Nothing to see here? Cricket Australia’s next integrity test is its own investigation
- Written by: Weekend Times
Eight years after sandpaper brought Australian cricket into disgrace, the latest integrity question concerns the investigation that followed.
The 2018 controversy was this week reignited by retired batter Usman Khawaja, who
said the ball tampering incident wasn’t a plan hatched by three batters only (Steve Smith, David Warner and Cameron Bancroft). Instead, the whole team was in on it.
Yesterday, his long-time friend Warner said the revelations were “100% accurate”, heaping pressure on other members of the 2018 team as well as Cricket Australia. Other players have denied knowledge in recent days.
But Cricket Australia’s inquiry after the 2018 incident, which only lasted several days and resulted in Smith, Warner and Bancroft being suspended, is firmly in the spotlight.
Read more: Did Australia’s cricket leaders sandpaper over the truth? New ball tampering revelations suggest so
What has been Cricket Australia’s reaction?
This week’s revelations challenge the reach of Cricket Australia’s 2018 inquiry. The governing body, though, has ruled out reopening it, despite calls for it to do so.
Chief executive Todd Greenberg said other players disputed Khawaja’s version and the board believes there is no compelling reason to revisit the findings.
That disagreement deserves independent assessment. It does not establish that other players participated in the Cape Town plan, or that investigators concealed evidence.
But it does raise a question of how a governing body should respond when new testimony challenges the completeness of an earlier investigation.
What 2018 the inquiry established
In March 2018, Cricket Australia concluded prior knowledge of the Cape Town plan was confined to Smith, Warner and Bancroft. Its public account said no other player, support staff member or coach knew beforehand.
The inquiry unfolded between Tests, with immediate decisions needed. Reporting at the time described interviews with selected players and support staff, with findings within days.
Speed alone does not invalidate an investigation. But an inquiry designed to support urgent decisions should be judged against what it examined, what evidence it collected and how far its conclusions could reasonably extend.
Khawaja says he was not interviewed. He describes broader team discussions about altering the ball and alleges sandpaper had been used in the preceding Test. Warner has now criticised the investigation.
These claims require careful separation. Knowledge of earlier discussions, knowledge of earlier conduct and advance knowledge of the specific Cape Town plan are different propositions. Evidence supporting one does not automatically establish the others.
The bowlers who played at Cape Town publicly denied prior knowledge of the sandpaper plan in 2021. Those denials matter. So does testing new accounts against the available records, rather than treating either recollection or denial as conclusive.
A review does not need to produce agreement among former teammates. Investigations weigh conflicting accounts – they do not require unanimity.
The practical question is whether the evidence supports the confidence attached to the original findings.
Accountability and integrity queries
The slippery slope here is a gradual weakening of accountability. An urgent finding becomes an accepted public account. Over time, defending that account can become an institutional priority, even when questions arise about its boundaries.
The concern is Cricket Australia could become more focused on defending its original findings than testing their limits. However, raising this concern does not prove the governing body has resisted scrutiny to protect its reputation.
Its current leadership may genuinely believe the original conclusions remain sound. But independent scrutiny would provide a stronger basis for that confidence.
The governing body has already accepted responsibility extends beyond individual players. It has previously commissioned independent scrutiny of its own leadership and culture: in 2018, The Ethics Centre – an independent, Sydney-based not-for-profit organisation – examined organisational values, leadership and the conditions that contributed to the scandal.
That review addressed a different question. Understanding the environment in which misconduct occurred did not amount to reinvestigating who knew about the Cape Town plan. Cultural reform cannot, by itself, establish that the original factual inquiry was sufficiently comprehensive.
Cycling offers a relevant precedent. The Cycling Independent Reform Commission, whose report appeared in 2015, examined doping alongside allegations concerning the international governing body’s handling and investigation of it.
The scandals differ substantially. The useful comparison concerns investigative accountability, because a governing body’s response to misconduct can itself become a legitimate subject of independent examination.
What should happen from here?
Cricket Australia need not begin with another full investigation. It could appoint an independent reviewer to assess the original inquiry’s terms, interview coverage, surviving records and the significance of the new accounts.
A review could establish whether Khawaja’s account contains material information investigators lacked, whether relevant witnesses were omitted and whether those gaps could affect the published conclusions.
People whose conduct is questioned should have a fair opportunity to respond.
The recommendation might be no further investigation is warranted. It might identify unresolved questions requiring targeted interviews or a broader inquiry. Independence does not predetermine the answer; it makes the route to that answer more credible.
Cricket Australia should publish the review’s reasoning, with protections for confidential information, and explain its decision.
Any limits created by missing records or the passage of time should be acknowledged.
Is Cricket Australia committed to integrity?
Australian cricket’s credibility depends on the confidence of other cricketing nations, supporters and commercial partners.
These stakeholders can reasonably ask whether Australian cricket applies comparable standards of accountability to players and administrators.
Leaving the findings untested risks a perception that integrity demands stop at the governing body’s door. A reasoned, independently informed decision would demonstrate that Cricket Australia’s commitment includes scrutiny of its own processes.
James Skinner does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
