Mr. Toby Dagg:

I will take a look at the tier question for the Deputy. I believe the three questions were on self-governance, whether a 24-hour or 48-hour threshold should be included in the Bill and the tier system. The tier scheme is actually being repealed in the Act which is to commence at the beginning of next year. I can certainly talk about how it has operated and how it is designed. I may then talk briefly about some of the reasons why we have moved to a non-tiered approach to the regulatory schemes in the new Act.

Under the current arrangements, there is a two-tier scheme for serious cyberbullying matters. A social media service can be declared a tier 1 service on application to the commissioner. If the basic online safety requirements are met, requirements which include nominating a contact person, having policies in place which prohibit the use of the service for cyberbullying and adopting those sorts of principles, the commissioner can declare the social media service a tier 1 service. With regard to the benefits of being a tier 1 social media service, the tier scheme operates like a regulatory scheme. Tier 1 members can elect to have what is called the special rule imposed. This allows for any decisions made as to whether material amounts to cyberbullying material to be made by us with reference to the terms of service in operation on the relevant platform. Under this scheme, we serve the provider with a request for removal rather than a compulsory notice.

That is also available under the tier 2 scheme. On the advice of the commissioner, the Minister can declare a large social media to be a tier 2 service. There are various elements the commissioner needs to take into consideration before making that advice available to the Minister. If a service is declared to be a tier 2 social media service, the nature of the regulatory options become somewhat more interventionist and attract civil penalties.