SA Attorney-General to oppose R18+ classification

Okay, this is my effort.


Warning: long.



Dear Mr Atkinson,

I write to you today in regards to your decision made public on 28 February 2008 regarding your refusal of allowing an R18+ classification to be implemented for video games in Australia. I send this email in order to inform you why I believe your decision is incorrect and misinformed. It's clear that your main concern is violent video games getting into the hands of impressionable children. I agree with this utterly, content should be kept away from those for whom it is unsuitable. However, by barring the possibility of an R18+ rating you are inadvertently ensuring that it is easier for violent video games to get into the hands of children. This is the point I wish to stress in attempting to make you see that by refusing an R18+ classification you are not ensuring stricter ratings, but rather a more lax system which no doubt teenagers 15-17 will be thanking you for, and most likely younger. It's much easier for a thirteen year old to bluff their way into purchasing an MA15 game than it would be an R18+ game. Before I turned 18, I was myself opposed to an R18 rating, purely because I knew it would put many games out of my reach.

Let me use as an example Grand Theft Auto. Under New Zealand's rating system, Grand Theft Auto games have been classified as being suitable for over 18's only. In Australia, the Grand Theft Auto games are rated MA15. Obviously the consequence of this difference is that teenagers 15-17 are able to easily obtain Grand Theft Auto games in Australia, but not in New Zealand. In April, another Grand Theft Auto game is being released. By barring the R18+ rating, you are ensuring that Australian teenagers 15-17 are able to freely access this game, which I believe in an extended ratings system would be given an R18+ rating due to its strong content.

Secondly let me remark on what is now a commonly known statistic, that the average video game player in Australia is 28 years old. This is ten years in excess of an R18+ rating, and is surely an indication that video games aren't, as the misconception indulged by yourself, just for kids. Thus it seems suitable to me that given the age of video game players the ratings system would reflect as such.

I'm sure you're aware that Australia is the only democratic country to not have a fully fledged ratings system for video games. It seems very odd to me that in this, a democracy, the personal beliefs of one man, that being yourself, can overrule what is a vastly sensible and intelligent concept, and one in line with the rest of the modern world.

Please don't suffer from the delusion that by barring an R18+ rating, you're protecting young people from violent content in video games. I don't know how little or how much awareness you have of the video game industry, but if you were to examine the processes by which games are primarily obtained, you would observe that your blocked the R18+ rating is counter productive to both the democratic rights of Australians to make their own decisions and your own desires to protect young Australians.

Quoting your representative in the news.com.au article that appeared about the matter:


"He doubts whether any safeguards could be put in place to deter young people, who after all [are] the most computer literate and savvy in our society, from being able to access material."


This does not, certainly to me and many other people, sound like a legitimate reason to oppose the rating. It sounds to me a remark along the lines of 'young people could potentially access the material anyway, so let's not bother.' You doubt any safeguards could be put in place. That phrase to me doesn't do much to reflect your own certainty on the matter. In fact, I would go so far as to suggest that you yourself realise how flimsy your reasoning is. If you apply this belief to other things that require being 18 years or older to obtain; primarily alcohol, R18+ films and pornography, then you are by implication suggesting that the safeguards in place to protect these things from young people are not worthwhile. Surely, without doubt, a safeguard, no matter how ineffectual you may perceive it to be, is better than no safeguard at all.

It would be impossible for a safeguard such as an R18+ rating to be any less ineffectual than those in place for alcohol, pornography and R18+ films. Certainly an older sibling or relative could go and purchase an R18+ game for a child. The system is not foolproof, nor is it for alcohol, pornography and R18+ films.

But surely you must concede that an R18+ rating would go some way towards making it harder for those under 18 to access video games with excessively violent or sexual material. If protecting young people from unsuitable material is something that you genuinely desire to enforce, then endorsing an R18+ rating is the most effective way achieve this end.

Should you obstructively continue to deny Australian adults an adequate ratings system for video games, I have little doubt that the current system employed by gamers of importing banned games, which I might stress doesn't require age identification, will continue.

By barring an R18+ rating for video games, you are unreasonably preventing adults from making individual choices on what they wish to hear, see and interact with, you are allowing people 17 and under to access video games that are in other countries rated for adults, you are allowing Australia to be looked upon poorly by the rest of the modern world for a ratings system widely considered to be backwards and out of date. There is no benefit to be gained from opposing an R18+ rating, and therefore I ask you that you consider the matters set forth above, and reconsider your position on an R18+ rating for video games.

I look forward to your reply.