What is the Heavy Vehicle National Law (HVNL)?

Legislative Structure

The HVNL operates under a unique "cooperative federalism" model where Queensland acts as the host jurisdiction. Passed as the Heavy Vehicle National Law Act 2012 (Qld), the law has been adopted by participating states and territories—New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania, and the Australian Capital Territory—through application acts.

This structure means a single set of rules theoretically governs operations from Adelaide to Brisbane, covering vehicle dimensions, mass limits, fatigue management, and loading requirements. The law fundamentally recognises that transport safety risks often originate from commercial pressures and supply chain demands occurring off-road, not just driver behaviour.

The National Gap: WA and NT

Western Australia and the Northern Territory have not adopted the HVNL, creating significant compliance complexity for national operators.

Western Australia operates under the Road Traffic (Administration) Act 2008 (WA) with its own accreditation scheme (WAHVA). WA allows larger vehicle combinations and higher mass limits than the HVNL to support mining and agricultural sectors. The state views the HVNL as too prescriptive and "East Coast centric."

Northern Territory maintains separate transport laws while recognising some HVNL fatigue management accreditations for interstate drivers. However, operators crossing into HVNL jurisdictions must fully comply with HVNL requirements.

For organisations operating nationally, this means maintaining dual compliance systems: adhering to HVNL in the East and separate state-based regulations in the West and North. A vehicle compliant in Victoria may face different requirements crossing the border at Eucla.

The Chain of Responsibility Revolution

The cornerstone of the HVNL is its Chain of Responsibility (CoR) framework. This legal doctrine recognises that on-road breaches rarely result from isolated driver choices but from upstream commercial pressures, poor scheduling, or inadequate systems.

The 2018 amendments transformed CoR from "deemed liability" to a positive Primary Duty. Under the current regime, you don't need a crashed truck to face prosecution. Your organisation can be prosecuted simply for having dangerous systems—like scheduling software that defaults to illegal speeds—even if no breach has occurred yet.

The Primary Duty Standard

Section 26C requires each party to ensure safety "so far as is reasonably practicable" (SFAIRP). This standard—identical to the Work Health and Safety Act 2011—means you must weigh:

• The likelihood and severity of the risk
• What you know (or should know) about the hazard
• Available control measures
• Whether costs are grossly disproportionate to risk

This creates a proactive obligation. You can't contract out of this duty. Attempting to transfer risk to a subcontractor via contract is legally void and potentially an offence itself.

Prohibited Conduct

Section 26E explicitly prohibits requesting or contracting arrangements that would require breaching the law. This targets commercial drivers of unsafe behaviour:

• Payment rates impossible to achieve legally within standard driving hours
• "Express" delivery bonuses requiring speeding
• Financial penalties for late arrival when delays result from mandatory rest breaks
• "Just-in-time" contracts failing to account for congestion or safety stops

Courts look behind written contracts to the substance of arrangements. If operational reality demands non-compliance to remain profitable, you can be held liable for "encouraging" a breach, regardless of what your contract says.

Who's in the Chain?

The HVNL identifies parties based on function, not job title. This functional definition prevents companies from evading liability through creative organisational structures. Responsibility is shared—the law seeks to find all responsible parties, not just one scapegoat.

Your extent of liability is determined by your capacity to influence and control the transport activity. A scheduler has high control over departure times but may have zero control over brake conditions. Conversely, a fleet manager controls maintenance but may have no visibility of loading dock conditions at customer sites.

You must identify where you sit in the chain and what specific levers of control you possess. You're then legally obligated to pull those levers to ensure safety. The "don't ask, don't tell" approach to logistics contracting is now illegal.

The Four Pillars of Compliance

HVNL compliance falls into four main risk categories. Failure in any of these areas can trigger CoR prosecution.

1. Fatigue Management

Driver fatigue is managed through strict prescription of work and rest hours. Your organisation must operate under one of three regimes:

• Standard Hours — The default for most drivers. Highly prescriptive (maximum 12 hours work in 24 hours, mandatory rest breaks).
• Basic Fatigue Management (BFM) — Allows up to 14 hours work with NHVAS accreditation and enhanced driver health monitoring.
• Advanced Fatigue Management (AFM) — Risk-based system allowing you to propose hours based on scientific principles and specific countermeasures. Provides flexibility for remote transport where standard hours are impractical.

The industry is transitioning from paper logbooks to Electronic Work Diaries (EWDs). These devices automatically record work/rest times, reducing logbook tampering but increasing visibility of minor breaches like rounding errors.

CoR Implication: A scheduler who rosters a driver for a 13-hour round trip under Standard Hours commits a primary duty offence, even if the driver never actually works those hours.

2. Speed Management

Vehicles over 12 tonnes GVM must be fitted with speed limiters set to 100km/h maximum. But speed compliance isn't just about hardware—it's about scheduling that accounts for realistic transit times.

Schedulers must allow for legal speed limits (including lower limits for heavy vehicles), traffic conditions, congestion, loading/unloading queue times, and mandatory rest breaks. "Optimistic scheduling" based on Google Maps times for cars is a common and prosecutable failure mode.

3. Mass, Dimension and Loading

Heavy vehicles impose significant infrastructure wear, managed through strict mass and dimension limits:

• General Mass Limits (GML) — Baseline limits (e.g., 42.5 tonnes for a 6-axle semi-trailer)
• Concessional Mass Limits (CML) — Allows ~5% extra mass for accredited operators with robust maintenance systems
• Higher Mass Limits (HML) — Significantly higher mass on specific "declared routes" for vehicles with road-friendly suspension

For containerised freight, Consignors must provide a Container Weight Declaration (CWD). Inaccurate declarations are a frequent source of prosecution, leading to drivers unknowingly operating overloaded vehicles.

Load restraint must meet the National Load Restraint Guide performance standards: capable of holding 80% of load weight forward, 50% sideways/rearwards, and 20% vertically.

4. Vehicle Standards and Maintenance

Vehicles must meet Australian Design Rules (ADRs) and be maintained in roadworthy condition. Under CoR, you must have a system—pre-start checks, scheduled servicing, defect reporting—to ensure roadworthiness. Relying solely on annual registration inspection is insufficient due diligence.

Defect notices issued by police or NHVR inspectors are categorised as "Major" (vehicle grounded immediately) or "Minor" (allowed to travel to repairer). Your maintenance management system must track and rectify these systematically.

Executive Due Diligence: Personal Liability

Section 26D imposes a personal duty on Executive Officers to exercise due diligence ensuring your corporation complies with safety duties. This provision allows prosecution of individuals—Directors, CEOs, Operations Managers—personally, putting personal assets and liberty at risk.

The definition extends beyond registered directors to anyone "concerned in the management of the corporation." A National Logistics Manager dictating budget and policy may be considered an executive officer even without a board seat. Conversely, "silent partner" directors can't claim ignorance—their statutory position creates the obligation.

The Five Elements of Due Diligence

You must demonstrate a continuous cycle of governance across five mandatory elements:

1. Acquire and Maintain Knowledge — Keep up to date with HVNL, the Master Code, and specific industry risks. Ignorance of the law is explicitly not a defence.
2. Understand Operations — Know how your business moves goods. Do you use subcontractors? What routes? What are the high-risk activities? This requires active engagement, not just reading reports.
3. Ensure Resources and Processes — Provide sufficient budget, staff, and equipment to minimise risks. Denying budget requests for brake maintenance or safety training can be direct evidence of failure to exercise due diligence.
4. Monitor and Verify — Have processes to receive information about incidents, hazards, and risks—and ensure your business responds. If a "near miss" report is filed but no investigation occurs, you've failed to monitor the system.
5. Compliance Verification — Verify that resources are actually being used. It's not enough to buy safety software if no one logs in. This requires auditing and "management by walking around."

In the landmark Connect Logistics prosecution following a fatal crash involving a fatigued driver, executives were charged because they failed to implement assurance mechanisms. They had policies, but didn't check if policies were followed. The court found executives can't "delegate" their safety duty to a manager and wash their hands of it—they must supervise the delegation.

The biggest executive failure mode is implementation—having a manual on the shelf but a culture on the floor that ignores it.

Safety Management Systems

To discharge your primary duty and executive due diligence obligations, implementing a Safety Management System (SMS) is considered best practice and, for accredited operators, a mandatory requirement.

The NHVR's 9-Step SMS Roadmap provides a structured approach aligned with international standards like ISO 45001 but tailored for heavy vehicle context:

The Master Code

Section 706 of the HVNL allows registration of industry codes of practice. The Master Code is the most significant Registered Industry Code.

While compliance is voluntary, the Master Code has powerful legal effect: if you can prove you complied with it, that's evidence you took "reasonable steps." Conversely, failure to follow the Master Code (or equivalent standard) can be evidence of a breach. The Master Code provides specific risk controls for Speed, Fatigue, Mass/Dimension, and Loading—making it essential reference for any CoR audit.

Enforcement and Penalties

The enforcement landscape is rigorous, utilising on-road intercepts, desktop audits, and post-incident investigations. Penalties are tiered based on risk severity and culpability.

The 2025 Reform Package

The Heavy Vehicle National Law Amendment Bill 2025 represents a long-running review by the National Transport Commission (NTC), aiming to simplify law while increasing risk focus:

• "Unfit to Drive" Offence — New, broader offence prohibiting driving while "unfit" (fatigue, drugs, alcohol, medical issues). Replaces simpler fatigue offences with significantly higher penalty (~$20,000) reflecting safety risk.
• Mandatory SMS — Reforms will mandate SMS for broader range of operators, moving from "best practice" to statutory requirement for accreditation and network access.
• Penalty Increases — While some administrative penalties decrease to reduce red tape, safety-critical penalties increase. Tampering with monitoring devices or driving fatigued jumps to ~$20,000.

Enforceable Undertakings

An increasingly common outcome for CoR breaches is an Enforceable Undertaking (EU). Instead of a fine, you agree to spend money on safety improvements—training, technology, industry education. EUs often cost more than fines but are preferred as they deliver tangible safety outcomes rather than revenue for the state.

However, EUs are generally not available for Category 1 (Reckless) offences. They're a compliance tool, not an escape hatch for criminal conduct.

Practical Implementation

For safety professionals and executives, HVNL compliance requires a structured, evidence-based approach.

Conduct a Gap Analysis

Map every transport activity to a risk control using the Master Code or 9-Step SMS Roadmap as your benchmark. For example:

• Question: "We hire subcontractors."
• Control: "Do we have a pre-qualification checklist? Do we audit their insurances and accreditations annually?"

Manage Third-Party Risk

The most common vulnerability is the subcontractor. Companies often assume hiring a reputable trucking firm ends their CoR liability. It doesn't.

You must verify subcontractors are doing what they claim through spot checks—request copies of run sheets or maintenance records for specific trucks used on your jobs. Review all transport contracts. Remove clauses penalising "late" delivery without safety exceptions. Insert clauses requiring immediate safety incident reporting.

Build Culture, Not Just Paperwork

The ultimate HVNL goal is cultural shift. "Paper safety"—perfect manuals no one reads—is a liability, not a defence. The most effective court defence is driver or loader testimony saying, "Yes, I know the safety rule, I was trained on it, and my manager enforces it every day."

You must foster a culture where a driver feels safe calling a scheduler to say, "I'm too tired to drive," and the scheduler responds, "Pull over and rest," not "Get it there or you're fired."