tip off

The ‘highly emotional and volatile’ world of the WikiLeaks Party

The “independent review” of the WikiLeaks Party’s disastrous preference allocations is in, and is mostly complaints about how a proper review couldn’t be done.

The aftermath of the WikiLeaks Party’s electoral debut reached a new and unexpected level of farce today when the party released its much-heralded “independent review” of the circumstances around its allocation of preferences in the lead-up to the September federal election.

The party announced the review in August after the uproar over its decision to allocate preferences to the Nationals ahead of the Greens in Western Australia and to direct preferences to the Shooters and Fishers Party and the far-Right Australia First Party ahead of the Greens in New South Wales. The party subsequently blamed an “administrative error” for the debacle, which prompted a spate of resignations from key figures, including the party’s No. 2 Senate candidate in Victoria, Dr Leslie Cannold.

Today, the “review” has finally been released, via email to members. It was conducted by Stuart Bell of Bell Campbell Auditing, a WikiLeaks Party member approached by John Shipton, Julian Assange’s father, to conduct the audit. The review is six pages long, including the cover page and an attachment. In it, Bell complains that his conduct of the review was “limited” by his “inability or access to all relevant information and WLP personnel, especially where there has been a severe fall-out over the 2013 preferencing issues in NSW and WA”.

Bell had not been able to interview anyone except for Shipton, but says he took written submissions or phone calls from other key figures like Greg Barns. Bell also laments “limited or no access to WLP official transcripts, minutes of National Council meetings and official emails/correspondence”, which forced him to accept the word of those he interviewed. However, Bell rejected the “administrative error” claim by the party:

It cannot be shown that it was an ‘administrative error’, based on the electronic and verbal hyper-activity by the National Council members … It was a combination of human errors caused by a highly emotional and volatile atmosphere, where a number of key WLP members were instrumental in causing confusion, not from malicious intent but due to a lack of defined responsibilities.”

Bell goes on to recommend that the party make its preference allocation decisions earlier and that someone formally be given the job of overseeing the allocation process. Party secretary Matt Watt said in the email accompanying the review this morning:

[T]he circumstances of the 2013 Federal Election Group Voting Tickets have triggered a need to re-examine what the party does and determine how it can improve further. A promise to learn — a commitment to act: The WikiLeaks Party will analyse and evaluate the findings from the internal review and ensure that improvements are made.”

At three-and-a-half pages of actual text, evaluation shouldn’t take too long.

8
  • 1
    Ian
    Posted Friday, 7 February 2014 at 1:26 pm | Permalink

    I think the preference deals exposed the party for what it really is, yet another right wing party but one that does believe in government transparency. It had a real chance of making a difference but blew it; pity.

  • 2
    AR
    Posted Friday, 7 February 2014 at 3:24 pm | Permalink

    As the President-for-Life of the Anarchist party once said,a Wikileaks Party should be so transparent as to be invisible. Hope that is soon so that people can focus on the real threats to peace & freedom revealed by the leaks and bid farewell to the bloated oligarchy the organisation has become.

  • 3
    Malcolm Street
    Posted Friday, 7 February 2014 at 3:26 pm | Permalink

    ” Bell also laments “limited or no access to WLP official transcripts, minutes of National Council meetings and official emails/correspondence”, which forced him to accept the word of those he interviewed.”

    So the Wikileaks Party is suddenly unwilling to have its own internal documents released? Cue irony alert…

    Ian - it makes clear that they are a party of the libertarian Right rather than the Left.

  • 4
    David Penington
    Posted Friday, 7 February 2014 at 3:32 pm | Permalink

    Not only won’t it release its documents to the public, it won’t even release them to its own internal review. So non-transparent. A labyrinthine libertarian party.

  • 5
    Steven Grant Haby
    Posted Friday, 7 February 2014 at 7:29 pm | Permalink

    Wikileaks? Zzzz lead by an egotistic. Practise what you preach you hypocrites… Disgusting.

  • 6
    Ian
    Posted Friday, 7 February 2014 at 9:11 pm | Permalink

    Malcolm,

    I’m not sure what libertarian really means. Like all political terms it has a broad range of meanings but the main thing I associate it with is small government, low taxes and basically everyone for themselves.

    It also neglects the problem of externalities and relies on people doing the right thing or being forced by the market to do the right thing. To this I would reply; what makes you think a society based on the philosophy of individual responsibility and the market to prosper will look after the needs of others or the environment? Its a philosophy of survival of the fittest.

  • 7
    Dubious Virtue
    Posted Monday, 10 February 2014 at 8:59 am | Permalink

    The funny thing about this is WikiLeaks supporters will still wet their undies at how great WikiLeaks is and it should be supported. Their votes will still be wasted and end up in the moist hands of some single issue wacko party.

  • 8
    Julia Gollan
    Posted Monday, 10 February 2014 at 11:50 am | Permalink

    It’s laughable advocating for transparency but providing this kind of lip service to a review of conduct. The entire wikileaks edifice should be humiliated by the behaviour of Assange and Shipton.

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...