Site records and compliance.
You're legally required to keep records. That's not optional. WHS, building codes, contract obligations—it all points to the same thing: if you don't have a diary, you don't have proof. And without proof, you lose. The records you keep determine whether you can defend yourself, claim a delay, or prove a variation.
What records does a site supervisor legally need to keep?
There are three separate sources of record-keeping obligation for an Australian site supervisor:
- WHS legislation: every state and territory requires incident records, hazard logs, and safe work method statements to be maintained and retained. Specific timeframes vary by jurisdiction.
- Building regulations: licensed builders and building supervisors are typically required to keep site records for a period after practical completion, as prescribed by state licensing legislation.
- Contract obligations: most commercial contracts include a daily reporting requirement. Failure to maintain records can be used against you in a dispute.
The daily site diary sits across all three. It's your primary record for all of them.
Full breakdown by obligation type: What records does a site supervisor legally need to keep in Australia?
How long should you keep them?
The minimum practical retention period for most Australian construction records is 7 years from practical completion. Some obligations go longer:
- WHS incident records: typically 5 years minimum (varies by jurisdiction)
- Structural defects: up to the limitation period for latent defect claims, which runs to 10 years in some states
- Contracts and correspondence: 7 years as a practical minimum
Digital records stored in the cloud are easier to retain long-term than paper stored on-site or in a shed. Paper degrades, gets lost, and doesn't survive a site office flood or fire.
Retention detail: How long should construction daily reports be kept?
Can a digital voice report be used as evidence?
Yes. Electronic records are admissible under Australian evidence legislation (the uniform Evidence Acts in most jurisdictions and state equivalents elsewhere). A timestamped PDF from diary entries made at the time holds the same legal weight as a paper diary.
The admissibility question matters less than the credibility question: a record made at the time is more credible than one written from memory, regardless of format. System-generated timestamps that can't be backdated are harder to challenge than a handwritten time in the margin.
Evidence admissibility: Can a voice-recorded report be used as legal evidence?