Hi Don,
Have a look here:
https://www.privacy.org.nz/tools/online-privacy-training-free/
Free Privacy Act online training from the Privacy Commission.
In particular, I suggest you do the Privacy ABC module (20 mins max) - you will find the answer to your question and more in that

Do B Train truck drivers need to be "retrained every 3 years. Do nurses need to be 'retrained every 3 years. — Andrew

Hey Andrew,
***says the following with tongue firmly placed against cheek***
Maybe if B train drivers got retrained every 3 years, they would not be overly represented in road deaths?

***Remove tongue from cheek***
Nurses, like most healthcare workers, require continuous training to maintain their registration

Section 3.4 of AS/NZS1800:
Working Life
Excessive discolouration of the shell colour or weathering of the surface may indicate a loss of strength, as do shells with splitting or cracking of the materials. Such helmets should be discarded.
Attention is drawn to the fact that helmets complying with AS/NZS 1801 are required to contain a safety warning regarding damage due to impact and deterioration.
At the time of issue to the wearer, the helmet should be marked with the issue date.
Field tests have shown that, generally, helmet shells have a life of three years from the time of issue. Components of harnesses may deteriorate more rapidly in service, and harnesses should, therefore, be replaced at intervals not longer than two years.
For helmets that are used infrequently and stored away from sunlight, dirt and temperature extremes, this guideline/recommendation may not be applicable. The user should examine the helmet regularly and discard it if any damage is evident.
Conversely, helmets that are used in extreme conditions or temperature, or poorly stored, may need to be replaced more frequently.

Clearly, it is a recommendation, not a requirement to replace every three years.

still been a risk of imminent exposure — MattD2

I agree with this 100%. Without getting into a debate about the legislation being written correctly or not, the decision to notify or not cannot include "still been a risk of imminent exposure". Otherwise and again, nearly all events on site would be notifiable.
We have to stick to what is required by legislation, that being: there is imminent exposure, or there is not imminent exposure.

This is my take when deciding what is a notifiable event and what is not; as we know, Notifiable Incidents are covered by Sec 24 HSWA 2015. This section has 13 events, that if were to eventuate, would be considered a notifiable event.
The question asked is: “If something falls off a Truck, does this count as a fall from height?”. As per sec 24, the event is:
A FALL FROM HEIGHT OF ANY PLANT, SUBSTANCE OR THING.
For this incident (or any similar event) to be notifiable, there must be context; otherwise, the above sentence would mean anything, anywhere at any time that falls is notifiable!

To counter this, legislation is written with qualifiers; as in - if ‘this’ happens, then ‘that’ must happen
The qualifier is the first paragraph in Sec 24
A notifiable incident is an unplanned or uncontrolled incident in relation to a workplace that exposes the health and safety of workers or others to a serious risk arising from immediate or imminent exposure to:
Then is the list of 13 specific events.

For one of the 13 events to be notifiable, the first paragraph must apply (or be true).

Qualifying paragraphs are made up of elements, and for the qualifier to apply (to be true), all elements MUST be met. The absence of just one element renders the qualifier redundant.
What I consider to be the elements from the qualifying paragraph are:
• unplanned or uncontrolled
• relation to a workplace
• exposes the health and safety of workers or others
• serious risk
• immediate or imminent exposure

In an attempt to explain, I have added a True or False (with assumptions) to each element from the question:
• unplanned or uncontrolled: TRUE – the metal fuel pump was not meant to fall
• relation to a workplace: TRUE – it happened at work (assumption here)
• exposes the health and safety of workers or others: I assume FALSE, but not enough information is provided to be certain
• serious risk others: I assume FALSE, but not enough information is provided to be certain
• immediate or imminent exposure others: I assume FALSE, but not enough information is provided to be certain

Considering my assumptions, the qualifier is rendered redundant on up to three elements, making the remaining part of the regulation redundant, meaning it is not notifiable. If there is no qualifier, nearly every incident that happens at work is notifiable.

Finally, I am all for notifying WorkSafe, but always consider this: once you notify, you can’t un-notify. Once notified, the event/incident becomes part of the WorkSafe system which you are no longer in control of.

Hi Rebecca
We put our team through the St John Mental Health First Aid course
https://buy.stjohn.org.nz/Mental-Health-First-Aid/#More%20Information

This may help?

We legalised prostitution in 2003; I am pretty sure there has not been a proliferation of prostitutes standing in every street corner since then. The Prostitution Reform Act decriminalised prostitution and established a legal framework around the sex industry and provided protection for prostitutes from undesirables.
The Cannabis and Legalisation Control Bill will provide a similar level of regulation around a problem that already exists. Like it or not, cannabis is and has been in our communities, our workplaces and our families for ages. A yes vote will allow us to provide a framework of control.
We do not have a clear understanding of cannabis use because it is illegal to test, to sample or to understand what the drug is and how much is too much. No agency is permitted to perform studies on cannabis use. A no vote will keep t New Zealand organisations confused and unclear about how to manage cannabis and prevent workplaces from getting tools, services or products to know and understand what impairment is (it will remain a minefield).

My dad - in 1986 he gave me (for my 14th bday) a single storey ex housing nz house, a crow bar, a chainsaw, some wise words and 48 hours to demolish the house so I could fundraise for a sporting tournament in Australia. Those words were "If it will fall on you dont cut it, if you will fall dont stand on it and most importantly, don't hurt yourself or else you will have to answer to your mother". Simple and effective.

I am sure I will be corrected if I am wrong, to my knowledge there is no ‘legal’ requirement to fit seatbelts for fitting sake.
If, however your risk assessment of the work identified operators being thrown out of the cab (and crushed) during a roll over and a known control is wearing seatbelts, then yes you have a ‘legal’ responsibility to fit them, so far as reasonably practicable.
But…if fitting the seatbelts is not reasonably practicable, as in that the cost of installing them is grossly disproportionate to the risk, then again you don’t have a ‘legal’ responsibility to install them.
I am guessing you have other controls in place such as trained and competent operators, operating with the doors closed, roll over protection structures (if fitted), and flat and level ground which is suitable to carry the weight of the machine. Then these combined controls make the risk of roll over low. Therefore with all these assumptions, I would suggest you probably don’t need to retrofit them.

It is safe to assume the seatbelt is a safety device, chances are the manufacturer spent an enormous amount of money and R&D to install it when the plant/equipment is made. I highly doubt they spend that time and money without a reason (yes I’m sure someone will pipe up and say its to cover them from litigation…but NZ is a no fault state).
It would be an interesting argument saying you decided not to use something the maker of the plant/equipment deemed necessary.
This applies for just about everything, if it was put there by the people/company making it, who am I to say it is not required.