KEY POINTS:
If Winston Peters had the decency his position deserves, he would now resign. The testimony his donor, Owen Glenn, has given Parliament's privileges committee directly contradicts the New Zealand First leader's public statements about the expatriate businessman's $100,000 contribution to his legal expenses. Mr Glenn says Mr Peters not only knew about the contribution in 2005, he requested it. Mr Peters says that is not so and maintains he did not know of the donation until his lawyer, Brian Henry, told him about it on July 18 this year.
Whom to believe? Faced with one person's uncorroborated word against another's, there are some tests we might reasonably apply. First, could one of them be honestly mistaken? Mr Glenn's letter to the committee has been made public at his request. It seems to have been written in a spirit of co-operation and careful recall. It does not claim precision on dates and details where precision could not be expected. But it is definite that it was Mr Peters who sought his help some time after their first meeting.
It confirms that Mr Glenn did not donate to New Zealand First the party, contrary to his comment in an email obtained by the Herald, but to Mr Peters' personal legal costs incurred by a petition against the Tauranga election result. Mr Peters says this donation was solicited by Mr Henry. Mr Glenn says he does not know Mr Henry and does not believe they have met.
If neither is honestly mistaken in his recall, then one of them is not telling the truth. On a matter of public interest such as this it seems reasonable to ask what motive either may have for deception. It is hard to imagine a motive for Mr Glenn. He is primarily a Labour supporter, the largest donor to that party's expenses at the 2005 election. He says he agreed to help Mr Peters in the belief this would aid the Labour Party, which of course has governed with NZ First support since the election.
Mr Peters would not want it to be known that he or his party was in receipt of donations from somebody such as Mr Glenn. He has built his political career on opposition to the supposed corruption of politics in this country, claiming others are beholden to big-business donors and selling out to foreign interests. Even so, it would be foolish of him to falsely deny any knowledge of the Glenn donation, and he did own up to it the day he says he was informed of it by Mr Henry.
His fate may now depend on which testimony the privileges committee prefers. But if the word of a Labour Party minister had been contradicted in this way, the Prime Minister would suspend him. If she is not inclined to hold a governing partner to the same standards, Mr Peters himself should seriously consider his position.
Labour needs his party's support to pass some sentinel legislation, the emissions trading bill, and would prefer it through to the election, now little more than two months away at most. Mr Peters should consider whether these are honourable reasons for him to remain in office.
The questions raised by Mr Glenn's testimony to the committee could not be more serious in their implications. Mr Peters should resign as Foreign Minister forthwith. If he were also to withdraw his party's support for the Government, it is probably too late to force an election slightly earlier than Helen Clark may have in mind. But ultimately it is the public who will pass judgment on him and any party that seems likely to deal with him if he survives the election. Even National, ever tentative, has now cast him aside.
The Prime Minister should now consider the interests of her party and the country and hold the election as soon as possible. The best way out of this predicament, for Mr Peters and all concerned, would be to name the date today.
