Anyone hoping that there would no return to the depths of pettiness seen in the Cabinet Office budget debate debacle last week had their hopes dashed on Friday when the Tourism and Transport budget was, well, talked about, because what took place was no debate.

For those who may have missed the earlier part of the 2010 Budget follies, Premier Dr. Ewart Brown opted to use up all but 30 seconds of the time allotted on Monday for the Cabinet Office budget after the Opposition had refused to schedule the tourism debate for a day when he was on the Island.

Having proved his point (and the Opposition United Bermuda Party was not blameless in this), one might have thought that the tourism debate might have been the real thing, albeit in the absence of the Premier.

But that would have been too much to ask. Not when points can be scored and schoolyard tactics are available. Instead, Works Minister Derrick Burgess, acting in the Premier and Tourism Minister's stead, spoke for four and a half hours of the five hours allocated to this important portfolio. The other 35 MPs in the House of Assembly got 30 minutes.

Once again, the losers in this are the general public. What does not seem to have sunk into the heads of Bermuda's supposed leaders is that in the midst of the most serious economic crisis in a half century, the public are entitled to hear an informed debate on the future of the Island, and in this case, one of its most vital industries.

Instead, those listening to the debate listened to 290 minutes of Mr. Burgess reading a prepared brief, so much of which was minutiae that he might as well have been reading a laundry list or a telephone book.

What's worse, as Opposition Leader Kim Swan pointed out, Mr. Burgess dedicated three sentences to the subject of advertising: "The advertising contract with Global Hue is $14.544 million, a $1.9 million increase. This past year the spend was reduced as part of BDOT's austerity measures. This year's estimate brings the spend back to normal levels."

Mr. Swan was rightly annoyed, and the public should be as well.

Still, all hope is not lost. Health Minister Walter Roban and Shadow Minister Louise Jackson agreed to break up their debate into different pieces of that vast Ministry, with the Shadow Minister and other MPs having the opportunity to ask questions and criticize, and the Minister having the chance to respond throughout the time allocated.

By the end, Mrs. Jackson was not thrilled, as time ran out before there was time for a meaningful discussion on the controversial issue of Future Care. Mr. Roban could have spent a little less time on some of his briefs, and Opposition MPs could have managed their time better, but it was still a vast improvement on the debates on the Cabinet Office and Tourism and Transport.

Talk about the unsatisfactory nature of the Budget Debate has been going on for a long time, and the practice of Ministers hogging their briefs precedes 1998, when the PLP came to power. But the big issue, again, comes down to who ultimately benefits from this foolishness and who loses. No one should be naive enough to think that Parliament is a nice little debating society, or that politicians are or should be so pure that they will not attempt to put themselves and their parties in the best possible light.

But there comes a point when they surely must ask whether what they are doing is in the best interests of the public and the Country. That is not much to ask, is it?