Daniel Wills: Report into saga surrounding MP Sam Duluk’s behaviour too late and too little to end the saga engulfing Libs
Liberals desperately want to move past the Sam Duluk saga. A report into his drunken behaviour is imminent but even that is unlikely to end things, State Political Editor Daniel Wills writes.
Opinion
Don't miss out on the headlines from Opinion. Followed categories will be added to My News.
- Senior Liberals plot to remove Duluk from party room
- Subscriber rewards: Win Adelaide Oval Stadium Club memberships
IT goes without saying the inquiry into Liberal MP Sam Duluk’s boozy behaviour at a Parliament House Christmas party came too late.
But there are growing signs that it will also prove too little to end a political distraction that’s derailing Premier Steven Marshall’s bid to sell a refreshed growth plan for SA.
Allegations of sexual harassment – as well as racial and homophobic comments and lifting a chair while SA Best MP Connie Bonaros was still in it and separately slapping her on the backside – all stem from the night of December 13.
Mr Marshall says he became aware of the event almost immediately, and directed Mr Duluk to apologise to those offended. There were some preliminary inquiries by officers within Parliament House, all without any public knowledge.
It was The Advertiser’s report on January 3 that brought claims of bad behaviour to public light and then sparked a far more serious response from Speaker Vincent Tarzia and the Government more generally.
Mr Tarzia announced the appointment of a private investigator on January 17 to find facts about the evening, and deliver a report that is expected to be complete sometime next week. Had such a step been taken before Christmas, that report would have been finished by now.
One way or the other, Mr Marshall would have the evidence needed to take justifiable and proportionate action that could have ended the political saga and moved attention on to what his Government is planning to do for the people and businesses of the state.
Instead, Governor Hieu Van Le’s opening address on Wednesday was lost in the anticipation of Mr Duluk and Mr Tarzia addressing the parliament over a matter they would rather just forget. Even if the delay in starting the inquiry is forgiven, it remains inexplicable that more resources weren’t thrown at it to ensure a speedier resolution to avoid the politically damaging events of this week.
Inquiries serve a couple of functions in politics. One is to search for evidence and find informed conclusions. The other is as a shield against further questioning and criticism.
After the discovery of further shocking failures in the child protection system and the monstrous crimes of Families SA paedophile Shannon McCoole, then-Premier Jay Weatherill immediately launched a royal commission. Led by highly regarded former Supreme Court judge Margaret Nyland, there was full public confidence it would be a rigorous fact-finding exercise. That confidence in the process also allowed the deflection of ongoing political questions, with deference to an inquiry that was under way and the usual solemnity around not wanting to prejudice it.
Here, there are major doubts emerging about the status and rigour of the Duluk inquiry that mean whatever it finds will be called into doubt and how it is being run has become a story in and of itself.
The Advertiser this week revealed the investigator required approval from Mr Tarzia for his interview list and concerns from Greens MP Tammy Franks, who was at the party and says she has spoken to others with contemporaneous written statements of the events ready to be handed over, that 10 or more key attendees were being ignored.
It seems impossible the final report, which may not even be made public in full or part, will be considered robust enough to end the arguments over what went on that night.
If it were to substantially or partially clear Mr Duluk, which is unlikely given his own concessions and the accounts of many people present, the Opposition would only amplify its claims that the investigation is a “sham” and find significant agreement in the court of public opinion. In addressing parliament this week, a sombre Mr Duluk threw himself at the mercy of the public.
“I deeply regret that my behaviour on that night caused offence and distress to others and for that I apologise,” he said. “(It) was not consistent with my character and values. In seeking forgiveness and in proactively receiving professional help, I believe that I have begun a journey of recovery.”
That has not quelled the anger of some, who may yet take further external action or speak out in parliament when it next sits.
Liberals are also increasingly frustrated. As one MP said: “Instead of our agenda for everyone, we’re having to talk about what one person did at a Christmas party”.
Mr Marshall has a decision to make when the inquiry wraps, amid calls for Mr Duluk to be removed from the Liberal Party or even parliament entirely.
But even that wouldn’t end the political problems, only stirring Mr Duluk’s conservative Liberal allies who feel he wouldn’t be in this mess if Mr Marshall handled the whole saga differently from the start.