Stop the tour (mark two)

by frog

Here’s the full exchange between Rod and Keith and Phil Goff on the Zimbabwe cricket tour in Parliament this afternoon:

Rod Donald: What advice, if any, has he given New Zealand Cricket on the actions that it could take to ensure the proposed Black Caps tour of Zimbabwe could not be exploited for political purposes by the Mugabe regime?
Phil Goff: I have advised New Zealand Cricket of the Government’s concern that if it decides to go ahead with the tour, it may be drawn into situations where it is wrongly portrayed as endorsing the Mugabe regime. I have referred New Zealand Cricket to the actions that the English cricket team took when touring Zimbabwe last year, to avoid that possibility.
Rod Donald: Can the Minister confirm that the Prime Minister’s personal view is now the official view of the Government—that is, to quote from the Minister’s letter to me: “It would be preferable that the cricket team not travel to Zimbabwe.�??
Phil Goff: Yes.
Keith Locke: Does he agree with the Prime Minister that New Zealand Cricket should not be going to Zimbabwe either on political or security grounds; and has he drawn New Zealand Cricket’s attention to the official advice on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade website that, because of political unrest, independent travel to Zimbabwe is strongly advised against and that visitors should avoid public gatherings, which presumably include cricket games?
Phil Goff: I am sure New Zealand Cricket is aware of the travel advisory, which is as the member has outlined—although it does talk about independent travel, which has a different connotation, of course, from travel by a cricket side.
Luamanuvao Winnie Laban: Has the Government sought to direct New Zealand Cricket not to go to Zimbabwe; if not, why not?
Phil Goff: No, because no New Zealand Government has ever sought to direct New Zealand sportspeople or teams as to where they should travel or whom they should play sports with outside New Zealand. We are also conscious of the obligations that New Zealand Cricket has in respect of the rules set by the International Cricket Council, and the consequences it would face if it were to breach those rules.
Richard Prebble: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is probably not strictly a point of order, but I would like to help the Minister. What about Robert Muldoon and the Moscow Olympics? Is he sure he wants to say that no Government will ever direct them?
Speaker: That is not a point of order. The member is right; he has analysed that correctly.
Keith Locke: Does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister, who told the University of Cape Town in 2002 that “dubious ethics�? were involved every time any New Zealand representative team played in South Africa while apartheid prevailed; and does he agree that it would similarly be a case of dubious ethics if the Black Caps tour of Zimbawee proceeds; if not, why not?
Phil Goff: The answer to the first question is yes, and to the second question no. The reason for the difference is that there is a difference between playing sport against a team that was inherently part of the apartheid system and chosen on apartheid grounds, and the Zimbabwe cricket team, many members of which, I suspect, strongly oppose what their own Government is doing.
Rod Donald: What advice does he have for Black Caps captain Stephen Fleming on why the tour should not go ahead, in the light of Fleming’s statement that if the information he reads about Zimbabwe suggests that it is not wise to go and that a boycott will make a difference, he will consider pulling out?
Phil Goff: Of course, any individual player can make his own choice in that regard. That is different from the team as a whole deciding not to tour, in terms of the consequences from the International Cricket Board point of view.
Rod Donald: Has the Minister sought legal advice on what steps the New Zealand Government could take to enable New Zealand Cricket to invoke the force majeure clause of its contract with other national cricket boards, so that its withdrawal from the tour would be acceptable non-compliance and therefore not subject to financial penalty; if not, why not?
Phil Goff: No, because that is a matter for New Zealand Cricket itself.
Rod Donald: I seek leave to table the force majeure clause of the contract, which talks about any action taken by a Government or public authority of any kind, including, without limitation, not granting a consent, exemption, approval, or clearance, or imposing any restriction or prohibition.

Goff’s attempt to distinguish between playing sport in apartheid South Africa and playing cricket in Mugabe’s Zimbabwe is interesting. He’s saying that whereas sports teams in apartheid South Africa were inherently part of the apartheid system (because blacks couldn’t be selected and blacks weren’t welcome to come), the Zimbabwe cricket team is not part of the Mugabe set-up. Perhaps Goff is unaware of the long-running boycott of the Zimbabwe cricket team by a dozen or so of its leading players, on the grounds of a racist, politically-motivated selection policy?

UPDATE: NZPA reports on the exchange here. Campbell Live’s website has a poll going on the issue here. At the moment, 86% of those taking part believe the tour should not go ahead. Also, today’s Stuff poll is also about the tour.