WHS-style chain-of-responsibility provisions of the Heavy Vehicle National Law (HVNL) commenced on Monday 1st October 2018

The WHS-style chain-of-responsibility provisions of the Heavy Vehicle National Law (HVNL) commenced on Monday 1st October 2018, recognising that every party in the heavy vehicle transport supply chain has a duty to ensure safety. The reforms remove prescriptive obligations, providing greater flexibility for industry on how they achieve safety outcomes, it encourage parties in the chain to be proactive in managing risks, whilst also implementing nationally agreed changes, such as strengthening inspectors’ investigative and enforcement powers, increasing freight volumes where mass is not a constraint, transferring load restraint performance standards from guidance material to the HVNL, and reducing administrative and regulatory burdens.



The new laws also impose a positive duty of care on all parties that can influence road safety and requiring officers to exercise due diligence to ensure their companies comply with their duties. Executive officers may be held liable for any breaches committed by their company. These changes will also see an increase in penalties for individuals with corporate multipliers applying to corporations. (see change 7)

So, what are the major changes that have been enacted?

Change 1 – Vehicle standards (maintenance) has being included


In recognition of the fact that vehicle design, construction and roadworthiness play a key role in road safety, vehicle standards were added as a new CoR compliance component.


This means that all parties in the Chain will have some responsibility in relation to the roadworthiness of vehicles used in their supply chain.

Change 2 – The standard of legal duty has changed

Previously, a business could only be prosecuted where a breach of a CoR component has occurred. The previous test was whether a business took “all reasonable steps” to prevent that breach from occurring.



The new standard requires all parties in the Chain to take “all reasonably practicable steps to ensure the safety of their transport activities”. It is forward-looking, rather than incident-based. This means that businesses could be prosecuted for failing to put in place CoR control structures and practices, even if a CoR accident/incident has not occurred.

Change 3 – Executive liability is different


Previously, a member of the Executive could only be prosecuted where a breach of a CoR component is committed by their business. The previous test was whether an Executive exercised “reasonable diligence” to prevent that breach from occurring.



The new standard requires Executives of all parties in the Chain to exercise “due diligence” to ensure that their businesses comply with all duties under the CoR. It is forward-looking, rather than incident-based. This means that Executives could be prosecuted for failing to put in place CoR control structures and practices, even if a CoR accident/incident has not occurred.

Change 4 – New powers for authorised officers

Authorised officers now have increased powers to obtain documents and information as evidence of potential breaches, particularly from third party providers outside the supply chain.


The new duties mean that authorised officers do not need to link an investigation to an offence or roadside inspection; allowing for a much more proactive approach in addressing unsafe practices across the entire supply chain.

Change 5 – Your CoR management system will more closely align with your WHS management system

The changed standards of duty for businesses and their Executives brings them into line with the well-known tests under WHS law.



This means that many aspects of existing WHS management systems can be adapted as part of your CoR management. For example, existing WHS risk assessment, safe work procedures, training needs analyses, incident registers and compliance reporting frameworks can be equally applied or applied with a little adaption to CoR management.

Change 6 – Industry codes are coming

The new laws mandate that any registered industry codes must provide much greater compliance substance than those in the past, in order to be accepted for registration. The new generation of industry codes will be designed to identify the common CoR risks faced by an industry and canvas the available range of suitable control measures that could be adopted to respond to those risks, as well as giving individual industry participants guidance on how to conduct risk assessment and analysis tailored for their own individual business.

Change 7 – Penalties for breaches have increased

Penalties have increased to align with those under existing WHS laws and in order to ensure that businesses and their Executives give greater attention to CoR compliance management, the new penalties are as follows:

Offence Penalty
Category 1 offence – for a person who is reckless as to the risk. Individual – maximum $300,000 or 5 years imprisonment, or both. Corporation – maximum $3,000,000.
Category 2 offence – for exposure to risk of death or serious injury. Individual – maximum $150,000. Corporation – maximum $1,500,000.
Category 3 offence – for breaches of the safety duty. Individual – maximum $50,000. Corporation – maximum $500,000.

To learn more about how the legislation changes affect you and your company, and to identify any gaps you may have in meeting the new laws reach out to our Zenergy Consulting Practice today on 1300 333 400 or read up on some of the details on our CoR blog series located on our website.

Contact Us

Zenergy News

22 Apr, 2024
The annual Zenergy Leaders Forum is one of the premier events on the senior health, safety & sustainability calendar in Australia.  This is a non-ticketed invitation only event hosted by Zenergy. Attendee numbers at the Zenergy forum are 150 and will include executive, people and culture directors, CEO, COO and directors of health & safety and HSE personnel. The topic for this year is “Integrated Psychosocial Risk Management”. All of the event information is below and reach out to your account manager at Zenergy for further details.
22 Apr, 2024
This article has been reproduced with permission from OHS Alert, and the original version appears at www.ohsalert.com.au . A commission has cautioned that society's "significantly raised" bar for what constitutes consent for physical interactions is "even higher" in work-related environments, in upholding the summary dismissal of a worker for inappropriately touching a colleague. In Perth, Fair Work Commission Deputy President Melanie Binet said that regardless of the intention of the worker, who claimed he was simply moving his female colleague "out of the way", his conduct was a valid reason for dismissal. Workers should be "on notice" of the increased scrutiny of behaviours, given the extensive social discourse and media coverage on sexual harassment issues, she said. "This is particularly so in the mining industry in Western Australia where a parliamentary inquiry [see related article ] focused community attention on the odious frequency of sexual harassment and assault of women in the mining industry." The Deputy President added that recent amendments to the Commonwealth Fair Work Act 2009 that specifically identify sexual harassment as a valid reason for dismissal (see related article ) "reflect a societal recognition that sexual harassment has no place in the workplace in the same way as violence or theft don't". The worker was an Alcoa of Australia Ltd advanced mechanical tradesperson when he was sacked for inappropriately touching the colleague in an office at Alcoa's Pinjarra Alumina Refinery in September last year. The worker claimed he turned his back to the colleague to squeeze between her and a desk to go to speak to another person and his hands made contact with her lower torso. Afterwards, the colleague's partner entered the office and found her visibly distressed. He confronted the worker, accusing him of grabbing the colleague's buttocks and squeezing it. The issue was escalated, and the worker was summarily dismissed after an investigation concluded he sexually harassed the colleague by making "unwelcomed and socially inappropriate physical contact". Alcoa found the worker breached codes and policies that he had been trained on, which stated that harassment was not determined by the intent of the person who engaged in the conduct but by the impact on the recipient. The worker admitted touching the colleague but claimed this only occurred because the room was crowded. He said he did not intend to behave in a sexual manner and apologised to the colleague as soon as he found out she was upset. He claimed unfair dismissal and sought reinstatement in the FWC. Deputy President Binet found the worker's accounts of the incident were inconsistent, with the parts of the colleague's body that he touched changing in his various statements. She accepted the colleague's evidence that the worker groped her in an "intimate sexual location" and his conduct caused immediate and ongoing effects to her health and wellbeing. The worker could have waited until there was space for him to pass between the desks, requested the colleague to move from the gap or gently touched her arm to get her attention, the Deputy President said. "There was simply no justification for him to turn his back then have his hands at [the colleague's] buttocks level, touch her buttocks and consciously push her out of his way," she said. "I am not convinced that [his] conduct was intended to be entirely without a sexual nature," she concluded. She stressed that even if she was wrong on this point, this type of unwelcome touching could objectively be seen as being capable of making recipients feel offended, humiliated or intimidated. The Deputy President also slammed the worker's representatives for choosing "to follow a well-worn but discredited path of blaming the victim" by accusing the colleague of inviting the "accidental" contact by standing in the narrow walkway. "Women should be able to attend their workplaces without fear of being touched inappropriately," she said in dismissing the worker's case. "It is a sad inditement of the positive work that has been undertaken by employers, unions and regulatory bodies in the mining industry that young women like [the colleague] are still frightened to report incidents of harassment for fear of being ostracised."
22 Apr, 2024
An Afternoon of Fun and Fierce Competition: Our Team's Lawn Bowls Adventure
16 Apr, 2024
Empowering Women in Safety: Insights from the Zenergy Safety Ladies' Lunch
16 Apr, 2024
By Jason O’Dowd. Recruitment - Health Safety Environment & Quality
16 Apr, 2024
Safety blitz to prevent deaths and injuries from construction falls WorkSafe Victoria recently launched a statewide blitz to tackle fall risks on building sites, such as unsafe or incomplete scaffolds, inappropriate ladder use, steps, stairs and voids or falling from or through roofs. The initiative was launched after nine Victorian workers died in 2023 as a result of falls from height, including four in the construction industry. The number of accepted workers’ compensation claims from construction workers injured in falls from heights also increased to 441 – up from 421 in 2022 and 404 the year before. Construction continues to be the highest-risk industry for falls from heights, making up a third of the 1352 total falls from height claims accepted last year. Of the construction workers injured, 160 fell from ladders, 46 from steps and stairways, 31 from buildings or structures, 27 from scaffolding, and 13 from openings in floors, walls or ceilings. WorkSafe Victoria executive director of health and safety, Narelle Beer, said inspectors would be out in force with an extra emphasis on ensuring employers are doing everything they can to prevent falls. “As a leading cause of injury in the construction industry, falls from height is always a priority for our inspectors – but they will be making this a particular focus as they visit building sites over the coming weeks,” Beer said. “The safest way to prevent falls is to work on the ground. Where that’s not possible, employers should use the highest level of safety protection possible, such as complete scaffolding, guard railing and void covers.” Beer said WorkSafe Victoria can and will take action against employers who fail to ensure the highest level of risk control measures are in place to protect workers from falls. “A fall can happen in just seconds and it can turn your world upside down – so there’s no excuse for taking shortcuts when working at heights,” she said. The statewide blitz will be supported by fall prevention messaging across social media, newsletters and online, reminding employers and workers that fall can be fatal or cause life-changing injuries. Source: Australian Institute of Health & Safety (AIHS)
More Posts
Share by: