Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 10 Hansard (14 October) . . Page.. 3161 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

that Mr Wood used to refer to the figure of $200,000 during the debate that was had in 1990 when he was the spokesman and was not long out of, I think, a job as a primary school principal before the Assembly started.

Those figures are based on a small primary school. They do not take into account any specific resources which might be provided to a particular school. The following site specific cost estimates are based on the 1998 school-based management funds allocation formula and they exclude that component which is determined by enrolment numbers. Annual site specific costs range from $660,000 for an average college of around 790 students, $530,000 for a small high school of around 420 students, and $265,000 for a small primary school of around 125 to 275 students.

In addition to the cost of a principal, bursar/registrar and janitor, other site specific costs include cleaning, utilities, communication, grounds and building maintenance, security, water, sewerage, irrigation and administration. The component of the site specific cost which is influenced by enrolment numbers and which has been eliminated from these cost estimates would be included in the entitlement of the school acquiring the additional students. I table that information as well, Mr Speaker.


MR STEFANIAK: Finally, in relation to a question Mr Berry asked me today about something on television, I understand that there are some CPSU elections coming up. Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that a press release appeared. Perhaps there is a bit of jockeying for positions.

Casino Surveillance Authority

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Speaker, yesterday Mr Rugendyke asked me a number of questions about the pai gow game which is an authorised game under the Casino Control Act 1988. Pai gow is a game played using dominoes or tiles. It was approved for use in Casino Canberra in July 1993 and the Casino Surveillance Authority advises me that it is not aware of any specific problems with this particular game that are not encountered with other games. I am advised that the Casino Surveillance Authority is not aware of any specific problems that Casino Canberra has encountered during the introduction of pai gow. The authority further advises that it has no knowledge or evidence of hardened pai gow players acting illegally or contrary to the approved rules, and that the casino has never knowingly recruited staff from illegal gaming houses.

Casino Canberra recruited a number of key staff experienced in the game from other approved casinos. These staff trained existing staff to operate the game. Approved game protection methods operate, including surveillance camera coverage and gaming inspection levels. Casino staff conducting the game are required to undertake extensive training in the operation of the game and its rules. The authority requires the casino management to issue a statement of competence for each casino employee in the conduct of this and all other games. The statement certifies that the employee has undertaken appropriate training and is considered competent to conduct games listed in

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .