‘Significant difference’ seen in rebel tours

Press, 15 April 1986, Page 3

‘Significant difference’ seen in rebel tours

PA Wellington A significant difference might exist between the rebel rugby tour and the rebel tour of South Africa by Australian cricketers, said Wellington’s spokesman for Hart, Mr Trevor Richards. The Australian Cricket Board had taken strong action against its rebel players by banning them all from representing Australia for three years and state cricketing authorities had imposed similar bans.

Although some players on the tour were virtually “over the hill,” at least half of them would expect

to have a few years of All Black rugby ahead of them and would probably withdraw if they knew that was jeopardised, said Mr Richards. Mr Pat Hunt, of the pro-South African sporting contact group, 5.P.R.1., said it was ridiculous to suggest that the 1990 Commonwealth Games could be lost to Auckland because of the tour.

He was commenting on remarks made by Auckland’s Mayor, Dame Catherine Tizard. Mr Hunt, former National member of Parliament for Pakuranga, said an Australian rebel cricket team had

gone to South Africa and a British Isles rugby team had travelled to the republic within the last two years and nothing had followed from that.

It would be hypocritical for any international sanctions to be imposed against New Zealand because of the rugby tour, said Mr Hunt.

“We regret they had to go in this manner. However, the injunction last year made it necessary. The important thing is that they have every right to do so.”

Mr Hunt said he hoped that the union would take no action against the players.