Select Committee on the SACA Premier Cricket Merger Decision

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE (Wright) (11:09): I bring up the report of the select committee, together with minutes of proceedings and evidence.

Report received.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: I move:

That the report of the committee be noted.

On 18 May last year, this house appointed a select committee to look into the decision made by the board of the South Australian Cricket Association to merge Port Adelaide and West Torrens District cricket clubs. The committee was made up of the member for Little Para, the member for Fisher, the member for Davenport, the member for Chaffey and myself as Chair.

The committee received 10 written submissions from the general public and from interested parties, and we thank them for taking the time to make their views known to us. Representatives of the South Australian Cricket Association appeared and gave oral evidence to the board on two occasions, and I thank them for the time they gave the committee. Both the Port Adelaide Cricket Club and the West Torrens District Cricket Club also appeared twice before the committee. These clubs are essentially run by volunteers, and the effort they put into their evidence and submissions was therefore all the more impressive and greatly appreciated.

This issue was raised in parliament by the member for Colton, who raised concerns that the merger decision had been neither fair nor transparent, nor in accordance with SACA's constitution. To provide a brief background, SACA's board of management decided that a merger between two Premier Cricket clubs would be the best way to address what it believed was the declining standard of competitiveness of the South Australian Premier Cricket competition. This would be assisted by removing the bye in the competition.

Based on the Zadow report it commissioned in 2013, SACA's board of management decided that a merger between these clubs would be supported. The Zadow report had in fact recommended reducing the competition to 10 teams. Prior to and throughout this inquiry, Port Adelaide and West Torrens maintained firm opposition to the merger decision and cited a lack of evidence and objectively based criteria to support the merger.

As this inquiry neared its conclusion, SACA announced that its board had reversed its decision to reduce the number of clubs from 13 to 12 in order to remove the bye in favour of creating a 14^th team for the men's Premier Cricket competition. Irrespective of the reversal by SACA to merge the Port Adelaide and West Torrens clubs, the select committee considered it important to finalise its report, its findings and recommendations.

SACA claimed that a merger of Premier Cricket clubs was necessary to halt the decline in the cricket competition. The committee found little evidence to support this. Indeed, it appears that South Australia is supplying first grade players and that South Australia is conducting itself admirably in the Sheffield Shield this season. I understand the Redbacks are currently in the grand final.

Further, SACA was unable to explain how its criteria were used in the making of the decision to merge these two Premier Cricket clubs. It was apparent to the select committee that SACA had emphasised the population and geographic criteria to the complete exclusion of other criteria available to them. In particular, the select committee was disappointed to note that the population and geographic criteria used in this decision far outweighed the clubs' investment in women's and junior cricket, their success on the field and their financial stability.

In using the population criteria, SACA claims that the western suburbs have a smaller population pool from which to draw players. Yet, as noted in the report, other clubs fall below the average for males in the zero to 14 age category also. Woodville is one, as are Adelaide and Kensington. Of course, Kensington has the benefit of attracting players from private colleges. SACA has the view that people in these areas have a greater tradition of playing cricket.

Port Adelaide and West Torrens District cricket clubs are two of only six clubs that field women's teams. Adelaide University, for example, fields neither women's nor junior teams. SACA did not take into account premiership success, yet the whole point of the merger was to improve the standard of cricket and the flow-on effects for the Redbacks.

West Torrens District Cricket Club was this year's premiers, and Port Adelaide was also in the finals. SACA gave evidence that it was concerned about the vulnerability of West Torrens District Cricket Club's access to their home oval, yet grave concerns about other clubs in similar circumstances were not taken into account. West Torrens District Cricket Club disputed this assertion made by SACA. The financial instability of West Torrens District Cricket Club was a consideration by SACA in wanting this merger, yet other clubs appear to have been in much more precarious financial positions. Again, the clubs gave evidence which contradicted SACA's assertion.

The committee found the contradictions put by SACA hard to fathom. Port Adelaide was targeted because it was not consistently fielding four junior teams, yet, as I said, Adelaide University has none. It is worth noting that SACA is responsible for the development of cricket at the junior level. Their program, which was altered some years ago, does not take into account the different needs of a population in a much less affluent area. West Torrens District Cricket Club field both junior teams as well as junior teams in the community competition. They have an abundance of junior cricketers, yet they were told they must cease participation at the community level.

SACA presented visual displays to the committee which showed high participation rates in the eastern and north-eastern areas as opposed to the western areas. They were not keen that the western clubs had imported players from other areas. Yet, when questioned, it was apparent that applied to all clubs, again especially Adelaide University. Tea Tree Gully District Cricket Club has the lowest participation rate of any club.

The committee became aware of a document referred to as the Schedlich report. The committee was less than impressed with the run-around it received in trying to obtain a copy of this report, which was essentially a brief assessment of all the clubs and which confirmed the committee's assessment that consistent criteria were not used in determining which clubs would be subject to merger.

The select committee finds that the attempt by SACA to force Premier Cricket clubs to agree to merge discussions flouts the intentions of section 15 of SACA's constitution and that SACA's interpretation of section 3(a) is unfair and arbitrary. SACA has clearly interpreted its constitution in such a manner as to give weight to their argument and to go around the only avenue in SACA's structure which gives voice to premier clubs.

The select committee makes 10 recommendations: first, and most importantly, that the merger should not proceed because SACA does not have the authority to proceed with a merger without first receiving a recommendation from the Grade Cricket Committee, neither does it have robust evidence to support that any such decision is even necessary to help improve the competitiveness of the Premier Cricket competition; further, that reducing the number of clubs in the western suburbs is likely to compound issues of low participation by removing options for participating in cricket and sending a negative message to the community that SACA does not believe in investing in junior cricket in the western suburbs.

SACA also needs to review its junior development program and in particular work closely with western suburbs clubs to address the lack of participation, preferably by adopting new and innovative practices to encourage junior players, which are appropriate to these areas. SACA's board of management must be seen to be transparent and fair in how the board arrives at decisions that affect the clubs. Specifically, the board should be able to demonstrate to affected stakeholders how the decision is in the best interests of cricket in South Australia and that the decision can be assessed against a strategic plan by all affected stakeholders.

The select committee was somewhat stunned to find that no attempt was made by SACA to provide the Premier Cricket clubs, particularly the affected ones, with some sort of plan of engagement. At best, it would appear that SACA has simply reacted and changed the goalposts to each issue as this whole process has played out. At worst, it appears that the SACA Board made the decision and SACA backtracked to create evidence and criteria to justify that decision.

The select committee was also concerned to note that SACA had not addressed outstanding issues of trust that were highlighted in the Zadow report, and it has therefore recommended that SACA should make some effort to address this with clubs as a matter of priority. Making available for inspection its decisions and allowing the clubs to evaluate the board's decisions against its strategic plan would be a place to start. The Schedlich report was eventually provided to the committee, but it was requested that it remain confidential because it might upset some of the other clubs.

It has been recommended that SACA should consider introducing a process that allows board members to declare and distance themselves from decisions about clubs with whom they may have an affiliation. Some of the submissions raised issues of conflict of interest, which could have affected the board's merger decision. Indeed, the merger decision did not affect Premier Cricket clubs that were in any way affiliated with a board member or the authors of the Zadow report.

SACA's interpretation of its constitution has been of most concern to this committee. The select committee is firm in its view that section 43 of the constitution does not allow the board of management to negate the role of another of the committees of management in this and any other matter. Further, the select committee recommends that SACA should make it clear that the objects in section 3.1(a) of the constitution are relevant to each level of the cricket pathway, not just the bits of the pathway that are relevant because it suits SACA's particular purposes at that particular time.

It was also concerning for the select committee to note that there appear to be limited options to access a cost effective and independent arbiter of disputes between the clubs and SACA and/or its board of management. A cash-strapped club is unlikely to be keen to pursue arbitration by Queen's Counsel, as is suggested by SACA's constitution, at a cost to the club of anything up to $1,000 per hour—and that is probably the discounted rate.

Finally, probably one of the most unpalatable issues raised is that SACA submitted in their oral evidence that the results of the most recent election of board members endorsed the action of the board because sitting members had been re-elected. This statement resulted in a submission to the committee detailing the procedures for filling casual vacancies created by the resignation or retirement of a SACA Board member. The submitter went to some length to prove the case that the SACA board of management is dominated by board appointees, and that this occurred because arrangements had been made for the retirement or resignation of a member due to stand down at the next election and that the casual vacancy would be filled with an appointee.

Board appointees then generally become elected once the ex-member's term is due by virtue of having the advantage of being denoted as a sitting member on the ballot paper. This systemic process of appointment and conferring of the advantage of incumbency flouts the intention of a democratically elected board. I have no doubt that SACA members—the general members—will be concerned about this matter as it becomes clear to them that eight of the 11 elected members were appointed through this process. This is as close to deceiving SACA members as you can get, and the select committee recommended that the process of manipulating appointments to the board cease. Board appointees filling casual vacancies should be the exception rather than the rule.

The committee is pleased, as I am sure the Port Adelaide and West Torrens District cricket clubs are, that SACA has determined another way forward, rather than their proposed forced merger of these clubs. I want to again thank all of those who provided evidence in the submissions to the committee. I want to thank the other committee members for their due diligence throughout this process, and particularly the member for Chaffey, a declared SACA member, for his wise guidance throughout the deliberation process of the committee. Finally, the select committee wishes to express its thanks to parliamentary officer Lauren Williams and research officer Meredeth Brown for their support of the committee throughout this process.

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (11:23): I rise to speak today on the final report tabled by the Select Committee on the SACA Premier Cricket Merger Decision, of which committee I am a member. We heard from a wideranging list of witnesses, mainly cricket clubs and people who had raised questions about the merger or the process of the merger. The select committee had an issue about the process and the heavy-handedness of SACA in trying to merge two clubs for the betterment of the premier league.

It is important to note that the South Australian Cricket Association made the decision on the merger before the work of the committee was finalised. By way of background, cricket participation in South Australia continues to increase with record numbers and 50 per cent growth in the past four years. Last year, we had 112,000 participants in cricket in South Australia. Most encouragingly, 25,000 of those participants were female. The rapid growth of female participants has exceeded everyone's expectation.

The South Australian Cricket Association commissioned the Robert Zadow report. He was the chair and he, along with Geoff Daly and Bill Baker, were commissioned to investigate the grade cricket competition on behalf of the SACA Board in March 2013. The review was completed one year later, titled the Zadow report, and after concerns were raised during that following process, the select committee was formed.

As part of the merger proposal, there were several clubs whose future was being reviewed. Those clubs came as witnesses to the committee, and I give credit to them. They came with well-prepared arguments, they came with passion, they came with the facts, and they came representing each club and they worked collaboratively together to state their case for survival.

I want to make the point that, when the overarching governance of a sports code is in question, if there are issues with the survival of that code, and when there is a proposal put to those clubs, in most cases it brings out the best in the clubs. Those clubs came out there with the evidence they needed to portray their case, and I think they did that in an exemplary and fashionable style. I have seen many sports codes go through a similar situation. To SACA's credit, it made the decision before the committee handed down its finding, and that decision was to add a 14^th team to the previous 13-team competition with the inclusion of the state under 19 team to bolster the Premier Cricket league.

Good luck to all the clubs for their future. SACA has made its decision in the best interests of the game. To the committee, I think it was a process that had to be undertaken and that both Port Adelaide and West Torrens, who were under question, will review the future structure of their club. They will review the finances and the direction in which their club will go, and I am sure that, through the process of the committee and its findings, through the Zadow report and SACA's wish to merge, these clubs will be made stronger and more focused on being a stronger competitor who is able to field all the senior, junior and female teams, as every South Australian sports spectator wants to see.

In closing, I wish the Redbacks the best of luck in the Sheffield Shield final because, as we know, anything is possible. They are up against it at the moment playing Victoria, but the Redbacks have depth, they have courage and the numbers show that anything is possible.

The SPEAKER: Is it true that West Torrens District Cricket Club won the grand final on the weekend?

Ms Cook: I will explain that in a moment.

The SPEAKER: Splendid! Member for Fisher.

Ms COOK (Fisher) (11:27): I am pleased to rise and make a contribution as a member of the Select Committee on the SACA Premier Cricket Merger Decision. I was honoured to be asked to be involved in this committee and found the process to be most beneficial in relation to seeing the big picture of cricket in South Australia, which is an important part of our sporting culture and a rich part of our history.

Principally, I was very concerned that the decisions being made, which have been well spelt out by the member for Wright, were not in the best interests of the game and were made from the point of view that the clubs being targeted for merger were some of only a handful of clubs that participate in all aspects of the game: men's, women's and youth cricket. The recommendations of the committee as tabled are positive and will serve to assist the SACA in its governance process as well as strengthen the competition moving forward, in my opinion.

With this inquiry kicking off prior to the commencement of the season, it is interesting now to reflect on the results in the context of the teams targeted for merger, in particular the West Torrens and Port Adelaide cricket clubs. Woodville had also been considered earlier but seemingly was ruled out. There are a few fun facts and figures to note now that the season and the inquiry has concluded regarding the Port Adelaide and West Torrens cricket club outcomes.

The West Torrens Eagles defeated the Glenelg Seahorses by eight wickets in the 2016-17 West End Twenty20 Cup. West Torrens ended the season in first place in the first grade men's two-day competition with Port Adelaide finishing fourth, and there was a West Torrens versus Port Adelaide showdown in the semifinals of the men's first grade with West Torrens defeating Port Adelaide to go into the first grade men's final against Kensington.

Mr Speaker, I know you are just holding your breath for this result. The final result was West Torrens all out for 334, defeating Kensington—which may well be the member for Bragg's team, over that way—all out for 176. My maths on the run is usually reasonably good; I think that is nearly double the score, very close. It is a great result. That is West Torrens, which has been touted for merger, absolutely flogging Kensington in the final. The result means that West Torrens successfully completed the first ever clean sweep of all three formats of the game—Twenty20, one-day and two-day games—after this result.

Previously, in the years leading up to the merger proposal—this gives some context regarding our confusion around the suggested changes—West Torrens made it to the 2014-15 West End one-day competition semifinals and were defeated by Sturt; Port Adelaide won the first grade men's competition in 2013-14; West Torrens made it to the first grade men's finals in 2011-12 and were defeated by Woodville; West Torrens made it to the finals of the 2011-12 West End one-day competition and were defeated by Tea Tree Gully; Port Adelaide made it to the first grade men's semifinals in 2010-11 and were defeated by Sturt; and West Torrens made it to the first grade men's semifinals in 2009-10 and were defeated by Sturt, who went on to win the finals.

It is really not a bad effort for the western suburbs. Removing a team from this region based on this type of background just did not make sense to me or other committee members. If we then go further and talk about the women's cricket competition—and I must say that having evidence from someone like Kate Rush was fantastic, because she has lived and breathed this game down the port for many years, and I have taken special note of her achievements over the years. She is a great leader and a great speaker. Both Port Adelaide and West Torrens finished in the top four of their competition, with Port Adelaide unable to topple Kensington in the final, unfortunately.

Port Adelaide and West Torrens both submit first grade women's teams to the competition, and they are two of only six Premier Cricket clubs to do so, as pointed out by the member for Wright. Other clubs that submit first grade women's teams are Kensington, Sturt, Southern and Northern Districts, and it appears that Tea Tree Gully and Northern Districts may have submitted a combined first grade team in the past. Cricket Australia is investing heavily in female engagement through the Growing Cricket for Girls Fund, and, of course, investment in women's sport is a state government priority. Cricket Australia's website states:

The investment follows research into female participation commissioned by Cricket Australia, which revealed a need for more local girls competitions, allowing girls to play alongside people of similar age and ability, for associations and clubs to actively support female competitions and for better coaching and facilities at a club and school level.

Through the Growing Cricket for Girls Fund, clubs and secondary schools have access to $2,000 of funding annually, while associations may receive $10,000 over two years.

So, there has been a big investment from Cricket Australia. The South Australian government is also investing heavily in women's sports, including the facilities grants for change rooms, which continue to be rolled out. Again given this significant investment, it seems contradictory, counterproductive and almost perverse to try to implement a decision that will reduce the number of clubs that are genuinely investing in and supporting women's cricket. Eliminating a club that has a women's team just does not make any sense to me.

For the South Australian Redbacks—and we have talked about this as well—the win is looking improbable, if not almost impossible at this point, but I have been wrong once before. They did finish second on the ladder, which puts quite a few teams underneath them that did not make the final. So, irrespective of the outcome, what a fantastic result again by the Redbacks this season and another piece of evidence that says, 'Hang on a minute—we are doing well in South Australian cricket.' However it is working now, we are doing well.

It was a relief to see that SACA reversed its decision to seek mergers during a release that was sent out in February. I think the proposal to increase to a 14-team competition by playing the under 19 SACA team in first grade is excellent. This will expose the juniors to a great competition and it will avoid the bye. I wish them all well in the future.

I thank all the witnesses as well and the members of the committee, but particularly the players and volunteers for being so giving of their time and for showing us so much passion regarding their cricket. Peeling back the layers sometimes of a due or undue process is often enlightening. I hope that this report helps members of SACA to make good decisions moving forward. This really highlights the importance of grassroots competitors and grassroots supporters actually becoming members and having their say and voting in order to ensure fairness and participation. I commend the report.

The Hon. P. CAICA (Colton) (11:35): Firstly, I thank the committee for its comprehensive and, I believe, very thorough and outstanding report. I thank all the members of the committee for their contribution, both in the stages when witnesses were there and, most importantly, during the process where they went through their deliberations to finalise this report.

I particularly pay tribute to the Chairperson, the member for Wright, who did an outstanding job in not only analysing the evidence, along with her colleagues on the committee, but who certainly was absolutely forensic in her interpretation of the evidence that was provided by all the witnesses. To that extent, for a person who originally said she knew nothing about cricket, she understands a lot more now and also understands the processes very well and that is why I think, amongst other reasons, the Chair did such an outstanding job.

I also want to thank the witnesses, those from my club, the West Torrens District Cricket Club, who appeared—Denis Brien, Scott Jones and Brenton Woolford—and those from the Port Adelaide Cricket Club as well—James Case and Kate Rush. My colleague mentioned Kate Rush; she was an outstanding witness, and also Maurie Vast, a legend down at that club and also a legend in the western suburbs at the Flinders Park Football Club, and I know people will not hold that against him.

The thing I want to say about Maurie as well is that he was one of the first people to contact the West Torrens District Cricket Club after the weekend's grand final victory, offering his personal support and that of the club for the outstanding season they had. Also, in that email which has been shared around, and I know Maurie would not have any problem with that, he highlighted how this whole process had brought the clubs together in such a way that the bond between the clubs is now stronger than it ever was.

My colleague mentioned the grand final, but also the semifinal was held at the beautiful Henley Memorial Oval. Ideally, it would have been nice for Port Adelaide and West Torrens to play off in the grand final, but that wasn't to be. It was a cracking game. I remember I went off with Annabel in the morning and went past and we were 7 for 96, chasing 154, I think it was, and I said in a way that I cannot repeat here, 'I think we are not going to go very well.'

We came back about an hour and a half later and we were still at 7 for around 125, 130, chasing an extra 30 runs. It was a cracking game, and to Port Adelaide's credit they did not give up, and to the Eagles' credit they did not give up, and we were very lucky to make the grand final and we were 9 for, with a couple of runs to go, and we were fortunate enough to win that game.

I want to acknowledge Port Adelaide's efforts throughout this season, under duress, because people should not underestimate the duress that the clubs were under as a result of this forced merger decision, which did lack transparency and did lack logic, which was identified in the report. So, to Port Adelaide and West Torrens, a fantastic season. I will be talking about West Torrens a little bit later today.

I also want to pay tribute to Kensington. They did very well throughout the season and they are a good club. They are not the enemy within the competition. The enemy through this process was actually SACA. What SACA undertook through the processes it did was a very divisive way by which the clubs were pitted against each other. It came to the situation where, whilst others might not have supported the merger, they were not going to say too much about it because 'there but for the grace of God might go our club'. It was a very, very divisive process. I think two of the outstanding recommendations within the report were those that focused on juniors and the support that needs to be provided by SACA with respect to being able to strengthen participation.

Historically, they did have members of SACA allocated to various clubs to assist them in their organisation of the junior competitions. Port and other clubs are certainly not benefiting from what was once provided. SACA certainly needs to review what level of support they provide to the clubs to help them engage with the broader community in such a way that we increase the participation of junior competitors in both the male and female sections. That is an outstanding recommendation in the report.

I could bang on for a long while about the SACA administration. I think the member for Wright articulated it in an exceptional way. In the world of politics, whether on that side of the house or this side of the house, we think that we deal with things reasonably well in regard to how appointments might be made and so on, but we have nothing on SACA and the way they organise their board so that people who resign from the board are replaced by a casual vacancy, then they again sit and become an existing board member.

There is a legitimacy in being able to appoint vacancies as and when they arise, but it seems to me that this process has been ingrained within the administration of SACA in such a way that they are getting who the board at that time wants without there being any great engagement through a democratic process by the members themselves. That is another very important recommendation that is contained within this report.

Having said a lot about SACA since the establishment and even before the establishment of the select committee, to the extent that I do not ever expect I will get on their Christmas card mailing list—and that does not bother me in the slightest—the clubs have to work with SACA. I hope that this report is a wake-up call to them about the way they administer cricket in this state as the peak authority for the administration of cricket, which cannot be done without a proper relationship with the clubs. I want to see that relationship further developed.

There is a saying, and it is not this way: 'God created SACA from which the cricket clubs were spawned.' It is the other way around: SACA exists as a result of the fact that those clubs are there and have been for a long, long while. SACA needs to improve its relationship with the very reason it exists, and that is the cricket associations and cricket clubs throughout the length and breadth of this state. I need to challenge one of the comments made by my good friend the member for Fisher when she talked about the under 19s being included in the competition.

Anyone who knows cricket at all—and most people know more than I do—have come up to me and said, 'Paul, we've got another fight on our hands.' They said, 'The inclusion of under 19s into Premier Cricket will not benefit those young people at all. Junior cricketers at that age get more from playing in a club environment and being mentored by those seniors within it.' I said, 'Well, that's a fight you're going to have to fight on your own. I have had enough of fighting and it's your job to do that.' I understand that the Grade Cricket Committee, save and except for the university, did not support that particular proposal because it will not add to the growth of those particular cricketers.

The other thing I found very interesting was the member for Chaffey's analysis of the whole process, and I will read that with interest. I am not suggesting in any way that he has not been an outstanding contributor during deliberations of the report because the member for Wright told me and told the house that that is the case, but all was not sweet with the way SACA undertook this process. It smelt, and smelt very badly, and I think they have been brought to bear with regard not only to this report but also to the fact that they then did a turnaround on the decision that was ill thought through in the first instance anyway. So, they have come to their senses.

I hope this report will continue them on a road to operating differently from the way they have in the past. I congratulate all the teams and players within the district competition and all those who play cricket across the state. I will finish off by saying that they will be better served by a far more effective, inclusive and professional SACA Board than we have today. Again, I congratulate the committee and I am very pleased with the work they did and the report they provided to the house.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee—Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, Minister for Housing and Urban Development) (11:44): Can I also thank the member for Wright and the rest of the committee members who gave up their time and dedicated themselves to what was, at least in one instance, a bit of a steep learning curve in getting to know the ins and outs of not only the sport itself but also what we have learnt to be some of the entrails of the administration of a key sport in South Australia.

This was an initiative of the member for Colton, who was motivated for the parliament to take some sort of action by what appeared to be a completely arbitrary decision by the South Australian Cricket Association in determining that there had to be a merger of two proud western suburbs cricket clubs for their premier grade teams, at the least, if not the clubs themselves to merge so that only one would be able to play cricket at that highest grade level.

It is a concern I shared as the member for Lee and as a person whose electorate takes in a large part of the community from which the Port Adelaide Cricket Club draws its players, its officials, its supporters and its volunteers, as well as someone who has also donned the creams for the Port Adelaide Cricket Club. We will not go into that—it was not a great experience for them or me, I have to say, but I am very proud of that—

Mr Pederick interjecting:

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I did both, neither with distinction, in response to the member for Hammond.

I was very concerned, as was the member for Colton, with the fortunes of his club, the West Torrens Cricket Club, that this decision had come about. I completely understand the trepidation that many members felt when it came to the vote to establish this select committee. It is highly unusual, but not without precedent, for the parliament to establish such an inquisition for an appropriately and legally incorporated association, one that has its own constitution and one that largely conducts itself to its own rules and requirements.

But there is a good rationale for doing it in this case, and that is because not only does the South Australian Cricket Association superintend cricket in South Australia, but they are responsible (as we heard the member for Colton and member for Wright say) for promoting participation in cricket, particularly through juniors but also in supporting women's cricket, as well as the longstanding men's competitions, but they are also the custodian or part custodian of a massive investment this parliament has made in the redevelopment of the Adelaide Oval, or should I say the latest investment this parliament has made in the redevelopment of Adelaide Oval, because this parliament has a longstanding history of having supported the South Australian Cricket Association and the Adelaide Oval through many decades.

Imagine the outcry there would have been from the public more generally had the other organisation, which now shares in the tenure and administration of the Adelaide Oval, the South Australian National Football League, had been seen to make an arbitrary decision to suddenly merge two state league teams or two state league clubs out of the clubs that are in there at the moment. Imagine the hue and cry there would have been—

The Hon. J.M. Rankine: Sturt and Norwood.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: The member for Wright says 'Sturt and Norwood'. I would argue that there is probably apt reason to merge those two clubs, given their long history of underperformance in the South Australian National Football League. Imagine the hue and cry there would have been had they managed to merge two vastly more successful clubs, like the Port Adelaide Football Club or the Woodville West Torrens Football Club. People would be outraged. This is the cricket equivalent of the SANFL making such a move, and that is why it could not go without external and thorough examination.

As a member of this parliament, I am very proud that the parliament, through a select committee comprising members of both sides, has done such a good job putting SACA through its paces and getting to the bottom of how they came about this decision. Of course we know now that in the course of their inquiry the South Australian Cricket Association has not only reversed their decision but they have changed their direction on how the premier grade should be comprised. They have not only kept all existing 13 clubs that had a presence in that premier grade but they have added a 14^th team to eliminate the bye.

If you ever wanted to take up time at a front bar, you could debate whether having a bye or not having a bye improves or undermines performance within a particular league. There are strong opinions within cricket in South Australia about whether or not the bye has contributed, but it is almost impossible to make a determination about whether that can be the case. Look at the current season and the previous season, when we had the South Australian Redbacks state team contest grand finals. That has been on the back of having a premier grade with a bye, for example. Of course, we have also had a bye where the Redbacks have massively underperformed as well. So on the basis of performance alone you cannot make an assessment.

When it came to these clubs trying to understand why the Cricket Association had made a move to eliminate the bye, they were trying to understand why their clubs had been singled out, particularly because the initial decision was that three clubs in the western suburbs—West Torrens, Port Adelaide and Woodville—would be in the gun for reduction and/or merger, but somehow Woodville was extricated from that process. They were given what would appear to be some commitment that they could continue on and it would just be West Torrens and Port Adelaide that would remain in the gun.

I am glad that the committee's work has not only fleshed what the SACA believes its rationale to be but fleshed out the inconsistencies and the infelicities in that rationale, particularly when you compare the attributes and the performance, on field and within the club and financially, of those clubs compared to other clubs like University, like Kensington, like West Torrens which, in different ways, do not share the same benefits and attributes that the West Torrens District Cricket Club or the Port Adelaide Cricket Club share.

You can see why, as the member for Colton has just said in his contribution to the house, there is a suspicion amongst western suburbs cricketers—let alone the clubs that they support, volunteer for or even play for—that there is a different mindset from the South Australian Cricket Association when it comes to considering western suburbs clubs versus eastern suburbs clubs. That is unfortunate. If you talk to anyone who plays cricket or who loves cricket, one of the top, if not the top, attributes they would point out as the basis for their love of the game is its psychological element, which is perhaps more important in cricket than in any other sport—except maybe chess.

It is incredibly important, and when you think you may be contesting the last season at the highest possible grade for your cricket club, and you are expected to front as a contributing fast bowler or specialist batsmen or keen slips fielder, etc., and you are meant to give six to eight hours of unbroken concentration on the field of play for several days, you can understand how the lack of confidence in the future of your club brought about by the South Australian Cricket Association can undermine performance.

It is remarkable that, in those circumstances, nearly the whole way through the season both the West Torrens District Cricket Club and the Port Adelaide Cricket Club were able to overcome that psychological hurdle, that mental impairment that had been thrust on them by the uncertainty this process has caused. I am incredibly proud of both the Port Adelaide Cricket Club and the West Torrens District Cricket Club. They did everything they possibly could to establish a rock solid case as to why they need to stay in the premier grade, let alone why the decision-making process was flawed from their perspective.

Not only have they done that, but the leadership of their clubs, their club committees, their players, the coaching staff, the other staff, the volunteers have all remained rock solid by these clubs the whole way through. At Port Adelaide I am incredibly proud of Maurie Vast and the club he leads, I am incredibly proud of all those players. I am deeply honoured to be able to represent them in this place, and I think I am very lucky that they would deign to have me attached to their club. I commend the committee's work.

Motion carried.