Aboriginal
and Maori Teams for World Cup?
The
argument for including Australian and New Zealand indigenous teams in
the 2008 Rugby League World Cup.
The
suggestion has been made that the controversial 'grandparent rule' will
be available to NRL and English Super League players for the 2008 Rugby
League World Cup.
On
the surface this rule is a reasonable option and helps to strengthen
the competing nations. It does however raise a serious question - is
it fair to players of Aboriginal and Maori heritage?
If
a NRL player misses out on
the Australian Kangaroos or New Zealand Kiwis then he will likely look
to the 'grandparent rule' to get a run elsewhere.
Some players ultimately could have a further two or even three (four
would raise questions about their family!) countries they could be eligible
for. There will be plenty of NRL players who miss out on the Kangaroos
or Kiwis looking at their options back in the 'home nations' teams of
England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland. Others will look to the Pacific
Islands national teams.
The
fact that Australia and New Zealand were being populated by ongoing
migration throughout the 20th century means that many NRL players will
have at least one grandparent from elsewhere in the world - particularly
from the 'home nations'.
But what of the players with Maori or Aboriginal grandparents? What
second or third option do they have if they miss the New Zealand or
Australian side (respectively)?
If the number of NRL players eligible for use of the 'grandparent rule'
was very small, then arguably there is no disadvantage to players with
Maori or Aboriginal grandparents. However that is not the case. We saw
at the 2000 RL World Cup many NSWRL lower grade and Queensland Cup players
turning out for national teams.
The
point is if most NRL players have a second option, and Maori or Aboriginal
players do not, then there is an issue of potential dispute.
Putting the issue of the 'grandparent rule' aside, there are further
reasons for consideration of New Zealand Maori and Australian Aboriginal
teams in the 2008 RLWC.
The first reason is purely based on the large indigenous populations
of both Australia and New Zealand who play rugby league - and they play
it very well! These player pools are larger than that which some of
the participating countries will have!
Some
will argue that the World Cup's credibility will be challenged if Maori
and Aboriginal teams are included. Yet valid reasons for their inclusion
in this tournament are readily to be found - and their teams will be
competitive. For the 'Maoris' team it is historical, for the 'Aboriginal'
team it is as traditional hosts.
This
World Cup tournament is meant to celebrate the commencement of rugby
league in Australia in 1908. During that first season we were visited
by two international teams - the New Zealand Kiwis and the New Zealand
Maoris.
The
'Maoris' reappearance in the Centenary World Cup tournament could therefore
be argued on historical grounds.
The inclusion of the 'Aboriginals' side would be a way of paying respect
to the traditional owners of the lands on which the 2008 World Cup is
to be played. It is not inconceivable that despite the Cup being played
in Australia, despite the huge number of Aboriginals who play rugby
league, not one will take to the field in a World Cup match.
The
matter will require some careful examination by the RLWC organisers
and indigenous communities alike.
I would favour both teams being part of the 2008 Rugby League World
Cup - the New Zealand Maoris (as part of the centenary celebrations)
and the Australian Aboriginals (as traditional hosts).
