Dear New Zealand Police-Attention to: Superintendent Steve Greally (Director of Road Policing), who is overseeing the testing program and procurement specifics

In the interest of matters that effect the peoples’ liberties and rights, please provide answers to:

1. What qualification do you, Superintendent Steve Greally have to make claims on the evidential basis for concluding the DrugWipe 3S is fit for purpose given documented international performance issues

2. What qualification and training do Road Policing / NZ Police / Police have concerning the new equipment that is to be used, evidence on its reliability of accuracy, and what qualify officers as competent in handling peoples bodily samples as per legislation, not limited to the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act 1995 (CIBSA) and not limited to sections 10,13, 36, 60,

3. How can you, Superintendent Steve Greally be sure these test kits can’t be interfered with as identified with the breath test devices between July 2024 and September 2025 that were falsely / erroneously recorded by 120 police Officers

4. What reliance did you, Superintendent Steve Greally / Government Agent / Minister / Crown Agent / Parliament Agent / Service Providers / Public servants use was used to procure independent forensic laboratory testing that ensures the accuracy of the roadside equipment, as well as on going testing for accuracy, with timeframes for servicing that are the critical components in procurement evaluation

5. What are the chemicals, substances, antibodies, and immunoassay formulations that are proprietary in New Zealand's use with the Securetec DrugWipe 3 S tongue-swipe test that will be used by Police for the roadside drug screening? Provide the validation studies and chemical data that you, Superintendent Steve Greally and all NZ service providers are reliant on

6. Superintendent Steve Greally, your insurance liability is required to be publically available to make claims for any potential harm caused by the use and use of force for compliance under the threat of infringement fines, demerit points and court action when applying Securetec DrugWipe 3 S device to take bodily samples without knowledge of medical conditions and contraindications

7. What are Roading Police / NZ Police / Police / all parties contractual agreement and obligations to NZ peoples including, not limited to “persons”, “natural persons”, “legal entity”, “corporate”, “sole corporate”, “individual”, “citizens”, “public” verses Pathtech Pty Ltd

(i) in how much revenue is estimated to made over a 12 month period by Roading Police / NZ Police / Police and Pathtech Pty Ltd, AKA PATHTECH HOLDINGS PTY LTD (Former Name: Pathtech Diagnostic Pty Ltd); an Australian-based Drug Detection and Life Science provider, regulated by Australian Securities & Investments Commission; an Australian Proprietary Company, who are the supplier of roadside oral fluid testing equipment; the exclusive distributor for Securetec DrugWipe 3 S device alleged to detect the presence of specified drugs in saliva at or above a threshold that indicates current and recent use for the roadside drug screening that includes supplying Roading Police / NZ Police / Police with Oral Fluid Collection Kits, utilising Quantisal collection device and buffer transport tube to collect saliva samples to be sent for laboratory analysis

(ii) In the motivation linked to meeting performance targets (as per the findings in the falsification of breath tests)

(iii) In that these salvia tests are also pertinent to be carried out on all Roading Police / NZ Police / Police / Crown Agents / Public servants, including Ministers and Government personnel
Include how:
• Will the data be collected
• Where will the storage of these taken samples and data analysis be kept
• Who will have access to these samples
• How long they will be held on your system
• Are Roading Police / NZ Police / Police regularly tested for drug use? If not, why not?
• What is the cost per DrugWipe 3S unit
• What is the cost per oral fluid collection kit for laboratory analysis
• Annual procurement budget (devices and consumables)
• Laboratory confirmatory testing costs per sample
• Officer training costs (development and delivery)
• IT systems development and maintenance
• Administrative processing costs
• Total first-year cost and projected ongoing annual costs

8. What is the revenue projections expected in annual revenue from infringement fines
and comparison of fine revenue vs. total programme cost?

9. Statistically, which countries, including New Zealand, have seen a rise in the number of drivers testing positive for drugs in recent years as alleged, with the direct correlation to the number of people being seriously injured or killed on NZ roads as alleged, including but not limited to all 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

10. How have you, Superintendent Steve Greally secured that peoples right under legislation, not limited to; New Zealand Bill of Rights (NZ BORA) Act 1990;
Human Rights Act 1993 (disability discrimination, indirect racial discrimination)
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Article 20: Personal mobility) are not ignored

(i) In view from JUDITH COLLINS' NZBORA REPORT it appears that NZ Police are violating NZ BORA 1990, implementing this road side testing that violates fundamental rights and the violation cannot be justified: https://bills.parliament.nz/download/Pap...

(ii) This violation is also supported by the Law Society:
https://www.lawsociety.org.nz/assets/Law...

(iii) 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 NZ BORA s 22. Please provide:

(a) All advice on why this recommendation was not adopted

(b) Policy analysis weighing rights protection vs. enforcement convenience

(c) Whether any modelling was done on how requiring suspicion would affect testing numbers or road safety outcomes

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

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

(f) Consultation with other organisations:

(i) List the organisations consulted during policy development, including, but not limited to:
• Patient advocacy groups
• Disability rights organisations
• Chronic pain associations
• Medicinal cannabis clinics and prescribers
• Māori health providers
• Employment/labour organisations
• Breaching peoples’ right under the Health and Disability Commissioner

(ii) Provide copies of submissions and feedback received, particularly regarding:

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

11. In New Zealand, the law requires that decisions and processes be fair, which come from several core Acts most often relied on. How are you, Superintendent Steve Greally and Roading Police / NZ Police /Police going to ensure the law is applied pursuant to:

(i) Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA) Section 27—Right to justice (procedural fairness)

s27(1) “Every person has the right to the observance of the principles of natural justice by any tribunal or other public authority which has the power to make a determination in respect of that person’s rights, obligations, or interests protected or recognised by law”

This is the primary fairness provision and applies to Police, ministries, councils, courts, regulators, and tribunals, covering natural justice; fairness, right to be heard, and absence of bias

(ii) Under the Legislation Act 2019 (interpretation fairness) Section 10—Purpose;

Legislation must be interpreted in a way that best achieves its purpose, and not open to interpretation nor interchangeable

Section 11—Meaning of legislation—Interpretation must be consistent with rights and freedoms, including NZBORA, where Courts must interpret laws fairly and consistently with rights

(iii) As part of these arbitrary road sides testing, a Judicial Review / Common Law (Natural Justice) can be pursued to ensure Roading Police / NZ Police / Police align with NZ courts consistently to corroborate fairness under common law under a two core rules:

(1). Audi alteram partem—right to be heard

(2). Nemo judex in causa sua—decision-maker must be impartial

These are recognised in cases such as: Daganayasi v Minister of Immigration and Bulk Gas Users Group v Attorney-General. This also applies even when statutes are silent

(iv) Under the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 (criminal / enforcement context) Section 3—Fair trial principles—requires proceedings to be conducted in a manner consistent with justice and fairness, which is relied on in Police enforcement, roadside procedures, prosecutions to be carried out lawfully

How are you, Superintendent Steve Greally going to ensure Roadside testing; that is summary and time-limited, carried out by Roading Police / NZ Police / Police will be carried out lawfully and measures taken to safeguard there are:

• no predetermined outcomes
• no bad faith
• no systemic bias
• reasonable opportunity to comply/and right for refusal and challenge in Court

(v) As per your obligations under: Policing Act 2008—Section 9 —Principles—Police must act:

(a) lawfully

(b) professionally

(c) ethically

(d) with respect for human rights

(e) Fairness is implied through human rights compliance

Your obligations are also to govern and implement how roadside powers are exercised, not just whether they exist, how are you going to ensure these procedures are carried out as per design by assigned officers?

(vi) In accordance with Health & Disability Commissioner Act 1994 (where medical/testing is involved)

Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights

(a) Right 6—Right to be fully informed

(b) Right 7—Right to informed consent

(c) And, relevant where biological testing, medical procedures, or chemical exposure are involved

(vii) NZ BORA 1990, section 27(1)—Natural justice and is the clearest statutory requirement that public decision-making must be fair and apply to Police roadside testing in New Zealand and not as an unlimited veto, grounded in statute and NZ case law;

How are you, Superintendent Steve Greally going to ensure Roading Police / NZ Police / Police; who are purportedly a public authority exercising statutory power (never seen a warrant to date as per Policing Act 2008 s24 Schedule 1: Part 1-4) that serves and protect the peoples’, where Roadside testing directly affects:

(a) our liberty

(b) our right to drive

(c) potential criminal liability

in that Roading Police / NZ Police / Police will carry out and obey your regulations / policies and procedures accordingly, without biased, excessive force, fabrication and not arbitrarily?

• Will you be applying NZ BORA s27 to the process, even though it is brief and roadside stop?

• s21 —Unreasonable search or seizure—Oral-fluid testing—search and handling with peoples bodily substance must be lawful, reasonable, and proportionate

• And, s22—Arbitrary detention—Stopping and testing, which must:

(i) Be authorised by law

(ii) Not be arbitrary in selection or execution

(iii) And is it reasonable for identification purposes, get the Police Officers name and QID at the time, in the likely event of harm / Court proceedings? If not, why not?

As per NZ BORA s25(a) & (c) applies—Fair trial rights—that are engaged once enforcement or prosecution begins (e.g. evidential test, charge, suspension). Courts accept there is limited procedural fairness at roadside

(viii) Do Health & informed-consent principles apply?

Where the law maybe contested stating Roadside drug testing is not treated as healthcare, therefore full HDC Code consent doesn’t apply, however with the use of:

• Chemical exposure
• biological sampling
• lack of ingredient disclosure
• Adverse reaction to unknown substances and contraindications are valid, therefore it can’t be relied on that non-medical professionals or statutory override considers real potentials risks can cause harm.

How are you, Superintendent Steve Greally going to recognize and prevent this harm?

• Do you recognize people reserve the right to challenge reliability, question interference, challenge misuse or faulty devices and challenge lack of safeguards?

• If not, why not and what legislation are you reliant on to force compliance?

Is it not true that pursuant to—NZ BORA s11—People have the right to refuse medical treatment and Health & Safety at Work Act 2015—risk management duties?

(xi) What action plans are in place to implement roadside Police carry out:
• lawful authority requirements
• proper calibration & procedure
• non-arbitrary stopping
• accurate information about consequences
• ability to elect confirmatory testing
• chain of custody integrity
• The right of refusal under medical grounds

(a) Would not a failure result in a NZ BORA breach and evidential exclusion?

(b) As Roading Police / NZ Police / Police do not get a free pass from their NZBORA obligations, they need to conduct themselves with reasonableness under s21, Policing Act, natural justice, and for accountability request the officers details at the time of the event to subpoena them to appear in court if proceedings are lodged?

12. We have good cause to suspect that the” Securetec DrugWipe 3 S device” used for the roadside drug screening tool creates a ‘rights’ gap from:

• bodily intrusion
• chemical exposure
• no meaningful informed choice
• weak transparency about reliability
• And questions are the method reasonable?
• Are safeguards equivalent to alcohol testing?
• Is the intrusion proportionate to the risk?

(i) As you, Superintendent Steve Greally are accountable for your decisions, how are you going to safeguard peoples’ rights? And what authority are Roading Police / NZ Police / Police reliant on to make determinations affecting peoples’ liberty, license status, and exposure to criminal liability concerning the use of a DrugWipe 3 S device to take bodily samples?

(ii) Is the DrugWipe 3 S device used to take bodily samples a screening tool or an evidential device?

(iii) Is the operation of DrugWipe 3 S device (that takes bodily samples) known to be affected by prescription medications, residual contamination, oral conditions, and environmental exposure?

(iv) We require the disclosure of the device’s reliability limits

(v) disclosure of substances capable of causing false positives

(vi) confirmation of calibration, storage, or expiry

And any other information when using a ‘DrugWipe 3 S device’ that may directly affect the body’s ability to function; both physically and mentally, all relevant information that imposes / over reaches on our inherent rights, freedoms and liberties and all evidence dependent on unreliable or insufficiently validation from this technology that is vulnerable to exclusion.

In good faith

Lee