Today’s question is about authority and control at a NSW motor vehicle accident (MVA). My correspondent says:

I am writing to seek clarification on Motor Vehicle Accident/Motor Vehicle Collision (MVA/MVC) incidents and the control and legal arrangements in NSW within the context of the NSWRFS. 

I recently attended a NSWRFS training session run at a brigade and I observed some assertions that I would consider slightly concerning. I’d like to seek clarification on a few points:

1. Statutory Authority & Control Agency at an MVA

  • Question: Is there a legally designated “Control Agency” for a multi-agency motor vehicle accident in NSW? Whether it is a rescue incident or not?
  • Context: Training suggested that the “agency in charge” changes dynamically based on priorities: specifically, that the RFS assumes overall control of an MVA scene if there is an active roadside grass or vehicle fire, before handing over to other services once the fire is suppressed. Does overall incident control legally transfer between agencies in this manner based on the immediate hazard?

2. Statutory Responsibility for Traffic Control vs. Scene Protection

  • Question: Does the RFS have the statutory authority and legal responsibility to conduct formal traffic control on a public road at a motor vehicle accident?
  • Context: The training scenario suggested that a small crew of four could choose to forego traffic control entirely to prioritize firefighting or casualty care. What is the legal distinction between an initial responding fire crew providing basic scene protection to satisfy WHS requirements and the actual direction of traffic? What are our legal obligations or boundaries regarding traffic management upon arrival?

3. The Doctrine of “Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary” Responses

  • Question: Is there any statutory or recognised doctrinal basis in NSW emergency management for categorizing incident actions into “primary, secondary, and tertiary responses”?
  • Context: The training required crews to define their primary, secondary, and tertiary responses based on crew size, suggesting that these overarching priorities fundamentally change depending on whether there are four or six members on the truck. Does crew size dictate incident priorities legally, or do official incident priorities remain constant regardless of available human resources?

4. Authority to Restrict Access by Other Agencies

  • Question: Can the RFS legally restrict other emergency services from performing their statutory duties at a motor vehicle accident on the basis that the RFS is managing a fire?
  • Context: The training stated that controlling a roadside fire becomes the primary focus for the RFS “before any other services can deal with the motor vehicle incident”, specifically naming Police, Ambulance, and Fire & Rescue. Does the presence of a fire grant the RFS the legal authority to halt or delay other agencies from undertaking their respective clinical, rescue, or law enforcement duties?

Most of the answers to these questions are not based on law, ie the parliament does not want to get into the detail of how to micro-manage each incident. The law is used to establish the emergency services and their broad remits and it is then up to the Chief Officers and Commissioners to work out how their agency will do its job and how it will cooperate with the other agencies.

We can look to see what law there is.  If ‘the RFS assumes overall control of an MVA scene if there is an active roadside grass or vehicle fire’ then I infer we’re talking about an incident that is in a Rural Fire District (Rural Fires Act 1997 (NSW) ss 6 and 9(1)(a)). If the accident is in a Fire District (Fire and Rescue Act 1989 (NSW) s 5) then it would be Fire and Rescue NSW that is responsible for the fire-fighting efforts (s 5A(1)).

Question 1

There is no ‘legally designated “Control Agency” for motor vehicle accidents. The issue is the nature of the hazard and the needs of the people involved rather than whether the emergency is caused by a motor vehicle accident or some other event. 

The word ‘rescue’ ‘means the safe removal of persons or domestic animals from actual or threatened danger of physical harm’ (State Emergency and Rescue Management Act 1989 (NSW) s 3 (SERM Act)). If there is a person or domestic animal that requires rescue, then NSW Police ‘is responsible for co-ordinating rescue operations and for determining the priorities of action to be taken in rescue operations’ (s 50(1)).

Section 50(1) does not apply, however, ‘… to a rescue operation if the control of the rescue operation is vested by law in another agency, such as—(a) a rescue operation in which the person or property is endangered by fire and at which a member of a Fire Brigade is in charge …’ (s 50(3)). 

If no-one needs rescuing, that is there is no person or animal that requires ‘safe removal’ (eg everyone has got out of the accident and is uninjured) then the issue is the fire. The State Emergency Management Plan (v 1.1, August 2026) says that the Rural Fire Service is the responsible agency for dealing with fire in a rural fire district (Annexure 4, p. 73).

In short, the “agency in charge” does change based on the hazard. Where there is a fire then it is the fire brigade that is the relevant combat agency that is ‘the agency … primarily responsible for controlling the response to a particular emergency’ (SERM Act s 3).

There could be debate over the issue. For example, if there is an ‘active roadside grass’ fire it might be argued that the fire is one ‘incident’ whereas the accident is another, even if the accident caused the fire. So, for example, the accident has caused a fire that has moved away from the accident scene so that paramedics and the rescue squad can safely access the car, whilst the fire brigade attend to the fire, then query whether there is one incident or two incidents that are very close to each other. If there is a dispute over the nature of the incident – the RFS say ‘this is a fire’ and the ambulance service says ‘no, that’s a fire over there, this is a medical emergency- so that it is not clear if any agency is ‘primarily responsible’ for exercising control, then the Local Emergency Operations Controller (ie the police) can exercise control over the response (SERM Act s 31(1)).  

Question 2

The Rural Fires Act 1997 (NSW) s 24 says ‘The officer in charge of a rural fire brigade or group of rural fire brigades may cause any street … in the vicinity of a fire, incident or other emergency to be closed to traffic’.  That is not the same as ‘stop/slow’ traffic control. So, no, the RFS does not ‘RFS have the statutory authority and legal responsibility to conduct formal traffic control on a public road at a motor vehicle accident’.  That doesn’t mean they cannot do it, just that they don’t have statutory authority or responsibility to do it. 

If the officer in charge thought the situation was unsafe for the brigade members and others, he or she may think about ‘traffic control’ but decide that is beyond their resources. He or she may therefore simply close the road.

But if he or she thinks they have the people to do traffic control, they can as one does not need legal authority – for related posts see:

To put that into context, ‘a small crew of four could choose to forego traffic control entirely to prioritize firefighting or casualty care’.  They could choose to simply close the road if that is what is required for safety. If they have the resources to direct traffic, they can, or they can ask the police to manage that aspect of the response, and the police can direct traffic or arrange with the council or a traffic control company to come and put in place traffic control arrangements. 

Question 3

There is no ‘statutory … basis in NSW emergency management for categorizing incident actions into “primary, secondary, and tertiary responses”’.  That may be a matter of emergency management, or RFS doctrine which I do not comment on. 

As for the question ‘Does crew size dictate incident priorities legally, or do official incident priorities remain constant regardless of available human resources?’ I’m not sure what are ‘official incident priorities’.  What is the priority will be determined at each incident. The priority is usually that the responding crews are safe so of course crew size can affect that.  If a small first-on-scene crew does not have the capacity to, for example stabilise a crashed car or enter a burning building then of course they won’t enter the car, or the building, even if people are trapped. They have to wait eg for a rescue squad or a unit with structural firefighters to get there.  It seems axiomatic that the incident priorities have to always be defined with reference to the capacity of those on scene and as that capacity changes, so too will the priorities. 

Question 4

Putting aside the legal question, I suspect if the RFS start trying to tell Fire and Rescue NSW, NSW Ambulance or NSW Police that they cannot do their job because the RFS incident controller is exercising his or her legal authority, then that RFS member will not be an incident controller for long.

The community, the government and those involved do not want to see it become a fight between agencies. In an ‘all hazard all agencies’ environment, the agencies should work together to identify priorities and see if the patient can be treated and rescued as the firefighters seek to control the fire, or whether one action has to wait for the other.  

The Rural Fires Act 1997 (NSW) s 22A says

An officer of a rural fire brigade or group of rural fire brigades may cause to be removed any person, vehicle, vessel or thing the presence of whom or which at or near a fire, incident or other emergency might, in the officer’s opinion, interfere with the work of any rural fire brigade or the exercise of any of the officer’s functions.

I just cannot imagine that would work if the person being directed was a member of one of the other emergency services.  It will work much better if the incident controller ‘asks’ the police, or ambulance officers, if they would move their vehicle, or not park there. 

You can see the problem – assume there is a motor accident in a rural fire district where there is a fire and the vehicle is carrying hazardous material. The RFS IC wants to close the road to traffic including the FRNSW appliance and NSW Ambulance ambulance (s 24) and direct them to stay away in ‘for the purpose of controlling or suppressing a fire or protecting …[them] from an existing or imminent danger arising out of a fire’.  At the same time the officer in charge of the Fire and Rescue brigade, responding to the hazardous materials then starts insisting that the RFS leave as he or she is exercising their power under the Fire and Rescue Act 1989 (NSW) ss 13 and 19.  And then the police step in to exercise their powers under the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW) Part 7 Crime Scenes or s 197 ‘Directions generally relating to public places’ and the SERM Act s 60L ‘Power of police to evacuate or to take other steps concerning persons’, s 60M ‘Temporary closure of roads and road related areas’ and/or s 61 ‘Power to take other safety measures’.

The answer is therefore, strictly speaking ‘yes’ a member of the RFS could ‘legally restrict other emergency services from performing their statutory duties at a motor vehicle accident on the basis that the RFS is managing a fire’ but if it comes to that, then the RFS IC has failed in his or her job. They don’t ‘direct’ the other agencies, or pull out the ‘but I’ve got the power card’ they work with the other agencies. And what’s going to happen if the other agencies ignore them? The chances that the government, the police or the Director of Public Prosecutions are going to prosecute a FRNSW firefighter for hindering the RFS, or that the police will agree to use force to drag away a paramedic at the request of the RFS IC is simply laughable. Presumably paramedics don’t want to be burned so if the RFS officers say ‘don’t go in there, it’s not safe yet’ they will probably listen without being ‘directed’. But equally it might be agreed that it is safe even if the fire is not yet out. ‘[C]controlling a roadside fire’ may be the ‘primary focus for the RFS’ but it is up to them to work with the other agencies. And presumably making the scene safe so the paramedics can get to the patient should be a higher priority even if that means the road side fire is allowed to burn!

In conclusion I can make an argument that ‘the RFS [can] legally restrict other emergency services from performing their statutory duties at a motor vehicle accident on the basis that the RFS is managing a fire’ but simply saying that shows how ridiculous the proposition is. The agencies should be working together to meet the agreed objectives and the priority may, or may not be, putting out the fire. 

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.