Fatigue and driver diary checks: what recent NHVR enforcement signals mean for operators

What NHVR fatigue enforcement means for heavy vehicle operators

NHVR enforcement operations targeting work and rest requirements have repeatedly found substantial non-compliance across Australian jurisdictions. In one recent operation, the NHVR reported 131 drivers found non-compliant with fatigue laws, 172 fatigue-related offences recorded, and 46 critical breaches. For operators, this signals that fatigue management and driver diary checks remain a top enforcement priority—and that every party in the Chain of Responsibility (CoR) must be able to demonstrate they took all reasonable steps to prevent fatigue-related breaches.

Key takeaways

• HVNL Chapter 6 governs driver fatigue for fatigue-regulated heavy vehicles, setting out standard hours, BFM hours, AFM hours, work diary requirements, and the duties of employers, prime contractors, operators, and schedulers to ensure driver compliance.
• Section 264 of the HVNL imposes a direct duty on employers, prime contractors, operators, and schedulers to take all reasonable steps to ensure a driver does not drive while exceeding work limits or failing to meet minimum rest requirements.
• Driver diary checks are an operator obligation, not just a driver task—operators must verify records, identify discrepancies, and retain evidence that checks were performed.
• Category 1 and Category 2 offences under HVNL Part 1A.3 apply where a duty holder exposes a person to risk of death or serious injury, or fails to comply with a primary duty—fatigue breaches can escalate to these levels depending on severity and knowledge.
• Fatigue management software for transport operations helps centralise diary data, flag non-conformances, and produce audit-ready evidence—but does not replace the operator's duty to actively manage fatigue risk.

What HVNL Chapter 6 requires for fatigue management

Chapter 6 of the Heavy Vehicle National Law (HVNL) is titled "Vehicle operations—driver fatigue" and sets out the full framework for managing driver fatigue in Australia's participating jurisdictions. The chapter covers definitions of fatigue, categories of breaches, work and rest arrangements (standard hours, Basic Fatigue Management or BFM, and Advanced Fatigue Management or AFM), work diary requirements, record keeper obligations, and offences relating to false or misleading entries.

Operationally, this means that any operator running a fatigue-regulated heavy vehicle—a vehicle with a GVM or GCM exceeding 12 tonnes—must comply with the work and rest limits set out in Chapter 6. The specific limits depend on which accreditation or option the driver is operating under: standard hours (Division 2 of Part 6.2), BFM hours (Division 3), or AFM hours (Division 4).

The HVNL also defines categories of breaches for fatigue offences. These range from minor risk breaches to severe risk breaches, with penalties escalating accordingly. The categorisation depends on how far the driver exceeded the applicable work limit or fell short of the required rest, and whether the breach involved knowledge or recklessness.

Who holds the fatigue compliance duty under the HVNL?

Fatigue compliance under the HVNL is not solely a driver responsibility. Section 264 of the HVNL imposes a duty on employers, prime contractors, operators, and schedulers to take all reasonable steps to ensure a driver does not drive a fatigue-regulated heavy vehicle in breach of work time or rest time requirements.

This duty is distinct from the broader Chain of Responsibility primary duty found in Part 1A.2 of the HVNL (section 26C). The primary duty requires each CoR party to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the safety of transport activities relating to a vehicle. Fatigue management is a core component of this primary duty because driver fatigue is a major heavy vehicle safety hazard.

In practice, this means:

• Operators must schedule trips that allow drivers to comply with work and rest limits, maintain records of driver work and rest times, and verify driver diary entries.
• Schedulers must not set delivery windows that compel drivers to exceed maximum work hours or skip minimum rest breaks.
• Prime contractors engaging drivers must ensure fatigue management systems are in place.
• Employers must not pressure drivers to drive while fatigued or in breach of limits.

The HVNL's principle of shared responsibility (section 26A) makes clear that safety duties extend across every party whose acts or omissions affect conduct relating to a vehicle. No single party can discharge the duty by pointing to another party.

What driver diary checks must cover under HVNL

Under HVNL section 293, a driver of a fatigue-regulated heavy vehicle must carry a written work diary (or an approved electronic work diary where applicable). The work diary must include specific information as prescribed by the national regulations (section 295), and the driver must record certain information immediately after starting work (section 297), including odometer readings (section 298).

For operators, the critical obligation is to check those diary entries against other available data. A driver diary check should verify:

• That work and rest times recorded in the diary are consistent with the applicable work and rest option (standard, BFM, or AFM).
• That odometer readings in the diary are consistent with vehicle telematics, fuel records, or trip documentation.
• That the driver has not exceeded maximum work time or failed to take minimum rest time.
• That there are no gaps, alterations, or inconsistencies that suggest false or misleading entries (addressed in section 325 of the HVNL).
• That the driver's record keeper has the required records on file (sections 321–324).

The NHVR's fatigue management guidance identifies driver fatigue—defined as driving while feeling sleepy, physically or mentally tired, or lacking energy—as a major heavy vehicle safety hazard. This is why enforcement operations specifically target work and rest records rather than relying solely on roadside observation.

How NHVR enforcement targets fatigue compliance

The NHVR conducts targeted enforcement operations focused on work and rest requirements across Australian jurisdictions. Recent operations have produced significant numbers of detections, including one operation that found 131 drivers non-compliant with fatigue laws, recorded 172 fatigue-related offences, and identified 46 critical breaches.

These enforcement signals tell operators several things:

1. Fatigue enforcement is active and data-driven. The NHVR cross-references work diary records with telematics, IAP (Intelligent Access Program) data, and roadside intercept records to identify discrepancies.
2. Critical breaches carry severe consequences. A critical fatigue breach can trigger Category 1 or Category 2 offence proceedings under Part 1A.3 of the HVNL, particularly where the operator knew or ought to have known about the breach.
3. Record-keeping failures compound the risk. An operator who cannot produce evidence of diary checks, scheduling reviews, or corrective actions faces greater exposure because they cannot demonstrate reasonable steps.
4. Enforcement is not limited to drivers. The NHVR pursues operators, schedulers, and other CoR parties who contributed to or failed to prevent the breach.

The NHVR has also indicated through consultation processes that empowering operators and drivers to manage fatigue through robust safety management systems produces more effective safety outcomes—a direction reflected in the 2026 HVNL changes and the updated Master Code.

What constitutes a fatigue breach and how offences are categorised

Under HVNL Chapter 6, fatigue breaches are categorised based on severity. The categories mirror those used for mass and dimension breaches in other chapters of the HVNL:

• Minor risk breach: The driver exceeded a work limit or fell short of a rest requirement by a relatively small margin.
• Substantial risk breach: The breach was more significant, indicating a genuine failure to manage fatigue.
• Severe risk breach: The breach was serious, potentially involving significant excess work time or significant rest deficiency.

Separately, under Part 1A.3 of the HVNL, duty holders can face:

• Category 1 offences (section 26F): Where a person breaches a duty and that breach exposes an individual to a risk of death or serious injury, and the person was negligent or reckless about the risk. This is the most serious offence tier.
• Category 2 offences (section 26G): Where a person fails to comply with a primary duty and the failure exposes an individual to a risk of death or serious injury.

A fatigue breach does not automatically become a Category 1 or 2 offence—it depends on the circumstances, the severity of the breach, and the knowledge and conduct of the duty holder. However, repeated breaches, systemic scheduling failures, or evidence that an operator ignored diary discrepancies can elevate the offence category.

Record keeper obligations and false or misleading entries

The HVNL imposes specific obligations on record keepers—the entity nominated by the driver to hold their work records. Under sections 321 and 322, record keepers must hold specific records and ensure they are available when requested. Section 324 requires record keepers to provide information from electronic work diaries where applicable.

Critically, section 325 of the HVNL creates an offence for false or misleading entries in work records. This provision applies to both drivers and other parties who may be involved in creating or altering records. Section 336 also prohibits tampering with an approved electronic recording system, and section 336A requires reporting of tampering or suspected tampering.

For operators, this means that a driver diary check is not merely about verifying compliance with hours—it is also about detecting and addressing any signs of falsification. If an operator identifies a false or misleading entry and fails to act, that inaction may itself constitute a failure to take all reasonable steps under section 264.

This is where audit-ready compliance evidence becomes critical. Operators need a documented trail showing when checks were performed, what was found, and what corrective action was taken.

Chain of Responsibility and the primary duty explained

The HVNL's Chain of Responsibility provisions (Part 1A) create a primary duty of safety (section 26C) that applies to each person in the CoR. For fatigue management, this means that consignors, consignees, packers, loaders, schedulers, operators, and drivers all have a role in ensuring fatigue does not create a safety risk.

The principle of shared responsibility (section 26A) underpins the entire framework. It means that an operator cannot contract out of fatigue responsibility by pointing to a prime contractor, and a consignor cannot avoid liability by claiming they did not know the delivery schedule was unrealistic.

The 2026 Master Code further articulates how CoR parties should implement controls. The Master Code's approach to Chain of Responsibility controls translates these legal duties into practical, daily workflows—something that is increasingly relevant as the NHVR moves toward a risk-based enforcement model.

For fatigue specifically, the primary duty means that every party must ask: "Could my actions or decisions contribute to a driver operating while fatigued?" If the answer is yes, that party must take reasonably practicable steps to eliminate or minimise the risk.

Executive officer liability under HVNL

Section 26D of the HVNL imposes a separate duty on executives of legal entities. An executive of a corporation that has a duty under Part 1A must exercise due diligence to ensure the corporation complies with its duty.

Due diligence, in this context, means executives must:

• Acquire and keep up to date with knowledge of fatigue management obligations.
• Understand the nature of fatigue-related risks in the business's transport operations.
• Ensure the corporation has, and implements, processes for complying with its duty.
• Ensure the corporation has appropriate resources and processes to eliminate or minimise fatigue risks.
• Verify the adequacy of fatigue management systems and processes.

This provision means that a transport manager, general manager, or director who is aware (or ought to be aware) of systemic fatigue compliance failures and does not act can be personally prosecuted. Executive liability is a significant driver for implementing structured fatigue management processes—not just relying on driver self-management.

How fatigue management software supports transport operators

Fatigue management software for transport operations does not replace the legal duty, but it supports the systems and evidence an operator needs to demonstrate reasonable steps. The key capabilities to look for include:

• Centralised driver diary data: Consolidating work and rest records in a single system so checks can be performed systematically rather than relying on paper diaries that are hard to cross-reference.
• Automated breach detection: Flagging when a driver's recorded hours approach or exceed the applicable work limit, or when rest breaks are insufficient under the chosen option (standard, BFM, or AFM).
• Discrepancy identification: Comparing diary entries against telematics or other vehicle data to detect inconsistencies that may indicate false entries.
• Corrective action tracking: Recording what was found, what action was taken, and who is responsible for follow-up—creating the evidence trail needed to demonstrate section 264 compliance.
• Audit-ready reporting: Producing records on demand that show the operator's fatigue management processes are active, documented, and consistently applied.

CoRGuard's Chain of Responsibility compliance software provides these capabilities within a broader CoR and NHVAS compliance framework. While an Electronic Work Diary capability is not yet live, the current fatigue and driver diary check workflows allow operators to capture, verify, and retain the evidence they need today.

For operators transitioning from NHVAS to the new Heavy Vehicle Accreditation (HVA) framework, fatigue evidence is also a maintenance and accreditation issue. The NHVAS to HVA transition highlights the growing need for evidence that is easier to produce and harder to dispute.

Practical next steps: building audit-ready fatigue evidence

To turn these obligations into daily practice, operators should take the following steps:

1. Map your fatigue exposure

Identify every driver, vehicle, and route where HVNL Chapter 6 applies. Document which work and rest option each driver operates under (standard, BFM, or AFM) and confirm that the relevant accreditation is current.

2. Establish a diary check routine

Set a recurring schedule for driver diary checks—at minimum weekly, or more frequently for high-risk routes. Record who performed each check, what was reviewed, what was found, and what action was taken. This routine should be documented in a procedure that aligns with the corrective actions and risk register processes that underpin audit-ready compliance.

3. Cross-reference with telematics

Where telematics or GPS data is available, cross-reference driver diary entries against vehicle movement data. Look for:

• Odometer readings that do not match diary entries.
• Vehicle movement during periods recorded as rest.
• Gaps in diary entries that correspond to known driving periods.

4. Act on discrepancies immediately

When a discrepancy is identified, raise a corrective action, investigate the cause, and document the outcome. If the discrepancy indicates a false or misleading entry, take disciplinary or remedial action and retain records of the process.

5. Maintain records for audit

Retain all diary check records, telematics cross-references, corrective actions, and fatigue management procedures in a centralised system. The NHVR can request these records at any time, and the ability to produce them quickly and completely is a significant factor in demonstrating reasonable steps.

6. Brief executives on their due diligence obligations

Ensure that directors, general managers, and other executives understand their personal liability under section 26D. Provide regular reports on fatigue compliance performance, breach trends, and corrective action status so executives can demonstrate due diligence.

7. Use CoRGuard features to systematise the process

CoRGuard's workflows support fatigue and driver diary checks by centralising records, automating reminders, flagging discrepancies, and producing audit-ready reports. This does not remove the operator's liability, but it provides the structured evidence base that an operator needs to demonstrate they took all reasonable steps.

Frequently asked questions

What does section 264 of the HVNL require operators to do for fatigue management?

Section 264 of the HVNL requires employers, prime contractors, operators, and schedulers to take all reasonable steps to ensure a driver of a fatigue-regulated heavy vehicle does not drive in breach of maximum work time or minimum rest time requirements. This means operators must actively schedule, monitor, and verify driver compliance—not rely on the driver alone.

Are driver diary checks the operator's responsibility or the driver's?

Both. The driver is required to carry and maintain a work diary under section 293 of the HVNL, but the operator has a separate duty under section 264 to take all reasonable steps to ensure compliance. In practice, this means the operator must check driver diary entries, cross-reference them against other data, and act on any discrepancies.

What happens if an operator fails to check driver diaries and a fatigue breach occurs?

If an operator fails to check driver diaries and a fatigue breach occurs, the operator may face prosecution under section 264 of the HVNL for failing to take all reasonable steps. Depending on the severity of the breach and the operator's knowledge, the offence could escalate to a Category 1 or Category 2 offence under Part 1A.3, which carry significant penalties including potential imprisonment for Category 1.

Does fatigue management software guarantee HVNL compliance?

No. Fatigue management software supports compliance by centralising records, flagging breaches, and producing audit-ready evidence, but it does not guarantee compliance or remove the operator's legal liability. The operator remains responsible for taking all reasonable steps under section 264 and for meeting the primary duty of safety under section 26C.

What is the difference between a minor and severe fatigue breach?

Under HVNL Chapter 6, fatigue breaches are categorised based on how far the driver exceeded the applicable work limit or fell short of the required rest. A minor risk breach involves a relatively small exceedance or shortfall, while a severe risk breach involves a significant exceedance or shortfall. The category affects the penalty and may influence whether the breach is treated as a CoR offence under Part 1A.3.

Can an executive of a transport company be personally prosecuted for fatigue failures?

Yes. Under section 26D of the HVNL, an executive of a corporation that has a duty under Part 1A must exercise due diligence to ensure the corporation complies. If an executive fails to exercise due diligence—for example, by ignoring known systemic fatigue scheduling problems—they can be personally prosecuted in addition to the corporation.

What records should an operator retain to demonstrate reasonable steps for fatigue management?

An operator should retain driver diary check records, telematics cross-references, scheduling documents showing that trips were planned to comply with work and rest limits, corrective action records for any breaches identified, fatigue management procedures, training records, and any correspondence with drivers about fatigue compliance. These records should be centralised and readily producible on request by the NHVR.