In the past week, both South Australia and the ACT proposed the same thing: a plan to introduce R18+ for games in their individual states if a nationwide consensus cannot be reached at the upcoming SCAG meeting in July, providing the federal government first introduces the adult rating by another method at a federal level.

　　South Australian Attorney-General John Rau further proposed that his state should abolish the MA15+ classification for video games at the same time it introduces R18+, a move spurred by Rau's opinion that there should be a clear gap between what is suitable for children and what is suitable for adults. His proposal to introduce R18+ and abolish MA15+ for games in SA was approved by the state's cabinet.

　　But are South Australia and the ACT's plans to go it alone possible under Australia's classification system? And what can the federal government feasibly do if a nationwide consensus on R18+ cannot be reached? GameSpot AU spoke to an industry legal expert, as well as the federal government to try to answer some of the most pressing questions in this increasingly confusing debate. [The answers below have been formulated with the guidance, comments, and help of a legal representative and the Federal Attorney-General's Office.]

　　Q: So can South Australia and the ACT go it alone? Can they change their own laws to allow R18+ or remove MA15+?

　　A: No. Classification in Australia is an intergovernmental issue. This means that individual states and territories cannot change classification laws in their own state until it has first been done so by the federal government and with the approval of other states and territories.

　　Classification laws are laid out in the National Classification Scheme, which states that the federal government is responsible for the classification of publications, films, and video games, and the states and territories are responsible for the enforcement of classification decisions.

　　Q: So the only way any classification can change right now is through SCAG?

　　A: Yes. The introduction of the R18+ classification for games requires an amendment to section 7 of the Classification (Publications, Films, and Computer Games) Act 1995, and substantial amendments to the Classification Code and the Classification Guidelines.

　　The Classification Act states that amendments to both the Classification Code and to the Classification Guidelines require the agreement of all federal, state, and territory ministers responsible for censorship matters. This is also consistent with the Intergovernmental Agreement relating to the National Classification Scheme.

　　Amendments to the National Classification Scheme are therefore progressed through SCAG. The R18+ for games has been on the SCAG agenda since 2002.

　　Q: If there is no unanimous agreement at the next SCAG, what can the federal government do to keep pushing the R18+ cause? Has the federal government ever ignored the states and just changed something in classification?

　　A: Yes. But first, let's go back to the two possible outcomes of the SCAG meeting in July. If all federal, state, and territory attorneys-general vote unanimously to introduce an R18+ classification for video games in Australia then the federal government can move ahead to make changes to the National Classification Code to allow for a new R18+ classification for video games.

　　However, if federal, state, and territory attorneys-general do not reach a unanimous agreement to introduce an R18+ classification for video games in Australia at the SCAG meeting in July, 2011, the federal government has declared it will look at other options. These options have not been made clear yet. However, there is one instance in the past when the federal government has changed classification laws without the unanimous agreement of all states and territories.

　　In 2007, then Federal Attorney-General Phillip Ruddock introduced a bill to make new provisions to the Classification Act. The bill--titled The Classification (Publications, Films, and Computer Games) Amendment (Terrorist Material) Bill 2007--required that any publications, films, or video games going forward that advocate the doing of a terrorist act must be immediately refused classification (RC).

　　Ruddock first proposed this change to classification laws in July 2006, when he put the matter to SCAG in order to secure a unanimous agreement and thus amend the National Classification Code. However, unanimous agreement could not be reached. This led Ruddock to introduce his bill and, since the National Classification Code could not be amended, make changes to the Classification Act instead, thus requiring the Classification Board of Australia from then on to refuse classification of material that advocated terrorist acts.

　　The below is an excerpt from a speech Ruddock gave on Thursday, June 21, 2007, in the House of Representatives, explaining the cause for his actions and the need to take matters into his own hands:

　　"I would prefer to see these provisions in the National Classification Code and guidelines, not in the Classification Act, but that requires the states' and territories' agreement. […] I first sought state and territory agreement to changes to classification laws in July 2006. To date, they have been reluctant to respond positively to my proposals. I am not prepared to wait indefinitely to address this problem. […] The provisions take into account submissions received following public consultation on the discussion paper. […] Let me make it very clear: I have been pressing the states and territories to deal with this issue for more than 12 months, and I think they have had more than enough time to come to an agreement."

　　To read more on how classification in Australia works, read GameSpot AU's Classification FAQ.