No decent person could read the circumstances surrounding Raimo and Marlene Kasurinen without recognising the profound distress experienced by their family. Gambling harm is real, it can be devastating, and Mr Kasurinen's death was a tragedy.
Mrs Kasurinen is entitled to speak about her experience, grief and concerns. Those views should be heard respectfully. But public discussion of a legal decision must distinguish between testimony, allegation, opinion and findings of fact.
Recent commentary went far beyond criticising gambling products or advocating for stronger safeguards. It alleged that the Kasurinens were "groomed and exploited" by the Hellenic Club "in cold blood", that clubs seek to "entice, enslave and exploit" members, and that responsible gambling training is merely "smoke and mirrors". These are grave allegations of deliberate and predatory conduct against a named community organisation and its employees.
People are entitled to strong opinions, but opinions are not findings of fact. ACAT made no finding that the Hellenic Club groomed the Kasurinens, deliberately facilitated addiction, intentionally exploited them or set out to cause harm. Nor did it find that club employees acted deliberately, dishonestly or in bad faith.
ACAT rejected the commission's allegations concerning the club's handling of alleged problem-gambling incidents. It found that the provisions required actual awareness by employees and a subjective appreciation that observed conduct represented signs of a gambling problem. The commission could not aggregate information across different staff, occasions and systems and retrospectively attribute that knowledge to the club. That is the difference between proving what a person knew and deciding, with hindsight, what an organisation should have known.
The tribunal reached a different conclusion on the eftpos provisions, finding that immediately successive withdrawals could be treated collectively rather than as separate transactions. That interpretation must now be applied. But it is not evidence of predatory intent and does not establish grooming, exploitation or deliberate facilitation of addiction.
Accountability must remain connected to what was found. A ruling about the interpretation of a regulation does not justify accusations of malice against an organisation or its employees. Nor does this mean the system is beyond improvement. The tribunal's findings should prompt governments, regulators and venues to review whether safeguards are effective, practical and clearly understood.
The opinion article transformed a fact-specific and legally complex case into a sweeping indictment of an entire industry. One case involving particular people, evidence and statutory provisions cannot establish the conduct of dozens of independent organisations and thousands of workers. That is not evidence of systemic misconduct. It is generalisation by accusation.
Canberra's clubs employ chefs, apprentices, cleaners, security officers, bar staff, supervisors, managers and responsible gambling personnel. They are ordinary people performing difficult jobs in highly regulated community organisations. They should not be portrayed as participants in a deliberate system of manipulation or exploitation merely because they work in a venue where gaming is lawfully provided.
There is also a contradiction in arguing that staff intervention is meaningless while holding staff morally responsible for failing to intervene. It is legitimate to debate whether training and safeguards can be improved. It is not legitimate to dismiss those undertaking these responsibilities as participants in a fraud.
Front-line hospitality workers are not clinicians. They cannot diagnose addiction, reconstruct years of private financial behaviour or combine fragments of information held across different shifts unless laws and systems clearly establish what must be recognised, recorded, shared and acted upon. Where governments expect venues to perform those functions, they must provide practical laws and consistent guidance.
The broader attack also misrepresents community clubs. ACT clubs are member-owned, not-for-profit organisations. They do not distribute profits to private shareholders. Their revenues support employment, sporting facilities, cultural organisations, community groups and social infrastructure. Their not-for-profit status does not place them above the law, but it makes their portrayal as corporations established simply to extract profit from vulnerable people inaccurate.
These organisations belong to their members. Their boards are drawn from their communities and their revenue is reinvested into venues, employment, member services and community purposes. To describe them as institutions deliberately exploiting or harming their own members is not measured criticism. It is demonisation.
Public discussion must also recognise the complexity of gambling harm. Recognising addiction and vulnerability does not require eliminating personal agency altogether. Gambling harm may involve product characteristics, mental health, financial stress, social isolation, family circumstances, access to treatment and participation across different products and platforms.
Recognising those factors is not about blaming people who experience harm. It is about ensuring policy addresses the full range of circumstances that can prevent or reduce it. A serious public-health response cannot make the venue the sole actor while governments, regulators, health services, families and support networks disappear from view. Shared responsibility is not an excuse for inaction; it is the basis of effective reform.
It is also wrong to characterise the club's exercise of its legal review rights as arrogance, cruelty or an attempt to avoid accountability. The commission imposed a penalty of $1.2 million. The club was entitled to test the allegations and the commission's interpretation before an independent tribunal. That review resulted in key allegations being rejected. Due process is a safeguard against serious penalties where the required legal elements have not been established.
The proper response to gambling harm is not denial, but neither is it demonisation. It requires clear legislation, fair enforcement, effective treatment and support services, improved technology and recognition of the complex social, health and individual factors involved.
Public confidence requires that clubs be judged according to what was proved, not the most emotive accusation available. The Hellenic Club and its personnel should not be vilified for conduct ACAT did not find, and Canberra's wider club industry should not be condemned through assumptions drawn from one tragic and legally complex case.
Gambling harm will not be reduced by turning not-for-profit community clubs into convenient scapegoats for every weakness in our regulatory and societal response. It will be reduced through evidence, clarity, shared responsibility and reforms that respect both people experiencing harm and the organisations required to operate within the law.
