Madam Chairman ... [Interjections.] No, it's "Chairman" in the English language. It's neutral - manus of the Chair. I refer you to a proper dictionary. I apologise for my intermittent participation in the debate and involvement in the passage of the Bill.
What we have to say today reiterates what we said over the past two years. Indeed, nothing has changed, so we are forced to repeat the things we said before. The first aspect is our concern about the very nature of this department. Let us look at the debate today: we are debating the energy policy of the country; we are debating the the transport policy of the country; and given that we are dealing with Denel, I'm sure somebody will deal with the military policy of the country. If we want to deal with the great disaster of our diamond mines, we can also talk about minerals and energy.
This department is a mix and match, and in order to maintain its role, it has brought together very competent, capable people in the various fields of each of the state-owned enterprises, SOEs, who should rather be deployed within the line function of the department, and each SOE should become part and parcel of the line function of the department, as many of them already have. This is an anomaly that has just carried on since the time of apartheid and has not been addressed. It does not take a great deal of thinking on how it should be addressed: simply transfer SOEs and personnel to each of the line functions of the department so that these issues can be dealt with properly, competently and coherently. The added value that the department brings to the table is not in doubt, but there is no justified existence for an entire overhead of the Minister, Deputy Minister and director-generals. This is the first concern.
The other concerns are ones that you've heard before, but they are persisting. We keep paying for Denel. We, the people, are the owner of our manufacturer, which continues to manufacture at a loss with enormous problems; a myriad of problems. Why do we need it? It must be privatised. We are competing with all the arms manufacturers in South Africa; the state is competing with its own citizens.
Regarding Eskom, why do we tax people repressively to build electrical plants? This should be done through Treasury, not by means of tariffs. A tariff is a nonbudgetary form to make the poor pay more for the same amount of benefits it receives. The Bill's programmes should have been funded through a budgetary allocation. This is something that we find very difficult to stomach.
Regarding aluminium smelters, we have been discussing this for three years. There is a problem. If we want to deal with it, let's do so and if we don't, please let's stop talking about it. It's getting boring. [Interjections.] It can be done at the departmental level. Contracts can be rescinded. We can do it legislatively. Two years ago, we discussed in our committee the possibility of passing legislation to deal with these closed contracts. The clause in the Constitution provides for this is broad enough. We can take account of the conditions under which those contracts were given and we can mothball those factories for which all of us are paying. Every time when we turn on the electricity or a light bulb in our homes, we are paying for the cost of aluminium which we can't afford. That is a serious concern.
The last point I want to highlight is the situation with the airlines. I've been an advocate of privatising the airlines as a matter of principle. I do acknowledge that they're doing much better now than before. But the issue of the privatisation of the airlines obstructs the road leading to a more successful tourism industry. Our airlines, especially SA Airways, is becoming a stumbling block in expanding our tourism industry internationally. I don't need to stress the importance of tourism for trade and industry. [Interjections.]