The Unseen Deals: Why Transparency on Foreign Partnerships Matters
The new Australian Centre for Disease Control Act 2025 doesn’t just create a national health agency. It gives that agency the legal authority to enter agreements with foreign governments and international organisations — and to withhold details of those agreements from the Australian public.
On the surface, this sounds routine. Australia already cooperates internationally on health and biosecurity. But under this Act, those arrangements move from ministerial coordination to agency-level autonomy, and that shift carries real implications for accountability.
The key power: Section 13(3)
Section 13(3) of the Act empowers the CDC to:
“enter into arrangements with a foreign government, a foreign government agency or an international organisation for the purpose of performing any of the Centre’s functions.”
This includes organisations such as the World Health Organization (WHO), GAVI, The World Bank, and other private foundations that fund global health initiatives.
The Act does not require these agreements to be tabled in Parliament, subject to review, or even publicly disclosed in full. Instead, transparency depends on a secondary provision — the Register of Arrangements.
The Register of Arrangements: Section 24
Section 24 requires the CDC to maintain a public register of its international agreements and to make it available on its website.
However, subsection (3) introduces a significant exemption:
“Information is not required to be published if the Minister is satisfied that publication would or might prejudice the security, defence or international relations of Australia, or damage public confidence.”
This means that if an arrangement includes any element deemed diplomatically sensitive, or if disclosure is thought to “damage public confidence”, the Minister can lawfully keep it off the record.
The phrase “public confidence” is particularly broad and undefined. It can cover almost anything that might cause public debate or controversy.
Why this matters
In democratic systems, international treaties and formal agreements usually go through parliamentary scrutiny. For example, under the Treaties Committee process, the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties (JSCOT) examines major international commitments before ratification.
The CDC Act bypasses that safeguard. The Director-General can enter arrangements directly, and as long as they are called “arrangements” rather than “treaties”, Parliament has no automatic role.
This matters because such agreements can involve:
Data sharing, including cross-border transfer of public-health information;
Funding partnerships with private or philanthropic entities;
Policy alignment with international frameworks or targets;
Access to intellectual property or research data.
Each of these carries policy and sovereignty implications. If Australians cannot see the content or terms of these agreements, they cannot know whether their data or health priorities are being shaped externally.
What the Explanatory Memorandum says
The Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill describes these powers as necessary for “global coordination of health protection and pandemic preparedness”. That is reasonable in principle.
However, the same Memorandum concedes that the CDC will be able to make arrangements “without the need for further legislative approval”, relying instead on internal departmental governance.
That approach might be efficient, but it is not transparent. It concentrates decision-making in a single executive office and removes Parliament from a process that could involve international data flow and public expenditure.
How transparency protects public trust
Trust in public institutions is built on two things: competence and accountability. Australians will accept strong public-health coordination if they can see who is making decisions and under what authority.
Publishing every agreement in full may not always be practical, but there are reasonable middle grounds:
Requiring notification to Parliament when an international arrangement is signed;
Releasing summary terms outlining the purpose, partners, and any data commitments;
Allowing the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties or a dedicated parliamentary committee to review confidential details under security clearance.
These mechanisms already exist elsewhere in government. The CDC Act simply omits them.
The bottom line
International cooperation is vital for health, but so is democratic accountability.
The CDC Act gives one unelected official — the Director-General — the capacity to shape Australia’s global health relationships behind closed doors, shielded by broad secrecy provisions.
Australians do not need to oppose global cooperation to demand transparency.
They just need to know what is being agreed in their name.
What we’re asking for
Stand Up Now calls on Minister Mark Butler to ensure that:
All international arrangements entered by the CDC are tabled in Parliament within 15 sitting days.
Any withholding of information under Section 24(3) must be reviewed and reported to a parliamentary committee.
The CDC’s Register of Arrangements includes at least a summary of purpose and partners for every deal.
These are modest, common-sense safeguards that protect both Australia’s health and its sovereignty.
References
Australian Centre for Disease Control Bill 2025 (Cth), Sections 13(3) and 24(3).
Explanatory Memorandum, Australian Centre for Disease Control Bill 2025, House of Representatives, 2025.
Joint Standing Committee on Treaties (JSCOT) – Role and Functions, Parliament of Australia.