KEY POINTS:
If Winston Peters was man enough he would apologise to leading New Zealand political journalists for the outrageous way he attacked them for questioning whether Labour's major donor Owen Glenn had contributed anonymous funds to New Zealand First.
New Zealand now knows the vile allegations and innuendo that
Peters accused journalists of spreading early this year were not that far off the mark. But Peters' continuing reliance on bravado and counter-punches instead of confronting the real issues means his political reputation is punctured.
For a politician with the prime role of being New Zealand's top diplomat, this is disastrous.
Peters typically tells audiences it is vital to have personal relationships built on respect and trust.
"That is ultimately the secret of being an effective Foreign Minister; get the relationships right and the rest will follow."
But respect and trust also count at home and that is rapidly diminishing.
When Glenn made the $100,000 donation to Peters' lawyer Brian Henry (which the latter used for the MP's legal challenge against Tauranga MP Bob Clarkson), he probably equated that with donating to NZ First.
In most people's minds NZ First and Winston Peters are one and the same thing. No sensible person expects the party will outlive Peters' period in politics. I doubt that Glenn ever made the distinction in his own mind.
But when it comes to justifying the resultant political allegations that the MP obtained a pecuniary advantage through the $100,000 donation that should have been declared, the distinctions become all important.
Parliament's privileges committee is now probing whether Peters obtained a pecuniary advantage that should have been disclosed.
My inquiries suggest that unless Glenn makes a statement to the committee that runs counter to what Peters and Henry have said - that Henry approached Glenn directly for financial help and that Peters was kept out of the picture - the allegation that the NZ First leader ought to have disclosed the donation is unlikely to be upheld.
Legal authorities I have consulted suggest the committee will probably opt for "form over substance" on this score, unless the transaction between Glenn and Henry can be proved a sham.
This will inevitably cause considerable angst to MPs Rodney Hide and Gordon Copeland, whose complaints led to the privileges committee's inquiries. It might also lead to suggestions to cover the obvious gap.
Henry's practices have also come under question this week. He is not an orthodox barrister. But Henry is by no means alone in extending considerable help on a pro bono basis.
I know this from first-hand experience in legal cases that I have been associated with where kindly barristers did not hit me up for fees at times when my own finances were stretched.
Crusading barristers, of which we have too few, do this when they want to ensure that issues are examined when authorities fail to do their duty.
In some instances the barrister ends up doing the investigative work him/herself. Peters and Henry had just such a relationship: Henry did the investigations on which Peters based his allegations of major tax rorts using the Cook Islands tax haven. The MP with whom he enjoyed a blood brother relationship fronted them.
But there will inevitably be more skirmishes to come.
It's abundantly clear that Peters' political interests and those of his party have been served by plenty of cash from wealthy donors, contrary to the public picture he has painted.
The claims he made early this year that New Zealand First had had no big-business backing since its inception have been exposed as fatuous.
Journalists have since revealed the Peters Party has received plenty of cash from such interests: The Vela brothers donated the thick end of $150,000. But this was not disclosed because the donations were made via a series of cheques from different Vela companies, none of which exceeded the then $10,000 disclosure limits.
Property magnate Sir Robert Jones' $25,000 donation was not disclosed because the cheque was made out to the Spencer Trust, which is administered by the NZ First leader's brother Wayne Peters.
The problem that Peters has created for himself is that other MPs, particularly Hide, are now asking whether NZ First's policies have been for sale. That's a charge Peters denies.
At this stage there is no smoking gun in the public domain. Both major parties have employed similar practices to keep their donors secret.
But unfortunately the Peters donations furore does obscure the real scandal the NZ First leader continues to duck. The party's refusal to send a cheque to the Crown for the $158,000 in unlawful spending at the 2005 election is breathtakingly cynical.
Doling out this money - which rightfully belongs in taxpayer's coffers - to a swag of unnamed charities doesn't cut it for a politician who made his name on challenging commercial malfeasance. He should not be let off the hook.