Finally! The long awaited discussion paper on introducing an adult classification for video games will soon be released for public input. It won’t be released by state and territory Attorney’s-General though. They couldn’t agree on contents of the paper (no surprise). Instead the office of the Commonwealth Minister of Home Affairs, Bob Debus, has stepped in to do it.
It is expected the discussion paper will propose changes to Australia’s current classification guidelines and will include relevant research and literature on the classification of video games. No specified time-line has yet been given for its release.
“Because there was no unanimous agreement amongst all States and Territories about the release of the discussion paper, the Commonwealth is circumventing our requirements for unanimous agreement and will release the discussion paper under their own name,” ACT Attorney-General Simon Corbell said today. “The paper will be released shortly.”
Of course, it’s not all good news. While the release of this discussion paper is long over due, the chances of state and territory Attorney’s-General all agreeing to introduce an R18+ classification for games is slim to none.
South Australian A-G Michael Atkinson said today that he’s open for discussion, but his position now is that he’s opposed to an R18+ classification. He said:
‘Let’s see how the debate progresses. Let’s see what concessions gamers and the industry are prepared to make. This would involve the Classification Board applying the guidelines correctly.’
I’ve got a feeling he’s not the only A-G opposed.
15 comments
John says:
Apr 17, 2009
The fact that he’s so willing to let the debate go forward could suggest that certain underhanded back-door dealings have been established between him and the other AGs…
…
… or maybe that’s just me being paranoid… *twitch*
Toejam says:
Apr 18, 2009
“Let’s see what concessions gamers and the industry are prepared to make”
So we’re the ones that have to make concessions, not you, eh, Mikey? Do us all a favour and go back to your Wii Sports.
“I’ve got a feeling he’s not the only A-G opposed”
You know, he keeps saying that, too. But as far as I was aware, he was the ONLY one who voted against it. Anyone care to clarify?
Glenn says:
Apr 18, 2009
Mike: “I’ve got a feeling he’s[Atkinson] not the only A-G opposed.”
Well, unless the other AGs come forward I will believe that Atkinson is the only one.
John says:
Apr 19, 2009
@Toejam
From what I’ve gathered, when the issue was first put forward to the AGs and the vote commenced, Atkinson was one of the first few to put in his vote.
Now, considering that the outcome had to be unanimous, they perhaps stopped there without getting any further votes.
Not sure if this is accurate though. Don’t suppose anyone can clarify?
mikezombie777 says:
Apr 19, 2009
If the Commonwealth can circumvent the ‘unanimous’ requirement in this instance, then who’s to say they couldn’t also do it when the time comes to make a final decision and Atkinson is STILL refusing to support an R rating?
Maybe the Commonwealth could leave the state(s) which do not support the measure, out of the initiative, and allow the rest of the country to move forward? i.e R rated games will still be illegal in opposing states. Screw the co-operative classification system, the two territories are the only ones that allow the sale of X18+ films so lets do the same thing with games if need be. I know because they’re territories things are a little different but couldn’t the same concept be applied to the states? As someone who lives in Queensland, I’m sick of being dictated by someone from a different jurisdiction.
james says:
Apr 19, 2009
“South Australian A-G Michael Atkinson said today that he’s open for discussion”
Sure, which is what he said before. Then he threw a tantrum and refused to leave his little fort or even consider the air outside unless he had sole authority to control and molest the discussion to flatter his preconceptions.
I think his history as AG should be proof-positive that, as far as that issue goes, he is utterly immune to discussion or debate. He’s made us his mind and does not wish to be confused by facts. What a child.
Vanessa says:
Apr 20, 2009
Isn’t this the same A-G that refers to his 22-year-old son as a “child” he needs to protect from R18+ games?
Andrew Z says:
Apr 20, 2009
I think you will find that the new WA AG (i.e. a filthy Liberal) would be opposed to R18+ for games. The AG’s that have publicly come out in support of it are AG’s from ACT, NSW and VIC. QLD and NT AG’s weren’t fully opposed to it, but weren’t fully committed for it either.
Glenn says:
Apr 20, 2009
Vanessa: “Isn’t this the same A-G that refers to his 22-year-old son as a “child” he needs to protect from R18+ games?”
Yes.
GW says:
Apr 22, 2009
Don’t get too excited. We now have Local Councils getting games reclassified.
The game Marc Ecko’s Getting Up: Contents Under Pressure was originally granted an MA rating, but that decision was reviewed after complaints from Queensland’s Local Government Association.
The game has now been refused classification, with the board saying it gives users graffiti tips and positive reinforcement for the offence.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2006/02/15/1570754.htm
John says:
Apr 25, 2009
@ GW
… that was a terrible game anyway… hehe.
Rob says:
Jun 10, 2009
I believe this is perhaps the only issue currently under debate where there just isn’t any common sense to hold back when you look at the facts. An R18+ rating will not bring down civilisation as we know it. It’s like Michael Atkinson and any supposed others who are against this believe that an R18+ rating will open the floodgates to a wave of previously banned titles, when really there isn’t.
Three games got refused classification in 2008. Three. Those games were Dark Sector, FallOut 3 and F.E.A.R. 2: Project Origin. F.E.A.R. 2 was given an MA15+ rating several days later with no cuts. FallOut 3′s problem was with the reference to Morphine, they made a name change and it was allowed in. Dark Sector is really the only game with noteworthy cuts. Does this sound like a menace to Australian children? One game that wasn’t that good anyway? Gears of War 2, Killzone 2, GTA IV and arguably God of War III should all be R18+ but are/will be MA15+.
passwater says:
Jul 15, 2009
responding to Rob
Re: “Three games got refused classification in 2008. Three.”
You’re forgetting Shellshock 2: Blood Trails and Silent Hill: Homecoming.
refused-classification.com
I’ll mention that site since the Classification Board’s new site seems to have a broken database. Ever since coming back after their website was hacked earlier this year their site is inferior to the previous one. With gremlins in the database.
classification.gov.au
5 games RC in 2008. Sure other things happened to get some games through, like successful review in 1 case, chopping in 3 other cases, or cancelling the release in 1 case (Shellshock), but there were still 5 games refused in 2008.
Nick says:
Nov 12, 2009
personally an r18+ would be good for both sides of the debate were the stores could ask for id if someone goes to buy a game of that rating and if a game has sexual content of non violent nature it would be better in an adult shop were a person is asked for id on entering the store, adults who enjoy video games would not be deprived of great storylines and challenging missions, as most modern games and micheal atkinson needs to look at a video game cause the last time he played one it was pong.
Chris Prior says:
Dec 14, 2009
Re: arguments against…
*There is little reliable scientific evidence of increased impact due to interactivity, and significant evidence that it in fact diminishes the impact because pressing buttons reinforces the fact that it is not real. The classification system also includes the provision that interactivity is to be taken into account, thus an R18+ film and R18+ game would be the same ‘impact’.
*It would not be more difficult than for films, and in many instances with the easy to use parental controls on modern consoles and PCs, potentially easier. Limited use of parental controls is a reason to increase education for parents, not restrict adult liberty.
*Less adult-oriented content would be placed in the MA15+ category, making less adult content available to minors. The size of the Australian games market is not significant enough to urge developers to create higher-impact games with the introduction of an R18+ for games, something that every other western democracy has.
*Again, education is a preferred response to poorly-understood classifications, rather than censorship.
*There is little demonstrated need to watch films, read books or listen to music. They, like games, are choices. The impact that the lack of a R18+ for games has on the economy is significant. Anecdotally, dozens of game stores across Adelaide sold tens of thousands of dollars, each, of Modern Warfare 2. If, as Mr Atkinson wants, this game is retroactively Refused Classification, the ongoing sales of that product – a single game – will cease. Gamers in WA who purchased the game legally will become criminals for possession of RC material. Left 4 Dead 2 sold pitiful numbers in Australia due to the lack of an R18 and its subsequent censoring. That is money that instead of going to Australian retailers has gone to international stores. Aliens vs Predator, another highly anticipated game, would likely have seen millions of dollars pass through the local economy. Now, it will go oversees.
If you’re interested in an R18+ for games, Gamers4Croydon is doing something concrete about it. Head to the website to find out more.
Chris Prior
Gamers4Croydon Councillor
I game, I vote.