KEY POINTS:
If you were a betting person, you would have to put the odds on Winston Peters escaping censure by Parliament's privileges committee after watching last night's hearing.
Put that down to the unorthodox relationship between Peters and his lawyer Brian Henry. Much depends on what Owen Glenn says if he accepts the committee's invitation to give evidence. But with his testimony - given by video-link - Henry knocked the stuffing out of the charge Peters had failed to declare a $100,000 donation from the wealthy expatriate in the register of MPs' pecuniary interests.
Boiled down, it ran like this. Henry rang Glenn and asked for the donation to meet the costs of Peters' legal bid to overturn the result in Tauranga in the 2005 election. Peters was not told. It was Henry's practice not to bill Peters for his work. In fact, since becoming Peters' lawyer in 1991, Henry had never billed Peters for his work. Because he did not bill Peters, there was no debt that Peters ought to have declared.
The committee heard from Peters that he had reimbursed Henry to the tune of hundreds and thousands of dollars over that period, but without knowing how much he owed.
So it seems Henry did not charge Peters - but he still got paid.
Some of the committee found this hard to swallow. But Henry described his relationship with Peters as akin to being "blood brothers".
If blood brothers mingle their blood as a display of lifelong loyalty to each other, the pair seemed determined to make sure any blood on the floor at last night's hearing was not going to be theirs.
In forthrightly arguing his case, Henry nearly managed to upstage his client - something rarely done. When Henry refused on the grounds of legal privilege to name the person who had suggested he ring Glenn for a donation, he got into a lengthy argument with National's Gerry Brownlee, who accused him of being obstructive.
There had been doubts beforehand about how tough National's questioning would be, given the party might have to negotiate with Peters after the coming election. But Brownlee and his colleague Wayne Mapp did not hold back. Sparks also flew during their exchanges with Peters.
The latter looked utterly relaxed, quietly chuckling to himself during Henry's testimony.
When it was his turn, he did not hold back, describing Mapp as "an academic lawyer, not a practising lawyer", and telling another National MP on the committee, Murray McCully, "you are flying without any feathers".
Peters also had a go at his chief accuser Rodney Hide, who had removed himself from the committee. His place was taken by his colleague Heather Roy, who asked Peters a series of questions.
Retorted Peters: "I know who drafted them by the grammatical and spelling mistakes."
Hide, who was sitting in the public seats, took the bait, telling Peters: "You will be voted out."
That remains to be seen, but Hide's interjection said more about the way the hearing, which he was in part responsible for happening, was going.
