Australians have seen the launch of two new political parties in the last month. Both groups say they are agents for change, and both are laying claim to the title “progressive”.



The Australian Progressive Party (APP) and the Australian Progressives went public within days of each other. The parties have superficial similarities and they have nearly identical names and website colour themes. They both claim nation-wide interest in a spread of state and federal seats. They want to appeal to a wide voter base by producing policies on a range of issues rather than being a one-issue party of protest. And both rely on grassroots members and donations to stay afloat.



But that’s where the similarities end. The parties are deeply divided on policy direction and on the personalities at their helm.



APP label themselves firmly centrist, saying they are occupying a space left vacant since the demise of the Democrats. Executive director Kathryn Crosby has a background in political consultancy and was tasked with trying to revive the Democrats in 2009.



“It’s not socialism; it’s not capitalism. It’s straight down the line,” she said of her new project.



The idea for a new middle-of-the-road political organisation, or a “true progressive” party came to Crosby after the last federal election, when she lamented online that she had no one to vote for. Her comments sparked debate, and within no time she had set up a committee to research the viability of a new political party.



“The reality is that the vote for non-major parties is now at an all-time high, and the Greens vote is falling. People are genuinely looking for a new answer,” Crosby said, noting that voters are less loyal to one political party than in the past.



“Voters are hungry for detailed policies and are immune to [politicians’] spin,” she said.



TPA president Tim Jones also saw an opportunity for a new political party; one built through social media and harnessing people power to affect change.



“There is a glaring vacuum in Australian politics at the moment, and I thought it was a great opportunity [to start a party],” Jones said. “We’ve seen real enthusiasm from people and want to keep up that acclaim.”



Jones co-founded the March in March movement, which has had a very public split from the March Australia movement. He wants to build on his past knowledge of protest movements by holding grassroots cultural events, such as the popular TED talks, in order to raise money for the party.



The APP and Jones’s party are unaffiliated with other groups, and they are certainly unaffiliated with each other.



The initial possibility of collaboration fell apart dramatically, with Crosby claiming Jones has launched a “hostile attack” by creating his own political party and stealing APP’s ideas.



“The name is permanently burned. The brand is permanently damaged,” Crosby said.



Jones wouldn’t be drawn on the fractious relationship between the similarly-named parties, saying “we don’t engage with them”.



“We’re confident we will be the one with the name [progressive] in the end,” Jones said.



Conflict over that one-word sticking point could take some time to resolve. Neither party has registered with the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) yet, and settling the dispute over trade marks could take months.



While the parties are unlikely to merge with each other, Jones said he is open to merging with other small parties in the future.



Crosby said that would be a matter for members to decide. She hopes to have 500 members - the number needed to register a party with the AEC - by December, but isn’t wedded to a strict timeline.



“You can’t rush perfection,” she laughs.



The two parties each hope to be on the ballot papers at the next federal election, expected in 2016.

