HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2016-05-18 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Motions

South Australian Cricket Association Premier Cricket Merger

The Hon. P. CAICA (Colton) (11:12): I move:

That this house establish a select committee to inquire into and report upon the South Australian Cricket Association's (SACA) Premier Cricket merger decision, and in particular—

(a) the evidence relied upon by SACA to determine those district cricket clubs that are now the subject of the merger decision;

(b) any other criteria that may have been used by SACA or should have been used to justify the decision;

(c) the transparency and procedural fairness provided to the current clubs of SACA in the advancement and determination of the decision;

(d) whether SACA has fully complied with, and the intent of, section 15 of its constitution in making its merger decision;

(e) whether SACA is meeting section 3.1(a) of the objects and powers of its constitution 'to promote and develop the game of cricket in South Australia' with its decision; and

(f) any other related matter.

I understand that this motion will be supported and I thank the opposition and all members for that support. I have been asked by many, most recently, as to what was the genesis of this motion. From my perspective, it has been driven by nothing other than the way in which I think SACA has progressed this matter of mergers—in particular, the rationale adopted by SACA; the criteria they have used and relied upon; and, in many cases, the criteria they have not or should have used in making this determination.

I have held many discussions in recent times with people from the three clubs that were originally earmarked (or forced, some might say) to enter into merger talks. I have also had frank and open discussions with others from within cricket circles and advised each of them that this motion is not about their club. Indeed, it is not even about West Torrens, Port Adelaide or Woodville; it is about process, it is about procedure, it is about logic, it is about transparency, it is about fairness, and it is about the use of powers.

I am not opposed to mergers occurring in the district competition, but if they are to occur it has to be in the best interest of cricket in this state, underpinned by a transparent and logical process that brings people and cricket along with it and be driven by a high level of professionalism and strong leadership. To date, I believe these vital ingredients to be sadly lacking in the current process. You would remember, sir, the merger of our two mighty football clubs, Woodville and West Torrens—

The SPEAKER: Your club with mine.

The Hon. P. CAICA: That's right, and that brings me to a very important point which I am going to make just a little bit later. There is understandably, sir—and you have just displayed that—a high degree of emotion and self-interest when it comes to a merger of longstanding clubs, whether it be cricket or any sport. When looking at the future, it is important to have a glance at the past. We take strength from history and the past and what it is that we learn from that history, but it is more important to have both eyes focused on the future.

I often channel the Doug Thomas approach, which is similar to yours I might think, sir, and I apologise if that is not the case. West Adelaide, when it came to merger discussions, in Doug's terms would say, 'Look, we're happy to merge, but when we merge with anyone, they will be called West Adelaide, they will play at Richmond, and they will wear black and red.' The point I am making is there is a lot of emotion that is associated with merger discussions, and they can only occur successfully if they are driven by transparency and goodwill and underpinned by professionalism and leadership.

There is, without doubt, a level of support within cricket circles for the proposed merger to proceed. Part of this, I believe, is from people and clubs who are not a major part of the ongoing discussions that are occurring, and it is, if you like, a relief that it is not us and, 'If we do not show support then but for the grace of God go I and my club.'

I will make a few final points. This morning, it was reported that a SACA representative believed this motion to be a waste of taxpayer money and that this could be better spent on grassroots cricket. I might get that slightly wrong, but that is how I interpret it. I remind SACA and everyone that the government spent in excess of half a billion dollars to build a new magnificent stadium: the home of cricket and the home of football. I was fortunately around cabinet at that stage and supported this expenditure, but so many of constituents—

Mr Whetstone: You got slotted.

The Hon. P. CAICA: What, you're saying you don't like the Adelaide Oval?

Mr Whetstone: No, I said you got slotted.

The Hon. P. CAICA: Yes, I got slotted, maybe, but that's a debate for another day. But my point on the expenditure on the Oval is this: so many of my constituents did not support it. They believed it to be a waste of money, and time has shown, and I believe it has been proven, that this was money well spent. This also included the expenditure of some $85 million to, amongst other things, retire SACA's debt.

We as a government, as a parliament, have skin in the game, so to speak, and this parliament has not only a right but I believe an obligation to continue to involve itself in any matters that are in the interests of cricket at all levels in this state: district, women's, juniors, turf and all other forms of organised cricket. It is not appropriate in the face of SACA's (and I call it their Officer Barbrady approach), 'There's nothing to see here.' It is vitally important that parliament, and importantly the people that we all represent, do not just accept this SACA assertion.

Finally, I thank again the opposition for its support of this motion and acknowledge the comments attributable to the member for Chaffey that this inquiry is unnecessary and that, in his view, SACA has handled this matter appropriately. I acknowledge that particular view. I obviously do not agree with this view. He might be right, but I do not think so. It will now be a matter, if this motion is supported, for a select committee to investigate and determine whether or not this is the case and whether or not the best interests of our great game of cricket here in South Australia are being best served. I commend the motion to the house.

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (11:18): I, too, rise to speak on the member for Colton's proposal to establish a select committee to inquire into and report upon the South Australia Cricket Association's Premier Cricket merger decision. The member raises a number of points in his motion, and I would like to put on the record that I do not entirely agree with all the points but, nonetheless, overall the opposition will support the establishment of the committee.

I do have a strong working relationship with SACA, because I think it is critical that all of the politicians understand just how important cricket (one of the major sporting codes here in South Australia) is, not only on a sporting front but also as a piece of the social fabric in engagement with our communities.

Again, the association with the state's cricket clubs, in my role as shadow minister for recreation and sport, is critical. While SACA is generally opposed to the select committee being established, they have no objections to being open and transparent through the committee about the process they have undertaken. So, following the number of poor performances at a state level in South Australia, the SACA will undertake a process to review the structure of grade cricket in the state. The premium grade, premier level, has been under review.

The South Australian Cricket Association commissioned Robert Zadow as the chairman, Geoff Daly and Bill Baker to investigate grade cricket competition on behalf of the SACA Board in March 2013, with the review completed a year later, titled the Zadow report. I have read the Zadow report with interest, and that report is really about reform within cricket, with keeping cricket as a sporting powerhouse in South Australia so that we can come back to the days of South Australia holding its head high when it comes to Sheffield Shield and those premier league competitions.

I guess we have under performed over recent decades, particularly with Sheffield Shield, and have developed a low number of regular Australian representatives. Every South Australian is proud when they have a South Australian representative on the national team, and it has been too few for too long coming out of South Australia on the national team, but the quality of South Australian representation has always been first class when we get a representative on our national team.

I know that as a youngster, following my father to the cricket at the Adelaide Oval, I was always proud of some of the greats who came out of South Australia, in particular I note the current coach, Dizzy Gillespie. When we look at some of the other greats—Terry Jenner and the Chapel brothers—there have always been notable South Australians on the national stage. There seems to be no dispute with anyone with whom I have spoken that the gap between grade cricket and first-class cricket is increasing, even in the Eastern States, due to increasing levels of professionalism. At first-class level there is that gap between the premier league and A-grade cricket.

There is a consistent theme amongst retired cricketers and members of the Adelaide cricket association that the standard of grade cricket is falling, sadly, but that is acknowledged. We know that the Adelaide competition has by far the smallest number of male potential cricketers per grade club of any mainland state. In private interviews with representatives from all the grade clubs, there has been general agreement that we have too many teams in the current grade competition.

I note the member for Colton's comments that we look over our shoulder and look at the history within those district clubs and, yes, people are proud of their history. No-one wants to see clubs amalgamate and, as the member indicated, with amalgamations, whether within SANFL, SACA or any district competitions in any sports code, people obviously are disappointed and rely on their memories and the history of that code, but sometimes we have to look further afield for the betterment of the game, particularly for the future standard of that sport.

As I said, a discussion paper was presented to the SACA Board in May 2015 recommending a 12-team competition for the 2016-17 season as opposed to the current 13-team competition. In the initial discussion paper presented to the board no teams were initially identified for merger or exclusion. In June 2015, Andrew Sinclair, the president, and Keith Bradshaw, the CEO, met with club presidents confirming the incremental introduction of tied funding from 2015-16 and a 12-team competition for the 2016-17 season.

In November, the SACA Board decided the reduction of one team in first grade was to be focused on the western seaboard due to population demographics and historical difficulty in fielding junior teams by some clubs. Recommendations regarding Northern Districts and Southern Districts assistance and assisting Sturt in developing a strategic plan for Mount Barker were also adopted.

In February 2016, all clubs presented to the SACA Board and the board approved an offer of $500,000 and other associated costs to facilitate the merger. On 15 March 2016, Port Adelaide and Woodville wrote to SACA advising their intention to stand alone, and in the following week the SACA Board decided that Woodville should be retained and that the preferred position would be West Torrens and Port Adelaide to merge.

The proposal is to reduce the number of teams in the competition in first grade men's premier cricket competition from 13 to 12. I am advised that there was no proposal to close these clubs, and it is not within SACA's powers to do so. The SACA Board's decision in March 2016 now gives the identified clubs a number of choices: to merge, to remove themselves from first grade men's premier competition, or to compete in a different cricket competition, such as the Adelaide Turf Cricket Association.

The merger option is SACA's preferred position. It is all about future growth and sustainability. It is about reducing the numbers to create a competition that will make it a competitive powerhouse. As I said, I have met with and spoken with many proponents of the sport who are going to be impacted. I have had several discussions with the SACA CEO, Keith Bradshaw, and Cricket Australia representatives. I have spoken at length with the West Torrens Cricket Club and the Port Adelaide Cricket Club. I have had correspondence from every other district cricket club in South Australia. Whether by private email, phone call, correspondence or in conversation, everyone has aired a concern.

I think the important thing is that this select committee will bring further transparency, as I think has been on the table. One thing that we do need to keep our eye on is that participation in South Australia exceeded 100,000 for the first time in 2015, a great achievement for cricket in South Australia, and has increased by 40,000 over the last three years. I am sure that it would be fair to say that that increased participation rate has been with the introduction of Twenty20. The limited or one-day internationals have seen great focus put on the sport. It has been great for the sport itself.

I note that we have had some internationals, notably the India–Pakistan game. While the Minister for Recreation and Sport claimed it as one of the great events in South Australia, the focus still was not on what the Australian spectator expects, that is, to watch their national team compete. What I would like to think is that we would continue to put a focus on international cricket, but that we would put even more focus on bringing our national team on a regular basis to Adelaide.

The Hon. L.W.K. Bignell interjecting:

Mr WHETSTONE: The minister can talk all he likes, but where has the minister been—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! It is unparliamentary to interject and to respond to interjections. I am going to insist that all members listen to contributions in silence this morning. The member for Chaffey.

Mr WHETSTONE: My final say—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry, your time has expired. We will give you another minute.

Mr WHETSTONE: We will support the select committee for the best interests of the game. Just to conclude with those remarks, I really think that, potentially, the minister should have stood up and intervened with this introduction of a select committee. I think that there needed to be much more leadership when it comes to this issue. Both the member for Colton and the member for Lee are passionate cricket supporters, and I think that in South Australia cricket is one of the national games that has been regarded as theirs for centuries.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee—Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, Minister for Housing and Urban Development) (11:29): I thank the member for Colton for his leadership in bringing this motion before the house, and I also thank the opposition for their support of this motion. I think it is an important expression, as the member for Chaffey said, of the importance of this game and the level of participation within our communities that the parliament conduct some oversight of this process that the South Australian Cricket Association has been involved in.

Some of you may know that I have a keen interest in this matter, not just as a cricketer—although I should make it clear to the parliament at a level very substantially below the level of cricket that we are talking about here today—but also because one of the clubs which is most concerned about this proposal from the South Australian Cricket Association is the Port Adelaide Cricket Club. This is a cricket club that has been in existence for many, many years and has serviced the community of which I am a part, and that is the Lefevre Peninsula community.

I think what is concerning to a club like the Port Adelaide Cricket Club, as well as to clubs like West Torrens and indeed several other of the leading cricket clubs, is the process by which this decision by the South Australian Cricket Association has been made. Certainly, the member for Chaffey is absolutely correct: we have not enjoyed the level of success that we would have liked to as a state for many years.

In fact, I can remember—well, let's be frank—bludging out of a university lecture and coming down to the last session of the last Sheffield Shield win in 1996, and that was an enjoyable experience. It was a very long time between drinks until we hosted another shield final: this season just gone past, albeit not with the same result. As tempting as it is for me as a Port Adelaide supporter to make some reflection on the fact that that may be related to it being held at Glenelg Oval, I will not, Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am glad you have shown restraint.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: That's right, I have done by best. What is very concerning about this issue is that the Port Adelaide Cricket Club, like many other cricket clubs, has a membership in the hundreds, and there are many more hundreds of people of those local communities who participate in the club, whether as coaches or trainers or volunteers, people who are given some sense of not only sport and recreation but also engagement in their community. I think all of us can get behind the idea that we should seek out opportunities and take those opportunities to improve the performance of our clubs at a club level, let alone at a state level.

However, what is not clear from what has been put to these clubs by the South Australian Cricket Association or indeed put to the SACA by the Zadow report are robust and transparent criteria for making decisions about which clubs should be considered for mergers and which clubs should not be. Certainly, there is a significant number of reflections on the perceived failings of some of the clubs, including the one that I am obviously a great supporter of, the Port Adelaide Cricket Club, in terms of not always being able to field a full complement of youth and junior teams, for example. However, we know that some other clubs which are not in the gun when it comes to these merger discussions do not even field junior teams.

There is some reflection on whether clubs should be focused on providing avenues for women to participate in cricket, something that I and just about all of the clubs are very strong supporters of. Is that a criterion or not for considering which clubs should continue forward? Is it indeed just looking at the gross demographics of particular regions within metropolitan Adelaide, or is there some sort of demonstrated connection between those demographics and participation within club cricket and hence success in club cricket that should be looked at? That is not something that has been canvassed adequately by the Cricket Association or, indeed, by the report that was provided to it.

Providing a better understanding about some of those criteria are absolutely critical so that the communities as well as the clubs themselves can feel confident about the future of their club and feel confident about how their club will contribute to the success of state cricket in the future, despite the representations of the Cricket Association, whether they have been to me as a local MP or to the member for Colton or to many other members of parliament. As the member for Chaffey said, he has taken the time to meet with SACA to talk through the issues so that he can get his head around it.

Despite what has been said, as far as I can gather, there is still insufficient clarity about these issues. It does not give sufficient confidence to me as a member of parliament representing my local community, or to the member for Colton or indeed to many other people in the house, to simply allow this process to continue on where the clubs themselves, particularly those who are still involved in these discussions, feel that they are going to end up with an outcome which is not acceptable to them. It is not acceptable to the community, and it is not acceptable in the context of trying to provide the best possible base for providing success at a state level.

We have some fundamental problems with cricket here in South Australia, and they are not necessarily related to how successful we are at a state level. There are some fundamental problems when it comes to engaging with people to participate in sport. I know through my time playing club cricket how absolutely debilitating it is either to be in a team which turns up and cannot field 11 players, or turns up to play a team which cannot field 11 players.

It has got to the point now where there is no animosity towards teams and clubs who cannot field a full complement on the oval because all clubs know what it is like. All clubs know how hard it is, particularly to attract young players into those clubs, unless those players can be confident that the club can provide them with all of the opportunities of growth and development possible, so that that club can be a proud club which is able to, on merit, participate at the highest levels within the state associations and its players can, perhaps one day, find a pathway through to representing either their club at that high level or even represent their state or country at the highest levels.

It is very hard to attract people in, and it is very hard for a game like cricket to continue attracting people in when the time commitments can be so significant. I know, as somebody who has recently begun the wonderful journey of starting a family, how even more time poor you become. When a sport or a leisure activity then asks you to commit somewhere between seven and nine hours, each weekend, away from your family to participate, that is very tough.

When the member for Chaffey says it is great that participation is recovering because of things like Twenty20, I would recognise and agree with that, and I would add that I think the ongoing interest in women's cricket as well has been an important contributor to participation. The Cricket Association at the state level is doing all it can, all the way down, whether it is through the Turf Cricket Association, whether it is through its own grade association or whether it is through the suburban cricket associations, to try to ensure we have better representation in cricket.

It is absolutely critical and necessary that the parliament has a role in doing this. As to the argument that this is a waste of the parliament's time, that this is a waste of taxpayers' money, respectfully, it is the parliament that has provided over $0.5 billion towards the redevelopment of the SACA and SANFL-shared, Stadium Management Authority-managed Adelaide Oval.

It is the parliament that has previously provided tens of millions of dollars to the South Australian Cricket Association for the improvement and redevelopment of their facilities. We did that on the basis that there would be benefits for cricket communities at all levels in terms of participation, in terms of performance and in terms of being able, as a state, to continue to contribute to providing success at the highest level.

I am vehemently, vociferously in support of this motion. It is absolutely critical that the SACA repays the faith that the parliament has shown in it in years gone by back to the parliament, to be able to convince us and convince the community of South Australia, beyond the closed-door cricket meetings that have occurred, that these mergers are necessary.

I welcome the opportunity for reform and improvement in cricket at all levels in South Australia, particularly if it leads to high participation and better success. All we are asking for as a parliament is some transparency and some accountability from these people who are appointed within their own club, who are custodians on behalf of South Australians of a $0.5 billion piece of infrastructure. We are asking them to participate in this process openly and transparently.

The Hon. P. CAICA (Colton) (11:39): I will be very brief. I thank all speakers for their contribution. I again thank the parliament for supporting this motion. I will just reinforce a couple of points. I, too, am not fearful of reform. In fact, we should all welcome reform, but it needs to be, as I said earlier, in the best interests of cricket, it needs to be agreed to by all levels of cricket, and it needs to be driven by proper and strong professional leadership. I will not hold the house any longer. I commend the motion to the house and I thank members for their support.

Motion carried.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I move:

That the select committee consist of Ms Cook, Mr Duluk, Mr Odenwalder, the Hon. Ms Rankine, Mr Whetstone.

Motion carried.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I move:

That the select committee have power to send for persons, papers and records and to adjourn from place to place and that it report on 30 November 2016.

Motion carried.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I move:

That standing orders 339 be and remain so far suspended as to enable the select committee to authorise the disclosure or publication as it sees fit of any evidence presented to the committee prior to such evidence being reported to the house.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have counted the house and, as an absolute majority of the whole number of members is not present, ring the bells.

An absolute majority of the whole number of members being present:

Motion carried.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT