Election campaign kicks off with one big political football taking the spotlight

Today marks the start of the caretaker period, but already, infrastructure has loomed large as a key election issue, not only for the promises but also for the narratives behind them.

The stadium has almost become symbolic of the struggle between the two major parties for the soul of Canberra: Labor’s proposal being part of what it argues is a methodical, orderly infrastructure program within the ACT’s means, and the Liberals’ Acton Waterfront plan proposed as a bold plan to energise the city and shake up the way things have been done.

The city stadium plan seems as much about projecting Opposition Leader Elizabeth Lee as a can-do alternative to a Chief Minister who has been in the job too long and broken too many promises as it is about delivering a facility that noisy sections of the community have been clamouring for for years.

Andrew Barr may have wanted to do more and at a faster pace, but he has also had to face the realities of governing through challenging times, such as the pandemic and the economic constraints of a small self-governing territory that any Chief Minister will face.

He has also relentlessly prosecuted Labor’s priorities based on age, need and economic benefit, which is why the Canberra Theatre redevelopment and the Northside Hospital are next in line, with a stadium, at Bruce, and the combined convention centre and entertainment pavilion in the city a decade away, not to mention light rail.

This week, Mr Barr attempted to use the S&P Global ratings report to snooker the Liberals and their Greens on their infrastructure plans, saying big, expensive promises could not be met in the short term without big consequences for the Budget.

This was to expose what Labor sees as the double standard of the Liberals who fret about debt and deficit but promise big – don’t forget the convention centre as well – but also are offering the hope of rates and tax relief.

Ms Lee, of course, retorts that it is all on Mr Barr, who has been managing the finances for so long.

She has flagged a reallocation of infrastructure funding to pay for the stadium and convention centre which puts the new theatre – and maybe the hospital – in doubt.

This sets up another round in a long-established rivalry in Australian society: the tension between sport and the arts.

If she decides to push the theatre back, for many, the choice will be between a new stadium or theatre, although there is an intersection here with the mega concert industry.

Mr Barr argues that the business case is stronger for the theatre, saying it will be used for hundreds of nights a year compared with about 30 for a stadium. The question of downtime for these facilities is real.

Mr Barr says being can-do and wishful thinking is not enough. It’s the boring stuff that counts, including being realistic about the planning regime that governs what you can do at West Basin.

Ms Lee has deflected this question, but she would know what her party is up against. She will need more than good relations with the National Capital Authority to change the rules at West Basin, which require a variation of the National Capital Plan approved by both houses of Parliament.

The NCA, not wanting to show its hand, offered an inscrutable comment about considering all proposals that the optimists saw as proof that it was open to the idea.

One can point to a stack of issues – traffic, parking, access, heritage, the Griffin plan, the sheer size of a structure like this by the lake (will it really fit?), and on such an important avenue with its vistas to Parliament House – but these might be designed out. One can even argue that with light rail nearby and parking in the city, Commonwealth Park and across the bridge, the traffic issue is manageable.

Ms Lee has even attempted to turn the tables on Labor, saying the plan for a park and mixed-use neighbourhood at West Basin is just providing luxury apartments and exclusive space for millionaires (in a town where the median home price is just under $1 million). Better there be a community facility for all Canberrans than another millionaires’ row.

It’s hyperbole, of course.

The fact is a stadium at West Basin would mean a great public park, extending at least 50 metres from the boardwalk and community events space would not go ahead, and revenue would be lost from the sale of much sought-after housing close to the city.

However, many will be excited by the scale of the idea and what it represents, and the Liberals will hope that, as a result, they will be excited about them. Whether that shifts enough votes to make a difference remains to be seen.

For the Greens, the stadium would be nice to have but not a priority. They have their own ambitious plans.

In a way the Liberals and the Greens are on similar paths, thinking big and trying to capture voters’ imaginations.

In contrast. Labor will continue to paint itself as the ACT’s responsible economic steward and progressive flag bearer.

Into this contest of wills, enter the new variable of the Independents for Canberra movement. It makes for unpredictability when a single party has been in office for so long and its hunters are singing the ‘It’s Time’ song.

Next Wednesday evening, 18 September, the second Region election forum will be broadcast live on the Riotact Facebook page at 6 pm You won’t want to miss this one. It’s the leaders’ forum with Mr Barr, Ms Lee, the Greens’ Shane Rattenbury and Independents for Canberra’s Thomas Emerson offering and debating their visions for the future of Canberra.

Readers are invited to submit a short video question of 30 seconds or less to editor@region.com.au.

There should be a whole lot more than just stadiums to talk about.