Kuggeleijn stance ‘damaging’
New Zealand Cricket’s stance over Black Cap Scott Kuggeleijn has deeply damaged its standing among Kiwi women and will reinforce the under-reporting of sexual assaults in the country, some academics say.
Khylee Quince and Dr Jess Berentson-Shaw believe the issues raised by Kuggeleijn’s selection go to the heart of issues such as consent and cricketing’s governing body has been stuck in a response that is five to 10 years out of date.
‘‘It’s caused significant damage,’’ said Quince, an associate professor, the school of law, at AUT and huge cricket fan. ‘‘They were given an opportunity to back down and change the message on a couple of occasions.
‘‘They could have changed their tune and they didn’t,’’ said Dr Berentson-Shaw, a researcher and public communicator. ‘‘They’ve read the room wrong. They are operating in a space that was acceptable or these organisations maybe 10, maybe five years ago.’’
NZC has been criticised for a perceived ‘‘head in the sand’’ approach to Kuggeleijn, who went to trial twice on rape charges and was acquitted in 2017 after the first trial had returned a hung jury.
Quince said the organisation’s lack of a public response to the Kuggeleijn case and its silence in the face of public protests had left her ‘‘baffled’’ and fed the narrative that it wasn’t taking women’s concerns seriously.
‘‘Their response has been pretty embarrassing, to be honest,’’ she said.
‘‘The woman in the street knows that the law of consent, the way that it’s dealt with and the legal system – judges, juries, and lawyers in particular – the way they handle cases – and the police – there is a strong public perception that it is done very poorly, so there wasn’t a good starting point.
‘‘Kuggeleijn’s case was one the worst cases in that regard but it’s part of a pattern . . . there is a huge under-reporting of sexual assaults in New Zealand and this certainly didn’t help it. NZ Cricket’s response adds to a societal response, that we don’t take this seriously.’’
Quince and Dr BerentsonShaw said the anger among women wasn’t necessarily due to Kuggeleijn’s inclusion in the New Zealand T20 side but that NZC had failed to ‘front foot’ a conversation about sexual violence and consent. ‘‘New Zealand Cricket has a huge influence on a large number of kids, not just boys, but girls as well,’’ Dr Berentson-Shaw said. ‘‘It’s a missed opportunity for them.
‘‘New Zealand Cricket and cricketers are important messengers for other men and if those messengers don’t stand up and say, ‘Hey look,this is not acceptable any more’ then their silence is just taken as ‘nah, we’re pretty OK with the situation’.’’
However, senior employment lawyer Jeremy Ansell said NZC’s response was appropriate and in line with both its own role and its relationship with Kuggeleijn, who is contracted to Northern Districts (ND) but not NZC.
ND are party to a Master Agreement with NZC and the New Zealand Cricket Players Association. Neither NZC nor ND could deal with Kuggeleijn in any way that would contradict the terms of the Master Agreement.
Had he been convicted of rape then there would have been scope for Northern Districts to have immediately terminated his contract under the ‘‘misconduct not during the course of a match’’ clause, Ansell said.
But in the absence of a conviction, for NZC or Northern Districts to make any comment about his character or alleged conduct would seriously undermine their legal relationship with him.
The situation would not be significantly different were Kuggeleijn an employee of NZC, he said.
‘‘Employers are still obliged to deal with their employees in good faith and uphold trust and confidence when investigating allegations,’’ Ansell said.
‘‘This would include not making public comments to the media about the allegations the employee was exposed to, which is what many have called for NZC to do.
‘‘NZC . . . owes obligations to its members, not to the New Zealand public or to the #metoo movement. Its interest is to select the cricketers it best thinks will win matches for New Zealand and, presently, it believes Kuggeleijn is one of those people.’’
Quince had sympathy for this argument but said that there were already precedents in New Zealand cricket of players being excluded for reasons other than form.
‘‘The fact that he was acquitted, that’s not the threshold where an employer can say, ‘there’s nothing to see here’,’’ she said.
‘‘People like Jesse Ryder were clearly excluded. He was killing it in first-class cricket for years.
‘‘I absolutely do not buy the line that selection in any sports team is purely about form.’’