We don't know whether the most recent response to this request contains information or not – if you are Lee please sign in and let everyone know.

Superintendent Steve Greally (Director of Road Policing) decisions

Lee made this Official Information request to New Zealand Police

This request has an unknown status. We're waiting for Lee to read a recent response and update the status.

From: Lee

December 17, 2025

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

(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

(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

(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

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

Link to this

From: Ministerial Services
New Zealand Police

December 18, 2025

Kia ora Lee

Thank you for your request of 17 December.

Police wants to provide information that will be useful you, however your
request is extremely broad and complex and would require extensive
searches and consultations to respond to in full. Providing the
information you have sought would likely have a significant and
unreasonable impact on Police’s ability to carry out its other operations.

Therefore, as it currently stands, Police will likely refuse your request
under section 18(f) of the OIA, as the information requested cannot be
made available without substantial collation or research.

Rather than refuse your request I want to give you the opportunity to
refine your request into a form that is more manageable. For example, you
may wish to consider what information is of most importance to you, and
focus on that in the first instance.

Please note that this does not prevent you submitting requests for the
remainder of the information asked for in future.

In accordance with section 18B of the OIA, Police invites you to refine
your request to enable Police to work within a more manageable scope.
Please respond by midday 22 December 2025, so that we can consider your
refinement in our response to your request.

Please note that under section 15 of the OIA, any clarification or
amendment made to a request within seven working days of its receipt may
be treated as a new request, and the response timeframe may restart from
the date of refinement.

Ngā mihi

Hagen Kerr

Senior Advisor – Ministerial Services

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: Lee

December 21, 2025

Revised Version:
Attention to: Superintendent Steve Greally (Director of Road Policing), who is overseeing the testing program and procurement specifics

In the “new roadside drug driving testing changes to the Land Transport Act 1998 through Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Act 2022 enable Police to test drivers who have used qualifying drugs that impair their ability to drive safely”, however you have failed to state:

1. What qualification and authority you, Superintendent Steve Greally have to perform “Roadside drug testing anywhere, anytime, where the law enables police to test a driver at any point, without having cause to suspect they have consumed drugs” under the:

“The Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Act 2025 now enables Police to also test for recent use of qualifying drugs using a mobile drug screening device. This gives us the ability to stop a driver at the roadside. It is a test for presence (of an impairing drug that has been recently used) and not impairment”

On behalf:
• NZ Transport Agency where the Land Transport Act 1998 that states “Repealed”:
(i) s201Authority to consider delegating or contracting out of functions and powers [Repealed]
(ii) s202Authority may arrange for services to be provided by outside agencies
[Repealed]; and

• Policing Act 2008

(ii) S 30 Command and control
No Police employee may, when exercising any power or carrying out any function or duty, act under the direction, command, or control of—
(a) a Minister of the Crown

• The evidential basis you are reliant on for concluding the choice to use the Australian made Securetec DrugWipe 3S device?

• That the Securetec DrugWipe 3S device is fit for purpose given that documented international performance has shown there are issues?

• Provide independent forensic laboratory testing used that ensures the accuracy of the roadside equipment for Securetec DrugWipe 3S device are reliable before an infringement is issued;

• Its ongoing testing for accuracy;

• The timeframes for servicing that are the critical components in procurement evaluation;

2. What chemicals, substances, antibodies, and immunoassay formulations those are proprietary in New Zealand's use with the Securetec DrugWipe 3S tongue-swipe test that will be used by Police for the roadside drug screening?

(i) Your research and validation that the Securetec DrugWipe 3S tongue-swipe test will not cause an adverse reaction, harm or contradictions or breach the natural persons rights under:

• The Bill of Rights Act protects rights, such as the right to refuse medical treatment, may only be relevant to natural persons (real people) under sections 8 to 11 that set out rights that are essential to an individual’s personal wellbeing. Do you recognize these rights protect a person’s autonomy, human dignity and bodily integrity;

• State the validation studies and chemical data that you, Superintendent Steve Greally and all NZ service providers are reliant on;

• How are natural persons (real people) autonomy, human dignity and bodily integrity going to be protected as within their right going to be upheld by Roading Police / NZ police / Police as good policy development should consider how best to uphold fundamental human right pursuant (not limited) to:

i. New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990—Section 10: right not to be subjected to medical or scientific experimentation without consent; and Section 11: right to refuse to undergo medical treatment;

ii. Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights (under the Health and Disability Commissioners Act 1994)—Right 7: you must give informed consent to health or disability services, except in limited emergency/compulsory-treatment situation;

iii. Crimes Act 1961—Non consensual penetration of your body, which includes but not limited to the mouth without consent using medical procedures (for example, injections, internal examinations, or other procedures involving your body) done without proper consent;

3. Where you state “Police do not need good cause to suspect a driver has consumed drugs for oral fluid testing”, this is in conflict with Judith Collins' attorney-general's NZBORA report stating “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”; 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...

(i) How have you, Superintendent Steve Greally secured that peoples’ rights are not breached 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;

That allow for lawful cases to be brought against Roading Police/ NZ police / Police?

4. 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;

• The training and qualification officers are required to be 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?

5. What assurance can you provide that when asked to provide a salvia test for the Securetec DrugWipe 3S device; people who decline on grounds specific to their circumstances such as:

• Medical grounds / pre-existing medical conditions are respected?

“A medical defence is available for prescription medicines where drivers can demonstrate they have taken the prescribed medicine in accordance with their current prescription, and any instructions from a health practitioner or from the manufacturer. A medical defence is not available at the roadside”

• The right to decline consent for chemicals, substances, antibodies, and immunoassay formulations to be in their body that could have an adverse reaction under NZ BORA is respected?

“Refusing to comply with roadside drug driving procedures will result in an infringement notice issued at the roadside that includes a $400 fine, 75 license demerit points, as well as being forbidden to drive for 12 hours”

• What happens with the car if that “natural person” has been forbidden to drive?

• What assurance can you provide that the officer’s details and insurance liability is to be supplied at the time of the event for court appearance?

6. 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 with the motivation linked to meeting performance targets (as per the findings in the falsification of breath tests)?

7. What action plans are in place to implement roadside Roading Police / NZ Police / 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

6. Please state the method:
• How is the salvia and data for laboratory analysis collected: Tongue scrape, cheek scrape, salvia spit etc?

“The saliva collected for laboratory analysis is only used for the purposes of testing and reporting and is disposed of and destroyed after six months by PHF Science”

• The storage of these taken samples is held by PHF Science, what is PHF Science?

• Where will the data analysis be kept?

• Why are all samples held for 6 months?

• How are the samples destroyed after 6 months?

• What is “elective saliva sample for private analysis” verses “elective saliva samples where a driver has not requested its release for private analysis”?

“All saliva samples, including the elective saliva sample for private analysis, are sent to PHF Science. Saliva samples are held by PHF Science for six months, at which time they are disposed of and destroyed. This includes elective saliva samples where a driver has not requested its release for private analysis”

• How the samples stored immediately are the sample is taken?

• Verse the contradiction where positive or negative are disposed of by Police at the end of the shift?

• Where are they stored until the end of the shift?

“All drug screening test devices used at the roadside (whether positive or negative) are disposed of by Police at the end of the shift”

• Who will have access to these samples / results at any given time;

• Do the samples identify the subject they were taken from?

• If the screening devices are not held or stored by Police once used, where are they held until destroyed?

“Screening devices are not held or stored by Police once used. They are also not given to the driver after testing”

• As no one is above the “Rule of Law” will the Roading Police / NZ Police / Police as well Ministers also be regularly tested for drug use? If not, why not?

In good faith

Lee

Links:

https://www.police.govt.nz/advice-servic...
New roadside drug driving testing

https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/publ...
Land Transport (Drug Driving) amendment Act 2022 New Schedule 5

https://www.justice.govt.nz/justice-sect...
The purpose of the Bill of Rights Act

Link to this

Lee left an annotation (December 30, 2025)

This OIA was addressed to “Superintendent Steve Greally (Director of Road Policing) decisions”, being that his decisions are behind the Salvia 'Drug' Testing.

However, a reply was received from Hagen Kerr, Senior Advisor – Ministerial Services

The request sent was asked to be revised and re-requested by 22 December 2025, amendments were made and filed by 21 December 2025, but there has been no acknowledgment

We await a reply from Superintendent Steve Greally (Director of Road Policing) and / or Hagen Kerr, Senior Advisor – Ministerial Services

Link to this

From: Lee

January 04, 2026

Hagen Kerr,

You wrote on 18 December 2025, suggesting a revised version, however there has been no reply to the revised version as set out below, can you please update the status

From: Lee

December 21, 2025
Revised Version:
Attention to: Superintendent Steve Greally (Director of Road Policing), who is overseeing the testing program and procurement specifics

• How, when the salvia test doesn't test or provide evidence of impairment, nor how long the presence of a "qualifying" drug has been in someone's, system, and therefore cannot provide factual or current evidence that the said "driver" is under the influence from drugs or is impaired?

As the:
• NZ Transport Agency, where the Land Transport Act 1998 that states “Repealed”:
(i) s201Authority to consider delegating or contracting out of functions and powers [Repealed]
(ii) s202Authority may arrange for services to be provided by outside agencies
[Repealed]; and

• Policing Act 2008

(i) s24 Authorised officers—Part 4—A Police employee warranted as a Police transport enforcement officer:
(1)The Commissioner may, by warrant, authorise a Police employee for particular policing roles set out in Schedule 1.
(ii) S 30 Command and control
No Police employee may, when exercising any power or carrying out any function or duty, act under the direction, command, or control of—
(a) a Minister of the Crown
able to carry out / inforce legislation?

• As the Drug salvia test doesn't measure impairment; how is the Securetec DrugWipe 3S device is fit for purpose, and given that documented international performance has shown there are issues?

• Provide independent forensic laboratory testing used that ensures the accuracy of the roadside equipment for Securetec DrugWipe 3S device are reliable before an infringement is issued;

• Its ongoing testing for accuracy;

• The timeframes for servicing that are the critical components in procurement evaluation;

(i) Your research and validation that the Securetec DrugWipe 3S tongue-swipe test will not cause an adverse reaction, harm or contradictions or breach the natural persons rights under:

• Our inherent rights, similar to New Zealands Bill of Rights Act protects rights, such as the right to refuse medical treatment, may only be relevant to natural persons (real people) under sections 8 to 11 that set out rights that are essential to an individual’s personal wellbeing. Do you recognize these rights protect a person’s autonomy, human dignity and bodily integrity;