NSW dust diseases law reform is a mixed bag of hits and misses

The NSW Government’s recent attempt to reform legislation around dust-related conditions is a victory for victims of dust diseases, but the war is far from won.

The November update of the Dust Diseases Tribunal Act 1989 (DDT Act) in New South Wales brings a welcome broadening of what constitutes dust-related disease, but advice from Maurice Blackburn to include victims of other silica-induced autoimmune conditions has been passed over.

So, while many of our clients will benefit from this closing of a few compensation gaps for dust victims – many others still can’t breathe easy.

What the amendments now cover

The following five dust-related diseases have been added to Schedule 1 of the DDT Act:

1. Diffuse dust-related pulmonary fibrosis
2. Hypersensitivity pneumonitis
3. Pneumoconiosis (any form)
4. Silica-induced carcinoma of the lung
5. Systemic sclerosis

These are now compensable under the act, which means victims can sue for common law damages in the tribunal if they suffer from these newly named diseases.

This is a win for the many workers with different forms of silica and other dust_-induced conditions of the lung and autoimmune system. Their rights to compensation are now in line with protections that exist for asbestos victims.

Maurice Blackburn welcomes the closing of these compensation loopholes that have existed ever since the DDT was created.

But other loopholes remain.

What the amendments still fail to cover

Despite detailed submissions, the definition of “dust‑related condition” was not amended as Maurice Blackburn proposed, and our concerns for other silica-induced autoimmune conditions were disregarded.

We recommended that the Act be expanded to include all silica-induced lung and auto-immune diseases, so victims of dust-related conditions that are not named in the Schedule 1 list are also able to seek compensation.

Our position is based on our daily experience representing workers who have developed silica-induced rheumatoid arthritis, scleroderma and sarcoidosis, in addition to silicosis and dust-induced emphysema.

We believe the amendments do not go far enough to make the law certain as to what silica‑induced diseases are covered by the DDT’s jurisdiction. Many victims may continue to be unfairly passed over for full common law compensation.