Good mine inspection software does more than replace paper. It works with no reception in the pit, captures your own forms with their logic intact, ties each inspection to a place and a hazard, carries TARP levels and controls, produces statutory reports in your site’s format, and keeps your records private in a system you can produce on request. If a product cannot do those things, it is a form app, not a mine inspection system.
This guide is for site senior executives, managers and safety leads comparing mining inspection software in Australia. It sets out what the law expects your inspection records to do, ten criteria to test any product against, the questions that expose a weak answer, and a side by side table you can take into a vendor meeting.
Why the choice matters more on a mine than anywhere else
Many general-purpose inspection and checklist apps were built for retail, hospitality, facilities and construction. They are good at quick audits and simple forms where phone coverage is reliable.
A mine is different in four ways. Much of the work happens where reception is patchy or absent. Inspections are statutory, so the record has legal weight and a retention period. The hazards are spatial: a highwall, a dump crest or a haul road ramp exists at a location, and the inspection is only meaningful in relation to it. And the response to a finding is usually a trigger action response plan, not an email to a store manager.
Ignore those four things and crews go back to paper, or keep filling in the app while the real information lives in the crib room. We covered that trap in detail in why general checklists create a false sense of safety in mining.
What the legislation expects your inspection records to do
No Australian mining law tells you which software to buy. It does tell you what your inspection records must be able to do, and that is the real specification.
Queensland coal
Section 106 of the Coal Mining Safety and Health Regulation 2017 requires an open-cut examiner to inspect a surface mine excavation before activities start and periodically as required under the safety and health management system. Before inspecting, the examiner must read the latest open-cut examiner’s report in the mine record and acknowledge in writing that they have read it. Section 107 sets out what happens when an unacceptable level of risk is found, including reporting a matter not made safe by the end of the shift to the examiner’s immediate supervisor and to the open-cut examiner making the similar inspection on the next shift.
Section 68 of the Coal Mining Safety and Health Act 1999 requires the mine record to include reports, findings and recommendations from inspections under the Act, kept for at least seven years. When a coal mine worker, an industry safety and health representative or the site senior executive asks to inspect a matter, it must be available within 5 days if it was recorded in the previous six months, and within 28 days otherwise. Our guide to mine record requirements in Queensland covers the rest.
New South Wales
The NSW Resources Regulator’s guide to managing risks in mining and petroleum operations explains the record duties under the Work Health and Safety (Mines and Petroleum Sites) Regulation 2022. A record must be kept of the risk assessment for the overall activity, such as the assessments behind the safety management system or a principal hazard management plan, including who carried it out, their competency and the control measures put in place. Where control measures are reviewed after a notifiable incident, the operator must record the review, the regulator can ask for those records in writing, and penalties apply if they are not provided in the manner and time requested.
Put together, the requirement is plain. Your inspection system must produce a complete, attributable record that links findings to controls, survives for years and can be found quickly.
The buyer’s checklist: ten criteria for mine inspection software
1. It works fully offline in the pit
An inspection app on a mine site has to work where the crews are, not where the tower is. Not “caches the last form you opened”. The whole inspection, including photos, signatures and follow-up sections, must be completed with no reception and sync without loss when the device returns to coverage. Test it by putting a tablet in flight mode, completing three inspections and turning coverage back on. See offline hazard mapping in the Bowen Basin for why this is the first criterion, not the last.
2. Forms are fully customisable, with real logic
Your controlled forms were written for your site. The software should carry them like for like: text, numbers, choices, dates, people pickers, reference images and signatures. It should also support conditional logic, so a non-conforming answer opens the escalation section that your procedure requires, rather than relying on the inspector to remember it.
3. Inspections are tied to a place and to the hazard, or deliberately standalone
A highwall inspection belongs to that highwall. A pre-start belongs to the machine, not a map point. Good software lets each template decide: pinned to a location on the site map, attached to a specific hazard, or completed with no map at all. Our guide to putting inspections on the mine site map shows why this changes what supervisors can see at the start of shift.
4. TARP levels and controls, not just forms
An inspection that finds cracking at a crest should produce a TARP outcome, not a free text comment. Ask whether TARP levels can live in the answer options, whether the result is recorded against the hazard it relates to, and whether controls have an accountable owner, a due date and a compliance status. Read more on running a digital TARP.
5. Statutory reports in your site’s own format
An open-cut examiner’s report or a shift report has a format your site already relies on. The software should generate that format from the inspections and the map, not force your statutory officers into a vendor’s generic PDF. The Queensland OCE report requirements are a good test case.
6. Sign-off by role
The completer signs, and a countersignature is nominated by role, not by a named person who may be on days off. Templates should also be restricted by role, so only the people competent to complete an inspection can open it.
7. Licensing that does not charge per head across a whole crew
Per-user pricing looks cheap for ten users and becomes a reason to leave people out when you have several hundred workers across rosters and contractors. When licensing discourages access, fewer people report hazards. Look for a model that covers the site, so every worker can use it without a cost conversation.
8. Your controlled forms stay private
Some general-purpose platforms encourage users to share templates into public libraries. For a mine, controlled documents describe your hazards, your controls and your procedures. Ask directly where your templates are stored, who can see them, and whether any part of them can ever appear in a public template library.
9. Data residency and a dedicated environment
Ask where the data is hosted, whether your records share a database with other customers, and how you would get a full export if you left. Any mine safety software in Australia that holds statutory records should be able to answer all three plainly.
10. A trial alongside your current system
A demo shows the product. A trial shows whether your crews will use it. Insist on a time-boxed trial on real inspections, run in parallel with your existing process so nothing is lost, with a written result at the end.
Generic form apps versus mine-native platforms
Use this table in the shortlist meeting. Each row is a question you can put to any supplier.
| Criterion | Typical generic form app | What a mine-native platform should do |
|---|---|---|
| Offline use | Partial, often needs a connection to open or submit | Complete inspections fully offline, sync on return to coverage |
| Form design | Template library, simple logic | Your controlled forms like for like, with conditional sections for escalation |
| Location | Usually a GPS stamp on the record | Inspection pinned to the site map or attached to the hazard itself |
| Finding to response | Flag or action item | TARP level derived from the answers, controls with owners and status |
| Statutory reporting | Usually a generic PDF export | Reports in the site’s own format, built from the map and inspections |
| Sign-off | Signature field | Completer sign-off plus countersignature nominated by role |
| Licensing | Usually per user, per month | Site licensing that covers the whole workforce |
| Form privacy | Public template libraries are common | Forms and records private to your own deployment |
| Hosting | Usually a shared multi-customer platform | Dedicated deployment, Australian hosting |
| Proof | Free sign-up | Guided trial on your real inspections alongside current practice |
Where software selections go wrong
- Choosing on the form builder. Every product can make a form. The difference is what happens after the form is submitted.
- Testing in the office. A product demonstrated on office wi-fi tells you nothing about a supervisor at the bottom of a ramp.
- Rebuilding every form on day one. Converting forms like for like first, then improving them, keeps the change manageable and keeps the controlled document trail intact.
- Ignoring the record. If you cannot find last March’s inspection for a particular dump in minutes, the system has not solved the mine record problem.
- No exit plan. Records outlive contracts. Know how you get them back before you sign.
For a smaller site, the same criteria apply at a different scale. Our piece on choosing a quarry inspection app covers the quarry version, and going paperless with mine site inspections covers the change management.
How HazView approaches it
The problem on most sites is not a lack of forms. It is that the inspection, the hazard, the TARP and the statutory report live in different places, so nobody can see the whole picture at the start of a shift, and pulling together the record takes hours.
HazView puts inspections on the same interactive map of the site that every role uses. Checklists are built from your existing forms, work fully offline, and carry conditional logic and TARP levels in the answers, so the TARP outcome comes straight from the inspection. Each template decides whether it is pinned to a location, attached to a hazard or done with no map. The completer signs off, a countersignature is nominated by role, and reports come out in your site’s own format. It is already in use at open cut coal operations in Queensland and New South Wales.
Commercially, each client runs its own dedicated deployment hosted in an Australian region, so your forms and records stay private and are never published to a public template library. Licensing is enterprise, priced to the site’s requirements, with one licence per statutory reporting area rather than per head. A guided trial of about four weeks runs alongside your current system and finishes with a trial report. See how HazView supports site managers, or book a demo with your own inspection forms in hand.
Summary: the shortlist scorecard
| Ask this | Good answer | Walk away if |
|---|---|---|
| Can I complete a full inspection in flight mode? | Yes, with photos and signatures, synced later | It needs a connection to open or submit |
| Can you load our current forms unchanged? | Like for like first, then improved | You must adopt their templates |
| Where does an inspection sit? | On the map, on the hazard, or standalone by design | A GPS stamp is the only link |
| What does a failed check trigger? | A TARP level and controls with owners | An email |
| Can you produce our statutory report format? | Yes, from the inspections and map | Only a generic export |
| How is it licensed? | Covers the whole site workforce | Every contractor adds cost |
| Who can see our forms? | Only our site, in our own deployment | Templates can be shared publicly |
| Where is our data hosted? | Australia, in a dedicated environment | They cannot say |
| Can we trial it on real work? | Yes, alongside our current system | Only a sandbox |
For how inspections fit together across a whole operation, start with our guide to mine site inspections in Australia.
Related guides
- Mine Site Inspections in Australia: What the Law Requires, What to Check and What a Defensible Record Looks Like
- Going Paperless on a Mine Site: Digital Inspections That Hold Up
- Quarry Face Inspection Checklist for Australian Quarries
- NSW Mine Workplace Inspection Requirements Explained
- All Inspections & Checklists guides
Frequently asked questions
Does the law require mine inspections to be digital?
No. The Queensland and New South Wales provisions above set out what records must contain and, for Queensland coal, how long they must be kept. None of them requires paper or a particular product. A digital system is worth it when it makes those records more complete and easier to produce, for example within the 5 day window in section 68 of the Queensland coal Act.
Can a generic checklist app work on a mine site?
It can capture a form. A checklist app for mining also has to cope with no reception, link findings to hazards and TARPs, produce statutory report formats and stay affordable across a large workforce. Test those four things before you commit.
How should mine inspection software be priced?
In a way that does not discourage people from using it. Per-user pricing penalises the sites that most need broad participation. Site-based licensing lets every worker, including contractors, report and inspect without a cost decision each time.
How long should a trial run?
Long enough to cover a full roster cycle and real conditions, which in practice means several weeks. Run it alongside your current process so nothing is lost, and agree at the start what the trial report will measure.
What happens to our existing paper forms?
They should be converted like for like first, so your controlled documents and crews see something familiar, and improved once the system is in use. Adding logic and TARP outcomes is the natural second step.