to the requirements of the role, reflecting the language and priorities outlined in the position description. Close professionally, without overly effusive language.

It’s crucial that your cover letter undergoes proofreading. A cover letter with spelling or grammatical errors is a significant red flag in any application, but particularly so in a context where written communication is a core professional expectation.

Selection Criteria Responses

Selection criteria responses are often the most heavily weighted component of an APS application. Use the STAR method to structure each response, keeping your answers focused and evidence-based. Aim for responses that are thorough without being excessive — typically between 300 and 600 words per criterion, unless a word limit is specified.

Apply all Style Manual conventions consistently: Australian spelling, active voice, plain English and appropriate formatting. Avoid reproducing the wording of the criterion verbatim at the start of your response — hiring panels read dozens of applications and will appreciate writing that gets straight to the point.

Final Considerations

The Australian Government Style Manual is not a bureaucratic formality — it is a practical tool that reflects the communication standards of one of Australia’s largest employers. Taking the time to understand and apply its principles throughout your application process is a low-effort, high-impact strategy that very few candidates use to their advantage.

Before submitting any application materials, review them against the manual’s key guidance, use a plain English readability tool such as the Hemingway Editor or a Flesch Reading Ease calculator to assess complexity, and consider seeking feedback from someone experienced in APS hiring. Small adjustments to spelling, tone, structure and formatting can make a substantial difference to how your application is received — and ultimately, to whether you are invited to interview.

April 6, 2026April 6, 2026

How to Address the Personal Drive and Integrity Selection Criteria in Your APS Application

Navigating the recruitment processes of the Australian Public Service requires a strategic understanding of the Integrated Leadership System. When applying for a new role or seeking a promotion, candidates are frequently asked to submit a cover letter or selection criteria response demonstrating how they meet the core ILS capabilities. We find that demonstrating personal drive and professional integrity is quite challenging to articulate on paper.

Many applicants fall into the trap of treating this criterion as a simple character reference. They write sweeping statements about their strong work ethic or their innate honesty, forgetting that selection panels cannot assess theoretical virtues – as will all parts of an APS application, we need evidence and examples! In the public service context, personal drive and integrity are not passive traits; they are active, measurable behaviours. To score highly, your application must provide concrete, structural evidence of how you apply these attributes to deliver tangible outcomes for the government.

This comprehensive guide explores exactly how to tackle this specific selection criterion, offering strategic advice on structuring your response, selecting the right examples, and writing with the authority expected of a high-calibre public servant.

Deconstructing the Criteria for Your Pitch

Before you begin drafting your response, you must understand how the selection panel will evaluate your claims. The panel uses the ILS framework to look for specific behavioural indicators. To address this criterion successfully, your written response must weave together three distinct narrative threads.

The Proactivity Element

Drive is fundamentally about initiative, and the strength of the evidence you need to provide will depend on how senior a role you are seeking. For example, your response could highlight a time when you identified an operational gap, anticipated a future problem, or sought out a way to improve a departmental process. You must show that you take ownership of your professional environment and actively push for better results.

The Resilience Element

Public service is complex and often subject to sudden shifts in policy, environment or structure. Resilience is your ability to maintain momentum when things change. Your pitch should demonstrate how you handle setbacks, manage your energy during long-term projects, and keep yourself or your team focused when faced with ambiguity or sudden machinery-of-government changes.

The Ethical Element

Integrity is the cornerstone of public trust. In a selection criteria response, this is demonstrated by showing professional courage and alignment with APS values. The panel wants to see how you handle sensitive information, how you manage conflicts of interest and how you take accountability. It is about proving that you adhere to the APS Values, even in tricky environments.

Selecting the Strongest Evidence

The strength of your response relies on the quality (and structure) of the examples you choose. A common error is selecting a scenario that is too routine. Completing your daily tasks on time is an expectation, not an example of exceptional drive.

Choosing High-Impact Scenarios

When brainstorming examples for your application, look for situations where your personal values were genuinely tested or where you were required to actively demonstrate your commitment to the APS Values. The strongest examples are those where the right course of action required courage, judgement or a deliberate choice to uphold a standard that others may have overlooked. Consider the following prompts to unearth your best material:

- - - Was there a time when you were pressured to act in a way that conflicted with your values or the APS Code of Conduct? How did you navigate that situation, and what steps did you take to ensure the outcome aligned with the standards expected of a public servant?
    - Can you recall an instance where you witnessed behaviour that fell below the ethical standards of the APS — such as a conflict of interest, misuse of resources, or a lack of transparency — and how did you respond in a way that protected the integrity of your team or agency?
    - Have you ever had to deliver advice or make a decision that was the right thing to do, even though it was unpopular, professionally uncomfortable, or carried a degree of personal risk? How did you demonstrate professional courage while maintaining respect for those involved?
    - When did you proactively go out of your way to demonstrate fairness, honesty or transparency in your work — perhaps in how you handled sensitive information, managed a conflict of interest, or ensured an equitable outcome for a stakeholder?
    - Can you think of a time when you held yourself or others accountable to the APS Values, even in a high-pressure environment where shortcuts may have seemed tempting? What did that look like in practice, and what was the outcome?

Structuring Your Response with the STAR Method

To ensure your response is clear, logical and easy for the panel to score, you must use the STAR method. This framework prevents you from rambling and ensures that every sentence adds value to your pitch.

Situation: Setting the Scene Concisely

Begin by providing the necessary context, but keep it brief. The panel does not need a deep dive into the history of your branch. Focus on establishing the ethical or professional challenge that arose. For instance, you might describe a situation where a senior colleague was routinely bypassing procurement guidelines, placing your agency at financial and reputational risk, and you were faced with the decision of whether to escalate the matter. Alternatively, you might set the scene for a moment where you were asked to present data in a way that you believed was misleading to a ministerial audience. Establish the stakes early so the panel understands why this situation demanded genuine personal drive or a principled response.

Task: Defining Your Responsibility

Clearly articulate what you were required to do and what standard you were obligated to uphold. For example, you might explain that as the project lead, you were responsible for ensuring all procurement activity complied with your agency’s financial delegations and the PGPA Act, and that you had an obligation to escalate suspected non-compliance to your Director. This section should be one or two sentences and should make clear that you understood the ethical weight of your responsibility before you acted.

Action: The Core of Your Pitch

This is the most critical part of your response and should take up the majority of your word count. Here, you must detail exactly what you did, focusing heavily on the how and the why.

- - - Use the active first person: Always use I instead of we. The panel is assessing your personal values and individual judgement, not your team’s collective behaviour. For example, rather than writing “the team raised the concern”, write “I escalated the matter directly to my Director after consulting our agency’s fraud and corruption policy to confirm the appropriate reporting pathway”.
    - Demonstrate your values in action: Describe the specific choices you made and why. For instance, you might explain how you identified that a colleague’s undisclosed conflict of interest could compromise the integrity of a tender evaluation, and how you approached your ethics contact officer to seek guidance before taking any further steps. Show the panel that your actions were deliberate and principled, not accidental.
    - Show professional courage: If your example involved delivering difficult advice or holding firm on an unpopular position, explain how you managed that conversation. For example, you might describe how you respectfully but firmly advised a senior executive that a proposed communications strategy could be perceived as politically partial, and how you offered an alternative approach that protected the agency’s statutory independence.

Result: Proving the Impact

Conclude your example with a clear, positive outcome that is directly connected to your values-driven actions. For this criterion, a strong result does not need to be a financial saving — it might be that your escalation of a procurement concern led to a formal review that identified a systemic gap in your branch’s financial controls, which was subsequently rectified. Or it might be that your frank advice to a senior executive resulted in a communications strategy that was revised to better reflect the agency’s obligations under the Public Service Act. Where possible, reference any positive feedback you received from a supervisor or note any lasting changes that were made as a direct result of your intervention.

Tailoring Your Pitch to the Classification Level

The ILS is a cumulative framework. The way you demonstrate personal drive and integrity at the APS 4 level is vastly different from how you demonstrate it at the Executive Level 2. You must tailor your written response to match the expectations of the level you are seeking.

For APS 1 to APS 5 Roles: Building a Foundation of Trust

At these levels, the panel is looking for evidence that you understand and actively apply the APS Values in your day-to-day work. A strong example at this level might involve identifying that a shared team folder contained personally identifiable information that was accessible to staff outside the project, and taking the initiative to flag the issue to your supervisor and work with your IT team to restrict access before a data breach occurred. Another strong example might involve proactively disclosing to your manager that you had a personal relationship with an applicant in a grants round you were assessing, and requesting to be removed from that assessment to protect the integrity of the process.

For APS 6 to EL1 Roles: Modelling Integrity and Professional Courage

As you move into middle management, the panel expects you to not only uphold the APS Values yourself but to actively model them for others. A compelling example at this level might describe how you observed a pattern of low-level misconduct within your team — such as staff members falsifying their attendance records — and how you addressed it directly and fairly through your agency’s performance and conduct framework, rather than ignoring it to avoid conflict. Another strong example might involve how you provided frank and fearless advice to an SES officer that a proposed policy approach carried significant legal risk, and how you stood by that assessment even when it was initially met with resistance.

For EL2 and SES Roles: Championing an Ethical Culture

At the senior leadership levels, personal drive and integrity are about cultural stewardship. A strong example at this level might describe how you led your division through a significant restructure, and how you prioritised transparent and honest communication with your staff throughout the process — even when the news was difficult — because you recognised that candour was essential to maintaining trust during a period of uncertainty. Another compelling example might focus on how you identified that your agency’s whistleblower reporting mechanisms were not well understood by staff, and how you championed a targeted education programme to ensure your people felt genuinely safe to raise concerns without fear of repercussions.

Navigating Common Pitfalls in Your Written Response

Even highly experienced public servants can undermine their applications by falling into common writing traps. To ensure your pitch remains sharp and persuasive, avoid the following errors.

Relying on Character Statements Instead of Evidence

This criterion is particularly susceptible to vague, character-based writing. Statements such as “I am a person of strong integrity” or “I always act in accordance with the APS Values” are meaningless to a selection panel without supporting evidence. For example, rather than writing I consistently demonstrate honesty in my work, you might write “I identified that a data error in a briefing I had prepared would have led the Minister to significantly overestimate the programme’s reach, and I immediately notified my Director and issued a corrected brief before the scheduled meeting”. That single example communicates your honesty and drive far more powerfully than any character statement ever could.

Choosing Examples That Are Too Safe

Selecting a routine or low-stakes example significantly weakens your response. If your example centres on something like consistently meeting your deadlines or always being polite to colleagues, it is unlikely to convince the panel that you can uphold your integrity when it truly matters. The strongest responses involve situations where doing the right thing required genuine courage — such as reporting suspected fraud committed by a senior colleague, or declining a request from a manager that you believed would compromise your agency’s obligations under the Public Service Act.

Hiding Behind the Team

While collaboration is highly valued in the APS, your selection criteria response is an individual assessment of your values and character. For example, rather than writing “the team agreed that the conflict of interest needed to be disclosed”, write “I identified that my involvement in the procurement process created a perceived conflict of interest and I took the initiative to disclose this to my Director in writing and remove myself from the evaluation panel”. Be explicit about the specific decision you made, the values that guided you, and the individual stand you took.

Conclusion

Your selection criteria response is essentially a written audition. The tone of your document serves as a demonstration of your communication skills and your professional maturity.

Ensure your writing is concise, formal, and free of bureaucratic jargon that obscures your meaning. Use strong, active verbs—such as spearheaded, navigated, resolved, and championed—to convey a sense of momentum. Finally, proofread your document ruthlessly. Submitting a pitch littered with typographical errors immediately undermines any claims you have made about your meticulous attention to detail and personal drive.

By strategically aligning your examples with the ILS framework, structuring your response with the STAR method, and writing with unashamed ownership of your achievements, you will present a compelling case to the selection panel. You will move beyond simply claiming to be a person of good character, proving instead that you are a highly effective, resilient, and ethical leader ready to advance within the Australian Public Service.