Co-ed principals fight 'unethical' boys school-only rugby competition
A group of South Island principals is rallying against what it claims are "discriminatory and unlawful" plans for a breakaway first XV rugby competition played exclusively among boys' schools.
A collective of South Island boys' schools last month confirmed talks were underway to launch a new first XV competition as part of wider collaborative efforts to improve educational outcomes for young men.
The new competition would include up to eight boys' schools across Canterbury and Tasman, and five schools in Otago and Southland.
The move has been met with widespread concern from leaders of co-educational schools in those regions, who fear the "devastating" impact on their school communities if top-flight rugby were restricted to a select group of schools.
A highly organised resistance began in earnest on Wednesday, when a letter signed by principals of more than 40 schools was sent to the South Island provincial rugby unions and NZ Rugby urging the sport's leaders to act.
RNZ understands a separate, individual complaint has also been laid with the Sport Integrity Commission.
The letter to the rugby bodies called on officials to step in and "help intervene in what would become a highly destructive competition" for both the sport, the wider education system and young people.
"Excluding boys in co-educational schools from top-level rugby against boys-only schools would undermine the inclusivity, competitiveness, and health of school rugby, harming the sport's future and the well-being of its players," the letter states.
The letter also raised concerns that the proposal "is driven by the desire to attract the best athletes to the boys' schools for their own success", creating an "arms race where schools aggressively recruit top players".
The morning's headlines in 90 seconds including what will happen to food after supermarket blaze, Trump's dithering over the Middle East, and winter car care tips. (Source: 1News)
One of the signatories to the letter, Darfield High School principal Andy England, said he believed the proposal was "unjustified and discriminatory".
"I think this move, if it was to happen, would be deeply unethical, potentially in breach of human rights, and the education and training act. Which are strong words to say, and I get that. But I'm saying them," England told RNZ.
Asked if the schools would consider laying a complaint with the Human Rights Commission or the Ministry of Education, England responded: "Yes."
"At the end of the day, it just seems deeply unfair that boys who go to school with girls are excluded from playing the sport at the level that suits them. How can that be right under the Human Rights Act or under the Education and Training Act?"
The Education and Training Act 2020 requires schools to ensure a safe and inclusive environment and to eliminate discrimination, which extends to sports participation.
England said his main frustration was that there had been "very limited communication from the boys' schools" about why they wanted to form a breakaway competition and how it would work.
Rugby officials needed to show leadership and get all the schools around the table "in a reasonably assertive way", so they can work on a solution together.
"I think we're all looking for some guidance from [the] rugby union. My speciality isn't rugby at all, but I can't see how this could be good for rugby. It's inevitable that some rugby talent will be lost through this if this goes ahead," he said.
"It also puts rugby development at the top level into the hands of the boys schools only, and how can that be healthy?"
The letter claims the collective of boys' schools plan to launch the new competition for 2026 on August 1. However, two principals involved told RNZ there are no firm plans or commitments in place.
Steve Hart, principal of St Thomas of Canterbury College, said he was aware of opposition to the proposed new competition, but he did not think it was appropriate to address those criticisms through the media.
"Until there is something concrete to discuss, I don't know how healthy the back and forward actually is," he said.
"Probably for me I think there's been an over-focus on rugby here, that's actually a tiny bit of what we're trying to do. It probably sums up New Zealand a wee bit in that we focus too much on rugby and people are missing the point on what the actual vision here is."
Hart referred RNZ to the statement provided to media at the time the plans for the breakaway competition were first raised, which noted the collective's aims of "exploring initiatives that include the arts, culture, sport and professional learning - designed to foster connection, belonging and pride among our young men".
Canterbury Rugby chief executive Tony Smail said his organisation shared some of the concerns of the co-ed schools about the proposed competition.
"The unintended and intended consequences of a standalone competition among boys' schools needs to be talked about. There is genuine concern that pathways are being closed for other rugby playing participants out there," he said.
"You'll have player movement out of the schools that aren't in the competition into the schools that are, and the flow on effect of that is huge. If you have one or two strong players from one school decide to leave, the risk is that their peers that are left at that school will give up, because they were staying in the game to play with their mates."
While the union sits on the governance group of the current first XV competition, which involves schools in the Crusaders' catchment area, it is not in charge of running schoolboy rugby.
However, Smail acknowledged Canterbury Rugby has a duty to work through the issues with all schools. He said he hopes to get the principals together in the coming weeks.
"We'd obviously love to find a way to break through and understand what those problem areas are that require the boys' schools to head off and see if there's another alternative that we can explore together," said Smail.
"What we've had among the schools are some pretty brave conversations at times, and I think this is another example where we have to get together, hear out all sides and see if there's another way through."
NZ Rugby's general manager of community rugby Steve Lancaster said while the national body does not control the governance or delivery of the secondary school competitions, it does have an interest in the potential implications the proposed breakaway competition may have on "participation, equity and the schools that are excluded".
"We know many stakeholders look to NZR for resolution of such issues; however, we do not have authority over school competitions that are organised outside of Provincial Union administration. That said, we remain committed to advocating for inclusive, competitive, and accessible rugby pathways for all young people, regardless of the type of school they attend."
A spokesperson for the Sport Integrity Commission said the organisation could not confirm the existence or otherwise of any complaints before the organisation.
rnz.co.nz
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
an hour ago
- Otago Daily Times
Not-so-special agents exercising agency in troubled times
What have we been looking at over the course of the past week? Yes, we have been watching, horror-struck, as two sovereign states unleashed fire and death upon each other's populations. Israel pre-emptively, Iran in self-defence, both have entered into a state of war. Given the geostrategic fragility of the Middle East, this is alarming. Even more alarming, however, is that the United States appears (at the time of writing) to be seriously contemplating joining the war at Israel's side. So, this past week has been a week of violence and dread. A week of fear. But, it has also been a week of agency. Agency, as in "action or intervention producing a particular effect" is a crucial attribute of geopolitical power. A sovereign state without the will and the means to act, to intervene, with high levels of confidence that the nett effect of its intervention will accord with its expectations, is not a geopolitically significant power. It might be assumed that the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council — the USA, the UK, the Russian Federation, France, and the Peoples Republic of China — would all be possessors of geopolitically significant agency. The veto power wielded by each of the five permanent members is, presumably, an acknowledgement of their ability to disturb the peace of the world unilaterally and seriously. Of their agency. Except that, in the 21st century, only two of the five permanent members, the USA and the Russian Federation, have demonstrated significant geopolitical agency. The Americans have invaded and conquered (if only for a little while) Afghanistan and Iraq. Russia has invaded and occupied roughly a third of Ukraine's territory, but Ukraine continues to rule the rest. Now, it could be convincingly argued that these invasions and occupations, far from being examples of geopolitical agency, are actually demonstrations of American and Russian weakness. In the American case especially, the failure to secure the anticipated effects of its Middle Eastern interventions called into question its status as ''the world's sole remaining superpower''. Ditto, in regard to the Russian Federation. The Russian President Vladimir Putin's confident expectation that the Ukrainian capital, Kyiv, would fall to his armoured columns in less than a week proved to be wildly misplaced. Three years, and one million Russian dead later, Kyiv remains free. And the other permanent members? What of their agency? In this century, neither the UK, nor France, have attempted to act or intervene unilaterally. Indeed, their capacity to do so must be seriously doubted. After all, if the UK and France were in possession of genuine geopolitical agency they would have confronted Vladimir Putin with steel, not protests. Not that they were permitted to do otherwise. Until the arrival of Trump, it was a rock-solid American policy that the movers-and-shakers of Europe: the UK, Germany, France and Italy; must never be permitted to acquire the military strength to act independently of the US. The European states were never to become agents in their own right. Hardly surprising, when you think about it. Twice in the 20th century, just one of those powers, Germany, took on the whole world – and came within an ace of winning. But what about China? Aren't geopoliticians touting the People's Republic as the next global superpower? Isn't the Chinese dragon seen as Uncle Sam's understudy, just waiting to huff-and-puff its firepower on the world stage? Well, China is certainly building up a massive military force. It already boasts the world's largest and most up-to-date navy, and the People's Liberation Army currently has more than 2 million "active personnel". The thing is, neither the Chinese army, nor the Chinese navy, has been in a real fight since 1979 – when the Vietnamese kicked their ass. Unlike the Americans and the Russians, the Chinese cannot call upon troops who know what it's like to go to war. No-one on the planet knows how the Chinese armed forces will perform in the face of a determined enemy ( such as Taiwan) and it's difficult to avoid the impression that China's leaders are in no real hurry to find out. Though it vexes the five permanent members beyond measure, it is Israel that best exemplifies geopolitical agency. And it will likely continue to do so – right up until it runs out of American ammunition. ■Chris Trotter is an Auckland writer and commentator.
1News
5 hours ago
- 1News
Co-ed principals fight 'unethical' boys school-only rugby competition
A group of South Island principals is rallying against what it claims are "discriminatory and unlawful" plans for a breakaway first XV rugby competition played exclusively among boys' schools. A collective of South Island boys' schools last month confirmed talks were underway to launch a new first XV competition as part of wider collaborative efforts to improve educational outcomes for young men. The new competition would include up to eight boys' schools across Canterbury and Tasman, and five schools in Otago and Southland. The move has been met with widespread concern from leaders of co-educational schools in those regions, who fear the "devastating" impact on their school communities if top-flight rugby were restricted to a select group of schools. A highly organised resistance began in earnest on Wednesday, when a letter signed by principals of more than 40 schools was sent to the South Island provincial rugby unions and NZ Rugby urging the sport's leaders to act. RNZ understands a separate, individual complaint has also been laid with the Sport Integrity Commission. The letter to the rugby bodies called on officials to step in and "help intervene in what would become a highly destructive competition" for both the sport, the wider education system and young people. "Excluding boys in co-educational schools from top-level rugby against boys-only schools would undermine the inclusivity, competitiveness, and health of school rugby, harming the sport's future and the well-being of its players," the letter states. The letter also raised concerns that the proposal "is driven by the desire to attract the best athletes to the boys' schools for their own success", creating an "arms race where schools aggressively recruit top players". The morning's headlines in 90 seconds including what will happen to food after supermarket blaze, Trump's dithering over the Middle East, and winter car care tips. (Source: 1News) One of the signatories to the letter, Darfield High School principal Andy England, said he believed the proposal was "unjustified and discriminatory". "I think this move, if it was to happen, would be deeply unethical, potentially in breach of human rights, and the education and training act. Which are strong words to say, and I get that. But I'm saying them," England told RNZ. Asked if the schools would consider laying a complaint with the Human Rights Commission or the Ministry of Education, England responded: "Yes." "At the end of the day, it just seems deeply unfair that boys who go to school with girls are excluded from playing the sport at the level that suits them. How can that be right under the Human Rights Act or under the Education and Training Act?" The Education and Training Act 2020 requires schools to ensure a safe and inclusive environment and to eliminate discrimination, which extends to sports participation. England said his main frustration was that there had been "very limited communication from the boys' schools" about why they wanted to form a breakaway competition and how it would work. Rugby officials needed to show leadership and get all the schools around the table "in a reasonably assertive way", so they can work on a solution together. "I think we're all looking for some guidance from [the] rugby union. My speciality isn't rugby at all, but I can't see how this could be good for rugby. It's inevitable that some rugby talent will be lost through this if this goes ahead," he said. "It also puts rugby development at the top level into the hands of the boys schools only, and how can that be healthy?" The letter claims the collective of boys' schools plan to launch the new competition for 2026 on August 1. However, two principals involved told RNZ there are no firm plans or commitments in place. Steve Hart, principal of St Thomas of Canterbury College, said he was aware of opposition to the proposed new competition, but he did not think it was appropriate to address those criticisms through the media. "Until there is something concrete to discuss, I don't know how healthy the back and forward actually is," he said. "Probably for me I think there's been an over-focus on rugby here, that's actually a tiny bit of what we're trying to do. It probably sums up New Zealand a wee bit in that we focus too much on rugby and people are missing the point on what the actual vision here is." Hart referred RNZ to the statement provided to media at the time the plans for the breakaway competition were first raised, which noted the collective's aims of "exploring initiatives that include the arts, culture, sport and professional learning - designed to foster connection, belonging and pride among our young men". Canterbury Rugby chief executive Tony Smail said his organisation shared some of the concerns of the co-ed schools about the proposed competition. "The unintended and intended consequences of a standalone competition among boys' schools needs to be talked about. There is genuine concern that pathways are being closed for other rugby playing participants out there," he said. "You'll have player movement out of the schools that aren't in the competition into the schools that are, and the flow on effect of that is huge. If you have one or two strong players from one school decide to leave, the risk is that their peers that are left at that school will give up, because they were staying in the game to play with their mates." While the union sits on the governance group of the current first XV competition, which involves schools in the Crusaders' catchment area, it is not in charge of running schoolboy rugby. However, Smail acknowledged Canterbury Rugby has a duty to work through the issues with all schools. He said he hopes to get the principals together in the coming weeks. "We'd obviously love to find a way to break through and understand what those problem areas are that require the boys' schools to head off and see if there's another alternative that we can explore together," said Smail. "What we've had among the schools are some pretty brave conversations at times, and I think this is another example where we have to get together, hear out all sides and see if there's another way through." NZ Rugby's general manager of community rugby Steve Lancaster said while the national body does not control the governance or delivery of the secondary school competitions, it does have an interest in the potential implications the proposed breakaway competition may have on "participation, equity and the schools that are excluded". "We know many stakeholders look to NZR for resolution of such issues; however, we do not have authority over school competitions that are organised outside of Provincial Union administration. That said, we remain committed to advocating for inclusive, competitive, and accessible rugby pathways for all young people, regardless of the type of school they attend." A spokesperson for the Sport Integrity Commission said the organisation could not confirm the existence or otherwise of any complaints before the organisation.
Scoop
10 hours ago
- Scoop
Explainer: Why Has New Zealand Paused Funding To The Cook Islands Over China Deal?
Article – RNZ New Zealand has halted more than $18 million in development assistance to its realm country. But the island's prime minister said his government was 'aware' it was coming. Christina Persico, RNZ Pacific Caleb Fotheringham, RNZ Pacific , RNZ Pacific New Zealand has paused $18.2 million in development assistance funding to the Cook Islands after its government signed partnership agreements with China earlier this year. This move is causing consternation in the realm country, with one local political leader calling it 'a significant escalation' between Avarua and Wellington. A spokesperson for Peters said the Cook Islands did not consult with Aotearoa over the China deals and failed to ensure shared interests were not put at risk. On Thursday (Wednesday local time), Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown told parliament that his government knew the funding cut was coming. 'We have been aware that this core sector support would not be forthcoming in this budget because this had not been signed off by the New Zealand government in previous months, so it has not been included in the budget that we are debating this week,' he said. How the diplomatic stoush started A diplomatic row first kicked off in February between the two nations. Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown went on an official visit to China, where he signed a 'comprehensive strategic partnership' agreement. The agreements focus in areas of economy, infrastructure and maritime cooperation and seabed mineral development, among others. They do not include security or defence. However, to New Zealand's annoyance, Brown did not discuss the details with it first. Prior to signing, Brown said he was aware of the strong interest in the outcomes of his visit to China. Afterwards, a spokesperson for Peters released a statement saying New Zealand would consider the agreements closely, in light of the countries' mutual constitutional responsibilities. The Cook Islands-New Zealand relationship Cook Islands is in free association with New Zealand. The country governs its own affairs, but New Zealand provides assistance with foreign affairs (upon request), disaster relief and defence. Cook Islanders also hold New Zealand passports entitling them to live and work there. In 2001, New Zealand and the Cook Islands signed a joint centenary declaration, which required the two to 'consult regularly on defence and security issues'. The Cook Islands did not think it needed to consult with New Zealand on the China agreement. Peters said there is an expectation that the government of the Cook Islands would not pursue policies that were 'significantly at variance with New Zealand's interests'. Later in February, the Cooks confirmed it had struck a five-year agreement with China to cooperate in exploring and researching seabed mineral riches. A spokesperson for Peters said at the time said the New Zealand government noted the mining agreements and would analyse them. How New Zealand reacted On Thursday morning, Peters said the Cook Islands hadn't lived up to the 2001 declaration. Peters said the Cook Islands had failed to give satisfactory answers to New Zealand's questions about the arrangement. 'We have made it very clear in our response to statements that were being made – which we do not think laid out the facts and truth behind this matter – of what New Zealand's position is,' he said. 'We've got responsibilities ourselves here. And we wanted to make sure that we didn't put a step wrong in our commitment and our special arrangement which goes back decades.' Officials would be working through what the Cook Islands had to do so New Zealand was satisfied the funding could resume. He said New Zealand's message was conveyed to the Cook Islands government 'in its finality' on 4 June. 'When we made this decision, we said to them our senior officials need to work on clearing up this misunderstanding and confusion about our arrangements and about our relationship.' Prime Minister Christopher Luxon is in China this week. Asked about the timing of Luxon's visit to China, and what he thought the response from China might be, Peters said the decision to pause the funding was not connected to China. He said he had raised the matter with his China counterpart Wang Yi, when he last visited China in February, and Wang understood New Zealand's relationship with the Cook Islands. Concerns in the Cook Islands Over the past three years, New Zealand has provided nearly $194.6 million (approximately US$117m) to the Cook Islands through the development programme. Cook Islands opposition leader Tina Browne said she was deeply concerned about the pause. Browne said she was informed of the funding pause on Wednesday night, and she was worried about the indication from Peters that it might affect future funding. She issued a 'please explain' to Mark Brown: 'The prime minister has been leading the country to think that everything with New Zealand has been repaired, hunky dory, etcetera – trust is still there,' she said. 'Wham-bam, we get this in the Cook Islands News this morning. What does that tell you?' Will NZ's action 'be a very good news story' for Beijing? Massey University's defence and security expert Anna Powles told RNZ Pacific that aid should not be on the table in debate between New Zealand and the Cook Islands. 'That spirit of the [2001] declaration is really in question here,' she said. 'The negotiation between the two countries needs to take aid as a bargaining chip off the table for it to be able to continue – for it to be successful.' Powles said New Zealand's moves might help China strengthen its hand in the Pacific. She said China could contrast its position on using aid as a bargaining chip. 'By Beijing being able to tell its partners in the region, 'we would never do that, and certainly we would never seek to leverage our relationships in this way'. This could be a very good news story for China, and it certainly puts New Zealand in a weaker position, as a consequence.' However, a prominent Cook Islands lawyer said it was fair that New Zealand is pressing pause. Norman George said Brown should implore New Zealand for forgiveness. 'It is absolutely a fair thing to do because our prime minister betrayed New Zealand and let the government and people of New Zealand down.'
