Keeping one base version and adapting it for each application is a practical way to work. A base version saves time, but some applications will need more adjustment than others, and a letter that has only had the role title changed usually reads that way.
A quick test
Read the letter back and ask whether it could be sent, unchanged, to a different department for a different role. If it could, it is not yet specific to this application.
That test is useful but not sufficient on its own. A few more checks:
- Does the reason you give for applying relate to this particular role, rather than to public service work generally?
- Is the example you have chosen relevant to the duties listed in the advertisement?
- Are the department name, role title and reference number correct?
- Does the terminology you have used accurately describe your own experience?
- Does the letter address anything the advertisement specifically asked you to cover?
That last one is easy to miss. Where an advertisement asks applicants to explain their interest in the work, or to address a particular capability, a letter that does not do so has skipped an instruction.
Giving a real reason for applying
A sentence explaining why you want this role is worth including where you have a genuine one, and worth leaving out where you do not. Something specific about the work is more useful than a general statement about the department's reputation.
A brief reference to relevant departmental work can help where it is genuine and directly connected to your application: a program you would be supporting, a reform the area is implementing, a published strategy that relates to the role. One clause is enough, and it should connect to why you are applying rather than sitting there as decoration. If you have nothing accurate to point to, leave it out.
Using the vacancy's own terms
Where the advertisement and pack repeatedly use particular terms for the work, and those terms honestly describe your experience, use their words. If the vacancy says "stakeholder engagement" and that is genuinely part of what you have done under a different label, use their term or both. It makes the connection visible rather than leaving the panel to infer it.
The limit matters as much as the habit. This works when you are translating work you have actually done. Terms borrowed for things you have not done are claims you would need to defend, and phrases lifted wholesale from the advertisement read as exactly that.
If you already work in the APS
Applying internally, or moving between departments, changes what the letter needs to cover.
Do not spend the letter explaining what the department does. Focus instead on the role itself: the team, the classification, and what you would contribute. Explain why this particular move makes sense given what you do now, whether that is a change of subject area, a step up in classification, or a move toward work you have been doing informally.
It is also worth writing as though the panel does not already know your work. Even within one department, panel members may not have worked with you, and assuming familiarity can leave your application thinner than an external applicant's.
Before you move on
Check every trace of the previous application is gone. Leaving an old department name or role title in an adapted letter is a common error, and it is the first thing to look for after tailoring.