The road transport industry is facing a hard truth: the way we’ve been operating is no longer sustainable.
Every time diesel prices spike, roads flood, or fire cuts off a region, the same pattern follows. Operators absorb the cost. Drivers wear the pressure. And eventually, the industry lines up asking government for relief.
That should be a red flag.
A mature, professional industry should not rely on subsidies to survive normal commercial risks. Cost increases, delays and environmental disruptions are not anomalies, they are foreseeable operational realities. And under modern chain of responsibility laws, pretending otherwise is no longer acceptable.
Cost is a risk and risk must be managed
The Master Code of Practice makes one thing clear: safety and compliance are not separate from commercial decisions. Pricing, scheduling, contracting and allocation of work are all “transport activities” that directly affect risk.
If a contract doesn’t allow fuel increases to be passed through, it creates pressure.
If delivery times and payment ignore flood detours or fire restrictions, they create pressure.
If rates don’t support lawful pay, training and safety, they create pressure.
And pressure is one of the most consistent root causes of unsafe outcomes.
Cost is not an excuse for failing to manage risk. In fact, the Code is explicit: cost alone is rarely a valid reason for not implementing controls, unless it is grossly disproportionate to the risk.
For serious risks, fatigue, speed, vehicle conditions and safety the expectation is clear. The control must be applied.
That means the commercial model must support the safety model.
Passing costs to customers is not optional
No airline absorbs fuel volatility. No construction company eats material price hikes. Yet road transport has been conditioned to accept that rising input costs are just “part of the job”.
They shouldn’t be.
Fuel, insurance, compliance systems, training, audits and lawful wages are inputs. When they increase, those increases must be passed directly to the customer as a standard contractual mechanism, not as a special request or an emergency negotiation.
Fuel levies and escalation clauses should be normal. Contracts that don’t allow them are not just bad business, they are unsafe.
Pricing risk where risk exists
The same principle applies to freight into regions regularly affected by floods, fires and extreme weather.
These are not unpredictable events anymore. They are known external hazards. The Master Code recognises environmental and infrastructure risks as part of the operating context that must be planned for, communicated and managed.
If servicing a region regularly involves detours, delays, recovery risks and driver welfare impacts, then freight into that region must attract a premium. That is not profiteering, it is risk-based pricing.
Expecting operators to carry those costs silently only ensures one outcome: either unsafe pressure or eventual withdrawal of service.
If customers want resilience, they must pay for it.
Minimum standards must apply to everyone
Alongside fair pricing, the industry must draw a hard line on who gets access to work.
No freight should be allocated to operators who cannot demonstrate minimum safety standards — including verified driver competency, lawful pay arrangements, fatigue management, vehicle maintenance and effective safety systems.
The Master Code is clear that working with other businesses is itself a risk that must be managed. Choosing a cheaper, non-compliant operator is not neutral. It actively introduces risk into the transport task.
Customers, brokers and prime contractors cannot outsource safety by turning a blind eye. Allocating work is an act of control and with control comes responsibility.
Contracts must support safe outcomes
Unrealistic delivery times, penalty clauses for delays caused by events outside the driver’s control, and rates that only work if corners are cut are no longer just poor practice, they are prohibited territory.
Chain of responsibility requires that commercial arrangements do not create safety risk. Any request, schedule or contract term that would reasonably be expected to encourage unsafe behaviour — including through pricing or time pressure — is prohibited.
If a job can’t be done safely at the agreed rate and schedule, then the problem isn’t the driver or operator — it’s the contract.
Leadership inside businesses matters
None of this happens by accident. Safe, sustainable operations don’t emerge from policy documents alone. They require someone inside the business who understands how law, safety, operations and commercial decisions intersect and who has the authority to challenge unsafe arrangements before they become incidents.
The Master Code repeatedly points to the need for capability, oversight, verification and continuous improvement.
That doesn’t happen without deliberate leadership and accountability embedded into everyday decision-making.
This is a collective reset
No single operator can fix this alone. Anyone who tries will be undercut.
But if minimum standards, fair pricing mechanisms and risk-based contracts are applied consistently across the industry, the dynamic shifts. Customers adapt. Rates normalise. Unsafe operators are filtered out.
And government stops being asked to patch holes that the industry has the power to fix itself.
We already know what needs to change.
The question is whether we’re ready to stand together and reset the rules — or keep absorbing costs, risks and pressure that were never ours to carry alone.
- Glyn Castanelli is President of the National Road Freighters Association, a TruckSafe board member, interstate truck driver, and transport compliance auditor with frontline industry experience.