Australian Centre for Disease Control Bill 2025, Australian Centre for Disease Control (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025; Second Reading

Opened the debate

Ruston opposed the bills, arguing they lacked sufficient transparency and privacy safeguards. Ruston contended that the director-general would have broad powers to withhold information from public release without clear appeal rights or external oversight. Ruston also criticised the transfer of functions from the Chief Medical Officer to the Secretary of the Department of Health, suggesting this undermined clinical expertise. Ruston stated the coalition would move amendments to require Office of the Australian Information Commissioner approval for data-sharing declarations and to remove provisions she viewed as secretive.

Opposition response

Ruston argued the legislation failed to address past pandemic failures regarding unilateral state actions and lacked clarity on how the new body would add value. Ruston claimed the bill contradicted government rhetoric on transparency by allowing the withholding of advice deemed to affect other government processes. Ruston asserted that the structure, where the director-general chairs the advisory council, created conflicts of interest. Ruston maintained that the coalition could not support the bill until amendments ensuring independent oversight and transparency were accepted.