There has been plenty of noise on social media about the upcoming Heavy Vehicle National Law (HVNL) fine changes.
I understand why drivers and small operators are concerned. Nobody wants more unfair fines, more roadside “gotcha” enforcement, or more pressure on an industry already doing it tough.
But we also need to be honest about what is actually changing.
Some social media posts are only showing the biggest maximum penalties. They are not explaining whether those figures are court maximums or roadside fines, who the offences apply to, or which penalties are actually going down.
That matters.
The HVNL penalty review looked at 349 offences. The outcome included 50 penalty increases and 21 penalty decreases. So this is not simply a case of “all fines are going up”.
Some are going up. Some are going down. Some apply to drivers. Others are aimed at operators, schedulers, consignors, customers, loading managers and other parties in the chain.
The first thing we need to clear up is the difference between a court maximum penalty and a roadside infringement.
A court maximum is the highest amount a court can impose. It is generally reserved for serious cases, repeat offending, deliberate conduct or worst-case examples.
That is not automatically the amount a driver receives at the roadside.
Where an offence is infringeable, the roadside fine is generally 10 per cent of the court maximum. But some of the largest figures being shared online do not have roadside infringements listed. That means they are not ordinary roadside tickets.
So, when someone posts a $26,610 penalty without explaining what it is, who it applies to, and whether there is a roadside infringement, they are not giving drivers the full picture.
The largest increases are not aimed at spelling mistakes or ordinary paperwork slips.
They are mainly aimed at fatigue risk, false records, tampering, false transport documents, commercial pressure and deliberate non-compliance.
For example, the duty of a driver to avoid driving while fatigued increases from a current maximum court penalty of $8000 to a new maximum court penalty of $26,610. There is no roadside infringement listed for that offence in the review table.
A new duty to avoid driving while unfit to drive also carries a maximum court penalty of $26,610, again with no roadside infringement listed in the review table.
False or misleading fatigue entries, false representation about work records, removing pages from a work diary and tampering with an approved electronic work diary all increase from $13,310 to $26,610.
These are serious increases, but they are aimed at serious misconduct.
There is a world of difference between a driver making an honest diary mistake and someone deliberately falsifying records or tampering with a work diary.
Another point being missed is that some of the large penalties are Chain of Responsibility offences.
Prohibited requests and prohibited contracts increase from $13,310 to $26,610. These offences are aimed at people or businesses who request, direct, pressure, contract or arrange work in a way that encourages breaches of the HVNL.
That could include operators, schedulers, employers, prime contractors, customers, consignors, consignees and contract managers.
These are not ordinary roadside fines for a driver making a minor mistake. They are aimed at unsafe commercial pressure.
False or misleading transport documentation and false container weight declarations also increase from $13,310 to $26,610. These offences can apply to parties such as consignors, packers, receivers, loading managers, responsible entities and operators.
Again, this is not about spelling mistakes. It is about false freight or weight information that can create real safety, mass and loading risks.
We should not pretend every change is good news.
Some roadside fines are increasing.
Vehicle standards compliance increases from a current maximum court penalty of $3,980 and roadside infringement of $398 to a new maximum court penalty of $8000 and roadside infringement of $800.
HML route and permit condition offences also increase from $3980 and a $398 roadside infringement to $8000 and an $800 roadside infringement.
Failing to carry a work diary increases from a current maximum court penalty of $8000 and roadside infringement of $800 to a new maximum court penalty of $13,310 and roadside infringement of $1331.
Some enforcement direction offences also increase from $8000 and an $800 infringement to $13,310 and a $1331 infringement. These include directions to move a heavy vehicle, produce a heavy vehicle for inspection, or leave a heavy vehicle.
These are real increases and operators need to know about them.
This is the part missing from much of the social media outrage.
Not all fatigue penalties are increasing.
Minor fatigue breaches are being reduced.
The NHVR Fatigue Reference Card tool explains what fatigue breaches are categorised as minor, substantial, severe or critical, depending on the work and rest option being used.
For minor breaches under standard hours, BFM, AFM and exemption hours, the penalty decreases from a current maximum court penalty of $5300 and roadside infringement of $530 to a new maximum court penalty of $3980 and roadside infringement of $398.
That is a direct reduction in the roadside fine from $530 to $398.
Some examples of minor solo driver breaches under standard hours include working more than 5.25 hours in 5.5 hours, more than 7.5 hours in 8 hours, more than 10 hours in 11 hours, or more than 12 hours and up to 12.75 hours in 24 hours.
Other minor solo examples include exceeding 72 hours and up to 73.5 hours in 7 days, exceeding 144 hours and up to 145.5 hours in 14 days, or having less than 7 hours stationary rest in 24 hours.
Under BFM, minor solo examples include working more than 6 hours in 6.25 hours, more than 8.5 hours in 9 hours, more than 11 hours in 12 hours, or more than 14 hours and up to 14.75 hours in 24 hours.
These are lower-level fatigue breaches. They are not the same as knowingly driving while fatigued.
Industry has argued for years that minor technical fatigue breaches should not be treated the same way as serious fatigue risk. These changes recognise that difference.
There are also reductions for lower-risk administrative and paperwork offences.
The return of an HML permit decreases from a current maximum court penalty of $5300 and roadside infringement of $530 to a new maximum court penalty of $2000 and roadside infringement of $200.
Keeping a relevant document while operating under a work and rest hours exemption notice decreases from $3980 and a $398 infringement to $2000 and a $200 infringement.
Keeping a copy of a permit while driving under a work and rest hours exemption also reduces to a new maximum court penalty of $2000 and roadside infringement of $200.
Driver electronic work diary filled-up notification requirements decrease from $3980 and a $398 infringement to $2000 and a $200 infringement.
Some work diary record-keeping retention offences decrease from $8000 and an $800 infringement to $5300 and a $530 infringement.
That does not remove the offences, but it does reduce penalties for a number of lower-risk administrative matters.
There is no blanket rule that says a driver can never be fined for a spelling mistake.
But the direction of the reform is clear: minor work diary and record-keeping errors should be treated more fairly.
The intent is that authorised officers will have broader ability to issue warnings for a wider range of breaches, including fatigue record-keeping.
That matters.
There is a major difference between a spelling mistake, formatting error or minor diary entry error, and a false work diary entry, removed pages, altered records or tampering with an electronic work diary.
Honest mistakes should be treated proportionately.
Deliberate dishonesty should be treated seriously.
The NRFA supports fair, practical and proportionate enforcement.
We support strong action against anyone who deliberately creates safety risk, falsifies records, tampers with diaries, pressures drivers or misleads the regulator.
But we do not support honest drivers and small operators being punished unfairly for low-risk administrative mistakes.
The real test of these changes will not be the numbers printed in the law.
The real test will be how the law is enforced on the roadside.
If authorised officers use warnings and education for genuine administrative mistakes, and reserve heavy penalties for risk, dishonesty and deliberate non-compliance, then these changes may be a step in the right direction.
But if minor paperwork errors continue to be treated as easy fines, industry will rightly push back.
Drivers deserve facts, not fear.
Some fines are going up. Some are going down. Maximum court penalties are not the same as roadside fines. Some of the largest penalties are aimed at parties across the chain, not simply drivers at the roadside.
The NRFA will continue to hold government and regulators to account, but we should do that with the full picture.
