Legalities of gambling in Australia

Australia is one of the few countries which has legal avenues of gambling since is inception. Despite the legitimacy and popularity that many forms of legal gambling enjoy in Australia, illegal gambling is still a menace there. In various Australian cities there is an abundance of illegal starting price bookmakers, which have become places where crime and gambling become interlinked The failure of regulatory and law enforcement agencies to control the almost obsessive determination of gamblers to partake in illegal gambling has been documented by various royal commissions and inquiries, including the Moffit, Costigan, Wilcox and Stewart Royal Commissions and the Connor and Fitzgerald Inquiries. However, these commissions and inquiries have found that it is not only illegal gambling which is associated with crime, but some forms of legal gambling are also associated with alarming levels of criminal activity.
Although there is considerable similarity between the legislative and social structures between the states and territories, there is considerable variation in gambling legality and illegality. In each state and territory the legal status of popular forms of gambling circumstances. In Queensland two-up is illegal, but gambling legislation is to be reviewed as a result of recommendations made by the Fitzgerald Inquiry. In Western Australia a form of two-up is legal in the Burswood casino and outside a200 kilometer radius of the casino. In Kalogeria, police regulations permit two-up to be run by two people, each of whom has been named in the regulations. In other towns in Western Australia two-up can be played only if a permit to do so is obtained. In Tasmania, South Australia and the Northern Territory it is also legal for two-up to be played at legal casinos. Following amendments to the Racing and Gaming Act (Tas) two-up can now be played legally on ANZAC day in RSL clubs. In the Australian Capital Territory official police policy does not allow for two up to be played.

Responsibility for the control of legal and illegal gambling is primarily a state government responsibility. Federal government controls are limited to the investigation of organized crime and international The practical implementation and administration of much of Australia's gambling After the 1960slegalised forms of gambling such as, lotto, pools and casinos were vigorously promoted by governments. In recent years, Australian legislation and policies is left up to numerous ‘semi-autonomous' statutory bodies - boards, commissions, tribunals and committees governments have increasingly welcomed the involvement of large corporations in Australian gambling, thereby moving towards the privatization of gambling. The introduction of casinos, in particular, exemplifies these trends .Despite the fact that legal casinos operate in most jurisdictions, illegal casinos undoubtedly still exist. The Committee of Inquiry into gaming inner South Wales named the location of several illegal casinos in New South Wales (New South Wales1985). Relationships between organized crime and Sydney's illegal casinos have been documented by the New South Wales and Commonwealth Joint Task Force on Drug Trafficking (Australia 1983), the Age tapes and the interpretation of them by the Stewart Royal Commission (Australia 1986). It was revealed by these inquiries that a complex web of relationships existed between Sydney's notorious card clubs and senior drug traffickers. It was also revealed that protection of criminals in the 1970s was provided by an informal committee of corrupt police officers responsible for the enforcement of gaming laws, senior organized crime figures and senior casino operators. The Woodward Royal Commission (New South Wales
1979) and similar inquiries have documented connections between

Illegal casinos and money laundering.
In Australia, a moratorium on state Internet gambling licenses failed by a tie vote in the Commonwealth Senate. It was never clearly explained exactly how the federal government could stretch its power over communications to overrule the states when it comes to the control of gambling The australian federations, which are basically governments of governments, are trying to stop the entire political process while they consider what to do about Internet gambling. This would not be a problem if everyone agreed on the solution for any particular political problem. But, as the fight over Internet gambling shows, a state may want to do something that is completely opposite the wishes of its federal government
Federal governments, sometimes forget that they only have the power given them by the states that created them. The result is constant tension and endless disputes over who has the final say. The conflict is actually easily resolved, if the federal government remembers that the reason for it becoming involved in areas, like gambling, that are state issues is only to help enforce public policy decisions made by the states themselves. Constitutional and other legal safeguards protect citizens from improper use of the state=s power. But, when a state is faced with a threat to the health, safety and welfare of its citizens, particularly in an emergency, the police power prevails. The police power trumps constitutional and other legal rights; government has the legal right and power to do literally almost anything to anyone. For example: During an epidemic, government health officials will not wait for a jury trial before quarantining a house. At its most extreme, government can even take life without due process safeguards -- the police do not conduct evidentiary hearings before shooting a madman firing a rifle.

Because gambling is treated as a police power issue, governments can act in ways that would be unthinkable in other commercial and social settings. AThe police power of the State to suppress gambling is practically unrestrained. Because we are dealing with authorized gambling, the State may exercise greater control and use the police power in a more arbitrary manner.
A state=s police power is often tied to morality. It used to be a given that government played an important role in upholding the moral standards of a community. The 1980s led to a pervasive belief in situational ethics, the notion that there are no absolute standards of right and wrong. By the 1990s, even anti-gambling crusaders rarely argue that gambling should be outlawed because it is immoral; they fear being viewed as right-wing religious fanatics. However, government=s police power is still aimed at morally suspect behavior, even if the justification given is more pragmatic than religious