John Shipton

The party's campaign was thrown into turmoil just weeks before the 2013 election when members objected strongly to the party's voting preferences (see single transferable vote).[12] In New South Wales, a fascist group 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. According to the Sydney Morning Herald, 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.[13][14][15]

According to Assange's running mate Leslie Cannold, 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.[15][16] 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".[17]

When National Council members complained, CEO John Shipton attempted to go around them and create a new power base.[18][15][16] Leslie Cannold, Assange's running mate in Victoria, resigned along with four other members of the National Council and several key volunteers.[18][15][19] Cannold said she could not remain a candidate 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".[16][20] Julian Assange responded said "I’m not sure I’d call it chaos, although of course it [the resignations] is a significant event".[21][20] Alison Broinowski said she talked to John Shipton and decided the decisions were a mistake and that "no skulduggery was in evidence".[20] Shipton called the National Council "raving fucking lunatics" and threatened legal action.[22]

In December 2013, a delegation from the WikiLeaks Party, including its chairman John Shipton, visited Syria and met with President Bashar al-Assad 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.[5][6] 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.[23][24]

The meeting with Assad was criticized by the Australian Prime Minister, Foreign Minister,[6][25][26] Syrian activists[27] and WikiLeaks supporters.[28] The visit was also criticised by the Federal Opposition, including independent experts, the Greens and senior members of Labor.[6][25][29] 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.[30] 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.[31][32][33] WikiLeaks said it "did not know or approve" of the visit.[6]

In December 2013, Shipton said he wanted to open an office for the WikiLeaks Party in Syria.[33][27][34] According to Shipton, he asked Syrian journalists to become their Damascus "transparency office" and send back "proper information" about the conflict, but said in April those plans were scraped and the focus was shifted to Kiev.[26] In April 2014, Shipton said those plans were scraped and the focus was shifted to Kiev.[35] 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.[35]

In March 2014, Jamal Daoud said that the WikiLeaks National Council was denied access to the WikiLeaks 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.[36]