Despite requests for meetings with Attorney-General Gordon Ramsay, and briefings with senior officials guiding the reforms, Clubs ACT says it has been left in the dark over the reforms.

The failure to meet with the peak body, which represents the majority of Canberra’s clubs, comes amid long-running tensions and refusals by both Mr Ramsay and Chief Minister Andrew Barr to meet.

Those refusals also follows the clubs group’s campaign against the government over taxes and rates during the 2016 election, that led to the splintering of the clubs’ membership and creation of union-aligned Canberra Community Clubs.

The government plans to pass make major changes to its community contributions scheme, which would see the number of poker machines cut from about 4400 to 4000 across the territory.

Those changes will see clubs forced to surrender poker machine licences until the 4000 target is reached, and while most have not to date, the CFMEU-linked Tradesmen’s Club was involved in the largest surrender to date earlier this year.

But it would also overhaul the community contributions scheme, to see clubs surrender 8.8 per cent of their net gaming revenue go to community causes, up from the eight per cent it is currently set at.

The extra funds would go to gambling harm minimisation, and the other half would go to the Chief Minister’s Charitable Fund, to be administered by charity group Hands Across Canberra.

The reforms also follow a scathing auditor-general’s report on the scheme, which criticised the lack of independent oversight, lack of definitions of beneficiaries, and questionable payments.

That report led the government to commission a review of the scheme by former senior Commonwealth bureaucrat and current Australian Press Council chairman Neville Stevens.

Clubs ACT chief executive Gwyn Rees said the peak body was still waiting for basic details about the reforms, including the formal definitions of beneficiaries like “professional sport”.

He said clubs were concerned about the lack of consultation, particularly given the changes are meant to be in place by the end of January, and repeated requests for meetings had been ignored.

“The deadline for clubs deciding to take part in this program is 31 January – is just over two months, away with the Christmas shutdown smack in the middle,” he said.

“Most concerningly, in his engagement with clubs, Mr Stevens, the author of the changes, has been unable to answers questions relating to his own recommendations.”

Mr Rees said that without answers to questions such as the formal definitions of beneficiaries, clubs and their members could not make informed decisions about handing back assets, or how they can support community causes.

“If the government [was] serious about helping clubs diversify, without forcing more clubs to close, it would be spending time and effort helping clubs fully understand what they are required to do.”

A series of questions put to Mr Ramsay about how many meetings he had attended with Clubs ACT, and why requests for briefings with officials or his office were ignored.

Instead, Mr Ramsay sent a statement which said clubs’ participation in spreading the message about the reforms among its members was actively sought.

“The government is engaging directly with clubs to help them diversify away from gaming machine revenue as a source of income,” he said.

“No favouritism has been shown and all clubs and peak bodies have been directed to meet with Mr Stevens at their convenience.”

However, emails between the clubs’ peak body and several government staff show requests from individual clubs which are members of Clubs ACT also seem to have been ignored.

Mr Rees said the organisation’s approaches to government had so far been met with delays and in some instances silence.

“ClubsACT last week wrote to [Mr Ramsay] asking for an urgent industry briefing at which the planned changes are fully outlined and clubs can get answers to any questions they still have,” he said.

“To date, it hasn’t been answered.”