Overview

The future HVNL should be able to respond to change as it needs to, whether that be changes to context, technologies, knowledge or practices.

The regulator and industry are adaptable – the law that serves them should be too.

Chapter 5 of the RIS explores options for new regulatory tools under the HVNL.

Summary of problems and options

A more responsive law

Problem:

Under the HVNL the primary law is generally detailed and prescriptive. This makes it inflexible and unresponsive to rapidly evolving risks and advances in technology, because amendments to primary legislation can take more than 12 months.

On the other hand, the Primary Duty (s 26C) of the HVNL is drafted in broad terms to capture a wide range of risks - but it isn't supported by more detailed information to give clarity to parties on how to comply.

Option:

5.1 Establish a Code of Practice mechanism. Read in the RIS and HVNL 2.0.

5.2 Establish a Standards mechanism. Read in the RIS and HVNL 2.0.

Remote zone

Problem:

The HVNL applies a “one size fits all” approach and does not tailor regulation for segments of the industry or types of operators. This is particularly a problem for remote area operators who have unique risk profiles due to the distance, lack of rest areas and facilities, extreme temperatures and limited interaction with other road users.

Option:

5.3 Establish a remote area zone. Read in the RIS.

Data sharing

Problem:

Some agencies are not able to freely share data with the NHVR. This constrains their ability to get meaningful information that can help identify and assess risks to road safety.

Option:

5.4 Enable sharing of data with the NHVR. Read more in the RIS.