Update — 21 August 2026: Phase 1 consultation closed on 17 July 2026. The NTC says a second formal public consultation on draft revisions is planned for 2027. This article is retained as commentary on why early industry participation matters.
Over the years, I’ve lost count of the number of times transport operators have complained to me about laws, regulations and reforms affecting our industry.
Fatigue laws. Access permits. PBS. Harmonisation. Decarbonisation. Medical standards. Chain of Responsibility. The list goes on.
My response is almost always the same.
“Did you make a submission?”
More often than not, the answer is no.
Then comes my next question.
“Did your association?”
The response is usually somewhere between “I’m not sure” and “I assume so.”
Which brings me to one of the most interesting stories I’ve researched this year — not because of what’s changing, but because nothing has changed yet.
When I started researching the National Transport Commission’s (NTC) review of Australia’s Assessing Fitness to Drive (AFTD) Standards, I thought I was writing about proposed changes to medical standards for drivers. The deeper I dug, the more I realised I was asking the wrong question. This isn’t a consultation on draft standards — there is nothing yet to support or oppose, and if the process unfolds as planned, updated Standards will not be published until 2028. What stakeholders are being asked right now is what issues policymakers should consider before they begin drafting changes. That matters more than it sounds: whoever helps define the problem usually has the greatest influence over the eventual solution.
The Window Is Open — But Not for Long
Submissions to Phase 1 of the AFTD review close Friday, 17 July 2026. Submit via the NTC’s Have Your Say portal at ntc.gov.au/project/assessing-fitness-drive-review, or email a submission directly to AFTDreview@ntc.gov.au.
There is no prescribed form. You do not need a formal association position — individual operators, drivers, clinicians and other stakeholders are all invited to submit. If you have something to say and have not yet said it, today is the day.
Who Is Actually Running the Review?
One of the biggest surprises during my research was how widely the governance arrangements around the Standards appear to be misunderstood. Many assume Austroads owns and controls AFTD because its branding is what most people associate with the document.
Austroads clarified otherwise:
“Austroads provides some administrative support for the review process on behalf of Australian and New Zealand road transport agencies. The Assessing Fitness to Drive standards themselves are developed and maintained under the governance arrangements established by transport ministers, with the National Transport Commission (NTC) responsible for leading the current review.”
Asked whether it believed areas of the current Standards needed updating, Austroads said it does not make policy determinations or develop positions on content — those questions sit with the NTC. Asked where licensing authorities, doctors or drivers most commonly experience confusion applying the Standards, it gave the same answer: not its place to comment, and a matter for the consultation process to surface. Its message to stakeholders wondering whether to bother was simple: use the channels the NTC has established before submissions close.
NTC Acting CEO Dimi Rigas confirmed the current round is genuinely the first of two:
“The consultation currently underway is the first phase of that process. Its purpose is to identify issues, opportunities and emerging evidence relevant to the review. Feedback received will help inform the development of proposed revisions to the Standards, which will then be subject to a further round of public consultation, currently anticipated in 2027.”
Between consultation rounds, the NTC says proposed revisions will be informed by stakeholder submissions, specialist medical expertise, Austroads’ implementation experience, relevant coronial findings and other available evidence. An Advisory Group is being established — expected to include government, medical and health organisations, transport industry, unions, road safety and community representatives — with Specialist Working Groups to follow in the next phase for detailed clinical, technical and operational input. Current areas of focus are expected to include cardiovascular conditions, diabetes, vision, sleep disorders and commercial vehicle driving. More than 150 organisations have been contacted directly, and the review has reached more than 6,500 newsletter subscribers with a registered interest in AFTD.
The NTC was also clear this consultation is not about chasing numbers: “Given the review is in its early stages, our focus is on encouraging broad participation rather than measuring success by submission numbers alone. We are seeking high-quality input from those with experience using or being affected by the Standards.”
That’s the consultation framework industry has been asking regulators for over the years. Now it’s here.
What Other Stakeholders Are Saying
The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners gave the clearest summary of where things stand: the NTC is consulting now to identify key issues, with a further round to follow in 2027 once revised Standards are drafted. The RACGP also pointed me to clinical and research articles in the Australian Journal of General Practice on driving assessments for older Australians.
The Australian Medical Association told me it had discussed the review internally and welcomed me reading its submission. NatRoad said it had decided not to provide a comment, as it is not currently involved in this review process. The Australian Trucking Association and the Transport Workers’ Union had not responded by publication. Even my own GP, who told me he wanted to raise issues relevant to the Standards, had not yet submitted his feedback.
If organisations whose job is to represent industry are still working out their positions days before submissions close, it proves the point: this consultation is not on most people’s radar, and it is about to shut.
Why This Review Is Personal
I am a Type 1 diabetic and I have sleep apnoea — two medical conditions directly relevant to the Assessing Fitness to Drive Standards. If anyone should have concerns about changes to medical standards affecting commercial drivers, it’s probably me.
But my biggest concern is not keeping my licence at all costs. If I am medically unfit to drive, I should not hold one. I do not want weaker medical standards — I want good ones. I want to know, and I want every other road user to know, that drivers assessed under these Standards are genuinely fit to be behind the wheel. Equally, I want the Standards to reflect contemporary clinical evidence and the practical realities faced by thousands of Australians who responsibly manage chronic conditions every day.
That balance — road safety, workforce participation, fairness, national consistency and practical implementation — is not struck by accident. It is shaped by whoever shows up to Phase 1 and says what the questions should be. If people who live with these conditions do not submit, those questions will be written by people who may never have had to manage T1D or OSA against a licensing standard. I do not think that is what anyone wants, but it is what happens by default if this consultation closes with only a handful of submissions.
Maybe We Are Part of the Problem
Here is the uncomfortable truth: the transport industry is very good at complaining about regulation and very bad at helping write it. We criticise governments and regulators for failing to consult us, then complain when the resulting laws do not reflect practical reality. Yet when a meaningful consultation opportunity arrives — one asking not “do you agree with this draft” but “what should we even be considering” — too many of us sit on the sidelines waiting to see what everyone else says.
I made my own submission, not because I oppose the review or think regulators are quietly plotting to strip licences, but because this stage may prove the most important in the entire process. By the time draft Standards are released in 2027, policymakers will already know what questions they are trying to answer. Right now, stakeholders still get to help set those questions.
Speak Now, Not in 2028
Every time I write about regulation, industry tells me it wants to be consulted. Well, here is your consultation, and it closes tomorrow (today if you are reading the Friday 17 July, 2026).
Do not tell me in 2028 that nobody asked you. If you care about medical standards, workforce participation, road safety or the future of commercial driver licensing in Australia, submit your submission — via ntc.gov.au/project/assessing-fitness-drive-review or AFTDreview@ntc.gov.au.
If you want a seat at the table, don’t wait until they’ve finished building it.
About the Author
Chris Smith is a transport communications specialist, journalist and industry analyst with more than 25 years’ experience across Australia’s freight, logistics, commercial vehicle and infrastructure sectors. Having worked in transport media, industry, government and the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator, he specialises in translating complex legislation, policy and operational issues into practical, balanced and engaging content for industry audiences.
This article forms part of the Which Way To Go Industry Intelligence Series — an independent initiative dedicated to explaining the issues, legislation and trends shaping Australia’s transport industry.
Content Licensing & Commissioned Writing
This article is available for licensing, republication or tailored adaptation for transport publications, industry associations, fleet operators, insurers, suppliers, government agencies and businesses seeking credible, industry-informed content.
Chris is available for commissioned work including:
- Industry feature articles and investigative reporting
- Regulatory and legislative explainers
- Executive thought leadership and ghostwriting
- White papers, discussion papers and industry reports
- Safety, compliance and Chain of Responsibility communications
- Internal, stakeholder and customer communications
- Conference papers, keynote presentations and panel discussion content
- Opinion pieces, media releases and strategic communications
- Editorial planning and content strategy
For publication enquiries, content licensing, syndication or commissioned writing, please get in touch.