Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13526] 
Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 I move  
That the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Health Committee that the committee report finally to the House on or before 20 November 2010 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 187 and 191(b) and (c). At the outset— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but the time has come for me to leave the Chair. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: Let me return to where I was at about 6 o’clock. I had just uttered the words “At the outset” when the adjournment was called so let me pick up from that point about the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill that I had just moved be read a first time. What I was going to say at 6 o’clock was that this bill is not about a comprehensive review of drug legislation in this country because as members will be aware the Law Commission is currently consulting on an issues paper that addresses drug legislation from a first-principles approach. Parliament will have the opportunity to more broadly discuss how we deal with drugs in this country once the Law Commission has presented its final recommendations to the Government. However this bill will achieve several important things. First it closes off the source of precursor substances for the illegal manufacture of methamphetamine. Second it makes targeted changes to the Misuse of Drugs Act that are necessary for the effective administration of drug control. In particular it removes thalidomide as a controlled drug as it is now more appropriately controlled under the Medicines Act. The bill also removes the exclusion whereby a hazardous substance cannot also be a restricted substance it broadens the definition of amphetamine analogues and it allows greater control over drug paraphernalia. 
It is generally widely accepted that New Zealand has a problem with methamphetamine. Methamphetamine is the only illegal stimulant drug that is commonly manufactured in our country. We have high rates of use by international standards. A recent survey showed that just over 2 percent of New Zealanders aged 16 to 64 years had used methamphetamine in the previous year. Methamphetamine is a particularly problematic illegal drug in New Zealand. It causes significant harm to individuals families and communities. It increases the risks of cardiovascular problems convulsions and mental health disturbances including paranoia and violent behaviour. Methamphetamine use is especially concerning in those with mental health problems issues with anger and a predisposition for violence. Gangs and other organised criminal groups are closely involved with the manufacture and the supply of methamphetamine. The trade of this drug is associated with significant crime and violence. 
So it is vital that as a Parliament we take all reasonable steps to address the use of methamphetamine in New Zealand. In September 2009 Cabinet agreed to a comprehensive package of measures to control methamphetamine precursors to break drug supply chains to improve access and routes into drug treatment to improve support for the community to combat this drug and to provide stronger leadership by the Government. This package was announced by the Prime Minister last October when he launched a new Methamphetamine Action Plan which aims to significantly reduce the use of methamphetamine and consequently lead to a reduction of the harms it causes in this country. 
The next logical step that we must take to reduce the harm from this dangerous drug is to restrict the availability of the key ingredients required for its manufacture. These ingredients are the substances pseudoephedrine and ephedrine with pseudoephedrine being the main precursor of choice for drug manufacturers in New Zealand. Members will be aware that pseudoephedrine is currently available over the counter in many pharmacies in a number of cold and flu remedies. However the advice of the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs and also the Prime Minister’s chief science adviser is that effective alternatives to pseudoephedrine are available. The harms posed by the diversion of pseudoephedrine to the manufacture of methamphetamine outweigh the need for the ongoing over-the-counter availability of preparations containing this substance. 
This bill therefore reclassifies pseudoephedrine and ephedrine as class B controlled drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. This reclassification will have the effect of removing the over-the-counter availability of preparations containing these substances from pharmacies and will ensure that they are available only with a prescription from a medical practitioner. This will restrict the availability of these substances and make it difficult for potential manufacturers of methamphetamine to access the key ingredients to make the drug. 
Reclassification of these substances as class B controlled drugs will also give the police and Customs Service increased powers to control supply such as being able to obtain a warrant to intercept communications. 
The penalty for unlawful dealing of class B controlled drugs is imprisonment not exceeding 14 years. The penalty for unlawful possession or use of these drugs is imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months a fine not exceeding $500 or both. This reclassification will also require pharmacists and the pharmaceutical industry to comply with additional restrictions associated with a class B controlled drug such as safe storage. In order to give industry time to bring into effect these changes the bill proposes that the provisions relating to ephedrine and pseudoephedrine will not come into force until 3 months following the date of enactment. The bill also establishes the quantity or amount at or over which these substances are presumed to be for supply at a level of 10 grams. 
I acknowledge with thanks the report of the Attorney-General on the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act about the implications of establishing a presumption for the supply of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine. The Attorney-General has raised some concerns that the quantities of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine to be presumed to be for supply are not consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. I fully acknowledge these concerns which have also been raised in the past that presuming any substance to be for supply may be in breach of one’s presumption of innocence. So for this reason I support the Law Commission’s review of this matter within the wider review that is under way into the Misuse of Drugs Act. I will take the Law Commission’s recommendations in regard to the presumption for supply very seriously. 
But it is not the intention of this bill to second-guess the outcome of the Law Commission’s review. Under the current Act if a specific presumption for supply quantity is not set then the default presumption of supply of 56 grams will take effect. Possession of that quantity of pseudoephedrine would be the equivalent of taking a full dose of cold remedy every day for 6 months which is clearly excessive and brings with it a real risk of being used to make methamphetamine. The presumption for supply of 10 grams that the bill proposes was that recommended by the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs following careful consideration. I have accepted that committee’s recommendation. 
In addition to providing for the reclassification of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine the bill also provides an opportunity to address four other important matters that have been awaiting legislative action. First the bill as I said earlier removes thalidomide from schedule 1 of the Act in order to make this substance no longer a class A controlled drug. Everyone in the House I am sure is aware of the tragic circumstances of the 1950s and 1960s when thalidomide was widely and improperly used. But it is not a psychoactive substance and it has no potential to be abused. Its placement in the Misuse of Drugs Act is therefore an anomaly. Thalidomide is actually a medicine with legitimate applications. Accordingly the Medicines Act 1981 is the most appropriate legislative mechanism to control it with strict guidelines being made to prohibit its prescription during pregnancy. A notice in the  
New Zealand Gazette  
to schedule thalidomide as a prescription-only medicine will be issued concurrently with the passage of this bill to ensure that appropriate controls around the substance remain in place. 
The bill will also correct a problematic overlap between the Misuse of Drugs Act and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 by removing the exclusion whereby a hazardous substance cannot also be a restricted substance. The restricted substances regime is an important mechanism to place robust controls around low-risk psychoactive drugs such as so-called party pills. These substances would otherwise not have sufficient evidence of harm to warrant classification as controlled drugs. But the current wording of the legislation unintentionally acts as a barrier preventing the scheduling of any substance as a restricted substance. So the bill’s amendment proposes to remove this interference and to allow for the continued scheduling of low-risk drugs that would otherwise not be controlled as restricted substances. The bill also makes some amendments to the definition of amphetamine analogues—again a recommendation from the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs. 
Finally the bill will expand the provisions for prohibiting the importation and supply of utensils used for the purpose of administering controlled drugs. The bill provides for notices to be made to make it an offence to possess utensils for the purpose of sale or supply and prohibits the importation of incomplete utensils that for example require only the addition of a metal cone to burn cannabis to become useable. This will allow police and customs to move more effectively to enforce the utensils provisions in the current legislation and to minimise the visibility and the availability of drug paraphernalia. This bill seeks to address problematic drug use in New Zealand through a number of measures and I consequently commend it to the House. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 I begin my contribution this evening by saying that I intend to move an amendment to the referral motion and that amendment is to delete all the words after “committee”. 
I have to say that it is a measure I take out of frustration and surprise because the Minister who has just resumed his seat the Hon Peter Dunne is probably the person who I considered—prior to this evening—as the least likely member of this House to use a process for the consideration of legislation that was unnecessary. 
That Minister has been a stickler for good process in the past. He has prided himself on that and chided others for their abuse of a process that was unnecessary. He has hung out to the nth degree of time in opposition to—and we will not worry about the policy issues—the unnecessary use of urgency and to the extension of select committee sitting times when it was not necessary. But here we have that very same Minister using what I consider to be the proper process of Parliament and the select committee for an exceptional circumstance in what is clearly not an exceptional circumstance. 
Classifying pseudoephedrine and ephedrine-containing medicines as prescription-only drugs changing the classification of thalidomide and extending the controls over drug paraphernalia are not things that need extended sitting time. I am gobsmacked that that Minister has changed his behaviour so quickly clearly at the determination of the National Government. I think it is unnecessary and we should stand up against it. I urge the Minister to do what he has for many years lectured others about doing. He used to be a man of principle but he is now moderating that measure of principle. 
Having said that Labour supports the referral of this bill to the select committee. One of the reasons is that we want to play our part in what I think will be a near-unanimous decision of this Parliament. We want to play our part in doing everything we can to stop the damage done by P in our families our communities and our society. Labour will do everything it can to reduce the use of P and therefore reduce the damage that is done to individuals and their families. I have grave doubts about whether this bill will do that but why not hand it over to the experts who will be able to appear before the select committee and give us the benefit of their wisdom? That is why we want to support this bill’s referral to a select committee. 
The other concern I have about this bill is that there is a real contradiction. We have this great leap forward by asking every New Zealander to get a prescription for over 20 percent of cold and flu medications because of the ingredients they contain and the possibility that they will be used for manufacturing P. But at the same time we know that the majority of P is manufactured from imported ingredients and we are cutting back the resourcing for police and customs to do the job of protecting our borders against the importation of this material. 
Another consideration I urge the select committee members to keep in mind is the additional cost that this measure will impose on ordinary New Zealanders who have done nothing wrong—other than having a bad cold and wanting to get rid of it in a hurry. They want to be like the person in the ad who is sitting at the bus stop and not sneezing while the person next to him has a very bad cold. That is the worst that most New Zealanders will have done. They will have caught a very bad cold and they will want to take some medication to get rid of it in a hurry. But now they will have to get a prescription and because they will need to go to the doctor to get a prescription they will have to pay for the visit as well. So there will be quite an additional financial cost on individuals at a time when more and more New Zealanders are feeling financial pressure. 
More people are out of work and more people are working reduced hours and we have not seen the pay increases we might have hoped for in past days but the Government will load another cost on to people. This measure will clearly be a challenge for some people because in many parts of the country it is very difficult to see a doctor and people have to wait for quite some time. The waiting lists for doctors are increasing. Some people have moved to different parts of the country—Wainuiomata Timaru Levin—where doctors’ books have been closed so people new to town cannot get in to see a doctor at all. I am not quite sure how those people will get their prescriptions. 
Of course the even bigger concern is that one of the significant positive contributors to supporting people who might have drug and alcohol addictions is being taken away from them—our mental health and drug and alcohol treatment centres. My colleague Iain Lees-Galloway who I hope will have an opportunity to contribute to the debate later on this evening has recently asked the Minister about the cuts to the St Marks Adult Drug and Alcohol Treatment Centre in Blenheim the Care New Zealand clinic in Otahuhu and Ashburn Clinic in Dunedin. Those places give support to people who want to get away from their drug and alcohol addictions. Those places are laying off staff because of funding cuts signed off by the Minister of Health. 
So here we have the so-called great commitment from the Prime Minister and the Hon Peter Dunne to wage a war on P. They will ensure that ordinary New Zealanders have to go to the doctor to get a prescription for cold and flu medication but at the same time they are taking away resourcing for police and customs officers and they are cutting the funding for drug and alcohol treatment. How does that package make sense? I do not understand how there can possibly be a serious war on P when the very parts of the picture that actually make a difference are being taken away. 
There are a couple of other things I would like to mention. The first is the concern that the Hon Chris Finlayson has raised. In his view the legislation raises an issue in relation to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act because it sets out a presumption for supply. The message that Peter Dunne is giving to the good New Zealanders not only in his electorate but in mine as well is that if they go to the chemist to ask for a packet of whatever medication happens to have pseudoephedrine or ephedrine in it then the presumption from the Government is that they are buying that in order to manufacture and supply P. I think that Chris Finlayson’s concerns are justified; most New Zealanders do not do that. 
The final point I want to raise is with regard to the regulatory impact statement. It is coming from a Government that has led the charge on regulatory reform and the Hon Rodney Hide must be a bit embarrassed by it. The regulatory impact statement is meant to set out regulatory options; it is meant to look at all the options and the impact of those regulations. This regulatory impact statement states: “There are no other regulatory options proposed at this time since Government has already decided this course of action.” What sort of regulatory impact statement is it? Its job is to provide all of the options yet it states that it did not bother because the Government has already taken its course of action and made the decision. 
It seems to me that the intent behind the legislation is sound. As I said at the beginning of my speech tonight Labour is 100 percent behind any moves to rid society of the scourge of P and the harm it does in our families and communities. This bill raises more questions than answers and I look forward to the select committee considering it. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 Thank goodness for the National Government for progressing this war against pure methamphetamine! Undoubtedly this bill is part of the five-point plan to wage that war. Pure methamphetamine adversely affects every strata of New Zealand society. It is very interesting to note a recent Business and Economic Research Ltd study which has shown that the cost of non-alcohol financially adverse effects—that is effects relating just to drugs—amount to something like $1.5 billion. 
Clearly the adverse effects emotionally and for family are just absolutely enormous. An example in our community of Pukekohe in the Hunua electorate is that over the last year or two a chemist in his 60s has been caught supplying pseudoephedrine and ephedrine over a long period of time. This man was regarded as a doyen of society—he was a churchgoer—but he was suddenly found to be heavily involved in the supply of those drugs. 
It is important to reinforce the fact that the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Adviser Sir Peter Gluckman has stated that there are safe and effective alternatives to pseudoephedrine and ephedrine; a variety of countries around the world have banned these products in mixtures for colds. This bill among other things classifies ephedrine and pseudoephedrine as class B drugs which carries with it very very significant penalties. As was noted by the excellent Minister Peter Dunne the presumption of supply threshold is 10 grams. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: How much is that? How many pills? 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Well that is a very interesting point. Each pill contains about 240 milligrams; the maximum prescription one can have contains about 7.2 grams so two prescriptions would amount to being over the presumption of supply threshold of 10 grams. 
I think it is absolutely right that the Attorney-General’s report has come out and stated that this bill does indeed contravene section 5 of the Bill of Rights. But he cites the Hansen case where he states that the majority in that case “concluded that the control of the supply of illegal drugs is a pressing social objective which might justify limitations on rights and freedoms affirmed in the Bill of Rights Act.” The Attorney-General states with regard to that: “Accordingly … I have concluded that the Bill’s objective is sufficiently important and significant.” 
Just to end up I say that I look forward very much to rigorous and vigorous scrutiny in the select committee process. I commend this bill to the House as a very very important part of the jigsaw in fighting the war against pure methamphetamine in New Zealand. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to follow the chair of the Health Committee’s surprisingly short contribution on the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill a bill important enough to have its first reading under urgency. Like the chair of the Health Committee I look forward to there being a vigorous and rigorous debate on it at the select committee. There are a number of things in this bill and if I get a chance to do so I will cover more than just the question of the classification of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine. But given that to this point that issue has occupied the minds of most of the speakers I will pick up where Dr Hutchison and my colleague the Hon Ruth Dyson left off with the regulatory impact statement. 
Under the heading of “Problem definition” we actually have a problem. It states that the “New Zealand Police has reported that one in three clandestine methamphetamine laboratories detected contain traces of domestically sourced PSE. This does not suggest that 30% of methamphetamine in New Zealand is manufactured using domestic PSE however Police consider that the levels diverted for illegal purposes is significant.” So we know that not even 30 percent of the problem is caused by domestically sourced pseudoephedrine but we know that the domestically sourced amount is significant. We do not know exactly what “significant” means; we do not know whether it is 5 percent 10 percent or 15 percent. We do not actually know the extent of the problem the extent of the question that we are trying to address with this bill. It is perfectly valid to seek out the sources of P and to try to crack down on them but as my colleague Ruth Dyson said earlier on this requires a whole-of-Government approach. We are cutting back on Customs Service resources yet the vast majority of the sources of methamphetamine are coming into the country illegally from offshore. That is where we should focus our attention not on the locally sourced product here in New Zealand of which we do not even know how much actually contributes to the problem. 
Further down in the regulatory impact statement we see that “While a significant amount of PSE currently available in over-the-counter medications is considered to be diverted for non-legitimate purposes the majority of PSE used to manufacture methamphetamine is illegally imported.”—a continuation of the same problem. It goes on to state: “This proposal may have the unintended consequence of increasing levels of illegally imported PSE however Customs is concurrently increasing its capability to deal with methamphetamine and precursor trafficking at the border.” Well the Customs Service may well be trying to do that but the fact of the matter is that the Minister and the Government are cutting its resources for doing that. So although this bill in itself is perfectly reasonable sensible legislation that seeks to address a problem in our communities if we actually look at what the Government is doing right across the spectrum we find that it is shooting itself in the foot. This legislation will be a drop in the bucket in comparison with the cuts that the Government is making to those who are trying to combat the source of the real problem. The fact of the matter is that in dealing with drug abuse and alcohol abuse we need to take a whole-of-Government approach. 
It is interesting that this bill comes up during the period of time when the Law Commission is considering its review of the Misuse of Drugs Act. Of course we all look forward to finding out the results of that review which may actually make this legislation completely obsolete. We could find ourselves back in here to rewrite the whole thing. The Law Commission actually got to the bottom of the problem in saying that harm minimisation requires “a broad and integrated approach” and that there are essentially three pillars to that approach. The first is supply control which is measures that control or limit the availability of drugs and that is what we are talking about here tonight. But there is also demand reduction and problem limitation. Again when we look across what the Government is doing in those areas we find that it is essentially undermining itself and it is undermining the work that it is trying to do here tonight. 
We have seen cuts to front-line services and cuts to community-based alcohol and drug services that actually deal with the issues of demand reduction and problem limitation. We know that the Care NZ clinic in Otahuhu the St Marks Adult Drug and Alcohol Treatment Centre in Blenheim and the Ashburn Clinic in Dunedin have already suffered cuts. They have laid off staff and they have reduced programmes that would actually deal with the other side of the problem. Supply limitation is just one part of it; there is a lot more to it than just that. So while the Government continues to take that approach legislation like this will not have the effect that is sought. We just have to look at some of the other Government decisions: $186 million in low-priority funding has been cut and that includes $12 million from mental health services. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: How much? 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Twelve million dollars. There is no longer a mental health target. That is not a priority for this Government. 
Increasing the amount of elective surgery and addressing emergency department waiting times although they are in themselves very worthy are like putting an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. This Government refuses to take a long-term public health approach to keeping New Zealanders well. If we were interested in keeping New Zealanders well we would be interested in the mental health of our communities and we would be interested in assisting those people who want to come away from drug and alcohol problems to actually escape them. But there is no drug and alcohol treatment target either. This Government is focused on short-term bottom of the cliff measures; it is not interested in real long-term measures that would achieve the outcomes that the writers of this legislation claim to be seeking to work on. 
As I said this bill is not just about pseudoephedrine. Some of the other provisions in it are relatively interesting and worth bringing up. The removal of thalidomide as a class A controlled drug is a sensible move. That seems to be fairly technical but it does reveal some of the problems with regard to our legislative approach to mind-altering substances. What on earth thalidomide was ever doing in that class is a question that is worth asking. Yes it had atrocious effects on those people who were born to women who took thalidomide while they were pregnant and curbing those effects and making sure that that mistake was never made again were absolutely appropriate and very important. But thalidomide is not a mind-altering substance and never belonged in the Misuse of Drugs Act. 
The problem of having an often irrational confused approach to our classification of drugs occurs right throughout our classification of drugs and mind-altering substances. There are some fundamental problems with the way in which we classify mind-altering substances. Again the Law Commission is looking at this issue and I look forward to some serious suggestions from it as to how we can take a scientific approach to classifying mind-altering substances at how we can look seriously at the harm and the addictive nature of different drugs and at how we can look seriously at the appropriate way to regulate and control those substances. 
Another area that looks to be very technical—and I would not be surprised if no other speaker brings this up—is the amendment to the controlled drug analogue provisions of the Act by adding the words “and/or alkylthio radicals” after “alkylamino radicals”. That is designed to pick up on new drugs as they are developing. A particular class of new drugs is developing at the moment and that provision is an attempt to catch them before they are developed. But again we have a fundamental problem with the Misuse of Drugs Act in that a new substance as it comes on to the market so to speak is by definition legal. Before we even know what the effects are—the harmful effects and the effects on our community—the default position is for these substances to be legal. Then we suddenly have an outpouring of outrage and shock from the community that we have new substances on the market. Our reaction is to prohibit them and clamp down on them and that vacuum is then replaced by another substance that comes along. Something new will always replace them. 
The Law Commission has suggested a new approach to this issue whereby new substances are by default deemed to be illegal. Should someone wish to supply or manufacture those substances irrespective of whether it is for profit that person would have to apply for a permit to do that. Those substances would then be considered on their merits again taking a scientific approach to the actual harms and addictive properties associated with them. That is a very good way forward and I hope that that part of the Law Commission’s recommendations which was brought up in its issues paper is not dumped in the same way that some of its other recommendations were by the Government. The knee-jerk reaction that we had from the Government was thoroughly disappointing as there are good aspects of that review that should be followed through on. This is a good bill. It is not the best bill but we will support it. 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will not be supporting the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill. It is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act— 
Hon Judith Collins 
: Ha ha! Oh that’s right they like drugs. 
METIRIA TUREI 
: The Minister of Corrections giggles but she will not listen to serious issues about this legislation. 
We have problems with this bill in a number of areas and I will briefly go through them. The bill is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. We do not agree with the shifting of the onus of proof on to the accused when it comes to questions of supply. Essentially this bill is fiddling around the edges of what needs to be rational and evidence-based consideration of how we manage drug law and of what kinds of drugs we control and in what ways based on the harms that those drugs cause to individuals and communities and on proper scientific evidence. 
The Law Commission has produced its report. The Government has refused to address any parts of that report at this stage. The Government is clearly not taking a rational evidence-based approach to drug law. Instead it fiddles around the edges with legislation like this that will not help and in fact will exacerbate the harm caused by an irrational emotive and politically motivated drug law regime. 
It has been good to listen tonight to other members talking about the issues as to where pseudoephedrine is sourced. The predominant part of this bill is about the control of pseudoephedrine. We know that only a small amount of the drug used in the manufacture of methamphetamine is sourced from pharmacies. This legislation which controls access to the drug through pharmacies deals with only a very tiny fraction of the source of the drug which begs the question of why we would not spend this time on the dominant sources of this drug. 
The fact is that most of it is imported. We know that the recent free-trade agreement with China has provided for looser importation rules. There was significant news reporting around free-trade agreements and their impact on the importation of the source drugs for methamphetamine. Those free-trade agreements allow for less consideration and less investigation of imports from China yet a significant percentage of the source drugs for methamphetamine comes from Chinese imports. Where is the enforcement? Where is the effort to put legislation in place to deal with the dominant source of these drugs? It is nowhere. The Government does not want to deal with the issues around the free-trade agreements; it wants to maintain those economic opportunities. Therefore it will spend valuable time regulating the very tiny fraction of methamphetamine that comes out of pharmacies and it will not deal with the problem. 
We simply cannot continue with drug law reform that refuses and fails to deal with the actual problems that this country faces. In the fight against methamphetamine we need to take comprehensive action. That comprehensive action means looking at both supply and demand. The limiting of pseudoephedrine through this bill is really a very soft option. We need to move law enforcement in relation to the supply of this drug—because there are only so many resources to do this—away from obviously less dangerous drugs to more dangerous drugs and their supply. It is a no-brainer. If we have few resources we need to focus them on the most dangerous drug in order to manage the supply of that drug. 
I want to refer to an incident concerning cannabis. Just a week or so ago there was a news report that Detective Inspector Harry Quinn who retired a couple of years ago after 37 years—37 years—in the police had called on senior police to lead a debate on the cannabis issue. As a police officer he had helped to set up the national organised crime unit and he had been involved in untold cannabis eradication operations. He took flak from the police for writing a report recommending the relaxation of cannabis enforcement so that warnings could be issued to adult users rather than scarce precious police resources being used to enforce the laws on cannabis use and supply when so many other drug issues were pressing on those resources. Why would we not have rational drug law that focuses on what is absolutely needed and take into account the experience of a detective inspector who spent 37 years working at the coalface? He agrees that shifting drug enforcement resources to where they are needed is what needs to happen if we are to deal seriously with the harm from drugs. 
Detective Inspector Harry Quinn has a view on how to point resources at the most significant drugs and move resources away from drugs that do not cause so much harm and I have to say that that model was suggested by the Law Commission. So it was supported not only by the police on the ground but also by the Law Commission in its review. But the Government has put its head in the sand and is refusing even to consider it. The Government is refusing to consider these rational options. 
If we want to look at reducing demand and at reducing the harm that drug use causes to individuals their families and their communities then we must not exacerbate the harm. We should not be criminalising the users of these drugs. These people need help. We know from all the research that is done that users of illegal drugs will not seek help because they fear the effect of the law. It is the single biggest barrier to people seeking help when they need it. Why would we have silly fiddlings around the edges of drug law like this bill when we know that if we could remove that barrier from people and from their families then we would be able to contact those people get access to them and get them into the support and the help that they need? We could provide them with the health services and the drug and alcohol rehabilitation that they need. Their families are not going to dob them in either. Even family members who can see the harm being done from the use of the drug will not contact Government agencies because they too fear the impact of the law on that person. 
Why would any rational drug law put up such an unnecessary unjust and harmful barrier to people who need help? Until our drug laws in this country are looked at from the point of view of harm minimisation of focusing on regulation and control of genuinely dangerous drugs none of this stuff will make any difference. The rhetoric around the war on drug use is just rubbish. Legislation like this and the current drug law regime simply provide a huge black market for a bunch of people to make a heap of money and meanwhile the families on the ground are suffering and nothing changes for them. This law will do nothing for families who are desperately in need of help. 
Pseudoephedrine is one of the areas where we need to take advice from a variety of experts. I have talked about the Law Commission and I have talked about the police. Let us talk about the pharmacies. The pharmacies where pseudoephedrine comes from are already very strict about its sale. The Pharmaceutical Society is against the move in this legislation to further restrict it because the society’s view is that it is very worried that pharmacies will end up dispensing much more potent pseudoephedrine which would likely increase the attacks on pharmacies. This legislation will put pharmacies at further risk. Where is the harm minimisation approach in that? 
I turn to the restriction on utensils covered in the bill. Honestly that has always been ridiculous. One of the things that we know around the use of utensils for the consumption of drugs is that often the utensils help to reduce the harm caused by the consumption of that drug. Further restricting utensils like this is a feel-good measure. It makes the Government feel like it is doing something but actually it causes harm. This legislation will simply do more harm to pharmacies more harm to businesses and more harm to the users of drugs. It will not do anything. It will not regulate the supply of the component drugs of pseudoephedrine because it is not focused on where the drugs mostly come from. The bill does nothing. It is a complete waste of time. 
In the meantime—while we are sitting here wasting time on legislation that will do nothing for families—those families are hurting every day. Children are hurting every day. If we want to invest in our families serious drug rehabilitation needs to be available to everyone who needs it. We need it for every single prisoner who has a drug or alcohol problem. We need to regulate the two most dangerous drugs in this country which should come under the Misuse of Drugs Act. Alcohol and tobacco kill thousands and thousands of New Zealanders every year. [ 
Interruption 
] National members are complaining about this but the fact is that the two legal drugs that are the most dangerous and kill the most New Zealanders in this country are not regulated under the Misuse of Drugs Act. In fact they are treated as a food. 
This country needs rational evidence-based drug laws that will make a genuine difference to families. This Government refuses to put them in place. 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. I will take a short call on the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill. The bill amends the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 and the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 2005 by inserting a complex drug vocabulary into the statute. The basic incentive of the bill is to reclassify ephedrine and pseudoephedrine as class B2 controlled drugs remove thalidomide as a class A controlled drug allow hazardous substances to be scheduled as restricted substances extend the definition of amphetamine analogues and extend the controls over drug paraphernalia. The bill prohibits the supply importation or possession for the purpose of sale and supply of a pipe other utensil or identifiable component of a pipe. That is the paraphernalia part. The bill also amends the Land Transport Act 1998 to reflect that thalidomide is no longer a controlled drug. Previously it was an exception to the offences of driving under the influence of schedule 1 controlled drugs. As it is no longer a controlled drug it does not need to be an exception to those offences. 
Let us be clear: the real purpose and value of the bill is to add to the campaign against P. Technically speaking this legislation defines ephedrine and pseudoephedrine as class B2 controlled drugs whether or not they are contained in a substance preparation or mixture. The key point is that the risk of pseudoephedrine being diverted into the manufacture of methamphetamine outweighs the requirement of its ongoing availability over the counter. 
Anyone who has experienced the havoc that P wreaks on families and communities will tell us of the devastating impact this drug has on health and the well-being of a community. We have however done some amazing things in our communities in fighting the scourge of P in our midst. For years besieged communities have run programmes responding to the effects of P and trying to help keep people away from it. The Patua Te Ngangara programme at Hoani Waititi Marae is one such programme. I am proud to say that I initiated that programme and I ran it for 4 years and it is still going now. We took that programme around New Zealand to educate people about P and we stopped at various towns from Kaitaia to Invercargill. We heard devastating anecdotes and we heard of situations from police and people attending those hui. We heard of mothers sending their children out to prostitute for them so that they could get money for their P habit. A little girl tried to hang herself at school and was cut down. She said she was on P but she was not; she was prostituting for her mother who was on P. We heard of a man coming home from work to find a gang in his house with his wife who owed $10000. We heard story after story. We heard of a man who wanted to shoot his son because he had caused such havoc within his family because of his P habit and so on. It is really horrific. P is the most antisocial of all drugs and it attacks society. 
However towns and communities around the country have declared themselves to be P free. There are rahui set up in certain places against P and generally there is a spirit in the community that it is not good to use P. Even amongst gangs there is some work being done on getting rid of P. Denis O’Reilly is leading a lot of that work amongst the community. We know that children as young as 9 years old have been sold P in fruit-flavoured tablets. There are all sorts of different things going on. It is all scary stuff and anything at all that stops the assault of P on our young lives has to be considered. So the Maori Party will support any initiative to curb the underbelly of the P industry. If this reclassification will help towards that end then we will support it. 
I commend the local councils for working together with iwi police and Government agencies to remove the pushers cooks and suppliers of this drug. But I hope that low-income families will not incur additional costs for doctors’ prescriptions for cold medicines that contain pseudoephedrine if those families are merely visiting the doctor to get those prescriptions only. The Maori Party will support this bill and let the korero be had at the select committee. Thank you. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak on the first reading of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill which amends the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 in order to reclassify ephedrine and pseudoephedrine as class B2 controlled drugs and remove thalidomide as a class A controlled drug to allow hazardous substances to be also scheduled as restricted substances to extend the definition of “amphetamine analogues” and to extend the controls over drug paraphernalia. 
Ephedrine and pseudoephedrine are precursors of P. In the first 7 months of this year 23 kilograms of methamphetamine were seized which is four times the amount seized in the same period last year. Members should make no mistake: this is a huge business in New Zealand and it is worth hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. There are close associations with gangs and their clandestine operations in suburban homes and let us not forget that gangs are associated with weapons which they use to protect their operations. 
Tackling P and the drugs trade is a huge priority for the law and order team and I acknowledge the work done by the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Police. We have created a dedicated anti-drug Customs Service task force and we have made it easier for the police to go after gangs and to go after the proceeds of crime. That is why we are restricting access to the precursors of P which are pseudoephedrine and ephedrine. We have heard from Sir Peter Gluckman the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Adviser that suitable alternatives to these medicines can be bought across the counter though pseudoephedrine and ephedrine can still be obtained through a prescription. 
I took some time out today and went to a conference in the Banquet Hall hosted by the Sensible Sentencing Trust. It was incredibly powerful. There was a wall of photographs of people who had been murdered—young men young women and children. Many of those people I would say had been murdered when their assailant was high on P. Susan Couch was present at the conference. Her assailant William Bell was high on P; she was almost beaten to death and he unfortunately killed three innocent victims. There was a picture of Coral Burrows aged 6 who was murdered by her stepfather Steve Williams while he was high on P. 
P is a tragedy of huge proportions in this community so this bill is a step in the right direction and I commend it to the House. 
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 Kia ora talofa lava and warm Pacific greetings. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the first reading of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill. As the bill is an attempt to get pure methamphetamine or P off the streets of New Zealand I am very happy to support it going to the Health Committee. However I have a number of concerns which I will discuss later. For now I will discuss some of the effects of P and what it does to New Zealand and New Zealanders. 
As we all know methamphetamine is incredibly addictive—more so than other drugs such as cocaine. The Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs has noted that users of methamphetamine move more quickly from initial use to regular use than other drug users and are more likely to move on to dependency—and we all know the results of that. Even if someone receives treatment and overcomes his or her addiction to P the psychological and emotional consequences are likely to remain with that person for years. The long-term effects of P on the individual have been well documented and include fatal kidney and lung disorders brain damage depression violent and aggressive behaviour and lowered resistance to illness. 
But as we all know the effects on the individual although extremely harmful are only half the story. The impact on the family and close friends of addicted individuals is devastating not to mention the impact and effects on our communities and on wider society. We all know about the links that P and the manufacture of P have with crime. P is hugely profitable for gangs and for many other groups including white-collar criminals and addiction to the substance can spawn criminal activity in itself. 
This bill intends to make the manufacture of P more difficult by restricting access to ephedrine and pseudoephedrine which are some of the active ingredients of methamphetamine. Currently pseudoephedrine is available over the counter in cold and flu remedies from pharmacies. Reclassifying both pseudoephedrine and ephedrine as class B2 controlled drugs will make their availability impossible in the future will hopefully lead to restriction of supply to the manufacturers of P and will help to control the prevalence of the drug. 
I will quote Iain Lees-Galloway my colleague and the spokesperson on alcohol and drugs for this side of the House. He has made an interesting comparison with alcohol and has said that far more people are affected by harmful drinking than by drugs. 
As I said before the bill is an attempt to get P off the streets and that is enough to warrant its progress to the select committee where I hope it can be further deliberated upon. But I have some concerns. Firstly one of the things that my colleagues have emphasised which I hope will be discussed is the possible effect on the availability of cold and flu remedies to New Zealanders. Approximately 20 percent of cold and flu remedies available currently contain pseudoephedrine so attention will have to be paid to securing effective alternatives to those remedies. Certainly it should never be the case that New Zealanders who have never approached methamphetamine or the manufacture of methamphetamine have to pay a doctor’s fee and a prescription fee for cold and flu medicine. If that is what results from this bill then we have a clear case of most of the population of New Zealand being adversely affected by the actions of a small minority. 
Secondly we are not sure as yet how much of the ephedrine and pseudoephedrine used in the manufacture of P is actually sourced in this way. It is likely that the vast majority of it has been obtained overseas and imported separately. Therefore it seems strange that at the same time as the Government is supposed to be restricting P manufacturers’ access to their ingredients it is also cutting funding to the Customs Service and the Police. It is restricting access in one sense and opening up opportunities for criminals in another. To be effective this measure needs to be combined with more targeted border enforcement not a weakened Customs Service. 
Another area that I am concerned about is mental health services where the Government is making huge cuts. That has led over the last 2 years to the restriction of services that would help with addiction and addiction-related problems and provide support for families. Just this year $12 million was cut from mental health services. They were cast as low-priority services and district health board funding was cut. Surely in order to have an integrated and effective plan to rid New Zealand of P and associated problems we need to be funding the services that provide the much-needed support that can help people remove the scourge of P from their lives. 
In short as the bill is a measure to help restrict the manufacture of P I support it going to the select committee. It is hugely important that we do what we can to rid New Zealand of P and associated harms. But I do see a number of weaknesses in the implementation of this plan including the failure to adequately back up this measure with increased border control and increased funding for addiction and mental health services. 
Our leader Phil Goff and our law and order spokesperson Clayton Cosgrove when talking about this issue in October last year said that Labour supported any move that got P off New Zealand’s streets. There is a contradiction in resourcing with most ingredients for P coming from overseas at a time when the Police and the Customs Services have suffered budget cuts. The Police and the Customs Service have been asked to do more with less. 
There is concern that law-abiding Kiwis will be forced to pay doctors’ fees and prescription fees for cold and flu medicine because of the actions of a few. On the face of it the innocent are being whacked with extra costs and we are not sure what effect this bill will have on the perpetrators of crime. We question the depth of the National Government’s plan to wage war on P with cuts to mental health funding in both Budgets and with the closure of addiction and treatment centres under this Government. Thank you. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I rise to support the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill and I thank the Associate Minister of Health the Hon Peter Dunne for bringing it to the House. This is sensible legislation. It is designed as a response to public concerns about the harm of drugs—in particular P—in our community. 
P is a very New Zealand problem as we have one of the highest percentages of P users in the world. This legislation is a first step in closing off the sources of precursor substances for the illegal manufacture of methamphetamine. We know that the ingredients for the manufacture of P come both from the reconstitution of legal over-the-counter cold and flu drugs and from the direct importation of pseudoephedrine. This bill reclassifies ephedrine and pseudoephedrine as a class B2 controlled drug so that it is available only on prescription. That will make it much more difficult to obtain over the counter and therefore it will make it much more difficult for P cooks to get ingredients. Right now our police tell us that local pseudoephedrine is found in one-third of all P labs. 
There has been a lot of debate in the community about the loss of these over-the-counter cold and flu drugs and I have even heard of some families stocking up on these remedies because they cannot live without them. But research tells us—and indeed Professor Gluckman the Prime Minister’s chief scientist concurs—that clinical evidence shows that safe and effective alternatives are available. But generally speaking the public supports this legislation because it will greatly reduce the availability of source drugs. At the same time New Zealand Customs Service officers are working hard to close the door on imports of pseudoephedrine from overseas. They are focusing on tightening border controls and are making it much more difficult for P labs to get imported source ingredients. It is true that many New Zealanders are in the grip of P. This legislation will make it more difficult to obtain this drug. Therefore I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) 
: 
 I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill. It is a very important bill. I guess it is one that the Labour Party supports. Who would not support a Government initiative aimed at reducing the harm from drugs? Parliament does a lot to try to minimise the harm from road crashes and to minimise occupational safety and health issues in the workplace. On all sorts of things Parliament generally in unison does its best to reduce harm. 
This Government initiative is slightly misguided I think. It will reclassify ephedrine and pseudoephedrine. It will make people go to the doctor to get a prescription for what are very effective drugs to deal with colds and flu which seem to be on the rise these days even with flu jabs dare I suggest. People will inevitably get a new strain of flu and on it goes. These drugs have been developed and they are effective. But they have been used—or abused I should say—to make methamphetamine and P in particular. It is a New Zealand problem because smart chemists here have managed to develop these drugs for destructive use quite frankly—one could hardly say “recreational use”. They are a curse and a scourge on our community. I recall that when P first emerged I was flatting with good mates Dover Samuels and John Tamihere and they were both distraught. As the story started to emerge it became apparent that these illegal drugs were a real scourge on our Maori community throughout the country. I do not think anyone would object to any effective initiative taken to try to reduce the harm. 
Of course another drug causes huge harm to society and it is quite topical at the moment. It is called alcohol. It seems as though the National Government is not quite as determined to reduce the harm from alcohol as it is to reduce the harm from P. The harm from P is far more acute but thankfully it is not used as frequently or by as many people across the country. We do want to reduce its usage and there have been some good initiatives. The incoming National Government made a song and dance about what it would do and I commend it for making this attempt but this bill goes only part-way towards dealing with the problem. If we deal with the precursors purchased from New Zealand pharmacies supermarkets or whatever then we might make some progress. 
Australia has been trying to deal with this issue for some time. The precursors have been used to make different drugs. A system has been developed involving the Australian police and pharmacies and it was being developed in New Zealand. I am not sure where it is up to at the moment but it was an initiative whereby pharmacies would monitor the sale of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine products. They would look out for people buying them in bulk and sometimes an odd pattern might emerge of an individual buying a lot. Australian pharmacies started to monitor that. With computers it is quite easy to pick up patterns and pick up individuals and in fact the police there apprehended many people as a result of that process. That initiative was being developed here; I am not sure where it is at the moment. I hope the Minister of Police who is sitting over there will get up and tell the House whether that initiative of monitoring pharmacy sales and contacting the police about suspicious sales is being done in New Zealand. 
The reclassification in this bill and making people go to a doctor to get a prescription in themselves will not stop the problem because we know that a huge amount of precursors is being smuggled into the country from other countries. I cannot say that it is just from China but I know there have been some big seizures there. The point I am trying to make is that of course Labour will support this bill because we want to reduce the harm from P and methamphetamine in this country but let us get some consistency from the National Government. The thing that astounds us time and time again is the Government’s inconsistency. 
There is a view that imposing a tougher penalty and restricting what can be done will solve the problem. Well the harsh reality of P and methamphetamine is that people become addicted very very quickly. What happens if people experiment have access to P or methamphetamine and become addicted? Well there are only three options for that person: they die very quickly from an overdose or harm themselves; they continue to use and become criminals because they need money to buy the drug; or they acknowledge that they have a problem and seek treatment. If the third option occurs where do they go? It is hard to imagine that there will be more places to go when this National Government has allowed the closure of some treatment places throughout the country. I am sure that my colleague Mr Iain Lees-Galloway will point to the fact that the St Marks Adult Drug and Alcohol Treatment Centre has closed. Is that correct? Yes it has closed. It was in Blenheim. The Care NZ clinic in Otahuhu is another example. [ 
Interruption 
] I could go on. That member’s own patch of Dunedin includes the Ashburn clinic. Has it closed? 
Michael Woodhouse 
: Fine institution. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: Has it closed? 
Michael Woodhouse 
: No—alive and kicking. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: With restricted funding. Oh I see—ah really. Well there we go. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Service reprioritisation. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: Oh reprioritisation—low-value spend. Spending money on drug addicts is not high priority. I guess that the community might disagree. The problem is that if we do not spend money on rehabilitation those people continue to be serious offenders and go on to commit what are often serious crimes. My knowledge in this area as a former Minister of Corrections is that many of them ended up being clients of the State. We ended up paying $70000 $80000 or $90000 a year to house them in prison because they had committed crimes to feed their methamphetamine habit. 
The question I ask is whether the Government will commit more money to drug treatment centres and programmes and indeed whether it will support the existing ones. It stood by and allowed through the cuts to district health board funding a number of very valuable organisations to cut back services that we desperately need. Drug use has continued to climb. That is a sad reflection on our society. I am not saying that it necessarily will but unless this Government gets a little braver and does something about alcohol we will continue to need alcohol treatment centres. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: Spurious argument. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: The member over there does not believe this. He knows full well because I know he has a conscience and because he has worked in the health sector how difficult it is to treat these people what resources are needed and what staff training is needed. When Labour members came into Government we found that although we were committed to doing something about it there were not enough registered qualified drug and alcohol counsellors so we had to ramp that up. I hope the Government has continued that but I am not sure. I do not trust its commitment to things like this. It will take the populist easy option and say that it will deal with P and methamphetamine by shutting down access to the precursors and by making people get a prescription to get pseudoephedrine. 
That may make a difference but it will not make the big impact that we need in this area. We need a comprehensive programme not cuts to benefits a squeeze on accident compensation and the mean-spirited approach that this Government has taken to people who are on the bottom rung of the ladder for whatever reason. They may have been born into poverty or they may have been abused. There are many many reasons why people need support. Unfortunately too many of them end up using drugs for whatever reason. We know that that is a fact. We have a moral responsibility to try to assist them. We have to identify the problem; yes if possible to prevent access to drugs—and this measure is a step in that direction although it is not sufficient in my view—and to allow people access to proper treatment. These addictions are all-consuming. People live for their next fix. Although Labour members support this bill we say that the Government needs to commit more funding to treatment and commit more funding to existing programmes that help people in this country who are addicted to drugs—not just use the hammer. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I am very encouraged by the fact that the biggest criticism the Opposition’s spokesperson on health has of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill is that it is being referred to a select committee that will meet work hard and deliberate in a timely manner to report back to the House. I know members on the other side are a bit puffed at the pace of this Government but I am afraid that pedantry is certainly not the answer. They will just have to keep up. 
I am confused though. We are getting a really inconsistent message from members opposite. On the one hand they support the bill and say that they support every effort to get on top of the scourge that is P but on the other they decry the fact—as Ms Laban Mr O’Connor and Ms Dyson did—that some people may not be able to purchase their pseudoephedrine over the counter. They cannot have it both ways. 
I am afraid though that that is pretty typical of a party that was asleep at the wheel when P came into the New Zealand lexicon about 10 years ago. Do members know what the previous Government did? It developed an action plan. This Government is about action not action plans and the results are already apparent. I looked at the 2008/09 financial review of the New Zealand Customs Service and I was absolutely amazed to see that “the interception of illicit drugs and precursors entering New Zealand became a new priority for the Customs Service in 2009.” 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: It’s been here for a decade. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: That is right. The problem has been here for 10 years yet it has only just become a new priority under this Government. The results have been immediate. There was a 41 percent increase in methamphetamine precursor seizures. Last year the service stopped measuring methamphetamine seizures in tablets and began measuring them in kilograms. There were 800 kilograms seized in 2009 and we are heading for a tonne seized this year. Record levels of seizures are being reported. I reject the nonsense of claims by members opposite that cuts to the Customs Service and police exist and that if they do exist they have a consequent effect on their ability to make seizures. 
As my colleague Nikki Wagner has said P is a terrible curse on this country. We are the second-highest users of P in the world. Although we are stopping importation of P a significant amount of methamphetamine precursor is sourced by over-the-counter access. It worked when that access was restricted and this bill will further restrict its use. It will improve things and I commend the bill to the House. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police)  
on behalf of the  
Associate Minister of Health 
: I move  
That the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill be considered by the Health Committee 
 that the Committee report finally to the House on or before 30 November 2010 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c).  
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: We have an amendment in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson. The amendment is to the Minister’s motion. The amendment is to omit all the words after “be referred to the Health Committee”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That all the words after “Health Committee” be omitted. 
Ayes 50 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 7; Progressive 1. 
Noes 67 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 4; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Motion agreed to.