KEY POINTS:
Winston Peters returned yesterday to face some very serious questions. What is this Spencer Trust, run by his brother, for which Sir Robert Jones says he wrote a cheque at the request of Winston Peters? What political purpose, if any, does the trust serve for the New Zealand
First Party? Why was the money not declared in electoral finance returns and why has the party president never heard of the trust?
From the moment Sir Robert expressed his concern at reports that his donation does not appear to have been disclosed to the Electoral Commission, the troubles for the Foreign Minister took a more ominous turn. Until then, Mr Peters had been up to his usual merriment, fielding questions about the Owen Glenn contribution to his legal costs and the sums he is said to have received from racing interests some years before he sought and received the ministerial portfolio for racing in the present Government.
The Jones disclosures prompted the Prime Minister to seek an assurance from Mr Peters in Singapore that he has done nothing illegal. The same day, he issued a statement promising to clarify matters "in an orderly manner" on his return yesterday. He has not done so.
He denied any personal involvement with the Spencer Trust, declined to explain what it was and can not explain why Sir Robert would write a cheque for a trust Sir Robert had never heard of.
Sir Robert says his secretary was told by Mr Peters to make the cheque out to the trust and Mr Peters took the cheque away. And Sir Robert says Mr Peters' brother, Wayne, wrote the receipt he received in the mail. What the donor does not know, and we would very much like to know, is, what the cheque was used for.
Rather than answer that or any other question yesterday, Winston Peters said he was "not required" to disclose anything about the Spencer Trust. "New Zealand First is not going to subject itself to demands not required of any other political party or leader."
That is nonsense. If any other party or leader had asked for a cheque to be made out to a mysterious trust and never accounted for it, Mr Peters would be scandalised.
Corruption is a word seldom heard in political debate here except from him - often, ironically, on the subject of undisclosed contributions. It rolls off his tongue much too readily when other parties' dealings are under discussion.
We do not propose to treat him as he treats others. We will not believe there is wilful dishonesty unless it is proven beyond doubt. The very suspicion of corruption is poisonous to public confidence in government and politics. To spread such poison without proof does almost as much harm as corruption itself.
Mr Peters' problems possibly arise from the complete command he imposes on his party. New Zealand First is a one-man band in every sense. Mr Peters alone founded it; his leadership has never been challenged. His MPs owe their seats in Parliament entirely to him and do not for a moment forget it. They do not answer a question unless they know his view, and can not hide their deference to his policy decrees. In his absence this week, they defended his position as best they could, thereafter ducking questions about fund-raising territory that was plainly news to them.
A politician who maintains a small party as a vehicle for his career may be prone to blur the lines of accountability. And it is evident in public appearances that Mr Peters is a person who likes to keep his cards very close to his chest. This time it is not a game.