In Opposition, Twyford had campaigned against a lack of regulation of methamphetamine testing and remediation, viewed by many as a rort. To their critics, the testers were self-interested alarmists, pushing up insurance premiums and running a witch hunt-like crusade on an issue none of us needed to fear: living in a meth-contaminated home.

Once Twyford got into power, he was swift to commission Gluckman to look into the science behind meth contamination.

Now the report is out, can we pause, touch and relax?

To answer that, it's worth looking at how we got to where we are now.

New Zealand has endured a confusing three-step approach to meth-testing properties, beginning with an extremely stringent or conservative regime, now seen as excessive, even bogus:

● August 2010-June 2017: The sole guideline was from the Ministry of Health, and intended to apply to ex-meth labs, an extremely conservative approach that was also applied to places where meth had been smoked, not made. The acceptable level, after cleaning, was deemed to be only 0.5ug (micrograms) of meth per 100 cm2 of surface area. That measure was derived from an Australian risk assessment report which also focused on ex-meth labs, not just meth-smoking places.

● June 2017: Standards NZ published NZS 8510: 2017, which raised the acceptable meth level to 1.5ug/100 cm2 but failed to distinguish between meth labs and meth-smoking places

● May 29, 2018: Gluckman report released, for the first time distinguishing between meth labs and dwellings used for meth smoking. It reached the bombshell conclusion that there was no evidence of any health risk in meth-smoking places and said there was "merit" in applying a much less stringent standard of 15ug/100cm2.

Professor Sir Peter Gluckman. Photo/Brett Phibbs

The May 29 report sparked immediate reaction — and one unexpected change from New Zealand's biggest landlord with 63,000 properties.

Housing NZ said it would apply Gluckman's findings immediately, abandoning the NZ Standard and applying the "no third-hand harm" bar set by Gluckman. That decision came after the state landlord had forked out $100 million over four years testing and cleaning up meth-contaminated places.

Tim Grafton, Insurance Council chief.

Insurance Council chief executive Tim Grafton said the standard should be relaxed. "It will be important that there is a single level that applies to all regulation including the update of the existing standard." His council would make a submission and hoped the Government moved quickly to review the situation.

The normally conservative Standards NZ said it was open to change in light of the Gluckman report and was "happy to engage" in the meth change debate.

Twyford vowed to shake up the meth industry. Now the past contamination standards had been debunked, Twyford didn't hold back: "I expect, pending Cabinet agreement, that there will be a public consultation document on meth regulations later this year," he said.

In Opposition, Twyford raised concerns about the meth testing and fixing industry. Photo/Mark Mitchell

"There has been a widely held perception that the presence of even low levels of meth residue in a house poses a health risk to occupants. As a result, remediation to eliminate contamination has been an extremely costly business for landlords and an upheaval for tenants being evicted at short notice. No one is underplaying the social damage caused by meth, but there should be a scientific basis for what are acceptable levels of meth in the current New Zealand context, and remediation of houses should be proportional to the established health risks," Twyford said.