Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development
The technical committee on the Protection of Personal Information Bill continued with deliberations on the bill in Parliament this week.
The bill was tabled in Parliament in 2009. Public hearings were held on the bill towards the end of that year.
The technical committee was set up in 2010 to deliberate further on the bill.
A new working draft of the bill was presented to the technical committee in February 2011. Since then the committee has met three times.
The bill aims to:
• Promote the protection of personal information processed by public and private bodies
• Introduce information protection principles so as to establish minimum requirements for the processing of personal information
• Provide for the establishment of an information protection regulator
• Provide for the issuing of codes of conduct
• Provide for the rights of persons regarding unsolicited electronic communications and automated decision-making
• Regulate the flow of personal information across the country’s borders
At the latest meeting, submissions on the bill were received from the financial services board (FSB) and the financial intelligence centre (FIC).
Both parties expressed concern over various provisions in the bill.
For example, the FSB declared that non-compliance did not always constitute an offence and therefore criminal charges were not always the best option. Rather mitigation and prevention were the viable options.
The FSB also expressed concern over whether the supervision and enforcement of legislation would be included within the ambit of the proposed legislation.
Another concern revolves around the requirements of notification by the regulator. This was seen as having the ability to undermine the ability of the regulator to supervise and enforce legislation.
The FSB expressed the view that it was critical as part of its function to share information with other parties to ensure adequate protection for clients using financial services.
The FIC was concerned whether the proposed legislation accommodated the particular functions of the regulator. It had to delve into the records of customers of financial institutions while conducting an investigation.
A complaint by a client could bring a halt to the work of the regulator.
The FIC sought clearer wording in the bill in this regard.
In terms of collection directly from data subject (clause 11), the FIC declared that a “restrictive clause will hamper the functioning of regulators when performing their supervisory function”.
No indication was provided as to when the technical committee will next meet.
Sabinet Cape Town Office
Post new comment