The Federal Government has shelved its proposal to reduce speed limits on rural roads, after a groundswell of opposing public opinion.
The Infrastructure and Transport Department recently opened consultations, as part of the proposal that was developed under the National Road Safety Action Plan, on reducing the default speed limit where there are no sign-posted speed limits, to improve road safety.
The Government proposed that the speed limit for all rural non-signed-posted roads would be reduced from 100 km/h to 70 or 80 km/h, with the community responding with more than 11,000 submissions.
The preferred option in the consultation paper sought to reduce the speed limit where there are no signs to 80 km/h. In most states, the default speed limit outside built-up areas is 100 km/h.
Government figures show that in 2024, 1,294 people were killed on Australia’s roads, with more than 30,000 people seriously injured because of road crashes.
At a meeting of Infrastructure and Transport Ministers meeting on 21 November, the Government’s approach for a blanket reduction of rural speed limits met with opposition from the States and Territories.
Those ministers reiterated their stance that the States and Territories should set speed limits in their respective jurisdictions.
The Australian Trucking Association (ATA) has been a vocal opponent to the proposal, saying the Government should rather focus on fixing the nation’s black spots.
ATA Chair, Mark Parry, said the governments should spend more money on road upgrades and maintenance, rather than reducing rural speed limits.
That approach has been the crux of the ATA’s submission to the Infrastructure Department’s consultation paper. Parry said there were more effective ways to improve road safety.
The Australian Livestock and Rural Transporters Association (ALRTA) welcomed the Federal Government’s decision to cancel its proposed speed limit reductions.
ALRTA President, Gerard Johnson, said the decision is “common sense prevailing” after what he described as a deeply flawed concept that failed to address the real drivers of road safety.
“This was never a road safety solution — it was a distraction from the real issue,” Johnson said.
“We thank the Government for listening to regional Australians. Scrapping this proposal is simply common sense.”
Gerard Johnson said the focus must now shift toward meaningful investment in rural road infrastructure, rather than measures that add complexity for drivers without improving safety outcomes.
He highlighted the commencement of works on the $500 million Beef Roads program in Queensland as a positive example of the type of investment that actually delivers safety and productivity benefits.
“This is exactly what rural Australia needs — real, on-the-ground investment that makes roads safer, stronger and more reliable,” he said.
“Better roads save lives. Better roads reduce crashes. Better roads improve productivity. Speed-limit changes do none of these things without the infrastructure to support them.”
Johnson said ALRTA looks forward to working with all levels of government to progress practical, evidence-based safety measures that address the true causes of serious incidents on rural roads — including chronic under-maintenance, deteriorating pavement conditions, and limited funding for regional renewal.
“If we want safer roads, we need to invest in them. That’s how you get real safety outcomes,” he said.
Nationals Senator and Shadow Infrastructure Minister, Bridget McKenzie, said the government plan was a “badly conceived proposal” that should not have been proceeded with.
“Regional communities, local councils, and Liberal and National MPs mounted a powerful grassroots campaign against Labor’s reckless plan – and common sense has finally prevailed,” Senator McKenzie said in a statement.
Read about updates to the National Heavy Vehicle Law.
.JPG)
.jpg)
