Dear Mr Stratford

I would like to acknowledge receipt of your email and will forward to Dr Anne Bardsley and Megan Stunzer who are dealing with this matter.

Kind regards

OPMCSA

-----Original Message-----
From: Miles Stratford <[FOI #8262 email]>
Sent: Friday, 6 July 2018 6:29 PM
To: OIA/LGOIMA requests at Office of the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor <[Office of the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor request email]>
Subject: Official Information request - Clarification of details relating to PMCSA Meth Report

Dear Office of the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor,

1 - Please advise why the following advice from Dr. Nick Kim that was supplied to Anne Bardsley on the 9th of January was not reflected in the final report issued by the Office of the PMCSA

The Australian guidelines [5] (published in 2011) do explicitly accommodate both options (manufacture and smoking) in the same remediation target for methamphetamine on surfaces;

The PMCSA Meth Report specifically states that Australia only applies the levels in its 2011 Guidelines to methamphetamine residues left behind by manufacture

2 - Please advise why the comments in the peer review provided to the Office of the PMCSA Meth Report on the 9th of April by Dr. Nick Kim which again flagged the reality of the above advice were not reflected in the final report issued by the Office of the PMCSA.

3 - Please have Anne Bardsley provide the contents of the 'hidden folder' referenced in her email to Dr. Nick Kim on 9th of April 2018 at 11.40am "I emailed this morning to your Massey email address because I couldn’t find this one – I had cleverly filed it away in a hidden folder!"

4 - Please advise why it took seven weeks for the PMCSA Meth Report to be released, after a Peer review was conducted by Dr. Nick Kim on the 9th of April, when the email to Dr. Kim from Anne Bardsley requesting this review, also on the 9th of April, advised that the office of the PMCSA was under a "bit of a time crunch"

5 - Please advise why getting a copy of a Fair Go report on meth on bank notes, at the beginning (9th January 2018) of an impartial assessment of the science associated with meth contamination in property was referenced as something that "sounds useful"

6 - Please advise why contact was only made with Dr. Jackie Wright a respected Australian scientist who had done a Phd on the effects of meth contamination of property and is known to favour a more conservative approach to meth residues in property than that advocated by the Office of the PMCSA Meth Report, was not contacted until late March 2018.

7 - Please advise what scientific principles support the recommendations made by the Office of the PMCSA when it comes to management of the risks presented by people who use and/or manufacture methamphetamine.

8 - Please advise how the recommendations made by the Office of the PMCSA when it comes to management of the risks presented by people who use and/or manufacture methamphetamine, will ensure that the owner of a property where meth related behaviour is taking place, will not breach their obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986

Yours faithfully,

Miles Stratford

-------------------------------------------------------------------

This is an Official Information request made via the FYI website.

Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #8262 email]

Is [Office of the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor request email] the wrong address for Official Information requests to Office of the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor? If so, please contact us using this form:
https://fyi.org.nz/change_request/new?bo...

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers

If you find this service useful as an Official Information officer, please ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's OIA or LGOIMA page.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

hide quoted sections

Dear Mr Stratford

 

Further to your recent communication to the PMCSA Office (dated 6 July),
set out below in blue is the response from Dr Anne Bardsley to your
questions.

 

Please note that any further requests will incur a charge, as per the
guidelines at the Office of the Ombudsman.

 

NB: the email address [1][Office of the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor request email] will shortly become invalid.
Any further correspondence should be therefore be sent to
[2][email address]

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Office of the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor

Phone: +64 (9) 923 6318 I Email: [3][Office of the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor request email]

 

 

Please note that an agency is not obliged to answer questions which
require the agency to form an opinion or provide an explanation and so
create new information, as this is not considered ‘official information’
that is held by the agency.

 

 

Dear Office of the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor,

   

1 - Please advise why the following advice from Dr. Nick Kim that was
supplied to Anne Bardsley on the 9th of January was not reflected in the
final report issued by the Office of the PMCSA

   

    The Australian guidelines [5] (published in 2011) do explicitly
accommodate both options (manufacture and smoking) in the same remediation
target for methamphetamine on surfaces;

    

    The PMCSA Meth Report specifically states that Australia only applies
the levels in its 2011 Guidelines to methamphetamine residues left behind
by manufacture\

 

It has already been pointed out explicitly to this requester that the
Australian guideline clearly states the limitation of its use as: 
“intended for use in the management and remediation of locations where
potential contamination exists originating from the operation of a
clandestine drug laboratory.”

 

Based on a thorough examination of the Australian guideline, we found the
statement provided above by the requester, which is taken from Nick Kim’s
unpublished ‘Technical commentary and opinion’ paper, to be inaccurate
(and regardless, was not provided as ‘advice’ to us).

 

Dr Kim’s comments on our report were also sceptical about the mentions of
smoking in the Australian guidelines, which appears in only one paragraph
in the entire document. There is no mention anywhere else of contamination
from ‘use’ or ‘smoking’, and it is a misrepresentation to state that the
guidelines are applicable to contamination from use – particularly as this
is contradicted by the stated limitation.

 

Nick Kim states in a comment on our report (9 April):

 

“I think much of the Australian tox guidance has gone through as largely
unchallenged recommendations. It seems to (rely) heavily on the opinion of
Jackie Wright of Environmental Risk Sciences Pty Ltd. She/they seem to
have had a lot to do with the Australian numbers and were also origin of
the first NZ 0.5 value, which was taken from a draft report (for which I
could find no peer review).”

 

Having asked Dr Kim if he wished to comment again on this he stated:

“Just that the specific part that includes "...is considered unacceptable"
seems to be an unidentified author's opinion, is not qualified (is
unacceptable to whom?), and -- whatever it was intended to mean -- is
clearly over-ridden by the "Limitations" statement at the font of the
guidelines.  A throwaway comment like that, buried in the innards of the
document, doesn't annul the clear statement of limitations placed at the
front, that "These Guidelines are intended for use in the management and
remediation of locations where potential contamination exists originating
from the operation of a clandestine drug laboratory."

 

The interpretation of the Australian national guideline as being
applicable to situations of methamphetamine use is further countered by
the various territorial guidelines, which make clear that the trigger for
assessment of a property is a police or health authority investigation
based on strong suspicion of drug manufacturing activity.  For example –
see the interpretation of the national guideline in the clan lab
guidelines from the Government of New South Wales, from which the
following text was extracted:

([4]http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/environment...),

 

1.5 National Guidance

In relation to the assessment and remediation of contamination derived
from the operation of an clandestine drug laboratory, a national guideline
document “Clandestine Drug Laboratory Remediation Guidelines”, was
published by the Australian Crime Commission in 2011 (ACC 2011). This
document is intended to provide guidance to appropriate authorities and
environmental professionals in the assessment and remediation of
contaminated sites where such contamination arises from chemical processes
associated with the manufacture of illicit drugs.

 

In all states of Australia, when the police have completed their
investigations into a clandestine drug laboratory, they notify the
environmental health officer from the relevant local council of the
discovery of the laboratory and its potential hazards and risks. The
national guidance focuses on the assessment and remediation of amphetamine
type stimulants (ATS) and provides four phases of site assessment and
remediation:

· Phase 1: Trigger for Assessment

· Phase 2: Preliminary Assessment and Action

· Phase 3: Site Assessment and Remediation

· Phase 4: Validation

 

   

2 - Please advise why the comments in the peer review provided to the
Office of the PMCSA Meth Report on the 9th of April by Dr. Nick Kim which
again flagged the reality of the above advice were not reflected in the
final report issued by the Office of the PMCSA.

 

As above. It was not provided as ‘advice’ and it should not be interpreted
as ‘reality’.

    

3 - Please have Anne Bardsley provide the contents of the 'hidden folder'
referenced in her email to Dr. Nick Kim on 9th of April 2018 at 11.40am "I
emailed this morning to your Massey email address because I couldn’t find
this one – I had cleverly filed it away in a hidden folder!"

 

This email folder was only ‘hidden’ in the sense that it was filed within
a drop-down menu in Dr Bardsley’s general inbox where she started to
organise emails relating to many different projects into subfolders. A
small number of emails were moved to the folder initially but after
collapsing the dropdown list it was forgotten because it was not visible.
The remaining emails pertaining to this project remained in the general
inbox.

 

There are eight emails in the subfolder, six of which either relate to
attempts to contact Nick Kim via Massey University, or messages from him
that the requestor has already received. The two other emails also relate
to setting up contact meetings – one with Detective Sergeant Dan Lyons of
the National Drug Intelligence Bureau and one with Erina Mayo of ESR.
Please advise if these are required.

 

   

4 - Please advise why it took seven weeks for the PMCSA Meth Report to be
released, after a Peer review was conducted by Dr. Nick Kim on the 9th of
April, when the email to Dr. Kim from Anne Bardsley requesting this
review, also on the 9th of April, advised that the office of the PMCSA was
under a "bit of a time crunch"

 

The process of peer review and revision of a technical report such as ours
is not an instantaneous one. Nick Kim graciously performed his review on
the day it was requested – we did not ask or require him to do this. He
was also not the only reviewer of the report.

 

The reference to the “time crunch” was that we had a timeline to meet and
needed to get comments back from reviewers in time to address their
comments to produce a final draft.

 

The timing of the release was determined by Minister Twyford’s office for
a date when both he and Sir Peter would be available together to speak
about the report.

   

5 - Please advise why getting a copy of a Fair Go report on meth on bank
notes, at the beginning (9th January 2018) of an impartial assessment of
the science associated with meth contamination in property was referenced
as something that "sounds useful"

 

It is relevant to background exposure to methamphetamine.

    

6 - Please advise why contact was only made with Dr. Jackie Wright a
respected Australian scientist who had done a Phd on the effects of meth
contamination of property and is known to favour a more conservative
approach to meth residues in property than that advocated by the Office of
the PMCSA Meth Report, was not contacted until late March 2018.

 

All published work by Jackie Wright had been reviewed early in the
discovery process and was found to be related to exposures from
clandestine labs, so was not of immediate relevance to the main objectives
of our report.

    

7 - Please advise what scientific principles support the recommendations
made by the Office of the PMCSA when it comes to management of the risks
presented by people who use and/or manufacture methamphetamine.

 

This is explained in the report.

   

8 - Please advise how the recommendations made by the Office of the PMCSA
when it comes to management of the risks presented by people who use
and/or manufacture methamphetamine, will ensure that the owner of a
property where meth related behaviour is taking place, will not breach
their obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986

 

This is not information held by our office and is not applicable under the
Official Information Act.

   

Yours faithfully,

   

Miles Stratford

   

    -------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[Office of the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor request email]
2. mailto:[email address]
3. mailto:[Office of the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor request email]
4. http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/environment...

Updated response attachment received by FYI admin, to correct redactions.