The heavy vehicle industry in Australia entered a new phase of regulatory guidance with the release of the Draft Master Code of Practice in August 2025.
This draft represents a significant evolution from the Registered Industry Code of Practice (RICP) that was endorsed in 2018.
While the earlier code provided a framework for compliance with the Heavy Vehicle National Law (HVNL), the new draft expands its scope, sharpens its definitions, and embeds risk management more deeply into the daily operations of transport businesses.
For operators, the changes are not merely technical they reshape the way safety, accountability, and collaboration will be managed across the supply chain.
The RICP was a landmark when introduced, offering practical guidance on four core responsibilities under the HVNL: speed compliance, fatigue management, mass and dimension limits, and vehicle standards.
It was voluntary, but its evidentiary role in court proceedings meant that operators who adopted its recommendations could demonstrate that they were acting in line with what was considered reasonably practicable.
The Draft Master Code continues this evidentiary function but goes further. Courts may now use its content to assess what operators and executives “know or ought to know” about hazards, risks, and controls. This raises the compliance bar considerably.
Operators can no longer rely on ignorance or minimal engagement; they must show familiarity with the code’s content and demonstrate that their systems reflect its guidance.
One of the most striking differences between the two documents lies in their scope. The RICP applied broadly but was anchored in the four core responsibilities.
The Draft Master Code, by contrast, extends across every sector that uses heavy vehicles, from agriculture and mining to utilities, retail, and emergency services. It even includes businesses that do not own heavy vehicles but rely on them intermittently.
This expansion means that operators will be working with a wider range of contracting parties, many of whom may be new to compliance obligations.
The supply chain is now more interconnected than ever, and operators must be prepared to manage relationships with businesses that may not have previously considered themselves part of the Chain of Responsibility (CoR).
The definition of who is a party in the CoR is also clarified. The RICP acknowledged drivers as pivotal but not formally CoR parties unless they acted as operators, loaders, or unloaders.
The Draft Master Code reinforces this but makes explicit that owner-drivers are operators and therefore CoR parties. Employed drivers remain outside the CoR but are subject to HVNL obligations, including a new duty from July 2026 not to drive while unfit.
For operators, this distinction is critical. Contracts and compliance systems must reflect the difference between employees and contractors, ensuring that owner-drivers discharge their operator duties while employed drivers are managed under separate obligations.
Executives face heightened accountability under the new draft. While the RICP outlined the executive duty, the Draft Master Code provides deeper guidance, stressing that executives must actively acquire and maintain knowledge of safe transport practices.
This is not a passive responsibility. Boards and senior managers must integrate HVNL compliance into governance frameworks, with demonstrable due diligence processes.
For operators, this means investing in executive training, risk reporting systems, and governance structures that can withstand scrutiny. The personal liability provisions under section 26D HVNL make this a critical area of focus.
Risk management is another area where the draft significantly raises expectations. The RICP encouraged a risk-based approach, but the Draft Master Code elevates this into a structured six-step cycle: identifying hazards, assessing risk, selecting control measures, implementing and training, monitoring and reporting effectiveness, and reviewing systems.
It also recommends the use of conceptual models such as ICAM, HFACS, STAMP, and Bow Tie analysis, and encourages integration with workplace health and safety registers.
For operators, this means risk management must be systematic, evidence-driven, and continuously updated. Hazard and risk registers will become essential tools, and operators will need to demonstrate that they are using structured methodologies to assess and control risks.
Information sharing is another theme that emerges strongly in the draft. The RICP emphasised shared responsibility but focused largely on preventing parties from inducing breaches.
The Draft Master Code recognises that hazards often manifest far from a party’s workplace and insists that safety depends on timely, accurate information flows.
Operators must therefore establish robust communication protocols with consignors, consignees, loaders, and subcontractors. Digital platforms, reporting mechanisms, and contractual clauses mandating information exchange may all be required. Failure to manage information effectively could expose operators to liability, even if their own practices are sound.
Perhaps the most practical difference between the two documents is the level of detail in the Draft Master Code. While the RICP provided examples of controls for speeding, fatigue, loading, and vehicle standards, the draft offers forty-six detailed activity categories.
These range from foundation activities such as fostering a safety culture and training executives, to driver management, vehicle procurement and maintenance, premises design, operational decision-making, and sector-specific contexts such as construction sites, dangerous goods, and shipping containers.
For operators, this granularity is both a challenge and an opportunity. It increases the compliance workload, requiring businesses to review each activity relevant to their operations and adopt or adapt recommended controls.
But it also provides clearer benchmarks for best practice, reducing ambiguity and helping operators align their systems with industry expectations.
The draft also insists that technical standards and references must be kept current. Operators are expected to consult updated versions of ISO standards, Load Restraint Guides, and workplace health and safety resources.
Compliance is no longer static; it is a moving target. This will require operators to monitor updates actively and ensure their systems remain aligned. Dedicated compliance staff or external advisory support may become necessary to keep pace with evolving standards.
For operators, the practical implications are clear. The compliance burden is heavier, requiring detailed risk registers, structured assessment methodologies, executive training, information-sharing protocols, and continuous review.
Contractual relationships must be revisited to ensure responsibilities are defined and aligned with the principle of “reasonably practicable” controls. Safety culture must be fostered, with drivers encouraged to report fatigue, distraction, or unsafe practices without fear of reprisal.
Executives must integrate HVNL duties into governance frameworks, with board-level reporting and documented training.
Yet the draft also offers opportunities. Clearer guidance reduces ambiguity and helps operators benchmark practices. Sector-specific controls allow tailoring to industry contexts.
Stronger emphasis on collaboration may improve efficiency and reduce delays. Integration with workplace health and safety frameworks creates alignment across regulatory regimes.
Operators who embrace the draft proactively can position themselves as leaders in safety and compliance, enhancing reputation and competitiveness.
The Draft Master Code of Practice represents a substantial evolution from the 2018 RICP. It broadens scope, sharpens definitions, and embeds risk management into every aspect of heavy vehicle operations. For operators, the implications are profound.
Compliance will require more structured systems, stronger executive oversight, and deeper collaboration across the supply chain. While the burden is heavier, the draft provides clearer pathways to best practice.
Operators who invest in safety culture, risk management, and information sharing will not only meet their legal obligations but also build resilience, efficiency, and trust in an increasingly complex transport environment.
[Ed’s note: Big Rigs understands the final code will be approved for registration this month]
About the author:
Peter Haustein is a seasoned professional with 15 years’ experience in heavy vehicle operations, compliance, and government regulation across multiple sectors, serving as a lead auditor and National Compliance and WHS Manager.