Yes, I read points (a), (b) and (c) under that section, and point (c) mentions anything that nearly resembles a symbol in point (b) should be banned. Yes, that can be addressed, and in my submission I did mention that, if we remove the words “Nazi swastika”, just leave those words out of part (b), that's good enough. Under the defences section, you did include the sentence that, if you are using it for religious purposes, then that will be protected.
Besides that, in my submission—which will be translated, and then you will get it—we are asking for an explicit exception for the Hindu and Jain communities, which was done in Victoria state, Australia. They made an explicit exception—and there they used the word “swastika”—that it should be exempted if it is used for religious purposes, and they said that, sometimes, it is conflated with the Nazi hakenkreuz. They are making a very clear distinction.
Also, I have submitted educational material that was done by the education department of Oregon state, U.S.A. It's more a matter of an education. If we educate the media, officers of the law and police personnel, I think this can be very well addressed. People will not be charged for that as long as they know the intent here is religious in purpose and not to incite hatred against the Jewish community or any community.