Office of Film and Literature Classification Review of Guidelines 2001

Completed campaign... the Guidelines have been revised.

Have your say!

Have you written to the Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC) and made a complaint about a film or computer game? Unfortunately, not many people seem to make formal complaints to the OFLC. In 1998-1999 only 198 complaints were made. In the last half of 2000 there was a total of 92 complaints against films, videos and computer games.

The OFLC Report is critical of ‘organised’ campaigns, especially where people haven’t seen the film. Unfortunately they seem to think we must watch something to know it is wrong!

Now we have an opportunity to have a say about the actual Guidelines used for classifying film, videos and computer games. A review of Classification Guidelines for film, video and computer games is being conducted by the Office of Film and Literature Classification - they have prepared Draft Guidelines and are inviting us to make submissions on these by 31 October.

What is the current situation?
Films and videos are rated G, PG, M, with restricted categories MA, R, X and RC (refused classification). Computer games are classified G, G (8+), M(15+) with restricted categories MA(15+) and RC. Films rated R are allowed, but not films rated X (but they can be sold in ACT and NT). R-rated computer games have not been allowed.

What proposals are being made?
The proposal is to combine the guidelines for film/video and computer games because new technology in computer games/DVDs allows the use of film and games in one product.

The Draft Guidelines suggest using the same symbols for film and computer games classification: G, G 8+ (comp) and PG (film); M 15+, MA 15+, R 18+, X (film only). The R category applies to film, but one proposal is that R-rated computer games be allowed.

The main questions asked in the review are:

1. Should there be a single set of classification standards for classifying entertainment media?

2. Should there be a single, consistent set of classification symbols and categories?

3. Are the new concepts, definitions and explanations likely to improve the scheme?

4. Are the standards in the draft combined guidelines clear, appropriate and adequate?

What are the key concerns?

¨ It seems reasonable that the Guidelines be combined and symbols and categories apply to both forms of media where appropriate.
We suggest G, PG12+ or T12+ (for teenage), R and RC (Refused classification).
An extra classification MT16+ with some of the current M15+ material but with ID required to prove age of 16+ could be a possible option since they won't want to move all M15+ and MA15+ into the R category.
We recommend that all MA15+ material be put into R18+ and that X rated films be put into the RC category.

¨ The standards set in the Draft Guidelines (and current Guidelines!) cause concern.

¨ Elements considered for each category under the Draft Guidelines include violence, sex, coarse language, themes (was adult themes), drug use, nudity, imitability (new) and dominant effect (new). Each of these needs to be compared with the current Guidelines and with what is ‘right’.

¨ We do not want R-rated computer games - they would easily be used by young people.

¨ Violence in computer games needs to be regulated more strongly as it influences young people.

¨ Ask for music lyrics to be included in the Classification system. (If they have visual images they would be covered!)

A full analysis of all the proposed Draft Guidelines is beyond the scope of this article.

ACTION:

1. Get the Draft Guidelines
Phone OFLC on (02) 9289 7100 or email This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it - in header put Request for Discussion Paper-Guidelines Review.

The Discussion paper is available on the web. Click here.

2. Send your Submission by Oct 31
Send your comments/submission to Guidelines Review 2001, Locked Bag 3, Haymarket, NSW 1240. They can also be emailed to This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it - please put "Guidelines Review 2001" in the header.

This article was printed in our October 2001 Journal. The proposed categories have been added since then.