The draft broadcasting bill has the potential for abuse, lacks consistency, is imprecise in defining the specific areas it is meant to cover and constitutes a `lazy draft’ according to attorney-at-law, Teni Housty.

In a presentation at a forum organised by the Guyana Press Association for operators of television and radio stations and special invitees at the Sidewalk Cafe yesterday, Housty said that among the critical areas in which definitions were vague were terms such as public, private and community broadcasting. The bill makes provision for them but does not say what they are, he says.

In terms of regulation, Housty noted, there was potential for conflict between the regulatory bodies.

He noted the role of the National Frequency Management Unit (NFMU) and the Broadcasting Authority in relation to the matter of licences, as well as the power of the minister to overturn the decisions of the authority in specific circumstances.

Section 24 it was considered, gave the Minister too much power over the authority and some participants felt that this entire section should be rewritten. One member of the floor was prompted to remark that it was tragic that the “authority has no authority.”

Section 34 was seen as another area of concern in which the authority would have rights of inspection bordering on an invasion of privacy and breach of confidentiality.

This was a source of concern in view of the fact that there was no freedom of information act and no reciprocity from government with regard to providing information on matters of public importance.

Housty expressed concern that sections 18 and 19 of the draft bill sought to limit freedom of speech, as well as tell journalists how they must do their job.

It was remarked from the floor that most of Section 19 had derived from the British Broadcasting Corporation’s handbook for journalists. Similarly it was noted that the draft also told the advertisers how they must do their job.

Another deficiency mentioned by Housty was that the bill made no provision for a tribunal to which appeals could be made. As a consequence, he said, matters of urgency would have to be dealt with by the courts and this process could take years.

A source of contention was the provision of funding for the Guyana Television and Broadcasting Company and the Guyana Broadcasting Corporation by the Broadcasting Authority under the bill.

One participant remarked that while sections did deal with issues as expressed in the Jagdeo/Corbin communique, the bill had been badly put together as a legal document.

It was noted, too from the floor that while Guyana was only now seeking to get legislation on broadcasting in place, other Caribbean territories had forged ahead in seeking to put laws on the books in relation to communication and information technology. (Miranda La Rose)