Exclusive: Inspectors say they were told to give ‘preferential treatment’ to members of Auburn council

This article is more than 1 year old

This article is more than 1 year old

Two parking inspectors will launch a major test of New South Wales whistleblower protections after they were sacked for revealing alleged attempts to stop them issuing fines at a councillor’s private property developments.

The rangers claim that in 2014 they were given repeated directions to give “preferential treatment” to elected members of the now defunct Auburn council in western Sydney – best known for its controversial former deputy mayor, Salim Mehajer, who rose to prominence when he closed a public street for his wedding, causing traffic chaos.

The rangers allege they were directed to stop issuing fines to construction workers at property developments owned by Auburn councillor Ronney Oueik, and to give preferential treatment to a nearby college, the Al-Faisal College, also at the direction of Oueik. Oueik has repeatedly denied the allegations and was previously cleared of wrongdoing.

Witness K to plead guilty in Timor-Leste spying case but lawyer to fight charges Read more

The rangers first made the claims to an independent Auburn councillor, Irene Simms, who also helped them approach the NSW independent commission against corruption (Icac). A number of rangers later gave evidence of the alleged preferential treatment to a 2016 public inquiry examining a series of scandals that led the state government to suspend Auburn council.

In August 2016, not long after the inquiry finished, the two rangers were suspended for speaking to Simms, an action said to have breached the council’s code of conduct. Their employment was terminated four months later.

The sackings threw their lives into financial and psychological turmoil, court documents allege. The pair have been unable to secure work since, and have suffered significant financial and mental stress.

This week, they launched a rare case under NSW’s Public Interest Disclosure Act – the state’s whistleblower protection regime. Court documents filed with the NSW district court say they were owed protection after blowing the whistle, and alleged their treatment caused psychological injury, liability for medical and related expenses, and economic loss.

The case is yet another example of claims of mistreatment of public interest whistleblowers. Federally, the government is pursuing former intelligence officer Witness K and Bernard Collaery, who revealed an illegal spy operation targeting Timor-Leste, Richard Boyle, a tax office worker who blew the whistle on the aggressive pursuit of tax debts, and David McBride, a defence lawyer who leaked secret documents to the ABC.

The Auburn case also highlights the often difficult situations faced by Australian whistleblowers, who are left with protracted and expensive legal proceedings as their only real recourse to acts of reprisal.

Simms, the former Auburn councillor, said the two parking inspectors were acting in the interests of the community and should have been praised, not sacked, for their actions.

“They should have been rewarded for what they did on behalf of the community,” Simms told Guardian Australia. “Instead they were punished, and I find that reprehensible.”

Whistleblower protections 'a sham', says lawyer whose leaks led to ABC raids Read more

The case has been lodged against the Cumberland council, which absorbed the Auburn council in 2016 as part of NSW’s local government amalgamations.

The rangers are being represented by Carroll & O’Dea Lawyers. Partner Scott Dougall did not comment in detail about the case, but said: “When whistleblowers do come forward we need to recognise they are in a vulnerable position. Civil remedies can be available when they are treated unfairly after making a disclosure.”

Oueik also gave evidence to the 2016 inquiry, denying any suggestion he attempted to influence the operations of the rangers, and accusing them of having a “hidden agenda with Irene Simms to bring me down”. Oueik was not found to have breached any laws, or deliberately sought preferential treatment at his developments or the college.

But the inquiry did find Oueik “should not have involved himself directly with the Council Rangers in respect of any parking issues concerning the private interests he had in his development site”.

Cumberland council said it was yet to be served with the claim and declined to comment.

Guardian Australia approached Oueik for a further response.