SUPPLEMENTARY OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT REQUEST

SUPPLEMENTARY OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT REQUEST

Roadside Oral Fluid Drug Testing Programme
Revenue, Enforcement Yield, Cost Recovery, Accident Evidence, and Public Accountability

Arising from Treasury OIA Reference 20260285

Date	12 May 2026
To	The Treasury – Official Information Act Team
By email	[email protected]
From	Tracy Lynch / InLandsAirWater Counsel – Private Trust (PTNDA)
Email	[email protected]
Subject	Supplementary OIA request – roadside oral fluid testing, revenue, cost recovery, enforcement yield, and accident evidence

 

I refer to Treasury’s response to OIA reference 20260285 concerning the Roadside Oral Fluid Drug Testing Programme.

This is a supplementary request under the Official Information Act 1982. It arises directly from Treasury’s response and the released Treasury document titled “Legislative Amendments to Enable Roadside Oral Fluid Screening Tests”.

A. Background and concern arising from Treasury’s response

Treasury’s response states that NZTA considered and recommended Police activities to be funded from the National Land Transport Fund, that NZTA recommended the Road Policing Investment Programme 2024-27 to the Minister of Transport, and that the Minister approved it in July 2024.

Treasury also states that NZTA is required to monitor how Police deliver the oral fluid testing regime.

Treasury’s released document records that the cost of implementing the oral fluid testing regime was not yet confirmed because the cost of procuring testing devices and laboratory services had not been determined. The document also records that earlier estimates costed the regime at approximately $66 million over ten years against estimated benefits of $812.5 million.

Most importantly, the released document records that Treasury supported the proposal on the basis that costs would be met through reprioritisation within the existing National Land Transport Fund, while also noting that the National Land Transport Fund was financially unsustainable and required significant Crown top-ups.

This raises a serious public accountability issue. The public already funds Police, transport enforcement, courts, and government programmes through taxation and statutory funding streams. Where a compulsory roadside enforcement regime is introduced in a financially pressured funding environment, the Crown should be able to identify whether revenue, enforcement yield, penalty income, deterrence value, or cost recovery were considered in the economic or fiscal assessment.

B. Request for information

Please provide the following documents and information. Where Treasury does not hold a document but knows that another agency is likely to hold it, please transfer that part of the request under section 14 of the OIA and advise the transfer details.

1. Revenue, enforcement yield, deterrence value, penalty income, and cost recovery

Please confirm whether any of the following matters were considered in any advice, briefing, Cabinet paper, economic assessment, fiscal assessment, cost-benefit analysis, implementation paper, inter-agency communication, or Ministerial advice concerning the roadside oral fluid testing regime:

• revenue from infringement fees;

• penalty income;

• enforcement yield;

• expected number of offences detected;

• expected number of refusal offences;

• expected number of infringement notices;

• expected number of prosecutions;

• expected number of licence consequences, demerit consequences, or court appearances;

• deterrence value;

• cost recovery;

• court-system workload or downstream court costs;

• Police funding pressure;

• National Land Transport Fund pressure;

• Crown top-ups, clawbacks, offsets, reprioritisation, or other Crown funding adjustments;

• whether the regime would reduce or increase Crown expenditure overall;

• whether affected members of the public would bear both the general tax cost of the regime and individual enforcement penalties.

For each matter considered, please provide the relevant document, including any calculation, modelling, assumption, estimate, spreadsheet, briefing, or advice.

If any matter was not considered, please confirm that expressly.

2. Accident evidence and proof of need

Please provide all documents, data, analysis, briefings, reports, modelling, or advice relied upon to support the proposition that roadside oral fluid testing was necessary because drug-impaired driving was causing, increasing, or materially contributing to road crashes, deaths, or serious injuries in New Zealand.

Please include information showing:

• the source data relied upon;

• the period covered by that data;

• whether the data distinguished between mere presence of a substance and actual impairment;

• whether laboratory-confirmed impairment was distinguished from detection;

• whether prescription medication was separately analysed;

• whether alcohol, fatigue, speed, road condition, vehicle condition, or driver distraction were controlled for;

• whether post-crash toxicology data was used;

• whether any uncertainty, limitation, or caution was recorded in the evidence base.

3. Causal link between detected substances and crash risk

Please provide any document that establishes or assesses the causal link between detected oral-fluid substances and increased crash risk in the New Zealand roadside enforcement context.

For clarity, this request is not limited to general statements that drugs may impair driving. It seeks the actual evidential basis relied upon by decision-makers for this specific compulsory roadside regime.

4. Competing-risk analysis

Please provide any documents assessing whether other factors were considered when analysing crash causation or enforcement priorities, including:

• prescription medication;

• fatigue;

• alcohol;

• medical conditions;

• post-COVID health effects;

• vaccine-related adverse-event reporting, if considered;

• distraction or mobile-phone use;

• road design and road condition;

• vehicle condition.

If any of these matters were not considered, please confirm that expressly.

5. Police, courts, and Crown financial implications

Please provide any documents assessing whether the regime would create financial, operational, or workload impacts for:

• Police;

• courts;

• Ministry of Justice;

• Crown Law;

• NZTA;

• Treasury;

• the National Land Transport Fund;

• legal aid or defence costs;

• affected drivers and households.

This includes any assessment of whether enforcement would generate downstream costs, penalties, fines, fees, debt obligations, prosecution consequences, or administrative consequences for members of the public.

6. Rights, proportionality, and safeguards

Please provide any advice, analysis, or briefing assessing whether it is proportionate to impose compulsory roadside testing, refusal penalties, fines, demerit points, prosecution consequences, or other enforcement outcomes where:

• device reliability was still dependent on procurement;

• laboratory-service arrangements were not yet confirmed;

• implementation costs were not yet known;

• monitoring arrangements were still being developed or had not yet been disclosed;

• the public would bear both the general funding cost of the programme and any individual enforcement penalties.

7. Decision-maker certification

Please identify:

• the decision-maker who approved the economic assumptions;

• the decision-maker who approved the enforcement assumptions;

• the decision-maker who approved the evidential-reliability assumptions;

• the decision-maker who approved the conclusion that the regime was justified and proportionate;

• the statutory power, delegation, or authority relied upon for each approval.

8. Direct clarification sought

Please confirm whether Treasury, NZTA, Police, the Ministry of Transport, the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Finance, or Cabinet considered the following question:

Whether the roadside oral fluid testing regime could operate, in whole or in part, as a revenue-generating, cost-recovery, enforcement-yield, deterrence-value, or penalty-income programme within a financially pressured transport and policing funding environment.

If yes, please provide the relevant documents.

If no, please confirm that no such assessment was undertaken.

C. Form of response requested

Please provide documents electronically. If withholding is claimed, please identify the specific document or class of document, the statutory ground relied upon, and the public-interest balancing exercise undertaken.

If Treasury considers that any part of this request is broad, please do not refuse it without first providing reasonable assistance to refine the request. The request may be prioritised around formal documents, Cabinet material, briefings, decision papers, fiscal assessments, cost-benefit assessments, and inter-agency advice relied upon by decision-makers.

D. Reservation of position

This request is made to clarify the evidential, fiscal, and public-law basis for a compulsory enforcement regime. It does not assume the answer. It asks the Crown to produce the records showing whether revenue, enforcement yield, deterrence value, penalty income, cost recovery, accident evidence, and proportionality were properly assessed before the public was exposed to compulsory testing and enforcement consequences.

Yours faithfully,

 

p.p. Tracy Lynch
Secretary
For InLandsAirWater Counsel – Private Trust (PTNDA)
[email protected]

Appendix: Treasury material relied upon for this supplementary request

Treasury OIA Reference 20260285, response received concerning the Roadside Oral Fluid Drug Testing Programme, including the released document “Legislative Amendments to Enable Roadside Oral Fluid Screening Tests”. Key disclosed matters include NZTA’s role in recommending the Road Policing Investment Programme 2024-27, Ministerial approval in July 2024, NZTA monitoring of Police delivery, unsettled device and laboratory costs, estimated ten-year cost/benefit figures, and Treasury’s statement that the National Land Transport Fund was financially unsustainable and required significant Crown top-ups.

Supplementary OIA Request – Roadside Oral Fluid Testing / Revenue, Enforcement Yield and Cost Recovery