Australian Game Classification: Public Consultation

A discussion on the current Australian Game Ratings

from Demigod Forums

It appears that the Australian Government has heard the cries of the hundreds of thousands of Australian gamers and has decided to consult the public in it's review of the current Video Game Classification system, which lacks an R18+ rating. Subsequently, the lack of this rating has resulted in Australia currently holding the World Record for highest number of banned Video Games, and being the only Western nation without such a rating.

Keep in mind that the problem rests not with a Government not wanting to change its rating, as the change has been called to be voted on several times in the past. The problem rests with the requirment for unamious consent to do so and the South Australian Attorney General, Michael Atkinson, who refuses to vote in favour of the change. He's received enough of an internet bashing, and there are plenty of website dedicated to doing just that, so I'll move on.

I believe that the mature rating would actually futher Mr Atkinson's cause; he simply doesn't want mature or violent games in the hands of children. To be fair, I can understand his point - some of the games available today are horrifically violent by any standards. Gamers love to say our gamers are not that violent, but in all honesty some of things that we gamers are exposed to would simply never be allowed in film and are allowed in games almost exclusively because of their virtual nature; they're not real.

By preventing a mature rating from existing within the Australian Ratings system, Michael Atkinson has single handedly - and it is him on his own - allowed games such as Grand Theft Auto 4 to be played by 15 year olds in Australia when the age requirement is 17 in the United States and higher in other countries. If a mature rating was available, I'd like to believe games such as Gears of War would also be rated as R18+ and frankly was surprised that the chainsaw dismemberment scenes were allowed; they're extremely graphic and violent and can occur quite frequently.

I, for one, hope that this public consultation gives a better understanding to the Australian Government of what our public wants and is prepared to accept and that Michael Atkinson doesn't speak on behalf of a majority and is simply presenting his own personal views rather than the people who is supposed to be speaking for.

Should Australia have an R18+ rating for Video Games?

22,777 views 11 replies
Reply #1 from Sins Forums Top

probably. Everyone else does, so the Aussies should probably get up and on the bandwagon.

Unfortunately, while I do think this will help, it might not be a big change at all, as it is all too easy to lie about one's age on the Internet, and from there order games that are rated R18+ (by Aussie standards; in US it's M).

The Political Machine 2024
Reply #3 from Stardock Forums Top

not everyone buys their games online because of the slow internet here, R18 wouldn't stop me from getting some of the games i wanted but i like to read reviews of things before getting them.

It would have stopped a lot of children from getting GTA 4 and getting the other violent games if their parents are smart enough, it was stupid of him to not allow an R18 sure you would get some games banned but the ones that get through will get MA15+ at max when it should have been R18 in the first place allowing a lot of kids to get them since parents are ok with M and MA15+.

I'm sure if it had R18+ on it parents wouldn't allow their children to play it.  

Edit bad grammer.

Reply #4 from Stardock Forums Top

The problem rests with the requirment for unamious consent to do so
End of quote

What idiot failed to learn from their history?  I don't remember the exact details of the various cases I've heard about (the most famous one being Poland and their chamber of nobles, followed closely by the original American government before the constitution was adopted) but unanimity has never worked as a rule-making approach.

Reply #5 from Sins Forums Top

Maybe they should just throw another shrimp on the barby?

Reply #6 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

I just don't understand someone who gives the reason for not having an 18+ rating as being to protect children. It does the exact opposite - it exposes more children to 18+ games, while at the same time hurting adults by not letting them play some games at all.

In fact the only argument I could see for not having an 18+ classification is if you did want it to be more accessable to children, which was the opposite of his professed position.

Still, crazy system if you need everyone to agree to change anything like this.

Reply #7 from Stardock Forums Top

I apolagize for the overharshness of my post; I'll stand by the sentiment, but the tone was a bit excessive.  Does anyone know why such a crazy system was set up?

Reply #8 from Demigod Forums Top

Quoting Ron, reply 7
I apolagize for the overharshness of my post; I'll stand by the sentiment, but the tone was a bit excessive.  Does anyone know why such a crazy system was set up?
End of Ron's quote


Its was a requirement in the constitution to ensure that each state had a say in changes to such laws, which guaranteed the creation of Australia.

 

Reply #9 from Sins Forums Top

But, why unanimous consent and not a simple 2/3 majority?  Also, why was such power given to the Attorney General and not the Governor or legislative branch?

Reply #10 from Demigod Forums Top

Quoting SpardaSon21, reply 9
But, why unanimous consent and not a simple 2/3 majority?  Also, why was such power given to the Attorney General and not the Governor or legislative branch?
End of SpardaSon21's quote

the governors are a position of formality; they hold no real power whatsoever. and even if it were, you'd be in the same situation. if you really meant "premier" then i don't know; probably because it is assumed that any AG serves at the whim of his premier.

as for a 2/3 majority, im afraid i can't answer that. its been a while since i studied the constitutional framework. i suspect it was to ensure that all the states had an equal say in the decision(s). you have to realise the australian constitution was a game of placation; they had to have all states on board in order to form the nation. smaller states were worried about having their decisions countermanded by larger ones.

its really not that big a deal. australia only has 6 states, so asking for uniformity isn't too much of a problem. indeed, i wouldn't have even realised this necessity had it not related to gaming in some way, i suspect its due to trade or weights/measures provisos in the constitution. couldnt tell you exactly under which section "classification" falls though.

Reply #11 from Demigod Forums Top


It appears I may have been wrong, all over the place! ;) it seems as though the requirement for agreement between federal and state AGs is a recently new phenomenon, with the the passge of the CLASSIFICATION (PUBLICATIONS, FILMS AND COMPUTER GAMES) ACT 1995.


The Act provides that publications, films and computer games are to be classified in accordance with the National Classification Code, set out in the Schedule to the Act, and the Classification Guidelines[14]. The Code and the Guidelines may be amended from time to time with the agreement of the Commonwealth Minister and each participating State and Territory Minister.
End of quote

So, there you have why changes require agreement between all parties. This 1995 Act. You learn something new everyday! :)