Warner, Smith, Bancroft bans will stand, insists Cricket Australia

Even as he delivered the findings of reviews that damned the culture he had been at the head of propagating, Cricket Australia's chairman David Peever remained as adamant about maintaining the bans placed on David Warner, Steven Smith and Cameron Bancroft as he was about keeping his own position as the lone survivor of the Newlands scandal.

Apart from the banned trio directly involved in ball tampering and the subsequent cover-up, CA now has new national team captains in Tim Paine and Aaron Finch, a new coach in Justin Langer and a new chief executive in the internally hired Kevin Roberts. However, Peever, last week re-elected for three years as chairman little more than 90 minutes before the Longstaff and McCosker reviews were finally presented to the state association owners of CA, was unmoved in maintaining that the bans must stay, and also that he was the man to lead CA into better cultural territory.

This meant that while Peever mouthed the words "I accept responsibility" in his initial remarks, he went on at some length to defend his own position, and deny any sense of embarrassment for the events of South Africa, while also insisting that Smith, Warner (eligible in April 2019) and Bancroft (January 2019) sit out the remainder of their sanctions. "Sanctions were carried out and imposed by the board after a very full and thoughtful process. So the sanctions stand," he said, watched by a collection of board directors and state association chairmen.

"Not at all [embarrassed], because I'm part of and associated with something that is so important to Australia. I'm not embarrassed at all. There are certainly elements of the report that we need to work on and there are 42 recommendations we have committed to. One we have said we won't do. The rest are works in progress and in the case of several, it's not what but how.

"As chairman of the board of CA I accept responsibility for what happened in South Africa, but I'm also very confident that we're positioned to move forward from here. We've learned many lessons and of course there has been a lot going on since then. Both within the playing group and within the organisation itself to move things forward."

In acknowledging that the review had identified CA as "arrogant" in its approach to other organisations, whether it be the state associations, the Australian Cricketers Association or corporate partners and broadcasters, Peever also accepted that there was a considerable gap between how CA's board and executives had perceived the organisation and how the rest of the cricket community viewed it in reality.

"It's very important that we understand there is a view in the cricket community that Cricket Australia is perceived as arrogant," Peever said. "What we have to do now is to take that information and understand what it is that we're doing and need to be doing better to make sure that what we do is get the very best out of the whole cricket ecosystem across the country."

"It certainly has identified, as is clear, gaps between what we feel as directors and what senior executives feel and what others feel, and that is helpful. I think it's difficult because it is confronting and it's difficult because we might not have believed that, and whether it is reality or perception, what's important is we take the sentiments and use them to make the game better.

"We didn't put sufficient emphasis on the spirit of the game in our pursuit of wanting to be the very best we could on the field. I think that's been recognised and we're using the report now as an opportunity to do better."

It followed naturally from this acknowledgement that questions needed to be asked about how Peever could possibly be the leader to make the required changes to the organisation. But when Peever was queried over how possible this was, the response came from his fellow board director Jacquie Hey, who chaired the subcommittee that set the review's terms of reference and deliberated on how it would be disseminated.

"Change at least in my experience needs to come from understanding what the issue is first, and this was at least the first time for a long time we have asked for an independent view of what's going on," Hey said. "Listening to that view and taking action is what kicks off change, and that's how change happens. That's the mandate Kevin has from the board to focus on the strategy and the mandate for change.

"Sometimes you do need to stop and take stock. I think that's a really important process for us to have undergone, and I'm very hopeful where this will lead is and how cricket will develop and evolve from here."

One of the many areas explored by the review was the governance structure of Australian cricket, and it stated that CA's board and executive had a task ahead to work better with the system as it is, not as either the centralist CA leadership or the federalist states would prefer it to be.

"It is essential that CA and its stakeholders make the most of the status quo," the review stated. "That is, CA and the State and Territory Associations need to reinforce a culture of collaboration in which CA is seen as being nothing more (nor less) than first amongst equals. This will require CA to address the perception that it is (or believes itself to be) the sole or principal custodian of Australian cricket. That is, for all of its wealth and associated power, CA needs to be seen as more of a partner in the development of the game - rather than its master.

"Changing such perceptions will be no easy matter. Many of cricket's stakeholders perceive CA to be arrogant and high-handed. CA is believed to presume an authority that others have not ceded. The success of CA in managing the commercial opportunities open to cricket - and the extraordinary financial resources that it has caused to flow to the game - is acknowledged … but not as a source of legitimacy.

"Instead, CA is often resented even though the logic of its position and preferences may be unquestionable. In the end, the response to CA rests on a question of the values and principles that one chooses to prioritise. Is precedence accorded to efficiency and effectiveness over mutual respect? Is maximising economic opportunity of greater importance than allowing for local autonomy?"