Video games in New Zealand operate under a looser system of classification than the one used for films and videos, but one that can be complex, creating confusion for game sellers and the public alike.

The time may have come to treat games the same as films and DVDs and require them to carry a New Zealand classification label.

At present, games don't need to carry a classification label at all unless they have content that could be restricted under New Zealand classification law, such as depicting strong or explicit sexual or violent content. In other words, depicting such content in a way that might be injurious to the public good, or to younger people in particular.

To make things more complicated, games can carry another country's label - for example, a label from Australia - even though other countries do not always have the same sensitivities and standards for assessing and labelling content as we do in New Zealand.

In the past five years, 17 films and games have had their Australian classification changed after having had New Zealand law applied to them. The games were classified in New Zealand as a result of enforcement action, or because of complaints from members of the public, or because the chief censor called them in for classification, concerned that the rating assigned in Australia may not reflect New Zealand law.

Of these, eight games and five films went from an unrestricted Australian classification to a restricted New Zealand classification.

For example, in August 2010 the game Naughty Bear was rated M in Australia and distributed in New Zealand carrying the Australian label. It was submitted to the Office of Film and Literature Classification by the Internal Affairs Department on the basis that, in other jurisdictions, the game had received a higher age restriction than the M rating given to it in Australia.

In Naughty Bear, the player's goal is to kill the other bears using things on the island, such as bear traps, barbecues, machetes and guns. The amount of points the player gets increases when they hunt and kill the bears in more brutal ways. After applying New Zealand's classification law, the Classification Office restricted the game to persons 13 and over because of the way the game dealt with violence and cruelty.

In its decision to restrict the game, the office noted that "Unless restricted to persons 13 years of age and over, this material is likely to be injurious to the public good because the general levels of emotional and intellectual development and maturity of persons under that age mean that the availability of the publication to those persons would be likely to cause them to be greatly disturbed or shocked".

In recent research by the Classification Office, most participants were unaware of the practice of cross- rating and the exemptions for games, and opinions on these practices varied.

One participant said: "I guess I always thought that everything got reviewed here, I never realised that we just automatically took other people's classifications."

Participants in this research felt it important that classification decisions for New Zealand were based on New Zealand society's values and law, and made by a group based within New Zealand "because they've got more idea of what is acceptable in our culture". The research also showed that 71 per cent of respondents would like to see the system change so that all games are required to have New Zealand labels.

A change to the classification legislation would be required to ensure that games are treated the same as films and DVDs - whether using another classification system, for example Australia's, or a New Zealand-based evaluation.

The research, which will be published shortly, indicates that such a change would be welcomed by consumers and enable members of the public to feel confident that games on the New Zealand market have been classified in accordance with New Zealand law and public expectations. However, the commercial implications for games distributors of such a move are unclear.

The work recently announced by the Government to look at opportunities throughout the media regulation sector might provide a useful vehicle to explore these issues further.

Andrew Jack is the chief censor.

- The Dominion Post