Let's talk about the elephant in every job ad in Australia. The salary field that says "Competitive" or "Attractive package" or, my personal favourite, "Dependent on experience." You know what candidates read when they see that? "We either don't know what this role is worth, or we know and we're hoping to lowball someone."
Neither interpretation helps you.
The numbers don't lie
Advertised salaries in Australia are currently rising at 3 to 4% annually, outpacing the Wage Price Index. That means the market is moving whether you publish your range or not. The only question is whether candidates find out your number before they apply or after they've spent three weeks in your process.
Here's the stat that should worry every hiring manager: 27% of Australian employers say application relevance is their number one hiring challenge. Not volume. Relevance. They're getting applications, but the wrong ones. Too senior. Too junior. Wrong salary expectations entirely.
And the biggest driver of irrelevant applications? Vague or missing salary information. When candidates can't see the range, they guess. And they guess wrong in both directions. You end up with a pipeline full of people who either can't afford to take the role or wouldn't get out of bed for what you're offering.
The hidden cost of "competitive salary"
Let's do the maths on a single hire. Your hiring manager spends 30 minutes reviewing each application. Your recruiter spends 20 minutes on each phone screen. You interview four people before making an offer.
If half your applicants are misaligned on salary, you've just doubled the time to hire. That's not an exaggeration. We see it constantly. A role gets 60 applications with no salary listed. The hiring manager spends a week reviewing them. Then in phone screens, half the candidates drop out when they hear the number. Three weeks gone. And you still don't have a shortlist.
Now compare that to a role with a clear range posted. Fewer applications, sure. But the ones you get are from people who've already self-selected on salary. Your time to shortlist drops by half. Your offer acceptance rate goes up because there are no surprises. The whole process compresses.
A smaller pipeline of the right people will always outperform a large pipeline of the wrong ones.
The objections (and why they don't hold up)
"We don't want current staff to see the range"
They already know. Glassdoor exists. Seek's salary estimates exist. LinkedIn's salary insights exist. Your current staff have a pretty good idea of what the market pays for their role. If the range you're advertising externally is higher than what you're paying internally, that's not a transparency problem. That's a pay equity problem. And hiding the ad won't fix it.
"We want flexibility to pay more for the right candidate"
Then post the range and add "plus super, with flexibility for exceptional candidates." You can still negotiate above band. Posting a range doesn't lock you in. It gives candidates a starting point and saves everyone the awkwardness of the "what are your salary expectations" dance at the end of a three-stage process.
"Our competitors will see what we're paying"
Good. If you're paying well, that's a competitive advantage. Show it off. If you're not paying well, your competitors already know. And more importantly, the candidates know. Hiding your range doesn't make you more competitive. It makes you look like you have something to hide.
What the data says about transparency
Job ads with salary ranges consistently outperform those without. More clicks. More qualified applications. Faster time to fill. This isn't theory. It's been measured across every major Australian job board.
SEEK's own data shows that ads with salary information receive significantly more applications than those without. And the quality of those applications is higher because candidates can self-select before they hit apply.
In the sectors we recruit for, tech, media, SaaS, and digital, the expectation of salary transparency is even stronger. These candidates are savvy. They have options. And they will deprioritise your role in favour of one where they can see the number upfront. Every time.
The equity angle matters too
Salary secrecy disproportionately disadvantages women, younger workers, and people from non-traditional backgrounds. These groups are statistically less likely to negotiate aggressively, which means opaque salary processes tend to entrench pay gaps rather than close them.
If your organisation has a diversity and inclusion strategy, salary transparency is one of the most tangible things you can do to back it up. It costs nothing and it signals that you value fairness over negotiation gamesmanship.
What to do tomorrow
Pull up your current open roles. For each one, ask: is the salary range published? If not, publish it. Make it a real range, not a $40k spread that tells candidates nothing. A $120k to $140k range is useful. A $100k to $160k range is a waste of everyone's time.
If your internal bands are out of date, update them first. Use market data. Talk to your recruiter. Look at what competitors are advertising. Then post the real number.
You'll get fewer applications. You'll also get better ones. Your hiring managers will thank you. Your candidates will respect you. And you'll fill the role faster.
Stop hiding the number. It's not a secret. It's a filter. And right now, it's filtering out exactly the people you want.