Because you guys have an actual constitution that works.

So do we, in fact I'd argue that ours works better than most. The only two real issues here are:
1) The requirement for a unanimous agreement to alter or add ratings. This sounds like a minor thing but without a majority victory option, it could allow one stubborn holdout to disrupt the will of the majority. Still that'll never happen will it? *'looks at South Australia*... Oh
2) The lack of standardisation in the review process is a concern. "Marc Ecko’s Getting Up: Contents Under Pressure" was RC'd because it allegedly promoted graffiti whereas "Jet Set Radio Future" was rated G because it was harmless skating around and playing with spray paint (and being fucking awful but I didn't expect any better from a game that came free with my xbox). Two games with basically the same concept, one too dangerous for sale, the other fine for your 3 year old. Sure Ecko's has violence as well but thats not why it was RC'd

Yes, the ESRB is optional but I think most major retailers like walmart wont stock the game unless the games is rated though.

i believe you did not play it right as i found it incredibly fun and my taste is superior to yours of course :)
and it got very good reviews!
can someone explain who is the evil guy behind no "R" system in the country? and why he can keep doing it for so long?

My understanding is that it's almost entirely due to Michael Atkinson, the Attorney-General for South Australia. It seems that an additional rating category has to be approved unanimously by all the Attorneys-General, so all it requires is Atkinson continually voting it down. It basically looks like until he's voted out or dies there's no chance of Australia getting an "M" rating for videogames.

Pretty much perfect. Only thing is we're after an R rating, we have an M (and a useless MA which is for stronger content but has the same age rating)

Interview outlining causes and concerns with Atkinson:
http://au.gamespot.com/news/6203703.html?sid=6203703

M is recomended age is 15. MA is not allowed to buy with out a parents consent if under 15.
I was buying MA games at 13-14 but have been refused before aswell (mainly with movies though). Just depends how old you look.
Oh and were not going into wherther parents buy these games for there 8 year old children or not.

MA is still 15+. its recommended that the game player be accompanied by an adult when playing but its not a legal requirement for the purchase. At least if it is, I've never once seen an instance of it applying

There is a point I feel I should bring up about games being banned in Australia. Games are not strictly banned, they are just not allowed to be sold on retail store shelves. It's not against the law to order the game.
It is a dumb rule, but it's really not that much of a hindrance. It's just supposed to stop kids from going to K-Mart after school and buying it.

Thats quite true but making it illegal to sell is not that much different from actually banning it. Equally stupid at any rate

I don't get it. What's so offensive about it? Are they worried kids will try fighting zombies at home?

It seems that blowing the head off a Zombie with a shotgun is fine, but caving their heads in with a frying pan is offensive.

Its a symptom of problem number 2, the lack of standardisation. The board is not exactly a unified whole and from what I recall reading they split the work into teams pretty much at random. The issue with that of course is that Game A is reviewed by a handful of normal balanced adults and Game B is reviewed by a host of henpecking haranguing harpies who screech "think of the children" whenever they hear a joke slightly racy in a pixar movie much less when you're decapitating zombies