KEY POINTS:
The fall-out from the privileges committee report and Winston Peters' censure motion in Parliament continues.
Maori Party co-leader Pita Sharples held a press conference this afternoon to expand on his statement accusing a Labour minister of "perverting the course of justice' by trying to get him to change the party's vote.
A minister, whom he would not name, had phoned him twice on Sunday and on Monday, to try to influence the way the Maori Party voted.
He also said a New Zealand First staff member had tried to lobby the Maori Party's representative on the committee to try to get him to support Peters.
Parekura Horomia held one in response, outing himself as the person who called Sharples, but said that he had not tried to persuade the party to switch sides.
Waiariki MP Te Ururoa Flavell was the Maori Party's man on the privileges committee. He was part of the majority that found against Peters on Monday and then the party voted for the censure motion in Parliament yesterday.
That somehow shocked Peters who obviously mistook the Maori Party's words of personal support during the privileges committee ordeal as a promise of political support.
Peters accused the party of selling out.
Horomia was adamant in denying he had tried to dissuade the Maori Party - as well he might be.
Any attempt to that would be not only an improper interference into an inquiry, it would make a mockery of Helen Clark's concerns at the so-called "politicisation' of the privileges committee process.
Sharples made a good point: he reminded people that every speaker in the debate yesterday who had served on the committee praised chairman Simon
Power for the fair way he had chaired the committee - even Michael Cullen.
The process was nothing like "the circus' that Jim Anderton claimed.
It was a fairly and properly conducted - at least the hearings were.
On my way to the Horomia press conference, I bumped into Peters who was even ruder than usual.
It must be catching. His usually civil press secretary this morning was Peteresque in his response to a perfectly reasonable inquiry as to whether Peters would be complying with the House's motion requiring Peters to file amended returns to for 2006, 2007 and 2008 including any gifts, payments or debts he has not previously included.
"I don't know and I frankly I do not care' was the response.
But the question was not about whether he cared but does Winston care?
I tried to find that out from Peters himself on the way to Horomia's press conference, asking whether he would be complying.
It would be safe to say I am none the wiser.
But if he does comply, presumably he will have to submit an amended one for 2007 than includes the 2006 payment by the Spencer Trust of $40,000 in court costs to Bob Clarkson for the Tauranga electoral petition.
This is the evidence that shows that Peters was not quite telling the truth when he told Upper Hutt Grey Power in a written speech that he had checked the records and that he himself had reimbursed Brian Henry the $40,000.
And this is the evidence that Cullen wanted heard in secret. More about this from my colleague Paddy Gower in tomorrow's paper.
Photo / Mark Mitchell
