Martin Greenfield says the problem is political, not technical, and no friendly lawyer poring over the electoral act can fix this. The working class demands unity.
The Socialist Alternative-led electoral project to take the Victorian Socialists national has hit a roadblock. A combination of falling foul of federal election registration laws and a failure to find unity with the Socialist Alliance in a single socialist electoral party could see the Socialist Alternative-led electoral front struggle to register for federal elections under either of its preferred names.
The main obstacle to the Victorian Socialists’ national ambitions – albeit via state-based franchises such as NSW Socialists or SA Socialists – lies in federal electoral law changes passed on 2 September 2021. These amendments were instigated by the Liberal Party, which opposed the continued registration of the Liberal Democratic Party. In the 2013 election, when the Liberal Democrats were placed first on the NSW Senate ballot they received 9.5 per cent of the vote, arguably inflated by voters mistaking them for the Liberal Party. The law was passed with ALP support.
The new provisions prevent the registration of any party whose name or abbreviation “so nearly resembles” that of another that a “reasonable person” might assume an association. Crucially, even if the already registered party consents, the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) can still refuse registration if it deems the names too similar or containing identical terms.
That poses a fundamental problem for the Victorian Socialists’ attempt to rebrand federally as The Socialists or The Socialist Party. Labor Tribune understands that the AEC would likely reject either name. Socialist Alternative’s preferred title is The Socialists, but Socialist Alliance has made clear it would object. The other alternative, ‘The Socialist Party’, while acceptable to the Socialist Alliance is not favoured by all in the Socialist Alternative leadership, fearful that the electoral project it seeks to control could develop a runaway ‘partyist’ logic.
The Victorian Socialists could, of course, continue federally under their existing name, but this would only work in Victoria. Attempts to change its current name to anything containing the word ‘socialist’ could prove difficult.
The low-ambition and parochialism of the Victorian Socialists’ original 2017 registration has come back to bite them. Had they sought registration then with a national name, before the tightening of the law, they would not now be boxed in by these restrictions.
Meanwhile, Socialist Alliance is not bending over backwards to help its rivals. In a May 2025 statement responding to the Victorian Socialists’ expansion plans, the Alliance said it had “no objection” to the party changing its name to The Socialist Party but opposed the use of The Socialists or Socialists, arguing it would “confuse voters, implying that VS/SP is the only socialist party contesting federal elections”. Correspondence provided to Labor Tribune this week (see below) repeats that position and confirms little progress towards unity.
Left reformism, disunited
The irony is thick. Both groups stand on reformist left-laborite platforms that, in political terms, differ little from each other – or, indeed, from the Greens. Both claim to speak for working-class politics yet remain divided by decades-old grudges and differing organisational styles. The Socialist Alliance cannot credibly play the “we were here first” card: it is a smaller, ageing formation. For their part, Socialist Alternative and its Victorian Socialists vehicle have refused to answer questions from Labor Tribune, despite being given a week to respond.
I honestly can’t see what the Socialist Alliance has to lose by joining the Socialist Party project. Presumably it would get representation on the national executive; it would retain control of Green Left newspaper and could negotiate having members on leading positions on election tickets.
The problem here is not technical but political. Electoral law is certainly an anti-democratic barrier to participation, serving to lock out smaller parties. Yet the real barrier to socialist representation lies in the movement’s own divisions. The working class punishes disunity and cannot take multiple competing “socialist” projects seriously. That it might take an act of parliament to make the socialist left face this head on, only shows their weakness.
There is a growing appetite for radical solutions to the most pressing issues in this country: an ageing and anti-democratic constitution, the housing crisis, cost of living, climate change. A united socialist election push would also make it easier for Marxists in the ALP to force the question of the parliamentary leadership’s openly militarist support for US imperialism.
The SA Socialists have registered for state elections in South Australia. In recent local contests the socialist vote has shown potential – in Western Australia’s local government elections this year, WA Socialists fielded 10 candidates polling as high as 24 per cent in one ward. These are solid numbers for a grassroots left project. But the prospects for a broader socialist mobilisation will wither unless the leaderships of both Socialist Alternative and Socialist Alliance move decisively toward unity.
Marxist unity needed
That unity cannot be a marriage of convenience around electoral arithmetic. It must rest on a shared Marxist program that clarifies both the immediate and minimum demands and our maximum program for a world without private property, war, nationalism or climate disaster. Without that political cohesion, no technical fix – not even a friendly lawyer poring over the Commonwealth Electoral Act – will make any difference.
If the leaderships will not act, then their members should. Socialist activists across the country should demand unity on a principled basis and force the issue. The Socialist Alternative-led project can only overcome its impasse through political struggle – not procedural manoeuvre. Only a united socialist movement, grounded in Marxist politics and organisational discipline, can make a meaningful electoral impact.
We republish the correspondence from the Socialist Alliance below.
The Victorian Socialists refused to respond.
Correspondence with the Socialist Alliance
Dear [Labor Tribune]
Most of our responses refer to our statement on May 18. Nothing much has changed since then.
Our specific answers as follows:
1. From the perspective of the Socialist Alliance, what is the status of discussions with Victorian Socialists about their intention to register ‘The Socialists’, etc, with the AEC?
We provided the AEC with a letter indicating that we have no objection to Victorian Socialists changing its party name to the Socialist Party. However, as our May statement indicates, we did raise an objection to Socialist Alternative/VS using the abbreviation “Socialists” or “The Socialists” as that would be confusing for voters, implying that VS/SP is the only socialist party contesting federal elections, which is not the case. We sent a similar letter to Socialist Alternative/Victorian Socialists in regard to NSW Socialists. Socialist Alliance is registered in NSW and runs in elections for all levels of government.
2) Is the Socialist Alliance supportive of ‘The Socialists’ being registered with the AEC with the intention of Victorian Socialists ‘franchises’ running in federal (and state) elections as NSW Socialists, QLD Socialists, etc.
Please see our answer to 1.
3) If the Victorian Socialists proceed to seek registration with the AEC of ‘The Socialists’ (and relevant franchise names), would you be supportive, given the AEC might raise objections to having two parties with ‘Socialist” in its name. (Though I note the Victorian Socialists and the Socialist Alliance are both registered with the AEC.)
Please see our answer to 1.
4) Has the Socialist Alliance proposed any compromise solutions that could be satisfactory to both parties? (I understand that the NSW Socialists have suggested standing together as ‘Socialist Alliance’ in NSW. Is that true?)
We have not been approached about that. We remain in discussions with Socialist Alternative/Victorian Socialists about the possibilities of working together in the electoral sphere, including not standing against each other and exploring the possibility of running joint upper house tickets.
5) Under what conditions would the Socialist Alliance agree to join ‘The Socialists’? For example, if you were able to operate as a public organisation (like Socialist Alternative does), and maintain control/ownership of Green Left, and were offered reasonable representation on the national governing bodies of The Socialists, and were guaranteed candidates with ‘The Socialists’ in prominent/leading positions would this be adequate?
We have not considered that.
6) If not, why not?
See the answer to question 6. [we assume they mean question 5 here. Editor]
7) What are your objections, if any, to the Socialist Alliance and the Socialists merging into a single socialist organisation?
Socialist Alternative advised us in May, and have told us again more recently, that they have no immediate desire to seek greater unity. Therefore we have not discussed your hypothetical. However, we remain open to further discussion with them about how to advance cooperation. Additionally we have being told that they don’t support left regroupment and were not interested in resuming unity talks (which ended in 2013).
In solidarity
Jacob Andrewartha & Sue Bull Socialist Alliance National co-convenors