Computer games offer the player many things, from improvement in hand-eye co-ordination, to social opportunities, to the chance to gun down virtual civilians. But one thing that is not on offer in Australia is a game with R18+ on the cover.

In relation to films, R18+ means that the material is of "high" impact. The highest legal classification for games is MA15+, which allows "strong" impact. Anything higher is "RC" – Refused Classification, or effectively banned.

Australia does not have an R rating for computer games as they do in European countries. But the arguments for such a rating from the gaming industry don't hold up. Credit:Rosie Greenway/Getty Images

Australian lawmakers are under pressure to change this. The debate so far has seen some spectacularly disingenuous arguments from the pro-R18+ lobby (on which more later), and now, thanks to Laura Parker, we get some highly original interpretations of the political process.

Parker seems to confuse the concept of a consultation (seeking the community's views on a matter of policy) with a referendum (where the community actually decides). If 98% of the 'submissions' to the R18+ consultation earlier this year were in favour of liberalisation, this is because a simple signature on a petition left out in a game shop is treated as equivalent to a substantial written argument. It is quite consistent with the nature of the process to give greater weight to the latter, and these were nearly evenly split for and against R18+.