Today’s question is, I think, related to the issues discussed in the post NSW SES refuses to turn out due to their interpretation of ‘rescue’ (August 20, 2025). Today’s correspondent is with NSW Ambulance and writes:
As you are aware the rescue arrangements in NSW are somewhat convoluted, but in the majority of cases, one of the following two scenarios happen:
- A 000 comms centre (either police, fire or ambulance) takes a Triple Zero call and it is determined a rescue response is required as someone is trapped, or,
- Paramedics arrive on scene and determine rescue response is required to extricate the person, but this was not apparent until the arrival on scene of paramedics. An example here is a stokes litter extrication of a person with numerous injuries down a steep staircase.
At which point the NSW Police Force rescue coordinator (RCO) is contacted who determines who’s rescue area it is and what capabilities are required and activates the appropriate rescue unit. For discussion purposes only let’s focus only on General Land Rescue response (which includes road crash rescue) as that is the most common response.
The rescue response could be Police Rescue, Ambulance Rescue, SES Rescue, VRA Rescue, FRNSW rescue, or recently created RFS RCR units – purely dependent on the geographical area (and who is actually available at the time for various reasons).
Separate to this, NSW Ambulance attend many patients that is NOT a rescue but require more than the usual 2 paramedics on scene for ‘assist lift’ or ‘assist load’ for example a patient on the ground with an injured hip will require extra ‘manpower’ but not special equipment or rescue techniques. This is not a rescue of course- and in times of previous a second or even third ambulance would respond but NSW Ambulance do not have the resources to do this anymore so frequently utilize fire services (Either FRNSW or RFS dependent on jurisdiction) to provide extra hands (‘manpower’) for ‘assist lift’. This is a direct request from NSWA to FRNSW comms and does not involve the RCO at all.
Due to industrial action reasons FRNSW are declining ‘assist ambulance’ cases, the perspective being ‘why prop up a failing health system”. This does not preclude RFS attending for assist loads as they are obviously not subject to this industrial action.
If it is a rescue incident, as tasked by the NSWPF RCO, FRNSW will always respond as this becomes a rescue tasking, not a ‘assist ambulance’. For example, the above scenario of “stokes litter extrication of a person with numerous injuries down a steep staircase.” – even though it sounds like a lift assist it is not, as special equipment (stokes litter) and techniques are required.
Now, all of the above is not really an issue until November 2025 when the State Rescue Policy 5th edition was updated to version 5.1, which now contains the following content:
1.28.2. Domestic Rescue (DR) involves the rescue of occupant(s) trapped in household settings. This includes such things as children with fingers in drain plugs, and removal of rings. Domestic Rescue does not include Patient Extrication (see paragraph 1.35).
1.35 Patient Extrication involves the safe removal of an injured or ill person where such a person is not required to be removed from actual or threatened danger of physical harm. A patient extrication is not a rescue.
1.38 Rescue means the safe removal of persons or domestic animals from actual or threatened danger of physical harm.
So, here is the issue, a real example of an incident that I will de-identify.
NSW Ambulance comms takes a 000 call for a teenage person fallen while skating inside a skate bowl, fallen and landed badly causing numerous injuries. The patient is lying on their back down the bottom of the skate bowl and is obviously unable to self-extricate from the skate bowl.
Business as usual practice dictates an ambulance response is mounted, and the RCO is contacted by NSW Ambulance comms centre as OBVIOUSLY a rescue response is required. The RCO is contacted immediately after receiving the 000 call, by the ‘rescue tie line’ in which the NSWA supervisor will be connected to the NSWPF RCO and FRNSW comms.
The incident location is covered by FRNSW rescue for rescue responses.
In this case the RCO stated ‘this is not a rescue, this is just patient extrication which is no longer a rescue as per the November updates. FRNSW can attend if they are willing to, but this would be for general patient extrication assistance, not a rescue tasking’. FRNSW declined to attend due to industrial action i.e. this is now deemed a ‘assist ambulance’, subject to union bans, as not tasked by the RCO as a ‘rescue incident’.
NSWA supervisor replied “but the kids stuck down the bottom of the skate bowl! There is nothing paramedics can do to safely extricate him – this requires rescue equipment and techniques!” to which the RCO reiterated, “Sorry can’t help you – not a rescue – so not my area of responsibility.”
This is despite everyday business as usual practice dictating this extrication would probably require a ladder slide involving a stokes litter, ladder, rope-pulley system. Which NSWA paramedics obviously do not have – rescue core business.
So now what? The paramedics arrive, climb down the skate bowl and provide injury treatment and pain relief and maybe spinal precautions, knowing fully well no one is coming to extricate the patient. Where to from here?
In this example, it was a near miss – the patient injuries were still compatible with the patient self-extricating with assistance.
This is one example but of many. A MVA with person trapped, yes a rescue response is initiated and there is no issue. But the RCO declined to activate a rescue response for the following scenarios which commonly have a rescue response (up until these changes):
Bushwalker injured down a bush walking track, require carry out due to broken leg
Heavy patient on second story of house down a steep staircase
Where do we draw the line here? Another classic example is wall removal of a house with a super-bariatric patient inside in order to get the patient out. How would this be affected if this is no longer a rescue tasking?
I would think this is now an issue of differing opinions of different RCO’s as to what constitutes patient extrication (not a rescue) vs domestic rescue.
So my questions are from a legal and policy perspective:
- I would argue the State rescue policy 5.1 updates are nonsensical, particularly section 1.35 stating patient extrication is not a rescue – as on face value, ALL rescues involve patient extrication!
- I would argue that there are breaches of the SERM act by the RCO refusing to task rescue responses based on the face value fact of NSW paramedics unable to extricate a patient without rescue equipment and training/techniques.
- NSWA is now in a difficult position and needs an actual solution (which is not yet provided) for when the RCO says “not helping you” and FRNSW says “not attending due to industrial action as RCO stating not a rescue”. The policy states clearly only the RCO may activate these responses, and the source of the policy is the backing of the SERM Act. What it therefore be unlawful for NSWA comms to directly contact the agencies and task them for assistance in what clearly IS a rescue based on common sense, but is not, based on current policy?
NB. I suspect however cannot confirm that the 5.1 changes were introduced in order to stop ‘scope creep’ and stop assist ambulances ‘becoming’ rescue incidents in order to covertly bypass industrial actions. With unintended consequences due to ambiguity.
I discussed what I think are the industrial issues raised by the Fire Brigade Employees Union in the Code Red of 27June 2024 (see https://fbeu.net/2024/06/27/code-red-assist-ambulance-calls/). My understanding is that the FBEU identified that ambulance assist calls were a rescue and therefore the local accredited rescue unit should attend. If that was Fire and Rescue NSW (FRNSW) then fire officers who were being paid to perform rescues would attend. If it was not FRNSW then one of the volunteer rescue services would be tasked as that is the arrangements the NSW government put in place. And if they want firefighters to attend then they should pay for that extra value work. It was not a question of ‘why prop up a failing health system’. It was if you want us to do rescue work, then pay us for those extra duties.
The Industrial Relations Commission did see value in the FBEU’s claims and awarded a pay increase to reflect that firefighters not assigned to rescue stations were doing more rescue type work – see New awards for Fire and Rescue NSW firefighters (August 15, 2025). It was after that decision that the State Rescue Policy was amended.
The definition of rescue comes from the State Emergency and Rescue Management Act 1989 (NSW) s 3. It means ‘the safe removal of persons or domestic animals from actual or threatened danger of physical harm’. The State Rescue Board have to live with that, that is they cannot change it but they have to make it workable. Arguably every ambulance call is a rescue. Picking up a person who is having a heart attack and taking them to hospital is to remove them for danger of physical harm. But it makes sense that neither the Board nor the police want to get involved in every ambulance case. Accordingly, it makes sense to try and define what people actually mean by rescue which might involve releasing people who are entrapped. Trying to come up with a definition that covers what rescue services do but doesn’t cover ever regular ambulance call may be difficult but one would infer that [1.35] is an attempt to write that definition.
I think it is probably true that ‘the 5.1 changes were introduced in order to stop ‘scope creep’ and stop assist ambulances ‘becoming’ rescue incidents’ in order to get the police out of the picture and because assisting ambulance is part of the duties of all firefighters but rescue is not.
The Fire and Rescue NSW Act 1989 (NSW) s 5A(4)(d) says that the Commissioner of Fire and Rescue NSW is authorised to ‘assist, at their request, members of the … Ambulance Service of NSW in dealing with any incident or emergency’. Similar provisions apply to the NSW SES (State Emergency Service Act 1989 (NSW) s 8(g)) and the Rural Fire Service (Rural Fires Act 1997 (NSW) s 9(g)). There is a difference in that it is a function of the SES and RFS to assist ambulance, whereas FRNSW is ‘authorised’ to provide that assistance.
What follows is- if the situation is a rescue, then the SERM Act provisions apply and the police coordinate the dispatch of rescue services. If it is not a rescue, then the ambulance service is free to ask Fire and Rescue NSW, the NSW SES or RFS, or the VRA, or Marine Rescue NSW, or the boy scouts, to assist. For the SES and RFS it is one of their functions to assist, FRNSW is ‘authorised’ to assist.
If the Code Red of June 27 2024 is still being applied then the issue is one between the FBEU and the Rescue Board, where the union thinks patient assist is a rescue, and the Board do not – and given that the provision for assisting ambulance exist outside the SERM Act one has to say the Board’s interpretation seems like the better view.
The issue should then be that if the Police coordinator says it’s not a rescue, then NSW Ambulance is free to ask for assistance from whomever they want and FRNSW should attend if requested. If it is a rescue, then the appropriate accredited rescue unit should respond. The issue of whether ‘assist ambulance’ is a rescue or not should have been resolved by the amendments to the Rescue policy and the provisions of the new fire brigade employee awards but I note that the final terms of those awards, including who is to get the general land rescue allowance, are still to be finalised (see Fire Brigade Employees’ Union v Industrial Relations Secretary (on behalf of Fire and Rescue NSW) (No 2) [2025] NSWIRComm 1110 (19 December 2025)).
How does this resolve the situation described by my correspondent? If there is a real dispute about whether it’s a rescue or not one would hope that there is a procedure to escalate the matter both within police and ambulance. If we look at some of the specific questions:
- I think the problem is the definition of ‘rescue’ which could include every ambulance call so there has to be some attempt to make the definition workable so that police do not have to be involved in every ambulance call.
- I’m not sure it’s a breach of the SERM Act but I would agree that the RCO should accept that the job is a rescue if the ambulance service says it is beyond their capacity to extricate the patient.
- The position for NSW Ambulance is not that complex however. If the RCO says it is not a rescue then NSW Ambulance can call on anyone it likes to assist in particular FRNSW, NSW SES and NSW RFS. Those agencies don’t really have the option of refusing. The industrial issue with FRNSW should have been resolved but if it hasn’t it really needs the heads of all agencies, the State Rescue Board and the FBEU to get together. The fact that the new awards have been made should resolve the issues in the Code Red.
In the Code Red the FBEU says:
A clear example of why these people should stay in their lane is the Premier’s Department, which is different to the Premier’s Office, have said there is little to no value in professional firefighters covering other agencies rescue areas, or responding to Assist Ambulance calls, and therefore will not look into the savings we provide across NSW nor the additional money for us for doing the work. Putting aside the ridiculousness of these people thinking they have any understanding of emergency management, it seems we need to educate politicians and bureaucrats of the worth of professional firefighters. From the NSW State Rescue Board’s definition of domestic rescue:
Domestic Rescue (DR) – involves the rescue of occupants trapped in household settings. This includes such things as children with fingers in drain plugs, removal of rings, and individuals who are incapable of leaving their home due to ill health.
Therefore, 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 Industrial Commission has recognised the value of the work and has ordered various changes in renumeration to reflect the sort of work firefighters are called to perform including assist ambulance calls. The quote from the then definition of rescue remains and it should be that the appropriate accredited rescue units are dispatched to those jobs. Simple assist ambulance (ie patient extraction) is not rescue so any fire brigade can be tasked to this. They are not paid the rescue allowance but it is not a rescue, and their wages have been (or will be when the final details are worked out) increased to reflect the value of this non-rescue work. If the issue cannot be resolve, Fire and Rescue NSW may need to take the union back to the Industrial Commission for orders to lift bans on assist ambulance work as defined by the State Rescue Board.
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 
Hi ,
With Surf Lifesaving now having there crew training in Various flood rescue capabilities and deploying to Flood Rescue at the Request of NSW Emergency Service would they require registraion as a Flood Rescue Unit ?
The State Emergency and Rescue Management Act 1989 (NSW) s 53(1) says ‘A person who establishes, manages or controls a rescue unit which is not accredited under this Division is guilty of an offence’. A rescue unit is (s 52) ‘a unit (comprising a group of persons) which carries out rescue operations for the protection of the public or a section of the public’. The State Rescue Policy, that gives effect to the Act, defines flood rescue (at 1.20) as:
Flood Rescue means all rescue activities where a person(s) or domestic animal(s) are in actual or threatened danger due to relatively high water level which overtops the natural or artificial banks of any part of a stream, river, estuary, or dam, and/or local overland flooding associated with drainage before entering a water course, and/or coastal inundation resulting from super-elevated sea levels and/or waves overtopping coastline deficiencies. Any vehicle or pedestrian access way is deemed to be an artificial bank. Flood Rescues can encompass rescue from canyons and waterways where swiftwater flowing within the banks is the norm.
Flood Rescue and Swiftwater Rescue are operationally different. However, as the training competencies and the qualifications received for completion of training are the same for In Water Flood Rescue and Swiftwater Rescue, this Policy references In Water and Swiftwater Flood Rescue collectively as ‘In Water Flood Rescue’. This includes arrangements for dispatch and coordination, accreditation and training competencies.
The policy says (at [1.21]):
On Water
Accreditation is required for On Water Flood Recue. The method undertaken is Power. This method involves reaching the victim by powered vessel where there is a low likelihood of the operator entering the water.
In Water
Accreditation is required for In Water Flood Rescue. The methods involved are Talk/Yell, Throw (released), Reach, Wade, Throw (held) and Go. In addition to the above-mentioned descriptions, Go involves the operator entering the flood waters to reach the person by swimming or using a raft or unpowered vessel to reach the victim.
The NSW SES has ‘the authority to coordinate and control flood rescues’ ([1.22]). [1.54] says:
Flood Rescue units are units that have been endorsed by the Minister as meeting current SRB accreditation standards for In Water and/or On Water Flood Rescue. They are considered the most appropriate Flood Rescue resource to carry out In Water or On Water Flood Rescue (in accordance with their accreditation) and must have access to a powered vessel or inflatable raft and equipped to a standard to facilitate all aspects of Flood Rescue.
Finally [2.50] and [2.52] says:
All units must be authorised/accredited to undertake flood rescue operations in accordance with paragraphs 3.41 to 3.46, 3.52 to 3.54, and 3.59 of this policy. Note exceptions under paragraph 2.52.
And
The NSW SES has the authority to request any asset or resource, public or private, whether accredited, trained or not, to assist in flood operations, as referenced in the State Flood Plan.
The answer to the question’ With Surf Lifesaving now having there crew training in Various flood rescue capabilities and deploying to Flood Rescue at the Request of NSW Emergency Service would they require registration as a Flood Rescue Unit?’ depends on what role is envisaged for Surf. If they will only respond to assist the SES as set out in 2.52 then no they don’t need accreditation; but prima facie it appears if they are to be a standing unit, holding themselves out as available to conduct flood rescues then yes they should be accredited as such. And then the SES could use them without having to say ‘can you go and assist our unit at …’ rather they could be deployed in their own right.