ABC
30 June 2010
MARK COLVIN: Another bad day for a former prime minister.
At the International Cricket Council meeting in Singapore, the former prime minister John Howard has failed in his bid to become the next vice president of the sport’s governing body.
The bid was lost without a vote being taken. But was it the fact that Mr Howard has never been a cricket administrator or his past criticisms of Robert Mugabe’s regime which scuttled the bid?
Malcolm Speed is a former chief executive of the ICC. I asked him about the decision a short time ago.
MALCOLM SPEED: I think it’s disgraceful. I think it’s an insult to Australian and New Zealand cricket. It’s a farcical situation where the best credentialed candidate ever put forward for the position of president of the International Cricket Council has been rejected on political grounds.
Now to put that into context – two things there. The current, the man who’s about to take over as president of the International Cricket Council, is a minister in the Indian government with very little background in cricket. If Australia and New Zealand say well that’s fine, we’ve put up our candidate and you’ve rejected him, then next in rotation is Pakistan and Bangladesh. The presidents of the cricket boards of both of those countries are appointed by the government, so we see a farcical situation here.
John Howard didn’t seek this position. He was approached by Cricket Australia. I think to say that he’s lost his bid is incorrect. Cricket Australia and Cricket New Zealand have lost the bid to have their chosen candidate appointed to this position.
MARK COLVIN: But why is opposition to Robert Mugabe so unpopular among other cricketing nations than Zimbabwe?
MALCOLM SPEED: I think it goes wider than just the opposition to Robert Mugabe. International cricket is a very complex and political organisation. I think there would be a multitude of reasons for rejecting Mr Howard’s nomination. The opposition to Mugabe perhaps one that plays out in Africa. Other reasons would play out in the Indian sub-continent.
MARK COLVIN: For instance that Mr Howard accused Muttiah Muralitharan, the Sri Lankan bowler, of being a chucker?
MALCOLM SPEED: Um, maybe but I think it’s perhaps more deep seated than that. I think there is a wish from some people involved in cricket in India to downgrade the status of the International Cricket Council, and having Mr Howard there as the incoming president in two years would be an obstacle for that objective. So I think it’s perhaps more deep seated than superficial instances such as calling Muralitharan a chucker. I think there’s more to it than that, but we’ll never know.
MARK COLVIN: Can you explain this to me. I’ve seen reports that although as you say it’s an Australia, New Zealand bid, I’ve seen some reports that there is anger that Sir John Anderson, a New Zealand candidate was rejected. What’s the background to all that?
MALCOLM SPEED: Well Sir John Anderson is a very fine man. He was the president of New Zealand Cricket for many years and served on the ICC board. Australia and New Zealand under this rotation system would have put forward a joint candidate. They did that after a good deal of consultation and quite some anguish between those two countries’ cricket boards. And John Howard was the chosen candidate of the two countries and as I understand it from afar, both countries are still well and truly behind Mr Howard.
MARK COLVIN: And there is a system of rotation in this is there? I mean Mr Howard should normally have just been a shoe-in?
MALCOLM SPEED: Should have been a rubber stamp. In past instances with a system similar to this other countries have put up candidates where Australia and New Zealand could have taken exception to them but they were prepared to respect the sovereignty of the country that had put them forward and they voted for those people to take over the presidency of ICC. For the countries now to reject Australia and New Zealand’s candidate is an insult.
MARK COLVIN: Now, why does it matter? What would John Howard have been able to do that he now won’t be able to do?
MALCOLM SPEED: It’s a good question Mark. I think what John Howard would have brought to the position was experience. Whether you agree with his politics or not he is a very good politician in that he was elected in difficult circumstances four times. He ran the country for 11 years.
He would bring diplomatic skills. He is used to running a board or a cabinet with diverse opinions. I think he would have brought to it a statesman-like approach, just a completely different breadth of experience from the other presidents that ICC has had in the past, many of whom have been very good at the job. I thought he was ideally suited.
MARK COLVIN: And the Zimbabwe sports minister was here last week and saying that he wanted normalisation between Australia and Zimbabwe, but clearly he was having a lot of difficulty with his own cricket council, or cricket board back home. Is normalisation, a thaw, now impossible?
MALCOLM SPEED: I think that’s a matter for Cricket Australia and we need to bear in mind that Zimbabwe is still a very troubled country. The sports minister there, Mr Coltart, I don’t know him but I hear good things about him. I think he is trying to solve some of the problems that cricket in Zimbabwe has faced but this won’t help.
MARK COLVIN: Malcolm Speed, former chief executive of the International Cricket Council.