2010/07: Should Australia introduce an R18+ rating for video games?

Echo Issue Outline ... to return to the page you "clicked" from, simply close this window

Dictionary: Double-click on any word in the text to bring up a dictionary definition of that word in a new window (IE only).

Analysing the language of the news media: Click here to read a useful document on media language analysis

For later or follow-up newspaper items (additional to the items displayed in the newspaper items section at the end of this outline) , go back to the Newspaper Index section of the Echo site. Use the search-words violent and video

2010/07: Should Australia introduce an R18+ rating for video games?

What they said...
'There is strong evidence that playing violent video games is a significant risk factor for both short-term and long-term increases in physically aggressive behaviour'
Dr Craig Anderson, professor of psychology at Iowa State University

'Without evidence of a causal link between art and violence, Australian legislators have long been eager to act on a hunch, prompted by suspicion, religion and junk psychology'
Helen Razer, The Sydney Morning Herald

The issue at a glance
The federal Attorney-General's department is currently reviewing the classifications given Australian video and computer games. Currently the highest rating possible is MA15+, meaning such games should only be sold to and played by a person over 15 (and, in the case of those under 18, in the company of an adult). Supporters of the status quo argue that capping our ratings in this way protects children, in particular, from exposure to some of the more violent and sexually explicit material available in other jurisdictions. This is a view supported be a variety of parent lobby groups, children's media groups and Christian organisations.
However, industry lobby groups and computer gamers' groups want Australia to adopt an R18+ classification. They argue that a majority of gamers are not children and should not be treated as such. They further argue that the current arrangements put children at greater risk, as games with adult content are minimally altered and then inappropriately classified MA15+.

Background
(The following information comes from a discussion paper put out by the Australian Government's Attorney General's Department on December 9, 2009. The full text of this paper can be found at http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/rwpattach.nsf/VAP/%283273BD3F76A7A5DEDAE36942A54D7D90%29~Discussion+Paper+-+computer+games+-+R+18plus+classification+category.pdf/$file/Discussion+Paper+-+computer+games+-+R+18plus+classification+category.pdf)

In Australia, the availability of films, computer games and some publications is regulated by the National Classification Scheme (NCS). The NCS is a cooperative arrangement between the Commonwealth, States and Territories.
The existence of the NCS allows Australian consumers to make informed decisions. For example, when a person visits a store to purchase or rent a DVD, they are guided by the classification or 'rating' of the product. The rating lets the person make a decision on the suitability of that product for themselves or other viewers in their household.
The Australian Government has produced [a]... discussion paper to ask people in the broader community whether the categories of the NCS should apply to computer games in the same manner as it does for films.
Although the NCS allows for the sale of R18+ DVDs, it does not allow the sale of R18+ computer games anywhere in Australia.
Some people think that preventing the sale of R18+ computer games is a good policy because it prevents the lawful sale of what they consider to be offensive material. Others say it prevents adults enjoying the ability to purchase games that are available in other markets overseas.

Commonwealth Legislation
The Commonwealth Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 establishes which classifications should be applied to publications, films and computer games.

The table at right outlines the classifications the NCS applies to literature, films and video games.

The Classification Code
The Classification Code sets out the principles that the Classification Board must give effect to, as far as possible, in making classification decisions. The principles are:
a) adults should be able to read, hear and see what they want;
b) minors should be protected from material likely to harm or disturb them;
c) everyone should be protected from exposure to unsolicited material that they find offensive;
d) the need to take account of community concerns about:
i) depictions that condone or incite violence, particularly sexual violence; and
ii) the portrayal of persons in a demeaning manner.

State and Territory Law
Each State and Territory and the Commonwealth appoint Ministers responsible for censorship, normally the Attorney General, or in the case of the Commonwealth, the Minister for Home Affairs.
At the present time, State and Territory classification law sets out the effects of classification decisions, by creating a range of offences. This includes prohibitions on selling unclassified or Refused Classification (RC) films and computer games and age-based restrictions on access to some content, such as the prohibition on selling an R 18+ film to a minor.
There are at present some differences in the availability of classified material. For example, X 18+ films can only be sold in the ACT and parts of the Northern Territory.
Publications classified Restricted Category 1 or 2 cannot be sold in Queensland.
A change to classification categories would require amendments to the Commonwealth Act, the Code and the Guidelines, as well as State and Territory enforcement legislation.
Under the Intergovernmental Agreement on Censorship and the Commonwealth Act, the
Code and Guidelines can only be amended with the agreement of all Censorship Ministers.
States and Territories enact their own laws and make their own decisions for the purposes of deciding which classification categories will be available in their State or Territory. Each jurisdiction makes its own decision about whether to permit the sale of each classification category and not all jurisdictions would necessarily make the same decision.

Internet information
The Australian Government's Attorney General's Department issued a discussion paper titled Should the Australian National Classification Scheme Include an R18+ Classification Category for Computer Games? on December 9, 2009. The full text of this paper can be found at http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/rwpattach.nsf/VAP/%283273BD3F76A7A5DEDAE36942A54D7D90%29~Discussion+Paper+-+computer+games+-+R+18plus+classification+category.pdf/$file/Discussion+Paper+-+computer+games+-+R+18plus+classification+category.pdf)
The discussion paper, calling for public submissions, includes detailed background information on the issue and a range of arguments for and against.

The Interactive Games and Entertainment Association (iGEA) is an industry association representing Australian and New Zealand companies in the computer and video game industry. It members publish, market and/or distribute interactive games and entertainment content.
iGEA has strongly supported the introduction of an R18+ classification for video games played in Australia. Its Internet page includes news items relevant to this issue and opinion pieces supporting the R18+ classification. The Internet site is available at http://www.igea.net/
A list of click-throughs to iGEA material relevant to this issue can be found at http://www.igea.net/?s=R18%2B

The Interactive Games and Entertainment Association commissioned a study into the nature and extent of video gaming in Australia, including an attempt to answer such questions as who plays, what they play, for how long and how often. The research was conducted by Professor Jeffrey Brand and a research team from Bond University.
It is titled, 'Case Study: Australia's Computer Games Audience and Restrictive Ratings System' The full text of the report can be found at http://www.idate.fr/2009/pages/download.php?id=&fic=CS73_BRAND_et_al.pdf&repertoire=fiche_etude/CS73

On Line Opinion is an Australian e-journal of social and political debate.
On February 16, 2010 it published an opinion piece by Barbara Biggins titled, 'Do we really need R18+ computer games?'
Barbara Biggins is the Honorary CEO of Australian Council on Children and the Media. The ACCM is a not-for-profit national community organisation set up to support families, industry and decision makers in building and maintaining a media environment that fosters the health, safety and wellbeing of Australian children. Biggins also served as the Convenor of the federal Classification Review Board 1994-2001.
The full text of Barbara Biggins opinion piece can be found at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10046&page=1

In March 2010, The Psychological Bulletin (an American Psychological Association journal) published a report on the recent findings of Dr Craig Anderson, professor of psychology at Iowa State University. Anderson lead a study which analysed 130 research reports on more than 130,000 subjects worldwide, which, he claims, proves conclusively that exposure to violent video games makes young people more aggressive and less empathetic regardless of their age, sex or culture.
On March 2, 2010, Science Daily published a report on Dr Anderson's findings. The full text of this report can be found at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100301111405.htm

Arguments against the introduction of an R18+ video game rating
1. Violent video games may lead to violent or other undesirable behaviour
It has been claimed that playing violent video games, especially over long periods, may lead to violent and other anti-social behaviours. Children, in particular, are seen as vulnerable to the effect of such games.
It has been claimed that part of the increase in aggressive behaviour among children and adolescents is linked to the amount of time children and teenagers are allowed to play video games.
In one study by Walsh (2000), a majority of teenagers admitted that their parents do not impose a time limit on the number of hours they are allowed to play video games. The study also showed that most parents are unaware of the content or rating classifications of the video games their children play.
In another study conducted by Gentile, Lynch, Linder & Walsh (2004) 'adolescent girls played video games for an average of 5 hours a week, whereas boys averaged 13 hours a week'. The authors also stated that teens who play violent video games for extended periods of time tend to be more aggressive; are more prone to confrontation with their teachers; may engage in fights with their peers and see a decline in school achievements. (Gentile et al, 2004).
A recent comparative analysis of studies of the effect on players of violent video games suggests that these games have adverse effects. The analysis 'yielded strong evidence that playing violent video games is a significant risk factor for both short-term and long-term increases in physically aggressive behaviour,' writes Iowa State University psychologist Craig Anderson, the paper's lead author. A connection between anti-social behaviour and violent video game playing was seen 'regardless of research design or conservativeness of analysis', and was true for both men and women, older and younger players, and those in Eastern and Western nations.
'Concerning public policy, we believe that debates can and should finally move beyond the simple question of whether violent video game play is a causal risk factor for aggressive behaviour; the scientific literature has effectively and clearly shown the answer is yes,' Anderson and his colleagues conclude. 'Instead, we believe the public policy debate should move to questions concerning how best to deal with this risk factor.'

2. Interactive games have a stronger impact than passive watching
It has been claimed that the participatory quality of video games gives them a greater capacity to affect the behaviour and attitudes of players.
Victims of Crime Commissioner Michael O'Connell has stated while R18+ violence in films was clearly entertainment, participating in make-believe violence in a game created less empathy for the 'victims' involved.
The Guardian for Children and Young People works within the South Australian Office of the Guardian for Children and Young People as an independent body that reports to the Minister for Families and Communities. Its head is Pat Simmons. Ms Simmons has stated, 'People will say, "What is the difference between the games and violent movies?", and it is the interaction, the getting involved, rather than just watching.
I am not advocating children watching it either, but they are not just seeing violence in these games, they are participating in it or watching an adult participating it, they are in there playing the game.
There was new evidence as recently as two weeks ago showing the link between the actual participation of violence in games and violent behaviour.'
The same point has been made by the Australian Christian Lobby, which states, '"The interactive nature of computer games causes their content to have a greater impact on players than the effects of similarly rated filmic depictions of violent or sexual conduct on viewers of movies.'
It has also been claimed that violent video games have a more negative effect of young people's psychological health than other forms of media. On September 9, 2009, it was reported that adolescents who used video games the most had the worst self-reported health, including problems with depression and anxiety.
Those using computers for other reasons described themselves as being slightly healthier on average - while using the telephone and watching television did not appear to correlate to worsened or improved health scores, according to the study of nearly 1000 Victorian teenagers. The leader of the research team, Melissa Wake, a pediatrician at Melbourne's Royal Children's Hospital and the Murdoch Children's Research Institute, said the results indicated that 'unsupervised, violent video games cannot be seen as a good thing'.

3. It would be difficult to prevent children accessing R18+ video games
It has been argued that were Australia to allow the importation and sale of R18+ video games it would be very difficult to keep them out of the hands of children.
Access to R18+ films is monitored by cinemas. Access to R18+ video games would have to be monitored within the home and this is far more difficult. It has also been argued that many children play video games with friends outside their own homes, so even parents who successfully managed to monitor their own children's game playing would not be able to control what games their children played at other venues.
The Australian Government's Discussion Paper on this issue includes the following, 'Computer games are played in the home, so once a game has been purchased, the responsibility for ensuring that it is not accessed by minors lies with parents and other adults. This effect of an R18+ classification for computer games is the same as for DVDs classified R 18+. Even with the availability of parental locks, international research indicates that parents may not be well positioned to enforce classification restrictions.
Research by the New Zealand Office of Film and Literature Classification found that: "Some underage gamers are attracted to restricted games and many are not likely to abide by an R18 classification. At least some stores and parents facilitate access to restricted games and break the law by doing so."
Research conducted for the British Board of Film Classification indicates that parents of children aged seven to 17 who play computer games, even when motivated to enforce restrictions, felt their children were able to obtain 'forbidden' games from other sources.'
The same Government Discussion Paper makes the further point, 'One of the principles in the National Classification System is that minors should be protected from material likely to harm or disturb them. R 18+ games would, by definition, be unsuitable for minors.
However, permitting R 18+ level games would lead to more games at this level being available in Australia and consequently more minors being exposed to them...
The introduction of an R 18+ category may increase distributors' willingness to bring out games with higher level content. As a consequence, more material that is unsuitable for minors may be distributed and available in Australia, with more minors able to access it.'

4. Part of the pressure to increase the availability of violent video games is commercially motivated
It has been claimed that video game makers and sellers are primarily motivated by profit and produce violent and sexually explicit material because they believe these will sell well.
Legal Services India.Com is a legal advice Internet site which includes articles on many broadly based legal issues. In a discussion of censorship and video games, Piya Bose made the following comments, 'Children appear to like violent and high stress games. A study by Dr. Jeanne Funk, published in the Journal of India Paediatrics, found that among 7th and 8th grade students 35% preferred games involving violence, 29% preferred sports games (which also have some violent content), while only 2% preferred educational games.
For the past several years, video game manufacturers have chosen to amplify graphic and sadistic violence, while extraordinary technological advances have made the carnage ever more realistic. Some games also feature full motion video footage of real actors as opposed to artificial characters. BMX XXX, for instance, a game, released in Fall 2002, features footage of real women performing in a New York strip club.
In Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, a player can have sex with a prostitute and then get his money back by beating her to death with his fists or with a baseball bat, action that can be left n through the PlayStation controller, or she can be shot, complete with spurting blood and painful sound effects.
In Postal, the user gets to "go postal" and receive points for killing as many innocent victims as possible while they beg for money. Postal 2, scheduled for release in Spring 2003, is "so violent, so racist and homophobic, that four countries are already considering banning it because players can gruesomely kill African-Americans and gays."'
Critics of those who are calling for a R18+ video game classification have similarly claimed that the concern of some supporters of a new R18+ classification is not the civil liberties of game players but the profits of game makers and sellers.

5. The consultation process set up by the Attorney-General's Department was biased
The Attorney-General's Department has received tens of thousands of submissions from game designers and fans stating their frustration at being denied legal access to games available elsewhere.
However, the Australian Christian Lobby argues that the large number of submissions apparently supporting an R18+ video game classification is the result of an flawed process that involved a biased discussion paper and encouraged people to fill in a simple template form.
The Christian lobby groups have claimed that framing the consultation around the central question of whether the classification system should include an R18+ rating for computer games was problematic because the question is innocuous and without context, ignoring the content of R18+ games.
A similar point has been made by Barbara Biggins. Barbara Biggins is the Honorary CEO of the Australian Council on Children and the Media. The ACCM is a not-for-profit national community organisation whose mission is to support families, industry and decision makers in building and maintaining a media environment that fosters the health, safety and wellbeing of Australian children. Ms Biggins also served as the Convenor of the federal Classification Review Board 1994-2001.
Barbara Biggins has stated, ' if the survey question were framed as "There is a proposal to permit an R 18+ classification for computer games. This will mean that the sale and hire system will make available games with more extreme violence, more impactful depictions of sexual activity and drug taking than at present. Do you approve of this?", the responses might be considerably different.'
The Australian Christian Lobby has also warned against using the volume of responses on either side of the argument as a reflection of public attitudes, saying that more thorough submissions from community groups should be given greater weight.

Arguments supporting the introduction of an R18+ video game rating
1. Australia is the only comparable country with a classification system without an R18+ video game rating
The computer games classification system in Australia is government-regulated. Similar schemes operate around the world, for example, the Media Development Authority (MDA) in Singapore, and the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) in the United Kingdom. By comparison, the Pan- European Game Information (PEGI) scheme across 29 countries in Europe and the Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB) in the United States represent self-regulatory approaches where the entertainment industries regulate themselves.
However, unlike other jurisdictions, Australia is the only developed nation without an R18+ (or adult-audience) classification for games; France, Germany, Sweden, the UK, Singapore, Japan, Canada, the United States and New Zealand are among other nations allow for adult games.
In the United States of America and Canada, the ESRB (Entertainment Software
Ratings Board) provides a voluntary rating system that is applied to computer games
and provides for an 'Adults only' category. This applies to games that contain
'prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity'.
Japan's CERO (Computer Entertainment Rating Organisation) provides a rating for
ages 18 and over.
In Germany, the USK (Entertainment Software Control) may classify computer games as restricted to persons aged 18 years and over This rating category applies to games that may contain scenes of brutal, moderately bloody violence and they may glamorise war or the violation of human rights. However, if a game is particularly violent it is sent from the USK to the BPjM (Federal Verification Office for Child-Endangering Media) who can rule that it is not to be advertised or sold openly in Germany, making it difficult to obtain.
In New Zealand, under the Office of Film and Literature Classification, computer games may receive the restricted ratings of R 16 and R 18 (note- the same classification rating applies to films and computer games). The Office for Film and Literature Classification only classifies games with restricted or objectionable content. The Office of Film and Literature Classification also has the power to ban computer games, the consequence of which is that it is illegal to possess, supply or import the game.
The South Korean Game Rating Board is a government organisation that classifies arcade games, computer games and mobile phone games. The system provides for an 18 + rating. Singapore also has an M18 classification for computer games which restricts games to those aged 18 years and above. Checks are conducted at the point of sale to ascertain a customer's age. Games will be classified M18 if they contain mature themes, realistic depictions of violence and drug use, nudity or frequent use of strong coarse language.
Game users, manufacturers and distributers argue that there is no reason why Australia should have a more restrictive system than other similar jurisdictions elsewhere in the world.

2. There is no conclusive proof that video games influence behaviour
The claims that video games influence behaviour have been disputed. Comparative Studies professor, Henry Jenkins, has stated, 'Claims like this are based on the work of researchers who represent one relatively narrow school of research, "media effects".
This research includes some 300 studies of media violence. But most of those studies are inconclusive and many have been criticized on methodological grounds.
In these studies, media images are removed from any narrative context. Subjects are asked to engage with content that they would not normally consume and may not understand. Finally, the laboratory context is radically different from the environments where games would normally be played.
Most studies found a correlation, not a causal relationship, which means the research could simply show that aggressive people like aggressive entertainment. That's why the vague term "links" is used here.
If there is a consensus emerging around this research, it is that violent video games may be one risk factor - when coupled with other more immediate, real-world influences - which can contribute to anti-social behaviour. But no research has found that video games are a primary factor or that violent video game play could turn an otherwise normal person into a killer.'
After a 1999 study by the United States government, the US Surgeon General, David Satcher, 'We clearly associate media violence to aggressive behavior. But the impact was very small compared to other things. Some may not be happy with that, but that's where the science is.'
A meta-analysis by a United States psychologist, Jonathan Freedman (who reviewed over 200 published studies) found that the 'vast and overwhelming majority' did not find a causal link.
A United States Secret Service study found that only 12% of those involved in school shootings were attracted to violent video games, while 24% read violent books and 27% were attracted to violent films.
An Australian study found that only children already predisposed to violence were affected by violent games.
Helen Razer, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, in October 2009, noted, 'Without evidence of a causal link between art and violence, Australian legislators have long been eager to act on a hunch, prompted by suspicion, religion and junk psychology. [This]... irresponsible wowserism is really nothing new. The only new thing here is the medium.'
Those who play the games claim they are not harmed by them. There's Nick Miller, a health editor for The Sydney Morning Herald, a computer gamer playing violent games, who has argued, 'There's an illogical, reactionary resistance to the proposed R-rating for games.
The argument against seems to be that the immersive, interactive nature of games makes them much more corrupting, so R-rated material would surely turn us into psychopaths. Well, I'm not a psychopath, and neither are my friends.'

3. Adults' video game playing should not be shaped by regulations intended for children
It has been claimed that the MA15+ upper rating for video games in Australia means that many adult titles are either being modified or are simply not being sold in Australia.
Some games, such as Left 4 Dead 2, have been heavily censored and later allowed to be sold but others, such as the highly anticipated Aliens vs Predator, are unlikely to ever be sold in local games outlets. It is believed about 74 video games have been banned in Australia since 1995 because they do not meet MA15+ standards for violence, drug use or sexual content.
Critics claim that this means that adults' viewing options are being curtailed in the name of protecting children. In the United States the Entertainment Software Association has claimed that the average video gamer is 35. The same group claims that the average age of the most frequent game purchaser in the United States is 39 and that in 2009, 25 percent of Americans over the age of 50 played video games, an increase from nine percent in 1999.
The Interactive Games and Entertainment Association recently commissioned a study which found that the average age of gamers in Australia is 30 years; the average age of
non-gamers is 40 years. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (2008), the average age of Australians is 36 years.
Given such estimates of the age of gamers, it is claimed that it is not appropriate to deny these adult players the opportunity to play games which include material specifically designed for them.
A survey of 1614 Australian adults commissioned by the Interactive Games and Entertainment Association found 91 per cent were in favour of an R18+ rating. Ron Curry, chief executive of the Interactive Games & Entertainment Association stated, 'The debate keeps raging around children but we need to look at this debate also in terms of adults being able to access content that's age-appropriate for them.'
The Adelaide Advertiser published an editorial on April 1, 2010, which stated, 'Video gaming is no longer a niche market for children. There are millions of gaming consoles and computers in Australian homes, used by people of all ages.
The gaming lobby has collected tens of thousands of names on petitions calling for the introduction of an R18+ classification.'

4. If adult video games had a broader classification system their distribution could be better regulated
It is claimed that currently some violent video games are given an MA15+ classification in part because there is no other more restrictive classification that can be given.
A 2005 survey by Bond University found that Australian adults, 88 per cent of whom had household access to a gaming device, were overwhelmingly in favour of the R18+ classification. Survey respondents said it would diminish the risk of children being exposed to potentially harmful material. Many gamers felt that in shoehorning violent games into the MA15+ rating, the office of classification legitimised their content for a young audience.
Susie O'Brien in an opinion piece published in The Herald Sun on March 23, 2010, argued, 'if we want to protect children from the worst video game titles, then Australia needs to bring in an R rating for games. This will make a new category of games that can be bought only by people over 18.'
Ms O'Brien further argued, 'video game manufacturers would still want to sell their biggest titles in Australia, regardless of the lack of R rating. And so they pushed to get their titles inappropriately rated M15+ or just M.
So in Melbourne a violent war game like Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 is given an MA15+ rating, while overseas the same game is rated M17+ in the US and 18+ in the UK.
So this means our children are playing games where they get a "tactical nuke" as a reward for a 25-person killing streak... there are dozens more examples where the industry has shoe-horned adult titles into weaker ratings so they can keep making money.'
Helen Razer, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald in October 2009, noted, 'If you have ever played the best-selling game Grand Theft Auto, you may concede the point. It is possibly not a good practice to let a 15-year-old beat up virtual citizens for pixilated cash. But, under the current classification system, they can do so legally. Gamers, whose average age is creeping up to 35, feel that imaginary violence should be the sole province of those mature enough to distinguish the imaginary from the real.'

5. Technological controls can supplement a classification system
Recent technological developments enable parents to restrict the games played on various games devices. The Interactive Games and Entertainment Association reports that major game console developers and the Microsoft Windows Vista operating platform offer parental controls in their current systems. These controls, often referred to as parental locks, allow parents to set a limit on the level of material to be played. Playing higher-level material requires a PIN or password to override the limits that have been set.
It has been claimed that a better classification system would enable parents to use such technological blocks more effectively. Under the current system (where it appears some inappropriate material may be given an MA15+ rating only because there is not a higher, more restrictive classification that can be given) some parents may not realise that these games contain material they do not want their 15, 16 or 17 year old children exposed to.

Further implications
It will be interesting to see whether the federal government decides to introduce an R18+ classification into Australia for video games. It will require the agreement of all states' attorneys general to do so.
In the name of consistency such a classification seems desirable because it already exists for films and thus videos. Critics argue, however, that video games are not films and that as an interactive entertainment their impact on the user/viewer is far greater.
How much difference would an R18+ classification make? Supporters, curiously, argue that it would make very little difference. The most recent survey (2009) conducted by Professor Brand on behalf of the iGEA concludes, 'In practice, the impact of a government classification system is negligible.
Of more than 3,500 titles classified in Australia between 2004 and 2008 by the Board, only 19 titles were restricted. This is a very small proportion (half of one percent) of the total product pool available on the market.
Nevertheless, transnational publishers of these works saw fit to revise their titles in nearly half of the cases [sic] to bring those products to the relatively small Australian market.'
What this means is that very few video games that makers have attempted to import into Australia over five years have been denied classification. Of the 19 not given an MA15+ rating ten were revised to make them suitable for classification.
If the issue revolves around some nineteen titles over five years, or .5% of the number of titles actually imported, then it would seem that the lack of a R18+ classification is having very little impact on the Australian gaming public. However, it would be helpful to know if there is a larger number of extreme titles being manufactured overseas that makers are not even attempting to import into Australia under our current classification regime and which an R18+ classification might allow entry.
As the Attorney's General Department discussion paper notes there can be a conflict between allowing adults the right to choose their own entertainment and protecting children from potentially damaging material.
In the final analysis, the issue may not be one of blanket censorship, as the current MA15+ classification attempts, but of how we use technology, education and legal sanctions to ensure that children do not access unsuitable material nor have it sold to them.

Newspaper items used in the compilation of this issue outline
The Australian: September 15, page 7, news item by Adam Cresswell, `Television better than video games for teenagers' health'.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/television-better-than-video-games-for-teenagers-health/story-e6frg6no-1225773295867

The Herald-Sun: September 28, page 20, news item (photos) by Aaron MacDonald, `Ban on zombie game'.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/entertainment/ban-on-zombie-game/story-e6frf96f-1225780192725

AGE, October 8, page 3, news item (ref to "America's Army") by J Pearlman, `Gamers wage real war in virtual world'.
http://www.theage.com.au/business/gamers-wage-real-war-in-virtual-world-20091007-gn8n.html

AGE, October 31, Insight section, page 9, comment by Helen Razer, `Wowsers play an old game with new media'.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/wowsers-play-an-old-game-with-new-media-20091030-hpvx.html

The Herald-Sun: February 20, page 17, news item (photo) by Greg Thom, `"Video nasty" game on'.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/entertainment/video-nasty-game-on/story-e6frf96f-1225832366016

AGE, March 2, page 6, news item by Ari Sharp, `Computer game fans back proposal for R18+ rating'.
http://www.theage.com.au/business/computer-game-fans-back-proposal-for-r18-rating-20100301-pdls.html

The Herald-Sun: February 27, page 20-21, news item (photos) by Stephen Fenech, `Fresh fears for games addicts.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/entertainment/fresh-fears-for-games-addicts/story-e6frf96f-1225834928665

AGE, February 27, Insight section, page 3, analysis by Carol Nader, `Playing the rating game'.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/playing-the-rating-game-20100226-p973.html

AGE, February 27, Insight section, page 9, comment by Nick Miller, `No R-rating for games does not compute'. (link is to Sydney Morning Herald identical version)
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/no-rrating-for-games-does-not-compute-20100226-p8yx.html

AGE, March 11, page 12, news item by Ari Sharp, `Video game violence stand-off'. (link is to Sydney Morning Herald identical version)
http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/games/video-game-violence-standoff-20100310-pzag.html

The Herald-Sun: March 23, page 27, comment by Susie O'Brien, `R rating is a must for Aussie kids'.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/r-rating-is-a-must-for-aussie-kids/story-fn56aaiq-1225843990947