Tim Paine: In hindsight, this has gone through to the keeper

Tim Paine steps down as the Test cricket captain during an emotional press conference in Hobart on friday. Picture: Chris Kidd

This week my 81-year-old mum phoned me to talk dick pics.

She wanted my thoughts on Tim Paine’s resignation and Cricket Australia’s coverup four years ago.

I did my research, referencing cricket’s celebrated writers and journos, who seem to have marched en masse to the town square, rocks in hand, to attack Paine and his bosses.

Well, let’s break it down.

Some four years back, a cricketer saw fit to exchange a bunch of dirty texts with a colleague. Tim Paine’s “sexting” was discovered and, as any responsible employer should do, a comprehensive investigation followed. Presumably in the interests of its employees (Paine and a female colleague), the investigation was conducted on a confidential basis.

How exactly Paine was cleared of a breach of cricket’s code of conduct is an obvious question.

Also, did CA afford fair process to his female colleague?

But before we all throw our stones, it’s got to be said that, contrary to so many “brand-obsessed” organisations (the Catholic Church being one), at least this church, via its governing body, did conduct a thorough investigation, albeit within rather narrow parameters. Also, isn’t it just possible that CA acted in the best interests of its employees by keeping it private?

“Maybe,” the masses say, “but what of the stupidity to keep Paine as captain?”

Well, here’s my case.

First, if good clean wholesome values were the prerequisite for all Australia’s cricket captains, there’s a fair chance we’d struggle to have anyone available to toss the coin. Cricketers, like all of us, make mistakes.

Second, here was a cricketer who stuffed up. He then ’fessed up, fully co-operated with the investigation, was cleared and promised to do better.

As a participant in that process, an employer should do what it’s supposed to do and that is to exercise its best judgment, balancing the interests of those directly involved, its staff, the interests of its own organisation and, of course, the people it serves (in this case us, the public). That’s the lesson here and, frankly, it’s what CA should be tested on.

Paine was appointed captain in 2018 when the team was in turmoil caused, ironically, by a complete vacuum of leadership.

The public shaming that sometimes follows a mistake means that the culprit is denied a chance of redemption. Over these past four years, Paine has shown resilience as captain, pulling Australia out of the doldrums of Sandpapergate and working hard to change what was then a vile perception of Australian cricket.

Which leads us back to CA and its investigation. Reports are now emerging that CA did not have all the information necessary for a proper investigation back in 2018.

This reeks of cover up. We may never know what the actual circumstances were and, worse, with a compromised investigation, what consequences should have flowed to the individuals concerned.

In the case of Paine, we’ve been denied the chance of being able to hold the view that Paine was the right choice as captain after all.

Worse, it seems, Paine himself has been denied the opportunity to show that what made him a better leader was his very own experience of having stuffed up and been given a second chance.

There’s a well-worn cliche, “if only we had the benefit of hindsight”, and yet here no one, Paine and CA included, seem to want to take it.

Hayden Stephens is a senior lawyer who gave evidence before the Royal Commission into Institutional Sexual Abuse about the legal tactics first deployed by Christian Brothers Order and Catholic Church. He is director of law firm Hayden Stephens and Associates, which specialises in class actions and employment law.