The new political broadcasting regulations, published on Friday, effectively in response to the Premier's delivery of a political broadcast on February, 2002 using taxpayers money, raise several concerns.

The good news is that the regulations go some way to defining what a political broadcast is and what is not. And by giving the Opposition the right of reply, they do establish a standard of debate that is to be welcomed.

But beyond that, the new regulations may cause as many problems as they solve.

And they fail to address the central question emanating from the Premier's broadcast - is the Progressive Labour Party going to pay for the broadcast or not? One would assume not as the regulations are not retroactive.

But in an insightful piece of analysis, Attorney General Dame Lois Browne Evans said in the House of Assembly on Friday that the Broadcasting Commission's ruling last year was "dopey" as was the then-chairman, Tim Marshall.

That shows the level of contempt the Government has for the Commission.

The other major change in the regulations concerns funding. From now on, "Government" broadcasts and the Opposition's reply will be funded from the Consolidated Fund - or in simple terms, by the taxpayer.

This decision, and these regulations, have been put in place without any debate in Parliament, which is responsible for determining how tax revenue will be raised and spent.

It is just as worrying that no cap has been placed on the amount that can be spent, a recommendation that was made by this newspaper along with the idea that the political parties should split the cost of political broadcasts along with the Government.

Instead, the Government has been given carte blanche to produce as many "Government broadcasts" as it likes, provided they are no more than 30 minutes in length and no single broadcast is aired more than twice in a month.

The definition of a Government broadcast is also broad. A Government broadcast may refer to legislative or administrative policies that have been or will become subject to approval by the legislature or is concerned with any policy of the Government. And while references to any political party or member of a party or candidate are barred, references to the Government, the Opposition and the previous Government are permitted.

That does not leave much that can be considered as purely political - as long as you don't criticise an individual (as the Premier did in her broadcast) you're OK.

But if you want to promote a policy or bill and criticise the "Opposition" or the former Government, there's no problem.

This not completely nonsensical. If the Government feels it needs to pass legislation and needs to explain to the community why it is necessary, then it should be able to do so. And because the Opposition has the right of reply, it at least gives the appearance of fairness, although limiting the Opposition to half the time seems to be a deliberate effort to give Government an in-built advantage.

But why bother to make the distinction at all if the rules are so broad that there is little or no difference between a Government broadcast and a political broadcast?

It would be better to drop the distinction altogether, give the Opposition the right of genuine equal time.

As as been suggested, funding could be split equally between the parties and the Government, with an annual spending cap.

Instead, the arrangement which was put in place on Friday will cause more problems than ever.