Thread: Stupid Tourist Rescued....

And in this case I would be looking at charging the station for the cost of rescue.

A. He was employed by the station as a jackaroo.
b. What training did he have to be on a remote propery
c. The station's duty of care to ensure the safty of it's staff

Like I said i'm not hartless just a realist

In SA, we pay an "Emergency Services Levy"

This goes to Police, SES, SLS, Fire & Ambulance, both paid & volunteer, to help with the running of those services.

Police only charge for "organised events" - think the cricket, where a larger than normal police presence is required, meaning that logistics are involved.

Ambulance will charge for transporting you. Many health funds cover this cost, and a subscription is available also. I THINK that if you are on a pension / health care / vet affairs card etc, then this charge is reduced or waived.

Fire service do not charge for attendance for a genuine event, or justified false alarm. They do have the right to charge for a second false alarm in a 30 day period, if that alarm is monitored and attendance requested. That said, I am yet to hear of anyone receiving a charge to date.


I can give you the details for most of the other states too, as this is what I do day to day...

At the end of the day, someone pays. Be it the taxpayer, or the individual.

IIRC, there are agreements in place between countries, where they can send each other the bill for a rescue of one of their nationals. Not quite sure if this is accurate, but it rings a bell.

As for billing someone for the cost of a rescue, whats the point? Even a simple, one day search, where the lost / stuck person walks out with help, would have to be in the vicinity of $100k. That would be for 8 hours.

Send them the bill, they dont pay, take them to court, get a court order, take away all their possessions, throw them out on the street, and ruin their lives... Bet they wished they never called for help in the first place.

And in that vain, IF someone knew they would be billed for the cost of a rescue, would they be hesitant in asking for help that might save their life, and instead, end up loosing their life???

Originally Posted by Sparksdisco

And in this case I would be looking at charging the station for the cost of rescue.

A. He was employed by the station as a jackaroo.
b. What training did he have to be on a remote propery
c. The station's duty of care to ensure the safty of it's staff

Like I said i'm not hartless just a realist

Did you read beeuteys post # 39 with this link ?

British backpacker sells outback survival story - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

I look at it like when im at work.

if i get into trouble at work I will be rescued.

Then questions will be asked.

Did I identify and control the risk.

Was the controls effective

Only if I can answer these questions correctly then I might keep my job.

My job= money

no job no money.

and if i died at work then only if they could answer those questions correctly then my widdow might get entitled to a payout for my life.

Originally Posted by rick130

Did you read beeuteys post # 39 with this link ?

British backpacker sells outback survival story - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Yes it's a great outcome that he dicided to sell his story to help pay for his rescue.

I'll get slamed for saying this but


I guess you could say it's peoples inhumanity that will help to fund the rescue

Originally Posted by Sparksdisco

I'll get slamed for saying this but


I guess you could say it's peoples inhumanity that will help to fund the rescue

Meh its very human behaviour which drives a man to test himself, and also drives another to pay for a near death rescue story. The lad has learned a lot (one hopes) the story will hopefully save some other tourist's life, and Australia sells a reputation of caring for fellow human beings. Not a bad result.

Originally Posted by Sparksdisco

When I first came over to WA the first thing I did was asked where do i pay for my RFDS subscription.

All i got was a blank look and got told it's free.

I make a donation every year now.

Yes the goverment payes for emergency services but I bet your life they could not provide the service on the govement funding alone.

I relation to the RFDS, no they don't get by on government funding. The govt funds some but they get a significant portion of operational funding from private donations.

At an RFDF fund raising function I once asked the RFDF flight operations manager why they don't get more or even full Government funding. His answer was a bit surprising but makes perfect sense. They don't want more government money - with that would come with strings and government imposed outcomes. They would rather do their own thing, and provide a great service without having to accommodate outside interference.

After a lot of years working in public service (so to speak), I can totally understand their thought process. Shame to say it, but they are better off without the government funding because of the crap that would go with it...........