Who’s to Blame? An In-depth Look at the Australian Video Game Controversy

Australia has been getting a bit of a bum rap after a series of games have been refused classification within the country. Refusal of classification effectively bans a game because – legally – retailers are not allowed to sell unclassified games. Who’s to blame for this censorship? The government? The classification board? The answer is none of the above.

It’s not the government’s fault Aliens vs. Predator was banned (although that has since been repealed), and it’s certainly not the fault of the Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC). The Australian government has never once passed, or attempted to pass, a law banning violent video games, and the OFLC? They’re simply rating what’s given to them based on the government’s guidelines.

But still, something’s wrong here. The OFLC’s code states “adults should be able to read, hear and see what they want.” The problem? There currently is no adult R18+ classification for video games. It simply doesn’t exist. This means that games suitable for people 18 and over are banned from retail in Australia. Many notable games are included in this list: Grand Theft Auto IV (and all preceding GTA’s), F.E.A.R. 2, Manhunt 2, Fallout 3, Left 4 Dead 2 (uncensored), and a large number of other titles. Clearly adults are not allowed to “read, hear and see what they want” as the classification code states.

What’s perhaps most frustrating to gamers is the Board’s lack of consistency when it comes to classifying games. For example, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, rated as Mature (17+) by ESRB, received a lot of criticism for being particularly violent, yet it was classified as suitable for 15-year-old gamers in Australia.

Of course, there are many opponents to the government’s stance on censorship and its video game classification practices. One such group is the Electronic Frontiers Australia, which has been running a campaign to introduce an R18+ rating for games.

“[Refused classification is] anything that doesn't fit into the Classification Board's other ratings and that include video games aimed at adults, criminality and euthanasia and all sorts of controversial things,” said EFA spokesperson Colin Jacobs. “Our concern is that once there is a secret blacklist in place, it is going to be very difficult for the public to know what's on it and if it will be increased in scope as time goes on.”

The OFLC does have a very strict stance on video games, arguably the strictest in the Western world (Australia is the only country to lack a “mature” rating for games), but again, they’re just doing their job. The government has actually been open to introducing an R18+ rating for games. So open, in fact, that on Monday they released an R18+ discussion paper, which is designed to gauge the public’s opinion on the topic. Australia is, after all, a democratic country.

This release of this long-awaited paper was opposed by one particular individual. South Australian Attorney General Michael Atkinson is against an R18+ classification. In a recent letter, Atkinson expressed his reasoning on why he believes the R18+ rating is – for lack of a better phrase – a bad thing.

“I am well aware that many game players are adults,” he writes. “However, it is important you do not confuse the classification rating of a game with the game’s sophistication, or the challenge or interest to the player…It does not follow that a game is more interesting to an adult simply because it contains extreme violence, explicit sexual material or highly offensive language. Indeed, with all the effort and money that goes into game development, coupled with the effects and graphics now available, there is no need to introduce these extreme elements. I am baffled and worried about why proponents of R18+ games are putting up their hands and saying ‘Give us more cruel sex and extreme violence!’”

There seems to be a fundamental issue with Atkinson’s reasoning. It seems as though he’s backing his argument up with a value judgment. Essentially, he’s saying “this is how games should be” and “this is what gamers want,” in effect, putting words in their mouths. Atkinson has even admitted that the current classification practices restrict adults’ liberty to a certain extent.

“What the present law does is keep the most extreme material off the shelves,” he says. “It is true that this restricts adult liberty to a small degree, however, I am prepared to accept this infringement in the circumstances.”

“…however, I am prepared to accept this infringement in the circumstances.” Apparently, restricting the freedom of individuals is not out of line if it means outlawing content that has been deemed suitable for them. Okay, I understand that an underlying motive is keeping this material out of the hands of people under the age of 18. Still, there doesn’t seem to be much logic in that statement. “I accept that 98%, 99% of gamers will tell the difference between fantasy and reality, but the 1% to 2% could go on to be motivated by these games to commit horrible acts of violence,” Atkinson adds. “You don’t need to be playing a game in which you impale, decapitate and dismember people.”

But how much authority does Mr. Atkinson really exercise? He’s just one individual amongst an entirely democratic nation. The answer is a whole lot more than you might expect. That’s because in 2006, the OFLC become a part of the Attorney General’s Department. Their policy and administrative functions are now governed entirely by the attorney general. That said, Atkinson’s not pulling all of the strings on this one. He’s backed by the South Australian Government, which is presumably why he’s still in office.

The root of the classification issue goes back to when video games were first introduced, when they weren’t capable of ultra-violence. We didn’t have to worry about violence, sex, and drug use in Pong or Asteroids, so a rating of R18+ was entirely unnecessary. Today, games are near photo-realistic and capable of depicting extreme violence. A maximum rating of MA15+ just doesn’t cut it anymore, but it seems the Australian government was stuck in the 70’s because they’re just now starting talks about a new rating for games.

In order to amend Australia’s classification law, all six of the country’s attorneys general must unanimously agree to the motion. Five of them do. The sixth? Michael Atkinson. He’s had this stance on games for as long as he’s been in office, and nothing is going to change his mind. This means that Australia’s classification laws won’t be changed until he’s out of office or the country’s constitution is changed, which isn’t going to happen over a relatively minor issue such as this.

“[It] doesn’t seem democratic that a single attorney general should be able to dictate what the vast Australian population can interact with,” commented Ron Curry, CEO of Australia’s Interactive Games and Entertainment Association, “The government trusts us to be adults with films, but they only want us to be children with games.”

Unfortunately, this means things aren’t going to be changing for Australian gamers anytime soon.  The release of the R18+ paper is a step forward, albeit a very small one in the grand scheme of things. Without the consent of all attorneys general, nothing will change, and it doesn’t look like Atkinson’s budging.