We decided to put a few questions to Des Clark, the director of the OFLC, to see if we could give you a better picture of what this classification decision would mean for the future of gaming in Australia.
PALGN: Could you please give us a brief overview of the process involved when classifying a video game? What aspects of the game do you look at and how is the final classification decided on?
OFLC: First it is important to understand some legal and administrative background.
Under Australian law, no computer game can be sold or hired in Australia unless it has first been classified by the Classification Board. These classifications are G, PG, M and MA15+. These classifications mean “General” (very mild content), “Parental Guidance recommended” (mild content), “Recommended for Mature Audiences” (Moderate content) and “Not suitable for people under 15 – under 15s must be accompanied by a parent or adult guardian” (Strong content). Computer games that contain content stronger than MA15+ are refused classification and cannot be sold or hired in Australia.
The Australian system is a Government-regulated scheme. It is a collaborative scheme between the Federal Government and the eight (8) State and Territory Governments of Australia. Classification decisions are made at the Federal level by the Classification Board and enforcement is carried out by the State and Territory Governments.
The Classification Board is an independent statutory authority that makes its decisions under the National Classification Scheme by applying the provisions of the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995, the Guidelines for the Classification of Film and Computer Games and the National Classification Code.
Applicants pay a fee to have the computer game classified and must provide comprehensive and detailed synopsis and description of game play. In effect this means that the Board members classifying the game must be able to work their way through the entire game content before they make their decision. If the game is likely to contain content that would be classified M or MA15+, that content must be either provided as a recording or demonstrated to the Classification Board by the applicant. Particulars of this content and the means by which access to it can be gained must be provided to the Board if a separate recording is not.
Broadly, classifications are made on the basis of applying an “impact test” (very mild impact through to strong impact) to a set of “classifiable elements” (themes, violence, sex, language, drug use, nudity) considered at each classification. The impact test means that not only the impact of the individual classifiable elements has to be considered, but the cumulative impact of the overall production as well.
The Classification Board can be as many as 20 people under the legislation, and they are recruited to be “broadly representative of the Australian community”. Members of the Board are kept up to date with community standards by various types of consumer research undertaken periodically by the Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC), which provides administrative and policy support to the Classification Board.
Most computer games would be classified by a number of Board members. A Board report is written that outlines the reasons for the decision and represents both the majority and minority decisions. The majority decision is the classification decision. The applicant is provided with a classification certificate. If they ask for the Board report, it is provided to them.
There is a mechanism whereby certain aggrieved parties, ministers or the applicant can apply for a merits review, for a fee, to the Classification Review Board, which is another independent statutory authority – a part time Board convened only for reviews. In these cases the CRB makes a fresh decision.
PALGN: How long before a title is released does it need to be submitted for classification?
OFLC: All titles need to be classified before they can be released or advertised. As there is a standard turnaround time of 20 working days for a classification to be made, this would mean the computer game should be submitted for classification at least 20 working days before the advertising campaign is to begin. If a shorter time period is required, a priority service payment can be paid and the turnaround can be achieved in 5 working days.
PALGN: Does the visual style of a game affect its rating? For example are more realistic games likely to receive higher ratings than cartoon titles with the same themes?
OFLC: If a game looks more realistic it is probably likely that the impact of its elements will be higher than if it looks like a straight cartoon, in much the same way as a live action film has more impact than an animated film. So in that respect the visual style may affect the classifiable elements. But visual style itself is not a classifiable element.
PALGN: Do you know of any members of the classification board play who video games as a hobby?
OFLC: Yes, some members do.
PALGN: The 2005 GamePlay Australia study commissioned by the IEAA found that “the average Australian computer or video game player is 24 years old”. Does the OFLC consider these kinds of statistics when making its decisions?
OFLC: The OFLC, Classification Board and Classification Review Board are aware of various studies that point to the average age of gamers. Again, classification decisions are made using the tools of the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995, the National Classification Code and the Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games. Though such findings fall outside the ambit of these tools, I believe they are accommodated in the mix as the Classification Board is recruited to be “broadly representative of the Australian community”.
In my opinion, the fact that Board members are recruited to “be broadly representative of the Australian community”, and the fact that the mechanisms by which classification decisions are made are clearly laid out in legal instruments contribute very strongly to the success of our system. The periodic consumer research the OFLC has undertaken to assess the level to which the Classification Board is in step with community standards supports this success as well. I also believe the Review mechanism of the scheme provide further checks and balances that ensure the decisions remain “broadly representative of the Australian community”.
PALGN: Marc Ecko’s Getting Up: Contents Under Pressure was recently refused classification because it promotes the crime of graffiti. Is there a reason why previous graffiti games (such as Jet Set Radio Future) haven’t been given the same treatment?
OFLC: This decision was made on Review.
The Classification Review Board is a separate review body. It needs to be understood that both boards are also completely independent from one another and it is possible for them to reach different decisions on the same content.
Previous graffiti games have not been reviewed by the Review Board. The Classification Review Board will release their reasons for decision about Getting Up: Contents under pressure in due course, and I am unable to comment on the decisions of the Review Board.
PALGN: One of the main thrusts for Marc Ecko’s Getting Up being declassified was that it promoted crime. Can the OFLC (or the OFLC Reviews Board) point to research that proves a connection between playing a video game and committing an associated crime? If not, why is such a reason allowed to review an initial classification?
OFLC: It is important to understand that the game was Refused Classification by the Classification Review Board. “Refused Classification” is a classification. (Declassification means revocation, which is a different power under the Classification Act.)
As mentioned, the legislative classification tools are used by the Board to make their decisions.
It is also important to understand that Classification decisions are not always unanimous and the majority decision becomes the decision. This is what makes the system fair – it accommodates various viewpoints.
In the case of this review, the Classification Review Board was constituted by four people and the Convenor exercised her casting vote because there was, until that point, an evenly split decision.
As the Review Board is an independent, I am unable to comment on their decision-making process. The Classification review Board will release its reasons for decision in due course.
PALGN: Is the recent banning of Marc Ecko’s Getting Up likely to set a precedent for future game classifications? Can we expect to see driving games banned because they promote reckless driving or first person shooters banned because they promote murder?
OFLC: All classification decisions are considered on a case by case basis, following the processes I have explained earlier. As all games and films are different, it would be pre-emptive to make a comment either way.
PALGN: If a game goes before the reviews board and is declassified, what recourse does the public have in requesting a review of the review?
OFLC: The only recourse is when there has been an error of law, in which case it becomes reviewable at the Federal Court under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977.
PALGN: The 2005 GamePlay Australia study found that “88% of Australians, regardless of whether they play or have a game device say Australia should have an R(18+) classification for computer and video games.” Why are games and movies rated in differently? In particular why is there no R18+ rating for video games?
OFLC: Because the National Classification Scheme is a cooperative arrangement between the Commonwealth and the States and Territories, major policy decisions like those concerning an R 18+ classification for computer games are made jointly by the Ministers with censorship responsibilities in these 9 jurisdictions.
At the time that Ministers decided to limit the classification of computer games to MA15+ in 1996, they were concerned that, because of their ‘interactive’ nature, games might have greater impact, and therefore greater potential for harm, on young minds than films.
The last time Ministers considered this issue was at their November 2002 meeting at which time, on balance, not all Ministers were satisfied children would not access games classified as suitable only for adults.
PALGN: The first point in the National Classification Code reads “adults should be able to read, hear and see what they want”. Surely the banning of Marc Ecko’s Getting Up negates this point entirely. How can the OFLC justify refusing to classify any material (be it movies or games) when this is the first point in the code?
OFLC: That is one of the principles in the Code. Among the others is the principle that “minors should be protected from material likely to harm or disturb them”. The Classification (Publication, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 also provides that “the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults” must be taken into account when classifying films and computer games. As well, the Code provides that material that incites a crime can be classified RC.
Again, the process of majority decision and the fact that the Boards are recruited to be “broadly representative of the Australian community” ensures that these principles are abided by.
PALGN: If there were an R18+ classification for video games, do you expect that Marc Ecko’s Getting Up would have been given the rating?
OFLC: The Convenor of the Classification Review Board has said that the decision was made on the basis that the game contained “detailed instruction in matters of crime”. That is one of the guidelines for finding a film or game Refused Classification. She has also said that it was not made on the basis that it exceeded the MA 15+ classification.
PALGN: In response to the banning, Marc Ecko had this to say to the Sydney Morning Herald; "It mostly has to do with a generation of disconnect and a lack of understanding of the medium of video games. There's too many grey hairs blocking their eyes." What would you say you say to counter this statement?
OFLC: I would point out again that the members of the Classification Board and the Classification review Board are specifically recruited to be “broadly representative of the Australian Community”. Not all decisions are unanimous. It is the majority decision that is carried in any classification decision. I believe this illustrates that the system is fair.
PALGN: What would be required for an R18+ classification to be introduced for video games?
OFLC: Again, that is a matter for State, Territory and Commonwealth Ministers.
PALGN: One of the aspects of the banning of Marc Ecko’s Getting Up was the instructional aspect of the game, how does an in game instruction (for example press X or the directional pad) equate to a real world instruction?
OFLC: Refer to the Convenor of the Classification Board’s comments in the media release.
PALGN would like to thank Des Clark for taking the time to answer our questions.
. And I was quite serious when I said to ask if they actually did play video games. Anywho, thanks for the interview!
Loading...
