Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to respond to three separate statements. The first one I would like to respond to concerns SAA. I want to add to what the Minister of Finance has said.
Members' Statements are very important in this House. And members owe it to this House to come here and put something on the table that we feel we should respond to, and not simply come here with statements that merely repeat what was reported in the newspapers of the previous day.
I would like to convey this to the hon Dreyer. She has basically come here and, word for word, just repeated what appeared in yesterday's newspapers about SAA. Now let me say this about our national airways. What we have done as government is to liberalise the approach to air access to this country and we have seen the response was that many airlines announced that they would now be flying to South Africa. And many airlines increased their flights to South Africa. But, as South Africans, let's have the debate: Do we need a national career or don't we?
When I listen to the members' statements from that part of the House, there is clearly confusion there, because one member stands up and says: I've been to a Proudly South African function, I was so impressed, let's do that. Then another one comes and simply says: Let's privatise SAA. So, I think you need some consistency on that side of the House.
Our view is that we need SAA and we need a national carrier. How it should be structured is a case for debate. But what will happen when we say - as other airlines did, for reasons of their own, as we saw in the United States - that we won't fly SAA any longer? Then members on that side of the House will stand up and say, "Please, government, we need a SAA."
With regard to the second issue on genetic engineering, raised by the hon Mohammed, we agree with the sentiments expressed in that statement but we now require, for the first time, full EIAs for new genetic organisms. Yes, we agree, it should be socially and ethically responsible from that point of view, but once again it's a very complicated debate.
Because of various factors - climate change and others - we need new varieties that are more draught-resistant, heat resistant. But there is a duty on us as government to make sure that we don't import what many people feel will be so-called Frankenstein food. We take that responsibility seriously, and I thank the hon member for that statement.
The third statement was the one by hon Morgan on EIAs and the new Shaka International Airport outside Durban. Seven months, I think, is a very reasonable time for a Minister to properly apply his or her mind on appeal where there are many highly technical issues raised by the public. What I agree with, and that's why we streamlined the EIAs, is that it's indefensible for people to wait two or three years for an answer. That's why we now have prescribed time limits. But I also think that if members of the public raise reasonable issues that we should demonstrate in government that we take them seriously and call for technical advice and properly apply our minds to those issues.
Let me say, in conclusion, on the issue of an organ of state being involved, that I think the record shows quite clearly that, as Minister on appeal, I have on numerous occasions decided against organs of state when I felt it wasn't in the public interest. So let's perform this duty of EIAs, especially on appeal, as a government with integrity. Thank you, Chairperson. [Applause.]