Well, sir, my understanding would be that if you're not exempted by this provision, then at least the passenger type of liability would apply. And again, I stress that the government policy appears to be that there ought to be a distinction between certain classes of those who might suffer injury on board vessels. But for this exemption, the regime that would apply would be that afforded to passengers, in other words, the higher regime. I think that is the reason for the distinction.
Proposed subsection 28(2) says, “The maximum liability... to persons...otherwise than under a contract of passenger carriage...”, and clearly these people would be otherwise than under a contract of carriage if they've sort of sneaked on board or have been found in a container or whatever. It is to ensure that this particular provision just doesn't apply to them.
That is the chief reason to make this amendment. It mirrors another amendment in part 4, which has the same sense or goes in the same direction. Again, it's an exemplification of the government's approach to different liability regimes, depending on what type of person is on board and what type of vessel it is.