Transport industry weighs in on HVNL reform

Who is responsible under the chain of responsibility (CoR) for keeping our road networks safe and productive under the Heavy Vehicle National Law (HVNL) is currently being determined in a second phase of reforms for executive officer liability.

The first phase introduced a due diligence obligation for executive officers, which was endorsed by ministers in November 2015. Following on from this, the National Transport Commission (NTC) called for submissions on four options designed to improve current HVNL requirements for executive officers, which is due to be presented to ministers later this month.

NTC Chief Executive Paul Retter said this phase of the reforms sets out options to remove inconsistencies and complexities in the HVNL.

“This can make it easier for corporations to proactively manage their safety risks and comply with the law,” he said. “Ultimately, it is about making our roads safer.”

Seven industry stakeholders put forward their recommendations last month with the majority supporting ‘option 3’, which specifies that executive officers would be personally liable under the HVNL for exercising due diligence to prevent 34 specific safety-critical offences.

“Option 3 would create a consistent approach to executive officer liability across the Heavy Vehicle National Law. It would encourage higher levels of compliance and safety,” said Australian Trucking Association (ATA) Chief Executive Christopher Melham.

Melham said last year’s decision to introduce a due diligence obligation for executive officers to ensure businesses in the road transport CoR comply with a new primary safety duty was a “big win for safety”, as it would encourage officers to focus on improving safety outcomes rather than spending hours on meeting highly prescriptive paperwork.

However, he said the ATA is concerned that some of the options set out in the review may weaken industry safety, not strengthen it.

Contrary to the ATA, the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator in its submission recommended the fourth option, saying “It is believed that under option 4, executive officers would simply oversee the development of frameworks, systems and procedures that the company installs and monitors — noting that executive officers would be legally liable if such systems were not installed or sufficiently robust.”

The ATA, however, rejects this option, stating it would make executive officers personally responsible for exercising due diligence to prevent some 200 additional offences, many of an administrative nature.

“Option 4 would swamp critically important safety obligations under a requirement for executive officers to exercise due diligence to prevent an overwhelming number of less serious offences,” said Melham.

For further information, or to view all submissions to the NTC review, go to www.ntc.gov.au/current-projects/primary-duties-for-chain-of-responsibility-and-executive-liability/.

Image credit: ©Yurii Bizgaimer/Dollar Photo Club