Sunday night, November 22 last year was a most unusual evening. From the political backwaters of the mighty Murray to the ALP’s federal executive in Canberra, South Australia’s election campaign was suddenly on the national agenda.

In November last year, the issue of trust exploded around Mike Rann. Channel Seven broadcast a story in which a former Parliament House waitress, married mother Michelle Chantelois, alleged she had a sexual relationship with the Premier.

Stories about the alleged relationship — which the Premier has denied, saying it was merely “flirty” and not sexual — began surfacing after the Premier was allegedly hit in the face with a rolled-up magazine at an ALP fund-raiser in October. The alleged assailant reportedly yelled “remember my wife” as he struck the Premier.

The next morning, Mr Rann was asked about the identity of his alleged attacker.

“Do you know the guy who attacked you?” a reporter asked. The Premier replied: “I’ve never met him before.”

What impression could that answer give? “Do you know the guy who attacked you?” / “I’ve never met him before.”

It’s the answer to a different question.

Did he know the attacker? Rann gave every impression at that media conference that it was politically motivated. In hindsight, some people might regard his statements as subterfuge. He said at the time:

“Around Australia we’ve seen politicians getting hate mail. We’ve seen politicians getting threats, a whole range of things around the country, including internet defamation and a range of other things. And unfortunately it seems to be a feature. I think I was probably the last premier in the country to have police protection because it wasn’t sort of needed, but now I think that basically, what we’re seeing is that you have to be careful. But at the same time you have to be accessible, that’s what I intend to do.”

Yet Rann knew about Chantelois’ marriage break-up and he knew her husband suspected and blamed the Premier.

Next he was asked about the “Remember my wife” shout.

“You say you’ve never met him before. Do you know what he meant by what he said to you?” asked Channel Nine reporter Tom Richardson. “No I don’t… Ah intend, I do not, I do not intend discussing something that is now with the police, thank you.”

And so matters stood until Rann announced he would sue Channel Seven and New Idea magazine, which also published the Chantelois allegations. Rann has not sued Chantelois herself.

Yesterday, Seven’s Sunday Night program contained a retraction — but not an apology. The brief statement — read aloud during a commercial break in the program — said:

“Seven Network acknowledges the Premier of SA’s statement in response to its Sunday Night program last year, which featured an interview with Michelle Chantelois and, in particular, his denial that he engaged in s-xual intercourse with Ms Chantelois. Seven Network retracts any implication in the story that the Premier exploited his friendship with Ms Chantelois and acknowledges that he had no involvement in her employment or the cessation of her employment with a South Australian public school.

Seven also acknowledges that neither the Premier’s friendship with Ms Chantelois nor the subject matter of the story have any bearing on the Premier’s role of performance as Premier. Seven regrets any embarrassment caused to the Premier or his family by the broadcast of the story.

As the Premier has instituted legal proceedings over the program, Seven has agreed to pay his reasonable costs in settlement. No damages were sought.”

There was no word of an apology from Seven to Rann. The statement does not deny the essential imputation of its original report: that is, the allegation of s-x. The statement is limited to Ms Chantelois’ employment and Mr Rann’s performance as Premier.

Over the past week, Rann and his ministers have been campaigning on the question of trust. His deputy harangued on “trust” and his ministers are saying that Opposition Leader Isobel Redmond cannot “be trusted”.

Adelaide political reporters and academics do not yet know the impact the Chantelois saga will have on the March 20 poll. Some suspect that more than a few men will even admire Rann, and a similar number of women voters will seek to punish him. Such outcomes are speculative, but interest groups are dismayed that the Chantelois issue has gained almost weekly front-page treatment in the city’s daily newspaper and television, online and radio news.

The Save the Royal Adelaide hospital campaign, Dignity for the Disabled, the Wilderness Society, civil libertarians, educators, nurses, cops, parents and taxpayers would rather the focus stay on policy.

Should Adelaide’s now-fully public hospital be closed, as the government wants, and a new private-public partnership take over? Should taxes continue to be spent on pro-Labor political campaigns? Is it fair that taxes pay Lance Armstrong’s airfare to Adelaide to spruik for the Premier? These are not questions of trust — they’re questions of policy.

Trust comes into this campaign only because SA voters need to know whether they can trust either party to keep its policy promises, and most voters don’t remember political policies from one campaign to the next. In fact many voters don’t remember policies broken — trust broken — less than 12 months ago.

Of all government departments, SA Water is the biggest energy user. Labor promised during its current term that public service agencies would document their CO2 emissions. Labor’s own climate change legislation makes it a legal requirement for SA Water to publish its emission reduction.

Yet the government has not complied with the government’s own law.

And there are things Labor did which it didn’t say it was going to do. It did not say it had a contingency to give a quarter of a million dollars, as a gift and on a whim, to Channel Seven mogul Kerry Stokes, specifically so he could buy a military collectible.

An election is about trust. Groucho Marx is said to have said: “If you can fake sincerity you can fake anything.”