As early as March 1980 – 16 months before the team flew into the country, starting 56-days of civil turmoil – the Robert Muldoon-headed Government was pressured to take several steps to stop the tour, including withholding entry visas.  

Within a month the Auckland Rugby Union, chaired by staunch pro-tour advocate Ron Don, had gone public with its support of a tour. At the same time nationwide protests hit the streets around New Zealand.  

They were small at first; about 30 attended one down Queen St on April 12 – walking behind actors dressed as All Blacks, roped together and led by rings through their paper noses by a duo of mock Springboks. On the same night about 50 protestors gathered outside the NZRU headquarters in Wellington.  

On April 18 Don made an impassioned plea during the union’s annual general meeting in the same building for the tour to go ahead.  

Don – whose Auckland home was later peppered with a shotgun blast – told fellow delegates they had a “duty to the people who elect us, and the rugby people of New Zealand want the Springboks to tour here in 1981.  

“Let us forget the humbug and hypocrisy of the politicians and stick to our job of promoting rugby”.  

He added that instead of taking aim solely at South Africa, those opposing the tour should “press similar concern for the rampant racial discrimination in the United States and Australia, just to name two countries with which we are closely associated”.  

The NZRU had previously been presented with a letter from Minister of Foreign Affairs Brian Talboys that under the Gleneagles Agreement – signed in 1977 by Commonwealth prime ministers and presidents pledging their support against apartheid – that he was “deeply concerned” that the tour might go ahead.  

Around the same time HART went public with appeals for donations, saying they hoped to raise at least $50,000 to help fight the tour.  

At that stage public support seemed to be growing for the tour. Just 34 per cent of respondents to a New Zealand Herald-National Research Bureau survey said they were opposed.  

NZRU chairman Ces Blazey described the poll result as “very useful” for the rugby union.  

The Te Tai Tokerau District Māori Council offered majority support for the tour, with one member saying it would provide a chance to show the Springboks how Māori and Pākeha lived in union.  

The Young Nats also did a U-turn on an earlier mooted remit urging the NZRU not to invite the Boks here, by saying South Africa was also a trading partner.  

September 12 is a day of infamy in the anti-apartheid movement, especially in New Zealand. 

It was the day in 1977 when anti-apartheid activist Steve Biko was beaten to death by police in a Port Elizabeth cell.  

In 1980 it also became the date when the NZRU formally extended its tour invitation to the South African Rugby Board (SARB). The following year September 12 was the date of the third and final test in the All Black-Springbok series; scene of the most violent and shocking of all protest clashes.  

In explaining the 1980 invitation Blazey released a lengthy statement saying the SARB was breaking down racial barriers; five of its seven national team selectors were non-white, mixed trials were held for all national teams and “any player in South Africa can progress to the highest level of his potential”.  

Blazey said it was now up to rugby officials to convince “the people that matter that the invitation has got nothing to do with political issues at all and is purely a sporting matter”.  

He said it was inevitable there would be “differences of opinion” regarding the tour, pointing to two polls which showed support for the tour, including the NZ Herald-National Research Bureau survey.  

Blazey added: “We continue to believe that sporting boycotts are undesirable and also unfair to the young people who participate in sport. Accordingly, we cannot support them”.  

More than 11,500km away in Stellenbosch, SARB president Dr Danie Craven said the invite showed how the “spirit of sport and rugby reigns supreme”.  
“We admire the people who breathe this spirit.”  

But closer to home, the reaction to the invitation wasn’t welcomed by an ever-growing moment against the tour.  

Talboys said the decision was disappointing, but again reaffirmed the Government’s stance that it wouldn’t move to stop the tour.  

He added rugby bosses would now bear a “heavy responsibility” and that the Government had tried to persuade the NZRU not to go ahead with the sporting contest that “is not in New Zealand’s best interests”.  

The leader of the Opposition, Bill Rowling, described the NZRU’s stance as “totally irresponsible” and said the sporting body had “acted in a completely selfish manner”.  

The Citizens Association for Racial Equality (CARE) was outraged, prophetically saying it would “split New Zealand down the middle”.  

John Minto, the national organiser of fellow anti-tour group HART, also correctly stated that New Zealanders would now be “out in the streets in protest” in big numbers. But history shows his claims HART and other anti-tour protestors would stop the tour taking place was wrong.  

The invitation was issued just two days before the All Blacks played Fiji at Eden Park. Don said the venue would be guarded by additional security “from this moment on” due to threats of damage from protestors.  

It was a sum the Prime Minister said he was “not happy about”, but he then added: “We’ve said we must have law and order and if the tour goes ahead then we have no option but to incur those costs”.  

Muldoon said he had told Blazey and the NZRU about the predicted “very substantial cost” and the union still “decided to go ahead”.  

Couch predicted - in a comment he may have come to regret - that it was unlikely police officers would be seen at match venues in riot gear.  

Rather optimistically, he also said the tour operation might not even need half of the officers set aside at that stage to control any off-field issues. 

By the time 1981 arrived, the protest movement was already incensed by the staunch pro-tour utterings of Don.  

He stirred up more anger on his return to New Zealand in late January after holidaying in South Africa and Namibia for three weeks with his wife.  

Don first repeated a comment from South Africa Prime Minister P. W. Botha challenging anyone in the world to establish non-whites of South Africa “were worse off than the non-whites of any country on the African continent”.

Don went on to say: “There is starvation in many parts of Africa. There is no starvation in South Africa”.  

He again took aim at anti-tour protestors, saying: “Are we not as New Zealanders in danger of having our country run by minority groups?  

“I am all for the right of people to hold differing opinions. But I am all for the majority, too. And it is my belief that a majority of New Zealanders want the Springboks to tour.”  

But just six days after another optimistic pro-tour delivery from Don, a leading rugby official from across the Tasman provided a reality check of what lay ahead. 

Australian Rugby Union treasurer John Howard spoke to the New Zealand Herald about the turbulent 1971 tour by the Boks of Australia. Howard’s role in the tour included logistics around security and travel.  

Violent protests followed the Springboks around Australia. Howard said abusive phone calls to rugby officials included threats of death and physical violence.  

“Any officials connected with the tour in New Zealand will find they will have to use every waking moment to being absolutely determined that the tour will go on,” he said.  

“The strain and the tension are enormous and it doesn't let up. They will experience things they have never before experienced in their rugby lives.”  

Howard said his “deepest memory” of the tour had been the estimated 1400 police officers employed to protect law and order during a test at the Sydney Cricket Ground.  

Don wasn’t the only pro-tour protagonist to visit South Africa in early 1981.  
So too did Hauraki MP Leo Schultz.  

The National MP said after his three-week holiday there that he believed a lack of interest from black people in wanting to play at the top level – and not selection bias – was the reason why the Springboks had never had a non-white test player.  

He said rugby fields created in Soweto were used for other sports.  

And speaking on the political situation there, he stated: “I do not believe South Africa is quite ready for black majority rule, even though that is desirable. Majority rule will come as generations go by and more black people are ready to accept the responsibility.”  

While Schultz spoke of his support for the tour to go ahead, Muldoon made his strongest comments to date on March 10, going public with his view that it should be cancelled.  

Muldoon said he believed a “majority” of New Zealanders were opposed to the tour, both in protest against apartheid and also from fear of potential civil unrest.  

He said he didn’t believe the tour would aid his National Party’s hopes of re-election later in the year, despite claims from critics that it would shore up National's vote in key marginal provincial seats. 

“My personal view is that whatever happens in the context of the Springbok tour is more likely than not to damage the chances of the Government.”

While Muldoon’s Government continued its stance of not refusing entry visas for the Springboks, it did show its displeasure by rejecting an NZRU grant for $10,000 to help with coaching programmes.  

The Bok tour was understandably a hot topic at the NZRU’s annual general meeting on April 9.  

On the eve of the gathering of rugby administrators, Don kept up his attack on the protest movement, describing it as “communist inspired”.  

And Blazey told delegates that by inviting the Springboks here, the NZRU was “carrying out our responsibility as rugby administrators”. He said all 26 provinces supported the tour and added: “We will not make decisions based on threats either from within New Zealand or overseas”. 

Tickets for the scheduled 16 matches were released on April 22.  

For the first time in New Zealand rugby history they contained a raft of security-based restrictions. Fans had to agree to be searched on entry. Items such as banners, placards, flags, poles, fireworks, loudhailers and “any article that might impede the match” were banned.  

Those who ignored the regulations faced being trespassed, a fine of up to $1000 and a potential three-month prison term.  

The Auckland Council for Civil Liberties branded the move as “arrogance” and claimed it showed rugby officials were overstepping their rights.  

Former National MP Bill Tolhurst confirmed he had secured tickets for Wanganui’s clash with the tourists on August 5 and issued a strong warning to anyone who impacted on his viewing enjoyment.  

“I will be going to the Springbok match in Whanganui and if protestors and others interfere with my enjoyment of the game they had better look out,” Tolhurst said.  

That included 12,000 who marched up Queen St, with well-known trade unionist Syd Jackson telling the gathering: “This is only the beginning”.  

In the lead-up to the protest, a group of Auckland University students – including future Green Party MP Kevin Hague – set up camp in the university’s quad and went on a hunger strike.  

A week later about 1200 attended a pro-tour event at Auckland’s Aotea Square, where a speaker described HART as a “front for the Communist Party”.  

Another protest at Aotea Square saw students from Auckland University and Auckland Metropolitan College re-enact the 1976 Soweto massacre, where at least 176 people were shot dead by South African police. 

As the size and regularity of anti-tour protests increased, police revealed more details about their own planning for ‘Operation Rugby’.  

That included confirmation that 3600 police – about 73 per cent of sworn officers – would be used specifically during the tour. 

The police also confirmed the creation of two special groups – Red Squad and Blue Squad – who would escort the Springboks and also be trained and equipped for serious unrest.  

Red Squad was trained at the SAS base in Papakura. Requests to a police photographer for the release of training pictures was denied as “the sight and noise of a police flying wedge and other tactics is not pretty”. 

Less than a month before the Springboks were set to fly into New Zealand, Parliament voted through a motion calling on the NZRU to “reconsider” the tour invitation.  

The resolution also called on any future protests “to be undertaken in a peaceful manner in full acceptance of the fact that the rule of law must prevail”.  

MPs opposed to the tour were left outraged, claiming National had buckled in not backing the earlier proposed wording, which asked rugby bosses to “withdraw” the invitation. 

It was impossible for the Springboks to miss either grouping. And that was the case for the next 55 days to come, with Minto making it clear what he and his colleagues intended doing.  

“We will show them that we do not want them and that we intend to give them a hard time around the country,” Minto said.  

By the end of the tour everyone involved - protestors, the Springboks, the thousands of police involved in ‘Operation Rugby’ and rugby fans - had certainly endured a “hard time”.  

Norm Jones’ prediction that the police could handle what awaited “with their eyes closed” didn’t age well.  

John Terris’ claim that “there will be blood – New Zealanders’ blood – spilt on every rugby field in the country” was much closer to the truth, as pro and anti tour arguments turned to violence on the streets and split the country in two.