KEY POINTS:
New Zealand First leader Winston Peters now says he has footed the bill for the $40,000 costs awarded against him by the High Court in the unsuccessful Tauranga electoral petition.
Rather than his lawyer, Brian Henry, having personally met the bill, as Mr Henry said on Monday, they
have now checked the records which showed that Mr Peters actually reimbursed Mr Henry, says Mr Peters.
But MPs are scratching their heads at the latest twist in stories and reject Mr Peters' claims that that now ends the matter as far as the privileges committee is concerned.
"How many people forget about 40 grand?" National MP Wayne Mapp asked.
Mr Henry told the privileges committee at Parliament on Monday that he had personally paid the $40,000.
"I am entitled to do what I like with my money," Mr Henry said. He said Mr Peters had not known that before.
Mr Henry received $100,000 from billionaire Owen Glenn for work on the Tauranga electoral petition in which Mr Peters challenged Tauranga MP Bob Clarkson.
Mr Henry revealed that Mr Peters had never been issued with an invoice for legal work he had done for him since 1991 - though he did tell the committee that all his tax was paid, including GST.
Under questioning about the costs award - in March 2006 - Mr Henry said he had paid it himself but not out of the money Mr Glenn had given him. It was from his own money.
After Mr Henry's evidence, Mr Peters later said it was the first he had heard of Mr Henry's paying the costs and he thought he, Mr Peters, had paid it. The $40,000 payment was new material to the committee, which is looking at whether Mr Peters should have declared the $100,000 as a gift or debt under Parliament's rules. It became apparent that perhaps the $40,000 should have been declared as a debt.
Mr Peters moved yesterday to end such speculation. He said in a speech to Upper Hutt Grey Power yesterday that both he and Mr Henry had been correct.
"Mr Henry paid the money to ensure the bill was paid in time - and he was later reimbursed by myself.
"He checked his records yesterday and found this was indeed the case."
Mr Peters said that as soon as Mr Henry notified the committee of this, the issue would disappear.
Mr Peters also said the privileges committee should have been on national television.
"It was more like the Spanish Inquisition or the Salem witch trials than a reasoned hearing by the so-called highest court in the land.
"It would not have surprised me to have seen a gallows being erected - or a stake with piles of dry wood stacked around it."
Greens co-leader Russel Norman said that based on his recollection of the evidence given on Monday Mr Peters was unaware that Mr Henry had paid the $40,000.
"So how then could Winston have reimbursed Henry for the $40,000 when he didn't even know that Henry had paid the bill for him?" Dr Norman believed the evidence was conflicting and the committee would have to decide how to deal with them.
Act MP Rodney Hide, whose complaint forced the inquiry, said : "I know that there are some very die-hard fans and supporters of Winston Peters but this latest explanation will test the 'diest-hardest' of them all."
