The August 2026 HVNL reforms: heavier obligations and higher penalties

When we launched Offloading the ACL, the focus was on developments in Australian Consumer Law affecting the transport and logistics sector. As regulatory scrutiny of supply chains continues to increase, the series has expanded to examine a broader range of legal and regulatory developments affecting the industry.

In this article, we examine the significant amendments to the Heavy Vehicle National Law (HVNL) that commenced on 1 August 2026 and the practical implications for businesses participating in the Chain of Responsibility (CoR).

A quick reminder: what is the HVNL and what does CoR mean?

The HVNL regulates the use of heavy vehicles and the conduct of parties involved in transport activities relating to those vehicles. A heavy vehicle is generally defined as a vehicle with a Gross Vehicle Mass (GVM) or Aggregate Trailer Mass (ATM) exceeding 4.5 tonnes.¹

Importantly, the legislation is not limited to transport operators. It applies to a broad range of parties involved in heavy vehicle transport activities, including consignors, consignees, schedulers, employers, loading managers, loaders, unloaders and packers.² A business can therefore have obligations under the HVNL even where it does not own, operate or contract directly with a heavy vehicle.

The Chain of Responsibility provisions are contained in Chapter 1A of the HVNL. At the heart of the regime is section 26A, which provides that the safety of transport activities relating to a heavy vehicle is the shared responsibility of each party in the chain of responsibility for that vehicle. The section further provides that the level and nature of a party’s responsibility depend on its capacity to control, eliminate or minimise the relevant risk.

Section 26A is given practical effect through the primary duty in section 26C, which requires each party in the chain of responsibility to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the safety of its transport activities and to eliminate or minimise public risks arising from those activities. The nature and extent of those obligations depend on the party’s role and its capacity to control, influence or minimise transport-related risks.

At its core, the Chain of Responsibility regime is founded on the principle that responsibility follows control. Businesses cannot avoid liability simply because they do not own or operate the heavy vehicle. Instead, the HVNL requires organisations and their executives to implement systems, processes and oversight mechanisms that proactively manage transport safety risks.

A new focus on executive accountability

One of the most significant reforms which commenced on 1 August 2026 relates to executive due diligence obligations. When the primary duty regime was introduced in 2018, executives were required to exercise due diligence to ensure their organisation complied with various safety duties under the HVNL. However, that obligation did not expressly extend to the primary duty itself.

The recent amendments significantly expand executive accountability through the introduction of new section 26D(1A), which expressly extends the executive due diligence obligation to the primary duty in section 26C. Executives must now exercise due diligence to ensure their organisation complies not only with specific safety duties under the HVNL, but also with its overarching obligation to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the safety of its transport activities.

Importantly, the concept of an ‘executive’ is broader than a company director. Under the HVNL, an executive includes an executive officer of a corporation, a partner in an unincorporated partnership, or a member of the management of an unincorporated body. In the corporate context, an executive officer includes a director or other person concerned with the management of a corporation who is responsible for controlling or directing the use of a heavy vehicle. As a result, responsibility may extend beyond the boardroom and capture senior management personnel with oversight of transport activities.

What does executive due diligence require?

Executive due diligence requires more than passive oversight. Directors, partners and other executives must take reasonable steps to:

1. acquire and maintain knowledge of transport safety obligations;
2. understand the hazards and risks associated with the organisation’s transport activities;
3. ensure appropriate resources and processes are available to manage those risks;
4. respond to safety issues that arise; and
5. verify that compliance systems are operating effectively in practice.³

In practical terms, the 2026 amendments to the CoR regime reinforce the expectation that transport safety must be driven from the top of an organisation. Executives have been subject to due diligence obligations under the HVNL since the introduction of the primary duty regime in 2018. However, by expressly extending those obligations to the primary duty itself, the reforms place renewed focus on executive oversight of the systems, processes and governance measures used to manage transport safety risks. The regulator will expect executive officers to be able to demonstrate that those measures are not only in place but are operating effectively in practice.

Personal exposure for executives

The consequences for executives can be significant. An executive who fails to exercise due diligence in relation to a breach of the primary duty may face the same penalty that applies to an individual for that breach. Depending on the category of offence, penalties range from $50,000 for a Category 3 breach,⁴ to $150,000 for a Category 2 breach involving exposure to the risk of death or serious injury,⁵ and up to $300,000 and/or five years’ imprisonment for a Category 1 breach involving reckless conduct.⁶ Importantly, an executive may be prosecuted for failing to exercise due diligence even if the organisation itself is not prosecuted or convicted.

These penalties mirror the penalties applicable to individuals who commit the corresponding primary duty offence, reinforcing the increasing focus on personal accountability at an executive level.

More than just fatigue

Increased executive accountability is only one aspect of the August 2026 reforms. The amendments also broaden the scope of driver fitness obligations. Previously, the law focused primarily on fatigue. The HVNL now expressly extends to drivers who are ‘unfit to drive’, capturing circumstances involving illness, injury or other physical or mental conditions that affect a driver’s ability to safely operate a heavy vehicle. These amendments broaden the scope of driver fitness obligations by now expressly expanding to include illness, injury, or other physical and mental conditions that affect the driver’s ability to safely operate the heavy vehicle. Other factors such as insufficient sleep or rest, prolonged wakefulness, physical or mental exertion, environmental stressors and other personal health issues are now captured. Businesses should ensure their policies and procedures address driver fitness more broadly and not simply fatigue management.

Larger penalties

The reforms are also accompanied by increased penalties for a range of offences. The maximum penalty for prohibited requests and contracts⁷ has doubled from $10,000 to $20,000, while the maximum penalty for driving while impaired by fatigue or while otherwise unfit to drive has increased from $6,000 to $20,000.⁸ Penalties for contravening improvement notices and prohibition notices have likewise doubled from $10,000 to $20,000.⁹

Among others, the changes include reforms to the accreditation framework, with an increased focus on safety management systems and proactive risk management.

The road ahead

For transport operators and parties within the supply chain, the message is clear. Compliance is no longer simply about ensuring drivers follow the rules. Regulators increasingly expect organisations to have documented systems, active governance and executive oversight capable of demonstrating that transport safety risks are being managed, so far as is reasonably practicable, having regard to the organisation’s role and capacity to influence those risks.

Businesses should take the opportunity to review their CoR policies, contractor arrangements, training programs, reporting frameworks and executive oversight processes in light of the August 2026 reforms. In particular, organisations should ensure they can demonstrate not only compliance with the HVNL, but also the systems, governance and oversight mechanisms required to meet the regulator’s increasing emphasis on proactive risk management and executive accountability.

Need help navigating the changes?

If you would like assistance reviewing your CoR framework, updating policies and procedures, assessing executive due diligence obligations, reviewing contractor arrangements or providing training to your team, our Transport and Logistics team would be pleased to assist.

This article was written by Teresa Torcasio, Partner, Connie Lambropoulos, Senior Associate, and Lisa Arena, Law Graduate.

¹ Heavy Vehicle National Law (NSW), s6.
² Heavy Vehicle National Law (NSW), s264.
³ Heavy Vehicle National Law (NSW), s26D.
⁴ Heavy Vehicle National Law (NSW), s26H.
⁵ Heavy Vehicle National Law (NSW), s26G.
⁶ Heavy Vehicle National Law (NSW), s26F.
⁷ Heavy Vehicle National Law (NSW), s26E.
⁸ Heavy Vehicle National Law (NSW), s228.
⁹ Heavy Vehicle National Law (NSW), ss573, 576C.