Rugby man against tour

Press, 26 September 1980, Page 1

Rugby man against tour

A prominent and respected rugby figure, Professor J. D. Stewart, said

yesterday that the New Zealand Rugby Union council’s invitation to the Springboks to tour New Zealand next year was a “thoroughly bad decision.” A former Canterbury representative coach of high repute and a nominee for the All Black position, he said he had been appalled to learn of the invitation on his . return from a business trip to China. He believed it would do New Zealand untold harm.

“I believe that it is bad diplomatically, politically, economically, and culturally,” he said. He had changed his own position on this matter in

recent years as his under-

standing of New Zealand’s position in the world had broadened and deepened.

Professor Stewart is the principal of Lincoln College and his views have been shaped in his travels as an international consultant in agriculture and through university work. His passion for rugby is undiminished but he is strongly opposed to the decision to invite the Springboks. “People might judge the moral issues in their own way,” he said. “Some members of certain organisations seem to have tun-

nel vision in a world where suppression of human rights is international and com-

prehensive and often insidious.

“I personally, and regretfully, ’ have to say I believe that if there has been a change of attitude in South African rugby it has been a matter of expedience rather .than . a change of heart. ■ . “I believe that it would be a-grievous mistake for the (South African) team to come; further deepening the divisions in this country. The, attitude reflected in the union’s decision is the. kind which is accelerating our slide towards being an isolated, declining, Anglo-Saxon remnant in the South Pacific. “If we don’t have a different vision of ourselves as a JPacific nation, the slide wjll be steeper.” Professor Stewart said he ' had great respect. for the “immense” contribution which the members of the New Zealand Rugby. Union had made to rugby but- he disagreed sharply with their view that their obligation was only to the game.

■■ “Knowing many of them, I can’t imagine that they all believe that,” he said. In Parliament, Mr N. P. H. Jones (Nat., Invercargill) ' said that the police could handle any disruption against the pro-; posed tour , “with their eyes closed.” Mr R. W. Prebble (Lab., 'Auckland Central) had asked the Minister of Police (Mr Couch) -for an assurance that the .police would be able to handle any disruption that the itour would cause. Mr Jones interjected: Do it with their eyes closed. ... The Acting Speaker (Mr Luxton) rilled that the question called for an “expression of opinion.”

■ When Mr Prebble' asked if the Minister would seek a .report from the police ipn their . capabilities of handling any disruption, Mr Couch replied that. it was,too early to judge the; level of intensity of ,dem'oristrations against the tour. ~ Police planning would start soon. In Auckland a, .member Ofthe Rugby .1 Union’s Council, Mr Ron. Don,.-. said it would appear that many, national sports <■ assoc/ ations had to accept political domination because they could not survive without. /Government financial-handouts. '.‘••He was commenting on a statement by the Minister of Sport (Mr Highet) that the Government could, cut off funds to the Rugby Union if the ■ Springbok tour went ahead. -■ Mr Don said •’ he; could easily find a political , : rea-' son. for not participating ih sport with every country in the world. ' . '' ■ “For instance, if morals and racial problems are to be the political yardstick ! would have to .cross off, ph both counts, the United States.

*“Not... very . long ago inany. New Zealanders wanted a sports boycott,.of France because of the nilclear bomb tests’ in the Pacific. Where will it end.?’’