Queensland is moving affected heavy-haul operators toward compulsory telematics as a condition of access. TMR estimates fitting the required systems could cost $47,260 for a small operator — or $378,080 for a 16-combination fleet — while part of the certified Smart OBM market those operators will eventually need does not yet exist.
By Chris Smith
Queensland’s new heavy vehicle access regime is approaching the point where the modelling has to meet the market.
For affected operators, the telematics will not be optional
There is an important point behind the $47,260 cost estimate: for affected operators, the required telematics will ultimately be compulsory if they want to operate on Queensland’s state-controlled network under the new access arrangements.
TMR says NAAS will become the default access pathway as each Class 1 vehicle fleet is brought into the system. For NAAS-eligible vehicles, travel under either a NAAS Notice or an NHVR permit will only be available with the required TMA and Smart OBM once those requirements are mandated.
Low loaders greater than 59.5 tonnes will be the first fleet to transition. TMR says operators can enrol in the Queensland OSOM Load Carrying Vehicle Scheme when NAAS goes live and will have until 30 June 2028 to be enrolled with fully operational TMA.
Smart OBM will also be required for applicable combinations when mandated. But TMR acknowledges that certified Smart OBM systems are not yet available for hydraulic suspension systems and says operators will be given adequate time to install them once approved systems become available.
So this is not simply a question of whether an operator thinks telematics delivers enough productivity benefit to justify buying it. For affected vehicles, the required telematics is ultimately becoming a condition of access.
From mid-November, the National Automated Access System will become the default access pathway for eligible low loaders in Queensland, replacing much of the permit-based process with a system that assesses individual vehicle configurations against available road and bridge capacity.
TMR says the change should give operators faster access decisions, clearer visibility of restrictions and the ability to test alternative masses, configurations and routes before committing to a movement.
But there is a more immediate question for the operators expected to use it: What do they actually have to buy, who can sell them a compliant system, and what will it really cost?
TMR has already put a substantial figure on that question.
Its published example of a small operator with two prime movers, two dollies and two trailers estimates $47,260 to fit the required Telematics Monitoring Application and Smart On-board Mass equipment.
The department estimates $6,990 for each prime mover, $4,650 per dolly and $11,990 per trailer. TMR says its cost-benefit analysis found installation and ongoing service costs would be offset by reduced permits and administrative costs, with the upfront cost for most Class 1 operators balanced by savings within the first 12 months.
For a larger 16-combination fleet, TMR puts the estimated telematics investment at $378,080 and says the return on investment is within three years.
Those numbers attracted attention.
NatRoad initially told WWTG it was “shocked” by the apparent expense and said CEO Warren Clark had begun making calls to government to understand what was being proposed.
After those inquiries, NatRoad advised that the cost example related to oversize-overmass operations rather than the smaller owner-operators who make up much of its membership, and decided not to comment further.
But the question remained: Does $47,260 reflect what operators will actually pay in the market?
Austroads/TCA General Manager Strategic Engagement and Performance Gavin Hill says the answer is more complicated.
“I don’t believe the costs would be that great in practice,” Hill told WWTG.
And when the discussion is narrowed to TMA alone, rather than the entire TMA-plus-Smart-OBM installation, his advice is particularly direct.
“If you can’t get TMA for less than, say, $200 a month, you’re not trying hard enough.”
That is not a quote for the complete heavy-haul system contemplated in TMR’s $47,260 example. And that distinction is crucial.
The cost cannot simply be avoided with a permit
There is another reason the cost question matters.
For affected operators, telematics is not simply an optional price paid to receive the convenience of automated access through NAAS.
TMR says that once the mandatory condition takes effect, required TMA and Smart OBM will apply to NAAS-eligible movements operating under either the NAAS notice or an NHVR permit.
That means an operator cannot necessarily avoid the eventual technology requirement by deciding to keep using permits.
Nor will the new permit regime simply preserve the system operators use today.
If NAAS cannot provide a viable route, TMR says an operator seeking a permit will need to demonstrate that all reasonable options to operate sustainably through NAAS have been explored. That includes alternative vehicles or combinations, reducing the load or dimensions where possible, and establishing that no viable NAAS network is available. The vehicle must also have complying telematics.
TMR says future NHVR permit applications are expected to be “rare and infrequent”, reserved for circumstances such as emergency or major infrastructure projects, and that blanket 12-month permits will no longer routinely be approved.
That changes the commercial equation.
For an affected operator, the decision is not simply whether NAAS produces enough productivity benefit to justify purchasing telematics. Eventually, compliant telematics becomes part of the cost of obtaining the access itself.
One critical part of the market is not ready
TMA itself is already an established product. Smart OBM is more complicated.
Many low loaders and load-platform combinations use hydraulic suspension, and TCA has not yet approved a Smart OBM system for the relevant hydraulic applications.
Hill confirmed the position during an extended interview with WWTG.
Asked whether an affected hydraulic-suspension combination could obtain the complete compliant solution today, his answer was blunt.
“The short answer is, they can’t.”
That does not mean Smart OBM technology cannot physically measure a hydraulically suspended vehicle. It means the technology has not yet gone through TCA’s approval process for that regulatory application.
Hill said the reason is partly historical. The existing regulatory Smart OBM market has largely developed around other suspension types, particularly air suspension. Until now, there has not been sufficient regulatory demand for suppliers to seek approval for many of the hydraulic systems found on specialised heavy-haul equipment.
That now has to change.
Approval is not just about whether a scale works
The problem is also more complex than installing a mass sensor.
TCA approval considers the technology, accuracy and reliability of a Smart OBM system, but also the way the equipment has to be operated to produce dependable mass readings.
Hill described it as a quality-system question as much as a hardware question. He used the analogy of a bathroom scale: a scale can be accurate, but the way it is used can change the result.
Hydraulic suspension introduces additional operating variables, including how different suspension groups react and equalise, which must be understood before the system can be approved for regulatory use.
That means a commercially available weighing system and a TCA-approved Smart OBM system for a particular suspension type are not necessarily the same thing. It is one of the most important distinctions operators need to understand before buying equipment.
The transition period matters
Queensland has built that missing technology into the implementation timetable.
TMR says operators will receive at least 12 months’ notice before a mandatory telematics condition applies to each NAAS release. When the requirement becomes effective, affected low loaders will need to be enrolled in the Queensland OSOM Load Carrying Vehicle Scheme and have fully operational telematics to use the state-controlled network.
The department has separately acknowledged that Smart OBM will be introduced later for eligible OSOM combinations.
That gives the market time to develop approved hydraulic solutions rather than making their absence a barrier to the November NAAS launch.
But it also underlines the central issue in TMR’s current economic modelling: part of the complete technology market assumed by the future regime is still being created.
That makes precise price comparisons difficult.
What the market is charging today
WWTG also sought indicative pricing directly from technology suppliers.
Netcorp’s Anthony La Malfa told WWTG that its equipment was highly dependent on the configuration being fitted. He said the company indicatively charged about $1,500 for a base unit and about $1,000 per axle group, with a typical three-axle-group-plus-steer truck-and-dog installation coming to around $4,500 installed.
But that figure cannot be directly compared with TMR’s $47,260 heavy-haul example.
La Malfa also said Netcorp’s OBM integration with existing solution providers was still under development and its own OBM solution was undergoing TCA approval.
Different heavy vehicle combinations can require significantly different equipment and labour. He cited lazy axles, dual ride-height control valves, trailer connectivity, vehicle age and retrofit complexity as factors that can change installation cost.
His response demonstrates why apparently simple price comparisons can be misleading.
A device may be available. A weighing system may be available. A telematics subscription may be available. That does not automatically mean the complete combination is approved, correctly paired and suitable for the regulatory scheme the operator needs to enter.
There is competition — but not one universal solution
TCA currently lists multiple certified Application Service Providers capable of supplying TMA. But Smart OBM capability is not universal across those providers.
TCA says that where a TMA scheme requires Smart OBM, the Smart OBM system must be paired with a certified Application Service Provider for the vehicle to conform with scheme requirements.
Hill described the practical result as a “chicken and egg” issue.
An operator who already has a relationship with a certified TMA provider should first ask which Smart OBM suppliers that provider supports. An operator who already has onboard weighing equipment may need to work backwards and determine which certified TMA providers can support that particular system.
Buying the weighing equipment first and sorting out the regulatory telematics later can therefore create an expensive problem.
Hill’s advice is simple: be an informed consumer.
What should an operator get in writing?
Certification gives operators important protections.
Hill said TCA certification covers technical matters such as accuracy, reliability, data integrity and standardisation. But it also considers the provider behind the equipment.
TCA examines the provider’s business standing, capability to support customers and its continuing compliance with certification requirements. There are minimum expectations around system uptime, fault response and rectification, and certification continues to be subject to audit and oversight.
Where Smart OBM is involved, the relationship extends further. The Smart OBM supplier and certified provider must have a pairing arrangement that establishes how their respective components operate together.
Hill said the certified TMA provider is ultimately the accountable certified party within that regulatory structure.
That does not remove the normal obligations of equipment suppliers under consumer law. But it does give an operator a clearer place to start when something fails.
Before committing, operators should establish in writing:
- who supports the TMA hardware;
- who supports the Smart OBM hardware;
- who takes the first call when the system stops reporting correctly;
- who determines whether the problem sits with the weighing equipment, telematics device or data connection;
- what service response is included;
- whether the exact combination being offered is approved for the vehicle and suspension type; and
- whether every required Smart OBM pairing is recognised by TCA.
Because something will eventually go wrong. Hill made no attempt to pretend otherwise. The important question is what happens when it does.
Price, product and service
Hill says certified providers compete on three main things: price, product and service.
That also explains why a monthly telematics bill cannot automatically be described as the cost of TMA.
Providers may bundle regulatory monitoring with fleet management, reporting, driver tools, asset tracking and other commercial services. An operator may genuinely want those services. But they are not necessarily part of the cost of satisfying the regulatory TMA requirement.
Hill compared the situation to a subscription package: customers need to know which boxes they have ticked.
“Always be careful,” he said, about what additional services have been included.
His sub-$200-a-month comment therefore needs to be understood as a market guide to the core TMA component, not a mandated retail rate.
TCA itself charges the ASP an operational assurance fee of $23.50 per vehicle per month excluding GST for Level 2 TMA from 1 August 2026. That fee is charged to the service provider. It is not the operator’s retail subscription.
The ASP still has its own hardware, communications, service, administration and commercial costs to recover.
Installation may be the easier part
For products already available in the market, Hill does not expect equipment supply or installation capacity to be the main obstacle.
Depending on provider and configuration, he described turnaround in terms of days or a couple of weeks rather than months. In some cases, he said, the biggest challenge is simply finding time for a working truck to stop long enough to have the equipment fitted.
That is a major difference from the former Intelligent Access Program. IAP equipment operated under a much higher assurance model and incorporated considerably stronger physical and electronic tamper controls. TMA deliberately removes much of that installation complexity.
Once an approved device is installed, the provider enrols the vehicle into the applicable scheme.
The harder question for specialised heavy haul remains whether the required Smart OBM system and approved pairing exist for the configuration being operated.
Who gets the data?
The expansion of telematics also raises an obvious operator concern: who can see where the vehicle goes?
Hill told WWTG that TCA is currently collecting around half a billion records each month from approximately 22,500 vehicles.
He said identifiable information is controlled and is not simply made broadly available to the NHVR. Requests for identifiable information must go through established mechanisms and have a legitimate basis.
The larger analytical value comes from data being aggregated and de-identified.
TMR’s Queensland material says telematics data supplied under the new arrangements will be used for assurance, asset and access management and investment purposes, while data collected under the Queensland OSOM Load Carrying Vehicle Scheme will be provided to the department for asset-management activities.
That data matters because the access regime is trying to answer a question road managers have historically struggled to answer: what is actually using the bridge?
Roads as an economic utility
Hill’s most expansive argument goes well beyond compliance. He wants governments to use telematics data to think differently about road assets.
Traditionally, a bridge may be managed principally around preserving its engineering life. Better freight data allows a different discussion.
If opening a structure to productive freight movements reduces its expected service life, but creates a large enough economic benefit, governments can consciously decide whether that trade-off is worthwhile.
“If it means, for instance, that you’re only going to get 50 years out of a structure instead of 80, then have that discussion,” Hill said.
The bridge may require earlier strengthening or replacement. But the freight productivity created during that period might justify the investment.
Hill describes that as treating roads as an economic utility, rather than simply a physical asset that has to be preserved.
What NAAS is supposed to give operators in return
That is ultimately the bargain behind the technology.
Operators provide better information about the vehicle, its mass and where it operates. In return, NAAS is intended to provide faster and more transparent access decisions.
Under the current permit environment, an operator can submit a configuration and route and receive an approval or refusal. NAAS is designed to allow the operator to interrogate the decision.
If the mass is reduced, does the bridge become available? Would an extra axle change the result? Would a different configuration work? Is another route possible?
TMR says NAAS will create an individual legal access map for each vehicle configuration and display relevant road and bridge conditions, curfews and other restrictions.
Hill said that ability to change the inputs and immediately see the effect is where the system has the potential to change the access conversation.
But he also stressed something important. NAAS does not abolish the legislative responsibilities of road managers. It does not make weak infrastructure disappear. And it does not guarantee that every combination will receive the access an operator wants.
What it can do is make the reasons more visible.
The productivity argument
Asked what single heavy vehicle productivity improvement Australia could make without building another kilometre of road, Hill nominated greater use of Performance Based Standards vehicles.
“We have Performance Based Standards vehicles which are transforming the way we think about freight,” he said. “They’re the best vehicles, they’re the safest vehicles, they’re the highest-performing vehicles.”
His argument is that higher-productivity combinations can move more freight with fewer vehicles, helping deal with driver shortages, congestion and the long distances that place Australian freight at a natural economic disadvantage.
“Trucking is the backbone to our economic sustainability,” Hill said. “The more we can do to get higher-productivity vehicles on the road, it deals with driver shortages. We can’t just keep putting more people on the road.”
That position also reveals where Queensland’s current rollout is heading.
The new access regime is being introduced in stages: Defence OSOM vehicles, low loaders, mobile cranes, load-platform trailers and eventually PBS vehicles.
Low loaders are therefore not the end of the story. They are an early test of a much larger access model.
TMR declines to release preview results
The Queensland NAAS preview closed on 18 September.
Before it closed, WWTG asked TMR how many operators and vehicles participated, what errors or operational problems were reported, whether issues were identified for low loaders or load-platform combinations, what changes resulted from the preview and whether any problems remained unresolved.
TMR initially told WWTG the preview would be followed by an approximately two-week review and that it would be unable to answer those questions until that process was completed.
WWTG subsequently gave the department a further opportunity to provide the review outcome before publication, including final participation numbers, reported problems, resulting changes and any effect on the implementation timetable.
TMR has now advised WWTG that it consulted the relevant areas of the department and has “no further comment to provide on this matter.”
The department’s published timetable continues to point to NAAS becoming the default Queensland access pathway for eligible low loaders from mid-November 2026.
TMR has therefore not provided WWTG with the preview participation figures, reported operator issues or review findings requested by this publication.
So what should an operator do now?
Gavin Hill’s interview does not demolish TMR’s economic case for NAAS. But it does strip away some of the simplicity.
The $47,260 figure is an estimate, not a universal quote. Basic TMA is already available in a competitive market. Smart OBM is available for some applications. A commercially available OBM system is not necessarily a regulatory Smart OBM solution. Provider pairings matter. Hydraulic Smart OBM approval remains unfinished. And once telematics becomes mandatory for an eligible cohort, applying for a permit will not necessarily allow the operator to sidestep it.
That leaves one practical test for every operator approaching the market:
Show me exactly what my combination requires.
Show me that every component is approved.
Show me that the Smart OBM and TMA providers are correctly paired.
Show me what happens when something fails.
Show me exactly what is included in the monthly fee.
And then:
show me the real price.
Because Queensland’s new access system may ultimately deliver the productivity gains its designers are promising. But before an operator can judge the return, they need to know what the investment actually is.
Primary sources
- Queensland TMR — NAAS telematics
- Queensland TMR — NAAS implementation
- Queensland TMR — NAAS frequently asked questions
- TCA — Choose a service provider
- TCA — Smart OBM systems
- TCA — Certification and type approval
- TCA — Operational fees
Reporting: WWTG interview with Gavin Hill, Austroads/TCA General Manager Strategic Engagement and Performance; responses from Queensland TMR, NatRoad and Netcorp.