Let the city stadium debate drive a rethink of how the capital is funded

The renewed push for a city stadium, this time in Commonwealth Park close to the shores of Lake Burley Griffin, offers an overdue opportunity to re-examine some of the fundamental questions at the heart of Australia's planned national capital.

Subscribe now for unlimited access.

or signup to continue reading

An artist's impression of how a stadium could look hosting a concert at Commonwealth Park. Picture supplied

"A location of this significance also carries a high expectation. A stadium built here should be a genuine national landmark, with the design quality and capacity expected of one of Canberra's most important civic locations," Mr Barr said.

Indeed. If a stadium project is to proceed is such a prominent and significant location, no expense should be spared and no corner should be cut.

A site of this kind must not be wasted on a half-baked project and Mr Barr was right to observe it should be built for the long term, looking over the horizon to the next half a century.

This raises a critical question. Who pays?

The ACT's budget is in a difficult position. This experience is not unique to the territory, with other states feeling the pinch of high service-delivery expectations and limitations on their ability to raise revenue. The Commonwealth raises the lion's share of revenue and distributes it, often to suit its own ends.

"If revenue follows responsibility, if reform is supported rather than penalised, and if governments approach these challenges as partners, Australia can emerge with a stronger federation and a stronger economy. That is a national project worthy of our ambition," Mr Steel told a summit organised by the Australia Institute.

The other worthy national project is a new stadium in Canberra.

This would be much more than a temple erected for the worship of sport if it can also become a lightning rod for a broader conversation about the level of funding the ACT receives and whether it is commensurate with the responsibilities this territory has as the cradle for Australia's national city.

Mr Barr raised the prospect of a public-private partnership as the best way forward, similar to the funding arrangements for light rail and a way to avoid the ACT government making a capital contribution to a new stadium.

Canberra is not just a city for the almost 500,000 residents who live in it. It is an expression of national value, progress and purpose. It's a city that demands national investment so that it might take shape in the national interest.

A stadium in the national capital should take on a national character and thus attract national funding. It is a clear example of why the achievement of self-government for those who call Canberra home should not be misidentified with self-funding, where the city must serve those who live beyond its borders.

Timely calls to rethink the way the capital city is funded and supported cannot be excuses for poor budget management from the ACT government that Canberrans elect. But any analysis of that performance must also consider the harsh fiscal realities at the sub-national level.

The ACT alone does not have the capacity to deliver a new stadium immediately. But if a Commonwealth government can come to the table, in acknowledgment of the bigger role it has in the construction and advancement of Canberra, it's a different story.

Send us a letter to the editor

• Letters to the editor should be kept to 250 or fewer words. To the Point letters should not exceed 50 words. Reference to The Canberra Times reports should include a date and page number. Provide a phone number and address (only your suburb will be published). Responsibility for election comment is taken by John-Paul Moloney of 121 Marcus Clarke Street, Canberra. Published by Federal Capital Press of Australia Pty Ltd.

More from Opinion