Government spokesman Robert Persaud yesterday rejected PNCR charges that the draft broadcast bill departs from a government-PNCR report and added that there had never been a decision for a verbatim inclusion of its contents in the legislation.

Persaud, Information Liaison to the President, urged a more studied and open review by the PNCR of the draft bill and criticised a proposal by the party for the resuscitation of the Joint Committee on Radio Monopoly, Non-Partisan Boards and Broadcasting Legislation which had produced the report.

The PNCR in a comment on the draft broadcasting bill via a letter to the Stabroek News published on Thursday and at a press conference the same day, asserted that the draft legislation materially departed from the committee’s report in some aspects. As a consequence, it is proposing the resuscitation of the joint committee to work towards ensuring the draft legislation faithfully reflects the agreements and understandings it reached.

Persaud in a response issued yesterday to the PNCR letter signed by General Secretary Oscar Clarke and the comments at the Congress Place press conference asserted that the PNCR’s comments were “neither a fair nor accurate representation of the drafting process as well as the provisions of the draft Broadcasting Bill 2003”

Reacting to the PNCR’s comment that it should have been consulted first on the bill before it was thrown open for public discussion, Persaud said “Nowhere in the (May 6) Communiqué (between President Bharrat Jagdeo and Opposition Leader Robert Corbin) or the Follow up Agreement and during the bilateral discussions was there any commitment to clear the draft Broadcasting Bill with the PNCR 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”.

As such, Persaud said, “The PNCR 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”.

About Clarke’s comments that there were material departures from the joint committee report, Persaud reasserted that the comments are inaccurate and there are no departures from the joint committee report. He argued that the report provided the main substance and direction of the legislation and that “the drafters had no remit to include the joint report verbatim”.

“The areas identified by the PNCR 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”.

About the appointment of the National Broadcasting Authority Board, Persaud asserts that in drafting the bill, an effort was made as far as possible to so constitute the Board of the Authority so that the decisions taken by the Board would be free, fair and transparent.

In relation to the appointment of the chairman, the bill does not allow the President to act on his own deliberate judgment but requires him to consult the Leader of the Opposition on the appointment, Persaud argued. “It should be noted that a decision of the High Court has almost equated consultation to prior approval”.

The joint report had recommended that the Board of Commissioners at its first meeting elect its chairperson.

With respect to the appointment of the other members, Persaud said the bill proposes, “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”.

The PNCR in its comments had pointed out that the joint committee had proposed that “the National Broadcasting Authority be headed by a Board comprising not less than three and no more than 5 members who would be selected by the Standing Parliamentary Committee on Appointments and appointed by the President”.

About access to the state-owned media by political parties for coverage of their positions and activities, Persaud rejected the PNCR comments and pointed out that “Clause 19 of the Bill faithfully reflects each of the points mentioned in the joint committee report 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.”

The PNCR had also said that the provision in the bill dealing with the monopoly in broadcasting and diversity of ownership was not adequate. The relevant provision in the bill said that the special role of state-owned media is recognised and added that “the broadcast industry is nevertheless open to competition”. Persaud contended that the provision “could not be clearer” and “is certainly adequate”.

About the inclusion in the bill of the text of the joint report as it relates to the diversity of ownership of licences, Persaud says that the objective of “the 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’”.

The PNCR said the joint report recommended (i) all monopolies, whether private or state, be removed or not be allowed; and (ii) commercial and community licences, taken as a whole, must be controlled by a diverse range of Guyanese persons or groups.

In relation to the status of the National Frequency Management Unit, the PNCR said that the bill provides for just one of the two options the committee had given to President Bharrat Jagdeo and then PNCR leader Desmond Hoyte and said that both options should be objectively put to the nation during the consultation process. Persaud’s response was that since Hoyte made no comment on the two options, “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”.

With regard to the independence of the NBA, the PNCR expressed concern that the provisions of the bill with regard to the powers of the Minister were inconsistent with the committee’s recommendation and amounted to an attempt at censorship, but Persaud asserts “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”. Persaud added that there is no basis in the draft bill to suggest powers of “censorship”.

The PNCR contends that the joint report was “adamant that the National Broadcasting Authority must be independent and autonomous within the framework of the constitution, true to the spirit of, and letter of its establishing legislation, answerable only to the National Assembly and must serve the public interest and national good”.

To PNCR comments that the report had recommended that the NBA should set the penalties for infringements of the broadcast laws and regulations, Persaud said “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, he notes that 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”

Persaud reiterated the government’s commitment “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.

Persaud asserted however, the government “has not given up its mandate to govern the affairs of the country in the interest of all Guyanese”. He expressed the hope that “the PNCR will, on balance, have a more studied, open review of the draft legislation to ensure that it responds to the national situation”.

Persaud also criticised what he said was the “sudden introduction” by the PNCR of a role for the dissolved joint committee.