Mr Chairperson, comrades, friends, this is so predictable and even boring. We've addressed this issue, really. This detains the House unduly. However, essentially, on the issue of privatisation, it's not the answer to everything. SA Airways itself was privatised and a portion of it was sold to Swissair. Let us learn from that experience.
Secondly, if you look at the role of this airline, it's addressing the needs, substantially, of sectors of the airline industry not catered for by the private sector. Only a state-owned airline can do that, not just in this country but in many other countries in the world.
Thirdly, look at the issue of a broader developmental state. The role of state airlines in that regard has to be taken into consideration.
Fourthly, yes, we have repeatedly said to the management, including the CEO of SA Express that they cannot expect to come back to the National Treasury every time they have difficulties. Indeed, in our report to Parliament, we have said that they will not be rescued by the national fiscus all the time.
Finally, yes, there is the possibility of the private sector playing a role but privatisation is not the only answer. There are many ways in which the private sector can indeed get involved. Yes, if it comes to it that this airline is a drain on the resources of the country and if it precludes us from providing housing and electricity - we are clear that an airline is not a basic need in the way water, food and clothing are - then we will consider privatisation. It's not a principle.
However, let's not be so dark and pessimistic. Dr Van Dyk says, on the one hand, that this SA Express is being managed very well. On the other hand, he's insisting that it's going to be a failure. What is this if it is not the typical doom and gloom of the DA?
On scheduling, we did not decide on this lightly. We'll discuss it in the forthcoming debate. Both sides presented their cases - those who argued for Schedule 2 and those who favoured Schedule 3(b). We even said to the researcher: Present a balanced argument, which Eric Boskati did - and thank you very much, if he's here.
Indeed the department itself gave us a very itemised presentation of the advantages and disadvantaged of both sides - Schedule 2 and schedule 3(b). Finally, we said that instead of voting on the Bill in the last week of the last quarter, we should defer the matter to give the committee, the various parties and the executive more time to decide which Schedule is more appropriate. In fact, Mr Manie van Dyk and his party came up with nothing except to bleat: Schedule 2! Schedule 2! Schedule 2! Where's the argument? Even on privatisation ... [Time expired.]
Bill read a second time.