KEY POINTS:
New Zealand First leader Winston Peters is welcoming the opportunity to meet Parliament's privileges committee to discuss allegations he failed to declare party donations on the MPs' register of pecuniary interest.
The Speaker today ordered an investigation into allegations surrounding donations to New Zealand First.
Margaret Wilson said Parliament's privileges committee should look into claims from other MPs of an undisclosed gift or debt received by party leader Winston Peters.
Mr Peters says the committee will have the opportunity to see the facts set out in the clear light of day.
"We would like this matter dealt with as soon as possible," said Mr Peters.
He will have to explain to Parliament's privileges committee why he did not register a $100,000 donation that was used to pay off his legal debts.
Speaker Margaret Wilson said the allegations that Mr Peters may have committed a contempt of Parliament by knowingly failing to make declarations on the MPs' register of pecuniary interest were serious ones.
The committee will look into whether Mr Peters should have declared a $100,000 donation from billionaire Owen Glenn.
It would also look at whether Mr Peters should have recorded in the MPs' register of pecuniary interests that he had a legal debt which Mr Glenn's money was used to repay.
Mr Peters long denied receiving money from Mr Glenn, but later admitted his lawyer had received the money to help with his legal bills.
Mr Peters said he had no knowledge of the donation until his lawyer had told him.
Ms Wilson said Mr Peters had provided a "very full and compelling explanation of his position."
Definitions of debt, gifts and what MPs should know and declare were "technical, but of vital importance".
High public interest in the case and implications for Parliament's reputation meant the privileges committee should investigate the complaints and also look at wider rules around the register.
The privileges committee consists of senior MPs and has wide powers to investigate and punish, though they are rarely used.
Other questions have been raised about NZ First's receipt and use of donations including:
* the party receiving cheques from the racing and fishing Vela family which were made out in amounts just under the $10,000 threshold where donations have to be declared;
* that Mr Peters solicited and got a $25,000 donation from Sir Robert Jones which was not declared and went into the Spencer Trust when Sir Robert thought it was going to the party.
The Serious Fraud Office is considering investigating the donations and today Sir Robert said he was considering making a complaint to the police.
He told the New Zealand Herald that he had received one letter from the party's past president Dail Jones but it was evasive and dodged the question of what happened to his money.
He had now written to the party president at the time, Doug Woolerton.
"If the money has not reached the party, it constitutes theft. If I receive another evasive reply then clearly it is a matter for the police," Sir Robert said.
In Parliament, Mr Peters did not appear to be worried by developments and again came out attacking.
He accused National MP Bob Clarkson of committing perjury in Mr Peters' legal bid to overturn the 2005 election result in Tauranga, which Mr Clarkson won.
Mr Peters claimed Mr Clarkson had told the court he got no assistance from the Exclusive Brethren, when he had admitted it over the weekend.
Mr Clarkson said Mr Peters was a liar. Ms Wilson ordered him to leave the House when he refused to apologise for the statement.
Mr Peters also repeated claims about ACT not declaring free office rental and National hiding a $250,000 donation in 2002.
Aside from NZ First MPs offering up soft questions for Mr Peters, only ACT leader Rodney Hide questioned him in Parliament today.
Mr Hide quizzed Mr Peters about when he was going to do as promised and explain what happened to Sir Robert's donation.
Mr Peters said it had been proven that he was not there initially when his staff solicited money from Sir Robert, that he had been angry about it when he entered the room and he had not been there when the money was paid over to the trust.
"Those three critical factors are the total answer to this question," Mr Peters said.
- NZPA
