So now we know.

NSW gambling authorities are so concerned about billionaire James Packer's links to notorious businessman Stanley Ho they forced Crown to take extraordinary steps to ensure he doesn't get his hooks into Sydney's second casino.

On one reading, given Ho's well documented associations with serious organised crime, the Independent Liquor and Gaming Authority appears to have done the right thing. But on another, it stands condemned.

Why if the risk is so great would the authority consider granting a casino licence to Packer in the first place? Its determination to avoid answering this question might explain why it did everything it could to deny the public's right to know.

Let's keep in mind how Packer came to be handed a lucrative casino licence. He launched a media campaign to pressure the then O'Farrell government into dealing with his company alone, without tender.

When the government announced it would back the plan it talked up the potential for tourism, job creation and tax revenue.

At no point were concerns acknowledged about Packer's links to Ho, which arise courtesy of his casino business partnership with Ho's son, Lawrence Ho.

The gambling authority made no public mention of them before, during or after its probity check.

Then when the authority made public its agreements with Crown, it deliberately censored the details about Ho.

It took Fairfax to highlight the secrecy and a determined Greens MP, John Kaye, to use the powers of the parliament to bring the information to light. Even the Department of Premier and Cabinet argued against its public release.

Knowing what we now know, it is particularly notable that Packer's business plan at Barangaroo is to attract Chinese high rollers for VIP play at his casino.

It's of no small significance, then, that Ho has been accused of allowing organised crime into his Macau casinos via his VIP rooms.

Exposure of the Stanley Ho clause has shown the authority's defence that it censored the information because it believed Crown could be commercially damaged by its release as weak at best.

It and the government appear to have bent over backwards to look after the interests of a powerful mogul, while doing their best to keep the NSW public in the dark.