What operators can expect from the new HVNL
The passage of the Heavy Vehicle National Law (HVNL) Amendment Package in November 2025 marks a turning point for the heavy vehicle industry.
Due to commence in mid-2026, the reforms introduce a new two-tiered accreditation framework General Safety Accreditation (GSA) and Alternative Compliance Accreditation (ACA) to replace and eventually phase out the long-standing National Heavy Vehicle Accreditation Scheme (NHVAS).
For operators, this change is not merely administrative. It represents a fundamental shift in how compliance, safety, and productivity are balanced.
The reforms embed safety management systems (SMS) into accreditation, harmonise auditing standards, and expand duties such as the new ‘Unfit to Drive’ obligation.
While regulators herald these changes as modernising the law, operators must grapple with what this means for their day-to-day business.
From NHVAS to the new framework
The NHVAS was designed as a voluntary scheme, allowing operators to demonstrate compliance in specific modules Fatigue Management, Maintenance, and Mass Management in exchange for productivity concessions.
Participation was often driven by the desire to access higher mass limits or flexible fatigue arrangements.
However, NHVAS was criticised for inconsistent auditing across jurisdictions and for encouraging a ‘tick-box’ mentality.
Operators could meet the minimum paperwork requirements without necessarily embedding a genuine safety culture. For many, accreditation was a transactional exercise: a way to unlock concessions rather than a driver of systemic safety improvement.
The new framework seeks to address these shortcomings. By embedding SMS into accreditation and introducing the National Audit Standard (NAS), regulators aim to ensure consistency and elevate safety outcomes.
Operators will no longer be able to rely solely on documentation; they must demonstrate proactive risk management and continuous improvement.
What operators can expect
Greater administrative burden for smaller operators
For large fleets with established compliance teams, embedding SMS into accreditation may be a natural extension of existing practices. Smaller operators, however, may struggle. Developing, documenting, and auditing a comprehensive SMS requires resources, time, expertise, and money that smaller businesses may not readily have.
Where NHVAS allowed operators to focus narrowly on modules relevant to their operations, GSA requires a baseline safety framework across the board. This could mean new costs for consultancy, training, and system development. Operators who previously relied on minimal paperwork will need to invest in more robust processes.
Consistency in auditing: A double-edged sword
The NAS promises to eliminate the inconsistencies that plagued NHVAS audits. For operators, this means greater predictability: the same standards will apply regardless of jurisdiction or auditor. This is a welcome development, particularly for national fleets operating across multiple states.
Yet consistency also means less room for leniency. Under NHVAS, some auditors were more pragmatic, recognising operational realities. NAS may impose stricter uniformity, leaving operators with less flexibility. While fairness improves, the risk is that audits become rigid, potentially penalising operators for minor deviations that previously would have been overlooked.
Transition periods and compliance pressure
Operators accredited under NHVAS will have up to three years to transition to the new framework. This phased approach provides breathing space, but it also creates uncertainty. Operators whose accreditation expires shortly after commencement may face complex renewal processes under the new system.
Compounding this is the absence of a grace period for penalties. Once the amended HVNL takes effect in mid-2026, operators must comply immediately. NHVR promises extensive education and guidance, but the reality is that operators will need to adapt quickly. Those who delay preparation risk compliance breaches and penalties.
Shift in motivation: Safety over productivity
NHVAS was often seen as a pathway to productivity benefits. Operators joined to access higher mass limits or flexible fatigue arrangements, with safety compliance as the price of admission. The new framework shifts the emphasis squarely onto safety. Productivity concessions remain, but they are secondary to demonstrating a robust safety culture.
For operators, this means accreditation is no longer simply about gaining operational advantages. It is about embedding safety into the DNA of the business. This cultural shift may reduce the attractiveness of accreditation for those motivated primarily by productivity, but it aligns with broader societal expectations that safety must come first.
Impact of the new ‘Unfit to Drive’ duty
The reforms expand the duty not to drive while fatigued into a broader obligation not to drive while “unfit.” This applies to all heavy vehicles over 4.5 tonnes, not just fatigue-regulated vehicles.
For operators, this creates new responsibilities. They must ensure drivers are fit to drive not only in terms of fatigue but also in relation to physical and psychological health. This aligns with Work Health and Safety principles, but it also introduces operational challenges. Operators will need to develop policies and procedures to assess driver fitness, provide support, and manage situations where drivers declare themselves unfit.
This could mean increased downtime, staffing pressures, and costs. Yet it also empowers drivers to prioritise safety, reducing risks of incidents and liabilities for operators.
Penalties and record-keeping simplification
The reforms reduce penalties for minor administrative errors, reflecting a shift toward focusing on genuine safety risks. For operators, this is a welcome relief. Under NHVAS, minor record-keeping mistakes could attract disproportionate penalties. The new framework recognises that paperwork errors are not equivalent to safety breaches.
However, with 71 penalties changing, 21 reducing and others increasing, operators must carefully review their compliance obligations. The simplification of record-keeping requirements may ease administrative burdens, but the heightened focus on substantive safety risks means operators must ensure their systems are watertight.
Mass, dimension, and loading changes
The reforms also adjust mass and length limits, increasing General Mass Limits to those currently available under Concessional Mass Limits, and extending Euro VI concessions to road trains. For operators, this means greater productivity potential, particularly for long-haul freight.
Yet these benefits are contingent on compliance with the new accreditation framework. Operators who fail to transition effectively may miss out on these concessions, placing them at a competitive disadvantage.
Balancing opportunity and risk
For operators, the accreditation reforms present both opportunities and risks. On one hand, the new framework promises consistency, fairness, and a stronger safety culture. Operators who embrace SMS and adapt proactively may find themselves better positioned to access productivity benefits and demonstrate industry leadership.
On the other hand, the reforms impose new burdens. Smaller operators face resource challenges, audits may become more rigid, and the absence of a grace period heightens compliance pressure. The expanded ‘Unfit to Drive’ duty introduces operational complexities, requiring new policies and support systems.
Ultimately, the reforms demand a cultural shift. Operators must move beyond viewing accreditation as a transactional exercise and embrace it as a cornerstone of safety and risk management. Those who resist may struggle, but those who adapt stand to benefit from a safer, more productive industry.
The transition from NHVAS to the new accreditation framework under the HVNL is more than a regulatory change, it is a transformation of industry culture. For operators, the impacts are profound: greater administrative demands, stricter audits, new duties, and immediate compliance expectations.
Yet the reforms also offer opportunities: streamlined governance, reduced penalties for minor errors, and enhanced productivity concessions. The challenge for operators is to navigate this transition effectively, embedding safety into their operations while maintaining competitiveness.
In comparing the old and new systems, one truth is clear: NHVAS was a product of its time, focused on compliance and productivity.
The new framework reflects contemporary priorities, safety, consistency, and innovation. For operators, success will depend not on resisting change, but on embracing it as the foundation of a safer, more resilient industry.