Australian R18+ Rating For Games? Not Yet; NSW Refuses To Vote

UgLyPuNk writes "Just a few hours after the Australian gaming public was confused by the stance taken by the South Australian Attorney-General, they're now getting angry over his New South Wales counterpart's decision. While the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General had planned on making a decision regarding the introduction of an R18+ rating for video games on Friday at a meeting in Adelaide, the NSW Attorney-General has announced he will not vote on the topic at this time."

Comments

Don't feel bad, Australia

[elrous0]

In the U.S. we have a similar industry-enforced classification called AO (Adults Only). But it's completely worthless, as no store will carry any AO games. So even if you got the classification, it wouldn't necessarily make it any easier to actually produce an adult game.

Re:Don't feel bad, Australia

[dakameleon]

Did people forget about the PC all of a sudden?

That aside, the issue here in Australia is that games are judged to a different scale to movies, due to their interactive nature apparently, as well as the unsaid "child-focused" nature of gaming (I kid you not). Games which fail to meet the Office of Film & Literature Classification board's standards for the "Mature Adults Only (15+)" band - are therefore refused classification (RC), and refused classification means it won't be allowed to be imported into the country, let alone sold. Any explicit sexual content and extreme violence seems to get you over the line here. A rating certificate can also be revoked if later updates provide material which violates standards.

This has resulted in certain games, like the latest Mortal Kombat, or the initial version of GTA 3 (iirc... some big game in any case), being RC'd. I think GTA was revised at the last minute for the Australian version, allowing sale, but Mortal Kombat's producers refused to change and the game wasn't allowed for sale. No huge loss, some might say, but the adults of Australia are asking for the discretion to judge it for themselves. There's also a somebody-think-of-the-children argument in that some games with significant violence are shoe-horned into the MA15+ category when they more properly belong in an R18+ category.

Re:What's that supposed to mean?

[bug1]

Its not the federal government job to impose laws governing "state issues", and for whatever (stupid) reason, the issue of R18+ is considered an issue for the states.

IFF all the states can agree then its easy for the federal government to make a federal law, they cant be accused of taking power away from the states.

If the federal government try and do it without the states it could be challenged on constitutional grounds.

What i dont understand is why the states dont implement these laws in their own state, without a national agreement.

Face it

[Anonymous Coward]

The Australian government HATES video games.

Re:What's that supposed to mean?

[Eskarel]

Because like most countries, our Consitution was written in a different age. One where states were relatively autonomous economically and so wanted to remain relatively autonomous politically. It's a different world now and to a large extent federation doesn't work all that much better for us than it does for the US in most things, it's not really all that likely to change any time soon though, and working out where the new line should be drawn is going to take some time. Some things are still state matters, but at the same time states cannot survive separately anymore the way they could a hundred years ago and so a number of state powers are irrational.