Yes, if there's time. This is the problem here.
I'd point out section 19 of the act. Section 19 says, “Compliance with this Act is a condition of a person's appointment or employment as a public office holder.” That should have a bearing on what happens to the person who may have been found to have contravened the act. It's not the Ethics Commissioner who will have that bearing; it will be the place where he works or the way he's appointed, the way he's elected, the way he's hired.
What I'm saying is that the contraventions are there in the act, written as they are, and if there are mitigating circumstances, you would note in the decision that, yes, they contravened the act, and perhaps it's understandable why, but the fact of the matter is that it doesn't affect whether they contravened the act or not.