AN ALLIANCE of road transport associations has lodged a joint submission to the Federal Government’s peak transport authority over concerns proposed accreditation changes for heavy vehicles will create new legal risks for truck operators, encouraging them to leave the industry and deterring new entrants.
The National Transport Commission’s review of the Heavy Vehicle National Law (HVNL) proposes a 2-tiered approach to replace the current accreditation scheme with a general safety accreditation and a flexible “alternative compliance accreditation” scheme to offer more tailored accreditation regime for diverse vehicles or operators.
Regulatory changes also include revised truck length and mass limits, changes to more than 70 penalties and a new duty to not drive a truck while “unfit to drive”, which expands upon the existing duty for drivers to avoid driving while impaired by fatigue.
The proposals are contained in the Heavy Vehicle National Law Amendment Bill 2025, currently before the Queensland Parliament and expected to pass before the end of the year.
On successful passage, the reform package will be adopted by all other states and territories except Western Australia and Northern Territory by mid-2026.
NTC claims its reform package improves fatigue and fitness to drive management, enhances vehicle access, strengthens accreditation systems, offers more flexibility and streamlines governance.
But a submission to NTC’s review on behalf of Queensland Trucking Association, Victorian Transport Association and National Road Transport Association claims that while the proposed reform is aimed at enhanced safety and productivity, it “also creates a systemic conflict” and “financially and legally burdensome” requirements for road freight operators.
The submission claims that the conflict under the new framework “arises when a company director hires an independent auditor to obtain accreditation, potentially creating a record that could be used as evidence against them”.
“In our perspective, this proposal effectively reverses the burden of proof and undermines the standard defences typically available to employers within our established legal framework,” the submission continues.
“Accreditation should serve as a tool for accountability, not a means to apportion blame.”
That legal risk would deter company directors from seeking accreditation under the HVNL, the transport associations assert in the submission, potentially triggering an exodus of operators.
“If the scheme is viewed primarily as a means of imposing personal liability for executive due diligence failures, operators will understandably choose to opt out.”
The submission claims independent auditors, as well as directors of trucking companies, could be exposed to legal risk under the proposed reforms because they would not be protected by the “shield of the Crown” in their “quasi regulatory” role.
Auditors issuing major non-conformances or corrective action requests in the course of audits would effectively be gathering “prosecutorial-level evidence” that might be used in legal action against operators, while they did not enjoy legal indemnity or immunity.
This could lead to a shortage of auditors and fuel escalating audit costs, the submission argues.
“Ultimately, this policy proposal needs to be revoked and reconstructed with full and meaningful participation from the industry.”
VTA CEO Peter Anderson said the association endorsed a risk-based approach to safety but vehicle accreditation frameworks needed to be “proportionate and fair”.
“The current proposal jeopardises natural justice and could have unintended consequences for the freight industry.”