Australia Could Finally Get R18+ Games

angry tapir writes "Australia may finally get an adults only, R18+ classification for computer games, with the federal government releasing a discussion paper summarizing the key arguments for and against an R18+ classification. Submissions are currently being sought from the community on whether the Australian National Classification Scheme should include an R18+ category for computer and video games. In the past the board responsible for classifying games and movies has banned some titles outright because of the lack of an adults only classification — Aliens Vs. Predator is just the most recent in a long line. The Attorney-General's report on the issue is available online."

Comments

This is encouraging

[Cimexus]

Well I'm in two minds about this:

1. No amount of public support and public consultation is going to change Michael Atkinson's mind over this issue. Even very strong public support (91% of Australian adults support an R18+ rating for games, according to polling). Since Mr. Atkinson holds the power of veto for changing this law, even if the Federal Government STRONGLY URGES the introduction of an R18+ rating, he doesn't actually HAVE to give in to their demands (although there may be political consequences if he doesn't).

On the other hand...

2. It is great that this issue is finally being taken seriously by the general public, and is being given headlines in the major newspapers around the country today. This lends legitimacy to what gamers have been saying for ages - that game classification IS a serious issue and gamers are not kids. It's been pushed from a niche topic, to the mainstream, and that is how laws will get changed. So I'm quite encouraged by this. Michael Atkinson is unlikely to continue vetoing a change to the law if 90% of the public are behind it AND the Federal Government strongly recommends a R18+ rating in an official report ... like any other poltician, there is a point at which Mr. Atkinson will just have to bite the bullet and tow the party line. Woot :)

Mind you, the existing 'ban' (more accurately a lack of a classification preventing the sale of certain games ... you can still purchase them online and legally own and play them), isn't really a huge deal anyway. Ebay/overseas retailers are your friend.

Re:Banning doesn't do what they think it does

[Fluffeh]

Indeed, one of the first times in my life that I think I will actually make a valid input (aside from voting) on how the country I live in is actually being handled - and how I think it should be.

Re:I don't think Michael Atkinson will stand for t

[tg123]

It doesn't matter if Michael Atkinson wins his seat of Croydon. It has to be a Labor government in South Australia or he will no longer be Attorney General.

It will be a Liberal party member who becomes Attorney General, so I'd be lobbying them.

Oh God , Buddha various Deities etc

you think
no gay marriage , lock up the boat people Liberal party
(Australia's right wing version of the Torys , Republicans )

is going to to be any better?

Liberal party really means no to fun.

Re:Banning doesn't do what they think it does

[AliasMarlowe]

The "none of the above" option is called turning up at a voting station, getting your name crossed off, and not voting; last I checked, this was legal.
And failing that, take your voting slip, leave it blank, and put it in the voting booth. You've fulfilled your obligation to vote, without voting for any candidate. While I think this is incredibly stupid, you can do it, so what are you complaining about?

What you describe is simply voting "present" instead of casting an actual vote or abstaining. It is not a vote for or against any of the candidates. This is not the same as voting for "none of the above". A vote for "none of the above" is explicitly a vote against all of the candidates listed on the ballot. If "none of the above" were to get sufficient votes to be elected, then either the seat should remain empty, or the election should be re-held with the proviso that none of the same candidates should be able to stand, having all been actively rejected.

Note the ambiguity between whether voters wish the position to remain unoccupied, or to be given a different slate of candidates to vote for. To eliminate this, it would be preferable to have a "nobody" vs "new slate" tickbox associated with the "none of the above" option. Alternatively, "nobody" could be listed as a separate option; this would be less confusing to those who are easily confused, but at the risk of splitting the vote against all candidates.

A simple abstention or its equivalent (spoiled or blank ballot) does not provide these options.