Editorial

Race Relations Conciliator Irresponsible

After a week of speculation, the Race Relations Conciliator (Hiwi Tauroa), last Tuesday left New Zealand for a South African invited and funded tour of that country. Immediately condemned as "insensitive and incompatible with his position" by the anti-apartheid movement, Tauroa's trip even drew disapproval from the Prime Minister.

Tauroa's South African jaunt, which cannot but help further damage New Zealand's reputation abroad, has been characterised by frequently changed plans and confused motives. Initially, the conciliator received an invitation from the minority South African Rugby Board (SARB) to coach rugby. This invitation was at first accepted, then declined. Tauroa claimed he would be coaching South African rugby teams, but decide not to when he realised that it would be in breach of the Gleneagles Agreement.

Even later (after arriving in South Africa), he scrapped plans for 'spontaneous' coaching sessions after the government told him not to.

Said Tauroa: "There will be no coaching. If the Prime Minister says that's it, then that's it."

It is perhaps unfortunate he did not ask for the government's advice or take heed of its opposition to the whole trip before he left.

As it stands now, Tauroa is on a 'fact finding visit' paid for by the huge Stellenbosch Farmers Winery. This, in itself, is a major cause of concern. Like all other large business concerns in the country, their interests are inextricably bound up with the continuation of the apartheid regime. A massive pool of cheap Black labour has made them fat.

As Donald Woods, banned South African newspaper editor revealed in Auckland last week, the Winery has for years spent enormous amounts of money on 'public relations of a semi-political nature' — and paying for Tauroa's visit is just one more example.

It is saddening to think that Tauroa is gullible enough to allow himself to be, in effect, used in a promotion of apartheid and the tour. It would be unrealistic to expect anything less. South Africa is in the business of issuing invitations to only those people it thinks can be persuaded to present a favourable picture of apartheid. Anyone who thinks they will see what South Africa is really like for the majority of its people, while in the hands of the government, SARB, or any large company, is naive.

Tauroa's invitation could well be contrasted with the many other people who have tried to get into the country on real fact finding missions. Journalist Ian Fraser was one, and was flatly refused entry. All Black Graham Mourie's intended visit had so many restrictions placed on it, that he correctly refused to go.

The Race Relations Conciliator's 'fact finding mission' could also be contrasted with treatment meted out to South Africans who speak the truth about apartheid. Two such examples (now in New Zealand) from thousands — Canon John Osmers and Donald Woods — have been made exiles after attempts on their lives.

There is a great range of indisputable facts standing against the apartheid regime. One of the most significant in this case is that South Africa is a society based on the economic, legal, social and political oppression of the Black majority. Oppression is conducted on the basis of their race. It is a society completely based on racism; and racism will not be removed (no matter what petty changes occur) until the whole system is broken down.

It is an unhealthy reflection on the government appointed Race Relations office that it is so ignorant and insensitive to the voice of the Black majority, that its head is prepared to have anything to do with the apartheid regime. Black opinion has been heard loud and long for many years by those who care to listen. The non-racial South African Rugby Union for example (which represents over 80% of Black players), is strongly opposed to all sports contacts with the racist regime.

The Race Relations Conciliator's position was established to hear grievances from New Zealand's national minorities. Anyone so insensitive to the opinions of the oppressed in South Africa casts severe doubts on his ability to do the job adequately.

Throughout the whole affair, Tauroa has adopted, for a government representative, an overly individualistic attitude. He must realise his visit cannot be seen as merely that of an individual. The invitation would not have come if he did not hold his position, and he is the senior government spokesperson on race relations. His visit will be seen as just one more officially sanctioned contact between South Africa and New Zealand — and cannot help but do this country's tarnished standing even more harm.

Stephen A'Court