Below are several key excerpts from the letter Robert received from the minister. You can also download a scan of the entire letter via this link.

You may be aware that there was talk of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General releasing a discussion paper on [the introduction of an R18+ classification for games]. I have been awaiting the release of this paper… Alas, the paper has not yet been released and, despite my inquiring, I do not know when it will be available. I want the discussion paper released as soon as possible and have done nothing to impede its release.

Although some members are advocates of this classification, I believe other Attorneys-General, like me, reject it. Other Attorneys-General who are opposed to introducing an R18+ classification for computer games are content to let me be the lightening (sic) rod for the gamers.

I am well aware that many game players are adults… However, it is important you do not confuse the classification rating of a game with the game’s sophistication, or the challenge or interest to the player… It does not follow that a game is more interesting to an adult simply because it contains extreme violence, explicit sexual material or highly offensive language. Indeed, with all the effort and money that goes into game development, coupled with the effects and graphics now available, there is no need to introduce these extreme elements. I am bafffled and worried about why proponents of R18+ games are putting up their hands and saying ‘Give us more cruel sex and extreme violence!’

‘Interactive Australia 2007′, a report prepared by Bond University for the Interactive Entertainment Association of Australia, surveyed 1,606 Australian households randomly. The report found “79% of Australian households have a device for computer and video games”. Further, 62% of Australians in these gaming households “say the classification of a game has no influence on their buying decision”.

Given this data, I cannot fathom what State-enforced safeguards could exist to prevent R18+ games being bought by households with children and how children can be stopped from using these games once the games are in the home. If adult gamers are so keen to have R18+ games, I expect children would be just as keen.

Classification of electronic games is very different from the classification of film. In cinemas, the age of movie-goers can be regulated… Rising game and console sales make it clear that this is a growing area that needs careful regulation, even more so than cinemas and private D.V.D. hire and purchase. Access to electronic games, once in the home, cannot be policed and therefore the games are easily accesible to children.

What the present law does is keep the most extreme material off the shelves. It is true that this restricts adult liberty to a small degree, however, I am prepared to accept this infringement in the circumstances.

I am concerned about the level of violence in society and the widespread acceptance of simulated violence as a form of entertainment. I am particularly concerned about the impact of this extreme content on children and vulnerable adults.

I believe the repeated act of killing a computer-generated person or creature desensitises them to violence. To my mind, a child being able to watch depraved sex and extreme violence in a movie is damaging to the child, but the child’s participating (sic) in depraved sex and extreme violence in a computer game is worse.

Game-houses are always free to adapt games that would otherwise be R.C. [Refused Classification] and modify the game content to be in line with the M.A.15+ classification… I do not accept that this destroys the artistic integrity of the game – excusing gore and depraved sex as art is an immature argument.

Contrarily, it has been suggested that games that would otherwise be classified R18+ are instead slipping through as M.A.15+ and becoming accessible to children. This argument does not support an R18+ classification for games. There may be games that some people consider too violent for the M.A.15+ classification but the solution is not to create a classification that would permit even more violent games in Australia. M.A.15+ games are restricted to children over 15 and if younger children access these games it further justifies complete protection from R18+ games. It is up to parents and responsible adults to ensure a game is appropriate for a minor whatever age he or she is. It is up to members of the Classification Board to apply the Guidelines correctly and not to try to defeat the Guidelines because they disagree with the outcome of the actions of elected officials in a democratic rule-of-law society.

Please read the full letter now. I’d like to hear how you would respond to Mr Atkinson. Where are the weaknesses in his reply? Has he contradicted himself? What is the best way for the pro-R18+ movement to counter Mr Atkinson’s argument? Or perhaps you feel he actually makes some very valid points and, if so, which ones?

Sensible comments only, please.

On Friday, David Doe kicked off his campaign against Atkinson at Adelaide’s Rundle Mall, securing the signatures required to officially register his political party. Doe says his aim is “to exert pressure on Atkinson, currently the only Attorney General voting ‘no’ against the introduction of an R18+ classification rating for videogames in Australia.”

Atkinson told News.com.au that he “welcomed Mr Doe’s challenge,” saying:

“The voters of Croydon will now be asked directly whether they want interactive games in which gamers score points by raping a mother and daughter, blowing themselves up, torturing human figures… killing people and taking drugs to improve their sporting prowess.”

Later, Atkinson responded to several readers’ comments on the same article, claiming that neither his nor the ALP’s defeat at the 2010 state election would not benefit the introduction of an R18+ classification.

“Former Liberal Attorney-General Phillip Ruddock supported my opposition to an R 18+ Classification for interactive games at a time when most Labor Attorneys-General wanted to introduce one and he sought the endorsement of Cabinet for his position,” Atkinson wrote. “Should I stop being Attorney-General, the opposition would, I predict, be taken up by the W.A. Attorney-General (Liberal) and at least two other Attorneys-General (Labor). Moreover, many Liberals in the State Parliament and at least one Liberal candidate in the forthcoming State election support my stand.”

Doe told Kotaku that he was “a little saddened” by Atkinson’s response to his challenge. However, he remains undaunted in the face of the Attorney-General’s obvious advantages and has vowed to take his campaign beyond the electorate of Croydon.

“He is hugely popular within his electorate,” says Doe, “and he will have not only superior brand recognition, but also a well-oiled political machine running his campaign.

“Over the weekend it became clear that we will need to run a candidate for the Legislative Council, so that gamers who do not live in the Croydon electorate will also be able to show their support by voting for our candidate in the upper house. And of course, we will be working on our preferences with the other major parties in the coming months, as well as providing some quick links to people’s Federal representatives so they can voice their concern at the requirement of unanimity between Attorneys-General to implement an R18+ classification rating with a view to getting that piece of legislation amended to only require a majority vote of Attorneys-General.

“And in amongst all that,” jokes Doe, “I’m going to try to continue to paint the inside of my house, and try to get my season’s batting average above zero, and my bowling average below sixty.”

So says The Movie Show’s Margaret Pomeranz in this interview with Byteside concerning the issue of video game classification in Australia.

While Pomeranz admits she isn’t a gamer – but she will “fight for your right to play them!” – it’s clear her experience in the film industry and all of its classification issues over the years have provided her with plenty of insight into the topic.

She tells Byteside’s Ben Mansill:

“I think it’s dangerous… it’s the start of danger when you have a government effectively saying, this is what we will allow you to see, and this is what we will not allow you to see. Fortunately they have very little power these days because we can see anything we want… as long as we’re prepared to break the law. And what you’re doing is turning people into criminals.”

Byteside held a lively debate on video game classification on Tuesday night. The full discussion will be up on the site soon. Check it out.

Triggering the editorial was Sega’s light-gun shooter House of the Dead: Overkill, its tongue-in-cheek yet gratuitously disturbing parody of the horror genre causing Devine to argue that “it’s clear Overkill should never have been awarded an MA15+ rating, according to the office’s own guidelines, under which state classifiers are supposed to take into account ‘the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults’.”

Devine points the finger at conservative lobby groups whose “good intentions have backfired spectacularly. Instead of protecting children, they have exposed them to unsuitable games shoehorned into the MA15+ category because the alternative is an outright ban, and the ire of anti-censorship activists.”

It’s interesting to see someone from the conservative side of the political spectrum come out and agree that the current classification system is not working. And to do it using the very same argument the games industry has been using in its lobbying for the system to be changed is eye-opening.

Indeed, as unlikely as it may appear, perhaps this is precisely the kind of support the industry needs to convince conservative politicians to enact the necessary changes.

Colour me amazed.

A Wii shock to the system for parents [Sydney Morning Herald]

Speaking on radio station 3RRR (as reported by ITWire), Crago says that lack of an R18+ category in our classification system is the biggest problem.

“It’s ridiculous because it assumes that games are fundamentally different to film and outrageous in that it assumes that adults shouldn’t be allowed to access adult content in video games.

“And of course it is a fundamentally broken system in that games that should be classified R being shoehorned into the [MA 15+] classification, which means you get a 16 or 15 year old, who really shouldn’t be able to play a particular type of game actually able to play that game, under the age of 18.”

Crago says he believes the system will eventually change and he is counting the days until common sense prevails.

“We need some form of classification system don’t we? But it needs to be relevant; it needs to move with the times. It needs to recognise that people’s leisure habits change, and people that are accessing content evolve, and we are looking at a video game industry that is very different from what it was twenty years ago.”

Crago’s comment come in the same week we saw yet another game refused classification. Risen, a fantasy RPG from German developer Piranhan Bytes, was seen to include “sexual activity and drug use related to incentives or rewards.” Such content is beyond the guidelines of the MA15+ category, currently the highest rating allowed in Australia. However, Risen has been classified and will be widely available in all other major gaming markets throughout the world.

GDAA President, Australia’s game classification system is a joke [ITWire]

The Classification Board listing for Risen, a third-person RPG for PC and Xbox 360, was updated late yesterday with an RC rating. No reasons were given as to why the game has been refused classification.

However, website Refused-Classification has speculated as to why, citing an extract from the US ratings board, the ESRB’s description of the game:

During the course of the game, players can interact with prostitutes (referred to as “whores” in the game) at a local brothel. Players can trigger a lengthy dialogue to engage in their services; sexual activity is strongly implied, but never depicted on screen. Many of the characters in the game smoke a fictional drug called “brugleweed.” The “wood reefer” plant is described as having a mild relaxing effect on users, and can be bought, sold, and used by players. Some profanity (e.g., “f*ck” and “sh*t”) can be heard in the dialogue.

Is any of that likely to exceed an MA15+ rating in this country? Profanity? No. Sex with prostitutes? Probably not. Smoking weed? Maybe.

We’ve contacted Risen’s Australian distributor, Madman Interactive, for more information and we’ll let you know if they have more detail to share.

UPDATE: To clarify, the quoted extract is from the US ratings board description of the game. It simply details elements from the game that the ESRB noted could affect its rating. It should not be taken as a list of reasons why the game was banned in Australia.

UPDATE#2: A spokesperson for Risen’s Australian distributor Madman Interactive has told us that the Classification Board felt that the game contained “sexual activity and drug use related to incentives or rewards.” That’s an instant ban right there. Madman are considering all their options but have yet to decide whether they will appeal the decision or seek to edit the game to suit an MA15+ rating.

RISEN: The latest game banned in Australia [Refused-Classification, via R18 Games Australia, and thanks to Jessi!]

Gamespot is reporting that the long-awaited discussion paper on the introduction of an R category for video games in Australia will be released soon. But it’s not all good news.

The paper, first proposed a year ago and drafted by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, is intended to encourage public debate and consultation on the issue of an R18+ classification for video games. However, it’s been a rocky road as seemingly intractable disagreements over its content have threatened to derail the process.

First, South Australian Attorney-General, staunch R18+ opponent and occasional Kotaku contributor Michael Atkinson was accused of deliberately stalling by refusing to supply his feedback on the initial draft.

Then, in a letter to Kotaku, Atkinson hit back, claiming it was his opponents that were responsible for the delays.

Now, as reported on Gamespot, the Federal government has stepped in to end the feud. The paper will instead be released “shortly” by the office of the Commonwealth Minister of Home Affairs, Bob Debus.

While the start of the period of public consultation is good news, the fact our censorship ministers are unable to reach agreement on the paper bodes very poorly for them being able to agree upon the merits of an R18+ rating.

Aussie R18+ video game debate to be opened to public [Gamespot]

Australian censorship ministers met yesterday to discuss changes to our classification system for video games. While many within the industry and gaming community were optimistic this would see the introduction of an R18+ rating, it appears those hopes have been cruelly dashed.

The Standing Committee of Attorneys-General have agreed in principle to remove the M and MA categories, meaning the highest rating now allowed under the new classification system will PG. All games released in Australia will need to meet the requirements to be suitable for gamers aged 12 and above.

A spokesperson for the Attorneys-General Department said the decision was made with a view to protecting children and vulnerable adults from potentially harmful interactive content. The spokesperson cited titles such as Halo 3 for its full frontal alien nudity, Dawn of War II for the way it encourages aggressive behaviour, and Blacksite: Area 51 for being, well, crap.

The new classification system will be tabled in Parliament in the coming weeks.

The unprecedented comments over the past few days on the R18+ rating debate from South Australian Attorney-General Michael Atkinson has prompted a response from the wider games industry. Unsurprisingly, it appears there’s little common ground to be found on the issue.

Writing on behalf of the industry in his role as CEO of the Interactive Entertainment Association of Australia, Ron Curry followed up his pro-R18+ stance on the ABC yesterday with the below reply to Atkinson’s recent remarks on Kotaku:

IEAA respects the fact that Attorney-General Atkinson has taken the time to address the comments made by Kotaku readers – kudos to him for that. While we may not always agree with his position we do respect his right to voice it and his candour in doing so.

We agree on a number of issues; adults play computer games, children should be protected and that simulated violence has widespread acceptance. We agree that readers should be able to see what we are arguing for or against (though the caveat we add is that it should be done so in a clear, logical and open manner).

However, there are (obviously) a number of fundamental issues on which the Attorney and the IEAA disagree. I think it’s obvious to Kotaku readers what those issues are as they have been discussed, debated and blogged ad nauseam. Saying that though, it would be remiss if a few of the Attorney’s comments were left unaddressed.

An R18+ classification for video games does not mean we will have this sudden exposure to extreme violence, sexual defilement and rape. This style of content is currently prohibited under the National Classification Scheme and extending an R18+ to video games (the classification itself is nothing new) does not broaden the parameters. To suggest so is disingenuous.

The debate on the impact of violent media on behaviour is an ongoing one, with equal academic arguments supporting views which are diametrically opposed. Proponents on both sides of the debate offer ‘evidence’ selectively and often in an hysterical manner to support their argument. To lower this important and needed debate, irrespective of view, to one of hysterical rhetoric or moral panic, serves no one well.

Lastly, we agree that the present law keeps the most extreme material off the shelves which, paradoxically, makes it even more attractive to children. Bit torrent sites are an easy option for the not overly PC literate to access these games which are then made available in home without any classification markings at all.

Simulated violence, wrongly or rightly, has always existed in society with widespread acceptance. Comic books, slap stick comedy, film, movies, Tom and Jerry and alike have always been part of media consumption. The content doesn’t change, but the delivery model does. As technology accelerates to convergence of delivery methods, we need to focus on content, as to do otherwise is short sighted. We need to future proof the protection of children and ensuring a classification scheme which deals with content equally allows everyone to understand what is suitable only for adults.

We look forward to Attorney-General Atkinson’s final approval of the discussion paper so that the issue may be debated in a wider forum.

PS. We are pleased the Attorney loves his Wii – we now consider him a gamer, just like the rest of us!

Michael Atkinson has admitted he opposes an R18+ category because he doesn’t trust the Classification Board to apply the guidelines “in their plain meaning”. In a third letter to Kotaku, Atkinson outlines his case against the introduction of an R18+ category in response to Kotaku reader Terry O’Shanassy. Atkinson claims the Board will stretch the limits of an R18+ category in the same way they currently stretch the limits of the MA15+ category.