Yesterday, NZ Rugby held a press conference in relation to the Chiefs scandal, wherein they barely said anything at all. Today, the Human Rights Commission invites you to add your name to a letter calling for a change New Zealand rugby culture. 

The NZ Human Rights Commission has this afternoon published an open letter to NZ Rugby, urging the national administrator to take up offers of support and expertise in relation to its internal culture.

The open letter follows the outcome of the internal NZ Rugby investigation, into an incident involving a woman named Scarlette and unidentified members of the Chiefs rugby team. The letter has already been signed by a number of prominent New Zealand women whose organisations collectively represent thousands of New Zealanders.

Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner Dr Jackie Blue explains the thinking behind the letter:

“The internal investigation into the incident involving Scarlette and members of the Chiefs rugby team has highlighted to all New Zealanders that NZ Rugby’s judiciary process is not appropriate for dealing with issues of integrity, mana, respect and basic personal rights.

“NZ Rugby has previously refused to take up offers of support and expertise from external parties with these sorts of investigations. Until they do, these investigations will continue to produce the exact same results.

“The open letter is about letting NZ Rugby know that enough is enough and we want them to take us up on our offer to support them through this process. As much as New Zealanders love rugby – we need New Zealanders to respect women.”

The open letter, which can be signed here, reads:

Dear New Zealand Rugby management and board members,

Right now, thousands of New Zealanders are questioning the culture of our country’s favourite sport and those in charge of it.

We are writing to you publicly in the hope that you will listen to our calls for you to act with courage.

The internal investigation into an incident involving a woman called Scarlette and members of the Chiefs rugby team has highlighted to all New Zealanders that NZ Rugby’s judiciary process is not appropriate for dealing with issues of integrity, mana, respect and basic personal rights.

We are offering our expertise, experience and support. Louise Nicholas has been working alongside NZ Police to successfully enhance their internal culture for some time now. We encourage you to do the same. Dr Jackie Blue offered to assist a month ago and this offer still stands.

Rugby is like a religion in New Zealand, with players worshipped by young kiwis throughout the country. NZ Rugby could not operate without thousands of women volunteers and players in clubs and towns across the country: we must address the culture that exists from the top down and set the right example, particularly for our young New Zealanders.

Now is the time for you and those involved in the incident with Scarlette to be courageous and to take personal leadership on an issue that we can all work on addressing together.

As much as New Zealanders love rugby – we need New Zealanders to respect women.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Signed by,

Dr Jackie Blue, EEO Commissioner

Louise Nicholas, Sexual Violence Survivors Advocate

Rae Duff, National President, National Council of Women of New Zealand

Prue Kapua, National President, Maori Women’s Welfare League

Barbara Williams, National Council of Women

Dr Kim McGregor QSO , Director of Tiaki Consultants

Caren Rangi, National President, P.A.C.I.F.I.C.A (Pacifica Allied (Women’s) Council Inspires Faith in Ideals Concerning All) Inc

Dame Susan Devoy, Race Relations Commissioner

Nive Sharat Chandran, Co President YWCA of Aotearoa New Zealand

Sina Wendt-Moore, Co President, YWCA of Aotearoa New Zealand

Monica Briggs, CEO, YWCA Auckland

Karen Johansen, Indigenous Rights Commissioner

Jan Logie, Member of Parliament

Ruth Dyson, Member of Parliament

Tracey Martin, Member of Parliament

Catriona McClennan, Barrister and Social Justice Advocate

Leonie Morris, Auckland Women’s Centre

Eileen Brown, Council of Trade Unions

Sue Kedgley, UN Women

Dr Janette Irvine, General Practitioner

Vicky Mee, Business and Professional Women

Jane Drumm, Shine

Erin Polaczuk, PSA

Deborah McKenzie, Inner City Women

Christine King, President, Pacific Women

Denise Ritchie, Stop Demand

Add your signature here.

There were a lot of nice words thrown around today at the New Zealand Rugby press conference detailing their inquiry into The Chiefs’ scandal. But what did they really say? Alex Casey translates. 

Today we got New Zealand Rugby’s definitive ruling on The Chiefs scandal. Last month a stripper named Scarlette alleged that while hired to perform at their Mad Monday celebrations, some of the Chiefs threw gravel at her, repeatedly touched her despite her denying consent and poured alcohol on her.

There was an apparently rigorous investigation into the events of the evening conducted by the general counsel of New Zealand Rugby – a guy who loves his job and has been on the NZR team for over a decade. Which means that one branch of New Zealand Rugby investigated another branch of New Zealand Rugby and found that everything was basically okay.

This is a little bit like Colonel Sanders being put in change of an inquiry into the 11 secret herbs and spices and pronouncing them delicious. At a press conference today three blokes delivered the verdict: everything is fine, none of it really happened and wow isn’t fried chicken the best.

There were a lot of key words thrown around today; “embarrassed” was one, “disappointed” was another, “inappropriate” was sprinkled in there to jazz things up. But there was no “sorry” – certainly none to the woman who spoke out in the first place.

Shockingly, The Spinoff has been told by a source that despite Scarlette herself being the origin of the allegations, she was the very last person spoken to during the investigation. Which would mean that only once they’d spoken to everyone else they possibly could, from friendly beer drinkers at the pub to striving bench players, only then did they get around to speaking to the person at the centre of this whole shitstorm.

Scarlette was, we understand, interviewed alone. Without any legal representation or support.

So with that in mind, what did The Chiefs and Rugby New Zealand actually say about what happened? Andrew Flexman admitted there had been heaps of “learnings” and I guess he’s right. At the end of the day it’s a game of two halves and the most important thing is to back the boys and four more years and chase great. Right?

Here are some key quotes from the conference and their associated learnings:

“This is a black mark”

The press conference focused almost solely on how disappointing the act of hiring a stripper was in the first place, because nobody else in New Zealand’s long history of prominent sportsmen has ever done anything like that. This type of entertainment isn’t appropriate, they said, it was a poor decision and inappropriate for a rugby team, they said. Paying for a scantily-clad woman to perform for you is bad. Not like those hot chicks who come out in booty shorts at half time, those ones are good.

The thing about these “black marks” in the sporting world is that they amazingly wash away after a good soak, and eventually it’s as if the whole thing never happened. Also, if we are going to have this much hoopla about a stripper, where’s our retrospective razzing of Richie and his mates for taking the world cup to an exclusive strip joint called Platinum Lace? No worries mate and, hey, Chasing Great out in all good cinemas now.

“The conclusions are valid and realistic”

Realistic, I take that to mean, because who could possibly believe that a large group of young men on the beers would exploit and disrespect a woman hired to dance for them on her own. The much more likely option is that the Scarlette made it up, because it’s very valid to note that women, especially those in the adult industry, are unhinged lying harlot banshees from the underworld and the boys are, well, the boys. Just look how well they kick the ball your honour, case closed.

What could Scarlette possibly have to gain from making the allegations up? Wow, just look at all the opportunities that have cropped up since! Two jobs lost, what a career boost! Meanwhile, the press conference was very focussed on the tarnished careers of these rugby players, who will have to wait until November’s pre-season before they can kick the ol’ ball around. The biggest blow to the poor guys is there being no sweet sweet My Food Bag delivery at their doorstep!

There has been a “full caution issued”

The whole team is being held accountable for the “poor decision-making”, instead of individual parties. Even the 16 players who weren’t there! Because if only one or two people were punished then that would suggest that something had actually happened, and absolutely nothing happened.

As has been observed on Twitter, The Chiefs are hugely embarrassed and disappointed about all the nothing that happened. They hope to rebuild from all the nothing to make a… something… but not before addressing all this nothing head-on.

The events were “not substantiated”

The men spoke of the “clear and unbiased account” of the witnesses involved, nine of which were independent from the Chiefs party. Having independent voices is good, so thank god the whole inquiry itself was run by New Zealand Rugby, the Chiefs’ owners. In response to her claims being unsubstantiated, Scarlette has issued this advice to women:

“My advice for all women is if you are going to attend an all-male event such as the one organised by the Chiefs, whether you are a paid worker or not, take a friend or a supporter who can make sure you are safe and who can vouch for you afterwards if needed.”

Again, we’re left to conclude the responsibility grimly falls on the woman to put the measures in place to protect her body and her testimony. Why didn’t she bring security? Why wasn’t she wearing an American flag lapel camera? Why didn’t she drag along a Justice of the Peace attached to a lie detector?

“It’s worth noting that the police haven’t taken further action”

It’s also worth noting that the police haven’t taken further action for reasons “which include consideration of her wishes”. This seems to indicate that it could have something to do with a reluctance on Scarlette’s part to submitting to our famously welcoming justice system – rather than simply a lack of evidence – which drove the Police’s decision-making.

Maybe worth noting that too?

Additional reporting: Duncan Greive