Non-investigation files still Brashly unreleased [update 2]

Whale Oil is right. Why are the police releasing unedited in all its glory the Tony Veitch file, but not the full unedited file of their non-investigation into who illegally stole the Leader of the Opposition's emails?

What's going on here? As a commenter at Whale's blog suggested, does someone have to kick Nicky Hager in the spine to see some action? This was a serious security breach at the very highest level of state . . . and it's treated with all the importance of a theft at a school tuck shop.

Who exactly are the police protecting? And what does this say about their partiality? Fran O'Sullivan's conclusion is unchallengable:

This is [all] frankly unacceptable in a democratic system where authorities like the police should be expected to get to the bottom of what was obviously a politically motivated burglary.

UPDATE 1: Brash has called for a formal inquiry into the email theft.

Phil Goff agrees with him. Bill English apparently doesn't.

Is this a clue?

UPDATE 2:  Police Commissioner Howard Broad has appointed an "independent commissioner" to look at the whole issue -- so independent he  just happens to be Broad's Assistant Commissioner.  Reports The Herald [hat tip DPF]:

    Commissioner Broad said continued questioning of the police role could undermine public trust and confidence in the force.
    He ordered a full review of the case, including the recent release of the highly edited file, to be conducted by Assistant Commissioner Steve Shortland of Auckland, with an independent adviser working alongside him. …
    Dr Brash said he was happy with the steps being taken.