International Technology

Scanning Program

Setting Safety Performance Measures 

in Australia and New Zealand: 

Lessons for the United States

Sponsored by:

In cooperation with:

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

National Cooperative Highway Research Program

May 2011

Setting Safety Performance Measures in Australia and New Zealand | i

I

n August 2009, the Federal Highway Administration, 

the American Association of State Highway 

and Transportation Officials, and the National 

Cooperative Highway Research Program conducted 

an international scanning study of how transportation 

agencies in Australia, England, New Zealand, 

and Sweden use performance management to 

demonstrate accountability and performance.

The U.S. scan team found many examples of 

management strategies that used performance 

measures to achieve improved performance and 

hold agencies accountable for results. For example, 

because improving highway safety is a top priority 

for transportation agencies in the United States, the 

scan team members were particularly interested in 

learning more about how a common set of highway 

safety measures and targets evolved, were established, 

and are reported in Australia and New Zealand. The 

Australian states and New Zealand have more than 

10 years of experience in producing common highway 

performance measures, including safety measures. 

Their experience holds important lessons for U.S. 

highway safety practitioners.

This followup report was developed by those agencies 

in cooperation with Austroads, which is the association 

of highway agencies in Australia and New Zealand. 

It was written by Eric Howard and Associates in 

Melbourne, Australia, in cooperation with Austroads.

Foreword
ii | Contents

Carlos Braceras (Cochair)

Utah Department of Transportation

Robert Tally (Cochair)

Federal Highway Administration 

Daniela Bremmer

Washington State DOT

Leon E. Hank

Michigan DOT 

Jane Hayse

Atlanta Regional Commission 

Dr. Anthony R. Kane

American Association of State Highway 

and Transportation Officials

Dr. Kristine L. Leiphart

Federal Transit Administration 

James March

FHWA 

Steven M. Pickrell

Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

Gordon Proctor (Report Facilitator)

American Trade Initiatives

J. Woody Stanley

FHWA

Jenne Van der Velde

Dutch Ministry of Transport, Public Works, 

and Water Management (Rijkswaterstaat)

Connie P. Yew

FHWA

Scan Team Members
Setting Safety Performance Measures in Australia and New Zealand | iii

1. Introduction ........................................................................ 1

2. Establishing a Safety Goal—Australia..................................................... 3

3. Achieving the Aggressive Target—Australia................................................ 7

4. Establishing a Safety Goal—Australia’s Draft National Strategy, 2011–2020....................... 11

5. Establishing a Safety Goal—New Zealand Road Safety Strategies............................... 15

6. Achieving the Aggressive Target—New Zealand ............................................ 17

7. Methods and Processes Used to Achieve Agreement—Australia................................ 19

8. Methods and Processes Used to Achieve Agreement—New Zealand............................. 21

9. Potential Lessons for the United States .................................................. 23

Appendix A: Organizations Consulted in Developing the 2001–2010 National Road Safety 

Strategy for Australia.................................................................. 25

Appendix B: New Zealand Regional Transport Committees...................................... 26

Appendix C: Australian Transport Council Associated Meetings of Officials ......................... 27

Figures

Figure 1. International comparison of fatalities per 100,000 population (IRTAD).......................... 1

Figure 2. International comparisons of reductions (from 0.7 percent to 5.4 percent) in fatalities over 

two decades (IRTAD). ............................................................. 2

Figure 3. International comparisons of percentage reductions in fatalities over four decades across 

a broad number of countries (IRTAD).................................................. 2

Figure 4. Decisionmaking arrangements in place for development of 2001–2010 Australian 

National Road Safety Strategy. ...................................................... 5

Figure 5. Annual deaths per 100,000 population in Australia (rolling 12-month rate from 2001 

through October 2010). ........................................................... 9

Figure 6. Draft of National Road Safety Strategy................................................ 12

Figure 7. Australian Transport Council governance arrangements. ................................. 13

Figure 8. Rolling 12-month fatalities, New Zealand. ............................................ 17

Table

Table 1. Road fatality rates per 100,000 population. ............................................. 9

Contents
iv | 1 – Introduction
Setting Safety Performance Measures in Australia and New Zealand | 1

This white paper addresses the following topics:

■ Describe the approach used to establish a 

safety goal across national (provincial) borders 

and achieve a common thrust across Australia 

and New Zealand to accomplish aggressive 

safety targets.

■ Describe how transport ministers have come 

together on this topic. Have they used faceto-face meetings, goal setting, publishing of 

results, benchmarking, heavy staff work, or 

public involvement? 

■ With an understanding of the U.S. federal 

system (diverse, independent states), present 

suggestions from the lessons learned that 

might be applicable to the United States. 

Address items such as setting tough but 

achievable targets, recognizing needs of 

poorer nations or states, and the importance 

of top leadership commitment.

Australia is a federation of states and territories and 

the federal government, with each state and territory 

overseeing a number of elected local authorities. 

New Zealand is a separate nation, but it does not 

have a system of state governments. It does have 

subnational-level elected local authorities.

For this reason, comparisons about means to achieve 

agreement across state, provincial, and territorial 

borders between Australia and New Zealand are not 

feasible. Nonetheless, much can be learned from 

the road safety experience in New Zealand. The two 

countries, therefore, are reviewed separately, with 

comparisons provided where appropriate and useful.

Figure 1, from the International Road Traffic and 

Accident Database (IRTAD), shows relative road 

safety performance (in deaths per 100,000 population) 

in Australia, New Zealand, and the United States 

(plus Sweden and the United Kingdom) from 2000 

through 2009.

1 - Introduction

1 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development International Transport Forum (OECD/ITF), Joint Transport Research Centre 

(JTRC), IRTAD, www.irtad.net.

Figure 1. International comparison of fatalities per 100,000 

population (IRTAD).1
2 | 1 – Introduction

Figure 2 shows comparative performance (in 

percentage reduction in fatalities) over the past two 

decades for these countries.

These results can usefully be read against the broader 

background of IRTAD country performance over the 

past four decades, shown in figure 3.

Figure 2. International comparisons of reductions (from 0.7 percent to 5.4 percent) in fatalities over two decades (IRTAD). 2

Figure 3. International comparisons of percentage reductions in fatalities over four decades across a broad number of 

countries (IRTAD). 3

2 OECD/ITF, A Record Decade for Road Safety, Road Death Figures for 33 Countries, IRTAD, News Release, Paris, September 2010, 

http://internationaltransportforum.org/irtad/index.html.

3 OECD/ITF, A Record Decade for Road Safety, Road Death Figures for 33 Countries, IRTAD, News Release, Paris, September 2010, 

http://internationaltransportforum.org/irtad/index.html.
Setting Safety Performance Measures in Australia and New Zealand | 3

The current Australian national road safety 

strategy (2001–2010) is nearing the end of its 

life and a new strategy has been drafted. The 

processes followed in developing both strategies are 

reviewed below, although agreement to the new draft 

strategy is still a work in progress.

Australia’s National Strategy, 2001–2010

Australia adopted and published a 10-year National 

Road Safety Strategy (2001 to 2010) in 2000.4

 It 

was a successor to an earlier national strategy for 

1992–2001, which provided a national framework that 

included a large range of road safety initiatives.

The Australian Transport Council (ATC),5

 which 

includes the federal transport minister, all state and 

territory ministers with transport responsibilities, 

and an observer from local government, adopted the 

2001–2010 national strategy on behalf of national, 

state, and local governments.

In Australia’s federal system of government, road 

safety strategy and policy measures are principally 

driven by states, territories, and local governments, 

which conduct their own comprehensive programs. 

The commonwealth role was (and generally remains) 

collating road crash statistics from the states, 

conducting and coordinating limited research, funding 

nationally important roads, providing some funding 

of blackspot treatments for all road categories, 

regulating new vehicle standards (Australian Design 

Rules), monitoring vehicle safety recalls, and 

facilitating the sharing of road safety information 

among stakeholders. 

The 2001–2010 strategy was developed as a framework 

document that acknowledged the existence of separate 

safety strategies and plans of state, territory, and local 

governments and other organizations involved in road 

safety. It recognized that individual governments would 

continue to develop and implement their own road 

safety strategies and programs, which would generally 

be consistent with the national strategy but reflect 

local imperatives. This system of concurrent strategies 

and action plans at national, state, and territory levels 

is a feature of road safety activity in Australia, and 

its effective contribution to better national outcomes 

should not be underestimated. 

Establishing a Safety Goal

The adopted strategy set a challenging target to 

achieve a 40 percent reduction in the number of 

fatalities per 100,000 population by 2010 (i.e., from 9.3 

in 1999 to no more than 5.6 in 2010), which would save 

some 3,600 lives over the 10 years of the strategy. 

Four factors were considered critical to the agreement 

to adopt an ambitious road safety goal for the 2001–

2010 strategy:

■ Committed practitioners in federal, state, 

and territory road safety agencies who were 

knowledgeable about relevant research and 

prepared to promote an ambitious agenda.

■ Invaluable work carried out by Monash 

University Accident Research Centre (MUARC), 

which was commissioned by the federal 

government road safety agency coordinating the 

strategy development task, then the Australian 

Transport Safety Bureau, to develop a model to 

estimate fatality reduction outcomes for a range 

of specific potential interventions.6

 This work 

provided valuable guidance for developing the 

strategy and various options. 

2 - Establishing a Safety Goal—Australia

4 National Road Safety Strategy, 2001–2010, Australian Transport Council, 2000.

5 www.atcouncil.gov.au

6 P. Vulcan and B. Corben, Options for a National Road Safety Strategy: Report to the National Road Transport Commission

(unpublished), 1999.
4 | 2 – Establishing a Safety Goal—Australia

■ The decisionmaking arrangements put in place 

for the development, consideration, and adoption 

of the strategy by stakeholders, senior officials, 

and ministers.

■ The flexibility clearly afforded each jurisdiction in 

the strategy document and action plan on how to 

achieve the targeted reductions, with no attempt 

to lock in agreement to a list of measures. 

A series of 2-year action plans containing specific 

measures available to address each strategic objective 

were progressively developed and approved by the ATC 

during the life of the strategy. Governments and other 

parties to the strategy were encouraged to introduce 

measures selected from the successive action plans 

suited to their local conditions. In practice, many 

jurisdictions produced their own state and territory 

action plans in response to their issues and in line with 

what they considered politically feasible to introduce, 

often selecting actions from the national plans.

Decisionmaking Arrangements and Roles

Standing Committee on Transport Role

The Standing Committee on Transport (SCOT) acts 

as the senior review committee of officials preparing 

recommendations for (and responding to decisions by) 

the ATC. SCOT membership includes chief executives 

of transport and road authorities from all of the 

states and territories, and it is chaired by the federal 

secretary for transport. SCOT considers all transport 

matters, including road safety, that relate to the 

common responsibilities of the ministers in the ATC. 

National Road Safety Strategy Panel and Taskforce 

Roles

In the late 1990s, the ATC established a broad National 

Road Safety Strategy Panel (NRSSP) and a smaller 

group, the National Road Safety Strategy Task Force 

(NRSSTF) of government representatives from each 

jurisdiction, to guide development and implementation 

of the National Road Safety Strategy and to act as a 

forum for sharing information on road safety initiatives. 

The panel does the following:

■ Monitor implementation of the National Road 

Safety Strategy and action plans.

■ Develop and administer projects that enhance 

road safety and the transfer of best practices 

under the Austroads Road Safety Program.

■ Identify and recommend areas of research that 

could help reduce the impact of causes of road 

trauma, including input to Austroads’ National 

Strategic Road Research Program.

■ Provide a forum for the exchange of information 

between stakeholders on road safety matters.

■ Ensure that effective linkages are in place so 

road safety strategies and action plans at the 

jurisdictional level are consistent with overall 

national objectives.

■ Assist in harmonizing road safety policies and 

practices between jurisdictions.

■ Promote the development and implementation 

of road safety countermeasures based on 

research and national best practice.

■ Assist in identifying emerging national road 

safety priorities.

Australian Transport Council

The ATC governance arrangements, including supporting 

groups, are shown in figure 7 (on page 13). The role of 

the ATC is described in Appendix C.

The governance arrangements at the time the 2001–

2010 strategy was prepared are shown in figure 4.

Having a clear decisionmaking hierarchy (such 

as the SCOT and ATC arrangements in Australia) 

that is integrated into the political decisionmaking 

arrangements supports comprehensive dialogue and 

decisionmaking on often-contentious issues, a feature 

of road safety policy development. 
Setting Safety Performance Measures in Australia and New Zealand | 5

Ministerial Interactions With Cabinet in Each 

Jurisdiction

Relying on one minister of transport to win cabinet 

support for road safety measures that are usually 

multisectoral is considered a high-risk approach 

that lessens the chances of successful cabinet 

outcomes for road safety. The Australian national 

and, in particular, the New Zealand experience 

support this contention.

This is in contrast to the situation in a number 

of Australian states that have Ministerial Road 

Safety Councils made up of four or more ministers 

(from the transport, police, health, public insurer, 

justice, and local government areas) to support 

road safety policy debate at the cabinet level. 

Mechanisms of this nature—and the operation of 

all party Parliamentary Road Safety Committees—

have been particularly effective in supporting 

government commitment to innovative legislation 

and increases in funding for interventions. 

Figure 4. Decisionmaking arrangements in place for development of 2001–2010 Australian National Road Safety Strategy.7

7 E. Howard, Eric Howard and Associates, former member of NRSSP and NRSST, 1999–2005, and former general manager of road 

safety, VicRoads, Victoria, Australia, 1998–2006.
6 | 2 – Establishing a Safety Goal—Australia

Summary of Approach Used to Establish 

Common Safety Goal and Targets Across 

Australia

■ Federal officers commission MUARC to develop 

a road safety inputs and outcomes model.

■ State-level practitioners work with federal 

colleagues to suggest options for model inputs.

■ MUARC prepares a model linking possible inputs 

and actions to likely estimated outcomes, such 

as fatality reductions over the 10 years 

of a strategy. 

■ Practitioners in jurisdictions consider the 

MUARC model inputs and outcomes.

■ The NRSSTF meets to consider 

recommendations from federal officers 

reflecting jurisdictional feedback.

■ Jurisdictions consult with their SCOT members.

■ Further review and consultation take place with 

stakeholders (government and nongovernment). 

(Contributions were received from a large 

number of organizations, many of which are in 

Appendix A.)

■ NRSSTF meets to agree on final 

recommendations to SCOT.

■ SCOT reviews and makes a recommendation 

to ATC.

■ ATC considers recommendation and votes 

on adoption. 
Setting Safety Performance Measures in Australia and New Zealand | 7

Strategy and Action Plan Development Process 

The ATC acknowledged that the 40 percent 

reduction sought was a challenging target that 

would need “strenuous effort by all parties 

involved in road safety” to achieve.

In addition to the commitment of government transport 

agencies, the ATC asked for “the continuing support 

of road users and user groups, the media, police, 

health-care providers, schools, local government, 

vehicle builders, employers, and the wider community. 

The challenge is to move our thinking from ways to 

limit the toll to how to create a genuinely safe road 

transport system, and to work out how to achieve 

such a system.”

The NRSSP continued to serve a useful role during 

the first 5 years of the strategy. It included 

representatives from the commonwealth and all 

state and territory transport agencies as well as 

police, health-care providers, local government, and 

user and industry groups.

Significantly, the organizations represented on 

the panel and, where applicable, their respective 

governments accepted that they were jointly 

responsible for implementing the National Road 

Safety Strategy.

The performance of the stakeholders in achieving the 

targeted strategy outcomes was to be assessed against 

the following criteria:

■ Trends in fatalities compared with the target

■ Actions taken to respond to each strategic 

objective and the outcomes achieved

■ The extent to and effectiveness with which 

measures identified in the action plans

were applied

There were to be reports on progress toward the 

target to twice yearly meetings of the panel, which 

was to prepare a consolidated report on progress with 

action plans (and the strategy) annually to the ATC. 

Achievement of the strategic objectives and the action 

plans was to be further assessed every 2 years by the 

panel and reported to the ATC.

Performance indicators were to be developed and 

published to monitor the success of the road safety 

initiatives associated with the strategy. It was intended 

that these would be produced throughout the life of 

the strategy and be progressively enhanced to provide 

more comprehensive data on road safety performance. 

The NRSSTF was to do the staff work on preparing 

recommendations through the panel to SCOT, which 

prepared the recommendations for the ATC.

The NRSSP was considered to be an unwieldy 

mechanism that was removed from the senior official 

and political levels. It was discontinued in the mid2000s, and the NRSSTF was replaced by a National 

Road Safety Executive Group (NRSEG) of senior road 

safety managers from each jurisdiction.

Rolling Action Planning—A Fresh, Flexible 

Action Plan Every 2 Years 

The first national action plan, for 2001 and 2002, was a 

menu of items from which jurisdictions could choose 

interventions. At the end of each 2-year action plan 

period, a review of progress and development of a 

fresh action plan took place. Both the progress review 

and proposed action plans were submitted to the ATC 

for consideration and approval.

In effect, the action plans adopted every 2 years were 

a menu from which jurisdictions could select options 

while maintaining a broad commitment to the strategy 

and the agreed-on target. Actual achievement (in 

reducing the rate of fatalities per 100,000 population) 

by individual states and territories over the 1999-

2009 period (shown in table 1) reflects the different 

levels of appetite jurisdictions have for implementing 

countermeasures. 

3 - Achieving the Aggressive Target—Australia
8 | 3 – Achieving the Aggressive Target—Australia

One view is that the initial strategy and action plan 

approved in 2001 did not reflect a serious commitment 

by all states and territories to the content beyond 

specific matters that were supported at the time by the 

needs (and levels of community support) in individual 

jurisdictions. However, adopting and publishing 

the strategy was not a set-and-forget-for-10-years 

process. It was seen as a process of ongoing review 

and improvement that influences states and territories 

to amend and strengthen their own strategies and 

action plans. This relies on each state having its own 

road safety strategy. 

The required review and redevelopment of the 2-year 

action plans ensured that some regular dialogue 

would occur among state, territory, and federal 

government road safety practitioners. However, as 

time went on, there was much more serious 

consideration of actions from individual jurisdictions 

and an increasing recognition of the need to be 

mindful of and act consistently with what was included 

in new action plans.

The required reporting to the SCOT and ATC also 

fostered a sharper focus on progress achieved, 

reinforced necessary commitment, and encouraged 

knowledge transfer among jurisdictions. This improved 

priority for road safety was further strengthened in 

2003 when road safety managers began to meet twice 

yearly the day before the full-day NRSSP meetings. 

This reflected an increased commitment by agencies 

during the life of the strategy.

This interaction and competitive pressures between 

states and territories, nourished by the federal 

government’s regular publication of comparative road 

safety performance by the jurisdictions, assisted the 

road safety policy change process in most jurisdictions 

over the life of the strategy.

The ATC adopted the Safe System approach to road 

safety thinking as a framework for planning short- and 

long-term actions in the 2005 and 2006 action plan. It 

represented a major change in the way road safety was 

considered in Australia. This continues today.

Overall Performance

Overall Australian performance for the 2001–2010 

period of the national strategy is shown in figure 5 8

(on the following page). The rate of fatalities per 

100,000 population at the end of October 2010 was 

6.2, greater than the target adopted in 2001 of 5.6. 

The achieved rate represents a 33.3 percent reduction 

in the fatality rate. 

Comparative Performance 

Comparative performance by states and territories is 

measured annually and was published in each updated 

action plan. Many differences remain today in detailed 

policy positions among jurisdictions across Australia, 

reflecting potential opportunities for improvement or, 

in a more pessimistic assessment, a failure to seize 

known successful measures and gain the serious 

casualty reduction benefits they would bring.

Table 1 (on the following page) is an updated extract 

(including 2009 data9

) from the 2009–2010 National 

Road Safety Strategy action plan document indicating 

the different rates of improvement achieved in 

jurisdictions by September 2009.

Average annual change is based on the exponential 

trend for the 10 12-month periods from 1999 to 2009.

8 Department of Infrastructure and Transport, Canberra, December 2010.

9 Australian Transport Council, National Road Safety Strategy 2011–2020: Draft for Consultation, Department of Infrastructure and 

Transport, Canberra, December 2010.
Setting Safety Performance Measures in Australia and New Zealand | 9

Figure 5. Annual deaths per 100,000 population in Australia (rolling 12-month rate from 2001 through October 2010).

Table 1. Road fatality rates per 100,000 population.

New 

South 

Wales

Victoria Queensland South 

Australia

Western 

Australia Tasmania Northern 

Territory

Australian 

Capital 

Territory

Australia

1999 9.0 8.2 9.0 10.1 11.8 11.2 25.4 6.1 9.3 

2000 9.3 8.6 8.9 11.0 11.3 9.1 26.1 5.7 9.5

2001 8.0 9.2 8.9 10.1 8.7 12.9 25.3 5.0 8.9

2002 8.5 8.2 8.7 10.1 9.3 7.8 27.6 3.1 8.7

2003 8.1 6.7 8.1 10.3 9.2 8.6 26.5 3.4 8.1

2004 7.6 6.9 8.0 9.0 9.0 12.0 17.3 2.7 7.9

2005 7.5 6.9 8.3 9.5 8.1 10.5 26.7 7.9 8.0

2006 7.3 6.6 8.2 7.5 9.9 11.2 21.8 3.9 7.7

2007 6.3 6.4 8.6 7.8 11.1 9.1 27.0 4.1 7.6

2008 5.3 5.7 7.6 6.2 9.6 7.8 34.0 4.0 6.7

2009 6.4 5.3 7.5 7.3 8.5 12.7 13.7 3.4 6.8 

Average 

annual 

change

 -4.5% -4.7% -1.6% -4.8% -1.4% -0.1% -2.1% -3.2% -3.3%

Note: Annual rates in smaller jurisdictions (Tasmania, Northern Territory, and Australian Capital Territory) can change 

substantially from year to year because of the relatively low fatality numbers compared with larger jurisdictions.
10 | 3 – Achieving the Aggressive Target—Australia
Setting Safety Performance Measures in Australia and New Zealand | 11

The next National Road Safety Strategy for 

Australia (for 2011 to 2020) is in the latter stages 

of development. It was released in draft form10

in December 2010 for public consultation. 

A New National Road Safety Strategy for 

2011–2020

The Vision: Safe Roads, Safe Speeds, Safe Vehicles, 

and Safe People

On average, four people are killed and 80 are seriously 

injured every day on Australia’s roads. Almost everyone 

has, at some stage, been affected by a road crash.

Australian Transport Ministers have asked the heads 

of transport and roads agencies around the country to 

work together to prepare a new 10-year National Road 

Safety Strategy for the period from 2011 to 2020. The 

new strategy is intended to set an ambitious long-term 

vision for road safety improvement in Australia and to 

guide national action over the coming decade. Transport 

agencies have been working hard to develop a draft 

National Road Safety Strategy and would like to hear 

from the community on its proposals.

. . . The draft National Road Safety Strategy 2011–2020 

contains a range of initiatives and interventions in four 

key areas—Safe Roads, Safe Speeds, Safe Vehicles, 

and Safe People.

The draft strategy outlines broad directions for the future 

of Australian road safety, proposed initiatives for the first 

3 years and a range of options for further consideration 

as the strategy progresses.

. . . This draft strategy presents a 10-year plan to reduce 

the annual number of deaths and serious injuries 

(serious casualties) on Australian roads by at least 30 

per cent. It sets out a range of high-level directions and 

priority actions to drive national road safety performance 

to the end of 2020. It also lays the groundwork for longer 

term goals and aspirations.

Excerpts from draft national strategy released for public 

comment December 1, 2010

The new governance arrangements for ATC11 and 

supporting groups and agencies, reflecting 2009 

revisions, are shown in figure 7. The Safety Standing 

Subcommittee (SSSC), which reports to SCOT, is 

responsible for developing rail and road safety policy 

recommendations for SCOT.

Based on commissioned road safety position papers on 

the Safe System elements and modeling advice from 

MUARC linking potential interventions to estimated 

fatality and serious injury outcomes, various drafts 

of a strategy and targets were developed by the 

NRSEG and refined by a team of federal and state 

government officers, reporting to the SSSC, SCOT, and 

subsequently ATC. 

Safe System Principles

The strategy is based on the Safe System approach to 

improving road safety. This approach requires a holistic 

view of the road transport system and the interactions 

among roads and roadsides, travel speeds, vehicles, 

and road users. Consistent with the long-term road 

safety vision, it recognizes that people will always make 

mistakes—and may have road crashes—but that those 

crashes should not result in death or serious injury. 

The Safe System approach was adopted in Australia 

during the period of the previous national strategy, through 

the National Road Safety Action Plans and the strategies 

of individual states and territories. It is consistent with the 

approaches adopted by the safest countries in the world, 

and is a central theme of the landmark OECD report 

Towards Zero: Ambitious Road Safety Targets and the Safe 

System Approach, published in 2008.12

There are several guiding principles for this approach:

1. People make mistakes. Humans will continue to 

make mistakes, and the transport system must 

accommodate these. The transport system should 

not result in death or serious injury as a consequence 

of errors on the roads.

4 - Establishing a Safety Goal—Australia’s Draft 

National Strategy, 2011-2020

10 www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/safety/national_road_safety_strategy/index.aspx

11 www.atcouncil.gov.au/about_us/files/atc_arrangements.pdf

12 OECD/ ITF JTRC, Towards Zero: Ambitious Road Safety Targets and the Safe System Approach, 2008.

Safe System Principles continued on page 12
12 | 4 – Establishing a Safety Goal—Australia’s Draft National Strategy, 2011-2020

2. Human physical frailty. There are known physical 

limits to the amount of force our bodies can take 

before we are injured. 

3. A “forgiving” road transport system. A Safe System 

ensures that the forces in collisions do not exceed the 

limits of human tolerance. Speeds must be managed 

so that humans are not exposed to impact forces 

beyond their physical tolerance. System designers 

and operators need to take into account the limits of 

the human body in designing and maintaining roads, 

vehicles, and speeds.

4. Shared responsibility. Responsibility for road safety 

is shared by all. 

Excerpt from draft national strategy released for public 

comment on December 1, 2010

Senior executives played a much greater role in 

preparing this strategy, compared to the 2001–2010 

strategy. The proposed (draft) target seeks a reduction 

of at least 30 percent in fatalities and serious injuries 

(a substantial inclusion because the 2001–2010 

strategy had no serious injury target). This compares 

to the 40 percent reduction in the population-based 

fatality rate in the 2001–2010 strategy. 

Figure 6. Draft of National Road Safety Strategy.

The strategy is based on four cornerstone areas of 

intervention:

■ Safe roads

■ Safe speeds

■ Safe vehicles

■ Safe people 

It is supported by priority actions for a series of 

management functions focused on achieving results, 

including the following:

■ Adopting a results focus for implementing 

the strategy

■ Ensuring effective coordination of activity among 

all key players

■ Ensuring rules are in place to back the 

commitment to road safety

■ Identifying funding and prioritizing the allocation 

of resources to safety

■ Promoting a shared responsibility for road safety

■ Monitoring and evaluating road safety progress

■ Investing in research and development and 

knowledge transfer

Safe System Principles continued from page 11
Setting Safety Performance Measures in Australia and New Zealand 

| 13

Australian Transport Council Governance Arrangements

Figure 7. Australian Transport Council governance arrangements.
14 | 4 – Establishing a Safety Goal—Australia’s Draft National Strategy, 2011-2020
Setting Safety Performance Measures in Australia and New Zealand | 15

While New Zealand is an autonomous nation 

separate from Australia and operates its 

road safety strategic activity independently, 

the level of liaison between government road safety 

practitioners is substantial and the New Zealand 

minister for transport attends meetings of the 

Australian Transport Council as an observer.

The New Zealand Transport Agency is a member 

of Austroads, an association of road authorities in 

Australia, which also has as members Australian 

federal, state, and territory road authorities and the 

Australian Local Government Association. Austroads 

supports an active road safety program of research, 

publications, and information exchange.

While these links facilitate information exchange 

between Australian and New Zealand agencies, 

decisions on road safety strategy and policy in New 

Zealand are as distinctive and independent as the 

decisions by individual Australian states and territories 

on road safety matters.

New Zealand: Road Safety to 2010 Strategy

New Zealand adopted and published the Road Safety 

to 2010 strategy in 2003. The target was to reduce the 

number of fatalities from some 400 to 300 by 2010 (and 

the number of hospitalizations from 5,870 to 4,500).

The Road Safety to 2010 consultation document was 

released for public comment in 2000 and provided the 

framework for road safety actions and interventions 

rolled out since 2003. The consultation document 

set out detailed estimates of likely outcomes from 

interventions for various levels of input. 

The adopted strategy was and is still recognized 

internationally as a good-practice document in 

articulating road safety risks and challenges and the 

cost-effective means available to address them. The 

interventions identified in the strategy document and 

subsequently adopted were put into action in three 

implementation packages in 2003, 2004, and 2007.

New Zealand: Safer Journeys Strategy

New Zealand recently published its new road 

safety strategy, Safer Journeys, New Zealand’s Road 

Safety Strategy, 2010–2020. New Zealand adopted 

a comprehensive approach to the development of 

Safer Journeys, which was early in 2010. The process 

followed is considered good practice.

New Zealand is a single government entity without 

states. Although it does not have the federated system 

of government the United States and Australia have, 

it has a network of 64 local authorities with which it 

has extensive direct relationships, including formal 

legislated political mechanisms for consultation.

The process to develop Safer Journeys involved 

the following:

■ A review was published of actual progress 

achieved in the previous New Zealand strategy, 

Road Safety to 2010, compared to the estimated 

road safety benefits it sought.

■ A draft Safer Journeys document, approved by 

the minister for transport, was published for 

discussion. It presented New Zealand’s key road 

safety challenges and outlined some 62 possible 

initiatives to address them. 

■ Extensive public consultation, including specific 

arrangements for consultation with local 

authorities, was conducted.

■ Responses to the community consultation were 

considered in preparing the final Safer Journeys 

strategy for government adoption.

■ Safer Journeys, built around the Safe System 

approach, was adopted.

5 - Establishing a Safety Goal—New Zealand 

Road Safety Strategies
16 | 5 – Establishing a Safety Goal—New Zealand Road Safety Strategies

Safer Journeys does not have a specific overall target 

for reductions in numbers (or rates) of fatalities or 

serious injuries. It does include some specific 

outcome commitments:

■ Reduce the rate of fatalities for young people 

from 21 per 100,000 population to 13 per 100,000 

population (the level in Australia). New Zealand’s 

low licensing age of 16 contributes to this higher 

level of fatality risk. 

■ Reduce the level of fatalities attributable to 

alcohol- and drug-impaired driving from 28 

fatalities per 1 million population to 22 (the 

level in Australia).

■ Reduce the level of fatalities of motorcyclists 

and moped riders from 12 to 8 per 100,000 

population (the level in Victoria, Australia).

■ Reduce the rate of fatalities of older New 

Zealanders from 15 to 11 per 100,000 population 

(the level in Australia). 
Setting Safety Performance Measures in Australia and New Zealand | 17

Review of Road Safety Progress in New Zealand 

Since 2000

New Zealand views the targets it set in the Road 

Safety to 2010 strategy of no more than 300 

deaths and no more than 2,200 serious injuries 

(measured by the number of hospitalizations) by 2010 

as very unlikely to be achieved. The overall fatality 

reduction likely to be achieved is estimated at about 12 

percent, compared to the 25 percent target.

A review of the reasons for this outcome was 

developed during the preparation of the new Safer 

Journeys strategy. The review document offers a 

limited statistical assessment of the interventions 

and outcomes achieved to date as a result of the 

Road Safety to 2010 strategy. Where possible, some 

explanations have been offered on why targets 

have not been met or predicted outcomes have 

not been achieved.

It summarizes progress over the last 10 years in 

improving roads and vehicles and reducing speeds, 

but not in reducing alcohol-impaired driving (or 

implementing other proposed legislative initiatives).

The review suggests that four factors may have 

contributed to the targets not being met: 

■ Failure to implement some crucial 

legislative changes

■ Investment in engineering interventions well 

below necessary levels to achieve the 

targeted reductions 

■ Failure to achieve an appreciable reduction in 

alcohol- and drug-related crashes over the 

last 10 years

■ Failure to achieve predicted efficiency gains, 

possibly because mergers in the transport 

sector impacted the focus of the key agencies 

on road safety 

Figure 8. Rolling 12-month fatalities, New Zealand.13

The New Zealand experience reinforced the cautionary 

message that sound ideas set out in a strategy 

document are not enough. Good performance requires 

followthrough for implementation with legislation, 

funding, enforcement intensity efforts, and more. 

6 - Achieving the Aggressive Target—

New Zealand

13 New Zealand Ministry of Transport, Safer Journeys, New Zealand’s Road Safety Strategy, 2010–2020.
18 | 6 – Achieving the Aggressive Target—New Zealand
Setting Safety Performance Measures in Australia and New Zealand | 19

Governance Arrangements

Altered governance arrangements are in place 

for the development of the new Australian 

national strategy. They differ substantially from 

those in place for the development of and agreement 

to the 2001–2010 strategy and most of the subsequent 

2-year action plans.

High-Level Discussion and Proposed 

Public Consultation

Over the past 7 months, the Standing Committee on 

Transport has had at least four substantive discussions 

on the draft strategy development issues and the 

Australian Transport Council has had three, indicating 

the level of priority the matter has received in its 

development. Transport ministers have agreed that the 

new strategy will set an ambitious vision and targets.14 

Senior practitioners agree that the unprecedented 

extent of high-level dialogue is invaluable, indicates a 

priority commitment to the issue, and recognizes the 

need to seek greater understanding through indepth 

discussion to reach agreement on the way forward for 

many challenging policy questions.

Chief executives (separately from ministers) and 

ministers (with chief executives in attendance) have 

used face-to-face meetings to develop this strategy 

to build understanding; seek consensus on strategic 

direction, vision, and targets; and request further staff 

work. This involvement has been substantially more 

intensive than for the strategy adopted in 2000. 

Ministers also pushed for a genuine period of public 

consultation, which is a broader process than that 

followed for the 2001–2010 strategy. The ministers 

planned to consider public and stakeholder feedback 

and input in finalizing the strategy for adoption and 

launch early in 2011. The consultation period, expected 

to be about 8 weeks, was scheduled to include targeted 

discussions with key stakeholders at national and 

other jurisdictional levels.

As indicated earlier in the paper, a key lesson from 

the 2001–2010 strategy and action plan process was 

that the process of regular review of action plans 

throughout the life of a strategy has many benefits. It 

provides breathing space or cover to put issues on the 

agenda at the beginning of a strategy to consider over 

time, rather than straining to act more immediately 

and force a decision on commitment, which could 

scare off some jurisdictions.

It is also clear that senior officers and ministers need 

to provide high-level commitment to the strategic 

agenda. If there is a clear commitment, people will 

take it seriously. 

It should not be assumed that senior executives in 

transport and road safety agencies are adequately 

informed about the benefits of potential initiatives 

or conversant with the range of measures available 

to manage introduction of more contentious options 

and obtain public acceptance. They are not road 

safety practitioners. This places responsibility on 

practitioners in jurisdictions to consider means to 

better support introduction of beneficial change and 

to fully brief their chief executives over time to 

increase their understanding and earn their support 

for that change.

Draft Strategy and Performance Measurement 

The new Australian national strategy is more extensive 

in content and approach than the 2001–2010 strategy. 

It focuses on the key Safe System elements of safe 

roads, safe speeds, safe vehicles, and safe road users 

and sets strategies for proposed management actions.

7 - Methods and Processes Used to Achieve 

Agreement—Australia

14 www.minister.infrastructure.gov.au/aa/speeches/2010/AS02_2010.htm
20 | 7 – Methods and Processes Used to Achieve Agreement—Australia

These actions draw on the road safety management 

approach set out in the 2008 Organisation for 

Economic Cooperation and Development International 

Transport Forum Towards Zero report15 and the 2009 

World Bank Country Guidelines for the Conduct of Road 

Safety Management Capacity Reviews.16 They address 

the need for a results focus, coordination, legislation, 

regulations and standards, funding and resource 

allocation, promotion and education, monitoring 

and evaluation, research and development, and 

knowledge transfer. 

The strategy emphasizes the importance of putting a 

safety performance framework in place that is built 

on clear roles and responsibilities for agencies at 

the federal, state, and local government levels and 

nongovernment entities. It also emphasizes ongoing 

measurement and reporting of that performance.

It is likely that a number of specific performance 

measures will be developed in the early years of the 

strategy and refined over its 10-year life. Publication 

of these indicators and the results of their ongoing 

measurement will be considered. 

One focus has been on differentiating between the 

road safety needs of remote, regional, and urban 

communities across the country. Crash risks and 

challenges differ, and what may be a material issue 

in one location category (or region in one category) 

may not be an issue elsewhere. This is considered a 

pragmatic response to actual conditions.

National Road Safety Council Role

The ATC established the country’s first National 

Road Safety Council (NRSC) in 2009, with members 

appointed by the federal minister for transport 

after consultation with ATC ministers. It acts as an 

advisory body on road safety matters and supports 

implementation of key road safety measures in the 

National Road Safety Strategy, action plans, and 

other ATC initiatives.

All jurisdictions jointly fund the NRSC through a 

national partnership agreement. Council members are 

determined on the basis of their effectiveness as key 

opinion makers and community leaders.

The role of the NRSC includes ensuring that the best 

road safety measures and practices are taken up and 

implemented in all Australian states and territories. 

In addition, the council and its National Road Safety 

Ambassadors (which include business leaders, role 

models, and media personalities) will have a key role in 

engaging the wider community and putting road safety 

on the social agenda.17

One of the first challenges for the council is helping 

governments develop and implement the new National 

Road Safety Strategy for 2011–2020. Details of the 

council’s role and membership were set out in an 

address to the Australian Parliament by Federal 

Transport Minister Anthony Albanese in 2010.18

National Transport Commission Role

The National Transport Commission reports to the 

ATC and leads transport regulatory reform to meet the 

needs of transport users and the broader community 

for safe, efficient, and sustainable land transport. In 

addition to focusing on rail and heavy vehicle reform, 

the commission works closely with governments to 

develop more consistent and effective land transport 

policies, laws, and practices across Australia. 

Road safety-related responsibilities beyond heavy 

vehicle safety include the Australian Road Rules and 

the Australian Vehicle Standards Rules (which seek to 

ensure that the Australian Design Rules continue to be 

applied in service for vehicles). Both are recommended 

models for states and territories to apply.

15 OECD/ITF, Towards Zero: Ambitious Road Safety Targets and the Safe System Approach (2008).

16 World Bank (Breen and Bliss), Country Guidelines for the Conduct of Road Safety Management Capacity Reviews (2009).

17 www.minister.infrastructure.gov.au/aa/speeches/2010/AS02_2010.htm

18 ibid
Setting Safety Performance Measures in Australia and New Zealand | 21

Consultation Arrangements—New Zealand 

Safer Journeys Discussion Paper

The process of reaching agreement on the new 

strategy in New Zealand required negotiation 

with local governments and direct public 

consultation. New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) 

regional directors and Ministry of Transport regional 

relationship managers consulted extensively with 

local governments on Safer Journeys, 2010–2020, 

through the established network of Regional Transport 

Committees across New Zealand. 

The legislative backing for the transport committees, 

their purpose, and their membership is described 

(using Canterbury Regional Transport Committee 

as an example) in Appendix B. They are made up of 

elected members (from local governments and some 

regional bodies), plus an official representative from 

NZTA. They provide a political forum for addressing 

transport-related issues at the regional level in 

consultation with the central (national) government. 

This consultation was supported by NZTA regional 

education advisers working with local government 

senior staff. Practitioners reported that overall 

outcomes, while positive, varied and that some 

consultation efforts were more successful than others.

Extensive direct public consultation took place. 

Responses to Safer Journeys 

Community Consultation

More than 1,500 submissions were received on the 

Safer Journeys discussion document. In addition, more 

than 1,200 members of the general public and almost 

20 key stakeholders ranked the 62 initiatives outlined 

in the discussion document. This is a much higher 

number of submissions than was received on the Road 

Safety to 2010 strategy (about 800).

The level of public engagement showed that New 

Zealanders were concerned about the number of 

people killed and seriously injured on roads. Some 

of the most controversial initiatives received strong 

support. These included initiatives to lower the legal 

blood alcohol limits for driving, raise the driving 

age, and change the give-way rule on yielding to 

other vehicles.

In general, submitters placed more emphasis on 

initiatives aimed at road users than on road, vehicle, 

or speed initiatives. This may indicate that submitters 

do not understand the Safe System approach and are 

more focused on the driver than on the other three 

elements of the Safe System.19

Adopted Safer Journeys Strategy

The strategy is based on a Safe System approach 

and the key actions that will help build a safer road 

transport system through that approach. Current 

highly effective initiatives will continue.

Cost-effectiveness of actions is a prime 

consideration, and some actions that require 

legislation will need to be considered and approved 

by Parliament before introduction.

When implemented, actions will be tailored to 

respond to the differing needs of New Zealand’s 

communities. New Zealand’s road system now 

delivers significantly better road safety outcomes 

for some population groups, regions, and methods 

of transport than others (e.g., Ma–ori are almost 

twice as likely to die or be seriously injured in road 

crashes as other ethnic populations).

8 - Methods and Processes Used to Achieve 

Agreement—New Zealand

19 www.transport.govt.nz/saferjourneys/whatyousaid/
22 | 8 – Methods and Processes Used to Achieve Agreement—New Zealand

Safer Journeys will be implemented in a series of 

three action plans over 10 years. Each action plan will 

detail the following:

■ What will be implemented to address areas of 

concern and the expected timing of improvement 

■ Timing 

■ Responsibilities 

■ Monitoring and evaluation arrangements

New Zealand uses a system of funding for road 

safety for local government that provides incentives 

for support of central government strategic 

directions. For example, about 50 percent of funding 

(with some variation between local governments) 

will be contributed to local government for 

agreed-on road safety works by the national 

government and about 75 percent for agreed-on 

road user behavioral change programs. 

While Safer Journeys is regarded as an excellent 

document giving guidance on the way forward, the 

government has still not committed to overall 

targets or implementation of the measures identified 

in the strategy. New Zealand is grappling with this 

issue today. Without strong commitment in a single 

authority jurisdiction (i.e., the New Zealand nationallevel situation or in Australia’s case any state or 

territory not necessarily in the Australian national 

strategy), the document is at best a statement 

of hopeful intent.
Setting Safety Performance Measures in Australia and New Zealand | 23

Preparation for National Strategy Development 

1. Encourage States to develop and implement their 

own strategies, action plans, and targets (as many 

have) to indicate commitment to the issue and 

provide a vehicle for local progress. Recognize 

where responsibilities lie (i.e., Federal vehicle 

safety and highway funding; State user legislation 

and regulation, infrastructure programs, speed 

limits, and role modeling with vehicle policies; 

local government infrastructure programs, 

enforcement levels, speed limits, and role 

modeling with vehicle policies). 

2. Achieve an adequate level of dialogue supported 

by a regular flow of information leading to early 

consideration of a strategy to build deeper 

understanding based on evidence for senior 

government officials (as key gatekeepers), political 

leaders, and the media.

3. Develop regular meetings (twice a year) and 

communication among road safety managers at 

the State and Federal levels as a group to discuss 

common issues and progress.

4. Recognize that an agreed-on, detailed national 

strategy usually reflects acceptance of a lowest 

common denominator by all States. Address this 

reality by recognizing the primacy of the States in 

driving road safety change and support them with 

an “enabling” rather than a “requiring” approach, 

strategy, and action plans. Regularly review the 

action plans nationally (every 2 or 3 years) to 

encourage progress. Use publication of comparative 

performance and nationally funded promotion of 

road safety to help achieve State-level change.

5. Encourage senior government officials and 

political officials from States to visit successful 

international jurisdictions, observe measures 

in action, and discuss with counterparts policy 

and legislative change issues, how community 

acceptance was achieved, and what they learned 

from their experience.

6. Support leadership by the political level through 

sound evidence-based advice and a responsiveness 

and sensitivity to nonroad-safety impacts of 

potential interventions (and advice on how these 

could be managed in a reasonable way).

7. Understand the need to concentrate on the howto-move-forward issue by focusing on institutional 

management functions that determine how road 

safety is approached in each jurisdiction.

8. Recognize the importance of discussion and 

decisionmaking arrangements that support 

development of joint State and Federal outcomes.

9. Recognize that one size does not fit all and that 

different measures may be required in some 

States to meet local problems and respond to 

different levels of appetite for change. This requires 

recognition that the more flexible the strategy, the 

more likely it is that challenging directions can be 

included without frightening off jurisdictions with a 

conservative disposition. Develop a menu of actions 

from which jurisdictions can select those they 

believe they can implement.

10. Encourage development of mechanisms that 

facilitate State and Federal government officials 

making recommendations to political leaders. 

Ensure that governors’ forums with the Federal 

transportation secretary take place twice a year and 

include road safety discussion.

11. Encourage development of an agreed-on, 

consistent approach to road safety by jurisdictions 

over time (e.g., Safe System approach).

Strategy Development Process

12. Foster awareness of what U.S. States (and 

international jurisdictions) with good road 

safety performance are doing with their road 

safety policies and targets for fatalities and 

serious injuries.

9 - Potential Lessons for the United States
24 | 9 – Potential Lessons for the United States

13. As much as possible, open the conversation with 

the community (especially local communities) 

with a research-based discussion paper approach 

that considers other external impacts of potential 

measures and supports informed discussion with 

digestible research-based information.

14. Encourage government media units to promote 

discussion of issues that are likely to be important 

for developing a potential strategy. Ventilate 

the issues publicly without being unnecessarily 

provocative and without committing to a course 

of action in advance of consultation. Openly seek 

feedback on potential interventions.

15. Early in the strategy-development process, use 

tools such as modeling of potential inputs and 

estimated outcomes of interventions in a strategy, 

evidence-based position papers, and data on 

performance trends and comparisons between 

States to inform the discussion and debate.

16. Use Federal funding incentives to help States 

adopt proven road safety measures, an approach 

used widely and successfully in the United States 

in the past.

17. Recognize that adopting and publishing a strategy 

and initial action plans are not set-and-forget-for10-years activities.

18. Keep the strategy general with a sound vision 

and underpinning rationale (e.g., commitment 

to a Safe System approach). Allow for additional 

stretch through a series of action plans developed 

and progressively adopted throughout the life of 

the strategy that react to changing situations 

and opportunities. 

19. Recognize that setting aspirational targets for the 

national strategy is a powerful way to encourage 

States to set ambitious targets for their own 

strategies and actions.

Strategy Implementation

20. Measure safety performance on proven 

intermediate outcome indicators in all States 

and regularly publish this information on a 

national basis. 

21. Promote the use of voluntary adoption of 

interventions and encourage the community to 

take useful first steps toward longer term change 

(e.g., buy safer vehicles, provide children with more 

supervised driving experience before licensing 

as solo drivers, fit intelligent speed adaptation, fit 

alcohol interlocks, and limit higher risk road use 

such as recreational motorcycling on higher speed 

roads). In time, many of these sound positions 

will become accepted mainstream practice, and 

mandating them in many instances will require little 

more than recognizing the status quo. 

Summary

Setting an ambitious road safety target is challenging 

for governments. It is a sign of commitment if it is 

accompanied with identified measures to deliver 

it. While this is desirable, it will occasionally be 

more advantageous for some potentially unpopular 

measures to be identified later in the strategy‘s life, 

when they may be regarded as less contentious.

Setting a target and identifying associated strategies 

and actions are only part of the process. A clear 

commitment to implementing the interventions and 

achieving the target outcome is needed. The New 

Zealand experience from 2003 to 2010 is an important 

lesson in the need to have good implementing skills 

and not just rely on a cogently argued strategy. 

Reporting individual jurisdiction performance 

annually will enhance public awareness and build 

public support for action, especially in poorer 

performing jurisdictions.

For federal systems, such as Australia and the United 

States, a flexible strategy giving States the ability 

to select actions from a menu is more likely to win 

support from all jurisdictions and is preferable to a 

lowest-common-denominator approach, which could 

occur if the approach is based on extensive mandates.
Setting Safety Performance Measures in Australia and New Zealand | 25

Australian Automobile Association

Australian Capital Territory Department of Urban Services

Australian College of Road Safety

Australian Council of State Schools Organisations

Australian Driver Trainers Association

Australian Institute of Health

Australian Local Government Association

Australian Motorcycle Council

Bicycle Federation of Australia

Department of Health and Aged Care

Department of Transport and Regional Services

Department of Transport, Western Australia

Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries

Flinders University Research Centre for Injury Studies

Heads of Compulsory Third-Party Insurance Schemes

Institution of Engineers, Australia

National Road Transport Commission

New South Wales Roads and Traffic Authority

New South Wales Police Service

Northern Territory Department of Transport and Works

Older People Speak Out

Queensland Motor Accident Insurance Commission

Queensland Police Service

Queensland State Cycle Committee

Queensland Transport

Road Transport Forum

Royal Australasian College of Surgeons

Royal Automobile Club of Queensland Ltd.

Royal Automobile Club of Victoria Ltd.

South Australia Police

Tasmania Department of Infrastructure, Energy, and Resources

Transport South Australia

VicRoads

Victorian Police Force

Western Australia Police

Appendix A: Organizations Consulted in Developing the 

2001-2010 National Road Safety Strategy for Australia
26 | Appendix B: New Zealand Regional Transport Committees

Example: Canterbury Regional Transport 

Committee

The Regional Transport Committee (RTC) is 

established under the auspices of the Land Transport 

Act 2003 (as amended). It is responsible for preparing 

the regional land transport strategy and the regional 

land transport program and for advising the regional 

council on strategic land transport planning and 

funding matters.

The RTC typically meets on a quarterly basis, but more 

frequently if its workload necessitates. The committee 

includes the following: 

■ An elected member from each of the following 

councils: 

■ Kaikoura 

■ Hurunui 

■ Waimakariri 

■ Christchurch 

■ Selwyn 

■ Ashburton 

■ Timaru 

■ Waimate 

■ Mackenzie 

■ Two Environment Canterbury elected members 

■ A representative of the New Zealand 

Transport Agency 

■ Six elected community representatives with 

expertise in access and mobility, safety and 

personal security, public health, economic 

development, environmental sustainability, 

and cultural interests 

Appendix B: New Zealand Regional Transport 

Committees
Setting Safety Performance Measures in Australia and New Zealand | 27

Standing Committee on Transport

The Australian Transport Council’s (ATC) work 

program is supported by transport agency chief 

executives, who meet as the Standing Committee 

on Transport (SCOT). In carrying out its 

responsibilities, the SCOT does the following: 

■ Provides policy advice, as necessary, to the ATC 

■ Coordinates and supervises the work of 

six standing subcommittees (SSCs), which 

undertake work across a range of 

outcome areas: 

■ Productivity and Efficiency SSC 

■ Environment SSC 

■ Safety SSC 

■ Network Performance SSC 

■ Security SSC 

■ Australian Maritime Group (Maritime SSC)

■ Provides the chairs of the SSCs (secretariat 

support for each SSC is provided by the chair’s 

jurisdiction unless otherwise agreed)

■ Monitors the reporting of all SSCs

■ Manages and coordinates jurisdiction funding 

contributions to any nationally agreedon projects and initiatives involving such 

arrangements

■ Meets before each ATC meeting to preview 

agenda items, agrees on wording of 

recommendations, carries out followup 

actions from previous meetings, and 

monitors collaborative activities across 

systems and jurisdictions 

The SCOT also shares information and makes 

administrative decisions not requiring ministerial 

involvement. As an executive board, it is responsible 

for the following: 

■ Ensuring that ministerial priorities 

are implemented

■ Advising on a focused agenda in which 

ministers can invest their time to 

maximum value 

■ Identifying the strategic drivers impacting 

transport systems in Australia and whether 

(and what) national approaches can create 

measurable improvement

■ Resolving at policy and strategy levels 

issues that need to be dealt with nationally 

(including those that impact funding, 

ownership, and/or regulatory dimensions 

of members’ responsibilities)

Secretariat Arrangements

The Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure 

and Transport provides secretariat support for the 

ATC and its structure:

Secretary

Australian Transport Council

GPO Box 594

CANBERRA ACT 2601

Appendix C: Australian Transport Council 

Associated Meetings of Officials
28 | 

OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS

FHWA/US DOT (HPIP)

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

Tel: (202) 366-9636

Fax: (202) 366-9626

international@fhwa.dot.gov

www.international.fhwa.dot.gov

Publication No. FHWA-PL-11-018

HPIP/5-11(3.5)EW