Queensland Law Society

Does Australia need an R18+ classification for video games

The debate on Australia needing an R18+ rating is raging again following the recently released Discussion Paper - Should the Australian National Classification Scheme include an R18+ classification for computer games? from the nation's attorneys general, calling for public opinion on whether an R18+ classification should be introduced.

Australia's R18+ game rating issue was first thrust into the spotlight in 2007 with South Australian Attorney-General Michael Atkinson opposed to the introduction of an R18+ rating, and therefore the banning of the sale of games exceeding the MA15+ guideline.  He did this stating that it was necessary to help restrict a child's access to "potentially harmful material".  However, almost three years on, Australia remains the only developed country without an R18+ classification for games, meaning titles with 'strong impact' violence or sexual content remain banned.

Currently, the highest game classification is MA15+ and can only be purchased by a person under the age of 15 years if they are accompanied by an adult.  However, adults are often insufficiently informed about how strong the violence or sexual content of a game of this rating can be.

To address this issue, website R18+ Games Australia, believes the introduction of an R18+ classification for games with strong violence and sexual content "would carry with it the weight and context necessary to bring the attention of parents and guardians to what the game they are purchasing contains".

Tom Crago, President of the Game Developers Association of Australia, said the number of video games banned in Australia during 2009 "points squarely to the fact that our classification system is ridiculous, outdated and in need of change".  More than 20 video games were banned in Australia in 2009.  He also objects to the Attorney-General's opinion that games are 'just for kids', and cites that the average age of gamers in Australia is currently 29 year, with as wide a range of genres available in video games as there are in films and television shows.

Mr Atkinson maintained his position to ban games rather than introduce a new classification for violent interactive video games, because unlike cinema, people are 'physically' doing the things they do on the screen when playing a video game.  He said that a person viewing strong violence or sexual content in a cinema is doing so as a passive viewer.  Whilst movies with such imagery can do harm to a person, interactive video games are different because the person playing the game is doing the action and therefore such activity must have a higher impact.

Undeniably, video games that have controversial content should continue to fall into the 'Refused Classification' category under the National Classification Scheme.

The release of the Discussion Paper on the inclusion of an R18+ classification in Australia would ensure a stronger and fairer system protecting minors from unacceptably strong or illicit content, and better informing parents and guardians of their game purchases, thereby allowing all Australians to enjoy freedom of choice.

So what do you think?  Should Australia have an R18+ classification for video games?

Calista Bruschi is the Community Relations Officer at the Queensland Law Society.  She has a background in journalism and is the current editor of the Queensland Law Society's publication for the community, The Verdict.