Full Breakdown
Former Inland Revenue Employees Dismissed After Breaching Taxpayer Privacy
5/16/2026, 11:01:11 AM
Unauthorized Access to Taxpayer Account
On 24 Oct 2025 an internal IR email warned staff not to engage with a taxpayer. Four staff—Smita Nalawade, Gina Thompson, Punipuao Fatu and Bimlesh Sharma—accessed the account despite the warning. Nalawade entered one minute after the email, Thompson two minutes later, Sharma stayed over half-hour to learn about the case, and Fatu accessed last to check prior involvement. Their actions breached the IR Code of Conduct and led to dismissals for serious misconduct in late December 2025.
IR Code of Conduct and Internal Controls
The IR Code of Conduct obliges staff to protect sensitive data and to act with the trust required for taxpayer information access. Monitoring is handled by the integrity and internal assurance team, but only a fraction of accesses can be reviewed. Regular audits occur, yet the breach shows a failure to meet standards.
Timeline of Key Events
- 24 Oct 2025 – Email sent; four staff accessed the taxpayer’s account.
- Late Dec 2025 – IR dismissed the staff for serious misconduct.
- Early 2026 – Employees filed interim reinstatement applications with the Employment Relations Authority (ERA).
- 2026 – ERA member Eleanor Robinson rejected all interim reinstatement requests.
- Oct 2026 – Substantive hearing set for Nalawade and Thompson; case conferences scheduled for Fatu and Sharma.
Official Statements & Responses
ERA member Eleanor Robinson said the breach justified dismissal and stressed that IR must maintain a high level of trust that staff act in line with the Code of Conduct. An IR spokesperson declined to comment on the ERA rulings. The agency also said it conducts regular checks and audits of system access, but only a fraction of accesses can be reviewed because of workload.
Criticism & Opposition
The ERA concluded the employees’ interim reinstatement arguments were weak and unconvincing.
Verbatim Quotes
- “Consequently, IR must have a significant level of trust that employees are acting in accordance with the Code of Conduct.” — Eleanor Robinson, ERA member
- “Nalawade breached a fundamental business rule and the seriousness of this action was her dismissal which was the appropriate outcome,” — Eleanor Robinson, ERA member
- “Although IR undertakes regular checking and auditing of system access, proportionally few accesses are able to be reviewed or scrutinised given the volume of work that occurs.” — IR spokesperson
- “Can you please let your teams know they may receive a call from [the taxpayer] … they are to advise him he is being managed by complaints, and we will contact him. The officer can then disconnect that call,” — Internal IR email
What’s Next
A substantive hearing in October will determine whether Nalawade and Thompson may be permanently reinstated. Case management conferences for Fatu and Sharma will advance their matters toward a substantive investigation, potentially resulting in further decisions on permanent reinstatement.
