Queen’s Wharf casino dodges community-impact scrutiny

The Queen’s Wharf Brisbane development will open next year without the Palaszczuk government having completed or commissioned a full and independent community impact study.

The absence of state-backed research about how Star Entertainment’s new casino might affect Brisbane’s gambling habits, crime or vulnerable people has been labelled “disgraceful” by leading gambling researcher Dr Charles Livingstone of Monash University.

(From left) former MP Anthony Lynham, Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk, then-chief executive of Echo Entertainment (Star) Matthew Bekier, MP Grace Grace and former Echo Entertainment Queensland director Geoff Hogg look at a model of the Queen’s Wharf Brisbane development in 2015.Credit: Glenn Hunt

“It’s an attempt by the government, I suspect, to avoid unpleasant news,” he said.

The Queensland University of Technology was given more than $2 million by the state for baseline reports on topics such as tourism, connectivity, safety and gambling impacts, against which future data, once Queen’s Wharf opened, could be compared.

But Brisbane Times revealed this week that future phases of the study had been abandoned in their most detailed forms amid delays, funding issues, and government-imposed secrecy over the data.

“It is almost impossible to attract potential investors [to fund the study’s later phases] if we cannot show them any results from the project to date,” QUT professor Kerrie Mengersen wrote to the government in 2020.

“This is such a shame: the [project] is a fantastic innovation, a tribute to the [government’s] long-term vision and commitment to the state, and an important vehicle for obtaining important insights into the society, economy and future of Brisbane.”

The plea was rejected. The government has not permitted the public consumption of any Queen’s Wharf data other than its own figures, and those of developer Destination Brisbane Consortium (DBC), relating to construction jobs and money for the economy.

QUT delivered the baseline reports in 2019, but by the time the government got around to looking at them after COVID-19, it discounted them as “dated”.

Livingstone, while never having seen the reports because they remained under ministerial lock and key, questioned how the data already gathered could somehow now be irrelevant.

“If they’ve got baseline data – which may be the most representative data available, given that it’s pre-pandemic – why wouldn’t they publish?” he asked.

An artist’s impression of the Queen’s Wharf development.

“Why wouldn’t they continue a study over a period of time so it can detect changes against those baselines?”

The State Development Department said the government would focus on its own legislation and regulation rather than progress the QUT project.

But documents from 2021 showed just how important the government used to think it was for QUT to continue the study over multiple phases before and after Queen’s Wharf opened.

“Undertaking the phases post-completion … is essential to provide value from the work undertaken to date, to ensure a rigorous longitudinal study is undertaken over time, and to provide meaningful measurement of the state’s and DBC’s KPIs for the development,” the department wrote.

“Should the study not continue, the state would need to examine other ways to measure the public benefit and other KPIs, or rely solely upon advice from DBC.”

The exact cause of the QUT research project’s demise remains unclear. The Queensland government only promised to help fund the first reports, and backed QUT to find investors for the later phases.

DBC and Star would be “key targets for this funding”, according to government documents from 2020 obtained under Right to Information laws.

DBC and Star told Brisbane Times they had “no role” in the study, even though they had previously committed money (the exact amount was blacked out by an RTI officer) and were signatories to the study’s memorandum of understanding.

QUT said elements of the study would continue through PhD students and a broader “Monitoring Major Infrastructure” project, but neither DBC, Star nor the Queensland government would be part of it.

“All the partners met their obligations in the first stage,” a QUT spokesperson said.

“It may be disappointing, but it is not uncommon because of changes to timing, priorities and/or personnel that the involvement of different partners can vary over a long period.”

Asked if any other study was underway, or already finished, that could reasonably constitute a community impact study, the government said it “continues to monitor benefits and track delivery of Queen’s Wharf Brisbane in accordance with the development agreements”.

“Further measurement of public benefits and impacts will be undertaken post-opening of Queen’s Wharf Brisbane.”

The government also collects a broader gambling survey that attempts to understand Queenslanders’ gaming participation, harm and habits.

This year’s survey, to be published in the first half of 2024, contained sections relating to finance, psychology, relationships, health, work and legal matters.