Short of moving protesters away from certain areas, there was almost no violence witnessed at the Whanganui demonstration. Photo / Alexander Heritage & Research Library
Short of moving protesters away from certain areas, there was almost no violence witnessed at the Whanganui demonstration. Photo / Alexander Heritage & Research Library
It's 40 years since the Springboks visited Whanganui as part of their controversial 1981 New Zealand tour against a backdrop of protests against South African apartheid.
Spriggens Park played host to the visiting South Africans, who faced the Whanganui side on August 5.
By all accounts, the Whanganui side putup a good fight, with the teams sitting 9-all at halftime.
By the time 80 minutes was up, the Springboks had proven they were too good for the provincial side, eventually going on to win 45-9.
But like most fixtures in that tour, the match is remembered more for the protests outside the front gates rather than the action within them.
The August 6, 1981 edition of the Chronicle reported there were almost no issues in Whanganui, like there had been in Hamilton where there were clashes and the game was called off.
In Whanganui the demonstrators predominantly gathered at a designated area outside Spriggens Park, with Police forcing the protesters to remain behind the railway line.
The only arrest of the day was a demonstrator who deliberately walked in front of an oncoming train in an attempt to block the railway.
116946505_22
The protest was at its most tense at the end of the match, when spectators left the park to chants of "shame, shame''.
One rugby fan responded, shouting "you should be protesting about the score", the Chronicle reported.
JB Phillips, then working as sports editor at the Whanganui Chronicle, recalls public opinion in Whanganui being broadly supportive of the tour going ahead.
"There was division, but I think overall the majority supported it. There was more support in the provinces like Whanganui than the cities."
Phillips remembers the day of the match itself vividly, working as both a reporter but also alongside the rugby union, assisting the influx of national and international press arriving to watch the match.
The Whanganui side was captained by Ray Stafford, seen here neatly controlling the ball as he falls at the feet of halfback Andrew Donald. Photo / Alexander Heritage Library
"I had a good seat in the stand with the other members of the press. I remember looking out and seeing a busload of protesters arrive from Palmerston North, mainly varsity students.
"After all the hurly-burly issues up Waikato, there were no real hassles at all."
Phillips said that as a young reporter focusing on sport, the controversy around the tour wasn't necessarily as obvious to him as it could've been.
It wasn't until the match in Hamilton was called off that he realised the significance of the movement.
"I thought it should go ahead. Sport was sport and politics was politics. But of course, no body envisaged what was to occur with the volatility of the protests.
"As sports journalists, we were shocked really. We probably didn't realise how heated the opposition was."
John Minto, then the leader of Halt All Racist Tours (HART), is in Whanganui for the 40th anniversary of the game, and said while he wasn't present in Whanganui 40 years ago, he remembers the Whanganui demonstration had a cross-section of society, including members of the clergy to the local Quaker community.
John Minto in Whanganui for the anniversary of the tour. Photo / Ethan Griffiths
Minto is in Whanganui to host a public meeting marking the 40th anniversary of the tour on Thursday.
"It's fair to say that support for the tour was stronger in the provinces, but there was also significant opposition," Minto said.
"While HART didn't necessarily pump a lot of resources or people into the provinces, there was organically a large group that opposed the tour and made it known."
Looking back on the movement now, Minto believes it was the most divided New Zealand had ever been since at least the New Zealand wars of the 19th century.
"It was a turning point for the country, I think," he said.
"It opened peoples' eyes and shifted public opinion. That was always the goal of the movement - shifting public opinion. Looking back, I think we did that."
