While I agree with the major advice in guests's answer (you do not have to allow publishing a paper you have not seen), I feel as it could be more concise (and I do not agree that you should agree with publication of anything 'passing' a very low quality bar).
I agree with you that your situation is highly unusual and not good academic practice. I understand that you have discussed with your situation with your advisers and they are generally supportive, however I do not understand why you or your advisers feel like you have no power over this student or the publication?
You have power over every publication containing your work, data which you have not made public, results of your experiments or your analysis: you have power to allow re-usage of your materials under your terms, and you have the power to demand proper attribution. As others have correctly noted, you vouch for every publication you put your name on, and you should not allow something you have not read to be published under your name.
While I agree that reporting this behaviour as unethical to the University committee is very much over the top, and would suggest escalating it is small steps, but know that you do have a nuclear option available to you if all else fails. I would recommend going through the next general steps:
Talk to your advisers (you seem to have already done that).
Explain that you are happy to share your data and contribute with your analysis of the experiments/results in a collaborative effort to publish. Explain that you are not happy to share your data, experimental setup or results outside of a collaboration before you publish them. Get their support for your opinions.
Talk to the PhD student in question.
Explain the same as above: you are happy to collaborate. As the data is not yet published, you can not share it with researchers you are not collaborating with. Explain that your potential contribution (data, experiments, analysis) is substantial and why you think it warrants an authorship.
Then, explain that every paper a researcher vouches for every paper they author. Explain that a sloppily written paper, or even worse, an erroneous one, will potentially damage your academic career as well. Explain that if there are any interpretations or conclusions in the paper discussion, you need to be sure you agree with them and support them before you attach your name to those claims.
Finally, say that you are happy to collaborate on those terms, and those terms only. Explain that you can not in good faith put your name on a paper which you have not seen, and do not give the permission this person to re-use your materials (data, experimental setup - those do not have to be attributed, but still need to be legally obtained). Hope that the other PhD student agrees to those terms.
Talk to the PhD student in question more formally, involving your and their advisers.
Repeat everything from above. Make it clear that you do not give permission to reuse your data, but are happy to collaborate (on regular terms, where your work is attributed and you are able to approve of the manuscript and suggest changes before submission).
If, at this point, the PhD student still does not agree, make it clear that using your data without permission, or worse, your work, analysis or conclusions without attribution, would be grounds to request retraction if the work got published.
You have just given the PhD student three choices: proceed to work in a proper collaboration with you; proceed their work on their own, not relying on your data, results or input; proceed to submit their manuscript relying on your data and input, getting involved in unethical academic practices, which will give you grounds to request retraction of that paper and potentially damage their reputation.
(if the paper gets published but not under the above terms) You may now consider first going through the University channels (with the support of your advisers), but if it has come to this, you now have the power to start biting back.
This could be either the situation where the paper got published without your name but still using the data you did not give the permission for, or with your name but without your prior knowledge.
Say that your next steps are to contact the Editor in Chief of the journal where the paper was submitted, explain the situation and ask the paper be retracted. At this point, the University might mediate somewhat (e.g. allow the person to attempt to retract the paper themselves to save face?), or there might be not much they can do.
Finally, get in touch with the Editor in Chief of the journal in question.
Explain the situation. Either that your data has been used without your permission, or that you never approved (or have seen) the manuscript on which you are a coauthor and do not approve of its submission and publication. Provide some proof (This will have required you to keep an e-mail trail of all the crucial points of this process. Especially the part where you explicitly tell the student that you will not share your data unless you enter a proper collaboration, as well as where you ask for access to the manuscript before the submission).
Hopefully, it does not come to this, and you find an agreement through one of the earlier steps I propose, even if that agreement is potentially not to collaborate. Even more hopefully, the PhD student in question realises how to work with other people and changes her opinion.
Be friendly, be nice and be open. Behave. But do all of that with the knowledge that you do have power over your own work, and be firm on exercising that power if needed