Truckies have raised grave concerns around a proposed new ‘fit do drive’ duty within a revised Heavy Vehicle National Law (HVNL) Bill quietly working its way through the Queensland Parliament.
Although just one of several significant proposed changes to the HVNL, the new fitness duty could have a devastating impact on the driving ranks, fears high-profile truckies’ advocate and long-time interstate driver, Rod Hannifey.
Hannifey said not only does the maximum penalty for a breach of the current laws prohibiting anyone driving while impaired by fatigue increase from $6000 to $20,000, but the tougher new duty also appears to vastly widen the scope of what being fit to drive entails.
“Who decides whether I’m fit to drive? That’s what I want to know,” said a frustrated Hannifey.
“The NTC’s [National Transport Commission] answer to that was it won’t be until you go to court. But where does that leave us?
“It’s like standing on the edge of a chasm, and what happens when someone pushes you?”
A despairing Hannifey said the proposed law could dramatically deplete a sector already struggling to put bums on seats.
“It’s like they’re saying, let’s make it harder and let’s give them more penalties to scare the living shit out of them and have them say why would I bother going to work with having that hanging over my head.
“We’re the ones swinging at the end of the chain [of responsibility] and now they’ve put an extra couple of links on it just to wrap around our throat.”
Veteran interstate truckie Rod Hannifey said the ‘fit to drive’ duty raises serious concerns in the driving ranks. Image: Sarah BradleyIn a post to his company’s website at Holding Redlich, industry legal specialist Nathan Cecil advised the new prohibition would cover a broader range of situations such as physical illnesses and injuries, mental health issues, substance use, and other factors that may compromise safety.
Further, proposed amendments to section 540 of the HVNL would allow an authorised officer (such as a NHVR official or police officer) to stop a vehicle if it perceives that the driver is ‘unfit to drive’, he said.
“The expanded duty means that drivers must self-assess their fitness before and during driving,” Cecil said.
“This includes not only monitoring for fatigue but also for signs of illness, stress, or substance impairment and taking the appropriate action such as resting, seeking medical advice or notifying their employer.
“For employers and schedulers, the amendment reinforces the importance of supporting driver health and wellbeing. This may involve revising policies, updating training materials and investing in health monitoring technologies. Failure to support and ensure driver fitness could expose employers and those engaging drivers to liability under chain of responsibility provisions.”
This new duty applies to all drivers of heavy vehicles over 4.5 tonnes, not just those operating fatigue-regulated vehicles over 12 tonnes.
Owner-driver Adam Craig told Big Rigs he’d like to know if the ‘fit to drive’ duty was devised after discussions with drivers or owner-operators.
“Or was it just with people who used to live it, or people who never have?” said a frustrated Craig.
“The regulations that we’ve got are what are stopping more people coming into the industry.”
As he understands it, if the new fit to drive law is passed, a driver could be pulled off the road for a wide variety of reasons, including being deemed overweight.
“It’s open to interpretation – there is no clear line in the sand,” Craig said.
“And the fine is f****n ridiculous. Even as an owner-operator we don’t make enough money to be able to afford fines like that.”
Operators also raised their concerns about the fitness to drive duty at the public hearing into the Heavy Vehicle National Law Amendment Bill 2025 in Cairns earlier last month.
Dale Bray, Director of Brays Transport, told the parliamentary committee overseeing the bill inquiry he had doubts around the ability of the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator officers to determine if a driver is unfit to drive.
“This is a pretty grey area,” Bray said. “I have a large staff of about 120 employees over various parts of the business.
“That part there is probably the hardest part for other people to determine – how they are going to enforce ‘fit for duty’.
“Currently, as the rules stand today, it is put back on a driver to say that they are fit for duty and legally we cannot force them to work if they are unfit.
“Moving forward, where does that leave us with this? You can look at a person and you might say that they look tired but they may be fine. How do they judge that? How is that determined?”
Debbie Gostelow, co-owner of Gostelow’s Cattle and Freight Transport also shared her concerns with the committee about the new fit to drive duty.
“I also have very big concerns about somebody perceiving someone to be tired,” Gostelow said.
“My husband is 65. He does not bother shaving and he is often hairy. Is someone going to pull him up – because it has happened – and say, ‘You look like you should have a couple of hours off’? If this comes in, does that mean he can be told to sit on the side of the road after he has had seven or nine hours sleep?
“Whose perception is it? Is it ours? It also says part the way through that the driver must know he is safe to drive. Who is right? Is it the driver or the officer on the side of the road who does not know the driver?”
Gostelow said she was also concerned her business is getting pushed very quickly towards electronic diaries.
“In our industry, we have a lot of older drivers who are very experienced and safe and who know cattle. They are often cattlemen.
“They are not real good on technology or spelling et cetera and they are being fined for silly mistakes and we do not think that is fair.
“These are people who have never had accidents. They are good, upstanding drivers, but because it is difficult to understand they cannot continue with the job.”
The committee, however, has now tabled its report and agreed that the bill should be passed in its original format, which includes the expanded fit to drive duty, despite the confusion it’s already created.
As host jurisdiction for the HVNL, the legislation needs to be enacted in Queensland before it can be applied by other participating states and territories.
In its inquiry submission, the Australian Trucking Association recommended the Queensland Parliament should pass the Amendment Bill.
But cautioned that the process of reviewing the HVNL must not end with this bill. “The review process was not able to finalise important changes to the law; there will always be legislative maintenance and minor policy issues to address.”
The ATA said governments should agree to a systematic process for reviewing and updating the HVNL, with a package of amendments to be introduced into the Queensland Parliament every two years.
The ATA said the program for reviewing the HVNL should be arranged by theme and should include a fatigue education option as a one-time alternative to fines and a review of standard hours.
“The standard work and rest hours under the HVNL are difficult to understand and force drivers to work by the book rather than taking sensible steps to manage their fatigue.”
The ATA said it would also like to see an extension of 19-metre B-doubles to 20 metres and an increase of general access truck height to 4.6 metres.
“The Decision RIS on the review concluded there would be productivity and red-tape benefits from increasing general access truck heights from 4.3 metres to 4.6 metres.”
The post Truckies slam proposed new ‘fit to drive’ laws appeared first on Big Rigs.