THE PRESS THURSDAY APRIL 9. 1981. Australia and the tour

Press, 9 April 1981, Page 18

THE PRESS THURSDAY APRIL 9. 1981. Australia and the tour

There is no suggestion in the statement, made by the Australian Minister of Foreign Affairs (Mr Street), that its purpose was to put pressure on New Zealand to stop the tour by the Springbok team. Mr Street was replying to a question from a Liberal Party member of the House of Representatives from Queensland. As Minister, Mr Street was bound to make some reply. The reply that he did make was a calculated one, spelling out the implications of the Springbok tour of New Zealand for Australia and for the rest of the Commonwealth as he saw it. He pointedly said that it was not a quarrel with the New Zealand Government. A fortnight ago today, the Australian Prime Minister (Mr Fraser), in replying to a question on the same topic, said that the New Zealand Prime Minister (Mr Muldoon) had recently, for the first time, made clear his personal opposition to the tour, and Mr Fraser rejected any suggestion that the Australian Government would stop an invitation being issued to New Zealand to attend the Commonwealth Games in Brisbane in 1982.

Mr Street’s statement was a clarification for domestic Australian interest. Had it been a statement on his own initiative about relations between Australia and New Zealand a different interpretation might be put on it, but the question came from a member whose home state is host to the Commonwealth Games and who might be said to have a legitimate interest in the success of the Games. The cancellation of the visit of Mr Street to New Zealand, about a fortnight ago, came about because his visit was being interpreted as bringing pressure on New Zealand to call off the Springbok tour. Such pressure, had it been true, would have been unacceptable to the. New Zealand Government but in any case the Australian Government is wise enough to want to avoid to be seen in any role of “big brother” over any issue, let alone one as sensitive to domestic politics in an election year as a tour by the Springboks.

The Australian Government has made no bones about the fact that it would like to see the tour called off and its own formulation of policies would make such a tour impossible. The main two tenets of its policy are that sporting teams or groups of sportsmen domiciled in South Africa will not be granted entry to Australia irrespective of whether they intend to represent South Africa or any South African organisation, and individual sportsmen' will not be granted entry to , compete in Australia as representatives of j South Africa or any South African I.

organisation. Such policies have been easier for the Australian Government to follow because rugby has less importance to the Australian public than it does to many New Zealanders. There is a difference between following its own policies and believing that a number of problems would be solved if the tour did not take place on the one hand and making threats. Mr Street made no threats.

The question is one that will have to be decided by New Zealanders. Undoubtedly, if the tour goes ahead there will be a number of international repercussions, almost certainly affecting the Brisbane Games. To make themselves aware of these implications is the very least that New Zealanders can do. The international costs have to be counted along with the domestic costs, both financial and in the divisive effects that they have on the fabric of the society. New Zealand is likely to find itself the subject of a number of questions in a number of Parliaments besides the Australian Parliament. Whether any other actions will follow remains to be seen. In the meantime it is not surprising that questions are being asked about New Zealand in the country which is host to the next Commonwealth Games.

Suggestions have been made that New Zealand will not be invited to the Commonwealth Games, thus avoiding the possibility of a boycott of 15 or so other Commonwealth members. In fact the invitation has already been issued and accepted. The possibility still exists that New Zealand may be asked to withdraw its acceptance. There is nothing in the constitution of the British Commonwealth Games Federation which covers that point. The closest the constitution comes to it is under the regulations, section 22, which reads: “The invitations to take part in the British Commonwealth Games shall be sent out by the British Commonwealth Games Association of the host country, in conjunction with the committee organising the games, and on the instructions of the British Commonwealth Games Federation.” Presumably a special meeting of the federation might be able to revise its original decision on who should be invited. The legal position should not be the determining factor in this. The New Zealand men and women who take part at Brisbane would at least want to feel welcome and the New Zealanders who attended the Commonwealth Games would also seek to be accepted in the way that New Zealanders and Australians have always accepted one another. That point alone is enough reason for the tour not to take place.