In a high-stakes legal battle, the advocacy group Movement has taken action in the High Court in Wellington to halt the rollout of speed limit increases across New Zealand. The group argues that the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) is disregarding its own safety findings, with potentially significant consequences for public safety and financial costs.

The dispute centers around the government's directive to reverse speed limit reductions implemented by the previous administration, a move intended to raise limits on numerous roads. Advocacy group spokesperson Bevan Woodward expressed concerns that continuing with the rollouts before the judicial review’s conclusion could necessitate costly reversals if their challenge succeeds. “If our judicial review is upheld, then councils would ironically be required to reverse the government’s mandated reversal of safer speed limits. We don’t want that to happen, that’s why we’re here today,” Woodward emphasised. 

However, the Crown’s lawyer, Polly Higbee, argued that pausing the rollout would squander millions of dollars already committed to the project. NZTA has reportedly spent $324,000 increasing limits on five roads, with over $1 million allocated for future changes. Higbee stressed that stopping now would mean significant disruptions and financial losses, particularly as the initiative involves 72 Road Controlling Authorities countrywide. “The larger the process, the larger those consequences will be,” she noted.

Lawyer for Movement, Sally Gepp, countered that NZTA’s own safety research underpins the reduced limits, which were introduced to address specific road safety risks. She highlighted NZTA’s acknowledgment that speed limits tailored to road conditions are pivotal for safety. “It’s the reversal of that step — done in response to specific risks — that the applicant seeks to prevent,” Gepp argued. With over 2,000 roads slated for speed increases, she further claimed that only a fraction of local authorities have initiated work, making a pause more feasible than continuing ahead of the review. 

Local opposition to the policy has added to the controversy. In Wellington, councillor Ben McNulty criticized the government's mandate, calling it “stupid policy” and highlighting the risks posed by reversing safer limits on roads like Adelaide Road and Rintoul Street. Councillor Sarah Free expressed concerns over the changes' impracticality, particularly noting Rintoul Street’s narrow design as an unsafe candidate for higher speeds. Many residents share fears that raising limits will endanger vulnerable groups like children and the elderly. 

As the case progresses, Justice Paul Radich has reserved his decision, leaving the future of New Zealand’s speed limit policy—and potentially millions in taxpayer dollars—hanging in the balance.

This debate underscores the tension between public safety considerations, government policy directives, and financial stewardship. The outcome of this judicial review could set a significant precedent for how transport policies are implemented and challenged in New Zealand. With mounting opposition from councils and residents, the case highlights the complexities of balancing efficiency, safety, and fiscal responsibility in public infrastructure projects.