Yeah. Why is trusting government supposed to be the default? Any organization with power should be continually distrusted, required to constantly and endlessly prove itself. In a democratic situation, the price of power is the responsibility to prove yourself trustworthy and competent enough to hold it. The whole point is that power is granted contingent to the will of a people for the good of the people.

You should never trust government. If your democracy is working, you can sometimes trust that government actions were good and competent after the fact. Trusting up front is abdication of your responsibility to guard against abuses as a citizen. Every tiny step towards surveillance and acquisition of data that can be abused should be resisted and assumed to be motivated by the worst possible incentive.

It's up to the agency or bureau to prove, up front, to the satisfaction of representatives and citizenry that a tool or power is necessary.

"But it's not illegal" is a weasel move, and heads should roll.

It seems like GP is claiming that this is not new, and also does not represent meaningfully expanded surveillance.

How did you come to that conclusion? The GP only states that the public health agency used already-available information, I don't see where they express any opinion on whether the availability of that data is a good thing or not.