House of Assembly Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2) 54 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Grievance Debate Kavel Electorate Kavel Electorate The Hon. D.R. CREGAN House of Assembly Kavel The Hon. D.R. CREGAN (Kavel) (16:02): Each of us comes to this place with the sincere belief that we are here to serve our community and to serve our community as well as our talents may allow—however humble they may be in my case. Life is full of great joys but also hard choices, and one hard choice in life might come, as it did in my case, by asking: am I able to serve the interests of my community and also the interests of the party, and would it be right if I were to put the interests of my party first, that I was serving an ideology or a party ahead of my community? I place on record that this was no easy choice. However, I put my community first in deciding to become an Independent. That is no criticism of any party. There is massive population growth in the Hills and there has been for some time, not just in Mount Barker—and the growth in Mount Barker is significant—but also in Littlehampton, in Nairne, in Woodside, in Lobethal, in Brukunga and everywhere around and in between. This massive growth is a choice we make as a state but, if the burdens are going to be imposed on my community that come from massive population growth, and if by executive fiat the state is going to create a new city at Mount Barker, then it must be the case that there is a whole-of-government focus and plan for my community. It cannot be acceptable—it cannot be acceptable—for example, that there is a single ambulance at Mount Barker. There has been a single ambulance since 1992, and if I were to remain silent that might also remain the case. It might also remain the case that there would be inadequate investment in education, in roads, in public transport, which we desperately need for the Hills, and in health. I am grateful, very grateful, for all the investment being made in my community, but I say to the house that it is no longer possible—and it has not been possible for some time—for me to reconcile this very hard conflict, the hard conflict between the need to speak out for my community and the need to serve or being asked to serve the needs of an ideology or a party. I have made the choice that I have made, and I have faced some criticism in that choice, but in the quietness of my heart I know that is right. Can I say this: criticism of me personally is an assault not only on me but also on the critical needs of my community, and there has been, to my mind, no successful campaign in the Hills that has been focused on one person. It needs to be focused on my community. A successful campaign needs to be focused on the needs of my community, and I call on both major parties in this state to bring forward a whole-of-government plan for my community. Every day that passes that there is not a whole-of-government plan for my community means that future generations who will grow up in Mount Barker and throughout the Hills will not have their urgent needs met in relation to education, in relation to health, in relation to health care more generally and generally allied healthcare services, in relation to mental health care services and in relation to infrastructure. I say that I will not stand by and allow that to occur. So the choice that we have in our community is now a very clear one: we need to put maximum pressure on this government and on any future government to ensure that there is adequate investment, and only by taking that step can I believe in the quietness of my heart that I am serving the interests of my community.