4, ¢ “4, s t, e = 2 % Gi Acree 25 June 2021 Simon Power Acting Chief Executive Officer Westpac Banking Corporation By email: simon. power @westpac.co.nz cc: Reserve Bank of New Zealand rbnz-info@rbnz.govt.nz Dese Simon, DENIAL OF BANKING FACILITIES TO LEE WILLIAMS 1 We write to express our concern at Westpac’s apparent decision to terminate banking facilities provided to Lee Williams, a controversial YouTuber and provocateur. Prima facie, it appears a decision to revoke all banking services provided to Mr Williams’ was driven by politics, or more specifically an apparent objection to Mr Williams’ political opinion, online speech, and activism. The Free Speech Union is a registered trade union with a mission to fight for, protect and expand New Zealanders’ rights to freedom of speech, conscience, and intellectual inquiry. Mr Williams is not a member of the Union, nor would many of our members endorse most of the views he espouses. However, several our members have taken an active interest in his employment case, and the apparent actions of Westpac. Many of our members will be Westpac customers. We are concerned that Westpac’s refusal to continue to offer banking services to an individual because of perceived political opinion sets a very dangerous precedent. It is a breach of the Human Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on political opinion. Before we take the matter further, we want to give you an opportunity to explain your reasoning and criteria for the exclusion of Lee Williams and any others you have terminated based on their political speech or use of their bank account for political activity. itis our view that a bank is extremely poorly equipped to be making these decisions. Banks should be common carriers, otherwise what is to stop legal but objectionable businesses (such as gambling operators, or industry participants) from being denied banking services? It also highlights an inconsistency. Does Westpac close the accounts of criminals or criminal gangs or otherwise refuse banking services reported from individuals such as those who have assets seized by the police under proceeds of crime legislation? If not, why not, and how do you justify the distinction between them and Mr Williams? Fee Spec aloeewZalnd/ acne rwndgune ‘AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM8. We intend to make public comments on your response (or lack of responses) as it appears Mr Williams’ human rights have been trampled on. it can not be up to a foreign-owned bank to dictate who is worthy of being afforded basic banking services. We note Westpac’s special place as the Government's bank — ‘Westpac should therefore be particularly careful not to play politics. 9, We have seen a letter from Westpac posted by Mr Williams online. It appears Westpac has justified the removal of services on the basis that Mr Williams’ accounts have been used for a different purpose to what was originally stated (whatever that was). It is our understanding that Westpac’s objection is that Mr Williams was using the account to solicit donations so that he could defend his employment situation, or defend himself and his livelihood. But what's wrong with that? We woul like you to explain how this led Westpac to conclude that it necessitates (or justifies) the termination of someone's current and future banking facllties. 10. As anot for profit which fights for human rights ~ minority voices, the mischaracterised, or controversial figures ~ the apparent situation with Mr Williams leads us to ask the obvious question: does your approach put at risk not for profits or activists that your bank does not agree with? If so, itis not unreasonable for you to explain precisely where you draw that line. 11, We look forward to your response. Yours faithfully, Free Speech Union (New Zealand) Inc. Union Secretary Ten ir thie torte meme rm AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM