Chairperson, it has been a strange debate. Everybody says they support the objectives of the Bill, but most of the opposition are going to vote against it. If we unpack it, they seem to have two objections: The one is that they say we should have gone the sui generis route instead of the intellectual property route, and the second one is that they say we haven't waited for the World Intellectual Property Organisation, Wipo, to generate a model Bill and a new treaty.
I want to address both of those. I want to say, first of all, that I deny absolutely that our choice to go the intellectual property route is a matter of dogma, or that we haven't listened to the evidence or haven't engaged in a rather long process. We have, and we have seen no convincing alternative emerging in that process to the route we have chosen.
What our choice means is that the established intellectual property law system will be required to respect and engage with issues of indigenous knowledge in generating their own copyrights, patents and whatever else they generate in the established intellectual property system. This is as opposed to having a set of rights in some sui generis legislation that would be out of kilter and probably in conflict with what is going on in the intellectual property system and that would require a conflict of laws, decisions by judges and whatever. I don't know whether that would be a route for any less litigation than people are saying this Bill will be.
Given the state of the debate internationally about intellectual property issues, it is anybody's guess when Wipo will reach consensus on this matter. I did say that if something better comes along, if Wipo does generate something, we will look seriously at this and be prepared to reconsider. At the moment, I think that this piece of legislation is urgently needed.
I just want to caution against people citing what they call the "intellectual property community" or "intellectual property experts". I said earlier that many of the people involved in intellectual property are not used to community and collective rights. We make no apology for requiring them to get used to that.
There has been a lot of huffing and puffing around this Bill. There has been an attempt to turn discussions about calls and choices and taking steps towards improving the lives of our people into huge gladiatorial contests. There has been theatre in this Parliament, but I want to say that it reminds me of what happened when we passed the Companies Amendment Bill. There was all this drama about what impact it would have, but what happened? On the World Bank's Ease of Doing Business Index, we went up by 30 places, from 74 to 44, in terms of starting a business, and that was attributed to the Companies Act. [Applause.] I have no doubt that this will be a step forward as well. [Applause.]
Debate concluded.
Question put: That the Bill be read a second time.
Division demanded.
The House divided.