The $800 million light rail project is the first born child of the latest Labor-Greens power sharing deal and therefore a lot rides on it.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The plan will be the issue for the next election, with voters asked to adjudicate on whether it is a wise investment.
They will have to decide whether to give credit – or criticism – to Labor or the Greens. Whose idea was it exactly?
And going along for the ride in the election mix will be the nagging issue of household rates – a repeat, of sorts, of the last election campaign.
Katy Gallagher and Shane Rattenbury are now halfway through the four-year term of the parliamentary agreement that allowed Labor to retain power.
It brought the sole Greens MLA into the Labor family – giving him a spot at the cabinet table.
The key to this intriguing arrangement was breaking the mould of cabinet arrangements.
If Minister Rattenbury comes to blows with the Labor ministers in the cabinet room, the team will agree to disagree.
Furthermore, he is then allowed to go outside and give his viewpoint. However, cabinet confidentiality still applies and he does not discuss what other ministers said.
There is no doubt the Greens are the clear winners from this shared power arrangement because their price was high.
You hear many people in Canberra grumble that the tram from Gungahlin to Civic is unaffordable for a small jurisdiction. But many others are applauding the move into light rail as visionary.
However, the parliamentary deal is not just about light rail. Along with this signature policy, the agreement is pushing renewable energy and a needle exchange program.
There is a perception that all these issues are being pushed by the Greens but the Chief Minister disagrees.
So, how well is the parliamentary agreement operating, at the halfway point to the October 2016 election? How does Rattenbury fit into the Labor family?
John Warhurst, an emeritus professor of political science at the Australian National University, says Rattenbury appears to be accepted by the other cabinet members as a capable minister.
"As far as we can tell, I think the half-in, half-out arrangement doesn't seem to be causing too much trouble," he says.
"We haven't had any obvious sign of frustration on his part, so I think solidarity of cabinet in an unusual situation seems to have held together quite well for the first two years. I think he is seen as someone who fits in quite well into the team, that's what I hear."
Norman Abjorensen, a visiting fellow at ANU's Crawford School of Public Policy, gives a similar assessment about Rattenbury at the halfway mark.
"He is a very skilled, very polished politician and I think he's won respect," he says.
"Rattenbury hasn't put a foot wrong, it's been a very sound government, with cabinet solidarity and no leaks.
"His hands are tied both sides to some extent, with his own membership and also with the Labor Party. Having said that and having known what he was agreeing to, I think he's made a very good fist of it.
"I mean, he's got things up like the light rail project which was really his number one agenda item, that's a huge achievement for a minority of one."
Rattenbury had been Speaker in the previous term in the ACT Legislative Assembly.
The fierce campaign by then Opposition Leader Zed Seselja and the collapse of the Greens support resulted in Rattenbury being the only survivor of the previous four-member Greens team in the assembly.
The tight finish gave the same number of seats to both Labor and the Liberals, meaning Rattenbury retained the casting vote.
After discussions about his agenda, he sided with Labor. No surprises there, given what he was asking.
Before the election, there was tension in the assembly, with some Labor MLAs believing the Greens were occupying notional Labor seats.
This declined after the election, when the Greens lost seats, Abjorensen says. But the tension is certainly there – among the Liberals.
Call it burning resentment at coming so close, on the back of Seselja's vigorous campaign, but then being "robbed" of victory by a member of the Greens, the Liberals' most hated.
Opposition Leader Jeremy Hanson doesn't like the tag-team running the Assembly and is already practising themes for the next election campaign.
"The Greens and Labor in the ACT are a coalition, no different from the Coalition in the Federal Parliament with the Liberals and the Nationals," he says.
"I think people need to view them as such in the ACT. Although they are different parties, as the Liberals and the Nationals are federally, they are one entity, they are one government.
"People need to realise they are one organism in essence, it's just the reality of the way they operate.
"I imagine they will endeavour to manufacture some differences in the lead up to the election but the reality is that on all of the substantive issues, Shane Rattenbury is supporting the Labor Party in all of its policy over the four-year term.
"In fact I'd go further to say the relationship between Katy Gallagher and Shane Rattenbury is closer than the relationship between Katy Gallagher and [Treasurer] Andrew Barr, ideologically."
If the Liberals win, they would end the needle exchange program at the Alexander Maconochie Centre – that is, if the scheme is actually in place by the time of the election.
"It is impossible for the guards in that jail to implement a zero drug policy whilst handing out needles," Hanson says.
He will campaign strongly on rising rates and electricity prices – and blame the tram and the solar farm, respectively.
Clearly one theme in the Liberals' toolbox will be trying to provoke a north-south divide – a few get to ride the tram but everyone pays for it.
"[Lightrail] is a very, very bad proposition for the people of the ACT," Hanson says.
"On every measure it doesn't stack up – the capital cost of $800 million is extraordinary and the operational cost still hasn't been revealed but we know it's going to be tens of millions of dollars every year to pay this off and the number of people it will service at peak hour is less than 1 per cent of the population."
The Chief Minister is adamant the light rail – and renewable energy and the needle exchange – are Labor initiatives and will benefit the territory.
"I don't believe at all that he [Rattenbury] has any unreasonable influence or control over the government agenda," she says.
"What makes the relationship work is that all of those three issues [light rail, renewable energy, needle exchange] were all Labor commitments and started as Labor commitments.
"We went to the election with a policy on light rail and we set the renewable targets last term, we're just delivering on it now and the needle exchange is something I started and he [Rattenbury] agrees with."
Speaking just hours after arriving back from China, where she was asked about Canberra's transport options, Gallagher is braced to defend light rail at the election.
"It will certainly be a big issue, the Liberal Party is going to run it but they will have to be careful how they run it because they will need to win seats presumably on the north side of Canberra so they have got to be careful with how they politicise the campaign but they obviously are going to use it," she says.
"We've always sought to look beyond the next four, the next eight, the next 12 years and what we are trying to do here at a particular point in time is kick off the second century of Canberra.
"We're trying to build a future and I have a very firm view that Canberra's future involves different forms of public transport. I don't see why we've got to be relegated to one form of public transport because [Liberal] Alistair Coe thinks it's a waste of money.
"We are releasing the full business case so people can have a look and see all the information that we've had available to us. That is highly unusual and some have said very brave to actually release all this material but we've chosen to do it because we want that level of transparency for this project."
Gallagher admits she was worried at first about how the power sharing arrangement would work.
"I think the parliamentary agreement is operating better than I thought it would," she says.
"Probably my area of biggest concern when I appointed Shane to the cabinet was knowing there would be times where there was genuine disagreement
"We worked that out up front and we have a very clear process. Once the cabinet decision has been made public, he is then able to explain his position and I think that allows the flexibility that he and his political party needs but keeps the confidentiality and freedom within the cabinet room working really well.
"In a small cabinet in a small town, you've got to have the freedom to talk freely within the room or you would not be able to provide stable government."
Key areas of disagreement were poker machines and the size of the enlarged Legislative Assembly.
Rattenbury says the evidence of the power sharing arrangement working well is stable government.
"There is not that sort of political uncertainty that people sometimes fear with the balance of power situation," he says.
"The parliamentary agreement is a strong foundation in the sense that we set out clear processes of how we will conduct ourselves in cabinet and how we can disagree if we need to.
"We've got the policy agenda which is a very clear understanding, a shared commitment to delivering these things over the four years of the term.
"That has given us a strong foundation and where we have disagreed on issues, we debate that issue but we keep functioning as a government which is ultimately what the community wants us to do, to get on with the business of delivering services.
"I guess in some ways we have put aside that cabinet tradition where you don't talk about it outside.
"We have maintained the tradition of cabinet in confidence but I am able to discuss with my party broad issues, issues that are often in the media so I'm able to discuss the issues with my party without necessarily disclosing the conversation taking place in cabinet.
"I don't come out and say, Katy says such and such in cabinet and I disagreed with that, but I can come out and talk about an issue and why I have a different view.
"The reality of the fact that we are two different parties and we don't always see eye to eye, whilst at the same time maintaining the continuity of government.
"For our party this is a learning process and we are participating inside cabinet for the very first time in the ACT and so I take quite a lot of time to consult with my party on a range of issues.
"The bottom line is that when you are in the balance of power you have a responsibility that the Opposition does not have. When you are in the balance of power you cannot shirk the responsibility, you have to vote and you must make a decision on a range of issues.
"I have been able to bring forward a good proportion of the green agenda from the last election and have it implemented. I have no doubt that there are a number of things happening that wouldn't have happened if the Greens hadn't been in the balance of power for the last two terms.
"Come the next election we'll be out there competing with the Labor Party just as we'll be competing with the Liberal Party to win seats in the territory election and we'll will be putting a different set of policies up to the electorate."
Rattenbury says he is receiving positive and negative messages about the cost of the light rail.
"The thing I reflect at the bigger picture level is that voters are always asking government to take the long-term perspective," he says.
"They are asking us not to be caught up in the short-term electoral cycle and to make decisions not just for today but for the long term and that's what this decision is.
"This town has been talking about light rail for 20 years – this term we have finally bitten the bullet and said this is the investment we need to make for the future of the city so I am very focused on the long-term objective which is what voters always tell us they want."
Twitter: @rosspeakeCT