Causes of the Springbok Tour Protest
Arguably the most significant and long term cause of the anti-springbok tour protest in New Zealand was the struggle for coloured people in South Africa under Apartheid laws. Apartheid was a system employed in South Africa from 1948 to 1994. The system segregated white and coloured people intensely and was introduced by Daniel Malan’s Nationalist Party to ensure that the white minority held a privileged position in South African society. The coloured suffered under a highly prejudice system which prohibited coloured and white people marrying, attending the same schools, using the same public facilities and furthermore, 3.5 million coloured people were forcibly removed from their homes to ensure that white and coloured people did not live in the same areas. This resulted in a limitation of contact between the two groups of people, which amplified significantly when coloured people were striped of their right to vote within the democracy of South Africa. This gross miscarriage of justice rose tension between the races and people began to protest against their lack of human rights and their mistreatment within South Africa and internationally. The first significant act of protest occurred in 1960 when a large group of coloured South Africans in the town of Sharpeville refused to carry their mandatory passbooks and identification cards. As a result the government declared a state of emergency, responding with fines, arrests and whippings of these coloured people. A total of 69 died and 187 people were seriously injured. Subsequently, in 1976, the world’s attention was firmly set on South Africa when the Soweto Uprising occurred. Between 10,000 and 20,000 students of Soweto organized a peaceful protest march to object the teaching in Afrikaans, the language of whites descended from Dutch, at coloured schools. The nature of the protest transformed when a police officer hurled a stone into the crowd. The situation quickly escalated when police openly fired at the crowd, many of whom were shot in the back whilst running away and resulted in a riot in which an estimated 575 people were killed and many more injured. The international community began to strongly oppose the political actions occurring in South Africa and hence opposed contact with the racially divided country. Under the Apartheid system, coloured people were not to be selected for the national Springbok team and the policy discouraged sporting contact for their all-white team with mixed racial teams.
An underlying cause was the social significance of rugby as a sport for both South Africa and New Zealand. Rugby has long since been the national sport of New Zealand and Rugby is, and has been, equally worshiped in South Africa for years. Hence the South Africans love of Rugby could be harnessed and used as a tool to isolate the nation to reinforce the international intolerance of the Apartheid system. In 1968 the United Nations called the international community to boycott sporting contact with South Africa to which many countries took part. In the years leading up to the 1981 Springbok tour of New Zealand, both the All Blacks and the Springboks were considered international Rugby powerhouses and games between the two sides were much-anticipated events. Under Apartheid Laws the Springbok team was only selected from members of the white race and when the All Blacks toured South Africa they too were required to send an all white team. New Zealanders opposed this concept of racially biased team selection and prior to the 1960 tour 150,000 New Zealanders signed a petition against sending a race-based team calling for ‘No Maoris – No Tour’. The tour went ahead regardless which is ironic as the government allowed our national rugby team named the ‘All Blacks’ to be selected under racial bias that placed us at an equal standard to that of racial segregation under Apartheid in South Africa. This discriminated against our own coloured All Black players. However this was set right in in 1970 when the NZRFU chose to select Maori for their sides against South Africa. This was possibly prompted by the 1968 UN call for boycotting sporting contact with South Africa and international attention beginning to draw on New Zealand as they seemed to disregard the UN’s plea but more significantly as a result of the South African government allowing Maori members of the All Black’s squad to be treated as ‘honorary whites’ during their time in the country. This sent a shock through New Zealand as some began to stand up and question why we were one of the few countries still participating in sporting contact with South Africa. Many believed that this outgoing sporting contact showed the international community that we condoned Apartheid Laws. Furthermore, by allowing our own coloured kiwis to be treated with the same demeanour as the coloured people in South Africa we were allowing South African racial attitudes to infect our own society.
The New Zealand political agenda was a key cause of the springbok tour protest. On the road to the 1972 elections, the leader of the Labour party opposition party, Norman Kirk pledged not to interfere with any pending tours involving South Africa and New Zealand Rugby. He went on to win the election and began to communicate with the NZRFU, encouraging them to withdraw their initiation to the Springboks for the proposed 1973 Springbok tour of New Zealand. His encouragement was not accepted by the NZRFU and after receiving advice from police who stated that the proposed tour would ‘engender the greatest eruption of violence this country has ever known.’ Kirk was under further pressure as Christchurch was scheduled to hold the 1974 Commonwealth Games; threats had been made that countries would boycott the games if the tour went ahead. The Prime Minister then saw ‘no alternative, pending selection on a genuine merit basis, to a postponement of the tour’. He was well aware that his decision would hurt him in the next election especially as he had sworn not to interfere with the tour in his campaign promise. True to his expectation, the votes returned to the National Party who ironically had cancelled the 1967 tour. The country's new leader was Robert Muldoon who had made sporting contact with South Africa an election issue for that particular election. Under this pressure it was clear that Muldoon had no option but to maintain sporting contact with South Africa regardless of his imminent signing of the Gleneagles Agreement.
The New Zealand government’s direct violation of the freely adopted Gleneagles Agreement was a significant short-term cause of the Anti-Springbok tour protest. Leaders of the Commonwealth countries unanimously approved the Gleneagles Agreement in June 1977. The aim of the agreement was to discourage sporting contact and competition between the Commonwealth countries and South Africa, with the overall objective of isolating South Africa to such an extent that they remove their Apartheid system. The agreement stated ‘Heads of Government specially welcomed the belief, unanimously expressed at their Meeting, that in the light of their consultations and accord there were unlikely to be future sporting contacts of any significance between Commonwealth countries or their nationals and South Africa while that country continues to pursue the detestable policy of apartheid.’ Most of the Commonwealth countries fully carried out the conditions of this agreement forcing a spotlight to fall on the country that disobeyed the agreement. Subsequently, many of the protestors believed that the 1981 Springbok tour of New Zealand was sending the inappropriate message to the Commonwealth and the extended international community that kiwi’s condoned Apartheid.
An underlying cause was the social significance of rugby as a sport for both South Africa and New Zealand. Rugby has long since been the national sport of New Zealand and Rugby is, and has been, equally worshiped in South Africa for years. Hence the South Africans love of Rugby could be harnessed and used as a tool to isolate the nation to reinforce the international intolerance of the Apartheid system. In 1968 the United Nations called the international community to boycott sporting contact with South Africa to which many countries took part. In the years leading up to the 1981 Springbok tour of New Zealand, both the All Blacks and the Springboks were considered international Rugby powerhouses and games between the two sides were much-anticipated events. Under Apartheid Laws the Springbok team was only selected from members of the white race and when the All Blacks toured South Africa they too were required to send an all white team. New Zealanders opposed this concept of racially biased team selection and prior to the 1960 tour 150,000 New Zealanders signed a petition against sending a race-based team calling for ‘No Maoris – No Tour’. The tour went ahead regardless which is ironic as the government allowed our national rugby team named the ‘All Blacks’ to be selected under racial bias that placed us at an equal standard to that of racial segregation under Apartheid in South Africa. This discriminated against our own coloured All Black players. However this was set right in in 1970 when the NZRFU chose to select Maori for their sides against South Africa. This was possibly prompted by the 1968 UN call for boycotting sporting contact with South Africa and international attention beginning to draw on New Zealand as they seemed to disregard the UN’s plea but more significantly as a result of the South African government allowing Maori members of the All Black’s squad to be treated as ‘honorary whites’ during their time in the country. This sent a shock through New Zealand as some began to stand up and question why we were one of the few countries still participating in sporting contact with South Africa. Many believed that this outgoing sporting contact showed the international community that we condoned Apartheid Laws. Furthermore, by allowing our own coloured kiwis to be treated with the same demeanour as the coloured people in South Africa we were allowing South African racial attitudes to infect our own society.
The New Zealand political agenda was a key cause of the springbok tour protest. On the road to the 1972 elections, the leader of the Labour party opposition party, Norman Kirk pledged not to interfere with any pending tours involving South Africa and New Zealand Rugby. He went on to win the election and began to communicate with the NZRFU, encouraging them to withdraw their initiation to the Springboks for the proposed 1973 Springbok tour of New Zealand. His encouragement was not accepted by the NZRFU and after receiving advice from police who stated that the proposed tour would ‘engender the greatest eruption of violence this country has ever known.’ Kirk was under further pressure as Christchurch was scheduled to hold the 1974 Commonwealth Games; threats had been made that countries would boycott the games if the tour went ahead. The Prime Minister then saw ‘no alternative, pending selection on a genuine merit basis, to a postponement of the tour’. He was well aware that his decision would hurt him in the next election especially as he had sworn not to interfere with the tour in his campaign promise. True to his expectation, the votes returned to the National Party who ironically had cancelled the 1967 tour. The country's new leader was Robert Muldoon who had made sporting contact with South Africa an election issue for that particular election. Under this pressure it was clear that Muldoon had no option but to maintain sporting contact with South Africa regardless of his imminent signing of the Gleneagles Agreement.
The New Zealand government’s direct violation of the freely adopted Gleneagles Agreement was a significant short-term cause of the Anti-Springbok tour protest. Leaders of the Commonwealth countries unanimously approved the Gleneagles Agreement in June 1977. The aim of the agreement was to discourage sporting contact and competition between the Commonwealth countries and South Africa, with the overall objective of isolating South Africa to such an extent that they remove their Apartheid system. The agreement stated ‘Heads of Government specially welcomed the belief, unanimously expressed at their Meeting, that in the light of their consultations and accord there were unlikely to be future sporting contacts of any significance between Commonwealth countries or their nationals and South Africa while that country continues to pursue the detestable policy of apartheid.’ Most of the Commonwealth countries fully carried out the conditions of this agreement forcing a spotlight to fall on the country that disobeyed the agreement. Subsequently, many of the protestors believed that the 1981 Springbok tour of New Zealand was sending the inappropriate message to the Commonwealth and the extended international community that kiwi’s condoned Apartheid.