Thank you for the question.
There are a number of examples in the bill that highlight the kind of balance we're trying to strike between closing gaps to address threats that we know are present and need to be responded to and, at the same time, ensuring that honest mistakes are not unduly addressed.
One example is the new provision in relation to false information. We are trying to be very targeted in this measure, ensuring that we are responding to the most critical and real potential threats, such as false information about who can vote, how voting is conducted and so on, which could potentially harm the integrity of our system. The measure, however, is quite targeted. It needs to be clear about the intention that the individual has, and it's very clear that they need to know that the information is misleading.
At the same time, if we look at some of the measures we're proposing from an enforcement perspective, we're expanding the number of contraventions that can be dealt with as violations of the act under the administrative monetary penalty regime. This provides the commissioner with greater flexibility to determine whether a violation of the act that is unintentional can be dealt with through the AMP regime, through administrative investigations and through tools like compliance agreements, letters of education, etc., so that we can again better target the compliance and enforcement activities of the commissioner.
You find this throughout the act where we are trying to strike that balance between closing the gaps and addressing the threats that are real, at the same time as we ensure that the commissioner and Chief Electoral Officer are taking a proportionate approach to the administration of the act.