For an older Canberran living alone, the local club may be the one place they regularly go where someone knows their name. Losing it means more than finding somewhere else to eat. It means losing a familiar part of their life.
That is what sits behind the government's promise to reduce gambling harm and keep community clubs viable. Both commitments matter. Canberrans deserve evidence that both will be delivered. Reducing gambling harm and preserving community clubs should be pursued together. Public policy must provide a credible path to achieving both.
I joined my first club at 18, mainly for the Friday night disco. More than forty years later, some of the people I met there are still among my closest friends. Clubs give people somewhere to meet and reasons to keep coming back.
None of that diminishes the seriousness of gambling harm. It affects individuals, families and the wider community. Clubs have a responsibility to address it.
More than three years ago, ClubsACT requested a cashless gaming trial. We have also called for exclusions that work across the NSW border and better tools to identify excluded patrons.
I represent clubs and have a clear interest in their future; that is why our assessment and the government's should be open to public scrutiny.
The proposed measures pile up: mandatory cashless gaming, bans on ATM and eftpos cash withdrawals, shorter operating hours and compulsory machine reductions.
Once gaming itself is cashless, what extra protection does a venue-wide withdrawal ban provide? Card payments for meals would remain available, but removing cash withdrawals could still affect where patrons choose to eat, attend events or gather for Anzac Day two-up.
The effects could reach beyond gaming into the meal and event trade. Yet we have not been shown the evidence explaining what the package will cost and what benefits each measure is expected to deliver.
ClubsACT's preliminary assessment is that the combined package poses a serious threat to some clubs' viability. Members, employees and community organisations deserve a published assessment of those consequences before the changes take effect.
Club income pays wages, suppliers, taxes and operating expenses. Surpluses support facilities, member services and community purposes. When income falls, boards must decide what maintenance can wait, which services can continue and how much community support they can afford.
Clubs are not a magic pudding. Governments cannot keep taking another slice and assume the same community benefits will always be there.
Some will argue that dependence on gambling income is precisely why reform is needed, and clubs do need to diversify. But replacement businesses need investment, approvals and time to earn an income, while restrictions that weaken food, beverage and event trade could make that transition harder.
The government must honestly account for what communities could lose along the way. Technology should work before clubs are required to rely on it, and replacement income needs a realistic chance to develop before further mandated reductions take effect.
The estimated proportion of ACT adults in the problem gambling category rose from 0.4 per cent in 2014 to 0.8 per cent in 2019 and remained at 0.8 per cent in 2024, during a period of machine reductions and tighter regulation. These estimates cover gambling generally and require care when comparing surveys, but they underline why the effectiveness of each reform should be measured rather than assumed. ClubsACT records show more than 30 clubs have closed since the early 2000s, with two closing in the past year alone. The loss of community clubs is already happening.
Chisholm Vikings ceased trading on January 30 this year. For people who used that club, closure is no longer a hypothetical consequence to be weighed in a policy paper.
The NSW border also matters. Canberra residents can drive to a venue across it, while online gambling is available without leaving home. A policy confined to ACT venues needs to account for both.
Some people may gamble less under the new arrangements. Others may change where or how they gamble. The government needs to distinguish those outcomes, because a fall in ACT gaming revenue alone cannot tell us whether people are better protected.
That is why consistent protections across the border matter. So does assessing whether restrictions could push some people towards illegal operators, where safeguards and avenues for help may be weaker. The question is what happens to the person, wherever they gamble.
When a club closes, the loss is immediate: a sporting organisation loses a sponsor, volunteers lose a meeting place and older residents lose one of the few spaces where they regularly see familiar faces.
As summer approaches, clubs also provide the heat and smoke refuges, a role the government has recognised vulnerable Canberrans may need. When those refuges are most needed, the government must ensure they are still there.
ClubsACT wants clear harm reduction targets, an honest assessment of the combined financial effects and a funded transition that gives clubs a fair opportunity to adapt. We are ready to work through the details with the government.
Success must be measured in fewer people experiencing gambling harm and community clubs remaining viable. The government has promised both. It must show how it will deliver, and report openly on the results.
Its legacy must not be fewer clubs and no less gambling harm.
