Yes, whether it is notifiable or not is only relevant for those working in H&S.
The employees on the ground need to know what to report to management, which is anything that could have caused harm. Unfortunately, lengthy reporting forms mean that people will try to avoid reporting. If someone doesn't understand half the words on the form, they won't complete it, it's as simple as that.
To be honest, if I was presented with a form such as Garth's, I'd only complete it if I absolutely had to - there would be no near miss reporting.
I've got a client whose form is half an A4 page (date, what happened, who, etc). All the rest of the info is completed during discussions with the reporter.

I wouldn't have any definition that is self-referential.

Incident - unplanned or uncontrolled incident in relation to a workplace — SusiR

Here is what we have within our rule structure:

Incident means any occurrence, other than an accident, that is associated
with the operation of an aircraft and affects or could affect the safety of
operation

From CAANZ Rule Part 1

simple and straight forward. If it could cause harm, then it is an incident

The issue here is that I'm guessing a lot of those guides also participate in these activities in their off-time, so choose to use their own equipment.
From my own recreational climbing experience, I was careful about who I climbed with, and part of that was that I didn't know how they'd treated their equipment.
Heirarchy of controls tends to break down where the exposure to the risk is part of the objective of hte activity. Having a boardwalk up a glacier kind of defeats the purpose.

That would be an interesting case. What would the employee's liability be, given that they have a duty to not introduce hazards into the workplace?

So, if I'm an investor in an SME, with no day-to-day participation, I should be liable?

The problem here is that SME's run the whole gamut from single owner-operators to multi-million dollar businesses with many staff and investors. Exactly how do you define who is and who isn't liable under such a regime. What happens if an owner is an investment company?

There are far too many opportunities for unintended consequences here.

If someone has an active participation, and ability to influence H&S then they are an officer under the legislation currently aren't they?

There are some other bit in the agreement that I agree with, however. Items such as ensuring that accidents are promptly reported to the building owner. If they have multiple tenants in a building, the building owner is responsible for informing other tenants, hence the reporting requirement.
They may also see a trend if multiple tenants are having incidents of a similar root cause that a single tenant may not.

Some aren't quite so obvious though.
SOP's that I develop also set out who is responsible for what, including what the client is responsible for (such as notifying neighbours of helicopter operations).

That definitely depends on the context of the organisation.
I have an aviation background, where a disproportionate amount of the controls are procedural in nature. Even if the exact order of the steps doesn't have any safety implications, carrying them out in the same order every time ensures that nothing gets missed.
Think of making a cake - you can mix the ingredients in any order, but if you don't follow the order they are listed in the recipe, the chances of missing one are increased.

Sorry, I wasn't clear in what I meant.
They're not separate, but a standard operating procedure will convey safety information, as well as other, standardized procedures. So, your example of McDonalds is a Standard Operating procedure.

So, how does this idea work with a listed company?

There is a world of difference between a Standard Operating Procedure, and a Safe Operating procedure.
Standard Operating Procedures arose from Quality Management, and seek to ensure there is a consistent methodology and output (which in itself ensures safety)
While a Safe Operating Procedure (well, all that I've seen at least) only look at how to do the job safely.

And most councils won't give you enough water to run a deluge system.
NFPA have some info regarding first responders, but the Fire Protection research has lagged well behind the pace of technological change.

My wife's trying to design a sprinkler system for a building with Lithium Battery storage. That's a whole other area where so far we've just been operating on an 'conveniently overlooked' basis.
But, if you're working on EV's then the risk is somewhat elevated of a short-circuit (dropped tools, etc) and potential toxic fumes, etc.

You might also want to verify with your insurance company. Fire protection standards (sprinklers, etc) may not be suitable for a fire involving an EV.

I've had our regulator tell one of my clients that they didn't need to have the matrix, so they definitely aren't compulsory. But the same client also said that they wanted to keep them because it enabled him to justify whether he called a risk high, medium or low, and allowed him to have that open discussion with clients.

For me the consequence of an activity is not if it will happen, but when it will happen. And the consequences I worry about are death (HSWA S25) or a notifiable injury or illness (HSWA S23). So for me, I look at the activity, identify the hazard(s), determine the consequence(s) and work through the hierarchy of controls. — KeithH

And there I think you're missing the point of risk management.

What if an accident may have a low injury, but result in millions of dollars of damage (think Skycity fire)? Risk management is where all of these factors (financial loss, reputation loss, regulatory implications, etc) should come together. Everyone here is working in a very silo'd manner, without looking at the wider implications.

I don't consider the likelihood. Progress down the HoC automatically takes care of that. Once the controls for each level have been identified, it's up to the officers and workers of the PCBU to choose and find their own balance. There's only so much money in the kitty and so much time to get the job done. — KeithH

HoC work through the likelihood first (isolation), then the consequences (minimisation), so you must be looking at likelihood, even if not acknowledging it.

I'm interested in how you would look at the risk associated with aircraft flying through uncontrolled airspace. Consequences are a death, but likelihood is extremely low.

Thanks Wayne, That's the first time I've seen it worded that way, and although it still doesn't resonate with me personally, it's a lot better than other interpretations.

In this case, the prime reason they're on site is the construction. My thought is that this is closer to working on a ship. Yes, you're living (temporarily) in board, but if it wasn't for the work, you wouldn't be there.
The more I think about it the question should be "are they PCBUs or employees of the production company?"

Yep, I know that I silence ours without even thinking about it.

If my experience of CO detectors is anything to go by, they'll get plenty of warning. The one in our aircraft seems to go off with even the slightest provocation.