The question seeks information on public servants who were on high-value contracts in 2001 and 2005, specifically if their contract salaries significantly exceeded their permanent public servant salaries, and whether these contracts were rolled over. The answer seeks to determine if these high-value contracts had fully documented annual performance reviews.

AnsweredQoN 2831Legislative Council
Asked
8 November 2005
Portfolio
Community Safety

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
14 March 2006
Responded by
Minister for Fisheries representing the Minister for Community Safety
Response time
126 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?

Explore WA Government Data

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

Explore more