if 'many card counters arent a threat' as you state above, why the heavy handed approach then? If counters ain't considered to be a threat and their bankrolls small, what's the issue?
The irony is that card counting, or more correctly the fact that casino blackjack is technically beatable, is the primary reason for the game's popularity. Whilst, personally, I have no problems with CSM's or low penetration on high limit tables and/or low-house-edge games (because casinos do have to make a profit and good games do have to be protected), it is the low limit tables that get shafted with shitty rules and CSMs.
The success of casino blackjack, in my opinion, requires an ecology of low-level advantage play (which makes the game popular), some level of variance and reasonable house edges (which allows even basic strategy players to have a winning game from time to time), as well as a long-term game protection strategy (allowing the casino to profit). Ultimately speaking, all three factors are needed to balance the interests of all three primary stakeholders: casinos, counters and basic strategy players.
UNFORTUNATELY, the gambling industry in Australia is basically an arm of the government. It raises revenue, and has a monopoly. Since they have a captive audience, they decide to rape said audience. They squeeze every penny, since competition gives no long term threat to their monopoly. Card Counters become treated essentially as tax cheats rather than viral marketing. Basic Strategy players become tax avoiders (not evaders, but avoiders) who are treated with cold, callous indifference, as opposed to clients happy to pay for entertainment.
If I were in charge of Australian gambling, I'd de-monopolize the **** out of the industry. If I were in charge of at least one casino here, I'd have house edges of 0.50% AT MOST (probably lower), $10 table limits, and I'd have CSM with 2-deck discard (providing some variance whilst still protecting the game), and on shoe games I'd have 66% penetration (for basically the same reasons... plus 66% is slightly countable, even if not 'good' for counters per se).
This would at least be tolerable, and they would be better conditions for players. And a game that is good for players is good for the casino: you get repeat business.
But casinos in Australia are not businesses. They are basically the same as the department of mother****ing transport (with terrible, grumpy, grouchy service too!).