This bill makes wide-ranging consequential amendments to primary and secondary legislation to align existing statutes with the Emergency Management Act 2025. It systematically replaces references to the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002, its officers, decision-making structures, and terms such as “lifeline utility” with parallel concepts in the Emergency Management Act 2025 (EM Act), and adjusts cross‑references to specific EM Act sections where operational detail is required.
Although largely technical, the changes have practical effects: they reallocate which officials may exercise emergency powers (notably in building safety provisions), change the statutory definition that identifies critical infrastructure, and create explicit continuity rules for regional plans and emergency directions. Compliance teams, infrastructure operators, territorial authorities, and agencies that rely on emergency triggers should expect to update plans, contracts, and operational playbooks to reflect the new statutory architecture.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill replaces references to the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 with references to the Emergency Management Act 2025 across numerous Acts and regulations, updates titles and officer names (for example, Director of Civil Defence Emergency Management → Director‑General of Emergency Management), and substitutes the term “lifeline utility” with “essential infrastructure provider.” It also maps which EM Act roles may exercise specified powers during a state of emergency or a transition period, especially in the Building Act.
Who It Affects
Central and local government emergency planners, building owners and compliance teams, essential infrastructure providers (including ports and utilities), regulators that rely on emergency triggers, and counsel who draft statutory instruments and contracts tied to emergency definitions. Operators with obligations tied to the old CDEM definitions will need to reassess scope.
Why It Matters
The bill changes legal triggers, reallocates operational authority for emergency interventions, and alters which entities qualify for special statutory treatment during emergencies. That reshaping affects who must act, when plans apply, and how sectoral regulations interact with national emergency plans and controllers' powers.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Emergency Management Bill (No 2) is a comprehensive tidy-up: its core job is to make sure dozens of existing laws and subordinate instruments talk to the Emergency Management Act 2025 instead of the old Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002. That means swapping statutory citations, renaming offices and decision‑makers, and updating the terms that identify critical infrastructure.
Across health, transport, resource management, building law, and many more, the bill replaces old references with the EM Act’s section numbers and terminology so existing emergency‑related obligations remain operable under the new framework.
Beyond word substitution, the bill makes concrete operational mappings. The Building Act receives detailed changes that identify which EM Act officers may exercise specific building safety and post‑event assessment powers during a state of emergency versus a transition period—Controllers, Recovery Managers, Regional and Local Controllers, the Director‑General, and Emergency Management Committees are each assigned particular authorities.
Related provisions impose cross‑compliance: certain directions (for example, under the Corrections Act) may not conflict with any applicable emergency management plan under the EM Act.The bill also reshapes how sectors are captured by emergency law. “Lifeline utility” is replaced widely with “essential infrastructure provider,” and the Resource Management Act narrows which essential infrastructure providers are treated under particular emergency‑planning sections (excluding some network utility operators in a specific clause). Several subordinate instruments adopt a rule that EM Act obligations take precedence where compliance with sector regulations would otherwise prevent compliance with the EM Act—an explicit supremacy carve‑out in the Gas Governance regulations.Finally, the bill includes continuity devices so regional plans and transitional notices do not lapse abruptly: existing regional plans keep effect until replaced under the EM Act, and statutory references to states of emergency, transition periods, and emergency services are realigned to the EM Act’s new structure.
The result is legal continuity under a new emergency management architecture, but with fresh definitional and operational consequences for regulated actors.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill replaces “lifeline utility” with “essential infrastructure provider” across numerous Acts and regulations, shifting which entities are captured by emergency‑specific protections and duties.
Section 133BK of the Building Act is rewritten to specify precisely which EM Act roles (Controllers, Recovery Managers, Director‑General, Emergency Management Committees, Regional/Local Controllers) may exercise building‑safety powers during a state of emergency and during a transition period.
Gas Governance regulation 14 creates an explicit exemption: a person need not comply with the gas contingency regulations where that compliance would prevent compliance with the Emergency Management Act 2025.
The Local Government amendments include a continuity rule in Schedule 3 that keeps existing regional emergency management plans in force until a new plan is prepared and approved under the EM Act.
The bill amends court rules (District Court and High Court Rules) and multiple procedural statutes so that the EM Act’s declaration of a state of emergency or transition period is the operative trigger for emergency‑related judicial and administrative processes.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Systematic retargeting of statutory references to the EM Act 2025
This part performs the large majority of the work: it goes through dozens of Acts and swaps references to the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002, its offices, and section numbers for the corresponding references in the Emergency Management Act 2025. Mechanically that preserves existing emergency-linked powers and duties while aligning them to the new statute. Practically, it forces every agency, adviser, and regulated party to read historic emergency obligations against the EM Act’s definitions and mechanisms rather than the old CDEM text.
Who can act in building emergencies and how powers are allocated
The Building Act amendments are the most operationally significant. The reworked section 133BK establishes which EM officers may exercise post‑event assessment, evacuation, urgent works, owner information directions, and deadlines for seismic work, distinguishing powers exercised during a state of emergency from those exercised during a transition period. It also ties responsible persons to compliance obligations under specific EM Act sections (for example, requiring Regional Controllers to comply with section 59 of the EM Act). For building owners and territorial authorities, this creates a clearer, role‑by‑role map of who can give orders and who must follow EM Act plan requirements in the immediate aftermath of an event.
Replacing lifeline utilities with essential infrastructure providers and the immediate consequences
The bill replaces the older term ‘lifeline utility’ with ‘essential infrastructure provider’ in the Resource Management Act and many sectoral laws (Climate Change Response, Waste Minimisation, Water Services, etc.). One notable technical detail is the Resource Management Act’s new subsection that defines essential infrastructure provider for certain emergency provisions but expressly excludes network utility operators covered elsewhere—this narrows the application of some RMA emergency powers. The practical effect is that a reclassification may pull new entities into (or out of) emergency planning obligations depending on how the EM Act defines “essential infrastructure provider.”
Subordinate instruments updated and an explicit EM Act supremacy carve‑out
The bill updates numerous regulations and rules to adopt EM Act terminology and adds operational clauses. The Gas Governance (Critical Contingency Management) Regulations are a standout: they remove the old civil defence definition, insert EM Act definitions (including a broad ‘state of emergency’ entry) and add a new regulation that effectively suspends regulatory duties where compliance would prevent compliance with the EM Act. That creates a clear hierarchy for gas contingency decision‑making and signals similar priorities in other technical sectors where the bill inserts like clauses.
Protecting continuity of regional plans and clarifying plan coverage across district boundaries
The Local Government Act and related schedules are amended so regional emergency management plans that existed before the EM Act remain in force until replaced under the EM Act. The bill also provides rules for areas included in another district and for newly constituted districts or regions so that plan coverage continues without a gap. That reduces short‑term legal uncertainty about which plan applies during transitions between governance boundaries or while new plans are prepared.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Emergency management agencies and planners — Gain legal clarity about who has statutory authority under the EM Act and clearer citation points for plans and directives, reducing legal uncertainty when exercising powers.
- Territorial authorities and regional councils — Benefit from explicit continuity rules that keep existing regional emergency management plans in force until new plans are prepared under the EM Act, avoiding immediate gaps in local emergency governance.
- Courts and procedural administrators — Receive consistent triggers for emergency‑linked procedures because court rules and rules of process are aligned to the EM Act’s declarations, reducing litigation on which statutory instrument applies during an emergency.
- Regulated sectors with contingency obligations (gas, water, transport) — Get an express legal hierarchy: where sector rules conflict with EM Act duties, the EM Act takes precedence, simplifying priority decisions during crises.
- Owners/operators of buildings subject to post‑event powers — Obtain a clearer map of which EM role may direct assessments and urgent works, which can speed decision‑making after events.
Who Bears the Cost
- Essential infrastructure providers (and entities newly captured) — Face the risk of broader statutory obligations if the EM Act’s definition of essential infrastructure provider sweeps in additional entities, requiring compliance plan updates and possible new investments.
- Local authorities and CDEM/Emergency Management Committees — Must revise plans, agreements, and operational procedures to match EM Act terminology and role mappings; administrative and training costs follow.
- Regulatory agencies and compliance teams — Need to update statutory instruments, guidance, forms, and IT systems where emergency triggers are referenced, incurring programmatic costs.
- Private contractors and building owners — May face more frequent or differently allocated orders for post‑event assessments, evacuations, or urgent works under the reallocated Building Act powers.
- Central agencies (agencies asked to issue guidelines or exercise Director‑General functions) — Could inherit unfunded operational responsibilities when sector regulations defer to EM Act plans and directives.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill seeks clarity and legal continuity by folding existing emergency references into a new EM Act framework, but doing so shifts how entities are captured and who can exercise emergency powers; the central dilemma is between creating a single, authoritative emergency architecture and the risk that broader or redistributed legal definitions and authorities will impose new operational burdens and ambiguities on infrastructure operators, local authorities, and regulators without resolving who pays or how competing authorities are reconciled.
The technical nature of the bill masks a set of substantive tensions. Replacing “lifeline utility” with “essential infrastructure provider” is not just wordsmithing: the coverage and regulatory consequences now flow from the EM Act’s definition.
If that definition is broader or conceptually different, private sector compliance burdens may rise and sectoral emergency tools (RMA, Water Services Act, Climate Change Response obligations) will apply to a shifted cohort. The bill does not itself define that cohort; its practical impact depends on the EM Act’s substantive definitions and any secondary rules naming or listing providers.
The Building Act mapping of powers clarifies who may act, but it also disperses authorities across Controllers, Recovery Managers, the Director‑General, and Emergency Management Committees. That distribution reduces ambiguity about who can issue a particular direction, but it raises coordination questions: which role gets priority when multiple officers assert authority during a fast‑moving event, and how will operational command be reconciled with sectoral statutory powers (for example, police or defence powers that also operate in emergencies)?
The bill ties some responsible persons to compliance with specific EM Act sections (57, 59, 68), but it leaves procedural detail—notice requirements, appeal routes, and timeframes—governed by the separate EM Act text and subordinate instruments.
Finally, the bill imposes a hidden administrative load. Agencies, councils, infrastructure operators, and courts must update legal texts, plans, templates, and training material.
The bill inserts an EM Act supremacy clause into at least one sector regulation (gas), which may be sensible operationally but could generate disputes about when sector standards may be set aside. The text does not address funding for these transitions, nor does it resolve the potentially difficult judgments about who counts as an essential infrastructure provider in edge cases—questions that will be litigated or require detailed secondary instruments to settle.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.