In the early hours of Wednesday, November 23, 2022, the quiet of a residential street in the Sydney suburb of Bondi was shattered by the eruption of a violent fire. Just after 12:20 AM, emergency services were dispatched to a property that was quickly becoming engulfed in flames. Fire crews arrived to find the veranda of the house "well alight," with the blaze rapidly spreading.1 The ensuing fire caused significant damage not only to the primary residence but also to the adjoining property. As a precaution, police evacuated neighbouring houses while firefighters battled the inferno.1
The target of the attack was the home of Jordan Shanks-Markovina, an independent journalist and political commentator known to millions by his online moniker, "Friendlyjordies." At the time of the fire, the house was vacant, and no injuries were reported.2 However, the deliberate and destructive nature of the act immediately pointed away from a random incident. Police established a crime scene, and specialist officers began an examination, treating the fire as suspicious from the outset.1
This was not the first such event on the street that week. The November 23rd blaze was, in fact, the second attempt to set fire to Shanks' residence. Six days earlier, on November 17, 2022, an initial arson attempt had been made, but the perpetrators had mistakenly targeted the home of his next-door neighbour.3 This first, failed attack provides critical context, establishing a clear pattern of targeted, persistent, and escalating criminal intent directed specifically at Shanks.
The response from Shanks' legal representatives was swift and unequivocal. In a public statement, the law firm Xenophon Davis declared that their client's home had been "firebombed".1 They called for "every possible police resource" to be dedicated to the investigation, pointedly suggesting the matter might warrant a "Strike Force focused upon terrorism and attempted homicide rather than dangerous jokes".3 This statement deliberately framed the incident not as simple arson, but as a grave assault with profound implications for public safety and democratic freedoms.
The destruction of a journalist's home through a deliberate act of arson on Australian soil is an event of profound significance. It immediately raises a series of urgent questions that form the basis of this investigative report. What sequence of events, what specific journalistic acts, could provoke such a violent and extreme reaction? Who were the individuals and organisations with the motive and means to carry out such an attack? What does this incident reveal about the intersection of political power, corporate interests, and organised crime in modern Australia? And, most critically, what are the consequences for freedom of the press and public accountability when journalism is met not with debate or legal challenge, but with fire? This report seeks to answer these questions by meticulously reconstructing the timeline of events, profiling the key actors involved, and analysing the systemic vulnerabilities that this case so starkly illuminates. The attack on Jordan Shanks' home represents more than a criminal act; it is a calculated act of violent censorship, an attempt to silence a critical voice through brute force. Its success or failure, and the response of the state, carries implications that extend far beyond a single burned-out house in Bondi.
To understand the motive behind the firebombing, one must first understand the target. Jordan Shanks-Markovina, born August 18, 1989, is an unlikely figure to find at the center of a nexus involving high-level politics and organised crime. A graduate of the Newtown High School of the Performing Arts and holding a Bachelor of International Studies from the University of New South Wales, his early career was as a model in Australia and Southeast Asia.5 However, it was through his YouTube channel, "friendlyjordies," created in February 2013, that he would build a platform and a public profile that made him both influential and a target.
The friendlyjordies channel, which has amassed over a million subscribers and hundreds of millions of views, is a unique hybrid of comedy, political commentary, and, increasingly, investigative journalism.5 Shanks' signature style employs what he describes as "lowbrow humour," replete with Australian slang, memes, and satirical character impersonations, as a vehicle to deliver dense, complex analysis of political and social issues.5 This approach has proven remarkably effective at engaging a younger demographic, particularly men aged 18-35, who are often disengaged from mainstream political discourse.8 Shanks has stated that a primary goal is to combat the perception that politics is boring, a perception he argues is cultivated by established media interests.9
He has described his role not as a traditional journalist but as a "mouthpiece for independent journalists," amplifying the work of others and synthesizing it into accessible, long-form video essays.9 This model bypasses the structural constraints of traditional media outlets, such as reliance on advertisers, limited airtime, and editorial oversight that can dilute confrontational reporting. By funding his work through direct audience support, merchandise sales, and live tours, Shanks maintains an editorial independence that allows him to pursue stories and targets with a tenacity that many mainstream outlets might find untenable due to legal or commercial pressures. This direct-to-audience distribution model makes him a potent disruptor of traditional information control. Powerful figures and corporations, accustomed to managing their public image through established media relationships and the threat of defamation lawsuits against resource-constrained newsrooms, are faced with a different kind of adversary: a financially independent commentator with a large, loyal audience and a demonstrated willingness to absorb legal challenges. This forces those who wish to suppress his reporting to consider more extreme measures when conventional tactics fail.
Shanks' political alignment is explicitly and unapologetically left-leaning. His content is frequently supportive of the Australian Labor Party and highly critical of the Liberal-National Coalition.5 He has stated his primary goal for his viewers is simple: "Vote Labor".9 In his early career, he actively sought and produced paid content for organisations such as the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), GetUp!, and Greenpeace.5 He has also conducted interviews with numerous high-profile Labor politicians, including former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.5 This clear partisan stance is a defining feature of his work, distinguishing him from traditional journalists who operate under a veil of objectivity.
The firebombing was not Shanks' first encounter with powerful opposition. His career is marked by a series of high-profile confrontations that demonstrate a consistent pattern of challenging powerful figures and a refusal to be intimidated by legal or political pressure. These prior conflicts established his reputation and arguably set the stage for the escalating retaliation that followed.
In 2019, Shanks produced videos scrutinizing the business practices of billionaire mining magnate and politician Clive Palmer, focusing on the collapse of his company Queensland Nickel and allegations of unpaid worker entitlements.5 Palmer responded by threatening a defamation lawsuit, demanding A$500,000 and a cessation of all public statements about him.5 Shanks refused to "capitulate," instead launching a line of merchandise featuring the very statements Palmer contested.5 This act of defiance created a "Streisand effect," amplifying the original allegations and demonstrating Shanks' willingness to absorb legal threats from one of the country's wealthiest individuals.5
During the 2019–20 Australian bushfire season, Shanks launched a sustained campaign against then-NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian, alleging her government's policies had increased bushfire risk and contributed to the destruction of koala habitats.5 He created the hashtag #koalakiller, which gained significant traction and became a potent political slogan against the Premier.5 This episode showcased his ability to craft and disseminate powerful, damaging public narratives that cut through the mainstream news cycle.
Shanks' reporting on the gambling lobby group ClubsNSW led to one of the most unusual legal battles in recent Australian media history. After he interviewed whistleblower Troy Stolz, a former compliance officer who alleged widespread non-compliance with anti-money laundering laws in NSW clubs, ClubsNSW initiated a private prosecution against both Shanks and Stolz for contempt of court.5 This rare and aggressive legal tactic carried the threat of criminal conviction and potential prison sentences.11 In July 2022, ClubsNSW obtained an interim suppression order, forcing the interview to be taken down.5 The case highlighted the lengths to which a powerful lobby group would go to suppress information about its industry. Ultimately, after a damning report from the NSW Crime Commission confirmed criminals were laundering billions through poker machines, and following a change in its own leadership, ClubsNSW dropped all legal action against both Shanks and Stolz in February 2023.5 This battle further cemented Shanks' role as a journalist willing to take on entrenched and legally formidable interests.
This history of confrontation demonstrates that by 2022, Jordan Shanks was not merely a comedian but a proven and effective antagonist to some of Australia's most powerful political, corporate, and industrial figures. He had shown himself to be resilient to legal threats and adept at wielding his platform to inflict significant reputational damage. It was this track record that formed the backdrop to his most dangerous investigation yet.
The path to the firebombing of Jordan Shanks' home was not a sudden event but a protracted, multi-year escalation. It began with political satire and descended through aggressive legal action, the weaponization of state police powers, and ultimately, criminal violence. This timeline deconstructs the key phases of the conflict, detailing the who, what, where, why, cause, and action for each critical juncture.
This phase established the core conflict between Shanks and then-NSW Deputy Premier John Barilaro. It was characterized by Shanks' provocative videos and Barilaro's escalating legal and political response.
With the defamation suit settled, the conflict appeared to be over. However, Barilaro's post-political career choice provided the catalyst for a new, far more dangerous phase.
The firebombing triggers a major police investigation that slowly uncovers the link between the attack and the "Coronation" video's subjects.
The following table provides a consolidated overview of the timeline, mapping the key events to the actors, causes, and consequences.
| Date | Event | Key Actors (Who) | Location (Where) | Action Taken | Alleged Cause/Motive (Why) | Outcome/Consequence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 29 Jun 2020 | "bruz" video uploaded | Jordan Shanks, John Barilaro | YouTube | Shanks publishes satirical video. | To satirize and criticize Barilaro. | Barilaro publicly condemns video as "racist".5 |
| 21 Oct 2020 | "Secret Dictatorship" video uploaded | Jordan Shanks, John Barilaro | YouTube / Barilaro's rental property | Shanks publishes video with corruption allegations. | To escalate criticism of Barilaro. | Further angers Barilaro, forms basis for lawsuit.13 |
| 27 May 2021 | Defamation suit filed | John Barilaro, Jordan Shanks, Google | Federal Court of Australia | Barilaro sues for defamation. | To stop Shanks' videos and seek damages for reputational harm. | Lengthy and costly legal battle begins.13 |
| 04 Jun 2021 | Kristo Langker arrested | Kristo Langker, NSW Police FPU, John Barilaro | Sydney, NSW | Langker arrested and charged with stalking Barilaro. | Police allege intent to cause fear of harm. | Widespread condemnation of police tactics; charges later dropped.5 |
| Oct 2021 | Barilaro resigns | John Barilaro | NSW Parliament | Barilaro resigns as Deputy Premier. | Cites stress of the defamation case as a major factor. | Triggers by-election; removes Barilaro from public office.13 |
| Nov 2021 | Defamation case settled | John Barilaro, Jordan Shanks | Federal Court of Australia | Shanks apologises, pays $100k costs, edits videos. | To end the legal proceedings. | Barilaro receives no damages; videos remain online.13 |
| 19 Aug 2022 | "Coronation" video uploaded | Jordan Shanks, John Barilaro, Coronation Property, Alameddine Network | YouTube | Shanks publishes video alleging links between the actors. | To investigate Barilaro's new role and corporate connections. | Becomes the direct catalyst for the arson attacks.5 |
| 17 Nov 2022 | First arson attempt | Unknown perpetrators (later linked to Alameddine network) | Bondi, Sydney (neighbour's house) | House next to Shanks' is firebombed. | Mistaken identity; intended to target Shanks. | Fails to hit target but signals violent intent.3 |
| 23 Nov 2022 | Second arson attempt | Unknown perpetrators (later linked to Alameddine network) | Bondi, Sydney (Shanks' house) | Shanks' home is successfully firebombed and destroyed. | To intimidate and punish Shanks for the "Coronation" video. | Major police investigation launched; Shanks is displaced.3 |
| 20 Dec 2023 | First arrest made | Tufi Junior Tauese-Auelua, NSW Police | Silverwater Correctional Centre | Tauese-Auelua is charged with arson. | Police allege retaliation for the "Coronation" video. | First official link between the attack and the Alameddine network.2 |
| 01 Feb 2024 | "Coronation" video removed | Jordan Shanks | YouTube | Shanks takes down the video. | Ongoing death threats against his team and sources. | The perpetrators achieve their goal of censoring the report.5 |
| 29 Sep 2025 | Sentencing | Tufi Junior Tauese-Auelua | Coffs Harbour District Court | Tauese-Auelua is sentenced to 5 years in jail. | Found guilty of destroying property by fire. | One perpetrator jailed; case against second man dropped.17 |
At the heart of the events leading to the firebombing is Giovanni "John" Barilaro, who served as the 18th Deputy Premier of New South Wales and leader of the NSW National Party from 2016 until his resignation in October 2021.23 His political career was marked by a combative style and a focus on regional issues, holding ministerial portfolios including Regional New South Wales, Industry and Trade.23 He cultivated a reputation as a fierce political operator, even embracing the nickname "Pork Barrel-aro" for his practice of directing government grants to Coalition-held and marginal electorates, a practice he defended as "investment".23 It was this aggressive approach to politics that he brought to his conflict with Jordan Shanks.
When Shanks' satirical videos began to gain traction, Barilaro's response was not merely to ignore them but to engage in a full-scale legal assault. The defamation lawsuit filed on May 27, 2021, was a powerful tool.13 While framed as a legitimate action to protect his reputation from "vile and racist" portrayals and allegations of corruption, the lawsuit's structure and execution are characteristic of a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP). Such suits are often initiated not with the primary goal of winning in court, but of intimidating and silencing critics by imposing crippling legal costs and procedural burdens.5
The imputations Barilaro claimed—that he was a "corrupt conman" who had "committed perjury nine times" and engaged in "blackmailing of councillors"—were severe.13 Shanks' attempt to mount a truth defence was stymied by the invocation of parliamentary privilege, which prevented him from using Barilaro's statements in parliament as evidence—a legal barrier that Justice Steven Rares upheld.13 This procedural roadblock significantly weakened Shanks' legal position.
The eventual settlement in November 2021 can be interpreted as a strategic victory for Barilaro. While he received no damages—a key indicator in defamation cases—Shanks was forced to pay $100,000 in legal costs, issue a public apology for the "hurt" caused, and edit the offending videos.5 For a powerful public figure, the primary goal is often the silencing of criticism, and by forcing his critic to capitulate, apologise, and incur a significant financial penalty, Barilaro largely achieved this objective through legal means.
Perhaps the most alarming aspect of Barilaro's campaign against Shanks was the involvement of the NSW Police Fixated Persons Unit (FPU). The arrest of producer Kristo Langker on June 4, 2021, by a counter-terrorism unit for approaching a politician with a camera was an extraordinary and disproportionate use of state power.5 The FPU was established in the wake of the 2014 Lindt Cafe siege to monitor individuals who pose a genuine threat of lone-actor, grievance-fuelled violence, often with mental health issues.5 Its deployment against a journalist's producer engaged in routine, if confrontational, questioning was widely condemned as a gross overreach.14
Langker's lawyer, Mark Davis, described the action as "chilling" and the bail conditions imposed as "utterly extreme".14 These conditions effectively gagged Langker, prohibiting him from possessing images of Barilaro or commenting on his appearance or behaviour—restrictions that go far beyond what is necessary to prevent genuine stalking and appear designed to halt journalistic scrutiny.14
The subsequent revelation in August 2021 that Barilaro's office had been in contact with the FPU for at least six months prior to the arrest, despite his public denials, is a critical piece of evidence.5 It strongly suggests that the deployment of this specialist police unit was not an independent operational decision but was influenced, if not directly instigated, by a senior politician to intimidate and suppress a media critic. The fact that all charges against Langker were eventually dropped by police further underscores the weakness of the original case and the inappropriateness of the FPU's involvement.5 This episode demonstrates a multi-layered strategy to suppress information, escalating from public condemnation to legal action and, finally, to the deployment of state security apparatus. This sequence provides a clear playbook for how powerful individuals can attempt to silence accountability journalism, posing a systemic threat that extends far beyond this single case.
Barilaro's career move after resigning from parliament is a textbook example of the "revolving door" phenomenon, a key mechanism of potential policy capture in Australia.26 In February 2022, just four months after leaving office, he was appointed Executive Director of Coronation Property Group.16 This transition, from a senior minister with oversight of industry and regional development to an executive at a major company in that very sector, raises significant concerns about potential conflicts of interest.
The "revolving door" creates a risk that a minister's decisions while in office may be influenced by the prospect of future lucrative employment in the private sector. It also allows former ministers to leverage their insider knowledge and government contacts for the benefit of their new corporate employer.26 While the NSW parliament's ethics adviser approved the appointment subject to conditions—notably, a ban on lobbying government officials for 18 months—the very existence of such rapid transitions undermines public trust.16 Barilaro's subsequent meetings with then-minister Eleni Petinos while he was linked to Coronation, which occurred shortly before a stop-work order on a Coronation project was lifted, further fuelled public controversy and scrutiny, although Barilaro maintained the meeting was purely social.25 This move into the private sector, and the specific company he chose to join, would become the direct catalyst for the final and most violent phase of the conflict.
Coronation Property Group is a significant force in the Sydney property market. A privately-owned, vertically integrated developer, the company specializes in large-scale, mixed-use urban renewal projects and boasts a pipeline of work valued at over $5.7 billion.29 Its portfolio includes major developments such as Mason & Main in Merrylands, The Paper Mill precinct in Liverpool, and Charlie Parker in Parramatta.30 The company presents itself as a creator of "better places for better lives," partnering with world-leading architects and controlling every aspect of the development process from acquisition to management.29
At the helm of Coronation Property is owner and Managing Director Joe Nahas, a figure with over two decades of experience in the NSW construction and development industry.33 He founded the company in 2012 and is its public face.33 The company was co-owned by prominent Sydney lawyer John Landerer.16
A critical element of the corporate structure is the role of Joe Nahas's brother, Andy Nahas. Andy Nahas has served as the company secretary for Coronation and is also the head of MN Builders, a construction firm that has been described as Coronation's "building arm".37 This integrated structure, where the development company and the construction company are controlled by the same family, is common in the industry but creates layers of corporate separation. This structure is significant because while Joe Nahas, as the head of the primary corporate brand, can maintain a public distance from controversial associations, the operational side of the business, managed by his brother, has been documented with direct links to criminal figures.
Andy Nahas has a documented criminal history, including a 2016 conviction for assault and charges in 2009 over a kidnapping, where his co-accused were high-ranking members of the Bandidos bikie gang. The kidnapping charges were ultimately dropped after the victim could not be located by police.37
The central allegation in Jordan Shanks' "Coronation" video, and the nexus of this investigation, is the link between Coronation Property and the Alameddine organised crime network. These allegations were not confined to Shanks' video but were also raised in a NSW Parliament Budget Estimates hearing by Labor MP Adam Searle.37
The evidence presented at that hearing included:
In response to these public allegations, the Nahas family has consistently issued strong denials. Joe Nahas stated that he and his family "do not have any association" with members of the Alameddine family.37 Through their lawyer, John Landerer, they acknowledged that Andy Nahas has known members of the Alameddine family because they grew up in the same Merrylands neighbourhood, but insisted he has had "no dealings with any member of the family and has only had a limited social interaction".40
This corporate structure—with the public-facing developer, Joe Nahas, separated from the construction operations managed by his brother, Andy—provides a layer of plausible deniability. It allows the primary brand, Coronation, which seeks political legitimacy by hiring figures like John Barilaro, to distance itself from the documented associations of its key operational personnel. The construction industry is historically vulnerable to infiltration by organised crime for purposes of money laundering, labor control, and extortion.41 The documented proximity of individuals at the heart of Coronation's construction activities to senior members of a major criminal syndicate represents a significant red flag and provides the critical context for the violent reaction to Shanks' public exposure of these links.
The entity at the violent end of this chain of events is the Alameddine crime network. This Australian organised crime group, based in the Western Sydney suburb of Merrylands, is led by Rafat Alameddine and is considered by NSW Police to be one of the largest and most dangerous drug-trafficking organisations in Sydney.43 At its peak, the network was alleged to be earning around $1 million per week in profit from its illicit activities.43
The Alameddine network's primary business is the large-scale distribution of illicit drugs, including cocaine, MDMA, and cannabis.44 Their operations have been described by police as sophisticated, utilizing "dial-a-dealer" phone networks to function almost like a food delivery service for narcotics, with a single phone servicing up to 700 customers.44 Control over these lucrative phone lines is a major source of conflict in the city's underworld.44
The network is characterized by extreme violence. Since October 2020, the Alameddines have been engaged in a brutal and highly public gangland war with the rival Hamzy/Hamze crime family.43 This turf war has resulted in a series of targeted assassinations and public shootings across Sydney, leading police to describe their activities as a form of "suburban terrorism".44 The group is known to use "hired guns" and "kill squads" to carry out attacks, often recording the violence as proof for those who ordered the hits.46
The link between the Alameddine network and the firebombing of Jordan Shanks' home is not speculative; it is the central finding of the NSW Police investigation.
This judicial comment is critical. It suggests that the Alameddine network, in this instance, was not acting solely on its own initiative to protect its name. Rather, its capacity for violence was likely employed as a service. Shanks' video did not primarily threaten the network's core drug business; it threatened the reputation, legitimacy, and potentially the financial standing of the corporate and political figures it linked to the network. The violent response was a reaction to this reputational and financial risk. This transforms the understanding of the Alameddine network's role from that of a primary aggrieved party to that of a violent enforcer—a tool available for purchase by other actors who wish to silence threats without directly implicating themselves. This commodification of violence is a hallmark of advanced organised crime, where criminal enterprises integrate with and provide services to the "legitimate" world.
The firebombing of Jordan Shanks' home cannot be understood as an isolated criminal act. It is the violent culmination of a series of events that expose a deeply troubling nexus between political power, corporate interests, and organised crime in New South Wales. When viewed as a whole, the case serves as a stark and compelling case study of the mechanisms of political capture and the systemic failures of integrity that allow such a convergence to occur and to be protected by violence.
The narrative of this case reveals a clear, sequential chain of connections linking the disparate worlds of parliament, property development, and the criminal underworld.
This sequence of events aligns precisely with academic and institutional definitions of political capture. Transparency International defines policy capture as a form of corruption where private interests can shape public policy to their own advantage, at the expense of the public interest.26 The key mechanisms that enable this—lobbying, political donations, and the revolving door—are all present in the broader context of this case. The Australian property development industry is a major source of political donations and lobbying pressure, creating an environment where political decisions can be unduly influenced by corporate interests.48 Barilaro's career path is a direct illustration of the revolving door in action.
Furthermore, the Australian real estate and construction sectors have been identified by regulatory bodies like AUSTRAC as being at high risk for money laundering.51 Criminals are drawn to property development because it allows for the laundering of large sums of illicit cash, the true ownership of assets can be disguised through complex corporate structures and third parties, and it provides a stable investment.53 The opaque corporate structures and documented links to criminal figures present in this case are significant red flags for exactly these kinds of risks.
The firebombing, therefore, can be interpreted as a violent enforcement mechanism to protect this nexus. When journalistic investigation threatened to expose the connections between these spheres of power, the response was not legal or political, but criminal. This suggests a systemic failure of accountability. The case reveals a system where a politician can allegedly deploy state security apparatus against a journalist (the FPU); that same politician can transition seamlessly into a lucrative role with a company he once oversaw; that company has documented links to a violent criminal syndicate; and when this entire arrangement is exposed, the result is a violent attack that succeeds in censoring the report.
Each component of this scandal represents a known weakness in Australian governance: the revolving door, the potential for police overreach, and the infiltration of legitimate industries by organised crime. This case is uniquely alarming because it weaves all these elements into a single, undeniable narrative. The ultimate failure of the system is demonstrated by the outcome: the journalist was attacked, his home was destroyed, and his journalism was ultimately suppressed through violent intimidation. The inability of the state to protect a journalist from such an attack, and the success of the perpetrators in achieving their goal of censorship, represents a profound breakdown of the "watchdog" function of the press and a grave threat to democratic accountability.
The investigation into the firebombing of Jordan Shanks' home reveals a clear and disturbing causal chain: an act of investigative journalism exposing potential links between political, corporate, and criminal power was met with a calculated act of violent, criminal retaliation. This sequence of events, from the publication of the "Coronation" video to the sentencing of a hired arsonist, provides a stark case study in the modern threats facing freedom of the press and public accountability in Australia. The ultimate removal of the video in response to death threats confirms that the perpetrators successfully employed violence and intimidation to achieve censorship.
This outcome has a profound and deeply concerning "chilling effect" on Australian democracy. The message sent to every journalist, whistleblower, and citizen investigator in the country is unambiguous: exposing the nexus between powerful corporate interests and organised crime carries the risk of extreme personal violence, a risk that the state may be unable to prevent. When journalists are forced to weigh their physical safety, and that of their families and sources, against the public interest in publishing a story, self-censorship becomes an inevitable and rational choice. This erodes the media's fundamental role as a public watchdog, allowing potential corruption to fester in the dark, unchallenged and unexposed.56
The case of Jordan Shanks is a stress test of Australia's democratic institutions, and it has revealed significant failures. A system that allows a senior politician to allegedly misuse a counter-terrorism unit against a critic, that normalises the "revolving door" between government and regulated industries, and that cannot protect a journalist from having his home burned down is a system in urgent need of reform.
Based on the findings of this report, the following multi-layered recommendations are proposed to address these systemic weaknesses and reinforce the pillars of Australian democracy.