Prime Minister Helen Clark has indicated she may delay a decision on Winston Peters' future as a minister until multiple investigations into undeclared donations are complete.
Parliament's privileges committee is investigating whether the New Zealand First leader should have declared a $100,000 donation to his legal fees by billionaire Owen Glenn in December 2005.
Mr Peters is also suspended from his foreign affairs, racing and associate senior citizens portfolios while the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) investigates undeclared donations to his NZ First party.
Mr Peters' lawyer, Brian Henry, yesterday changed his version of events to the committee, confirming key parts of Mr Glenn's testimony.
Mr Peters has said he could not have declared the donation because he did not know about it until July this year, but Mr Glenn has said it was Mr Peters who solicited the donation from him in the first place.
Helen Clark has previously said there would have to be "devastating" developments before she decided to sack Mr Peters ahead of a full report from the privileges committee.
Today she went further and indicated during an interview on Radio New Zealand that her decision might not even be made until the SFO completed its investigation into where undeclared donations to NZ First that were never declared ended up.
Helen Clark said her advice from Labour MPs on the committee was there was still conflicting evidence and she should "let the process continue".
Asked if that would mean waiting another week she said: "Well there's three horses running" - a reference to the privileges, SFO and police investigations.
Asked if that meant she would wait until they were all completed she said it was important to note Mr Peters' suspension as a minister was due to the SFO inquiry rather than the privileges committee.
"Let's underline Winston Peters right now is not performing any ministerial duties. He has been stood aside. That's a serious matter and is not a step taken lightly," Helen Clark said.
"I've been determined right through this to be fair. I've been determined to let processes run. I'm aware that I'm dealing with the leader of another party and his future is clearly on the line in the court of public opinion."
The privileges committee meets behind closed doors tomorrow and its report into the matter is expected next week.
Mr Henry yesterday told the committee he did speak to Mr Peters on December 14, 2005, and sent an email to Mr Glenn minutes later.
The one-line email to Mr Glenn included his bank account details and referred to a conversation Mr Glenn had held with "my client" minutes earlier.
Mr Henry previously denied the reference to "my client" meant Mr Peters.
Yesterday he said it did refer to Mr Peters, but he claimed money was not discussed during his conversation just before he sent it even though he had no recollection of the call.
He said Mr Peters must have mentioned Mr Glenn and that must have reminded him Mr Glenn had previously offered a donation to pay his legal fees.
Mr Henry has previously said he phoned Mr Glenn to ask for a donation, which Mr Glenn denies.
Mr Henry yesterday failed to produce phone records to back his claim.
Mr Glenn told the committee last week it was Mr Peters who asked for the money, and he had never spoken to Mr Henry.