ALP 26.4%
Incumbent MP
Natasha Fyles, since 2012.
Geography
Northern Darwin. Nightcliff covers the suburbs of Nightcliff and Rapid Creek, and part of Coconut Grove.
Redistribution
Nightcliff expanded slightly to take in part of Coconut Grove from Fannie Bay. This reduced the Labor margin from 26.7% to 26.4%.
History
The electorate of Nightcliff has existed since the first NT assembly election in 1974. Labor has held Nightcliff since 2001.
Nightcliff was first won by independent Dawn Lawrie, who held the seat until 1983.
The CLP’s Stephen Hatton won Nightcliff in 1983. Hatton served as chief minister from 1986 to 1988, and held Nightcliff until 2001.
Hatton retired in 2001, and Nightcliff was won by Labor’s Jan Aagaard. Aagaard held Nightcliff for three terms. She served as a minister from 2001 to 2003, and as Speaker from 2005 until 2012, when she retired.
Labor’s Natasha Fyles won Nightcliff in 2012, and she was re-elected in 2016.
Candidates
- Melita McKinnon (Territory Alliance)
- Natasha Fyles (Labor)
- Steve Doherty (Country Liberal)
- Billee McGinley (Greens)
- Shelley Landmark (Animal Justice)
Assessment
Nightcliff is the safest Labor seat in the Territory.
2016 result
| Candidate | Party | Votes | % | Swing | Redist |
| Natasha Fyles | Labor | 2,485 | 60.9 | +25.3 | 61.0 |
| Ted Dunstan | Country Liberal | 868 | 21.3 | -11.1 | 21.6 |
| Matt Haubrick | Greens | 726 | 17.8 | +11.0 | 16.7 |
| Others | 0.6 | ||||
| Informal | 78 | 1.9 |
2016 two-party-preferred result
| Candidate | Party | Votes | % | Swing | Redist |
| Natasha Fyles | Labor | 3,049 | 76.9 | +17.8 | 76.4 |
| Ted Dunstan | Country Liberal | 918 | 23.1 | -17.8 | 23.6 |
Booth breakdown
Nightcliff contains one ordinary election-day booth, plus pre-poll and other votes. Labor won massive majorities in every vote category.
| Voter group | GRN prim % | ALP 2PP % | Total votes | % of votes |
| Nightcliff | 18.0 | 78.2 | 1,976 | 45.5 |
| Pre-poll | 13.3 | 73.9 | 1,559 | 35.9 |
| Other votes | 20.2 | 76.8 | 805 | 18.5 |
@ John
I do agree Victoria has a lot of debt but i dont see what that has to do with Emissions Reduction policy. South Australia is actually part of the National Electricity Market and both exports and imports electricity with other states depending on need. However, SA is at 70% Renewable electricity now and has already reduced emissions by 42% from 2005 despite economic and population growth since then. Tasmania exports electricity to the mainland and is already at net zero and the state Libs want to 200% Renewable energy so they can export more electricity to the mainland.
In NSW Labor is in a minority and did not need to rollover to the Greens at all. They did not sign a formal agreement with the Greens. If the Libs neutralize the climate issue then there is a good chance Boothby, Higgins and maybe even Ryan will go back to the Libs. Finally, if the Libs interested in the far right vote and taking votes from ONP etc then they will simply loose centrist voters to Labor. They will alienate ethnic minorities, middle class voters
@nimalan Noone votes libs on climate change and they never will even if the libs adopt those policies it with win them votes. And Labor will lose centrist voters on their climate policies. Libs won’t lose them. Middle class voters don’t vote on elitest policies they vote on economic issues
@ I did nt say people vote Liberal on Climate change, i said Libs lost a lot of traditional voters due to climate so it is about regaining Higgins etc not winning Melbourne. Labor has not lost any centrist voters in middle class areas thus far to their climate policies, in places like NSW all parties support emissions reduction, same with Tasmania, ACT etc. The only areas where Labor has lost some votes on Climate are coal mining areas
@nimalan and you wonderw why the nsw libs lost the election. They lose them because there’s no poin5 in voting liberal if they just do the same policies as Labor. Not yet but there climate policies cause economic issues for middle Australia. I’m telling you liberals won’t gain votes for their climate policies
John, and you think putting candidates like Deeves and Deeming is vote winning?
You think putting anti-trans, trickle down economics, pro-coal fire gas, anti-china, anti-disability especially towards people with autism like myself. Is a vote winner? Please do explain on why you think these policies are vote winners, exact policies that will cause you to lose in a landslide and no, you won’t be winning Shortland, Werriwa, Paterson, etc with these policies.
Would love to be proven wrong. Young people aren’t going to be voting for these policies because they are toxic and unpopular. And it’s funny that Sky News folk blame Australians and the other media powerhouses when these policies lose when they are the ones putting a scare campaign out and trying to divide Australians more.
The only policies that might prove popular is the Anti-immigration and tough on crime ones. Those will work, but not the others I mentioned.
@daniel t. No but putting people like Turnbull didn’t work out did it? Notice how those “moderates” in teal seats all got beaten. Noone said to put anti trans candidates in. Name one candidate who was anti disability? Ive got asd and schizophrenia so what does that have to do with it? It wasn’t a Landslide they barely got 8 net seats at the election. Noone said anything about far right policies if they with cost of living policies that helps the AVG working class voter they will win some of those seats back
Please Labor do scare campaigns too every election they try and make people believe the coalition are gonna sell Medicare but it never happens
No John, by scientific fact, I mean the independent conclusions of thousands of scientists carrying out research in the field shows that 99% of studies into the topic agrees climate change is happening and carbon emissions created by humans are the cause. It sounds like you disagree it’s a fact but also want to say our national emissions make no difference, which implies humans are indeed the cause. Which is it, are humans the cause or not? At least the Liberal Party has made its stance clear on that topic after Tony Abbott held it back for half a term.
@wilson our emissions are insignificant compared to global emissions and even if we reduced our emmissions to zero today it would make no difference in the global emmissions
Your tax dollars are insignificant compared to the total national tax revenue. Even if you paid your whole income as taxes it would make no difference to the total national tax revenue. Therefore you should stop paying taxes. After all there are bigger tax payers out there.
” our emissions are insignificant compared to global emissions” is absurd as @Wilson said about the average taxpayer to the total national tax revenue.
1) Yes, Australia has 1% of the emissions of the world but we only have 0.3% of the world’s population
2) There are way more countries that emit less than Australia including more populated yet still similarly developed countries UK, Italy, and France not to mention smaller and/or poorer countries
3) Renewable Energy is now cheaper than Fossil Fuels and Nuclear hence why opposition to RE dropped rapidly and most new energy installed worldwide is now RE
When we talk about emissions reduction there is two phases relative decoupling and absolute decoupling. During the 1990s and 2000s the new world countries such as US, Canada and Australia went through relative decoupling while European countries went through Absolute decoupling. Relative decoupling occurs when emissions rise slower than population/economic growth while Absolute decoupling occurs when emissions fall while the economy and population rises. Australia has now commenced the Absolute decoupling stage it just started later for the new world countries. In Victoria since 1990 emissions reduced by 27.6% even as the population grew by 49.5% and the economy grew by 126% during the same timeframe. The Kyoto protocol required Australia to limit emissions to 108% of 1990 levels which is in essence relative decoupling which Australia did end up doing. The Arguments that John Howard made in the past not to ratify Kyoto simply will not work today in Victoria due to it already made so much progress on reducing emissions while growing its economy and population. In Victoria the libs simply cannot win a climate war for this reason even if they made Peta Credlin the leader. At a federal level it maybe possible in 2025 they may win a climate war due to cost of living but if they fall short they will not be able to do the same in 2028 as absolute decoupling would have further accelerated. As Marh correctly pointed Reneweable energy is becoming much cheaper.
@wilson ok I will. And btw one your forced to do by law the other is a partisan policy of one side of politics.
@marh if that were true tell me more why those 3rd world countries and China aren’t building thousands of solar plants instead of coal powered ones.
@nimalan then why are China and India building 1000s of coal power stations instead of solar and wind. The libs will never win on climate policy even i they embraced 100% reneeables they wouldn’t. The will win working class voters who are suffering cost of living due to Labor’s green fantasy. They may not win govt but it won’t change there stance in 2028.
@ John
Thank you for the excellent question. Firstly, China and India are installing renewable energy in addition to the Coal powered electricity (link below to article). The difference between developed countries like US, Australia, France, Germany etc is that developing countries like China, India, Nigeria & Bangladesh have not yet started the process of absolute or even relative decoupling yet. I agree there are still growing in emissions as they lift millions out of poverty and the demand for energy is soaring something that is not really the case in the industrialized west.. This is a process that West completed years ago. They are still connecting people to the grid etc. China & India pledged to reach net zero at a later stage in 2060 and 2070 respectively as they are still in the process of industrialization and the West has been contributing to Global emissions since the Industrial revolution. That is something i support. If you want to make a comparison dont compare Apples with Pears compare Australia with another developed industrialized country. Even if Brad Battin become premier of Victoria it will not be possible to increase Victoria’s emissions even if the Libs wanted to nor while a new Coal fired power plant stack up economically. Even when Trump was President Coal fired power stations were closing at a record rate and US emissions were actually falling.
https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/china-lead-global-renewable-growth-with-record-installations-woodmac-2023-11-28/
@nimalan that’s because they’re building nuclear plants even cop28 says nuclear must be tripled. The fact is they’re building coal plants in India and China because coal is cheaper. It doesn’t matter if they’re industrialised or who did what during the industrial revolution. The fact is that energy bills are going up as a result of the renewable energy push even if it is cheaper the cost lies in building them and that cos has to be recouped and it’s the taxpayers and voters who have to fork out. Albo promised $275 a year better off well I haven’t seen my savings in fact it’s going up. The AVG voter doesn’t care about the E lefty dream of renewable energy that the elites want they want cheap reliable energy and the renewable energy is the opposite of that. And the reason coal becomes more expensive is because as the plants age they become less efficient and without new plants to replace them it’s only going up. Just a couple weeks ago they told NSW resident to ration electricity.something that should never happen in an industrialised first world country
Except, John, it isn’t a partisan policy of one side of politics. The Liberals have already committed to emissions reduction, specifically net zero by 2050.
As much as I disagree with their general worldview, the Liberal Party are not run by stupid people. They know full well from the statistics that their vote share amongst Gen Y and Gen Z is in the basement, and isn’t improving with time the way it did for previous generations. And while economics and taxes are still their big selling points in attracting new voters, they know climate denial would kill their chances of attracting many amongst those generations, who are very supportive of climate action.
This is where conservatives clamouring for the Liberals to reverse course on climate action for more electoral success get it wrong. The point isn’t to attract voters with their climate policies. It’s to remove one of the biggest objections to voting Liberal. Even that might not save them, given their seeming disinterest in solving the problem of high house prices. But it’s still better for their electoral fortunes than stubbornly clinging to positions that are popular with a generation that is about to go into a terminal decline in numbers.
@wikson 2050 is a whole lot different to the 2035 target Labor are aiming for
John, yes, that’s true. But you think any climate action is woke and a vote loser for the Liberals.
Climate denial isnt try issue it’s the zealotry of the left who are determined to do it at any cost ina short as time as possible with no consideration for the people it will effect the most. Chris Bowen, Adam Bandt and the teals sure won’t have a problem paying their bills it’s the AVG person that will suffer and as someone who’s on a pension I sure as hell can’t.
Also John, I’m curious about something. Who do you think the elites are that apparently all want renewable energy? To me the elites are wealthy people like Rupert Murdoch and Gina Rinehart who don’t give two hoots about renewable energy because they don’t stand to benefit financially from it.
Interesting view, John. Did you know the Greens campaigned in the last election about raising pensions and capping energy costs?
@ John
The Libs were in government for 9 years and did not persue Nuclear energy at all so i dont know why they are bringing it up now. I agree with you that increase in energy bills twill cause some electoral damage to Albo in 2025 but i stand that by 2028 society would have moved on. Secondly, Labor is not aiming for net zero in 2035 at a federal level, it is actually 2050 same as the Liberals. I do agree with Wilson’s analysis that for the Libs it not about attracting voters with climate policies rather it is to remove an obstacle for people who otherwise want to vote Liberal due to their economic policies. That is why i used the word neutralise in the first place. In the Warringah thread i spoke who NSW Liberals like James Griffin overperformed Abbott and Deeves in the same booths significantly. Many who voted for Zali Steggall at a federal level voted for James Griffin & Felicity Wilson. The reason that the NSW Libs lost was not due to climate policies they lost due to bread and butter issues such as the Wage Cap, Road Tolls, potential privatization of Sydney Water etc. In the Camden thread i actually mentioned that Libs did not loose many votes at all to ONP rather they lost to Greens & Labor (ONP was up 0.4% in Camden)
Thirdly, i did not say their should be climate action in the shortest time and at any cost. If you read by first post i actually said “I think the transition to cleaner energy will have to be done methodically and progressively and not all at once.”
@wukson yes byt u live in the real world what the greens are selling sounds good but won’t work economically if communism worked it would be great to but in the end it only benefits those at the top. It’s the same with rental caps. Telling the owner of an asset they can only charge so much even though their costs have no cap is hardly viable. I wish I could get off the pension but so many employers have screwed me over because of mental health issue.
John, and then you run the risk of the LNP/Coalition scrapping or reducing Centrelink payments, cutting the NDIS, cutting jobseeker/job-keeper. (Although it was Gillard who made it harder to get on Centrelink by raising the criteria)
While you could say this is just a “scare campaign from Labor” Let me remind you, how many things did Tony Abbott pledge NOT to cut in 2013 only to do so when in government?
As for climate policy, saying that Australia doesn’t contribute that much emissions is like saying it doesn’t matter if a tiny percentage of the population commit serious crimes. It does matter, you have to set an example. And there is a reason why we are a laughing stock of the world on issues like this, we are Australia, it is time to accept the science and show other countries we are a strong and capable nation.
@daniel no Daniel they won’t wasn’t it Labor talking about making it harder to get on the NDIS for some things? There not gonna scrap Centrelink payments or cut them or the NDIS. Noone cares about cuts to the ABC or sbs. And anyone who cares about t should pay an abc tax like they do in the UK see how many people care about it then. As for the other cuts Labor is determined to get rid of coal when that’s the very thing propping up the economy. Emmissions and crime are two seperate things you see Australia is apart of the world and just because we cut out emissions won’t make the problem go away because it’s a world problem. People choose to commit crimes. Though I’m sure if the greens got their way emitting CO2 would be too. Noone a laughing at us and even if they were we should laugh at them for emitting more. All we are doing is making ourselves less competitive.
This is all so ridiculously off topic. I’m locking this page.