View the feedback we have received on the Heavy Vehicle National Law statutory instruments consultation paper.

• File
  • ALRTA Submission - Heavy Vehicle National Law statutory instruments consultation (for publication).pdf
• Do you have any feedback specific to the draft Safety Management System (SMS) Standard or the accompanying Schedule 1 – SMS Evidence Requirements?

  Yes. ALRTA supports a national SMS Standard, provided it is clearly designed to work for small, regional, livestock and rural operators and genuinely focuses effort on the highest risks. In our view, the current drafting is very closely aligned with WHS/ISO-style management systems, with broad, system-wide requirements that may be interpreted as needing comprehensive policies, formal risk registers and extensive documentation. That is difficult for a five-truck livestock operator in a regional town to implement without external consultants. Our submission recommends that the SMS Standard and Schedule 1 should: be modular – a concise core SMS that every operator can reasonably meet (fatigue, vehicle condition, loading/unloading, interactions with people and animals, rural roads), with clearly optional advanced elements for larger, more complex or higher-risk operations make proportionality explicit – with guidance and examples that expectations will scale to fleet size, operating profile and risk, so small family businesses are not expected to produce the same volume or style of documentation as large corporates, provided key risks are identified and controlled use outcomes-based language and explicitly recognise existing WHS, animal-welfare, customer and accreditation systems as valid ways of demonstrating that parts of the SMS are “present, suitable, operating and effective”, so operators are building one integrated system rather than several parallel ones clarify in Schedule 1 that evidence can be provided through a mix of documents, interviews and observation, and that listed examples are illustrative, not mandatory checklists, particularly for small, low-risk operators. These changes would help ensure the SMS Standard improves safety where it matters most, while remaining achievable for small, professional family and regional operators. Further detail is in the “Safety Management System (SMS) Standard” section of our attached submission.

• Consultation question – General

  ALRTA agrees that transparency and consistency in the Regulator’s ACH decision making are important for operator confidence, particularly where operator-specific fatigue templates are involved. Our submission focuses on the substance of that transparency – clear eligibility criteria, a strong link to SMS maturity and fatigue performance, and nationally consistent interpretation guidance for enforcement – rather than on the specific legal vehicle used (Standard versus Statement of Expectations). In practice, operators will be most concerned that: the criteria used to grant, amend or renew ACH are clear and predictable, and enforcement of ACH work-rest patterns is consistent across jurisdictions. Provided these elements are delivered, ALRTA is neutral on whether high-level transparency obligations sit in the ACH Standard itself or in a Ministerial Statement of Expectations. We would, however, encourage close coordination between the two so that operators, auditors and enforcement officers receive a coherent and practical message.

• Consultation question – Section 4

  ALRTA supports split-rest arrangements that preserve adequate total rest while providing flexibility to manage unplanned events. In our submission we propose practical split-rest options such as 5+3 or 6+2 hours, alongside a limited option to use a 6-hour continuous rest (once in seven days) in place of a 7-hour rest where needed to complete a long trip safely. On that basis, we are comfortable with a requirement that the total of individual split rests be at least 8 hours, provided that: split rest remains tightly framed around managing unplanned circumstances (as per our proposed changes to s 4(b)(ii)), and patterns such as 5+3 and 6+2 are clearly permitted, with a clear major-break rule. We would not support split-rest rules that allow significantly shorter total rest (for example, 5+2 or 6+1 hours), as these would not align with the safety intent described in our submission. We also recommend that the impact of any 8-hour total requirement on livestock and rural operations be specifically examined as part of the early review we propose for ACH.

• Consultation question – Section 4(b)

  ALRTA supports the principle that split-rest provisions under ACH should not be used to design marginal rosters or to routinely extend working time. We agree that ACH is intended primarily as a tool for managing genuine unplanned circumstances and problems with sleep. In livestock and rural operations, however, “unplanned” circumstances such as loading/unloading delays, welfare interventions and weather-related access issues are common features of the work, even though their exact timing and duration cannot be predicted on a particular trip. Our submission therefore recommends broadening and clarifying the concept of “unplanned circumstances” (including by amending s 4(b)(ii)) so that ACH can legitimately be used to manage these situations, while remaining clearly framed as a response to events that arise during a trip rather than as a routine planning device. We consider that the current wording of s 4(b)(i) and related provisions could be interpreted differently by operators and enforcement officers, and may not yet draw a sufficiently clear line between legitimate use of split rest for unplanned circumstances and impermissible planning around split rest. We would welcome revised drafting and examples that better explain that distinction, particularly for livestock and rural work.

• Do you have any feedback specific to the draft Ministerial Guidelines for Heavy Vehicle Accreditation?

  Yes. ALRTA supports clear, nationally consistent Guidelines, but considers that the current draft could blur the line between voluntary accreditation and de facto licensing if not refined, and may not yet be well-tailored to small, family-run rural fleets. In our submission we recommend that the Guidelines should: include a clear purpose statement that accreditation is voluntary, that operators can comply with the HVNL without accreditation, and that accreditation is intended as a risk-based mechanism through which operators with more advanced safety management can access alternative compliance and other benefits avoid “soft mandating” of particular schemes through access concessions or procurement in a way that leaves small operators feeling they have no practical choice but to become accredited embed small-business design and proportionality, including a genuinely low-documentation tier suitable for small rural fleets, with expectations that scale to fleet size, operating profile and risk provide for recognition and reciprocal recognition of equivalent schemes (for example TruckSafe and WAHVA), and support progressing national reciprocal recognition (including WA and NT) to reduce duplicated audits and overlapping obligations require regulators to consider both safety performance and operator size/complexity when assessing evidence for entry, renewal and exit, and to accept low-documentation and hybrid evidence (documents, interviews, observation) where it clearly demonstrates that key risks are being controlled. These refinements would keep accreditation aligned with its intended role as an optional, earned-flexibility pathway and ensure it remains accessible to professional family and regional operators as well as large fleets. Further detail is in the “Ministerial Guidelines for Heavy Vehicle Accreditation” section of our attached submission.

• Do you have any feedback specific to the draft National Audit Standard (NAS)?

  Yes. ALRTA supports the intent of the NAS to improve consistency and quality of audits. Our concern is that, as drafted, it may encourage a strongly documentation-driven approach that is difficult to tailor to small, livestock and rural operators who rely on fit-for-purpose, low-documentation systems. Our submission recommends that the NAS should: make proportionality a central principle in audit planning, scope, sampling depth and frequency, with clear expectations and examples for small rural operators require auditors to give real weight to outcomes-based safety evidence – including breach and incident history, fatigue and defect trends and learning from incidents and near misses – alongside documentation when assessing whether an SMS is effective confirm that paper-based and low-documentation systems remain fully acceptable, and that evidence may be gathered through documents, interviews and observation, provided it demonstrates that requirements are being met make clear that digital and AI-enabled audit tools are optional aids, not mandatory systems, and that any endorsed tools must be “rural-ready” (usable offline or in low-bandwidth environments, with straightforward export options for operators who prefer paper records or spreadsheets) encourage scheme owners and regulators to minimise duplication, by recognising where an existing audit already addresses the same risks and standards, and coordinating audits so that, where practicable, a single visit can satisfy multiple obligations. These changes would help the NAS deliver credible, risk-based assurance without imposing unnecessary complexity or cost on small, professional rural and livestock operators. Further detail is in the “National Audit Standard (NAS)” section of our attached submission.

• Do you have any feedback specific to the draft Ministerial Standard for Alternative Compliance Hours?

  Yes. ALRTA supports the Ministerial Standard for Alternative Compliance Hours (ACH) as part of a modern fatigue framework. For livestock and rural transport, ACH can be a practical tool that helps drivers manage real-world unpredictability – especially animal-welfare and access issues – while staying within a lawful fatigue framework. From a livestock and rural perspective, our submission highlights four main issues with the draft ACH Standard: “Unplanned circumstances” are framed narrowly. The definition does not clearly capture common livestock realities such as extended or failed loading/unloading, delays or cancellations at receival points, welfare-driven interventions (distressed or downer stock) and weather/access issues. Without clearer coverage of these scenarios, drivers may technically breach fatigue rules when they slow down or stop to manage them safely. Flexibility in how rest is taken is limited. In practice, drivers sometimes need to re-sequence or split major rest periods to manage unplanned events while still achieving adequate total rest across a day or week. Carefully defined options for doing this would make ACH more usable in the situations it is intended to address. ACH is not clearly tied to SMS maturity and fatigue performance. ACH should operate as earned flexibility for operators with a functioning, SMS-based fatigue-management system and strong compliance histories, rather than simply as an alternative paperwork pathway. Administrative and technology expectations may be high for small rural operators. The draft assumes complex rosters and electronic record-keeping that may be challenging for small fleets with limited connectivity and admin capacity. Our submission recommends that ACH should: broaden and clarify “unplanned circumstances” (including via changes to s 4(b)(ii)) to explicitly recognise livestock and rural scenarios allow limited, clearly defined split-rest options (for example, patterns such as 5+3 or 6+2 hours and a limited use of a 6-hour continuous rest once in seven days), while preserving adequate total rest over the day and week link eligibility to SMS maturity and fatigue performance, so that ACH is available to operators who can demonstrate appropriate controls and a strong compliance record confirm that ACH conditions can be met using practical, low-documentation tools such as rosters, work-diary records and clear forms to record unplanned circumstances, without mandating complex software or telematics be supported by clear guidance for enforcement to promote consistent roadside application of operator-specific fatigue templates across jurisdictions. Further detail is in the “Ministerial Standard for Alternative Compliance Hours (ACH)” section and Annex 1 of our attached submission.