Hubbry Logo
WikiLeaks PartyWikiLeaks PartyMain
Open search
WikiLeaks Party
Community hub
WikiLeaks Party
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
WikiLeaks Party
WikiLeaks Party
WikiLeaks Party
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

The WikiLeaks Party was a minor libertarian political party in Australia between 2013 and 2015.[3][4][5] The party was created in part to support Julian Assange's failed bid for a Senate seat in Australia in the 2013 election. The party won 0.62% of the national vote.[5][6] At the time Assange was seeking refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. The WikiLeaks Party national council included Assange, Matt Watt, Gail Malone, Assange's biological father John Shipton, Omar Todd and Gerry Georgatos.[7]

Key Information

The party was heavily criticised for meeting with former president Bashar al-Assad during a trip to Syria.[8][9] It experienced internal dissent over its governance and electoral tactics and was deregistered due to low membership numbers in 2015.[10][11]

Formation

[edit]

Assange's decision to run for the Australian Senate was announced via the WikiLeaks Twitter account in March 2012.[12] Assange said that Prime Minister Julia Gillard's attacks on WikiLeaks contributed to his decision to run for the Senate, and that if he won the seat the US would end the grand jury investigation against him and the British government would follow suit "the political costs of the current standoff will be higher still".[13][14][15] The intent to form a WikiLeaks Party was announced by Assange in late 2012[5][16] and Assange stated that the party was to be a vehicle for his candidacy for a seat in the Australian Senate in the 2013 election.[5]

On 23 April 2013, the WikiLeaks Party submitted its registrations to the Australian Electoral Commission. The party had over 1,300 fee-paying members.[17][18] The application was accepted and the party was registered as a political party on 2 July 2013[19] and the party launched later that month.[20][21] Assange said he planned to launch the WikiLeaks Party outside of Australia, and suggested it could expand to US, India or Britain.[22]

The party was involved in Glenn Druery's Minor Party Alliance around the 2013 federal election, but left after deciding not to preference as per Druery's advice.[23][24][25]

Party platform

[edit]

The WikiLeaks Party subscribed to a libertarian ideology.[26] Specific policies for the 2013 election included "promoting free information and protection for whistle-blowers".[27] The WikiLeaks Party said they were against compulsory vaccination and tried to appeal to the Australian Vaccination Network, an anti-vaccination lobby group.[28] Their policies on asylum seekers, the environment, health and education were unclear.[29]

Assange said he could be described as a libertarian, and that he would use parliamentary privilege to overcome court-imposed gag orders. He also said it was important to protect people and small businesses from large corporations and government, and that there were "strong arguments on all sides" of issues like euthanasia and same-sex marriage.[13] Assange said he would protect private data by requiring the ASIO to apply for a judicial warrant and table an annual report about oversea data sharing.[30][22] CEO John Shipton stated that the party "stands for what Julian espouses — transparency and accountability in government and of course human rights".[31] Assange himself has said the WikiLeaks Party would combine "a small, centralised leadership with maximum grassroots involvement" and that the party would advance WikiLeaks' objectives of promoting openness in government and politics and that it would combat intrusions on individual privacy.[5][16][32][33]

Assange was reported as saying that he envisioned the WikiLeaks Party as bound together by unswerving commitment to the core principles of civic courage nourished by understanding and truthfulness and the free flow of information and one that will practise in politics what WikiLeaks has done in the field of information.[34] The Constitution of the WikiLeaks Party lists objectives, including the protection of human rights and freedoms; transparency of governmental and corporate action, policy and information; recognition of the need for equality between generations; and support of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander self-determination.[34] The WikiLeaks Party criticised the Telstra Group's relationship with the FBI and US Department of Justice.[35][36]

2013 election

[edit]

The party fielded candidates for the Australian Senate in the states of New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia.[37] Two polling experts rated the WikiLeaks Party's electoral chances as highly unlikely.[38]

The WikiLeaks Party candidates for the 2013 election were:[39]

Assange failed in his bid for a Senate seat. The WikiLeaks Party picked up 0.62% of the national vote, Assange garnered 1.18% of the primary vote in Victoria, and the WikiLeaks Party picked up 0.8% in New South Wales and 0.71% in Western Australia.[6]

Christine Milne, leader of the Australian Greens, was positive about the emergence of the WikiLeaks Party as part of a move away from Australia's two-party system. However, the Greens said they had no intention of stepping aside for Assange in the Victoria Senate election.[49] Similarly, the Socialist Equality Party reaffirmed its intention to defend Assange against persecution, but refused to endorse the WikiLeaks Party, stating that its position represented the "interests of the working class".[50]

Professor Anne Twomey, an expert on Australian constitutional law at the University of Sydney, suggested that if Assange were elected, this could be found invalid in the event of a legal challenge if a court ruled that his relationship with Ecuador breached the prohibition against the election of people "under any [acknowledgement] of allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign power".[51]

Voting issues

[edit]

The party's campaign was thrown into turmoil just weeks before the 2013 election when members objected strongly to the party's group voting tickets.[52] In New South Wales, the far–right Australia First Party was placed above the Greens, while in Western Australia the National Party was placed above Greens senator Scott Ludlam, a strong supporter of WikiLeaks and Assange. The Sydney Morning Herald reported it was understood that WikiLeaks had "gone into a complex preference deal with micro parties, mainly right-wing, in a bid to get a candidate into the senate". The WikiLeaks Party blamed an unspecified "administrative errors" and announced an independent review would be held, and Gerry Georgatos defended the decision to place the Nationals ahead of the Greens.[53][54][55][56]

Leslie Cannold, Assange's running mate in Victoria, said a campaign staffer received a phone call that contradicted the statement by the WikiLeaks Party that the review would be immediate and independent. Instead, the review would be delayed until after the election and would not be independent.[55][57] The review was unable to interview anyone other than Shipton, but took submissions from figures like Greg Barns. The reviewer also had "limited or no access to WLP official transcripts, minutes of National Council meetings and official emails/correspondence" and was unable to verify what he was told. The independent review rejected the claim that the decision was an "administrative error".[58]

The claim that it was an administrative error was also contradicted by leaks from within the party and several outlets.[59][60] According to leaked emails,[61][62] Assange was behind the preference deal, and attempted to give himself veto rights and to turn the National Council into a rubber stamp.[63][64][65] He also suggested that he was entitled to make himself the president of the party because he had founded it, although there is no leader or president under the WikiLeaks Party constitution.[63][64][66] Jamal Daoud, a member of the National Council, said the preferences were directed personally by Assange. Greg Barns, a former election adviser to the party, said that was a "nasty allegation with no substance whatsoever" and other sources said Barns made the decision.[60][67]

Dr. Daniel Mathews, who helped Assange co-found the WikiLeaks website,[68][65] said "the initial view was that the party had submitted a mistake," but "subsequent evidence has come to light that it may not have been entirely a mistake."[55][65] Ludlam said "There's no administrative error. One of our guys was told last week well before this decision got locked away that that was what they were going to do."[69] Greens staffer Max Phillips said The WikiLeaks Party's NSW deputy registered officer Cassie Findlay told him about the decision a week before it became public.[59]

When National Council members complained, CEO John Shipton attempted to go around them and create a new power base.[70][55][57] Leslie Cannold resigned along with four other members of the National Council and several key volunteers.[70][55][59][65] Cannold said she could not remain Assange's running mate in Victoria because doing so would implicitly make a statement that the WikiLeaks Party was "a democratically run party that both believes in transparency and accountability, and operates in this way".[57][71] Julian Assange responded said "I'm not sure I'd call it chaos, although of course it [the resignations] is a significant event".[72][71] Alison Broinowski said she talked to John Shipton and decided the decisions were a mistake and that "no skulduggery was in evidence".[71]

The party published a short, inconclusive review by a party member five months later.[73] Former member Gary Lord responded with a comprehensive 20-page report fully examining the party's failures.[74]

Foreign connections

[edit]

Syria visits

[edit]

In December 2013, a delegation from the party, including its chairman John Shipton, visited Syria and met with President Bashar al-Assad and other officials[75][76] with the goals of demonstrating "solidarity with the Syrian people and their nation" and improving the party's understanding of the country's civil war. The trip was heavily criticised by both sides of Australian politics and considered a "propaganda coup" for the Syrian regime.[77][78] In a statement issued shortly before the visit, the WikiLeaks Party stated that it opposed outside intervention in the war, supported a negotiated peace process and described reports of the Ghouta chemical attack by forces loyal to al-Assad in August 2013 as being "unsubstantiated" and comparable to the concerns over the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction program prior to the Iraq War.[79][80]

The meeting with President al-Assad was attended by National Council members John Shipton and Gail Malone[81][82][83] and by academic Tim Anderson.[84] Former National Council member Jamal Daoud (who had resigned from the Greens over differences) was their translator. Daoud was a well-known opponent of the anti-Assad insurgency and expressed support for Assad on Twitter and on his blog.[85][86] The delegation also met with Prime Minister Wael al-Halqi, Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Miqdad, Higher Education Minister Malek Ali, the Speaker of the Syrian People's Assembly Jihad al-Laham and Information Minister Omran al-Zoubi.[76]

The meeting with Assad was criticised by the Australian Prime Minister, Foreign Minister,[78][87][85] Syrian activists[88] and WikiLeaks supporters.[89] The visit was also criticised by the Federal Opposition, including independent experts, the Greens and senior members of Labor.[78][87][90] Prime Minister Tony Abbott said the meeting was an "extraordinary error of judgment" and Lowy Institute for International Policy executive director Michael Fullilove called it "extremely unwise, ill-considered and really unforgivable".[78] Foreign Affairs Minister Julie Bishop said it was "excessively reckless" for the WikiLeaks Party "to try and insert itself in the appalling conflict in Syria for their own political ends". Bishop said "it risks undermining the sanctions regime we have in place, and it risks aligning Australia with one side of the conflict in Syria, which is something we would not do".[87][85]

Shipton stated that the meeting with al-Assad was "just a matter of good manners" and that the delegation had also met with members of the Syrian opposition.[84] However, these meetings with the opposition have not been verified. Shipton said he was going to sue Tony Abbott and Julie Bishop for criticising the party's delegation to Syria for $5 million in damages but never sued.[91][92][93] WikiLeaks said it "did not know or approve" of the visit.[78]

In December 2013, Shipton said he wanted to open an office for the WikiLeaks Party in Syria.[93][88][94] According to Shipton, he asked Syrian journalists to become their Damascus "transparency office" and send back "proper information" about the conflict.[85] In April 2014, Shipton said those plans were scrapped and the focus was shifted to Kyiv.[95] Shipton added he and other members of the WikiLeaks Party would return to Syria to deliver medical supplies bought in Iran to the Red Crescent in Damascus, but said they would not meet Assad again.[95]

Foreign propaganda

[edit]

After meeting with Syrian officials in December 2013, WikiLeaks Party national councillor Jamal Daoud said he would use information from the regime to publish stories of alleged atrocities by the rebels, despite not having seen any evidence to support some of the claims and not following up on it.[78][96] Sheik Fedaa al-Majzoub, a respected cleric in Sydney, said that the WikiLeaks Party may have been used by senior ministers of the country's regime after Daoud repeated claims made by Information Minister Omran al-Zoubi about al-Majzoub. Daoud said he was still waiting for evidence to support his claims and did not follow it up.[77][96]

In February 2014, the WikiLeaks Party was criticised after it began republishing articles from al-Manar, the propaganda unit of Hezbollah. One article republished by the WikiLeaks Party alleged that Israel was trying to "strengthen and deepen their relations with the terrorist groups" fighting Assad by treating more than 700 "terrorists" at a hospital. Daoud defended the information and said he didn't "have a problem with the source of information if that information is credible" and that he thought al-Manar was credible than Israeli and Australian sources for information about Palestinian territories and Syria.[97]

2014 election

[edit]
Main article: 2014 Australian Senate special election in Western Australia

The WikiLeaks Party contested the 5 April re-run of the disqualified 2013 Senate election (Western Australia component). The prior year's lead Senate candidate Gerry Georgatos recommended to the National Council that he step down for Assange to take the lead Senate position for Western Australia and hopefully get elected.[98] In February, the National Council learned that Assange would be ineligible to contest. Georgatos rejected continuing on as the endorsed candidate and asked that the membership be surveyed as to their preferred candidate. More than 500 WikiLeaks members completed the survey and Georgatos was endorsed as the lead candidate with West TV producer Tibor Meszaros at number 2 and journalist Lucy Nicol at number 3.[99] One hour before the close of nominations, Georgatos withdrew for "unforeseen personal reasons" and Tibor Meszaros was consequently elevated to lead candidate.[100][101] On 14 April, the AEC draw for the ballot of 33 parties (77 candidates) drew the WikiLeaks Party first.[102]

Funding

[edit]

The WikiLeaks Party tried to raise $700,000 for election funds.[30] Assange said American banks blocked donations to the party, and that Bank of America blocked donations he tried to make.[103] The WikiLeaks Party raised almost $5000 in Bitcoin, and said they "don't know where the donations are coming from". This caused questions about compliance with Australian law, which requires disclosures about large donations and the number of people who made donations.[104][105]

Missing funds

[edit]

In March 2014, Jamal Daoud said that the WikiLeaks National Council was denied access to the party's books and copies of financial statements. He also said John Shipton told him the group was $70,000 in debt despite having no employees and no advertising. Daoud said it was "like a family convenience store." Shipton refused requests for interviews and comments.[4]

Deregistration

[edit]

The WikiLeaks Party was deregistered by the Australian Electoral Commission on 23 July 2015 for lack of members under s.137(4) of the Electoral Act.[106][107][108] Members of The WikiLeaks Party objected, saying the AEC's methods were out of date because they only counted landlines. Deputy Chairman and National Council Director of The WikiLeaks Party, Omar Todd said "The current electoral system makes it extremely difficult for smaller political parties to exist and will only get worse if the overhaul of the political system happens in the near future."[109]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

WikiLeaks Party

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The WikiLeaks Party was a short-lived Australian political party founded in 2013 to support Julian Assange's candidacy for a Senate seat in Victoria during the federal election, with a platform centered on free speech, human rights, transparency in government, and accountability. The party, registered with the Australian Electoral Commission on 1 July 2013, fielded candidates in Senate races across New South Wales, Victoria, and Western Australia but achieved no electoral victories. Its campaign was marked by significant internal turmoil, including the resignation of key figures such as Victorian deputy candidate Leslie Cannold and several national council members over disputes regarding preference allocations to minor parties perceived as extreme or foreign-influenced, such as the Australia First Party and the Syrian Social Nationalist Party. Assange attributed these issues to early organizational challenges, yet they underscored tensions between the party's transparency ideals and its operational decisions. Ultimately, the party was deregistered by the AEC on 23 July 2015 for failing to demonstrate adequate membership in response to official notices, reflecting its inability to sustain a viable political presence.

Origins and Formation

Background and Founding

The WikiLeaks Party was established in Australia as a vehicle for Julian Assange, founder of the whistleblowing organization WikiLeaks, to pursue a Senate candidacy in the 2013 federal election. Assange, who had been granted asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in London since June 2012 to evade potential extradition amid legal proceedings related to WikiLeaks publications, announced intentions to form a political party in December 2012. He stated that a Senate position could provide parliamentary privilege, potentially safeguarding him from foreign extradition requests and offering a platform to advocate for government transparency. In February 2013, Assange elaborated on plans to register the WikiLeaks Party, emphasizing its in fielding Senate candidates across multiple states to challenge secrecy in governance. The party's formation was driven by Assange's desire to translate WikiLeaks' mission of exposing into electoral politics, amid ongoing scrutiny from Australian authorities and international governments over the organization's leaks of diplomatic cables and military documents dating back to 2010. The Australian Electoral Commission approved the party's registration application on July 2, 2013, enabling it to contest the September federal election. Assange assumed the role of chairman, with the party nominating candidates including himself for the Victoria Senate seat, though his embassy confinement prevented physical participation in campaigning. The initiative reflected Assange's strategic use of Australian electoral laws, which allow absentee nominations for citizens abroad, to advance transparency reforms without direct return to .

Registration and Initial Organization

The WikiLeaks Party achieved formal registration as a federal political party with the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) on 2 July 2013, enabling it to appear on ballot papers for the upcoming federal election. The registration followed submission of an application demonstrating compliance with AEC requirements, including at least 500 members enrolled on the who were not affiliated with other registered parties. The application was lodged under the name of Gail Malone, a WikiLeaks supporter and member of the party's nascent national committee, who served as the initial registered officer. , the founder of the organization, publicly positioned himself as the party's chairman and announced plans to contest a seat for , leveraging the party's formation to advocate for government transparency amid his ongoing asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in . Initial organizational efforts centered on rapid candidate recruitment and platform development to meet the 7 September 2013 election timeline, with the party establishing a provisional structure headquartered in Victoria and emphasizing whistleblower protections and measures as foundational principles. By late July 2013, the party had endorsed seven candidates across , Victoria, and , drawing from individuals aligned with ' ethos of information disclosure. This setup reflected a mobilization, though constrained by the short timeframe and Assange's inability to campaign in person due to legal restrictions.

Ideology and Policy Platform

Core Principles of Transparency and Accountability

The WikiLeaks Party positioned transparency as a foundational principle, advocating for the systematic disclosure of government and corporate information to expose , , and undue . Drawing from ' model of publishing censored documents, the party committed to enhancing public access to classified materials that demonstrate wrongdoing, arguing that enables unaccountable decision-making by elites. This stance was articulated during the party's launch on July 25, 2013, where founder stated that the platform would extend ' disclosure practices across all policy domains to promote justice through informed public scrutiny. Accountability was framed as a direct consequence of enforced transparency, with the party pledging to protect whistleblowers from retaliation and to laws that shield officials from consequences for misleading the public or engaging in misconduct. It supported strengthening Australia's Freedom of Information Act to reduce exemptions and delays, enabling citizens to demand from elected representatives on issues like and . Party documents and candidate statements emphasized that politicians should face legal repercussions for deliberate falsehoods, positioning the party as a check against governmental opacity rather than a traditional governing entity. These principles were not merely aspirational but tied to specific electoral pledges, such as mandating transparency in asylum processing and opposing laws that undermine and oversight. Critics within the party, including resigning members, acknowledged the commitment to these ideals but highlighted implementation challenges, such as centralized decision-making that risked contradicting transparency goals. Nonetheless, the platform consistently prioritized empirical exposure of facts over ideological conformity, aiming to empower voters with verifiable to enforce accountability.

Specific Policy Positions

The WikiLeaks Party advocated for foreign policies grounded in and , emphasizing prior to escalation and positioning as a responsible participant in global affairs. It supported maintaining alliances, including with the , provided they incorporated transparency and adhered to protections, while cautioning against involvement in unauthorized actions. The party proposed increasing defense expenditures to safeguard Australian sovereignty amid shifting international power dynamics. On , the party committed to limiting global temperature rises to under 2°C above pre-industrial levels through Australian contributions, addressing unburned reserves to avert severe warming, and tackling secrecy and corruption within sectors. It pledged support for initiatives and a managed transition away from dependency, prioritizing community impacts. Regarding asylum seekers, the party criticized misleading narratives from major parties and highlighted Australia's relatively low global intake. Policies included reversing the arrangement to send asylum seekers to , mandating onshore processing in , limiting detention to 45 days unless judicially extended, and abolishing the excision of territories from migration zones. It also endorsed human rights-oriented foreign policies to reduce outflows at their origins. In media policy, the party opposed privatization of public broadcasters such as the ABC and SBS, while favoring incentives for non-profit media outlets and an innovation fund for Australian content production. Initial focuses also encompassed taxation reforms and broader accountability measures, though detailed platforms in these areas remained under development during the 2013 campaign.

Electoral Participation

2013 Federal Election Campaign

The WikiLeaks Party registered with the Australian Electoral Commission on July 2, 2013, allowing it to participate in the federal election held on September 7, 2013. The party focused its campaign on seats in three states: Victoria, , and , emphasizing government accountability, press freedom, transparency in asylum policies, and limits on to 45 days. On July 25, 2013, , speaking from the Ecuadorian embassy in , announced the party's candidates. In Victoria, Assange headed the ticket, followed by ethicist Dr. Leslie Cannold and researcher Dr. Binoy Kampmark. fielded lawyer and human rights activist Kellie Tranter as lead, with academic and journalist Dr. Alison Broinowski. nominated researcher and activist Gerry Georgatos first, alongside disability advocate Suresh Rajan. Assange positioned the party as an "insurance against the election," prioritizing transparency and challenging major parties on issues like the Labor government's opaque asylum arrangements. The campaign encountered significant internal challenges in August 2013, when Cannold resigned as Victoria's lead candidate after Assange, citing undemocratic processes and dissatisfaction with preference deals that directed votes to parties she viewed as far-right rather than the Greens. Assange acknowledged over-delegating amid distractions like the asylum case and described the issues as "teething problems" for the nascent party, though the lodged preferences could not be altered. Despite these setbacks, the party secured no Senate seats, garnering 0.62% of the national first-preference vote with about two-thirds of ballots counted. Its strongest performance was in Victoria at 1.18%, followed by 0.8% in and 0.71% in . Assange deemed the result a "pretty good outcome" for a new party without substantial funding, surpassing several micro-parties and second only to Clive Palmer's Palmer United Party among newcomers, and vowed to continue the effort with potential future bids.

Voting Irregularities and Preference Flows

The WikiLeaks Party faced significant internal over its group voting tickets for the 2013 federal election, particularly in and , where preferences were allocated to minor parties including right-wing groups such as the Shooters and Fishers Party and the Outdoor Recreation Party. These deals, registered with the Australian Electoral Commission prior to polling day on September 7, 2013, were criticized by party members for potentially directing votes to entities viewed as incompatible with the party's transparency-focused platform, prompting accusations of strategic miscalculation amid the optional preferential voting system's reliance on above-the-line group tickets. attributed some allocations to an "administrative error," though leaked communications indicated his direct involvement in negotiations. The disputes escalated when high-profile resignations followed, including that of Victorian Leslie Cannold on August 21, 2013, who cited the preference arrangements as undermining the party's integrity and alienating supporters. Four members of the National Council also stepped down, highlighting divisions over whether the deals prioritized electability through micro-party alliances—a common tactic in races—or compromised core principles. No evidence emerged of irregularities in the formal registration or execution of these tickets by the Electoral Commission, but the fallout contributed to perceptions of organizational disarray during the campaign. In terms of actual preference flows post-election, the party's low primary vote limited its impact; it secured approximately 0.62% of the national first-preference vote, with its strongest performance in Victoria at around 1%. Candidates, including Assange as the lead in Victoria (though he did not physically campaign due to his embassy confinement), were eliminated early in the count across states, resulting in their preferences distributing according to the registered tickets but exerting negligible influence on final seat outcomes amid the dominance of major parties and established minors like the Greens. For instance, in , where the party polled 0.75%, subsequent preferences flowed to aligned micro-parties but did not alter the contested results later voided due to unrelated ballot mishandling by the Electoral Commission. No party-specific voting irregularities, such as fraud or miscounts, were reported or investigated concerning the Party's ballot handling or scrutiny.

Post-2013 Electoral Efforts

Following the 2013 federal election, the WikiLeaks Party's subsequent electoral activities were limited primarily to an aborted effort in the Western Australia Senate re-run on April 5, 2014, necessitated by printing errors and lost ballot papers in the original 2013 vote. Julian Assange had expressed intent to contest the re-run as the party's lead Senate candidate for Western Australia, aiming to secure a position that might offer parliamentary immunity amid his legal challenges. However, Assange's candidacy was replaced by rights campaigner Gerry Georgatos, who withdrew on March 14, 2014, shortly before the election, citing concerns over party processes, preference deals, and internal disagreements, leaving the party without a viable contender in that race. The party fielded no candidates in subsequent state or federal elections, including the or the 2016 federal election. Ongoing internal conflicts, candidate resignations, and organizational challenges following the 2013 campaign contributed to diminished capacity for broader participation. By mid-2015, the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) initiated a of the party's registration due to failure to provide evidence of the required 1,500 members, resulting in deregistration on July 23, 2015. This action, based on administrative criteria under the Commonwealth Electoral Act , effectively ended the party's eligibility to nominate candidates in future Australian elections. The deregistration reflected the party's inability to sustain support or organizational post-2013, despite initial ambitions for ongoing transparency-focused through electoral means.

Internal Dynamics and Leadership

Key Figures and Roles

, founder of , held the position of chairman of the WikiLeaks Party and served as its lead Senate candidate for Victoria in the 2013 federal election, directing the party's formation and strategy remotely from the Ecuadorian embassy in . Greg Barns, a with prior experience as a Liberal Party staffer and head of the Australian Republican Movement, was appointed national campaign director on April 1, 2013, responsible for coordinating policy platforms on issues including , refugees, and taxation, as well as managing the electoral bid. John Shipton, Julian Assange's father and an architect by profession, functioned as party secretary, with primary duties encompassing efforts and recruiting unpaid volunteers to support party operations. Gail Malone, a peace activist based in , sat on the national council and submitted the application that secured the party's formal registration with the Australian Electoral Commission on July 2, 2013, enabling it to endorse candidates. The national council, which oversaw governance, also featured other members such as Sam Castro, who commented on contingency plans for Assange's potential inability to assume a seat if elected.

Membership and Organizational Challenges

The WikiLeaks Party achieved initial registration with the Australian Electoral Commission on July 2, 2013, meeting the minimum threshold of 500 verified members required for minor parties under electoral laws. However, sustaining and expanding this base proved difficult amid rapid internal turbulence, as the party's structure relied heavily on Julian Assange's remote leadership from the Ecuadorian embassy in , which constrained development and . Early organizational challenges manifested in August 2013 through high-profile resignations, including Victorian Senate candidate Leslie Cannold and four National Council members, triggered by disputes over candidate selection and preference negotiations with other parties. dismissed these as "teething problems" inherent to a new entity's formation, while former member Daniel Mathews cited deeper flaws in the party's internal politics, including opaque power dynamics between a small leadership cadre and broader membership. Such exits eroded organizational cohesion, with critics noting a lack of formalized processes for member input, exacerbating perceptions of top-down control. Membership efforts included proposals for an international "supporter class" to leverage global sympathy, but domestic retention lagged, as post-election and infighting deterred sustained engagement. Assange claimed resignations indirectly boosted sign-ups through heightened , yet the party failed to demonstrate ongoing viability. By July 23, 2015, the Australian Electoral Commission deregistered the party, explicitly citing insufficient member numbers to maintain active status, reflecting chronic organizational fragility rather than electoral failure alone.

Controversies and Criticisms

Internal Conflicts and Candidate Departures

In August 2013, the WikiLeaks Party experienced significant internal discord during its preparations for the federal election, primarily centered on disputes over candidate and preference allocation. Leslie Cannold, positioned as the second candidate for Victoria behind , resigned on August 21, citing the party's failure to adhere to its own democratic processes and lack of transparency in decision-making. Cannold alleged that party officials overrode a vote favoring her preferences, instead directing preferences toward minor parties including Protectionist Party and the Citizens Electoral Council without broader consultation, which she viewed as inconsistent with the party's transparency ethos. This move reportedly aimed to maximize vote flows but alienated candidates who prioritized alignment with progressive values over strategic deals with nationalist or fringe groups. Concurrently, Daniel Mathews, a and member of the party's national council who had known Assange since university, also resigned on August 21, 2013, echoing concerns about undemocratic overrides of candidate preferences and insufficient internal accountability. Mathews described the preference decisions as imposed top-down, bypassing the input of endorsed candidates and party members, which undermined the Party's foundational commitment to openness. These departures highlighted broader tensions between Assange's strategic electoral tactics—such as forging alliances with less conventional parties to secure seats—and the expectations of recruits drawn to the party's , transparency-focused platform. Julian Assange acknowledged responsibility for the fallout on August 22, 2013, attributing it to "teething problems" in the nascent party's operations rather than systemic flaws, while defending the preference strategy as necessary for competitiveness in Australia's preferential voting system. Reports indicated potential for further resignations among other candidates, though Cannold and Mathews' exits were the most publicly documented, contributing to perceptions of organizational instability just weeks before the September 7 polling day. No major candidate departures were recorded post-2013, as the party's electoral activities waned, but the 2013 infighting foreshadowed ongoing challenges in maintaining cohesion among ideologically diverse members.

Allegations of Foreign Influence

In December 2013, shortly after its formation, members of the WikiLeaks Party, including John Shipton (father of founder ), traveled to and met with Syrian President amid the ongoing . During the visit, Shipton announced plans to establish a party office in to demonstrate solidarity with "ordinary Syrians" and oppose Western military intervention, actions that aligned with positions held by Assad's regime and its allies, including and . Australian federal opposition spokespersons, including critic , condemned the trip as "irresponsible" and potentially damaging to Australia's interests, arguing it legitimized a regime accused of widespread atrocities. publicly distanced himself and from the delegation, stating the organization had no prior knowledge or approval of the initiative, though the party itself proceeded independently. The Syria engagement fueled broader allegations that the party was susceptible to influence from authoritarian regimes antagonistic to Western governments, given Assad's documented alliances with (which vetoed UN resolutions against him) and . Critics, including media outlets, highlighted the trip as part of a where WikiLeaks-associated entities echoed narratives beneficial to , such as resistance to actions. In April 2014, party members conducted a second aid-focused mission to and , distributing supplies in and engaging local communities, which further drew scrutiny for prioritizing outreach to governments isolated by . No public evidence emerged of direct financial support or operational control from Syrian, Russian, or Iranian entities, and party representatives framed the activities as humanitarian and transparency rather than foreign-aligned politicking. Parallel concerns arose from Assange's pre-existing media ties to , including hosting The World Tomorrow interview series on RT (Russia Today), a Kremlin-funded broadcaster, starting in 2012—overlapping with the party's launch. Appearances on RT, where Assange interviewed figures critical of U.S. , led some observers to allege indirect Russian influence on the party's ideological direction, positing that such platforms could serve as conduits for state narratives. Assange rejected these claims, asserting the engagements promoted diverse viewpoints and free expression without compromising independence. (ASIO) monitoring of predated the party but extended to related activities, though no formal investigations or findings specifically targeting the party for foreign interference were disclosed during its operational period from 2013 to 2015. The absence of verified funding trails or links underscores that allegations rested largely on associational inferences rather than empirical proof of causation.

Associations with Controversial Regimes and Propaganda

In December , a delegation from the WikiLeaks Party, including party chairman John Shipton and academic Tim Anderson, met with Syrian President and other high-ranking officials in as part of a self-described "peace and reconciliation" initiative aimed at expressing with the Syrian , opposing Western military intervention, and advocating for negotiated resolutions to the ongoing . The visit occurred amid Australia's travel advisory against non-essential trips to due to escalating violence and security risks, with the delegation posting photographs of their meeting with Assad on . Shipton stated the group intended to expose truths to Australian and international audiences and planned to establish an office in Damascus the following year. WikiLeaks, the organization affiliated with the party's founding principles, publicly distanced itself from the trip, stating it had no prior knowledge or approval of the delegation's actions, amid broader that the meetings provided undue legitimacy to Assad's , which faced international accusations of war crimes and chemical weapons use at the time. The Party defended the engagement, with national councillor Daoud, a Syrian-Australian activist involved in related activities, asserting the visit countered "" from by relaying information obtained from Syrian sources. Critics, including commentators in Australian media, described the outreach as a misguided public relations effort that overlooked documented atrocities in , such as the earlier that year which killed hundreds. In April 2014, WikiLeaks Party members announced a second trip to Syria, combined with a visit to Iran, to distribute humanitarian aid and organize activities for children in Damascus, framing the missions as support for "ordinary people" amid conflict. These engagements drew further scrutiny for associating the party with governments in Syria and Iran, both designated by Western nations as state sponsors of terrorism and human rights abusers during this period, though the party maintained the trips were non-partisan efforts for transparency and peace. No evidence emerged of direct financial or operational ties to these regimes, but the initiatives fueled allegations of ideological alignment with anti-Western narratives propagated by such governments.

Funding and Financial Operations

Fundraising Strategies and Obstacles

The WikiLeaks Party relied primarily on membership fees and public donations for fundraising, with Australian membership set at $20 per year, attracting approximately 2,000 paying members by mid-2013. To broaden its base amid global interest in , the party proposed a "supporter class" membership tier for non-Australians, aiming to convert international sympathy into financial support without violating Australian electoral laws on foreign donations. Donations were solicited through conventional channels like credit cards and , as well as , including , reflecting the party's alignment with advocates; by August 2013, it had raised about $49,000 toward a $700,000 target for fielding candidates in the federal election. Significant obstacles hampered these efforts, including banking restrictions tied to Assange's legal troubles; in June 2013, blocked his transfer of a $25,000 award from intended for the party, citing compliance with U.S. financial regulations amid pressures on entities associated with . Australian electoral law at the time permitted foreign-sourced donations above $12,100 with disclosure but imposed strict reporting for third parties like the pre-registered entity, complicating international inflows and exposing it to scrutiny over provenance. Proposed reforms to the Commonwealth Electoral Act in 2013 threatened outright bans on foreign donations and lowered thresholds, potentially barring contributions from Assange if routed through overseas accounts or WikiLeaks.org, further limiting options given his embassy confinement in . The party's controversial associations and internal divisions, including candidate resignations over stances, likely deterred mainstream donors, contributing to persistently low totals that fell short of operational needs for sustained campaigning.

Issues with Fund Allocation and Transparency

The WikiLeaks Party faced constraints in fund acquisition that indirectly impacted allocation, stemming from longstanding financial blockades against and its founder, . Major payment processors including Visa, , , and had ceased facilitating transfers to WikiLeaks since December 2010, complicating the party's ability to channel international support into Australian-compliant funds. In June 2013, blocked a $25,000 donation intended from Assange to the party, as reported in Australian media, limiting early capital for operational setup and campaign preparations. Australian electoral laws further restricted funding options, prohibiting foreign-sourced donations and requiring disclosures for contributions exceeding $12,100, which precluded direct support from Assange if he lacked an active Australian at the time. The party's target of $700,000 for the 2013 federal election reflected ambitious goals, but actual amounts raised remained modest and were primarily allocated to candidate nominations, basic administrative costs, and limited advertising, with no public evidence of significant surpluses or reallocations post-election. Transparency concerns arose from the party's online donation portal, which advertised contributor despite legal mandates for disclosing large donations in annual returns to the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC). This representation potentially misled potential donors about privacy protections, as third-party campaign entities like the pre-registered were subject to inspection of returns covering receipts over the threshold. While the party submitted required donor and financial returns as a registered entity—listed among compliant parties in AEC forms—no independent audits or controversies over non-disclosure emerged, though the opacity of exact expenditure breakdowns in narratives fueled broader critiques of operational accountability amid internal turmoil.

Decline and Deregistration

Factors Leading to Inactivity

The WikiLeaks Party experienced significant internal discord following its participation in the , where candidates resigned citing poor organization, lack of communication with founder , and disagreements over preference flows to other parties. These early fractures eroded member trust and recruitment efforts, as evidenced by public statements from departing figures like candidate Leslie Cannold, who alleged impropriety in decision-making processes. Assange's ongoing legal constraints further hampered operations; confined to the Ecuadorian embassy in from onward due to extradition fears, he could not provide hands-on leadership or public engagement in , limiting the party's visibility and momentum. This absence contributed to stagnant growth, with the party unable to capitalize on its founder's profile amid his personal battles, including Swedish sexual assault allegations (dropped in 2019) and U.S. espionage charges. By 2015, these cumulative issues manifested in critically low membership numbers, failing to meet the Australian Electoral Commission's requirement of at least 500 enrolled members for sustained registration. The AEC issued notices under section 137 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, to which the party did not adequately respond by demonstrating compliance, leading to deregistration on , 2015. Post-deregistration, no significant revival efforts materialized, as resources shifted toward Assange's individual defense rather than party rebuilding.

Deregistration Process and Immediate Aftermath

The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) initiated the deregistration process for the WikiLeaks Party under section 137(1) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, which requires parties to provide evidence of maintaining at least 500 members eligible to vote in federal elections. The AEC issued a formal notice to the party demanding verification of its membership, but the WikiLeaks Party failed to respond adequately, triggering automatic deregistration under section 137(4) for non-compliance. This process reflects standard AEC oversight to ensure only active parties with genuine support retain registration, as inactive or under-membred entities cannot contest federal elections. On July 23, 2015, the AEC formally announced the deregistration, stating that the party, originally registered on July 1, 2013, no longer met eligibility criteria due to insufficient verifiable members. The decision followed an revealing the party's inability to sustain the required membership threshold, a common trigger for minor parties facing internal decline. In immediate response, representatives of the WikiLeaks Party contested the AEC's verification methods, claiming the relied on outdated that hindered proper member . No or re-registration application was pursued in the following period, effectively ending the party's formal status and electoral participation. The deregistration aligned with broader AEC actions against similarly inactive entities, with no reported legal challenges or public campaigns mounted by party leadership in the ensuing months.

Legacy and Impact

Achievements in Raising Awareness

The WikiLeaks Party's formation in July 2013 and its nomination of as a candidate for the Australian Senate drew widespread media attention to Assange's ongoing legal battles, including his refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in and potential to the on charges related to ' publications. This candidacy, intended to secure , highlighted risks to publishers and whistleblowers, framing Assange's case as a test of Australia's commitment to freedom of expression amid alliance pressures. Coverage in outlets such as and ABC News amplified debates on the balance between and journalistic protections, contributing to public discourse on government secrecy. By fielding seven Senate candidates across New South Wales, Victoria, and Western Australia in the September 7, 2013, federal election, the party promoted a platform centered on governmental and corporate transparency, safeguards, and accountability measures. These efforts, though yielding limited votes, introduced ' emphasis on information into electoral , prompting scrutiny of policies like mandatory and foreign influence in domestic affairs. Founder John Shipton's public addresses, such as a July 2013 event focused on transparency, further engaged on these themes. The party's campaign also spotlighted broader transparency deficits revealed by ' prior disclosures, including Australian involvement in regional and diplomatic maneuvers, fostering awareness of how allied intelligence-sharing compromised rights. While electoral outcomes were modest, with no seats won, the initiative sustained momentum for subsequent advocacy on whistleblower protections, influencing cross-party parliamentary efforts years later to address similar issues in Assange's saga.

Criticisms and Broader Political Influence

The WikiLeaks Party faced significant internal criticisms during its 2013 federal election campaign, particularly over preference deals that contradicted stated commitments to transparency and member input. In , the party directed preferences to micro-parties including the Shooters and Fishers Party and Australia First ahead of the Greens, despite National Council decisions to prioritize the latter; similar overrides occurred in , where Nationals were favored over Greens senator Scott Ludlam, breaching a prior agreement. These decisions, later attributed by to "administrative errors," were revealed through leaked emails to involve his direct input, prompting resignations from key figures including mathematician Daniel Mathews from the National Council and bioethicist Leslie Cannold as Victorian candidate, who cited failures in democratic processes and loss of credibility. The fallout included mass member exits, volunteer attrition, and electoral underperformance, with the party securing no seats despite fielding candidates in multiple states and receiving under 1% of first-preference votes in key contests like . Further controversy arose in December 2013 when a party delegation, including Assange's father John Shipton, academic Tim Anderson, and activists Jamal Daoud and Gail Malone, visited and met Syrian President and senior officials as part of a self-described "peace and reconciliation" mission. distanced itself, stating it had no prior knowledge or approval of the trip, which the party framed as fact-finding amid Syria's that had claimed over 126,000 lives by then. Australian Foreign Minister condemned the visit as "reckless," arguing it risked legitimizing a accused of war crimes, while Labor MP called it "extraordinary" and symptomatic of the party's fringe status; critics like journalist highlighted poor optics, suggesting the regime exploited the delegation for . The party's broader political influence in remained negligible, as its rapid internal crises and electoral failures underscored the challenges for nascent transparency-focused entities in a preferential voting system dominated by major parties. While it briefly amplified discourse on —aligning with ' core ethos of exposing —its platform of "transparency, , and " was undermined by opaque internal dealings, yielding no legislative seats or policy shifts. Post-2013, the party's deregistration in 2023 reflected its inability to sustain momentum, though Assange's personal profile indirectly spurred later cross-party Australian advocacy for his release in 2024, separate from the party's defunct structure. Critics argued it functioned more as a vehicle for Assange than a viable political force, diluting potential impact on whistleblower protections or freedom-of-information reforms.

References

  1. https://www.voanews.com/a/wikileaks-founder-to-run-for-political-office-in-australia-/1639925.html
  2. https://www.aec.gov.au/parties_and_representatives/party_registration/Deregistered_parties/wikileaks.htm
  3. https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-australia-wikileaks/assanges-wikileaks-runs-into-australian-election-troubles-idUKBRE97L0AH20130822/
  4. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-22/assange-blames-party-teething-problems/4904366
  5. https://delimiter.com.au/2015/07/24/wikileaks-party-deregistered-due-to-lack-of-members/
  6. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/julian-assange-make-senate-run-401960/
  7. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/feb/18/julian-assange-wikileaks-senate-victory
  8. https://www.aec.gov.au/Parties_and_Representatives/party_registration/Registration_Decisions/2013/5145.htm
  9. https://www.zdnet.com/article/wikileaks-party-registered-in-australia/
  10. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-25/assange-announces-wikileaks-party-election-candidates/4843582
  11. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-02/australian-electoral-commission-approves-wikileaks-party/4794986
  12. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/02/wikileaks-party-registered-australian-election
  13. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/wikileaks-approved-as-political-party-578568/
  14. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/07/wikileaks-party-officially-launches-in-australia-assange-to-run-for-senate/
  15. https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2013/7/25/wikileaks-party-to-contest-australia-polls
  16. https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/julian-assange-launches-wikileaks-party-via-videolink-from-london-20130725-2qlx7.html
  17. https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/wikileaks-party-s-foreign-policy-surprisingly-tame
  18. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/22/wikileaks-julian-assange
  19. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-21/wikileaks-senate-candidate-leslie-cannold-quits/4903084
  20. https://www.greenleft.org.au/2013/975/news/wikileaks-party-announces-candidates-policies
  21. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/08/election-2013-assange-wikileaks-party
  22. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/18/rightwing-parties-wikileaks-preferences
  23. https://theconversation.com/is-the-party-over-for-julian-assange-and-wikileaks-17354
  24. https://www.crikey.com.au/2013/08/30/revealed-assange-knee-deep-in-failed-wikileaks-preference-deals/
  25. https://results.aec.gov.au/17496/website/SenateStateFirstPrefsByGroup-17496-WA.htm
  26. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-04/wikileaks-julian-assange-wa-senate-recount-aec/5068548
  27. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-14/wikileaks-candidate-replacing-assange-in-wa-senate-withdraws/5319994
  28. https://delimiter.com.au/2013/08/22/wikileaks-party-implodes-candidates-quit/
  29. https://www.zdnet.com/article/wikileaks-party-deregistered-in-australia/
  30. https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/wikileaks-party-deregistered-says-aec-review-uses-old-technology/
  31. https://www.reuters.com/article/world/assange-appoints-wikileaks-party-campaign-director-for-australian-senate-bid-idUSBRE93102H/
  32. https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/wikileaks-party-appoints-barrister-campaign-director-20130401-2h35l.html
  33. https://www.theaustralian.com.au/weekend-australian-magazine/for-john-shipton-the-wikileaks-party-isnt-just-a-political-cause/news-story/d1dbd838b9035f495ebb0899a851c3b7
  34. https://laist.com/news/kpcc-archive/julian-assange-names-wikileaks-party-candidates
  35. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-02-21/raising-the-bar-on-nominating-for-the-2013-federal-election/9388118
  36. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/13/wikileaks-party-seeks-international-backing
  37. https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/senate-election-chances-are-good-assange/tr3j3sae1
  38. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/21/wikileaks-party-override-preference-deal
  39. https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/julian-assanges-wikileaks-party-running-mate-quits-team-20130821-2sb99.html
  40. https://www.danielmathews.info/2013/08/21/statement-of-resignation-from-wikileaks-party-national-council/
  41. https://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/wikileaks-party-candidate-quits/news-story/4414eec01052d668a2dddd3aa8bd331d
  42. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-31/wikileaks-meets-assad-in-syria/5180036
  43. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jan/01/meeting-assad-wikileaks-did-not-know
  44. https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/dncleak-five-times-wikileaks-and-russia-have-crossed-paths-20160728-gqfq8b.html
  45. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/04/wikileaks-party-returns-to-syria-in-mission-to-help-ordinary-people
  46. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-did-wikileaks-become-associated-with-russia/
  47. https://www.smh.com.au/national/asio-eye-on-wikileaks-20110522-1eyyt.html
  48. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/dec/30/wikileaks-party-members-reported-to-have-met-high-ranking-syrian-officials
  49. https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/wikileaks-party-defends-meeting-with-syrian-president/dk8xcjrdx
  50. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/14/wikileaks-partys-syria-visit-is-a-damaging-and-misguided-pr-coup
  51. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/politics/2013/10/julian-assange-hideout-ecuador
  52. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324021104578554430226145780
  53. https://andrewnorton.id.au/2013/06/07/the-wikileaks-partys-actual-and-potential-problems-with-campaign-finance-laws/
  54. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-12/wikileaks-party-gears-up-for-election-campaign/4815418
  55. https://aec.gov.au/Parties_and_Representatives/financial_disclosure/forms/files/2013/donor-return-individuals.pdf
  56. https://www.cnet.com/home/internet/wikileaks-party-falls-apart/
  57. https://www.aec.gov.au/Parties_and_Representatives/Party_Registration/
  58. https://www.aec.gov.au/parties_and_representatives/party_registration/Deregistered_parties/index.htm
  59. https://www.britannica.com/topic/WikiLeaks-Party
  60. https://www.greenleft.org.au/2013/973/news/special-event-wikileaks-party-founder-speaks-about-transparency
  61. https://www.reuters.com/article/world/assange-s-wikileaks-runs-into-australian-election-troubles-idUSBRE97L0A9/
  62. https://www.businessinsider.com/julian-assanges-wikileaks-party-underwhelm-everyone-with-australian-election-results-2013-9
  63. https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/wikileaks-party-defends-its-cup-of-tea-with-bashar-al-assad-20131231-304ne.html
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.