The State Records Commission had not completed its review of the retention and disposal schedule set by the Gordon inquiry committee as of November 2003, but had requested changes. The Department of Premier and Cabinet agreed to revise the schedule.

AnsweredQoN 1550Legislative Council
Asked
20 November 2003
Portfolio
Arts

QuestionView source ↗

On behalf of my colleague Hon Robyn McSweeney, I refer the minister to the retention and disposal schedule set by the Gordon inquiry committee and ask - (1) Has the State Records Commission completed its review of the schedule set by the committee? (2) Did the commission recommend any changes to the schedule set by the committee; and, if so, what were those changes? (3) Has the schedule been implemented fully; and, if not, what actions remain to be completed? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH

AnswerView source ↗

I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) No. (2) Yes. The commission requested more explicit scope notes for the terms used in the retention and disposal schedule and a further review of the dispositions applied to certain records identified in the schedule. (3) No. The Department of the Premier and Cabinet has agreed to revise the schedule.
(1) Has the State Records Commission completed its review of the schedule set by the committee? (2) Did the commission recommend any changes to the schedule set by the committee; and, if so, what were those changes? (3) Has the schedule been implemented fully; and, if not, what actions remain to be completed? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) No. (2) Yes. The commission requested more explicit scope notes for the terms used in the retention and disposal schedule and a further review of the dispositions applied to certain records identified in the schedule. (3) No. The Department of the Premier and Cabinet has agreed to revise the schedule.
(2) Did the commission recommend any changes to the schedule set by the committee; and, if so, what were those changes? (3) Has the schedule been implemented fully; and, if not, what actions remain to be completed? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) No. (2) Yes. The commission requested more explicit scope notes for the terms used in the retention and disposal schedule and a further review of the dispositions applied to certain records identified in the schedule. (3) No. The Department of the Premier and Cabinet has agreed to revise the schedule.
(3) Has the schedule been implemented fully; and, if not, what actions remain to be completed? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) No. (2) Yes. The commission requested more explicit scope notes for the terms used in the retention and disposal schedule and a further review of the dispositions applied to certain records identified in the schedule. (3) No. The Department of the Premier and Cabinet has agreed to revise the schedule.
Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) No. (2) Yes. The commission requested more explicit scope notes for the terms used in the retention and disposal schedule and a further review of the dispositions applied to certain records identified in the schedule. (3) No. The Department of the Premier and Cabinet has agreed to revise the schedule.
I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) No. (2) Yes. The commission requested more explicit scope notes for the terms used in the retention and disposal schedule and a further review of the dispositions applied to certain records identified in the schedule. (3) No. The Department of the Premier and Cabinet has agreed to revise the schedule.
(1) No. (2) Yes. The commission requested more explicit scope notes for the terms used in the retention and disposal schedule and a further review of the dispositions applied to certain records identified in the schedule. (3) No. The Department of the Premier and Cabinet has agreed to revise the schedule.
(2) Yes. The commission requested more explicit scope notes for the terms used in the retention and disposal schedule and a further review of the dispositions applied to certain records identified in the schedule. (3) No. The Department of the Premier and Cabinet has agreed to revise the schedule.
(3) No. The Department of the Premier and Cabinet has agreed to revise the schedule.

Explore WA Government Data

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

Explore more