The contract turned out to be even more valuable than had appeared at first sight when $7.5 million of taxpayer-funded aid money was paid to Scenic Hotels to upgrade the resort.
In any other country, and especially in those where such deals are commonplace, no one would be in any doubt as to what had really happened. In New Zealand, however, we are naively inclined to accept the blank-eyed, slack-mouthed assurances that it was all a coincidence and that nothing untoward had happened.
We are told by Scenic Circle that Mr Hagaman would not have been aware when he made his donation - one of the largest political donations on record - that his company was in the running for the Niue contract. We may safely assume that Mr Hagaman did not succeed in business by displaying such a lofty indifference to commercial opportunities and that he was not in the habit of shelling out more than $100,000.
We are then told by the office of the responsible Minister, Murray McCully, that he would not have been aware of the donation made by Mr Hagaman when the Niue contract came to be awarded. Mr McCully, however, is the most inside of National party insiders. It beggars belief that he did not know who was giving what to the National party coffers.
But, say the apologists, it was not Mr McCully who awarded the contract to Scenic Hotels. The deal was done by an independent board - but the board was one appointed by Mr McCully.
Mr McCully, after all, has form - think Saudi sheep. And the more worldly-wise will again recognise all too easily the tell-tale signs of a familiar device; when leaving fingerprints would be risky, set up an intermediary to distance the decision from the real decision-maker.
READ MORE: Labour questions $101,000 National donation and Niue resort management contract links
The chances are that the Auditor General, to whom the matter has been referred, will report, having made a genuine attempt to get at the truth, that it is not possible to reach a definitive conclusion. And that report will in any case be made some months from now, when memories have faded and the issue has dropped down the list of newsworthy items - again, think Saudi sheep.
The government will treat the issue as business as usual - as, sadly, it has become. Its supporters will gladly believe that it was all an invention by political opponents. But this is an issue that transcends party politics.
There are good political reasons for supporting or criticising a government on a whole range of issues, but those issues surely do not include attitudes towards sleaze and corruption. New Zealanders of all political persuasions can surely unite in insisting that the highest standards are met in our public life. The government's supporters have a special responsibility, since one hopes that the government will listen to them, to ensure that their government understands what is and is not acceptable.
In such issues, perception matters greatly. Unless we make it clear that we are not prepared to accept this erosion of our reputation for probity, the bad news will keep on coming and, little by little, our readiness to accept that erosion will grow. In that case, however, the bad news will not just be for the government but for New Zealand.
Bryan Gould is a former UK Labour MP and former vice-chancellor of Waikato University.
Debate on this article is now closed.