Tax officers may be disciplined

Press, 8 July 1983, Page 1

Tax officers may be disciplined

PA Wellington The actions of senior tax department officers in approving the bugging of an Auckland accountant could not be condoned or defended, said the Commissioner of Inland Revenue, Mr John Simcock, yesterday. He was considering disciplinary action against the officers under the State Services Act. “As far as I can ascertain, these are the only occasions when the department has ever engaged in such secret recordings and I intend to see that it never happens again,” Mr Simcock said. Mr Simcock conducted an internal inquiry after an Auckland businessman, Mr Ron Kingsnorth, said he had bugged conversations with an Auckland accountant at the request of two junior Inland Revenue officers.

Mr Kingsnorth said the officers were trying to gain evidence fit improper conduct by one of their colleagues. Mr Simcock’s report, which he has given to the Minister in charge of Inland Revenue, Mr Falloon, will

not be made public because it contains personal information about individual taxpayers. Mr Falloon said that departmental procedures had been tightened to make certain the bugging affair was not repeated. He said the commissioner had his full support for any action he took on the matter.

The two junior officers emerge well from the report into the circumstances surrounding their recording two private conversations between Mr Kingsnorth and the accountant. “I am satisfied that these two junior officers have acted correctly by referring at all times to their superiors for guidance,” Mr Simcock said. “What I cannot condone or defend are the actions of the senior officers involved and I am therefore considering the disciplinary provisions of the State Services Act, 1962.” Mr Simcock said he was “frankly disturbed at the manner in which senior management in my Auckland office dealt with serious allegations against a fellow officer.

“To instruct relatively junior officers to carry out the investigation of such allegations in this manner showed serious errors of judgment.” Mr Simcock said allegations of corruption were investigated by the police and found to have no basis. He said he was completely satisfied as to the integrity of the officer against whom the allegation was made. It was a matter of regret that, until now, it had been the two junior officers who had been identified and carried the burden of publicity, and some condemnation from their colleagues for the incidents, said Mr Simcock. Mr Falloon said the commissioner’s report confirmed that, ,i at Mr Kingsnorth’s suggestion and with his co-operation, departmental officers recorded two private conversations between Mr Kingsnorth and “another person.”

“It has also emerged that Mr Kingsnorth made arrangements for the officers to record two further conversations between him and another person who was

not the subject of the first two recordings. “These latter arrangements did not result in recordings being made.”

Mr Falloon said other conclusions in the report were:

® The purpose of the recordings was not to obtain information about taxpayers but to try to establish whether allegations of corruption against an Inland Revenue officer were correct.

© The officers involved in the recording sessions did so with the approval of senior management in the Auckland district office.

® The recording device used on all occasions was supplied by Mr Kingsnorth. One of the department’s officers involved had at one stage obtained a recording device from a family friend but the device did not work.

@ There was no equipment supplied by the police, Army, or any other source.

© Post Office vans were used but these were hired from the Public Service Garage in the normal way. The Post Office had no knowledge of their intended use.