Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise this afternoon to speak on the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (R 18+ Computer Games) Bill 2012. I would like to say at the outset that this is a bill which I have spent considerable time thinking about, and I have had great difficulty in coming to a position as to whether or not this is the right way to go. On balance, I have come to the conclusion that the provisions in this bill are the right way to go, and, along with my fellow members on the coalition side, I will be supporting this bill.

The bill creates an adult category for computer games, a category that is legally restricted to persons 18 years of age and over. As you would be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, an R18+ category currently applies to other forms of entertainment, like films and some magazines, but at the moment it does not apply to computer games. The highest classification level for computer games is currently 'mature accompanied', or MA15+. MA15+ games are not recommended for people below the age of 15 and are legally restricted for such people. The only thing which this bill does is create an R18+ category for computer games.

The reason I have had difficulty in coming to a decision on this bill is in part that there are two conflicting principles which arise here from my perspective. On the one hand, I am a firm believer in liberalism and individual responsibility, which would lead me to say that, yes, of course we should have an R18+ category and we should have those games come into Australia. On the other hand, however, I abhor some of the violence in our society and am concerned that more violent games coming into our community may exacerbate that.

Let me briefly touch on those principles and outline some of my other reasoning for supporting this bill on balance. As I said, a core principle which guides the decisions of many of us on this side of the chamber is the principle of individual responsibility and liberalism. I am a firm believer in this and I am a firm believer that people have the right to take responsibility and to do things they want to do without the government interfering, unless those activities are going to harm other people. That is a principle which John Stuart Mill articulated many years ago and it is a fundamental principle which guides a lot of thinking on this side of the chamber. We are not saying that everything should be completely unfettered, but we are saying that, if there is doubt, then the government should step back, rather than step in, and allow people to take responsibility for themselves and to have freedom of choice. They are very important principles.

From that perspective, then of course we would allow the R18+ category and we would allow games which presently might be prohibited from coming into this country because we only have an MA15+ category. On that basis, we would say that the people who are using these games are adults—indeed 75 per cent of all people who play video games are adults, with an average age of 32—and they are sensible people and they are sensible enough to decide for themselves whether or not they want to play a particularly violent game or a game which has a large amount of nudity or sex or whatever in it.

On the other hand, I have a concern—and it is a concern which many people in this chamber and across our community have—about the level of violence which is in our community presently. While there is no research which says that there is a direct link between violence in video games or films or other media and violence which is propagated out in the community, I am sure that, at the very least, violent films, games and magazines change people's perceptions of what is acceptable and contribute to a changing of the culture in our community. My concern is that, if we have additionally violent games coming into our community, that will exacerbate that culture and may indeed lead to greater violence down the track. Those are the two conflicting principles we have to grapple with in relation to this bill—on the one hand, a very strong principle in relation to individual responsibility, freedom of choice and liberalism and, on the other hand, the principle of not wanting to exacerbate any culture of violence that may exist in our community presently and on which video games could have an impact. On balance I have come to the conclusion that the right thing to do is to have the R18+ rating. So I support this bill, in part because I think that if ever it comes down to a balance between individual responsibility, liberalism and something else, we should err on the side of liberalism. That is the first point.

The second point is in relation to the evidence suggesting that having the R18+ classification may be beneficial in reducing the propensity for violent games to be used by minors. That is because of the argument, which is quite forcibly put, that some of the games that presently come into this country are games which, in other countries, would not be allowed to be used by people who are between the ages of 15 and 18. But, because in this country we have only a 15+ rating, these games get slightly edited and are then able to be used by minors from the ages of 15, 16 and 17. I will give you two examples of that. The first example is Grand Theft Auto IV, which is the latest in the adult Grand Theft Auto series. The publishers, Rockstar, self-censored the game for Australia, making minor cosmetic edits regarding sex acts and blood spatter. It is now available for sale to children in Australia aged 15 and up, while it is still being restricted, even in edited form, to adults in other countries who are 18 years of age or over. Similarly, the game called House of the Dead: Overkill was not refused classification. I understand it has excessive violence and a high amount of profanity and it is still available for children aged 15 and over. Meanwhile, I understand that overseas rating agencies have classified the game for adults only. It may be the case that having games with an R18+ classification, which may not be appropriate for people who are 15, 16 and 17, may mean less access to such games because they would be properly classified as 18+ years of age. I think that is also an important part of this bill in front of us.

I will conclude by going back to the core principles I looked at in this bill—on the one hand the principle of individual choice, liberalism and individual responsibility and, on the other hand, a concern that we have too much violence in our society and that any additional violent games may exacerbate that. As I said, on balance, I have come to the conclusion that liberalism, individual choice and individual responsibility should be paramount in this instance. I trust that the people who use these games will be 18 years of age and older and that it will not be distributed to minors, although that is a very difficult thing to police, and that, in passing this bill, it will bring games into line with other forms of entertainment such as films and magazines.

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National 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. The bill envisages creating a new category of R18+ for video games and the like, which currently do not have such a classification. By nature I am opposed to censorship, especially censorship of the media. But I accept that in all areas of the media, and in particular in the field of film, video and games entertainment, there is a need for a community standard to be set.

As honourable members are aware, in the film and video field and on television we have the classifications of G, general exhibition; PG, parental guidance required; M, mature; MA15+, where there is supposed to be a form of adult supervision; and, finally, R18+, which of course does not apply to television films—they stop at MA15+. But in all other things there is an R certificate. The proprietor of a theatre is required never to sell a ticket to an R certificated film to a person under 18 years of age, just as the owner of a video shop is required never to sell an R certificated video to a person under 18 years of age. I support that.

I have had a long history in the entertainment business. I worked for the Arts Council in Queensland, when it separated from New South Wales. That was my first major job. And I spent a substantial portion of my life as a manager, supervisor and owner of theatres. I lived through the era of the introduction of the R certificated film. It was very hotly contested in the community at the time. I, for one, thought it was a good thing because the R certificate allowed adults to see adult material in an adult context. In the theatres I managed in the weeks it was first introduced I put a policeman on special duty. In those days you could hire a policeman for special duty. I wanted to send the message out to the young people that we were fair dinkum and were not going to let in anyone who was under 18 years of age. In fact, I remember turning away the daughter of my wife's best friend, who was 17 years and nine months old. Everyone thought I was being a bit tough. But I wanted to send the message out to everyone, friend and foe alike, that if we were going to have this new form of entertainment it was going to be fair dinkum. I got caught at times. I have no doubt some little toerags got under my radar. I remember one day I came up to this lovely girl with flaxen hair, long plaits and ribbons and I thought, 'Dear, oh dear.' I said, 'Listen, my dear, you are not seriously telling me that you are over 18.' She looked me straight in the eye and said, 'Mr Neville, my name is Marylou 'so and so'. I have a Bachelor of Teaching, with Honours, and I have been teaching for two years.' So I was put back in my place very promptly. She looked every bit of 15. So, I do not doubt that from time to time people get under the radar, but that is not an excuse for not having good controls. I am equally keen to see that the introduction of R certificated films should never become an excuse for the liberalisation of the X certificate or the reintroduction of NVE, or non-violent erotica, classification that the previous coalition government rejected. If you apply that to this games regime, nor should the R18+ certificate be a signal to the pornography industry that there is going to be even further liberalisation. I for one would strongly oppose that.

I like the questions posed in the classical English definition of pornography: does it tend to deprave or corrupt; is it a danger in the hands of the young or the unwitting; does it grievously offend community standards? If material cannot meet that test it should not come in. I have a friend who works for Blue Care and counsels young people who, amongst other things, have been subjected to child abuse. He tells me one of the classic tools of grooming a child for paedophilia is hardcore, X certificated films. The industry should not see this R certificate games category as a foot in the door for going further. It should be to allow adults in an adult context to view material or in this case to play games for their own entertainment, free from children under 18 years of age.

People have grown up with games, and the average age of game players is now 32. A high proportion of game players, we are told as much as 75 per cent, are adults. I am not reflecting on our censors in Australia and I am not reflecting on those who have made genuine efforts to modify R-certificate material from overseas to bring it into the MA18+ category, but I suspect that over the years games on the margin have, because of the inability to classify them at a higher level, got through. Games that cannot be seen by children overseas in that 15- to 18-year age group can be seen in Australia. I think the introduction of this new category gives the censors a clear line in the sand, and parents and others will know that to a certain point it is legitimate but beyond that point it is hands off. It is very important because in other countries there are 17-years-of-age and 18-years-of-age rules. The EU, the UK and the United States have all taken this matter in hand. It is appropriate that Australia should be doing likewise.

It is important that adults be able to see material in an adult context. It is some years old now, but there was a film called Don't look now, starring Donald Sutherland and Julie Christie. It was the story of a young couple that had two young girls, one of whom drowned. It was about the impact that had on the family. The father restored old buildings, including cathedrals, and worked in Venice. In the film the husband and wife, after many years of grieving in Venice, have a sex scene. It was in context, it was between husband and wife, it was tasteful and it showed the eventual relief of the grief that had dogged them for the time since they had lost their daughter. I think something in that context is not going to offend any adult but it is not something to which you expose some young person, especially one in the impressionable years of the middle teens. So it is with games. Games are a very important medium. I have seen one report that says up to 90 per cent of homes have games machines of one sort of another. Inevitably kids have access to these and, also inevitably, they play games that are brought into the home, some by the kids themselves and some by the parents. As I have said, some games getting through to the 15- to 18-year-old age group were probably classified as R certificate overseas and are being seen in Australia.

I also think that, while with our censorship we look at things like explicit and gratuitous sex, violence, drug taking and extreme violence, sometimes one that gets under the radar—and it should not—is demeaning of women. I remember that when we had the NVE debate here we were given a sample film to have a look at. I might add that those who saw it did not stay in the room more than two minutes. It was quite obvious what it was: pornography dressed up. I thought the wrenching back of a girl's head while she was being demeaned added a touch of sickening flavour to something that purported to be a new and enlightened form of classification.

So I repeat my plea to the government and the censors that this become a new line in the sand, a standard whereby adults can see adult games in an adult context free of the prying eyes of children and, equally, parents can, with a lot more relaxation, know that films, especially those in the G, PG and perhaps M classifications, according to the age of the children, are reasonably safe for their children to see. I think it is also good that with our classifications—although we do not do a lot of classifying in the printed field—we have uniformity in cinema, in videos and now in games that the public can look to with some confidence. For that reason I support the bill.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, 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. I would like to concur with the previous words of my colleague the member for Hinkler in the overview of the content of his speech, about the protection of the innocence of our youth, the protection of women and the protection of those who are vulnerable in our society. We are shifting to an animated society. The quality of animation that is not only portrayed today in video games but is starting to evolve in movies is becoming so life-like that an inherent social disconnect may potentially occur in an innocent mind in detecting what is good and what is evil, what is acceptable and what is not, and what is socially unpalatable. There are few topics capable of provoking such irritation, fear and wrong-headed moral panic as video games. It is a remarkable thing, really, when you consider that electronic games are nothing new.

The first pinball machine was invented in 1937 and it was not long before slot machine manufacturers saw their potential and began developing pinball machines that gave payouts based out on the player's score. At the time the authorities viewed these machines as a dangerous combination of youth recreation and gambling and were quick to crack down on them. In 1939, the new mayor of New York successfully passed bans to make pinball machines illegal in his city, and the ban remained effective until 1976. From the moment they appeared, electronic games sadly had a bad reputation as a corrupting influence on the youth.

Stand-up cabinet arcade games appeared in the mid 1970s and quickly drew the rage of authorities, who were concerned that the lure of electronic games was impacting on school attendance. In the early eighties I went to a boarding school, so we had access to neither pinball machines nor other electronic games. The concern about the negative impact of arcade games was so great that opponents of the new games parlour scheduled to open in Connecticut in 1983 charged that the store owner would mesmerise their youngsters, rob them of their lunch money, provide them with a centre for illicit drug trafficking and cause a downfall in youth baseball, music lessons and scholastic aptitude tests.

In the mid-1980s the video games market took its first steps out of the arcade and into our family living rooms. The introduction of personal computers and video game consoles like the Nintendo entertainment system brought video games into the perceived safety of the family home, away from any atmosphere stereotypically considered to be a haven for smoking, drug use and any other antisocial or harmful behaviour. It was at this point that the debate took on its modern form, shifting away from concerns about physical safety and gravitating towards claims of psychological harm. Previously, concern had been that the arcade games lured youth away from school and into smoky dens where they could be corrupted by other kids. Once games were in the home environment, parents began to worry about the psychological effects of the games themselves, and that is essentially where we still are today.

This debate is about the need for an R18+ classification to stem the belief that the exposure to video games has the capacity to damage our kids—a perception that I support. The academic literature on this point, however, is inconclusive at best, but to mitigate the possibility it seems eminently sensible to restrict access to violent or adult themed games to adults. It is hardly an outrageous idea. After all, we already do it with films and magazines; why not have censorship at that level for these games? Opponents of the R18+ classification would agree that video games are an entirely different beast to film because consumers are actively participating rather than being passive observers. Again, the academic research on this point is largely inconclusive.

But, moral panic aside, there is little doubt that Australia's current classification system as it applies to video games is failing and failing badly. Within the current system the highest legal available classification category for computer games is MA15+. Games which are considered unsuitable for persons aged under 15 are theoretically refused classification. In practice, though, it is not so cut and dried. A very small number of adult theme games are refused classification. The majority are simply released within the MA15+ category. Some of them are edited to earn their lower rating—most are not. Let us look at some examples. The prior evidence I have put down has been given to me by one of my staff, because I have absolutely no idea—I have never seen these games. But when I questioned him as to the imagery—here is a man who is married—he was quite explicit that it is not something you would want your small children to see. He did give an overview. One game he mentioned was Fallout 3, which was initially refused classification by the Classification Board for realistic depictions of drug use. After some minor edits it is now available to children aged 15 and up. Even with these changes, Fallout 3 is still rated 18+ in Britain, New Zealand and across Europe. In the US it is rated 17+. In Australia, however, it is legally available to kids as young as 15 simply because we lack the capability to restrict adult games to adults only.

Australia can do better when it comes to classifications. When we are not meeting the benchmarks of other nations; we need to step up as legislators and protect the innocence of our children. My staff member then went on to give me another example with Grand Theft Auto IVan example that was given by a prior speaker from the coalition. Grand Theft Auto games are famous for their adult themes. The game's publisher, Rockstar, made a few cosmetic edits to the overseas version, primarily regarding sex acts and blood splatter. The game is now legally available to children aged 15 and up. In other countries it is restricted to adults. Another game called TheHouse of the Dead: Overkill is a shooting game, which combines Tarantino levels of blood and gore with almost constant profanities. Nevertheless, it is available to 15-year-old kids in Australia, whereas overseas it is restricted to adults.

With the realistic animation that exists in these video games, I reiterate the point of the disconnect with the social responsibility of protecting the innocence of our youth. This is a real concern. You can see that under our current classification system games that would be classified as R18 in most Western countries are frequently released in Australia as being suitable for our 15-year-olds. That is where the madness lies. Not only does the current system failed to allow adults to choose, it also falls short of protecting minors from potentially harmful or disturbing content. Contrary to what some would have you believe, the lack of our R rating makes it easier for children to access adult content—not harder. It makes it confusing for parents who are trying to do the right thing. Legislating to allow R18+ categories will give consumers information, a clear choice and more confidence in the games they buy for themselves and their kids.

Furthermore, Australia is something of a cradle of creativity when it comes to video game development. We have got 25 major development studios with exports of over $120 million worth of products sold each and every year. It is worth remembering that video games are not some type of fringe hobby for children and nerdy teenagers, they are in themselves bigger than Hollywood. Of Australian households, 88 per cent own some kind of device for playing video games. The average age of the Australian gamer is 32, and 75 per cent of Australian gamers are 18 or older. I do not have anyone in my house with an average age of 32. What I have in my house is me, my wife and my daughter, who is in grade 11 and attends boarding school. We do not have a gaming machine. As I alluded to earlier, I have never seen these games before. I am lucky enough, coming from a rural precinct, that the form of entertainment we as a family choose to give our daughter is horses and the benefit of having pets—a cat and a couple of dogs. She owns a Wii machine so she can play baseball and golf and whatever. But those types of tools very rarely get picked up in our household. I understand that coming from a rural precinct this is not the template for the average Australian, but it does go to building social and behavioural patterns. I am also cognisant of the current benefits of gaming machines in acting as potential babysitters. With social and financial pressures on households, the gaming machine can often be used as a babysitter or as a form of entertainment. I encourage those families who pursue that line of entertainment for their children to be mindful of what their children are watching. With those figures in mind, it is evident that certain games are intended for adults and it is only common sense to suggest that they should be restricted to adults.

In conclusion, I support measures that protect the innocence of our children, particularly the children of Wright. I speak in support of this bill as I have spoken in support of a number of bills. In fact, last year when the parliament rose, I asked the Parliamentary Library to give me figures on how many bills we had actually supported as a coalition. I was quite surprised to learn that the coalition have supported 78 per cent of all bills that have come before the House. When you classify the cognate bills with the main bills, you see that only around 13 per cent of the bills before the House did not have our support. I support this bill and reject the claim by the government that all we ever do is get up and say no, no, no. The facts speak for themselves. In supporting this bill I hope to protect our youth.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to rise to speak on the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (R 18+ Computer Games) Bill 2012, which, as you are aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, establishes the R18+ classification for computer games under the Broadcasting Services Act. The need for this bill arises because today there is no such classification, anomalously, for video games even though there is such a classification for many other forms of content, including television, movies, magazines and so on. In effect, when it comes to video games, there is a missing rung in the ladder which exists in the case of other forms of content, and that has created a problem. Indeed, it is interesting to reflect that what we have seen here is the law of unintended consequences in operation. There was not originally an R18+ rating for computer games, I understand, because of concern about the nature of this medium and the kind of material that people might be exposed to and therefore a degree of conservatism was exercised in comparing video games to other media. As my colleague has just articulately explained, that has led, in effect, to the unintended consequence that a measure which was designed to produce greater protection, particularly to children, has ended up producing less protection. Something that all legislators could reflect on from time to time is the way that such unintended consequences can emerge.

In the brief time that I have available to me, I would like to make three points. Firstly, this bill will provide better information and better protection to members of the Australian community as they consider their entertainment choices; secondly, there is strong public support for the bill; and, thirdly, the need for policy action in this area is consistent with the broader degree of public concern in relation to online content, which the coalition is addressing through having established the Online Safety Working Group. Let me turn to the first point, which is that this bill will achieve an outcome of better informing and better protecting Australian consumers as they consider their entertainment options. This measure was supported nationally at a meeting of state and territory attorneys-general last year. The key issue which the bill addresses is the problem that, because of the missing rung, the consequence in effect is that many games, which in other jurisdictions are classified so that they cannot be seen or are not supposed to be seen by people under the age of 18, end up attracting an MA15+ classification in Australia. The reason for that, of course, is the regulator has only one option available to it right now in respect of video games if it reaches the conclusion that those games contain content which raises serious issues as to the suitability of that content for children and young people. The only option today, should the regulator decide that the game does not merit a classification of MA15+, is to refuse classification. Clearly, to refuse classification means that the relevant game is not available to Australian consumers at all, whether or not those consumers have children in their household, and it denies adults the opportunity to make a choice which they ought to have available to them. So clearly it is highly problematic that there is a missing rung in the ladder, and it is therefore sensible to establish in the classification framework for video games a rung in the ladder which is analogous to that which is available for the classification of content in other media.

As we have heard, one of the unintended consequences of the current regulatory arrangements is that games which in other countries are rated the equivalent of R18+—that is to say, they are given a rating such that they are not available to be sold to those under the age of 18—in Australia have, in a number of circumstances, been rated MA15+ either in the version which in other countries is rated such that it can be seen only by those over the age of 18 or with very minor modifications. As you heard from the previous speaker, a number of games fall into this category. He and I have spent many happy hours together playing Fallout 3, Grand Theft Auto IV and The House of the Dead: Overkillwhich is one of my personal favourites. We did say to ourselves as we were doing this that we were somewhat surprised that it was rated MA15+. It seemed to us, not having completed the OFLC classification training, that it was surprising that the version that we were playing was not rated R18+. I should say that in our household we have a number of games which are played enthusiastically by one teenage member. While I cannot say I have spent a lot of time playing those games myself, I have seen enough of them to recognise that there is a significant issue here as to how classification should be carried out. The animation quality of these games is quite extraordinarily high, the devices that people are playing them on in their homes have very high resolution, and the classification issues that are raised are every bit as material, significant and real as in other media—movies, for example.

The important point which must also not be forgotten here is the importance of ensuring that adults are free to make choices about the media they wish to consume. As has been pointed out in this debate, gaming is a very popular activity for adults. Adults should be free to choose to see content which they consider meets their entertainment needs, and it would be very unfortunate if the regulatory arrangements were such that, because of the absence of an appropriate rung in the classification ladder, content which adults may wish to see is in effect denied them because the regulator does not have a sufficiently finely graded set of tools such that the regulator can grant a rating of R18+ so that appropriate protection is afforded to children—those under the age of 18—but at the same time the product is available for consumption by those over the age of 18 who have made the choice as an adult to do that.

I do emphasise that the coalition does not support censorship. What we do support, as a very strong principle, a principle of the highest importance, is that consumers are fully informed as to the content of the material that they are going to be seeing or interacting with and that they are therefore able to make a fully informed decision as to whether they will consume a particular product and whether they will acquire and play a particular game, just as they should be able to make a fully informed decision as to whether, if they go to see a particular movie, it is going to have content of the kind that they are expecting or content of a kind that may come as a surprise.

I think that is a principle that is well accepted and understood in the Australian community, which brings me to the second point, which is that there is clearly strong public support for the establishment of an R18+ classification for computer games. The Attorney-General's Department has advised that when it released a discussion paper on this topic it received 54,000 submissions, 98 per cent of which supported the introduction of an R18+ category. There has been extensive consultation on this issue, the public have had a wide opportunity to express their views and there has been wide interest in this issue. The expression of views is strongly supportive of the principle that consumers should be fully informed as to the content of games or other media that they are going to be consuming and consistent with the principle that the establishment of an R18+ classification makes good sense because the absence of that classification, as has been explained to the House by a number of speakers, has led to some unintended and undesirable consequences, including material being given an MA15+ rating when, on a more considered view, it probably ought to have been given an R18+ rating and, alternatively, material which ought to be available to adults to make a choice to consume should they wish to do so, not being available to them under the current classification arrangements.

This bill demonstrates the importance of sound public policy settings in relation to the availability of content through a whole range of channels, including online channels, to consumers. Internet and online technologies are changing our world comprehensively, and the challenge for regulators is to keep up with those changes. I referred earlier to the extraordinary quality of the computer graphics and the high resolution of these games and the extraordinary improvement in the quality of the devices that people are able to view and play these games on and the wide range of locations in which they are able to do so—not just in the home but on a portable device, on a portable computer and so on.

These are issues on which the parliament, the government and the regulatory system in this area must be continually vigilant. The coalition strongly believes in that as a principle, and that is why we have established an Online Safety Working Group, exploring the whole question of content in the online world and particularly how to ensure the safe delivery of content for people under the age of 18. We have focused in our work on protecting children, particularly on ensuring that parents, schools and others with responsibility to care for children have available to them the tools to ensure that those in their care are adequately protected and are not using the internet, online channels, to engage with material which may be inappropriate. Providing informative and comprehensive ratings of games is one very important way to give effect to that principle.

In evidence that the Online Safety Working Group has received already, we have learned about the pervasiveness of the consumption of games amongst people under the age of 18—as well as, of course, amongst adults. The policy issues that raises are significant, and clearly one of those issues is ensuring that parents, who typically—not exclusively, but typically—will be making a consumption decision in relation to games for their children, particularly their younger children, are well informed and are able to assess very readily the suitability of the product for their child.

One of the issues when it comes to online consumption, online activity, by children is that it is often the case that children are better informed about the devices, the products and the tools, than their parents are. A complication in this area is that everything is converging, so devices like the Sony PlayStation and Microsoft Xbox are not just gaming devices but also internet access devices. Many parents do not have a very clear idea of the capabilities of these devices, just as many parents, I would suggest, may not fully appreciate that when they give their 10- or 11-year-old a WiFi-enabled iPod—and the research I have conducted suggests that that was the Christmas present du jour in the Christmas just gone—they are giving their children, including 10- and 11-year-olds, unfettered access to the internet and everything that it has to offer, good and bad.

So the challenge for regulators and governments in this area will be a continuing one. In the case of gaming and in the case of the internet more broadly, these technologies offer many benefits: tremendous entertainment, which is enormously engaging and very professionally delivered, and a tremendous resource to access information and to engage in e-commerce, telemedicine, distance education and all of these good things. But, just as the roads are very useful facilities but we need to take proper care to ensure public safety on the roads, we also need to ensure that we take proper care for public safety when it comes to the internet and when it comes, amongst other things, to the gaming world. So the legislation that is before the House this afternoon has the coalition's full support, because we believe it achieves the objective of delivering better informed consumers and protecting those who appropriately need to be protected.

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Home Affairs ) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank all members for their contribution to the debate on the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (R 18+ Computer Games) Bill 2012. This is an important reform—some 10 years in the making. It will create an R18+ category for computer games. As members who have participated in this debate are aware, currently the highest legally available classification category for computer games is MA15+. This reform will bring the classification categories for computer games into line with existing categories used to classify films and make the Australian classification regime more consistent with international standards. As many members have said in this debate, this has been the subject of extensive public consultation over recent years. There is a very high level of public interest in this issue and public support for the introduction of an R18+ category.

When the Attorney-General's Department released a discussion paper on the introduction of an R18+ classification category for computer games in 2009 they received 58,437 submissions in response. Of those, 98 per cent supported the introduction of an R18+ category. Let me take this opportunity to thank the members of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, who have conducted a short inquiry into this bill. The committee recommended that the bill be passed, noting the extensive public consultation that has already occurred on the introduction of an R18+ category for computer games. The bill also has the support of state and territory attorneys-general, who agreed to this reform at the Standing Council on Law and Justice meeting in July of last year. Following the passage of this legislation through the Senate, the states and territories will pass their own complementary legislation to ensure that R18+ computer games are appropriately regulated. Subject to this occurring, the national scheme will commence on 1 January next year. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.