Australia's R18+ Rating Could Be Two Years Away

October 28, 2011 -

David Emery, manager of applications at the Australian Classification Branch, has warned the public at large in Australia that there will probably be a two year delay before the country finally sees the full implementation of an R18+ rating.

"There is legislation that's been put to Parliament about the changes," said David Emery in a Politics of Play debate. "What happens next is a long process again. It's probably going to take another couple of years before you're actually going to get an R18 that you can apply for, like a conventional classification that you have today."

The Australian federal government voted in July of this year to introduce the new rating, and federal minister for home affairs Brendan O'Connor stated it "would only take a couple of months."

But Emery disagrees with that timeline strongly and points out a number of obstacles to a quick introduction.

"It's got to go to Parliament, then there's changes that have to be made subsequent to that - to the Classification Act - to allow for people who have had a game that has gone to the classification board and been refused classification to then be resubmitted in some form," he explained. "There also needs to changes made to each state and territories classification act that needs to go through the exact same process that I've just described, except on a state level. All of those things take ages, there are lots of delays."

He goes on to say that it will probably be another couple of years before the agency will be able to accept an application for an R18 game.

Source: GI.biz


Comments

Re: Australia's R18+ Rating Could Be Two Years Away

Thank God we have a Freedom of Speech clause in the U.S. constitution, as well as a Freedom of expression clause in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada. No non-totalitarian state should have to put up with this kind of shit. Is there nothing pertaining to Freedom of Speech; or freedom of Expression in the Australian Constitution or Charter or whatever they call it down there. It seems like their government has way to much power to Censor speech without some sort of way to shield that.

"No law means no law" - Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black on the First Amendment

Re: Australia's R18+ Rating Could Be Two Years Away

And what doesn't stop the Australian government and ACL from punishing or pushing draconian law until then or even respect the new rating in the first place?

-------

"WARNING GUARANTEE: This post contains material which a truly free society would neither fear nor suppress."

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Which group is more ethically challenged?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Infophile(cont'd) about non-union police officers being given hell until they joined the union.07/07/2015 - 4:58pm
InfophileParadoxically, the drive in the US to get rid of unions seems to have left only the most corrupt surviving. They seem to be the only ones that can find ways to browbeat employees into joining when paying dues isn't mandatory. I've heard some stories ...07/07/2015 - 4:57pm
Matthew WilsonI am old school on this. I believe its a conflict of interest to have public sector unions. that being said, I do not have a positive look on unions in general.07/07/2015 - 3:59pm
TechnogeekWhat's best for the employee tends to be good for the employer; other way around, not so much. So long as that's the case, there's going to be a far stronger incentive for management to behave in such a way that invites retalitation than for the union to.07/07/2015 - 3:10pm
TechnogeekTeachers' unions? State legislatures. UAW? Just look at GM's middle management.07/07/2015 - 3:05pm
TechnogeekIn many ways it seems that the worse a union tends to behave, the worse that the company's management has behaved in the past.07/07/2015 - 3:02pm
james_fudgeCharity starts at home ;)07/07/2015 - 2:49pm
james_fudgeSo mandatory charity? That sounds shitty to me07/07/2015 - 2:49pm
E. Zachary KnightGoth, if Union dues are automatically withdrawn, then there is no such thing as a non-union employee.07/07/2015 - 2:38pm
Goth_Skunka mutually agreed upon charity instead.07/07/2015 - 2:33pm
Goth_Skunkyou enjoy the benefits of working in a union environment. If working in a union is against your religious beliefs or just something you wholeheartedly object to, dues will still be deducted from your pay, but you can instruct that they be directed towards07/07/2015 - 2:33pm
Goth_SkunkBasically, if you are employed in a business where employees are represented by a union for the purposes of collective bargaining, whether or not you are a union member, you will have union dues deducted from your pay, since regardless of membership,07/07/2015 - 2:32pm
Goth_SkunkIt's something that has existed in Canada since 1946. You can read more on it here: http://ow.ly/PiHWR07/07/2015 - 2:27pm
Goth_SkunkSee, we have something similar in Canada, called a "Rand Employee." This is an employee who benefits from the collective bargaining efforts of a union, despite not wanting to be a part of it for whatever reason.07/07/2015 - 2:22pm
Matthew Wilson@info depends on the sector. for example, have you looked at how powerful unions are in the public sector? I will make the argument they have too much power in that sector.07/07/2015 - 12:39pm
InfophileIt's easy to worry about unions having too much power and causing harm. The odd thing is, why do people seem to worry about that more than the fact that business-owners can have too much power and do harm, particularly at a time when unions have no power?07/07/2015 - 12:31pm
Matthew Wilsonthe thing is unions earned their bad reputation in the US. the way unions oparate the better at your job you are, the likely you want to be in a union.07/07/2015 - 11:33am
InfophilePut that way, "right to work" seems to have BLEEP-all to do with gay rights. Thing is, union-negotiated contracts used to be one of the key ways to prevent employers from firing at will. Without union protection, nothing stops at-will firing.07/07/2015 - 11:06am
Infophilehas an incentive to pay dues if they're represented either way, so the union is starved for funds and dies, unless things are bad enough that people will pay dues anyway.07/07/2015 - 11:02am
InfophileFor those who don't know, "right to work" laws mean that it can't be a condition of an employment contract that you pay union dues. That is, the right to work without having to pay dues. Catch is, unions have to represent non-members as well, so no one...07/07/2015 - 11:01am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician