The central concept in this notice is the deemed disease presumption. This is not a deeming of the disease itself, but a presumption that the specified occupation or exposure contributed to a substantial degree to the disease. The term substantial degree is used in section 26 of the Act and carries its common law meaning of more than trivial or minimal, though not necessarily the predominant cause. The notice does not redefine that term. The concept of occupation in column 2 includes both specific job titles such as abattoir worker or veterinarian, and broad categories such as occupations involving contact with animals or work in a rural setting. The concept of exposure is used for many entries in Schedule 1 and covers contact with a listed substance or environmental condition, whether through inhalation, ingestion, dermal absorption, or other routes. The notice explicitly includes immunologically mediated asthma within the definition of occupational asthma. The notice also distinguishes between diseases where the presumption attaches because of a specific exposure (for example, lung cancer from asbestos) and diseases where the presumption attaches because of a prior deemed disease (for example, tuberculosis from silicosis, or chronic active hepatitis from hepatitis B or C where that hepatitis was itself deemed occupational). Another key concept is the rebuttable nature of the presumption. The notice does not make the listed diseases automatically compensable. An employer or insurer may still challenge the claim by presenting evidence that the worker's particular circumstances do not satisfy the causal link. The Safe Work Australia report is incorporated by reference as a permissible interpretive tool, though not as a binding legal authority. The report's definitions, lists of substances, and occupational categorisations may be used to resolve ambiguity in the schedule's language, for instance what counts as a sensitising metal or what constitutes an organic solvent. The notice also uses the phrase including, but not limited to repeatedly in column 2. This indicates that the listed examples are not exhaustive. A worker can rely on a presumption even if their specific exposure or occupation is not explicitly listed, provided it falls within the described category. Conversely, an employer may argue that a particular exposure is outside the category despite the examples. The notice does not create any presumption for diseases not listed in Schedule 1. For unlisted diseases, the ordinary rules of causation under the Act apply without any evidentiary shortcut.

The notice primarily affects workers who are covered by the Tasmanian workers compensation scheme under the Act. This includes most employees in Tasmania, with limited exclusions such as Commonwealth employees and some categories of independent contractors depending on the specific engagement terms. Workers in industries involving the exposures and occupations listed in Schedule 1 are most directly affected. These include health care workers (exposed to bloodborne viruses, tuberculosis, cytotoxic drugs), agricultural and rural workers (zoonoses, pesticides, solar radiation, silica), manufacturing and industrial workers (asbestos, welding fumes, cadmium, benzene, coal dust, wood dust), emergency services personnel (hepatitis B and C, HIV, diesel exhaust), laboratory workers (chemicals, radiation, infectious agents), miners (coal dust, silica, vibration, nystagmus), construction workers (asbestos, silica, solar radiation), and transport operators (diesel exhaust, leptospirosis). Employers in these industries bear the practical burden of responding to claims where the presumption operates. Insurers who underwrite workers compensation policies in Tasmania must assess claims with the presumption in mind, meaning they must actively investigate whether rebuttal evidence exists. The notice also affects medical practitioners who diagnose and report occupational diseases, because the classification of a disease under the schedule may influence whether a claim is accepted. Legal practitioners representing either workers or employers must understand the evidentiary shift. WorkCover Tasmania and the Tribunal (if appeals arise) are affected as the decision-makers who apply the presumption. The notice indirectly affects industry bodies, occupational health and safety officers, and workers compensation advisors. It also affects workers who are considering making a claim for an unlisted disease, because the absence of a presumption may make it harder to prove causation. The notice does not create new obligations on persons outside Tasmania, although a worker who was exposed in another state but now works in Tasmania may still be covered if the disease manifests after the move and the Act's jurisdictional tests are met. The notice does not affect workers covered by other Australian workers compensation schemes such as Comcare, Seacare, or the state schemes of other jurisdictions, except to the extent that similar deemed disease lists may exist elsewhere.

The notice itself imposes no direct duties on any person. It operates as a rule of evidence within the claims process under the Act. However, it creates a right for workers to have the presumption applied in their favour when they suffer a listed disease and can demonstrate the relevant occupation or exposure. This right is not absolute; it is a procedural right to have the initial burden of proof shifted. The worker still must establish that they actually suffer from the disease as diagnosed and that they were employed in the specified occupation or exposed to the specified substance. The notice gives the worker the right to rely on the Safe Work Australia report as an interpretive aid, but does not compel the decision-maker to accept the report's conclusions. For employers and insurers, the notice imposes an evidentiary burden of rebuttal. If the worker establishes a prima facie case (disease plus occupation or exposure from the schedule), the employer or insurer must produce evidence that the worker's particular disease was not contributed to to a substantial degree by the occupation or exposure. This might include evidence of a non-occupational cause (such as smoking for lung cancer, a family history for melanoma, or recreational drug use for hepatitis C), evidence that the level of exposure was below thresholds known to cause the disease, or evidence that the disease pre-existed the employment or exposure. The notice does not alter any duty of the employer to provide a safe workplace under the Work Health and Safety Act 2012 (Tas). It also does not affect the duty to notify WorkCover of injuries or diseases. The notice does not create a right for the worker to choose which disease category to claim under; the diagnosis determines the applicable schedule item. If a disease matches multiple items, the worker can rely on any applicable presumption. The notice does not give the worker a right to compensation without proof of incapacity or medical expenses, as those remain governed by the Act. The notice also does not affect the right of the employer to dispute liability on grounds other than causation, such as whether the worker is a worker under the Act, whether the disease arose out of or in the course of employment (though the presumption goes to causation, not to the course of employment), or whether the claim was lodged within time limits. The right to appeal an adverse decision to the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Tribunal is unaffected.

This notice contains no penalty provisions. It is not an enforcement instrument. Enforcement of the workers compensation scheme is governed by the Act itself, which includes offences for making false or misleading claims, for employers failing to insure, and for failing to provide information. The notice's role is limited to the evidentiary standard in claims determination. However, the practical consequence of the notice is that a worker who knowingly claims a disease that does not match the schedule or who falsely claims exposure may be liable for fraud under section 156 of the Act, which creates an offence for obtaining or attempting to obtain compensation by false or misleading representations. Similarly, an employer or insurer who unreasonably rejects a claim where the presumption operates may be subject to adverse costs orders or penalties for failure to comply with the Act's claims handling provisions. The notice itself cannot be enforced separately; its effect is felt entirely through the claims adjudication process. The WorkCover Tasmania Board, which made the notice, does not have a direct enforcement role under this instrument. The Tribunal has the power to determine disputed claims and may make orders for compensation, medical expenses, or rehabilitation. If a worker or employer fails to comply with such an order, enforcement may occur through the Magistrates Court as a debt or through contempt proceedings. The notice does not create any inspectorial powers or infringement notices. The penalties for non-compliance with the Act are set out in the Act itself and include fines of up to 500 penalty units for some offences. The notice does not change those penalty levels. The only real penalty for a party that misapplies the presumption is an adverse decision on the merits, which may carry cost consequences. For lawyers or claims agents, professional obligations may be affected if they fail to properly consider the presumption, but that is not a penalty under this notice.

The notice is made under section 26(3) of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Tas). It must be read together with that Act, especially section 26 which defines when a disease arises out of or in the course of employment, and section 25 which deals with the requirement that the employment contributed to a substantial degree. The notice does not override the provisions of the Act that define a worker, the types of compensation payable, or the limitations periods. It also interacts with the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Regulations 2020 (Tas), which deal with procedural matters such as claim forms and medical panels. The notice should be read consistently with the Work Health and Safety Act 2012 (Tas), which imposes duties on persons conducting a business or undertaking to manage risks to health and safety, including risks from exposures listed in the schedule. A breach of WHS duties may be relevant in a subsequent workers compensation claim, but the notice does not create any presumption of a WHS breach. The notice also interacts with the Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 (Tas) to the extent that an employer might argue that a worker with a deemed occupational disease cannot safely perform the inherent requirements of the job; the presumption may affect the evidence in any discrimination claim. The notice does not affect criminal law, such as prosecutions for reckless endangerment or manslaughter, but the list of exposures may be relevant in criminal proceedings. The notice is specific to Tasmania and has no direct interaction with Commonwealth legislation such as the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) or the Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1992 (Cth), except that a worker covered by a Commonwealth scheme is not subject to the Tasmanian notice. The notice may be referred to in other state jurisdictions as a guide, but it has no legal force outside Tasmania. The notice also interacts with the Evidence Act 2001 (Tas) only indirectly; the presumption is a substantive rule under the Act rather than a rule of evidence in court proceedings, though the Tribunal may apply similar principles. The Safe Work Australia report referenced in the notice is a non-legislative document; any update to that report does not automatically update the notice. The notice is also subject to the Acts Interpretation Act 1931 (Tas) as if it were rules, meaning that the usual interpretive principles apply. If a disease is also listed in other instruments, such as a deemed disease notice under a different Act, this notice does not create any conflict; the worker can rely on whichever is more favourable.

The notice itself has not been amended since it was made on 19 December 2017 and notified in the Gazette on 27 December 2017. The source text does not list any amending instruments. However, the enabling provision, section 26(3) of the Act, was inserted or amended by the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Act 2017 (Act No. 39 of 2017), and this notice is the first instrument made under that new provision. There is no indication in the source that any subsequent amendment to the Act has altered the scope of section 26(3) since 2017. The notice is therefore static as of the date of the source text (displayed as in force on 12 April 2026). It is possible that future amendments may add new diseases, remove obsolete ones, or update references to the Safe Work Australia report. The notice itself does not contain a sunset provision or a review clause. The notice replaces any previous deemed disease specifications under the Act that existed before 2017, but the source does not detail what those prior specifications were. The notice remains current and in force unless and until it is revoked or superseded by a later notice made by the WorkCover Tasmania Board. The board has the power to make a new notice at any time, which would automatically repeal this one. The absence of amendment history means the schedule has not been updated for developments such as new carcinogen classifications, emerging occupational diseases like COVID-19, or changes in industrial patterns. This static nature is a potential limitation for workers and employers alike.

The source text does not mention any specific litigation concerning this notice. The notice is a relatively recent instrument, and the provision under which it was made (section 26(3) of the Act) is itself fairly new, having been inserted by the 2017 amending Act. There may have been Tribunal decisions interpreting the scope of the presumption, the meaning of specific occupations or exposures, or the rebuttal evidence required, but the source does not reference them. As a general matter, any decision on a claim involving a listed disease will necessarily apply the notice, but such decisions are at the Tribunal level and may not be publicly reported in accessible databases. It is also possible that the notice has been challenged on procedural grounds, such as whether it was properly made, or on substantive grounds, such as whether the list exceeds the scope of section 26(3). Without specific case references, it is not possible to assert any particular litigation trend. The notice is subordinate legislation and could be challenged in the Supreme Court of Tasmania on grounds of unreasonableness, ultra vires, or procedural error. No such challenge is recorded in the source. The notice does not create a private right of action; it only operates within the existing workers compensation dispute resolution framework. The practical effect is that litigation is likely to focus on specific schedule items, such as whether a particular chemical exposure falls within a listed category, or whether a worker's melanoma was caused by solar radiation at work rather than recreational sun exposure. These are case-by-case factual disputes, not systemic challenges to the notice. The absence of cited litigation does not mean the notice is uncontroversial; it may simply mean that parties have settled or that the Tribunal decisions are unpublished.

Several features of this notice warrant careful attention. First, the presumption applies only where the disease is diagnosed in the worker and the worker proves the occupation or exposure. Merely having a listed disease and a listed occupation is not enough if the worker cannot establish actual exposure to the specified substance or situation. For example, a shearer with Q-fever must still prove contact with animals or animal parts in a rural setting; a city shearer who only handles sterilised fleeces may not meet the description. Second, the phrase including, but not limited to in many column 2 entries means the list is illustrative, not exhaustive. This cuts both ways: a worker can argue their exposure falls within the broad category even if not listed, but an employer can also argue that even though the exposure is listed, it does not fall within the category. The Deemed Diseases in Australia report may assist, but it is not legally binding. Third, the definition of occupational asthma specifically includes immunologically mediated asthma, which may exclude non-immunologic asthma-like conditions caused by irritants. Fourth, several diseases in the schedule rely on another disease being deemed occupational under the Act. For example, tuberculosis item 9(b) applies if the worker has silicosis that is presumed occupational; this creates a chain of presumptions that may be difficult to untangle. Fifth, the notice only covers diseases, not injuries. Musculoskeletal conditions such as bursitis in Part 7 are considered diseases under the schedule only if they fit the listed exposures (vibration, prolonged friction). Repetitive strain injuries that do not result in a diagnosed disease listed in the schedule are not covered by the presumption. Sixth, the notice does not address multiple exposures or synergistic effects. A worker with lung cancer from both asbestos and smoking may still have the presumption apply, but the employer may rebut by showing smoking was the substantial cause. Seventh, the notice is static; exposures that have become recognised as causing disease after 2015 (when the Safe Work Australia report was published) are not listed unless they can be argued to fall within an existing category. For example, COVID-19 is not listed, though it could potentially be argued under infectious disease categories for healthcare workers if the worker is exposed to human bodily secretions, but that is not explicit. Eighth, the notice uses terms like exposure to solar radiation for skin cancer, which then requires the worker to prove that the solar radiation was occupational (e.g., outdoor work). Workers in indoor jobs with incidental sun exposure may struggle. Ninth, the notice does not create a presumption for all occupational diseases, only those listed. Unlisted diseases remain a harder path for claimants. Tenth, the notice is Tasmanian only; a worker who moves interstate may not carry the presumption into another jurisdiction's scheme.

Compliance with this notice is not a matter of filing a form or obtaining a licence. It is about understanding how the presumption will affect claims and proactively managing evidence. For employers, the primary step is to maintain accurate and detailed records of worker exposures to listed substances and the duration and intensity of those exposures. This includes registers of chemicals used, safety data sheets, air monitoring results, biological monitoring results, and job rotation schedules. Employers should also keep records of training provided on the use of personal protective equipment and safe handling procedures. For each listed disease, the employer should identify which workers are at risk and implement health surveillance programs where appropriate, such as lung function tests for those exposed to asthmagens or silica, audiometry for noise exposure (though hearing loss is not listed in this notice, but similar principles apply), and skin checks for outdoor workers. When a claim is lodged that triggers a presumption under the notice, the employer must be able to gather evidence to rebut the presumption if there is a genuine basis to do so. This may include obtaining independent medical opinions, workplace exposure data, and evidence of non-occupational causes. The employer should not automatically concede liability simply because the disease appears in the schedule; each case must be assessed on its merits. For insurers, the compliance obligation is to ensure that claims handlers are trained to recognise when the presumption applies and to request appropriate evidence from both the worker and the employer. Insurers should also be aware that the Safe Work Australia report may be relevant and should have access to it. For workers, compliance means promptly reporting any diagnosed disease that is listed in the schedule and documenting the exposures and occupations that may have caused it. Workers should keep a diary of work activities, substances handled, and any symptoms. They should also obtain a clear diagnosis from a medical practitioner that specifies the exact disease name used in Schedule 1, because a general description such as skin cancer is not enough; it must be specified as melanoma or non-melanoma. Workers should also be aware that the presumption can be rebutted, and they should be prepared to provide evidence of the nature and extent of their exposure. For medical practitioners, compliance involves recognising when a patient's disease and occupation match a schedule item and noting this in the medical report. The doctor should use the diagnostic terminology that aligns with the schedule. For all parties, compliance essentially involves being prepared for the evidentiary shift and not assuming that the presumption makes the claim automatic. The notice does not require any special registration or notification beyond existing reporting under the Act. The cost of compliance is the time and expense of maintaining records and obtaining expert evidence. The notice may increase scheme costs overall if more claims succeed, but it may also reduce litigation costs by settling causation issues earlier.