Telecom leak man rejects Clark's attack

The man who received the Telecom Cabinet leak, senior Telecom executive Peter Garty, has taken issue with Prime Minister Helen Clark's describing him as either criminal or deeply unethical.

"She's wrong," Mr Garty told the Herald last night, but he would not comment further other than to dismiss the comments.

Helen Clark made the attack in Parliament yesterday during questions from United Future MP Gordon Copeland.

Mr Copeland believes Telecom committed a criminal offence by receiving a stolen document.

He does not accept the conclusion of a State Services Commission report which exonerated Mr Garty, and Telecom, from blame in receiving a Cabinet paper from a friend of his, Beehive messenger Michael Ryan.

Mr Copeland said Mr Garty could easily have ascertained that the document had been dishonestly taken.

"Because he decided both to retain and photocopy that paper he or the company could be open to prosecution for receiving papers dishonestly taken."

Helen Clark reminded Parliament that a copy of the State Services Commission report was referred last week to the police to assess whether a crime had been committed.

She disputed Mr Copeland's view that Telecom's share price slumped because of the premature Budget announcement forced by the leak instead of in a managed way as part of the Budget process.

"I have been of the view that it was the attitude of Telecom towards competitive measures of this kind that led to the value fall.

"In respect of Mr Garty's actions, I think the issue will be whether they were criminal or just deeply unethical," Helen Clark said.

Mr Copeland said later he was pursuing the issues because it was important that no similar leaks occurred in the future.

"A few simple questions are all that would have been necessary to establish that the papers had been dishonestly taken."

Mr Ryan was supposed to have shredded the Cabinet paper but instead took it away on May 2 and handed it over in a manila folder to Mr Garty late that night after a meeting of their cycling group.

Mr Garty, Telecom's group controller of finance, was told it was for his eyes only, was not to be copied and would be picked up the next morning.

But he did copy it and took it to work at Telecom on May 3.

According to the report, Mr Ryan visited Mr Garty's nearby home in Khandallah the night before giving him the paper and told him the Cabinet would be discussing a telecommunications review.

United Future holds the balance of power on the commerce select committee, which could conduct its own investigation into the leak.

Mr Copeland told the Herald that while United Future did not want to duplicate any ongoing inquiry, it was open to the committee to hold an inquiry into Telecom's role.

That would depend on whether National wanted to initiate an inquiry.

"As long as it was not replicating other investigations I would be inclined to support that. But my stance would be reactive rather than pro-active."

As well as the police examining the report, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, where Mr Ryan worked before he was sacked, is investigating its handling of sensitive information.

The Securities Commission is also investigating the circumstances surrounding the release of the Cabinet paper.