The future HVNL should support quick, simple and transparent access decision making. It should prioritise productivity – where it is safe and reasonable.
Much of the challenge in improving
access relates to engineering
limitations, ageing infrastructure
and funding constraints. The NTC
recognises the potential of Transport
and Infrastructure Council heavy
vehicle road reform to align the
incentives to optimise access and
Chapter 9 of the RIS explains the options to lead to simpler and more transparent access decisions.
Summary of problems and options
Changes to general access
General access limits have not changed since the 1990s due to unresolved policy and engineering issues. Mass and dimension limits have not kept pace with advances in the heavy vehicle fleet, despite vehicles becoming safer, more efficient and longer over the past 30 years.
9.1a: Increase in GML to CML for all operators - read in RIS
9.1b: Increase in GML to CML – enrolment - read in RIS
9.1c: Increase in GML to CML – on board mass installed - read in RIS
9.1d: Increase in general access length - read in RIS
– Option 1: all vehicles
– Option 2: vehicles with safety features
– Option 3: Additional space for the sleeper cabin - read in HVNL 2.0
Permits and authorisation processes
The current process results in the issue of a large number of permits, which creates administrative and
compliance burdens for operators and road managers. It can also unduly delay the granting of access.
The permit application process is not risk-based and requires almost every application to be made via
the same process, with limited recognition of any similar decisions that have previously been made and
that could provide precedent.
This option includes a number of sub-options (that could be implemented in isolation or combination)
that are expected to make the decision-making process for authorising access more risk-based and
– Option 1: Freight and passenger, OSOM
– Option 2: Existing authorisation category, exemption categories
9.2e: Amendment to third party consent requirements - read in RIS
– Option 1 – Remove third party consents
– Option 2 – Capture third parties in access decision making
Timeframes and reviews
Problem:The HVNL formalised the role of local government as road managers in the access decision-making
process. However, some local governments have only limited resources to assess roads and make
timely decisions. Industry and government have recognised that local government lack of funding and
resourcing play a role in decisions not being made within statutory timeframes.
Options:9.3a: Statutory timeframe, deemed referral and refusal for nil response - read in RIS and HVNL 2.0.
9.3b: External review of access decisions - read in RIS and HVNL 2.0.
- Option 1 – Independent review panel
- Option 2 – Referral to an existing tribunal or court
Access decision making
Problem:The framework for access decision-making is set out in the HVNL itself (Part 4). Changes to decision making therefore require changes in the law which commonly involves long lead times and delays.
Option:Option 9.4 involves the access decision-making process being moved from the primary legislation to
Pilots and escorts
Problem:Undertaking OSOM movements within Australia sometimes requires traffic management and increased safety measures that assist with progressing the OSOM movement from origin to destination while managing traffic and safety risks. This includes the use of pilots and escorts that work together to manage traffic both ahead and behind the OSOM vehicle. In Australia, each state and Territory has different requirements for pilots and escorts required for OSOM movements.
Options:9.5a: National scheme – single tiered pilot and escort accreditation - read in RIS and HVNL 2.0.
9.5b: National scheme – dual-tiered pilot and escort accreditation - read in RIS