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

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 18 October 2012.)

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (16:07): I understand there is widespread support for this bill, so my comments will be relatively brief. I am conscious that this bill is intended to bring uniformity in Australian law as to the classification of computer games, but I—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! It is alright, the Hon. Mr Hood, I am listening.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Thank you, sir. Well, that is the one that matters, sir, so thank you. I do have some concerns about this bill. In particular, this bill will allow computer games that were previously refused classification, and therefore not publicly available, to become available to persons over 18 once it passes and, given the numbers in this chamber that appear to be supporting the bill, it looks as though it will.

In practical terms, computer games that until now have been classified as too violent or too sexually explicit to be allowed will be allowed under this bill. No-one is suggesting that there is any social benefit in allowing more violent or more sexually explicit games to be sold, as I understand it. I do not see any harm in the present situation where a relatively small number of computer games are refused classification. In the absence of any justification for change, in my view, we will be opposing this bill. I simply cannot see any other action to take, although I acknowledge that it is likely to pass.

I note with some concern that the explanatory memorandum for this bill does not deal with any of the kinds of issues which I will raise in a moment, and I believe they are absolutely critical to the passage of this bill, and that is puzzling, but I think that there may be an explanation as to how this situation arose. In order to understand this, it is necessary to go back to the origins of the classification scheme that is in use today in our country.

On 28 November 1995, the commonwealth and all states and territories (except Western Australia and Tasmania) agreed on a cooperative legislative scheme for the censorship of publications, films and computer games. Under recital H to the agreement, any amendments to the National Classification Code or the guidelines must be agreed to by the relevant state and commonwealth ministers. National Classification Code and guidelines were subsequently published. For computer games there was a classification of MA15+, meaning 'mature, accompanied and suitable for persons over 15 years of age'. There was no classification above that, so more extreme computer games were refused classification and therefore not to be made available to the public and in a general sense.

Subsequently there was discussion about the fact that for films there was a classification being suitable for persons over 18 years, but there was no equivalent classification for video games. There was a meeting of attorneys-general on 10 December 2010, at which the attorneys agreed that further work needed to be done on the option of an R18+ classification for computer games. It is most important to note that it was expressly agreed by the ministers that they would consider draft guidelines to develop the classifications of computer games, including the possible R18+ classification, and that the ministers 'do not support the dilution of the refused classification category'. Precisely what that meant was not explained, but what it appears to mean is that a new R18+ classification will be considered, but that any computer games that would presently be refused classification would continue to be refused classification under any new scheme. That is the simple and obvious reading of it.

In other words, it appears to mean that the present MA15+ classification will be split into two classifications, that is, one for more violent video games, to be called R18+, and one with more moderate games to be kept as the MA15+ category that currently exists. One can understand the sense in that. That appears to be the only interpretation if the new classification was not to dilute the refused classification category. However, it does so.

I have spent some time explaining this history because it seems to me to be important in explaining the later events. As at the March 2011 meeting of the attorneys, there was agreement to make a decision regarding the introduction of an R18+ classification at the July meeting. Presumably this was on the previously agreed basis that the change would not dilute the refused classification category (certainly there was no statement to the contrary). At the July 2011 meeting there was an agreement to commence drafting on the R18+ category.

On 12 September 2012, earlier this year, the commonwealth Minister for Home Affairs, Jason Clare, announced that the state and territory ministers with responsibility for classification matters had agreed to the revised guidelines after extensive consultation. The consequence of that is the bill now before us.

The second reading speech for the commonwealth bill that corresponds to the bill before us today, given by the Minister for Home Affairs, Jason Clare, did not address the question of whether or not the refused classification category will be diluted. He simply said that the July 2011 meeting of ministers supported the bill. The speech by Michael Keenan, a Liberal from Western Australia, did address the issue, and he said:

With no R18+ [category] there is evidence that games meant for adults were rated MA15+, making them available to minors and confusing parents who try to do the right thing. We understand that shoehorning has occurred of videogames which might usually be classified R18+ into the MA15+ category. Clearly adult games, we believe, should be restricted to adults. It is more appropriate that they are classified in this new category rather than being shoehorned into a lesser category of MA15+.

Similarly in Western Australia the second reading speech by the Attorney-General, given recently on 19 September, included the statement:

Importantly, ministers have agreed that there shall be no dilution of the RC classification and RC material will not be included in the proposed R18+ classification. Therefore, the introduction of an R18+ classification is a new, adults-only classification that can be applied to some of the more extreme material that may currently fit within the MA15+ classification.

It is clear from the above two quotations that the persons making the speech were under the clear impression that the change to come into effect is that the MA15+ classification will be split, with the more violent video games presently in that classification being reclassified as R18+, thus reducing the more violent games presently available to 15 to 18 year olds, something Family First would support.

The report accompanying this bill only addresses this question indirectly, but it is clear that it takes the opposite view of the changes—opposite to those which have just been explained by members actually supporting the bill in other places. It states:

In particular, games that are R18+ overseas should no longer be modified in an attempt to fit with the MA15+ classification. These games will properly be restricted to adults. This is likely to lower the risk of games that contain high levels of violence being available to minors.

It is clear from this passage that this government expects that the RC classification will be diminished. In other words, the report for this bill says that games that are presently banned as being too violent will be permitted under the new classification system. It is important to note that this is actually quite contrary and the opposite view to that put forward in both the commonwealth and Western Australian parliaments. In order to find out who is correct and who is incorrect in all of this, I have compared the current classifications—that is, as they currently exist in law—with those that will come into effect under this bill if passed, i.e., the new legislation.

The new classification guidelines are publicly available on the internet. On looking at the proposed guidelines for the classification of computer games, it is immediately apparent that the R18+ classification does significantly expand the range of computer games that will be permitted and thereby clearly dilutes the refused classification category, contrary to what was previously stated.

The following is a list of some of the changes that the new R18+ classification for computer games will bring. Firstly, presently, so-called 'strong themes' must be justified by context. The proposed guidelines for R18+ under this bill and in the guidelines on the internet state that 'there are virtually no restrictions on the treatment of themes'. Secondly, as to violence, presently under the present law, implied sexual violence is simply not permitted. The proposed guidelines, however, allow implied sexual violence with some restrictions, to be fair.

Thirdly, sexual activity may only be implied at present under current law, but the proposed guidelines state that depictions of simulated sexual activity may be permitted, provided they are not explicit. Fourthly, as to language, presently there is a restriction that aggressive or very strong, coarse language should be infrequent. That is the current state of play. The proposed guidelines, however, state that 'there are virtually no restrictions on language'. Fifthly, as to drug use, present law dictates that drug use should be justified by context. The proposed guidelines state:

Drug use is permitted. Drug use related to incentives and rewards is not permitted. Interactive illicit or proscribed drug use that is detailed or realistic is not permitted.

Then finally, as to nudity, presently nudity should be justified by context, as the current law dictates. The proposed guidelines, however, simply state that nudity is permitted. There are no restrictions. The above comparison is between the existing MA15+ guidelines and the proposed R18+ guidelines, but the point that I believe is clearly made is that the change will significantly increase the range of computer games that will be available, including all the sorts of examples that I have just outlined.

If the new classification scheme is adopted—and, as I said, it looks as though this will pass this chamber easily—the games to be made available may have implied sexual violence, they may depict simulated sexual activity, there will be virtually no restrictions on language and the range of drug use available to be depicted will be significantly expanded from the current situation. It is apparent that certain parliamentarians who made speeches in parliaments elsewhere were under very serious misapprehensions about this fundamental issue in this bill. What they said in their speeches clearly does not line up with what is actually said in the bill and in the proposed guidelines.

The questions now before us are twofold. Firstly, should the important matter of defining the boundaries of acceptability be left to the guidelines, which are not part of this legislation? The guidelines may be changed at any time by the commonwealth minister with the agreement of each participating state minister. Parliament has no say. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, what benefit is there in allowing more violent and more sexually explicit games than are currently available?

The report on this bill lists some benefits and states the following. Firstly, Australian classifications will be brought into line with the classification systems in many overseas countries. It will no longer be necessary for games manufacturers to modify games to fit into the Australian classification system. Speaking for myself, I am not at all concerned that games manufacturers presently have to make modifications to games to tone down sexual activity, including rape and violence in order to sell them in Australia.

Secondly, it seems to be suggested in the report that sexually explicit or violent games that are presently available to persons over 15 years will be placed in the R18+ classification rather than the current MA15+ classification and therefore 15 year olds will receive greater protection. I have looked carefully at the classifications and I can see no basis for concluding that the MA15+ category will be restricted in any way whatsoever.

It is true that there are some changes that relate to the fact that games are interactive, which aspect had not previously been addressed but, overall, I do not see the proposed MA15+ category as being significantly different to the present MA15+ category—very little change indeed. I now turn to the harm that can be caused by violent or sexually explicit computer games. I think we all instinctively know that violence in computer games must have some impact on some people playing and can in fact be contributors to violence in our society.

I also suggest that violent video games must have a greater effect than violent films, for three reasons. Firstly, violent computer games usually centre on violence from the outset and the violence can be a major feature and the theme throughout the game, not just merely in segments of a movie, for example. Secondly, in a game the player generally must play the role of the aggressor; that is the nature of the game. Thirdly, the aggression is repeated and practised in a game and obviously is interactive as well.

I have considered research material on violence in computer games and spoken about that in this place on many occasions, as members would be aware. I relied particularly on research by Craig Anderson of the Iowa State University, who has a PhD in psychology and has conducted extensive research in the area. Research into violent video games has indicated five conclusions that I have noted from the research.

The first is this. Experimental testing showed that participants who had just played a violent video game where violence was rewarded or punished, depending on the particular game, and were then asked questions to ascertain a variety of hostility related dimensions, were more hostile—statistically significantly so—than non-violent video game participants.

Secondly, in one experiment, children were shown violent and non-violent scenes from commercially released movies while functional magnetic resonance images of the brain were collected. The results demonstrated that violence viewing activated a network of brain regions involved in the regulation of emotion, arousal and attention, memory encoding and retrieval, and motor programming. This network of activations may be linked to increases in aggressive social behaviour with violent media exposure.

Thirdly, the conclusion from experimental and MRI testing was that short-term exposure to violent video games produces immediate increases in aggressive behaviour—this is the research—aggressive cognition and aggressive effect. Repeated exposure leads to the development of stable individual differences in aggressiveness.

Fourthly, specifically, five separate effects emerge with considerable consistency. Violent video games are statistically significantly associated with: increased aggressive behaviour thoughts and affect; increased psychological arousal; and decreased pro-social (that is called helping others) behaviour. Fifthly, there is some evidence that highly aggressive individuals are more affected than non-aggressive individuals, but to be fair this finding does not consistently occur. Even non-aggressive individuals are consistently affected by brief exposures, according to the research.

To me, these conclusions by experts undertaking research over many years, who took account of both experimental testing and MRI imaging of brain function, confirms what we instinctively suspect—or certainly what I instinctively suspect—and that is that violent video games have a tendency to make some people more violent.

Whilst this would not cause every person to commit crimes of violence, clearly—and I am not suggesting that—we know that there is presently a spate of violence which is frequently sought to be explained as being alcohol induced. Of course, common sense tells us there are multiple factors that lead to acts of violence, and certainly alcohol can be one of them. The point of the research is that violent video games can be one of those factors and no doubt is a factor in some cases. We have enough violence in our society without introducing factors that are likely to increase the level of violence.

We must also ask ourselves what sort of people would specifically seek out particularly violent video games, or video games with depictions of simulated sexual activity (even rape) and what the effect would be on those particular individuals. I am not persuaded that violence or simulated sexual activity and again, as I say, rape, or nudity or whatever it may be, adds to the sense of fun and competition necessarily that a computer game should bring about.

I appreciate there will be differences of opinion on that, but the fact that the research says that it can lead to increased violence is a great concern. It appears to me that these elements are introduced by manufacturers with a view to satisfying a very small market and to increase their profit from greater sales.

I wish to also say a few words about the protection of minors, who are particularly vulnerable to inappropriate content. Does anyone really believe that restricting sales of violent computer games to those over the age of 18 will prevent these games from being played by minors? When a person buys a computer game, they take it home and load it onto a computer. One can then expect that they will leave the disc of the game in its cover or somewhere around the house, wherever it may be. In many instances minors will have access to the disc, but I am sure in many cases minors will also be able to access the computer itself and therefore be able to play the game.

It would be naive in the extreme to believe that access to violent video games will be limited just to adults simply by creating an adult category. The argument that these new laws will strike a fair balance that still protects minors is wrong, in my view. Those in favour of this bill should be aware, or consider the fact, that to allow more violent and more sexually explicit computer games onto the market, including those which will include rape, I say again, will undoubtedly be accessed by minors in some cases.

The fact that some minors can presently access video games through the internet is not a reason to make it easier for others to access this material. My conclusion is that there are no real benefits to the public from allowing more violent and more sexually explicit video games onto the market. The only benefit will be to the manufacturers and a very small portion of the market who are seeking this material. There are many reasons not to allow more violent video games that I have outlined. There is already too much violent crime and, clearly, the research shows that this material does have an impact even if we choose to believe otherwise. For that reason I oppose the bill.

The Hon. S.G. WADE (16:25): This bill is the product of years of discussion, opposition, lobbying and compromise. It represents a collective agreement of attorneys-general from across the country. Censorship and classification in Australia is managed under a commonwealth/state cooperative scheme. As legislative power rests with the state, it is a requirement that all states agree to the scheme which essentially gives each state a veto.

It is this veto power that the former attorney-general Atkinson used for so long and so proudly to censor R18+ video games. His opposition to the reforms was so vocal and uncompromising that a political party was formed to attack him on his home turf. The party was called Gamers for Croydon. It should not be understated just how widespread was the angst towards the former attorney-general's views.

Some of the founding members of Gamers for Croydon travelled from interstate to create the party and run their campaign against him. Of course, both sides of the debate claimed the high moral ground. Each side claimed to be protecting children and acting in their best interests. However, the member for Croydon's approach was very much grounded in a censorship model that at its core believed that if something could possibly be harmful then it should be banned altogether.

That is a recurring theme in the Labor Party's approach to risk, and we see that across a whole range of legislative measures from business regulation to video games. It makes a series of condescending assumptions that individuals are not empowered to make decisions in their own best interests, or for the interest of those for whom they are responsible to care. This condescending tone continued from the member for Croydon even in the recent House of Assembly debate. On 17 October 2012, during debate on this legislation in the other place, the former attorney-general said:

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.

He then attributes the current law to keeping the most extreme material off retail shelves. Ironically the member for Croydon now claims to support the changes in the bill saying:

This is exactly the kind of compromise which would have led to my supporting the creation of the new category.

This is despite the fact his statement makes a clear implication that changing the law will allow some 'extreme material' to become available and his explicit statement that parents are incapable of stopping their children from accessing adult content. Furthermore, there is little doubt what the member for Croydon is saying when he says that he 'cannot fathom what state-enforced safeguards could exist to prevent R18+ games being bought by households with children'.

The philosophical position from the member is crystal clear: the state should determine what adults can and cannot access for the sake of the welfare of their children. It is contrary to a state which values education, individual responsibility and parental responsibility and authority. The opposition believes that an appropriate balance has been struck with this legislation.

The member for Croydon, as much as it pains him to acknowledge, has not held sway as this bill has progressed. The Liberal Party has been calling for an open, transparent and consistent standard of regulation for media content across all platforms, and we believe that that will actually strengthen the capacity of adults to clearly understand and control their children's access to material.

We believe that this bill contributes to that consistent standard of regulation. Such standardisation of classification across media provides parents, children and other consumers with a clear indication of what is portrayed in that content. The proposed guidelines strike a balance between the protection of children from adult content and legitimate access to that content by adults.

The current laws aim to restrict the sales of computer games to persons who are eligible to play the relevant game—for example, only persons aged 15 years and over can buy or access MA15+ content. The new R18+ classification is consistent with this. At present, computer games that exceed the MA15+ classification are rated as 'refused classification'. As a result, games available in most jurisdictions internationally have not been allowed into the Australian market.

Of course, in the age of a globally connected society through the internet, this restriction was, at best, a small attempt to stop the sanctioned sale of extreme content. With the free exchange of legitimate and illegal content between jurisdictions the ability to restrict access to content for certain classes of people will always be difficult. It will have no effect on those who are prepared to break the law and download pirated material.

Indeed, the legitimate purchase of games through an online download is an increasing trend, one that is likely to continue to grow. This legal content which respects copyright law can be downloaded from other jurisdictions upon payment. National classification schemes will have limited effect on restricting access to the sale of this content. Nonetheless, this bill represents a step forward towards a liberal society that respects the choices of adults while protecting the rights of children.

Over 2011 and 2012 the Standing Council on Law and Justice (formerly SCAG) negotiated a compromise over computer game classification standards that has satisfied the concerns of the majority of stakeholders and the respective attorneys-general, including Liberal attorneys-general in Western Australia, Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland. The bill provides for the implementation of the agreement. Commonwealth legislation enabling the R18+ classification level passed the Senate on 18 June with bipartisan support. New South Wales passed their enabling legislation on 19 September 2012.

Unlike the practice of their South Australian state government counterparts, the federal government consulted extensively. National consultation in May 2011 on the draft guidelines for the introduction of the R18+ regime received 10,334 responses; 71 per cent of responses 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 the R18+ classification but did not support the guidelines; and 27.4 per cent did not support either.

In contrast to the more than 10,000 organisations and individuals consulted by the commonwealth government, the state government consulted two bodies about related amendments: the Interactive Games and Entertainment Association and the Australian National Retailers Association. These bodies raised concerns about the current restricted display for R18+  videos, a scheme which is also proposed to apply to video games. Under the scheme a separate part of a retailer or hirer store must be demarcated for these products. In particular, the IGEA and the ANRA had concerns about the strict liability offences contained in the act. In response, the government is proposing that a further defence be created whereby if a store is complying with the industry code (to be determined by regulation) then that would provide a defence against the offence for films and computer games.

Curiously, the government is essentially proposing that these retail industries be self-regulating by allowing them to develop and be bound by their own code of practice should they choose that form of regulation. While the opposition will not oppose this approach, we do have concerns about laws which legislate by external reference and have filed an amendment to deal with that issue. I will provide a further explanation of our concerns at the committee stage.

The bill also proposes to introduce a range of offences related to the sale and supply of restricted games. Consistent with the current legislation, it is proposed that children would also be liable to the sale and supply offences contained in the act, not just adults—for example, if a child supplies another child with an R18+ game, they would be liable for a $5,000 fine. However, the current exemption for minors from the offence of producing false identification under section 144B of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935, continues to apply for instances where they use false ID to access adult material or products such as purchasing R18+ games.

This has been a point of ongoing contention between the government and the opposition for a number of years across a range of legislative measures. The government has consistently said that it wants minors to be able to use fake ID without being penalised, which in the opposition's mind undermines the control regime and the deterrent value that the respective laws seek to impose. So again, despite the government's claim that this is about protecting children, its own ideological agenda undermines its primary stated concern. All that said, the opposition considers that this legislation represents a balanced step forward, and we look forward to its passage through the remaining stages.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (16:35): The Greens rise to support the bill before us, the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) (R18+ Computer Games) Amendment Bill 2012. We note that this bill amends the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 to allow for an R18+ classification for video games. It is consequent upon the commonwealth act of the same name, which passed through the federal parliament in June, I understand, with multipartisan support. I also understand that subsequently every state and territory has either passed or has currently tabled a similar bill with an intent that this scheme in fact come into play on 1 January next year.

Prior to the agreement reached by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, as the Hon. Stephen Wade noted, a change to video classification required agreement from all attorneys-general, as the Australian Constitution gives power to the commonwealth to classify, but empowers the states to censor and enforce. In fact, it was this state of South Australia and our South Australian Attorney-General who vociferously enforced that veto power of this state. I think this state is unique in terms of having had this debate in our public arenas and having a political party dedicated to the creation of an R18+ classification for computer games, that being Gamers for Croydon.

This bill also deals with the regulation of the display and advertising of R18+ DVDs and computer games. It allows some flexibility for retailers in relation to inadvertent breaches of section 40A. Indeed, the proposed amendments will allow retailers to comply with a code of practice that is, I understand, to be prescribed by the regulations. I understand that we will debate an amendment with regard to that area, and certainly the Greens look forward to that debate.

This bill, like the bills being moved or passed around the country, is a recognition that after over 10 years of quite heated debate at times and despite overwhelming popular support—in fact, I note that the Attorney-General's Department, when it did the public consultation on this issue federally, received 58,437 submissions, 98 per cent of which were in favour of this new R18+ classification category.

This debate is often focused on the children involved, but what I would like to note is that the R18+ classification will enable adults to access these particular computer games. It is hardly surprising that there is such a large amount of support for such a classification given that the average age of a gamer currently in Australia, according to the biannual Bond University study, is in fact 32 years of age, clearly an adult. In fact, 75 per cent of all gamers are over the age of 18.

I would note that that figure has been steadily rising, and certainly the gender balance between male and female gamers has also been diminishing, with 47 per cent of gamers currently, I believe, being female, which may come of some surprise to those who have previously engaged in this debate.

The classification system for games was last changed 16 years ago, and there have certainly been a lot of changes in the gaming industry and culture since then. The industry has expanded dramatically, games have become more sophisticated, the methods by which people can access games such as online distribution and imports have significantly multiplied, and certainly it is a misnomer to assume that computer games are things that are played on computers and that one inserts a disk into a computer.

There is a range of ways by which one can access computer games and certainly I, like over 90 per cent of the population, have a device at home. I have my Xbox 360. Many Australians have some sort of device where they can play computer games in their home. It is a commonly engaged in pastime and, in fact, some 83 per cent of gamers are parents with children under 18 and about 88 per cent of those parents who are gamers themselves play games with their children.

I would say that not all games are focused on sex or violence and the vast bulk of the industry will not be greatly affected by this new rating system. It will certainly remove the unusual situation that Australia found itself in with a rapidly changing and growing industry where, because we only had a rating system that allowed classification up to MA15+, games that would have been only accessible for adults overseas were often reclassified to fit the Australian market and in fact became more available for children as a result.

There are many ways that parents can take measures to limit children's exposure to games, and it does not have to be R18+. Parents are often not aware of the ways that they can change the technologies and put on passwords and so on, and that is an area of education that I think needs further work in terms of using parental controls on consoles. I understand that about 40 per cent even of game-playing parents had little or no familiarity with the content-locking features, and that has increased upon non-gamer parents where only 35 per cent had knowledge of how to restrict the access for their children.

The Greens welcome this bill before us. It has been a long time in coming and South Australia has played a role in slowing the debate beyond what was the reality for most Australians and for Australian gamers in accepting that the typical gamer in this country is by and large an adult, roughly about 32 years of age, and increasingly that adult is likely to be a woman, not a man. It is an area that I understand is incredibly profitable and, for South Australia and our quite innovative companies that we have had based here, this has been a great area for bringing economic benefit into our state. I should imagine that not only those people but also those 3.7 per cent of South Australians who supported the Gamers4Croydon candidate, Kat Nicholson, who was their lead candidate, certainly put paid to the fact that this issue would have no traction within the politics of this state.

I note the hard work of Gamers4Croydon in originally raising this issue in South Australia and I particularly note David Doe, Chris Prior, Josh Holloway and Kat Nicholson as having been people I have referred to and been educated by on this issue. We welcome this bill here today. It has been a long time in coming and well overdue. I hope that in the future where issues around gamers are discussed, whether it is a venue for social gaming like what is now known as The Pad in Adelaide (formerly The PiMP PAD) or whether it is an R18+ rating, the vast majority of gamers who are adults can access games that are suitable for adults if they wish to partake in them as an adult in many other countries could and that the hysteria and the fear factor will not be the forefront of the debate but will, in fact, be based on statistical and empirical evidence in the future. With that, we look forward to the committee stage and commend this bill to the council.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (16:44): I rise to oppose this bill. I will not speak long today as obviously this bill will pass with the support of the government, the opposition and the minor parties. Further, my position remains consistent with my 2008 speech to the Classification (Publication, Films and Computer Games) (Classification Process) Amendment Bill. In that speech I outlined my strong opposition to an R18+ rating being available to computer games, and I did applaud the then attorney-general—which was a rare occasion—for holding out, seemingly alone, despite the national criticism of his position. Unfortunately, the current Attorney-General does not share his resolve, although I note that the member for Croydon did indicate in the other place that he was pleased with the compromise made.

While the honourable member may accept consideration by the Classification Board of the interactivity of such games, such as players mimicking stabbing someone with the Wii 2 remote in games like Manhunt, in determining whether to grant a game an R18+ classification or to refuse classification, I do not believe there is any need nor justification for such games. Instead, I believe that the case against such violent and graphic games has only got stronger as time has gone by, with research now demonstrating the lasting impact on the attitudes and behaviours of its users. I will not go into that, because the Hon. Dennis Hood did so in his speech, and quite adequately.

In my 2008 speech I deplored our society's fixation with violence to the point where fights in the schoolyard and on the streets were being recorded and uploaded to the internet and being watched by hundreds of thousands of people. Many are so inured to the extremes of life that they would rather pull out their mobile and record someone being hurt rather than call police or come to their aid. I note this phenomenon has become so prevalent that the Attorney-General now has a bill before the other place to make it an offence to record such things without the permission of the victim. The irony would be quite humorous if it was not so tragic.

I take particular issue with the Attorney-General's suggestion when introducing this bill that by permitting the sale of these games we will not only restrict them to adults but somehow, by making them lawful in Australia, actually 'lower the risk of games that contain high levels of violence being available to minors'. On that point, I will bring up one example of where I think we have lost sight of all this.

My son, who is almost 11 years old, had a sleepover at a friend's place about three weeks ago—or he was supposed to have a sleepover. He got there and they were outside playing for a while and then his friend suggested that they go in and have a short burst of a video game on his father's PS3 or whatever it is these days. The game that this 11 year old was playing had a lot of violence in it, a lot of blood and guts, some nudity—it was his father's game that he was playing.

My son sat in the room for about 20 minutes and got up and left because he found it quite offensive—10 points to him, I might add. However, when my son got up and left the room his friend did not follow and he sat around for three hours waiting for his friend to come out of the room. Eventually he just rang me to come and pick him up, because this obviously was not going to be the sort of sleepover that he had pictured.

My point is that we do not have these sort of games in our home, but there is no way for a parent to protect their children when they do have a sleepover at a friend's place and those kids are allowed access to those adult games. It may be considered poor parenting on the other parents' behalf (I believe it is), but how does a parent trying to instil these values in their own children overcome that? Quite frankly, I do not believe my other children would have got up and left, would have asked for me to come and pick them up, but would have sat there and endured it and eventually, I believe, would have been lured into playing the game to be part of what their friend was doing.

Our kids are exposed to so much of this now that, if they are in front of the TV or on the computer, you literally have to be policing them the entire time. Even a show like The Simpsons now has drug references in it. Quite often Krusty the Clown is making references to snort and blow. This is at 7 o'clock at night. We have the bus driver on The Simpsons who makes no bones about being a drug user. There are sexual references in it. Just the other night we changed the channel because Marge and whatever is his name were in bed having sex.

There is that, there are the video games, the video YouTube things and music clips. Our kids are absolutely bombarded with this. Here we have something by which we can at least take some steps as a responsible government to try to prevent our children being exposed to such. Just because every other state is doing it, South Australia does not want to be left out. I think the Attorney-General's stand last time was quite honourable, and sometimes I do not find that easy to say.

To use the fact that a whole political party was formed to fight for the right for these games says nothing at all. We have in the Netherlands a political party called the Paedophile Party, which has been formed to lobby to lower the age of consent to 12. So, please, do not use that as an example of how righteous is this piece of legislation in giving people the right to choose. We all have a right to choose, but we all have a responsibility to our children to make sure we are taking every step possible to ensure that they are getting the right messages.

I suggest that anybody here at the moment who does not have a child old enough to be exposed to these sort of games should sit back and think about the number of scenarios where their children are not under their supervision, and where those values they have tried to instil in their child can quite easily be overridden by peer pressure and by exposure through other means. It always comes down to the messages that get sent from above to the people as to how we regulate our activities and our social values.

In relation to this whole argument of rights and liberation, the Hon. Tammy Franks was talking about the number of women who are now gamers. We also hear on the news of the number of young women in the streets whose drunken, violent behaviour is now outranking the men. Again, a very poor example: just because 47 per cent of gamers are women does not mean the impact is any less because, I do not know, women are not vulnerable to this sort of thing. There is plenty of research to show that these games change behaviours and attitudes.

I always believed before I got in here that legislation that we passed was based on evidence, was based on good science, but, in my 6½ years in here, I have seen very little evidence of that evidence being used to make sure that the legislation we pass is reasonable and responsible. Another point that I would like to make is that we are supposed to be here to support our society to be as responsible as it can be, no matter the socioeconomic status or anything else, by the legislation that we pass in here.

I believe that this legislation is a mistake and, no doubt, in a couple of years' time, we will live to learn that tale, and we will be taking measures to rectify yet another mistake that we have made in here because it is a populist attitude that we are supporting, rather than a sensible attitude. In saying that, I urge members to remind themselves that—and I say this often in this place—we are here to vote on legislation that is supposedly for the true welfare of the people in this state. I ask them to please reconsider the easy passage of this bill for exactly that reason—the true welfare of the people of this state.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. K.J. Maher.