Last week, I asked the Hon Nanaia Mahuta if she would give some more certainty about what was intended by the wording that there would be "mechanisms that would enable the regulation of drinking water to be proportionate to the scale, complexity, and risk profile of each drinking water supply;". I asked that question because the bill does not make it clear what it means. It is a very important question that will need some explanation to provide guidance to Taumata Arowai. It is particularly important for another reason. I asked the Minister last week about whether it was proportionate and appropriate for a small drinking-water supplier, such as someone with a bore also supplying their neighbour with water, to be subject to a penalty regime exposing them to a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment or a maximum fine of $600,000. The Minister replied that there would be a level of responsibility for such a small water supplier who failed to provide safe drinking water. Now, I note that the Hon Meka Whaitiri referred to an exception in clause 160, with the liability of volunteers that would mean they would be excluded from prosecution of offence under a specified number of offences in the bill. Unfortunately, I note that this only refers to clause 163, which is an offence involving negligence in the supply of unsafe drinking water. It does not involve clause 162, which is an offence involving recklessness in the supply of unsafe drinking water, and there's no good reason that I have heard for why that has not been done.