Home
Twitter
RSS
Newsletter
Luke
07 Mar, 2008

Michael Atkinson's speech cut off in parliament

PALGN News | Cut off by "raucous interjections".
The R rating for Australian games is up for debate again and was bought up in parliament today. Michael Atkinson, the South Australian Attorney-General presented his case in parliament today on why their should be no R18+ classification for games, but was cut off mid speech.

According to News.com.au, Atkinson began to describe five games that have been banned in Australia. As he was describing the banned title NARC "he was cut off by raucous interjections and returned to his seat".

News.com.au was also able to get a full copy of Mr Atkinson's speech, including the final part where he was cut off. We have reproduced it here for your convenience, thanks again to News.com.au for the transcript.

Quote:

The Interactive Entertainment Association of Australia has repeatedly put to attorneys-general that there ought to be an R18+ classification for computer games.

Unlike films, for which there are R18+ and X18+ classifications, the highest classification for computer games that depict, express or otherwise deal with sex, violence or coarse language in such a manner as to be unsuitable for viewing or playing by persons under 15 are classified as MA15+.

Computer games that exceed the criteria needed for an MA15+ classification must be refused classification and cannot be sold, hired, demonstrated or advertised in Australia. Nevertheless, thousands of games are available to computer game buyers and only a few are completely banned under this system

I have consistently opposed an R18+ classification for computer games. I am concerned about the harm of high-impact (particularly violent) computer games to children. Games may pose a far greater problem than other media – particularly films – because their interactive nature could exacerbate their impact. The risk of interactivity on players of computer games with highly violent content is increased aggressive behaviour.

I do not want children to be able to get their hands on R18+ games easily. I understand that the lack of an R18+ classification denies some adults the chance to play some games, however, the need to keep potentially harmful material away from children is far more important

Proponents for the classification say the latest technology allows gaming platforms and computers to be programmed to allow parental locks. Today’s children are far more technologically savvy than their parents. It’s laughable to suggest that they couldn’t find ways around parental locks if R18+ games were in the home.

I have mentioned that, despite there being thousands of computer games available to consumers, only a handful are banned. I want to give some examples of games refused classification in Australia because I’m certain that fair-minded people would not want the kind of content in them to be available to children.

Blitz: The League was banned in January 2007. It’s an American Football game in which players prepare teams and play through a season. It was banned because in the course of the game, the player may use illegal performance-enhancing drugs for the members of his or her team. The player can also use fake urine samples to avoid positive drug tests

Reservoir Dogs was banned in June 2006. This game is based on the Reservoir Dogs movie and players are participants in a bank robbery. They can blow the heads off hostages and police as well as execute hostages at point blank range with a gunshot to the head. They can also torture hostages by pistol whipping the side of the head, burn the eyes of a hostage with a cigar until they scream and die, or cut the fingers off hostages. There are blood bursts as the victims scream in pain.

50 Cent: Bulletproof was banned in November 2005. The game’s central character is the rap star, 50 Cent, and he seeks revenge for the killing of his former cellmate. It was banned because the killing in the game was prolonged and took place in close up and slow motion. It included a lot of on-screen blood splatter when the killing was done with knives. Just to show that the current system does work, a censored version of the game was released later with an MA15+ classification.

Getting Up: Contents Under Pressure was banned in February 2006. In this game, players make names for themselves using graffiti. They join gangs and compete with rival gangs and the police force. This game was banned because it promotes breaking the law by vandalising public buildings with graffiti. Worse, the central character acquires his knowledge of graffiti tips, techniques and styles from real graffiti vandals who pass on those details. It actually instructs players on how to become graffiti vandals

Narc was banned in April 2005. In this game, players try to defeat an underground drug trafficking and terrorist organisation. Nevertheless, the game contains frequent drug use. Players can choose to take illegal drugs including heroin, speed, LSD, marijuana and ecstasy and those drugs provide the player with benefits in progressing through the game. For example, when a player takes an ecstasy tablet

At this point Mr Atkinson was interrupted and returned to his seat. The following is the rest of his speech as provided by his office

... opponents will stop attacking and allow the player's character to escape. Similarly, taking speed allows the player's character to run faster and catch opponents.

I contest any idea that it is necessary for games to include material of this kind and that a game is more interesting to an adult because it contains extreme violence, explicit sexual material, instruction in crime or characters using illicit drugs. I remain firmly opposed to changing the classifications of computer games to allow an R-rating for games with such content

This is a carefully considered position I have held for six years and other attorneys-general around Australia may now be coming to the same view. There are not adequate safeguards that can properly protect our children from those disturbing scenes and I know how computer-literate they are. Like other parents in Australia, I want to try to protect children from being able to access computer-generated pornography and violence.

I have not been persuaded by arguments for an R18+ classification for computer games and I will continue to oppose it.


PALGN has requested an interview with Michael Atkinson, but unfortunately he has not returned our calls.

Related Content

Easy Mode Volume 2.3
02 Jun, 2007 On importing.
NHL 2K7 Review
06 Nov, 2006 What's cooler than being cool? Ice cold.
Easy Mode #26
26 May, 2006 Back to level the playing field.
33 Comments
2 years ago
I will be very, VERY interested to see if Mr Atkinson responds to PALGN's request for an interview, and I think PALGN have done a very good thing in trying to get one. If Atkinson is serious about this he will face up to a few questions. However I expect that he realizes that under scrutiny his logic doesn't hold up at all and therefore he will decline.
2 years ago
I think that when it comes to the crunch, restrictions and laws are put into place when there is a proven need for them. Eg.. talking on mobile phones whilst in control of a car is a distraction and thus is an illegal act. I can understand that, because i've seen someone who was yammering on their handset all over the road.

Where is the proof that videogames will alter the mindsent of children? All I have seen and read is mere conjecture and no solid facts on the issue which renders Australia's draconic ratings system moot.

I think all that is necessary would be a fairly large advertising campaign instructing parents about the supposed risk in exposing their kids to games that are innappropriate to them whilst simultaneously introducing the new ratings system. Along with that, bring in a fines system for retailers who supply games to minors, similar to the Liquor Control Act and presto.. your bases are more or less covered.

Does everyone know WHY they arent doing this? It's a case of "what's in it for me?", and as far as gaming goes in Australia - the universal answer seems to be nudda. Gaming even seems as a side venture for console companies here when compared to other countries. Just think about all the stuff we've missed out on / will be missing out on - you can't hold a candle to it!

All I can say is that at the end of the day, unless something is BIG business, it will not attract enough attention from anyone who wants a bite of the apple and it seems the gaming industry as a whole in Australia isn't worth shining a torch on by most and that's why our politicians really aren't interested in doing anything as it's an effort that wont reap them any rewards.
2 years ago
Lord Haart wrote
Oh, come on, seriously.

To compare this to alcohol is stupid, while they have some similarities the fact is that it's not his portfolio. That's what you're missing - he probably WOULD love to ban alcohol (as would most sane people, when faced with a few choice statistics), but he CAN'T. What he CAN do, is try to ensure that children don't get their hands on an 18+ game.

I really don't understand why this is an issue. I don't know anyone who it affects, I mean, even the people for having 18+ games are so grossed out by their content that they wouldn't play them themselves.

I do agree that we have some MA15+ games which are too extreme, but you can hardly claim the solution is to let games which are even MORE extreme into the market. icon_confused.gif Similarily, irresponsible parenting is one of the biggest issues in western society, but there seems to be only two methods of overcoming it - for the parents to stop the negative influences they bear upon their children, or for someone to remove those influences for them. Many parents simply don't have the knowledge neccesary to choose proper games for their children - the fact that kids are playing MA games is proof of that. It's naive to think the same wouldn't happen with R games.

The only difference between having an R rating an not having one, is that the only viable means of obtaining such games is removed from small children.

I'm a bit sick of this debate, because few people seem to actually think about the practical outcomes of having R18 games. People may walk around touting ideas of "free speech", but the fact is, there are very few cases this applies to, and they are quite minor relative to the noise people make about it. The main reason I hate Mr Atkinson's campaign is that there's twenty billion other things he could do that are far more useful. Well... maybe he lacks the intelligence. But still icon_razz.gif

----Aside-----
I'm also a little very annoyed that someone had the audacity to neg my post without even giving a reason why. Very mature. icon_mad.gif

Feel free to disagree with me, but Maybe you're taking the issue a little waaay too seriously.
You didn't even read my letter properly, did you? Admit it - you skimmed it for something you could consider wrong, and didn't even bother reading the section to make sure your argument held up to scrutiny.

Alcohol is a valid comparison, and as a member of parliament, it is entirely his right to voice his position on alcohol; furthermore, as Attorney-General, he can express reasoning as to why the appropriate law should be introduced; it is, after all, the job of the Attorney-General to handle the issue of laws. Sure, he may not be able to unilaterally ban alcohol, but that shouldn't stop him, if he is not a political opportunist, from making his case. Any member of parliament can attempt to introduce legislation, and the AG moreso than most.

This is an issue for three reasons. First, having an R18+ rating indicates that the government is taking video gaming seriously (just look at the special offerings to the other entertainment industries, but not to the video game industry). Second, having an R18+ rating helps to protect children by keeping inappropriate games out of their hands (such as the Grand Theft Auto series). Third, this is a case of government removing our right to otherwise-legal activities based solely on keeping children safe, and as the saying goes, "those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither". Having R18+ ratings is actually better, because then the government is more able to restrict and regulate games, whereas an all-out ban leads to government being entirely unable to regulate the games.

As for parents having the knowledge to keep certain games out of children's hands, I think you're seeing this backwards. When a game is rated MA15+, parents think that the game is comparable to an MA15+ movie, which usually is rather violent, but not so much that the average 13 year old can't handle it if supervised; however, games like Grand Theft Auto are certainly not of this nature - they are entirely inappropriate for 13 year olds, and even 16 year olds. On the other hand, an R18+ rating is something that every person understands - it's adults only, not suitable for those under 18. Sure, a few parents will still choose to buy it for their child, but then, such parents are failing their duty as parents, and we should not all be punished for their bad parenting - better to remove the child from the household than to restrict these games from adults.

MA15+ is restricted, in that a child can only purchase such a game in the presence of a parent or guardian. R18+ is restricted, in that children are not allowed to purchase the game at all, irrespective of whether they have a parent/guardian there or not.

You are naive if you think that not having an R rating is actually protecting the children in any way. The difference between having an R rating and not having one is that some games get watered down and then given to children who really shouldn't have the game, while others, which don't get watered down, end up being import-only, and it is far easier for a child to order an inappropriate game over the net than to buy it in a store, because stores are required by law to check for ID before selling R-rated products. And so, the tech-savvy children that Mr Atkinson claims will have access to these titles if they're made legal already have access to them; it is only the law-abiding adult gamers that are kept from owning them.

You claim you are sick of the debate because people don't think of the result of allowing R18+ games - it seems you are the one who hasn't considered it. If you read my letter to the AG's office, you will see that I spell out, in detail, why adding R18+ ratings for games will actually be beneficial to keeping inappropriate games out of the hands of minors. But please, continue to keep yourself ignorant, while trying to claim that it is us that are ignorant.

As for the negging of your post, have you considered that maybe they are expressing their disagreement with your post. It isn't immature to neg a post that you disagree strongly with, but it is immature to complain about people doing so. If people were expected to explain every neg they gave out, threads would explode with people posting explanations. Suffice it to say, if you want to be taken seriously, use the negs as the start of a rational debate - challenge people to it. Otherwise, you're just being a whinger.
2 years ago
See my previous posts for apologies.

Amidst the grear uproar and anger ensuing from my words, some valid points have been raised. I apologise for raising everyone's hackles. icon_sad.gif

I do have a pendant for playing devil's advocate, even when I agree with someone. It's a terrible habit, especially when I don't really have a sloid argument, and it's something I'm trying to improve on.

Back to the issue, I do agree with almost all points raised here. I tend to be a bit more grossed out by the gorier of games, and wouldn't particularly care if the worst of them were banned, but I do of course recognise that the rating system as it is doesn't neccessarily classify games correctly.

I thereby tender my resignation from this discussion, I don't have anything more to add, though I will read through anything else posted because hey, it's a learning experience. icon_smile.gif

Aielyn wrote
As for the negging of your post, have you considered that maybe they are expressing their disagreement with your post. It isn't immature to neg a post that you disagree strongly with, but it is immature to complain about people doing so. If people were expected to explain every neg they gave out, threads would explode with people posting explanations. Suffice it to say, if you want to be taken seriously, use the negs as the start of a rational debate - challenge people to it. Otherwise, you're just being a whinger.
The aim of complaining wasn't so that I could have some "perfect score" on PALGN. I'm not THAT bad. icon_razz.gif But I did hope that it would give people some motivation to discuss the issue further, because obviously I wasn't in the same place as everyone else. Since then, there have been some constructive posts that have actually broadened my perspective, hence I was challenged, and challenging oneself if good. icon_smile.gif Though I do apologise to anyone who was offended by my tone. icon_sad.gif
2 years ago
you don't have to apologise for what you believe in, just pointing out i didn't agree was all, not angry at all. And i do realise that sitting there writing stuff of the top of your head isn't the easiest thing to do to put together an argument.

Thats the thing though, you don't care about gory games being banned, this is why a fair system needs to be introduced, because as you can see, everyone is different, but i don't want you telling me what i can and can't purchase, or the government, or mr squiggle for that matter.
2 years ago
The main problem is that he (and those who oppose furthur classification) don't understand that the current system is letting those kinds of games go through as MA15+ because there is no higher classification. I'm sure plenty of companies have involved themselves with the review process to get their game though. Games like GTA and even Condemned involve some pretty nasty stuff that I wouldn't want kids playing, if an R rating was around and supported a lot of games would fall under that rating.

The whole parental lock thing is a great point because I know the 360's is really well implemented, shows how much use he has had with it.
2 years ago
Ninja Gaiden II has just been approved by the OFLC > MA15+
2 years ago
Rob_Jedi wrote
"Just to show that the current system does work, a censored version of the game was released later with an MA15+ classification."

love this part of the speech, the part that shows how completly WRONG he is, since the current state of affairs is making what should be R rated games MA instead, thus available to children.

I don't care much at all about the games that have been banned so far since they've mostly been trash anyway, problem now is that games that should be for adults only are getting slight censoring and released to kids. Really no kid should be playing GTA or Saints Row or Scarface etc.
Here, here! I honestly have no desire to play games where gratious violence is rewarded, 18+ or not. I just think that the current system allows too many games that sit somewhere in the middle, good and yet still too graphic for minors to slip through the cracks in the system. An R18+ rating would tighten things up a little.
2 years ago
S.Jaworski wrote
Where is the proof that videogames will alter the mindsent of children? All I have seen and read is mere conjecture and no solid facts on the issue which renders Australia's draconic ratings system moot
I just wanted to quickly reply, as something I've studied is Child Development for my course at university is the effect of violent images in video games and television has on young children. Its mostly in regards to younger children (The 4 or 5 year old little brother who is watching big brother play GTO for example) seeing violence and the like desensitizes, and children that young mimic everything they see and hear.

It doesn't just relate to video games of course, but I fully agree that there should be a R18+ label for video games - rather than watered down versions being rated MA and finding themselves in the hands of young teens (and their younger siblings).

You expect movies to have R ratings when they are unsuitable for children, games should be the same, that way parents are at least given a heads up about what sort of game it is.

I thought the point about MA movies being okay for teenagers was very valid, as most people consider MA to be a 'not for little kids, but okay for your 13-14 year old'. And unlike a movie, few parents will play the game first before deciding whether or not its suitable.

I hope you get a response to your letter.
Add Comment
Like this news?
Share it with this tiny url: http://palg.nu/ck

N4G : News for Gamers         Twitter This!

Digg!     Stumble This!

| More
Currently Popular on PALGN
Michael Atkinson steps down from his Attorney-General position
Will no longer be able to veto R18+ rating.
God of War III Review
Kratos will not be denied his revenge.
White Knight Chronicles Review
Chronicles to put you to sleep.
Australian Gaming Bargains - 18/03/10
Not so many Godly bargains this week.