In her recent piece for Big Rigs, National Heavy Vehicle Regulator (NHVR) CEO Nicole Rosie laid out a clear and necessary direction: a targeted, risk-based approach to enforcement that zeroes in on the small cohort of highest-risk operators who repeatedly flout the rules, ignore education, and put lives at risk.

It's hard to argue with the principle. Industry has been crying out for regulators to stop treating everyone the same and actually hold the cowboys accountable without punishing the vast majority who do the right thing under immense pressure.

But here's the unpopular opinion that needs saying out loud in Australian trucking circles: Large prime contractors are still largely getting a free pass.

Despite being the ones who engage the bulk of transport subcontractors ("subbies"), despite their explicit legal duties under the Chain of Responsibility (CoR), and despite the well-documented reality that many of these big players do not resource effective, ongoing training programs for the very subcontractors they rely on – they continue to operate with remarkably little scrutiny compared to the small operators NHVR is now rightly targeting.

The Legal Reality: Primes Can't Just Contract Out Safety

Under the Heavy Vehicle National Law (HVNL), prime contractors – those who engage self-employed drivers or subcontractors under a contract for services – sit squarely in the Chain of Responsibility. Their primary duty is to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the safety of their transport activities.

This isn't a vague suggestion. NHVR guidance is crystal clear: primes remain a CoR party even when they subcontract. They must:

- Identify and eliminate risks  
- Ensure subcontractors are competent and accredited  
- Manage the safety of the entire transport task, including fatigue, speed, mass, dimension, and load restraint  
- Provide appropriate information, instruction, training, and supervision  

Yet in practice, too many large primes treat subcontractors like disposable capacity on the cheapest tender. They push tight schedules, low rates, and then act surprised when fatigue breaches hit nearly 5,000 in 2025 alone, or when serious incidents trace back to under-trained, under-supported owner-drivers and small fleets.

Recent joint crackdowns by the ATO and Fair Work Ombudsman on sham contracting in road freight (with over 800 tip-offs, nearly a quarter sham-related) highlight exactly this ecosystem. Misclassifying workers as "independent contractors" lets primes shift costs, superannuation, leave, and – critically – meaningful safety and training obligations downstream. The result? Subcontractors operating on razor-thin margins with zero structured support.

 The Training Gap That's Hiding in Plain Sight

Walk onto any major construction site, mine, or distribution hub and you'll see it: fleets of subcontractor trucks and drivers who are expected to know the prime's specific safety systems, site rules, vehicle standards, and fatigue management protocols – often with nothing more than a 15-minute induction and a PDF.

Effective training isn't a one-off toolbox talk. It requires:

- Ongoing competency development tailored to the prime's operations  
- Access to proper rest facilities and realistic scheduling that doesn't force subbies into logbook fudging  
- Investment in technology (EWDs, fatigue monitoring, GPS integration) that small operators can't afford alone  
- Mentorship and support programs for new or transitioning drivers  
- Regular audits and capability building – not just punishment when something goes wrong  

How many large primes publicly report on the millions they're investing in subcontractor training academies, shared safety platforms, or funded HVNL/CoR certification pathways for their supply chain partners? Very few. Instead, the narrative remains: "We engage compliant operators" while the data on fatigue offences, sham contracting, and CoR breaches tells a different story.

This isn't about bashing big business for the sake of it. It's about acknowledging that the upstream decisions – contract terms, payment cycles, schedule pressure, and training investment (or lack thereof) – directly shape the safety culture (or lack of it) downstream.

Why the Targeted Approach Risks Missing the Bigger Picture

NHVR's shift toward earlier, decisive action on high-risk operators – prohibition notices, director-level accountability, smarter use of data – is welcome and overdue. The majority of the industry, including many small operators grinding it out ethically, deserves protection from the minority who undercut everyone.

But if enforcement remains disproportionately focused on the visible, smaller players while the primes who set the commercial environment escape meaningful accountability for their CoR training and oversight failures, we're just playing whack-a-mole.

Compliant small operators and legitimate subbies get squeezed twice: once by the primes' commercial terms, and again by regulatory heat that doesn't address the root enablers.

Industry feedback to NHVR has been consistent – hold the unsafe accountable. That must include the sophisticated players who design business models that make safety harder for everyone else.

What Real Accountability Looks Like

It's time for a more honest conversation:

1. Mandatory CoR training disclosure: Large primes (defined by turnover or contract value) should be required to report annually on their subcontractor training investment, completion rates, and safety performance metrics across their supply chain – not just their direct employees.  

2. Funded capability programs: Industry levies or government co-funding for prime-led training academies that deliver accredited HVNL, fatigue management, and site-specific competency to subcontractors at no (or low) cost to the subbie.  

3. Contract term reform: Standard contract clauses that flow through realistic training time, paid induction, and safety system access as non-negotiable – with NHVR/ATO scrutiny on whether primes are actually enforcing or just ticking boxes.  

4. Director-level heat on primes too: When systemic training failures contribute to serious incidents or widespread breaches in a prime's subcontractor network, executives should face the same personal accountability NHVR is now prepared to apply elsewhere.  

5. Procurement preference for demonstrated supply-chain safety investment: Government and major clients should favour primes that can prove they're lifting the entire chain, not just their own compliance score.

The Bottom Line

Nicole Rosie is right: deliberate avoidance of obligations creates serious safety risks and distorts competition. That principle applies just as forcefully to sophisticated corporate structures as it does to rogue owner-drivers.

Large prime contractors have the resources, the market power, and the legal duty to resource effective training programs for the subcontractors they engage. Many are choosing not to – or at least not at the scale and quality the law and community safety demand.

Until regulators, governments, and industry bodies apply the same targeted scrutiny and expectation of sustained improvement to the big end of town, the "unpopular opinion" will remain the uncomfortable truth: we're still letting the architects of the problem mostly off the hook while punishing the symptoms.

The heavy vehicle sector moves Australia. It's time the entire chain – starting at the top – moves together toward genuine safety capability, not just compliance theatre.

What do you think?

Is the NHVR's targeted approach enough, or do we need stronger upstream accountability on prime contractors? Drop your thoughts in the comments or share this with your network.

Key References & Further Reading:  
- NHVR CEO Nicole Rosie: "Taking a targeted approach to safety" (Big Rigs, April 2026)  
- NHVR Chain of Responsibility guidance for prime contractors  
- ATO/FWO sham contracting crackdown announcements  
- Heavy vehicle fatigue offence data (NHVR operations reporting)