Let Boks in — just to look

Press, 28 February 1981, Page 16

Let Boks in — just to look

By

JOHN WILSON

•Faced with the Rugby Union's persistent refusal to withdraw its invitation to the Springboks to tour New Zealand, the Government has in effect thrown up its hands, claiming it has done all it can and cannot actually stop the Springboks coming without violating some supposed right -people .of other countries have to visit New Zealand as they please.

In fact, of course, no such right exists. The Immigration Act gives the Minister of Immigration power to refuse to allow the Springboks or anyone else into New Zealand even for a visit, to decide how long visitors can star, and to impose restrictions on what they can do while they are here.

The Government has insisted that it is not required bv the Gleneagles Agreement ■ to use these powers, which is probably correct going by the letter.’if not the spirit of the agreement. The Government . also apparently believes that,there are no other grounds which justify its fusing these , powers to refuse the .Springboks ’“ entry, al- '■ though many .taxpayers, facing their share of the bill to . police the / tour and. many i concerned about New Zealand's international reputa/tiori would dispute this. . • :In 1973, the then Prime /Minister,, Mr N... E. -Kirk, decided that there were good reasons to use the; Govern-

ment's powers to stop the Springboks from coming. But a National Government can hardly be asked to follow a precedent set by a Labour Prime Minister. Are there, then, any precedents set by former National Governments to which the Government could be asked to conform (even though consistency with what the National Party has done or stood for in the past is not a notable feature .of Mr Muldoon's Government)? On the surface, there is not much in common between a team of burly Springboks and a British woman “entertainer” with a past considered shady. Butthe grounds the then Minister of Immigration (Mr Tom Shand) gave in 1965 for refusing Miss Mandy Rice-Davies, of Profumo scandal fame, permission to enter New Zealand •for a theatrical engagement are not entirely irrelevent to .the case of the Springboks, 1981.

Mr Shand advised the promoter of Miss Rice-Davies’ proposed visit that her admission would give rise to widespread resentment — which is surely as true of the Springboks' this year as it was of Miss Rice-Davies in

1965. ' Mi- Shand, however, had some misgivings about using the country’s immigration laws to impose some form of moral censorship — although

he admitted he had used his powers on many occasions to refuse entry to persons not barred by statute from coming to New Zealand. His misgivings prompted him to explain that there were four grounds on which the right to enter New Zealand was routinely withheld and that in Miss Rice-Davies’ case the ground applicable was that her entry would give offence to. a substantial section of “our” people; Mr shand further ex-

plained that when exercising his judgment on this point, he asked himself whether the admission of a person was likely to give offence to a substantial proportion of New Zealand's people and if it was, whether exclusion would give offence of equivalent magnitude to another section of the community. It would be rather like dancing on the head of a pin to have to decide who would be most offended in the case of the Springboks — the Rugby Football Union if they were excluded, or HART if

they are allowed in. - (bne other ground for refusing entry to which Mr Shand referred, without actually applying it to Miss RiceDavies, was that , the person

seeking entry was believed to be of bad character, and likely to create a disturbance. The moral characters of individual Springboks cannot, perhaps, be judged at this distance, but there can be no doubt that their presence here will cause a disturbance.) Mr Shand also advanced as a reason for refusing Miss Rice-Davies permission to enter to do a theatrical show that she had sought a guarantee of overseas funds for her performance. He saw it as his ministerial responsibility to avoid a waste of overseas funds, since the fee Miss Rice-Davies was expecting was not related to what artists of comparable merit could expect to command on the grounds of their artistic ability alone. If money is allowed to enter into the argument, it perhaps should be asked whether it is responsible to contemplate spending Government funds to police, the tour (which the Government has calculated would cost a tidy sum) at a time when reductions in Government spending are being insisted on in order to hold inflation. On balance, the precedent set by the National Government in 1965 in the case of Miss Rice-Davies would seem. to provide some grounds for expecting the Government to refuse the Springboks permission to enter New Zealand. At least

the earlier case establishes that a National Government can be' persuaded, if the grounds are good enough, to use the powers given it by the; Immigration Act. And governments. National and Labour, have used these powers freely enough through the years. One other more recent episode also has some bearing on the current debate about whether the Springboks should come, and suggests a course the Government could take to avoid the predicament it is in.

In 1978, three times in quick succession, the Government ruled that certain visitors could not enter New Zealand unless they agreed to refrain from discussing politics while they were here. The Government’s reason, in all three cases, for imposing this restriction was to avoid giving offence or embarrassment to. other governments with which it wished to keep on good terms. The visitors — from North Korea, South Africa and East Timor — were all as committed to politics as Springboks are to rugby. New Zealand is running a considerable risk of getting in bad odour internationally if the Springboks play football here. Could the Government perhaps apply the strategy it used in 1978 to avoid giving offence and let the Springboks in, provided they refrain from playing rugby while they are here?