National demands minister's head over leak

The National Party is calling for Communications Minister David Cunliffe to resign over the "billion-dollar" leak of the Government's plan to break Telecom's line monopoly.

Senior National Party MPs Bill English and Gerry Brownlee labelled the leak, which wiped more than $1 billion off Telecom's sharemarket value in less than 24 hours, "unprecedented".

Mr English said the only similar case indicating how a Government should act when such sensitive information was leaked occurred in 1986 when Finance Minister Sir Roger Douglas offered to resign after his staff accidentally sent out the Budget early.

"David Cunliffe was in charge of the Cabinet paper. It was his signature on it, and he should have offered his resignation, because that is the best way to restore confidence of the wider community," Mr English said.

Last night, a spokesman for Mr Cunliffe said the minister was not considering resigning.

Mr English said National believed the Government knew there was a problem with information about the telecommunication restructuring being leaked to Telecom.

"The importance of this leak is unprecedented. It has come out of the upper levels of Government and has sabotaged the Government's Budget and it raises real questions over whether the Government is functioning properly at its highest levels."

Mr English said Finance Minister Michael Cullen had allegedly told a journalist that he was suspicious Telecom had known too much for too long.

"Dr Cullen was obliged to take action when he knew that," Mr English said.

Dr Cullen's office would not comment.

National is also annoyed that the Speaker of the House, Margaret Wilson, turned down its request for an urgent parliamentary debate about the leak.

Mr Brownlee said it would lead to a suggestion there was collusion between the Speaker and the Government to avoid embarrassment.

Later, he said he did not want to get into a debate with the Speaker, but National was disappointed the request had been turned down.

"We would have thought, given the limited range of people who could have been involved in this [leak], that it would have been appropriate for Parliament to express a view of its gravity."