CHOICE membership

Kangaroo Court - Is this the last a Journalist who Reports the Truth?

Here is a website for a Journalist who is very well respected in his field.

Feel free to check it out and decide if you agree it is investigative reporting or just another blog.

Cheers NatNat :wink:


They have good linkage on Twitterverse. It has the full Porter document release on it from the Court with only some names redacted.


Thanks grahroll I will check it out. I follow the Kangaroo Court on Twitter too, and am fascinated by the claims of corruption around that I was totally unaware of…! It would have been good if he included his evidence or sources though.

Cheers NatNat :wink:


It’s hard to say if it the truth or not. There are plenty of claims and some links to sources but in the article I checked no coherent narrative that links verifiable facts to come to justified conclusions.

This article accuses Barnaby Joyce of fraud.

It says:

BJ arranged to have the competitive tender process for water purchases defeated

It’s well-known that Barnaby Joyce got rid of the requirement for tenders,

But gives no evidence.

It then descibes a limited tender for a water buy back that was criticised by the National Audit Office and led to a windfall profit for the seller. There is some evidence presented for this, which I didn’t follow up. Let’s assume it is true.

It then goes on to claim BJ benefited from the transaction. Without presenting any evidence at all.

The article also assumes that BJ is guilty of various sexual harassment claims that are going about.

From Wikipedia:

A kangaroo court is a “jumped-up” court that is typically convened ad hoc, ignores recognized standards of law or justice, and carries little or no official standing in the territory within which it resides.

Seems about right.

I am no fan of BJ but this kind of journalism is not the way to deal with politicians you don’t approve of.


It’s an interesting observation.
‘Corruption’ in respect of financial gain can be a criminal offence.

The current Federal Finance Minister, Simon Birmingham was on the record this morning with the ABC’s Insiders program. For clarification, a government assigning funding to a project suggested by an MP for their electorate without any further justification is just a kept election promise.

We might need to be more careful with how we use language. David Speers asked if it was more appropriate to describe recent funding approvals as ‘Pork Barrelling’.

The Minister has an MBA, and not being a law graduate was perhaps less able to offer a concise legal response.

It’s not a practice or shared understanding unique to any one branding of political organisation or government.


Here is a bit more about the Journalist, Shane Dowling - from Wikipedia.

Shane Dowling (born 16 June 1954) is a former Australian politician. He was mayor of South Melbourne from 1989 to 1991 and mayor of Geelong from December 2004 to November 2005.[1][2]

Dowling is a former police officer, rising to become an inspector in the Victoria Police. He was serving in Melton at the time of his election as Geelong mayor.[3] He was elected to the City of Greater Geelong council in 2001, representing Deakin Ward, and was re-elected in 2004.[4][5] He was elected mayor by the other councillors after the 2004 elections, following the failure of incumbent mayor Ed Coppe to hold his seat on the council.[1][6] Dowling served a one-year term before relinquishing the position to former City of Melbourne councillor Peter McMullin.[1]

Dowling resigned from the council mid-term in 2008, ten months before the regular elections, because he had moved to Melbourne.

I am not saying that Mr Dowling is always correct, but his views offer food for thought.


Overall I have found this to be topical guidance. A telling bit is Australia has sunk 8 points in 8 years.


PhilT that is a wonderful article. I have never heard of “Transparency International” the Global Coalition against Corruption but what a good place to start.

It is disappointing that Australia has dropped so low over the years, one can only hope with organisations such as this we can rise to our previous, much higher levels of trust.
I feel the internet is responsible for so much.


I don’t think perfection is attainable so asking for it is a waste of time. Honest mistakes are not such a problem.

That doesn’t mean you can say whatever you like without having and showing the evidence. He is already defending one lawsuit and if he keeps going the same way there will be more. If he is going to rely on the defence of truth, genuine opinion etc why not show us how he concluded that Barnaby was on the take?

Dowling is not hinting that BJ was doing favours for mates (although he may say that too) but calling him corrupt and putting a dollar figure on it. That says BJ got money directly out of the deal. That’s pretty heavy if you cannot prove it.

I am not sure persistence in re-stating allegations is a good substitute for validation.

I don’t find the repetition that the mainstream media are protecting the corrupt at all convincing. A more plausible reason for them not making wild accusations is that they know they will be sued and know they couldn’t defend it. If there was solid evidence the mainstream would jump at the chance to expose it, even those who forgive BJ his trespasses rather too easily would turn on him in a flash if there was evidence he had taken millions of dollars.


I have written to him previously and he was more than happy to provide me with the interesting facts that he had unearthed, and where he found them and why he had come to his conclusions.

He is not scared off by people threatening him with lawsuits just because they do not like what he publishes. When folks deny his publications he then attends Court and provides evidence, just as anyone else would be required to do and the Judge makes the final decision.

I think that more Journalists would publish more information if they were not under the threat of lawsuits.

Most accept that Murdoch newspapers are biased one way or the other - and the Journos that do not toe the line get replaced. Patricia Karvelas has spoken about this often on the ABC, along with numerous others. The Christian Porter case is a fine example of exactly this!

It is just another reason why we should all support independent journalism, in all of its forms, so that the public can hear an alternative view about these matters.

I was merely suggesting other points of view and a firm belief in “freedom of the press” - in order to learn some buried truths that other journos are not mentioning - backed by evidence of course which the mainstream threaten with lawsuits in case it may “muddy” their reputation or name.


I presume you mean party-political; I have no intention of going there, many discussions here are political in the broader sense of public leadership or having influence on society. As I have argued before Choice is and should be political in that sense, of gaining influence. My aim is just as boring as always, to find evidence for decisions that we make about products, our health or anything else that matters to our lives while I stay off the third rails mentioned in the Choice guidelines.

I agree completely. I support The Conversation in its aims and by my patronage. One reason is they refrain from wild claims and gossip. If Dowling has significant data about our fearless leaders, especially about corruption, but will not reveal it, then he is not a journalist nor an upright citizen. If he doesn’t have such evidence he is just another rumourmonger who ought not defame public figures.


Syncretic he DOES have evidence all you need to do to satisfy your curiosity is to ask him…

I can guarantee that he will respond will all of the evidence that he has, like he has done previously.

Otherwise, I totally agree with you.


So why does he not reveal it in the context of his articles or to the police or any other authority? I can’t judge by what he says or what you believe only by what I see, and I see nothing. Maybe we just need to agree that we have different standards and leave it at that.

1 Like

That is fine by me syncretic

1 Like

Totally agree.

There are numerous sources of good Journalism available in Australia. The Guardian and The Conversation are more traditional publications. SBS and Channel 10 have their own brands of independence.

And we still have the ABC whose fine work was part of a chain of events that brought down a State Govt riddled with morally corrupt behaviours.

In hindsight it’s amazing what was let go and could only be called to account at the ballot box. Although if we follow this example the bad behaviour was entrenched through a lack of transparency and political gerrymander.


The Qld Labour Party was also also well served by the gerrymander until they lost power and it was used against them.

On the following:

I’m not so sure a ‘kangaroo court’ serves a similar purpose. As a brand of journalism the messaging may turn many off. Is it intended to be ‘tongue in cheek’, satirical or loose humour? Could it be a one eyed view of the world that assumes guilt over innocence?

I’ll support calls for greater transparency above all else. The court of public opinion can be exceptionally powerful when it is reliably informed.


It is concerning as the Kangaroo Court seems to purport transparency, but doesn’t follow the same principles itself.

I have read some of the articles and they seem to contain a lot of opinion and the average reader might think is close to disclosing conspiracies.

Why does one have to ask for information to support claims, sounds odd and possibly for legal reasons or the information sent is only partial, is based on opinion or not recent. It also potentially allows dissemination of information that supports the opinions or claims. This is a method used by others such as antivaccination networks where they cherry pick and disseminate information to try and justify their position and dismiss any information to the contrary.

While interesting reading, I personally wouldn’t be relying on it as fact… but an ex-policeman and ex-politician’s opinion? (which his website says he isn’t).

Mainstream media usually provides quote and sources for the news. They also usually give the opportunity for the individuals/organisations associated with the news to provide comment or their side of the circumstances which lead to the news story. The website in question is very different to standard journalistic practices and lives up to its name.

He has also said in court that be is 'ferociously committed to the righteousness" of his views and a “fierce proponent of free speech”. This sums up exactly the content of his website. He is a blogger with an opinion, not to be confused with a journalist reporting news.


The same some might suggest is also true of mainstream media, cherry picking content, or worse dressing up loose facts as opinion. EG Sky News, the Australian and others may be equally guilty on occasion. Some would call this supporting good economic management. Others might call it social vandalism.

I can see the discussion devolving into a different debate. Or erring towards stereotyping who we should or should not trust on an individual name basis. The concerns whether about reporting or political disfunction are broader than individuals.

As already well said,

‘One persons government grant is in the eye of another unjust? We still have no independent Federal ICAC to lean on as arbiter.’


I fail to see why this website with its outrageous opinions deserves to be promoted on the Choice Community Board?

1 Like

Because this is a place to consider such opinions which is what happened to this one. It is not being promoted by Choice but brought up by one member. You are free to do the same within the guidelines.

My view is the only time there ought to be censorship of unusual views is if it is done for personal gain or the claims are so outrageous (drink bleach to cure COVID) that doing more harm than good becomes too likely. My reasons are that for every person who is prepared to say it there are a hundred who may be toying with it and there needs to be a way to present evidence to them, and secondly, until the matter is dealt with we don’t know how valuable the idea may be. Not all unconventional views are wrong, sometimes they are a revelation.

1 Like

The Choice Community’s broad objective is described here:
I do not see how promoting a website which appears to be trying to link the Australian Prime Minister with paedophile rackets has anything to do with the above objectives.
How does this help all ‘Australian consumers to get help with the products and services we use every day and to have their voices heard so that we can have fair just and safe markets for us all’?
Who is moderating this?