House of Assembly Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3) 51 3 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Bills Parliamentary Committees (Foresight Committee) Amendment Bill PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEES (FORESIGHT COMMITTEE) AMENDMENT BILL Introduction and First Reading Introduction and First Reading The Hon. R.B. SUCH House of Assembly Fisher The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (10:34): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991. Read a first time. Second Reading Second Reading The Hon. R.B. SUCH House of Assembly Fisher The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (10:34): I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have my second reading explanation (from Thursday 31 May 2007) inserted in Hansard without my reading it. Leave granted. This is to add to our current range of committees and it is based on a concept adopted by the Blair government, although they do it in a different way. In England, in order to look in advance at issues which might confront the UK, they have set up a foresight committee. It is not part of the House of Commons, but it does the same sort of thing. It tries to look five, 10, 15 years down the track at issues which will confront us such as the ageing of the population. It could even be things such as water shortages—I see the minister is in here—population, science, developments in science and technology. I do not know whether members realise but, with development in nanotechnology, the next 20 years will see a different world altogether. It will be totally changed in relation to things such as electricity and all sorts of things which will affect our lifestyle. It is not wishful thinking, but if members talk to people such as Professor Clarke from the university, he will tell them that, theoretically, people will be able to live forever because we will be able to regenerate organs. That means that, sadly, I could be around for a long time—hopefully, not introducing more motions or bills! People might think that this is science fiction, but what will be the consequence of people living maybe not forever but, say, 400 or 500 years? The impact would be dramatic and significant. What will be the impact of new ways of transmitting electricity more efficiently and more effectively? There will be new developments in things such as desalination. At the moment they are working on new techniques for desalination which might make the current reverse osmosis process obsolete. What I am trying to say is that, with the current committees—and I am not being critical of them—in effect, they are always looking at today’s issue or yesterday’s event. We do not look far enough into the future. We do not look at what will happen in the future and try to do something about it. I am not suggesting that this committee would have a crystal ball. It is not tarot card reading or fortune telling: it is based on science and credible information about what will happen in the future and how we will deal with it. We know that we have an ageing population. How well equipped are we, in terms of care, to deal with a population that is ageing? In the future, it is not in the realm of science fiction to imagine that we will have people working into their 80s and 90s and, if you can regenerate organs, you will be able to have people working basically ad infinitum. Population changes, not just demographics in terms of age profile and economic trends, will impact on us. For example, the mining industry boom is about to happen in South Australia. How well equipped are we to deal with that in terms of training, education and housing developments? The committees we have now by their very nature tend to be looking at current issues or past mistakes. Ministers by the very nature of their work rarely have the opportunity to sit in a lounge chair and say, ‘What will come into my department’s responsibilities in 10 or 15 years?’ It does not happen. If you are a minister doing your job, you have barely time to go to the toilet—and I speak from experience, and I guess other ministers and past ministers would agree with me. If you are a minister, you do not have time to look at the big issues and the future challenges for South Australia. I think this would be a very good investment for our parliament. I am suggesting a very small committee of six. It can draw in people from outside, so that it can bring in people from the community to give evidence and draw on the best brains in the community—and we have some fantastically talented people in South Australia and the rest of Australia. We could bring them in and start preparing for some of these things so that we will not be caught out like we have been caught out with the drought and like we are starting to get caught out in terms of treating people for illnesses because they are living longer—and we can see the impact of that on our hospital and medical system. I urge members to support this measure. As I say, it is based on a very successful approach in the United Kingdom by the Blair government. They have it based in the Public Service. I think it is better to have it based in the parliament. Japan does it. Germany has a similar forward-looking committee. Obviously the details and the way in which it is structured will vary from country to country, but the progressive countries have this sort of measure. They look to the future and try to deal with issues before the issues overwhelm them. So I ask members to support this bill. I think it would return many times to the community any minor cost that goes into it, and I think we (as well as our children and grandchildren) would see the benefit of being able to look to the future and deal with issues in the way I have explained. I urge members to support this bill. Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty.