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

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Bragg, I understand you sought leave to continue your remarks.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (15:46): I did indeed. I think I was halfway through a sentence, but missed the words 'would be terminal', so I will add that in and hope that the grammar will be correct as it goes through.

I think I have outlined fairly comprehensively what we are prepared to support with the amendment to clause 17. One of the things I suppose we need to look at between houses is how we manage that because, whilst a set of guidelines has been provided by a body which may ultimately be one of the prescribed bodies approved to provide the guidelines, I expect that by simply deleting that provision out of clause 17 there will need to be some obligation in the principal act requiring that there be compliance with certain standards. We will be suggesting that that needs to be in regulatory form, rather than simply regulating a prescribed body to set the rules.

I do not think it will be beyond the wit and capacity of our excellent parliamentary counsel to draft that, but I cannot come into the house and say that simply removing that would be the way to deal with it. So, those documents will be prepared between houses and presented in another place.

I know that the Attorney-General does not like that; he likes to be able to scrutinise things at that first instance in the debate. There is some merit in that argument; it simply means, though, that we need to be able to have sufficient time to reflect on the briefings and information we get, obtain answers and be able to have time to consult with the stakeholders in question. I simply indicate that that will be a matter for between the houses.

I also wish to make some further comment in relation to the member for Croydon who, of course, was the attorney-general during the development of this initiative at the national level, that is, the meeting of the federal and state Attorneys over many years in developing this. I was interested to hear from the former attorney that his implacable objection to this had waned; in fact, it appears to have completely evaporated and he is now on side and supportive of the legislation.

However, when the former attorney outlined his now glowing endorsement of this legislation, he spoke about other attorneys-general not being happy with this. I was keen to advise the house of statements made by the attorney on prior occasions in relation to both his objection and the apparent support of others, which does not appear to have ever reached the light of day. His objections go over many years, of course, but some rather important statements were made by him. For example, on 11 March 2008, he was interviewed on ABC radio by Mr Abraham, who said that he had been described as:

South Australia's Attorney-General Michael Atkinson has become the Darth Vader of politics with his opposition to an R18+ rating for computer games.

I will summarise the former attorney's rather verbose answers in the interview that followed. He said, 'But what I argue is that no parental locks are going to work here on these machines because children are more technology savvy than their parents, so the parents won't really be able—they probably can't now regulate children's access to these kinds of games. But we would just make it worse by filling out video stores with R18 games.'

There were other occasions, back on 28 March 2007, when Mr Bevan questioned him about his position. Mr Bevan said:

But if this R18+ classification is introduced, then these videos will be available, but if you hold out they would be classed as unclassified and therefore not available. They would be illegal.

Mr Atkinson said:

That's correct. Ever since I was Attorney-General in 2002, I have been opposed to introducing R18+ classification for computer games and, because just one minister can veto changes to our censorship arrangement in Australia, they have not come in. By the way, I think there probably are other attorneys-general who agree with me, but they let me take the running on it.

Mr Bevan said, 'But at the moment you are the only one stopping this.' Mr Atkinson said:

I am the only one speaking out against it because I take the view that it's all very well to have R18+ classification for films that are shown principally in cinemas, where the age of the people coming to watch can be regulated. It's quite another thing to have R18+ classification for computer games which are interactive, are high impact and which are in the home where they can be accessed by children.

Mr Abraham asked, 'So you're not going to change your position?' The attorney said, 'No, I don't think so. Haven't seen grounds to.'

The position as elaborated today by the member for Croydon illustrates the damage that he claims would be wreaked upon our community and particularly our children if they were exposed to, or had access to, this type of interactive activity. On 30 April 2008, he said:

Because these games are interactive in a way that film isn't, they have a higher impact, particularly the violence, and that because they come into the home rather than being screened in a public place, it's more likely that children will get hold of R18+ rated games...And in Australia it's classified MA15+, which means it's suitable for children 15 years and over. If it were in the cinema, they would have to be accompanied by an adult, but I rather doubt that they'll be accompanied at home playing this game by their parents.

It seems that the former attorney was motivated on late-night radio during 2009 to repeat the rather gory details that he has described in today's debate: the description of the appalling level of violence and the rather despicable images of human beings being raped, slain or dissected.

I am not going to illustrate the detail that the member for Croydon had. I think there is enough grotesque image, torture and unacceptable conduct toward others in the world live that we see in other countries and on television without having to perpetuate that on any kind of entertainment facility. It does not do anything for me. I do not doubt that a number of members here probably feel the same. It is not the sort of thing that we want to relax in front of or receive some entertainment from. The real world is ugly enough, in my view, without having to see it repeated over and over again, let alone interacting with it in a real world way of causing that harm to others.

However, the former attorney-general made it very clear in his late night interactions, particularly on talkback radio, with a number of presenters. Bob Francis springs to mind as one of the commentators on late night radio whom the then attorney-general felt the need to ring up and make his contribution. I think with Bob Francis it was a bit of a love-hate relationship. I think sometimes he was led on and sometimes he was not.

On myriad occasions through that period 2008 to 2010, because after the election he was no longer required as the attorney-general, there was a concentration of occasions where he would go onto late night radio, outline the most gruesome and despicable images of games that were rape of women and the like that were unacceptable and unconscionable behaviour to be displayed anywhere, and he was absolutely clear in his objection to this material in any way coming into the presence of our households, particularly exposed to children.

I do not disagree with that. I have a different view, though, as to how that type of material should be managed. I have to say—and I could go through all the detail of it but I am sure that other members can read transcripts themselves—an amount of this sort of behaviour can receive a no classification and can be excluded. It is not as though our classification laws currently cannot deal with very severe and obscene material. I think the former member had made rather significant exaggerations of the type of material that would have been accessible to children with this legislation. I think it just totally exploited this as something that was his little vigilante approach on an issue. Of course, he attracted a number of objectors and he has outlined how he was even challenged at the 2010 election with the establishment of a political party opposing him.

In any event, I think members will appreciate that although he took the running on this publicly on his own, and he claims here today and at least on one other occasion that he thought he would have support from other attorneys. If he did, and he claims he did, they did not ever seem to see the light of day and certainly were not happy to speak out in his support of his concern on this. The government has worked under the current Attorney-General to try to manage this in a sensible way and I commend them for that. I inquired during the briefing that we received as to the supervision of this. As I said at the outset, the state has responsibility for both the legislation and the implementation.

There is a South Australian Classification Liaison Scheme coordinator. There is a group here, I understand from the briefing, that undertakes spot checks when they visit various establishments that currently provide films, DVDs and the like, and the police follow that up under our current procedure for enforcement. They, of course, will have a significant extra role as a result of this legislation and they will be undertaking that enforcement, as I say, at the state level. I think I have mentioned and covered the introduction of the defence though.

On the information that was provided, though, it does seem that we have a significant number of outlets. Of the top computer game retailers in South Australia, there are well over 100 of them that provide this, but there is also apparently no register of this because it is not a process where there is registration. Games and DVDs are also available at video stores, and there is a multitude of those, of course, across the metropolitan area and in country regions.

I am told the Classification Liaison Scheme comprises the CLS manager and three CLS officers who conduct compliance checks across Australia. The CLS officers visit South Australia three times a year for approximately 15 days, and they provide a report for the SA Classification Council. So they are the personnel, with the follow-up to police for them to act in respect of any reports of breach—or, presumably, potential breach—and investigate and prosecute, where appropriate.

I am also advised that, since 2011, the states and territories biennially provide data on that enforcement activity. It goes from SAPOL to the classification branch. Obviously, there is already a significant educative role, and we recognise that and also expect that that will continue under the broader obligations that this will need to cover.

For those who are members of parliament for country areas, I place on the record that that inspection by the CLS staff is Australia-wide and they make regular visits. In the last three reports that I have been provided, these have included visits to places such as Burra, Clare, Edithburgh, Peterborough, Port Wakefield, Port Vincent, Port Pirie, Port Augusta, Port Lincoln, Stansbury, Warooka, Whyalla, Yorketown, Victor Harbor and Truro. There are many different country regions that have had those visits.

Notwithstanding that the world was going to fall in, according to the member for Croydon, who sees himself as the great reservoir of wit and wisdom in this parliament, that has not happened and we do not expect it will happen. Clearly, the government has seen through that hysteria and taken a more sensible approach to this. With the proper management under the regulatory procedure of the code of behaviour to be carried out by the suppliers, we see that this will be an effective piece of legislation. With those comments, it will otherwise have our support, with the amendment to be proposed by the government.

Mr ODENWALDER (Little Para) (16:04): I rise to briefly speak on this government bill regarding the classification of computer games. As has been well canvassed, it changes the classification scheme to introduce a Restricted 18+ classification. As the member for Croydon particularly noted, these changes are only possible because of the way the classification guidelines have been amended to recognise fundamental differences between films and computer games.

The interactive nature of computer games means their potential impact upon the viewer is greater, and that has been well canvassed as well. The new guidelines obviously recognise this and they split the film and game guidelines into separate documents. This follows a meeting of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General in July 2011, following which the commonwealth Minister for Home Affairs and Justice announced new guidelines on 12 September.

Again, as the member for Croydon canvassed—and he read through quite a bit of the guidelines themselves—I want to focus a little on what was said in the guidelines about interactivity:

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. Except in material restricted to adults, nudity and sexual activity must not be related to incentives or rewards.

That is what the guidelines say and it is crucial. Incentivising behaviour to action surely has the potential to condition young minds. The impact tests create greater restrictions on games and are related to incentives and the frequency of adult content.

Ultimately, what these new guidelines and this legislation provide is additional guidance to parents. As the parent of a 12 year old who spends a great deal of his time playing computer games, this is quite important to me. There is a new threshold for an MA15+ game. This means that the levels of violence, sexual content, language, drug use and nudity must be lower than the existing levels for a game to be classified as MA15+.

Additionally, there are distinct differences in impact between an R18+ game and an R18+ film. An R18+ game, due to the interactive component, will need to jump through more hoops to be allowed classification (this is a good thing). Parents should remain reassured that the Refused Classification category, or RC, still exists. The introduction of the R18+ classification will not mean any game will now be able to get the new higher classification.

The new approach to classification in this bill works with the new guidelines at the commonwealth level to achieve the right result for computer game classification in South Australia, and I am happy to support the bill.

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (16:10): I want to thank everyone who has participated in the debate. Unfortunately for me, I was not able to hear all of it, but I understand there were some excellent contributions. I thank those people who made those very nice contributions and thoughtful contributions in this matter. I am only sad that I was not here to hear them because sometimes I hear other things and—

Ms Bedford: It's better live.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is better live. I will not labour that point, but they know who I am talking about. As I said, I would like to thank honourable members for their contribution; however, I need to address a couple of things that were apparently raised by the honourable member for Bragg in relation to clause 17, which the opposition indicates it will be amending because it is, apparently, sloppy. My advice about that, which I have sought, says basically that there appears to be some confusion about what the clause does.

Apparently, the honourable member said that the law should not be contained in a code that can change (I hope I am getting this right) and that civil duties and obligations must be made clear in legislation, especially where criminal sanctions attach, so that consumers, children and the public are aware of those obligations and sanctions. I understand that point, and it is one that people in another place often get quite excited about.

However, clause 17, I am advised, is consequential to the proposed amendment to section 40A(3) and to the new section 60A(3)(c). It is not relevant to any other provisions in the principal act. Where a provision of an act allows for such a code to be prescribed in regulations, it is standard practice for the provisions set out in clause 17 to be included in the act's regulation-making power, and the member will find many other examples across the statute book.

Sections 40A and the proposed 60A apply only to industry. Those sections set out how R18+ films and games must be displayed in retail and hire outlets. The code of conduct does not apply to or directly affect consumers. It does not impose any obligation or carry any sanction for consumers, nor is it mandatory for retailers. Retailers are not required to comply with the code but, if they do, it will be a defence to a prosecution under sections 40A and 60A respectively.

This is clarified in clause 60A(3)(c). In other words, retailers and hirers of games and films will be able to opt out of the requirements under sections 40A and 60A, if they choose, by complying with the code. So, it will be up to the industry to draft a code, be aware of the code and to decide whether they choose to adopt it.

With those few remarks, I again thank all the members who participated in the debate. I know this has been a long-running matter and a matter of considerable interest to many members. Can I say that I think this outcome we have now is actually a pretty good outcome because we have the R18+ classification for those people who wish to take advantage of it.

Ms Chapman: And the member for Croydon loves it.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, I know. I have to say that all along this process I have been advised by experts that the average gamer is a 35-year-old man. I am a year or two past that now, but when I go back a couple of years and think did I really want to spend all my time sitting in front of the television set playing with one of these games, the answer is, perhaps tragically for me, no. But, it does raise the point of how far we go to try to regulate what adult people are able to do in respect of these games. The answer is that this is probably a pretty good outcome, and refused classification material is still refused classification, so it does not mean within the R18+ bracket that it is open slather. There is still material that cannot be classified.

Some of those games have quite interesting names, but in the interest of good taste I will not mention any of them. The MA15+ classification has now been tightened so that some of the games that previously would have been MA15+ under this will move into the R18+, which I think is a good thing. It gives parents greater certainty about the material their children are watching, using or buying and gives more information to consumers. I thank everyone for their contribution and hope the bill has a fairly speedy passage.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 15 passed.

New clause 15A.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I move:

Page 7, after line 4—Insert:

15A—Amendment of section 75A—Interpretation

Section 75A, definition of matter unsuitable for minors—after 'film' wherever occurring insert:

or computer game.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (16 and 17) and title passed.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (16:18): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.