NSW to postpone R18+ decision; wait for ALRC report

Tuesday, July 19th, 2011

According to Kotaku Australia, GameSpot’s claims that New South Wales will derail the R18+ decision ahead of the SCAG meeting on Friday have been denied by Greg Smith’s spokesman. Instead, Smith is prepared to wait for the Australian Law and Reform Commission’s report to come out before making a final decision.

“Any suggestion that we’re trying to derail the R18+ rating for games is completely untrue. Is a train derailed because it stops at a station? All we’re trying to do is create a situation where we have more certainty for gamers when it comes to classification, instead of rushing into something.

“We’re not against an the R18+ rating for games at all, we just don’t want to rush it through. For example, we don’t agree with what John Rau wants to do either with removing MA15+ – instead of browbeating let’s get a national approach.”

John Rau’s decision to remove MA15+ and just replace it with R18+ would not only means that game classification would be out of step with films, but South Australians would also be unable to purchase the majority of titles rated MA15+.

“This has been on the agenda for a very long time now – over 10 years now? Waiting a little bit longer to make sure classification is done correctly is not derailing the process – why the rush now? We would just end up with bad policy.

“We understand the determination of gamers to get this thing through, but we need to look at it after the ALRC report to make sure this thing is right.”

So, in other words, just because gamers have waited for an R18+ rating for decades does not mean that the decision has to be rushed. After the meeting on Friday, it would make sense that other Attorneys-General would agree with Smith’s decision.

Tasmanian Attorney-General comes out in favour of R18+ Games

Thursday, June 2nd, 2011

According to Kotaku Australia, Brian Wightman, the new Tasmanian Attorney-General replacing David Bartlett, has voiced his support for an R18+ rating for games.

Wightman said in an interview that he will push for the new rating at the July SCAG meeting.

It’s not going to completely stop children getting this material, it will reduce those that do and it definitely won’t make things worse.

So far, all but three states previously said that they would support an R18+ rating.

R18+ Draft Guidelines Released

Thursday, May 26th, 2011

Kotaku Australia has just announced that the Federal Ministers for Home Affairs, Brendan O’Connor, has released a draft of the R18+ Guidelines ahead of the SCAG meeting in July. The guidelines are sent to all Attorneys-General and detail what is allowed under the new rating, and what is not. O’Connor has issued the following statement:

The Gillard Government wants to provide better guidance for parents and remove unsuitable material from children and teenagers. The introduction of an R18+ classification will help achieve that and will also bring Australia into line with comparable nations. This issue has been on the table for many years, without the necessary progress to make a change. We’ve recently seen several states publicly express their support for an adult only rating for games and I’m keen to reach a unanimous decision at the July meeting.

For many years, there was concern that the most violent games were being shoehorned into the MA15+ category. The guidelines suggest a tightening of that rating, to make sure that such games are not available to minors. Below are the guidelines for the MA15+, R18+, and RC ratings:

MA 15+ – MATURE ACCOMPANIED
Impact test
The impact of material classified MA 15+ should be no higher than strong.
Note: Material classified MA 15+ is considered unsuitable for persons under 15 years of age. It is a legally restricted category.

Classifiable elements
THEMES
The treatment of strong themes should be justified by context.

VIOLENCE
Violence should be justified by context.
Strong and realistic violence should not be very frequent.
Sexual violence may be implied, if justified by context.

SEX
Sexual activity may be implied.
Sexual activity must not be related to incentives or rewards.

LANGUAGE
Strong coarse language may be used.
Aggressive or strong coarse language should be infrequent.

DRUG USE
Drug use should be justified by context.
Drug use must not be related to incentives or rewards.
Interactive drug use that is detailed and realistic is not permitted.

NUDITY
Nudity should be justified by context.
Nudity must not be related to incentives or rewards.
Note:

R 18+ – RESTRICTED

IMPACT TEST
The impact of material classified R 18+ should not exceed high.
Note: Material classified R 18+ is legally restricted to adults. Some material classified R 18+ may be offensive to sections of the adult community.

Classifiable elements
THEMES
There are virtually no restrictions on the treatment of themes.

VIOLENCE
Violence is permitted except where it offends against the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults to the extent that it should not be classified.
Sexual violence may be implied, if justified by context.

SEX
Sexual activity may be realistically simulated. The general rule is
“simulation, yes – the real thing, no”.

LANGUAGE
There are virtually no restrictions on language.

DRUG USE
Drug use is permitted.

NUDITY
Nudity is permitted.

RC – REFUSED CLASSIFICATION
Note: Computer games that exceed the R 18+ classification category will be Refused Classification.

Computer games will be refused classification if they include or contain any of the following:

CRIME OR VIOLENCE
Detailed instruction or promotion in matters of crime or violence.
The promotion or provision of instruction in paedophile activity.
Descriptions or depictions of child sexual abuse or any other exploitative or offensive
descriptions or depictions involving a person who is, or appears to be, a child under 18 years.
Gratuitous, exploitative or offensive depictions of:
(i) violence with a very high degree of impact or which are excessively frequent,
prolonged or detailed;
(ii) cruelty or real violence which are very detailed or which have a high impact;
(iii) sexual violence.
Sexual violence related to incentives and rewards.

SEX
Depictions of practices such as bestiality.
Gratuitous, exploitative or offensive depictions of:
(i) activity accompanied by fetishes or practices which are offensive or abhorrent;
(ii) incest fantasies or other fantasies which are offensive or abhorrent.

DRUG USE
Detailed instruction in the use of proscribed drugs.
Material promoting or encouraging proscribed drug use.
As a general rule, computer games will also be Refused Classification if they contain:
(i) drug use related to incentives or rewards;
(ii) interactive drug use which is detailed and realistic

The guidelines also suggest that the G, PG, and M ratings remain unchanged. You can view the proposed guidlines here.

Pro-R18+ Attorney-General Calls It Quits

Thursday, May 12th, 2011

According to Kotaku Australia, David Bartlett, the Attorney-General for Tasmania, has just announced his resignation. Bartlett, 43, previously announced that he is in favour of an R18+ rating for games.

The introduction of an R18+ classification would help give parents a clear idea of which computer games are suitable for their children,” he claimed, in a statement released just a few months ago.

It’s about giving parents clear information, a clearer choice, and more confidence in the games they buy for their children.

An R18+ category currently applies to other forms of entertainment, like films and some magazines. It’s appropriate to use the same clear and consistent restrictions for computer games.

For me, the real issue is not whether we should have an R18+ classification – which is obvious. The issue is how to construct those guidelines.

We need to ensure the guidelines are properly worded, so appropriate games can be played by adults, while still excluding those games which depict high-level sex and violence.

The debate should now be about getting those guidelines or criteria right.

Bartlett’s resignation means that it could take weeks to find a replacement; and whoever that is, hopefully they share a similar position as Bartlett’s and the decision whether or not to introduce an R18+ won’t be delayed yet again.

South Australia to replace MA15+ rating for games with R18+ rating

Thursday, April 28th, 2011

In March, Federal Minister for Home Affairs Brendan O’Connor reported that if everybody fails to unanimously agree to a adult-only rating, then the government would be considering other options.

According to Laura Parker, through her GameSpot article, this is exactly what South Australia will be doing, by introducing an adult-only rating, while abandoning the existing MA15+ rating. The South Australian Attorney-General John Rau has stated that his cabinet endorsed the proposal.

I’ve been consulting very broadly on this [issue] for a year now. I’ve been listening to parents and gaming advocates, and I have come to the conclusion that both points of view are legitimate and need to be accommodated. Recent moves by the federal government suggests that there will be an R18+ classification for video games in some form after the July [SCAG] meeting.

Of course, it would be ideal to have a uniform national scheme. That’s why we need to wait now to see how the federal arrangements will shake out. If there is a national opportunity to embrace R18+, South Australia will do it with the quid pro quo that MA15+ is eliminated as a classification and all games that are now rated MA15+ will be made R18+. This is what I want to happen in South Australia.

Laura also reports that the ACT Attorney-General, Simon Corbell, is also considering this approach if there is no unanimous agreement in July.

If the other states agree to introduce the same proposal, then the rating systems for games would be G, PG, M, R18+. This still makes it inconsistent with films that already have an MA15+ rating. Furthermore, the government has no intention of abolishing the Refused Classification category. So if games are still awarded an RC rating, then what’s the point of having an R18+ rating in the first place?

If the MA15+ rating needs to be removed, then why not 1) do it for films as well? and 2) amend the guidelines so that items currently rated MA15+ can fall under the M category and have the rest fall under R18+?