Australia’s video game classification system doesn’t work, according to Michael Atkinson, the South Australian Attorney-General and chief opponent of the introduction of an R18+ category. In a letter to Kotaku today, the minister claimed he “doesn’t trust” the Classification Board to do their job properly and claims that the current MA15+ category is being stretched to the limit to accommodate the games industry’s publishers.
Atkinson also revealed to Kotaku the reasons why the proposed discussion paper on the issue has been delayed for the past year. Kotaku had heard previously that it was Atkinson himself who had failed to deliver his feedback on the draft paper set for public consultation. But the minister now accuses his fellow Attorneys-General of stalling over proposed changes to the paper.
One thing you can’t accuse the minister of is failing to engage the issue, as he also took time to respond to a host of Kotaku reader comments. While some may accuse him of “trolling”, it’s refreshing to see a state politician willing to dive into the debate.
FilthySpringbok
March 16, 2009 at 4:35 PM
Of course MA15+ is being stretched to the limit! You won’t let them create new classifications that suit the current spread of games!!! You just made the opposite argument in an attempt to prove your own point…
Report PermalinkVitch77
March 16, 2009 at 5:38 PM
That’s right Filthy. If the idiot would allow an R18+ classification there would be no need to stretch the current ones to the extent that they are currently. I really don’t see what the issue is. If R18+ was introduced then minors would not be able to access the content targetted towards adults.
Report PermalinkIlaeria
March 16, 2009 at 6:20 PM
My thoughts exactly, FilthySpringbok. They can’t do their job properly because Atkinson won’t give them the resources to do so.
Report PermalinkSam
March 16, 2009 at 6:36 PM
Is it just me, I do others think that he might be trying to just get his own name out there, and he just wants to fuel people so the spotlight is on him?
Report PermalinkWilliam Prangitt
March 16, 2009 at 6:49 PM
Exactly right Filthy!
MA15+ is being “stretched to the limit” because one idiot, namely Michael Atkinson, is standing in the way of Australia joining the rest of the civilised world and allowing the introduction of a R18+ rating, as used in every other western country…
Presumably Mr. Atkinson is a lawyer, so one would expect him to be able to come up with a sensible argument in support of his ridiculous position, instead of mentioning the prime reason to introduce an adult rating.
Atkinson is the only AG against introduction of a R18+ rating, and is ignoring the will of the majority of voters. When can we give him the shove? Maybe we can get rid of that other idiot Conroy while we are at it…
Report PermalinkBob Roberts
March 16, 2009 at 6:54 PM
Michael, the easiest way to do this would be to disband the Office of Film and Literature Classification.
This board is overworked censoring what we see, hear and read. It is unacceptable in a democracy that we the people have no say in or what we see.
We have no insight into the process of Australian classification. There is no board of appeals and anything refused is technically lost to us.
It serves little practice in today’s online world.
Every film that is refused classification is not sold in Australia from a shop or internet retailer. However anybody wishing to see this movie is able to download or buy a copy from overseas.
This means money is entirely sent offshore, depriving a local reseller of income. This is next to impossible to control or tax in a global economy.
The internet has in effect removed the need for classification — If a person is of age; 18+ and so desires the film, movie, music or book one can seek it out online. Australian resellers are then deprived of income.
If the classification issue is based on illegal content, it should be dealt with by the police, not the OFLC.
If the content being introduced should be refused based on a medical or health issue, it should be banned by customs and the department of health.
The Australian artistic, film, literature and video game community is mature enough to self regulate and rate their content on age appropriateness. We don’t need a board of anonymous moral crusaders controlling what we can and can’t see.
Report Permalinkferal
March 16, 2009 at 6:58 PM
Serve the public trust, Protect the innocent, Uphold the law, Make no sense.
Report PermalinkSF
March 16, 2009 at 8:47 PM
I hope common sense will eventually prevail in this issue that has been allowed to continue for too long.
Report PermalinkWhy does it seem like video games, as a medium, are not taken seriously in the public forum?
Surely we’re not ALL 12 year old children that need ‘saving’ from the horrors of simulated violence.
Thanks Michael – I really appreciate your efforts towards sensible social progress and for your part in keeping our governments ‘in touch’ with ‘new’ technologies.
FAIL.
Dazza
March 16, 2009 at 9:01 PM
Atkinson – another embarrassment for Australia.
Report PermalinkTreating Australians like they are too dumb to make up their own minds.
If you want games that because of Atkinson are not available from Australian outlets, then send your money overseas where the games are readily available, rather than support local economy.
Australia will never move forward while we have control freaks like Atkinson with any power.
Mr. Common-Sense
March 17, 2009 at 4:39 AM
I have various concerns about Michael Atkinson’s argument for not having an R-18+ rating for videogames. I disagree with his notion that just because someone wants to rip apart, blow-up, shoot or dismember an on-screen opponent, that somehow our state of mind is questionable to own moral compass. Mr. Atkinson is implying – is not intentionally – that as a gamer, if you wish to perform violent acts in a fictional medium, you must want to perform these acts in real life or that the violence in the fictional medium will encourage or confuse you and this will somehow skew your perception of reality outside of the fictional medium and you will be compelled to break societies’ laws. I find this idea rather insulting, and frankly quite patronizing. It would seem that Mr. Atkinson’s sole argument against the R-18+ rating of entertainment software media seems to hang completely on the idea of “Protect our children from violence”. Come now, in all seriousness’, one cannot possible hope to protect our children from violence by simply not having an R-18+ rating. Our children won’t remain children forever; children need to grow-up and learn the ways of the world. Children need to know how to protect themselves, they need to know not to talk to strangers and these are the sorts of things that parents need to teach their children. One cannot hide their children away from the world forever. Violence will find them – either through their friends, their family, TV, Radio, Magazine or simply when their at school or shopping with their parents. Never the less, I believe that Mr. Atkinson’s view that his stance on the subject is in the protection of the Children is quite weak. I do believe, as many other gamers, that it is far more detrimental to our society in the idea of public safety that we do not have an R-18+ rating on software. This lack of clarification forces game developers and their publishers’ to use under-handed and back-door tricks in order to get their software on the market – which is far more damaging. However, I do agree with Mr. Atkinson’s assertion that the Australian Classification Board cannot be trusted to correctly classify entertainment media, as I have experienced this myself when watching a DVD movie. I have also found that the Classification Board is quite hypocritical in their “classifications” – I recall the example of two videogames – one videogame had you escaping a prison compound or insane asylum where hoards of rapists and murders where trying to kill you as you where attempting to get away and one of your means of self-defense was a plastic shopping bag you would use to place over the head of the murder or rapist or pedophile (who is trying to brutally kill you) and suffocate them to death. This game was released and subsequently de-classified, recalled and untimely banned. The second game I remember had the player pretending to be a gang-banger in a drive-by using some form of sub-machine gun to murder two homosexual men on their wedding day…this game was not banned and remains in circulation. Now, what does this say to the average consumer? That the Classification Board deplores the use of defensive violence against rapists and child molesters, but is not the least bit concerned with the encouragement of hate crimes. I believe that an R-18+ rating is desperately needed. Many games are skirting under the radar and slipping into the MA-15+ rating. The rating is being stretched beyond it’s means. Just as Movie DVDs and Television shows have AV-16+ and R-18+ ratings, so should entertainment software. It does not make sense that Movies and TV shows are allowed to have R-18+ rating but videogames are not. How is the videogame industry different to the Movie, TV and Animation industry? Much like said industries, videogames are not just for children and it is not fair to imply that it is or should remain that way. Many talented writers, artist, actors and programmers work within the gaming industry. I don’t believe that it is right to say to them that their artist creation cannot be fully realized because the industry they work in does not have the appropriate rating for their vision. I would also like to state that their are many real-world mechanism in place to supposedly protect our children from “harm” – the videogame hardware manufactures themselves have put parental control measures in place to actually stop children from viewing or playing their parents or older siblings videogames. The Sony Playstation 3 for example has a built-in lock-out system where the parent or guardian can assign specific passwords to each videogame that they own, this way if the child inserts the software into the system it will not play without said password access. So, according to Mr. Atkinson’s this simple system is far too hard for any parents to grasp, or too labor intensive or it’s just that the parents are just far too lazy and irresponsible to be parents and want everyone else, like the schools, the doctors, the government and in this case, the ratings board to do their job for them. Well, that’s my 2 cents – and I’ve had enough. Brick wall, anyone?
Report Permalinkadamskee
March 17, 2009 at 1:38 PM
can we all say “DOUCHE!”
Report PermalinkTBoneTony
March 18, 2009 at 1:38 AM
From what I know, the OFLC Classification board has three things that they strive for.
1. Protecting children from what is considered as harmful material.
2. Allowing adults to make up their own mind if they want to see material that is not meant to be for children.
3. Protecting Society from content that is most extremely harmful from being sold commercially.
While 1 and 3 are important, it is number 2 that is really important for many adults in what is meant to be a FREE country where adults can chose to see, watch, listen, read and even play what ever they want.
Also while it is true that some certain games do contain Graphic Rape scenes, you have to understand that those games will NEVER BE SOLD in Australia because of the X rating. Also for a fact that the Videogames sold around the world that are ADULT RATED don’t contain that sort of material because it is not sold commercially but ONLY in Japan they are.
If we had an R18+ rating, we still won’t see any videogames with graphic rape scenes.
it is that simple that this is provided under number 3 in the rules of the OFLC classification system.
Only the internet can that sort of thing be possible, and guess what, you can’t censor the internet at all. But you can stop products from being sold ONLY in your own country, but you can’t stop someone in Australia from buying it overseas. There is just no way you can ever do that.
So in a way, children are still being protected when it comes to what is being sold in Australia, but I would like to see how you can tell parents that it is up to them to parent their own kids when it comes to the internet.
Report PermalinkTBoneTony
March 18, 2009 at 1:51 AM
Most of the time in politics, a simple answer to this problem is an R18+ rating. And trying to attack the OFLC or the Classification review board for not doing their job is a bit like a football player arguing against the umpire who did not make the decision that did not go their way.
The umpires are the OFLC and the Classification review board can be the 3rd umpire to the OFLC.
But for someone who is so far against the R18+ rating for videogames to blame the OFLC because their MA15+ is being streatched to balance out between what kids should be protected against and what adults should have a choice for playing…well there needs to be some common ground and find a compramise between both sides.
Sadly one side is not talking while the other side is trying its best to have an informed argument.
Report PermalinkIncognito
May 17, 2009 at 8:08 PM
If anyone wants, here’s Michael Atkinson’s email address:
croydon@parliament.sa.gov.au
Do whatever you want with it.
Report PermalinkFor the good of the commonwealth.
Blitterhali
August 19, 2009 at 4:04 PM
I http://watchtvonline1.com – watch tv onlinealot, lol some of my favorites are youtube. What are places
can I watch tv online.
Is it legal for me to have explained here?, and bank accounts? How to start? Can I move my existing business offshore
Thanks
Report Permalink