-
Ryan welcomed the establishment of the centre but criticised the delay in addressing chronic diseases and climate change impacts until at least 2028. Ryan argued that chronic conditions represent a significant portion of Australia's disease burden and should be included from the outset. Ryan moved an amendment calling for the centre to prioritise prevention strategies for gambling harm. Ryan also highlighted that the proposed budget was inadequate compared to international counterparts and fossil fuel subsidies.
-
Clutterham supported the bill, noting it fulfils a government commitment and addresses advice from the COVID-19 response inquiry. Clutterham explained that the agency would serve as a single source of truth for public health advice, improving coordination and transparency. Clutterham detailed the transfer of functions from existing acts to the director-general, including biosecurity and notifiable disease surveillance. Clutterham emphasised that the legislation includes safeguards for privacy and requires regular reviews to ensure the agency remains effective.
-
Haines supported the creation of the centre but expressed concern over the lack of legislated independence for the director-general's appointment and the review process. Haines argued that the delay in addressing preventive health and chronic disease would disproportionately affect rural communities. Haines moved amendments to strengthen the integrity of the statutory review process by requiring an independent panel of experts. Haines warned against the politicisation of health advice, citing recent events in the United States as a cautionary example.
-
Ng supported the bill, stating it strengthens national public health infrastructure and addresses weaknesses exposed during the pandemic. Ng argued that the agency would provide authoritative, evidence-based advice and improve data sharing across jurisdictions. Ng criticised the previous government for abolishing the Australian National Preventive Health Agency, leaving a gap in national health coordination. Ng emphasised that the new centre would be independent and protected from politicisation, ensuring science-driven responses to future health threats.
-
Scamps supported the bill but raised concerns about the exclusion of chronic disease prevention and the lack of an independent appointment process for leadership. Scamps moved an amendment calling for the inclusion of chronic condition prevention in the centre's mission from the outset. Scamps also proposed amendments to ensure transparent and quality appointments for the director-general and advisory council. Scamps highlighted the link between climate change and public health, supporting amendments to address these impacts explicitly.
-
Smith supported the bill, drawing parallels between sports preparation and pandemic readiness to emphasise the need for proactive planning. Smith argued that the agency would provide a single source of truth for public health advice, reducing confusion and improving responses. Smith highlighted the specific health challenges in his electorate, including infectious diseases and the impacts of climate change. Smith stressed that the centre would be independent and science-driven, ensuring that health professionals have the tools and authority to protect communities.
-
Watson-Brown supported the legislation but called for an expanded scope to include chronic diseases and disability health from the beginning. Watson-Brown argued that the exclusion of these areas was an omission that would limit the agency's effectiveness. Watson-Brown highlighted the importance of First Nations representation on the advisory council but noted the lack of mention of disability in the bill. Watson-Brown also criticised the privatisation of public health assets, arguing that essential services should remain in public hands to avoid conflicts of interest.
-
Stanley supported the bill, noting it delivers on the government's election commitment and addresses gaps identified in the COVID-19 response inquiry. Stanley explained that the agency would provide evidence-based advice and improve data sharing while maintaining strong privacy safeguards. Stanley highlighted that the centre would be independent and subject to regular reviews to ensure its effectiveness. Stanley argued that the legislation would help address disproportionate health impacts on vulnerable populations and improve national preparedness for future health threats.
-
McCormack opposed the bill, arguing that it undermines transparency and freedom of information by allowing the director-general to withhold information. McCormack criticised the government for being secretive and accused it of imposing a 'truth tax' on information requests. McCormack stated that the coalition's response to the pandemic was effective and that the bill was unnecessary. McCormack called for a Senate inquiry to examine the implications of the legislation before it was passed.
-
McCormack defended the previous government's pandemic response, arguing it saved lives and protected jobs despite criticism regarding debt. McCormack asserted that disease preparedness was important but argued the legislation should be rejected and referred to a Senate inquiry for further examination.
-
Ambihaipahar argued the bill addressed failures in the previous government's response, which lacked coordination and clarity. Ambihaipahar highlighted that the new centre would provide authoritative, evidence-based advice and improve data sharing to prevent future confusion and mistrust in public health measures.
-
Small criticised the government for rushing the legislation without a proper Senate inquiry or public hearings. Small argued that the bill conferred excessive powers on a new entity, downgraded the role of the Chief Medical Officer, and included provisions that could allow the withholding of information, thereby reducing transparency.
-
Gosling stated the bill fulfilled a commitment to establish an independent centre as recommended by the COVID-19 response inquiry. Gosling explained that the agency would strengthen public health capability, improve data analytics, and provide transparent advice to governments and the community to better prepare for future health threats.
-
Steggall supported the bill as a necessary step to strengthen national public health preparedness and coordinate responses. Steggall emphasised the need for the centre to be robustly independent, science-led, and inclusive of climate change health impacts and First Nations perspectives, while commending amendments proposed by other members to enhance transparency.
-
Neumann argued the legislation addressed the lack of preparedness and fragmented response during the pandemic, which was exacerbated by poor economic policy choices. Neumann highlighted that the centre would provide high-quality, nationally consistent advice and improve data sharing between jurisdictions to safeguard public health.
-
Spender supported the bill but criticised the delay in including chronic non-communicable diseases in the centre's scope until 2028. Spender argued that prevention is undervalued in Australia's health funding and urged the government to ensure the centre is properly funded, independent, and focused on proactive health measures.
-
Lim drew on personal experience combating misinformation in multicultural communities during the pandemic to support the bill. Lim argued that an independent, authoritative voice would have improved trust and vaccination rates, and highlighted the centre's role in providing evidence-based advice and strengthening data capabilities.