During the past 15-20 years, commercial gambling has become a major growth industry in many parts of the world. There has been unprecedented expansion in gambling availability, participation and expenditure. Growth has been particularly strong in jurisdictions where electronic gaming machines and large urban casinos have been widely introduced, for example Canada, the United States, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. Many other countries including the United Kingdom are currently entering this rapidly expansionary phase.

Deep-seated, broad, inter-related trends have accompanied and facilitated global expansion of gambling and continue to influence its evolution. These include an increasing legitimacy and acceptance of legal gambling, the intersection of gambling and financial technologies, impacts of the Internet on all forms of gambling, accelerated globalisation and spread of gambling to non-gambling settings (Abbott & Volberg, 1999).

Just as gambling has become a major growth industry, problem gambling, previously a rare disorder, has become a significant growth pathology. Prevalence rates have frequently increased and are usually higher in countries and localities with ready access to gambling activities. Within jurisdictions, prevalence variation across sociodemographic groups has changed markedly as gambling has spread throughout the population (Abbott, 2001; Abbott, Volberg, & Ronnberg, 2004; Volberg, 2001). Of particular note is the obliteration of long-standing gender differences and overall reduction in differences between groups within societies with 'mature' gambling markets.

Changes to problem gambling risk profiles have been rapid and appear to reflect both increases and reductions in participation and problem rates across population sectors. The dynamic interplay of gambling exposure, risk and protective factors that give rise to these changes has been little studied and is poorly understood. Evidence based understanding is required to inform public policy and develop effective education, prevention and therapeutic interventions.

People gamble for many reasons and most do not experience long-lasting or significant negative consequences. At bottom-line the majority of people gamble because they enjoy it. However, the probability of developing a problem is quite high for those who participate in continuous forms of gambling weekly or more often. Electronic gaming machines, casino games, cards and track betting are among the types most strongly linked to problem development (Abbott et al., 2004).

Historically the gaming industry, governments and other institutions that derive significant revenue from gambling have focussed on benefits (perceived and real) and been largely oblivious to problem gambling and other costs (again perceived and real). During the early years when long-standing constraints on gambling were removed little or no provision was made to counter adverse consequences. Problem gamblers themselves, their families and voluntary sector organisations coped as best they could.

Until relatively recently the gambling industry was critical of prevalence research that, among things, made visible the number of people with gambling problems in the community and linked these problems with particular forms of gambling. Prevalence and related research contradicted the "industry" position that, if it exists at all, problem gambling is a very rare disorder with pre-existing biological and psychological causes.

Over time advocacy and growing public concern prompted governments to fund general population surveys of gambling and problem gambling. Increased awareness and the provision of public or industry funding for the development of services, typically telephone helplines and counselling, frequently followed surveys (Volberg, 2001). In some instances funds were also provided or increased for research. However, relative to provision for similar hazardous products such as alcohol and tobacco, support for service development and research was minimal and precarious. In some jurisdictions, most notably within the United States, funding has been cut for what was, at best, skeletal provision.

During the past five years gambling and problem gambling have been a focus of major commissions and official inquiries. These have often included national prevalence surveys and stock-takes of other research and services. Some have attempted to formally assess the relative costs and benefits of gambling to society (Productivity Commission, 1999). Where these commissions and reviews have taken place, more far-reaching changes have usually followed, in part directed towards reducing harm by regulation, industry codes and practices, public education, and prevention, early intervention and treatment services.

In recent years, gambling industry leaders have taken the findings of problem gambling research more seriously and supported research in various ways. This shift in position has been associated with an increase in industry initiatives to provide information about problem gambling and sources of help and establish host responsibility programmes.

Like gambling and problem gambling, gambling and problem gambling research and problem gambling services are now themselves becoming significant growth industries. While there is a large body of gambling research, as with other emerging fields it varies in quality and lacks integration (Abbott & Volberg, 1999; Abbott et al., 2004). Large knowledge gaps remain and services have proliferated prior to development of an evidence base and best practice guidelines. There is potential for less than optimal services to add limited value, become ossified and serve as a barrier to subsequent introduction of innovative and more efficacious interventions.

We are at a critical juncture. While gambling will continue to evolve and expand in new and established markets, there is increased understanding of some of the associated costs and a concern to strengthen measures to minimise them. Although there remain understandable differences and tensions between major stakeholders including the various industry sectors, legislators, government officials, service providers, advocacy groups and academics, there appears to be measure of mutual goodwill that has hitherto been rare. There is an opportunity to build on this and collaborate to develop evidence-based policies and practices across the spectrum of regulation, product design, advertising, industry codes, public education, prevention, early intervention, treatment and rehabilitation.


Special Edition

This edition of the journal provides abstracts and a selection of power point presentations from two events that took place in May 2004, namely the International Think Tank on Presenting Populations and First Contact Services and associated conference, "Gambling and Problem Gambling in New Zealand." Both events were organised and hosted by the Auckland University of Technology (AUT) Gambling Research Centre and New Zealand Gambling Problem Helpline. A subsequent edition of the journal will publish the full text of selected conference papers after they have undergone editorial review and revision. Some of the Think Tank papers, following peer review and revision, will appear in a special edition of the International Journal of Gambling Studies, as well as in book form.


International Think Tank

The purpose of the Think Tank was to provide an international forum to critically examine globally significant issues in the development of problem gambling policy, services and research in relation to presenting gambling populations and first contact services. The focus was on fostering cooperation between major stakeholders with a view to developing evidentially led polices and services to meet the needs of presenting and at-risk populations.

The Think Tank brought together 65 leading authorities and major stakeholders. Participants included researchers, policy-makers, officials, service providers, industry executives and regulators. They came from Australia, Canada, China, Fiji, New Zealand, South Africa, the UK and the USA. There was significant indigenous and migrant participation.

Think Tank deliberations were structured around brief presentations grouped under the following headings:

• Definition and measurement of problem gambling (Linda Hancock, Jim Westphal)
• General and presenting problem gambler population profiles (Max Abbott, Jan McMillen)
• Current and potential roles of helplines and other first contact services (John Hannifin, Gary Clifford)
• Perspectives and needs of special populations (Lorna Dyall, Pefi Kingi, Patric Au, Masood Zangeneh)
• Legislation, public policy and the role of regulators (Linda Hancock, Richard Northey, Elizabeth Stephenson)
• The role of industry in responsible gambling and harm minimisation (Roger Parton, Nerilee Hing)
• Public health approaches and interventions including refining the International Charter on Gambling and Public Health (Jeffrey Derevenski, John Raeburn).
  
  

The future of the Think Tank, beyond the inaugural meeting, remains open. However, participants noted that there was a need for an international mechanism to bring together key stakeholders on a regular basis to discuss research developments and best practice in policy and services. It could also develop a global research programme and play a role in fostering international cooperation and avoiding wasteful duplication. Towards this end it was agreed that an International Forum on Gambling and Public Health should be formed with three initial domains - policy and public health, treatment and services, and research. Working groups have since been formed in each of these areas. Heads of major gambling research centres at McGill University (Jeffrey Derevenski) and the Australian National University (Jan McMillen) agreed to work with AUT in supporting this initiative.

A follow-up meeting was held on the Gold Coast (Australia) to develop the treatment and services domain. One outcome was the establishment of a steering group, co-chaired by James Westphal and Max Abbott, to plan and undertake multi-site treatment evaluations. The full Think Tank will, as requested by participants, be reconvened in Auckland in May 2005, again in conjunction with an international conference (for further information, contact maria.bellringer@aut.ac.nz).

The Think Tank organisers see a role for an ongoing global body of informed and concerned individuals to advocate for problem gambling services and research and contribute to the development of an international public health agenda on gambling. It is considered essential that membership is open to scientists, policymakers, regulators and officials, service providers, industry members and others interested in collaborating to advance this agenda. Whether this is achieved by way of the Think Tank and emerging International Forum or through the formation of an international NGO warrants further consideration.

It was of interest to read in the 8 December 2004 edition of the Casino City Times that "a casino industry trade group is exploring creating a global think tank on gambling addiction that would involve alliances between research institutions worldwide that specialize in addiction studies." The "industry trade group" is the American Gaming Association that funds the (US) National Center for Responsible Gaming (NCRG), not the organisers of 'our' Think Tank.

While the American Gaming Association initiative might reflect an independent reading of the international situation and current possibilities with respect to transnational collaboration, this is unlikely given the involvement of academic colleagues in the NCRG deliberations that generated the "global think tank" proposal. Some had attended the Auckland conference seven months earlier and others knew about the associated Think Tank meeting. While imitation may well be the sincerest form of flattery, among various other things it could be confusing to have two global Think Tanks with the same name and similar missions.

John Cleese was once asked how the English and Americans differ. Only one of his three answers can be related in quasi-polite company. "When the British hold world sporting events they invite people from other countries." There may be potential for members of the existing Think Tank and NCRG to get together. Both seek to be inclusive of major stakeholders and foster international collaboration. They may be able to collectively focus on some specific high priority research issues such as treatment efficacy. They might also agree on key elements of an international research agenda. Agreement on an international public health agenda is perhaps less certain. Whatever happens, to be credible it is essential that the gaming industry is a partner amongst peers. It cannot overtly or covertly dictate the research agenda, nor be perceived to do so.


Conference

The conference, "Gambling and Problem Gambling in New Zealand," marked a critical year for gambling and problem gambling in New Zealand. In 2004 new gambling legislation came into full effect and responsibility for the organisation and funding of problem gambling services and research moved to the Ministry of Health. This is of note internationally because it is the first instance of a country developing a comprehensive public health approach to gambling-related health and social issues.

New Zealand is of further interest in that it was the first country to undertake a national prevalence survey of problem gambling using a validated assessment tool (in 1991) and develop nationwide problem gambling services (from 1993). It is also unique in the way the gambling industry, community organisations and government cooperated during the past decade to expand services and research. In the year prior to the Conference nearly 5,000 new callers contacted the national Gambling Problem Helpline and approximately 4,000 received specialist counselling. During the preceding six years over 32,000 people accessed problem gambling assessment and/or treatment services funded by the Problem Gambling Committee. Particular attention was given to extending outreach to high-risk groups including Maori, Pasifika and Asian people. In latter years there was increased emphasis on early intervention, public health and health promotion initiatives and research.

The Conference subtitle, "Taking Stock and Moving Forward on Policy, Practice and Research," reflected the event's objectives, namely to:

• Critically reflect on problem gambling policy, service and research developments during the past decade
• Compare these developments with the experience of selected other countries
• Identify emergent trends and issues locally and internationally
• Examine new regulatory and health policy frameworks
• Consider key future challenges and priorities in policy, practice and research.
  
  

The programme was developed to meet these objectives. The opening plenary session was chaired by Sir Paul Reeves, an AUT professor with the unique distinction of having previously been both the Governor General and Anglican Archbishop of New Zealand. This session included opening statements from Maori, Pacific Island and Asian perspectives. The Pacific spokesperson Michael Jones, another local icon, will be well known to international followers of rugby union (football). Jan McMillen, director of the ANU gambling research centre, gave an international overview of key issues in gambling.

In the second plenary John Markland examined the development of gambling and gambling policy in New Zealand from 1984 to 2004. Max Abbott discussed early research and service developments and John Hannifin led a presentation on the role and work of the Problem Gambling Committee. The third plenary continued 'the New Zealand story' with Andrew Secker outlining the Department of Internal Affairs' role as regulator and policy advisor and Janice Wilson describing the Ministy of Health role and providing an overview of the new National Harm Minimisation Strategy.

Addresses in the fourth plenary included a global public health perspective by Sitaleki Finau and accounts of past and current developments in the United States (Rachel Volberg), Australia (Charles Livingstone), Canada (Jeff Derevenski) and Europe (John Lepper). Jeff Derevenski provided an update on the work of the International Think Tank on Youth Gambling and Youth Gambling-related Problems in the fifth plenary. In this session Garry Clifford also briefed participants on major issues that came out of the preceding International Think Tank on Presenting Problem Gambling Populations and First Contact Services. It concluded with an update on the International Gambling Charter that had been worked on at the Think Tank.

A large number of additional papers and workshops were held in parallel sessions. Throughout the Conference focus groups met to discuss issues arising from the plenary and other presentations. At the closing plenary summary feedback was provided from the focus groups. Key points from parallel session papers and workshops were also reported by chairs/facilitators.

Over 200 people attended the conference, with representation from Australia, Canada, China, Fiji, Hong Kong, New Zealand, South Africa, the UK and USA. It included a mix of service providers, researchers/academics, policy makers, regulators, officials and industry executives.

The Problem Gambling Committee and New Zealand Community Trust provided financial support.

The abstracts and selected power point presentations provided in this volume only partially capture what transpired at and emerged from the International Think Tank and Conference. Hopefully they are of some value to readers and provide a point of departure should contact be sought with contributors.


Max Abbott
Auckland, New Zealand



References

Abbott, M. W. (2001). What do we know about gambling and problem gambling in New Zealand? Wellington, New Zealand: Department of Internal Affairs.

Abbott, M. W., & Volberg, R. A. (1999). Gambling and problem gambling in the community: An international overview and critique. Report number one of the New Zealand Gaming Survey. Wellington, New Zealand: Department of Internal Affairs.

Abbott, M. W., Volberg, R. A., & Ronnberg, S. (2004). Comparing the New Zealand and Swedish national surveys of gambling and problem gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 20, 237-258.

Productivity Commission. (1999). Australia's gambling industries: Report no. 10. Canberra, Australia: AusInfo. (Available online at http://www.pc.gov.au/)

Volberg, R. A. (2001). When the chips are down: Problem gambling in America. New York: Century Foundation.