Angry at Westpac

57 comments on “Angry at Westpac ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Anne 1

   26 October 2015 at 10:03 am

   Chris Trotter:
   The covert cooperation of powerful institutions. Nicky Hager’s treatment by Westpac and Police is a wake-up call for every sentient citizen.

   This is nothing new. It’s been going on for decades – at least as far back as the 1960s/70s where the police are concerned. I refer to covert ops. against innocent persons for political purposes. Many of us have had personal experience and/or have close relatives who were targeted. In my case it was my father in the 1970s followed some years later by me.

   Don’t ever believe the mantra that the police are politically neutral. It’s poppycock.
2. rob 2

   26 October 2015 at 10:06 am

   i to have been with westpac atleast 30 yrs. and been thinking of changing for various reasons lately, but this has confirmed that i will definitely be moving on. not that it will bother them I’m sure , but if people cared in numbers it just might? hmmm maybe
   • b waghorn 2.1

     26 October 2015 at 10:58 am

     Apart from a small mortgage I ditched them six months ago .felt good too.
3. One Anonymous Bloke 3

   26 October 2015 at 10:07 am

   They say people change their bank less often than they get married. Let’s hope Westpac broke the mold.
4. Leftie 4

   26 October 2015 at 10:10 am

   “probably illegal” ?
   “probably broken the law” ?

   I would say that there are no probabilities about it. What Westpac and the police did was illegal, and did break the law.

   Will they be held to account?
   • Joe Bloggs 4.1

     26 October 2015 at 10:32 am

     I’m not convinced that what Westpac did was outside of the law. Gutless and immoral? Yes. Inappropriate? Yes. But not illegal…

     AFAIK all of the banks say in their General Terms that they can hand information over to the police if they reasonably believe that that action will assist in the investigation, detection and/or prevention of fraud, money laundering or other criminal offences”.

     I may be wrong but as best I can understand that gives them legal rights to hand over whatever information that they want as long as they can claim reasonable belief.

     That’s what we sign up to when we open accounts.

     And that’s why the Privacy Commissioner needs to set proper guidelines for handing over information
     • Anne 4.1.1

       26 October 2015 at 10:56 am

       … all of the banks say in their General Terms that they can hand information over to the police if they reasonably believe that that action will assist in the investigation, detection and/or prevention of fraud, money laundering or other criminal offences”.

       My bold.

       You may well be right Joe Bloggs but the ‘bold’ says it all. No-one in Westpac read the book “Dirty Politics” and were happy to believe the JK-lead projected garbage that Hager and co. were the ones guilty of criminal offences, fraud and money laundering and not the real criminals both in his office and closely associated with it.

       Richard Nixon and co. all over again.
       • savenz 4.1.1.1

         26 October 2015 at 11:21 am

         Is writing a book, now ‘a criminal offence’ in this country?

         Pull the other one Westpac if they expect to use that as a defence!

         Nicky Hager can defiantly not come under that definition legally.

         Police were investigating someone else not him, there is no way Hager was ever considered a criminal or fraudster or money launderer.

         Probably like in the Dotcom case once police realise their mistake they will have to manufacture evidence and trump up additional changes, and before you know it, spend 5 million plus of taxpayers on legal fees defending their ridiculous position.

         Totally dishonest!

         Police need to look at Sky City to investigate money laundering but since most public figures are on the take from Sky City, I’m not expecting that one any time soon.
         • Tracey 4.1.1.1.1

           26 October 2015 at 3:26 pm

           especially as the police kept claiming Hager was a witness not a suspect. I wonder if the police file records their conversationw ith John Key who had a good idea who rawshark was/is?

           “The Prime Minister believes he knows who hacked Whale Oil blogger Cameron Slater’s computer and produced the source material for Nicky Hager’s Dirty Politics, according to a new edition of a recently published biography of John Key.

           In a new chapter in John Key: Portrait of a Prime Minister devoted to this year’s election campaign, Mr Key is quoted as saying: “Someone phoned and told me who the hacker was, but other than having a look at this person, I thought, ‘Oh well … nothing will come of it. Life goes on’.”

           Mr Key did not divulge the name of the person to the biography’s author, senior Herald editorial writer John Roughan. Asked yesterday whether the PM had referred the name to the police investigation into the stolen emails, a spokeswoman for Mr Key said that though he believed he knew who the hacker was, “he cannot be certain”.”

           John Roughan’s biography of the Liar-in-Cheif (LIC)
           • dukeofurl 4.1.1.1.1.1

             26 October 2015 at 4:54 pm

             Thats the real crux of the matter. Wailing and tearing of hair about Westpac is beside the point.
             The police going on a fishing expedition would have almost certainly knocked back by the courts, so at a very minimum the legislation should require a search warrant from a judge when the person of interest is not the prime suspect. Not holding by breath on this one.
             • Tracey …

               26 October 2015 at 5:52 pm

               duke. you are the one who was definitive that westpacs t and cs trumped everything else and bemoanedthe lack of oomph in our privacy. so i sought to address that. now you said westpacs behaviour is beside the point.

               shaking head
     • Grindlebottom 4.1.2

       26 October 2015 at 11:10 am

       That’ll depend on whether the Privacy Act, and Hager’s claim to be journalist and thus has the right to protect his sources (which the Court will agree I think), trump their Terms & Conditions. Other agencies required the Police to produce a production order, so they obviously regarded his privacy as paramount and the police to be required to satisfy a judge that their claim to be pursuing an “offender” was reasonable.

       Thank goodness I don’t bank with Westpac. Wonder how long the Court decision will take.

       One thing I don’t understand, from the RNZ link in the post, is this bit:

       His lawyer, Felix Geiringer, would also not comment on whether Mr Hager intended to take the bank to court.
       However, due to legal reasons, Mr Hager could not act anyway unless the court also published the original Westpac documents, which were on the court file but were yet to be released, Mr Geiringer said.
       • Grindlebottom 4.1.2.1

         27 October 2015 at 2:55 pm

         This answers my question above.
         Dirty Politics author Nicky Hager is seeking a “full and frank” disclosure from Westpac after it was revealed the bank handed information including 10 months of his bank statements to police.

         In a statement on Tuesday issued by Hager’s lawyer Felix Geiringer he said it was difficult for Hager to comment on the matter because that part of a court case his client had taken against police had not yet been argued.

         He said police had so far refused to release related documents requested under the Official Information Act or the Privacy Act.

         “Indeed, the police have refused even to acknowledge the existence of correspondence with Westpac under those Acts. This is despite Mr Hager expressly asking the police to list all of the documents they were wholly withholding under those Acts.”

         Hager has complained to the Privacy Commission and the Ombudsman about the police’s failure to respond fully to his requests for documents.

         Representatives of both organisations had met Hager’s lawyers and have been liaising with police over these complaints, he said.

         “Now that the fact of this breach of privacy has been made public, Mr Hager intends to seek a full and frank disclosure of the extent of the breach from Westpac. He looks forward to receiving Westpac’s response to that request and will be considering his options to take this matter further,” the statement said.
         http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/73125717/nicky-hager-seeking-full-and-frank-disclosure-from-westpac-over-data-release
     • Tracey 4.1.3

       26 October 2015 at 11:46 am

       You may want to do a bit more research on the judicial interpretation of reasonably believe, it doe snOT mean “the police asked us”. It also does not mean “I think so”

       Now, a production orde rgives the bank reasonable belief to hand over data otherwise oere dby privacy law etc…
     • Draco T Bastard 4.1.4

       26 October 2015 at 3:05 pm

       Yep, it seems that you’re right about that:

       (c) that non-compliance is necessary –

       (i) to avoid prejudice to the maintenance of the law by any public sector agency, including the prevention, detection, investigation, prosecution, and punishment of offences

       Which would mean that the police could turn up and say that they were investigating a crime and they would give it over.

       Except that the police actually need a warrant to say that they’re investigating a crime.

       Indications are that a crime has been committed both by Westpac (by handing the data over) and by the police (By asking for the data without a warrant).
     • AsleepWhileWalking 4.1.5

       26 October 2015 at 6:41 pm

       I don’t see how it gives them legal rights to hand over client information.

       There would need to be good reason and since there is clearly some grey area they should have waited for a court order.
     • Ross 4.1.6

       27 October 2015 at 9:02 am

       What grounds did Westpac have for releasing the information? Police have always said that Hager is a witness, not a suspect. I think Westpac almost certainly has breached the Privacy Act. I’d be nervous if I banked with Westpac (I don’t) because they could release my personal and private account information to a third party and I’d never know.
       • Ross 4.1.6.1

         28 October 2015 at 9:36 am

         It’s been reported today that at the time police approached Westpac they regarded Hager as a suspect. Hmmm I am not sure if they are using that as an excuse or it’s true. When and how did Hager go from a witness to a suspect?
   • dukeofurl 4.2

     26 October 2015 at 10:46 am

     Impossible for them to break the law. It was a stupid move on their part but all allowed for in their terms and conditions, in fact they can pass similar information on to other ‘financial institutions’.

     This is a wake up call to what their privacy terms are- a hollow shell
     • Tracey 4.2.1

       26 October 2015 at 11:48 am

       No, not impossible. They could be sued and require to prove their reasonale belief. Given a reasonably competent bank would know abou tproduction orders, that is their “reasonable belief”, not “the police asked us and we think Hager is a dirty little crim:

       Air New ZEaland would have similar conditions and chose to respond by seeking a production order, which would give them basis for their reasonable belief. INterestingly the police did not get a production order against AIRNZ or trademe, which leaves it open to the suggestion the police didn’t think they could establish the required grounds for one.

       So, no it is not “impossible” for them to have broken the law in this instance.

       http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2012/0024/latest/DLM2136746.html for information about a production order
     • Colonial Viper 4.2.2

       26 October 2015 at 2:19 pm

       you cant contract out of your statutory and fiduciary obligations, sorry.
       • Draco T Bastard 4.2.2.1

         26 October 2015 at 3:17 pm

         It’s truly amazing how many people seem to think that you can.
       • Macro 4.2.2.2

         26 October 2015 at 3:23 pm

         Exactly.
   • veutoviper 4.3

     26 October 2015 at 11:40 am

     NZ Police and Westpac’ s actions in seeking and releasing Hagar’s bank details are covered in detail in Hagar’s solicitors submission to the Court in this document (from the Scoop release)

     http://img.scoop.co.nz/media/pdfs/1510/20150701__Wriiten_submissions_for_the_applicant_Redacted.pdf

     The relevant section is Part V Information Request at pages 113 – 124.

     The submission claims that these actions were unlawful in breaching Hagar’s rights under the Privacy Act and the Bill of Rights Act – in respect to both the reasons given by the Police for seeking the information without first being granted a production order, and the bank doing so without a production order (whereas other third parties refused to do so without a production order which the police then did seek to obtain).

     See 5.16 onwards. 5.45 and 5.46 sets out their summary of the unlawfulness of this action. (Note – the reference to s.21 is to section 21 of the Bill of Rights Act. Elsewhere they consider it also breaches section 14 of BORA.)

     The Police gave a number of different reasons for seeking to obtain information from third parties such as Westpac – including obtaining Hagar’s address – as noted in 5.23 this was readily available from the Wellington Phone Book.

     The submission does not cover Westpac or other banks’ General Terms with regard to customers agreeing to the bank handing over information to the police in certain circumstances. There has been some discussion of this aspect on Twitter as to whether the Privacy Act takes precedence over these Terms and Conditions ( I would think so, but I am not a lawyer).

     I expect that we will see considerable further discussion on this aspect of the Hagar case in the media once the long weekend is over and rugby mania settles down, due to the high public interest in the possibility of banks handing over their private information without a production order having been sought and granted on valid legal grounds.
     • Tracey 4.3.1

       26 October 2015 at 11:51 am

       “The Police gave a number of different reasons for seeking to obtain information from third parties such as Westpac – including obtaining Hagar’s address – as noted in 5.23 this was readily available from the Wellington Phone Book.”

       They should have just asked Hooton.
       • veutoviper 4.3.1.1

         26 October 2015 at 11:55 am

         LOL – but why ask Hooton when it was in the phone book?
         • Tracey 4.3.1.1.1

           26 October 2015 at 12:02 pm

           I think you only ask Hooton when you want to knee-cap someone…
     • veutoviper 4.3.2

       26 October 2015 at 12:10 pm

       As a follow-up to 4.3 above, I have now read the section of the Police’s response to Hager’s submission in respect to the seeking of information from third parties including banks.

       This response is in the link from the Scoop documents. Note: this is a very big document which takes ages to download.)

       http://img.scoop.co.nz/media/pdfs/1510/3020945_First_and_Second_Respondents__Submissions_Redacted.pdf

       The relevant paragraphs are 114 – 122. IMHO, it is a pretty weak defence.

       In essence, they claim that they believe there was a legitimate situation to seek a production order for an exception to the Privacy Act provisions. However, they claim that the approaches to banks etc were simply information requests and Westpac and other banks could just have refused to provide information until a production order was presented – as did the other third parties such as Trade Me, Spark etc.

       Again, no mention of the banks’ General Terms and Conditions.
       • Tracey 4.3.2.1

         26 October 2015 at 12:20 pm

         which reinforces that the claim, in this regard, is against Westpac for breach of
         privacy act
         contract with customer
         • veutoviper 4.3.2.1.1

           26 October 2015 at 12:51 pm

           Agreed – and the Police defence actually suggests that it is a civil matter. However, imho this does not absolve the Police from actions to obtain private information without following the letter of the law in respect of seeking and obtaining a production order.
     • veutoviper 4.3.3

       26 October 2015 at 12:14 pm

       PS – My apologies for misspelling Hager’s name in 4.3. I was out of time to correct this before I noticed.
       • Anne 4.3.3.1

         26 October 2015 at 12:18 pm

         Don’t worry v v. I do it all the time. I think HagER must be used to it.
       • veutoviper 4.3.3.2

         26 October 2015 at 2:25 pm

         Ooops – another edit needed.

         End of para 3: ” … whereas other third parties refused to do so without a production order which the police then did seek to obtain).” should read “whereas other third parties refused to do so without a production order which the police then did NOT seek to obtain).”
     • Anne 4.3.4

       26 October 2015 at 12:15 pm

       “Finance Minister Bill English and Economic Development Minister Steven Joyce today announced Westpac was the winning bidder for the core contract, which accounts for $229 billion worth of credit and $219 billion of debit transactions each year.

       Got it.

       You scratch our back and we’ll scratch yours…
   • Ross 4.4

     27 October 2015 at 8:54 am

     I’d be surprised if Westpac didn’t breach the Privacy Act. However, breaches of the Act typically end up with a slap on the wrist for the wrongdoer.

     I’d like to see Westpac publicly apologise to Hager as well as agree to pay him a decent sum for its actions.
5. Neil 5

   26 October 2015 at 11:55 am

   When this sort of thing happens, the word “Dictatorship” come to mind immediately.
   • Colonial Viper 5.1

     26 October 2015 at 2:21 pm

     no, it’s a melding of corporate and governmental power against dissident citizens. That has another name.
6. Tracey 6

   26 October 2015 at 11:55 am

   “Finance Minister Bill English and Economic Development Minister Steven Joyce today announced Westpac was the winning bidder for the core contract, which accounts for $229 billion worth of credit and $219 billion of debit transactions each year. Westpac will continue to provide core transactional services, foreign exchange transactions, payment services and card services.”
   http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/westpac-keeps-core-government-transactions-contract-other-banks-get-peripheral-services-b

   http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/72715934/after-four-years-of-talks-westpac-retains-most-of-government-banking-contract

   “On Monday Finance Minister Bill English and Economic Development Minister Steven Joyce said six banks had been given slices of the lucrative all-of-government banking services contract.

   But by far the key element of the contract, Crown transactional banking services, was won by incumbent Westpac.

   Westpac New Zealand chief executive David McLean says contract win makes it the “government’s main bank”.
   Peter Meecham
   Westpac New Zealand chief executive David McLean says contract win makes it the “government’s main bank”.

   For months banking sources have indicated that Westpac had won the core of the contract, as there had been little appetite within the Beehive for a change. Under the terms of the eight year contract 35 core government agencies are required to use Westpac.

   Such is the volume of the contract that one banking source claimed it enabled Westpac to effectively determine the timing of payment settlements between New Zealand banks.

   In 2011 John Key said there would be a tender for the banking contract, first awarded to Westpac in 1989. …. Westpac said the contract win meant it remained as “the government’s main bank”, extending its relationship with the Crown to more than 30 years, noting that it was the only bank which had won elements of all four parts of the contract.

   “Our win reinforces our leadership position in corporate and institutional banking in New Zealand and we look forward to continuing our partnership with Government across all its banking needs,” Westpac New Zealand chief executive David McLean said.”
7. NZJester 7

   26 October 2015 at 2:02 pm

   Don’t worry Westpac I’m sure John Key will pop a law through under urgency to make this breach of Nicky Hager’s privacy retroactively legal so you will not get in trouble when it is ruled illegal by a court. He will also be over to lick your boots for having this small amount of legal trouble to sort out.
8. Freemark 8

   26 October 2015 at 6:27 pm

   A few comments out there regarding Hagar & his sources being untouchable due to the “Public interest.”
   IMO we saw at the Election and subsequently how interested “the Public” were/are in the book and the issues.
   Westpac (& every bank) is required by law & often does disclose many details of account balances, income/expenses etc to other Govt organisations such as IRD etc.
   They will also on behalf of these organisations clean out bank accounts and pay them over to said Govt department.
   Where is the outrage about this?
   • Anne 8.1

     26 October 2015 at 7:03 pm

     We’re not talking about government departmental cooperation to obtain evidence of fraudulent or criminal behaviour. Nicky Hager had committed no such offences and the police were well aware of that fact from the start.

     What we are talking about is a band of corrupt police officers using a legal loophole for the purpose of harassing and intimidating a NZ citizen because he had the temerity to write a book exposing corruption within the government which lead directly to the Prime Minister’s office. The fact so many voters are ignorant and clueless when it comers to such matters is not the fault of the messenger – in this case Nicky Hager – but the lazy, dumbed down voters of which you appear to be one.
     • dukeofurl 8.1.1

       27 October 2015 at 10:37 am

       Yes, its a glimpse of the Deep State at work.
   • One Anonymous Bloke 8.2

     26 October 2015 at 8:06 pm

     It’s nice to know that “FreeSlavemark” is happy for a Left wing government to investigate their illegal attitude towards human rights without a warrant.
   • Tracey 8.3

     28 October 2015 at 8:52 am

     Lots of members of the public being interested in something is NOT the same as public interest. Public interest is a legal principle to which many who make your argument seem oblivious.

     The Police are not the IRD, although you seem confused about that? Nor are they:
     ACC, the Ministry of Social Development(acting under S11) or seeking info pursuant to the Cancer Registry Act, Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act, all of which provide exceptions to the Privacy Act principles and obligations.

     Interestingly (especially for Westpac) when 15 other organisations were asked for information about Hager they refused and sought a production order, which the police did not pursue. Possibly because they simply couldn’t make a case out against a witness under that provision.
   • Tracey 8.4

     28 October 2015 at 9:08 am

     “reasonable grounds to suspect”

     “Some statutes use a threshold of “reasonable grounds to suspect” for preliminary matters, such as for the exercise of police powers under the Search and Surveillance Act 2012. Previously, orders under the Securities Markets Act 1988 could be made where a court had “reasonable grounds to suspect” non-compliance, but courts expressed discomfort with the combination of a low standard of proof and the range of serious penalties available: see Meridian Global Funds Management Asia Ltd v Securities Commission [1994] 2 NZLR 291 (CA) at 296 and Ithaca (Custodians) Ltd v Perry Corp [2004] 1 NZLR 731 (CA) at 743. The Act now specifies that “the usual civil standard of proof applies”:. Securities Markets Act 1988, s 42ZI.”

     http://ip33.publications.lawcom.govt.nz/Chapter+6+-+The+critical+issues/Standard+of+proof
   • Tracey 8.5

     28 October 2015 at 9:14 am

     The Terms and conditions of the Westpac bank refer to reason to believe.

     “The guidance from the authorities above is that:

     1. A belief is a state of mind
     2. A reasonable belief is a belief based on reasonable grounds.
     3. A belief is based on reasonable grounds when,
     (i) all known considerations relevant to the formation of a belief are taken into account including matters of opinion and
     (ii) those known considerations are objectively assessed
     4. A just and fair judgement that reasonable grounds exist in support of a belief can be made when all known considerations are taken into account and objectively assessed. ”

     https://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CD4QFjAFahUKEwj1jLLFuuPIAhUG4aYKHcnfDJ8&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ahpra.gov.au%2Fdocuments%2Fdefault.aspx%3Frecord%3DWD13%252F9984%26dbid%3DAP%26chksum%3D6qQ5UWHS6dDd7i0gSA1l3A%253D%253D&usg=AFQjCNEGgbelUfTyp-TbExLGmYbAaWv5hA
9. Freemark 9

   26 October 2015 at 7:10 pm

   Ahhh, the old “clueless voters” one – like the missing million?
   “We’re not talking about government departmental cooperation to obtain evidence of fraudulent or criminal behaviour”
   Isn’t the whole point that the Police are looking for fraudulent or criminal behaviour?
   Or would be happy to have someone hack your PC (or LPrent’s) because they didn’t like your politics, or suspected that you were communicating with Politicians in a way that they didn’t think was “fair?”
   If you suspect Corrupt behaviour aren’t you pleased that the Police are performing a thorough investigation?
   • Anne 9.1

     26 October 2015 at 7:37 pm

     We’ve got a right one here. Dim as a 30 watt light bulb.
   • One Anonymous Bloke 9.2

     26 October 2015 at 8:12 pm

     So unless you pretend that Hager is suspected of a crime, your argument will fall over to reveal the hatred behind it? Or as Anne says, do you just want to come over as a little bit dim?
   • Tracey 9.3

     28 October 2015 at 8:56 am

     How about you read up on reasonable belief and production orders?

     Still wondering why the Police didnt just ask John Key he said he was pretty sure who Rawshark was.

     has Rawshark been identified and any criminal charges laid against him/her Freemark?
   • Tracey 9.4

     28 October 2015 at 9:00 am

     71 Enforcement officer may apply for production order
     (1)
     An enforcement officer who may apply for a search warrant to obtain documents may apply to an issuing officer for a production order against a person in respect of those documents if the enforcement officer is satisfied that the conditions, specified in section 72, for making the order against the person are met.
     (2)
     An application under this section must be in writing and must set out the following particulars:
     (a)
     the name of the applicant:
     (b)
     the provision authorising the making of an application for a search warrant in respect of the suspected offence:
     (c)
     a description of the offence that it is suspected has been committed, is being committed, or will be committed:
     (d)
     the facts relied on to show reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence has been committed, or is being committed, or will be committed:
     (e)
     a description of the documents for which production is sought:
     (f)
     the facts relied on to show reasonable grounds to believe the documents sought are in the possession or under the control of the person against whom the order is sought:
     (g)
     whether the person against whom the order is made should be required to produce,—
     (i)
     on 1 occasion only, those documents for which production is sought that are in his or her possession or under his or her control when the order is made; or
     (ii)
     on an ongoing basis, those documents for which production is sought that are in his or her possession or under his or her control at the time the order is made, and those documents for which production is sought and that come into his or her possession or come under his or her control at any time while the order is in force.

     s72

     72 Conditions for making production order
     The conditions for making a production order are that there are reasonable grounds—
     (a)
     to suspect that an offence has been committed, or is being committed, or will be committed (being an offence in respect of which this Act or any enactment specified in column 2 of the Schedule authorises an enforcement officer to apply for a search warrant); and
     (b)
     to believe that the documents sought by the proposed order—
     (i)
     constitute evidential material in respect of the offence; and
     (ii)
     are in the possession or under the control of the person against whom the order is sought, or will come into his or her possession or under his or her control while the order is in force.

     Column 2 Schedule 2

     http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2012/0024/latest/DLM4356950.html#DLM4356950

     Explanation of “reasonable grounds to suspect” can be found here (note it is in relation to the Search and Surveillance Act)
     http://nzcriminallaw.blogspot.co.nz/2013/10/reasonable-grounds-to-suspect.html
10. veutoviper 10

    27 October 2015 at 2:03 pm

    Breaking News

    About 15 minutes ago, Felix Geiringer, part of Hager’s legal team, tweeted a statement re the release of bank information by Westpac to NZ Police. The statement is entitled “News release on behalf of Nicky Hager concerning privacy breach by Westpac”.

    https://twitter.com/BarristerNZ/status/658800100962013184

    You need to zoom up massively to read the statement – eg 200% +

    In essence the news release states that:

    – At present, Hager and the legal team are unable to speak openly, give interviews etc, as this part of Hager’s case has not yet been heard in the High Court.

    – Separately, they have sought release of all communications between NZ Police and Westpac through the Privacy Act and OIA procedures, but NZ Police have refused to supply the communications.

    – The legal team is in discussion with the Privacy Commissioner and Office of the Ombudsmen on this refusal, and the latter are discussing this refusal with NZ Police.

    – Hager is very concerned about the privacy breach; hence it forms part of his overall High Court case against NZ Police.

    – Hager intends to explore all possible options open to him on this breach, and hopes that he will be able to talk more openly, give interviews on this in the future.
    • veutoviper 10.1

      27 October 2015 at 2:22 pm

      Herald article on the above.

      https://t.co/3jpO5CjJC7
11. Tracey 11

    27 October 2015 at 2:25 pm

    Hager teleases statement through his lawyer. Complaints laid with Privacy Commissioner and Ombudsmen

    http://i.stuff.co.nz/national/73125717/Nicky-Hager-seeking-full-and-frank-disclosure-from-Westpac-over-data-release
12. Tracey 12

    28 October 2015 at 8:37 am

    Some we were wondering about what the Privacy Act is subject to and if it trumps all else.

    I maintain it does trump Common Law (which will govern Westpac;’s contract with customers to some extent).

    Section 7 of the Act explains “overrides”

    “Section 7 of the Privacy Act states that other statutes which prohibit or restrict the
    availability of personal information take precedence over the information privacy
    principles. Section 7 also recognises that where another piece of law allows or requires personal information to be used in a specific way, this will override the general provisions of the Privacy Act. When this happens, the OPC calls it a section 7 override.

    For example:
    • The Tax Administration Act allows or requires the IRD to collect and disclose
    information in a certain way.
    • ACC can only collect information with the patient’s authorisation.
    • Section 11 of the Social Securities Act lets the Ministry of Social Development
    collect specific types of information, as long as certain conditions are met.
    • Several Acts in the health context, such as the Cancer Registry Act, Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act, and so on, are also included in this category”

    From the Privacy Commissioner website.

    Coincidentally I am teaching the Privacy Act to students from tomorrow…
    • Ross 12.1

      28 October 2015 at 9:41 am

      The problem is that breaches of the Privacy Act are often met with a slap on the wrist.

      I’m not sure Paula Bennett suffered greatly for her egregious behaviour in regards to breaching Natasha Fuller’s privacy. Indeed, Bennett was unapologetic and said she might do the same thing in the future!

      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10827271

Links to post

1. “Nicky Hager had committed no such offences” | Your NZ: posted on 27 October 2015 at 7:40 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS