Why NDIS Job Ads Get Ignored

Will, EnableUs Community

[excited] Welcome to the show. Winter, if your support worker ad looks like 300,000 other provider ads, it's not a job ad anymore -- it's wallpaper. And in a workforce market already short by tens of thousands of workers, wallpaper gets scrolled straight past.

Winter, EnableUs Community

[skeptical] The "300,000 providers" bit is the part that sticks for me. Three hundred THOUSAND. If I'm a support worker on SEEK reading ad number nine before lunch, and every one says "person-centred care, must have checks, apply now"... yeah, they blur. Completely.

Will, EnableUs Community

Exactly. Most ads open like a compliance file. Cert III preferred, NDIS Worker Screening, orientation module, police check, driver's licence. Important stuff -- obviously. But if that's your first paragraph, you've led with paperwork instead of the human being you're trying to hire.

Winter, EnableUs Community

[questioning tone] Alright, I'll push back a bit. For providers, compliance isn't optional. If the role involves higher-risk supports, you DO need the right clearance, maybe mandatory qualifications. So isn't leading with that just being efficient?

Will, EnableUs Community

[matter-of-fact] Efficient for the provider, maybe. Counterproductive for the candidate. The strongest workers usually aren't sitting there thinking, "Brilliant, a bullet list of checks." They're asking, "Who am I supporting? What kind of team is this? Will I be backed properly? Does this place actually care how the work is done?"

Winter, EnableUs Community

[pauses] So the issue isn't the compliance list itself. It's putting the list at the FRONT door.

Will, EnableUs Community

That's it. A mediocre ad says, "Here's what we need from you." A strong ad says, "Here's why this work matters, here's who you'll do it with, and here's why this organisation is worth your time." That difference is huge.

Winter, EnableUs Community

And I reckon candidates can smell generic language instantly. "Must be passionate." "Must deliver quality supports." "Must be person-centred." Those phrases are so overused they've almost stopped meaning anything. It's like writing "we seek a team player" in 2006. Nobody learns anything.

Will, EnableUs Community

[chuckles] Yes. "Person-centred" without an example is basically decorative. Say what it LOOKS like. Are you supporting one participant with morning personal care and medication prompts? Are you helping someone build confidence using public transport? Are you part of a small support team around a participant with complex communication needs? That's memorable.

Winter, EnableUs Community

The phrase "morning personal care and medication prompts" lands harder than "assist with daily living." It's more specific, and honestly it lets people self-sort. Someone who's fine with community access but not intimate care knows that immediately.

Will, EnableUs Community

Yes -- and self-selection is the whole game. You do not want 120 vague applications. You want 12 from people who understand the work. If your ad never paints a real picture of the role, unsuitable candidates still apply, and your ideal worker assumes, "This sounds like every other provider. I'll keep scrolling."

Winter, EnableUs Community

[curious] There's another piece here, isn't there? Culture. Because candidates aren't just choosing a participant or a shift pattern. They're choosing whether your organisation feels safe, steady, and respectful.

Will, EnableUs Community

Absolutely. If your team gives regular supervision, say it. If your rostering is consistent, say it. If you've built a culture around collaboration and workers being supported well, say that plainly. Candidates reading ten ads in an afternoon will remember the one that sounded honest enough to have been written by an actual person.

Winter, EnableUs Community

[reflective] Honest is the word. Because some ads read like they were written to satisfy an audit trail -- which, fair enough, records matter -- but the best workers don't want to join a filing cabinet. They want to join a service that knows who it is.

Winter, EnableUs Community

[warmly] So if we're fixing this, I think the opening paragraph does most of the heavy lifting. Not a wall of requirements. Start with: who are you as an organisation, who do you support, and what does a real shift actually feel like? Give me the day, not the policy folder.

Will, EnableUs Community

[responds quickly] Right -- give me something like: "We're a small disability support team in Brisbane's north supporting adults with intellectual disability and psychosocial disability. This role includes morning personal care, meal prep, transport to appointments, and community participation in the afternoons." In four lines, I know more than I do from half the ads online.

Winter, EnableUs Community

And "psychosocial disability" is the token there. If you've written that, plus maybe "calm communication" or "ability to work alongside a participant's broader support team," you're speaking directly to people who've actually done that work before.

Will, EnableUs Community

Or to people with transferable skills who can make an informed decision. Same with communication needs. If a participant uses visual supports, limited verbal communication, or needs a worker who's patient with processing time, say it. Don't hide the real conditions of the role behind vague labels.

Winter, EnableUs Community

[lightly] You're basically saying: stop writing "support worker wanted" and start writing the trailer for the actual job.

Will, EnableUs Community

[laughs] That's... actually pretty good. Yes. Trailer, not placeholder. And once you've done that, separate what is ESSENTIAL from what's DESIRABLE. This is where providers accidentally scare off good people.

Winter, EnableUs Community

The "essential versus desirable" split is massive. If every item is treated like law, a capable candidate who ticks eight boxes out of ten often won't apply. Meanwhile the person who ticks ten boxes on paper but has no values fit absolutely will.

Will, EnableUs Community

Exactly. Essential for most roles? Right to work in Australia. Current clearance or willingness to obtain an NDIS Worker Screening Check. Completion or willingness to complete the NDIS Worker Orientation Module. Then, if the support type requires it, the relevant mandatory qualification. That's different from stuffing every preference into the same list.

Winter, EnableUs Community

And Certificate III is a good example, yeah? Often preferred, definitely useful, but not automatically mandatory for every lower-risk support role if your induction and training are solid.

Will, EnableUs Community

Correct. If you can train well, say so. A traineeship pathway or structured induction can widen your pool without lowering standards. Also, use plain-language attributes. "You need to be punctual, discreet, a clear communicator, and able to work collaboratively with others in the participant's support team." That's stronger than corporate mush.

Winter, EnableUs Community

[skeptical] Alright, but I think the bit providers still underrate is the offer. In a candidate-short market, why are we still seeing ads that demand everything and reveal nothing? No pay, no supervision details, no hours, no clue whether shifts are stable.

Will, EnableUs Community

This is one of my biggest bugbears. Pay transparency matters. If the role is under SCHADS, say the classification and give the range. As of 1 July 2025, those rates lifted by 3.5%. So if you're still posting vague lines like "competitive salary," you're missing a real differentiator.

Winter, EnableUs Community

That "1 July 2025, 3.5%" detail is one candidates notice. It says you've done your homework and you respect their time. Same with specific benefits: regular supervision, flexible scheduling, consistent hours, study support, professional development. Don't make people guess whether the job will actually sustain them.

Will, EnableUs Community

And make the application process clean. Ask for a CV no longer than two pages, maybe a short cover letter, or better -- one targeted question. Something like: "What does person-centred support mean in practice?" That question does two jobs. It filters out people who didn't read the ad, and it gives you an early values signal.

Winter, EnableUs Community

[questioning tone] So let me try to say it back. A better ad doesn't just attract more candidates. It reduces noise. Because if you've described morning personal care, community participation, psychosocial support, the pay range, and one values question, the wrong-fit applicant is more likely to opt out before they hit send.

Will, EnableUs Community

Almost -- not just wrong-fit applicants. It also gives the RIGHT people permission to opt in. The experienced worker who was on the fence sees a serious ad, sees the specifics, sees the support on offer, and thinks, "Okay... this place knows what the role actually is."

Winter, EnableUs Community

[softly] And that's the part I keep coming back to. A job ad is never just recruitment copy. It's a little moral document. It tells people whether your organisation sees support work as a checklist... or as skilled, relational, human work carried out by people worth speaking to properly.