Labor Ministers enjoy fine dining on taxpayers funds

Steakweb TBW Newsgroup
DEPARTMENTAL DINNER: Two $69 Wagyu fillets and $318 on "mostly alcoholic" beverages were among a $860.50 bill incurred by Labor Ministers and paid for by a former state bureaucrat.

Steakweb TBW Newsgroup
DEPARTMENTAL DINNER: Two $69 Wagyu fillets and $318 on “mostly alcoholic” beverages were among a $860.50 bill incurred by Labor Ministers and paid for by a former state bureaucrat.

PRIME cuts of Wagyu beef, four eye fillet steaks and $65 bottles of wine were on a $860.50 bill incurred by Labor Ministers at a Mount Gambier district restaurant and paid for with departmental funds, Treasurer Rob Lucas has revealed.

Earlier this month, an ombudsman report revealed on October 8, 2015, former Transport Department chief executive Michael Deegan paid $860.50 for meals at a restaurant in the district.

Ombudsman Wayne Lines questioned the expenditure, with Mr Deegan stating he paid for the bill with his department issued credit card because ministers left their credit cards in their rooms.

This week, Mr Lucas told Parliament after three years of fighting, he had been able to establish the Mount Gambier invoices, which he claimed former Transport Minister Stephen Mullighan and the Labor Government “were so desperate to conceal”.

He described the bill, which included two $69 Wagyu fillets, four eye fillets valued at $154, four $168 filet mignons and $318 on “mostly alcoholic” beverages, as “eyewatering”.

Two bottles of $65 wine were also among the items invoiced.

Further, he claimed the invoice for the restaurant included “Mullighan”.

“Given that is was on Mr Deegan’s credit card, I am not sure why,” Mr Lucas said.

In a statement, a State Opposition spokesperson said the Ombudsman found the charge was on Mr Deegan’s credit card.

“The dinner was for 10 people during a country cabinet visit to the South East,” the spokesperson said.

The Ombudsman’s report into the Transport Department’s expenditure and actions during the Labor Government found Mr Deegan’s use of public funds amounted to maladministration in public administration and were wrong within the meaning of the Ombudsman Act.

In conclusion, the Ombudsman found there had been a “substantial mismanagement of public resources” including purchase and consumption of significant quantities of alcohol without “sufficient or any rationale”.

Mr Lines said there were transactions of “dubious public value and in excess of reasonable community expectations”.