Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I certainly welcome the opportunity this morning to speak on the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (R 18+ Computer Games) Bill 2012. I join with all members of the House in agreeing that this is much needed reform, and we certainly look forward to the elements of this bill taking effect so that we can have greater confidence as we carry on into the future. We would have greater confidence that the young people and, in fact, the adults of this country are properly advised and, in appropriate cases, properly protected from some of the online computer game content that abounds in the world at this point.

A common theme when I go around and speak particularly to primary school classes in the electorate of Cowan, and senior classes, is that so many young people are keen to get into this industry. When we see the figure of $2.5 billion that is likely to be generated in the economy by the computer game industry by 2015, it is not a surprise, particularly for those of us who see that there are young people so keen to get into the industry to create games. As we know, there are a fairly large number of computer game laboratories generating these games around the country. When Apple informs us that they get upwards of 20,000 applications a month for games to be registered with them, it really does show that there is certainly demand and people are willing to satisfy supply.

That being said, it is a little bit of a mystery to me why some people are interested in some of the games that are produced. There are extremely violent games and there are games produced that have sexual content, which I think many people would have objections to. It really does come as a surprise that there is demand for such games. Whilst I will speak a little bit more about the differences between MA15+, R18+ and refused classification, what I would say is that greater protection, greater knowledge and greater information is long overdue in all cases with regard to such games.

It is the case that, when this country has had the highest classification of MA15+, there have been substantiated allegations that there are some games that have been, as has been said, shoehorned into that category. Possibly there has been a bit of a liberal interpretation of the categorisation. Some games that we might think should not ordinarily be allowed to be accessed by those 15 years and above have actually made it into that category. Others of course have been refused classification, and I think that is good. What we will have with this legislation is that, for games that I think were MA15+ but probably should have been adult 18 and above only, we will have the opportunity to push those sort of games upwards, I would imagine. Also, where some of these games have had slight modifications made to them so that those that would have had R18+ classification in others parts of the world have been dragged down into the MA15+, but again with material in them that I think a lot of people would find quite concerning, there will be the ability to look again at those games and push them into R18+ classification. That is most definitely a good thing.

With regard to the classification of restricted 18+, what we will see is the restriction of sale, hire, display, advertisement and, in overall terms, warnings to parents. I am a parent, with two girls, aged 13 and nine, who are into games—definitely not the sorts of games that might have those classifications. I suspect Moshi Monsters is probably not going to see a categorisation above G. Angry Birds may be a little more severe, but is not going to be in this sort of category. I certainly hope that we will never see anything like an MA15+ game or anything worse than that in my house. But it is the case that the ability to provide warnings to parents on computer games through this legislation is very important. The alarm bells certainly do ring when you are a parent and you see something with an R on the front of it, and there is a difference between seeing those and M category movies. When that is transposed over to computer games, if parents see R18+ on the front of games they should be rightly concerned and should certainly examine them and find out whether their children are attempting to buy such video games or they are in the possession of their children.

It does, however, still come down to vigilance by the parents of those under 18 in keeping an eye on what is going on, so they can look at and examine things and make decisions if they find their children possess those games in their house and they have a concern that needs to be dealt with. But, as we also know through the work that has taken place over recent years and has been particularly noted by a House committee recently, the vast majority of gamers are actually young adults, I would say—around the age of 32—and many of them, 47 per cent, happen to be women now. What we are dealing with here is certainly freedom of choice. It comes down to adults being able to make informed choices. If they wish to buy R18+ games, that should certainly be the case. But I would always warn and advise parents to keep an eye on those under 18 and what is in their possession or what they are attempting to buy.

This legislation brings us into line with comparable nations in the Western world. It is bizarre that we have not had a classification. In Australia we have had classifications of MA15+ or refused classification, but there has been nothing in between. That has singled us out as being different from the rest of the Western world. So it is important that we have the R18+ classification, and I certainly welcome that. That is consistent with international standards.

It is a very important step forward. I think we will see that this is legislation which is non-controversial, and that is why we see it here in the Federation Chamber. But I would say that, while there is the provision in the bill that a game cannot be reclassified within two years of its having been classified, it is important that, should people have concerns about games currently rated MA15+, they consider trying to have those games reclassified to R18+. That would be a positive step forward. Currently there are games rated MA15+ which are concerning and not appropriate for those under the age of 18. Those games should be reviewed, and this legislation will allow that to happen. At the same time the classifying authorities should not be afraid of refusing classification where the content is beyond the point of classification. There are some really bizarre levels of violence and sexual content out there that I think should still be refused classification, and most people probably agree with that.

I welcome the introduction of this bill into the House. I look forward to it being passed and the classification R18+ adding some real value in this country and providing greater certainty and help for parents and gamers across Australia.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to support that Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (R 18+ Computer Games) Bill 2012. This issue was first raised with me by many of my constituents from Adelaide's western suburbs in the seat of Hindmarsh who contacted me, largely by email, a couple of years ago. They were very frustrated with the state of affairs at that particular time. As members in this place would be well aware, films—including those publicly shown—DVDs and computer games may be classified G, PG, M or MA15+. Films can also be classified R18+ or X18+. There has been no classification for computer games beyond that of MA15+.

We had a situation where the federal government, and every state and territory in the Commonwealth—bar one—supported the introduction of an R18+ classification for computer games. Without that classification, MA15+ continued as the highest, or the most restrictive, classification of games. The effect of this has been seen to be largely twofold. Firstly, materials which had not met the MA15+ classification have been refused classification and have been unavailable for sale in Australia. Importing such material, if caught, would result in fines or at least confiscation. Piracy thrives in such environments. Secondly, those responsible for the development of these games can tweak or resubmit their games and, I understand, in at least some cases eventually have those games passed as under MA15+ classification.

The bottom line of this is that kids can end up with games classified as MA15+ that have content that should much more appropriately have been classified as R18+. Kids can access material that they, on balance, should not or that we should not want them to access. There is good reason for having a well-graded, well-tiered system that enables the niche allocation to appropriate levels of restriction and access. It facilitates finely tuned classification and finely tuned marketing. This benefits all of us. We know what a product is, we know who should not be accessing it and we can know that we most probably do not want to access it when you have good classification. But this awkward, clumsy classification regime that can shed little light on what the content actually was has been the situation endured by many for some considerable time.

There has been universal support for change for quite some time, apart from the one state. Queensland supported change; Western Australia supported change; New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania supported change; the ACT and the Northern Territory supported change; the federal government supported change. Because my own home state, South Australia, opposed the change, change was defeated. It was unilaterally vetoed. So, when contacted by many of my constituents who were very concerned by South Australia's veto of the clear and unambiguous national will, I responded with my view that the will of the minority dominating or vetoing the will of the overwhelming majority is undemocratic and wrong. It is undemocratic for the few to rule contrary to the will of the majority—to dominate the majority or to veto the majority. That was my opinion at the time, which I communicated to all those that contacted me on this particular issue. It might be surprising that this view was very welcomed by most of the people that did contact me on this issue.

I certainly welcomed South Australia's new Attorney-General's agreement with each and every other state and territory in the land and the federal government. I welcome the fact that the will of the overwhelming majority will be respected and acted upon through this bill. I also welcome the benefits that this new classification should have for the gaming community in Australia: that is the protection of younger gamers from inappropriate materials and content and the better honouring, I hope, of the copyright law that should come with this bill. But it remains a curious issue that we can have eight players being vetoed by one sole state, territory or federal government. It goes, of course, to the creation of the National Classification Scheme under the recommendation of the Law Reform Commission concerning censorship procedure in 1991, over 20 years ago now. The recommended national approach to classification makes absolute, perfect sense. This is appropriate and it is good, in my view. The Intergovernmental Agreement on Censorship which underpins the scheme confirms that certain changes to the scheme, such as amendments to the National Classification Code and classification guidelines must be considered and agreed to by censorship ministers. It must be unanimous.

The intergovernmental agreement reads in part:

B. The aim of the new scheme is to make, on a co-operative basis, Australia’s censorship laws more uniform and simple with consequential benefits to the public and the industry;

C. The new scheme accurately reflects, and maintains, the balance of responsibilities that has been arrived at between Australian jurisdictions. It also recognises that, in relation to the Code and classification guidelines, the Commonwealth, and the Participating States are equal partners and that policy on these matters is derived from agreement between all jurisdictions …

I observe that the preceding paragraph notes that it was not an agreement of national uniformity as such, as it contains the observation that, 'Western Australia and Tasmania will not participate in the new scheme in relation to publications.' It goes on to say:

Under the Act each Participating Minister and the Commonwealth Minister are to agree:

(a) on the classification guidelines;

(b) on amendments to those guidelines; and

(c) on amendments to the Code ...

Apparently publications were out, but, in relation to games, the required uniformity of opinion, the required unanimity of determination, is without exception and has, as a consequence of the position held by one of the nine ministers, held back what almost all have long considered positive change. This has been of immense frustration to my constituents that contacted me on this particular issue. It has been imbalanced, unfair, undemocratic and most unwelcome.

There probably is not much call for changes to the actual classification structure around Australia. It is not like the system requires ongoing maintenance and adjustment on a regular basis, so one might just write off this exercise as a bad experience and forget about it, but it is of concern to me that one of the nine can uphold reform. We saw something vaguely similar with Western Australia being the sole state not to sign up for the first national health deal. At least this was able to be negotiated, put through a process of give and take and manipulated into a form that does attract the agreement of each negotiator. There was sufficient detail to actually have negotiation. In this case it has been binary—it is a straight yes or no. I will leave my discontent there and move on in support of this bill. I commend it to the House.

Judi Moylan (Pearce, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this legislation on the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (R 18+ Computer Games) Bill 2012, which seeks to introduce an R18+ category for computer games, aligning the existing classifications levels for films and other publications.

Computer games, films and publications advertised or sold in Australia are currently regulated by the classification act, which sets out a sliding scale of age limits and a corresponding allowable impact of violence and sexual themes on the material covered. The scheme is designed to be user-friendly, allowing purchasers and particularly parents to easily decide whether the material they are buying or viewing, or that their children have access to, is suitable for the maturity of the individual. The procedures and thresholds for classification falls under federal jurisdiction to ensure national consistency. However, the states and territories independently legislate as to the level of material that can be advertised and sold within their borders.

Classifications are decided with reference to the impact test as well as the overall cumulative effect. At the more restricted end, movies and publications with a strong impact are deemed MA15+, high impact is R18+ and very high is refused classification, which prevents the material from being sold or advertised in Australia. However, computer games have been an anomaly. At the restricted end, they are classified as either MA15+ or, if the themes depicted exceed the strong impact threshold, they are refused classification.

The reason for omitting the R18+ classification category appears to stem from a recommendation made in 1993 by the Senate Select Committee on Community Standards Relevant to the Supply of Services Utilising Electronic Technology. I am sure that in this place we would agree that 1993 was a long time ago. I do not think any of us could have at all foreseen the kind of video games that would be available on the market today. That committee made recommendations in their submission to the Attorney-General's Department at that time. Electronic Frontiers Australia and AusGamers noted that three assumptions underpinned the select committee's recommendation which resulted in the exclusion of the R18+ category. Those were that (1) computer games are only for children; (2) the level of technology involved with the use of computer games means that many parents do not necessarily have the competency to ensure adequate parental guidance; and (3) having regard to the extrasensory intensity involved in the playing of interactive games and the implications of long-term effects on users, games should be subject to stricter criteria for classification than those applying to film or video. We certainly know that computer games have gone far beyond children's toys and playthings. Certainly, it has been a bit of a minefield for many parents who are not technology savvy. There are still plenty of people in the community, who, although they can do the basics, find it difficult to understand the complexities of new technologies.

The first point that computer games are only for children may, as I say, have been correct at that time, but we have now gone well beyond that. The classification code's first principle that adults should be able to read, hear and see what they want was viewed at the time as not relevant and, instead, focus was ascribed to the second principle that minors should be protected from material likely to harm or disturb them. It therefore seemed incongruous to allow for games with high-impact themes, when children were the focus of the industry. But that is no longer the case. Gaming technology and capability has exponentially increased, allowing for storylines, graphics and themes which have attracted increasingly older audiences. Research by Bond University, which was published last year, entitled Digital Australia, notes that the average age of video game players in Australia today is continually increasing. In 2005, the average gamer was 25 years old and today they are 32 years old.

More tellingly, 75 per cent of all video game players in Australia are aged 18 years or older. The ability of parents to ensure adequate control and guidance has also markedly increased, with computer literacy becoming a significant aspect of everyday life. We are having to grapple with this technology because so much is now done via a computer. But a clear-cut classification system would further assist parents when making choices about what games are suitable for their children to play, with an R18+ rating providing certainty that the game is unsuitable for children.

Public support for an R18+ category appears to be very strong. In 2009, the Attorney-General's Department received 54,437 submissions to its discussion paper on the topic, of which a compelling 98 per cent were in favour of an R18+ category. Following more recent discussion papers on the topic, however, there has been strong opposition from a minority of submissions to the Attorney-General's Department that reinforce the Senate's original cautious approach regarding the interactive nature of gaming. A key concern was whether R18+ games have an acceptable place in society, regardless of age. Particular emphasis was placed on the fact that, in all other forms of media, the consumer is passive, by viewing, listening or hearing the relevant material. However, with computer games the consumer is actively directing events. Some of the games are extremely violent and extremely graphic.

Understandably, there is a worry that what happens in the virtual world has an impact on a person's real world. We would agree that this is probably so for children in particular and that allowing more violent and graphic games could lead to adverse social consequences.

Research into this area has been mixed. It really depends on whom you listen to. Sometimes you have to wonder who is funding the research. For adults who have violent tendencies and who play video games, it is hard to distinguish whether gaming inflamed the violent behaviour or whether that person already had a violent disposition and was drawn to violent video games. For children, though, there is a greater likelihood that exposure to violent media will have a detrimental effect. It is sometimes very difficult to pick your way through this matter, because there are many and varied views on the subject. But I think that most parents would agree that we need to address the issue of classification and give parents some guidelines as to what might or might not be suitable for their young people.

The Australian Council on Children and the Media pointed to research undertaken by a long-term video game researcher Craig Anderson, whose 2007 journal article entitled 'The effect of video game violence on physiological desensitization to real-life violence' concluded:

It is not surprising that when the game involves rehearsing aggressive and violent thoughts and actions, such deep game involvement results in antisocial effects on the player …

That is but one of the many views.

The council went on to argue that adopting an R18+ rating system would lead to a greater proliferation of violent games and, with that, children would be more likely to be exposed to violent media through adult family members playing the game in their presence or the children receiving the game or a copy from an adult. However, there is also a strong argument that a clear rating system, which shows that the game is for adults only, helps informed choices and gives adults confidence to tell children that the game is not suitable for them.

Regardless of which view is subscribed to, ratings systems are only part of the solution to this problem. With the proliferation of visual media, and the internet playing a part in every aspect of children's lives, it is incumbent upon all of us as adults and as parents to help children understand the distinction between reality and fantasy where computers are involved. I think we see this on Facebook too. I had one young person tell me recently: 'No, this is his other personality on Facebook. There's this one and there's another one over here. Which is the real one?' So I think we have a lot of work to do to help young people distinguish between the play, the fantasy and the reality.

I certainly appreciate the concern that many have about the impact of violent media and agree that ceiling standards developed in consultation with the community are necessary. To this end it is worth noting than an R18+ category is not a generic free-for-all category without limit. Games with a very high impact in terms of language, sexual references or violence would be refused classification in any event. Creating a specific adult category also helps ensure that minors are not exposed to unsuitable material. A number of games that are classified as R18+ in the United States and other countries are legally available in Australia at the moment and classified as MA15+. To meet the current Australian classification framework, developers sometimes make relatively minor adjustments to tone down the violence within their games, but the overall impact is still similar. Under the proposed changes, rather than having slightly altered adult games available to children, only adults would have access to them legally.

Ensuring classification consistency across all types of media is also important in helping empower consumers where we are now seeing convergence across all types of media. The distinction between interactive and non-interactive entertainment is increasingly blurred. That is another issue that modern society has to grapple with. Movies inspired by books are being easily transformed into video games with highly interactive internet advertising strategies. To increase the experience of customers, entertainment titles are sold as packages, often with a DVD, computer game and links to special internet content all contained in one packet. Censors are then placed in the unique and difficult position of having to determine whether to treat the items as a game or as a film, or potentially have different, dual ratings for the title's movie and game.

The gaming experiences are also becoming more cinematic, with seamless interaction between scripted plot segments and user-controlled action. The growth in popularity of role-playing games and their increasing plot sophistication make many of them seem like a 'choose your own' adventure movie rather than a traditional game. Also, the prolific computer graphic imagery in movies can be simply copied across to a game release, meaning there is nearly no difference in visual depiction between the game and the movie itself.

The trend towards convergence is only increasing and makes the traditional argument of a difference between interactive and non-interactive media irrelevant. Without a consistent classification framework confusion can arise, ultimately eroding the whole intention of the system, which is to empower consumers and, I suppose, to look after the interests of children.

The 2009 report by Bond University entitled Interactive Australia makes the point that the absence of an R18+ rating for computer games has potentially misled parents and consumers. By not acknowledging the full spectrum of game suitability an artificial view has been created that violence and themes portrayed in games are not as bad as what can be seen in the movie or on TV because they do not extend to R18+ ratings. Research in Interactive Australia found that four out of five parents are influenced by the Classification Board's ratings, but nearly two-thirds are unaware of them and there is currently no R18+ classification for video games. Respondents are worried with a common reply, 'If I knew that, I would not think MA15+ was for my 15-year-old.' Having an R18+ classification is a sensible response to the changing attitudes and demographics of gamers. It also strengthens the classification framework ensuring that unsuitable games are less likely to end up in the hands of children and empowers parents and consumers through increased awareness and increased knowledge. I think much work has been done to try to find a way through what is clearly a very difficult subject matter and one that causes great divisions within the community, like so many of these modern conundrums. But I think we probably have the best possible outcome and I commend the bill to the House.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With these things, we usually get up and say we are pleased to speak on the bill. From my perspective, I am relieved to be speaking on the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (R18+ Computer Games) Bill 2012, because it has taken 10 years to get to the point where we make a decision about the classification of video games and, as the member for Pearce indicated in her contribution, the feedback on this matter was phenomenal. There were 54,000 public submissions received on this issue alone showing a huge amount of interest in this matter. I think it shows the degree to which this is not just something that is seen as a kids' domain; this is something that has been embraced and featured in homes across the country for many years by people of different ages. As I said, for the past decade, the Commonwealth, the states and the territories have been unable until recently to agree to the reforms required for the introduction of this classification for computer games.

It is an important reform, not only for the Australian adult population who have long asked for the right to make personal decisions about their entertainment but in recognising that we have a flourishing industry that is involved in the design and development of computer games right here in Australia. The development industry is growing and has got itself a fantastic international reputation. I commend to the Federation Chamber the Working in Australia's Digital Games Industry: A Consolidation Report, which was released last year by the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Creative Industries and Innovation and the Queensland University of Technology. It was done in conjunction with the Game Developers' Association of Australia. That association described the local industry in the following terms. It said:

Australia has a dynamic and sophisticated game development industry. With experience developing and marketing products for the largest game publishers in the world, Australia offers the best in creative talent, advanced technology and management experience.

In the report it seeks to demonstrate the breadth of the industry in the country by relying on the Australian Bureau of Statistics report, which in 2008 released the first issue of Digital Game Development Services, Australia. As at June 2007, it noted—and I imagine these figures continue to increase but they are worth noting—that 45 game development businesses operate in Australia, with three-quarters operating out of Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland. Of the 1,431 workers employed in the games development industry, 695 are located in the member for Herbert's great state of Queensland, representing 48.6 per cent of all workers in the country. Artists, animators and programmers combined account for over 63 per cent of games workers and nonresidents account for 6.1 per cent of those workers. In terms of export, the figures are fantastic. Bear in mind, too, that a lot of small businesses operate in this sector—close to 50—and it is indicated that they employ up to five workers. There are 11 small- to medium-sized businesses employing six to 50 workers and large businesses operating with over 200 workers.

I sit on another committee, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications, and, as part of our work last year we went around the country in the course of developing our report on the NBN and our report Broadening the debate talks about a lot of the creative and visual arts businesses that will now be able to collaborate with businesses overseas and, off a platform of superfast broadband, be able to shift large packets of data overseas. If you look at the industry now and at what we are doing in revitalising our technological infrastructure, you see this will open up huge sections for our local economy, particularly the one that we are referring to today in terms of games development. It will give people a head start in an industry that young people in particular want to be able to work in.

The classification issue we discuss here is enormously relevant because it opens up the scope of work that can be done by local businesses where people do not want to see their work, their time and the investment that they put into it suddenly held up because our classifications have not kept pace with the rest of the world. As I said, there is that $161 million of revenue, most of it export earnings, with the revenue from games development growing at a rate of 16 per cent annually for the five years leading to 2010-11. So this bill gives the industry the certainty that they had long hoped for and it lets them attract much-needed investment, particularly from overseas, and there is that collaboration that I referred to earlier. It will also achieve for them parity with the much larger film industry, which for many years has enjoyed investment and incentives that they can only dream of accessing. The games development industry, a relatively small player compared to their global competitors, continues to compete with developers overseas who in some cases receive industry assistance for their work. Without doubt this bill will improve their competitiveness in what is globally a $25 billion industry.

I want to pick up on some statistics as to one recent game that was released—Modern Warfare 3, developed by Activision. It had the largest on-day, or early, shipments registered in history. Some 1.5 million people queued at 13,000 stores across the UK and the US to buy this one game. In the US and the UK over 6.5 million copies of the one game were sold on one day and grossed, in the first 24 hours, $400 million, a huge amount of money. So you can see the interest that is there. I want to come back to that game later because it is absolutely relevant in the context of what we are discussing now.

The bill that has come before parliament today reflects in a sense our nation's growing up. It was not that long ago, as I indicated earlier and as the member for Pearce reflected upon in her contribution to this debate, that these games were seen as the domain of children and adolescents. As many of these young people matured so too did their taste in games and so did the games themselves. The present regime fails to take into account that computer gaming is no longer the sole domain of young people. The Interactive Games and Entertainment Association estimates 55 per cent of gamers are now over the age of 18 and the average age is now 30 years old. If you want an indication of how far things have come, look at how many members of parliament will actually speak in this debate alone. I have estimated close to 25 MPs will be devoting some part of their time to debating this very bill.

If we are going to talk about declaring interests, I actually own an Xbox 360 and for my birthday my wife bought me a Kinect, which we both use as well. All this reflects the diversity as consoles change, and you have the Wii, which has been used in nursing homes of all things to keep people who are older mobile and active. A few years ago I had the opportunity to read a really novel book by Stephen Johnson called Everything Bad is Good for You, which reflects on movements in popular culture and what those are actually doing to us as people. So the complexity, for instance, of what we watch on TV in terms of storylines—but even of video games themselves—calls on us to think and to use our motor skills and to be a lot more imaginative and innovative. He charts how changes in popular culture and changes in scores, for example, by students in schools with those IQs actually going up, and he talks about the interaction of TV, popular culture and games on those. So this is having a big impact. A 2011 report, which I referred to earlier, found that currently almost half of gamers are female and that 55 per cent of seniors, age 65 and older, play games. So in this context it is well and truly time that we permit the introduction of this R18+ classification for games. The bill will bring the classification of games into the 21st century. It will make the system much more relevant to the community and, whilst not every adult will want to access R18+ video games, it has long been the view of a large proportion of the adult population that they should have the right to decide what entertainment is appropriate for them to consume.

Under the present regime the Office of Film and Literature Classification will review a game and, if they find that game to be too violent or not fitting with community standards for a MA15+ rating, they will effectively ban it from sale in Australia by refusing classification for the game. That system has not served us well in recent times. There have been a number of well-publicised occasions on which games have received classification only to have it later withdrawn. The most notable example was in 2005, with the introduction of the game 'Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas,' which was rated in the US as MA15. However, the authorities in the US later discovered a feature which allowed users to engage in explicit sex scenes through software modification called 'Hot Coffee'. The game in the US subsequently had its rating changed to the higher R18 rating, but the lack of such a classification in Australia meant that the game was banned, despite 250,000 games having already been sold here.

There are also other examples. Going back to the modern warfare example, many people would not realise that Modern Warfare 2 has a scene in it where you take on the role of a Russian ultranationalist terrorist. You walk through an airport where you gun down people in that scene. That, frankly, is too violent and graphic for younger audiences and, if parents knew that it existed, they would be horrified. We need a classification system that takes it out of that age group and puts it into a much older age bracket. To be honest, I found that scene very confronting. Frankly, I do not know why you would need to have that in a game, because of what the member for Pearce indicated about the virtual world and reality. We definitely need a move whereby we do not see a game entirely banned but see absolutely reasonable concerns addressed through a classification system that is keeping pace with modern times.

This bill is not without its detractors. Many representations have been made opposing the introduction of an adult-only classification. Among the concerns is that games will include content currently refused classification, as I indicated earlier, that are deemed distasteful or excessively violent. While I do not doubt that some of that content may be offensive to adult members of the community they, equally, have the choice not to play these games. What has not attracted much attention is the introduction of the R18+ rating, which will give the Office of Film and Literature Classification the scope to apply that rating to games currently rated MA15+. I am sure many parents would be horrified at the level of violence contained in games that children can already access. Current guidelines allow MA15+ games to contain pretty violent, explicit and extreme content. The bill may reduce that level of violent and offensive content.

Views have been expressed that, in some places, R18+ games will eventually make their way into the hands of underage people. My view is that you cannot blame that on the classification system. The system is essentially there to guide people's choice of what to view, what to read, what to play and for parents to make choices for children. Obviously, it is the responsibility of parents to know what their children are viewing and playing, but sometimes they just do not know and will not necessarily follow what is contained in a game because they are not going to play it themselves. However, having a classification system in place allows parents the ability to make active decisions that they believe are in the best interests of their family, particularly young children. If anything, the R18+ rating will only make that job easier as most reasonably minded parents will not permit their child to play something with an R rating but may contemplate allowing them to play an MA rated game. Again, it is up to families to make that choice.

I think the level of interest in this matter has been terrific. I think it reflects a broader societal move. I think the classification, as I have said, is long overdue. It is good that it has come in and I certainly commend the bill to the House.

Ewen Jones (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to echo the words of the member for Chifley. What an industry this is. I rise to speak on the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (R 18+ Computer Games) Bill 2012. I do so in the full knowledge that I know absolutely nothing about the modern computer game. I know absolutely nothing about gaming. It is completely and utterly beyond me why people even bother with it. My level of gaming was playing Asteroids down at the cafe at lunchtime putting 20c in the machine. Asteroids was my game of choice. You blew up rocks on a black and white screen. I could quite happily pass half an hour playing that.

We have an Xbox 3, a PlayStation 3, a Wii and an iTouch at home, which my son, my wife and my daughters play. They could be sitting on there watching people kill themselves—I would not know. And that is half the problem with the way that gaming is these days. I have a 10-year-old son. He is forever gaming. He loves them. The best thing about it as a parent is that it keeps them quiet; they are out of the road. That is one of the dangers with gaming. I know of families with children who are not even teenagers yet who are playing Grand Theft Auto. Because they are in their room by themselves and they are quiet, that is okay. That will play out in other ways down the track.

Getting back to this bill, this will allow games that are deemed inappropriate for children to be sold in Australia with the new category 'restricted to adults'. As the member for Chifley said, when I was first approached about and made aware of this bill I thought that it was about kids. But gaming is not about children anymore. Our lives have changed. We have become more sedentary. We have become more stay-at-home. These games are a way of enjoying time at home. It is a personal choice. As the member for Chifley said, most of these gamers are over 18. The average age of gamers is now 30. There are some great benefits there.

This bill will align the computer game classification system with the more commonly understood film and television classification systems. Far from allowing more violent and inappropriate computer games into the country, this bill will ensure that kids are not able to buy and play video games that they should not be playing. It will also allow people who are over 18 to get games that are currently banned in Australia. At the moment, the highest classification is MA15+. This means that some of the extremely violent and explicit games are not allowed into the country, while many more that should be restricted to just adults are allowed in and sold to people who are under 18 because their current restriction is just MA15+. Experience shows us that very few games made for adults are restricted from being sold in Australia, meaning that most are given the MA15+ rating. Far from being a system that prevents minors from playing inappropriate games, it is enabling them to do just that.

I know kids who are playing Grand Theft Auto and those sorts of games. That will play into how children behave at school and those sorts of things. I was talking to a principal at one of my local schools. People want to send their kids to his school because there they will be disciplined. He said, though, that if parents are not doing it at home they cannot expect it to be done there. We are seeing a shift in the way that parents parent. When I was a child, the last thing that you would do if you got in trouble at school was to tell your parents, because automatically your parents' default position would be to side with the teacher. Now we are seeing more and more that the parent is siding with the child and chastising the teacher in front of the child, thus reinforcing the child's position. These parents have disengaged by letting these kids watch these sorts of games and then the kids come to school and play that out through their language or actions. And then the parents reinforce that attitude by chastising the teacher. And then we wonder why 22 per cent of all teachers leave the industry after only three years. There are things at play here that we have to be very careful about.

Aligning the video game classification with that of movies will also help parents to stop their kids playing games that are not appropriate. Most people are familiar with the movie classification system, as movies are much more mainstream than video games, particularly for parents. Many parents do not realise that MA15+ is the highest classification that we have for video games and that therefore games with that rating may not be appropriate for teenagers. This bill corrects that problem. That is a positive thing. As the member for Chifley said, the number of members who are speaking on this bill is a testament to how serious this is and what an industry this has become. Finally, this bill is about fairness. As I said before, video games are not the domain of kids and teenagers. Seventy per cent of computer gamers are actually over the age of 25. Nobody wants to see violent and explicit games in the hands of kids, but gamers who are over the age of 18 have every right to play these games if they choose to. Given that such a majority of the gaming community are adults, it is only right that we allow them to buy these games in this country.

I hate to keep going back to when I was child but, when I was a child, my grandmother would take us to the movies. We would see Pinocchio or The Love Bug or those sorts of things, which were strictly G rated and strictly for kids. Even now, the G rated films are different. We saw Snow White, the cartoon. There is nothing in there. There is no subtext or anything like that. But if you go and watch any Pixar picture now, because it is such a big industry, because the graphics are there, because so many parents are going with their kids, there is so much more in there for the parent. There are jokes. If you watch any of the Pixar movies, or the latest kids' films, you will find the parents laughing at one stage and the kids laughing at another. There are so many little things in there for popular culture.

As a parent, I have been concerned about violent and graphic content that has become common and accepted in video games. There are far too many games, despite their content, which are easily accessible to young teenagers. The absence of an 'adults only' category has clearly not helped us restrict this access to inappropriate games. The introduction of the 18+ category is a common-sense measure to help us properly address this issue. That is the message that video gamers in my electorate have been telling me. We are one of the last countries to get on board with this measure and it is time that we did.

The North Queensland Cowboys spend so much time training. Their day is structured around training. They get to go home. Every one of them is a gamer. Every one of them has an Xbox 3, a PlayStation 4, an Xbox 360 et cetera. These guys all game. They are all adults, all grown up and none of them go out and kill people. So we have to make sure that we protect these sorts of things.

I was contacted by Gavin Dwyer about the concern that the gaming community in Townsville has about this issue. They want to make sure that the legislation is passed. They have been fighting for this for years. I want to ensure that it finally gets through. He reiterated to me that video gamers are not just kids. That seems to have been the consistent theme through this whole debate. There are far more adults and there are no reasons that they should not be able to decide for themselves what is and what is not appropriate to play. I also spoke to Rob from Gametraders in Townsville about this bill and about the impact, from his perspective, that it would have on the gaming retailers. This is only allowing stores to give gamers what they want, which can only be good for business. As he pointed out, in a difficult retail environment this gives them the freedom of choice to provide a product that adult gamers want to buy and that, as adults, they should be able to. As the member for Cowan said this morning in his contribution to the debate, Apple is receiving applications for over 20,000 games a month to be registered on their network—that is, 20,000 games a month across the world. We are talking about a major industry here. Mr Dwyer said, 'People like me have been left behind by it, but there is no reason why everyone else should have to pay for it.' He also said that no game shop wants to see generally bad and inappropriate games go through, but most of the customers in his shops are adults and want to be given access to the games, regardless of whether they think children should be able to play them. This bill simply allows for that.

I would like to touch a little on the difference between an adult and a child when we look at things such as movies or games, at the actual violence and the stylisation of violence that goes on here. I love Quentin Tarantino films and the stylised violence of Reservoir Dogs. I just love that film, irrespective of whether the guy ends up getting his ear cut off. It is a very nasty piece of film but, because the whole thing is set in this quasi comedy, in this quasi surrealness, you know that it is not real. I also watched Once Were Warriors, the New Zealand film. There is a scene where he belts his wife. I found that the most disturbing bit of film I have ever seen in my life. It really upset me—the towelling he gave his wife was just so real. He sent her away and then in the morning she comes out with her face so puffed up and bad and he says, 'Geez, go and clean yourself up, woman,' and just walked out of the room. Those are the sorts of things where I, as an adult, can make the differentiation. But when it comes to games, I think we have to understand that people see things differently—what we see as stylised violence someone else may see as an absolute graphic display of violence and destruction that is going to feed into people and we are going to have mass murderers walking around the place. It does not happen because people can make that difference and correlation.

Take shows like The Simpsons. My son loves The Simpsons. He does not get half of The Simpsons; he does not get what they are about. All he sees is colour and movement. I love The Simpsons because there is so much popular culture in there, and so many references to the movies I have seen. Every night it is a quiz to go in and watch The Simpsons so that you can see where the links are, what they are trying to say, what that subtext is. Those are the sorts of things that I think gamers are very much aware of.

When it comes to this bill, it is about time we started treating people like adults. If it is an R18+ they should be able to make that decision for themselves. It is not so much trying to buy condoms at the pharmacy when you are 15—someone may have told me about that once upon a time. It is about making a conscious decision about the way you want to play your life. But for the kids who are playing these games instead of other things I just say this: instead of playing a game can we just go outside and kick a ball? When you are going in a car can you just look out the window? I am always reminded of the story told by Billy Connolly—Billy Connolly's World Tour of Scotland. He and Pamela had the kids with them. On their last night they stayed in this castle in Edinburgh and they built a great big dragon's nest and they had a bonfire and the sparks were flying up into the night—only Billy Connolly can tell the story. The next day when they were going back to the United States he sat the kids down—they had been all over Scotland for 16 weeks and done and seen amazing things—and asked them what was the best part of the trip. The kids got into a huddle and then came back and said, 'Sesame Street'. They had the DVDs of Sesame Street in the Tarago as they were driving around and that was the best part of it. He said he felt like he had just wasted 16 weeks of his life trying to educate his kids. I was driving to Ayr recently and for only the second time since I have been in Townsville I saw a brolga, Townsville's emblem. It is a beautiful flighted bird; it is the largest flighted bird in Australia. I looked out the window and said, 'Look, kids—a brolga.' They were all just sitting there gaming away. Anything could have happened. So, look out the window, go and kick a ball, go and throw something, go and play with someone, go for a swim, do something with your lives other than just gaming. I recommend the bill to the House.

Joanna Gash (Gilmore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The extent to which video games influence the development of young minds is open to debate. Indeed, it is a complex issue. Young minds are influenced by a large variety of factors. Most cope very well and grow up well adjusted—some do not. Some are easily influenced by external stimuli, while most can and do make rational and responsible decisions despite potentially adverse influences. Some reach levels of maturity earlier than others while some never arrive. These are the realities of life. The key is how the family unit is supervised and how responsibilities are distributed.

The Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (R 18+ Computer Games) Bill 2012 to introduce an R18+ category for video games simply provides another tool to assist responsible parents. I say 'responsible' because the only people who can enforce this classification are the parents. Based on previous experience it is unrealistic to expect that this can be enforced in any meaningful way by governments. We went through the issue of alcopops. The government imposed a heavy tax premium on premixed alcoholic drinks. The result was that we just shifted the problem. The same can be said about selling tobacco to minors. It has been written into law forever yet you walk down the street and you see groups of 14-year-olds puffing away without a care in the world. No one challenges them. It has become an accepted fact of life. Every now and then you hear about a prosecution for illegal sales to a minor, but in the main it is safe to say it has very little impact. Sadly, some parents even condone the behaviour by allowing children almost free will. The fact remains that despite the millions of dollars sunk into protecting and barricading minors from smoking many just do and society is accepting the fact.

Video games are in the same mould. I think by attaching a prescriptive restriction to a product you only make it more tempting. We already have the MA15+ classification applied and that means games are restricted to those over 15. If you are under 15 you cannot legally access the material or play the game without being accompanied by a legal guardian. Does that stop the proliferation of these games? Has the classification protected sensitive young minds? I think not because the ones more likely to be attracted are those whose curiosity has been whetted—the very type of mind the classification seeks to protect.

For what it is worth I found this on Wikipedia. The Entertainment Software Association states that 20 per cent of video game players are boys under the age of 17 and 26 per cent are over 50 regardless of gender so that the average game player is 37. This has been ascribed to a 2009 fact sheet published by the Entertainment Software Association in America. I went to their website and there it was. In a survey of 1,102 teenagers aged 12 to 17, 97 per cent of them said they play video games. Moreover half the survey respondents said they had played a video game in the last day. Three-quarters of parents who were surveyed said that they checked the ratings on their children's games. However, half the boys who were asked about their favourite game listed a game with an M or AO rating as their favourite content and just 14 per cent of girls. It is the temptation of the forbidden which is the drawcard and the adults only rating helps to act as the pointer.

The entry goes on to say that the adult demographic is the fastest growing segment of the American video games market. Thirty-two per cent of adults are playing video games, although critics have suggested that such statistics are often used to deflect from the fact that almost all American children are exposed to video games. That is the American experience and, given our love affair with American culture, I would say that statistics in Australia are not too wide off the same mark.

The point I am trying to make is that, at the end of the day, with the way things are it is not going to matter very much whether an R18+ rating is applied or not. The only benefit I see in this bill is that it introduces a uniform classification to that applied to film and television and as a result it is easier to understand. At least in standardising the approach it may help to minimise confusion. To an extent, this classification debate is largely academic. What is pertinent are two questions: will this tool be used and how will it be used? I do not have that answer but when I was reading up on the subject I came across a little article on a games blog site written by Mark Serrels. The website is kotaku.com.au. Published in October last year the article talks about the classification review and the panel chair, Professor Terry Flew. It is important to understand what his views are. The article says:

'One of the things we were aware of from the outset taking on the inquiry,'

says Professor Flew—

'was that there was considerable dissatisfaction with the R18 classification issue—that this issue had been on the agenda for over a decade and, as you may well be aware, gamers were a very important group in making submissions to this enquiry. So we're certainly aware of the importance of the issue.'

According to Professor Flew:

R18+ was an issue that really exemplified and exposed the difficulties of using 20 year old legislation to navigate a post-internet age.

In other words, the person who will be administering the new arrangement believes it is already redundant. The article goes on:

'Games have an interesting status in terms of the Classification Scheme in two respects,' … 'Firstly, the assumption that computer games were considered to be more akin to films and broadcasting proved to be historically significant—you have to remember that decisions were being made in what was largely a pre-internet era.

'Secondly there was a range of what some sociologists and others call 'moral panics', particularly with regards to the interactive nature of games. There was the idea that games impacted on individual behaviour,' …

'This was all, in a sense, amateur psychology—before anyone was playing the kind of games with which we would eventually become familiar. But there was a sort pre-emptive set of assumptions made about the impact of interactivity that continued to resonate through the decisions being made about video game classification.'

This bill is less to do with any real attempt at addressing the real issues than about being seen to be doing something—anything. From where I stand right now I can safely say that this bill may not help much but it will not hurt much either. Is this regulation made for the pure sake of it and nothing else, or will it achieve something?

The essence of what Professor Flew is saying about this type of legislation is that it should be able to meet the demands of an ever-fluid environment. What may have seemed appropriate 10 years ago is anachronism today. Earlier, I mentioned adolescents smoking and drinking. It is safe to say that the best outcome of legislation prohibiting the sale of tobacco and alcohol to minors is that it helped to contain the incidence of early experimentation.

Both tobacco and alcohol are addictive substances to those who are vulnerable to addiction and have addictive traits. The same can be said about almost anything in society. I well remember the parental debates in the 1950s and 1960s about the addictive nature of television. Most of us survived. The legitimisation of the pornography industry in the 1970s and the 1980s was a similar phenomenon. Did we survive that? It seems that we did, except perhaps for a very small slice of the population who are prone to addiction.

There is no doubt that upwards of 80 per cent of the population supports the introduction of an R18+ category, so the bill is a no-brainer. We live in an age in which our children are more computer savvy than we are. The computer age has delivered a rapid expansion of knowledge and access at a speed that is generally beyond the comprehension of many adults and beyond their ability to adapt to. And it cannot be contained. Yet it forms a significant part of everyday life. We cannot escape it. That is where the youth of today have it over us. I would ask any parent this question: do you really know what your children are getting up to? And, if you do not, do you trust them to do the right thing by you?

We recognise the contribution of the game development industry to the Australian economy and also note that more than 88 per cent of Australian households own a device for playing computer games. The Australian gaming industry is forecast to grow at a rate of about 10 per cent a year, with forecasts predicting that it will reach $2.5 billion annually by 2015. Australia has 25 major game development studios which export over $120 million worth of products a year. Australia is the only Western country that does not have an R18+ classification for games. The UK, EU member countries, the United States and New Zealand all have adult classifications for computer games. In the interests of conformity on the world stage, adopting a universally recognised system of measurement would be beneficial.

This bill is really about self-regulating censorship of video games. There is no doubt that it is intended for parents. As much as we approach this with the best of intentions, we cannot guarantee that those who need it most will use it. The irony is that responsible and well-intentioned adults already monitor the activities of their children. There are many children out there who are already accessing MA15+ games, some with the blessing of their parents. Others are exploiting the ignorance or apathy of their parents. It is specifically that style of parenting that should be targeted. But will this legislation achieve that?

As I said earlier, is there any point to this legislation but housekeeping? I do not oppose the bill. My concern is the proliferation of these games and their ability to desensitise some children to violence and sexuality. What needs to be emphasised is that this R18+ classification is primarily for parental control purposes. In recognising these games, we do not want to keep the impression that they are somehow government approved. This legislation alone will not compel parents towards more responsible parenting. Parents who have a cavalier attitude towards their children viewing inappropriate material have to be engaged in some other way. Perhaps, by focusing on regulating the industry, we may be distracting ourselves from the main agenda. Perhaps that is why there is a growing move to willingly shift personal responsibility away from the individual and onto the government. Parents still have an obligation to decide what is okay for their children. The role of government is surely to help parents in that process but not to take it over.

In conclusion, who should be the censor? Should it be the government or should it be the parent? I would like to recognise and acknowledge Jessica Cowan from Kiama, who is here on work experience and who has had input into this speech.

Wyatt Roy (Longman, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Once again I find myself rising to speak on matters of freedom of choice and individual responsibility. This morning I rise to speak to the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (R18+ Computer Games) Bill. This bill comes on the back of 12 months of public consultation, with 98 per cent support for its main measure, which is to introduce an R18+ category for computer games. The introduction of an R18+ category for computer games is an important step in the advancement of the computer game industry, as well as for the media industry generally. This measure will bring Australia into line with many other countries around the world that have a classification process for computer games and will create consistency across Australian classification for other film classification categories. Currently in Australia, the highest legal classification available for computer games is MA15+. Computer games that are deemed to have content beyond the scope of the MA15+ level are currently not classified and instead are deemed to be refused classification in Australia. This scenario has wide reaching impacts on the gaming community and on society more broadly. These impacts present a compelling and valid argument to create an additional category for computer games, that of R18+.

The real issue at play here is not the video games themselves; there is a more basic ideological belief that compels this argument. We on this side of the chamber believe in individual rights, liberties and freedom. We believe that the lives of adults need not be governed by Big Brother but that individuals deserve to have the opportunity to make decisions about the way they live their own lives. Certainly, in terms of entertainment, we believe that, so long as a particular behaviour or activity does not adversely impact on others, an individual should be able to have every choice about what entertainment media they want to consume. The inclusion of this additional classification of the R18+ category will restore liberty to adults, giving them choice to legally consume gaming entertainment. The video games that adults choose to engage with should be their decision alone, not the decision of a government. This is exactly what this bill seeks to address. Not only should it be an individual's freedom and responsibility to determine their own entertainment; it should also be a choice to access the same standard of content across different mediums. In Australia at the moment there is a strange circumstance where the medium is determining the maturity of the content allowable to consumers. But why should we determine that R18+ content, which at the same level of classification across other categories is allowable, is instead disallowed simply for a different medium, namely video games?

This is a flawed system with no logical grounding. There is no reason that content at the maturity level of R18+, regardless of the medium in which it is located, should be treated similarly. Again, for a country that prides itself on fairness and equality, this is an interesting contradiction. Beyond the scope of personal freedom, our current system of classification is leaving us open to more sinister loopholes, which have been exploited to the detriment of both the gaming industry and society in general. Presently in Australia, gaming content is being down rated simply to move around the lack of an R18+ category, in order to minimise the number of video games that are being refused classification. Content has been modified to manipulate the existing classification system, which is in fact posing more of a risk to young people than extending the classification system would do. Fallout 3, Grand Theft Auto IV and House of the Dead are all examples of the down rating of games to prevent causes for refused classification. In the cases of Fallout 3 and Grand Theft Auto IV, the games have undergone minor cosmetic surgery to manipulate our flawed classification system to result in an MA15+ classification. More concerning still, was that the House of the Dead, which has been classified for adults only around the world, has been classified as MA15+ in Australia, with no changes whatsoever to its content. Fallout 3, even with minor changes, was refused classification in Britain, across Europe and in New Zealand. Similarly, Grand Theft Auto IV has been restricted to R18+ in other countries, while being available to anyone over 15 in Australia, after some small changes. Clearly there are major disparities between classifications in Australia and elsewhere that demonstrate that our existing classification system is not working. These disparities indicate that Australia needs to lift its game and make changes to its classification system to ensure that it is effective. The best way to do this is to add the category of R18+.

I fear that attempts to hijack this debate are being made by some in the public sphere who are trying to make this a debate about the safety of young people and their exposure to content that is deemed unsatisfactory for their years. Safety is always an issue; protecting our young people is always important. But the argument that expanding the classification system will expose our young people to inappropriate content is fallible and untrue. By regulating classifications more through the creation of an additional level of classification, it is less, not more, likely that young people will be exposed to content beyond their maturity.

Unfortunately it is the human condition to break rules, to push boundaries and to obtain the impermissible. Across many different countries for many different goods and services, in our history we have seen evidence that banning products usually results in an underground illegal market. Such markets thrive on the illegality of a product and exist generally below the radar of law enforcement. I do not condone this behaviour but merely note its existence. In the case of what we have here to debate today, we have observed that part of the problem with our current situation is that individuals are still sourcing these games illegally and without any regulation. The indiscriminate nature of this illegal market for games means that there is absolutely no parameter for who is able to access them. Savvy teenagers are getting their hands on content that is undeniably beyond their maturity. This is a problem, one that should be presented with a solution.

An effective solution is simple: classify this content so that there is no illegal demand and instead the oxygen is sucked out of the illegal market for these games. By classifying content as R18 rather than refusing classification, it is more difficult, not less difficult, for young people to be exposed to content beyond their years.

The introduction of the new media technologies has always caused moral panics in our society. There are many examples to choose from, but let me just choose a few. When the Gutenberg printing press was first developed, social panic surrounded the initial mass printing of Bibles. What would happen to society if the Catholic Church were to lose absolute control of the biblical message? After a few years when Bibles became more commonplace, the fear and anxiety around mass access to the Bible and the hype about the potential degradation of society as a result was soothed. More recently, the increasing prevalence of televisions in the lounge rooms of families around the world inflamed a moral panic when it was assumed that the institution of the family would come to a grinding halt and fade from society, as it was presumed that the television would become the all-absorbing central aspect of people's lives, deadening their cognitive function and destroying an individual's capacity and desire to interact with others.

The truth is that moral panics have surrounded the introduction and rise of most new media technologies and video gaming is no exception. The current discussion about video games has been framed with a very negative light. The fear of this new technology and its integration into society has seen emotions inflamed. But there is no reason for fear to prevent a logical, common-sense decision to expand Australia's classification of video games to include an adult R18+ classification. This does not undermine social values and it will not degenerate our cultural esteem. It will not provide easier access or exposure of children to this media; it will, however, allow informed adults to make their own choices about the media they consume.

The point is this: by creating an additional classification category, adults will have the freedom to choose to engage with computer games, which is their imperative. There is a fundamental concern when we as policymakers are playing Big Brother with the people in our communities, preventing sensible adults from making decisions about their entertainment, which has no bearing on the lives of anyone but themselves. This represents a common-sense and practical solution to a very real problem, and it is for this reason that I speak in support of this bill today.

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (R 18+ Computer Games) Bill 2012. It is always a pleasure to follow the member for Longman. I know he has careful insight into video games. I sat in awe for years watching my son, who is about the same age, play PlayStation and Xbox and all the various games that came along, and I am sure that, along with you, Mr Deputy Speaker, we do not have the skill that these young people have.

I support the expansion of Australia's video game classification system to include an R18+ category. In our rapidly growing technologically centred world, this legislation is important in ensuring consistency between games and other entertainment mediums. This bill will bring the classification categories for computer games into line with existing categories used to classify films. Currently, if the content of a computer game is considered inappropriate for an MA15+ classification, the game is refused classification and banned from sale in Australia.

This bill enjoys wide support amongst the Australian community. According to a Bond University report, 91 per cent of adults believe there should be an R18+ classification for video games. This is not necessarily because they want to access video games containing adult content but because they would like the right to choose which video games they use, in the same way that they choose which film to watch or magazine to read. According to the Bond University study, Australian game players have an average age of 30 and that number is set to rise over the coming years. With this statistic in mind, it is important to recognise that the demand for games containing adult content will rise with it.

The National Classification Scheme regulates the availability of films and computer games and is a cooperative arrangement between the Commonwealth, states and territories. The National Classification Scheme allows buyers of these products to make informed decisions about what they consume and what they allow their children to access. The Commonwealth Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 establishes which classification should be appointed to publications, films and computer games. The Classification Board is an independent statutory board that makes classification decisions under the act. The classification act of 1995 and the Classification Code create a range of classification categories from general to parental guidance, mature, mature accompanied, restricted and refused classification. The code sets out principles for the application of these classifications. The principles are that adults should be able to read, hear and see what they want; minors should be protected from material likely to harm or disturb them; and everyone should be protected from exposure to unsolicited material that they find offensive. When making decisions, the Classification Board must take into account community concerns about depictions that condone or incite violence and the portrayal of persons in a demeaning manner.

These classification guidelines apply to both films and computer games, with the same content in either category having to meet the same description of appropriate content. Where the current act differs is in what categories of classification are available. The R18+ rating available for films and DVDs is not available for computer games. Under the current system this means that the same content produced in the form of a DVD can be legally sold in Australia, whilst that content used in a computer game would be made illegal. This is the inconsistency that the current bill before this House will address.

It is important at this point to point out that having an R18 classification added to the code for computer games will not mean that no restrictions will be placed on computer games sold in Australia. The code will still hold the RC, or refused classification, category used to make illegal the sale of games with gratuitous or exploitative depictions of sexual violence. It could also apply to games that depict violence which is judged to have a very high impact and can reasonably be assumed to offend against the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults. This would see games containing such themes not classified and unavailable for purchase in Australia.

I strongly support the bill's principle that minors should be protected from material likely to harm them. In 2009, I successfully campaigned for a drinking board game to be banned from sale to minors. I was astonished to find that a game which claimed to be the world's best-selling adult drinking game was being advertised alongside family and children's games in a junk mail brochure. The game was available to minors but was promoting behaviour that was potentially harmful and not appropriate for people under the legal drinking age. My campaign for the drinking game to be banned from sale to minors was successful with the Australian Classification Board classifying the game as Category 1 restricted. This decision led to the game being sold in only a small number of registered shops, only in special packaging and only out of view. In his response to the campaign that I started, the Classification Board Chairman, Donald McDonald, wrote to me stating that the Classification Board is:

… mindful of current community concerns regarding alcohol consumption and refers to one of the underpinning principles of the national Classification Code, being 'minors should be protected from material that is likely to harm or disturb'.

I am happy to say today that the game is now legally restricted to adults. I have brought this example to the House's attention as it demonstrates the Classification Board as an independent statutory body in action and how effective they can be at dealing with these sorts of content issues.

The classification bill seeks to ensure that a similar process is available through adult content in computer games. I acknowledge that some critics may feel that a blanket ban on all adult content is necessary. Some have raised concerns with the R18+ classification used for DVDs also applying for computer games, because it would allow legal sale of material they consider to be offensive. I believe, however, that actions such as prohibiting the sale of certain games in Australia will have the opposite effect and bring games containing content inappropriate for minors to greater prominence. The reality is that Australia's classification system is being used as a selling point in other countries around the world. For example, computer games have been marketed in New Zealand as 'the game that was banned in Australia'. Our restrictive classification system is unintentionally promoting games containing explicit and adult material by drawing attention to them. A marketing campaign that states, 'the game that was banned in Australia' as a selling point is using our current classification system as a tool for promoting the game and its content, instead of simply ensuring minors do not have access to games inappropriate for their age group and development level.

I draw the attention of the House to the classification systems in comparable overseas jurisdictions that have an adult restricted rating for computer games in place. The list includes the United States, Canada, Japan, Germany, New Zealand, South Korea, Singapore and Hong Kong. Of great concern to me is the inconsistency of classification across international borders leading to a large number of computer games that are restricted to 17-and 18-year-olds in Europe and America receiving only an MA15+ classification in Australia

The absence of an R18+ classification in Australia would appear to be making more violent games available to younger people in Australia than in other comparable countries. Many parents rely on the classification system to guide them as to what content they make available to their children. The R18+ classification sends a clear and unambiguous message to parents that the game material is unsuitable for minors. It is worrying to think that games that may receive a higher classification overseas are being subtly tweaked here in Australia so that they only just qualify for the MA15 classification. This means that minors have access to games that would otherwise be restricted to those who are 18 years old due to our lax classification procedures.

The Bond University study showed that 63 per cent of respondents to the survey of video games did not realize Australia has no R18+ classification for video games, reflecting the lack of understanding consumers have of the difference between film and video game classifications. With no R18+ classification available for video games, games featuring violence, nudity, and adult themes are instead being classified as MA15+ and are available to minors. This is inappropriate and a failure of the original legislation. Games originally intended for adults should be classified as such and not repeatedly modified to fit only just inside the criteria for MA15+. Games of this classification are readily available to minors and R18+ classification will ensure all games containing content deemed to be of an adult nature are available only to adults.

As a parent I find this concerning and the passing of this bill will ensure these games receive a classification that more appropriately reflects content and the appropriate consumers of that content. Having an R18+ category will also reduce the number of refused classification games, reserving that classification for games containing content unsuitable for sale to anyone in Australia. Currently, games which contain adult content, as well as games containing extreme content, such as sexual violence, fall under the same RC category, making it difficult for consumers to ascertain whether a game is simply unsuitable for a minor or for all consumers. The introduction of this bill will strengthen the meaning of the 'refused classification' category in the internet age we live in, where a whole range of content is able to be accessed and downloaded instantly. An RC classification under this proposed bill will signal to consumers who may consider accessing an RC classified game over the internet that the game contains extreme content deemed to be unsuitable for use by anyone, as opposed to containing material that is not suitable for a minor, as is the case under the current legislation.

A Bond University study highlights the fact that 78 per cent of parents are involved in the purchasing of games for their children and that 92 per cent are aware of the games that their children are playing. The absence of a higher restricted classification level sends confusing messages to parents, who may not realise the MA15+ games are the highest-rating games available.

As is currently the case for DVDs, the R18+ rating carries a strong warning which indicates the game content is highly inappropriate for minors and sends a clear message to parents and adult consumers alike. The current classification system is ineffective—

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 11:46 to 12:01

The current classification system is ineffective in restricting strong-impact video games being accessed. It encourages consumers to circumvent the domestic market and instead turn to online illegal downloads of games that are otherwise unavailable in Australia, costing our economy $100 million a year in illegal downloads. The R18+ level of classification will help prevent the illegal download of unclassified video games unable to be sold in Australia. This will be incredibly beneficial to Australian retailers, distributors and copyright owners who are missing out on revenue for a small but nevertheless significant part of the market. Australia has a growing games sector, and pragmatic and sensible legislation is important in supporting it. This bill will benefit not only consumers of video games but also those in industry, including manufacturers and retailers. The proposed legislation will enable Australia's game development sector to be better able to compete in international markets by ensuring that games containing adult material developed in Australia can be developed and sold at home first before entering overseas markets.

This legislation reflects a pragmatic approach to video game availability in Australia. It upholds the rights of adults to access adult level content while ensuring minors are not exposed to graphic strong-impact content. Adults should not be prevented from playing R18+ level computer games simply because they are unsuitable for minors. This bill strikes the right balance between allowing adults to be free to read, hear and see what they want and community concerns about protecting minors from explicit content.

Just as I was able to have the drinking board game banned from sale to minors in 2009, the same option should be available for computer games without having the contents completely banned from sale in Australia. A clear and unambiguous message about computer games' content will benefit parents, particularly those who are not familiar with computer games and are dependent on classifications as a guide. This bill is a positive step forward for our classification system and, given the strong support for an R18+ from parents, I urge the House to support its passing.

Dennis Jensen (Tangney, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support of the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (R 18+ Computer Games) Bill 2012, which seeks to extend existing restraint on the purchase of video games with potentially damaging content from 15 to 18 years of age. It is not often that I rise in this place in support of greater regulation. However, R18+ classification is common-sense legislation regarding content that includes violence, coarse language, nudity, drug use and other adult themes. Games designed for adults and classified as such overseas can finally be classified in the same way in Australia.

In 2009 the Attorney-General released a discussion paper on the introduction of an R18+ classification category for computer games. Respondents to this paper included a broad range of stakeholders, including industry representatives, family groups and social commentators. Ninety-eight per cent of 54,437 submissions received in response to the discussion paper supported the introduction of the R18+ category. As a father of three, I speak with experience. I am genuinely concerned for the welfare of not just my own children but of all those in Tangney and right across our nation. Australia remains the only Western nation not to have an R18+ rating for video games and an overwhelming majority of my constituents in Tangney—and indeed Australians—wish to see this change as soon as possible. This bill allows such action.

From the outset, I note that the coalition recognises the contribution of the game development industry to the Australian economy. Australia is home to 25 major game development studios, which export over $120 million worth of products. Our computer gaming industry is expected to grow at a rate of about 10 per cent per year, with forecasts predicting that it will reach $2.5 billion annually by 2015. The significance of this industry must therefore not be understated.

Some may argue that the introduction of this restriction may cause economic harm to the game development industry. However, I remind the House that 75 per cent of gamers in Australia are aged 18 years or older and will remain unaffected by these changes. The industry sees great economic and social benefit in these amendments. Game importers have also long complained that a lack of an R18+ category in Australia has meant that a number of popular games have either been banned from sale or modified to meet an MA15+ rating, an obvious restriction of trade.

More than 88 per cent of Australian households own some of computer game console. There is no doubt that computer gaming entertainment forms a significant part of Australia's pastimes. I do not question the legitimacy of computer games as enjoyable sources of entertainment. Nor do I question the right of adults to choose what sort of content they do or do not wish to view. I do, however, wish to ensure the wellbeing of younger Australians, particularly in the highly impressionable age bracket of 15 to 18. The current highest classification of MA15+ does not go far enough.

As the legislation stands, games with content deemed to exceed this classification are modified to fit classification guidelines or simply refused classification—in other words, banned. Australia's lack of an R18+ rating has led to a number of mainstream releases that are readily available to adults in other countries being refused classification here. For instance, Syndicate was refused classification in December last year because of violence that was high in impact. This first person shooter is readily available to adults in other countries, including the United Kingdom, under their R18+ equivalent and 18 certificate.

Conversely, a significant number of games rated MA15+ in Australia have been rated for 17- or 18-year olds in Europe and the United States, with a mere handful edited to genuinely earn their Australian rating. Fallout 3 was initially refused classification for its realistic depictions of drug use. But after some minor edits it was made available to children in Australia while still being restricted to adult sales in many other countries. The publishers of Grand Theft Auto IV self-censored the game for the Australian market, making cosmetic edits to acts of a sexual nature with a splattering of blood thrown in for publicity purposes. With these minor edits, the game was made available for sale in Australia to children aged 15 and older while still being restricted for sale to adults overseas. House of the Dead: Overkill should probably have been refused classification due to its excessively violent content. Yet it was given approval and continues to be available to children aged 15 and over. Again, overseas rating bodies have classified the game for adults only.

In the context of film, if an R18+ classification was not in place, well-known titles such as Dirty Harry, Pulp Fiction and Fight Club would have been banned in Australia or edited into a lower classification because they were outside the MA15+ category guidelines. In this context, it is unthinkable that such films would be deemed illegal. This legislation allows this commonsense approach to film classification to be extended to other forms of electronic entertainment. I recognise that there is a place for sexual content, coarse language and perhaps violence in the realm of entertainment. This does not mean that this content in games should escape proper and diligent regulation. As a scientist by training, I have a keen interest in understanding the world about us through a prism of cause and effect. Things do not just happen. There is a consequence propelled by a prior cause. It is an established fact that children are at the peak of their developmental vulnerability in their mid-teen years. Children do not just grow up with a propensity for coarse language, drug use et cetera. While nature plays a significant role in biologically determining our behaviour, nurture plays a role in shaping and defining an individual's cognitive process. Given the influence of social conditioning on cognitive development of children aged between 15 and 17, it is important to ensure that they are afforded every advantage. Each and every one of us in this place is a reflection of our life's experiences. This is precisely what adds to the diversity and functionality of this parliament. But the younger we are, the more vulnerable we are likely to be. As we grow older we find our personalities and behaviours are shaped by the sorts of exposures that we have formed during our formative years. Just as exposure to scientific process and content makes young students more inquisitive and gives them the ability to think critically and compete in a professional world with great competence, so exposure to violence, sexual content, coarse language, drug use and other adult themes can just as easily impact development.

This bill is about choice—the opportunity to protect children between the vulnerable ages of 15 and 17 from accessing content that is clearly inappropriate for these ages. The R18+ category gives consumers, parents and retailers the right to choose in an informed manner the content with which their children engage and will prevent minors from purchasing unsuitable material. Such classification also gives us the opportunity to police these types of games more effectively. Presentation of a drivers licence or proof-of-age card at the time of purchase allows a simple and non-burdensome way of ensuring younger Australians are restricted from inappropriate content at the point of sale and hire. My coalition colleagues and I wish to extend the protections of the current legislation to ensure younger Australians to the age of 18 are not exposed to content that may be harmful or adult themes that they might find distressing or difficult to comprehend and process. Current classifications fall short on protecting minors from this harmful and disturbing content. This is why we support this bill. Games of an adult nature clearly deserve classification that fairly reflects this R18+ rating. I commend this bill to the House. It has bipartisan support towards a good and noble cause.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Proceedings suspended from 12:13 to 12:21

Karen Andrews (McPherson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (R 18+ Computer Games) Bill 2012. The objective of the bill being debated today is to introduce an R18+ classification for computer games, allowing for adult players to purchase games that have up until now been refused classification or been modified to suit the current classification system. It will provide Australian consumers—including gamers, parents and retailers—with the information to decide which computer games are and are not suitable for minors to play. This bill is also the result of an in-principle agreement made by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General in 2011.

Currently, all films and computer games, and some publications, are examined by the Classification Board before they can be released to the public. However, the current classification system for films ranges from general, or G, up to R18+ for high level content and X18+, which usually accompanies sexually explicit content only. The principles that guide the way in which the Classification Board makes decisions about films and computer games are contained within the Classification Code 2005, which states that:

Adults should be able to read, hear and see what they want, and minors should be protected from material likely to harm or disturb them.

The measures being discussed today are intended to strike the appropriate balance between these two interests. We must have consideration, though, to the fact that we as part of a responsible community bear an obligation to ensure the welfare of our youth and their healthy development in the years to come.

Currently, the highest classification available to the video gaming industry is mature accompanied, or MA15+. This means that any viewer of the media in question who is under 15 years of age must be accompanied by a parent or guardian. Because the maximum classification has been maintained at an MA15+ level, it has meant that any computer game with adult themes exceeding what could be classified as MA15+ has been refused classification, meaning that the game in question is unable to be sold, distributed, hired, exhibited, displayed, demonstrated or advertised in Australia.

Presently, there are only a very small number of games that are refused classification. For a game to be sold in Australia when it does not meet classification requirements for an MA15+, the computer game must undergo modification to make elements of it less graphic and to fit within the MA15+ classification. However, this inadvertently means that computer games that would otherwise be reserved for adult players in other countries are playable by those computer game players that are between the ages of 15 and 17 here. This is the opposite of the original intention of such classifications, which is to protect minors from content that they should not be subject to.

Where we in Australia would either refuse classification or allow modifications to games to suit our classifications schemes, other countries have introduced adult classifications. The United States, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and European Union member nations, all have adult classification for computer games, whereas Australia is currently the only Western nation that does not carry such a classification. Video gaming is not a small phenomenon in Australia. Studies from 2008 show that 88 per cent of Australian households have some form of device for playing computer games, with 50 per cent of Australian players reporting that they play games daily or every other day. The Digital Australia 2012 report, which was produced by Bond University School of Communication and Media for the Interactive Games and Entertainment Association, revealed that the number of Australian households with a computer game device increased to 92 per cent in 2012 with 57 per cent of gamers now playing either daily or every other day. In 2008 the computer game industry saw sales rising to $1.96 billion with the sales of games software increasing from 57 per cent from the previous year, and consoles sales rising 43 per cent.

On top of this there are 25 major game development studios in Australia which export $120 million worth of products a year. Forecasts from the PricewaterhouseCoopers report entitled Australian Entertainment and Media Outlook 2011-2015 expect that the Australian computer game industry will expand at a compound annual growth rate of 9.5 per cent per year and eventually reach $2.5 billion by 2015. Globally this number is expected to reach $90.1 billion by 2015 through a compound annual growth rate of 8.2 per cent. The industry not only hires many people in the retail sector but also provided employment for the designers and developers who create the games as well as many other professionals who are required to ensure the successful operation of a business. It is therefore obvious that the computer gaming industry is not a fringe industry but one that contributes significantly to the Australian economy.

This was also reflected by the findings of the public consultation on the possible introduction of R18+ classification for computer games. Submissions for the public consultation were called for on 14 December 2009. By the time submissions formally closed on 28 February 2010, more than 58,000 valid submissions had been received by the Attorney-General's Department. The final report into the public consultation found that 98 per cent of those submissions were in favour of an R18+ classification for computer games, with only two per cent opposed.

There are clearly two issues that need to be dealt with: firstly there are issues with gamers who are 18-years old and over and their right to choose what games they wish to play; and, secondly, there are issues with those who are less than 18 years old and are therefore minors and should be protected from material likely to harm or disturb them. I will now discuss the issue of choice with gamers who are over 18 years. There is a common perception that many computer game players are under the age of 18. The evidence, however, shows the contrary. In the public consultation over 72 per cent of respondents were aged between 18 to 34 years old. And just over two years on, the data from the Digital Australia 2012 report confirms this ratio, with the report finding 75 per cent of computer gamers are over the age of 18. The report also found that the average age of computer gamers is 32, which rose from 30 in 2008.

An Australian Law Reform Commission issues papers revealed that Australian computer gamers want the ability to choose what they play. Adult Australians are currently given the ability to choose what films and television programs they wish to view. If they do not like what is on the TV or in the cinema they can simply choose not to watch it, whilst those who do want to view it are given the opportunity to do so. It should be no different for those who wish to play computer games.

This leads me to the second issue, which is the need to protect minors from material and games that are likely to harm or disturb them. Many interest groups have come forward saying that the introduction of an R18+ rating will lead to children being able to access with greater ease computer games which are deemed inappropriate for their age. As I said before, the discrepancy between our classification system for computer games and the classification system of other countries already contributes to this, with young Australian gamers being able to access games that other children of a similar age would usually not be able to get hold of.

Under current laws, a person under the age of 15 is unable to purchase a computer game with a classification which is rated above their current age unless an adult is present. This is a similar circumstance to a minor attempting to purchase films or publications which carry a classification for above their current age. I previously mentioned that some R18+ games have been modified for Australian distribution and have since been sold under the MA15+ classification. In this circumstance, the parent has the discretion whether or not to buy the MA15+ game for the child. The parent may be under the impression that the game is appropriate for their child to play due to the labelling, but they are more than likely unaware that the game they are buying with good intentions was previously deemed to be completely inappropriate for their child. With an R18+ classification, however, there will be an added disincentive for parents to purchase games for their younger children, due to the non-discretionary nature of an R18+ classification, which clearly stipulates that the computer game is inappropriate for a person of a younger age.

I will conclude today by reiterating that I do have a concern for minors and that it is our need and our desire to provide the necessary protection from material that is likely to harm or disturb them. We do have an obligation to our youth to ensure they are protected from things that could be detrimental to their upbringing.

Debate adjourned.