Saliva testing processes slammed by auditor-general
Thursday, 11 November 2021
The Auditor-General has slammed the Government’s saliva testing roll-out, saying there were conflicts of interests, and proper procurement processes were not followed.
Auditor-General John Ryan has declined to investigate the matter any further but has written to the Ministry of Health with a long list of his concerns, including that the ministry represented a “probity” audit as a lot more than what it was.
The ministry had claimed it had had an independent probity auditor check its procurement processes around saliva testing.
No such auditor had been appointed. Instead the ministry had simply had one conversation with Audit New Zealand, that it did not document.
**READ MORE:
* Ministry of Health gave saliva testing provider 'the metaphorical finger' during outbreak
* Covid-19: U-turn on saliva testing as fears grow around nasal swab hesitancy
**
However, concerns around the $50 million saliva testing contract go deeper than that: four out of five of the people appointed to handle the procurement had conflicts of interest, the ministry did not have good processes to manage these conflicts, and the Ministry of Health did not have a procurement plan in place.
Some conflicts of interest highlighted included people who had been employed, or were currently employed, by laboratories or firms likely to bid for the contract.
“We would have expected a procurement plan to be prepared for a contract worth more than $50m and for an important subject such as this,” Ryan said.
Former Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters sparked the Auditor-General’s inquiries after writing to Ryan and asking him to investigate a number of issues around how the saliva testing contract for border workers was awarded.
Stuff reported saliva testing has been the subject of major delays on the back of a dispute between Rako Science and the Ministry of Health.
Rako Science’s saliva test had been diagnostically validated using human samples at the time of the tender, but successful bidder Asia Pacific Healthcare Group (APH) had not had its test validated in the same way.
The Auditor-General didn’t make a statement on how the saliva tests were validated, an issue which has become increasingly controversial.
Ryan said the saliva tests had been accredited by International Accreditation New Zealand (IANZ), however concerns had been raised about the type of data IANZ used to accredit the tests.
In jurisdictions like the United States this type of validation data is made public, but it is not published here.
Saliva testing experts like Yale Public Health research scientist Anne Wyllie have questioned the type of data IANZ accepted when it accredited the tests.
Suspicions increased after a leaked ESR study, which appeared riddled with errors, stated that one of its purposes was to generate validation data for IANZ accreditation.
IANZ, the body which signed off on this accreditation, said it did not assess the laboratory testing solely against international standards but instead against a separate set of standards set by a Ministry of Health advisory group.
National Party Covid-19 response spokesman Chris Bishop said the issues around validation were some of a number he wanted investigated through a much more powerful inquiry.
“It is now imperative that a full and independent inquiry be held into what has happened with saliva testing in New Zealand. While today’s report deals with the procurement process, there are wider, unanswered questions around saliva testing in New Zealand.”