There is an amendment that “significant or widespread” has been added in relation to undermining core infrastructure and other things. That hopefully gets away from certain protests.
There are a couple of other changes. There's a debate about the disclosure threshold of relevance versus necessity. Certainly this committee and the ethics committee recommended a necessity threshold in accordance with the Privacy Commissioner. We don't see that in this bill, but we do see an increase, I think, from relevance to “contribute to the exercise of the recipient institution”.
Is that adequate in your view, Ms. Carvin or Mr. Neve?