Why New Zealand Rugby’s radical change is a path to nowhere - Gregor Paul

New Zealand Rugby House in Wellington. Photo / Mark Mitchell

OPINION

One of the great magic tricks of rugby’s professional age will shortly take place when New Zealand Rugby (NZR) tries to hoodwink everyone into thinking it is forcing its member unions to vote for radical change to the current governance structure.

The national body has worked up yet another proposal to change the way its board of directors is appointed and this one is being sold as revolutionary - a hardline shift towards a full adoption of the findings of a comprehensive independent review that recommended the best system would be a fully independent nine-person board appointed by an independent panel.

But what NZR chair Dame Patsy Reddy is presenting the unions with is an illusion - a sleight of hand as it were - which, when properly analysed, reveals that this latest iteration is going to take the game on a two-year path to nowhere, before it inevitably returns to the same not fit-for-purpose place in which it currently resides.

After a day of theatrics and grandstanding last Friday between the unions and NZR directors, there is a strong sense that Reddy and the majority - but not all - of her board have realised the mistake they made by entering into a seven-month negotiation with the provinces. They have now taken off the velvet glove to reveal the iron fist.

Reddy has run out of patience with the unions and their gerrymandering and filibustering - and so too can she sense that a growing number of provinces have also run out of patience with what appears to be a self-appointed cabal of their peers speaking on behalf of everyone without having the support they think they do.

New Zealand Rugby Board Chair Dame Patsy Reddy. Photo / Photosport

What Reddy and NZR want everyone to believe is that they realise their moment has come to take control and corral two-thirds of the membership on to the right side of history and give the game the independent leadership it needs.

But Reddy is not channelling her inner Maggie Thatcher the way it seems, as the proposal she has tabled has loopholes everywhere - the sort which a cabal of power-hungry unions can easily exploit to retain control.

The plan is to set up a transitional appointments panel that is collectively agreed and will stay in place until 2025.

But there are no specific criteria set on how the panel will be selected after that date, with the proposal stating that it will be reviewed and agreed in time.

That’s an open door for the unions to kick down and install what they want - which is a majority presence on the appointments panel.

Reddy has rejected the independent review’s recommendation to set-up a 15-person stakeholder committee composed of an extensive list of stakeholders who would provide two members to the appointments panel, to instead propose the creation of a rugby council - details of which are left entirely vague.

Again, this refusal to simply endorse the independent review makes it probable that the unions will ultimately gain control of this rugby council - and if they control that, they can ultimately control the appointments panel and then control who ends up on the board.

This whole sorry saga has played out precisely because the unions have pushed their own proposals to retain control over the appointments panel and far from stamping out this rebellious line of hope, Reddy is encouraging it, keeping it alive by signalling that she is open to finding solutions rather than holding a non-negotiable stance about adopting the recommendations of a highly credible panel who have done all the hard work for her.

There is one other giant flaw in the new proposal, which is it needlessly and somewhat brazenly protects the tenures of the existing board members.

NZR has unveiled its proposal as one that will bring generational change, but perhaps it would be more accurate to suggest that it is one that will take a generation to bring change.

The current governance system has been found to be not fit for purpose and therefore there is irrefutable logic to deem that those who have been appointed by that system are also not fit for purpose.

This is not personal, but an argument that they are products of a toxic environment, and good governance - good leadership - would be to step down en masse and those who wanted could re-apply through the new system which is agreed.

There would be practical value in retaining some existing members for the sake of continuity if nothing else, but to keep them all until their three-year term expires will effectively operate as a red flag to those highly skilled, highly capable independent people the new system is aiming to attract.

The transitional change being proposed by Reddy doesn’t appear to be any kind of change at all - just more of the same deckchair shuffling but better disguised - and a saga that has run for far too long seems set to be extended.

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.