KEY POINTS:
Winston Peters has confirmed on Newstalk ZB my story in Friday's Herald as to what the Serious Fraud Office told the privileges committee.
Peters confirmed that the Spencer Trust had reimbursed his lawyer Brian Henry the $40,000 Henry had personally paid for costs awarded against Peters in the Tauranga electoral petition, talking to drive-time host Larry Williams on Friday night:
[listen to the audio at 'listen' under the sub-head Related Audio]
'Mr Henry paid the money initially. He was later reimbursed out of the trust account from the Spencer Trust funds. In that sense yes,' Peters said. 'But that was a trust to assist the New Zealand First Party and any actions it might take. What's wrong with that?'
It is important not because Peters had a secret trust but now because of misleading statements the may have made publicly and to the privileges committee about the trust and its use.
It means that the information Peters gave in a speech on August 20 to supposedly "clarify" what had been said about the $40,000 at the privileges committee two days earlier was actually not true.
"Mr Henry paid the money [$40,000] to ensure the bill was paid in time - and he was later reimbursed by myself," Peters told Grey Power in Upper Hutt.
"He checked his records yesterday and found this was indeed the case."
A clarifying letter was sent to the privileges committee to that effect.
Peters' admission about the reimbursement also raises questions about whether the $40,000 should have been declared to Parliament in 2007 in the Register of Pecuniary Interests.
And it raises issues about how much Peters knew about the secret Spencer Trust and whether he was party to its non-disclosure of donations to the NZ First Party.
In the radio interview, Mr Peters says that the differing stories - about the reimbursement of Mr Henry - was made in the pressure of the committee when he had very little time to prepare.
In fact, it was made two days later in the speech in which says Mr Henry had checked his records and found that Mr Peters had reimbursed him.
The only way that can be true is if Peters and the Spencer Trust are one in the same and we know from a press conference in Auckland with Peters on July 11 that he knew nothing about the Spencer Trust. An extract ...
Q: Mr Peters are you seriously saying that people are meant to believe that you don't know what the ST is used for?
A: Yes I do. You know why? Because those are the facts.
Q: We asked your brother yesterday and he wouldn't answer the question.
A: Well Audrey you should show a bit of knowledge, experience and a bit of commonsense, right? Go and ask him again.
Q: Who should we ask?
A: You're entitled to ask it all the questions you like.
Q: But you're not answering them.
A: How can I answer them if I'm not in charge of the trust.
Q: Because you know what that trust is using the money for.
A: Sorry I don't.
Q: Really?
A: Well I just said no I don't.
Unfortunately the stories in this whole sorry saga keep changing as new facts emerge.
Brian Henry first appeared before the privileges committee on August 18 to answer questions about the $100,000 donation Owen Glenn had given in 2005 Peters for his legal fees.
This was all before Glenn himself delivered his compelling phone and email evidence suggesting peters and he had discussed the large donation.
Greens co-leader Russel Norman out of left field raised the issue with Henry of the $40,000 costs awarded against Peters in 2006.
Henry was quick to say it had been paid by him personally, not out of the Glenn $100,000, and that Peters would have learned of that fact for the first time that night.
National MP Wayne Mapp was incredulous but Henry was adamant about what had happened.
Mapp: Are you seriously suggesting that you would've paid $40,000 in court costs which were against Mr Peters and you advised Mr Peters of that fact, and that Mr Peters would not have understood that that would've effectively come out of the $100,000 - well the donations received?
Henry: Mr Mapp, I'm not 'seriously' saying it; I am saying it. I'm not suggesting it. I'm telling you exactly what I did.....So don't slur it - this is what I did. I'd like to finish with Mr Mapp....Mr Mapp I am telling you what I did. So please do not slur it or belittle it by saying 'Are you seriously suggesting....' This is actually what I did. You mightn't like it but that's what I did.
Immediately the implication was that there may have been another lot of money - another gift - that perhaps should have been declared.
But the issue dropped two days later with Peters' so-called clarifying statement of Peters, saying he had reimbursed it himself.
Now it seems the Serious Fraud Office has evidence to the contrary.
There may well be issues around the SFO's intervention in the privileges committee hearing. Peters says the office is politically motivated and it has breached the secrecy provisions of S39 of its act.
NZPA reports that the SFO director consulted the Clerk of the House and the Auditor-General before offering the evidence to the privileges.
There may be issues to debate about the intervention but the primary issue is what contradictions it may have exposed.
Top photos / Mark Mitchell
