Question Time AU

Bill Debate · In Committee

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

Senate · Wednesday 5 November 2025

Official Hansard for this day (APH) · Read this debate on OpenAustralia

At a glance

The Senate debated amendments to the Australian Centre for Disease Control Bill 2025 during consideration in committee. Senator Steele-John moved amendments to mandate disability representation on the advisory council, require annual reporting on pandemic preparedness and climate health impacts, and strengthen public health research functions. The government accepted these amendments, with Minister McAllister confirming the inclusion of a disabled representative and the broader goals of the new agency. Senator Roberts opposed the bill, raising concerns about lack of scrutiny, potential for dangerous research, and freedom of information exemptions, while Senator Thorpe questioned the exclusion of racism as a specific health determinant. Senator Pocock supported the bill and the decision to locate the centre in Canberra, highlighting the need for climate health advice and broader prevention strategies.

Outcome

The amendments moved by Senator Steele-John were accepted by the government and proceeded to be considered.

Summary in reported speech - not a transcript. AI-generated, so check the official record before quoting.

How the debate unfolded

Opened the debate

Jordon Steele-John (WA) (Australian Greens) Greens

Steele-John moved amendments to strengthen the Centre for Disease Control by ensuring specific consultation with community organisations and promoting public health workforce expertise. Steele-John proposed that the annual report must include assessments of pandemic preparedness and the health impacts of climate change. Steele-John sought to guarantee that a person with disability who has relevant expertise serves on the advisory council, arguing this would ensure the disability community's needs are met in future crises. Steele-John also moved to include bodies focused on occupational exposures, infection control, and disability health in the list of entities the centre must consult.

Government response

Jenny McAllister (NSW) (Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) ALP

McAllister confirmed the government's acceptance of Steele-John's amendments, noting they would ensure a person with disability serves on the advisory council. McAllister explained that the bill establishes an independent agency to address gaps identified in the COVID-19 response inquiry, such as fragmented data and lack of central authority. McAllister clarified that the centre will publish advice to government, including recommendations for action or no action, to ensure transparency and rebuild public trust. McAllister responded to concerns about freedom of information exemptions by stating they apply to sensitive information that could cause harm to individuals or groups, not to state or territory governments.

Opposition response

Anne Ruston (SA) (Liberal Party) Liberal

Ruston sought clarification on whether the centre's transparency requirements apply to advice regarding actions already taken by governments. Ruston questioned the rationale for specific freedom of information amendments in the bill, asking why existing laws were deemed insufficient. Ruston asked whether the term 'group' in the legislation could include state or territory governments, potentially allowing them to withhold critical information. Ruston did not state a final position on the bill but raised procedural and transparency concerns regarding the new agency's operations.