P.M. attacks Rugby Union for ‘selfishness’

Press, 19 April 1985, Page 1

P.M. attacks Rugby Union for ‘selfishness’

By

PATRICIA HERBERT

in Wellington

The Prime Minister, Mr Lange, launched a bitter attack yesterday on the “selfishness” of the New Zealand Rugby Union and defended his handling of the tour issue.

He attacked the union’s decision to send the All Blacks to South Africa as repugnant, out of touch, dated, elderly, and strange. He also repeated the hope that considered, sincerely expressed public pressure might induce a change of heart in the union councillors. “I doubt it but I don’t turn from it,” he said. Clearly the Government wants an expression from New Zealanders of opposition to the decision for consumption abroad. “If people protest they will do so overwhelmingly and they will have shown the world a quality of moral judgment and courage which the Rugby Union left behind,” Mr Lange said. He warned, however, against violence not only out of a commitment to the rule of law but also out of the belief that it would be counter-productive. The union’s posture would become more rigid only if members were given the chance to react to threats, he said. They would respond “very vigorously for the tour” because the level at which they worked was “essentially about the intellectual standing of all-in wrestling.” Mr Lange deplored the Wednesday night burning —

suspected arson — of the Belfast Rugby Club’s premises, near Christchurch saying that it was “exactly the sort of action which entrenches this obstinacy on the part of the union.” He made the comments at a post-caucus press conference in which he once again and finally ruled out the possibility of withholding passports from the All Blacks or charging the union for the estimated $4 million policing costs the tour may incur. He confirmed, however, that cutting off State assistance to rugby was still on the agenda and said the union could no longer expect to receive “indulgences from the Government.” Mr Lange also justified his approach to the Rugby Union’s council and specifically his controversial letter of March 30 in which he said that the tour “must not proceed.” He said the statement fitted perfectly the terms of “the Kirk expression” of 1973 and that it also “slotted immaculately” into what the union had said would have caused it to abort the 1981 Springbok tour of New Zealand. The Rugby Union’s chairman, Mr Ces Blazey, is said to have then said that the union would accept a direc-

tion from the Government to abandon the tour if it was judged to be against the national interest. Mr Blazey said on Wednesday that he did not recall making the statement but did not deny that he might have made it. He said, however, that the circumstances were different, as the proposition was then to have the Springboks play in New Zealand and also that, even if it was said, it would be binding only on the then council and not on the present one. Mr Lange said Mr Blazey had, in terms of rugby politics, “an agility which makes a chameleon look absolutely rigid.” He conceded, however, that he had not gained a specific assurance from Mr Blazey that the 1981 stance still applied. “But they let it (the statement) remain and they were also quite specific that they were not competent to judge issues apart from rugby and they would leave them to the Government,” Mr Lange said. He also said that, when the union had asked for clarification on the status of his injunction not to tour, he had assumed it was sticking to the 1981 position. If that was not the case,

why would it bother asking if it was a direction or a plea? he asked. Mr Lange was asked why, before he went overseas, he had seemed optimistic that the union would not go ahead. “They had been talking very fully of the distinction between what rugby can do and what the Government’s responsibilities were,” he said. “When I left New Zealand on March 30 and they had not made a decision, I thought there was a possibility that they would announce the tour’s proceeding when I was in Africa. “But, when I was in Melbourne, I received advice that they were questioning and asking for clarification on two issues — the nature of the directive and the great damage that would result. “It seemed to me then that it was reasonable to assume they were actually approaching the matter on the basis of drawing a distinction between the interests of rugby and the interests of New Zealand.” Mr Lange said that he did not imagine there would be “any economic retaliation at all” or that the 1990 Commonwealth Games in Auckland would be put in jeopardy. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr McLay, called on Mr Lange to summon those groups now threatening disorder and to “command” them to “desist from anything that smacks in any measure of unlawfulness.” Mr McLay said that National intended to make no further attempt to discourage the tour and that the Rugby Union had acted within its rights. Mr McLay’s response to comments by some of his colleagues that they approved the tour and were pleased it was going ahead was that the National Party adhered to the Gleneagles Agreement on sports contacts.

“Those individuals are entitled to their views and that has always been the case,” he said.