❓ Hon. Helen Morton questions the Mid West and Wheatbelt Development Commissions regarding employee contracts, salaries, contract rollovers, and performance reviews for staff earning $100,000-$200,000. The answer reveals limited instances meeting the criteria, primarily concerning an acting CEO.
AnsweredQoN 2842Legislative Council
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?
(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
15 March 2006
Responded by
Minister for the Mid West and Wheatbelt
Response time
127 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 (a) Nil - noting however the Mid West Development Commission had an acting CEO in 2005 whose income (including HDA while acting as CEO), rather than annualised salary, falls into the $100,000 band and he is a permanent public servant with a normal salary <$100,000. However, he does not have a contract for the CEO's position and has therefore not been counted. (b) Nil (c) Nil 2 (a) Not applicable (b) Not applicable (c) Not applicable 3 Not applicable 4 (a) Nil (this assumes the acting CEO position is included - the position has not yet had a fully documented review) (b) Not applicable (c) Not applicable Wheatbelt Development Commission (1) (a) One (b) Nil (c) Nil (2) (a) One (b) Nil (c) Nil (3) & (4) Nil
(b) Nil (c) Nil 2 (a) Not applicable (b) Not applicable (c) Not applicable 3 Not applicable 4 (a) Nil (this assumes the acting CEO position is included - the position has not yet had a fully documented review) (b) Not applicable (c) Not applicable Wheatbelt Development Commission (1) (a) One (b) Nil (c) Nil (2) (a) One (b) Nil (c) Nil (3) & (4) Nil
2 (a) Not applicable (b) Not applicable (c) Not applicable 3 Not applicable 4 (a) Nil (this assumes the acting CEO position is included - the position has not yet had a fully documented review) (b) Not applicable (c) Not applicable Wheatbelt Development Commission (1) (a) One (b) Nil (c) Nil (2) (a) One (b) Nil (c) Nil (3) & (4) Nil
3 Not applicable 4 (a) Nil (this assumes the acting CEO position is included - the position has not yet had a fully documented review) (b) Not applicable (c) Not applicable Wheatbelt Development Commission (1) (a) One (b) Nil (c) Nil (2) (a) One (b) Nil (c) Nil (3) & (4) Nil
4 (a) Nil (this assumes the acting CEO position is included - the position has not yet had a fully documented review) (b) Not applicable (c) Not applicable Wheatbelt Development Commission (1) (a) One (b) Nil (c) Nil (2) (a) One (b) Nil (c) Nil (3) & (4) Nil
(b) Not applicable (c) Not applicable Wheatbelt Development Commission (1) (a) One (b) Nil (c) Nil (2) (a) One (b) Nil (c) Nil (3) & (4) Nil
(c) Not applicable Wheatbelt Development Commission (1) (a) One (b) Nil (c) Nil (2) (a) One (b) Nil (c) Nil (3) & (4) Nil
Wheatbelt Development Commission (1) (a) One (b) Nil (c) Nil (2) (a) One (b) Nil (c) Nil (3) & (4) Nil
(1) (a) One (b) Nil (c) Nil (2) (a) One (b) Nil (c) Nil (3) & (4) Nil
(2) (a) One (b) Nil (c) Nil (3) & (4) Nil
(3) & (4) Nil
(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 (a) Nil - noting however the Mid West Development Commission had an acting CEO in 2005 whose income (including HDA while acting as CEO), rather than annualised salary, falls into the $100,000 band and he is a permanent public servant with a normal salary <$100,000. However, he does not have a contract for the CEO's position and has therefore not been counted. (b) Nil (c) Nil 2 (a) Not applicable (b) Not applicable (c) Not applicable 3 Not applicable 4 (a) Nil (this assumes the acting CEO position is included - the position has not yet had a fully documented review) (b) Not applicable (c) Not applicable Wheatbelt Development Commission (1) (a) One (b) Nil (c) Nil (2) (a) One (b) Nil (c) Nil (3) & (4) Nil
(b) Nil (c) Nil 2 (a) Not applicable (b) Not applicable (c) Not applicable 3 Not applicable 4 (a) Nil (this assumes the acting CEO position is included - the position has not yet had a fully documented review) (b) Not applicable (c) Not applicable Wheatbelt Development Commission (1) (a) One (b) Nil (c) Nil (2) (a) One (b) Nil (c) Nil (3) & (4) Nil
2 (a) Not applicable (b) Not applicable (c) Not applicable 3 Not applicable 4 (a) Nil (this assumes the acting CEO position is included - the position has not yet had a fully documented review) (b) Not applicable (c) Not applicable Wheatbelt Development Commission (1) (a) One (b) Nil (c) Nil (2) (a) One (b) Nil (c) Nil (3) & (4) Nil
3 Not applicable 4 (a) Nil (this assumes the acting CEO position is included - the position has not yet had a fully documented review) (b) Not applicable (c) Not applicable Wheatbelt Development Commission (1) (a) One (b) Nil (c) Nil (2) (a) One (b) Nil (c) Nil (3) & (4) Nil
4 (a) Nil (this assumes the acting CEO position is included - the position has not yet had a fully documented review) (b) Not applicable (c) Not applicable Wheatbelt Development Commission (1) (a) One (b) Nil (c) Nil (2) (a) One (b) Nil (c) Nil (3) & (4) Nil
(b) Not applicable (c) Not applicable Wheatbelt Development Commission (1) (a) One (b) Nil (c) Nil (2) (a) One (b) Nil (c) Nil (3) & (4) Nil
(c) Not applicable Wheatbelt Development Commission (1) (a) One (b) Nil (c) Nil (2) (a) One (b) Nil (c) Nil (3) & (4) Nil
Wheatbelt Development Commission (1) (a) One (b) Nil (c) Nil (2) (a) One (b) Nil (c) Nil (3) & (4) Nil
(1) (a) One (b) Nil (c) Nil (2) (a) One (b) Nil (c) Nil (3) & (4) Nil
(2) (a) One (b) Nil (c) Nil (3) & (4) Nil
(3) & (4) Nil
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.