page 13

There will be notour!

Interview with Pauline McKay, the National Chairperson of HART - The Anti-Apartheid Movement.

Interview by Colin MacFadzean, General Vice-President of the New Zealand University Students' Association.

▪ NZUSA Can you tell me why HART is opposed to the 1981 Springbok tour?

□ HART has been opposed to all sporting contact with South Africa for the last eleven years. In 1956 the people of South Africa called for a sporting, cultural and economic boycott of the Republic of South Africa to assist them in their struggles to overcome the system of apartheid. That call, first made in 1956, has been repeated many times since.

Last year HART brought to New Zealand Mr Sam Ramsamy, from the South African Non Racial Olympic Committee, an exiled black South African, who once more repeated that call for a sporting boycott of South Africa.

▪ Aren't you confusing politics with sport though?

□ The people who are confusing politics with sport are the South African government because the sporting structure in South Africa is based upon the policy of apartheid. The policy of apartheid is the political basis of the South African system. To those who say 'don't bring politics into sport' we ask them to say that to the South African government because it brought politics into sport. Our campaigns are aimed at removing politics in sport; apartheid politics in sport.

▪ What is the Gleneagles agreement?

□ This is the document that was signed at the Commonwealth Heads of State meeting in Gleneagles, Scotland in 1977. It was signed by the heads of the Commonwealth, hoping to bring about the end of Commonwealth exchanges with South Africa.

However, since that document was signed, the New Zealand government has, in HART's opinion, not lived up to the word and spirit of that document. For example, the Australian and Canadian governments both have a policy of refusing visas to South African sporting representatives. The New Zealand government does not, even though the refusal of visas is quite within the consitutional power of this government.

▪ Ron Don says there have been significant changes in South Africa and that New Zealand should play rugby with the Springboks. What are your comments on this?

□ The people inside South Africa who have fought for many years to bring about non racialism in the sporting structure are grouped together under a body called the South African Council on Sport. They believe that you cannot have normal sport in an abnormal society. There is no law in South Africa that prohibits the playing of mixed sport, but there are other apartheid laws that make it impossible in practice. Until the whole constitutional framework of apartheid is done away with you cannot really have genuine non racial sport. This is something that is recognised within the Gleneagles Agreement because it states that Commonwealth countries should not have sporting contacts with South Africa while the system of apartheid continues.

"Our campaigns are aimed at removing politics in sport; apartheid policies in sport."

▪ There will be some black South Africans in the Springbok team that tours here though, does that indicate that perhaps there have been reforms in apartheid?

□ We take our mandate from those people who have been fighting to bring about genuine change, many of them for thirty years. A few Blacks in a Springbok team represent only a cosmetic development and this is something that has been recognised by the New Zealand government: Mr Talboys stated in April of last year at the time of the Rugby Union's AGM that any such development represents just cosmetic change to try and fool the rest of the world that things are changing.

You only have to look at the apartheid type structure of the South African Rugby Board, which is a whites only body, to see that there is no real change. There is the South African Rugby Board and it has a body for blacks and body for coloureds. That is an apartheid structure.

"We don't single out and victimise New Zealand. We work in New Zealand because we are a New Zealand anti-apartheid organisation made up of New Zealanders."

▪ Why didn't Graham Mourie go to South Africa even though he was invited?

□ Graham Mourie was prepared to go after he had made the statement he would not play with the Springboks should they tour New Zealand this year. South Africa has to be very careful on who it invites because it has to make sure that those people are kept away from the realities of apartheid. The conditions which the "Afrikaaner" newspaper placed on Mourie's visit, made him realise that he would not really see the true South Africa. There was a similar case where a member of the British Sports Council, a black member, wished to go to South Africa to see for himself the situation regarding sport in that country. He had voiced strong opposition against the British Sports Council's fact finding mission that went to South Africa early last year. He was unable to get into South Africa.

It does not only just apply to people going it applies to people coming out. Last year HART invited to New Zealand Mr N M Pather, the Secretary-General of the South African Council of Sport, to undertake a speaking tour of New Zealand. His passport was siezed on the eve of his departure for New York. So it is very much a controlled bridge. It is not a bridge that anyone can cross. Only those people that South Africa wants can get out and only those people South Africa knows will come back voicing their policy are allowed in.

▪ Other countries, for example, the British have sporting contacts with South Africa. Why do you concentrate on New Zealand?

□ We don't single out and victimise New Zealand. We work in New Zealand because we are a New Zealand anti-apartheid organisation, made up of New Zealanders. There is the British anti-apartheid movement which deals with the British contact with South Africa. Just recently the Irish Rugby Union announced that they were going to tour South Africa in May. HART has been in contact with the Irish anti-apartheid movement which has a campaign against Irish sporting contacts with South Africa. We are a New Zealand movement, our main priority is with New Zealand's contacts with South Africa.

▪ Many black states such as Zambia, Tanzania and Mozambique have commercial contact with South Africa. Why shouldn't New Zealand have sporting contact with South Africa?

□ Many of those nations have commercial contacts because they have no other choice. They are forced to trade with white South Africa because of their colonial background. Many of them are working to move away from being so reliant on South Africa as a trading partner and trading more between themselves. If the western world developed better trading relationships with the third world this would greatly assist them. One only has to look at the history of Southern Africa or Africa on the whole - one only has to look at a map of the railway lines of that country to see how the colonial rule has ensured that these states would for many years be dependent on South Africa.

That situation will change as more and more Black African countries become self reliant. It is not a matter of choice it's a matter of necessity. New Zealand does not have to have sporting contact with South Africa. New Zealand does not have to have trading relations with South Africa to survive and therefore we have the choice. Many African countries do not have the luxury of the choice.

▪ What is so bad about apartheid? The South African government tells us that the blacks in South Africa have the highest standard of living of any black country in Southern Africa!

□ First of all apartheid is a racist ideology that is embedded in the law of the country. This singles South Africa out.

Racial discrimination is the basis of their legal system. The same could be said for some parts of the Southern United States up to the mid 60's where there was legalised racial discrimination. In the United States those laws have gone even though the attitudes are still there. In South Africa you have a legal system backing up the racial attitudes and that's what singles out South Africa. We don't single South Africa out, South Africa singles itself out.

It is a misconception spread by South African propaganda, that South African Blacks have the highest standard of living. South African Blacks, compared to the whole of Black Africa have the 13th highest standard of living within the African continent. Anyway you shouldn't compare standards of living between one country and another. You should compare them between the different groups of people living in that country. South Africa is one of the wealthiest countries in the world and yet it has people living below the poverty datum line. That's the ironical thing about South Africa. It has enough wealth to feed, clothe and house its people at a good standard of living. It doesn't, and it allows a very small minority to live a very privileged life. In fact White South Africans have the highest standard of living anywhere in the world. In the mid 60's White South Africans passed Californians as having the highest standard of living in the world. That standard is based on cheap black labour.

"In fact the latest opinion poll shows that the majority of New Zealanders are against the tour."

▪ How much support does HART have in New Zealand?

□ A great deal. We are eleven years old this year. Over those years a tremendous amount of support and understanding by the people of New Zealand as to why New Zealand shouldn't have any contact with South Africa has been built up. For a movement to be sustained for eleven years shows that there is a lot of support within the New Zealand community. That support is growing. In fact the latest opinion polls show that the majority of New Zealanders are against this tour. I realise not everyone is against it for the reasons we are, but a sizeable number of those people polled are against it for moral reasons. That increases every time a poll is done. That is how HART sees it is getting through to the people of New Zealand.

▪ Is HART against rugby?

□ HART is not against rugby. There are many people in HART who love rugby. There are many officials of the HART National Council who love rugby. There are many times when I have had to stop a HART National Conference Meeting at five o'clock because they want to go and watch a test. That whole argument is negated when people like Ken Gray, New Zealand's greatest prop came out in 1970 and said he wouldn't play against the Springboks. Several All Blacks such as Bob Burbess, Chris [unclear: I. aidlaw], and just recently our present All Black Captain, Graham Mourie, have refused to play the Springboks.

▪ Where does HART get its finances from?

□ The majority of HART's money comes from the people of New Zealand. Last year HART received a $5,000 grant from the World Council of Churches Programme to Combat Racism for its educational programme. That's the only outside money we receive. For ten years the Halt All Racist Tours movement survived solely on the donations of its fellow New Zealanders - there is no Russian or Chinese gold - it comes from the pockets of hard working Kiwi's.

"What HART is trying to say to the people of New Zealand is that we have to chose whose side we are on."

▪ Do you think that the Tour will be called off?

□ I think this Tour is very stoppable. It is stoppable because there are so many New Zealanders opposed to it. In some ways the political battle is being won. What HART is basically trying to do is stop tours and that is a tactic. What HART is trying to say to the people of New Zealand is that we have to choose whose side we are on. For too long we have been seen as the supporters and allies of white South Africa and HART believes that New Zealanders should stand with the oppressed people of South Africa. There are no two sides to apartheid - one is either on the side of the oppressed or the oppressors. New Zealanders should stand on the side of the oppressed and help them in their struggles.