THE PRESS THURSDAY, MAY 14, 1987. P.M. on the ball?

Press, 14 May 1987, Page 20

THE PRESS THURSDAY, MAY 14, 1987. P.M. on the ball?

Many New Zealanders, wearied by the division and rancour that two ill-considered rugby tours have brought to almost any discussion of the game, would agree with the Minister of Internal Affairs, Mr Tapsell, that past battles should be forgotten — always provided that the New Zealand Rugby Union played straight on the issue of dealings with South Africa. Why then has the Prime Minister, Mr Lange, reopened the old wounds in such an unforgiving manner? By past actions the Rugby Union has forfeited its credibility in many quarters. Its no-win predicament was demonstrated clearly by Mr Lange himself. He challenged the Rugby Union to end its "conspicuous silence” about the possibility of a tour of South Africa by a team of New Zealand rugby players — or a team containing New Zealand players — after the Rugby World Cup competition ends. In the same breath he said that “any answer I got from the Rugby Union I would not believe.” For this the Rugby Union has only itself to blame. It is just conceivable, however, that the reason the Rugby Union has said nothing about a possible tour is because it has nothing to say. Rumours of a possible tour might be no more than that.* Does the impending General Election have anything to do with Mr Lange’s stirring of the pot? Or is he on the ball with some pretty hard evidence that a tour is in the offing? If the former is the case, Mr Lange runs a grave danger of being hoist with his own petard; if the latter, he would do better to make all public, now that he has given the Rugby Union a chance to come clean.

In the final analysis Mr Lange’s Government, like any other New Zealand Government, has no legal authority to prevent ordinary New Zealanders leaving the country to play sport against whomever they like, as individuals or as a team. The strongest possible objections can be voiced; the most earnest pleadings made; all manner of domestic admonitions and handicaps — such as withdrawal of funding or the imposition of more restrictive controls on offending organisations — can be applied; but, when it comes to the crunch, sportsmen and women suffer no special obstacles to overseas travel. Few New Zealanders would have it any other way. The right of free movement and free association is only a right if it is enjoyed by all. Mr Lange’s stick-waving can accomplish

nothing, unless it is misconstrued perversely as some sort of dare. His comments lack value even as a confirmation — scarcely needed — of the Government’s commitment to the Gleneagles Agreement; indeed, his statement that he will not bother to investigate the rumour — because, he said, he could not believe any answers he got — is open to interpretation by the more committed opponents of sporting links with South Africa as a failure to fulfil the Government’s obligation under the agreement to take “every practical step to discourage contact...” Mr Lange’s best weapon to foil tour plans, if plans there are, would be to reveal them as he knows them and lay bare the Machiavellian duplicity at which he hints so strongly. Without something more concrete than what amounts to bar-room gossip, his alleged disclosures bear the stamp of a calculated mischief to the World Cup competition, perhaps in retaliation for the Cavaliers’ tour, which showed just how toothless the Government is in these matters. Mr Lange need not forgive nor forget the affront he obviously feels that the Cavaliers’ tour was to him and his Government; he should be wary, though, of applying the knotty precept of guilt by association to the World Cup competition. Guilt by association is likely to dog the New Zealand Rugby Union, however, if a team from any other union, or a composite team, does tour South Africa after the World Cup. The only way for the New Zealand Rugby Union to avoid this would be to state unequivocally its opposition to an official tour and its' disapproval of any back-door contrivances for an unofficial tour — backing words with actions to match. This would 1 mean a much more rigorous interpretation of “disciplinary measures” than standing offending players down for two test matches. Mr Tapsell properly tells the Rugby Union that its integrity is at stake and that it cannot go on making wobbly statements. The adjective is accurate and deserved. If the World Cup competition is to salvage the code’s battered reputation in this country, the New Zealand union will need to ensure that the competition does not become the cause of more divisiveness in the name of rugby. Mr Lange has kicked off a new game with an old political football; will the Rugby Union fumble it this time too?