This article was originally published in Big Rigs in July 2024.

More than a decade after the introduction of Chain of Responsibility laws under the Heavy Vehicle National Law, the Australian trucking industry is still waiting to see significant prosecutions involving large supply chain parties.

The principle behind Chain of Responsibility is straightforward: anyone who has influence over a transport task has a legal duty to ensure safety outcomes. That means responsibility does not sit only with the driver or the transport operator, it extends to consignors, consignees, schedulers, loaders, and other parties whose decisions shape how freight moves.

Despite this framework being in place for many years, enforcement activity still appears to fall most heavily on operators and drivers, while the supply chain pressures that often contribute to compliance issues receive far less public scrutiny.

The following article explores why investigations must extend further along the supply chain if Chain of Responsibility is to achieve its intended purpose.

I don’t know about you, but I am getting tired of seeing NHVR prosecutions that only target transport operators, and don’t travel any further along the chain of responsibility.

Melbourne company fined $180,000 for 69 mass limit breaches

 If the NHVR is serious about the Heavy Vehicle National Law, then an investigation into the Consignee receiving these overweight trucks is, without a shadow of a doubt, the only next step the investigation team can take; not patting themselves on the back about stopping the ‘serious risk to public safety’.

If it is such a serious risk, and the 69 offences occurred over a 2-year period, then any investigator with half a brain cell must think “That freight went to a Consignee, and evidently, the Consignee does not have ‘systems and procedures in place to ensure drivers and loaders are adequately trained’, otherwise the transport operator would not have continued doing this...”

Why do I say that? Because if the Consignee had ‘systems and procedures in place to ensure drivers and loaders are adequately trained’ then it would have:

• notified the transport operator they had breached the mass limits;
• asked for a reason why that had occurred;
• completed a corrective action, maybe:
  • asked for the people involved to be re-trained; and
  • provide evidence of that, before allowing them back on site;
• had a process in place whereby overloaded trucks dump their overloaded freight into a separate area, where that overloaded freight is sold, and the funds given to charity rather than the transport operator (which is what happens in the grain industry);
• told the operator they were banned from entering the site for X days as a penalty for overloading (occurs in the timber industry); and
• have evidence of all of the above being done.

 As it stands it would appear the Consignee doesn’t have anything like this in place, and instead, is encouraging the operator to continue to breach – they were obviously paid for the over mass incidents, because they kept doing it!

Therefore, why is there no indication in the media release from the NHVR that the Consignee is being investigated? Failure to conduct such an investigation makes a mockery of the system, and places a target squarely on the backs of those the COR laws were designed to protect.

The industry doesn’t need to know who is being investigated in such instances, but we do need to know it is being done. A simple line in at the bottom of the NHVR’s successful prosecution media releases stating, ‘investigations into parties in the chain of responsibility in relation to this matter are continuing’ and a follow up when a prosecution occurs into that party will help us see the NHVR is doing what the legislation intended, and not chasing those easy targets. Otherwise, why bother having COR legislation?

Every prosecution that charges directors of a transport company must follow the chain of responsibility to complete the investigation properly – Consignor, Consignee, Loader, Unloader, Loading Manager, Scheduler (in fatigue cases). This shouldn’t be determined by whether a prosecution is likely or not; that’s what an investigation is for, so... don’t be lazy, do the damn investigation. It should be a basic KPI: Charged a transport operator for mass breach = investigate other parties in chain. Simple.

Industry needs these investigations into COR parties to stop some of the behaviours and pressures that are still being levelled at it. I wonder why COR parties scoff at any suggestion they might be investigated? Probably because they know a prosecution is highly unlikely; and even if it did occur, they are comfortable they’ve got the legal might to defeat any prosecution, assuming it even gets that far.

Continuing this absurd focus on transport operators makes a mockery of the entire Heavy Vehicle National Law, and simply feeds the growing apathy and cynicism industry holds towards the Regulator’s prosecution tactics. Surely, after all this time, there should be some significant, successful COR party prosecutions on the board. Is it a question of resourcing? Knowledge & capability? Or is it laziness, chasing the easy target to hit a false KPI? Perhaps fear, not have the guts to sink one’s teeth into a sizeable opponent, scared of the fight that might ensue, believing the risk to one’s reputation of losing a high profile (and high cost) case is not worth the effort? To which I say, what is the risk to one’s reputation of not chasing that prosecution?

They say time will tell. It’s been a decade since the NHVR was first put into place. What’s time telling you??

Since this article was first published, the issue remains highly relevant. Operators continue to face significant compliance pressure while the industry waits to see whether enforcement will increasingly focus on the broader supply chain. For transport businesses, understanding Chain of Responsibility obligations across the entire chain remains critical.