IR-01-25-45466
4 February 2026
Hayden
[FYI request #33251 email]
Dear Hayden
Thank you for your Official Information Act 1982 (OIA) request received 14 December, in
which you asked for information about the roadside oral fluid testing regime, including
device validation, procurement, operational processes, programme costs, and related
impacts.
Please note, several parts of your request have been transferred to other agencies under
section 14 of the OIA, where it has been identified that it is more closely connected with
their functions. These parts have been specified under each section.
I have answered each part of your request below.
SECTION 1: DEVICE VALIDATION AND ACCURACY
1. Al validation studies, accuracy assessments, and independent testing results
for the Securetec DrugWipe 3S considered during procurement
Please find included with my response the ‘
IFC Expert Report’, and the ‘
abf diagnostics
Evaluation Report’.
These reports contain technical scientific data that is generated and assessed in
accordance with AS/NZS 4760:2019, the Standard that sets the performance and
verification criteria for oral‑fluid testing devices. To ensure the information is understood
within the framework it was designed for, the response notes this context, and only the
detailed dilution/spiking tables, containing non‑public laboratory methodology, have been
withheld under the relevant provisions of the OIA.
As such, some of the information has been withheld pursuant to the fol owing sections of
the OIA:
-
Section 9(2)(b)(i ), as the withholding of the information is necessary to protect
the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the
information, where release would be likely to unreasonably prejudice that
commercial position (the withheld material comprises detailed, non‑public
laboratory methods).
-
Section 9(2)(ba)(i), as the withholding of the information is necessary to protect
information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any person
Police National Headquarters 180 Molesworth Street. PO Box 3017, Wellington 6140, New Zealand.
Telephone: 04 474 9499. Fax: 04 498 7400. www.police.govt.nz
has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any enactment,
where the making available of the information would be likely to prejudice the
supply of similar information, or information from the same source, and it is in the
public interest that such information should continue to be supplied.
-
Section 9(2)(k), as the withholding of the information is necessary to prevent the
disclosure or use of official information for improper gain or improper advantage
(the withheld material includes precise bench‑level preparation recipes that could
be used to probe or game screening thresholds).
2. The false positive rate and false negative rate for each tested substance
when compared to confirmatory blood testing (real and estimated)
As part of the procurement process, all roadside drug testing equipment to be used by
Police was independently verified in New Zealand or Australia. Accuracy verification
confirmed the equipment met the Australian and New Zealand Standard AS/NZ
4760:2019 for oral fluid testing in respect of false positives and false negatives.
Testing involved checking all positive drug screening tests in the laboratory. A 5% false
positive rate was found in cases where drugs were
present but
below New Zealand’s
legal threshold. These cases would not result in an infringement. No false negatives
occurred.
3. Whether Police were aware of international accuracy concerns, specifical y:
a) Finnish National Institute for Health and Welfare data on false
positive rates
b) University of Sydney Lambert Initiative findings on sensitivity and
accuracy
c) UK and Swiss police field testing results
Police undertook significant research and due diligence prior to selecting an oral fluid
screening device for roadside drug testing. This included reviewing international
deployment and performance data, engaging independent forensic experts, and
conducting local validation aligned with the AS/NZS 4760:2019 standard. The device
selected is used internationally and, in control ed testing, demonstrated a very low false
positive rate and a zero false negative rate, giving Police confidence in its accuracy and
reliability for screening purposes. These measures ensured Police had a robust
understanding of device performance and international experience before
implementation.
4. The evidential basis for concluding the DrugWipe 3S is fit for purpose given
documented international performance issues
This conclusion was based on a comprehensive assessment process. The process
involved independent laboratory testing against the AS/NZS 4760:2019 standard to
confirm compliance with required drug cut‑off thresholds and performance criteria. The
results of this testing were then subject to third‑party validation, also being reviewed by
Independent Forensic Consulting, ensuring objective verification beyond manufacturer
data.
Police considered international deployment and performance data, noting that the device
is widely used in other jurisdictions and has demonstrated a very low false positive rate
and zero false negative rate in control ed testing. These steps provided strong evidence
that the DrugWipe 3S meets the necessary accuracy, reliability, and operational
requirements for roadside oral fluid screening.
SECTION 2: STATISTICAL BASIS AND METHODOLOGY
1. Al analysis, reports, or calculations distinguishing between:
a. Road fatalities where drugs were present in the deceased driver's
system
b. Road fatalities where drugs were determined to have caused or
contributed to the crash
2. Specific breakdown of the widely cited "30% of road deaths involve drugs"
statistic, including:
a) How many involved THC alone vs. THC combined with alcohol or
other drugs
b) Causality analysis (presence vs. impairment vs. crash causation)
c) Source data and methodology
This part of your request (Section 2) is more closely connected with the functions of the
NZ Transport Agency Waka Kotahi (NZTA). This part was transferred to NZTA on 17
December 2025, and you can expect a response from them in due course.
SECTION 3: POPULATION IMPACT ESTIMATES
1. Estimates or calculations of:
a) Number and percentage of New Zealanders who regularly take
Schedule 5 medications (by drug category)
b) Number of medicinal cannabis prescription holders
c) Geographic distribution (urban vs. regional/rural)
2. Assessment of health and safety risks to Schedule 5 medication users who
may:
a) Cease taking prescribed medications to avoid testing positive (health
deterioration, pain-related impairment while driving)
b) Cease driving entirely (social isolation, delayed healthcare access,
unemployment)
This part of your request (Section 3) is more closely connected with the functions of the
Ministry of Health (MOH). This part was transferred to MOH on 17 December 2025, and
you can expect a response from them in due course.
SECTION 4: FINANCIAL COSTS
1. Itemized programme costs, including:
a) Cost per DrugWipe 3S unit
b) Cost per oral fluid col ection kit for laboratory analysis
c) Annual procurement budget (devices and consumables)
d) Laboratory confirmatory testing costs per sample
Releasing supplier-specific pricing and procurement cost details would be likely to
unreasonably prejudice the commercial position of the suppliers involved. Disclosure
could undermine competitive dynamics and future tendering processes by revealing
confidential pricing structures. As such, this information is withheld under section
9(2)(b)(i ) of the OIA.
e) Officer training costs (development and delivery)
Officer training costs are covered within the ring-fenced delivery funding as noted in ‘h’
below.
f) IT systems development and maintenance.
There are no IT systems development and maintenance costs associated with processing
medical defence applications at this time. The process is managed as part of Police’s
standard operations.
g) Administrative processing costs
There are no administrative costs associated with processing medical defence
applications at this time. The process is managed as part of Police’s standard operations.
h) Total first-year cost and projected ongoing annual costs
I can advise that the Road Policing Investment Programme includes a ring-fenced
allocation of $20 mil ion for the establishment of the oral fluid testing regime.
Further information about the Road Policing Investment Programme is publicly available
on NZ Transport Agency Waka Kotahi’s website:
https://www.nzta.govt.nz/planning-and-
investment/funding-and-investing/road-policing-investment-programme
Any further ongoing funding requirements wil be considered within RPIP 24-27
considerations.
2. Disposal costs:
a) Cost per test for biohazardous waste disposal
b) Annual waste management budget
c) Environmental impact assessment of 50,000+ single-use devices
annually
Police does not hold information on expected costs per test for biohazardous waste
disposal, annual waste management budget, nor the environmental impact assessment
of the devices.
Accordingly, this part of your request is refused under section 18(g) of the Official
Information Act 1982, as the information is not held and there are no grounds for
believing it is held by another department or agency.
3. Enforcement resource al ocation:
a) Average officer time per test (including administration and
paperwork)
Police estimates that the administration of an oral fluid test (the physical act of taking the
sample and operating the device) generally takes approximately 8–10 minutes per
person. This is based on operational experience with current roadside oral fluid testing
devices.
Police does not hold information on the average time taken for associated paperwork or
administrative tasks, as this specific data has not been recorded. Accordingly, this part of
the request is refused under section 18(g) of the OIA, as the information is not held.
b) Officer hours diverted from other policing activities annually
Police does not record the number of hours officer spend undertaking specific road
policing prevention and enforcement activities, therefore have not calculated the hours
diverted from other policing activities. Accordingly, this part of the request is refused
under section 18(g) of the OIA, as the information is not held.
c) Cost-benefit comparison: drug testing vs. alternative policing
priorities
Police has not completed a cost benefit comparison for drug testing versus alternative
policing priorities. Accordingly, this part of your request is refused under section 18(g) of
the OIA, as the information is not held.
4. Long-term cost projections:
a) Expected legal chal enge defense costs
b) Ombudsman and Human Rights Commission complaint processing
costs
c) Mandated 3-year independent review budget
d) Contingency budget for programme modifications or discontinuation
Police does not hold information on expected legal chal enge defence costs, Ombudsman
and Human Rights Commission complaint processing costs, the mandated three-year
independent review budget, or the contingency budget for programme modifications or
discontinuation.
Accordingly, this part of your request is refused under section 18(g) of the Official
Information Act 1982, as the information is not held and there are no grounds for
believing it is held by another department or agency.
SECTION 5: EXPECTED BENEFITS AND COST-EFFECTIVENESS
1. Quantified expected benefits:
a) Expected reduction in road crashes per year (number)
b) Expected reduction in fatalities per year (number)
c) Expected reduction in serious injuries per year (number)
d) Methodology and data sources used to calculate these projections
2. Cost-effectiveness analysis:
a) Cost per life saved (or expected to be saved)
b) Cost per serious injury prevented
c) Break-even point: minimum crashes/fatalities that must be prevented
to justify programme cost
3. Comparative analysis with alternative road safety interventions:
a) Cost-effectiveness comparison with: increased alcohol testing, road
safety campaigns, fatigue detection systems, infrastructure
improvements, vehicle safety standards
b) Evidential basis for prioritizing drug testing over alternatives
4. Net benefit calculation:
a) Overall cost-benefit ratio
b) Whether a formal Regulatory Impact Assessment was completed (if
so, please provide)
This part of your request (Section 5) is more closely connected with the functions of the
Ministry of Transport (MOT). This was transferred to MOT on 17 December 2025, and
you can expect a response from them in due course.
SECTION 6: PROCUREMENT PROCESS
1. Tender and device selection documentation:
a) Tender process records
Please find attached document,
Oral Fluid Testing Equipment Request for Proposal.
b) Alternative devices and manufacturers considered
Releasing information on alternative devices and manufacturers that were considered
during procurement would be likely to unreasonably prejudice the commercial position of
the suppliers involved. Disclosure could undermine competitive dynamics and future
tendering processes by revealing such information. As such, this information is withheld
under section 9(2)(b)(i ) of the OIA.
c) Evaluation criteria and scoring matrix
I refer you to pages 17-18 of the
Oral Fluid Testing Equipment Request for Proposal
document, which outlines the evaluation criteria and scoring matrix used during
procurement.
d) Whether independent (non-manufacturer) validation was required
Yes – independent, non‑manufacturer validation was required. I refer you to page 15 of
the
Oral Fluid Testing Equipment Request for Proposal document for further context.
RASL conducted the initial device testing, and those results then had to be independently
reviewed and confirmed by Independent Forensic Consulting (IFC) before any proposal
could proceed, ensuring external verification rather than reliance on manufacturer data.
e) Conflicts of interest declarations from decision-makers
All decision‑makers involved in the procurement process were required to complete
conflict‑of‑interest declarations to confirm they were free from any actual, potential, or
perceived conflicts. Access to procurement information was strictly limited to personnel
who were directly involved and required to review it. This ensured the process remained
impartial and appropriately controlled.
SECTION 7: FALSE POSITIVE AND MEDICAL DEFENSE IMPACTS
1. False positive management:
a) Expected number of false positive tests annual y based on device
accuracy data
As mentioned in my response to Section 1, Question 2, as part of the procurement
process, all roadside drug testing equipment to be used by Police was independently
verified in New Zealand or Australia. Testing involved checking al positive drug screening
tests in the laboratory. A 5% false positive rate was found in cases where drugs were
present but below New Zealand’s legal threshold. These cases would not result in an
infringement. No false negatives occurred.
Police wil col ect data from roadside and laboratory tests and wil record any false
positives. At this time, there have been no false positives recorded from testing, and
Police does not have an expected number of false positive tests.
As such, this part of your request has been refused pursuant to section 18(g)(i) of the OIA
in that the information requested is not held by Police and I have no grounds for believing
that the information is held by any other agency subject to the OIA.
b) Estimated economic cost to drivers wrongly subjected to 12-hour
bans (lost wages, stranded, missed appointments)
No estimates, model ing, or analysis of the economic impact on drivers who may be
incorrectly subjected to a 12‑hour stand‑down have been produced.
As such, this part of your request has been refused pursuant to section 18(g)(i) of the OIA
in that the information requested is not held by Police and I have no grounds for believing
that the information is held by any other agency subject to the OIA.
c) Compensation mechanism for confirmed false positives
There is no compensation mechanism for confirmed false positives. If a driver was tested
and a false positive was identified, the result would not progress to an infringement.
As such, this part of your request has been refused pursuant to section 18(g)(i) of the OIA
in that the information requested is not held by Police and I have no grounds for believing
that the information is held by any other agency subject to the OIA.
d) Administrative cost of processing medical defence applications
There are no administrative costs associated with processing medical defence
applications at this time. The process is managed as part of Police’s standard operations.
2. Revenue projections:
a) Expected annual revenue from infringement fines
b) Comparison: fine revenue vs. total programme cost
Police has no record of total monetary amount received from infringement fees as this
money is paid to the Crown. Therefore, Police does not have a projected or expected
revenue amount based on infringements from roadside drug testing offences.
As such, this part of your request has been refused pursuant to section 18(g)(i) of the OIA
in that the information requested is not held by Police and I have no grounds for believing
that the information is held by any other agency subject to the OIA.
SECTION 8: MOBILITY AND ACCESSIBILITY IMPACTS
1. Whether assessments were conducted on:
a) Public transport availability in regions where testing wil occur
b) How Schedule 5 medication users in areas with inadequate public
transport are expected to maintain employment and access essential
services if unable to drive
c) Employment impacts for workers who drive professionally and take
prescribed Schedule 5 medications
2. Alternative transport considerations:
a) Estimated financial burden on affected individuals relying on
taxis/rideshare
b) Whether subsidies or transport assistance were considered
c) Comparison with existing disability transport schemes
This part of your request (Section 8) is more closely connected with the functions of the
Ministry of Transport (MOT). This part was transferred to MOT on 17 December 2025,
and you can expect a response from them in due course.
SECTION 9: EQUITY AND HUMAN RIGHTS
1. Whether analysis was conducted on:
a) Geographic equity (urban vs. rural/regional impacts)
b) Demographic equity by income, age, ethnicity, and disability status
c) Disproportionate impacts on Māori and Pacific peoples
d) Treaty of Waitangi obligations
2. Whether the regime was assessed for compliance with:
a) New Zealand Bil of Rights Act 1990 (specific legal advice received)
b) Human Rights Act 1993 (disability discrimination, indirect racial
discrimination)
c) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Article 20:
Personal mobility)
3. The Attorney-General's report states that requiring officers to have reason to
suspect drug consumption before testing would make the regime less likely
to be inconsistent with s 22. Please provide:
a) Al advice on why this recommendation was not adopted
b) Policy analysis weighing rights protection vs. enforcement
convenience
c) Whether any model ing was done on how requiring suspicion would
affect testing numbers or road safety outcomes
4. Legal advice on whether restricting driving for people taking legally
prescribed medications constitutes unlawful discrimination
5. Whether alternatives to blanket restrictions were considered (impairment-
based testing, functional assessments, conditional licenses)
Parts of this section (9(1), 9(3-5)) are more closely connected with the functions of the
Ministry of Transport (MOT). These parts were transferred to MOT on 17 December
2025, and you can expect a response from them in due course.
Part 9(2) of this section is more closely connected with the functions of the Ministry of
Justice (MOJ). This part was transferred to MOJ on 17 December 2025, and you can
expect a response from them in due course.
SECTION 10: CONSULTATION
1. List of organizations consulted during policy development, including:
a) Patient advocacy groups
b) Disability rights organizations
c) Chronic pain associations
d) Medicinal cannabis clinics and prescribers
e) Māori health providers
f) Employment/labour organizations
2. Copies of submissions or feedback received, particularly regarding:
a) Mobility and accessibility concerns
b) Impacts on medicinal cannabis patients and Schedule 5 prescription
users
c) How concerns were addressed or reasons for dismissal
This part of your request (Section 10) is more closely connected with the functions of the
Ministry of Transport (MOT). This part was transferred to MOT on 17 December 2025,
and you can expect a response from them in due course.
SECTION 11: INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS
1. Evidence from comparable jurisdictions:
a) Cost-benefit data from Australian states with roadside drug testing
b) Measured crash reduction outcomes in jurisdictions with vs. without
drug testing
c) Any evidence of jurisdictions discontinuing programmes due to cost-
ineffectiveness or accuracy concerns
d) How other countries addressed medicinal cannabis and prescription
medication exemptions
This part of your request (Section 11) is more closely connected with the functions of the
Ministry of Transport (MOT). This part was transferred to MOT on 17 December 2025,
and you can expect a response from them in due course.
If you are not satisfied with the way I have responded to your request, you have the right
under section 28(3) of the OIA to ask the Ombudsman to review my decisions.
Information on how to do this is available online at
www.ombudsman.parliament.nz.
Yours sincerely
Superintendent Steve Greally
Director: Road Policing
New Zealand Police
