Prime Minister Helen Clark is yet to assess whether today's evidence to the privileges committee was devastating or not before deciding whether to sack Winston Peters.
Act leader Rodney Hide is calling for Mr Peters to be sacked after new contradictory evidence from Mr Peters' lawyer.
Appearing before Parliament's privileges committee via video-link, Mr Henry conceded that the "client" Owen Glenn spoke to was Winston Peters.
He has previously said it was not Mr Peters.
The committee is investigating whether Mr Peters broke Parliament's rules by failing to declare a $100,000 donation to New Zealand First by billionaire Mr Glenn.
Mr Peters has argued he did not have to declare it as Mr Henry solicited the money - for the costs of an electoral petition - and the payment was made directly to the lawyer.
He has also denied knowledge of the December 2005 donation until Mr Henry informed him of it in July this year.
However, Mr Glenn has said Mr Peters personally asked for the donation. Last week, he produced phone records showing he talked to Mr Peters on December 14, 2005, minutes before Mr Henry sent an email to him with his bank details.
The email, produced by Mr Glenn, shows Mr Henry referred to the phone conversation with "my client" at the precise time of the phone call.
Mr Henry has previously denied the "client" was Mr Peters but today he said the pair's recollection of events was poor and their earlier story did not now seem correct.
He acknowledged that Mr Peters must be the client referred to but said that did not conclusively show Mr Peters' solicited a donation towards his legal fees.
Mr Henry said he instead believed he had emailed Mr Glenn because his memory had been jogged after speaking to Mr Peters.
Mr Hide - who laid the complaint with the committee - said it was stretching credibility to believe Mr Henry's version of evidence.
He said Prime Minister Helen Clark should sack Mr Peters from his portfolios and get on with fighting the election.
A phone record supplied by Mr Peters was also released today and backs up Mr Glenn's timeline of events, showing Mr Peters called Mr Henry him one minute after he finished talking to Mr Glenn.
Mr Henry's email was sent one minute after his phone call with Mr Peters ended.
Henry says he solicited donation
Mr Glenn has said Mr Peters asked for the $100,000 donation in their phone call.
But Mr Henry today gave the committee a different explanation, although he acknowledged he had little recollection of the actual events.
He said he had spoken to Mr Glenn in either late November or early December asking for a donation.
He said the phone call from Mr Peters on December 14, which was presumably coincidental, reminded him to follow up with Mr Glenn, which he immediately did.
He remained adamant the call from Mr Peters would not have been about the donation.
"I have never discussed Owen Glenn with Mr Peters or told Mr Peters about the donation until July this year."
He said if Mr Peters had brokered the $100,000 donation from the billionaire "we would have had an argument".
He said his standard practice was to seek the donations himself without advising Mr Peters, and he did not like MPs soliciting their own donations.
However, Mr Henry could not provide phone records of any phone calls he made to Mr Glenn during the period he said he solicited the donation.
He said he was travelling a lot at the time and was uncertain where he would have called from. A hotel he was staying in on the day Mr Glenn claimed to have been contacted by Mr Peters or NZ First did not keep records that far back.
Mr Henry is the last witness before the committee, which is expected to have its report completed by next week.
Mr Peters' New Zealand First party is also facing investigations by the Serious Fraud Office, police and Electoral Commission into undeclared donations.
Crucial calls and emails in $100,000 donation row
* Dec 14, 1.26pm - Mr Glenn calls Mr Peters' cellphone. The pair speak for six minutes and 40 seconds;
* Dec 14, 1.33pm - Mr Peters calls his lawyer Brian Henry. The pair speak for six minutes;
* Dec 14, 1.40pm - Mr Henry emails Mr Glenn. The short email says: "Further to your discussion with my client at 1.30 NZT I provide my bank details".
* Dec 20 - Mr Glenn orders the payment to be made;
* Dec 22 - the $100,000 payment arrives in Mr Henry's bank account.
Key claims from Owen Glenn and Winston Peters
Mr Glenn says:
* He received a late November call from a New Zealand First staffer and a December 5 message from Mr Peters asking about a donation;
* he called Mr Peters on December 14 and the pair discussed a $100,000 donation to Mr Peters' Tauranga electoral petition, to be paid to his lawyer Brian Henry;
* eight minutes later he received a one sentence email from Mr Henry referring to the phone conversation with "my client" and providing bank details;
* six days later Mr Glenn authorised the payment;
* in early 2006 he saw Mr Peters at the Karaka yearling sales and Mr Peters thanked him;
* at no point did he ever speak to Mr Henry.
Mr Peters and Mr Henry say:
* Mr Henry called Mr Glenn in late November or early December and asked for money after a suggestion from another client;
* Mr Peters says he never called Mr Glenn on December 5;
* Mr Peters says he talked to Mr Glenn on December 14 but money was not discussed;
* Mr Peters immediately called Mr Henry after talking to Mr Glenn but other than mentioning the call the pair did not discuss Mr Glenn or money, instead talking about Mr Peters' petition, however the pair acknowledge their recollection is poor;
* Mr Henry says his only explanation for the email which he can't remember writing is that the call jogged his memory of his earlier call to Mr Glenn and as a result he immediately sent off the email with his bank details;
* Mr Peters says he could not have thanked Mr Glenn at Karaka, as the pair were not formally seated together.