Bookkeeper Salary Update FY26/27: What the Latest Hays Data Tells Us

A few weeks ago I wrote about what it actually costs a business to employ a bookkeeper, using the Hays FY25/26 Salary Guide as the benchmark. The response from practitioners was strong, which told me the numbers were landing.

Now the Hays FY26/27 Salary Guide is out, and the numbers have moved. Not everywhere, and not evenly. But in some states, the shift is significant enough that if you haven't looked at your rates recently, this is your nudge.

This post builds on the methodology in the original post. If you haven't read that one, it's worth starting there for the full loaded cost breakdown. Here I'm focusing on what's changed and what it means.

What the Numbers Show

The Hays guide breaks down bookkeeping roles into three broad levels. Here's how the salary midpoints compare year on year across the key states.

Trial Balance Bookkeeper

State / Region	FY25/26	FY26/27	Movement
NSW Sydney	$85,000	$95,000	+$10,000
QLD Bris/GC/SC	$75,000	$85,000	+$10,000
WA, VIC, SA	Various	Same	No change

Senior Bookkeeper

State / Region	FY25/26	FY26/27	Movement
NSW Sydney	$95,000	$110,000	+$15,000
QLD Bris/GC/SC	$83,000	$95,000	+$12,000
WA, VIC, SA	Various	Same	No change

The flat results for WA, VIC and SA don't mean those markets are static. They mean the guide hasn't captured movement at the same level. WA in particular has practitioners reporting senior rates well above guide midpoints. Treat these as floors, not ceilings.

What the Movement Tells Us

NSW and QLD have both moved meaningfully. A $10,000 to $15,000 increase in a single year at the senior level isn't routine. It reflects genuine competition for skilled bookkeepers, and that competition isn't coming from other bookkeeping practices. It's coming from businesses that want someone in-house.

The Hays guide notes that accounting and finance sits roughly 3% below the national average for skills shortage severity. That might sound reassuring. But the shortage that does exist is concentrated at the experienced end, which is exactly the level most practices rely on, and exactly the level where employed salaries are climbing fastest.

The implication is straightforward. If a Sydney business is prepared to pay $110,000 to employ a senior bookkeeper, and an experienced external bookkeeper is charging less than the loaded cost equivalent of that salary, the market is telling you something.

The Loaded Cost Comparison

Using the same methodology as the original post (base salary plus leave loading, superannuation at 12% of OTE, WorkCover at clerical/administrative rates, and a conservative recruitment cost estimate), here's how the loaded cost comparison looks year on year.

Note: "Base salary (incl. leave loading)" reflects the base salary plus 17.5% leave loading applied to 4 weeks of ordinary pay (4/52 of annual salary). Leave loading is treated as OTE for superannuation guarantee purposes. Payroll tax is excluded from this table as it only applies above state-based wage thresholds, which vary. Check with your relevant state revenue office for current figures.

Component	FY25/26 ($90k base)	FY26/27 ($110k base)
Base salary (incl. leave loading)	$91,212	$111,481
Superannuation (12% of OTE)	$10,945	$13,378
WorkCover (0.3%–0.6% of wages)	$270–$540	$330–$660
Recruitment costs	$2,700–$9,000	$3,300–$11,000
Total loaded cost	~$105,000–$112,000+	~$128,500–$137,000+

That's a jump of more than $20,000 in the fully loaded cost of employment at the senior level, year on year, in the states where salaries have moved. If your pricing hasn't moved in the same direction, the gap between what you charge and what that labour genuinely costs the market is widening.

A Note on AI and the Pricing Conversation

I know AI is coming up constantly in our industry right now, and a lot of the conversation centres on what it might replace. I want to offer a different framing.

If you're using AI tools to work more efficiently, the right question isn't "should I pass on those savings?" It's "does my capability argument just get stronger?" A bookkeeper who delivers faster, more accurate, more comprehensive work is worth more, not less. The market data above supports pricing that reflects that.

This isn't me telling you to raise your rates. That's your decision, and it depends on your market, your clients, and your positioning. But the data gives you a foundation for that conversation, and that foundation has shifted.

A Few Questions Worth Sitting With

If you haven't reviewed your rates recently, these are worth asking yourself:

• What would it cost one of your clients to replace you with an in-house bookkeeper? Have you done that calculation?
• Are you pricing at a rate that reflects your experience level, or the entry-level end of the market?
• Has your scope of work grown since you last reviewed your rates?
• Are you carrying risk and responsibility that an employed bookkeeper simply wouldn't be exposed to?

The loaded cost methodology is one tool for anchoring that conversation in something concrete. It's not the only way to think about pricing, but it's useful when you need to demonstrate the value of what you bring.

Salary data sourced from the Hays Salary Guide FY26/27 and Hays Salary Guide FY25/26. Loaded cost calculations use 12% superannuation applied to OTE (base salary plus leave loading), WorkCover at clerical/administrative industry rates of 0.3%–0.6%, and a blended recruitment cost estimate. Superannuation rate as at the time of writing; always confirm the current rate with the ATO before making business decisions. Payroll tax thresholds and rates vary by state and are not included.