Jim O'Malley: Dunedin City Councillor on the council keeping lower speed limits around schools in place

Dunedin City Council is planning to keep existing speed limits around the city's schools in place, despite a directive from Government.

The report being considered at Wednesday's council meeting will recommend all but one school keep its 30km per hour speed limit - with the remaining school only increasing to 50km during non-peak hours.

The council has been asked to provide a list of speed limit reversals on 'specified roads' to the New Zealand Transport Agency by Thursday.

Dunedin City Councillor Jim O'Malley says these speed limits have been in place for a long time - and many in the community don't want them to change.

"We know that when another Government comes in, they'll want them back to where they were before, so it would pretty much be a futile waste of effort, to be honest."

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
So Dunedin City Council is planning to not reverse the
speed limits around the city schools, despite the director from
local government from government to do so. The report being
considered a Wednesday's council meeting will recommend all but one
Dunedin school keep its thirty k's in our speed limit,
with the remaining school only increasing to fifty k's during
non peak hours now. Jim O'Malley is the head of

(00:21):
the Infrastructure Committee for Dunedin Council. Jim higher, hell, how
are you? Yim?

Speaker 2 (00:25):
Very well?

Speaker 1 (00:26):
Thank you? Why are you're not doing it?

Speaker 2 (00:29):
Really? Because the public consultation that led to the speed
limit changes in the first place was pretty clear and
a lot of them have been in place for a
long time and the communities really don't want them reversed.
And I think the other one is if we did
do the reversal of this government wanted, no government is
permanent and we knew that, we know that when another
government comes back in they want them back to where
they were before, so it would be pretty much a

(00:50):
few toile waste of effort, to be honest.

Speaker 1 (00:52):
So what is it that you've got so tell me?
If I'm right here, Jim. But my understanding is that
the current government wants you guys to go to variable
speed limits, right, so during school hours you drop it
down to thirty and then the rest of the time
it's fifty eighty one hundred whatever is that right?

Speaker 2 (01:06):
Yeah, and also raising speed limits in other parts of
its town that were lowered.

Speaker 1 (01:10):
Yeah, right, okay, so what's wrong with variable speed limits?
Speed is you know, variable hours.

Speaker 2 (01:16):
Oh, it's nothing really if it's the right place. So
we do have variable speed limits around the schools that
have very high traffic around them and stuff like that.
It really goes school by school basis is how they're
determine whether they're variable terminate And in fact, the Abbots
had one what they vasked is that can they go
to a variable in the future and they'll reverse back
at this point while they wait. But it's about seven

(01:39):
hundred fifty thousand dollars to put a variable unit in
around the school.

Speaker 1 (01:42):
Okay, okay, it's.

Speaker 2 (01:44):
Quite expensive to put them into every school.

Speaker 1 (01:47):
How that gym is that? Right?

Speaker 2 (01:48):
Yeah, they're electronica and there's a lot of engineering you
go with it at the same time, and so then.

Speaker 1 (01:52):
You know, outside of in places that is outside of school,
so not just schools. Are you also refusing to lift
the speed limits back up from like eighty to one hundred?

Speaker 2 (02:00):
Let's say, well, it's not so much refusing as we
and a lot of other councilors looked at the new
speed limit rules and said that they were quite ambiguous
and they weren't instructives, so therefore there was no instruction there,
so we didn't have to follow them.

Speaker 1 (02:12):
But you did what we did, right. But it's pretty
clear what the government wants you to do, isn't it.

Speaker 2 (02:17):
Well, it was clear what the previous minister wanted to do.
I don't think the current minister is particularly interested in
speed limit changes. Doesn't seem to be giving direction. Hold on,
are you talking that doing this? I mean most councils
are doing this.

Speaker 1 (02:30):
Are you talking about the difference between Simmy and Brown
and Chris Bishop.

Speaker 2 (02:33):
Yeah, I think a lot goes around who is the
minister at the time. So it was Simy and Brown
who bought these changes in and now Chris Bishop as
the minister.

Speaker 1 (02:40):
So in your opinion, Simeon was clear that he wanted
speed limits up, but Chris Bishop sounds a bit sort
of ambiguous.

Speaker 2 (02:46):
It doesn't seem like as as high priori as I mean,
when Minister Brown was in charge, he would he was
stretting to go in an a line item change speed
limits if he didn't like them.

Speaker 1 (02:56):
Okay, but doesn't the previous minister's directive stand until the
new minister changes?

Speaker 2 (03:01):
Oh yeah it does. And the rule was the rule
was issued. And when we've looked at the rule, like,
there's nothing instructing this rule that they rule. Actually, this
rhythm doesn't really instruct the way maybe the minister had intended,
but that's the rule that's been issued by the minister.

Speaker 1 (03:14):
But then, Jim, you guys are playing silly buggers, aren't you,
because you know what he intended, and so he issued
a rule and then you find in wiggleway wiggling room
in this is that right?

Speaker 2 (03:23):
Well, I don't move by, silly buggers, because I mean,
it'll be four million dollars to do those reversals, and
then when Labor get it it gets back in, it'll
be four million dollars to put them back in again.
You're looking after the long term interest of the rape perers.

Speaker 1 (03:35):
Else the next labor government is going to be as
nutty as the last one.

Speaker 2 (03:40):
These these are not unpopular changes in the community. They're
very popular in their communities. The community, they're not asking
them to go back.

Speaker 1 (03:46):
Now that's a fair point that maybe.

Speaker 2 (03:47):
You're actually crossing asking a very important line here, which
is when does local government have authority and when the
central government.

Speaker 1 (03:53):
And you've got a fair point there. So if to
my mind, if a community wants something very very badly,
then the community within reason should have it. Am you
sure though, that your community wants it? Because I've come
across councils before doing the old consultation and getting the
answer they want.

Speaker 2 (04:12):
Well, you know, I was I cheered those consultation committees
when you're bringing the entrance screen limits. With the reviews
we've done over the last four or five years, I've
been very extensive and we've had two sets of hearing
sets I reckon both days, had over five days of hearings,
so that's around about probably two hundred people who heard

(04:33):
of the hearings, well over a couple of thousand submissions.
The direction was obvious and so that's the way we went.
And if we were wrong, then the community would be
coming out now saying you do what the government asked,
but we're actually getting the opposite. We're getting please bring
this road down. Why having you brought it down now?
And we're like, well, we're waiting on the new speed

(04:53):
limit rules. So actually, if anything, the communities are actually
wanting the roads to be slower. Once they see them slower,
the safety advantage and they also realized that the journey
didn't take much longer.

Speaker 1 (05:04):
Okay, Jim, listen, thank you. I really appreciate you taking
the time to talk us through it. That's Jim Omalley,
Dunedin City Council, Council in the chair of the Infrastructure Committee.
For more from Hither Duplessy Allen Drive, listen live to
news talks. It'd be from four pm weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio.