I am a level 3 Incident controller as well as a Regional Commander with the South Australian Country Fire service. At a recent meeting I discussed with the audience that in South Australia the Incident Controller reports to the Regional Commander. This brought about some robust conversation on the definition of “report” and whether or not the Incident Controller has delegated responsibility and or accountability for the successful completion of the incident. If he/she does then where does the Regional Commander, who has the operational responsibility and accountability for the Region, stand? What are their responsibilities/accountabilities with respect to the incident happening within their region after the Chief Officer appoints a Level 3 Incident Controller.
In South Australia, the Chief Officer of the CFS ‘… has ultimate responsibility for the operations of SACFS…’ (Fire and Emergency Services Act 2005 (SA) s 60(4)). The Chief Officer may delegate to another member of the CFS (and others) (s 66). The Chief Officer may establish regions (s 67), brigades (s 68) and determine the command structure within the CFS (s 70). Further, ‘Each officer or member of SACFS must recognise the authority and obey the directions of an officer to whom that officer or member is subordinate’ (s 70(10)).
Section 96 says that in the prescribed circumstances, in short a fire or other emergency in the country and where no other agency is expected to exercise control, ‘an incident controller or, if an incident controller has not been appointed, the most senior member of SACFS in attendance, may assume control (and all members of SACFS, and all other persons present at the scene, will be subject to his or her control).’ An incident controller is ‘the person for the time being appointed to be the incident controller for the fire or other emergency in accordance with procedures determined by the Chief Officer.’
The Act provides for the appointment of Regional Officers (s 70(1)) but makes no mention of their role in operations. The Australian fire agencies have all adopted the Australian Inter-agency Incident Management System or AIIMS which is also unhelpful on the relationship between the incident controller and the region controllers or commanders.
A critical statement in the AIIMS doctrine is ‘there is only be one Incident Controller for any incident’ (Australian Fire and Emergency Services Authorities Council (AFAC), Australian Inter-service Incident Management System (4th ed, 2013) 27 ); further ‘The ultimate responsibility for managing an incident always remains with the Incident Controller whether or not an Incident Management Team has been established’ (AIIMS p 86). That is inconsistent with statutory provisions such as s 60(4) which says, in effect ‘The ultimate responsibility for managing an incident always remains with the’ Chief Officer. The Incident Controller must be accountable to the Chief Officer (see also s 96(3)(a)).
In my book, Emergency Law (4th ed, 2014, Federation Press), I wrote (footnotes omitted):
As noted above, the AIIMS manual says: “The ultimate responsibility for managing an incident always remains with the Incident Controller whether or not an Incident Management Team has been established”. In context that is correct, whatever responsibility the incident controller has rests with that controller even though he or she has delegated some functions to others. However, in a broader context it is incorrect and can lead to confusion and poor outcomes.
During the 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission, the chief officer of the Country Fire Authority, the chief fire officer from the Department of Sustainability and Environment and the Chief Commissioner of Police were criticised for their failure to supervise their staff including the incident management teams. The Royal Commissioners said:
The Commission observed a disturbing tendency among senior fire agency personnel – including the Chief Officers – to consistently allocate responsibility further down the chain of command, most notably to the incident control centres.
That would be consistent with the view in AIIMS that, having appointed an incident controller it was up to that controller to exercise control over the response. The Royal Commission noted, however, that:
Although the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 vests responsibility for controlling the prevention and suppression of fires in country Victoria in the Country Fire Authority as an organisation, CFA standard operating procedures make it clear that within the agency “ultimate responsibility for the suppression of fires” rests with the Chief Officer.
The right of the chief officer to control “all brigades” is set out in statute. An incident controller has no similar, statutory authority. The incident controller is appointed by the chief officer to exercise the chief officer’s powers but such a delegation does not “amount to an abrogation of responsibility or a transfer of accountability”…
It follows that absent any statutory authority, incident controllers appointed in accordance with AIIMS are subject to the direction and control of their senior officers. If they are employees, they are also expected to obey the reasonable direction of their employers…
See also my submission to the Victorian Green Paper on emergency management entitled ‘Who is in charge’, which you can download here.
That quote says ‘absent any statutory authority’ but, as noted, there is statutory authority in South Australia; that authority is in s 96. That IC’s authority is to ‘assume control (and all members of SACFS, and all other persons present at the scene, will be subject to his or her control)’. Does that displace the chain of command and s 70(10) ie the obligation to obey senior officers? On one view it does, ‘all members of the SACFS … will be subject to his or her control’ but that cannot be correct. A member of the SACFS 100 kilometres away from the fire cannot be subject to the IC’s ‘control’, nor can members at other fires nor is the Chief Officer. The only logical reading of the section is that ‘all members of the SACFS, … present at the scene, will be subject to his or her control’. When read in that more limited way it will not apply to the Region Commander if he or she is not ‘at the scene’ but even if he or she was, there is still s 70(10) and the obligation to obey senior officers.
A chain of command makes sense to ensure that operations are carried out effectively by imposing a check or supervision. A member who is acting as Incident Controller does not act solely on his or her own initiative. The need to obey the Chief Officer is beyond question. Further the IC will be expected to apply the CFS operating procedures and act in accordance with his or her training. In effect he or she is following ‘commands’ and a superior officer would be expected to ensure that is in fact the case, so the chain of command remains. The IC does not operate in a vacuum but within the CFS including the regional and command arrangements that the Chief Officer has put in place.
Although there is ambiguity between s 70(10) and s 96, in the absence of any direction by the Chief Officer it is my view that the provisions can work together. The IC is in charge of operations and all members of the SACFS are subject to the ICs control but the IC remains subject to direction from his or her senior officers (assuming the Region commander outranks the IC). That situation could be changed by the Chief Officer making alternative arrangements in the agency doctrine and the job descriptions of the Region commander and Incident controller.
The problem really arises if the agency, which is required to have an incident management system (Fire and Emergency Services Regulations 2005 (SA) r 5) , simply adopts AIIMS without tailoring it to take into account the ‘chain of command’ and making clear the answers to questions such as this one. Without that clarity the Region commander may well seek to exercise some degree of supervision and control and the incident controller may take both s 96 and the doctrinal principle of ‘only one controller’ to believe that he or she is not accountable to the Region commander. That tension is evident in today’s question. A better approach is that if the Region commander is of the view that he or she needs to give direction to the IC, he or she should take on the role of IC and that is the position I argued for in my submission to the Victorian Green Paper.
In short the law does not provide the answer to the question ‘What are [Region commander’s] responsibilities/accountabilities with respect to the incident happening within their region after the Chief Officer appoints a Level 3 Incident Controller’? What the law does say is that it is up to the Chief Officer to determine the chain of command and the procedures for appointing an incident controller. If there is ambiguity in those provisions then it is not the law but the agency’s own procedures and doctrines that need to be adjusted to clarify the ambiguity. The question needs to be directed, not to me, but to the Chief Officer.
Australian Emergency Law 
Well that really throws a spanner in the works. Michael, I can see where you are going with rank and command structure in the SACFS. To my understanding, the AIIMS structures work best when they are thought of as “functional” positions. Which is to say that function is a separate concept to rank.
I would say that the strength of AIIMS is in allowing for the development of a flexible and adaptive control structure to deal with emerging situations. Though it does not replace the functions of a command structure, its benefits should be appreciated and carefully considered. Such that superior officers should carefully consider the impacts on any interference with the IMS structure.
I also am on the opinion that senior officers, while exercising their powers, should strive to work within the recognised IMS structure. So as to minimise confusion and maintain unity of command. Which may mean.
1. Designating oneself as a Safety Officer (SO) and performing checks on the IC’s actions.
2. Designating oneself as the Incident Controller (IC), and replacing the existing officer.
3. Designating oneself as the Incident Controller (IC), and ‘demoting’ the existing officer (within IMS structure) to Operations Officer (OO).
I agree and think the AIIMS manual should give some guidance on this issue and, in particular, a superior officer if they feel action is required should not attempt to ‘command’ the IC as that is against the principles of AIIMS, if that sort of command is required they should take on the role of IC.
Michael,
I’ve read through your paper and wholeheartedly agree with your recommendations. I hope that they see broader application in future.
Ben
I’d suggest you’re conflating two seperate things.
There is a command structure of course, and the Chief is at the top.
For an incident, there’s a seperate command structure and the IC is at the top.
A Regional Commander doesn’t get to take over as IC just because they want to, there needs to be a reason. The IC must be failing to meet one of the 10 obligations of a control agency or not understand the complexity of the incident (eg a level 1 incident controller in charge of a L2 or L3 incident)
That isn’t to say that the IC doesn’t have the responsibility to communicate with the Regional Commander – quite the opposite, it is one of those 10 responsibilities.
CFS doctrine clearly states that the IC is supported by the internal command structure to meet the 10 responsibilities of a control agency.
A regional commander can also only appoint an IC to a L2 incident. L3 ICs are appointed by state duty commander or the chief.
The Chief of course has the right to replace any IC.
Thanks for your comment but I don’t think I’m ‘conflating two separate things’ (and I’m not sure what you think those two separate things are). The incident command structure is something that the Chief Officer imposes but is not part of the law. As I said in the post
What you’re telling me is that through CFS doctrine the Chief Officer has ‘changed’ the situation by imposing limits on, and setting out what is the regional commander’s responsibilities.
Command structure at an incident (s96) and internal command structure (s70).
For the incident, only the IC is in control. It can be that the IC has the rank of Firefighter and the Operations Officer be a Regional Commander (probably unlikely, but possible). That Regional Commander will still be under the command of the IC for the incident (and only the incident).
The Regional Commander still has responsibility for the region, and the IC will have to answer for decisions made at the incident, but they remain the decision of the IC.
s96 effectively makes all members of CFS subordinate to the IC for the incident.
Normally, the IC will be the highest ranking officer at the incident but if that higher ranking officer arrives after an IC has taken command or been appointed, s96(2) places them subordinate to and subject to the direction of the IC, consistent with s70(10).
This is also consistent with the State Emergency Management Plan 11.3.2 (requiring AIIMS to be used) and 11.3.3 stating that the control agency has final authority over decisions and that the IC is the one leading the Control Agency.
Under doctrine, there are instances where a higher ranking officer may assume control, per s96(3)(c), without requiring the IC to willingly surrender it, and the Chief can always assume control per s96(3)(a).
Essentially, command structure at an incident isn’t dependant on rank or internal command structure. Just because a person has a higher rank than the IC doesn’t mean they aren’t under the direction of the IC, or can give directions to the IC.
The IC just has to be prepared to justify themselves after the fact, and any sane person would take the requests of their Regional Commander and think very carefully before doing something different, but they are requests.
If the higher ranking officer wants to give the orders, they have to take command and become the IC, subject to meeting the requirements of Doctrine to be allowed to do so.
In my experience of Regional Commanders, they don’t walk around wanting to be in charge of everything. If they’re telling you that you should or shouldn’t be doing something as an IC it’s pretty much a guarantee that failing to do so would lead to a situation where they would take command, and justifiably so.