So, do we have an R18+ now or what?

　　No, we don't have an R18+ for games just yet. At the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General meeting on Friday, December 10 in Canberra, federal, state, and territory ministers did not vote on introducing R18+ for games. Instead, they voted on drafting a set of preliminary guidelines for the introduction of an adult classification for games. What this means is that they have agreed to write the law that will allow for R18+; once they write it up, they will vote on introducing the guidelines. And following from that, they will vote on an R18+ classification at the next SCAG meeting in March 2011.

　　Wait, what is SCAG?

　　SCAG is the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General--a regular meeting that happens a few times a year among all federal, state, and territory attorneys-general, who meet to discuss issues relating to their portfolios. Under Australian law, attorneys-general are responsible for national classification matters, which is why the R18+ for games issue falls to them. In order for an R18+ classification for video games to be introduced in Australia, all federal, state, and territory attorneys-general must agree unanimously to its introduction under the law; this means that if one minister is against its introduction, it will not be passed.

　　So who is this Brendan O'Connor fellow then?

　　Brendan O'Connor is the federal minister for Home Affairs. The Home Affairs Department took control of the R18+ issue at the SCAG meeting in April 2009, when the then Federal Minister for Home Affairs, Bob Debus, decided to take over the R18+ public consultation after the attorneys-general could not reach a unanimous agreement over its contents. The Home Affairs Department has been in charge of the R18+ issue since then.

　　There were some rumours that the WA attorney-general was holding things up. Is he the reason why we don't have an R18+ yet?

　　No. In an interview with GameSpot AU on Friday, Brendan O'Connor said attorneys-general did not vote on R18+. This means no one was responsible for holding anything up. In fact, O'Connor went on to say that all the attorneys-general had "an open mind" to the R18+ process, which led them to the decision to draft preliminary guidelines for its introduction.

　　But I heard that WA wasn't a fan of R18+ to begin with.

　　You heard wrong. The WA Attorney-General, Christian Porter, has never stated either a pro-R18+ or anti-R18+ stance. During an interview with GameSpot AU on December 6, Porter's department said: "The minister will participate in further discussions at the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General meeting before determining his position on the matter." During the SCAG meeting on Friday, his department confirmed Porter would meet with his cabinet before forming a stance.

　　What you heard probably came from this media report, which suggested Porter was under pressure from his party room to oppose the introduction of R18+ for games. Since then, the WA State Council passed a motion supporting R18+ for games and calling for Porter to support it too.

　　Porter is yet to meet with his cabinet; his stance on R18+ will be known immediately after that meeting.

　　So what about these guidelines then? What do they actually mean?

　　The Australian Classification Board rates content based on guidelines written in the National Classification Scheme. These guidelines are law; the Classification Board is required to follow them in order to classify content. The proposed R18+ draft guidelines would therefore serve as the legal parameters to be used by the Classification Board to classify R18+ games. The guidelines, if passed, would also be introduced into the National Classification Scheme. All the federal, state, and territory attorneys-general's departments will work together to draft these guidelines, which will be presented at the next SCAG meeting in March 2011.