The Emergency Management (Miscellaneous) Amendment Act 2025 (SA) ("the Amendment Act"), which amends the Emergency Management Act 2004, has provoked strong public debate since its passage through the South Australian Parliament on 19 August 2025.

First introduced in late 2024 to implement all 28 recommendations from an independent review of the 2004 Act, the Bill aimed to modernise emergency responses to evolving threats such as climate-driven disasters, cyber-attacks and prolonged public-health events. The Malinauskas Labor Government describes the reforms as providing "flexible and scalable" tools for preparation and recovery, citing lessons from the 2019–20 Black Summer bushfires and the 793-day COVID-19 emergency.

Critics, by contrast, have branded the legislation a "power grab," warning that its broad language could justify heavy-handed measures, property seizures, forced medical procedures or even so-called "climate lockdowns," without adequate checks. The Bill passed with majority support; Independent MLC Sarah Game was the sole member to oppose final passage and her proposed oversight amendments were defeated. Social media platforms, particularly X, have amplified these concerns, linking the Act to international health regulations and digital-surveillance anxieties.

Background and Purpose

The original Emergency Management Act 2004 created the State's core framework for preventing, responding to and recovering from emergencies. An independent 2024 review, drawing on 74 public submissions and consultations with 15 agencies, identified gaps in dealing with "complex, prolonged and cascading" events such as overlapping bushfires, floods and pandemics. The Government accepted all recommendations, introducing the Amendment Bill to the House of Assembly on 27 November 2024. It passed the Legislative Council on 19 August 2025 and was assented to on 11 September, 2025.

Headline reforms include:

appointment of a permanent State Recovery Coordinator to improve post-emergency support

updated objectives emphasising mitigation and protection of vulnerable populations (including elderly and disabled people)

recognition of "emerging hazards" such as cyber-security incidents or large-scale algal blooms

a cross-bench amendment, moved by Independent MLC Connie Bonaros, requiring marine emergency planning in the State Emergency Management Plan.

While the Government argues these changes enhance "clarity and accountability" and notes strong stakeholder support during consultation, critics cautioned that some clauses confer "exceptionally broad and disproportionate executive powers."

Key Provisions at the Centre of the Debate

Public criticism has focused on three provisions that extend emergency powers to pre-emptive or transitional phases.

1. New "State of Alert" Declaration (s 21A)

This provision allows the State Co-ordinator to declare a state of alert when it appears that an emergency is likely to occur, or when an emergency is winding down and it is "necessary or desirable" to continue certain powers. The declaration initially lasts for a limited period (debated in Parliament as 14 days) and may be extended with Governor approval. Unlike a full "major emergency" declaration, no parliamentary vote or evidentiary threshold is required.

Supporters say this creates an agile "step-up/step-down" framework; opponents,argue that it risks becoming a "pre-emptive power grab", allowing restrictions on movement or assembly for events merely "likely" to occur. Safeguards include publication of the declaration and mandatory tabling of a report to Parliament after the event.

2. Amended General Powers (s 25)

Section 25 of the 2004 Act already authorises the State Co-ordinator and authorised officers, during a declared emergency, to enter property, direct evacuations, seize or destroy property and, if necessary, use reasonable force. The Amendment Act clarifies and in some respects broadens these powers. According to the Bill and parliamentary debates, certain powers will also operate in a state of alert.

Critics highlight that directions may be given "in any form" (e.g. by SMS or email) and may override some otherwise applicable legal constraints. Supporters point to judicial review and the requirement that directions be "reasonable" and, if applying statewide, published online within 24 hours. The precise reach of these amendments, including any explicit override of other State laws, needs legal investigation.

3. Regulations Dispensing with Procedural Requirements (s 26AB)

The Amendment Act enables regulations, approved by the Governor, to modify or dispense with procedural requirements of other Acts for the duration of a declaration. Regulations of this kind automatically expire 12 months after being made and, where they affect court procedures, can only be made at the request of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. While intended to streamline emergency response, opponents warn that such regulations could, for example, shorten appeal periods or defer normal notice requirements.

Parliamentary Debate and Public Reaction

Parliamentary debate in August 2025 showed broad bipartisan support for modernising the emergency framework. Minister for Emergency Services E.S. Bourke highlighted consultation with 75 agencies; Greens MLC Robert Simms backed the Bill for its protections for vulnerable groups. Independent MLC Sarah Game, however, argued it "entrenches COVID-era excesses" and unsuccessfully sought amendments to require parliamentary approval for extended alerts and to tighten the test of "reasonable force."

On social media, particularly X, the Act has been portrayed by some users as enabling "executive dictatorship." Game's own post outlining section 25 concerns attracted more than a thousand likes. Commenters link the reforms to international health regulations and to "climate emergency lockdowns," while farmers' groups warn of potential animal culls..

Implications and Safeguards

The Amendment Act equips South Australia to deal with twenty-first-century crises such as cascading floods or cyber-physical attacks, situations where pre-emptive action can save lives and reduce economic loss. Built-in safeguards include:

Reporting and transparency: post-event reports to Parliament.

Judicial review: the Supreme Court retains its supervisory jurisdiction; certain court-procedure regulations require the Chief Justice's consent.

Time limits: State-of-alert declarations are initially limited in duration and emergency regulations expire after 12 months.

Publication: statewide directions must be published online.

Yet the key statutory phrases — "necessary or desirable", "reasonably necessary" — leave substantial discretion, and there is no explicit proportionality test. Without strong parliamentary oversight, there is potential for over-reach if powers are used aggressively.

Bottom Line

The Emergency Management (Miscellaneous) Amendment Act 2025 represents a genuine attempt to modernise South Australia's disaster-response laws. But it also demonstrates how quickly extraordinary powers can become normalised. Whether it proves to be a tool for resilience or a gateway to executive over-reach will depend less on the wording of the statute than on the vigilance of courts, Parliament and the public once the Act is proclaimed. We believe that an over-extension of power has occurred producing law that can be abused. Whether you call it foresight or a soft launch for the next manufactured "crisis," the Amendment Act quietly resets the balance of power. The next time the sirens wail, be they for bushfire, bug or byte, don't be surprised if these "temporary" powers snap into place like they were waiting all along. Because they were.

https://x.com/MLCGame/status/1958004917093937220

Sarah Game MLC

@MLCGame

Who in the South Australian Parliament has got your back?

Last night, the Malinauskas Government passed the Emergency Management (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2024.

Under the amended 'General Powers', section 25 of the Act, the State Co-ordinator and authorised officers are given the power to issue directions in any form, without limitation. These directions may:

• Contravene another law of the State

• Affect individual's personal rights

• and may use force to ensure compliance

These directions can include:

• Breaking into any land, building, structure or vehicle.

• Taking possession or assuming control over any land, body of water.

• Removing or destroying buildings, structures, vehicles, vegetations, and even animals.

• Ordering real estate owners to forfeit control of their properties.

• Removing people or animals.

• Directing people to submit to a decontamination procedure

• Directing people to isolate.

I was the ONLY Member of Parliament who opposed these extraordinary measures – and the only one who presented significant measures to limit these powers.

All Legislative Council members voted against my proposals to restrict and provide reasonable oversight of these excessive powers.

In the absence of any parliamentary oversight or limitation on what many in the legal profession (including the Law Society) have characterised as "exceptionally broad and disproportionate executive powers", the rights of South Australians have been put at considerable risk.