The Hart Word on Mp's

The following is a copy of a circular sent by Trevor Richards of Hart to all MPs.

Over the past few days there has been much comment, most of it inaccurate, about Hart, our international work, the Gleneagles Agreement and the Nigerian boycott of the Commonwealth Games. The purpose of this letter is to ensure that all MPs are aware of the actual situation regarding these and other matters.

First, we wish to firmly assert our belief that we have a democratic right to inform both New Zealanders and the international community of matters relating to New Zealand's sporting and other relations with South Africa. We strongly reject any suggestion that we have acted in anything but a thoroughly open honest and principled manner. To assert, as the Prime Minister has done, that laws could be introduced to inhibit us in our work would be to introduce laws which would further inhibit democracy in New Zealand as we understand it.

We totally reject any claim that we are guilty of any form of treason. This claim can only be made by those who confuse criticism of the Government's policies with acts prejudicial to the interests of the state. It is both absurd and dangerous to claim that the interests of the present Government are to be equated with those of the state. This is clearly the thinking of a tyrant.

Second, various allegations have been made about the accuracy of material we send overseas. It has been asserted by the Prime Minister that our material is 'low-grade, low-quality propaganda masquerading as fact'. We have been accused of distorting and misrepresenting the situation here in New Zealand internationally. We catigorically reject this allegation. It has no foundation in fact.

The majority of material Hart sends overseas consists of copies of press clippings and official correspondence. In addition to this, on four occasions this year, reports have been sent overseas by Hart which have contained our assessment of the situation. All these reports have been sent to media outlets in New Zealand, and indeed, the last report was sent additionally to all 87 MPs. The reports are sent to a variety of people and organisations, many of whom have specifically asked for them. The Organisation of African Unity, the Commonwealth Secretariat, the Supreme Council for Sport in Africa and the United Nations regularly receive our material. So too do a number of other groups, and a few Governments. The Nigerian Government is not one of these.

Despite repeated requests that those who have attacked the accuracy of our material and the integrity of the movement substantiate their allegations with proof, not a single piece of evidence has been forthcoming. This is not surprising, for no such evidence exists.

Hart finds it deeply distressing for the future of New Zealand society that a Prime Minister can launch a vicious attack on both an organisation and its leader without being required to provide a single piece of evidence with which to verify any of his allegations. In a decent society such attacks would be neither made nor tolerated.

The only statement made by the Prime Minister when he was asked for his evidence was that one only needed to look at the 'Muldoon v Newnham court case'. That case could not in the wildest stretch of the imagination be regarded as relevant to the present situation; moreover Hart was not a party to that case.

The central issue in the present debate should be whether or not New Zealand has [unclear: taken] 'all practical steps' to discourage sporting contacts with South Africa. Unsubstantiated allegations about the nature of material Hart sends overseas, suggestions that Hart is guilty of 'a low level of treason', boasts by the Prime Minister that he has prevented my contract from being renewed, and fatuous assertions about Hart's supposed lack of credibility in the Commonwealth are all red herrings deliberately introduced to confuse and mislead the public.

Third, Hart believes that Government Ministers and back benchers are themselves guilty of making statements which grossly distort and misrepresent the situation. These statements reflect badly and in the most direct way on Government's commitment to the Gleneagles Agreement. (Hart enclosed documentary evidence to support this claim and the accuracy of Hart's allegations). Unlike the Prime Minister, Hart does not make allegations which it cannot sustain.

Fourth, we reject as both cheeky and absurd the Prime Minister's claim that New Zealand has adhered 'meticulously' to the Gleneagles Agreement. Included is a list of sporting contacts which have taken place in violation of the Gleneagles Agreement. We are aware that the Prime Minister has described this list as absurd. The fact remains that all contacts listed on it have been made in breach of the Agreement.

However, Hart does not consider that the number of contacts had with South Africa is the sole yardstick against which adherence to the Gleneagles Agreement can be measured. Of great significance is the action taken by the Government to implement the Agreement.

Although the Prime Minister cannot supply a single piece of evidence with which to support his allegations against Hart, we are able to list three matters which expose the Government's claim that it has adhered 'meticulously' to the Gleneagles Agreement.

First, the Government caucus refused to allow Parliament to endorse the Gleneagles Agreement. Hastings and Government MP Robert Fenton boasted in February that he would have forced a division in Parliament if the Deputy Prime Minister had insisted in debating his Notice of Motion which sought Parliamentary endorsement of the Agreement.

Second, the Government has clearly failed to take, in the words of the Gleneagles Agreement 'all practical steps' to discourage sporting contacts with South Africa. To suggest otherwise is laughable New Zealand is only one of two Commonwealth states still to issue visas to South Africa's sporting representatives. Australia and Canada both withold visas. Furthermore, New Zealand is the only member of the 'old white Commonwealth' not to have publicly announced financial sanctions page 5 against those who participate in apartheid sport.

There can certainly be no doubt that New Zealand's commitment to the principles and provisions of the Gleneagles s Agreement is the weakest of any Common wealth state. Hart considers it to be the conservative cant of yester-year for the Government to claim that there is some constitutional or other legal reason why New Zealand cannot take measures similar to those taken by the Canadian and Australian Governments.

Third, on the three recent occasions that the Prime Minister has in major addresses mentioned the sporting contacts issue, he has stressed the freedom of sportsmen to play with whom they wish, without apparently stating any opposition to sporting relations with South Africa.

Against this background the Prime Minister's claim that the Government has adhered 'meticulously' to the Gleneagles Agreement appears quite absurd. A Government which refuses to allow Parliament to endorse the Agreement, which has failed to take 'all practical steps' to discourage sporting relations with South Africa, and whose leader publicly stresses the freedom of sportsmen to play sport with whom they wish, cannot in honesty claim to have adhered to the Agreement.

Hart urges all MPs to consider carefully the contents of this note, and to do all possible to comply with the requests made above.

We look forward to your response.