New television rules are a step forward for democracy because they finally allow broadcasters, and therefore the public, to freely discuss politics, the former Broadcast Commission chairman who developed them said yesterday.

Tim Marshall said the row between Government and the United Bermuda Party (UBP) detracted from the fact that broadcasters will now be able to air programmes about politics which will stimulate debate in the community.

Under the Broadcast Commission rules published last week, the definition of a government broadcast has been widened to allow the ruling party to do a programme about its policies, which will be paid for by the taxpayer through the Consolidated Fund.

The Opposition will be given the right of reply but half the time - also paid out of the Consolidated Fund.

Shadow Legislative Affairs Minister John Barritt described the changes as "sinister" and said the rules had been rewritten to allow the public purse to be used to fund broadcasts on policy matters which previously had not been allowed because they were "political" and had to be funded by the parties.

And he claimed the new rules resulted from the Broadcast Commission ruling in August last year that a televised addressed by Premier Jennifer Smith on the eve of the Opposition Budget reply in February 2002 was "political" and should not have been funded by the taxpayer.

But Mr. Marshall said this was not the case, pointing out the rules had been drafted in 2000.

Mr. Marshall told The Royal Gazette yesterday: "I think both the UBP and the PLP are getting side-tracked with discussions dealing with government broadcasts and the reply to them.

"The major development that has been created by these political directives is that it ends 18 years where undertakings (broadcasters) could not produce or organise broadcasts where political issues are debated in this community.

"The politicians are having a wonderful punch-up over the section dealing with government broadcasts, but everyone is losing sight of the very important fact about these directives.

"In the past they (broadcasters) did not have the capability or the legal right on the Island to have political debate on television, which for a democracy was, for the want of a better word, crazy.

"It doesn't seem that people have concentrated their attention on the fact that the Commissioners have ended what was a practice that was completely offensive to a democracy that has a constitution.

"The Government broadcast has a right to reply, and I've been reading attentively what the politicians have been saying and both seem to be doing a fair amount of finger pointing at each other.

"But the reality is that the Commissioners felt quite strongly that the public ought to be placed in a position where they are receiving the benefit of broadcasts that explain Government programmes and policies, and also the view of the Opposition."

He pointed out that government broadcasts since 1980 had always been paid for from the Consolidated Fund. Now the Opposition reply will be paid for through the Consolidated Fund.

"What the Commissioners did was to correct an anomaly, whether intentional or not, where the Opposition did not have the ability to obtain funding to put in a reply," said Mr. Marshall.

"To offer fairness across the board, the Commissioners felt that should be rectified.

"The Opposition takes exception to the public purse strings being utilised. They have always been utilised, but now they are being utilised in a fair way."

Referring to Opposition complaints that the subject matter for Government broadcasts had been widened to talk about policy issues, Mr. Marshall said: "I can see where that concern comes from, but what also has to be factored in is that the Government will always factor in whether the subject matter is worthy enough.

"There are built in controls on how they work. If it is not a substantial piece of legislation, if the government uses the public purse for government broadcasts, they would be heavily criticised, and they know that.

"On an important subject they will (do a broadcast) and that is to the general benefit of the community if they want open government, and there is a cost to that.

"It's a good step. We have Commissioners who are very attentive and it should work well and open up discussion of issues and end 18 years where these undertakings (producers) felt they could not produce commentaries on what the Government was proposing.

"It is ridiculous that we've lived in a constitutional democracy for so long where undertakings didn't feel they had the ability to criticise in a responsible way Government initiatives. That has come to an end."

He rejected claims from Mr. Barritt that Cabinet had interfered to draft the proposals because the Commissioners ruled the Premier's address was political.

"That's not the case. To suggest that this was all about the last decision the Commissioners made against the undertakings, and indirectly the Government, in my view is just not the case.

"The first draft was in February 2000 and that was not a document drafted by anyone but the Broadcasting Commissioners."

Junior Legislative Affairs Minister Michael Scott said the PLP should not be made to pay the estimated $6,000 for the Premier's broadcast because the television companies have the responsibility to vet them first.

Mr. Marshall said: "That's an argument that could be advanced. Whether it's the right decision at the end of the day, the Government has to look at themselves and say in the light of the decision made, is it right that the public purse should pay for that."

VSB owner Kenny DeFontes and Bermuda Broadcasting chief managing director Rick Richardson said yesterday they had not received a copy of the regulations so they could not comment.