FriendlyJordies: Comedian needs government’s help in legal battle with deputy premier

A comedian has urged the NSW government to pass legislation so he can defend himself in his Federal Court battle with Deputy Premier John Barilaro.

YouTube comedian FriendlyJordies has urged NSW parliament to pass legislation so that he can defend himself in his legal stoush with NSW Deputy Premier John Barilaro.

Mr Barilaro is suing Jordan Shanks, known as FriendlyJordies, in the Federal Court over two videos which he claims defamed him in “vile and racist” attacks which portrayed him as a “corrupt conman”.

Mr Shanks has raised more than $1m for his legal defence as he seeks to defend the matter in a trial before a jury.

The Monaro MP is suing over a list of comments made by Mr Shanks, including regarding the awarding of a $3.3 million grant to a Batemans Bay oyster farm in 2018.

Mr Shanks’ barrister, Matthew Collins, said his defence would rely on comments made by Mr Barilaro during a parliamentary hearing which were covered by parliamentary privilege.

He says he cannot present the requisite evidence unless parliamentary privilege is waived.

In the videos, Mr Shanks claims Mr Barilaro perjured himself on nine occasions before the committee and ought to be jailed.

Mr Collins told Justice Steven Rares that Mr Barilaro had repeatedly said under oath that the Jobs For NSW board was responsible for green-lighting the grant and the decision had been made at arm’s length from the government.

Jordan Shanks, who interviewed then-NSW Labor leader Jodi McKay in one video, is being sued by NSW Deputy Premier John Barilaro. Picture: YouTube

However, he said Mr Barilaro’s claims were undermined by a letter sent by Jobs For NSW to Mr Barilaro seeking his approval for the $3.3 million grant.

Mr Collins says Mr Shanks could only plead his defence if parliamentary privilege was waived for the comments made by Mr Barilaro before the committee on September 4, 2018.

“Mr Barilaro had pleaded two imputations which we cannot defend because of parliamentary privilege,” Mr Collins said.

“We say that is an abuse … In our submission, these proceedings, in terms of those two imputations, must be stopped unless and until Mr Shanks is allowed to rely on material which is subject of privilege.”

NSW Deputy Premier John Barilaro claims two FriendlyJordies videos falsely portrayed him as corrupt. Photo: Mick Tsikas / Getty Images

Mr Collins argued that unless parliamentary privilege is waived, the proceedings should be stayed in regards to Mr Shanks’ commentary on the matter.

However, the court heard that in order for parliamentary privilege to be waived, it would require NSW parliament to pass new legislation.

Mr Collins argued that Mr Barilaro ought to use his position to push through the bill so that Mr Shanks could defend himself.

Mr Barilaro’s barrister, Sue Chrysanthou, rubbished the argument, saying it should not be on her client to help rush legislation through parliament.

“They’ve written us a letter saying well, Mr Barilaro, you should go to parliament if you can’t waive it yourself,” Ms Chrysanthou said.

“We’re not the ones trying to tender the evidence. He is.

“Mr Collins says it’s pretty easy, you just have to approach parliament, get them to pass legislation. No problem. Why doesn’t Mr Shanks do that, then?”

Mr Barilaro’s lawyers appeared in court on Friday, asking for sections of Mr Shanks’ defence to be struck out.

Deputy Premier John Barilaro says FriendlyJordies defamed him by falsely portraying him as a corrupt conman and stating that he should be in jail. Picture: Dean Lewins / AAP Image

In his defence, Mr Shanks cites numerous examples of what he describes as corrupt conduct, including the approval of a $47 million arts grant project, $44 million of which went to Coalition electorates.

He also pointed to the awarding of a $78,000 grant to the Monaro Panthers Rugby League Club, of which Mr Barilaro is a former president.

Ms Chrysanthou described parts of Mr Shanks’ defence as “absolute rubbish”.

She said that Mr Barilaro could not have perjured himself at the committee hearing, where he talked about the awarding of the grant to the oyster farm, because he was not under any oath at the time.

“That is hopeless and cannot be maintained,” Ms Chrysanthou said of Mr Shanks’ defence.

Justice Rares reserved his decision.