KEY POINTS:
Has Winston Peters done enough to get himself off the hook? Probably not. While the odds on his being sacked have narrowed, his patchy, confusing and less-than-convincing explanations to Parliament's privileges committee last night still make him a candidate for ejection from Helen Clark's ministry.
But not necessarily immediately. Things are less clear-cut than they were following Owen Glenn's testimony on Tuesday. If the Prime Minister feels she has to delay until Peters' lawyer, Brian Henry, reappears before the committee next Tuesday, that delay could yet save the minister.
Whether to sack him or keep him is now a much harder call for the Prime Minister to make.
Realising the depth of the trouble he is now in, Peters was on his best behaviour in front of the committee last night as he did his utmost to cast doubt on Glenn's damning evidence. He was also somewhat quirky, referring at one point to Glenn's having worn a beige sweater despite being "an extremely wealthy man".
However, his explanations were far less compelling than Glenn's testimony. In particular, Peters could not offer a satisfactory explanation on the one absolutely crucial point central to the core question of when he found out about the $100,000 donation Glenn made to him to meet the legal costs of the Tauranga electoral petition.
Peters says he found out only in July this year. If so, why did Henry send an email to Glenn containing his bank account details immediately after the billionaire's phone conversation with Peters in December 2005 - the conversation during which Glenn says Peters had asked for a donation?
Peters' response was that he had no memory of Glenn talking about money or asking for those bank account details to be forwarded to him. However - as one committee member noted - Peters appeared to have a very good memory of the rest of the conversation.
Peters' testimony may be enough to save him from a severe censure from the committee. But it is less likely it will save the current minister without portfolio from losing his ministerial warrant completely.
The Prime Minister was poised yesterday to move swiftly to remove Peters' warrant on the back of Glenn's evidence.
She may now delay while Peters' evidence is carefully scrutinised to ensure she is seen as being fair to him and Henry has reappeared before the privileges committee.
However, the problem for both her and Peters is that events have already moved on. Glenn's testimony has made Peters a liability to Labour. He is now electoral poison. Worse, National is now ignoring Peters completely and instead putting the spotlight on how much Helen Clark and Labour Party president Mike Williams really knew about Glenn's donation from the start.
National is now claiming the Labour Party hierarchy organised the loan to buy NZ First's continued support for the minority Government and then tried to hide it from public view behind what Bill English yesterday told Parliament was "a calculated set of mistruths".
Regardless of its veracity, Labour needs to put such an allegation to rest.
Even though the privileges committee is still some way off completing its inquiry, the Prime Minister must draw a line under this episode. Sacking Peters is the most emphatic means of doing so - but also the most messy politically.
Judging by his fightback last night, Peters would storm out of his confidence and supply arrangement with Labour in revenge. It would be an empty gesture in practical terms. With the current Parliament in its final couple of weeks, confidence in the Government is not going to be tested.
But it would reinforce his clarion call that the privileges committee inquiry - like everything else currently happening to NZ First - is a conspiracy by business elites to "undo the people's will" and ensure National is able to govern alone after the election.
