Dubbo is a major government service hub in regional NSW and a major employer to boot, with competition for local roles quite high.

For Dubbo applicants seeking to apply for government roles, artificial intelligence (AI) can be useful for tidying a sentence or checking whether an answer is clear. It cannot replace the evidence a government selection panel needs to assess.

That distinction matters because AI can make a weak application sound stronger than it is. If the applicant has chosen the wrong example, misunderstood the role or made a broad claim they cannot explain in an interview, a polished paragraph will not fix the problem. It may simply make the gap harder for the applicant to notice.

Government recruitment is still built around merit, evidence and human judgement. The Australian Public Service Commission has issued 2026 guidance for AI in recruitment, and its candidate principles focus on honesty, transparency and fair, merit-based assessment.

Some agencies also publish their own guidance. Safe Work Australia, for example, says it does not use AI to assess, review or filter applications or resumes, and that a human selection panel makes shortlisting decisions.

The practical lesson is simple: do not write for an imagined keyword robot. Write for a person who has to understand what you actually did.

A useful application example usually has three parts. First, give enough context for the panel to understand the situation. Second, show your own action or decision. Third, explain the result, even if the result was modest.

For example, "I have strong communication skills" is difficult to assess. A stronger answer might describe a day when a customer, colleague or community member needed information explained in a different way. What was confusing? What did you change? How did you check they understood?

The same applies to regional experience. Dubbo applicants may have worked across distance, adapted when resources were limited, supported a small team or dealt with people with very different needs.

Those examples can be highly relevant to public-sector roles, but the panel cannot assume the capability from a job title. The application has to make the decision visible.

AI can still help as a review tool. After drafting an answer, ask it to identify vague claims, missing outcomes or sentences that sound generic. Then return to the real event and add the missing detail yourself.

Before submitting, read the application aloud and ask four questions. Is the example true? Is my personal contribution clear? Does it answer the role requirement? Could I explain the same event naturally in an interview?

If the answer is no, the problem is not grammar. The problem is evidence.

The best government applications do not sound clever for their own sake. They give a human panel enough truthful, specific information to assess the applicant fairly.

•••

Sam Peake is the founder of Team 3Thirty and a former NSW Government hiring manager and recruiter who has reviewed thousands of applications through shortlisting, interviews, hiring panels and bulk recruitment campaigns. Further information: team3thirty.com.