PETITION: STOP Acusensus: NO to $100M Private Contracts For AI Speed Cameras, Mass Surveillance, Ai Fines

Under a $100M contract, this Australian private company is filming New Zealanders on New Zealand roads, running our images through AI algorithms, then passing data to issue traffic fines. We had ZERO say in it. Our taxes are paying for it. And the profits go to Australian shareholders.

This page outlines a clear and actionable roadmap to STOP this

STEP ONE: SIGN THE PETITION

Sign the petition and share the heck out of this page.

---

Signatures Collected 93
TARGET: 100,000

Why You SHOULD Be Concerned

Since July 2025, New Zealand's mobile speed camera network has been operated not by police, not by a government agency, but by Acusensus NZ, a subsidiary of an ASX-listed Australian surveillance company on a $100 million public contract. The cameras are unmarked. The vehicles are unmarked. The deployment locations are not published. There is no crash data justifying where they park. Images are captured by AI cameras, passed to NZTA for human review, and if confirmed, a fine is issued.

New Zealand Police, who were directly accountable to the public and to Parliament, have been entirely removed from the process.

This is the state handing its power to a foreign corporation to monitor and fine New Zealand citizens a company whose primary accountability is to its Australian shareholders rather than to New Zealand citizens or Parliament. A company whose own investor presentations describe a business model built on 'winning contracts' and then 'expanding their scope', into phone detection, seatbelt monitoring, and eventually impaired driving surveillance, on roads you already own and a network already built with your money.

In Auckland, people took angle grinders to camera poles, trailers are vandalised. Across the country, the anger is growing. Vandalism achieves nothing. We unequivocally condemn vandalism. It is illegal, counterproductive, and plays into the hands of those who dismiss legitimate public concern. Acusensus will simply profit from their replacement with YOUR taxes.

⚠️ We are not asserting Acusensus or NZTA intends any of these uses

The Fightback Has Begun

MotorBuzz has spent weeks investigating this contract, the company behind it, the legal grounds to challenge fines, and the international precedents for how these programs get rolled back when citizens push hard enough. The petition, the letter templates, and the action steps that follow are the tools to push.

New Zealanders are not obliged to accept private AI surveillance on public roads. They are not obliged to fund Australian shareholders through public money with no democratic mandate. And they are not obliged to stay quiet about it.

 

Sign. Write. Share. Make it count.

 

---

CAMPAIGN ACTION GUIDE

---

This Is What You Can Do Right Now. It Takes Less Than Ten Minutes.

The petition, the letter, and the contacts are the mechanisms by which New Zealand citizens put issues formally on Parliament's agenda and compel Ministers to respond in writing. Here is how to use them.

Step 1 — Sign the Petition

Parliamentary petitions are reviewed by Select Committees. Ministers are expected to respond within 60 working days once a petition is referred. The quality of the petition matters more than the number of signatures, but signatures demonstrate public support.

Step 2 — Send the Letter to Parliment

Use the template below. Send it individually. Do not copy all recipients into one email, as it will be treated as a mass correspondence and is less likely to receive a substantive individual response. 

Step 3 — Send the Letter to Your MP

Use the template below. Send it individually. Do not copy all recipients into one email, as it will be treated as a mass correspondence and is less likely to receive a substantive individual response. Minister's offices are legally obliged to respond to constituent correspondence.

Step 4 — SHARE Specifically

Share this article and the petition. When you share, tell people specifically what you want them to do: sign the petition and send the letter. Vague calls to action do not convert. Specific ones do.

Step 5 - DISPUTING A FINE (Optional)

If You've Received a Traffic Infringement — Before You Pay, Read This

IMPORTANT: Disclosure is a valid request for both police issued tickets and the new wave of ai camera issued tickets. We are not disputing New Zealand's speed laws. We are requiring that Police and camera operators demonstrate the detection meets the minimum operational standards required by the Speed Detection Equipment Operators Manual before a fine can be considered evidentially valid. If those standards weren't met, there is no admissible evidence Sic [OPERATORS MANUAL] of the offence and the court cannot be asked to apply the law.

Resources:

• Download Speed Detection Equipment Operators Manual 
• Minstry of Justice Disputing a FIne

---

Important Disclaimer — Traffic Fine Dispute Process

Please read this carefully before taking any action in relation to an infringement notice.

The information provided in this guide about disputing traffic infringement notices is general information only. It is not legal advice. It does not take into account your individual circumstances, the specific facts of your case, or any developments in New Zealand law that may have occurred after the date of publication.

This process is entirely optional. You are under no obligation to dispute your fine. Paying your infringement notice by the due date remains available to you at any time and is a perfectly valid choice.

You undertake this process entirely at your own risk. By electing a court hearing you acknowledge and accept that:

• If you proceed to court and are convicted of the offence, the penalty imposed by the court may be significantly higher than the original infringement fee
• Court proceedings may result in additional costs including court costs
• The process requires you to meet strict deadlines — missing the 28-day deadline to elect a court hearing will result in the loss of your right to dispute the fine
• Requesting disclosure does not guarantee the fine will be withdrawn — Police may provide complete and compliant documentation, in which case you will need to decide whether to proceed to court or pay the fine
• We cannot predict or guarantee the outcome of any individual case

We are not lawyers. Nothing in this guide creates a lawyer-client relationship between you and this campaign or its organisers. The information provided is based on publicly available New Zealand law and the Speed Detection Equipment Operators Manual 2015. Laws and procedures can change. Always verify current requirements before taking action.

We strongly recommend that before electing a court hearing you:

• Read your infringement notice carefully and note the deadline
• Consider seeking independent legal advice, particularly if the fine involves licence suspension, demerit points, or a high penalty amount
• Carefully review any disclosure you receive before deciding whether to proceed to court
• Weigh the potential maximum penalty against the original infringement fee and make an informed personal decision

By using this guide you acknowledge that you have read and understood this disclaimer, that you are making your own independent decision to dispute or not dispute your fine, and that neither this campaign nor its organisers accept any liability for the outcome of any action you take in relation to your infringement notice.

 

This guide is published in good faith as general public interest information. It is not a substitute for professional legal advice. If you are in any doubt about your situation, consult a lawyer.

 

---

DIsputing a Fine - The Process

Step 1 — Don't pay yet (but act within the deadline)

You have 28 days from the date of the infringement notice to respond. Paying the fine waives your right to dispute it. Do not pay while you are still deciding whether to challenge.

Step 2 — Elect a court hearing

Write to the issuing agency (NZ Police or NZTA) requesting the matter be heard in court. Use our template letter below. Once you elect a court hearing, enforcement action is paused pending the court process.

Step 3 — Request disclosure

Under the Criminal Disclosure Act 2008, you are entitled to request the evidence the prosecution intends to rely on. For a speed detection fine, this must demonstrate that the detection was operationally valid under the Speed Detection Equipment Operators Manual. Request:

• Operator certification for the specific device used
• Pre- and post-deployment equipment tests for that session
• Tracking history confirming clean visual and/or audio identification of your vehicle
• Device type approval documentation
• For Acusensus camera fines: site approval records, deployment location compliance, and operator certification for that specific camera system

Send your disclosure request to the NZ Police District Prosecutions office handling your file. Use our template letter below.

Note: The Speed Detection Equipment Operators Manual states that if there is any doubt about the validity of a detection, a ticket should not be issued. Disclosure allows you to assess whether doubt existed — and whether the issuing officer or operator met that standard.

Step 4 — Assess the disclosure and decide

Once you receive disclosure (Police have an obligation to respond), review it against the Manual's requirements. You can then:

• Pay the fine at any time to end proceedings — this remains available to you throughout the process
• Defend the charge in court if the documentation reveals the detection was operationally deficient — for example, incomplete tracking history, failed equipment tests, uncertified operator, or non-compliant deployment site
• Seek legal advice on the strength of what has been provided

⚠️ Important: Electing a court hearing means that if you are convicted, the penalty may increase to the maximum fine for the offence — which is higher than the infringement fee. You should weigh this carefully when reviewing your disclosure.

 

---

Template 1 — Disclosure Request Letter

(To be sent to NZ Police District Prosecutions after electing a court hearing)

---

[Your Full Name] [Your Address] [Date]

NZ Police District Prosecutions [Relevant District Office]

Re: Infringement Notice No. [XXXXXXX] — Request for Disclosure

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have elected a court hearing in respect of Infringement Notice No. [XXXXXXX] dated [date], issued at [location].

Pursuant to my rights under the Criminal Disclosure Act 2008, I formally request full disclosure of all evidence the prosecution intends to rely upon, including but not limited to:

1. The type and model of speed detection device used
2. The device's current type approval documentation
3. The operator's certification for that specific device, current at the date of the alleged offence
4. Pre-deployment and post-deployment test records for the session in which the alleged offence was detected
5. The complete tracking history for my vehicle, including visual identification and audio confirmation where applicable
6. Any site approval documentation (for fixed or mobile camera deployments)
7. The shift log or operational record for the officer/operator on the date in question
8. Any internal notes, records or communications relating to the detection of my vehicle

I note that the Speed Detection Equipment Operators Manual requires that if there is any doubt as to the validity of a detection, a ticket should not be issued. I am requesting the above to assess whether that standard was met.

Please provide this documentation within a reasonable timeframe. I reserve the right to make further requests upon review of the material provided.

Yours faithfully, [Your Full Name] [Contact Phone/Email]

---

Template 2 — Acusensus Site Compliance Checklist

(Use this if your fine was issued by a mobile or fixed Acusensus camera)

When you receive your fine, visit the location where it was issued and photograph or record the following. These are the NZTA site guideline requirements that must be met for a camera deployment to be valid.

✅ Speed Limit Signage

• Is there a speed limit sign clearly visible before the camera location?
• What is the distance from the speed limit sign to the camera position? (Note it)
• Is signage compliant with NZTA road signage standards?

✅ Passing Lanes & Hazard Zones

• Is the camera located within or immediately adjacent to a passing lane?
• Are there any features of the road environment that could cause driver confusion about the applicable speed limit?

✅ Camera Deployment Position

• Is the camera vehicle/unit positioned as required — not on a crest, curve, or location with limited driver visibility?
• Is the deployment position consistent with approved site parameters?

✅ What to include in your disclosure request (Acusensus) Add the following to your standard disclosure letter:

• The NZTA-approved site plan for the location
• Acusensus operator certification for the device used
• Confirmation the deployment on the day matched the approved site parameters
• Pre- and post-shift calibration records for the device

Tip: Photograph the site from the driver's perspective — showing distances to signs and road features. Date-stamp your photos. This creates a record if site conditions were non-compliant.

---

Template 3 — What to Look For When You Receive Disclosure

(Plain English guide to assessing what Police send you)

When disclosure arrives, you're looking for gaps, failures, or missing documents that suggest the detection was not operationally valid. Here's what to check:

1. Operator Certification

• Is there a certificate showing the officer/operator was trained and certified for that specific device?
• Is the certification current on the date your fine was issued?
• ⚠️ No certificate, expired certificate, or certification for a different device model

2. Equipment Tests

• Are there test records from before and after the session your fine was issued in?
• Do the tests show the device was reading accurately?
• ⚠️ Missing pre- or post-test, failed test, or tests recorded on a different date 

 

3. Tracking History — Your Best Chance!

Radar cannot identify which vehicle is speeding it can only detect the fastest or largest object in its field. This means the operator must:

1. Visually estimate the speed of your vehicle before using the radar  the radar is only used to verify that estimate. Note: humans cannot accurately estimate the speed of an oncoming vehicle, which is why this step is so critical to challenge.
2. Create a tracking history at the time of the detection  recording what they observed, in sequence, as it happened.
3. Record it with a timestamp contemporaneous with the stop a tracking history created after the fact, or a computer printout with no verified timestamp, is not a valid tracking history.

⚠️ Police send you a printed document with no timestamp, or a record that could have been generated at any time after the event. This is not compliant. A valid tracking history must be created at the time not reconstructed later.

In our experience, the majority of infringement notices have no valid tracking history on file. This is the single most common evidential failure and the most common reason fines are quashed.

4. Line of Sight — Radar Requires an Unobstructed Field

Radar readings are only reliable when the operator has a completely clear, unobstructed line of sight to the target vehicle. Anything in the detection field another vehicle, a sign, a tree, a crash barrier, a trailer distorts the reading and makes it unreliable.

⚠️ The operator was positioned behind a sign, tree, barrier, parked trailer, or any other object. This is a common deployment tactic but it directly compromises the integrity of the reading.

No clear line of sight = no reliable reading.

Ask in your disclosure request: "Please provide the operator's recorded position and confirm there were no obstructions in the detection field at the time of the alleged detection."

5. Device Approval

• Is the device on the approved list under NZ type approval?
• Is the specific unit (serial number) the one that was approved?
• ⚠️ No approval document, or serial number doesn't match

6. Site Compliance (Acusensus)

• Is there an approved site plan on file?
• Does the deployment on your day match it?
• ⚠️ No site plan, or camera was deployed outside approved parameters

7. No Response / Incomplete Response

• If authorities fail to provide disclosure or provide it incomplete, this itself is relevant to your defence.
• ⚠️ Silence, partial documents, or refusal to provide the Manual records

8. The Logbook — Often Overlooked, Frequently Incomplete

The logbook is a goldmine for challenges. The Manual requires the operator to complete the logbook before their patrol starts, recording all of the following for the day in question:

• Operator's name and QID
• Date and time of operations
• Test results
• Location
• Total hours of use
• Operator's signature
• Serial numbers of all components

A separate log sheet is required for each day of operation. These sheets must remain in the logbook unless removed for court.

Request the logbook pages for the day your fine was issued. This is documentary evidence the prosecution is required to produce.

⚠️ Missing entries, incomplete records, no signature, undated test results, or serial numbers that don't match those recorded on your infringement notice. Any of these mean the pre-deployment requirements were not properly completed — and without that, the entire session is operationally unverified. Also request that the serial numbers on the logbook be cross-checked against the serial numbers recorded on your infringement notice. A mismatch means the device used may not be the device that was tested.

---

If you identify red flags, this is the point to seek legal advice

Speed Detection Equipment Operators Manual

OFFICIAL PARLIAMENTARY PETITION TEMPLATE

Public Email to Parliament — Template for Mass Campaign

Email: contact@parliament.govt.nz Physical: Parliament Buildings, Wellington 6160

 

This goes to the Office of the Clerk and can be forwarded to relevant select committees or Ministers. It is distinct from the petition address and from writing directly to individual MPs.

Subject: Formal Concern — Outsourcing of Traffic Enforcement to Foreign Private Company Acusensus

---

Dear Members of Parliament,

I am a New Zealand citizen writing to express my serious concern about the decision by NZTA Waka Kotahi to award a contract worth approximately $100 million (Source NZTA's Dec 2024 announcement)  to Acusensus NZ a subsidiary of an ASX-listed Australian company to operate mobile speed camera enforcement on New Zealand roads.

I am concerned because:

1. A coercive public power has been handed to a foreign private company. The power to pass data used to issue traffic infringement notices to New Zealand citizens is a coercive public function. It should be exercised by agencies accountable to New Zealand taxpayers and to Parliament, not by a private company answerable to Australian shareholders.

2. There is a commercial incentive to expand surveillance. Acusensus's own investor communications (Source: FY24 Results Presentation 27 August 2024) describe a business model built on winning contracts and then expanding into additional enforcement categories including phone detection, seatbelt detection, and impaired driving. New Zealand roads should not be a commercial opportunity for a foreign corporation.

3. New Zealand Police have been removed from this function entirely. NZ Police were previously responsible for mobile camera enforcement and are directly accountable to the public and to Parliament. That accountability has been replaced by a profit motive.

4. Deployment lacks transparency. Cameras operate from unmarked vehicles at undisclosed locations without published crash data justifying site selection. This is inconsistent with international best practice, which holds that visible deterrence, not concealed detection, best serves public safety.

I am asking Parliament to:

• Terminate the Acusensus contract and return mobile speed camera enforcement exclusively to New Zealand Police, who are funded by New Zealand taxpayers, accountable to Parliament, and bound by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990
• Conduct an urgent inquiry into how this contract was awarded, by whom, and whether proper public interest tests were applied before a coercive enforcement power was handed to a foreign private company
• Require NZTA to publish the complete contract terms within 60 days including all performance incentives, scope expansion provisions, and data retention arrangements
• Legislate to prevent the delegation of traffic infringement issuing powers to any private foreign company in future

New Zealand taxpayers already fund the New Zealand Police to perform this function. We do not consent to paying a private Australian company for the commercial privilege of being surveilled and fined on our own roads.

This is not about avoiding speed enforcement. It is about who holds the power to enforce it, and whether that power is being exercised transparently and accountably in the public interest.

I ask that this correspondence be forwarded to the Transport and Infrastructure Select Committee and to the Minister of Transport.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Full Name] [Your Town or City] [Your Email Address]

---

Instructions for Supporters

How to send this in 2 minutes:

1. Copy the email template above
2. Paste it into a new email
3. Address it to contact@parliament.govt.nz
4. Fill in your name, town, and email address at the bottom
5. Change any wording to make it your own a personalised email carries more weight than a form letter
6. Hit send

CITIZEN LETTER TEMPLATE

Copy, personalise the bracketed sections, and send to all four recipients listed below. Individual emails receive responses. Mass emails are often noted and filed. Send one at a time, from your own email address, in your own words where possible — or use this as your base.

---

Subject: Acusensus Contract — Request for Urgent Ministerial Review

Tēnā koe [Minister's name / MP's name],

I am writing to you as a New Zealand citizen and a constituent [include your electorate if writing to your local MP] regarding serious concerns about the $100 million contract between NZTA Waka Kotahi and Acusensus NZ for the operation of New Zealand's mobile speed camera network.

I respectfully ask that you read this letter in full and respond with your position on the matters raised.

The core concern

Acusensus Ltd is an ASX-listed Australian company. Its New Zealand subsidiary, Acusensus NZ, now operates the country's entire mobile camera enforcement network under a contract worth approximately $20 million of public money per year. These cameras pass data used to issue traffic infringement notices to New Zealand citizens. The company is accountable to its Australian shareholders. It is not accountable to the New Zealand public, to Parliament, or to any elected representative.

This is not a minor administrative arrangement. The power to fine citizens is a coercive function of the state. New Zealand has transferred that function, and the infrastructure that supports it, to a private foreign company operating on a fixed commercial contract.

The expansion risk

Acusensus's own published investor communications describe their business model as one in which contracts are awarded and then expanded. The company already operates phone detection and seatbelt detection cameras in Australia. It conducted trials of exactly this technology (source: OIA-10219 response dated 11 July 2022) in Auckland in 2022, confirmed by NZTA's own OIA responses. The company is publicly developing AI technology targeting impaired driving detection.

The current legislative prohibition on using these cameras for anything other than speed enforcement can be amended. Any future contract variation or law change would extend the surveillance scope of a system already built, already deployed, and already operating across New Zealand roads, without any requirement for fresh public mandate.

The transparency deficit

NZTA has not published the full contract with Acusensus NZ. Deployment locations are not publicly disclosed. The crash data used to justify specific camera sites has not been released. New Zealanders cannot verify whether cameras are placed where crashes actually occur, or whether placement decisions serve road safety outcomes or commercial contract performance metrics.

This is public money. These are public roads. Citizens have a right to know how enforcement decisions are being made and on what basis.

What I am asking

I respectfully ask you to:

• Support the immediate termination of the Acusensus contract and the return of mobile speed camera enforcement exclusively to New Zealand Police, who are funded by New Zealand taxpayers, accountable to Parliament, and bound by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990
• Conduct an urgent inquiry into how this contract was awarded, by whom, and whether proper public interest tests were applied before a coercive state enforcement power was handed to a foreign private company
• Require NZTA to publish the complete contract terms within 60 days, including all performance incentives, scope expansion provisions, and data retention arrangements
• Legislate to prevent the delegation of traffic infringement issuing powers to any private foreign company in future

New Zealand taxpayers already fund the New Zealand Police to perform this function. We do not consent to paying a private Australian company for the commercial privilege of being surveilled and fined on our own roads.

I am happy to provide further information or to meet to discuss these concerns. I ask for a substantive written response to the specific points above.

Ngā mihi,

[Your full name] [Your address] [Your electorate] [Your email]

---

Send this letter to:

Minister of Transport — Hon Chris Bishop chris.bishop@parliament.govt.nz Office: +64 4 817 6802 Private Bag 18041, Parliament Buildings, Wellington 6160

Minister of Police — Hon Mark Mitchell mark.mitchell@parliament.govt.nz Parliament Buildings, Wellington 6160

Your local MP Find your MP and their email at parliament.govt.nz/en/mps-and-electorates/members-of-parliament Standard format: firstname.lastname@parliament.govt.nz

NZTA Waka Kotahi — Chief Executive info@nzta.govt.nz Private Bag 6995, Marion Square, Wellington 6141

---

 

 

Follow on The App

Uunder a $100M contract, this Australian private company is filming New Zealanders on New Zealand roads, running our images through AI algorithms, then passing data to issue traffic fines. We had ZERO say in it. Our taxes are paying for it. And the profits go to Australian shareholders.

This page outlines a clear and actionale roadmap to STOP this

STEP ONE: SIGN THE PETITION

Sign the petition and share the heck out of this page.

---

Signatures Today 1693

Why You SHOULD Be Concerned

Since July 2025, New Zealand's mobile speed camera network has been operated not by police, not by a government agency, but by Acusensus NZ, a subsidiary of an ASX-listed Australian surveillance company on a $100 million public contract. The cameras are unmarked. The vehicles are unmarked. The deployment locations are not published. There is no crash data justifying where they park. Images are captured by AI cameras, passed to NZTA for human review, and if confirmed, a fine is issued.

New Zealand Police, who were directly accountable to the public and to Parliament, have been entirely removed from the process.

This is the state handing its power to a foreign corporation to monitor and fine New Zealand citizens a company whose primary accountability is to its Australian shareholders rather than to New Zealand citizens or Parliament. A company whose own investor presentations describe a business model built on 'winning contracts' and then 'expanding their scope', into phone detection, seatbelt monitoring, and eventually impaired driving surveillance, on roads you already own and a network already built with your money.

In Auckland, people took angle grinders to camera poles, trailers are vandalised. Across the country, the anger is growing. Vandalism achieves nothing. We unequivocally condemn vandalism. It is illegal, counterproductive, and plays into the hands of those who dismiss legitimate public concern. Acusensus will simply profit from their replacement with YOUR taxes.

⚠️ We are not asserting Acusensus or NZTA intends any of these uses

The Fightback Has Begun

MotorBuzz has spent weeks investigating this contract, the company behind it, the legal grounds to challenge fines, and the international precedents for how these programs get rolled back when citizens push hard enough. The petition, the letter templates, and the action steps that follow are the tools to push.

New Zealanders are not obliged to accept private AI surveillance on public roads. They are not obliged to fund Australian shareholders through public money with no democratic mandate. And they are not obliged to stay quiet about it.

 

Sign. Write. Share. Make it count.

 

---

CAMPAIGN ACTION GUIDE

---

This Is What You Can Do Right Now. It Takes Less Than Ten Minutes.

The petition, the letter, and the contacts are the mechanisms by which New Zealand citizens put issues formally on Parliament's agenda and compel Ministers to respond in writing. Here is how to use them.

Step 1 — Sign the Petition

Parliamentary petitions are reviewed by Select Committees. Ministers are expected to respond within 60 working days once a petition is referred. The quality of the petition matters more than the number of signatures, but signatures demonstrate public support.

Step 2 — Send the Letter to Parliment

Use the template below. Send it individually. Do not copy all recipients into one email, as it will be treated as a mass correspondence and is less likely to receive a substantive individual response. 

Step 3 — Send the Letter to Your MP

Use the template below. Send it individually. Do not copy all recipients into one email, as it will be treated as a mass correspondence and is less likely to receive a substantive individual response. Minister's offices are legally obliged to respond to constituent correspondence.

Step 4 — SHARE Specifically

Share this article and the petition. When you share, tell people specifically what you want them to do: sign the petition and send the letter. Vague calls to action do not convert. Specific ones do.