What’s your game, Mr Atkinson?

I am more than aware that dealing with a Government agency is not without its quirks and trials. In the case of the South Australian Attorney-General’s office, it is more like a demented game.

Considering that I am not residing in the seat of Croydon, I can understand why my concerns to Michael Atkinson would largely be met with a snort, and a guffaw before they print out my email and use it to wipe their bott-bott, however when it comes to an issue which covers the entire nation of Australia – the issue of an R18+ classification for video games – I believe that the Attorney should be accountable to a little more than just his seventeen square kilometre of safe Labor voters.

I first wrote to the Attorney-General’s office in March 2008 following this story, outlining my disappointment in his lack of support for an R18+ classification. My concerns revolved around how limitations of the current system actually allow games that were classified for over 18’s in other markets would be released in Australia under the lesser MA15+ tag. During the entirety of 2008, this occurred with the release of Fallout 3 (there was a global version which replaced “Morphine” with “Med-X”, which was rated for 18’s in Europe, Britain and New Zealand), Dead Space and the PC release of Grand Theft Auto 4 (which was unedited).

I also mistakenly asserted that people would be inclined to import the unedited games from overseas, thereby robbing local retailers of money. This turned out to be false, as I soon discovered that games that are refused classification in Australia can be seized by customs. I am not the type of person who does not acknowledge their mistakes.

I received the following response from the Attorney-General’s office:

Thank you for your email to the Attorney-General about the classification of R rated games.

Please provide us with your full name and postal address so the Attorney can correspond with you.

Kind regards,
Administration
Attorney-General’s office

Excellent. The ball had started rolling. I provided them with a contact name and address, but not without outlining my confusion as to why the Attorney couldn’t correspond over email. As he was discussing and affecting the area of technology, his office was showing an awkward hesitancy to embrace it. In this day and age of document scanning and .pdf’s I thought it would be nothing to simply flick me something in reply.

Time passed. It was May and I hadn’t heard anything. Curious to know the progress of my concern, I sent them another email to follow up. In reply, I received this:

Thank you for your email to the Attorney-General about the classification of R rated games.

Please provide us with your full name and postal address so the Attorney can correspond with you.

Kind regards,
Administration
Attorney-General’s office

Understanding that they receive many emails, I provided them with these details again, although I made a point of acknowledging that I’d already provided them.

As the year progresses through to October 2008, much happens. Fallout 3 is refused classification, and Australian Gamer publishes a response from the Attorney General that was sent through to one of his detractors. It is a fair and even handed response that definitely makes you consider his point of view.

In one section of that letter, he cites a report conducted by Bond University, “Interactive Australia 2007” which finds a number of things, including that “62% of Australians in these gaming households say the classification of a game has no influence on their buying decision.”

Later on in the year, the Attorney also featured on a segment of ABC2’s Good Game, which I cannot find right now, due to my internet being shaped.

When probed on a report which found that 90% of Australians support an R18+ classification, the Attorney refutes the finding, asserting that the report was conducted by vested interests, and by those who stand to profit from such a classification.

However, the report he refutes was performed by Bond University – the same institute that he champions in the letter published on the Australian Gamer website. Key findings summary can be found here and the research area of Interactive Entertainment Australia Association website is here

Disappointed in the lack of official response outside of “where do you live again?” from the Attorney’s office, I turned my attention to my local state member, Tom Koutsantonis MP, hoping that my vote counted for something. I figured that having a brief chat to the Attorney’s neighbour couldn’t hurt.

Within the first week, I received a response asking for clarification on the issue and some instruction on how to best get the response from the Attorney. After indicating that I’d already tried their methods, they promised to follow it up with the Attorney and that I would hopefully hear something from them soon.

Weeks passed, and again I heard nothing. Growing tired of the constant shunning, I emailed my local member again. They replied, outlining their disappointment in the Attorney’s office, as they had spoken with a number of people there, hoping to obtain a reply for me.

So it seems that the Attorney-General isn’t concerned with the plight of his fellow Labor members, either.

They then suggested I again write an email, but this time to their office so that Tom could raise the issue in person with the Attorney. I obliged, outlining the oddity in the Attorney citing one report, but shunning another. I also note the Attorney’s concern that an R18+ classification would potentially allow for even more disturbed content to hit local shelves, but I cite the Classification Board database which shows that since 1994, only 66 titles were refused classification in Australia. I understand that not every game available is submitted to the Classification Board, however I recall that anything which reaches our retail stores, and is therefore in reach of the kiddlies, must be classified in order to be legally sold.

That email was sent on 4 December 2008.

And again, I have heard nothing, despite my constant queries. I understand that I’ve only given them one month, and that Christmas time is probably when they shut up doors and nick-off for a break. However, I’ve been patient enough, I feel.

So what is it, Mr Atkinson? Do we believe Bond University or not? If so, then Australia is against you. If not, then your letter published on Australian Gamer is bunk.