Lawyer's words can't save the boss

Act leader Rodney Hide looks on as Brian Henry appears before the privileges committee via video link. Photo / Mark Mitchell

Winston Peters' lawyer Brian Henry did nothing yesterday to salvage Mr Peters' credibility or prospects of surviving as a minister when he was forced to alter evidence he had previously given to Parliament's privileges committee.

His appearance yesterday points to the privileges committee tabling a report that could be highly critical of Mr Peters and Mr Henry - which would be grounds for Prime Minister Helen Clark to sack Mr Peters.

At present Mr Peters has stood aside as Foreign Minister while the Serious Fraud Office investigates other issues related to donations to New Zealand First, Mr Peters' party.

Credulity was strained to such an extent yesterday that United Future leader Peter Dunne openly questioned Mr Henry's recall.

Mr Dunne suggested it might be that the safest option was not to recall the contents of the phone call or having sent the email because it "might create some further embarrassment for Mr Peters".

The privileges committee is trying to establish when Mr Peters knew about the donation in order to decide if he should have declared it.

Mr Glenn says that Mr Peters has known about it all along because he personally approached him for a donation in December 2005 to fund his Tauranga electoral petition.

Mr Peters maintains it was Mr Henry who solicited the donation in a phone call late November or early December 2005 and that the first Mr Peters knew about it was on July 18 this year.

Mr Glenn undermined their story last week when he tabled records showing Mr Henry had emailed Mr Glenn his bank details minutes after Mr Glenn had spoken to Mr Peters about 1.30pm on December 14, 2005.

The email said "further to your discussion with my client at 1.30 ... "

Mr Henry had denied that Mr Peters was "my client" on September 7 after Mr Glenn had told the privileges committee in a letter about an email from Mr Henry. At that point, no one knew that Mr Glenn still had the email and the linked phone record.

In the interests of natural justice, Mr Henry was recalled after Mr Glenn's evidence. Yesterday he accepted that the reference to "my client" in the email was, in fact, Mr Peters. He had previously denied it was Mr Peters.

Mr Henry could not recall sending the email, though accepted it was from him. He accepted that the evidence showed that Mr Peters called him [Mr Henry] just after Mr Peters had spoken to Mr Glenn.

But like Mr Peters, he could not remember the call or the conversation - excepting both say money would not have been discussed.