'No longer can it be seen as good enough for us to bicker at each other so that while the global competition is focusing on how to outdo Bermuda, we are focusing on how to outdo each other.' Budget Statement 2010-11, Minister of Finance Paula Cox.

You have got to be kidding, I thought to myself, Mr. Editor, when I heard those words read by the Minister last Friday on the Hill. Not that I do not share the noble sentiments expressed. I do. But bicker? Outdo one another? Give me a break. It takes more than words. It takes action and opportunity. I mean there I was, sitting in the Opposition room outside the House of Assembly chamber listening on the radio, making my own notes as I followed along like every other interested member of the public, the other MPs. I had absented myself deliberately. Here's why: I had been denied a copy of the Budget Statement to follow along as the Minister read.

I thought that was wrong. When I first looked around the chamber I saw that I was, literally, one of less than a half dozen MPs without a copy. The Government frontbench had theirs (you would expect that) as did the members of their backbench. I noticed that copies had also been handed out to certain members of the Opposition benches: the Leader, the Shadow Minister for Finance, the Whip, the two independents and one member of the Alliance.

I figured I simply must have been overlooked. I signalled to the Sergeant at Arms (he has the responsibility of distributing material to members) and inquired after my copy. It was then that I learned that he had his instructions and that I was not on his list. "From whom?," I asked. "The Minister," he replied.

Really? I reminded him politely but firmly, I think, but loudly enough to be heard by others, that he takes his instructions from the Speaker and that he is the person who is supposed to be in charge of the House. I asked him to ask the Speaker to intervene.

He spoke with the Speaker, who broke away from reading his copy to lean over and hear what the Sergeant at Arms had to say. But I got no copy, just a shrug of the shoulders. I left. But not before Wayne Furbert kindly offered me a copy – he got his as an Independent I guess – while Opposition leader Kim Swan offered to share his with me. But, thank you very much, that's not the point. If it's fair and reasonable and courteous that 30 members of the House should each have their own copy to read along, why shouldn't the other six members of the Opposition backbenches?

I share this with you not simply to bitch and moan, although there is that: I wasn't very pleased as a senior parliamentarian to have been afforded such little respect. I share this, Mr. Editor, for the insight it provides into how small and petty it can be on the Hill and how, as a result, such actions can unnecessarily sow discord and division. Mind you, I can also report that my walk-out was met with some success. A clerk was dispatched halfway through the Statement to tell me that there was now a copy on my chair: how nice.

To be clear here: there is no rule that requires the Minister to share. These are courtesies. What, you wonder: we need rules to compel courtesies?

The opportunity to give tit for tat arises again today with the Opposition Budget Reply: Should we adopt the same approach? Only their Premier, Finance Minister and Whip get copies and to heck with the rest? I hope not. We need to be bigger than that.

I thought it was also pretty rich when, not long after the Statement was read, I learned that the Premier and two of his Cabinet Ministers were looking for favourable consideration for next week's debate on revenue and expenditure. Apparently they are going to be abroad some time during the two weeks of debate and the Opposition gets to decide under the Rules what will be taken up, when and for how long. They would prefer we scheduled their Ministries to suit their schedules: obviously.

... and another thing: A reader writes

But enough already on that point. There's one other I want to make this week and it comes via the travails of an earnest reader. He wanted to know how he could obtain not just a copy of the Budget Statement but of the Big Book of Revenue and Expenditure – after it had been presented in the House, of course. I gave him some suggestions and it's worth sharing his report back – in full:

"I called Cabinet who sent me to Finance. They said the book was available for purchase from the cashiers at ground level, Government Administration Building. Cashiers say it is not yet printed for general release until after the Budget Debate. Pity about that. I don't know if it's always been done that way but it's not acceptable to me. The lack of widely distributed Budget information leads eventually to narrowly focused and uninformed debate.

"Of course, you need to be a cryptographer to understand most of the Budget items anyway. That too is unacceptable.

"Why not in time for the next Budget have all the estimates available online? Not just what we have now but with lots of detail? Every one of the budget items must have at least a management overview already in digital format. If that were made available without jargon, the man in the street would at least have some idea of what their money is going to be used for.

"The current situation excludes the man in the street from being informed on how his hard earned tax dollar is being spent. With this new information maybe we could generate more voter participation.

"While on the topic of making more information available online why not display every contract, management description at a minimum, bidder name and bid amount plus who actually won the contract and why. More information will make us more a part of the process, and surely we all want transparency in Government."

Why not indeed, Mr. Editor?

Got your own view? Write jbarritt@ibl.bm.

THOUGHT DU JOUR "Keep cool; anger is not an argument" – Daniel Webster.