Commercial Passenger Vehicle Industry (Infringements) Regulations 2018

Infringement notice. An infringement notice (commonly called an on‑the‑spot fine or ticket) is a written notice issued by an authorised officer alleging that a person has committed a prescribed infringement offence. The notice demands payment of the prescribed penalty within a specified period. If the person pays, the matter is resolved without a criminal conviction being recorded (unless the legislation provides otherwise). If the person does not pay and does not elect to have the matter dealt with by a court, further enforcement action may follow, such as a penalty reminder notice and eventual registration with the Infringements Court or the Sheriff. The Regulations do not set out the procedure for serving or disputing notices; those procedures are found in the Act (presumably Part 9 or Schedule 2) and the Infringements Act 2006.

Penalty units. All penalties in Schedule 1 are expressed in penalty units, not fixed dollar amounts. The value of a penalty unit is set annually by the Victorian Treasurer under the Monetary Units Act 2004 and published in the Government Gazette. The endnotes state that for the 2025‑26 financial year one penalty unit is $203.51. That means a 12‑penalty‑unit fine is $2,442.12; a 1.25‑penalty‑unit fine is $254.39. The dollar amount adjusts each 1 July, so the actual cost of an infringement notice changes over time even though the number of penalty units remains constant. This indexing mechanism means that the real penalty does not erode with inflation, but it also imposes a compliance burden: operators must track the current dollar value to understand the financial exposure of a ticket. The rounding provisions in the Monetary Units Act allow the calculated penalty to be rounded to the nearest dollar.

Prescribed infringement offences. The term “prescribed infringement offence” is defined by reference to item 46 of Schedule 2 to the Act. Essentially, it means an offence that the Governor in Council has determined can be dealt with by infringement notice, as listed in Schedule 1. There are two distinct groups of offences: those under the Commercial Passenger Vehicle Industry Act 2017 (items 1 to 17AAB) and those under the Commercial Passenger Vehicle Industry Regulations 2018 (items 17A to 47). The Act offences cover core regulatory matters such as operating without accreditation (sections 37, 38), failing to comply with licensing conditions (section 47), and various driver and vehicle standards (sections 70, 82, 87‑94, 110G, 224). The two new items added in 2026, sections 267A and 267B, appear to relate to new obligations (likely data reporting or compliance with new safe‑driver standards). The Regulation offences cover more granular conduct: displaying identification (reg 8), carrying documentation (reg 9), vehicle signage (regs 10, 12), equipment (regs 13, 14), driver conduct (regs 17, 18), fares and hiring (regs 19, 21, 22), record‑keeping (regs 25, 26, 27), and compliance with safety and reporting requirements (regs 28, 28A). The penalty amounts are not uniform: they clearly reflect the legislature’s view of relative seriousness. The highest (12 penalty units) are reserved for Act offences that go to the heart of the licensing system, while many Regulation offences attract 1.25, 2.5, or 5 penalty units.

Choice of forum. Receipt of an infringement notice does not automatically result in a conviction. A person served with a notice may elect to have the matter heard in the Magistrates’ Court, thereby challenging the allegation or seeking a lower penalty. If no election is made and the penalty is not paid within the due date, the enforcement system escalates: a penalty reminder notice is issued, followed by a notice of final demand, then registration of the debt with the Infringements Court. If the registered fines are not paid, the Sheriff can enforce collection, and the person may face suspension of their driver licence or vehicle registration. An election to go to court means the infringement notice is withdrawn and the matter proceeds as a charge, exposing the person to a court‑imposed penalty which could be higher than the infringement penalty (up to the maximum penalty for the offence). That is a key risk for a recipient who disputes the notice but does not have a strong defence.

These Regulations directly affect every person or entity that participates in the commercial passenger vehicle industry in Victoria: accredited operators, drivers, booking service providers, vehicle owners, and any person who must hold a licence or permit under the Act. Because the Regulations list a large number of potential infringement offences, the range of affected persons is broad. Drivers are the most obvious group. Many of the Regulation offences involve driver conduct: failing to display accreditation (reg 8(2)), failing to produce the licence on request (reg 9(1)), failing to ensure passengers wear seatbelts (reg 10(1)), failing to maintain vehicle cleanliness (reg 13(1)), failing to accept or refuse hiring properly (reg 19(2)), and failing to keep records (reg 25(1)). A driver who commits any of these could receive an on‑the‑spot ticket ranging from 1.25 to 5 penalty units (currently $254 to $1,018). Operators who own or manage fleets are also directly affected. For example, an operator may be liable for a vehicle not meeting safety standards (reg 14(1) - 5 penalty units) or for failing to ensure the driver holds proper accreditation (s 38(1) - 12 penalty units). Booking service providers and network operators may be caught by the new sections 267A and 267B (added in 2026) which carry a 12‑penalty‑unit infringement penalty. These sections likely relate to data sharing or reporting obligations under the Act. Small independent operators (e.g., sole‑driver owner‑operators) face the highest absolute exposure because they bear the cost of any fine personally and may have limited capacity to absorb a $2,442 ticket. Taxi and hire‑car drivers who operate under a driver accreditation are the ones most likely to receive tickets for conduct offences such as failing to wear a uniform (reg 17) or failing to display a fare schedule (reg 22). Passengers are not directly subject to infringement notices under these Regulations; the offences are imposed on industry participants. However, passengers may be indirectly affected if service quality declines because operators pass on compliance costs or if drivers become more risk‑averse in accepting certain jobs. The regulator’s enforcement officers are also affected because this instrument gives them a low‑cost enforcement tool. Instead of preparing a brief for a court, they can issue a ticket on the spot, collect the penalty (often by immediate payment) and move on. This also means the regulator can produce higher enforcement numbers with fewer resources, which may increase the frequency of enforcement actions against minor infractions. Finally, the legal and compliance industry in the commercial passenger vehicle sector is affected: lawyers, accountants, and compliance managers must keep track of the changing Schedule 1 to advise clients on the risk of infringement notices. Every amendment adds or alters items, requiring updated compliance checklists and training. The 2026 amendment adding two new 12‑penalty‑unit items is a material change that warrants immediate attention by all industry participants.

Duty to pay the infringement penalty. The primary duty arising from an infringement notice is to pay the prescribed penalty (set out in column 3 of Schedule 1) within the period stated on the notice (usually 28 days). Payment discharges the liability and no further action is taken. Failure to pay leads to the enforcement process described earlier, which can culminate in suspension of driver licences or vehicle registration, seizure of property, and additional costs.

Duty to comply with the underlying offence provisions. The Regulations do not create duties; they attach an infringement notice option to duties already imposed by the Act and the principal Regulations. Those duties include: holding proper accreditation (s 37, 38), complying with conditions of accreditation (s 47), not operating a service without a licence (s 51), ensuring vehicles meet standards (s 70), carrying required documents (s 82), wearing approved identification (s 87‑94), and numerous operational requirements in the principal Regulations such as keeping vehicles clean (reg 13), not making false statements about fares (reg 19), and keeping accurate records (reg 25, 26, 27). The highest routine duties (12 penalty units) are those that go to the integrity of the licensing scheme: operating without accreditation or without a licence. The lower penalties are for what might be considered administrative or conduct infractions.

Right to elect to have the matter dealt with by a court. A person served with an infringement notice may elect (within the time allowed) to have the matter heard in the Magistrates’ Court. That right is preserved by the Infringements Act 2006 and the Act. If the person elects, the infringement notice is withdrawn and a charge is filed. The person can then contest the allegation, plead guilty and make submissions on penalty, or request a section 76 dismissal (good behaviour bond) or diversion. The risk is that the court may impose a higher penalty than the infringement amount, especially for repeat offenders or serious breaches. A person who pays the notice waives the right to argue innocence or to seek a lower penalty.

Right to request an internal review. Under the Infringements Act 2006, a person may apply for an internal review of an infringement notice on grounds such as mistake of identity, special circumstances, or that the offence was not committed. If the review results in withdrawal of the notice, the person is not required to pay. This right is not mentioned in these Regulations but flows from the general law.

Right to a payment plan. A person who cannot pay the full penalty immediately may apply for a payment plan or time to pay. Again, this arises under the Infringements Act 2006, not these Regulations, but is a key practical right for financially constrained individuals.

Duty to respond within a deadline. The person must either pay, elect court, or apply for review within the period specified on the notice (typically 28 days). Failing to do any of these results in the notice escalating. The Regulations themselves do not set the deadline; that is done by the Act and the Infringements Act.

No duty to assist enforcement. A person who receives an infringement notice is not required to self‑incriminate or assist in proving the offence. The burden of proof remains on the enforcement officer to establish the elements of the prescribed offence (beyond reasonable doubt if the matter goes to court). The infringement notice is an allegation; the recipient is entitled to remain silent.

The penalties set out in Schedule 1 range from 1 penalty unit ($203.51 in 2025‑26) to 12 penalty units ($2,442.12). The pattern is clear: Act offences that concern the core of the licensing system (items 1‑5, 16, 17AA, 17AAB) all carry 12 penalty units. Offences that involve obstruction or record‑keeping (s 82, s 224) are lower at 7.5 and 1.25 penalty units respectively. The many driver conduct offences (e.g., failing to wear ID, failing to comply with hiring requirements) are mostly 1.25 to 2.5 penalty units. Some vehicle safety or equipment offences (regs 13, 14) are set at 5 penalty units, implying a higher assessment of risk. The lowest penalties (1 penalty unit) are for certain record‑keeping and reporting obligations under reg 28A, which were added relatively recently (likely in 2023 or 2025). The structure of penalties creates a clear hierarchy: a driver who fails to wear their accreditation may receive a $254 ticket, while an operator who allows a driver to work without accreditation may receive a $2,442 ticket. This reflects the relative gravity and the fact that operators have greater capacity to ensure compliance. The enforcement process itself is not described in these Regulations. They simply set the penalty amount. The actual enforcement chain is governed by the Act, the Infringements Act 2006, and the Fines Reform Act 2014. In short, an infringement notice is served, payment is due within 28 days. If unpaid, a penalty reminder notice is issued. If still unpaid, a notice of final demand is sent, adding a prescribed fee. If that is ignored, the matter is lodged with the Infringements Court, which can impose additional costs and order enforcement action such as suspension of driver licence or vehicle registration, garnishment of wages, seizure of property, or even imprisonment in extreme cases for fine default. Importantly, a person who pays the infringement notice does not have a criminal conviction recorded (unless the specific offence provision provides for a conviction on payment, which is not indicated here). This is a significant incentive to pay: avoiding a criminal record that might affect insurance, employment, or travel. However, paying the notice means the person cannot later argue they did not commit the offence; they have effectively admitted it by paying. The possibility of double jeopardy is avoided: if the infringement notice is paid, the matter is finalised and cannot be reinstituted as a criminal prosecution. If it is not paid and the matter proceeds to court, the usual criminal procedure applies. The enforcement authority (likely Safe Transport Victoria) must issue the notice within the prescribed time limit (usually 12 months from the date of the alleged offence). The Regulations do not affect limitation periods.

These Regulations are a subordinate instrument under the Commercial Passenger Vehicle Industry Act 2017. They operate within the framework of that Act, which creates the offence provisions and empowers the making of regulations. The Act is the primary source of the duties; these Regulations merely select which of those duties can be enforced by infringement notice and at what penalty. The principal Regulations (Commercial Passenger Vehicle Industry Regulations 2018) are also parent instruments: many of the infringement offences cited in Schedule 1 (items 17A to 47) are breaches of those Regulations. Someone who receives an infringement notice for breaching, say, regulation 8(2) (failing to display accreditation) is being penalised under both the principal Regulations (the duty) and these Regulations (the enforcement mechanism). The Sentencing Act 1991 defines “penalty unit” for the purposes of Victorian law. Section 110 of that Act provides the meaning of penalty unit, and the Monetary Units Act 2004 gives the Treasurer the power to set the dollar value annually. The endnotes explicitly refer to both Acts. Thus the dollar amount of any infringement penalty depends on the penalty unit value published in the Government Gazette each financial year. That value is not set by these Regulations; it is set externally and incorporated by reference. This means the effective fine increases automatically with inflation (or any change determined by the Treasurer), without any further regulation needed. The Infringements Act 2006 governs the procedure for issuing, serving, and enforcing infringement notices in Victoria. It provides for matters such as the content of notices, internal review, payment plans, enforcement actions, and the right to elect court. These Regulations do not replicate those procedures; they rely on the general Infringements Act regime. So a person served with a notice under these Regulations has all the rights and obligations under that Act. The Fines Reform Act 2014 may also be relevant for enforcement of unpaid fines. The Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 is relevant because the issuing of infringement notices and subsequent enforcement can engage charter rights such as the right to a fair hearing (s 24) and the right not to be tried or punished more than once (s 26). However, the infringement notice system is designed to be consistent with the Charter by providing the right to elect court. There is a potential interaction with the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 when the matter goes to court. The offence provisions under the Act and principal Regulations are also relevant: some may have a higher maximum penalty if prosecuted in court. For example, section 37(1) of the Act might carry a maximum penalty of 120 penalty units on conviction, but the infringement penalty is capped at 12 penalty units. This difference creates an incentive for the enforcement authority to issue a ticket rather than take a matter to court for minor first offences. The Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) is not directly engaged by these Regulations, but industry participants should be aware that the infringement regime applies to conduct that may also attract liability under Australian Consumer Law if the operator engages in misleading conduct about fares or services. The Regulations only cover state‑imposed penalties.

The original regulations, S.R. No. 85/2018, were made on 26 June 2018 and commenced on 2 July 2018, except for regulation 7 (which was originally to commence on 1 September 2018). Regulation 7 was later revoked by S.R. No. 122/2020. The regulations have been amended five times since enactment. S.R. No. 162/2019 (19 December 2019) amended Schedule 1, likely to add new infringement offences or adjust penalties, but the specific changes are not detailed in the source beyond that it amended the Schedule. S.R. No. 122/2020 (10 November 2020, effective 18 November 2020) made two changes: it revoked regulation 7 (which presumably contained some now‑repealed provision) and amended Schedule 1. This revocation suggests that the original regulation 7 may have been an interim or transitional provision that had become spent. S.R. No. 66/2022 (9 August 2022) amended the regulations; notably, the table of amendments shows that regulation 3(2) of that amending instrument commenced on 9 August 2022. The specific changes to Schedule 1 are not listed but the amendment inserted items or altered penalty amounts. S.R. No. 100/2023 (19 September 2023, effective 28 September 2023) amended Schedule 1 again. This amendment likely added the items for regulation 28A (items 44‑47, with penalties of 1 penalty unit each) because those items have codes A422‑A425, suggesting they were added in a batch. The timing of the 2023 amendment coincides with the introduction of “A‑codes” which are used for new infringement codes. S.R. No. 154/2025 (23 December 2025, effective 1 January 2026) is the most recent amendment. It added two new items to Schedule 1, numbered 17AA and 17AAB, which refer to sections 267A(1) and 267B(1) of the Act respectively. Both carry 12 penalty units. This indicates that the Act was amended (probably by the Commercial Passenger Vehicle Industry Amendment Act 2025) to introduce new obligations, and these Regulations were updated to allow infringement notices for those new obligations from day one of their operation. The penalty of 12 penalty units suggests these are considered serious obligations, likely related to data reporting, safety management, or new compliance requirements. The rapid succession of amendments (five times in seven years) indicates that the infringement schedule is a living document. Each amendment imposes an update burden on industry participants who must check whether new offences apply to them. The revocation of regulation 7 shows that the original instrument had elements that the government later considered unnecessary; this creates a risk that other parts of the regulations could also be changed with little notice. Practitioners should always refer to the current version (version 007) incorporating all amendments up to 1 January 2026. The table of amendments in the endnotes provides the legislative history for verification.

The source does not mention any specific court cases interpreting or challenging these Regulations. Because the Regulations are procedural (prescribing which offences can be ticketed and the penalty), litigation would likely arise indirectly in the context of a prosecution for an offence where the defendant argues that the infringement notice was invalidly issued, or that the penalty amount is not authorised. For example, a defendant might challenge whether the regulation‑making power under section 289 of the Act extends to prescribing the penalty for a particular offence if that offence carries a court‑imposed penalty that conflicts with the infringement penalty. However, no such challenge is reported in the source. The Infringements Act 2006 provides grounds for internal review and court appeal which could lead to judicial review of the decision to issue a notice, but again no specific case is noted. The absence of litigation history does not mean the regulations are immune from challenge. A potential area of contention is the way penalty units are fixed: if the Treasurer under the Monetary Units Act 2004 does not follow the correct procedure for setting the unit value, a challenge could arise. But that would be a challenge to the penalty unit, not to these Regulations directly. Another avenue: a person might argue that a particular offence is not suitable for summary enforcement by infringement notice because of its seriousness (e.g., sections 267A and 267B might involve complex facts that cannot be fairly determined on the spot). The legislature has prescribed them as infringement offences, but the courts could potentially intervene if the infringement notice procedure leads to an unjust outcome in a specific case. However, the Victorian Court of Appeal and the High Court have generally upheld infringement notice schemes as a valid executive power, provided the recipient retains the right to elect court. The right to elect preserves the fundamental protections of the criminal justice system. Therefore, a strong challenge is unlikely. The practical reality is that most recipients will pay the notice rather than incur the cost and uncertainty of litigation, especially for amounts under $2,500. That economic deterrent means the infringement notice system is rarely tested in court. Lawyers advising clients should be aware that contesting a notice in court carries the risk of a higher penalty and adverse costs orders. There is no class action potential because each notice is individual. The lack of litigation history does not mean the Regulations are uncontroversial; it more likely reflects the rational choice of most recipients to pay and move on. However, for high‑value notices (12 penalty units), the incentive to challenge may be stronger if the facts are disputed or if the recipient believes the enforcement officer made an error.

A number of traps and hidden features exist in these Regulations for the unwary. First, the penalty amount is not fixed on the face of the ticket. The number of penalty units is stated, but the dollar amount depends on the financial year in which the infringement notice is issued. A ticket issued on 30 June will be for one dollar value; a ticket issued on 1 July for the same offence may be for a higher value. The difference can be significant especially after a large inflationary increase (penalty units are indexed annually by the Treasurer). A recipient might be surprised to find that the amount they must pay is higher than the previous year’s equivalent. **Second, the addition of items 17AA and 17AAB in 2026 means that two new serious obligations (carrying 12 penalty units each) came into effect on 1 January 2026 without any public consultation or transitional period evident from the source. Operators may not have had adequate time to adjust their compliance systems before enforcement began. **Third, the revocation of original regulation 7 without any replacement suggests that some transitional provision was deleted completely. Anyone researching the regulatory history must be careful not to rely on the original text. The regulation 7 that was revoked may have contained important transitional exceptions, now gone. The current regulations are the sole reference point. **Fourth, the penalty for some Regulation offences is surprisingly high relative to others. For example, failing to keep records under reg 26(1) attracts 2.5 penalty units, but failing to keep the driver daily log under reg 25(1) attracts only 1.5 penalty units. The inconsistency may reflect differing priorities, but a recipient might not understand why one administrative failure costs significantly more than another. **Fifth, the 1.25 penalty unit minimum means that even the most minor infraction (e.g., failing to display a sign correctly) costs at least $254 in 2025‑26. That is a significant hit for a low‑income driver. There is no waiver provision in these Regulations for first‑time offenders or for minor breaches. The enforcement officer has discretion whether to issue a ticket or a warning, but the Regulations do not require a warning. **Sixth, the infringement notice carries the same code number as the offence code in column 4. These codes are used for data matching and automated fine enforcement. A person who receives a notice with a code that does not match the alleged offence (e.g., code 2556 for s 70 vs code 2558 for s 82) may have a defence if the notice is invalid due to incorrect coding. But most recipients would not know the code mapping. **Seventh, the interaction with the principal Regulations is complex. A breach of regulation 19(2) (failing to accept a hiring) carries 2.5 penalty units, but regulation 19(3) (making a false statement about fares) carries 4 penalty units. A driver could be issued two separate notices for related conduct, leading to a total of 6.5 penalty units ($1,322) for a single interaction. **Eighth, the use of “penalty units” means that the actual penalty can increase without any new regulation. The government needs only to revalue the unit. This is a hidden cost that is not obvious at the time of the ticket. **Ninth, there is no apparent defence of “reasonable excuse” set out in these Regulations for the infringement offences. The underlying Act may contain such defences for some offences, but not all. A driver who fails to display accreditation because the badge fell off must still pay the fine unless they elect court and argue a defence. The infringement notice system does not allow for on‑the‑spot explanations. **Tenth, a driver of a booking service provider could be hit with multiple notices for the same underlying incident if they are alleged to have breached both an Act section and a Regulation section simultaneously. There is no double jeopardy protection at the infringement notice stage; it only arises if the matter goes to court and the person is convicted of one but not the other. The enforcer may choose to issue multiple notices, and the recipient would have to pay them all or elect court for each.

Compliance with these Regulations is not a standalone exercise. The Regulations themselves do not create duties; they merely attach an infringement notice to duties under the Act and the principal Regulations. Therefore, the first step is to identify which of the listed offences apply to your role. A driver should focus on items that refer to sections of the Act that govern driver conduct (sections 87‑94, 110G, 224) and the regulation offences that address driver behaviour (regs 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28, 28A). An operator needs to be aware of the Act offences that apply to operators (sections 37, 38, 47, 51, 70, 82) and the regulation offences that impose obligations on the operator (regs 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28, 28A). A booking service provider should check sections 267A and 267B, which are likely aimed at them. The second step is to understand the dollar value of penalty units for the current financial year. The explanatory details state the 2025‑26 value is $203.51, but this will change each year. The relevant Government Gazette must be consulted after 1 June each year to find the new value. The third step is to implement operational practices that minimise the chance of committing any of the listed offences. For example: ensure all vehicles have current accreditation displayed, drivers wear ID badges, fare schedules are visible, vehicles are clean and mechanically sound, records are kept accurately and up to date, hiring is accepted and refused according to the rules, and any reporting obligations under sections 267A and 267B are met. Training is essential, especially after each amendment to Schedule 1. The 2026 amendment adding two new 12‑penalty‑unit offences means that all affected entities must now comply with sections 267A and 267B of the Act. Those sections are not reproduced in these Regulations, so the principal Act must be consulted to determine what exactly is required. The fourth step is to have a process for handling an infringement notice if one is received. That process includes: checking the notice for correctness (date, location, offence code, penalty amount), deciding whether to pay or contest, and being aware of the deadline. Paying the notice is usually the cheapest and quickest option if the person accepts they committed the offence. Contesting the notice may be worthwhile if there is a strong defence or if the penalty is high. In that case, an internal review should be sought under the Infringements Act 2006. If the review is unsuccessful, the person can elect court, but should seek legal advice because costs could exceed the penalty. The fifth step is to budget for the risk of infringement notices. The operator should treat the 12‑penalty‑unit offences as serious and ensure compliance vigorously. A high volume of fines can cripple a small business. The sixth step is to keep records of compliance efforts: training logs, vehicle inspection reports, and driver acknowledgements. These may help if a notice is disputed, as they can show reasonable efforts to comply. However, the infringement scheme does not recognise a “reasonable steps” defence unless the underlying Act provides one. The seventh step is to monitor future amendments to these Regulations. The instrument has been amended five times in eight years; further changes are likely. Subscribing to the Victorian Legislation website or the regulator’s updates is prudent. Finally, if an infringement notice leads to enforcement action that results in a court hearing, the person should be aware that the maximum court penalty for the offence may be much higher than the infringement penalty. Therefore, fighting a case carries risk. In summary, compliance is preventive: know the offences, train staff, stay current, and treat every infringement notice as a serious financial and legal event.