The long-delayed Broadcasting Bill was yesterday passed in the National Assembly, where it was condemned by the main opposition PNCR-1G as a travesty of justice, but received support from the AFC.
As the bill was about to be introduced for its second reading, opposition and PNCR leader Robert Corbin voiced his objection, saying that the bill “contravenes every tenet of consultation” and “violates the spirit of a joint committee” set up by President Bharrat Jagdeo and late PNCR leader Desmond Hoyte a decade ago. Corbin said that the bill also contravened an agreement that he and Jagdeo had signed previously. The legislation had been promised by the PPP/C since it assumed office in 1992.
“…The bill varies so drastically, and is a travesty of justice, a violation of all the rights of our citizens,” he said, adding, “…I assure you and the public that the APNU government will revoke this legislation if it is attempted to be passed in this parliament today.”
Corbin said the PNCR-1G had sought to have the bill be deferred or sent to a Special Select Committee but it received no response from the government. He added that the party could not be a part of the debate and he led a walkout of its MPs. The AFC parliamentarians, however, remained in the House to participate in the debate and they later supported the bill.
PPP/C Chief Whip Gail Teixeira said that no official request had been made by the PNCR-1G for a deferral and acting Speaker Anil Nandlall also said that he did not have such a request from the opposition.
The bill is to make provision for the setting up of a National Broadcasting Autho-rity, to be responsible for the regulation, supervision and development of the National Broadcasting System. The law would also provide for the licensing of broadcasting agencies.
The bill was piloted through the House by Prime Minister Samuel Hinds, who noted that it had come to the House in the absence of an “agreement.” “Laws are not formulated in a vacuum – they are formulated to meet evident problems and to create desired ends,” he said. “And that, accepting that we cannot keep on waiting for agreement, is what we have presented here in this bill. This is a PPP/C bill. This bill seeks to enact a broadcasting law that the PPP/C believes is good for Guyana, whoever is in government,” he added.
In explaining the government’s decision to keep the door firmly closed on new radio applications since it assumed office in 1992, Hinds said that the administration did not want to create an imbalance. “For if we had opened radio then, we would have had to treat with a huge number of applicants for radio licences who were our supporters,” he said. He said that in 2001, it was then agreed that no TV or radio station would be permitted until after a broadcasting law, which set clear procedures for applying and for considering the merits and demerits of applications, was enacted.
Speaking to the concern that conditions in the bill make the Board beholden to the President, Hinds said that even if this is the case, the actions of the Board can be appealed in the courts.
AFC MP Khemraj Ramjattan supported the bill, arguing that it was 95 percent similar to the piece of legislation he had brought to the House last year. He said that his bill was based exclusively on draft legislation that had been produced by a committee which had been established specifically to deal with broadcasting.
He, however, questioned the timing of the legislation, saying that the government clearly did not want the bill to come to the House earlier. “Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the PPP government did not want the regulatory body to have operated and become operationalised earlier so that you could have what is called the establishment of all these rules and the people like in the ACB [Advisory Committee on Broadcasting] making their decisions rather than a President doing as he is presently doing,” Ramjattan argued. “It was deliberate to avoid [moving] from the president’s monopoly unto what is called the board and the authority,” he said.
Ramjattan argued that the delay by the government was outrageous. “The fact that they have delayed it for such a long time is, what I want to say, something that is very outrageous on the part of the government. They have denied the rights of stakeholders for a nine-year period and now giving the impression oh, how large hearted they are,” he declared.
He questioned certain provisions in the bill, which he said is in keeping with the government’s love for “control freakism.” He was particularly concerned about the functioning of the National Frequency Management Unit (NMFU) under the proposed legislation, since it could block the setting up of a station even if the broadcasting authority grants a licence.
“Because there is this necessity to have this broadcasting authority established as quickly as possible, and notwithstanding the monopolising of control by those two provisions or couple others that are there, the AFC wants to support this, and will support it,” Ramjattan said. According to him, “half a loaf or three-quarters of it is better than none.”
Responding to some of the concerns raised by Ramjattan, Labour Minister Manzoor Nadir said that it was the tendency of some to “see jumbie everywhere.” He said that while some had raised concerns that the government was using the bill to take control, he pointed that there is no clause in the bill which states that the authority should not consult with other stakeholders.
Nadir also defended the timing of the piece of legislation. “This is perhaps the right time to table it,” he said, saying that some of the biggest genocides in Rwanda and Bosnia were linked to broadcasting. “This will help to bring a certain level of decency to broadcasting in Guyana,” he said.
Teixeira rejected suggestions that the administration had reneged on the bipartisan report, which comprised representatives of the PPP/C, PNCR and other stakeholders. She said that while the bill was not perfect it had benefited from the knowledge of a number of sources. According to her, in time the piece of legislation may have to be revised.
She noted that the bill spoke to several important issues, including the issue of monopoly of the media. She said that provisions in the bill prevent anyone, including the state, from monopolising the media.
The bill was passed with some minor amendments. These amendments, Hinds explained, were not of any of substance but had to do with correcting language and grammar and removing ambiguities.
The delay of the Broadcast Bill had been attributed by the government to the lack of an agreement between the PPP/C and the PNCR over what had been hammered out between Jagdeo and Hoyte during dialogue in 2001.
Defined
Broadcasting is defined by the bill as the “transmission of any programme whether or not encrypted and whether or not actually received, by wired or wireless medium or technology for reception by all or part of the general public, but does not include telecommunication.”
The bill envisages the setting up of a Guyana National Broadcasting Authority and a governing board. The board will be responsible for the conduct of its business, activities and other affairs and shall comprise not less than four persons or more than seven, one of whom shall be its chairman. In keeping with the practice by the administration, the President will pick the chairman and all but one of the members of the board. Clause 4 of Part 11 says that the President shall appoint the Chairman and all members of the board. One of the members of the board shall be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition after “meaningful consultation” with the parliamentary opposition parties.
Functions of the authority include the establishment of classes of licences, issuing of licences for terms not exceeding 10 years and subject to the conditions set out, and the suspension and revocation of any licence provided that the licensee is given a reasonable opportunity to respond.
Among its duties, the authority shall recommend terms and conditions for licences for radio, TV and any other new broadcast technologies and formulate a system for the monitoring of the programmes of licensees to ensure their adherence to the Act and regulations. The authority shall also conduct research, opinion polls and surveys to assist it in executing its mandate and according to Clause 18(2) k of Part 11 “require licensees to carry a certain percentage of public service broadcast or development support broadcast as public information (deemed) appropriate as a public service at no cost.”
Guidelines
In relation to the granting of licences, the authority shall ensure than all agencies record programmes and keep these for a period of five years after a broadcast. Licensees would also be required to keep adequate broadcast logs and have recordings available for inspection.
The guidelines also focus on content. At Clause 32(i), it says that “all programmes should be fair and balanced in content and show a respect for truth in ways that do not under-represent any significant strand of thought, and that accuracy is founded on a commitment to check, cross-check and, wherever possible, to gather first-hand information from credible documentation, or official spokespersons of fully attributable eye-witnessed sources.”
It says that programmes which address controversial public policy or matters of political or industrial contention “must meet standards of fairness and balance, accuracy, maintaining a proper balance and respect for truth and integrity and always ensuring that opposing views are not misrepresented.”
On the reporting of news, the bill says this should be objective, wide-ranging and well-informed and in reporting controversial matters “the main differing views should be given due weight in the period during which the controversy is active.”
At yesterday’s sitting the Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill was tabled by Home Affairs Minister Clement Rohee, while the Guyana Energy Agency (Amendment) Bill 2011 was tabled by the Prime Minister.
