The review confirmed what those with some knowledge in this area already knew: that at the professional level of the game, New Zealand Rugby does an okay job at educating players about the need to be respectful in all their relationships, including those with women.
NZR and all the various professional and semi-professional clubs mostly promote wholesome, healthy attitudes and behaviours and there is not an endemic misogynistic culture.
But with rugby spanning as far as it does, there are some players who transgress. Some individuals have abusive relationships and predatory attitudes towards women.
There are some clubs, and/or administrators within who don't do enough to promote and ensure young men are being respectful, nor do they follow up with consistent and appropriate disciplinary or rehabilitation programmes.
The review identified all this, concluded that NZR could do better and then set an appropriate list of identified priorities for the national body to fix.
And this is why NZR now has a defining choice to make. They can take the review at face value, put in place the relevant personnel and programmes to improve what they are already doing and report every year on their progress.
They will have a charter with impressive aims and goals and no doubt a data set to prove they are living up to their promises and reducing the number of worrisome abusive incidents.
But that's a corporate vision which is really about being seen to be doing the right thing. Having bits of paper that promise to build a sport that is empowering, respectful and progressive is really about arse-covering and box ticking.
The real question for NZR is whether they want to give the illusion they are promoting equality or whether they want to actually promote equality.
If it is the latter as they say it is, then they will use the review not as end in itself, but as a start to ask what they can do to rebuild the sport so as they don't need to be reporting on their efforts to be inclusive and respectful every year.
They will instead have a sport that is identifiably inclusive in its everyday existence. So how do they get there?
The first step is to get dictatorial with the provincial unions. No more encouraging and pleading and instead, stark, non-negotiable terms laid down that are linked to funding.
Any union that doesn't have a female representation of 50 per cent on their board can have their funding cut off until they do. When NZR does hand out grants to unions, why not tag a significant proportion that must be spent on women's rugby?
The unions, hardly any of them anyway, have invested in women's rugby by choice. They are mostly all-male boards - women account for about eight per cent of all available provincial seats - who have taken the extra money from the Lions tour and invested it in their elite male team, poaching players from each other, driving up individual pay packets.
This happens while hundreds, if not thousands of girls come out of school, keen to play but can't because their union says they don't have any money to help develop women's clubs.
Any new sponsor brought into the game at any level should be asked to invest dollar for dollar in the women's game and NZR has to take some onus to lead by example and treat the Blacks Ferns and Black Ferns Sevens the same as their male equivalents.
Never again should the Black Ferns fly to a World Cup in economy class, earning $5,500 less per week than the All Blacks.
The opportunity to make significant and meaningful change is there, NZR just needs to decide whether it is ready to make it.
