Salim Mehajer suspended from office

AUSTRALIA’S most famous local councillor has been forced to take a spell from office after being suspended for four months.

Salim Mehajer, deputy mayor of Auburn, arrives at Burwood Local Court, in Sydney, Thursday, Jan. 14, 2016. Mehajer has been charged with intimidation for allegedly making threats against the father of a Lindt Cafe siege survivor. (AAP Image/Dan Himbrechts) NO ARCHIVING

CONTROVERSIAL councillor deputy mayor Salim Mehajer has been suspended from office.

The Auburn councillor, who rose to public recognition with his flashy wedding, has been forced to leave civic office for a period of four months for failing to disclose financial interests, a tribunal decided today.

The New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal found the flashy councillor guilty of failing to comply with pecuniary interest laws on three occasions while operating in position on Auburn City Council.

He had failed to reveal an interest in a property at 3 Mary Street, Auburn, which came into possession of a company of which he was director, after taking office in September 2012. He was also found to be present at a council vote to increase floor space at the property.

Principal member David Patten acknowledged Mr Mehajer “did not intentionally commit the breaches”, and decided he should not be disqualified from office.

The decision sees Cr Mehajer suspended from today.

The move may be a hindrance in Mr Mehajer’s further political aspirations. The colourful councillor revealed he had plans to one day become prime minister.

The troubled Sydney councillor has also been fined $200 after being caught driving a Ferrari without his licence on him.

But the flashy deputy mayor yesterday escaped conviction on charges of failing to register the luxury car before getting behind the wheel.

Auburn Council too faces further trouble, awaiting a decision from Local Government Minister Paul Toole over whether the council will be dumped following an investigation over councillors suspected of misusing positions.

The investigation was prompted by “serious concerns” about “perceived decision-making in relation to planning and development matters and the appearance that those decisions may have delivered an inappropriate benefit to some councillors”.