The following is the full transcript of the Opposition United Bermuda Party's reply to the Thrown Speech.

To His Honour the Speaker and Members of the Honourable House of Assembly:

Mr. Speaker,

Bermudians have weathered two significant storms since the last parliamentary session ended in June. One was natural; the other was political.

Hurricane Fabian generated widespread destruction and tragically resulted in the loss of four lives. But we can be proud of how everyone in Bermuda pulled together to repair the damage and put our day-to-day lives back on track. High praise and thanks must be extended to the Regiment soldiers, Police and Fire Services, government and emergency workers and BELCO and TELCO crews who worked around the clock to restore essential services and roads. We must also applaud the generosity of individuals across the community who pitched in to help their neighbours whenever help was needed.

The United Bermuda Party contacted Premier Scott immediately following the hurricane and offered him our assistance in the restoration process. We are pleased that he extended an invitation to participate in the Emergency Assistance Organisation, a gesture that rightly transcended politics to serve the interests of all Bermudians at a time of crisis.

Mr. Speaker,

Just weeks before Fabian battered Bermuda, we experienced extraordinary political turbulence.

The recent General Election was unprecedented for several reasons. It was, of course, the first Bermuda election contested under redrawn, single-seat constituencies, and that alone made it historic. But it was also the first election where the new deputy leader of the Progressive Labour Party admitted that PLP candidates had to lie to win. And, of course, it was the first election where a sitting Premier was forced to resign by mutinous colleagues within hours of an election victory.

The United Bermuda Party congratulates the Progressive Labour Party on winning their second term in office. However, we believe it's important to remember that it was a narrow victory. A handful of votes here or there could easily have produced a different result.

We offer this reminder not to diminish the PLP's legitimate success at the polls but to recognise the 48 percent of voters who supported the New United Bermuda Party and our vision for Bermuda. We will not forget the message they sent on July 24th.

Our supporters voted for fair, open and honest government. They voted for leadership with integrity. They voted for immediate action on affordable housing, a better life for seniors, a safer community, healthcare reforms and a vibrant, diversified economy.

Where possible, we will push to implement key aspects of our platform. And we will continue to work toward a Bermuda where every Bermudian has the same economic opportunities and is empowered to take advantage of them; where the value of every individual is recognised and respected by a tolerant community; where diversity is a source of pride, not division; and where Bermudians work together to move our community ahead.

Mr. Speaker,

Since the election, we have seen a change in style. The new Premier has so far appeared eager to communicate with the public, and that's as it should be. We have heard soothing words about party unity. We have heard claims that this new government will be a "broad church", representing the interests of all Bermudians. We have heard promises about good governance and releasing information that was suppressed for far too long.

The message is positive and sounds remarkably like the New United Bermuda Party's election platform. But is it believable coming from the PLP? This new direction certainly presents a dramatic contrast to the divisive rhetoric used by the Progressive Labour Party during their election campaign, just a few months ago.

While reassuring words such as trust and unity sound much better than offensive references to shysters and suntans, they can be used to disguise inaction. Here's the bottom line: we will need far more than a change in style to address the serious social and economic challenges facing our community in the days and months ahead. We will need substance.

In July 2003, the Progressive Labour Party did not receive the strong mandate they hoped for. What they got instead was a second chance, and Bermudians who went to the polls then expect action and real progress now.

Mr. Speaker,

We are sure the Scott government would like to start fresh, but this is a PLP government with a record and a past. Two-thirds of the current Cabinet Ministers served in the previous government, and there is considerable unfinished business for them to attend to. Before the election, Bermudians were confronted with serious allegations of government corruption and mismanagement. These issues have not been resolved. When legitimate questions don't get legitimate answers, the public has every right to believe there is something to hide.

It has been nearly two years since the United Bermuda Party broke open the Bermuda Housing Corporation scandal. Since then, two arrests have been made, no one has been prosecuted and the investigation drags on with no apparent end in sight. The Auditor General's report on the BHC was never released to the House of Assembly. Despite the involvement of Scotland Yard and a request in last year's budget for additional police officers to deal with white-collar crime, the BHC scandal remains an open case.

In light of the PLP government's apparent new interest in transparency and accountability, the United Bermuda Party would like to know when Bermudians will finally hear the truth about what happened, who will be held responsible and what steps have been taken to prevent such abuses in the future.

Mr. Speaker,

Progress at the Berkeley site remains slow and indeterminate. The completion date appears to be a moving target. The Honourable Member who is now Premier never accounted for the $700,000 of taxpayers' money supposedly paid by the government to cover the cost of a performance bond on the project. The Auditor General referred this matter to the police for criminal investigation.

Given the PLP government's apparent recent commitment to openness and accountability, the United Bermuda Party believes that a full accounting of the Berkeley project and the $700,000 should be provided immediately.

Mr. Speaker,

We are still waiting for the PLP government to release numerous reports, reviews, agreements and statistics that have been suppressed since 1998. With the exception of the memorandum of cultural understanding with Cuba, which was finally distributed one week ago, none has been forthcoming.

We are, therefore, both pleased and incredulous that the PLP government has shown interest in a major proposal from the New United Bermuda Party's election platform. We promised to pass a Freedom of Information Act that would guarantee public access to public information. While the Throne Speech shows significantly less resolve, promising only to "review proposals for public access to information legislation", it may signal a willingness to move in the right direction.

We believe the Scott government has a perfect opportunity to demonstrate their sincerity about moving towards greater openness by releasing the following documents immediately:

*The Annex to Bermuda's commitment letter to the OECD, signed by the Minister of Finance in 1999.

*The 1999 Civil Service Review.

*The 2000 Bermuda Regiment Review.

*A report on asbestos removal at Southside by a former PLP parliamentarian.

*The tax review promised by the Finance Minister in the 1999 budget statement.

*Complete tourism statistics at the end of each month.

*Details of the management contract for the Coco Reef Hotel, formerly known as the Stonington Beach Hotel.

*The Bermuda Quarterly Bulletin of Statistics at the end of each quarter. It is worth noting that this bulletin, which includes important financial information about government's revenue and expenditure, was last released for the fourth quarter of 2002.

Mr. Speaker,

Before the election, the New United Bermuda Party spoke of the urgent need to address fundamental challenges to Bermuda's social and economic infrastructure. We noted that the PLP government had failed to deal in any substantive way with affordable housing, Bermuda's ageing population, economic diversification, toxic-waste clean-up and hospital reform. These critical issues were virtually ignored by the PLP during the election, and they continue to be ignored in the 2003 Throne Speech.

The problem of affordable housing rightly received considerable attention during the election because it negatively impacts almost everyone in our community, cutting across age and income level. Yet affordable housing gets nothing more than lip service in the Throne Speech. We are told that the Scott government will establish a collaborative approach to the provision of affordable housing in Bermuda. That's it? That's the best they can do? They haven't committed to building a single house. This is clearly a government without short- or long-term plans for affordable housing.

The New United Bermuda Party presented a detailed and realistic plan to address affordable housing in our election platform. We know it can be done. But the Scott government appears to lack both the vision and the will to tackle this critically important social issue.

Mr. Speaker,

Just how motivated is the Scott government to address the real needs of our seniors? While the Throne Speech touches upon restructuring and upgrading of rest homes and long-term-care facilities, just look at what has been left out: There is nothing about improving pension benefits. Nothing about plugging the gaps in healthcare coverage. Nothing about making healthcare more affordable. Nothing about prohibiting age discrimination. Nothing about allowing greater flexibility for seniors who want to work past the age of 65. These are the important issues, and they have been ignored.

The PLP government promised a desperately needed pension increase in last year's budget. It was to take effect in August, but the Minister of Finance failed to bring the authorising legislation to the House for approval. We were astounded that government did not bring this legislation to the House when Parliament convened last Friday. When they finally get around to it-and we assume they intend to keep their commitment-they should do the right thing and make the pension increase retroactive to August.

The United Bermuda Party believes that Bermuda's seniors can ill afford to wait for another election for their lives to improve. They are not looking for a government that's all talk. They want a government that shows some resolve in addressing their needs before it's too late.

Mr. Speaker,

The 2003 Throne Speech ignored healthcare reform, despite the fact that our major healthcare facility, the King Edward Memorial Hospital, is in critical condition, both physically and financially. Since 1998, the United Bermuda Party has consistently voiced concerns about the PLP government's lack of attention to this issue, and the PLP government has consistently ducked it. While a series of consultants have come and gone and committees have been set up here, there and everywhere to study the situation, the government has made little progress over five years in implementing meaningful solutions.

Now it appears that the rapidly deteriorating physical plant could jeopardise the hospital's continuing accreditation by the Canadian Council on Hospitals Administration. If that were to happen, the public would certainly lose confidence in the ability of our only acute-care facility to provide the quality of healthcare they need and deserve.

The United Bermuda Party understands there is no magic bullet to put this right. A major part of the solution lies with reforming the complicated and outdated government reimbursement scheme, and complete reform is bound to be extremely costly.

Unfortunately, the Bermuda Hospitals Board does not have money to burn. They cannot incur additional debt, and they have proposed a $30 million-plus campaign to raise money for renovation, with roughly half of that amount to come from government.

Inevitably, the taxpayer will be asked to pay most of the cost of long-term healthcare reform involving our hospitals, insurance coverage and medical-care providers. That's why it is so important for the Scott government to be honest with the public about its plans for healthcare.

The United Bermuda Party understands that the most recent hospital analysis, the Kurron review, is on its way to Cabinet, but the Minister for Health gave no timetable for its assessment or any assurances that its contents would be released. We can only hope that the Ministry of Finance has done some serious contingency planning to address the looming healthcare crisis.

Mr. Speaker,

No one can disagree with the need for sound economic management. But the United Bermuda Party believes that sound economic management requires much more than the additional regulatory tweaking promised in the Throne Speech.

In just five years, on the PLP government's watch, we have witnessed the greatest shift in Bermuda's economy in half a century. The PLP government has presided over a tourism catastrophe of such proportions that for all practical purposes our economic prosperity now depends completely on international business. Introducing more supervisory legislation-no matter how well intentioned-doesn't begin to address this dangerous imbalance and its impact on jobs and opportunities for Bermudians.

Over 800 jobs have been lost in the hotel sector since 1998, and over $300 million in visitor expenditure has been lost to our economy. Annual air visitor arrivals have declined by 100,000 since 1998. This precipitous decline began during the PLP's 100-day rescue mission. Clearly, what the PLP government is doing isn't working. The Minister of Tourism's own Bermuda Alliance for Tourism board recently warned that tourism is "dying a slow, insidious death" and that the situation is "a national crisis". Even the Tourism Minister finally admitted, just two days ago, that tourism is in crisis.

Yet the Throne Speech proposals for getting better tourism results are pathetic. Will restructuring tourism offices, writing another marketing plan, educating schoolchildren about tourism and celebrating our heritage address a national crisis? This kind of insipid plan will do nothing to pump badly needed tourism revenue into the industry or government coffers.

In addition, it appears that Morgan's Point, the last large open site remaining in Bermuda for major leisure and tourism development, may become a residential village. There are better ways to deal with affordable housing than to put homes on polluted land. Practical solutions are detailed in the New United Bermuda Party's election platform. The potential for development at Morgan's Point to jumpstart tourism, diversify the economy and create jobs and business opportunities for Bermudians should not be dismissed lightly.

Mr. Speaker,

The United Bermuda Party still believes in tourism and the contribution it can and should make to our economy. During the election, we set out a bold new approach for diversifying our economy through an Economic Development Authority and for creating a tourism-management structure free from political interference.

We believe that to prosper in the 21st Century, Bermuda cannot afford business as usual, but the Throne Speech offers little encouragement that the Minister of Finance and the rest of Cabinet share our concerns.

The cost of Hurricane Fabian has not yet been released to the public, but we know it will be significant. Sooner or later, as a result of the shameful Bases termination agreement, Bermuda's taxpayers must face a $60 million bill to clean up toxic waste at the Baselands properties. Replacing the Causeway and Longbird Bridge-a project essential to our long-term safety and security-will bring another multimillion-dollar price tag. These are just three big-ticket items facing government, and we haven't even included the inevitable challenges posed by an ageing population and rapidly escalating healthcare costs. Unfortunately, the Minister of Finance has yet to release anything to indicate he has a long-term vision and a broad strategy for diversification, revenue generation and economic stability.

Mr. Speaker,

When it comes to tackling crime, actions speak louder than words. While we note that the Scott government now claims to have zero tolerance for crime, this year's promises to amend the Criminal Code and address acts of lawlessness were also made in last year's Throne Speech. Unfortunately, the PLP government has made zero progress in 12 months.

But this is nothing new. Time and time again they have made promises about getting tough on crime, and time and time again they have let the community down. Changing a few traffic rules and holding "high-level discussions" with the Police, while better than nothing, reflect a piecemeal approach to crime that will not lead to a safer community in the long run.

During the election, the New United Bermuda Party proposed comprehensive reforms to Bermuda's criminal-justice system. Our goals were clear: better prevention and detection of crime, more effective prosecution of criminals and enhanced rehabilitation to reduce offending.

To be effective, an attack on crime must be coordinated and comprehensive. Goals must be clearly defined and measurable. Resources must be provided to enable the various elements of the criminal-justice system to get the job done.

Professing zero tolerance will not prevent a petty thief from grabbing a purse. It will not stop an addict from breaking and entering or reduce youth violence. For decades, the Progressive Labour Party has expressed more concern for the causes of crime than for the victims of crime. This is what has earned them the label of "soft on crime." It will change only when their approach to crime reveals more substance than style.

Mr. Speaker,

If there's one belief that every Bermudian shares, it's that education is the key to our children's future and our Island's prosperity. That's why we are disappointed that education received so little attention in the 2003 Throne Speech.

The only legislative initiative mentioned-to consolidate school boards-comes from last year's Throne Speech. We opposed the centralisation of school boards then, and we continue to do so. The New United Bermuda Party stated in its election platform that effective education reforms must enhance the responsibility and accountability of local schools. To that end, we believe that each school should have its own board with responsibility for operations, staffing and performance.

If we are to judge from the Throne Speech, little progress has been made in moving ahead with education reforms in the past year. What happened to teacher licensing? Where are the standardised test results for individual schools? While action teams with clever acronyms take months and months to formulate plans, Bermuda's schoolchildren and their parents are still waiting for meaningful change.

Mr. Speaker,

The recent General Election proved once again that constitutional democracy is alive and well in Bermuda, and, for the most part, the polling process itself ran smoothly. However, the United Bermuda Party continues to have serious concerns about the number of voters who were allowed to vote in constituencies in which they were not resident, as well as the procedures available for challenging and reassigning them.

Prior to the election, the Parliamentary Registrar noted that the Parliamentary Election Act, as amended in 1999, limited her ability to fully address these issues.

There are various ways to interpret the 2003 election statistics. One is that the election was decided by only 151 votes. Another points to the fact that nine out of 36 seats were decided by less than 100 votes in each of those constituencies. Yet another highlights the closeness of the popular vote. However you look at it, the narrow election result underscores the need to revisit the Parliamentary Election Act to correct its ambiguities regarding voter registration. Legislation that has the potential for abuse is not good for Bermuda and makes a mockery of "one man, one vote of equal value."

The United Bermuda Party is disappointed that the Throne Speech does not mention the need for such a review. We will bring forward a motion in this Honourable House to establish a bipartisan committee to review the Act and recommend legislative changes to ensure that future elections are run as fairly as possible.

We are pleased to see absentee ballots on the legislative agenda, although there is no reason why this initiative could not have been implemented prior to the election had the PLP government been sincerely interested in doing so. The New United Bermuda Party brought forward the original motion on absentee ballots in October 2002 in order that the provision would be in place by the general election, but it was deliberately stalled in committee by the previous government.

Mr. Speaker,

The days immediately following the general election were unsettling for many Bermudians. But the painful process of forming the Scott government was not the only objectionable aspect of the campaign.

The United Bermuda Party has serious concerns about how the Progressive Labour Party used race in its election campaign. During the course of the campaign, candidates for the PLP denigrated the New United Bermuda Party's black candidates using racial slurs and epithets. In one incident, the PLP withdrew a racially inflammatory commercial after a broadcast company expressed legal concerns about the ad's content. Of course, the ad was based on a malicious skit that continued to be performed at PLP rallies.

As a multiracial and multicultural political group, the New United Bermuda Party firmly believes that working together is the only way for Bermuda and Bermudians to make real social and economic progress in the 21st Century.

We believe racially insensitive and divisive rhetoric is not in our country's best interests, and we know that Bermudians dislike negative campaigning. But complaining about it will change little. That's why the United Bermuda Party today proposes the establishment of principles of conduct to guide all our political communications, including parliamentary debate and election campaigns. Political leaders and parties in the United Kingdom have adopted similar principles.

We believe that the Scott government has an opportunity to demonstrate their commitment to bipartisan cooperation and representing all Bermudians by working with us to develop these principles, and we invite them to do so.

We propose forming a working group of United Bermuda Party and Progressive Labour Party parliamentarians to discuss the adoption and implementation of this code.

*These principles reflect the spirit and letter of the 1981 Human Rights Act. They would encourage all parliamentarians, political leaders and party supporters to:

*Represent the interests of all Bermudians regardless of race or ethnic background;

*Promote positive race relations;

*Reject all forms of racial harassment, inflammatory language and unlawful racial discrimination;

*Refrain from publishing or broadcasting political communications likely to generate divisions between people of different racial or ethnic groups; and

*Insure that in any dealings with the public, including door-to-door and telephone canvassing, no words or actions are used which may encourage or inspire racial or ethnic hatred in the community.

We expect these principles of conduct for political communications to exert a certain moral authority over political parties and individuals who seek to serve the people of Bermuda through public office. Political leaders should be role models in race relations; by doing so, they can influence the actions of their supporters as well as the broader public. We believe this approach represents a tangible step in reducing divisive racial politics, and we hope it will help create a more tolerant and respectful community.

Mr. Speaker,

The Scott government clearly understands the importance of communication. They should also understand that a change in style carries a government just so far before a lack of substance begins to show.

The 2003 Throne Speech is paved with good intentions. How can we argue with good governance, fairness, openness and accountability when those exact words were used in the New United Bermuda Party's election platform?

But as a legislative agenda, the Throne Speech lacks substance. The Scott government fails to address in any meaningful way the issues that are most important to the people of Bermuda today: affordable housing, improving the lives of seniors, healthcare reform, crime, education reform, economic diversification and tourism.

Perhaps the laundry list of Throne Speech items-many repeated from last year-would be more meaningful had there been a clear vision and platform presented by the Progressive Labour Party before the election. But there wasn't.

We would like to work with the Scott government in a new spirit of bipartisanship. We would like to believe that good governance and transparency will really be key features of this administration. But the burden of credibility rests with them. They must prove they mean what they say by doing what they say.

While the Scott government gets good marks for a change of style in their first 100 days, the United Bermuda Party and the people of Bermuda will be looking for substance in the days ahead.