sign in sign up
<<
Home , Darren Lehmann, Dean Jones (cricketer), Dennis Lillee, Ian Harvey, Mark Taylor (cricketer), Matthew Hayden

8174 [COUNCIL]

Adjournment Debate - Sport HON BARRY HOUSE (South West) [2.14 am]: I am sorry to delay the House at this late hour; however, I believe the House should take note of the front and back pages of The West Australian for Thursday, November 20. It indicates two contrasting attitudes to sport in this country. On the front page there is a photograph of Peter Matera joking with some of his team mates and putting the trauma of his recent decision behind him. On the back page there is an article about being ready to join the players' strike. The article on the front page refers to Peter Matera's decision to re-sign with the Eagles and forgo an offer from the Melbourne Football Club; in effect, he has forgone the opportunity to earn another half a million dollars in player payments. Peter Matera's decision is based on loyalty to his club and his team mates. It indicates that the game is bigger than the individual. The article on the back page of The West Australian refers to the disagreement between the Australian Board and the Australian Cricketers' Association. What the players intend to do is based on greed and indicates a belief that they are bigger than the game itself. The Australian cricketers have lost the plot. In an article in this newspaper sets out some of the statistics that are relevant to this argument. He states that when he signed for 's organisation he was one of the highest paid players, receiving $35 000 a year. That equates to about $115 000 in today's money. Today's top bracket test players earn $450 000 a year just to play cricket. On top of that they are allowed to endorse products, write books, get involved with the media and pursue their earning potential to pretty significant amounts. Dennis Lillee also compares player payments, which have increased 106 per cent since 1992-93 from $4.6m to $9.5m, representing 18 per cent of the Australian Cricket Board's total revenue. The players are claiming 40 per cent of the Australian Cricket Board's total revenue. I hope it is an ambit claim. In total it represents $21.6m of total revenue. They have conveniently forgotten that Australian cricket last year lost $2.5m and Australian cricket cannot necessarily support those sorts of demands. Their attitude is becoming pretty boorish and selfish. It has always been an honour and privilege to play sport for one's country. The Australian cricketers have lost that and they are obviously more interested in playing for themselves than playing for their country. We have already seen one defection from the players' side. has said that he would be prepared to play cricket under any circumstances. If the current Australian team were to pull the pin I am sure very quickly could put a pretty useful side into the field. If one looks around at Australian cricketers one sees players , , ; from NSW, Stuart MacGill, a former Western Australian; from South Australia ; from , Martyn, Moody, Gilchrist, Julian and Hussey, all of whom would make worthy Australian representatives, as would from Victoria and from . They would probably jump at the idea of playing for their country, where the feeling about playing for one's nation is more important than playing for oneself. My real fear is that the current attitude of the Australian cricketers, led by the best paid test players, will affect interest in the test which starts today, Thursday. I feel that many people will not go to the cricket for the reason that they are not prepared to watch people playing for themselves. They want to watch people play for their nation, not their own pockets. Hon Tom Stephens: You will have us so exhausted we will not be able to watch the cricket. Hon BARRY HOUSE: Even if I had the opportunity to go, my interest has been diminished by the boorish attitudes of the current Australian cricketers. The Perth Test is under enough threat with the problems experienced with the pitch and attendances in past seasons. This current situation will only create further difficulties in attracting decent attendances at the Perth Test. Hon Kim Chance: The ACB is hardly blameless. Hon BARRY HOUSE: Certainly, the Australian Cricket Board has traditionally been an inflexible organisation. I am not saying the ACB is blameless, but in this case the Australian public want to watch cricketers play for their nation. They do not want to watch cricketers who are more interested in earning an extra $100 000 a year. They want the average Sheffield Shield players to be paid more. That is fair enough. I know a little about cricket administration, and am aware that one of the major problems with the game in is that many good cricketers are in a comfort zone playing . They are paid very well and they have no incentive to take the extra step and play for their country. That is part of the problem with English cricket as I see it, and many cricket administrators in England are also starting to see it that way. The Australian Cricketers' Association, in trying to improve the deal for Sheffield Shield players, may inadvertently be creating a situation that keeps young players from first class cricket longer as older players stay in the game longer because they are in a much better comfort zone. In that case young talented players will not advance through the ranks, and this has been the hallmark of Australian cricket for many years. I find the attitude of the Australian [Wednesday, 19 November 1997] 8175 cricketers, led unfortunately by leading Test players, somewhat boorish. They are placing themselves above the game, and no individual is bigger than the game. Adjournment Debate - Legislative Program HON NORM KELLY (East Metropolitan) [2.22 am]: I did not oppose the special adjournment until two o'clock later today for obvious reasons, which become even more obvious as every minute passes. I also point out that there are currently 15 motions on the Notice Paper which, ideally, should be dealt with. Some of those motions have been on the Notice Paper for more than three months, and I would like at this late stage of the session to see some multi- partisan support for expediting some of those matters. Hon E.J. Charlton: I think that is what we did between 7.30 and 2.30. Hon NORM KELLY: I am talking about motions rather than Orders of the Day. Hon N.F. Moore: Do you want to take the whole place? We spent all night dealing with a Bill for you people, and you now say we should deal with all the other things. I have already indicated the difficulty of getting the legislative program finished. If you want to sit for another three or four weeks, just put your hand up. Hon NORM KELLY: I intended to speak for only a minute. Hon N.F. Moore: I will help you. Hon NORM KELLY: I am talking about motions which the Minister may find totally irrelevant, but which some members may think are totally relevant. There is a need to debate them. I obviously do not have the support of the Leader of the House, judging by his leaving the Chamber. The PRESIDENT: Order! It is not usual to refer to members, whether they are in or out of the Chamber. Hon NORM KELLY: I hoped there would be some sense of urgency about dealing with some of these motions. Unfortunately, it appears from the non-leadership of the Leader of the House that that will not be the case. Question put and passed. House adjourned at 2.24 am (Thursday) ______