I’ve been in this industry long enough to have seen it from both sides of the dashboard and the audit table.
Before I was ever called a compliance consultant or association president, I was — and still am — a driver. Someone who has spent years on the road, watching sunrises over the steering wheel and counting down hours to make it home.
That’s where my industry understanding comes from, not from a boardroom.
So, when I read recent public commentary suggesting that the new Heavy Vehicle National Law (HVNL) reform instruments will “weaponise accreditation” or “reverse the burden of proof,” I felt compelled to respond, not as a policy spokesperson, but as someone who has lived the consequences of poor policy and poor implementation.
I’m a National Heavy Vehicle Accreditation Scheme (NHVAS) registered auditor with more than five years’ experience and many years behind the wheel.
I also represent the National Road Freighters Association (NRFA) on the HVNL Regulatory Advisory Group, which has helped work through the draft law. And having read the actual legislative text, not just the headlines, I need to say very clearly: some of what has been publicly stated simply does not reflect what’s written in the proposed law.
Let’s talk facts, beginning with the most important point: nothing in the HVNL Amendment Bill 2025 reverses the burden of proof or removes an operator or driver’s right to defend themselves.
Under section 26 of the amended Law, operators will still be required to do what is reasonably practicable to ensure safety.
Section 632B, which has attracted attention, does not create any presumption of guilt, nor does it prevent operators from challenging the evidence. It simply clarifies that audit reports conducted under the approved National Audit Standard may be admissible as evidence in court proceedings, just as other records, work diaries and device data are already routinely used.
It does not remove the right to contest that evidence, nor does it impose reverse liability.
Claims suggesting otherwise are not supported by the draft law.
The reform’s primary purpose is to shift safety management from paper-based modular frameworks into a single Safety Management System, as defined in proposed section 457A of the Law.
The requirement is that the SMS must: identify public risks, assess those risks, and specify controls to mitigate them, in accordance with the revised SMS Standard. For those of us who actually live the risk, drivers managing fatigue, operators trying to schedule in reality, auditors evaluating what actually happens, this is a common-sense approach.
I’ve seen too many businesses running four or five separate systems: one for NHVAS, one for WA Heavy Vehicle Accreditation, one for CoR, one for a client contract, another for insurance.
The proposed Ministerial Guidelines will support a transition to a single SMS that can meet all those requirements through one ongoing assurance process. Yes, there’s initial system work involved.
But this isn’t extra burden, it’s rationalisation. It’s applying what is actually being done within the business.
The second area that has sparked reaction relates to auditor rotation and conflicts. Section 3.7 of the draft National Audit Standard proposes a one-period rule, limiting auditors to performing audits within a single accreditation period before rotation. Some argue for keeping the current two-audit rule.
I’ll put this plainly: I support the proposed change. In the past, too many auditors became system owners rather than independent assessors. They implemented systems, audited them, adjusted them and maintained operational control over compliance, effectively creating commercial dependency.
These reforms prevent that. The draft audit standard aligns with section 654(1)(a) of the amended HVNL, which makes independent auditing a statutory requirement for decisions related to accreditation.
This is a major improvement and will professionalise auditing. Good auditors will be fine under this model. Those who built business empires off holding control over client systems might not like it, but that doesn’t make it wrong.
Finally, the proposed ACH (Alternative Compliance Hours) Standard reflects what drivers already experience: fatigue risk isn’t just about a number on paper, it’s about how you manage your sleep and workload.
Under the draft instrument, a driver may work up to 15.5 hours in 24 hours, provided the SMS demonstrates risk control and continuous oversight. Split rest may only be used for exceptional circumstances or sleep disruption, not as a scheduling tool. This reflects reality, not theory.
Will implementation require work? Yes. Should we engage constructively to make sure it’s workable for drivers and fleets of different sizes? Absolutely. But we should not scare the industry with claims that are not supported by the actual law.
I’ve lived through systems that pushed drivers harder instead of protecting them, audited systems that looked good on paper but fell apart in practice, and helped build the kind of systems that actually change behaviour.
This reform gives us an opportunity to lift standards and drive real safety improvements if we choose engagement over fear.
Progress comes from informed action, not panic.
