Govt defends stand on visas for Springboks

Press, 21 March 1981, Page 1

Govt defends stand on visas for Springboks

Wellington reporter

The Minister of Immigration (Mr Malcolm) yesterday denied assertions by opponents of the Springbok tour that the Government was “inconsistent” in its decisions to withhold visas from some groups and grant them to others.

HART and the president of the Supreme Council for Sport in Africa (Dr Abraham Ordia) have’ been saying that the Gleneagles Agreement can be honoured only by the withdrawal of visas to the visiting team, based on agreement wording saying that the “urgent duty” of the Government is to “vigorously combat the evil of apartheid by . . - taking every practical step to discourage contact or competiton bv their nationals with . sporting organisations, teams, or sportsmen from South. Africa . . .” Mr Malcolm confirmed yesterday that the Government could legally withhold visas from the Springbok team, and that it had the sovereign ’right to choose who crossed its borders. It had chosen not to withhold visas from the Springboks because of its well established policy of not denying entry permits to sports and cultural groups simply because it did not like their politics. ' His personal view was that the sincerity of people’s opposition to the tour. would be tested by their refusal to attend the matches and the Broadcasting Council’s refusal td telecast matches. International news media reports saying, “The Springboks were soundly beaten before a crowd of two,” would shame South Africa as much as Government intervention in withholding visas. It was tantalising to examine the legalities of compelling the New Zealand Rugby Union to pay an amount towards - the $2.7 million cost of maintaining law and order, but the rough legal position was that the union ■ was exercising its democratic right to invite the team, and contributions might more fairly be expected from those who. breached the law. Mr Malcolm said that in the final analysis, power to withhold visas from the Springbok's lay with him. He could not vary Government policy except with the sanction of the Cabinet.

If the Cabinet did not vary it, and he was committed to refusing visas, his only proper choice would be to resign, “I do not plan to resign yet, at least not over this issue,” he said. Mr Malcolm answered the inconsistencies asserted by HART of the Government in its refusal to issue visas. They were: —The decision in 1965 by the then Minister of Labour and Immigration (Mr Shand) to deny a work permit to Mandy Rice-Davies to enter for employment as an entertainer. If Miss Rice-Davies had applied .for entry under a tourist visa, not. accepting "paid” employment, she would have succeeded, Mr Malcolm said." Mr Shand htade this clear at the time., —The (visit of Jose Ramos Horta of the Fretelin movement. HART as-': serted either that Mr Horta was offered a visa only on condition that he did not champion the Fretelin cause or that he was not issued a permit even conditionally. Mr Malcolm said Mr' Horta’s supporters wrote to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs asking for its attitude to a lecture tour by Mr Horta of New Zealand. The Government saying the visit -was not Propitious at that time because of visits at the same time by Indonesian officials. (The Fretelin group in East Timor was violently opposed to Indonesia’s take-overofEasf Timor . after ' the Portuguese left) It also told .Mr Horta -to seek entry under the correct permit. A "paid” lec» ture tour could be permitted und-r a work visa but not under a tourist visa. He was also told to apply under a valid passport, as at the time East Timor was not officially recognised.

. Mr Horta applied for a 10-day tourist visa under a valid passport, saying, he would be visiting friends. This was granted, unconditionally. Mr Horta wrote to the Ministry saying, “That you have done this in spite of your overwhelming relationship with Indonesia shows you are a true democracy.” However. Mr Horta never came. The Government accepted that Mr Horta would speak in New Zealand when it granted the tourist visa, Mr Malcolm said.'

—The 1978 refusal to grant visas to a Taiwan soccer team. Mr Malcolm said the New Zealand High Commission in Hong Kong was instructed to issue visas to the team. The instruction was never publicised. —Refusals to grant visas to North Koreans. Any North Korean entering New Zealand on the passport of a country recognised by New Zealand, and as a private visitor, was a legal ■ immigrant. North Koreans were being admitted i “all the time” in this way. The Government could not, however, accept North Korean official delegations or visitors to New Zealand while it did not recognise the North Korean Government. In the recent case of three North

Koreans refused entry, all three were travelling on North Korean passports endorsed for an official trip./When' they said they were visiting privately, their case did not stand against the facts. —lsabel Allende -had entered New Zeal and to encourage. Federation of Labour support for the trade ban on Chile, which was costing the Government an estimated $6O million in lost trade. Shewas the activist wife, of one of Fidel Castro’s high-est-ranking officials / and the Government was in no doubt about her politics. It was -the . view of. the Government that her visit would annoy and offend a big proportion of New Zealanders, but she was given a visa. ■■■-'?' —Two delegates from Russia were given visas each year to attend F.O.L. annual conferences. Some of these had been publicly named as senior K.G.B. officials. The Government did not like their politics, or Russia’s human rights record, and many New Zealanders would disapprove of their entry, but they were granted visas. The Government baton visas'to official Soviet delegations after the Afghan nistan invasion by Russia would prevent . issue of visas, to a. Soviet , sports ■ team, Mr Malcolm, Said. The ’only ■* exception would be •’ hypothetical because Russia never sent unofficial sports teams anywhere. ,