Very tricky question on when to bring the money situation up. I have always felt awkward about bringing it up myself and have always admired the nerve of those that do.

On the other side of the fence when appointing people I always think that you have to balance what you offer the new candidate compared to what others in the 'team' are getting. Just because someone is perhaps 'pushier' than another candidate when it comes to money does not necessarily mean that they are worth more. That is why I prefer having a set salary range, notified in advance. The aim then being to appoint at the lower end of the range. This saves money initially and also has an added benefit of allowing a candidate to progress through the range over a period of time within the organisation. The concern with appointing someone to the top of a salary range is that they have no where to go salary wise (apart from another job somewhere else). However I guess when hiring staff for fixed term consulatncy roles this is not such an issue though as they are expected to leave.

Getting back to the topic I think it is definitely preferrable to somehow agree salary in advance of any interview. I have turned down a job offer before (as I guess many others have) when there has been no movement from the bottom end of the salary range and thus me questioning some of my motives for taking the job in the first place. This is a waste of everyones time though I suppose it can be looked on in hindsight as interview practice....