OC251166

5 February 2026

Hayden
FYI Website
[FYI request #33252 email]

Tēnā koe Hayden,

I refer to your email received on 13 December 2025 to the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA)
and New Zealand Police requesting information on the oral fluid testing regime for drug driving.

On 17 December 2025, several sections of your request were transferred to the Ministry of
Transport (the Ministry) for response. On 16 January 2026, the Ministry of Justice transferred a
further section of your request to the Ministry for response.

Please note that the Ministry’s response makes reference to multiple publicly available documents.
For your convenience, these are listed in Annex 1 below and are referred to with reference
numbers throughout this response.

Background information

A Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) was completed to inform earlier policy decisions on an oral fluid
testing regime to better detect and deter drug driving. The CBA included information about the
expected benefits of the various options considered.

Cabinet made policy decisions in late 2019 on the testing regime. These decisions were supported
by a Regulatory Impact Statement that included some high-level estimated costs and benefits.
These policy decisions were reflected in the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Act 2022.

The testing regime introduced through the 2022 Amendment Act could not be implemented. The
Ministry’s website (www.transport.govt.nz/area-of-interest/safety/drug-driving-testing) includes
more information about this.

Cabinet made further policy decisions in 2023 that were reflected in the Land Transport (Drug
Driving) Amendment Act 2024.  The Regulatory Impact Statement that informed those policy
decisions also included some high-level estimated costs and benefits.

transport.govt.nz | hei-arataki.nz
HEAD OFFICE: PO Box 3175, Wellington 6140, New Zealand. PH: +64 4 439 9000
AUCKLAND OFFICE: NZ Government Auckland Policy Office, PO Box 106483, Auckland 1143, New Zealand. PH: +64 4 439 9000

Your request
You requested the following under the Official Information Act 1982 (the Act). Our responses are
included under each part of your request below.

SECTION 5: EXPECTED BENEFITS AND COST-EFFECTIVENESS

(m) Quantified expected benefits:

Expected reduction in road crashes per year (number)
Expected reduction in fatalities per year (number)
Expected reduction in serious injuries per year (number)
Methodology and data sources used to calculate these projections

In terms of expected reductions in road crashes, fatalities and serious injuries per year, I refer you
to the table on pages 44 – 46 of the Cost-Benefit Analysis.6 Methodology and data sources used to
calculate these projections are detailed on pages 14 – 30 of the Cost-Benefit Analysis.6 As noted
above, the CBA was completed at the early stage of the policy development process. The various
options considered in the CBA are summarised on page 4. There are some differences between
these options and the testing regime implemented through the Land Transport (Drug Driving)
Amendment Act 2024.

(n) Cost-effectiveness analysis:
Cost per life saved (or expected to be saved)
Cost per serious injury prevented
Break-even point: minimum crashes/fatalities that must be prevented to justify programme
cost
The cost expected to be saved per life was $12.5M per fatality, based on the mean value of a
statistical life at the time the policy decisions were made. More information can be found on page
22 of the 2023 RIS.4

(o) Comparative analysis with alternative road safety interventions:
Cost-effectiveness comparison with: increased alcohol testing, road safety campaigns,
fatigue detection systems, infrastructure improvements, vehicle safety standards
Evidential basis for prioritizing drug testing over alternatives

The Ministry is not aware of any analysis conducted along these lines.

(p) Net benefit calculation:
Overall cost-benefit ratio
Whether a formal Regulatory Impact Assessment was completed (if so, please provide)

Initial cost-benefit ratios are set out in the CBA6 and 2023 RIS.4 As noted above, two Regulatory
Impact Assessments were completed.2/4

SECTION 8: MOBILITY AND ACCESSIBILITY IMPACTS

(t) Whether assessments were conducted on:
Public transport availability in regions where testing will occur
How Schedule 5 medication users in areas with inadequate public transport are expected to
maintain employment and access essential services if unable to drive
Employment impacts for workers who drive professionally and take prescribed Schedule 5
medications

The Ministry is not aware of any assessments conducted along these lines.

transport.govt.nz | hei-arataki.nz

Page 2 of 6

(u) Alternative transport considerations:
Estimated financial burden on affected individuals relying on taxis/rideshare
Whether subsidies or transport assistance were considered
Comparison with existing disability transport schemes

The Ministry is not aware of any assessments conducted along these lines.

SECTION 9: EQUITY AND HUMAN RIGHTS

(v) Whether analysis was conducted on:
Geographic equity (urban vs. rural/regional impacts)
Demographic equity by income, age, ethnicity, and disability status
Disproportionate impacts on Māori and Pacific peoples
Treaty of Waitangi obligations

The Regulatory Impact Statements2/4 include high-level discussion of the potential impacts on
particular population/community groups and Te Tiriti o Waitangi considerations, as do the related
Cabinet papers.1/3

(w.2) 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:
All advice on why this recommendation was not adopted
Policy analysis weighing rights protection vs. enforcement convenience
Whether any modelling was done on how requiring suspicion would affect testing numbers
or road safety outcomes

In developing the new drug driving regime, officials were aware it was likely to have implications for
rights and freedoms protected under the New Zealand Bil  of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA), as
previous changes to the drug- and drink-driving laws raised similar issues.

Consideration of NZBORA issues is reflected in the key papers available on the Ministry’s website,
including the public consultation document,5 Cabinet papers1/3 and Regulatory Impact
Statements.2/4

Requiring officers to suspect drug use before being able to administer an oral fluid screening test
would significantly undermine the purpose of the oral fluid testing provisions – that any driver could
be stopped at any time to be screened. This is a critical element to the intended deterrent effect of
the new regime. This is discussed further in the consultation document5 and the departmental
report7 on the bil  that led to the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Act 2024.

Modelling wasn’t undertaken on how requiring suspicion would affect testing numbers or road
safety outcomes, but the policy analysis did note the limitations and low number of Compulsory
Impairment Tests undertaken by police (which require grounds to suspect drug consumption). See,
for example, paras 50 – 55 of the consultation document.5

(x) Legal advice on whether restricting driving for people taking legally prescribed
medications constitutes unlawful discrimination

The Ministry is not aware of any legal advice on whether restricting driving for people taking legally
prescribed medications constitutes unlawful discrimination.

Under the testing regime that is being rolled out around the country, a 12-hour driving prohibition
only applies where a driver has two positive roadside screening tests for one or more of four
impairing drugs (THC, MDMA, methamphetamine or cocaine) at a level that indicates recent use.
This addresses any road safety risk associated with recent drug use.

transport.govt.nz | hei-arataki.nz

Page 3 of 6

(y) Whether alternatives to blanket restrictions were considered (impairment-based testing,
functional assessments, conditional licenses)

The policy development process looked at a range of approaches for enhanced drug driver
screening using oral fluid testing (compared to the use of impairment-based testing using the
Compulsory Impairment Test), as outlined in the consultation document.5

SECTION 10: CONSULTATION

The Ministry emailed you on 16 January 2026, advising that a summary of responses to a public
consultation document on oral fluid testing is available on our website. We asked whether this
sufficiently addresses Section 10 of your request. The Ministry did not receive a response from
you, and as noted in that email we have assumed that this information satisfies this part of your
request. This response is copied again below for completeness.

(z) List of organizations consulted during policy development, including:
Patient advocacy groups
Disability rights organizations
Chronic pain associations
Medicinal cannabis clinics and prescribers
Māori health providers
Employment/labour organizations

The Ministry of Transport ran a public consultation process that informed the policy development
process. A summary of the submissions received during consultation9 is publicly available. This
summary notes a range of individuals and organisations made submissions, including health sector
organisations, health professionals, Māori health advocates, unions, and drug advocacy/interest
groups.

(aa) Copies of submissions or feedback received, particularly regarding:

Mobility and accessibility concerns
Impacts on medicinal cannabis patients and Schedule 5 prescription users
How concerns were addressed or reasons for dismissal

The summary of submissions9 captures the concerns/issues raised by submitters. Of icials
considered the feedback received through the consultation process when developing the policy
proposals that led to the oral fluid testing regime.

SECTION 11: INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS

(ab) Evidence from comparable jurisdictions:
Cost-benefit data from Australian states with roadside drug testing
Measured crash reduction outcomes in jurisdictions with vs. without drug testing
Any evidence of jurisdictions discontinuing programmes due to cost-ineffectiveness or
accuracy concerns
How other countries addressed medicinal cannabis and prescription medication
exemptions

As part of the policy development process, of icials looked at various regimes operating overseas
that tested oral fluid for impairing drugs. The dif erent approaches were mentioned in the
consultation document5 and Cost benefit analysis.6

On 16 January 2026 the Ministry of Justice transferred the following part of your request to the
Ministry:
transport.govt.nz | hei-arataki.nz

Page 4 of 6

SECTION 9: EQUITY AND HUMAN RIGHTS

(w) Whether the regime was assessed for compliance with:
Human Rights Act 1993 (disability discrimination, indirect racial discrimination)
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Article 20: Personal mobility)

The Ministry is not aware of any assessments under the Human Rights Act 1993 or the Convention
on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

If you would like to discuss this response, please do not hesitate to contact us at
[email address]

You have the right to seek an investigation and review of this response by the Ombudsman, in
accordance with section 28(3) of the Act. The relevant details can be found on the Ombudsman’s
website www.ombudsman.parliament.nz

The Ministry publishes our Of icial Information Act responses and the information contained in our
reply to you may be published on the Ministry’s website. Before publishing we wil remove any
personal or identifiable information.

Nāku noa, nā

Joanna Heard
Manager, Safety

transport.govt.nz | hei-arataki.nz

Page 5 of 6

Document Outline

Annex 1: Documents referenced