For weeks, the Government has declined to answer questions about its odd farm investment in Saudi Arabia. Instead, it has tried to shift the blame to the previous Labour government. It, according to the Government, was responsible for New Zealand's exposure to a legal claim of up to $30 million, necessitating the spending of $11.5 million on an "agri-business hub" on the desert holding of influential Saudi businessman Hamood Al Ali Khalaf. Labour has vehemently denied this, and the public remains none the wiser. All it has been served up is politicking of a dismal nature.
The Prime Minister has asserted that Cabinet papers from Labour's time in government would be an embarrassment and justify the money spent in Saudi Arabia. Labour's trade spokesman, David Parker, says they show nothing of the sort. The obvious solution is for these documents to be released, so the public can decide. Mr Parker tried on several occasions to table them in Parliament, but the Government played for time. It talked of a convention on Cabinet papers relating to previous administrations that it could not circumvent.
Finally, on Wednesday, Mr Parker decided to hand out Cabinet documents relating to Labour's handling of the livestock export issue, with particular reference to Saudi Arabia, in 2007. He was, he said, calling "the Prime Minister's bluff". But the papers contained redactions made through the Cabinet office after consultation with officials from government departments. This incompleteness allowed the Government to suggest the papers showed the Labour government had acted in bad faith, and had been warned of the legal, commercial and diplomatic risks of banning the shipments. Labour, for its part, said they showed Mr Ali Khalaf was annoyed at the ban, but contained no reference to the then government doing a deal with him, paying him off, or facing possible legal action. Still, the public is little the wiser.
The only way of proving or disproving the Prime Minister's claim that the papers would embarrass Labour is, obviously, the release of unredacted versions. Mr Parker says he will seek this from the Ombudsman. There will be occasions related, say, to security or intelligence matters when the convention on Cabinet papers should apply. But there appears no good reason that it should be binding on this issue, especially given that it has prompted fierce political argument, including calls for the Foreign Minister to be stood down. Indeed, it is difficult to see why the papers should remain secret at all. Could not their contents readily be spelled out in a memoir written by a member of the Labour government?
Only if everything is out in the open will the public be able to make a reasoned judgment on the Government's Saudi investment. If it was exposed to a big legal claim, as suggested by the Foreign Minister, we would know just why it acted. But we need to know more about that and what else may have been inherited from the Labour administration. As of now, all we have is a deal bearing all the hallmarks of pragmatism carried to unseemly lengths.
