5. Question No. 5—PoliceCHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister of PoliceQuestion No. 5—Police5. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister of Police: When was he first advised by Police that there had been an alleged unauthorised disclosure of Police information to a media outlet and when was he first advised that the Police Commissioner had directed an investigation be commenced into that disclosure?Hon Stuart Nash: Mr Speaker—SPEAKER: The Hon Stuart Nash with the caveat that once again this is likely to be longer than normal.Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): Thank you Mr Speaker. I first became aware of the allegations when I read them in the newspaper on Sunday the 28th. I subsequently spoke to the Commissioner of Police and asked him to get to the bottom of this including whether an investigation needed to be conducted. On the morning of Monday the 29th the commissioner briefed me in my office and assured me that no top-secret information had been released. I reiterated my expectation for an investigation into any breach of operational protocols and I informed the House of this expectation on Tuesday. On the morning of Tuesday the 30th my office was informed of police's intention to conduct an investigation but that details had not been finalised and it would have been inappropriate for me to make any public comments in case it compromised police's next steps. I updated the House about the commencement of an investigation the next day.Chris Bishop: Why did he refuse to confirm to Parliament on Tuesday that an investigation was under way when I asked him a specific question about that?Hon STUART NASH: I will reiterate that on the morning of Tuesday the 30th my office was informed of police's intention to conduct an investigation but that details had not been finalised and it would have been inappropriate for me to make any public comment in case it compromised police's next steps. I updated the House about the commencement of an investigation the next day.Chris Bishop: Why on Tuesday afternoon did he not repeat the words that the Police Commissioner used the next morning that the unauthorised release of this material was of significant concern and very serious? SPEAKER: I'm going to ask the member to rephrase the question given what happened earlier. Chris Bishop: Why on Tuesday in question time did he not use the same language the Police Commissioner used the next morning when announcing the investigation that the alleged unauthorised disclosure of material was very significant and very serious?Hon STUART NASH: I have always made it clear that both the Commissioner of Police and myself take any breaches of police protocol very seriously. On Tuesday during question time I reiterated my expectation that if such a breach had occurred I would expect an investigation to be undertaken. These expectations have subsequently been met.Greg O'Connor: What are the consequences of the unauthorised release of information? Hon STUART NASH: My primary objective on Tuesday was to assure the House and the public that no top-secret information had been leaked. The unauthorised release of top-secret information not only has the potential to harm lives; it has the potential for our international partners to stop cooperating with us on matters of international security and intelligence. That's why the penalty for unauthorised disclosure of classified information is up to five years in jail under the Crimes Act. If an MP wants to attack police he better gets his facts straight. The member claimed Mr Speaker—Hon Gerry Brownlee: Don't come in here threatening like that. That's an outrageous response to this House.Hon STUART NASH: —that top-secret information had been released. It had not. He needs—Hon Gerry Brownlee: You're the one under scrutiny fella. SPEAKER: Order! Who made that comment? Hon Gerry Brownlee: I did. Think about what he just said; that's outrageous what he just said. SPEAKER: The member will stand withdraw and apologise. Hon Gerry Brownlee: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker you cannot sit there and allow a Minister to make an unveiled threat like the Minister has just done. That is completely unacceptable in this House.SPEAKER: Well I was listening very carefully. I heard no threat; I heard a reference to me. There was a factual statement made by the Minister as to what occurred earlier in the House and the problems with it.Hon STUART NASH: That member claimed that top-secret information had been released. It had not. That member needs to be careful with his words; I am careful with mine when national and international security and police operations are at stake.Chris Bishop: Why on Tuesday in question time did the Minister take issue with the particular designation given by the media to the information—not by me—thereby giving the impression a leak had not taken place when one clearly has? Hon STUART NASH: I would like to reiterate that the question that I was asked on Tuesday and the allegation in the media was that top-secret information had been leaked. It was my responsibility to assure this House and members of the public that top-secret information had not been leaked.Rt Hon Winston Peters: When the Minister was asked that question on Tuesday was there a differentiation between the Minister's phrasing of the question and the media's phrasing of it in terms of the words top secret"? SPEAKER: Order! You mean the member's not the Minister's.Rt Hon Winston Peters: No no I mean the member's and the media's. He's hiding behind the media now when he used the words on Tuesday. SPEAKER: I'm going to ask the Deputy Prime Minister to ask the supplementary again. Rt Hon Winston Peters: When the Minister heard the question on Tuesday did he realise that there was a distinction between what the member was saying in terms of "top secret" and what the media has written as "top secret" or did he think that the member had distinguished that that wasn't his view just the media's view that it was top secret? Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It's very hard to see how the Minister has any responsibility for deciding how anybody else might've interpreted the media reports.Rt Hon Winston Peters: On Tuesday I distinctly heard Mr Bishop use the words "top secret" and he did not distinguish it as being the words of the media. He made it his words.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Those words are of course part of the confirmation process before the question can even be asked in the House. So to say that they belong to Mr Bishop is quite unreasonable given that the question is approved for asking in the House. [Interruption] Yes I know you're trying to stay awake—I know. Keep waving the hand.SPEAKER: Order! Order! When I stand up the member sits down and the acting Prime Minister is quiet. My memory is and we are relying on my memory that those words were not within a quote and therefore must be owned by the member and if that is the case—and if I'm wrong I'll expect Mr Bishop to correct me—they are the words of the member.Hon STUART NASH: As the Deputy Prime Minister has said a number of times words matter. It was my primary objective on Tuesday to assure the House and the public that no top-secret information had been leaked.Chris Bishop: In light of the Minister's commitment to transparency and what he just said why did he not at least admit to the House on Tuesday that albeit that top-secret security material had not been released to media some confidential serious information had somehow found its way from the police into the media's hands?Hon STUART NASH: I'll reiterate: that was not the question I was asked and I will also reiterate that my primary objective on Tuesday was to assure the House and the public that no top-secret information had been leaked."