KEY POINTS:
If Winston Peters had succeeded in getting a bill for tough disclosure laws through Parliament in 1995, he could now have found himself jailed by his own law.
Mr Peters has spent his career railing against secret donations, including presenting a bill to Parliament in 1995 which required
disclosure of all gifts and donations above $500 from individuals and companies.
The Disclosure of Political Donations and Gifts Bill covered all kinds of donations to MPs, candidates or parties and any who failed to declare them faced jail for up to 12 months or fines of up to $20,000.
Companies that donated would have to disclose them to shareholders.
The bill was kicked out after its first reading after it was overtaken by the Electoral Reform Act with its separate disclosure regime.
The bill was part of a campaign against links between big business and political parties that Mr Peters openly admitted was to "seriously damage the ability of the National Party to raise funds from corporate supporters without that fact becoming public knowledge". In its first reading, he said "comprehensive and timely disclosure" of gifts and donations was essential to bring "undue influence ... out of the shadows".
"It seeks to reassure the public that influence cannot be bought when policy is formed before an election, that the voting intentions of those they elected cannot be subverted by powerful interests and that governments, once in power, cannot be improperly influenced by money pledged towards their re-election."
Mr Peters has repeatedly criticised other parties over secret donations, in particular targeting National's use of trust funds to collect donations without having to disclose the source.
However, it is not the first time money from unknown sources has appeared to pay Mr Peters' legal funds. In 1997 a mystery donor paid Mr Peters' $125,000 bill in the Selwyn Cushing defamation case after Mr Peters was fined $75,000 in costs and $50,000 in damages for comments he made about Mr Cushing.
In 2004, Mr Peters claimed Telecom's near monopoly position was because of its political donations to Labour and National.
This month, Mr Peters alleged the insurance industry had donated to National in a bid to secure a policy for more competition in ACC, saying it was "venal, corrupt politics".
In debates on the Electoral Finance Act last year he referred to the need for the law to prevent "the kind of covert money that is destroying democracy in some countries in the Pacific today".
In June 1999, he said the Electoral Commission should investigate a trust which gave $50,000 to the National Party to find where the donations were from in the interests of the voting public.
Mr Peters has also criticised parties for appointing donors to Government-selected positions.
He said giving jobs in return for political donations was "the way it goes, unfortunately, in this country".
He said a separate commission should be established to appoint people to such positions.
