Hon Graham Gunn MP Member for Stuart

Stuart Electorate Office Parliament House GPO Box 572 ADELAIDE SA 5001 Tel: (08) 8237 9290 Fax: (08) 8410 1089 Toll-Free: 1800 182 097

Graham.Gunn@parliament.sa.gov.au

5 December 2003 Hon P Lewis MP Speaker House of Assembly Parliament House ADELAIDE SA 5000 Dear Mr Speaker Re: Travel to Auckland, New Zealand; Nebraska, USA; and South Dakota, USA, August-September 2003 In accordance with Section 15 of the Members of Parliament Travel Entitlement rules, I submit my travel report. Yours sincerely Hon Graham Gunn MP MEMBER FOR STUART enc

1

I wish to emphasise from the beginning of my report my belief in the importance of Members of Parliament taking up the opportunity to meet with other legislatures, public officials and private business operators. The experience is invaluable and is an opportunity to discuss issues facing South Australia with other jurisdictions. I believe Members need to be pro-active and continually update their knowledge which can only be obtained by Members regularly meeting others. Anyone who criticises and casts aspersions on Members taking the opportunity to travel needs to understand that South Australia has a small economy and we need to get out and learn and exchange ideas with other states and countries. This also applies to Ministers and office bearers. They are not doing their duty unless they avail themselves of the opportunity to talk to their opposite numbers in various jurisdictions around the world. It was unfortunate during my travels that I had a virus that was prevalent in Australia, New Zealand and the United States. I was feeling off colour for many days and had to receive medical treatment in the United States so I was not as active as I would have liked. I also had to cancel my appointments in North Dakota. The objectives of my travels were:

• To investigate the current situation in NZ and the USA in relation to the acceptability of genetically modified crops, and in particular those crops that are tolerant to round-up,

• To discuss the use of citizen initiated referendum,

• To investigate the opportunities to develop wind power,

• To investigate the accident compensation scheme in New Zealand in

relation to public liability insurance,

• To investigate local government within the Auckland City Council. I wish to thank Carlson Wagonlit (the South Australian Government booking agency) for co-ordinating my flights and the Mayor and his personal staff at the Auckland City Council. Further, I would like to thank Mr Gerry Bretz of Nebraska who gave a considerable amount of his private time to drive me to many of my appointments and made it possible to travel over a wide area of the United States.

2

3

contacts in AUCKLAND, NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL His Worship the Mayor Hon John Banks Town Hall Auckland City Ms Trish Wanden PA to Mayor Tel: +64-9-307 7586 Fax: +64-9-307-7591 www.akcity.govt.nz Mr Steven McDowell Manager, Democracy Service Auckland City Mr Fred Wilson Manager, Emergency Management Planning Auckland City NEW ZEALAND NATIONAL PARTY www.national.org.nz Mr Alan W Croot Chief Executive – Northern Tel: 09 522 0940 Mr Richard Worth MP Member for Epsom 52 Ranfurly Road, Epsom Tel: 09 623 2598 Fax: 09 623 0749 TEGEL FOODS LTD www.tegel.co.nz Mr John Foulds Manager Technical Services Tel: 09 379 1700 ROAD MARKING INNOVATIONS PTY LTD Mr Darryl Baker Tel: 02 6642 4401 PO Box 334, South Grafton, NSW, 2460 EDEN PARK TRUST BOARD Mr Warwick Lovell Financial Manager & Secretary Reimers Ave, Kingsland, Auckland Tel: 09 815 4808 www.ednpark.co.nz

4

INDEPENDENT ELECTION SERVICES LTD Mr Dale M Ofsoske Electoral Officer/Director Bledisloe House, 24 Wellesley St Auckland Tel: 64 9 3077211 The Auckland City Council consists of a Mayor and nineteen councilors. It is a very large organisations and therefore requires a great deal of commitment from those elected to office. The Auckland City Council covers an area of some 631 square kilometers with a population of approximately 370,000 residents. My particular interest was that in 2001 they brought in a new local government act. Part of this was to create large community boards which are elected at the same time as councilors. My interest in community boards resulted in many concerns being expressed to me by some of the small communities that have been affected by the amalgamation of Councils in South Australia where some small communities and towns feel as though they have lost their local decision making power and don’t have the same local input into decisions made in a larger Council. Not canvassing the merits of whether amalgamation is good or bad, the establishment of community boards appears to me to have some merit and should be further examined in South Australia. Community Board Members are elected to look after local interests and to be a link between the community and the council. They were set up to enable communities to have a voice in decision making. Each community board elects its own community board chair generally at the first meeting when they are sworn in. The role of the Chair is similar to that of the Chair of the Council committee and there is a spokesman for the board. The Chair of community boards liaise with staff and provide general leadership input. Meetings are held in the community at various localities and are open to the public unless there is a good reason to close them. One of the key roles the Board fulfills, apart from bringing things of a local nature to the Councils attention or receiving from the Council requests to consider issues which would impact on the local community, are to allocate small local improvement budgets, annually about $400,000 per board to allocate the discretionary fund of about $30,000 as community grants and to administer and function to fund of $10,000 which enables community sport functions to be held eg. recognising volunteers annually. The Boards also comment on the annual budget service levels. I believe one of the parliamentary committees in South Australia should look at the role of community boards with a view to ensuring the needs of small communities are given proper consideration.

5

Auckland City Councillors get paid approximately $16,310 for expenses. The Mayor gets $96,860. Community board members get $6130. Another important role of the City Council is to conduct seminars for people considering standing for Council. Prior to nominations being called, this process gives them an understanding of what is required, the workload, the effects on a persons family and a general range of information many candidates would not necessarily be aware of. I believe this course of action should be extended to this State. Council staff also provide educational seminars for newly elected councilors to ensure they are fully conversant of what is required in their new role. My wife and I also had the pleasure of attending a sitting of the Auckland City Council. We also joined the Council Members for a light dinner in the Council café prior to the meeting. I had a discussion with Tegels, a grain importing and feed company operating from New Zealand. I was interested in talking with them about their attitude to genetically modified grain - particularly wheat. They indicated to me they were concerned to ensure they bought only non-genetically modified grain and that there is a well documented paper trail to ensure they were in a position to trace back any purchases they made. It was clear to me that at this stage they were not interested in the purchase of genetically modified crops, however, I believe they thought that in the long term genetically modified grains will be imported into New Zealand. There was considerable controversy raging in New Zealand’s newspapers about the whole question of whether genetically modified crops should be grown. I didn’t have time to discuss this with the newspaper journalists but it was clear to me that it was an issue that was attracting considerable attention both at a parliamentary and public level. The political parties were obviously vehemently against any change in the law and I think it is useful for us in South Australia to keep ourselves up to date with the policy the New Zealand Government will be adopting in relation to genetically modified crops. The chance to meet with the Director of the National Party in New Zealand was useful. The purpose of meeting him was to discuss the electoral system in New Zealand and I gained the distinct impression that their system would not be suitable for South Australia or Australia. In my view their system created a situation where it would be difficult for the Government of the day to gain a reasonable majority to implement their policies. I am one of those that believes New Zealand’s electoral system is far inferior to our system. It appears to me to be a compromise arrangement because they don’t have an upper house and I don’t believe it creates effective local representation. I had a discussion with the National Party Member Richard Worth. He was a leading member of the legal profession prior to entering Parliament. I was fortunate to visit his electorate office and the opportunity to visit a school with him to meet the teachers and students. This was very interesting.

6

My main discussions with Mr Worth revolved around the accident compensation scheme which provides accident insurance for all New Zealand citizens, residents and temporary visitors. Basically, people do not have the right to sue for personal injury other than exemplary damages. He indicated to me that having experienced the previous arrangement, which was similar to what we have in South Australia, the current arrangement is far better. It is obvious to me having experienced in my own constituency the difficulty of public liability insurance, and the failure to obtain it at reasonable cost, the South Australian Parliament, and in particular the Economic and Finance Committee, should examine in considerable detail the scheme. I am of the view that the cost of sending the Committee to New Zealand to examine their scheme is a small price to pay if it will alleviate the stress and trauma that has been created for the people of this State. When one considers the State Government spent $19 million on a new hospital at Port Augusta and during the year obstetric services were not provided, and the State Government spent millions of dollars upgrading the Pichi Richi railway line and it is under threat of closure all because of public liability problems, then something has to be done. Therefore I believe it is incumbent on the Parliament to examine alternative schemes and I believe the New Zealand scheme has merit. On arriving at the Auckland International Airport everyone was given a visitors guide to New Zealand. I thought this was particularly good and promoted their tourist industry. It is something our tourist industry should look at. There was a $2 rechargeable phone card supplied with the magazine. I collected a considerable amount of material from New Zealand which I am happy to let anyone examine. Contact me through the Stuart Electorate Office at Parliament House. contacts in NEBRASKA

NAME ADDRESS PHONE/FAX

AGREX INC 4270 Turkey Creek Road, (308)856-4643 Heath B Thomas PO Box 589, (800)524-8181

Merchandiser ELM CREEK NE 69936 Fax:(402)471-2759

AGRICULTURE DEPT Merlyn Carlson PO Box 94947 (402)471-2341

Director LINCOLN, NE 68509-4947

AGRICULTURE DEPT Mary Bargman Crawford 115 Railway Street,Suite106 (308)632-6032

State Ag Director Scottsbluff,NE 69361 Fax:(308)632-6295 (to Sen Chuck Hagel)

7

AGRICULTURE PROMOTION & DEVELOPMENT PO Box 94947 (402)471-4876 Stanley J Garbacz LINCOLN, NE 68509-4947 Fax:(402)471-2759

Director USA

AGRICULTURE DEPT Dan Korber, MS PO Box 94947 (402)471-4876

Ag Prom & Co Bulk Commod LINCOLN, NE 68509-4947 Fax:(402)471-2759

AGRICULTURE DEPT Farm Service Agency 4009 6th Ave (308)237-3118

Bonnie L Poppert KEARNEY, NE 68845 Fax:(308)236-5624 Country Executive Director

ARMS & AMMO Sporting Goods 5601S. 56th (402)423-4446

Trent Smith LINCOLN, NE 68516 Fax:(402)423-4522

AstraZeneca Ryan Samuelson AstraZeneca LP

Pharm Sales Specialist 4122 Ave R 308 234 5988 Medical Care KEARNEY NE 68847 Mob: 308 380 2507

AURORA CO-OP 605 12th Street

Dave Clemans PO Box 209 402-694-2106 ext.215 Bus Development Manager AURORA, NE 68818-0209 Fax:402-694-6943

AURORA CO-OP Hurley & Assoc 605 12th Street Reid Hagstrom PO Box 209 402-694-2109

Producer Marketing Specialist AURORA, NE 68818-0209 Fax:402-694-6943

CATTLE TRAX APEIS Corp 1109 S Johnny Carson Blvd 402-379-9487

Van H Neidig NORFOLK, NE 68701 Fax:402-379-1512 President

CARGILL Ag Horizons 19849 W.HWY 30

Michael Lesmeister PO Box 460 308/647-5141 Farm Serv Group Opp Leader SHELTON, NE 68876 Fax:308/647-5580

CARGILL Ag Horizons PO Box 460 800/282-4917 Shelton

Rick Sorensen SHELTON Ne, 68876 800/292-7642 Motala Performance Market Leader Po Box 341 Fax:308/647-5580 S

MINDEN Ne, 68959 Fax:308/832-1281 M

ConAgra Foods Inc Eleven ConAgra Drive, Mike Walter Ste 5034 402-595-4256

Senior Vice Pres OMAHA, NE68102-5034 Fax:402-595-7479

8

CORN GROWERS ASSOC

NEBRASKA 1327 H Street, Suite 305 402/438-6459 Scott Merritt LINCOLN, NE 68508 1-888-CORNGRW Exec Director

FARM PROGRESS COMP

Terry Butzirus 5625 "O"Street Suite 5 (402)489-9331 Reg Sales Manager LINCOLN,NE 68510-2133 Fax:(402)489-9335

JOHN DEERE

Richard R Landel 323 East Hwy.30 308-647-6811 Sales Manager SHELTON, 800-694-5674

NEBRASKA 68876 Fax:308-647-9100

MONSANTO IMAGINE 7910 South 33rd Street Margi A Hall LINCOLN (402)328-3413

Farm Services Manager NEBRASKA 68516 Fax:(402)328-3413

NEW ALLIANCE Bean & Grain Co PO Box 619 (308)762-8014

Mark A. Thompson ALLIANCE, NE 69301 Fax:(308)762-5729 Pres & General Manager

PEAVEY CO 2610 Grand Avenue

Con Agra Co PO Box 187 Mike Rost KEARNEY, (308)237-5700

Plant Manager West Region NEBRASKA 68848 Fax:(308)234-2609

SENATOR ED SCHROCK Legislative Address DISTRICT No 38 State Capitol

LINCOLN, (402)471-2732office NEBRASKA 68509 9308)995-4665Holdrege

SECRETARY STATE ASSIST Suite 343 DEPUTY ELECTIONS DIREC STATE CAPITOL

Amy Bracht PO BOX 94608 402-471-8675 LINCOLN,NE 68509-4608 Fax:402-471-7834

SENATOR CHUCK HAGEL Julie Brooker 4009 6th Avenue, Suite 9 (308)236-7602

Constituent Serv Represent KEARNEY, NE 68845-0377 Fax:(308)236-7473

SENATOR JIM JENSEN State Capitol 20TH DISTRICT LINCOLN,NEBRASKA 68509 (402)471-2622

NEBRASKA LEGISLATURE Fax:(402)435-1155

SERVI TECH, INC Josh Erwin 88132 46th Ave H m: 402-924-2010

9

Area Crop Specialist STUART, NE 68780 Mob: 402-760-1941

STAUFFER SEEDS 9802 Nicholas Street, Jack Tredinnick Suite 320 888-496-1470

Vice Pres Sales & Marketing OMAHA, NE 68114 Fax:402-934-0905

OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF BUFFALO COUNTY Robert C Anderson PO BOX 1270

CAPTAIN KEARNEY, NE 68848 236-8555

WHEAT BOARD NEBRASKA PO Box 94912 Ron Stoddard 301 Centennial Mall South (402)471-2358

Executive Director LINCOLN, NE 68509 USA Fax:(402)471-3446

contacts PIERRE, SOUTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Tel: (605) 773-5425 Fax: (605) 773-5926 Mr Larry E Gabriel Department Secretary Mr Kevin Fridley Director, Div of Agricultural Services Mr Eric Iversen Livestock Development Specialist Mr Jon L Farris Director, Div of Agricultural Services LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH COUNCIL Tel: (605) 773-3251 Fax: (605) 773-4576 Mr Reuben Bezpaletz Chief Analyst for Research & Legal Services OFFICE OF ATTORNEY-GENERAL Tel: (605) 773-3215 Fax: (605) 773-4106 Mr Charles D McGuigan Assistant Attorney-General, Natural Resources Division

10

SECRETARY OF STATE Tel: (605) 773-3537 Fax: (605) 773-6580 Mr Chris Nelson Secretary of State PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION Tel: (605) 773-3201 Fax: (605) 773-3809 Mr Bob Sahr Chairman Mr Steven M Wegman Analyst SOUTH DAKOTA WHEAT INC. Tel: (605) 224-4418 Fax: (605) 773-4531 Mr Rick Vallery Executive Director DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION & CULTURAL AFFAIRS Tel: (605) 773-4726 Fax: (605) 773-4236 Mr Gary Grey Program Representative SOUTH DAKOTA WHEAT COMMISSION Tel: (605) 773-4645 Fax: (605) 773-4531 Mr Randy L Englund Executive Director My visit to the United States was designed to look at how predominantly rural States provide services, talk to Members of Parliament, public officials and examine where they are at policy wise and practice wise with genetically modified crops. I visited South Dakota and had discussions with the Secretary of State for Agriculture and a large number of his officers as well as visiting the Capitol and

11

looking at how the Legislature works there. They were one of the first places in the USA to have citizen initiated referendum. Having looked at the process in Nebraska and South Dakota I do not believe it is in the long term interests of the people of South Australia to adopt a system of citizen initiated referendum. The ability of Government to provide reasonable services, particularly in isolated areas of the State, is difficult if not impossible. One of the difficulties brought to my attention was that particularly in South Dakota when this process was first initiated there was only a small number of people required to put the process into action because it was sparsely populated and the means of communication were very difficult. It was clear to me that in itself was a drawback to the scheme - you could get paid lobbyist involved to get petitions signed. As is the case in Nebraska in relation to the installation of Casinos and gambling arrangements where there is a concerted lobbying campaign taking place. I had discussions with Mr Chris Nelson, Secretary of State. I was provided with the following information: South Dakota Initiative and Referendum History South Dakota has the distinction of being the first state in the Union to provide for popular initiative and referendum for enacting and rejecting legislation. This was accomplished by constitutional amendment approved in 1898. These two forms for direct legislation, first used in 1908, rest on the theory that since the legislature may not always adequately represent them, the people should be able to pass laws they desire and nullify laws they oppose. In 1972 the state constitution was amended to allow constitutional changes by initiative as well. In 1988 the state’s voters changed the state constitution to eliminate a requirement that an initiative be submitted to the legislature for approval before placement on the ballot. Types of Ballot Questions Initiated Measure: This is a petition to add to, amend, or repeal existing state statues. Initiative petitions must be filed in the office of the Secretary of State prior to the first Tuesday in May of a general election year (SDCL 2-1-2). The petition must have signatures of registered voters equal to five percent (16,728) of the total vote for governor in the lst gubernatorial election obtained within one year following the filing of the full text of the petition. No signatures may be obtained more than 18 months preceding the election date designated on the petition. Referred Law: This is a petition to prevent a measure passed by the Legislature from becoming effective. It must have signatures of registered voters equal to five percent (16,728) of the total vote for governor in the last gubernatorial election and must be filed within 90 days of adjournment of the legislative session in which the measure was passed (SDCL 2-1-4). Measures which may be necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace,

12

health, of safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions are not subject to referendum (SD Const., Art. III, Sec. 1). Initiated Constitutional Amendment: This is a petition proposing to amend, repeal, or add to provisions in the South Dakota state constitution. The petition must have signatures of registered voters equal to ten percent (33,456) of the total vote for governor in the last gubernatorial election and must be filed in the Secretary of State’s office one year before the general election (SD Const., Art. XXIII, Sec. 1). No signatures may be obtained more than 24 months preceding the election date designated on the petition. General Information The sponsors of any initiated measure or constitutional amendment must submit that text to the director of the legislative research council who will within 15 days provide written comments on the measure to the sponsors and the secretary of state. The comments must be received by the secretary of state prior to filing the measure’s full text (SDCL 12-13-25&26). The full text of any petition to be circulated, the date of the general election at which the question is to be submitted, and the names and addresses of the petition sponsors shall be filed with the secretary of state prior to circulation for signatures (SDCL 2-1-5). No signatures obtained before that filing date will be counted. All sections of any completed ballot question petition shall be filed simultaneously together with a sworn affidavit prescribed by the State Board of Elections signed by two-thirds of the sponsors. 2004 Deadlines November 3, 2003 Deadline for filing constitutional amendment petition. May 4, 2004 Deadline for filing initiated measure petition. Statistics Forty initiatives have been on the ballot. Sixteen of these have passed for a 40% success rate. Forty-two laws have been referred with 35 of these being rejected for a 83.3% success rate. Two hundred sixteen constitutional amendments have been on the ballot. One hundred twelve have been adopted for a 51.9% success rate. Eleven of these proposed amendments were initiated by the people with five of these passing. The other 205 amendments were proposed by the legislature. 2004 General Election Constitutional Amendment A – Providing for the merit selection of circuit court judges. Referred Law 1 – Revise certain county zoning laws. (Initiatives and Referendms, www.state.sd.us/sos/sos.htm) In South Dakota I had discussions with National Wind Generation and with the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission which proved to be interesting and constructive. I was provided with the following information:

13

Potential and Opportunities for Wind Energy Wind energy is generating interest in South Dakota. The US Department of Energy has identified South Dakota as one of the top three geographic locations for wind energy generation. Development Interests In fact, at lest three out-of-state companies, Clipper Windpower from California, Florida Power & Light, and United Kingdom’s National Wind Power have found South Dakota’s potential attractive enough to consider wind development areas within the state. Several groups within South Dakota are also studying the potential of wind development. A cooperative call CenDak Winds plans to develop a wind turbine farm to produce and market wind energy. Existing electric cooperatives, East River Electric Cooperative, Central Electric Cooperative, and Dakota Energy have joined to fund a study of costs and transmission issues for developing wind energy. Transmission Opportunities After the wind has been turned into electricity, the power needs to be transported to the consumer through transmission lines. There are two types of transmission lines needed to transport wind-generated power. The first type is the “gathering” lines that carry power from each wind turbine to a central site. The second type is the bulk transmission lines which carry very large amounts of power from the generating site to distant locations. Each type of transmission line has unique siting, licensing, and construction challenges. Gathering lines will need to be built, while bulk transmission lines may already be in place; however, many transmission lines are already near capacity. Building new lines or enhancing existing transmission lines would be very costly. Landowners have income potential from land leases and easements allowing transmission lines on their property. Clarification of Amendment E In 1998, South Dakota voters passed an amendment to the state constitution which restricted corporate involvement in farming. Clarification is being sought through the court system to determine how corporate wind generation on farm land would be impacted. Excise Tax Currently South Dakota charges contractors an excise tax on large construction projects. Such costs may add challenges to corporate involvement in major projects. (South Dakota Public Utilities Commission, website: http://www.state.sd.us/puc) From my discussions in South Dakota is was clear to me that they regard agriculture highly. It is a compulsory subject in the schools to be tutored on the value and importance of agriculture to the economy – a course of action I would

14

recommend in South Australia to help offset some of the negativity which is evident in anti-farmer groups. A very important discussion I had was in relation to Roundup ready wheat. It is important that before Round-Up ready wheat is released in the community there is market acceptability. The following information was provided to me by Monsanto which I quote from: Roundup UltraMAX® with patented TranSorb® technology, offering outstanding weed control and proven crop safety on more than 200 million acres of Roundup Ready® crops. This new member of the trusted Roundup® herbicide family leads the industry with 97 percent grower satisfaction (Marketing Horizons Inc., 2001). Roundup Ready® crops, including herbicide-tolerant soybeans, corn, cotton and canola, helping growers save time and money while adopting more sustainable farming practices. U.S. growers who plant Roundup Ready soybeans save an estimated $15 per acre, or $735 million in 2000 alone (National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy, 2001). YieldGard® Corn Borer, giving growers an average annual advantage of $16.41 per acre in areas routinely plagued by European corn borers (simulated economic comparisons in six Midwestern states over the past 15 years). Bollgard® insect-protected cotton, allowing growers to dramatically reduce pesticide use while increasing yields and profitability. Using Bollgard with Roundup Ready cotton in a no-till system can add $55 per acre to a grower’s bottom line (Monsanto field trials, 1998-2000). The next generation of Bollgard could eliminate insecticide use by controlling other cotton caterpillar pests. Roundup Rewards, sharing the risk with growers who choose Roundup brand herbicides. More than 75,000 growers in the last three years have received benefits, with a total value of over $150 million. Roundup Ready® Corn System – Unlock your full yield potential. Consistently provides more than a 5.5-bushel/A yield advantage over conventional corn herbicide programs (based on 75 Monsanto Field Trials with Roundup Ready Corn in 2001-2002 comparing Roundup Ready weed control programs to competitive weed control programs using the same genetics. Excellent flexibility due to a wide window of application. Patented Roundup WeatherMAX™ with TranSorb® II Technology can deliver consistency of performance and unsurpassed weed control even in less than ideal conditions. Only Roundup® agricultural herbicides have been proven safe on more than 5,000 Roundup Ready Soybean varieties and Corn hybrids. Stack up your benefits – choose Roundup Ready Corn with YieldGard® Corn Borer or Roundup Ready Corn with YieldGard Rootworm. I am of the view that Australia, and South Australia, cannot afford to allow the release of Roundup Ready Wheat until it is released in the United States, Canada and other grain growing areas because I believe it will greatly affect our markets. There is no doubt we should be aware of the technology and we should be aware of the progress made with Roundup Ready Wheat but we

15

cannot be a leader. We should follow and learn from what happens in other large wheat growing countries. Biotech varieties accounted for 75 per cent of corn acres planted in South Dakota in 2003. By comparison, nationally, only 40 percent of the acreage was seeded to biotech varieties. Herbicide resistant biotechnology varieties accounted for 91 percent of the soybean acres in South Dakota, compared to 81 percent nationally. One of the areas that is always a matter of concern is how will farmers deal with or control volunteer or self-sown crops the following year. It is a matter which from my discussions in the United States clearly needs to be fully investigated. It appears to me that we need to be very clear that we will not develop plant strains that are tolerant to chemicals. It is an issue I think needs very careful research because if we have Roundup tolerant wheat we do not want to see a situation arise where we cannot control volunteer crops including wheat which will have a serious affect on farmers - particularly farmers with close rotations. There is considerable interest in the United States for ethanol production – particularly in the corn belt. The industry currently has 73 plants in operation and another 13 under construction and total capacity will reach 2.7 billion gallons in 2003. Demand for ethanol production has increased at an unprecedented rate. According to reports, ethanol will represent the largest share of renewable fuel market and bio-diesel will play an important role – particularly in the freight industry. I suggest Government Departments need to pay attention to the developments in the USA. Obviously we will not have the same potential but I believe we should seriously examine future ethanol and bio-diesel plants in this State. In conclusion, I appreciate the opportunity to again travel and examine various industries and legislatures. I consider it not only educational but very useful as a legislator. I look forward to other Members engaging in productive educational travel. I also believe that any group that criticises Members for exercising their travel rights do not understand the need to keep briefed on modern technology and the ever changing world. Those people that have attacked my travel at the last two elections are naïve, short-sighted, unwise and out of touch with reality and I am interested to know whether they believe Members should travel at all. HON GRAHAM GUNN MP