Mark Ron: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Mark Ron: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13270] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I note that the Education and Science Committee has been advised no matters were found that needed to be drawn to the attention of the House in respect of the Institute of Environmental Science and Research Ltd but it is an area that I want to express a couple of concerns about and put some questions to the Minister. My questions are related to law and order. 
The Committee cannot ignore the fact that the work the institute does is extremely important to citizens who are concerned about law and order and safety in their community. Science has moved on and so have the tools the police rely upon and lean on in order to prosecute and gain convictions. But I have to say that when I look back over the past year there are some anomalies in statements that have been made. 
On 21 May 2003 the police in a document provided to the Law and Order Committee  
Vote Police: Supplementary Questions 21 May 2003 
 gave the committee an understanding of the types of problems the police were facing. They specifically pointed to a need to boost DNA capacity and research and the ability to collect and collate data from DNA. They went on to talk about their need to get a greater handle on the methamphetamine industry. Both of these areas had great implications I would have thought for the Institute of Environmental Science and Research. 
In talking about their desire to boost DNA capacity the police went on to state in the last sentence on page 4 that in addition to this requirement—whereby they were seeking to generate a further 3500 additional samples resulting in an additional 500 DNA hits and with the increased capacity they wanted to put in place on the police side—there was “a need to provide some additional resource to fund ESR processing costs related to increased throughput”. 
Going further into the police submission dealing with the clandestine laboratory responses again they asked for a number of things. They did not ask for the three units that the Minister of Police gave them; they actually asked for four. They highlighted the booming methamphetamine industry and the ballooning numbers of clandestine laboratories they were uncovering and they emphasised the need for the police to have increased resources to deal with the clean-up but there was also a direct inference that the ability of the institute needed to be up-gunned and better resourced. 
What was the result? The result was a series of headlines and I can go back to 14 October 2003 for example when already the Institute of Environmental Science and Research was admitting it was having problems. A scientist admitted that she gave the wrong drug-test evidence. There were many reasons; some would suggest that one of the reasons the institute was struggling was the heavy workload. 
The institute came under huge pressure as industry sought to deal with drug use in the workplace. I know that Air New Zealand is one such business that sought to implement drug-testing of employees. Again where did that responsibility fall? It fell on the institute to pick up the tab. Private investigators were reported in the paper as saying there was an increasing need for industry to protect itself and once again the workload would fall on the institute. There were more articles in October and in December concerns were being expressed on the radio as to the institute’s ability to keep up with its workload. Then in January 2004 despite all the assurances about adequate resourcing we again became aware of the issue. The Wellington Regional Chamber of Commerce Chief Executive Philip Lewin said: “Industry is not able to keep tabs and to carry out the drug testing because ESR cannot keep up.” School principals were talking about drug testing students and the need for that; and again there were implications for the institute. I am not talking purely about funding but also staffing which I guess is a funding issue. 
Reports agreed to.