Professor Brian O'Neill:

It was not our recommendation. I should point out as well that our work coincided and overlapped with the Law Reform Commission. That fact acted as one of the constraints on us because we were given a tight timeframe. We were aware that the Law Reform Commission had longer to consider it. The commission extended its process to the end of 2015.

Again, it was not a matter for us. This is an indication of how fast these questions develop. The Harmful Digital Communications Bill was in development in New Zealand at that time. There was no active proposal in Australia, which has since provided the model. It was later in the day when the Law Reform Commission made that recommendation. We supported several of the recommendations. We discussed them actively with the Law Reform Commission in the development of the report. Specifically, in respect of the digital safety commissioner, in my previous appearance before the committee I mentioned that the recommendations are not entirely incompatible. There are differences because they extend in different dimensions. Work on the establishment of any office that might be called a digital safety commissioner or something similar will be required to implement the recommendations we have set out. It was similar in the case of the Australian Office of the eSafety Commissioner. In Australia the office was an extension and it grew out of the communications regulator and that regulatory arena. The regulator there has had extensive dealings with the broadcasting arena, children's content and children's advertising and has been able to draw on that experience. We have had similar discussions here.