a) Release of Draft Bill for consultation
The PNC/R has no just reason for its stated disquiet about the Government’s decision to proceed with an open and national consultation process on the Draft Broadcasting Bill 2003. According to the May 06, 2003 Communiqué signed between His Excellency, President Bharrat Jagdeo and the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Robert Corbin: “The draft broadcasting legislation, which will include provisions for the creation of a National Broadcasting Authority, would be ready for consultation within two months and be laid in the National Assembly within four months from 1st May, 2003.” This was followed. Nowhere in the Communiqué or the Follow up Agreement and during the bilateral discussions was there any commitment to clear the draft Broadcasting Bill with the PNC/R prior to public consultation. As such, the decision to immediately commence an open consultation process is consistent with the Communiqué and bilateral discussions on this issue.

b) The Draft Bill and the 2001 Joint Committee Report
The PNC/R’s claim that the Draft Broadcasting Bill 2003 “includes several violations of the agreements between the parties” is inaccurate. The Draft Broadcasting Bill 2003, prepared by the Attorney General Chambers drafting section, clearly reflects the guidance contained in the Final report of the Joint Committee on Radio Monopoly, non-partisan boards and broadcasting legislation of December 6, 2001. There has been no departure from the document. Mr. Clarke in his letter admits that the report “would provide main substance and direction for the broadcast legislation.” This was followed. The drafters had no remit to include the joint report verbatim.The areas identified by the PNC/R as examples of departure from the guidance of the report cannot stand the test of careful scrutiny as carried out by the relevant legal officers.

1: Appointment of the Board of Commissioners of the National Broadcasting Authority
In drafting the Bill, an effort was made as far as possible to so constitute the Board of the Authority, that the decisions taken by the Board would be free, fair and transparent. It would be observed that in relation to the appointment of the Chairman, the President will not act in his own deliberate judgment but he will act after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition. It should be noted that a decision of the High Court has almost equated consultation to prior approval. Three other members of the Board may be appointed by the President on the nomination of the Appointive Committee of the National Assembly. (A point Mr. Clarke ignored in his letter.) On the Board, balance will be maintained by the inclusion of representatives of the Consumers’ representative bodies and the broadcasting community.

2: Access to the State-owned media by political parties and the coverage of their political positions and activities
The PNC/R’s comments are not accurate.

The text of the Joint Committee Report on this matter reads as follows:

“The committee agreed that State-owned media should, in line with their public-service function:

In fact, the essence of these very points was repeated later in the Report at pages 12 - 14 in the section headed “Conditions governing licensing”. It will be recalled that this section of the Report refers not only to State-owned media but to all licensees.

Clause 19 of the Bill faithfully reflects each of the points mentioned in the section headed “Conditions governing licensing”. Consistent with the spirit and letter of the Report, Clause 19 applies in respect of all licensees, which of course include the state-owned media. In this case, it is unnecessary to include another set of similar provisions that would apply only to state-owned media.

3. Monopoly in broadcast and diversity of ownership
The comment by the PNC/R covers two issues.

Issue 1: Whether the text of Clause 6 (b) of the Bill is sufficient in terms of the language of the Joint Committee’s report on this matter. The relevant text of the joint report reads as follows:

“ensure that, while recognising the special role of State-owned media, the broadcast industry is nevertheless open to fair competition, and therefore all monopolies, whether private or State should be removed or not allowed.”

The text of Clause 6(b) is certainly adequate. Clause 6 (b) reads as follows: “while recognising the special role of State-owned media, the broadcast industry is nevertheless open to competition”. This could not be clearer.

Issue 2: Whether the text of the Report on this matter should be included in the Bill. The relevant text reads as follows:

“ensure that commercial and community licences, taken as a whole, are controlled by a diverse range of Guyanese persons or groups”.

It should be noted that the objective of the above quoted text is achieved by the provisions relating to the composition of the Board, particularly those relating to eligibility of members. Thus ensuring that the licences are indeed controlled by a Board of the Authority that comprises a “diverse range of Guyanese or groups”.

4: Status of the National Frequency Management Unit
The Joint Committee Report was submitted to the Leader of the Opposition. There was no comment from him on the two options developed by the Joint Committee. Consequently, it is quite in order that the Government should propose an option in the Bill for public consultation. Also, the option included in the draft Bill is consistent with the law establishing the National Frequency Management Unit.

5: Independence of the National Broadcast Authority
Similar provisions regarding the powers of the Minister appear in the broadcasting laws of several advanced countries, which laws were consulted before the provisions of the Bill were drafted. There is no basis in the draft bill to suggest powers of “censorship” by the Minister.

6: System of penalties for infringement of broadcast regulations
Though the Joint Committee Report indicated that it should be the function of the Authority to “institute a hierarchy of penalties and sanctions for violations of broadcasting law and standards”, it must be noted that in accordance with Guyana’s jurisprudence, it is the Parliament, by principal Legislation, that determines the penalties and sanctions that should apply to offences created by that Legislation. However, the Authority has the discretion as to what severity within the law should be recommended with respect to violations of the law. In the draft Bill, an attempt has been made to provide for penalties that are not draconian and would yet serve the purpose of deterrence for infraction.

Of interest is the sudden the introduction by the PNC/R of a role for the dissolved “Joint Committee on Radio Monopoly, non-partisan boards and broadcasting legislation” in this process. This latest ploy to change the rules after the first ball has been bowled can be considered an act of bad faith. Let us hope that the PNC/R is not getting `cold feet’ on this agreed-to process having now realised that televisions stations that are closely aligned to it would face legal difficulties in broadcasting messages containing hate, racism and libel after the passage of a piece of legislation of this nature.

The Government is committed to consultation and working with the Opposition to ensure competition and transparency in this sector as reflected in the “Report of the Joint Committee on Radio Monopoly, non-partisan boards and broadcasting legislation” and the draft Broadcasting Bill 2003. However, it has not given up its mandate to govern the affairs of the country in the interest of all Guyanese.