KEY POINTS:
Expatriate billionaire Owen Glenn will be asked to give evidence to Parliament's privileges committee about his $100,000 donation towards the legal bill of New Zealand First leader Winston peters.
The committee resolved late last night, after hearing from Mr Peters and his lawyer, Brian Henry, to invite Mr Glenn, who lives in Monaco, to give evidence on September 4.
Mr Glenn could give written evidence, appear by video link or appear in person.
He could not be contacted late last night.
The committee is looking into the donation of $100,000 by Mr Glenn towards Mr Peters' legal bill for his electoral petition over the 2005 Tauranga electorate result.
Evidence from Mr Peters and Mr Henry last night revealed that the pair have a unconventional working relationship.
Mr Henry described it as a "blood brother" one.
Mr Peters has not had a legal bill for work done by Mr Henry since 1991.
Mr Henry described the procedure the pair had adopted regarding legal fees in the following way:
"I would provide the legal resources he required."The legal cost would not be invoiced by my instructing solicitor to create an unpaid debt.
"The obligation to meet any outstanding fee was understood as a moral, not a legal obligation. If the money cannot be fundraised, then my time is donated.
"I would, where possible, fundraise and any funds raised would go towards the fees due.
"Where funds were raised, Winston would not ask, and I would not tell him the source. This is the same practice as used in the National party.
"This procedure means Winston at no time had a legal obligation to pay me any fees.
"The fees are either a donation of my time or fundraised."
It also emerged during evidence given by Mr Henry that the $40,000 court costs awarded by the High Court against Mr Peters to Tauranga MP Bob Clarkson in the electoral petition case had been paid by Mr Henry in 2005.
He said he wrote the cheque out to Mr Clarkson's solicitor.
But later, in his own evidence, Mr Peters questioned that claim.
He said it was the first time he had heard that statement, and he thought he had paid the money.
Mr Henry said he would not say who had advised him to contact Mr Glenn regarding the $100,000 payment because that would be a breach of client privileges.
But the money had been paid on December 22, 2005.
"I phoned Owen Glenn and he forwarded $100,000 which was paid to me on account of my fees.
"My instructing solicitor [Denis Gates] has never sent Winston an invoice for this work. I can invoice this work at any time I choose but to do so would break our agreement not to create debt due.
"The $100,00 was paid into my fees account. This was a payment towards completed work.
The story so far:
A $100,000 donation made in 2006 by billionaire Owen Glenn towards Winston Peters' legal bill is the subject of the privileges committee hearing at Parliament.
The committee has a narrow brief - to decide whether the payment was a gift and should have been declared in the register of MPs' pecuniary interests.
Mr Peters says he found out about the payment only on July 18 from his barrister, Brian Henry.
The previous week, the Herald published details of emails between Mr Glenn and his public relations agent in Auckland, Steve Fisher, which showed Mr Glenn believed he had donated to New Zealand First.
"Steve - are you saying I should deny giving a donation to NZ First?? When I did??" Mr Glenn says.
Fisher: "No, just stick to the line of referring stuff to NZ First. What I'm saying is we don't want to contradict Winston."
Mr Peters' admission, the day before his party conference, contradicted assurances he gave in February that he had not received any donation from Mr Glenn.
Mr Henry told the Herald that someone who had agreed to fund Mr Peters' legal challenge against the 2005 Tauranga electorate result in the courts did not come up with the money. He was then advised by someone to contact Mr Glenn and ask for assistance with the legal bill.
Neither he nor Mr Peters believes there has been any need to declare anything.
What is the worst that can happen?
Whether the committee rules for Mr Peters is less important to MPs than what emerges in the evidence that is given. Further hearings are expected.
"I am lawfully allowed to donate my time to assist a politician, and that creates no obligation that must be disclosed by the politician."
