To: NZ Police
Subject: Official Information Act Request — SDS for Oral‑Fluid Devices & DNA‑Use Clarification
Dear New Zealand Police,

Under the Official Information Act 1982, I request the following information relating to the oral‑fluid roadside drug‑testing regime currently in use by NZ Police.

1. Safety Data Sheets (SDS) and Chemical Composition Documents
Please provide all Safety Data Sheets (SDS), chemical composition documents, hazard classifications, and manufacturer‑supplied technical documentation for every oral‑fluid collection or drug‑testing device used by NZ Police, including but not limited to:

Quantisal™ Oral Fluid Collection Device

Quantisal™ II Oral Fluid Collection Device

Any transportation buffer, reagent, preservative, or stabilising solution used in the device

Any alternative or successor devices procured or trialled

For each SDS or technical document, please provide:

The full SDS document supplied to Police.

The version number and date of the SDS.

The date Police received it.

Whether Police hold multiple versions (e.g., updated SDS from the manufacturer).

Any internal risk assessments, WorkSafe notifications, or HSWA/HSNO compliance documents that reference these SDS.

If any SDS or technical document is withheld or refused, please specify the exact statutory ground and confirm whether Police have ever held the document.

2. DNA‑Related Use, Capability, or Retention
There is significant public interest in whether the oral‑fluid drug‑testing device is being used — or is capable of being used — for DNA collection, retention, profiling, or matching.

Please answer the following:

2.1 Device capability
Does the oral‑fluid collection device used by Police collect biological material that contains human DNA?

Does the device’s buffer, preservative, or stabilising solution preserve DNA, destroy DNA, or leave DNA intact?

Has Police received any documentation from the manufacturer regarding DNA preservation, DNA degradation, or DNA stability in the buffer?

Please provide all documents, emails, technical notes, or manufacturer statements addressing these points.

2.2 Police policy and practice
Does NZ Police use, retain, analyse, or transfer any DNA obtained from oral‑fluid roadside drug‑testing devices?

Has Police ever conducted internal discussions, legal assessments, or privacy assessments regarding DNA presence in oral‑fluid samples?

Has Police ever sought advice from:

ESR

Crown Law

Privacy Commissioner

Ministry of Justice

Any external scientific or forensic advisor
regarding DNA in oral‑fluid drug‑testing samples?

Please provide all documents, emails, memos, and advice.

2.3 Retention and disposal
How long are oral‑fluid samples retained?

Are samples destroyed, returned, transferred, or stored?

Are any samples or aliquots sent to ESR or any other laboratory?

Are any samples used for secondary purposes, including:

method validation

quality assurance

training

research

forensic comparison

DNA profiling

future technology trials

Please provide all policies, SOPs, and internal guidance.

3. Procurement and Manufacturer Communications
Please provide:

All procurement documents, tender documents, and technical specifications supplied by the manufacturer relating to the chemical composition, safety, or biological properties of the oral‑fluid device.

All emails or correspondence between Police and the manufacturer relating to:

SDS

chemical hazards

DNA stability

biological sample handling

buffer composition

safety or risk assessments

4. If information is refused
If any part of this request is refused, please confirm:

Whether the information is not held, never held, or transferred.

Whether Police consider the information to be out of scope of any existing contract or procurement.

Whether Police have requested this information from the manufacturer but not received it.

Whether Police are willing to request the SDS or DNA‑related documentation from the manufacturer now.

5. Format
Please provide all documents in PDF or their original electronic format.

Yours faithfully,

Nigel Gray

Clarification Required Regarding IR‑01‑26‑15657

Dear New Zealand Police,

Thank you for your response dated 19 May 2026 (IR‑01‑26‑15657).
After reviewing the reply, several parts of the response appear to depart materially from the questions asked, or rely on refusal grounds that cannot be reconciled with information Police necessarily hold in order to operate the oral‑fluid testing regime.

In addition, Police have now released the Oral Fluid Testing (OFT) National District Training PowerPoint and the OFT Lesson Plan, both of which contain internal procedures, biological‑sample handling instructions, device‑handling protocols, and operational guidance that appear inconsistent with the claim that no internal assessments, technical documentation, or DNA‑related information exist.

Before I escalate the matter to the Ombudsman or make the response public, I am giving Police the opportunity to clarify or correct the following points.

1. Safety Data Sheets (SDS) and Chemical Documentation
Your response directed me to a proactive‑release webpage.
However, the proactive release does not contain:

SDS for Quantisal™ or Quantisal™ II

SDS for the buffer, preservative, or stabilising solution

Version numbers or dates received

HSWA/HSNO risk assessments referencing these SDS

Any record of whether Police hold multiple versions

Given Police’s operational use of these devices and HSWA obligations, please confirm:

1.1 Clarification requested
Does Police hold the SDS for Quantisal™ and Quantisal™ II?

If not, does this mean Police deployed these devices without obtaining the SDS required under HSWA?

If Police do hold the SDS, please provide them, including version numbers and dates received.

If Police refuse to provide them, please specify the exact statutory ground for each document.

2. DNA Capability and Manufacturer Documentation
Your response stated that saliva contains DNA but that Police “do not convert the saliva into a DNA profile.”
This does not answer the questions asked, which were about:

device capability

buffer chemistry

DNA preservation or degradation

manufacturer documentation

You refused this part under s18(e) on the basis that no such documentation exists.

However, the training material released to me shows:

detailed biological‑sample handling procedures

disposal protocols

laboratory pathways

internal operational guidance relating to saliva samples

This appears inconsistent with the claim that no documentation exists.

2.1 Clarification requested
Has Police ever received any manufacturer documentation relating to DNA stability, DNA degradation, or biological preservation in the Quantisal buffer?

If Police did not receive this documentation, did Police request it?

If Police did not request it, please confirm whether Police consider DNA‑related information to be out of scope of the procurement process.

If Police maintain that no such documentation exists, please confirm whether Police are willing to request it from the manufacturer now.

3. Internal Discussions, Legal Assessments, and Privacy Assessments
Your response states that Police have conducted no internal discussions, legal assessments, or privacy assessments regarding DNA presence in saliva samples.

However, the training material contains:

internal procedures

operational guidance

biological‑sample handling instructions

disposal protocols

chain‑of‑custody steps

crash‑specific pathways

TENR‑based risk assessments

These appear to be internal assessments and guidance.

3.1 Clarification requested
Has Police conducted a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) for the oral‑fluid testing regime?

Has Police sought any advice from ESR, Crown Law, the Privacy Commissioner, or the Ministry of Justice regarding DNA in saliva samples?

If not, please confirm that Police introduced a biological sampling regime without any privacy, legal, or forensic assessment relating to DNA.

4. Retention, Disposal, and Secondary Use
Your response states that PHF Science may retain and use oral‑fluid samples for research, quality assurance, and method development, but then refuses this part under s18(e) on the basis that no documents exist.

These statements cannot both be true.

4.1 Clarification requested
If PHF Science retains and uses samples for research, QA, or method development, what documentation governs this?

If no documentation exists, on what basis does PHF Science undertake these activities?

If documentation does exist, please provide it or specify the statutory ground for withholding.

5. Procurement and Manufacturer Correspondence
You withheld all correspondence with manufacturers under s9(2)(b)(ii) but did not apply the mandatory public‑interest test under s9(1).

5.1 Clarification requested
Please confirm whether Police considered the public interest in transparency relating to chemical hazards, biological sampling, and DNA‑related risks.

If so, please provide the public‑interest balancing analysis.

If not, please confirm that no s9(1) balancing test was undertaken.

6. Questions Required Under Section 23 OIA
My request asked, for any refusal, that Police confirm:

whether the information is not held, never held, or transferred

whether Police consider the information out of scope

whether Police requested the information from the manufacturer

whether Police are willing to request it now

These questions were not answered.

6.1 Clarification requested
Please provide the required s23 information for each refusal ground applied.

7. Internal Training Material Contradictions
Police have now released the Oral Fluid Testing (OFT) National District Training PowerPoint and the OFT Lesson Plan.
These documents contain:

internal procedures

internal assessments

internal device‑handling instructions

internal biological‑sample handling protocols

internal disposal protocols

internal safety guidance

internal operational decision‑making frameworks

internal scenario‑based assessments

references to manufacturer instructions

references to device instruction guides

references to temperature‑controlled storage requirements

These materials appear inconsistent with Police’s claim that:

no internal assessments exist

no internal documentation exists

no technical documentation exists

no biological‑sample handling documentation exists

no manufacturer documentation exists

no DNA‑related documentation exists

7.1 Clarification requested
Please confirm:

Whether Police accept that the training material constitutes internal documentation relevant to my request.

Whether Police still maintain that no internal assessments, procedures, or technical documentation exist.

Whether Police hold the manufacturer’s device instruction guides referenced in the lesson plan.

Whether Police hold the temperature‑storage instructions referenced in the lesson plan.

Whether Police hold the device troubleshooting documentation referenced in the lesson plan.

Whether Police hold the biological‑sample handling instructions referenced in the lesson plan.

Whether Police hold any internal risk assessments relating to saliva handling, contamination, or sample sufficiency.

Whether Police wish to revise their s18(e) refusals in light of the training material.

Closing
I am giving Police the opportunity to clarify or correct the above points before I:

refer the matter to the Ombudsman, and

make the response public in its current form.

If Police maintain the original answers, I will proceed on the basis that the response is final.

Yours sincerely,
Nigel Gray

Yours sincerely,

Nigel Gray