The Australian Club: When tradition meets inclusion (#421)

The Australian Club in Sydney was founded in 1838 as a private gentlemen’s club, located at 165 Macquarie Street in the center of Sydney, overlooking The Royal Botanical Gardens and Sydney Harbour.

It is the oldest gentlemen’s club in the southern hemisphere.

Early on, the Club provided a space for Sydney’s elites to meet, dine, stay, and network. Merchants, lawyers, bankers, and those with social standing.

• 1838–1840: After being founded in 1838, the Australian Club was first located in leased premises at the Pulteney Hotel in Bent Street.

• 1889–1891: The Club's second clubhouse was built at its current location, on the corner of Bent and Macquarie Streets.

The Australian Club circa 1900

• 1969–1973: Following a merger with the New South Wales Club in 1969, the 1891 clubhouse was demolished and rebuilt. The current building was officially opened in March 1973.

The Australian Club circa 2020

Over the years, the Club has hosted prominent figures. Influential business and judicial people have been members. At least five former Prime Ministers have been members of the Club, including recently, John Howard and Malcolm Turnbull.

Thus, the Club has deep roots, steeped in tradition, firmly embedded in the social and political fabric of Sydney.

How the Club Works Today

• The Club offers dining facilities, accommodation (en-suite bedrooms & apartments), a gym, and business center.

• Dress code remains formal: jackets for gentlemen guests, and a dress, skirt, or tailored trousers with a jacket, for women guests.

• Women and other guests are welcome to stay in the Clubhouse and utilize the facilities when accompanied by a member. However, the first floor is limited to members, gentlemen guests, and male Reciprocal Club Members until 5 pm.

So, in effect, women cannot access all areas of the Club (e.g., the first floor during the day) unless after 5 pm.

The Gender Membership Issue

Currently, The Australian Club remains a male-only membership club. Women are not admitted as members.

In June 2021 The Club held a special general meeting to vote on amending its constitution to allow women to join as full members.

• Around 693 votes were cast; 62 % voted against allowing women to join, 37 % in favor, 1 % abstaining.

• The threshold for passing the motion was 75 % in favor. Since it fell well short, the Club continues to exclude women from membership.

• The result triggered criticism. For example, Daisy Turnbull (daughter of Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull) was quoted saying she was surprised how upset she was by the archaic decision.

Arguments for admitting women

• From a fairness/equality perspective

• In modern Australia, gender-equality is widely accepted. A club that provides networking, influence, and exclusion to 50 % of the population is behind the times.

• From a business/cultural relevance perspective

• The old men’s club model is declining in relevance. If women cannot be members, younger professionals may see less benefit in joining.

• Daisy Turnbull noted:

I do think it has a decreasing relevance if you can only network with 50 % of your colleagues.

• Also, including women would bring fresh perspectives, broaden the member base, help the Club financially, and modernize its image.

Arguments for maintaining men-only

• Tradition

• The Club boasts a continuity of tradition going back to 1838. Some members feel that preserving the gentlemen’s club character is important.

• Autonomy

• Private clubs often argue they have the right to set their own membership criteria, if they comply with law. Indeed, under NSW law certain single-sex member organizations are permitted.

• Some members may feel the informal atmosphere of men at club provides a different kind of space which would change if membership became mixed.

The Counterpoint – Queen’s Club (Sydney)

The Queen’s Club in Sydney is a women only private club, founded in 1912. It was created for the mothers, daughters, and wives of influential men, and offered a social space for women of the elite. Its first president was Jane Barton (wife of Australia’s first Prime Minister, Edmund Barton).

In that respect, the existence of the Queen’s Club is sometimes held up as the female equivalent of the Australian Club. If men have their private space, then women have theirs.

One could ask: if separate women-only and men-only clubs exist, does that justify one for men exclusively? Or does it reinforce separate networks, rather than integration?

The fact that the Queen’s Club still exists tells us that gender-exclusive private clubs are not entirely extinct, and that women may prefer or value an all-women’s space. However, the Queen’s Club started in a very different era (1912), when women’s public social and business roles were far more restricted.

Are Gender-Exclusive Clubs a Thing of the Past?

This is the broader question. In 2025 (and beyond), do clubs that admit only men, or only women, still make sense? What are the pros/cons?

Arguments that Gender-Exclusive Clubs are outdated

• Society is far more gender-inclusive now. Women hold senior positions in business, law, politics, academia. Excluding women from full membership excludes a huge talent pool and network.

• Networking, business relationships, mentorship frequently cross gender lines. To build meaningful networks, exclusion of half the population is a disadvantage.

• From a marketing/membership perspective, younger professionals (both men and women) view single-gender institutions as archaic and less relevant.

• In many places single-gender exclusion raises issues of discrimination, questionable optics, and social license.

Arguments for their continuing value

• Some people value an all-male (or all-female) space for focused networking, and camaraderie. For example, men might value a men’s club where they can speak freely, and share experiences without the social norms of mixed gender groups.

• Historical continuity. Clubs like the Australian Club have strong traditions, heritage, architecture, rituals. Some members value that continuity and may worry that opening membership to women would change the character.

• Choice. As long as it is lawful and transparent, some might argue that private organizations should be free to define their membership.

Rick’s Commentary.

I should disclose:

• I have been a member of the Australian Club for over 50 years.

• My grandfather and father were members of the Australian Club.

• In June 2021, I voted in favor of amending the club’s constitution to allow women to join as full members.

From a personal perspective, one can certainly appreciate the historical significance of the Australian Club as a social institution. However, given the broader shifts in society (gender equality, wider participation of women in business and networks, the question of representation), it is impossible to justify an exclusive men-only membership policy without being out of step.

The fact that women are welcome as guests and can use many facilities is better than nothing. But, the exclusion from full membership still sends a signal about membership and power.

Moreover, one wonders about the purpose of the Club now.

If it is about networking, business, influence, then excluding women (who are central to business and public life) is limiting.

If it is about tradition for its own sake, that is understandable but limits long-term relevance and appeal.

Also, the restriction that women cannot access the first floor until after 5 pm nods to a gentlemen’s lounge style patriarchal foundation.

In my view, women should be admitted as full members as soon as possible. Not necessarily because tradition must be broken, but because the Club has evolved into a modern institution and should reflect modern norms of inclusion.

However, that change needs to be done thoughtfully. The Club may legitimately wish to preserve certain architectural, social, or ritual traditions, but inclusion does not require loss of any aspect of character.

While I respect the historical roots of clubs like the Australian Club, I believe the tide has changed. The relevance and legitimacy of all-male (or all-female) social clubs are under scrutiny. Many such institutions will either adapt (by becoming inclusive) or will become relics with membership shrinking and social relevance declining.

In the case of the Australian Club, given that women are already allowed as guests and have access (albeit somewhat limited) to facilities, the next logical evolutionary step is full membership inclusion.

The vote in 2021 signaled that there is internal resistance, but over time one might expect a change (especially as younger generations increasingly prioritize equality). If not, the Club will continue in an increasingly niche space.

That said, there may well be a place for women-only or men-only clubs provided those clubs are clear about their purpose, membership, and how they add value that cannot be found elsewhere. But the days when exclusion of the opposite gender is simply accepted as normal have passed.

Final Thoughts

The Australian Club in Sydney is a fascinating microcosm of tradition, privilege, social networks, and the evolving dynamics of gender and inclusion.

Its continuing men-only membership policy places it at the intersection of legacy and relevance.

From principles of equality, relevance, network strength, and business logic, there is compelling reason for women to be admitted as full members.

Meanwhile, the existence of the Queen’s Club offers a historic, if somewhat different, example of gender-exclusive social clubs.

Are sole gender clubs a thing of the past?

Not entirely yet, but their dominance and unexamined default status certainly is.

For sole gender clubs to remain vibrant, they will need to clearly define their value in a more inclusive society, or they will need to adapt.

To me, it is past time for the Australian Club to do away with the tradition of men-only membership, and to embrace all the societal, cultural, and practical advantages of inclusivity.

#bunyipsbooksbeyond