When it comes to the Australian introduction of a restricted R18+ rating for video games, everything seemed to be going smoothly. Back in March, we told you that the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General were calling for a discussion paper and public consultation process regarding video game classification.

At the time, Michael Atkinson, the South Australian Attorney-General, had gone on record as strongly objecting to any change in legislation, but he - and the other censorship ministers - had agreed "in principle" to gathering public opinion on the proposed new classification. This week, however, Mr. Atkinson has now effectively halted the process, indefinitely delaying any changes to the legislation.

As part of the process, a draft discussion paper had been submitted to the relevant ministers, to get approval before it was made public. Each of the attorneys-general agreed to the paper, except for the Western Australian representative, who had not responded due to the recent election, and the South Australian representative, who - according to a spokesperson "gave consideration to the draft but was unable to support the release of that document".

Mr. Atkinson, the long-standing Labor member for Croydon, in Adelaide's north-western suburbs, has been against the R18+ introduction for seemingly as long as it has been on the table.

Refused Classification in 2008: Silent Hill: Homecoming

Earlier this year - even before the Attorneys-General met to discuss the topic, Mr. Atkinson attempted to address Parliament on the issue. He was cut off mid-speech, but before returning to his seat amid a sea of "raucous interjections", he explained his stance: "I understand that the lack of an R18+ classification denies some adults the chance to play some games, however, the need to keep potentially harmful material away from children is far more important. This is a carefully considered position I have held for six years and other attorneys-general around Australia may now be coming to the same view. There are not adequate safeguards that can properly protect our children from those disturbing scenes and I know how computer-literate they are. Like other parents in Australia, I want to try to protect children from being able to access computer-generated pornography and violence."

It's worth noting that Mr. Atkinson's opinion is the exception, rather than the norm, in Parliament. His Victorian counterpart, Rob Hulls (also that state's Deputy Premier), has been a long-time supporter of the push for an R18+ games rating, taking a leading role in drafting the now-shelved discussion paper. When the public consultation was announced earlier this year, Mr. Hulls made the statement that Australia is "out of step with the rest of the developed world" when it comes to this issue.

"I believe that censorship laws should strike an appropriate balance between freedom of expression and community concerns about depictions that condone or incite violence, as well as the principle that minors should be protected from material likely to harm or disturb them." Surely Mr. Hulls - like many of us - is hanging his head today, resigned to the reality that no changes to the video games classification system will be made "anytime soon", with a spokesperson releasing a statement that: "...whilst the issue is still formally on the SCAG (Standing Committee of Attorneys-General) agenda, it now appears unlikely that there will be unanimity from all jurisdictions to proceed further at this stage with introducing an R18+ category for computer games."

Refused Classification in 2008: Shellshock 2: Blood Trails

When Mr. Hulls says "out of step", he's referring to the fact that Australia is currently the only developed country lacking an R18+ classification for video games. To put it simply, anything that is deemed inappropriate for 15 year olds ("strong impact" violence or sexual content exceeding the MA15+ rating guidelines) is effectively banned for sale in this country.


Edited for Australian audiences in 2008: Dark Sector, Fallout 3
The current arrangement seems to be causing friction among politicians, as well as among gamers - looking through the Hansard documents (.pdf link, page 86) from last week's Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs contains this gem, between deputy chair Senator Guy Barnett and Amanda Davies, Assistant Secretary from the Classification Policy Branch:

Senator Barnett: Some of us are dumbfounded as to why we do not have an R rating for video games. Can you share any argument as to why we do not?
Ms Davies: In order to make any changes to the classification code and guidelines, including introducing a new classification, you need to have unanimous agreement from all state and territory ministers and the Commonwealth minister. To date, that has not been obtained.
Senator Barnett: We have got a real problem here, haven’t we, because South Australia is opposing the position.
Ms Davies: The South Australian Attorney is on record on a number of occasions as opposing the introduction of an R18+ classification.
Senator Barnett: We have a real problem, and this is something the Senate and the parliament is going to have to address. If we have one state opposing this, South Australia, then clearly we are not going to have any R rating of video games. That simply cannot occur as a matter of course legally.

Those of you looking for a glimmer of hope can perhaps take some solace that the matter is up for discussion once again at the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General meeting, to be held next month - and this is not the last we'll hear of the matter.

Earlier this week, the Interactive Entertainment Association of Australia released their report - Interactive Australia 2009, which surveyed more than 1600 Australian households boasts that 91% of Australian adults - gamers and non-gamers alike - believe that Australia should have an R18+ rating for video games (up from 88% in the 2007 survey).

Ron Curry - CEO of the Interactive Entertainment Association of Australia, commented at the launch of the report: "We'll continue to work with government and policy advisors and various departments to maintain it on the agenda. To us, what it seems like is that Mr. Atkinson is actually censoring debate on censorship, and there's a whole lot of irony in that. We’re going to try and put the paper forward again as soon as possible."

He continues, explaining that the local games industry is not going to give up just yet, continuing to fight until we all come to a successful outcome. We'll keep you posted on just what that outcome will be, and if anyone is anything like successful in changing Mr. Atkinson's mind.