The question seeks information on public servants who were on contract at higher salaries ($150k/$200k) in 2001/2005 compared to their permanent public service salary (under $100k), contract rollovers, and performance reviews. The question is repeated and fragmented.

AnsweredQoN 2840Legislative Council
Asked
8 November 2005
Portfolio
Minister Assisting the Minister for Public Sector Management

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
21 March 2006
Responded by
Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister Assisting the Minister for Public Sector Management
Response time
133 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