A government report issued by Australian Minister of Home Affairs Brendan O’Connor, in which it was stated rather emphatically that “there is no conclusive evidence that VVGs [violent videogames] are more harmful than other violent media,” seems to have reignited the R18+ videogame rating debate Down Under.
The report (PDF), issued by the Attorney-General’s office, focused specifically on videogame research, and while it noted the “divided nature” of such research and the “insufficient attention” paid to third variables in such research, it was generally pro-videogame.
Among the conclusions was “that the strongest evidence has been found for short term VVG effects, and conclusions regarding long term effects have not been as strong.”
The report also concluded that “there is little evidence there is any difference in the effect of VVGs on children, adolescents and young adults.”
All this was too much to take for the Australian Christian Lobby, who called the violent videogame debate “far from over.”
The ACL seemed particularly peeved that the report gave “particular prominence” to the research of Texas A&M International’s Dr. Christopher Ferguson over that of Iowa State’s Craig Anderson, this “despite prominent researcher L. Rowell Huesmann recently declaring closed the debate that exposure to video game violence increases the risk of aggression on the basis of an extensive 2010 study by Prof Anderson, which Dr Ferguson subsequently rejected.”
The ACL warned that press reaction to the newly issued government report made it seem like the chickens have already hatched, with gaming interests now claiming that “a decision [is] expected to allow the sale of R18+ games.”
It urged its supporters to continue to register their concerns with Classification Ministers.