The grand national Budget Debate continues this week in the House of Representatives.

The moot being proposed by Government is that Jamaica should spend $555.7 billion this year, $18 billion of which will be raised from taxation.

Audley Shaw was unconvincing when he opened the batting for the Government as he struggled to demonstrate a clear understanding of the country's problem and, therefore, was unable to deliver credible macro-economic prescriptions.

Shaw will get another chance when he closes the debate on Wednesday. However, before him, the national debate champion, Bruce Golding, will have the task of repairing the holes punched in the planned Budget by the Opposition trio of Dr Omar Davies, Roger Clarke and Portia Simpson Miller.

Saddled with unflattering antecedents, Davies was like a warrior and sounded like the right man for the job of finance minister when he spoke.

Clarke demonstrated an under-standing of agriculture which at times seemed absent when he was minister.

Simpson Miller's content was very good but would have been more effective had she delivered with a bit more ease and style.

Golding walks to the crease tomorrow, knowing that Karl Samuda's presentation was unstimulating.

It means that the prime minister will have to bat for Samuda and Shaw and also score runs for his himself.

However, in the quest to score these runs, we hope that Prime Minister Golding does not just flush some of the proposals made by the Opposition.

Creating jobs

We believe Government should seriously consider using money from the Tourism Enhancement Fund and the Universal Access Fund to do infrastructure work across the country as a means of creating jobs and easing the economic fallout, as proposed by Davies.

We also believe the proposal to increase the tax on interest on government bonds from 25 per cent to 33 per cent ought to be given serious consideration.

There is also room for either Golding or Shaw to fully explain the perceived fairness of the regressive taxation model it has pursued.

History, however, may record this Budget Debate as another exercise of oratory skills. We hope that this is not the case.

For Jamaica's sake, this debate should not be win at all costs for either side, but rather an opportunity for consensus, compromise and cooperation.

As it come to its close this week, let's hope that our leaders, in every possible way, find it possible to take the high ground as Jamaica continues to battle this turbulent storm.

We hope not to see a repeat of Golding's agonisingly distasteful behaviour by any member of the Opposition when either he or Shaw speaks.

Last week the prime minister found time to shut out parts of Simpson Miller's contribution to the debate.

While we accept that persons can multitask, it was disturbing to see Golding not only leave his seat and spend minutes searching through the law books in the House, and even going to the deputy clerk for research assistance, all this time while Simpson Miller was on her feet.

Meanwhile, the Red Poll Bull, Clarke, needs to be reined in by Simpson Miller.

The fertiliser issue

Clarke, in his characteristically humorous style, went on wild uproot in Parliament last week when he resurrected the smelly fertiliser issue by suggesting that the controversial Diamond-R brand of cheap fertiliser could be dangerous for human consumption.

He made the claim in spite of tests by three local agencies that the product was safe to use on agricultural crops. But even without scientific or any form of informed research to support his claim, Clarke used his high office as a member of parliament to yet again stir panic in the farming community and the marketplace.

He advised against the fertiliser being used on green leafy vegetables but gave no reason as to the source of his discomfort with regards to the organic-based fertiliser which contains human excreta.

Quality food

Like Clarke, we believe that the food being consumed by Jamaicans must not only be of the highest quality, but must also be free of pathogens and harmful chemicals. The last thing we need is for our people to get ill or die from food because of negligence on the part of the state's monitoring and standards agents.

However, in the context of the findings of the local agencies, which gave the fertiliser a clean bill of health, and the absence of sound and credible findings to the contrary, we regard Clarke's utterance as unfortunate and an abuse of his parliamentary privilege.

We believe that if he still feels strongly about the dangers of the fertiliser, he is well within his rights to call for a full investigation - as he later did - into the contents of the fertiliser and their potential impact on the health of humans and animals alike.

thegavel@gleanerjm.com

The Gavel