Transport Minister Simeon Brown plans to reverse Labour’s blanket speed limit reductions. Photo / Mark Mitchell
Transport Minister Simeon Brown plans to reverse Labour’s blanket speed limit reductions. Photo / Mark Mitchell
Green Party transport spokeswoman Julie Anne Genter thinks the Government has opened itself up to being judicially reviewed for failing to model safety impacts as part of its plan to increase speed limits on some roads.
The coalition has pledged to reverse rules implemented under the lastGovernment that made it easier to reduce some speed limits. This new approach means speed limits in some areas will rise.
Transport Minister Simeon Brown said the new way of setting speed limits will mean “economic impacts and the views of road users and local communities are taken into account, alongside safety”.
Genter told the Herald it was “possible” Brown could be judicially reviewed over the changes because a regulatory impact statement on reversing the rule included no modelling on whether the amendments would increase road fatalities.
“The proposed rule appears to ban councils and road controlling authorities from using the evidence-based safer speeds, e.g. 30km/h on residential streets and around high volumes of pedestrians, no matter what the safety and economic evidence says,” Genter said.
The original rule from 2022, which was later amended, was modelled to deliver a 14% reduction in deaths and serious injuries by 2030. The change did not mean blanket speed limit reductions, but if a road controlling authority (mainly councils) did decide to change limits, they would need to comply with the rule, which would mean the new speed limit would most likely be lower than the existing one.
Brown campaigned on getting rid of these changes and got his wish. The 2023 coalition agreement between National and Act said the Government would “reverse speed limit reductions where it is safe to do so”.
The regulatory impact statement did look at safety impacts, but it did not model them. It warned “increasing speed limits outside schools outside school hours may increase the risk of deaths, serious and minor injuries”, however, it said the number of any additional deaths was uncertain. It said introducing variable speed limits, which meant lower speeds during pick-up and drop-off times, “could result in a reduction in the number of crashes outside school gates”.
In the draft Government Policy Statement (GPS) on Land Transport published this year, Brown appeared to make good on his coalition agreement promise, saying: “GPS 2024 will also include investment in infrastructure to reverse recent speed limit reductions where it is safe to do so, enabling people to get where they need to go quickly and safely.”
By the time the final GPS was published some months later, the words “where it is safe to do so” had vanished from that sentence.
Brown downplayed the change and did not explain his decision to remove those words.
He said he was legally obliged to consider safety, regardless of whether those specific words were used in the GPS.
“As Minister of Transport, I am required by law to consider the safety of New Zealanders when setting the new speed limit rule,” Brown said.
Green Party transport spokeswoman Julie Anne Genter says the Government’s changes over speed limits are unpopular with councils.
“We campaigned on reversing Labour’s blanket speed limit reductions at the last election. New Zealanders overwhelmingly voted in favour of our Government, and we are delivering on what we promised. Our approach will ensure that when speed limits are set, economic impacts and the views of road users and local communities are taken into account, alongside safety.
“We will be requiring slower speeds outside schools during pick-up and drop-off times to prioritise the safety of young New Zealanders. It makes no sense at all to make a shift worker heading to work at 4am crawl along at 30km/h with a permanent speed limit reduction.”
“Simeon Brown’s proposed rule has been widely criticised by local councillors across the political spectrum, by schools, health professionals and road safety experts. It’s the opposite of what most countries are doing.
“He has completely ignored the evidence not only about safety impacts, but also on time savings and economic return. He has no real evidence to support the claim that this solution is better for the economy,” Genter said.
“This should be obvious; it is bad when more people are killed and seriously injured in car crashes. It has a huge impact on our health system, emergency responders, and on the productive workforce. Grief, physical injury and emotional trauma are not ‘good for the economy’,” she said.
Thomas Coughlan is Deputy Political Editor and covers politics from Parliament. He has worked for the Herald since 2021 and has worked in the press gallery since 2018.
