South Africa ‘using’ sports bodies—M.P.

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32634, 16 June 1971, Page 30

South Africa ‘using’ sports bodies—M.P.

(New Zealand Press Association)

PALMERSTON NORTH.

Some New Zealand sports bodies were being heavily subsidised by South Africa so that tours of that country could take place, said the member of Parliament for Northern Maori (Mr M. Rata) at a forum organised by the Manawatu branch of the United Nations Association of New Zealand in Palmerston North.

These sports bodies were engaged in almost secret arrangements with South Africa for the continuation of these tours, he said.

Plans were in hand for a rifle team, a bowling team, a women’s cricket team, and a softball team either to play in or tour South Africa within the next year. “Are sporting bodies so gullible that they will allow themselves and their code to be used by South Africa to fulfil that country’s demand for international sport which it has forfeited because of its repugnant policies?” asked Mr Rata. “This is one of the basic reasons why I feel we should get involved in South African issues, because I feel we have been used by that country. For 30 years we Maoris were left behind when teams toured there because it suited them. CHANGED POLICY "Only when the New Zealand public refused to countenance this any more did they change their policy and the New Zealand Rugby Football Union went along with it

“Many people in New Zealand confuse a love of sport with the greater love of humanity. So many New Zea-

land sporting bodies do not want to share responsibility on the issue of apartheid and are content to say: ‘Do not mix sport with politics,’ ’’ said Mr Rata.

It was obvious that New Zealanders were not prepared to make any sacrifices which would directly affect them despite their persistent utterances in the United Nations, of being utterly opposed to the philosophy of apartheid, he said.

New Zealand nearly held the record for being the most persistent and consistent abstainer on apartheid questions in the United Nations. Surely New Zealand could be expected to show some practical meaning to its opposition to the policy of apartheid, for up to now its stance would appear to be insincere. “GIVE EFFECT” “Everyone in New Zealand says he is opposed to apartheid. The question is how do we give effect to this opposition in practical terms,” said Mr Rata. "To me there are three views we must consider: isolation, partial isolation, or maintaining our present association. If we are not prepared to make a decision on any of these ourselves—and our record of abstentions in the United Nations really indicates that we are indecisive on the matter—then our next step is to consider United Nations recommendations on the matter. “If we believe that we are unable to support any of them we should not hesitate to initiate alternatives to those put forward. “I am mystified as to why we have never initiated a resolution on apartheid. It

does not matter whether it passes or not. It would be better to have tried and failed than to have another 24-year record of abstentions,'* said Mr Rata.