Okay.
The reason I'm establishing this around subclauses 16(1) and (2) is because the clauses that we come to next are in terms of trying to identify cost again, and this has been sort of the framing of our conversation here today.
What I'm worried about is that an employee gets stuck in the middle of something like this, where a business says it's going out of business and the reason it's doing it is because of the accident that happened nearby. It certainly wouldn't be on the onus of the business owner, I would imagine, to prove that in court. They would no longer have any need to. They're not paying the employees. But the employees who worked there, would they have to go to court to establish that the reason they're out of work is because of this accident, and then seek compensation through this act, and then perhaps through Parliament?
It seems very awkward. I'm trying to understand. Are those folks more or less hung out to dry?