Aaron Taylor's son is at the centre of a First XV rugby eligibility case involving King's College and Mt Albert Grammar. Photo / Dean Purcell
One of Auckland’s top schools wants an independent legal tribunal to decide whether a student can play for its First XV rugby team – and to review the status of a code drawn up and governed by 12 principals, including its own.
It fears High Court action amid concerns in some quarters that the code is undermining students’ rights to play top-tier secondary school rugby.
Having initially said that one of its students could not play for its First XV team, King’s College is now proposing to take the case to the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand after Herald inquiries revealed legal concerns over the code – and the family’s anger over the way their son has been treated.
King’s wants and requires the support of the student’s former school, Mt Albert Grammar (MAGs), for what could be a precedent-setting tribunal hearing and decision.
But MAGs now appears to be washing its hands of the case, saying that whether the student plays in the First XV at King’s, “is a matter for the King’s headmaster. This is not an issue that involves MAGs.”
He was never in the frame to play top rugby at MAGs – he only ever played junior rugby there and was not in that school’s 1A (First XV) development programme. It was only after he joined King’s and followed a determined training and diet regime – gaining an extra 15kg – that he was considered for top honours this year.
But the student has run foul of the code drawn up and governed by 12 Auckland principals several years ago to stop predominantly wealthy schools poaching top rugby players.
While the code was devised with best intentions – essentially to stop poorer schools being plundered of their top talent – it seems it is also catching innocent parties.
Legal experts have questioned whether the code is even enforceable under the Education Act.
In a letter to MAGs following the Herald story, the board chairwoman of King’s College, Shan Wilson, says she wants to avoid possible High Court action.
Wilson – a partner at law firm Simpson Grierson – proposed that King’s, MAGs and the student’s family submitted the matter for “urgent consideration” to the Sports Tribunal of New Zealand.
“This has received media attention and I understand the prospect of High Court litigation has been raised. Clearly, this is not an ideal situation and I am very mindful of the pressure this will be placing on [the student],” said Wilson’s letter, released by the family to the Herald.
Wilson said it would be advantageous “to have this matter addressed quickly and definitively, without the need for further contention, particularly High Court litigation”.
“The [Sports] Tribunal is an independent body which is capable of considering ‘sports-related disputes’ by agreement, and making final and binding determinations,” wrote Wilson.
“My understanding is that each of us would be able to file statements of position and present evidence or perhaps we may be able to simplify matters even more by all presenting a set of agreed facts. This can then lead to a hearing, or a decision made on the papers. From my perspective, we could ask the tribunal to consider:
Wilson suggested the two schools could share costs.
“I also suggest that we would seek for the tribunal’s decision to be able to be made available to the other schools who are party to the code, given its significance to the status and effect of the code.”
The 12 schools that are party to the code are: King’s, MAGs, Auckland Grammar, Kelston Boys’ High School, St Kentigern, Sacred Heart, St Paul’s College, De La Salle, Dilworth School, Tangaroa, Liston College and St Peters.
But in an email to the Herald, MAGs board presiding member Catherine Murphy said it was up to the King’s headmaster, Simon Lamb, to determine whether the student could play First XV rugby.
“This is not an issue that involves MAGs,” Murphy said. “Whether the family and Kings submit an issue to the Sports Tribunal is a matter for them to decide.
“MAGs wish [the student] and his family every success for the future and will not be making any further comment ... We are concerned that litigating these issues so publicly is not in the best interests of the schools or the students.”
She described the code as an “informal” arrangement. “The 12 schools that play in the 1A competition, unanimously (and voluntarily) agreed to adopt an informal code that put the welfare of students first. This is the same overriding consideration of the principals in their approach to education. The primary obligation of every school is to support each student to reach their highest level of educational achievement. That is our core business. This code allows schools to focus on our core business, while also supporting the health and wellbeing of all our students.”
Murphy did not respond to follow-up questions asking her to confirm that MAGs was giving King’s the all-clear to allow the student to play. Nor did she answer the question of whether the code should be tested by an independent tribunal regardless of this case, to avoid similar situations in future.
Sports Tribunal registrar Helen Gould said the tribunal was “flexible and agile enough to accommodate urgent applications”.
The tribunal was governed by the provisions of the Sports Anti-doping Act 2006. It could hear a dispute like this – however, it would need to be with the agreement of all parties. They would also need to outline why it needed to be heard urgently.
She could not comment on the specifics of this case.
Speaking generally, she said, the tribunal would do its best to hear and determine a matter as quickly as possible. A panel of the tribunal would be convened “to assess the material and arguments and the chair will hold a pre-hearing conference (usually by Teams) to organise a time for a hearing if that is necessary; sometimes it is possible for the tribunal to determine matters on the papers.”
Meanwhile, the father of the student said he was not surprised about MAGs’ latest statement. “They want all the power and no responsibility.”
“It’s wonderful that we’ve got King’s on our side, actually defending [the student], which I think is just superb,” said Aaron Taylor, who had also sought the help of his local Auckland Central MP, Chlöe Swarbrick of the Greens.
Swarbrick earlier wrote to MAGs headmaster Patrick Drumm and King’s College headmaster Simon Lamb, asking the schools to review their decision.
“The history behind and purpose of this Code of Practice make total, general sense in upholding the integrity of the game and its teams, namely to mitigate completely legitimate concerns that wealthier schools may poach players from others,” Swarbrick said in her letter. “However, my strong sense from inspecting these rules in light of their purpose, hearing the story of the Taylor whānau and understanding the broader context is that there is room in this case for compassion and exercise of your discretion.”
Taylor said: “I didn’t know it was an option but having an independent body like [the Sports Tribunal] is really positive.”
He was hoping for “an impartial point of view on the whole thing”.
“We were grizzling about oversight, we haven’t had any oversight of this whole process. And they’ve just been stubborn really. It just felt like we were still at school. ‘Don’t question me, I’m the principal’.
“And so now, somebody’s had some common sense and thought we do need to review whether this is the right thing for kids in sport, but in particular this instance - is it the best use of the code? If you’re even allowed to have a code.
“She [King’s chairwoman Shan Wilson] has realised there’s an opportunity here to set a precedent. And the application of [the code] in general, but also, what’s going to come out of the wash is the interpretation of that clause.
“You know, we have [MAGs headmaster] Patrick Drumm saying one thing, and [King’s headmaster] Simon Lamb saying another. In actual fact [my son] wasn’t part of a development programme. I think that will be the outcome, but I don’t want to count the chickens too early either.”
He said he could not understand how a code had “such unbelievable power and influence on so many children”.
“We are a country of laws, fellahs,” he said, referring to the principals. “I don’t think they realised what they were saying. They have obviously taken strange advice if they think they can get away with this.”
If a tribunal hearing were to go ahead, he had been hoping his son would be eligible for selection again in the next two weeks.
Instead, it now seems his immediate future is back in the hands of the King’s headmaster.
Wilson, the King’s board chair, said last night she was yet to hear back from MAGs to her own letter.
How different might rugby look in 25 years?