The question seeks information regarding public servants who were on contracts with high annualised salaries ($150,000 and $200,000) in 2001 and 2005, while being permanent public servants with lower salaries (under $100,000), contract rollovers, and performance reviews. The answer indicates that none met the criteria in part (1), rendering parts (2) to (4) not applicable.

AnsweredQoN 2861Legislative Council
Asked
8 November 2005
Portfolio
Heritage

QuestionView source ↗

(b) $150 000; and (c) $200 000, for 2001 and 2005 were on contract at the above annualised salary level, but were permanent public servants at an annualised salary of less than $100 000?
(c) $200 000, for 2001 and 2005 were on contract at the above annualised salary level, but were permanent public servants at an annualised salary of less than $100 000?
for 2001 and 2005 were on contract at the above annualised salary level, but were permanent public servants at an annualised salary of less than $100 000?
(b) $150 000; and (c) $200 000, had their contracts rolled over in the past five years?
(c) $200 000, had their contracts rolled over in the past five years?
had their contracts rolled over in the past five years?

AnswerView source ↗

Answered
1 December 2005
Responded by
Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Heritage
Response time
23 days
(b) $150 000; and (c) $200 000, have had a fully documented annual performance review, with a documented annual performance report, during the past two years?
(c) $200 000, have had a fully documented annual performance review, with a documented annual performance report, during the past two years?
have had a fully documented annual performance review, with a documented annual performance report, during the past two years?
(1) None (2) to (4) Not applicable
(2) to (4) Not applicable

Explore WA Government Data

Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.

Explore more