New Zealand Rugby and provincial unions at odds over governance change proposals: Gregor Paul

In the next few days, a special general meeting will be called, giving the distinct impression New Zealand Rugby’s elongated governance restructure saga is coming to an end.

But, unless there is a dramatic twist of events, the announcement of the SGM will serve not as a historic moment signalling that the game is ready to adapt and modernise but instead provides a disastrous ending to a disastrous process and perfectly illustrates why trust and confidence in rugby’s directors and leaders is so low.

When this move towards agreeing governance change began in late August 2023 following the publication of an extensive independent report that concluded the current system was not fit for purpose, mostly it was imagined it would end a few months later with provincial unions voting for one, clean, concise proposal to adopt the full recommendations of the review.

Instead, what is expected to happen is that after nearly nine months of endless negotiations between the provincial unions and New Zealand Rugby (NZR), two or possibly even three compromised restructuring options will be presented on the SGM ballot, none of which are certain to achieve the two-thirds majority vote they will need to pass.

A meeting last week between NZR and a handful of chairs from the provincial unions failed to dissuade either side from being wedded to their own change proposal.

NZR chair Dame Patsy Reddy had hoped that the unions would budge and agree that her transitional plan to adopt the report’s recommendations was the right way forward.

If the unions were to adopt her proposal, it would see nine independent directors ultimately appointed – but over a two-year period as incumbent directors would be allowed to see out the entirety of their three-year terms.

Reddy’s plan would also see a transitional appointments panel set-up – one that would be agreed co-jointly between the unions and NZR and exist for two years until a more permanent set-up could be agreed.

But the unions have become entrenched in their demand that while they support the shift towards appointing a board of directors, all of whom are independent, that three must have served for at least two years on a provincial union board.

Their proposal also demands, “That at least one board member has lived experience, knowledge and understanding of Te Ao Māori in a complex organisational context”, and likewise, at least one member “must identify and have lived experience as Pasifika with ancestral and authentic cultural connections and an ability to apply a Pasifika world view in a complex organisational context”.

The union’s proposal also calls for the incumbent board to stand down and for those who wish, to stand for reappointment, “in accordance with the provisions of the updated constitution”.

That stance, it is believed, might be amended to enable those current directors who were appointed through an independent process – the current regime sees three NZR directors elected, three nominated and three appointed – to stay on, to provide an element of continuity.

Given that this process has flipped and flopped for almost nine months now, there is only faint hope that one last meeting between NZR and the unions will result in a breakthrough, and agreement reached at the 11th hour to put just one proposal forward for vote at the SGM.

But the Herald has been told that the likelihood is almost zero and that there may be a third option presented for vote – which would be for a full adoption of the review’s recommendations – a proposal that would largely be built around the document the New Zealand Rugby Players’ Association (NZRPA) detailed two weeks ago.

That two, maybe even three, proposals are likely to be presented for vote is not only a serious governance failure, but it is a position that will most likely fail to bring this process to a conclusion as neither of the two pathways deliver on all of the key principles called for in the review.

This obviously doesn’t bother NZR or the unions, who both feel that their proposals represent significant shifts towards delivering a modern and independent governance structure, but it won’t sit well with the NZRPA, which co-sponsored the independent review and has publicly stated its expectations that the findings be adopted in their entirety.

The great unknown will be what happens if, and possibly when, one of the proposals wins a two-thirds majority vote at the SGM.

As history has shown, the NZRPA has considerable power to block or amend any significant changes and its boss, Rob Nichol, has said several times that a failure to bring governance in line with the review recommendations will force a re-think about how the professional players engage with the game.

Precisely what that means is likely to become clear, just as the unions and NZR will be thinking they have put this whole issue to bed.

Gregor Paul is one of New Zealand’s most respected rugby writers and columnists. He has won multiple awards for journalism and has written several books about sport.