This article is the third by the authors in a four-part series. They deal with the composition and characteristics of health service managers in Australia of relevance to policy and decision-making for the health service labour force in general and health service managers in particular. The first article provided analyses on the specific characteristics of service, geographical and category distribution of health service managers, while the second imparted factual perspectives on age and sex characteristics. The analyses in this third article involve the fields of study, levels of education and income of health service managers in Australia, at the time of 2006 Census of Population. Findings show that health service managers tended to have a higher degree of concentration in health and management/ commerce fields of study than the average for all industries. This also applied to managers in aged care residential services. The majority of females in the health labour force was reflected in most fields of study, with notable exceptions such as engineering and architecture/building. Health service managers had higher levels of education than the average for all industries. This was especially so in the case of hospital managers but also applied to other health services and to a lesser degree in aged care residential services. A larger proportion of female managers in health services had qualifications at bachelor and postgraduate levels than male managers, particularly in hospitals. The same applied to aged care residential services. Following their higher level of academic qualifications, the average income of managers in health services was higher than the average for all industries. There were substantial gaps between the average income of male and female managers in health services and aged care residential services. Some factors that contributed to this difference could be attributed to the higher proportion of female managers working less than full time but other factors must also have been responsible for this difference. The article raises policy and training questions and suggests a related agenda for research.