Australian R18+ Rating For Games? Not Yet; NSW Refuses To Vote 71
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."
Re: (Score:2)
I never thought I'd say this, but where's Puffy when you need him?
Re: (Score:2)
It's interesting actually. In Australia, we are required by law to vote in elections, and yet here is a guy who's *JOB* is to vote on stuff and he is allowed to not even do that?!
I have my doubts about the whole issue though. It used to be all the states except SA were for the R rating. Then the SA AG is replaced, and all of a sudden the Victorian AG is against it. Now it's the NSW AG...
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you might not have noticed, but Victoria and NSW experienced a change of government(and therefor a change of AG) since the original vote.
What's that supposed to mean? (Score:3)
Some AG in a territory can block a nationwide law if he doesn't want it? That's actually possible in Australia?
Are you serious? If the whole country wants to enact a law but somewhere sits an AG with a diverging opinion, he can simply block it by not voting on it? That's quite a bit of power in the hands of a single person.
Re:What's that supposed to mean? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:What's that supposed to mean? (Score:5, Informative)
Because they have agreed not to, in order to keep things relatively in-sync. The individual implementations do vary state-by-state. For example, you can't sell or demonstrate RC video games in the ACT, but you can certainly own and play them. In WA (I understand) it's illegal to even own RC material.
It's a state issue because everything is a state or territory issue except that limited set of things listed in the constitution. (One of these limited things is what makes "customs" a federal issue, which is why the customs rules are tighter than any state or territory's on RC material, but once it's past customs, those rules are irrelevant) So the federal government cannot make a law about classification, the best they can do is create and issue codes and guidelines. Which they do. It's a very similar thing in traffic law. We now have a national traffic law code, but each state must codify (and amend as they see fit) that code into their own law.
Re: (Score:3)
+1 Informative
It bugs me though that if the OFLC is at the Federal level, and this should be harmonised across all states, why is the legislative power not also at the federal level? arrgh!
Re:What's that supposed to mean? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The states are an anachronism referring to the colonies to begin with - if you got rid of the states and devolved power to (fewer, consolidated) councils, would it really be that bad? Councils looking after local issues, the Commonwealth looking after national ones.
There's very few issues that affect an individual state as a whole but not the neighbouring state - on the other hand, with sufficiently large councils, you would definitely have things which affect a single council but not the next. This would n
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What an utterly ridiculous statement. It has just as much force, and in fact, the US Constitution would pose exactly the same issue as the Australian one in this case (Federal Govt's inability to legislate on a State issue).
Classification laws does not fall under the heads of power that the Constitution grants to the Federal Govt. It's therefore a State issue, and the Federal Government cannot legislate on the matter (they can suggest, they can issue non-binding codes of standards, they can bring people tog
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
They would have had to find a Constitutional power for them to legislate over that. I'm not familiar with that exact case, but my guess is they related it to matters relating to health (which the Commonwealth can make laws regarding under the Constitution ... that's why Medicare is able to exist).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm the Australian Constitution has a similarish clause re freedom of inter-state trade. I'm not sure if it's more or less permissive than the US version. Let's see:
US:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3: [The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;
Australia:
Chapter I, Part V, s 51(i): [The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth wit
Re: (Score:2)
Take the Wickard v. Filburn mentioned previously. The
Re: (Score:2)
The Constitution also allows for federal law to prevail whenever there is a conflict between a state law and federal one.
While the federal government may not appear to have the ability to impinge on the states' rights, in fact it probably could if it wanted to.
The external affairs laws, which allow the federal goverment to legislate to adhere to external treaties and obligations has been used in the past to circumvent state rights.
The way it could work is that the federal government would just say "we have
Re: (Score:3)
Having been the person to start the ball rolling with petitions to state governments (which flowed on to a great national petition sponsored largely by EB Games), I can summarise the response from the Qld State Parliament: "We'll watch what happens nationally and then consider it."
You can look up my ePetition (1
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
If that were the case, then the states in favour of the R18+ rating could simply introduce it and ignore the NSW AG. But somehow states ended up with veto power over a federal issue.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the equivalent of the US federal government trying to get all the US states to agree on, for example, a nationwide uniform driver's licence or uniform state taxes. These things require the states to cede some level of actual or perceived control. If any state doesn't come to the party you don't get a uniform whatever, which is why federal governments usually have to offer sweeteners. That is not to stop any of the states that do agree from legislating the equivalent... but they miss out on the
Re: (Score:2)
Politics isn't much different from kindergarten. From "he started it" and "Nanny, he's said a bad word" to "but if he did it I don't like it".
Re: (Score:2)
Sweetener? What the _fuck_ is this, kindergarten?
Yes. Many politicians and political bodies behave like selfish brats. Especially when they have too much power and perceive a threat to that.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
This only applies to certain laws, where pre-existing agreements... exist *cough* to keep the relevant laws in sync between states and territories. It just happens that the classification system is one of them.
http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/agd.nsf/Page/Committeesandcouncils_Ministerialcouncils_StandingCommitteeofAttorneysGeneral [ag.gov.au]
Don't feel bad, Australia (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:1)
You can always buy/sell AO games online. In Australia it is illegal to sell unrated games, period.
Besides the US rating scheme is industry run and enforced. The Australian rating scheme is, I believe, government run and enforced.
Re: (Score:3)
Who enforces it is really meaningless in any practical sense. No one can afford to produce an AO game because the only way to sell it would be directly on your own website. You also couldn't port it to anything but Android phones--no consoles, no iPhones, etc. Basically if you want to produce an AO game that costs any real money to make, you're SOL. No one will sell it, no one will let it on their closed devices/consoles, no one will even run ads for it.
Is that really any better than the Australian system?
Re: (Score:3)
There are several very popular games that are not on sale in australia, and it's possibly illegal to import them.
Re:Don't feel bad, Australia (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
All very true.
Of course in practice people still import RC games and 99% of the time Customs don't check the package, and there's no problem. I know plenty of people with the new Mortal Kombat, for instance.
The beauty of it is that, even though illegal to SELL, it's perfectly legal to own and play an RC game one you acquire it (except, I believe in Qld and WA). I have the (US) version of Fallout 3, which is RC in Australia, but since I live in the ACT it's perfectly legal to play it. (A bad example since th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's basically what everyone does. Import the games from overseas. Customs virtually never checks for RC material (frankly they are more interested in catching stuff that's ~actually~ 'bad', you know, like bombs and drugs and stuff that could pose quarantine risks). And once the game is in your hands it's perfectly legal to play (it's only illegal for a store to ~sell~ RC games in Australia, not merely to possess the game, unless you live in WA or Queensland).
Actually most savvy gamers import all their ga
Re: (Score:2)
A R18 rating will do nothing for the Aussie gaming market
Re:Don't feel bad, Australia (Score:5, Informative)
No, no, no. Please become more informed. As other commenters have pointed out, unrated games CANNOT be sold legally in Australia, not even online. It is a big deal to get a R18+ rating even if brick-and-mortar won't sell it, because it means the end of government-mandated censorship of games.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No, they can still RC a game even if an R18+ rating exists. R18+ is just an additional category that games may now be placed in.
Some stuff that used to be RC will fit under that category and can now be sold. However, something that was RC before, and cannot fit into the new R18+ classification, will still be RC and thus illegal to sell in Australia.
However the number of games that are likely to be 'truly RC' and not fit into R18+ is pretty freaking small. So yes it's still a huge step foward.
Re: (Score:2)
it means the end of government-mandated censorship of games.
No. We are talking about a _change_ in the government-mandated censorship of games to match that applied to the film industry.
Re: (Score:2)
CANNOT be sold legally in Australia, not even online.
That is not entirely true. They cannot be legally sold in Australia not even online by an Australian company. The restriction of the sale of R18+ games applies to the sale point only, NOT to imports. You can very well buy an R18+ game from say Amazon, a company with no presence in Australia and have them internationally ship it with no issue. In theory you should even be able to get it on Steam given all transactions happen internationally in a different currency, but there's a policy issue holding that out
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Er, the situation in Australia is totally different from what's currently in the US and most other countries -- their highest rating is 15+, which is like T for Teen in the US. They don't have anything higher than that, which means they often get severely gimped versions of games, or worse, certain games don't get released there at all. The 18+ rating would actually be like the US's R rating, which Australia desperately needs.
Re:Don't feel bad, Australia (Score:5, Informative)
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.
I'm not quite sure you understand what's going on here. The highest game rating in Australia is 15, which is analogous to the highest movie rating in the US being PG-13. Anything unsuitable for a 15 year old simply cannot be sold there. The rating they're trying to introduce in Australia is similar to our M rating for games (i.e. R rated movies). With this rating, games containing violence/language/sex suitable for an adult, but not a 15 year old, can be sold on the market. X-rated games are a whole other issue.
Re: (Score:1)
Is AO given to full on graphic sexual content? Because the R18+ rating in Australia would be mainly used for violent games, e.g. Mortal Kombat. Graphic sexual content in Australia gets a X rating.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that'll be a problem here. You see, the R18+ rating already exists for movies, TV shows, books, magazines etc. And those things are all sold in stores. It's just this rating doesn't exist for games at the moment. Introducing R18 for games will simply bring them in-line with the same classifications as already exist for other media.
As it stands, a lot of games that would probably be R18+, if it existed, simply get classified as MA15+ at the moment. And stores still sell them. So I don't really
Face it (Score:3, Insightful)
The Australian government HATES video games.
Re:Face it (Score:4, Informative)
In this case, you can actually blame the newly elected conservatives in the NSW government, possibly trying to appease Rev. Fred Nile & his Christian Democrats in the NSW upper house.
Re: (Score:1)
The problem is that the Attorneys General are not directly accountable to anyone but their own electorate... So they just don't care.
They know that people are too stupid to realise that in our elections, they're not voting for "their leader," that they are voting for their representative for their electorate. They know that the voters (who don't want to be there anyway) will number the boxes based on w
Pirate Party Australia's stance (Score:1)
Pirate Party Australia has recommended the implementation of a voluntary classification system like the ESRB or PEGI, the removal of the Refused Classification category and the ability to sell unclassified material to adults only, and of course, R18+ for games. It can be found here [pirateparty.org.au].
All the other submissions can be found on the ALRC site here [alrc.gov.au].
What the motivation? (Score:1)
If you look at the list of modified titles and non-released games, dew to the lack of a +18 classification, none of the games are anywhere near justifying a Not Classifieds, so why prevent adults from play