Opposition leader Grant Gibbons says yesterday's Government House ceremony should have been about the resignations of scandal-hit ministers including the Premier, rather than Walter Lister's promotion.

He said Premier Alex Scott should have fired ministers accused of unethical behaviour in their dealings with the Bermuda Housing Corporation.

And he said Mr. Scott himself should have also fallen on his sword after getting the country into the ProActive mess which could cost untold millions.

He said: "What we had was simply one more minister added to the payroll. It struck me almost as a parody."

He said Government should be embarrassed and ashamed by months of self-inflicted controversy.

"The Premier should have submitted his own resignation today. He was almost entirely responsible for the Berkeley fiasco. He was the minister responsible at the time for over-riding the advice of his technical officers and taking ProActive on as the contractor.

"It's a huge tragedy, no one wins in this situation. You have at least 100 workers out of a job. You have a black contracting company whose reputation is seriously damaged for the foreseeable future," Dr. Gibbons continued.

"You have children who are obviously not going to be able to take advantage of the school for a number of years. And you have the BIU whose members could be at some financial risk because the bond they have underwritten through Union Asset Holdings is very likely going to be called."

He said the project had ballooned from $71 million in 2000 to $102 million and could now cost $130-150 million by the time it gets finished.

"What that really means is you have $50 million at least that will be wasted on this project which could have been spent on seniors, heath care, pensions and of course housing.

"It is really hard to believe that anyone can really feel this government is capable of properly handling the affairs of Bermuda."

He said it was unclear whether ProActive had been fired because of incompetence or whether the company and Government had agreed to part ways as sometimes happened in the building industry.

The problem for the taxpayer said Dr. Gibbons was that other building firms were unlikely to want to take on new risk associated with the project on a contract basis.

Instead they would want to do it on a cost and charge basis with each item being billed for rather than it being covered by a lump sum. It will be very expensive to complete," said Dr. Gibbons.

He said there were problems on the site which needed corrective action including some utilities which had been damaged because buildings had not been properly sealed.

"What we need is a better understanding of what kind of state the project is in and what needs to be done and how much has been paid at this point. My suspicion is Government will try to avoid all that but the taxpayer has a right to know."