Michael Johnson (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

As the federal member for the division of Ryan in Queensland, I have been proud to be a part of the Howard government since I had the great privilege of coming into this parliament in November 2001. I again thank the people of Ryan for their confidence in me and say to them that I will continue to work as hard and as enthusiastically as I did on that very first day when I was given the great honour of becoming a member of the Australian parliament.

Today I want to speak in the Australian parliament on a matter of great importance to my electorate of Ryan. It is very much tied to the great feature of the Howard government. The Howard government focuses very much on the national interest. This is a government that governs very much for the nation as a whole. It is very much focused on achieving real outcomes and long-term results. To be able to govern in such a fashion requires immense courage. It requires individuals at the very top of the government to put aside lobby groups and pressure groups and to withstand the immense political intimidation and pressure that come from very significant groups in the nation.

In a different context but on the same principle, I say to the people of Ryan that, whilst I very much listen to all the constituents who come to me and whilst I take into great consideration their views, at the end of the day I seek to represent the entire electorate to the best of my abilities and I do that in the context of being the federal Liberal member for the western suburbs and a member of the Howard government.

The Howard government has made very tough policy calls that have not always been popular. I suspect that the government’s decision in relation to road infrastructure and the construction of significant road projects in Brisbane will affect some of the constituents in my electorate of Ryan. The matter of roads and infrastructure in Queensland is of tremendous importance. Today, I want to speak on the federal government’s preference for a northern option for the Ipswich Motorway, also known as the Goodna bypass option. I want to preface my remarks by pointing out that as of today the government has not yet committed to the northern option in any precise detail. From reading today’s Courier-Mail, if that paper is to be believed, I am informed that cabinet is considering that decision today.

While the government has indicated its support for a northern bypass option overall, as I understand it the precise nature and structure of the bypass has not been finalised. Final approval is contingent on the information contained in the technical report, which I understand Maunsells has completed and has already presented to the government or is about to present to the government for consideration.

Potentially the proposed bypass will cross the river at either Priors Pocket or The Landing or, if another option is taken, which is the least satisfactory to me, it will cross the river in a four-bridge proposal at both Priors Pocket and The Landing, within my electorate. If that proposal is accepted or put forward, it is something that I am going to have a very deep interest in.

The residents who live in the vicinity of the proposed bypass route are understandably deeply apprehensive about the effect the northern bypass will have on their lives and the rural nature of their immediate area. Of course, no-one would be happy if a major piece of infrastructure were to be built in an area where they did not anticipate it or call for it. I fully understand that: no-one wants an airport in their neighbourhood or backyard, for the obvious reasons. I am very sensitive towards the constituents who live in Priors Pocket, The Landing and Moggill. I am aware of their sensitivities, concerns and anxieties, and that is why from the very start I have been very engaged on this issue. I went to the last election with public sentiment in that area—also against my position—but I was transparent. I was very much on the public record. Everybody knew my position in support of the Goodna bypass option that my good friend and colleague the member for Blair has been advocating. Being deeply engaged in this very important issue means I have been very keen to talk to anyone in the Ryan electorate and specifically those who would be directly affected by this proposal if it were to become a reality.

I say to those who live in The Landing and Priors Pocket: the bypass option is a wider project; it is also about saving lives on the Ipswich Motorway. As a local member and citizen, I am determined to be proactive when it comes to any policies, ideas or projects that might go a long way to saving the lives of Australians on our motorways. We all know in Queensland that the Ipswich Motorway is a terrible road, a road that takes too many lives.

My support for the Goodna bypass option has only been for a two-bridge proposal. I believe that is the best option. I have advocated that I do not support any proposal that would include exit ramps off the bypass. I would not support any on- or off-ramps that would allow motor vehicles to come onto the Ryan side of the river. From day one, my support has been for that. I have been very clear and very much on the public record. For some of my constituents who say I have not made that clear, I direct them to my public statements. This is the best option to address the congestion on the Ipswich Motorway while also minimising the impact it will have on the local Ryan community.

The upgrade of the motorway is the preferred option of the Queensland state government, and I acknowledge that it is also the stated preferred option of the Liberal Lord Mayor of Brisbane, and the Leader of the Liberal Party in the Queensland parliament, Dr Bruce Flegg. But, as far as I am concerned, I think that they have got the call wrong: I do not believe Queenslanders want another short-term option, patch-up job or stop-gap measure when it comes to the Ipswich Motorway.

A widening of the Ipswich Motorway or the bypass will be managed by the Queensland government. The length of time involved relates to the nature of the construction. As far as I am concerned, the preferred policy of the federal government and of all the Liberal federal members in the Brisbane area is the best option for travellers on the motorway. The bypass rates highly over the widening of the current motorway for another very important reason: traffic projections suggest that an upgraded Ipswich Motorway would exceed capacity almost simultaneously to the upgrade being completed, such is the growth of traffic using the road. The independent engineers, Maunsells Australia, say the Goodna bypass will meet the traffic needs of the Ipswich Motorway corridor beyond 2032. Alternatively, the northern bypass would cut the amount of traffic on the Ipswich Motorway by over a half—indeed, two-thirds is the estimated deviation of traffic. Today on the Ipswich Motorway heavy vehicles and regular cars total in excess of 100,000 vehicles. If the bypass is constructed, some two-thirds, or 66,000 vehicles, are going to be taken off the motorway and diverted onto the bypass. I think the overall benefits will be in the interests of Queenslanders and regular users of the motorway.

In conclusion, I call upon the Howard government to as quickly as possible decide upon the support of funding for the Goodna bypass. I make it very clear to the people of Ryan: I understand the sensitivities of those who are directly affected, but the government has got to make a decision in the interests of the wider community and for the long-term benefits. We cannot simply make a decision that will benefit a small number of people, and I know that some of these residents will not be pleased with my position— (Time expired)

See this speech in context