Fairbrother Russell: General Debate 
Fairbrother Russell: General Debate 
[Volume:634;Page:5437] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 If it smells like a rat and looks like a rat then we are probably talking to the last speaker. The words “dirty” and “sleazy” are somewhat more of a description of what that member sees in the mirror in his office. In my speech I was going to dwell for the 5 minutes available to me on what Labour promised in the pledge card and what it has delivered: more hip operations more police interest-free student loans more apprenticeships— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What about the $400000 worth? 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: I tell the member not to interrupt. He has had his say and he could not say anything then. 
Instead I think I will give a case example of one of the member’s own colleagues. I will throw away the opportunity to talk about the good things Labour has done. We play by the rules; that member’s party does not. Here is a good case study. There is a member in this House whose election fund came 10 percent from local party members and 90 percent from big business. That is appalling. When we say that the Exclusive Brethren funded the National Party’s exercise I can say that I received a letter in my office from those seven Exclusive Brethren members pointing out that no they were not Exclusive Brethren but they were all businessmen. They are obviously big business men who choose to use the Church. Why do they use the Church? In Hastings Hawke’s Bay people of the Church rang and push-polled. That is documented but big business by way of our newspapers would not report upon that hard and fast fact. 
And what did big business do in the case study I am talking about? Ten percent of the member for Napier’s funding came from National Party members. The other 90 percent came from big business—from millionaires-plus including an insurance company. Another big business contributor was a printing company that printed without authorisation the member’s pamphlets. The first lot of pamphlets was distributed right around the electorate without any authorisation on them but the pamphlets in the second distribution had a rubber-stamp mark on them that had been smeared out. That was breaking the rules. That was not playing by the rules. That was a clear breach of the rules. Those pamphlets were funded by big business. That member paid 7 percent of the market price for pamphlets to be distributed around Napier—pamphlets that were not attributed. A complaint was made so he rubber-stamped the second distribution of pamphlets. But that was not playing by the rules because those pamphlets were funded by big business. Seven percent of the market price was paid. 
What else do we have in this case study? Big business contributed 90 percent of the funding—and we know who was connected with big business in that campaign: the Exclusive Brethren. We do not know from the names to what extent that 90 percent was paid by the Exclusive Brethren but we know that the Exclusive Brethren are big business and that they are paying for the tongue of that member. We needed only to listen to his speeches in the House in the last year. None of them were about Napier concerns; they were all about increasing benefits for big business. That tongue was paid for from the 90 percent contribution to that man’s campaign. 
What else do we have? We have the non-declaration of the van. Big business donated to this man a van that he painted up with one of Labour’s promises to increase the number of police—and we have delivered on that. That van was owned by and used at the expense of big business right throughout the campaign and it was not declared. I suppose that is a very liberal interpretation of not declaring the cost of transport but I would have thought the gift of a van worth many thousands of dollars was a gift from big business that should be declared. Was that playing by the rules? I think not. 
So those who get up here and say: “If it smells like a rat and looks like a rat then it is …” should look at themselves at their own party and at their own members. If those members can sit here having been funded 90 percent by big business having been funded on a major undeclared asset by big business and having had pamphlets paid for at 7 percent of market cost by big business then we can know what the analogy and example of: “If it smells like a rat and looks like a rat …” means. 
 If we look at the track record of speeches in this House we see that the rules clearly apply differently if a party is funded by big business. That party’s members do not talk about the needs of their electorates and they do not talk about what is good for the towns they represent; they talk about what is good for big business by way of cuts and tougher employment laws. That is what smells like a rat.