As the latest Heavy Vehicle National Law reforms take effect across participating jurisdictions, industry experts say operators should view the changes as more than a collection of technical rules.
The revised Heavy Vehicle Industry Master Code, released in January 2026, creates no new legal duties under the HVNL. Since its release, however, its significance is becoming clearer as businesses apply reforms including the August 1 changes allowing eligible general-access heavy vehicle combinations to operate at up to 20 metres.
The Master Code is not legislation. Under section 632A of the HVNL, however, a court hearing an alleged breach of the primary duty may use a code of practice issued by the Regulator as evidence of what was known about a hazard or risk, risk assessment or risk control, and in determining what was reasonably practicable in the circumstances.
That distinction is critical, according to Aaron Louws, Technical Manager – Supply Chain at NTI’s CoRsafe. He said the revised Code broadens the industry’s understanding of how existing obligations may apply in practice.
“Whilst the updated Master Code does not create any new legal obligations, nor replace existing ones, it is a source of guidance to assist businesses in interpreting their duties.”
“Does the new Master Code materially change the legal obligations for operators? No. Does it expand our understanding of what those obligations are? From where I sit, absolutely it does.”
Louws said many operators had come to associate their primary duty with managing fatigue, speed, mass, loading, dimensions and vehicle standards.
“But the purpose of the legislation, if we get back to the law and not the perception, was always about managing safety – and not necessarily specific risks to the exclusion of everything else.”
He said the revised Code reinforces that broader intent by focusing on transport activities and on the systems businesses use to identify, assess and control risk, rather than simply assigning responsibility by job title.
“In the event of an alleged breach of the primary duty, the Code provides clarity around what may have been ‘reasonably practicable’ in the circumstances. It casts a wider net across safety, stresses the breadth of transport activities, and offers a library of potential controls. That doesn’t change the legal duty itself, but it may assist businesses and decision-makers to better understand what reasonably practicable safety management can look like in practice.”
A shift from roles to risk
One of the most significant changes is the move from a role-based structure to an activity-based approach.
Rather than concentrating primarily on positions within an organisation, the Code encourages businesses to examine each transport activity they undertake, the risks those activities create and the controls needed to manage them.
“The change in structure better reflects the transport activities that influence how a heavy vehicle is used, rather than predominantly looking at the frontline activities, so there’s merit in this approach.”
“From my experience in the industry, the role-based approach had a greater potential to create a false sense of assurance.”
Louws said the Code may support a broader understanding of transport safety risks and controls, but safety outcomes will depend on how businesses implement and embed those lessons.
“The Master Code doesn’t, in and of itself, promise improved safety outcomes. It’s the structure that sits around it that can make a difference.”
The scale of the change became apparent during the redevelopment of the Australian Master Code Assurance System, the Chain of Responsibility audit framework operated by CoRsafe.
Following a review of recognised assurance programs, Louws said half of the updated AMCAS audit program now examines the presence, suitability, implementation and effectiveness of systems and controls that were not covered by the previous industry-recognised programs reviewed.
That does not necessarily mean businesses are falling short. Early audits against the updated program indicate many organisations already have mature safety-management systems. The revised Code nevertheless expands the range of transport-related risks businesses should consider when assessing whether they have met their primary duty.
From regulator to operator
Former NHVR chief executive and current Toowoomba Regional Council CEO Sal Petroccitto said the revised Code gives organisations clearer guidance while encouraging a more systematic approach to managing transport risk.
“The revised Heavy Vehicle Industry Master Code is a positive and practical step forward.”
“It gives organisations, like local government, clearer guidance to help meet their Chain of Responsibility obligations while encouraging a more systematic, risk-based approach to safety.”
Petroccitto said the activity-based structure better reflects how organisations manage risk across diverse operations, including roadworks, construction projects, waste collection and contractor management.
“I particularly welcome the shift from a role-based structure to an activity-based structure because it focuses attention on the risks associated with transport activities rather than just a person’s job title or role.”
“What is reasonably practicable will always depend on the specific circumstances and risks involved. The Code is a valuable guide, but organisations still need to exercise judgement, understand their own operations and make sure the controls they put in place are proportionate and effective.”
Safety starts on the ground
Long-time driver and road-safety advocate Rod Hannifey said the revised Code reinforces a principle professional drivers have understood for years: hazards need to be identified, reported and documented.
“If the vehicle is unsafe, no one should be forced to drive and they will be held responsible if they do, unless they have proof they reported the safety issue and were then still told to drive.”
“Hence my ongoing suggestion to always keep a diary and a record of any such problems.”
He acknowledged drivers are not mechanics and that determining whether a vehicle is genuinely unsafe can involve differing interpretations.
“Drivers are not required to be fully recognised mechanics and this then can lead to differing interpretations of safety.”
Hannifey said stronger communication between drivers and operators remains critical.
“I believe most employers would welcome a driver finding, reporting and then refusing to drive an unsafe vehicle, but do they all? Some still won’t, at least until some of this makes its way to court and those in the wrong are shown the error of their ways.”
The challenge for small operators
National Road Transport Association (NatRoad) CEO Warren Clark said the industry supports reforms that genuinely improve safety, but broader compliance expectations must remain practical for owner-drivers and small fleets.
“Safety must always come first, and when compliance genuinely improves safety, our industry supports it.”
“We’ve seen too many examples where increasing red tape and disproportionate penalties for minor administrative infringements add significant costs for small operators without delivering better safety outcomes.”
“At a time when many owner-drivers and small fleets are already under financial pressure, it’s critical that compliance requirements remain practical, proportionate and focused on improving safety rather than creating unnecessary regulatory burden.”
The Code does not prescribe separate duties for large and small operators. It does, however, expect each business to understand the transport activities it undertakes, identify the risks those activities create and apply controls that are reasonably practicable in its own circumstances.
More than a document
Since its release in January 2026, the revised Master Code is becoming increasingly relevant as the HVNL continues to evolve.
The duty itself has not changed. What has changed is the breadth and detail of the guidance issued by the Regulator a court may consider. By looking across more transport activities and presenting a much larger library of potential controls, the Code gives businesses a clearer reference point for what reasonably practicable safety management can look like.
The practical test is not whether an operator copied every control from the Code. It is whether the business can show that it identified the risks created by its transport activities, selected controls suited to its circumstances and can explain why those controls were reasonably practicable and effective.
NTI/CoRsafe disclaimer
Any views, opinions or commentary attributed to representatives of NTI Limited ABN 84 000 746 109 AFSL 237246 (‘CoRsafe’) within this article is general information only and does not constitute legal, regulatory, compliance, risk management or other professional advice. You must obtain your own independent professional advice based on your personal and business circumstances. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CoRsafe bears no responsibility, and shall not be held liable, for any loss, damage or injury arising directly or indirectly from your use of or reliance on the information in this article.