iSAYSO
Follow Nigel Gray with this series of OIAs
PUBLIC UPDATE — ORAL FLUID TESTING (OFT): WHAT POLICE JUST ADMITTED, WHAT THEY DENIED, AND WHAT THEIR OWN DOCUMENTS REVEAL
By Nigel Gray
19 May 2026
PLEASE SHARE
19 May 2026
PLEASE SHARE
PLEASE DON’T MISS READING THE UPDATE AT THE BOTTOM….IT IS NOT TO BE MISSED! 
Over the last two weeks I have been requesting basic, legally‑required information from NZ Police about the chemical composition, safety data, and biological properties of the new roadside drug‑testing devices now being used across the country.
Today, Police responded.
And the response is — frankly — astonishing.
Because while Police refused large parts of the request, claiming documents “do not exist”, they also accidentally released internal training documents that directly contradict their own OIA answers.
This update sets out:
1. What I asked Police for
I asked for:
These are standard, basic documents for any biological sampling system.
2. What Police claimed in their OIA response
Police claimed:
A. They have no SDS or chemical documentation beyond what is on their website.
(But the website does not contain SDS for Quantisal or the buffer.)
B. They have no documentation about DNA preservation, degradation, or stability.
They refused this under s18(e): “document does not exist.”
C. They have never conducted any internal discussions, legal assessments, or privacy assessments regarding DNA in saliva samples.
D. They have no documentation governing secondary use, retention, or research use of samples.
E. They withheld all manufacturer correspondence under “commercial prejudice.”
F. They did not answer the required s23 questions about whether information was never held, not held, or refused.
In short:
Police claim they hold almost nothing.
Police claim they hold almost nothing.
3. What Police’s own training documents reveal
Police accidentally released:
These documents contain dozens of internal procedures, assessments, and instructions that contradict Police’s OIA claims.
Here are the most serious contradictions.
**Contradiction 1 — Police claim no internal assessments exist.
Their training documents contain internal assessments everywhere.**
The lesson plan includes:
Police told me none of this exists.
Their own documents prove otherwise.
**Contradiction 2 — Police claim no DNA‑related documentation exists.
Their training documents show biological‑sample handling protocols.**
Examples:
“Officers must wear disposable gloves when undertaking testing or collection of saliva.”
“Check that sufficient oral fluid has been obtained for an approved analyst to carry out their analysis.”
“Follow the instructions provided for the oral fluid collection.”
These are biological‑sample handling protocols.
You cannot have biological‑sample handling protocols without underlying technical documentation.
**Contradiction 3 — Police claim no documentation exists about retention or secondary use.
Their training documents describe retention, disposal, and elective samples.**
Examples:
Police refused this under s18(e) — “document does not exist.”
Their own documents show it does.
**Contradiction 4 — Police claim all SDS and technical documentation are already publicly released.
Their training documents reference multiple technical documents not in the proactive release.**
Examples:
None of this appears in the proactive release.
This means Police do hold technical documentation they refused to release.
**Contradiction 5 — Police claim no manufacturer documentation exists.
Their training documents explicitly reference manufacturer instructions.**
The lesson plan states:
“Follow the instructions provided for the oral fluid collection.”
“Officers must follow the manufacturer’s instructions.”
This is direct evidence that Police hold manufacturer documentation.
Yet they refused it under s18(e).
**Contradiction 6 — Police claim no privacy or legal assessments exist.
Their training documents show structured internal decision‑making frameworks.**
Examples:
These are internal assessments.
Police claimed none exist.
**Contradiction 7 — Police claim no documentation exists regarding DNA stability or buffer chemistry.
But the devices used (Quantisal) are ISO‑validated forensic devices with published technical documentation.**
Police claim the manufacturer never provided:
This is implausible.
Quantisal documentation is standard in forensic toxicology.
If Police genuinely never requested it, that is a serious HSWA breach.
If they did request it and refused to release it, that is a serious OIA breach.
4. Why this matters
A. Public safety
Police are using a biological sampling device with:
This is unacceptable under HSWA.
B. Privacy and DNA
Police admit saliva contains DNA.
They deny having any documentation about DNA preservation.
They deny having any documentation about DNA preservation.
Their own training documents show they handle, store, and transfer biological samples.
C. Transparency
Police withheld manufacturer correspondence under “commercial prejudice” without applying the mandatory public‑interest test.
D. Legal compliance
Police failed to answer the required s23 OIA questions.
E. Credibility
Police’s own documents contradict their OIA claims.
This is now a matter for the Ombudsman.
5. What happens next
I have issued a formal clarification request giving Police one opportunity to correct their answers.
If they maintain their position:
The public deserves transparency about:
This is not optional.
This is basic legal compliance.
This is basic legal compliance.
PUBLIC ADD‑ON — THE THIRD EMAIL
By Nigel Gray
PLEASE SHARE
PLEASE SHARE
A quick update.
After receiving two separate OIA letters from Police — each incomplete, each contradicting the other — I have now received a third email.
This one says:
“My apologies, but two release documents were left off our last email… Please find attached documents, as referred to in response IR‑01‑26‑15725.”
Except:
At this point, the pattern is unmistakable:
This isn’t transparency.
It’s administrative slapstick.
It’s administrative slapstick.
And every extra email they send only reinforces the core issue:
Police cannot maintain a consistent position about what information they hold, what they don’t hold, or what they are required to release.
The follow‑up OIA has now been lodged.
If Police maintain their current answers, the matter will go to the Ombudsman — and the full correspondence will be made public.
If Police maintain their current answers, the matter will go to the Ombudsman — and the full correspondence will be made public.
More soon.