Roadside drug testing update.

The OIA is first, Our reply to this is at the bottom.

We have a full official OIA reply of 101 pages which we have gone through and will gladly pass on to those that are working of this dreadful piece of legislation. We will take this to court.

20 October 2026
Ref: DOIA-REQ-0038975-Tracy Lynch
Tracy Lynch
Email: [email protected]
Tēnā koe Tracy Lynch
As you are aware, on 1 September 2026 the Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport
(MCERT) transferred in full to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) your request
made on 23 August 2026 under the Official Information Act 1982 (the Act) to the Office of Hon Chris
Bishop, the Minister of Transport, for information related to the approval of PHF Science as a laboratory
for oral-fluid drug testing analysis. Your request is for the following information:
“1. The complete decision record supporting the decision to approve PHF Science for oral-fluid
analysis, including:
• briefing papers;
• recommendations;
• attachments;
• memoranda;
• scientific or technical assessments;
• accreditation material;
• emails or correspondence materially relied upon;
• draft decision documents;
• the final decision or approval record.
2. Any document identifying the criteria or requirements applied when assessing whether PHF
Science should be approved for oral-fluid analysis.
3. Any record identifying other laboratories considered, alternative options considered, and the
reasons PHF Science was recommended or selected.
4. Any assessment of PHF Science’s accreditation, analytical capability, validation, quality
assurance, proficiency testing, measurement uncertainty, or fitness to perform evidential oral-fluid
analysis.
5. Any record provided to the decision-maker concerning PHF/ESR’s previous or continuing
involvement in developing the roadside oral-fluid drug-testing programme, providing scientific or
technical advice concerning the regime, advising government, Ministers or Parliament about drug-
driving or oral-fluid testing, or assisting with implementation of the programme.
6. Any declaration, assessment, memorandum or other record concerning an actual, potential or
perceived conflict of interest or institutional interest arising from PHF/ESR’s advisory, scientific,
implementation, commercial or evidential roles.
7. Any record concerning Dr Helen Poulsen’s role as an ESR/PHF scientist and as chair of the
Independent Expert Panel on Drug Driving, insofar as that role was considered in connection with
PHF Science’s later approval as the oral-fluid analysis laboratory.
8. Any record concerning the decision-maker’s awareness or consideration of the commercial or
financial implications for PHF Science of providing oral-fluid analysis services, including anticipated
revenue, sample volumes or payments under Police or Crown contracts.
9. Any record identifying what independent scientific or technical scrutiny, separate from PHF/ESR
and New Zealand Police, was undertaken before the approval decision.
10. Please identify the officials who prepared the recommendation, the person who authorised its
submission, and the material actually placed before the Minister when the decision was made.”
Nineteen documents have been identified in scope of parts 1-5 and 7 of your request as outlined in the
document table below along with my decision on their release.
Document table
No Date Title Withholding
Grounds
1 8 Aug
2025
Independent Expert Report on Thresholds None
2 11 Aug
2025
Email RE Oral fluid drug testing None
3 14 Aug
2025
Email RE Oral Fluid Drug Testing – content for the Ministers weekly
report
None
4 29 Aug
2025
Excerpts from BRIEFING-REQ-0018585 Research Science Innovation
and Technology Weekly Report – 29 August 2025 and BRIEFING-
REQ-0021828 Science, Innovation and Technology Weekly Report –
17
October 2025
None
5 4 Sep
2025
Independent Expert Report “Drug driving Cannabis Questions” on
tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)
None
6 29 Oct
2025
Joint final confirmation report by Dr Helen Poulsen and Dr Michael
Robertson
None
7 30 Oct
2025
Email: “BRIEFING REQ 0022191 Event Briefing Kenepuru and
Infectious Disease Platform”
s9(2)(a)
8 30 Oct
2025
Event BRIEFING REQ 0022191 Event Briefing Kenepuru and
Infectious Disease Platform
s9(2)(a)
9 3 Nov
2025
Signed briefing for the Minister of Police BR/25/115 “Approval of
Gazette notices for new oral fluid testing regime”
s9(2)(a)
9a 3 Nov
2025
BR25115a Appendix A – Draft Land Transport (Approved Oral Fluid
Screening Device) Notice 2025
Withheld in full
under s9(2)(h)
9b 3 Nov
2025
BR25115b Appendix B – Draft Land Transport (Concentration Level of
Listed Qualifying Drugs) Notice 2025
Withheld in full
under s9(2)(h)
10 4 Nov
2025
BR25115Di Signed letter to Minister of Science Innovation and
Technology
s9(2)(a)
11 4 Nov
2025
BRIEFING-REQ-0022262 Kenepuru Amendment Notice approval s9(2)(a), s9(2)(h)
11a 4 Nov
2025
Annex One of Document 11 – Signature copy of Draft Land Transport
(Approved
None
Laboratory and Analyst in Charge) Amendment Notice 2025
12 4 Nov
2025
BR25115Dii Suggested draft letter Approval of Oral Fluid Screening
Device Minister of Science Innovation and Technology
None
13 4 Nov
2025
BR25115Diii Suggested draft letter Approval of Land Transport
Notice 2025 Minister of Science Innovation and Technology
None
14 9 Nov
2025
Minister Reti letters to Minister of Police None
15 10
Nov
2025
Email Approval of Oral Fluid Test Screening Device and
Concentration Level of Listed Qualifying Drugs
s9(2)(a)
16 10
Nov
2025
Email RE Draft briefing and notices for Oral Fluid Drug Testing
regime – briefing signed
s9(2)(a)
17 10
Nov
2025
Email RE Reaching out to arrange phone call – Minister Reti and Sir
Ashley Bloomfield
s9(2)(a)
18 10
Nov
2025
Email re Overview of Scientific Panel & Independent Review None
19 10
Nov
2025
Oral Fluid Testing Project – Overview of Scientific Panel &
Independent Review
None
Copies of documents 1-19 are released to you and enclosed with this response. Please note some
information in these documents has been withheld under the following sections of the Act:
• 9(2)(a), to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons; and
• 9(2)(h), to maintain legal professional privilege.
I do not consider that the withholding of this information is outweighed by public interest considerations
in making the information available.
Please note documents 1, 5 and 6 listed in the table above are the reports listed in the reports section of
Document 19. Document 19 also links to the report “Recommended Oral Fluid Drug Levels Laboratory
Testing ESR”; however, the link is broken. As this report was not provided to the Minister, it is outside the
scope of your request and has not been included.
The draft documents 9a, 9b and 11a are withheld in full under section 9(2)(h) of the Act, as their release
would prejudice the confidentiality of legally privileged communications.
The final versions of these draft documents have since been published, and links to the publicly available
versions are provided below:
• Document 9a – https://www.legislation.govt.nz/secondary-legislation/pco-
drafted/2025/246/en/latest/#LMS1539637
• Document 9b – https://www.legislation.govt.nz/secondary-legislation/pco-
drafted/2025/247/en/latest/#LMS1538003
• Document 11a – Final notice: https://www.legislation.govt.nz/secondary-legislation/pco-
drafted/2025/266/en/latest/#LMS1540657
Amended Notice: https://www.legislation.govt.nz/secondary-legislation/pco-
drafted/2000/163/en/latest/#DLM6928
In response to Question 10, Ana Avia-O’Connor prepared the briefing, which was signed out by Isaac
Hollis. The material provided to the Minister for consideration comprised Documents 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10,
11, 12, 13, 14 and 19.
MBIE does not hold any information within the scope of parts 6, 8 and 9. These parts of your request are
therefore refused under section 18(e) of the Act, as the requested information does not exist.
If you wish to discuss any aspect of your request or this response, or if you require any further assistance,
please contact [email protected].
You have the right to seek an investigation and review by the Ombudsman of this decision. Information
about how to make a complaint is available at www.ombudsman.parliament.nz or freephone 0800 802
602.
Nāku noa, nā
Linda Moore
Acting Manager Science Sector Policy
Science System Investment and Performance
Labour Science and Enterprise, MB

 

WE REVIEW THE CROWN
FORENSIC INVESTIGATION AND COURT EVIDENCE BUNDLE
Roadside oral-fluid drug testing | PHF Science | Ministerial approval | MBIE OIA response DOIA-REQ-0038975
Prepared: 21 October 2026 Prepared for: Tracy Lynch / We Review the Crown Status: Documentary review;
not a filed pleading
Evidence boundary: This report examines the disclosed material and identifies issues requiring further proof. No
finding of illegality, dishonesty, scientific invalidity or personal wrongdoing is made merely because a requested
record was not disclosed.
1. Executive conclusions
• The records distinguish laboratory detection of recent drug use from proof of impairment. A positive oral-fluid
result must not automatically be characterised as proof that a particular driver was impaired. The statutory offence
framework must nevertheless be assessed on its own terms.
• MBIE officials stated in August 2025 that MBIE lacked technical expertise to advise on the merits of the
drug-testing proposals, while officials described PHF Science as the only viable laboratory option. The underlying
comparative assessment and laboratory validation materials warrant identification.
• Document 4 records an approved business case for a new oral-fluid testing facility and refers to revenue
potential. The 20 October 2026 response separately refuses the request for records of financial implications
considered by the decision-maker under OIA section 18(e). The scope and adequacy of that search should be
clarified, without assuming the statements are irreconcilable.
• Document 19 identifies PHF Science scientists participating in the Police Scientific Panel. That is evidence of
involvement, not proof of an unmanaged conflict. Governance arrangements, declarations, review terms and
independent scrutiny should be obtained.
• The Ministerial record identifies an oral discussion between Minister Reti and Sir Ashley Bloomfield before
approval correspondence was signed. The complete content of that conversation is not established by the released
email.
• MBIE says a linked ESR report was not provided to the Minister and excludes it. Its existence, provenance,
relevance and whether it was held elsewhere require further inquiry.
2. Source inventory and evidence control
Annex A: MBIE response dated 20 October 2026, 4 PDF pages. Annex B: documents numbered 1-4, 33 PDF
pages. Annex C: documents numbered 5-19, 68 PDF pages. The annexes are reproduced as supplied; the report
is an analytical front section. Total source material: 105 PDF pages. The response index also identifies draft items
9a, 9b and 11a, subject to withholding assertions. These cannot be treated as physically supplied complete
annexes.
The released PDFs contain scanned/image-based pages. This review includes the accessible text and indexed
content, but does not authenticate original signatures, metadata, missing drafts, all numerical calculations,
laboratory source data or the complete underlying agency files.
WE REVIEW THE CROWN | DOIA-REQ-0038975 | Investigative report 2
3. Evidential issues register
Issue Documentary basis Required verification
Scientific threshold Docs 5, 6, 19 Full underlying studies, methods, uncertainty,
drug-specific validation and expert testimony
Selection of PHF Docs 2-4, 11 Selection criteria, alternatives, accreditation and
capability comparison
Revenue / interests Doc 4; MBIE response Business case, Police contracts, decision-maker briefing
and conflict declarations
Scientific
governance
Docs 6, 19 Panel membership, declarations, minutes, terms of
reference and independent-review remit
Ministerial
assurance
Docs 4, 15, 17 Call notes, attendees, assurances, documents seen and
final signed approvals
Legal notices Docs 9-14; response Compare signed and gazetted versions, commencement,
empowering provisions
Missing report Doc 19; response Obtain ESR report and establish who possessed or relied
upon it
Withholding MBIE response Particularise privilege basis for each withheld item and
public-interest analysis
4. Document-by-document examination
Document 1. Independent Expert Report on Thresholds (8 August 2025). The report is listed as released; its detailed scientific
tables and assumptions require separate technical audit.
Document 2. 11 August 2025 emails: officials expressly discuss limits of MBIE technical expertise and the ministerial
consultation process.
Document 3. 14 August 2025 emails: PHF Science described as the only viable option; clarification distinguishes capability to
advise on provider selection from expertise in drug testing.
Document 4. Weekly report extracts: approved business case, revenue potential, drafting instructions and Minister Reti
requests concerning detection versus impairment.
Document 5. 4 September 2025 independent THC assessment: examine variability, oral-fluid concentrations and whether
proposed threshold indicates recent use rather than impairment.
Document 6. 29 October 2025 joint confirmation by Dr Poulsen and Dr Robertson: recommended drug-specific laboratory
cut-offs; distinguish scientific recommendation from statutory rule.
Document 7. 30 October 2025 email concerning Kenepuru event briefing; check withheld personal information and
attachments.
Document 8. Kenepuru event briefing: describes PHF Science activities, public funding and oral-fluid laboratory role.
Infectious-disease platform funding is not evidence of a drug-testing contract.
Document 9. Signed Police briefing BR/25/115: proposed Gazette notices and ministerial decision pathway; compare to the
final instruments.
Document 9a / 9b. Draft screening-device and drug-concentration notices: MBIE says withheld in full under legal professional
privilege. Final published instruments are not substitutes for the withheld drafts.
Document 10. 4 November 2025 signed letter to Science Minister: check advice supplied and nature of consultation.

Document 11 / 11a. Kenepuru laboratory approval briefing and annex: verify signature, notice and inconsistent MBIE treatment
of annex 11a (indexed as no withholding, later described as withheld).
Document 12. Draft letter supporting Securetec DrugWipe 3 S: distinguish draft endorsement from signed final approval.
Document 13. Draft letter supporting drug concentration levels: distinguish draft from signed final approval.
Document 14. Minister Reti letters dated 9 November 2025: check signatures, dates and correspondence chain.
Document 15. 10 November 2025 email: Reti spoke to Sir Ashley Bloomfield about device, pharmaceuticals and thresholds;
precise assurances not recorded in the excerpt.
Document 16. Emails about draft briefing and notices: tight proposed timetable and circulation; identify final changes and actual
sign-offs.
Document 17. Email arranging Reti/Bloomfield call: obtain meeting notes and attachments if held.
Document 18. Email forwarding scientific-panel overview: identify what was actually provided to decision-makers.
Document 19. Scientific Panel overview: records PHF participation, panel remit, timeline and a referenced ESR laboratory
report with broken link.
5. Legal and procedural framework for potential proceedings
Official Information Act 1982: seek clarification of section 18(e) refusals, adequacy of searches, and section
9(2)(a) and 9(2)(h) withholding decisions. MBIE identifies the Ombudsman review avenue. A fresh request to
Police, PHF Science and any other holder may be needed; agency possession cannot be assumed.
Land Transport Act 1998: check the operative versions of sections 71G and 71GA and the statutory provisions
for approved laboratories, evidential oral-fluid analysis, infringement liability, defences and commencement. The
disclosed briefings are not themselves legislation.
Judicial review: a viable claim requires an identifiable reviewable decision, standing, an arguable public-law error,
timely commencement and an appropriate remedy. Potential grounds for investigation include legal authority,
mandatory consultation, relevant considerations, proper purpose and procedural fairness. The current material
does not establish any such ground conclusively.
Individual infringement or prosecution: a challenge to a particular test requires the actual test records, device
identity and maintenance, sample handling, laboratory results, applicable legal thresholds, disclosure and
procedural history. A general scientific dispute does not automatically invalidate a particular charge.
6. Proposed disclosure and preservation demands
• Provide the complete approved business case for the Kenepuru oral-fluid facility, contract and fee arrangements,
projected volumes and commercial-interest assessments.
• Provide the laboratory accreditation schedule, validation reports, proficiency testing, measurement uncertainty,
chain-of-custody protocols and quality-control documents relevant at the date of approval.
• Provide selection criteria, comparative laboratory analysis and documents supporting the assertion that PHF
Science was the only viable option.
• Provide panel terms of reference, membership declarations, conflict-management records, independent review
scope, instructions, drafts and correspondence.
• Locate and release, or lawfully determine access to, the ESR report titled Recommended Oral Fluid Drug Levels
Laboratory Testing.
• Provide the full Reti/Bloomfield meeting or call record, briefing pack, written assurances and the final documents
signed by each Minister.
WE REVIEW THE CROWN | DOIA-REQ-0038975 | Investigative report 4
• Explain the contradiction between the document table treatment of 11a and the later statement that 11a was
withheld under privilege.
• Identify each agency searched, systems searched, custodians consulted, date ranges and basis for concluding
that records within questions 6, 8 and 9 do not exist.
• Preserve native electronic records, email headers, attachments, document version histories, laboratory records
and audit logs pending any complaint or proceedings.
7. Proposed court-case pathway – not a filed proceeding
Stage 1 – evidence: complete an indexed disclosure schedule, obtain missing source documents and commission
a qualified independent toxicologist to examine thresholds and validation. Stage 2 – administrative remedies:
seek OIA reconsideration and Ombudsman review. Stage 3 – legal assessment: identify the specific decision and
respondent, assess time limits and standing, and evaluate whether judicial review or an individual statutory
defence is the proper forum. Stage 4 – filing: prepare a statement of claim or originating application, affidavit
exhibiting authenticated evidence, chronology and precise relief only after the legal basis and court are confirmed.
Relief to consider, if evidence and law support it: declaration of legal error, an order setting aside or remitting a
decision, targeted disclosure in proceedings, interim relief where necessary, and costs. No remedy is assured. The
Ombudsman cannot itself overturn a court judgment.
8. Annex index and pagination
The following source PDFs are appended intact in this order: Annex A – MBIE response (4 pages); Annex B –
release documents 1-4 (33 pages); Annex C – release documents 5-19 (68 pages). For court use, the final bundle
should be paginated and referenced in an affidavit by exhibit identifier and PDF page; this analytical report is not a
sworn affidavit or a certified court bundle.
Prepared by: We Review the Crown | Working investigative report | Not a legal opinion or a representation that proceedings