I think the issue of unfounded complaints is absolutely valid, as we've seen through the testimony from victims' groups, etc.
My understanding of the intent of this amendment is to include the “unfounded” language within the revocation provision, which is far past the time a judge would look at an application, as well as the reliability of the evidence and the applicant, and deem that to be vexatious or unfounded at that time. This is past the initial order that is or is not made. A decision has been made. If an order is made, this allows a judge to revoke it if those circumstances no longer exist.
It's a step later in the process, after the application and after a judge has already made an order.