John Anderson

NSW Federal Government
Australian Labor Party
Electorate: Gwydir

2000: The sabotage of the NVE rating

Back in March 2000 John Anderson had this to say after viewing Brian Harradine's porn screening. At the time he claimed to be fine with pornography, only the rating labels bothered him. 

Quoted from:
Nationals backflip on erotica classification.  
ABC The World Today 08.03.00

JOHN ANDERSON: Well, frankly it's pretty - I mean, have you seen it? Have you seen the stuff? You know, as - when forced to describe it, I notice the media described as "sexually explicit," looking for a way to describe it, which is an under-statement.

ALISON CALDWELL: Well, were you shocked, Minister.

JOHN ANDERSON: Well, the obvious answer is "yes."

ALISON CALDWELL: John Anderson says he supports the reforms included in non-violent erotica, he just doesn't like the name. Instead, he wants the label to read "non-violent pornography."

JOHN ANDERSON: Frankly, I believe that in terms of the comments made by the industry, and so forth, I was misled. I certainly support the reforms to ensure that violence and the depiction of children or misleading depiction of - that people make it, look like children, and so forth, ought to be pulled up. I support all of that, but I - you know, the bottom line for my party here is that people feel very strongly, even those who feel strongly that people ought to have the right to view what they like, that you have to tell people what it is. I mean, the way this thing would be classified, the next thing you'd know you'd have people saying, "Oh, well, it's nice, warm, cuddly stuff. Why can't we have a corner of it in the local video shop for it to be available?" Well, people need to know exactly what it is that they're getting.

***

2007: Ban all hardcore porn

In June 2007 the Howard Government sought to restrict Aboriginal access to hardcore pornography in the Northern Territory. Going one step further the ex-National Party leader wanted a national ban.

Quoted from
Ban all hard-core porn, says Anderson. The Australian 09.07.07

Mr Anderson, who has been lobbying within Coalition ranks to oppose the influx of pornography in indigenous communities, said X-rated material was damaging children across the nation.

“As Noel Pearson put it so beautifully, ask the children if they mind a bit of paternalism when they're cowering under the table,” 

“You can't restrict that to just Aboriginal children. That plainly happens in non-indigenous communities as well as indigenous communities.”

Mr Anderson said the evidence was overwhelming that there are real and frightening links between porn and sexual violence.

“What you have here is a giant hypocrisy that no one has wanted to tackle.

“The minute it's questioned, the members who have questioned it are immediately targeted by the X-rated video industry lobby groups.”

Mr Anderson said that by banning pornography flowing into NT Aboriginal communities, the Howard Government had effectively conceded there was a link between watching the material and acting in dysfunctional ways.

“I think what comes out of this is we are now conceding that there's a problem with this stuff, and frankly I think that all Governments ought to have a long hard look at it again,” 

“And we ought to say that civil libertarian arguments are not enough in the face of too many young Australian children's lives are being deeply scared even permanently and seriously damaged.”

Mr Anderson said that while he is no expert, he had been told by many experts that porn was like drug addiction.

He said NSW Aboriginal communities also wanted the pornography banned, and challenged the Iemma Government to take immediate action.

Michael Atkinson

SA State Government
Member of the Executive Council
Australian Labor Party
Electorate: Croydon

2002: R18+ Games

In November 2002, along with the Federal Attorney-General Daryl Williams, he managed to prevent the introduction of an R18+ rating for games.

Quoted from:
R-rated computer games ban to stay. The Age 08.11.02
In order to change the regime, all nine attorneys would have to agree unanimously, so Mr Williams' opposition, teamed with at least one other attorney - from South Australia - will defeat the reforms.

***

2003: IRREVERSIBLE 

Initially prevented IRREVERSIBLE from screening at the Adelaide French Film Festival in April 2003, but eventually relented. However, in May 2003 he gave the necessary backing to an AFA bid to have the R18+ rating reviewed. The June meeting of the Classification Review Board confirmed the R18+ rating.

SOUTH AUSTRALIAN LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 
Wednesday 2 April 2003 
FILM CENSORSHIP 

The Hon. DIANA LAIDLAW: I seek leave to make a statement before asking the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, representing the Premier and Minister for the Arts, a question on the subject of film censorship.    

Leave granted. 

The Hon. DIANA LAIDLAW: Tonight the Premier and Minister for the Arts will open the French Film Festival which, as of late yesterday, will now include the film Irreversible. This follows the last-minute reconsideration by the Attorney-General of his decision in January to refuse to give the film an exemption from classification. As far as I am aware, this is now the second occasion in less than 10 months on which the Labor Attorney-General, the Hon. Michael Atkinson, has flirted with censorship of films screened everywhere else in Australia and overseas but not Adelaide. There may be other occasions, as well, of which I am not aware.

 In a media release issued on 10 May 2002, the Attorney-General highlighted that, if the film Baise-Moi had been brought to his attention earlier following its R18+ classifica­tion the previous October, he would have `ensured it would never be screened in South Australia'. All honour­able members will respect that, throughout the western world and possibly beyond, film censorship is regarded as a very serious matter. The Premier and Minister for the Arts must be acutely embarrassed by his Attorney-General's enthusiasm for censorship in film at the very same time that he is committing millions of dollars of South Australian taxpayers' money seeking to establish Adelaide as a base for an international film festival.  

Incidentally, the Adelaide International Film Festival, which the Premier is promoting as the biggest in the southern hemisphere and possibly a rival to Cannes, is noteworthy in view of the fact that the film Irreversible was shown at the Cannes Film Festival last year without incident. 

***

2004: ANATOMY OF HELL 

In June 2004 he again backed the AFA, this time in their bid to have ANATOMY OF HELL reviewed. In July 2004, the Classification Review Board confirmed the R18+ rating.

Quoted from:
Festival boycott urged over film rating row. The Australian 01.07.04
"These people hate the classification system. They hate having any system that restricts what they can do according to the law ... the overwhelming majority of Australians, and South Australians, don't want open slather for cinema."

Quoted from:
Call for French film to be banned. ABC Lateline 06.07.04
"I am asking the Classification Review Board to have a closer look and make sure they want this kind of thing screening in Australian cinemas. I am not the expert and I do not wish to view these films myself. I simply want the independent umpire to have a closer look."

***

2004: IRREVERSIBLE and ANATOMY OF HELL 

Thanks to Michael for sending in this correspondence he had with the South Australian Attorney-General Michael Atkinson. Considering the politeness of his letter, he received a bad tempered reply from Mr Atkinson. 

27th July 2004

Sir,

With the utmost respect for yourself and your position I feel I must express my distress and disappointment with your recent position on censorship reviews, namely those of Anatomy of Hell and Irreversible.

I believe most Australians are able to make their own minds up, with appropriate ratings guidance from the OFLC. For example, I saw Irreversible and have no complaints, as I was aware due to its rating and warnings of the content within the film. Similarly I did not see Anatomy of Hell (as should be MY choice to see or not see a film), because from what I had read of the film it did not interest me. But let me stress I feel should any Australian decide they wish to see Anatomy of Hell, that ought be their choice.

As you are making these requests I’m sure that you have seen both of the films in question and that you would agree that in the case of Irreversible there is nothing within it that promotes or glorifies violence, sexual or otherwise, and I can not see how any individual could come of any other conclusion. The violence is no more glorified than it is in The Passion of the Christ, and neither of these films could be seen to promote it in any way.

I have no doubt that you have concerns for the Australian public should they choose to see these films. Please let me say as an individual whom has chosen to see one of them that censorship of this kind in any society sets a dangerous precedent and only serves to promote the film itself. Please voice your concerns as is your right, but I beg you do not stand in the way of intelligent Australians, as I’m sure you would agree we all are, right to make up their own mind.

20 September 2004 
Film Classification

Thank you for your facsimile transmission of 27 July, 2004. You are concerned at any attempt to prevent consenting adults from seeing whatever films they wish, and, in particular, Irreversible and Anatomy of Hell. You do not think I should have asked the Review Board to review them.

I am sure you know that the classification of publications, films and computer games in Australia is achieved by a national co-operative system embracing the Commonwealth and all States and Territories. Under the Commonwealth Classification (Publications Films and Computer Games) Act 1995, any participating Minister can require the Classification Review Board to review any film, by means of a request to the Commonwealth Attorney-General. This feature is an integral part of our national system. States and Territories agree to adopt the decisions of the Commonwealth classification bodies on the understanding that they can, if they wish, have particular decisions reviewed.

I see nothing wrong in my exercising the statutory authority given to all Ministers by the Commonwealth Act. I am a censorship Minister. That is, I am responsible to the people of South Australia for the operation of the censorship system in a way that, as far as possible, accords with public standards of morality, decency and propriety (to borrow a phrase from the Commonwealth Act), as embodied in the law and the guidelines. This may, from time to time, require me to request that the Review Board examine a contentious film. That is, after all, its job.

My request, or that of any other Minister, merely sets in train a process. It does not alter the classification of the film. That remains a matter for the relevant Commonwealth body, the Review Board. In each of the reviews, one member of the Review Board decided that the film should, if the guidelines were correctly applied, be refused classification. 

It is true that the person who requests a review of the film need not have seen it. This is because that person is not called upon to classify the film. All that such a person needs to decide is whether the matter merits the attention of the Review Board. In considering whether it does, I read reviews of the film from around the world. I also take account of any material supplied to me by the person requesting a review. I may also look at the classification the film has received elsewhere. This material is usually sufficient for me to judge whether to ask the Review Board to see the film. In this case, I have not seen either of the films you mention. The O.F.L.C. classifies about 5,500 items every year and it is not a priority for me to watch dirty films, read dirty books and play violent computer games each day of my working life. If I had seen Irreversible or Anatomy of Hell before asking for a review, your attack would have shifted 180 degrees to "He watches the same dirty films he won't let us watch." 

You are evidently against the banning of any film at all. You are entitled to this view, but it does not accord with our present law. Our censorship laws require that some films, including those that depict extreme violence, be banned. I believe those laws, adopted as they have been around Australia, reflect the standards held by most Australians. Some think that such material should be banned because it desensitises us to violence and so is immoral. Others think it models violence that may be later acted out and thus is dangerous. Others simply do not want a society in which the public exhibition of such material is accepted, any more than they want the streets to be full of litter. Accordingly, laws fixing limits have been made through a democratic process. Until the democratic process changes them, it is my duty to see that they are upheld.

New South Wales participates in the national system. If you think this system should be changed, you may wish to take this up with the New South Wales Attorney-General, the Hon. Bob Debus M.P.

Yours Sincerely;

Michael Atkinson 
Attorney-General

***

2004: 9 SONGS

In 2004 the Classification Board gave Michael Winterbottom's 9 SONGS an overly restrictive X18+ rating. The distributor appealed, and in 2005 it was dropped down to R18+ for theatrical release. In August 2005, the South Australian Classification Council increased it back up to X18+, effectively banning it for sale/hire within the State.

Quoted from: SA goes it alone with 9 Songs DVD ban 
South Australian Attorney-General Michael Atkinson, a regular campaigner on censorship issues, labelled the OFLC's change of mind perverse and complained to the federal government.

***

2005: R18+ Games

Transcript: Video Games Power Play
Broadcast: 07/11/2008
Reporter: Leah MacLennan
ABC Stateline

MICHAEL ATKINSON, ATTORNEY-GENERAL: attorneys-general years ago decided that there shouldn't be an R 18 plus category for computer games because they were interacting and they had higher impact than film or cinema that was difficult to prevent children from accessing computer games in the home. So for those reasons it was decided that Australian really didn't need an 18 plus category for computer games.

MICHAEL ATKINSON: I'm sure most people can distinguish the fantasy of a computer game from the reality. But it is the small number we know can't that leads to mass-murder in American high schools and in Thailand, last year led to a gamer playing out the fantasy of hijacking a taxi-cab and murdering the driver. It happened.

MICHAEL ATKINSON: I have three sons who are avid gamers and disagree strongly with my position. I have seen them playing games for years including Grand Theft Auto. There was one version of Grand Theft Auto where a group of singing Hare Krishnas are run down on the pavement by the gamer motorist and points were scored for doing that.

MICHAEL ATKINSON: I think the Western industrialised countries that allow R 18 plus computer games and the extreme violence that goes with them are just so many gadarean swine going over the cliff and I'm pleased that Australia has a principled, sensible stand against this extreme violence. I'm happy for Australia to stand alone and international gamers can laugh at us all they like.

MICHAEL ATKINSON: Some gamers have suggested I should be eliminated as an attorney general whatever that means but were I eliminated I'm sure there's other Australian attorneys general who would step forward and veto R 18 plus computer games.

***

2008: Games R18+ Discussion Paper

At the censorship ministers meeting in November 2008 it was agreed to release the discussion paper by the end of the year. However Michael Atkinson demanded changes after accusing it of being biased,

Quoted from:
Aussie R18+ public consultation goes ahead
au.gamespot.com 07.11.08

“I believe the draft discussion paper did not adequately represent both sides of the argument. I voiced my concerns to other Attorneys-General and we reached agreement that some minor changes will be made to the discussion paper,”

“I am not opposed to a public debate on the merits of introducing a R18+ classification for electronic games--in fact, I welcome it. But it's unhelpful to commence that debate with what I believe is a biased discussion paper.

“There is little point in seeking public comment on an unfirm footing that neglects one side of the argument. I look forward to contributing to the development of a fairer discussion paper.”

***

2008: R18+ Rating for games

On November 24th 2008 he was interviewed for ABC 2's Good Game program GOOD GAME. The segment titled The Great R18+ Debate focused on his opposition to an adult rating, and why he opposed the discussion paper.

***

2009: Requests review of CHARLIE WILSON'S WAR

Following a letter from one of his constituents he requested that Bob Debus, the Minister for Home Affairs, call for a review of CHARLIE WILSON'S WAR. The complaint was not against the M-rating, but instead concerned the consumer advice which failed to mention that the film contained nudity.

The Review Board met in February 2009 a

M (Moderate coarse language and drug references, Violence)
to 
M (Moderate coarse language, drug references and violence; partial nudity)

***

2009: R18+ for games

In January 2009 Laura Parker conducted this interview with Michael Atkinson in which he demonstrates his opposition to a games R18+-rating is as strong as ever.

Exclusive: Michael Atkinson talks Aussie game classification au.gamespot.com 27.01.09

 "I don't support the introduction of an R18+ rating for electronic games, chiefly because it will greatly increase the risk of children and vulnerable adults being exposed to damaging images and messages.

"The interactive nature of electronic games means that they have a much greater influence than viewing a movie does. People are participating and 'acting-out' violence and criminal behaviour when they are playing a video game. They are essentially rehearsing harmful behaviour. Children and vulnerable adults (such as those with a mental illness) can be harmed by playing video games with violence, sex, and criminal activity.

"The South Australian government takes a strong position on protecting children (and the public) from criminal behaviour, sexual abuse, and drug use. My stance on R18+ classification is in line with the policies of the Rann Government [current South Australian government] to protect children.

"Retaining the present classification scheme for electronic games is necessary because: it keeps the most extreme material off the shelves; it prevents children and vulnerable adults from being exposed to sexual abuse, criminal activity, and extreme violence in video games; it prevents children and vulnerable adults from virtual participation in sex, criminal activity, and extreme violence; and it results in game developers modifying their product for Australian and sometimes international audiences.

"I have three sons who regularly play computer games at home--the eldest is now 22. I see my children become physically and emotionally obsessed with games, and it is difficult to drag them away from the gaming console. The repeated act of killing a computer-generated person or creature desensitises children to violence. It makes violence part of their everyday lives and what is especially concerning is that it is their re-creation. A child being able to watch sex and violence in a movie is damaging to the child, but the child participating in sex and violence in a computer game is worse.

"Extreme violence, perverted sex, and criminal activity are not essential for adults to enjoy playing electronic games. There are plenty of sophisticated games that are of interest to adults. A game is not necessarily more interesting to an adult simply because it contains extreme violence, explicit sexual material, criminal activity, or offensive language. Some of the most popular and highly recommended games for adults would not be R18+ rated.

"Critics sometimes claim that I am ruining the game-development industry. There are very few computer games that are refused classification each year. In 2007/8 just three computer games were refused classification (Soldier of Fortune: Payback, Dark Sector, and Shellshock 2: Blood Trails). This represents a very small proportion of the 961 decisions made last financial year. In fact, only 55 were classified at the top existing rating of MA15+.

"Last year the makers of Grand Theft Auto IV altered the game before submitting it for an MA15+ classification, and Silent Hill: Homecoming is under revision by its makers after being knocked back by the Classification Board. The lack of an R18+ classification is not preventing very many adult-themed video games reaching the shop shelves--but it is ensuring that scenes that don't comply with a MA15+ rating are removed. I think that's a great result for consumers and has little impact on the profitability of game developers.

"Some games, such as Grand Theft Auto IV, have been modified to meet Australian standards. The present system encourages game developers to consider what is appropriate for an MA15+ rating and adjust their product accordingly. Sometimes this modified version has become the internationally distributed version.

"Some of your readers may believe that the present system restricts adult liberty. It certainly does restrict choice to a small degree, but that is the price of keeping this material from children and vulnerable adults. In my view, the small sacrifice is worth it. Classification exists for advertising, films, and books for the same reason--to protect children and vulnerable people.

"In cinemas, the age of moviegoers can be regulated, and at the video store people must provide ID to hire R18+ videos. Once electronic games are in the home, access to them cannot be policed and the games are easily accessible to children. These days, older children (18-30) are often living in the family home with younger children (under 18). This means games belonging to older children or parents can easily make their way into the hands of those under 18.

"I'm concerned about the level of violence in society and the widespread acceptance of simulated violence as a form of entertainment. No doubt a legal restraint on the type of material available to the public in game form is only a small part of the answer, but I am loath to give it up.

"I am not alone in my view. Groups such as Young Media Australia oppose the introduction of an R18+ classification, saying that interactive violence can desensitise people to violence. Although I receive letters from the public opposing my stance on R18+ games, I also get letters of support. Some other classification ministers are also opposed to an R18+ classification but have not spoken about it publicly. I'm confident the proposal would be blocked by other classification ministers if I weren't using my veto power.

"The framework for our classification system is established in Commonwealth legislation. The process of classifying a work is done by the Office of Film and Literature Classification [sic*]--a federal government body. Films and games are classified according to the same guidelines and using the same categories and symbols under the classification codes. Games that are entertaining and challenging to adults may be found in any classification category. The classification goes simply to the strength or impact of the content. In classifying a game, only the classifiable elements are considered: violence, sex, nudity, drug use, coarse language, and (controversial) themes.

"In Australia there is merit in a national classification scheme. With state and territory borders being artificial for these purposes, once games classified R18+ are available in one state they will be readily available in others. 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. Depending on tastes and interests, adult gamers will find much to enjoy in all of the categories of games now available.

"Classifications are overseen by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. SCAG includes attorneys general from all states, territories, and the Commonwealth. Most members are also the relevant minister for classifications in their jurisdiction. Under the Federal legislation, one minister can veto changes to our classification system in Australia. Hitherto, attorneys general have not agreed to create an R18+ category for computer games.

"A discussion paper will be released to the public shortly on the proposal for an R18+ classification for video games. I support the issuing of a public discussion paper that adequately represents both sides of the argument."

***

2009: Atkinson writes to the Adelaide Advertiser

March 8th 2009
Face the real world 

A Queensland letter writer (The Advertiser, 7/3/09) claims that democracy is at an end because I, as Attorney-General, will not agree to an R18+ category for interactive computer games; that "every other state AG is against him"; and the only way to bring back democracy is to vote me out at the next election. It is true that I am opposed to an R18+ category for interactive games, but I am one of at least four Attorneys so opposed. 

I welcome a challenge in my electorate of Croydon at the next general election on this issue. 

Among my constituents are hundreds of refugees who are trying to find lodgings for the family, gain employment and sponsor relatives from the old country. Their vote is hardly likely to hinge on the "right" to score gamer points on the computer screen by running down and killing pedestrians on the pavement, raping a mother and her two daughters, blowing onself up in a market, cutting people in half with large calibre shells, injecting drugs to win an athletics event or killing a prostitute to recover the fee one just paid her (Welcome to the world of R18+ computer games). Those of my constituents who are refugees have been subjected to the practical instead of the virtual suffering that R18+ nerds seek to inflict for their gratification on the computer screen. 

MICHAEL ATKINSON,

Attorney-General, Adelaide.

***

2009: Atkinson writes to kotaku.com.au

Following kotaku's coverage of his letter to the Adelaide Advertiser, Michael Atkinson decided to write to kotaku and lay down a challenge to its readers.

Michael Atkinson Writes to Kotaku kotaku.com.au 12.03.09

Indeed I have read all the posts on Kotaku about R18+ interactive games. For the past few years I have received more abuse and threats over my stand against R18+ interactive games than any other topic of public debate and I shall be reading the highlights to Parliament soon. 

About six weeks ago I heard a note being slipped under my front door at 2.30 a.m. I went into the hallway and found an A4 page with capital letters of different colours cut from different magazine headlines pasted one by one on the page to form words - just like in the old movies (You know the kind: "Michael Atkinson sleeps with the fishes.") The note casigated me for opposing an R18+ classification for interactive games. The note also said: "This act of vandalism is caused by your..." When I went outside to see who might have done this, the supporter of R18+ games had fled without carrying out the foreshadowed act of vandalism and before he could meet me. 

My electorate of Croydon covers 18 suburbs in Adelaide's inner north west, between Regency Road in the north and the River Torrens in the south. I live in my electorate at [address deleted], opposite the landmark local church of Koimisis Theotokou. I was first elected in 1989 and re-elected in 1993, 1997, 2002 and 2006. Croydon is so culturally diverse that I issue my election material in 42 languages other than English. I am Attorney-General, Minister for Justice, Minister for Multicultural Affairs and Minister for Veterans' Affairs. 

I think it is fair to say that I have done more doorknocking of constituents than any other member of Parliament and that I kept this up after becoming a Minister in 2002. I hold annual street-corner meetings in each suburb in my electorate, usually on Saturday mornings. Because I have never driven a car, my constituents often call me over when I'm out on my bicycle or walking my dog - a Maltese terrier called Gus - or converse with me on the railway platform, train or bus. 

I would welcome a challenge in Croydon at the next general election (due in March 2010) about my record on censorship. Any reader who would like to challenge me should write to me c/- 488 Port Road, Welland 5007 and I will send him or her a nomination form to stand for Parliament. 

Alas, one cannot stand for Parliament anonymously, so any contenders will have to supply a real name and street address, not a pseudonym and an email address. 

Michael Atkinson

He also wrote this regarding the delayed R18+ discussion paper.

The change most important to me in this paper was to include illustrations of what games above MA15+ were like. This debate shouldn't be a clinical written analysis of arguments only. Readers should be able to see what we are arguing for or against. Concerns were raised about my changes from other Attorney-General's departments, including whether it was appropriate to include depictions of these ultra-violent, extreme games. I do not understand why anyone would want to exclude this material from the discussion paper. The same people who want to exclude it from the discussion paper want Australians to have games rated above MA15+ in their homes. The Australian public at large should have - via the discussion paper - descriptions of the games above MA15+. I haven't stopped the discussion paper - I want it to show what these games are like, what is really at the centre of this debate. It is my opponents who are engaging in the cover up and trying to delay the discussion's paper's going out.

***

2009: Atkinson responds to the readers of kotaku.com.au

Following his first letter to kotaku, he responded again, this time addressing the readers comments.

Censorship Minister Responds To Your Comments kotaku.com.au 16.03.09

I shall try to deal with Thursday's posts in the order they appeared on the site.

EzyLee opened the batting for those advocating an R18+ classification for games by deriding my appearance. JW says I am "a dirty smiling twit." Juggernautz says "You are an ignorant coward." Ben says I am "a bully protected by the law." Allure Media and Kotaku moderator David Wildgoose think this is an appropriate tone for the debate and so it continues. At 8.09 p.m. Shawn says "What is it with all these threats to his life. Does he really think ppl (people) give a damn about him." Dateman at 8.59 p.m. says: "So when are they going to patch GTA (Grand Theft Auto) so Atkinson is a pedestrian? (i.e. run him down with a vehicle and kill him)". Are none of the advocates of an R18+ classification for games - including the two Attorneys-General - worried about death threats and the kind of anonymous cyber-rage in which their comrades are engaging? If you are, why don't you say so? Why is the site's moderator letting this kind of thing through?

EzyLee then claimed I was up at 2.30 a.m. to hear the threatening message being slipped under my door because I was awake and "beating up hookers." If you wish to back your claim about me EzyLee, please supply me with a real name and address for service so we can test the veracity of your untruthful, malicious and defamatory imputation in the best method known to our society. If some thoughtful R18+ advocates worry that Members of Parliament don't take them seriously, or won't engage them on their preferred territory, yesterday's and today's anonymous cyber-rage against me will confirm their worry.

Mr Waffle derided my suggestion that advocates of the R18+ classification test their claimed 90 p.c. plus approval among the public by a vote of 24,000 people living in the inner-north-western suburbs of Adelaide (Croydon State District). He asserted that my challenge was "Meet me behind the shed at 5 schoolboy brawling." No, Mr Waffle, I am the Attorney-General because I am an elected Member of Parliament and have the confidence of a majority of the Members of the Lower House of the South Australian Parliament. My opposition to R18+ games is seven years old and widely known. Duskbringer claimed "His electorate, who I am sure tip the scales toward the greyer end of the community" was also wrong. My electorate is inner-city, full of apartments and townhouses being built on former industrial sites, occupied by young "wired" professionals and recently arrived refugees from Sudan, West Africa, Bosnia, Iraq, Eastern Turkistan and Afghanistan and dotted with cafes and ethnic-specific groceries. Mr Waffle and Duskbringer might have had a point if my electorate were rural, or in an outer-suburban Hillsong belt, or in a genteel, leafy retirement neighbourhood, but they didn't do any checking and got it completely wrong. Croydon presents no barriers to their campaigning.

I am trying to explain to bloggers like Mr Waffle how the decision-making system works by laying out the logical method of removing my opposition to the R18+ classification: one way to remove me is to defeat me at the next election, as so many R18+ gamers have advocated (before retreating from that position yesterday); another is to make sure that after the next general election I do not have the support of a majority of Lower House M.Ps to continue as Attorney-General. That is how a parliamentary, rule-of-law democracy works. It does not work by means of vile abuse and death threats.

RG at 4.01 p.m. makes the same mistake as Mr Waffle: "So basically, Michael Atkinson, who holds a single electorate, has the right to hold every other electorate in the country to ransom." (It would be a scandal, RG, if I held three or four electorates) My holding Croydon is a necessary condition of my vetoing an R18+ classification for games - it is not a sufficient condition. There are two further conditions: one is that I maintain the confidence of a majority of members of the Lower House of the South Australian Parliament and the other is that the Commonwealth, States and Territories of Australia maintain the legislation for a co-operative censorship arrangement that requires all parties to agree before the rules are changed. Not one of Australia's Attorneys-General - not even Victorian Attorney-General Rob Hulls - has ever suggested that the latter be changed.

Clocks demands: "Just release the discussion paper, damnit!" Clocks, I am happy for the discussion paper to be released. I made the changes I wanted after the Brisbane Standing Committee of Attorneys-General last year. The change most important to me in this paper was to include illustrations of what games above MA15+ were like. This debate shouldn't be a clinical written analysis of arguments only. Readers should be able to see what we are arguing for or against. Concerns were raised about my changes from other Attorney-General's departments, including whether it was appropriate to include depictions of these ultra-violent, extreme games. I do not understand why anyone would want to exclude this material from the discussion paper. The same people who want to exclude it from the discussion paper want Australians to have games rated above MA15+ in their homes. The Australian public at large should have - via the discussion paper - descriptions of the games above MA15+. I haven't stopped the discussion paper - I want it to show what these games are like, what is really at the centre of this debate. It is my opponents who are engaging in the cover up and trying to delay the discussion's paper's going out.

White Pointer makes the same mistake as Clocks when writing: "The fact you haven't allowed that draft discussion paper through yet..."

Gladice says I should stop "whinging about the amount of threats made against you." That's number of threats, Gladice, not amount of threats. If you think you could face such threats with equanimity, Gladice, perhaps you are not married with four children and only a screen door and Gus the dog between you and the people making the threats at 2.30 a.m..

Nick "Enigma" Gibson complains that I haven't been in touch with him about his seven-minute You Tube rant against me. The answer to that Nick - if that is your name - is that you didn't provide me with any contact details. I am not a clairvoyant. You Tube stardom has tipped you into solipsism.

For those who complain that I have not responded to their abuse emailed to me (e.g. unfunk at 2.58 p.m.), my practice is to ask email correspondents for a real name and a street address. Most of the emails I get about this topic are crank or hoax emails in the sense that they are not from people willing to reveal a real name or a street address. When I write a reply, I want to write it to a real person at a real address, not a phantom.

Nick - if that is your name - demands to know why I am deciding the question of an R18+ classification for games and not him. That is because I ran for parliament, got elected, worked to be re-elected many times and gained the confidence of a majority of the Members of the Lower House of the South Australian Parliament. The party of which I am a member won a record majority at the last general election. As Attorney-General for the four years leading up to that election, I had been openly opposing an R18+ classification for computer games and giving my reasons. My Party and I recorded our biggest vote ever in March 2006 and were elected to govern for four more years (and I don't for a moment claim that that was because of my position on the R18+ classification). Hours of television and radio news time, hours of radio talkback and acres of newsprint have been devoted to the topic by media outlets across the country. And I re-iterate, I am not the only Attorney-General opposed to an R18+ classification for games - I'm the one who is happy to be the lightning rod for R18+ gamers. The likelihood is that any successor of mine as Attorney-General for South Australia would also oppose an R18+ classification, whether that person be Labor or Liberal. So, Angus, vote Liberal all you like. As I understand it, the only Liberal Attorney-General among the Censorship Ministers has not stated a position yet and two Labor Attorneys-General are in favour of an R18+ classification. It would be a paradox if Angus's vote tipped Victorian Attorney-General and R18+ supporter Rob Hulls out of office.

Juggernautz says: "We want you to do your goddamned job and be the people's voice." I am doing my job, Juggernautz, and I am the people's voice on this and some other things. The Bond University poll that purported to show that 88 p.c. of Australians favoured an R18+ classification for games was funded by the Interactive Games Association. The vast majority of Australians have never turned their mind to the question of an R18+ classification for games and many have no understanding or interest in the classification system. Juggernautz, you think that 90 p.c. of Australians support your position on R18+ games because most of the people you mix with are gamers. You should get out more.

boc says my making myself available to debate the classification issue on Kotaku is "assinine (sic) and cowardly." I presume, boc, you want me banned from the Kotaku site or for me not to debate the question at all. So, the boc position is: "Atkinson is only allowed to debate the question if he agrees with us. If he disagrees with us, he's asinine and cowardly." Perhaps you've heard of the Soviet Union, boc.

boc, being on a roll, asks: "I would like to know exactly what his electorate has to do with his position as Attorney-General." Where to start, boc? Australia inherits from Britain the notion that every neighbourhood should be entitled to send a representative to make the laws in Parliament. Governments and law-making are based on majorities in Parliament. Ministers, such as the Attorney-General, can be Ministers only while they are themselves elected Members of Parliament (in my case, M.P. for Croydon) and while they retain the confidence of a majority of the Members of the Lower House of Parliament (which I do and have done for the past seven years). If you want to make the laws, boc, get elected to Parliament and if you want to be Attorney-General, then win the confidence of a majority of members of the parliament of which you are a member. If, as you claim, 90 p.c. of Australians support your position on games and therefore oppose mine, you should - according to your own reasoning - be a shoo-in to win the State District of Croydon at the next election. Some of the more intelligent bloggers on Kotaku understand the task ahead of supporters of an R18+ classification but they cannot bring themselves to admit that they do not have enough support from the Australian public to prevail in elections.

In the real world - as distinct from blogsites for gamers - people disagree about questions of censorship and they resolve this through the process of parliamentary democracy. That is why some Attorneys-General support you and some support me.

boc, and most bloggers on this site, seem to be contemptuous of parliamentary democracy and the rule of law because they are not getting their way. They want instant gratification - or civility, the rule of law, responsible government and parliamentary democracy should be tossed down the lavatory. By contrast, I will cheerfully accept an R18+ classification on the day that, under the agreed lawful process, Censorship Ministers endorse an R18+ classification for games. That is the difference between me and the bloggers on this site. I acknowledge that it may happen after I am gone. Memento, Homo, quia pulvis es, et mi pulvirentam reverteris.

Another difference between me and a few of the bloggers on this site is that the latter think it is o.k. to threaten to kill a person if he disagrees with you about a political issue such as R18+ games. Ben, who first posted at 1.30 p.m., is one of these. At 2.11 p.m. he writes: "It really isn't surprising that your (sic) getting death threats from people. Did you ever stop to think, hmmnn maybe I'm wrong on this one." Dale backs Ben at 2.29 p.m.

RG evokes a pleasant memory when he mentions the peasant woman in Monty Python & the Holy Grail. Arthur tells her he's the King and she replies "Well, I didn't vote for you." To which Arthur replies that one doesn't vote for Kings and goes on to make a claim for sovereignty based on grasping Excalibur from the Lady of the Lake accompanied by orchestra. If RG is an Australian citizen aged 18 or over and enrolled to vote, he gets to vote for his State Parliament and the Federal Parliament and therefore has a say in the identity and policies of two of the Attorneys-General who are Censorship Ministers. That he doesn't vote in the State District of Croydon is neither here nor there. Does RG want to be granted the vote in all eight States and Territories?

Rory Betteridge fulminates about Jack Thompson (of whom I had never heard until yesterday) and says, addressing me, "Like you, he's a staunch Catholic." This would come as a surprise to my mother and father, wife and four children, as it is a surprise to me. As the accused used to say before the House of Representatives Un-American Activities Committee mutatis mutandis "I am not now, and never have been, a Catholic." Why does Rory think one's religion needs to be appended to one's arguments in the public square, like a yellow of Star of David on Jews during the Third Reich , and on what sub-stratum of fact did he assert that I am a Catholic? Do I look like one? Rory could now apologise on the Kotaku blog for his mistake and explain how he came to make the mistake and why he felt compelled to throw a blanket over Jack Thompson and me, but being an R18+ gamer means never having to say you're sorry.

I've devoted many hours this week to trying to explain my position to R18+ gamers. I've read every post. I've tried to respond to every criticism. Maybe a few bloggers understand but, on the whole, Kotaku seems to be a morass of hatred and abuse comparable to Julius Streicher's Der Sturmer. Parliamentary democracy cannot work without a civilised discourse. The moderator of this site will not keep the discourse civil. Most Members of Parliament who might read the past two days of dialogue would conclude that a civilised dialogue with R18+ gamers is impossible and therefore not worth trying. That is a pity. Perhaps we can try again sometime.

***

2009: Atkinson responds a third time to kotaku.com.au 

Here is Michael Atkinson's reply to Terry O'Shanassy, a reader of kotaku.com.au

Atkinson Argues His Case, Says He Doesn't Trust Classification Board kotaku.com.au 16.03.09

This debate has heated up because gamers want me to agree to the release of a discussion paper about an R18+ classification for games. I agreed to the discussion paper last year. I want the discussion paper to include depictions of actual games, including the types of games that are currently above the MA15+ rating. I intend to take my version of the paper to other ministers at the next Standing Committee of Attorneys-General (SCAG) in Canberra in April so they can decide whether it will be released. I hope Victorian Attorney-General Rob Hulls doesn't stop the discussion paper's being released in April.

Everyone who has a view on this issue can write to any of the censorship ministers or their local member of parliament. That might be more useful than bagging me anonymously on blogs and by anonymous emails, but use up your time this way if it makes you feel better. This debate continues whether the discussion paper is released or not.

Is Atko the only opponent? I shall address Terry O'Shanassy's post. Terry has entered into this debate on your website and criticised me for saying that some other Attorneys-General do not support R18+ games and that I have been asked to be a spokesman for the opposition. I speak my own views publicly, as the Attorney-General of South Australia, and I know my opposition is shared by some other Attorneys-General. However, I am the one who puts this position in public. I think the other Attorneys probably have better ways to spend their time than respond to criticism and abuse on this issue, which is a lesser-order issue in the context of our portfolios. I, however, am drawn into the debate because I have been asked to explain my veto of seven years ago. Two Attorneys-General support R18+ games (Victoria & A.C.T.), I am opposed and six others haven't stated a position publicly. How can Terry O'Shanassy assert that it is not true that Attorneys other than me are opposed to the R18+ classification? Terry O'Shanassy just doesn't know. Does he, like me, spend eight days a year cloistered with them at SCAG? He is making it up. If he were a witness in court, this would be a matter than went to his credit on other aspects of his testimony. We'll see who is right as time goes by. I won't expect a retraction or apology from Terry O'Shanassy when it become apparent that he's wrong - being an R18+ gamer and blogger means never having to say you are sorry.

Terry O'Shanassy castigates me for pointing out that the classification of R18+ games is unimportant to the hundreds of refugees in my electorate and argues "I'd have thought your responsibility...was to ALL the people in your state." Of the 24,000 people in my electorate of Croydon only one - yes, one, Terry - has told me he opposes my stance on R18+ games and supplied me with his name and a street address. The situation in other electorates is no different. There are more opponents of the Rann Government's Serious & Organised Crime Act willing to state their opposition above their own name and address than there are people prepared to oppose me on R18+ games above their own name and address. The former are mostly members and associates of outlaw motor cycle gangs but, compared to the R18+ gamers, at least they have the courage of their convictions. The vast majority of contacts with M.P's offices about R18+ games are anonymous and abusive.

Until R18+ bloggers like Terry are prepared to conduct themselves in a civil and open manner and check their facts, Members of Parliament will shun them. Fiona and Robbie, of the Eros Foundation, have been telling me for almost 20 years that they are going to remove me from Parliament by writing to those of my constituents who mail-order pornography from them. The bad news for Fiona and Robbie is that their targets have some sense of self-worth and vote as Australian citizens not as users of pornography.

Age of Gamers I may be labouring the point, Terry, but, Yes, I know adults play computer games and have said so many times. Why must you put words in my mouth that I have not uttered? Indeed, a generation has now grown up with computer games and I realise how complicated they can be because I have four children playing them in my household. Terry claims: "Those mature adults are not, I might add, playing simplistic arcade-style shoot-em-ups. Mr Atkinson is erroneous if he thinks so." Again, Terry has just made this up and verballed me. I have not thought or said any such thing. 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 (as I do). Added to this, games grow ever more sophisticated, challenging and entertaining, and accordingly more attractive to adult players. There are many, many games that are strategic and challenging without requiring extreme violence or sexual defilement.

Number of games affected It seems to me disproportionate for some adult gamers to be so agitated about their 'right' to play a few games. The Classification Board considered 903 applications in 2007-2008. Three of those games were RC (Refused Classification). Most of the decisions gave G, PG and M ratings. The highest number of decisions was for G ratings and 55 games were MA15+. I was also pleased to read in a recent article that the top-selling game in Australian in 2008 was Wii Fit. A hoaxer was on the web last month pretending to be me and putting in my mouth - Terry-style - that I wanted to ban the wii. Ban the wii? I love it.

It confuses and baffles me why I am being harangued, threatened and abused by people who want the right to play a handful of games. It confuses my why so many gamers are arguing that they should have the right to play games that enable them on-screen to bash, torture, slay, slaughter, rape and take drugs. I am concerned about the state of mind of an individual who thinks he should have the right to do this in a computer game and then wants to tell me about it. Add to that the threats to me and I feel more certain about my stance that I should do what I can to minimise the number of these games in Australian homes.

Children & vulnerable adults My main concern is that these games will become available to children and vulnerable adults. Again, Terry tells me off for being concerned about children accessing these games. I have been told that I am a nanny. I watch my own children play violent and aggressive games that are legally available - legally available because they have been classified as MA15+. (And Terry, if you haven't seen someone become obsessed with a computer game, then perhaps you haven't sat around while they play into the early hours of the morning and writhed to the machine noise that passes for background music.) As my youngest boy blew away one humanoid after another with an automatic rifle recently, I ribbed him "Do you think any of these have aunties or cousins?"

There are many games that are ultra-violent and accessible to minors. I accept that one can't always trust the Office of Film & Literature Classification to apply the guidelines in their plain meaning - it will stretch them to get things through for the industry. I worry about parents not taking an active role in regulating their children's game playing. But I can't change that - I am an M.P. not the general manager of the universe. And I think this will become worse if R18+ games become available. The O.F.L.C. will then stretch R18+ so far that nothing much is RC, as it has done with film.

I am weary of people, like Terry, arguing that children are playing games with violent content because their parents don't care that it has an MA15+ label. This is not a reason to put more extreme games onto the market in an R18+ classification! If those games fit into MA15+ , they will still be classified under MA15+ if there is an R18+ category. Information about the classification system is easy to get, it's easy for parents to find out more, or just sit down with their child while he or she is playing the game and watch what he or she is doing. It's not hard for parents to decide whether the game is appropriate or not.

To my mind, a child being able to watch ultra-violence and sexual defilement in a movie is damaging to the child, but a child participating in ultra-violence or sexual defilement, or both, in a computer game is worse. Moreover, playing a game with on-screen violence makes violence part of their everyday lives and what is especially concerning is that this is the gamer's recreation. Terry O'Shanassy asserts that interactivity doesn't make violent games a greater risk than violent films or violence in other mediums ("The contention that the interactivity of video games makes them trainers for anti-social behaviour and even causes anti-social behaviour is an insupportable one.") - tell that to the family of the Bangkok cabbie murdered last year in a literal re-enactment of a scene from Grand Theft Auto. Ask the murderer, Terry - he told us what he was doing.

It is put to me that the majority of Australians want an R18+ classification for computer games because an industry-funded poll has come to this conclusion. I do not accept that most Australians want these games lawfully available in the country. The reason Terry is so angry at me is that I have belled the cat - told the public what is in these games. There are some gamers who know exactly what is in these games and that is why they want to play them. I think that is a small number. I get their letters and emails and they worry me.

Some of that 'majority' might argue that access to R18+ games is an issue of censorship - that adults should be able to see and play what they want. This is a shallow and lazy argument. If parliament decided laws on the basis that adults should be able to do and see what they want, then child-abuse images (child pornography) would be freely available. Furthermore, it is human nature for people to tell a push-pollster they should be able to do something when the law says they can't. "You can't buy an R18+ computer game in Australia. Do you think you should be able to?" - "Yes" is, of course, the answer. I suspect the vast majority of Australians don't really care if R18+ games are available because they have no interest in the issue, but it's easy to agree with the pollster and get her off the phone. I think if these people were actually shown these games, and they knew just what they were asking for, then they would change their minds.

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. This is the price of keeping this material from children and vulnerable adults. In my view, it is worth it. I am concerned about the level of violence in society and the widespread acceptance of simulated violence as a form of entertainment. No doubt a legal restraint on the type of material available to the public in game form is only a small part of the answer but I am reluctant to give it up.

***

2009: Atkinson speaks in Parliament in R18+

South Australia
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY 
Wednesday 25 March 2009

COMPUTER GAME CLASSIFICATION

Mr KENYON (Newland) (15:31): My question is to the Attorney-General. Can the Attorney-General explain to the house the merits of a petition that he was handed today on the steps of Parliament House?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON (Croydon—Attorney-General, Minister for Justice, Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Minister for Veterans' Affairs) (15:32): I can. I have become a pin-up boy for the R18+ computer game classification movement—a pin-up boy with concentric circles on the poster.

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: That's right; the member for Heysen is right. When the media want opposition to a new R18+ category for interactive games, I am their man. This makes me a target for some gamers to vent their frustrations. Gamers write to me about why they want to play R18+ games so badly; how I am the only person standing in their way. Some have become aggressive and colourful. Emailer Rob Nobel has told me that I am a complete tool.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Wait for it. Graeme Davies writes to me with the salutation, 'Dear Jerk', and he says he kind of hates and pities me at the same time, concluding he mainly hates me. 'da_bomb2003' says I am a gold-medal winning imbecile, a true Nazi, a true coward, among other things. Comments on internet sites criticise my parenting because I raise concerns about my own children playing violent games. I am described as an idiot because my point of view is different from R18+ proponents. I have been sworn at, threatened, harangued and poked fun at because of my stance.

One internet site included comment from blogger Demonata: 'Our only hope is if someone assassinates that [expletive]-head Michael Atkinson.' Another poster, NQGeo, suggested if I were assassinated this might hurt their cause because the killer may have played violent computer games and 'further draconian censorship of our favourite media' would eventuate.

Another site included a topic 'Michael Atkinson explains how clueless and [expletive] in the head he is.' Blogger Pirate described me as 'that scum-sucking [expletive]', amongst other colourful expletives. I have attracted many other critics.

My opposition has also made threats of vandalism. Not long ago, working late in my office, I heard a whoosh under my door and there, just like the old movies, was a message comprising letters cut out of magazine headlines and assembled on the page one by one, and it read:

Hey old man Atkinson! This act of vandalism is an expression of frustration of gamers who believe R18 rating is long overdue. Seriously who the [expletive] are you to tell us what we can play!!
Well, Mr Speaker, I swung open the front door of my office and saw no-one—another phantom attack with no-one to stand up for their views, just like the anonymous emailers hiding behind their avatars. One can only assume that the person who delivered the note fled, surprised at my presence in the office so late. Thankfully, I do not know how their rage was going to be acted out.
Last year, as the member for Heysen noted, an erotic magazine reported that I was one of Australia's most hated people.

Mrs Redmond: Six most hated.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Six most hated, thank you. I was one of the six most hated because I blocked the R18+ classification. I was deemed much more annoying than Radovan Karadzic, who was much further down the list. Earlier this year, the same magazine included me in their article 'UnAustralian of the Year 2009' for banning video games but not the Nazi flag.

My position on R18+ games is simple: they do not belong in Australian homes where children can access them. People tell me to let parents parent. They say it should not be my job to decide what they can play, that restricting R18+ games is unjustified censorship, that we live in a democracy and violent games already exist in MA15+ so why stop R18+ games? Violence in MA15+ games is already accessible to children, and it worries me. My own children play these games and they are sometimes enthralled by the electronic game as they shoot, maim and destroy on the screen, all to the background thump of machine noise passing for music.

This is not a sound reason to let more extreme games on the market. A recent discussion I had with visiting American Professor Craig Anderson about his research confirmed for me that repeating these virtual actions is likely to have strong impacts on children and adults. I encourage people to read his research and consider his findings. His research may be more enlightening than industry-funded polling and research about the impact of computer games.

The other arguments about censorship and democracy are flawed. We cannot allow all and every type of material to be available to the public—child abuse images, for instance. In Australia we are a tolerant lot, but there is a public barometer of what is and what is not acceptable. It is up to governments to monitor and enforce this and apply appropriate standards.

I urge members to get onto the internet and google Narc (short for 'narcotic'), or Grand Theft Auto III (not the Australian version), Soldier of Fortune: Payback, or Dark Sector. Read about what is in these games, look at the image, and think about their interactive quality. Then decide whether these are things that you really think should be sold in our state.

I am told that I offend democracy by my stand and that I am the one person in Australia who is stopping R18+ games. A blogger even suggested I be booted out by the Governor-General because this is a blatant case of abuse of power.

The Hon. I.F. Evans: Gough Mark II.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Yes, quite. Obviously that blogger comes from the Sandra Kanck-John Kerr school of constitutional law.

I stand here as the elected member for Croydon, as Attorney-General, because I have the confidence of a majority of members of the house. I sit on the national ministerial group that makes regulatory decisions about classifications, a group that allows one minister to veto changes to the classification system. I do not support R18+ computer games nor have I been personally approached by any member of this house who has said, 'We need R18+ games in Australia, and you should support this.' If any members opposite want to approach me, I will be available after question time.
This is democracy in action. As it happens, other attorneys-general support my position but are happy for me to be the lightning rod for the R18+ gamers. As the next Standing Committee of Attorneys-General approaches, the pressure for me to change my mind on R18+ games will continue.

Last year, SCAG was presented with a discussion paper to seek public opinion on the issue. I did not support that paper because its authors sought to suppress images of games rated above MA15+. However, I support canvassing views, and I intend to take my own version of the paper to SCAG in April. Then the internet ghosts can contribute to the debate on the discussion paper, and, I hope, be brave enough to put their real names and addresses to their submissions.

***

2009: Games R18+ Discussion Paper

He had this to say following the April 17th meeting of the Censorship Ministers where the R18+ Discussion Paper was on the agenda.

Quoted from:
Aussie R18+ video game debate to be opened to public
au.gamespot.com 17.04.09

"The standard line is that I was the only one responsible for stopping this discussion paper," 
 "I think it's important that a discussion paper be released. I believe the changes I proposed to make [the inclusion of images and gameplay footage of games rated MA15+ and above] would have been useful in making this discussion accessible to the majority of Australians, for whom this debate is inscrutable."

"I don't doubt gamers when they say that some games that are classified MA15+ in Australia should have been classified R18+; that is a possibility in my experience. I am critical of the OFLC [the Classification Board of Australia]. I believe it bends over backwards for the industry rather than the public interest."

"I'm open to discussion. My position now is that I'm opposed to an R18+ classification, but let's see how the debate progresses. Let's see what concessions gamers and the industry are prepared to make. This would involve the Classification Board applying the guidelines correctly."

***

2009: GameSpot AU R18+ Interview

Laura Parker conducted this 14 minute video interview with Michael Atkinson in which he once again went into great detail stating his opposition to a games R18+. He also details his thoughts on the debate he had with gamers  in March at the Kotaku site.

Exclusive: South Australian Attorney General on R18+ for games au.gamespot.com 24.04.09

***

2009:  R18+ following LEFT FOR DEAD 2's RC-rating

Quoted from:
Gore-fest video game banned
September 27, 2009, adelaidenow.com.au

"Some of your readers may believe that the present system restricts adult liberty," 
"It certainly does restrict choice to a small degree, but that is the price of keeping this material from children and vulnerable adults. In my view, the small sacrifice is worth it."

Mr Atkinson said the interactive nature of video games meant they had a much greater influence than viewing a film or reading a book.

"People are participating and 'acting-out' violence and criminal behaviour when they are playing a video game," 

***

2009: CALL OF DUTY: MODERN WARFARE 2

Here he is commenting on the scene where terrorists massacre people in an airport.

Quoted from:
Outrage as terrorist game lets players massacre civilians
smh.com.au, October 29, 2009

 "Expecting game designers to be responsible by not glorifying terrorism will always lead to disappointment."

***

2009: Political Party set up to oppose Atkinson

What do you do if you have had enough of Michael Atkinson's pro-censorship position?

You set up a party to take him on!

Gamers4Croydon is political party set up following the 2009 Refused Classification rating awarded to LEFT 4 DEAD 2. The aim is run a candidate in Atkinson's seat of Croydon in the 2010 South Australian State election.

Complaining about Atkinson to you friends on games forums may make you feel good, but it will not get you far. Instead give these guys your support.

***

2009: Atkinson responds to Gamers4Croydon challenge

Quoted from:
Video gamers aim for Michael Atkinson's seat
adelaidenow.com.au, November 8, 2009

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

***

2009: Atkinson's Lies: RAPEPLAY could be R18+

Quoted from:
Does Australia need an R18+ rating for computer games?
abc.net.au/rn/nationalinterest, November 20, 2009

Mr Atkinson, welcome to The National Interest.

Michael Atkinson: Thank you.

Peter Mares: Why do you oppose the introduction of an R rating and 18+ classification for computer games?

Michael Atkinson: Well I'm opposed to extremely cruel violence or violence being anticipated in interactive games. I'm also opposed to depraved and cruel sexual games. I'm also opposed to games that encourage people with points for drug use, that is the use of illegal drugs. The decision on this game to give it an MA15+ classification and in that sort of Commonwealth Classification Board I'll be appealing against that classification. I think it's wrong, it doesn't surprise me because the Classification Board in Australia does everything to try to get games in under the radar and film generally, but just because the system's not being applied properly, does not mean that the principals in the system are wrong.

Peter Mares: But wouldn't it be better to have an R rating so that then the Classification Board can say, 'Well this is clearly for adults', and consumers would know that. If these games are getting in anyway.

Michael Atkinson: No no, what I want the Classification Board to do is apply the guidelines properly. And I don't want the extremely violent, sexually depraved drug use games in Australia at all, because at the cinema, we can stop people under 18 going in to see outrageous movies. We can't stop these interactive games that are extremely violent or depraved getting into the home and then getting into the hands of children. Indeed the interactive games are I think a greater risk than film, because they are interactive, because people aren't just watching passively these horrible things that are happening, they are participating in them, they are doing them.

Peter Mares: Still, DVDs can also come into the home with R classification. You know, parents can bring home an R-rated DVD, and then decide whether or not the kids get to watch it.

Michael Atkinson: That's true, but it's not a reason to surrender. We're talking about games such as the Japanese game Rape Play, where one scores points for raping a mother and daughter.

Peter Mares: But as I understand, that's not allowed, that's not on sale anywhere outside Japan, even in countries with R classifications.

Michael Atkinson: Well I wouldn't put it past the Classification Board to make that an R-rated game, frankly, on their previous form. Also we have games where you score points, and the name of this game is Narc, (as in narcotics) and you score points for injecting yourself with drugs. Blitz the League is another game like this, an American football game where you take heroin, speed, LSD, marijuana, and ecstasy, and that of course helps you be a better athlete, and then you could even take a drug in the game to mask your drug use so you pass the drug test. We have a game where the player straps explosives to himself and then blows himself up in a market and scores points for how many people he kills.

Peter Mares: Still, as you say yourself, many of these games are coming in, perhaps not the ones you mention, but ones which you find objectionable, and a recent study by Bond University found that Australian adults support the introduction of R-rating classification and that they use those classifications to determine what to buy for their children.

Michael Atkinson: That was funded by the industry, normally ABC viewers mention that when the industry funds a survey. They preface their mention of the survey.

Peter Mares: Well you've quoted the same survey previously favourably. I'm very happy -

Michael Atkinson: I don't think so. I don't think so. I think what you're engaging in is advocacy for the R18 classification - moving a survey that was paid for by the industry.

Peter Mares: Attorney-General, I'm not advocating anything, I'm inquiring into this issue and I'm asking your opinion. I'm making the point that the industry says from its surveys, let's put it that way, that adults want classification so they can determine what to buy.

Michael Atkinson: Well no that's what the industry wants. The vast majority of Australians has not turned their mind to the question of an R18+ classification for interactive games, it's just not an issue out there in the electorate. Most Australians don't think about it, like me, many of them enjoy playing games such as The Wii, but they're unaware of the extreme violence, depraved sex and the drug use which is available in the interactive game industry, and of course the industry itself wants to make these games. They're running a candidate against me in my seat of Croydon in the coming State election in South Australia and I look forward to the contest, because I rather doubt that they'll get even 1% of the vote, so much for the claim of 90% of Australians favouring what the games industry wants.

Peter Mares:Well we're going to hear from someone from the games industry who I think is organising to have someone stand against you later in the program.

Michael Atkinson: They haven't managed to find anyone eligible to stand yet. That's how popular the proposition is.

Peter Mares: Let me come back to another point though, that if there was an R18+ classification introduced into Australia, that would require all Attorneys-General to take part in a discussion to draw up the ratings. Now you would be able to say this R18 classification should exclude the type of games altogether. It should still exclude a whole range of games that are, as you see it, and I have to say I agree with you with these games, obnoxious, repellent, morally repugnant.

Michael Atkinson: I have no trust in the Classificaton Board to apply the guidelines sincerely or correctly, and therefore to draw up such guidelines would be to draw them up in the sure and certain knowledge that they would be stretched, and then broken. But however I am happy to have a discussion of it, and indeed I cleared for publication a Commonwealth discussion paper on this issue back in April, and I've got no idea why it hasn't been issued yet.

Peter Mares: Well we were wondering about that discussion paper, too, and that was one of the questions I was going to ask you. We haven't been able to get a clear answer from the Attorney-General's Department, the Federal Attorney-General's Department, as to why it hasn't been released. What is your understanding? That discussion paper, as you say was meant to be released earlier this year.

Michael Atkinson: The Standing Committee of Attorneys-General was going to issue a discussion paper a couple of years ago, and I objected to it because it struck me as plain advocacy for the R18 classification, R18+ and it didn't contain any examples of these extremely violent and depraved games, so I insisted that such examples be included. They are included in the Commonwealth discussion paper, and I cleared it for publication in April, so I'm getting weary of the games industry claiming that I'm suppressing discussion. I'm doing no such thing.

Peter Mares: Well you'd like to see that discussion paper come out.

Michael Atkinson: I'm happy to have the discussion. Indeed I think when most Australians see examples of the kind of depravity, cruelty, and extreme violence of these games you know, shooting off an opponent's limbs, dismembering them, blood spray over the screen, torn flesh and protruding bone from dismembered limbs, heads exploding in a spray of blood. I think that they too will say that this will have the effect of desensitising people who play these games, some of them, not most of them, but just some of them, to desensitising them to violence.

Peter Mares: There is an argument that this is all academic, that banning these things doesn't work anyway, because they're going to come in from overseas.

Michael Atkinson: Oh, sure the law of theft hasn't worked these past few thousand years because people keep thieving.

Peter Mares:You say that's not a defence.

Michael Atkinson: No. I'm just going to do what I can as someone who was elected with 76% of the vote when I last faced election, and as someone who has the responsibility for the public good and the law to do what I can. Now if this can be circumvented, then so be it, but I've done my part.

Peter Mares: Attorney-General, thank you for your time.

Michael Atkinson: Thank you.

***

2009: Supported the separation of R18+ from other classifications.

Not surprisingly Atkinson supported the bill introduced by Family First's Dennis Hood for stores to sperate R18+ material from lower classifications.

South Australia
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY 
Thursday 3 December 2009

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

Second reading.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON (Croydon—Attorney-General, Minister for Justice, Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Minister for Veterans' Affairs) (11:02): The Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games (R18+ Films) Amendment Bill 2009 amends the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995, which I shall refer to as the South Australian Classification Act. The amendments do two things: first, new section 40A of the act will prohibit an occupier of premises (other than adults-only premises) at which films with a classification lower than R18+ are sold displaying material for a film classified R18+ at the premises unless: 

* the material is displayed in a different area (including, for example, in a different aisle or on a different shelving case, stand or table) from that in which material for other films is displayed; 

* the area is marked as an area displaying material for films classified R18+ by a notice complying with subsection (2) displayed in a prominent place near the area; 

* the surface area of the material that is on display (for example, the front cover of a DVD container where that is on display) is not more than 300 centimetres; or 

* unless, at all times while on display, the material bears no images or marking other than:

(i) the name of the film in letters of 10 millimetres or less in height; and

(ii) the determined markings relevant to its classification.

A notice required to be displayed under this new provision must contain this statement (printed in legible type of at least 15 millimetres in height and of a colour that contrasts with the background colour of the notice):

R18+ FILMS AREA—THE PUBLIC ARE WARNED THAT MATERIAL DISPLAYED IN THIS AREA MAY CAUSE OFFENCE.

It is a defence to a prosecution for an offence against subsection (1) to prove that the defendant—

* did not know, and could not reasonably have known, that the material was on the premises; or 

* took all reasonable steps to prevent the commission of the offence.

When introducing this bill in another place, the Hon. Dennis Hood MLC advised that the thrust of the bill is to put R18+ films quite separately from children's films. Secondly, the bill inserts a new section 69A into the act. This provision will prohibit an occupier of premises (other than an adults-only premises) at which films with a classification lower than R18+ are sold: 

* exhibiting for promotional purposes at the premises a film or part of a film classified R18+; or

* displaying for promotional purposes at the premises a poster, pamphlet or other printed material for a film classified R18+.

A similar defence to that already described is provided to this offence. The Hon. Dennis Hood also advised that new section 69A will prohibit the showing of trailers or other promotional material with a rating of R18+ or greater. These measures are expected to complement the existing restrictions on the sale and exhibition of R18+ films and promotional material while imposing small costs on businesses that sell or rent films.

I agree with the Hon. Dennis Hood that many parents would support these measures. For these reasons, the government is happy to support the second reading of the bill and to take it through all stages.

***

2010: R18+ discussion paper and CALL OF DUTY 2 review

Quoted from:
Atkinson "won't surrender" anti-R18+ fight
au.gamespot.com, January 19 2010

"I don't think the discussion paper presents a fair and balanced view of the issue without pictures of the games that would be rated R18+," 

 "I think the majority of the population are unfamiliar with these games and without images, they won’t be able to imagine them in their mind's eye. They’ll have no idea how violent or sexually depraved they are, and what kind of torture, drug use, and blood spatter they include.

"I also believe that very few people outside the gaming community will have a say in this public consultation, which will mean an overwhelming response in support of R18+."

"It's unlikely I’ll change my stance [on R18+ for games] anytime soon, considering the last death threat I received was pushed under my door at 2am, presumably by someone who doesn’t like my stance on R18+," 

"It was like something out of a Hollywood film--letters cut from magazine headlines arranged together on a page. I receive abusive emails from anonymous senders on a daily basis. I get called a paedophile every single day. But I won’t surrender," 

"I'll consider changing my mind about all this when the gaming community decide to behave in a civil fashion and apologise for the theats to me and my family. But I don't plan to back down from the fight. I started my mission and I plan to finish it."

"Other Attorneys General regard this as a low-key issue. Others support R18+, and others oppose it. Others are indifferent. I personally try to reply in a reasoned way to everyone who writes to me about this issue, something that's become very hard lately with the daily flood of anonymous and abusive e-mails."

Despite threatening to call for a review of CALL OF DUTY: MODERN WARFARE 2 Gamespot revealed that he did not go through with the threat. 

"[Federal Minister for Home Affairs] Brendan O’Connor was planning to appeal the same game I was, and I understood that he went ahead with this appeal so there was no reason for me to do the same," 
"I don't know what the result of this appeal was."

According to the Classification Board of Australia, the Classification Review Board has not received an appeal on any video game classification decision from O'Connor in 2009 or 2010. The board also told GameSpot AU in November last year that no appeal from Atkinson had been received, which indicates that neither minister followed up his intentions to appeal Modern Warfare 2.

***

2010: Attacks Gamers4Croydon 

Quoted from: 
Atkinson slams Gamers4Croydon 
au.gamespot.com, January 21 2010

"It's 60 days until the election and they [Gamers4Croydon] don't even have a candidate yet," 

"Their Web site is full of memorabilia but not much else. This electorate has some 24,000 people to talk to and convince. Personally, I see no evidence of local support for their party."

"I assume the Gamers4Croydon campaign will involve criminal activities and dirty tricks, which is what I've come to expect from gamers,"

"Regardless, I think they will struggle to get even 1 percent of the votes, and their campaign will actually discredit the public campaign in support for R18+ rather than enhance its chances. They [Gamers4Croydon] might do better leading up to the election, but at this stage they’re not doing anything. What's more, David Doe has to stop taking pleasure in people abusing me."

"Their [Gamers4Croydon] presence has good effect on me. I’ve been door-knocking hundreds of homes around Croydon and I find I'm doing everything more thoroughly and earlier than I normally would. But that's not to say I'm not treating this seriously; I’m out there working on the basis that this is a real contest,"

***

2010: Threatened by gamers

Attorney-General steps up fight with gamers
abc.net.au
February 16, 2010

"About two o'clock in the morning I had a threatening note from a gamer shoved under my door," he said.

"I feel that my family and I are more at risk from gamers than we are from the outlaw motorcycle gangs who also hate me and are running a candidate against me.

"The outlaw motorcycle gangs haven't been hanging around my doorstep at 2:00 am, a gamer has."

"The reason that I think interactive games are different is that in interactive games the person playing is doing the actions and I therefore think it has a higher impact - impact has always been a consideration in censorship or classification, call it what you will," he told Good Game.

Mr Atkinson admitted his three sons disagreed with his view on games classifications.

***

2010: Threatened by gamers

adelaidenow.com.au
February 2010

"Those lobbying for an R18+ category for interactive games have put a threatening message made entirely from individual letters cut from different magazine headlines and glued to a page underneath my door between 2am and 2.30am," 

"Those lobbying for an R18+ category have spammed my electorate office email by subscribing me to dozens of email feeds from US Government agencies without my consent.

"Those lobbying for an R18+ category for games have attacked my Wikipedia entry and added fictitious material purportedly about my childhood and claimed that I have a different sexuality from the one I actually have.

"Those lobbying for an R18+ category have disseminated criminally defamatory emails claiming that I am a paedophile, among other things, and defaming my children.

"Most of these are in such bad taste that they cannot be republished in the mainstream media."

 "I accept that most of those lobbying for an R18+ category for games have not done these things and do not condone them,"  

***

2010: Steps down as Attorney-General

At the March 2010 South Australian election Michael Atkinson retained his seat of Croydon despite loosing nearly 14% of his primary vote. The following day his stood down as the Attorney-General.

Continue...

   www.refused-classification.com

| Online Since April 2002