Labor’s devastating loss on the weekend’s NT election not only has significant implications for the federal government, the Albanese government played a significant role in the shape of NT Labor’s defeat. Let’s start with the federal implications.

The NT election provides more evidence that the long-term decline in the primary vote of the major parties means that there is no such thing as a ‘safe seat’ anymore. For decades political analysts have thought in terms of an ‘electoral pendulum’ that swings gently from left to right, sweeping away those who hold ‘marginal seats’ and rarely threating those in ‘safe seats’. But that’s not how Australian elections work any more. Labor just lost four of its five ‘safest’ seats and the fifth seat of Nightcliff may yet be lost too.

Just as Scott Morrison managed to simultaneously lose ‘safe seats’ to independents, Greens and Labor in 2022, on the weekend NT Labor seats were simultaneously threatened by the Country Liberal Party, the Greens and a new crop of progressive independents. These days the electorate is more wrecking ball than pendulum.

While it’s true the CLP won a parliamentary majority after a primary vote swing to them of 18 per cent, at the same time Labor looks to have lost ‘safe’ seat Johnston (16 per cent margin) to an independent and may lose Fannie Bay (10.9 per cent margin) to the Greens. Indeed, at time of writing the former Labor Chief Minister Natasha Fyles’ seat of Nightcliff (24 per cent margin) is still in doubt. If a 16 per cent margin doesn’t make a seat safe then the term has lost all meaning.

Natasha Fyles went to this election promising that all the recommendations of the Fracking Inquiry had been implemented including that fracking Beetaloo gas would be ‘net zero,’ which even the Independent Officer overseeing the Inquiry said was untrue. She was also embroiled in scandals over employing a gas lobbyist on her personal staff, owning undisclosed shares in Woodside and then finally resigned after further undisclosed shares in mining company South32 were discovered. It should be of no surprise that the issues of climate and integrity were at the top of many voter’s minds, even though Labor and the CLP only wanted to talk about crime.

The federal implications of the NT election are as obvious as the dog-whistling about race that permeated the ‘crime debate’ throughout the NT election.
First, when either major party lurches to the right they lose large number of voters who care about climate, integrity and addressing the underlying causes of social problems.

Second, while major parties could once afford to disappoint a few voters knowing that they would likely pick up the second preferences of those they had disappointed, these days the number of disaffected voters is so large that they regularly elect minor party and independent candidates.

Third, even in a cost of living crisis dominated the election campaign, climate change shifts votes. Despite the cost of living crisis and the CLP’s constant criticism of the state of the NT economy the primary vote for the Greens and climate focussed independents has soared. Young voters, middle-age service sector workers and grandparents worried about the world they are leaving behind all vote with climate change front of mind no matter how much some media outlets talk about crime.

Put simply, if Darwin can swing hard to the Greens and Independents then it would be a brave federal Labor backbencher who believes there is no need to rethink the Albanese Government’s love of gas. Indeed, it was federal Labor’s promise of $1.5 billion worth of subsidies for Darwin’s Middle Arm gas project that breathed so much life into the Green and independent campaigns that performed so well on the weekend.

It is no surprise that few people noticed that in the dying days of the 2022 federal election campaign Labor snuck out one of its biggest spending promises, a $1.5 billion subsidy for Darwin’s Middle Arm gas processing project. In a tight fisted campaign it was a big announcement that dwarfed the $500 million promised for a fast train between Sydney and Newcastle, the $440 million for school ventilation upgrades or the $194.5 million to protect the Great Barrier Reef. By way of context, $1.5 billion is enough to give every household in Darwin over $50,000.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, what scant media coverage there was of Labor’s 2022 commitment to the Middle Arm project focussed on its support for ‘port infrastructure’ and “dredging the shipping channel”.But soon after the election documents obtained under FOI made clear that despite the Minister for Infrastructure Catherine King saying the money was “not a subsidy for fossil fuels” the Government knew the Middle Arm was a ”key enabler of Beetaloo gas”. LINK

The clearest evidence that the NT Government knew Middle Arm was a vote loser was how quickly, and clumsily, they worked to scrub any mention of fossil fuels from public references to the project, renaming it a “sustainable development hub” and deleting references to petrochemicals from the website.

Indeed the NT Governments efforts prompted Independent MP Monique Ryan to suggest their actions “smacks of subterfuge and cover-up” and that “instead of responding to valid community concerns about what is proposed at Middle Arm, we see the Northern Territory Government quietly removing all references to gas-fed petrochemical manufacturing on government websites.

Labor’s love of gas came at a high political price in the NT election, costing it seats in the short term while likely giving the Greens and independents a foothold from which they can build in the future.

The Albanese Government seems to have convinced itself that highly educated voters will believe that subsidising new gas projects is an important step towards decarbonising the Australian economy. But the NT election provides clear evidence that such spin clearly doesn’t work. Imagine if Labor had spent $1.5 billion on schools, hospitals or even prisons in Darwin instead of a polluting gas factory. They might have even been able to put out a press release to brag about it.

Richard Denniss is executive director of the Australia Institute