South Australian Cricket Association

The Hon. P. CAICA (Colton) (16:02): I am going to talk about cricket today. Firstly, I would wish the South Australian team, the Redbacks, all the very best for the Sheffield Shield final which is being played at Glenelg Oval and commencing this Easter weekend. What I actually want to speak about today is a much darker and sinister scenario that is being proposed and advanced by the South Australia Cricket Association (SACA).

Some time ago, the SACA made no bones about the fact that they want the competition to be a 12-team competition. They have commissioned an internal report (the Schedlich report) that looked at the demographics of Adelaide and determined that the demographics of the western suburbs were such that it could not accommodate the amount of teams we currently have. I think that is an absolute nonsense, and I will talk about that a little bit later.

The history of it was that they made no bones about wanting that. Yesterday (23 March) the SACA Board issued a press release. This confirmed further discussions regarding the West End Premier Cricket 1^st Grade men's competition, and that SACA had communicated with the West Torrens District Cricket Club and the Port Adelaide Cricket Club that its preferred position is for the two clubs to merge.

It also alerted people to the fact that the Woodville District Cricket Club will remain as its own entity in the West End Premier Cricket 1^st Grade competition for next season. It goes on to talk about additional funding and a few other things that I will not necessarily raise here, but the real sting in the tail is the last paragraph of this press release. It says:

The SACA Board also confirmed that should either club be unwilling to commit to merger discussions, it will immediately make a termination to return to a 12-team competition, reducing it from the current 13-team structure.

I assume this might also be the case, although it is silent on that if they cannot reach an agreement for a merger, but I question the merger being proposed between Port Adelaide and West Torrens because it is not a very good fit.

I also alert the house to the fact that the West Torrens cricket club has a fantastic history. It began in 1857 as the Hindmarsh cricket club, playing at Lindsay Circus in Hindmarsh, now the Hindmarsh Stadium. It is the oldest continuously operating cricket club in South Australia and it is the only original SACA club remaining. The SACA competition commenced in 1873. The name was changed in 1897 when SACA decided that residential boundaries would be introduced and these took the form of the seven House of Assembly electorates. The club was required to take the name West Torrens and has held it ever since.

Interestingly, also, with respect to famous players, the first South Australian to represent Australia on the 1880 tour of England was Arthur 'Affie' Harwood Jarvis (a West Torrens player), a wicketkeeper who played 11 tests, but we know many other famous and outstanding cricketers have represented West Torrens over many years at both the state and national or international level.

It has also been a leader in advancing women's cricket in this area. We currently have three women playing who have played test cricket for Australia who are also representing the West Torrens cricket club. West Torrens, along with Glenelg, has produced through its junior ranks more test players since World War II than any other club.

The SACA decision, I say, is unreasonable. It is illogical and it has lacked transparency. SACA, indeed, has refused to release to the clubs the Schedlich report that it relies on with respect to why it is the western suburbs that should bear the brunt of this form of reform. There are indeed three other clubs, at least, with poorer off-field and on-field performances than the three clubs that are being targeted. One is University. I have no bones with University. It is a parasite club in the true biological meaning of the term, as it does not take part in junior development and exists by feeding off the clubs' junior development programs.

Interestingly, the mission statement of 12 of the 13 clubs overseen by the SACA—bearing in mind that University does not have a junior program—is to provide the best environment for junior players to join a club at an early age, to participate, enjoy, learn and advance to higher grades so that those of sufficient talent can progress through to fulfil the need for some of them to become state cricketers—a need that has been obvious for some time.

In its history over the last 15 years, West Torrens had the highest level of premierships at the junior level, from 2000-01 through to 2014-15, having won 19 during that period of time, with the next closest being Kensington, another outstanding club, having 12, down to clubs such as Woodville that have won one junior premiership during that particular time. It is clearly a leader in junior development both with boys and girls.

West Torrens is a leader, as I said earlier, in the progress of women's cricket. It has won 40 premierships over all grades in the last 15 years. It is also a leading developer of country juniors which includes scholarships for country boys and girls to travel to the city, has top-class facilities, has produced, as I said earlier, homegrown test players and six first-class players through its junior development program over these last 15 years. It has also won four of the last 12 championships in the four men's senior grades combined.

With respect to this particular proposal, it seems to me also that they are focusing on viability, when I mentioned earlier that there are at least three other clubs who are in a far worse position than those three that are being asked to merge. If it is the SACA's position that clubs ought to go, I know there are those that are going to wither on the vine unless they are provided with some particular support, so why do we not let the marketplace determine, on financial viability, which clubs will survive?

It is also the case that other clubs are going to benefit from a merger between Port Adelaide and West Torrens, if it occurs. For example, there are five clubs who do not have women's cricket, including Woodville and Glenelg, so they would already be looking at poaching those West Torrens players should West Torrens merge with Port Adelaide, because Port Adelaide already has two women's teams. There are going to be those who will benefit.

University, which does not have a junior program, is developing with $1.2 million or more the sports fields down on Airport land at West Beach. The intention is in mixed messages coming from University about its role in junior cricket in the future. It will obviously be poaching or fill a void. Also, if there are too many clubs in the western suburbs, why would University be relocating down there to fill what would appear to be a void? It does not make sense.

I would also note that there have been four resignations from the board in most recent times which means that there are four vacancies on a 12-person board that have not been replaced during that period of time, and other clubs that are making decisions in this regard are clubs that are due to benefit from this particular proposal.

I want to suggest—and I have spoken to a couple of my colleagues already—that such is the illogical nature of this, the fact that the reports that are being used and spoken about for making this decision have not been available, that I am certainly going to speak to my colleagues about the establishment of a select committee to inquire into the actions of the SACA in this regard during this particular process.

We will see where that goes, and I will be speaking to my colleagues when we return to see whether or not they would support such a move. I would reinforce the point that the SACA's decision has been unreasonable. We have been big supporters of SACA. We gave it $85 million, and I was sitting around cabinet at that time, to address its lease arrangements at Adelaide Oval, but also to retire its not insubstantial debt at that stage.

I know there are moves afoot to develop Park 27 in the Parklands at a fee of around $8 million. I certainly will not be supporting the government providing any money for that, if it is ever asked for by the SACA to develop that, on the basis of the way it has handled this particular exercise which is not discharging its responsibility for the betterment of cricket in this state. It is safe to say that the people in my area are very cranky. The most logical fit, if there was to be a merger, would be for the Eagles to merge with Woodville, similar to what occurred in the football.

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon: A Woodville West Torrens powerhouse.

The Hon. P. CAICA: Yes, it occurred with the football. It has been extremely successful and, in fact, the history of those clubs has not been lost, it has been enhanced. We are forging a new history with the footy club, but what I am told is that originally the SACA said, 'We would back a merger of Woodville and West Torrens to the hilt.' This is what I am told.

The club said, 'It might cost $750,000 to extend the facilities to accommodate the merger. It doesn't matter. We will back it to the hilt.' This is what I am told. Then when they come around they say, 'We're only going to give you $500,000.' Woodville, I am told, believed that that was not enough to be able to facilitate what it is they required with respect to those discussions.

I would like SACA to show far more leadership than it has in this regard as opposed to just allowing this to meander along without any true leadership. I want it to adopt an approach towards transparency which it has not to date. I want it to act in a far more professional manner than it has, and to this end I cannot see that happening and to that extent I will reinforce a point that I think an inquiry needs to be undertaken into this proposal that is being advanced by SACA which is not in the best interests of cricket in this state.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Let common sense prevail. Before I put the question, on behalf of the Speaker, I extend to the people of South Australia and all here, every good wish for a happy and safe Easter.

At 16:13 the house adjourned until Tuesday 12 April 2016 at 11:00.