Sports injuries and the A.C.C.

Press, 6 February 1986, Page 16

Sports injuries and the A.C.C.

The Accident Compensation Corporation has no proposals to levy sports associations and any such move would require a change to the enpowering legislation, according to the corporation’s managing director, Mr J. T. Chapman. Mr Chapman’s comments were in response to an editorial in “The Press” on January 31 and to an earlier news item in which an officer of the corporation suggested that a levy on sports clubs was being considered to offset the high cost of sports injury compensation. Mr Chapman said that this was a totally incorrect interpretation of the corporation’s policy. “The individual is a relatively junior officer who was, unfortunately expressing a personal view totally unsupported by corporation policy,” Mr Chapman said.

“The corporation is currently reviewing all of its policies and procedures to determine their relevance to the social and economic climate of the 1980 s and 19905. The scheme itself was devised nearly 20 years ago when conditions were very different. Today’s needs have to be met in different fashions.

Turning now to first aid, the corporation has adopted the goal of establishing an injury severity reduction programme to provide more positive assistance to the

first line of injury treatment — the first aiders, the ambulance services, and so on. Such a programme, if properly developed, is expected to have a beneficial effect in reducing the human, social and financial costs of injuries. “It is in this context that the corporation has expressed its concern at the reduction of St John Ambulance facilities provided to sporting grounds. We would hope that some part of our new programme would contribute to assisting that worthwhile organisation in this area. “It must be remembered however, that while the corporation can provide financial and other assistance, much of first aid provision relies on the willingness of volunteers to contribute valuable personal free time. Thus some of the problems of St John may be caused by changing attitudes in society to the use of leisure time,” Mr Chapman said. “The question of financing the cost of sporting injuries does cause the corporation some concern. Sporting injury costs are currently paid for by either employers — in the case of those in employment — or the tax-

payers — for children, housewives, elderly and others not in the paid work force. Both groups have many demands placed on their resources and are concerned at increasing in-

roads into these funds. “Principally because of changing safety conditions in the work place and changes in structure of the work force, non-work, nonmotor vehicle accidents (principally of the recreational type) have risen to 46 per cent of the costs of accidents borne by employers. “As part of its review process the corporation needs to consider the extent to which it is equitable for employers to continue to finance all recreational injuries of their employees.

“It is in this context that the of levies on sporting associations has presumably been floated by the person to whom the reporter spoke,” Mr Chapman said. “I can assure you that current corporation policy does not include proposals to levy sporting associations. In any case such a move would entail amendment to legislation with a consequent adoption of the proposal as Government policy. Proposals such as this have not been put to the Government by the corporation and, if such a move was contemplated, it would only be done after consultation with concerned bodies. As you rightly point out the development of an equitable and adminstratively feasible method of levying sports clubs would be most difficult to achieve,” Mr Chapman said.

“The final question is the generosity of corporation payments. I freely acknowledge that there are many cases of payouts by the corporation which many people regard as “rip-offs” or extravagance. The corporation is seriously concerned with this and is reviewing the whole scheme for this type of expense. “To be fair, it has been a gradual process prompted by many factors. Among them are, a remuneration system for medical practitioners which encourages them to adopt a "personal injury by accident” stance in favour of the patient wherever there is a element of doubt; appeal authority decisions over a number of years which have consistently increased the extent of the scheme; and a desire by the corporation to-accord fair and equitable treatment to all injured persons no matter what the cause of the accident. The current corporation re-think is questioning such attitudes and determining their relevance to the current social and economic climate,” said Mr Chapman. “I trust these comments may assist your readers in perceiving some of the problems faced by the corporation and appreciating the true attitude to the matters addressed in your editiorial. I apologise to those sports clubs who may have been unnecessarily alarmed,” he said.