Well, as you put it, it would be a very difficult thing to explain. I asked him questions about that, because the issue was raised with me as well.
I think the way the previous act was legislated was that it was so much money for a leg, a limb, a hand or whatever. I think the new act is a little bit more thoughtful and nuanced about what the impact of losing that leg is and whether or not it precludes a person from engaging in their employment after their service.
It also talks about the supports that are necessary. It's not just a straight cash payment for the loss of a limb; it talks about the supports that individual will need to live a productive, healthy and happy life with the loss of that limb.
I might suggest, as it's been explained to me, that it's slightly more nuanced than simply paying so much for a lost limb, and more about providing—