Today’s question is from a
… a concerned member of the public with a question that I think may interest your blog readers.
If the NSW Police Rescue Coordinator requests SES to attend a rescue, but SES declines on the basis it is “not a rescue but a patient lift,” and FRNSW is then mobilised instead — what are the legal and policy implications if SES later attends after initially rejecting the request, once it becomes clear the incident involves a person trapped in a medical emergency where Ambulance cannot extricate due to a door obstruction?
In particular, I wonder about:
- Whether SES has an obligation to respond when asked by the Police RCO?
- If refusing or delaying creates potential liability?
- And how accountability is shared between Police, Ambulance, SES and FRNSW?
From a public perspective, it seems concerning that different agencies might interpret “rescue” differently in a time-critical situation.
I certainly hope there’s more to the story than just ‘the SES didn’t respond because it was not, according to them, a rescue’ but we’ll look at the law on that basis.
First there is only one relevant definition of rescue in this context. The State Emergency and Rescue Management Act 1989 (NSW) (the SERM Act) s 3 tells us that ‘rescue’ means ‘the safe removal of persons or domestic animals from actual or threatened danger of physical harm’. If a person is in need of transport to hospital but for whatever reason, NSW Ambulance staff cannot get them onto the stretcher and out of the house then assisting them is helping with the ‘the safe removal of persons or domestic animals from actual or threatened danger of physical harm’. Call it a ‘patient lift’ or something else, it’s still a rescue.
Section 50 says:
The NSW Police Force is responsible for co-ordinating rescue operations and for determining the priorities of action to be taken in rescue operations.
The State Emergency Service Act 1989 (NSW) (the SES Act) lists the functions of the SES. They include (s 8(e)) ‘to carry out, by accredited SES units, rescue operations allocated by the State Rescue Board’ and (s 8(g)) ‘to assist, at their request, members of the NSW Police Force, Fire and Rescue NSW, the NSW Rural Fire Service or the Ambulance Service of NSW in dealing with any incident or emergency’. Again calling it a ‘patient lift’ or something else makes no difference, if the ambulance service need assistance, and if they ask the police to coordinate that assistance and the police call the SES, then turning out is one of the functions of the SES, whether they are an accredited rescue unit or not.
If I break the question up, and rephrase it slightly, the first part becomes ‘If the NSW Police Rescue Coordinator requests SES to attend a rescue, can the SES decline on the basis it is “not a rescue but a patient lift”? The answer to that question is clearly ‘no’. The SES can decline for other reasons eg they don’t have the volunteers available, but the fact that it’s a ‘patient lift’ is not grounds to refuse. If it’s assisting NSW Ambulance it is within the functions of the SES regardless of whether you call it a rescue or not.
The second part of the question is ‘what are the legal and policy implications if SES later attends after initially rejecting the request, once it becomes clear the incident involves a person trapped in a medical emergency where Ambulance cannot extricate due to a door obstruction? The ’legal and policy’ implications are, one hopes, that both the SES and the State Rescue Board will have words with whoever made the call that it was not a rescue and therefore the SES would not attend to make sure they understand their obligations, the role of the SES and if the decision was made at a unit level perhaps re-consider the unit’s status as an accredited rescue unit.
If we turn to the specific questions:
1. [Does the] SES [have] an obligation to respond when asked by the Police RCO?
Obligation is a strong word and there may be reasons why the SES cannot attend, so there may not be an ‘obligation’ to attend but I would suggest there is an obligation to seriously consider the issue and only advise that they cannot respond for legitimate reasons. It is certainly not open to the SES to say ‘we’re not responding because we don’t think it’s a rescue’ if the police have told them it is. That does not deny of course that individual volunteers can turn out, or not, for any particular job as they see fit. If the pagers are set off but a crew simply cannot be put together – not enough volunteers volunteer – then the SES cannot respond and the police would have to make alternative arrangements.
2. If refusing or delaying creates potential liability?
One cannot answer that without specific details of a specific incident and questions of whether the SES decision delayed the extrication and whether or not that made the patient’s condition worse. One can point to s 59 of the SERM Act that says, under the heading ‘Liability for actions of members of rescue units and volunteers’
Anything done or omitted to be done by an accredited rescue unit or by a person as a member of an accredited rescue unit or authorised volunteer does not, if done or omitted in good faith in connection with a rescue operation or otherwise in response to an emergency, subject the accredited rescue unit, the person or any other person to any action, liability, claim or demand.
In the scenario described there is an omission that is a choice not to turn out. It would be hard to argue that this decision was made in good faith given the terms of both the SES Act and the SERM Act it would be hard to argue that a decision not to turn out because the call is “not a rescue but a patient lift” is an omission made in good faith that is in an honest attempt to give effect to the legislation governing both rescues and the SES.
3. And how accountability is shared between Police, Ambulance, SES and FRNSW?
I don’t understand the question. Each organisation is accountable for the decision made by it’s staff and volunteers. If ambulance asked the police to arrange assistance, and the police asked the SES which refused so they asked FRNSW who turned out, then I cannot see there is any ‘accountability’ to be shared. Assuming that is the case (and as I say, I hope there was in fact more to it than that) the only agency that needs to be accountable for its decision is the SES. There’ s no accountability to be shared.
POSTSCRIPT ONE
I have been sent an anonymous tip regarding what is happening. I have been told that
They [the SES] have been refusing to respond to assist ambulance as they are claiming to be supporting Fire Rescue NSW with their industrial bans currently with assist lifts.
FRNSW generally gets paged for assist lifts within fire district and with current bans the station declines to attend.
SES is then generally activated as next in line to assist and [some units of the] SES has been refusing to attend based on what FRNSW is doing.
They were called to an incident the other day and they assumed it was an assist lift and refused to attend again, this time in particular it was a medical access request as a person was stuck behind a toilet door having a medical episode.
My reaction is that I’m shocked. I’ve always been a ‘union man’ and believe workers collectively represented are better off than trying to protect one’s rights at works individually; but there are limits.
If this is what is happening, then retained firefighters and SES volunteers are putting patients and paramedics at significant risk. If it’s an ‘assist lift’ it’s because the paramedics need help putting someone in the ambulance. If they cannot do it without assistance patient care is delayed, the paramedics are put at risk and if the ambulance service has to dispatch more ambulances so the paramedics can be assisted by other paramedics then that has an unnecessary flow on effect to others who might be waiting for paramedic care. The next SES volunteer and firefighter might think about that if they’re waiting for an ambulance and consider what would happen if the ambulance being sent to them was held up to go and assist colleagues because the local SES refused.
The Industrial Relations Commission can intervene in industrial disputes where it is in the public interest and in cases I’ve reported it has intervened where proposed industrial actions pose a risk to patient safety. Similar considerations could apply here if FRNSW took the issue before the Commission.
I would seriously question whether retained firefighters and members of the SES who are willing to expose vulnerable people such as those seeking ambulance assistance, and their fellow emergency workers to immediate and obvious risk are fit to remain members of FRNSW and/or the SES.
POSTSCRIPT 2
In light of the further information, above, I did a search of the website of the Fire Brigade Employees Union (FBEU) and found a Code Red dated June 27, 2004. It gives the background and concludes;
… effective immediately, all Assist Ambulance calls are hereby banned unless General Land Rescue designated stations are responded by the Police Rescue Coordinator, or you are a Community First Response station.
The FBEU Code Red makes clear that the union’s position is not that fire brigades should not attend assist ambulance calls because it’s not a rescue. Their position is that they should not attend becuase it is a rescue and so the designated general land rescue squad (which may or may not be a FRNSW station) should be called.
If some members of the SES think what the fire service is saying is that assist with patient lifts are not a rescue task and therefore not something that either the SES or FRNSW should attend they have missed the point of the Code Red (assuming that the current bans, if any, are a continuation of that action dated a year ago).
Conclusion
The FBEU is not saying that rescue squads should not assist ambulance because it’s not a rescue task; they are saying that it is a rescue task so should be assigned to the designated rescue squad and not fire stations that are not the designated rescue squad. If the designated rescue squad is the SES then of course they should be attending to perform their statutory functions.
POSTSCRIPT 3
I received some further information about this situation:
In our community 26,000 people. Assist lift became. When the retained Fire Brigade we’re doing them 2 to 3 a week.. their Union put a code red ban on the lifts.
The ambulance service then started calling out the State Emergency Service. The assist lifts become more frequent to the point where volunteers primary employers were saying. Why do you have to leave my business to do this? Shouldn’t the ambulance service have enough people rostered on to deal with this?
The employers of some of the volunteers went on to say I think you need to consider whether you want to work here or be a volunteer with the SES.
This is now jeopardised the unit ability to respond to actual general land rescues car accidents and industrial domestic rescues which were only about 12 to 15 per year and the employers were happy to release their people.
The topic was brought up at a local emergency management committee meeting outlining the concerns of their members with their jobs being jeopardised. Quite simply 3 to 5 calls a week was not sustainable for their employment. And Fire Rescue New South Wales had a ban on this lift.
Request made at the LEMC meeting
1. Could the ambulance service roster and more staff on as it was evident there were not enough cars rostered on?
2. CALLOUT ambulance officers who are off duty. After all it’s not a technical complicated Rescue it’s lifting someone onto a stretcher.
3. Could they call out a paid service such as the Police to assist?
4. SES are quite willing to help in genuine situations for example bariatric patient stretchered downstairs but the increased amount of calls one even being to assist a lift at a nursing home where there were nursing staff were present watching the firefighters lift a patient.
And I’m not sure whether it was a concerned member of the public or a disgruntled ambulance officer looking to force volunteers to be compelled to respond by using legislation.
If it is in fact, true that the legislation enforces the SES unit to respond to these calls, it could not only jeopardise the response to actual rescues but many other small communities where employees simply can’t afford to have their people leaving their work four or five times a week.
My concern is that your reply in clarifying the legislation will be used at the Next LEMC meeting to force the SES to respond. I understand the law is the law, but this can have detrimental consequences across New South Wales.
Do you have any advice for dealing with this? I do have a meeting with my local member of Parliament who is quite concerned about the use of volunteers instead of paid emergency people for simple task like this and the concern for the volunteers’ employment within their community being threatened.
I was asked if it was possible that the legislation could be changed to protect the volunteers from being used as cheap labour and who the local member would speak to to make that happen. I was thinking the minister for emergency service services unless you have any other suggestions.
From all I’ve been told and read it seems there are two quite separate issues here. The first is the industrial issue. As I understand it, the FBEU was arguing that firefighters were taking on more responsibilities without appropriate renumeration and the government were arguing that these responsibilities had no economic value. The gist of the argument, I infer, is that all firefighters are doing rescue work but only those on accredited rescue stations were getting paid a rescue allowance. And, they argued, these assist to lift calls were a rescue so firefighters who were not a part of a rescue station and who were not getting paid to do the work should stop doing it and let those that got paid an allowance to do the rescue work do it. And it would follow that if the local rescue unit was the SES, the RFS or the VRA then they would be called to do. And if that is what is happening and if that is putting pressure on the SES/RFS/VRA volunteers then that proves the FBEU’s point that this work does have value and should be renumerated. And it seems that the Industrial Relations Commission has accepted the point saying all firefighters should get paid more to reflect the fact that they all do rescue work, and those that do RCR should get a smaller allowance to avoid double compensating them for the work. That’s one point.
The second point seems to be a view that the paramedics are calling for assistance too often and when it’s not really required. Personally I have difficulty with that assessment even if the impact is described, as above. In any workplace that involves manual handling I would hope any PCBU would tell their staff – don’t hurt yourself, if you need help ask for it. And in the context of ambulance that would include ‘if you need help we can call FRNSW/SES/RFS/VRA because (VRA excepted) ‘assisting ambulance’ is one of their statutory functions’.
As for turning up and seeing others such as nursing staff not helping that reminds me of SES objections to attending calls when people are there and the SES think they should be able to move the tree or fix the roof. Everyone is taught, particularly at work, not to take unnecessary risks. Think of all the equipment nurses (in particular in nursing homes) have to move and lift people so they are not putting themselves at risk. They may not know what the fire brigade or SES can bring to the scene but if they are told ‘these services have a statutory function to assist’ then it seems reasonable to call them.
As for ‘shouldn’t the ambulance service be employing more people’, clearly they could. One might question employing extra three year degree qualified paramedics for the role but the ambulance service could do many things. They could employ people to form part of an ambulance crew, eg a driver but not a paramedic to add extra muscle and to free the paramedics up. They could have a team of people, not paramedics, to move about and provide extra assistance. There are no doubt plenty of people, perhaps St John volunteers or health care students who might like the job or be willing to volunteer for the role. On the other hand ASNSW may well think that is unnecessary as the state funds at least three emergency services (FRNSW, SES and RFS) and all of them are tasked to provide requested assistance.
Another solution may be to take paramedics out of ambulances and put them in fire appliances. Then when they turn out they come with a crew of four and ambulance services could focus on the ‘transport of the sick and injured’ with patient transport officers doing the driving and the paramedics riding in the back if necessary. (And not an original idea for anyone who watched the 1970’s show ‘Emergency’ and certainly in the USA it is often fire departments that are providing emergency medical services).
Volunteers always need to consider how volunteering impacts their employment. As I said in my original post, the SES may be obliged to turn out to a request for assistance but individual volunteers can elect what jobs they go to and what they don’t. Individuals can say that they are not available during work hours, are only available for one job a week or won’t go to ambulance assist calls. If the SES cannot get a crew together then they cannot go, but if they are the accredited rescue unit and consistently cannot get a crew together that might impact on their accreditation.
I cannot imagine calling out off-duty ambulance officers would work. If I were their union I’d protest that they need downtime between shifts and there would need to be a system of on call allowances and the provision of ASNSW vehicles to let them travel to the jobs. Better my suggestion above of employing people to do that job if that is what ASNSW wants to do (and I’m sure it’s not).
They could call out a paid service to assist and that service would be FRNSW and that gets us back to where we started. The FBEU is reporting that they are doing more and more of this work and they should get paid for it. So pay the FRNSW firefighters more to reflect their rescue roles even when they are not in an accredited rescue station – and that seems to have been the outcome in the latest award. So query whether the bans are still in place, and if they are, why?
As for the impact that may be felt by me ‘clarifying’ the legislation well so be it. This is a blog about the law; the law says that it is a function of the SES, FRNSW and the RFS to provide assistance to the ambulance service and to operate rescue squads. That is what they are funded to do and their members need to know that.
I have no idea what legislative change one would want. The legislature doesn’t want to get into the business of micro-managing the services. They say it is a function of each service to assist each other service and then leaves it up to the heads of each service to work out what that means and how they will manage that obligation. Even if the section said (to paraphrase the Rural Fires Act 1997 (NSW) s 9) ‘The service has the following function: – … (g) to [provide reasonable assistance] … to members of the NSW Police Force, Fire and Rescue NSW, the State Emergency Service or the Ambulance Service of NSW in dealing with any incident or emergency’ it would not answer the question of what is ‘reasonable’ or who gets to decide.
Finally was the question posed by a ‘concerned member of the public’? I have no idea; they may have been a family member of the patient whose extrication was delayed. They may be a ‘disgruntled ambulance officer looking to force volunteers to be compelled to respond by using legislation’, they may be a ‘disgruntled [SES volunteer] looking to force [their unit management] to be compelled to respond by using legislation’. I don’t know; it doesn’t matter.
Conclusion
What this post (and the comments below) indicate is that the ‘Premier’s Department … [was incorrect in their assessment that] there is little to no value in professional firefighters covering other agencies rescue areas, or responding to Assist Ambulance calls’. Clearly there is great value in that work and it does provide savings for NSW by not calling volunteers out of work (noting of course that retained firefighters are in the same position as SES and RFS volunteers if they are being called out from work, but at least they are getting paid).
There is no way that legislative amendment will solve the problem. What needs to happen is the various commissioners/chief officers need to come together to work out how they will manage it and the government, if it wants a ‘paid service’ (such as FRNSW) to respond then they have to pay the firefighters for that; and that does appear to be reflected in the new awards so hopefully those bans have been, or will be shortly lifted.
In the interim I stand by my position that I don’t think it is permissible or reasonable nor consistent with and therefore not supporting, the FBEU position for accredited rescue units, whether operated by the SES, FRNSW or the RFS, to refuse to attend these requests because they think there are too many of them or they are unnecessary. Of course individual volunteers can chose what jobs they volunteer for and what ones they do not.
This blog is a general discussion of legal principles only. It is not legal advice. Do not rely on the information here to make decisions regarding your legal position or to make decisions that affect your legal rights or responsibilities. For advice on your particular circumstances always consult an admitted legal practitioner in your state or territory.
Australian Emergency Law 
Most of the time ASNSW aren’t requesting due to obstruction, they just want somebody else to do the lifting. There is no actual or threatened danger of physical harm. ASNSW have been instructing their staff “save your back, use a firie” – presumably to reduce their workers comp claims. This does not constitute a rescue, especially when the patient is relatively light, and ASNSW paramedics are standing back and not even attempting the lift. If ASNSW were concerned at all about patient safety they would not do this.. and they would utilise their own crews to assist, instead of making false and misleading statements to the RCO and pushing liability onto other organisations.
‘Most of the time ASNSW aren’t requesting due to obstruction’ but so what? The definition of rescues says nothing about ‘obstruction’. It is ‘the safe removal of persons or domestic animals from actual or threatened danger of physical harm’. If the ASNSW need assistance to move the patient there is a threatened danger because the patient cannot be left where they are.
To suggest that paramedics are encouraged to call for help ‘to reduce their workers comp claims’ is a cynical and disrespectful response, consider that what they want to do is reduce the risk of injury to their staff. The fitness standards for firefighters are much higher than for paramedics. It does constitute a rescue and that is the issue that the FBEU are pushing in their campaign. They are not saying FRNSW should not do the task, they are saying the accredited rescue unit should do it which in some cases will be FRNSW, but in others will be the SES.
If ASNSW paramedics are concerned about patient safety they should call for assistance when they think they need it and why tie up another paramedic crew when SES or FRNSW can assist? It is a statutory function of both agencies to provide assistance to the other emergency services including the ambulance service (SES Act s 8(g); Fire and Rescue NSW Act 1989 (NSW) s 5A(4)(d)). That is true whether you want to call it a ‘rescue’ or not.
If they ask for assistance they are not ‘making false and misleading statements to the RCO and pushing liability onto other organisations’, they are asking for help and any paramedic should feel free to do that as should any employee anywhere. You appear to misunderstand both the definition of ‘rescue’, the role of both the SES and FRNSW and the issue of the FBEU campaign.
Having attended hundreds of these type of calls, and half a dozen in the last month alone, I can assure you I am well aware of how the system is being used. I do not appreciate being called cynical and disrespectful, and am disappointed that somebody of your intelligence resorts to such insults. That is inappropriate, and totally uncalled for.
When on scene ASNSW crews tell the RCO they need Rescue crews to gain entry, when the doors are already opened, that is misleading. When they overestimate the patients weight by 50-100kg that is misleading.
When ASNSW management and trainers instruct staff and recruits to “save your backs, call a firie” that is shifting the workers comp liability to another organisation. And the Workers Comp stats reflect that.
I encourage you to listen to those at the coalface who face these issues on a regular basis, and understand what is actually happening out there on the road 24/7,
Even if everything you say is true, it is not the point of the FBEU bans, remember the FBEU does not say that fire fighters should not attend assist ambulance calls nor do they argue that they are not rescue jobs. They say:
The FBEU is not arguing that calls to assist is a attempt at cost shifting by ASNSW and the fire brigade should only attend ‘real’ jobs. They are responding to what they see as uninformed bargaining by the government. They say that the Premier’s Department argued ‘there is little to no value in professional firefighters … responding to Assist Ambulance calls’ hence the government (I infer) was arguing that even though FRNSW firefigthters were responding to more of these calls, that did not warrant any extra pay. In that case the FBEU said firefighters who are not being paid a rescue allowance because they are not part of the accredited rescue squad should not attend, hence the advice ‘If calls are received by Non GLR or non CFR stations, members are to contact the Comms Supervisor and inform them that the Police Rescue Coordinator should be contacted and an accredited rescue unit needs to be responded and that you won’t be responding’. If the SES is the accredited rescue unit then they should be responding.
Accordingly the FBEU is not arguing that these requests are not legitimate calls for assistance, rather they argue that they are and firefighters should be compensated for the extra responsibilities and if the government is not going to compensate all firefighters for taking on more rescue roles, then only designated general land rescues squads should respond. If that’s FRNSW so be it; if it’s not, if it’s the SES, then the SES should proceed. The FBEU are not arguing that these jobs are unnecessary or that the ambulance service are somehow taking unfair advantage of FRNSW, they are arguing that they reflect an increse in value of work by all firefighters and should be compensated accordingly. A decision by the local SES not to respond is not consistent with, nor is it in support of the FBEU action.
I note that there are new awards for FRNSW (see https://australianemergencylaw.com/2025/08/15/new-awards-for-fire-and-rescue-nsw-firefighters/). With respect to road crash rescue the Industrial Relations Commission said:
So everyone’s getting more money to reflect the extra rescue work being done, but the rescue allowance is being reduced for accredited rescue operators to avoid double counting. Maybe that will resolve the FBEU’s concerns and I confess to not knowing the current state of the bans noting that the Code Red I’m quoting was written over 12 months ago.
To turn to your arguments, I stand by what I said. You suggest that the advice ‘don’t risk your back, call the firies’ is given because ASNSW ‘management and trainers’ are concerned about the impact of workers compensation claims on their employer rather than as a genuine piece of advice along the lines of ‘don’t struggle on and hurt your back. If you need help call for it because if we can get four firefighters, or an SES crew to attend, then more people will make the lift easier and no-one gets injured’. You do not appear to believe that the advice is given in good faith to protect the health and welfare of the ambulance staff and the patients. That is I think fairly described as ‘cynical’ ie ‘believing that people are motivated purely by self-interest; distrustful of human sincerity or integrity’ or ‘an attitude characterized by a general distrust of the motives of others’.
I also think you are being disrespectful to the paramedics. Disrespect is to ‘show a lack of respect’. Respect includes having ‘have due regard for (someone’s feelings, wishes, or rights)’. Situations may change between the time of call and your arrival, different people will view the same situation differently. You say the ASNSW crews are ‘misleading’ you and the RCO, but a position of respect for them, and their professionalism, would be ‘perhaps I missed something here’. To have regard to the fact that the called for assistance so they must have thought they needed it, even if you do not. A position of respect would be ‘I trust them and they’ve made the call but I would like to speak to them to understand their position because the situation as I saw it doesn’t match how it was described’. I don’t think your comments reflect any respect for ASNSW staff so I stand by my comment that it is ‘disrespectful’.
Section 3 of the State Emergency and Rescue Management Act 1989 defines “rescue” as “the safe removal of persons or animals from actual or threatened danger of physical harm.” If, as has been alleged, certain SES units are not undertaking rescues consistent with that definition, then it is properly arguable that their accreditation is inconsistent with the legislative scheme. In such a case, accreditation would more appropriately reside with the RFS, VRA or the nearest retained or permanent FRNSW station, whose operations align with the statutory definition. This issue is not one of organisational rivalry or politics, but of fidelity to the Act and the certainty that the community is entitled to regarding which agencies hold true rescue capability.