CLASSIFICATION (PUBLICATIONS, FILMS AND COMPUTER GAMES) (R18+ COMPUTER GAMES) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 20 September 2012.)

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON (Croydon) (12:02): Sometimes in politics, what one prevents is as significant as what one does. I am pleased that, for the past 10 years, I have prevented the introduction of an R18+ category for interactive games, in the absence of any adjustment of the classification guidelines to take account of the higher impact of interactivity. I am pleased to see in the guidelines that this bill is intended to ratify this new section which reads:

Interactivity is an important consideration that the Board must take into account when classifying computer games. This is because there are differences in what some sections of the community condone in relation to passive viewing or the effects passive viewing may have on the viewer (as may occur in a film) compared to actively controlling outcomes by making choices to take or not take action.

Due to the interactive nature of computer games and the active repetitive involvement of the participant, as a general rule computer games may have a higher impact than similarly themed depictions of the classifiable elements in film, and therefore greater potential for harm or detriment, particularly to minors.

Interactivity may increase the impact of some content: for example, impact may be higher where interactivity enables action such as inflicting realistically depicted injuries or death or post-mortem damage, attacking civilians or engaging in sexual activity. Greater degrees of interactivity (such as first-person gameplay compared to third-person gameplay) may also increase the impact of some content.

Interactivity includes the use of incentives and rewards, technical features and competitive intensity.

I am pleased that it is now included in the guidelines and, had I been attorney-general after the March 2010 election, this is exactly the kind of compromise which would have led to my supporting the creation of the new category. Indeed, I canvassed just such a thing on the Leon Byner radio program at the time.

Over the years of my preventing this category I have been subjected to a great deal of online abuse, spamming, threatening material being placed under my door at 2 o'clock in the morning and, of course, a bit of abuse from the Leader of the Opposition's son, but this is what one has to cop when one holds public office.

When I was attending meetings of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General I was, of course, the lightning rod for the gamers on this issue, but I was certainly not the only attorney-general who opposed the introduction of the category without adjustment to the guidelines. In fact, there were at least two other attorneys-general who shared my position and told me so but were happy for me to take the running.

Over the years, I have considered the statistics. I am well aware that many game players are adults; indeed, a whole generation has now grown up with computer games. It is not surprising that those who enjoyed gaming as children go on playing into adult life and, indeed, play electronic games with their own children. Added to this, games grow ever more sophisticated, challenging and entertaining and, accordingly, more attractive to adult players.

My three sons regularly play computer games at home, and one of them is now 25 years old. However, it is important not to confuse the classification rating of a game with the game's sophistication or the challenge or interest to the player. I know that the Wii console has been phenomenally successful for Nintendo, and that system provides many games to challenge and develop skills physically and intellectually without depraved sex, gore and cruelty.

Depending on tastes and interests, adult gamers will find something challenging to play in all of the categories of games now available. 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. Some of the games that I expect would have been available on the Australian market under an R18+ classification without the modification of the guidelines include Blitz the League, an American football game, where illegal performing enhancing drugs can be dispensed by the gamer to football players and fake urine samples can be used so that players avoid positive drug tests—a topical matter just at this time.

Another is NARC (as in narcotics), which allows a gamer to choose that his or her game character take illegal drugs, including heroin, speed, LSD, marijuana and ecstasy. The gamer can have his character take ecstasy so it is immune to attack and the character can escape. Further, when given speed the character can run faster and catch opponents. You may recall a few years back in media reports that Amazon decided it would not allow a third-party merchant to sell RapeLay, a Japanese video game, on its site. It was reported that the gamer could simulate rape in the game.

It was also reported that the game manufacturer had other game titles, including Battle Raper and Artificial Girl. Although I expect this game studio would never seek an Australian classification, there have been other studios that have tried their luck with titles that have been restricted for sexual references and nudity. For instance, Leisure Suit Larry: Magna Cum Laude was refused classification in September 2004 and was reported to include implied sexual activity, nudity and sexual references.

The 2003 Classification Board report of The Getaway gives details about electric shock torture to a person suspended from a roof. The decision paints sadistic imagery of the body swaying and crying. The Classification Board's decision about Dark Sector, which resulted in refused classification, describes that the violence in the game includes decapitation, dismemberment of limbs accompanied by large blood spurts, neck-breaking twists and exploded bodies with post-action twitching body parts. The report explains that when a circular three-bladed weapon is used to cut off limbs, blood spray and screams accompany it. The Classification Board's decision to refuse classification for Soldier of Fortune: Payback states:

Successfully shooting an opponent results in the depiction of blood spray. When the enemy is shot from close range, the blood spray is substantial, especially when a high-calibre weapon is used, and blood splatters onto the ground and walls in the environment. The player may target various limbs of the opponents and this can result in the limb being dismembered. Large amounts of blood spray forth from the stump with the opponent sometimes remaining alive before eventually dying from the wounds.

Blood remains on the ground as do the dead bodies. Dead bodies on the ground may be repeatedly attacked. The limbs may be shot off, resulting in large amounts of blood spray and the depiction of torn flesh and protruding bone from the dismembered limb. Shooting the head of a body will cause it to explode in a large spray of blood, leaving a bloody stump above the shoulders. Bodies will eventually disappear from the environment.

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 that 79 per cent of Australian households have a device for computer and video games. Further, 62 per cent of Australians in these gaming households say the classification of the 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. Parents rely on the state in these matters. Access to electronic games, once in the home, cannot be policed, as I know, and therefore the games are easily accessible to children. If adults think they can devise a lockout system to defeat children, tell 'em they're dreaming.

What the present law does is to 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. On balance the rejection of less than a handful of games each year has a trifling impact on the choices available to Australian adult gamers compared with the impact extremely violent and sexually-explicit games would have on at-risk adults and minors.

It has been suggested that games that would otherwise have been classified R18+ are instead slipping through as MA15+ and becoming accessible to children. That is the argument. The argument does not support, in my view, an R18+ classification for games. There may be games that some people consider too violent for the MA15+ classification, but the solution is not to create a classification to permit even more violent games in Australia without, of course, these modifying guidelines.

MA15+ games are restricted to children over 15, and if younger children access the games it further justifies complete protection from R18+ games. It is up to parents and responsible adults to ensure that 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 deliberations of elected officials in a democratic rule of law society.

Of course, we know that some members of the classification board and the classification review board go on to serve in the pornography industry having served the pornography industry during their period on the boards. In 2009 I was fortunate to meet American researcher and professor of psychology Craig Anderson who has produced studies about the impact of violence in the media. I was interested to hear his views about how the interactivity of computer games increases the impact of the graphics. I understood his argument to be that interaction in violent activities on screen can heighten the player's aggression.

A study co-authored by Professor Anderson caused me concern. This study looked at the impact of violent media on people's capacity to help others in need. The research, 'Comfortably Numb: Desensitizing Effects of Violent Media on Helping Others' observed how 320 tertiary students reacted to a posed violent event after playing a computer game. Some subjects played a violent game and others played a non-violent game. After gaming they answered questions in a room. During this time a recorded mock fight (which resulted in injury) was played outside. Interestingly, the researchers observed a difference between how the two groups responded. The students engaged in the violent game thought that the fight was less serious than those who played the non-violent game. The violent game players took longer to provide assistance to the victim and were less likely to pay attention to the incident.

I am conscious that the game industry is a multimillion dollar industry. It is able to recruit commentators in the media to push its line. Parents, who have a generalised interest in protecting their children from depictions of gratuitous violence, really have no friends in the political arena—or very few friends—because that general interest in reducing violence in society, the general interest in parents protecting their children, is not shared by the commercial sphere and therefore is not shared by the political sphere.

During my time as a minister there was a political party set up in opposition to my position—

The Hon. C.C. Fox: Gamers for Croydon.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: —as the member for Bright interjects, Gamers for Croydon—which contested the March 2010 general election in response to my challenge to them to come to my electorate and argue the case for extremely violent and explicitly-sexual computer games. And they did that. I must say that for some 18 or 19 year olds, it was a thrill to vote against an old fuddy-duddy like me; indeed, Gamers for Croydon had people on the polling booths dressed up as characters from computer games, which I thought added a great deal of colour to the election in Croydon. We had a record number of candidates, I think seven, which is more than we have normally. But the final result was that Gamers for Croydon obtained a derisory vote, not just in Croydon but in each of the electorates they contested; they did not change the result in any assembly district—

Ms Chapman: More's the pity.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: 'More's the pity,' says the member for Bragg. She is obviously in the camp of Master Redmond—

Mr Pengilly: Who?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Master Redmond.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can we get back to the subject, please? Members on my left will not interject.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: They did not alter the result in any electorate, nor were they successful in obtaining any decent vote in the upper house, which they also contested. My message to Gamers for Croydon was that I did not think their issue would have any traction with my constituents, who are more concerned with real life issues than home entertainment in imaginary worlds.

But I have to say that they were a pretty unpleasant crew, trespassing on my property in the middle of the night on more than one occasion. Indeed, an African refugee decided to participate in Australian politics by placing my corflute posters on his fence, and they ripped down the posters on his fence in the middle of the night and pulled out the palings of his fence, damaging it and of course filmed themselves doing so—a most unpleasant development in Australian politics, but one that will not endure.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (12:22): The Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) (R18+ Computer Games) Amendment Bill 2012 has had a gestation period of, I think, the aggregate equivalent of 10 elephants. It was, however, finally tabled in this house on 19 September 2012, and the Attorney-General provided myself and others, including the Hon. Stephen Wade, with a briefing on 27 September 2012.

I acknowledge the attendance of members at that briefing, at which a number of issues were raised and discussed. I note today that my office has just received the answers to questions I raised at that briefing. I thank them for providing them, at the eleventh hour, minute, second or whatever. However, I do appreciate that at least they have provided that information, but certainly the information provided at the briefing was most helpful in our deliberations.

I indicate that the opposition will ultimately consent to the bill and support the amendment foreshadowed, which is only a brief amendment, the effect of which I will explain shortly. It is acceptable to the opposition. However, we will seek to amend clause 17 to remove the ability to reference external code standards and documents and, having just heard the contribution made by the member for Croydon, I am absolutely amazed that he would not be insisting, as we will be, that there will be an incorporation of guidelines which have so elevated him into the status of now wanting to support this piece of legislation. He, too, would not be seeking to have that in a proper form; that is, to ensure that it be incorporated in the bill or regulations directly and not relying on some guidelines that could change at any time out in the ether of stakeholder preparation.

However, censorship and classification in Australia is managed under a commonwealth and state cooperative scheme. As legislative power rests with the states, it is a requirement that all states agree to the scheme. There are various models of how we operate the development of law in this country, and I think that this is in the minor areas where there is a federal/state cooperation either required or desirable. We have model legislation models, we have transfers of power and the like, so there are various models.

This is one where we have direct responsibility with the states and, therefore, whilst that is maintained—and I have no reason to suggest that that would not be maintained—it has the direct effect that, if one party does not sign up, then if does not occur. In some other models, there is the capacity for some states to proceed, to go ahead, for others to join up and sign up to pieces that they are happy with, but, in this instance, the state that might be dissenting from any proposed development has the effective right of veto.

The current laws regarding the purchase of computer games restrict the sale of games to persons who would be eligible to play the relevant game. For example, only persons aged 15 and over can buy or access MA15+ content, and the new R18+ classification is consistent with this. At present, computer games that exceed the MA15+ classification are rated as refused classification. Previous attempts, as we know, to introduce an R18+ classification for computer games were regularly blocked by the member for Croydon in his former role.

There is no question that there were people in the community—as I am sure all members who were here during the pre-2010 period would acknowledge—who wrote to us and emailed us in relation to their concern that the introduction of a R18+ classification would attract the accessibility of inappropriate material to children, break down family life, etc. We all had those.

As the member for Croydon has identified, on the other side there was a very strong movement from industry, so much so that the development of a political party, Gamers for Croydon, was registered and contested the 2010 state election in a number of seats, most notably Croydon. Of course, had that been another time, it might have been the Gamers for Spence, if, of course, the member for Croydon had not objected to the important name of his electorate, named after Catherine Helen Spence, and insisted that it be a geographical name of Croydon. But, in any event, we have been there many times—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: You don't doorknock there so you don't have to explain to the them what Spence means.

Ms CHAPMAN: What an insult to your constituency that you would have to—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members!

Ms CHAPMAN: —doorknock them to explain what Spence meant. Goodness me.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would appreciate it if both members on my left and my right would stick to the issue.

Ms CHAPMAN: In any event, the—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: They ask what it means.

Ms CHAPMAN: You should have answered with pride what it meant. However—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Bragg.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am sorry.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I made a ruling.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am sorry.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Croydon, do you wish to leave the chamber?

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: No.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: In that case I suggest you sit there quietly.

Ms CHAPMAN: The member for Croydon, however, in his role as attorney-general, attended the standing councils, or, as it was at that stage, I think, the standing council of Attorneys-General, now the Standing Council on Law and Justice. His attendances at these, and I will refer in a moment to some of those, had a direct effect in his objective of ensuring that there was no change to the law across the country and that the games available in most jurisdictions internationally of course were not allowed into the Australian market. That was as a direct result of his regime and his attendances on this.

The 2011 and 2012 standing council meetings, however, proceeded with the new Attorney-General, our current Attorney-General, in some new period of enlightenment which was then consistent with other jurisdictions and the situation has changed where a compromise has been reached over computer game classification standards that has, as best we can assess, satisfied the concerns of the majority of the stakeholders, including some of the issues raised by other Liberal attorneys-general in Western Australia, Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland. It is interesting to hear the member for Croydon now say that he had two other allies in this at subsequent and perhaps even the lead-up to previous—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: And a Liberal ally.

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes. What is concerning to me, though, and I will refer to some of these quotes shortly, is that even though the then attorney-general suggests that there were other attorneys-general who at least had concerns, I think his words were, and they were 'happy to let me take the lead' or words to that effect, it is rather curious that he would be out there in some sort of limelight on his own without these others speaking up. It just does not seem to gel. Not that he would not take the limelight: that is a given. What is rather unusual is that he would surely be saying to these colleagues who had this apparent residual reserve to this arrangement that they should be encouraged to speak up as well.

There was a deafening silence from the others. They apparently meekly went along to these meetings and voted for it but were telling him in the corridor, 'Great concerns about this. You get on there, Michael, and you sort this out,' and 'You tell them,' and so on. I find that hard to believe, to be frank. However, it may be that they were in a position where they were not prepared to make a statement, as he says, and to be public about this and to champion the cause.

Attorneys-general obviously have a very important role in government on the part of the people of South Australia. They are the first law officers of the state and to think that they would go along to ministerial council meetings and sign up without a squeak, I think is just unbelievable. I do not doubt for one moment that in meetings, compromises are often negotiated and each and every attendance at these meetings would not be going in there with one proposal never to have it shattered.

Of course, there are occasions on which there would be compromise. That is what happens at meetings when people meet from all across Australia. That is expected, but the suggestion is that they would be signing up for what I think would have to be said to be, at least in the debates that were in South Australia, a quite controversial piece of proposed legislation but they would not be championing the cause back in their electorate if they had such adverse views and lack of sympathy for the proposal. In any event, that is what the former attorney-general claims, that he was the shining light, the lightning bolt for the residual objectors when it came to the 2010 election, and he took it on the chin on behalf of all these other dissenters around the county.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: It's what you do in politics.

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes, well, we'll see. Fortunately, we have moved to the era of enlightenment and we now have the new Attorney-General. He has a few issues, of course, that I have complained about; nevertheless, on this issue it seems that he has gone along with the mature approach and done what his predecessor could have done, that is, negotiated a compromise that, as the former attorney-general says, was needed to persuade him to now come into the chamber and seem to make some glowing endorsement, notwithstanding his critique of all the gruesome acts that could be perpetrated when people are undertaking these games and interactivity. That now seems to be a sort of threshold definition for him but, suddenly, with these guidelines, everything is fine.

One could hardly be criticised for perhaps taking the view that a very strong sentiment was expressed by the former attorney-general; that is, it was his personal view that this was the wrong direction in which to go, and it is quite likely that it is still his view. However, he is taking it on the chin, smiling away, and obviously he has decided that he will fold; notwithstanding what must be a decade of fighting against this, he is just going to crumble into this. I would like to think that on the Barton Terrace issue he might crumble as well. It is curious, isn't it? For all the years he had a Labor member for Adelaide—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Bragg, you are sailing very close.

Ms CHAPMAN: Thank you. Nevertheless, to conclude on that, I note that some issues of passion of the former attorney-general are taken up and maintained to the end. In this instance, what appeared to be a very passionate personal view and commitment, this dissent, has now evaporated.

I will get back to the bill. In respect of the Attorney-General's agreements, as concluded from the 2011-12 Standing Council on Law and Justice, now to implement the agreement by this bill, which will enable an R18 classification level to be implemented. It is worth noting that the commonwealth legislation enabling the R18 classification level passed the Senate on 18 June 2012 with bipartisan support, and New South Wales passed its enabling legislation on the 19^th of last month.

There has been extensive consultation. I have viewed, and had briefings in respect of, the national consultation in May 2011 on the draft guidelines, which are now the tablets of stone, to be our protector for the introduction of the R18 regime. There were some 10,334 responses; 71 per cent of those supported the introduction of an R18 classification, 63 per cent supported having an R18 classification and also supported the guidelines, 8 per cent supported the introduction of an R18 classification but did not support the guidelines, and 27.4 per cent did not support either.

The interactive games association and the Australian National Retail Association were consulted on the bill. Each had raised concerns with Family First about the strict liability offences contained in the act. We note that the bill proposes that R18 computer games have the same display and demonstration restrictions as films, including having a separate part of the retailer or hirer stores demarcated for those products.

A number of industry concerns were conveyed to the Attorney-General. In response, the government is proposing a further defence to be created whereby, if a store is complying with the industry code, then they would provide a defence against the offence for films and computer games. There has been some consideration given to ways that this new regime will be strengthened, and I will come shortly to some of the offences. There have been some contributions in the consultation to improve the legislation, in particular, certain protections—that is, the guidelines and the applicability of those, even though they are not currently proposed to be in the regulations, which we think they should be—given the concerns raised.

I will speak briefly in respect of the aspect of children and their involvement in the criminalisation of activity. This bill proposes that children can also be liable to sell and supply offences contained in the act. For example, if a child supplies another child with an R18 game they will be liable for a $5,000 fine. However, the current exemption for minors from the offence of producing false identification continues to apply for instances where they use false ID to access adult material or products, such as purchasing R18 games.

The member for Croydon, when he was the former attorney-general, will remember the debates in this house about granting an exemption for minors from prosecution in circumstances where they used false ID cards to go into licensed premises. The debates and discussion in this house were particularly acute, at a time when a certain nightclub in the north-west corner of the city, as I recall, in particular came under scrutiny as a result of persons under 18, apparently in quite significant numbers, entering these premises. To do so, they issued false ID cards, and of course they were consuming alcohol and, on the face of it, were getting access to other activity—party drugs and so on—which was of great concern in the community at the time.

Certain legislation was introduced, and there was another period of debate, as I recall, where we considered the whole question of identity theft and identity fraud when someone else's ID cards were either constructed or used for the benefit of the recipient. In both of those debates it is my recollection that the government was insisting upon keeping children quarantined from prosecution.

Certainly at the time in this house I made the observation and comment that, in my view, there was no basis to protect children from that. If children were wilfully and deliberately obtaining, procuring, making up, developing or printing a false identity card, or borrowing someone else's card, for the purposes of breaking the law—namely, to enter licensed premises—and expose themselves to all of the risks that we know about, and/or obtaining alcohol or any other illegal substance for them to partake in, then that was something that should occur.

However, the then attorney-general (the member for Croydon now) was insisting that there would be no change to that and that they were not going to prosecute 16 and 17 year olds. I made the observation at the time that the only possible reason for the government not doing that was to protect it against a backlash of future voters. It was an entirely political decision.

We had these arguments here in this house. The member for Croydon could smirk all he liked back in those days about his justification for not exposing children to prosecution and yet here we are today, under an umbrella of legislation which is proposed, which he is now signing up to after having a decade of objection, and in that supporting legislation which will introduce the prosecution of children. I do not disagree with that. I think it is a good initiative of the government in this legislation, but it is curious to me at best that the member for Croydon should now come into this house and be signing up to this.

However, thank goodness the government has not listened to him or clearly did not take any notice of the justifications for his conduct in previous legislation which still today, in my view, leaves children vulnerable to abusive circumstances in an environment where they clearly and legally should not be, because they have access to false identity passes. There is absolutely no deterrent to them in not having them. It is one thing for a child to get on a bus and show an ID card to suggest that they are a school student and get a cheaper bus fare, but it is another thing to use a false ID to procure or purchase alcohol or to enter premises where they might be the victim, for example, of some other predatory behaviour in that environment. The absolute inconsistency of the member for Croydon in relation to his now acquired acquiescence and, indeed, almost glowing endorsement of this legislation is just spellbinding to be honest.

I come to clause 17 which proposes that regulations produced under the current 1985 act be allowed to refer to or incorporate:

...wholly or partially and with or without modification a code standard or other document prepared or published by a prescribed body, either as in force at the time of the regulations are made or as in force from time to time.

This, of course, would allow for an industry code of conduct to be prescribed by regulation without it being promulgated by regulations. That is of concern to the opposition as it is; I am stunned that it is not of concern to the member for Croydon, but he flip-flops on all of these things, so it seems as though he is not too fussed about it. However, to accommodate access the government proposes that such a code or document be accessible 'for public inspection without charge and during ordinary office hours at an office or offices specified in the regulations'.

I do not think in the time I have been here in parliament that we have had a bill that relates to what I would describe as such a sloppy, tracking-down process of what is to be complied with. In fact, just recently I was reading a TAFE bill for our tertiary education reform—the government's reform—in which it was so wanting to ensure that provisions of current legislation are covered by a new regime, which I will call a sort of privatisation of TAFE—I think there is some new word for it called 'socialising' or some other clever word which avoids the word 'privatisation'—but in any event, the government is so intent on ensuring that it captured all of the important essence of previous legislation (to refer to it as we do now in many other bills or say we will put it in the regulations) that it actually incorporated it into the new act.

Yet, here we are with a bill and clause 17, which does not say to comply with regulations as promulgated, or words to that effect, it actually makes provision for incorporation of all of these other potential documents: a code, standard or other document prepared or published by a prescribed body either as in force at the time the regulations are made or as in force from time to time. I see that as totally inconsistent, compared to other legislation we have most recently had here. It is very difficult to expect that law will be followed accurately and properly unless it is clear.

It is not acceptable to the opposition that governments have this hidden off in some other code, which could change at any time, and that it is not clearly visible to the person who is inquiring as to what obligations they would have. In any event, why should this be, in this particular instance, an area of standard, guidelines that are set or codes that are set by another body, just by the minister signing off on a regulation to say, 'Well, this group over here is a group that we will now rely on to set the standards on this. It could change at any time, but Mr, Mrs, Ms or Master X (the person who might be affected) has to trawl through all of that process and then find out if that body has promulgated their guidelines, introduced modification and the like', and just say, 'Well, we are going to help you, as a government, by giving you free access to this information.'

It relies on, firstly, the prescribed body remaining at all times an appropriate body to even set guidelines, it remains on the recipient even understanding what the process is to get that, even though they say it is free, and it seems to me it has no supervision by the minister, other than the minister having the power to prescribe that the body is no longer on the list, and that could take some time. So, all of that is important, not just when there is a civil obligation or duty, but critical when you introduce legislation that actually has criminal sanctions in it. It is very important that consumers, suppliers, friends who might buy things for other people, children who might buy for others, etc., know what the rules are.

The opposition says by all means have codes or standards that are developed with stakeholder interests, the people who work in the industry or consumer groups that are familiar with the obligation, but also understand the traps and things that need to be contemporised regularly and understand that is a process that is important but must have, in my view and the opposition's view, at least ministerial supervision which can then be brought to the parliament; that is, the regulation powers that we have. Let that be in the regulation. The process is quite simple, as in almost all other legislation. Ministers have a role to play, they have specific provision in each of the legislation where regulations are necessary, and there are plenty of them.

There are generally three sets of legislation: the act itself, the subordinate legislation with the regulation, and there can be rules that are promulgated by authorised bodies, as in rules of court that judges set in addition to those prescribed by regulation. That is the normal process. The normal process is that the consumer knows if they have certain obligations: they can read the act, they can go to the regulations and they can see what the obligations are that we have in regulatory form so that it is able to be relatively easily amended—that is important.

The flexibility of regulations is a key component of that process, and it is one that is used in almost every other act, yet here we are going to some other body that is going to deal with it all. To me, that is slack, unacceptable and we need to remove the ability to reference external codes, standards or documents and do this properly. We owe that to the many people who will be affected by this and to those who have raised quite legitimate claims during the development of this legislation to ensure that there is a level of protection. We are not here just to satisfy the member for Croydon: we are here to make good law for the whole of the state.

The government has proposed an amendment which I said I would refer to briefly. This is to include computer games within the definition of 'matter unsuitable for minors' in section 75A of the act. That part of the act deals with the provision of online services and online advertising and this amendment would fix, as I understand it, an oversight in the original drafting of the bill that meant that online sales, supply and advertising of R18 games would not be subject to the offences that currently apply to the provision of adult films or advertisements online or the provision of the game in physical format. This amendment will provide consistency between media within the same classification rating.

So, consistent with our support for the introduction of R18 classification for games as applies to films, obviously we need to ensure that all of this information and access to material of computer games is covered, and that is just the real world we live in, so that needs to be dealt with. The government, without the member for Croydon telling them what they should be doing, has now come to the realisation of the importance of this legislation. The standardisation of an R18 rating for games enhances the consistency of classification across all media and provides parents, children and other consumers a clear intention of what is portrayed in that content.

The proposed guidelines apparently—and I say that because I have not read them—strike a balance between the protection of children from adult content and access to that content by adults. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.