Image Upload


File size must be less than 2Mb

You must have online publishing permission or full ownership of this image

File types (jpg, png, gif)






  • Hero image
    Northern Grampians Shire Council will ban tenant groups on council land from introducing electronic gaming machines under a new policy passed narrowly last week.

Electronic gaming ban in Northern Grampians

By Colin MacGillivray

Northern Grampians Shire Council will ban tenant groups on council land from introducing electronic gaming machines under a new policy passed narrowly last week.

At Tuesday’s meeting the council voted to adopt a new lease and licence policy outlining the parameters governing leases and licences on council-owned or managed land.

While the policy put forth by council officers made no reference to gaming machines, Cr Jenny Greenberger moved to add a clause banning long-term occupants of council properties from introducing machines or increasing the number already on the premises. According to the Victorian Gambling and Casino Control Commission, VGCCC, there was $2,712,610 spent on gaming machines at the two gaming venues in the Northern Grampians Shire from July to December last year.



Article continues below



A total of $3,587,963 was spent at the two Ararat municipality venues during the same six-month period.

The VGCCC has only a combined Northern Grampians-Ararat expenditure figure available for the period from July, 2025 to April, 2026 – which was $10,117,809.

In the Horsham municipality, which has three venues, $11,541,306 was spent on gaming machines from July, 2025 to April, 2026.

There are no gaming machines in the Hindmarsh, West Wimmera, Yarriambiack, and Buloke shires.

Cr Greenberger argued the move would be beneficial for the health and wellbeing of the municipality’s residents.

“In the Northern Grampians Shire, the total amount of money spent on poker machines annually is in the order of $4.18-million,” she said.

“Could you imagine what impact it would have on our small businesses if that amount of money was actually spent in small businesses rather than feeding poker machines?

“I’m not a total wet blanket. I am not anti-gambling. Games of chance, or horses, or people running are a fairly even betting proposition.

“However, there is lots of information around these days about how electronic gaming machines are set up to encourage people to spend more and to lose more.

“Poker machines … make you feel like you’re winning, but you’re actually losing.”

Cr Karen Probst opposed adding a gaming-machine clause to the policy, saying she had put ‘a lot of thought’ into the issue.

“Any long-term arrangement is going to have pros and cons associated with it, and I think each proposal to us should be decided on the overall merits,” she said.

“Electronic gaming machines will be a disadvantage, I agree, but there will be other factors that may be advantages, and I think any future decisions should be based on all the factors and not just on the gambling issue.

“Addictions are a difficult issue, and if we ban the facilities where we have gaming machines I worry that that’s going to send a lot of people online, because addicts don’t just stop because the facility isn’t there – they will find other ways to feed the habit.

“The other issue I have is that there are other addictions that cause as much, if not more harm, than electronic gambling machines – for example, alcohol. 

“If we make a stand on one addiction, why are we not making a stand on other addictions?”

Cr Murray Emerson and Cr Jack Blake backed Cr Probst.

“I respect what Cr Greenberger has said, but I believe there is a place in our community for poker machines,” Cr Emerson said.

“Maybe not too many of them, but I don’t think we should be restricting them totally.”

Cr Greenberger argued the clause would not unduly affect venues already operating gaming machines in the region.

“I don’t think there’s any sense that these machines will be totally removed from the community,” she said.

“As far as Stawell is concerned, the harness racing club have their poker machines and that is not on council property.

“The St Arnaud Sporting Club is actually on council-owned property and after an appeal made to council by the manager … the argument was put that if we insisted those poker machines be removed from the St Arnaud club, that club may not continue to be viable.

“That is why this clause specifically talks about not banning poker machines in our municipality – which some municipalities have, and it would certainly be my preference – but what we have said is that we do not want additional machines.

“That would include when St Arnaud Sporting Club renews their lease – they can keep the 34 machines they have, we just don’t want any more.

“Similarly to Stawell, there is nothing to stop a private organisation opening up a club for additional machines, but on council-owned property, we will not condone businesses wanting to make money out of those machines.”

A vote on Cr Greenberger’s proposal was deadlocked, with Cr Greenberger, Cr Justine Hide and Mayor Karen Hyslop in favour and Cr Probst, Cr Emerson and Cr Blake opposed.

Cr Hyslop cast the deciding vote as mayor, resulting in the clause being added to the adopted policy.

“We are not changing what is already there in St Arnaud Sporting Club. It’s just whether we want to go further with our community in regards to gaming machines,” Cr Hyslop said.

“I think it’s looking at what my community might want and hoping that’s a decision the community will support and respect.”

The entire June 10, 2026 edition of The Weekly Advertiser is available online. READ IT HERE!