GameSpot AU's questions to SA Attorney General Michael Atkinson

There have been more than a few game developers that had to leave the shores of Australia because of our Government. The Movie industry obtain huge tax incentives to create Movies that are made here in Australia. Games developers have to make it on their own & can?t compete without the aid that a government can provide, having to leave for the U.S. or Canada (countries I know that do provide tax benefits).

When a person of 18 yrs makes a purchase of an R18+ product; Movies, Magazines, etc., the task of keeping that content from being seen by people under the legal age remains the responsibility of people 18 yrs or older. The lack of R18+ games is of detriment to parents that wish to make an informed choice as to what their children & themselves can view. Politicians & Religious groups fear that violence is on the increase & that violent games have an influence on the young or mentally unstable. This is nonsense & can?t be proven! There IS an increase in violence; Spineless thugs who gang up on & leave a person with extensive & possibly life threatening injuries. Examples of excessive vehicle speeding, causing death on our Australian Streets. Are the gaming industry responsible for these actions, Mr Atkinson certainly implies this (a freak?n moron that I can?t help but feel sorry for if he does). I?d be inclined to 1st think of violence being influenced by (in not only our society but globally) such things as the increasing availability of addictive drugs the like of Crack, ICE & the endless list of others. Yet when someone is brought before the legal system to pay for this type of crime(s) they get a slap on the wrist.

We need a variety of opinions in our government we can't have any one voice overruling all others. That would be a loss of democracy right there. We need people to question the proposed actions to force us to explore the possible positive and negative implications. Given this we can be sure that adequate thought has been invested in the policies that govern our nation. If putting in place a R18 classification is clearly the right choice then the supporting ministers will convince Mr Atkinson of that. Until then I believe he is right in holding back. I for one wouldn't games becoming as horrifyingly violent as movies. Especially considering how realistic the graphics are getting. Yes I'm sure none of us here will bring the experiences from our games to real-life but its not about us.. It?s about the already disturbed individuals. The games might not cause them to become violent but they would certainly provide them with ideas on how to go about conducting it. If I wanted to torture someone which ones of the many scenes I've seen or read about would I use? Perhaps I slowly freeze them like in Saw spraying water on them at intervals. Then slowly take their organs out one by one just like in Hostel? Now how would I ensure I would never get caught.. perhaps I'll use the knowledge from CSI, Australia's Worst Murders, and so forth. Cut off their fingers.. don't use acid.. it actually preserves the victim.. etc. If we can gain that much from movies and tv shows what can we expect from interactive games? We will get to have first-hand experience on what to do. If a depressed child or angry co-worker ever decides to get his/her own back would I want them to have this knowledge? No. Furthermore if you really want a R18 classification put forth some good arguments. Don't go threatening the guy.. that'll just strengthen his resolve. By the way I wonder where you got the idea of if hundreds of people kill a man they can get away with it? CSI or a movie perhaps? It reminds me of when Howard proposed to change the gun laws and people threatened to shoot him. Nevertheless thats my 2c.

Another example of people with to much power using their personal beliefs to determine how the rest of us live. Also goes to show you his mind thought. He refuses to speak to you directly, asks for a list of questions thinking that Gamespot wouldn't produce or the questions would be simple and unintelligent, then when he sees the questions realises that by answereing them will shoot his arguements in the foot. So he just basically fluffs you off and sends back a form letter saying "This is how I feel". The biggest issue with this debate and the many others in front of the government today is that at every level the pollys believe that the average Australian is stupid and doesn't understand, so the government must make all these decisions for them. The United States has had this for way to long and it has gotten out of hand. Nanny State run amuck. This is only the beginning in AUS, and unless the general public wakes up and demands something better you, I and everyone else will end up losing alot more than a video game rating. Look up the Patriot Act in the US, and you will see what I mean. Mr. Atkinson sounds to me one of those epeople that doesn't do something because he says "I don't like it" but when asked if he has at least tried it says "Oh of course not". Yes I am a gamer, and my kids are gamers, but as a parent it is my responsibility to monitor what and when my children play, not the government.

These are good questions, but there are way too many here to reasonably expect Mr Atkinson (AG) to answer. He's publicly taken a position he believes in. He's not going to back down. Well, he won't be SA's AG forever... Surely the crux of the matter is that some games are designed for adults and not for children. They shouldn't be modified in order to make them available for children. They should be rated appropriately. As a parent, I am absolutely unhappy with the current arrangement. Superficial changes are made to adult games that are then released to children? That's insane - and totally inadequate. Adult games are not just "adult" because of the graphics or the swearing - adult games deal with concepts and situations that children are not capable of processing safely (someone should get Michael Carr-Gregg into the debate, then the AG wouldn't be quite so sure of his position). I suspect the AG's position is motivately partly by governmental laziness. It is expensive and troublesome to set-up and then police 18+ ID checks in retail outlets. Why do that when we can fool ourselves into thinking that we've tackled the problem at the source by getting developers to modify their product? Make it the developers' problem! We're making a stand! ...well this sounds good, and the "baby boomers" will buy it - the AG's job's done! Lazy thinking leads to poor outcomes...

These are some great questions. It's a shame Mr. Atkinson didn't give straight answers to each question, though.

Mr Atkinson pooh-poohed the questions

i read your questions and his responses, it seems like he just dodged a bullet. i think it is the responsibility of parents to allow/not allow their children to view such content.

Lol, has anyone noticed that this was posted IN THE FUTURE!!! It's currently the 27th of January AEST, yet the article is posted on the 28th of Jan AEST! But seriously... Great questions GS! Some of them are pretty much unrefutable, but i'm sure that guy will find a way to make up some excuse. It's a shame too, because I really think an R rating for games would be beneficial to gamers as a whole. I mean, some games are rated R overseas, yet rated MA here, but are the exact same game. This causes problems when a parent buys their child a game. They see the MA rating and think "not too violent" and buy it for their child. But if there was an R rating, the parent might think twice about buying it. Just a thought.

it is stupid that a non-gamer(obviously) can have such a huge impact on the gaming community and stop them from being able to play some games

Good line of questions however is seems some of them are worded to try and influence decisions that he will make in the future i doubt these would have impacted him in the slightest. I am all for trying though!

In September 2008, GameSpot AU got the green light to interview South Australian Attorney General Michael Atkinson about his reasons for not supporting the introduction of an R18+ classification for video games in Australia. We'd heard Atkinson's views on the matter before, but we were interested in putting a few of our own questions to him.

Atkinson finally responded last week--he did not answer our questions, instead choosing to write an article exclusively for GameSpot AU. And while he answered some of our queries, there were plenty more left unanswered. You can read his response in this news story, but here are the questions we originally sent him. We'll keep chasing the Minister's office to grab more comment for him in the near future, so keep it tuned to GameSpot AU.

The Game Developers Association of Australia (GDAA) and the Interactive Entertainment Association of Australia (IEAA) are currently preparing to petition the government again on the issue of introducing the R18+ classification for video games to Australia. If this issue is brought up at the next SCAG meeting, how will you vote?

How often is the issue of R18+ classification of video games brought up in the SCAG meetings, and what is discussed?

When were you asked to vote for the R18+ classification issue for the first time at the SCAG level? How have your views on this issue evolved over that time?

You are opposed to the introduction of an R18+ classification in Australia. Can you briefly outline your reasons for this?

What is the stance of the other state Attorney Generals on this issue?

Upon what have you based your ongoing decision to not support the introduction of an R18+ classification for video games in Australia? Is it purely personal belief or are there other factors you have taken into account, such as local or international research?

Where do you think the bulk of responsibility lies when it comes to protecting children from harmful material: government or parents?

How much control do you think an average Australian parent has over their child's gaming/watching habits? Do you think they have insufficient technical nous to monitor this effectively?

One way the game industry has sought to protect children from coming into contact with harmful content is parental locks. All new generation video game consoles and some new PC operating systems now contain parental locks. What is your opinion of this protection? Do you believe it is sufficient or insufficient for protecting children from harmful material? Why/why not?

Generally, do you believe video games to be a positive past time for children? Why/why not?Do you believe that a lot of children spend their time playing video games? If so, what evidence do you have to suggest this?You have said that your decisions on this matter spring from preventing children and vulnerable adults from accepting extreme violence as part of every day life. What is your opinion on children witnessing extreme violence as it happens in the world, in every day life and other media such as news, documentaries, films, and DVDs?

Do you allow your own non-adult children to play video games? Why/why not? Who makes the game purchase decisions for your non-adult kids?How do your adult children feel about the issue of R18+ classification and your stance on it? Are you a gamer yourself? If yes, what type of games do you play?You have said that access to video games in the home cannot be policed. If there were stricter laws on the sale of video games at the retailer level, (i.e. an ID would be required to purchase an R18+ game), would or could that change your mind for the introduction of an R18+ classification?It's obvious that gamers want the introduction of an R18+ rating in Australia. Do you think the wider community also supports this stance? The current legislation on the classification of video games restricts adult liberty, especially when taking into consideration that the age of the average gamer in Australia is 28 years. You have said that you believe this sacrifice is worth it, if it means children are protected from harmful material. Do you think it will be worthwhile to police the age of video game buyers (as is done in the case of cigarettes, alcohol, etc) so that an R18+ classification can finally be introduced? Do you see any parallels between your stance on video games that include potentially harmful material and the stance that some conservatives took over media considered 'harmful' throughout history? I.e. Certain books in the 18th century, comic books in the 1930s, television in the 1950s, rap music in the 1980s, etc?An average of two video games per year are actually refused classification in Australia and therefore banned, these suggest a lot of violent/considered harmful video games are actually let through. Do you believe that the current legislation does a good job of keeping extreme material off the shelves? The difference in violent/sexual/drug content between a classified game and a game that has been refused classification is, at most times, indistinguishable. Will having an R18+ classification really make much difference? You have undoubtedly received your fair share of angry emails from gamers. How does this correspondence impact your view of the Australian gaming community? Do you have any advice to gamers?Do you think there are any video games out there now that should be banned? If so, what are they?Victorian Attorney General Rob Hulls said Australia is 'out of step' with the rest of the developed world because it does not yet have an R18+ classification for video games. Do you agree with this statement?Do you think that those countries that do have an adult classification for video games are careless about the protection of the children of that society?

You have stated before that you believe the difference between violent films and violent games to be the issue of interactivity. However, the legislation followed by the Classification Board states that interactivity should merely be taken into account on decisions regarding the classification of video games. It does not state how ? i.e. that an interactive medium has more impact on a person than a passive medium?that is left up to the interpretation of the Classification Board members. If the legislation set down by the government does not make the assumption that films have more of an impact than video games, how can you use this as one of reasons in support of your argument against the introduction of an R18+ classification?Finally, what, if anything, would it take to change your mind on allowing an R18+ classification for video games in Australia?