The Mike Rann sex scandal: is it a sacking offence?

Debbie says:

03:10pm | 19/02/10

Mike Rann has been doing his best to keep the real reasons for Michelle’s Marriage problems out of the press.  I’ve seen michelles husband being unfaithful and am told he often has affairs or had while he was married.  I’ve read that the husband is a very violent aggressive man, who is also capable of puting on the charm when he wants something.  I’m trying to work out what the scandal is supposed to be.  Aren’t premiers supposed to have normal desires as everyone else, or are they supposed to be eunochs. Something that happened four to five years ago, should never have surfaced to ruin his election campaign and that is all this is. It’s just malicious intent for the opposition to gain power whilse using the lure of money to go about it.

Frank says:

07:21pm | 25/11/09

Oh yeah ... nothing like another sex scandal. Rann’s been relatively evasive ... for you to decide ...

Nikki says:

11:29am | 25/11/09

Look this world is always fighting wars and battles. There will always be differances between men and women, there will always be two sides of the story, There will always be the side you belive and the lier!!!!
Then there will be the people who want us to believe they are the poor innocent victims, and on the other side of the coin the dirty lying politicians. We actually live in a world of paradoxs. My gut has told me what is right here. Anyone caught in such a scandal, whether guilty or innocent, brings a bad vibe to the government, makes the goverment look bad, and should be asked to step aside. The snake in the grass is still slithering and will live to fight another day. How sad!

Fred says:

09:03pm | 24/11/09

Most definitely it is a sacking offence, familly issues are very important to care about it but not abuse by politicians who should manage our country!!!

nathan waks says:

06:32pm | 24/11/09

Mike Rann is in a lose-lose situation because of our puritanical, voyeuristic attitudes, which lead inevitably to cheque book journalism. He gets whacked on the head- then has to weigh up the odds of damage regardless of what actually happened, about I could not care less…

Kevin says:

08:50am | 24/11/09

Single Premier with Married Woman. Consensual relationship. Relationship ended before Premier’s current relationship. Must be a slow news month.

ROFL says:

07:24am | 24/11/09

“Is it a sacking offence?”  Nup. Honestly. Even if it was true!

Ewan says:

12:49am | 24/11/09

In earlier times when the integrity of elected officials actually meant something, Rann would have instantly resigned in disgrace over this appalling act of adultery. Of course character should be of paramount importance in members of parliament. Rann has demonstrated he has none and should resign. The opposition are not making a big deal out of this because half of them are probably just as morally bankrupt.

Ricky says:

10:44pm | 23/11/09

Mike Rann denied knowing Rick Phillips or what the attack was about. ( First Lie) to parliament & to the public.
Second he was not single at the time of the alleged affair but in a committed relationship. Therefore if true he has cheated on his partner & now wife.
Thirdly if these allegations are not true why did he not include her in his threat to sue both Channel 7 & New Idea? I mean they are only the vessel for which the person has used to make her allegations and who is going to fund his law suit?
Lastly if these allegations are found out to be true then he has surely broken his own Ministerial Code of Conduct. If I was her I would hope to have some kind of proof as Rann and Foley are well known for their head kicking and bullying tactics. Has any journos in Adelaide got the balls to stand up to Rann?

Steph James says:

08:53pm | 23/11/09

If he has lied about having a relationship with this woman, so what? Telling a lie to retain some modicum of privacy about one’s sexual history is, I think, entirely acceptable. I don’t believe the public are entitled to this information. Yes, the sex lives of those in the public eye are splashed all over the press, but that doesn’t mean it’s right. It is no one’s business except his, her’s and her husband’s.  If it doesn’t impact on how he does his job, who cares? She, however, should be slapped for selling out an ex-lover’s privacy.

Ala says:

08:04pm | 23/11/09

Why oh why does everyone focus on the sex and that they were ‘consenting adults’. The issues have NOTHING to do with whether or not they had sex. What IS relevant is if it took place in his office as she claims. If it did then Rann is guilty of a number of breaches of the Parliamentary (and APS) code of conduct. Having sex in a Publicly funded office during Publicly paid time is the main issue. The same would apply if they visited a Brothel, no issue if its outside work time, but if it is in work time then it actually meets the definition of fraud as defined by the Public Service. (Misuse of Public Resources). I don’t care if they had sex, I do care if it occurred during time that he was being paid for by the public.

Julian says:

07:39pm | 23/11/09

They always deny ... seriously, what choice do you have?

Jan says:

07:36pm | 23/11/09

I think she took 7 for a ride.

Christian Real says:

07:02pm | 23/11/09

Mike Rann has done nothing to resign for, as some of these morons are commenting here.
The woman’s story is, like herself not credible and I certainly hope that Mike Rann does not stop with suing Channel Seven and New Idea, I hope he sues this woman for defamation as well.
Shame on those who thought that she gave a credible story,because after reading it it is trash, and like these beat up media stories it belongs in the garbage.
One sentence in her story told how they done it on the office desk and in another sentence she said he moved all the office furniture and they done it on the office floor.,one sentence thefore contradicts the other sentence.
Also after moving all that office furniture to do it on the floor with her as she claimed in one of her sentences, one would wonder if he would still have enough energy to do anything,moving all that office furniture would be exhausting enough, one would think.

steve says:

07:00pm | 23/11/09

Cecilia B de Mille says
Since when did having sex meant being sleazy?
Did it occur, who knows & secondly who wants to know?
Will we lose possible great future leaders because they dared to have an affair or a relationship that didn’t result in marriage?
I heard an interesting comment today on the radio. A commentator told how if this style of US reporting was around only a few short years ago, nothing would get done in parliament as pollies would spend all their time defending infidelity allegations.
A need to speak the truth to alleviate guilt does not carry a price tag. Most telling was the fact that she went shopping for the highest bidder. Where is the moral concern in this behaviour????

John Wong says:

06:56pm | 23/11/09

We have a situation where the Michelle Chantelois alleged that a sexual relationship existed while the premier denied that it ever existed. One must be lying. The million dollar question is who - Michelle Chantelois or the premier. As the controversy involves a very public figure who happen to hold the highest office in the state requires the matter be investigated. The issue here is truth versus falsehood. Should the investigation prove there is no substance to these allegations than the premier is owed an apology to the extent that the allegations are untrue. However, if these allegations are true then one wonders if acts of lying and cover up are consistent with the high moral and ethical standards required of anyone holding an important position, especially the high political office of premier. Like it or not the person occupying that office holds tremendous power over our lives. If that person is not able to speak truthfully and conduct himself in a moral and ethical way in his private life, we the right to ask whether he is able to so in public matters.  After all is said and done, a person’s character determines the way he acts whether it is in private or public affairs. Therefore let the matter be investigated thoroughly to determine the truth of the matter.

Tony says:

06:18pm | 23/11/09

Bill Clinton denied sex with Monica too. Same words. I never had sex with that woman. Until the dress. Rann will be working on the premise there is no evidence.

Kate says:

05:18pm | 23/11/09

@ Cecilia B de Mille - I at first just put your comment to the side thinking “typical political opinion bias”, but then I thought, maybe I have the bias .... maybe there have been things done by Rann that I’ve simply not paid attention to due to my bias’ (not that I think I have any as I don’t usually like to vote labor or liberal first). So I thought I’d ask ... what specifically is it that Rann has done that (not including the _alledged_ affair) that made you feel that you couldn’t have pride in him as our Premier?

Note here - I’m not talking about things you feel he should’ve done, I’m talking about things he _has_ done which you consider has lost face for SA.

I’m listening.

Garry says:

05:00pm | 23/11/09

Cecilia B de Mille, I agree somewhat, but then those leaders we are proud off seem to have some faults. Does the fact that they do well, lead well, and all that, mean for an infraction we must see them in a bad light?

People are not perfect, even those that are good find themselves tranished by comment, suggestion and innuendos, it is almost like we must find something to bring them down.

Wazza says:

04:45pm | 23/11/09

Paid interview + tabloid TV = Zero credibilty, Channel 7 have become the Zoo weekly of television.

Cecilia B de Mille says:

04:28pm | 23/11/09

Have we slipped so far that sleazy behaviour is tolerated in our leaders? It’s one thing for a single again politician to have a personal life. But he or she should be careful. Potting the nearest service staff is not only declassé, but lazy.
I prefer to be proud of my leaders, and it’s a long time since Rann and his cohort gave me any reason to feel that way.

BundyGil says:

04:08pm | 23/11/09

What a load of old rope. The blogs I’ve been reading about this 90% support Rann. This was a paid interview by a woman who got caught out when she told her husband or let something slip.
She’s obviously been spinning her hubby a line and trying to evade responsibility for the affair by saying it was all Rann. I don’t believe that for a second, and neither does anyone else.
Just a put up job to get some money to pay for hubby’s assault charge defence and try and get hubby back onside.
As usual, the news limited ‘manufactured’ controversy shock journos are out in force.
Give it a rest.

Jarrad M says:

04:01pm | 23/11/09

Media Mike. For some reason I dont believe his side of the story. What is even more interesting is how long this took to come out. He was assaulted by her ex husband a couple of months ago.

Ian says:

03:58pm | 23/11/09

Clearly he needs to crash-land a plane first.

Harry K says:

03:57pm | 23/11/09

Margaret ( 02:08pm | 23/11/09) you hit the nail on the head !
Why would the people have to fork out money for an parliamentary enquiry into his wife having an affair?
Mind you - it wasn’t the premier having an affair, he was single and does not have to take responsibility for the stupidity (or was it?) of this woman.

Tony says:

03:56pm | 23/11/09

Only two things could make this an issue the public needs or deserves to know about. Firstly if he mislead Parliament and secondly, if he uses the public’s money to launch legal action. If the first, then Westminster tradition says he must resign. If the second, I want it web-streamed so I can get my moneys worth, after all, I’m funding it.

ben says:

03:55pm | 23/11/09

I do wonder if the any media attention is ever paid the personal lives of newspaper proprietors and owners of TV stations. Or are the very people who’s editorials and coverage decide the fate of public figures immune from any scrutiny or accountability?

Jo Goudie says:

03:48pm | 23/11/09

She got $100k for it, the exhusband will get his share through the family court, so isn’t it profitable for both of them - who is playing who?

Johno says:

03:47pm | 23/11/09

His name is Mike Rann, State Premier therefore his behavior is acceptable, however if his name were changed to, let’s say Andrew Lovett, Wayne Carey or Fev we would be calling for his head.  Why do we see poor behavior by sports identities as being unacceptable and continue to allow our politicians to get away with whatever.  He should stand down until he can clear his name and if he can’t he should resign from the Parliament, it is no different to what many expect to happen to our sports people.

Linda W says:

03:32pm | 23/11/09

The critical issue is whether he degraded his position as the Premier of South Australia by using a Parliamentary office to engage in sexual liaisons.

Andrew says:

03:27pm | 23/11/09

I don’t think most of you people get it

if Mike Rann has repeatedly lied about this to firstly, his wife and party, and then the public - then he must go

questions?

Dan says:

03:03pm | 23/11/09

Yep, you MUST answer every question candidly, Premier. Whether it pertains to your role or not, doesn’t matter What ever is put to you, however personal, you must answer honestly and in detail. The rest of the community would be held to that standard by our employers - my boss might want to know about my romantic life to assess my character. Lord knows the rest of the Parliament would submit themselves to this scrutiny and make a definitive statement, so make way for one of them if you can’t bring yourself to discuss your bowel movements and nightly dreams.

And in next week’s paper we’ll lament it’s so hard to attract quality people to public life…..

Harold says:

02:25pm | 23/11/09

Oh yeah having sex is a sackable offence…why dont you childish purile media hacks grow up or disappear. You are hardly the moral guardians.

Steve says:

02:11pm | 23/11/09

Mr Rann, you have my support,,,,ih SHE wanted her sexual and financial appetites to be knows all around the world, she succeded,,,

Garry says:

02:11pm | 23/11/09

Said before, it takes two to tango… the man was single the lady not, both are wrong but it happened. To take a moral high ground and spit out the rubbish I am unfortunately reading and hearing around this country is exactly that, rubbish.

Fire him/Resign, no. Not at all. Happens all over Australia in every walk of life.

Should our pollies be more accountable for affairs (is it an affair if your not married) I say no, happens all the time. Try telling a few other politicial leaders, MP’s, Ministers, Premiers and PM’s both here and elsewhere past and recent that they should have resigned for their affairs. Why this one, why now?

Should we allow women (or if ever men) to be paid for their stories, no, its just money grabbing from a person who broke her own marriage.

Sad thing is a man is hurt and probably wont get half the money as a wife leaving her man would do.

Should we have more moral people in positions of power… ah wishful thinking me thinks

ray says:

01:52pm | 23/11/09

is the press in S.A. so short of a worthwile story ?and are these journo’s so squaky clean? perhaps if this is in the negative, before blowing the whole issue out of proportion they should have a look into their own past peckadillo’s.

Don says:

01:44pm | 23/11/09

Putting aside the other question of Rann’s culpability in a marriage breakup there is another equally serious issue here. A barmaid willingly has a 4 year affair with a politician and cheats on her husband. She was careless enough to be discovered. She pays the price for her indiscretion with the breakup of her marriage. She loses both her husband and the politician. End of story? No. She decides to capitalise on her sorry tale and makes herself out to be the innocent victim although she cares not about whether she destroys the career and family of the one she is accusing. Forget the possibility that she had anything to gain from the lucrative television payment she received for publicly betraying their relationship. She claims seduction by a man in a position of power but what about the possibility of her seducing a man in a position of power. She tries to shame him as someone having an affair with a married woman but what about she being a married woman cheating on her husband. One wonders whether what semblance of self-respectability she loses after the dust settles is worth the $100,000 (minus tax) she gained from that.

Steve Shannon says:

01:44pm | 23/11/09

How did she get her current job in Parliament??
How did she keep her current job in Parliament?
What special favours did she get for sleeping with the Labor premier?
Amazing how many people accept Labor corruption and abuse of power as normal now.
No wonder the country is going down the drain if this bloke is the best that Labor has in SA.
Labor = Stench=corruption= poverty for all

Liz says:

01:30pm | 23/11/09

He was single, she could have said no if it’s true.He has nothing to answer.She deserves to be sued for defamation if she’s accepted $1000,000 plus for lies.
This woman shows all the signs of being seriously disempowered,she needs help.

Freddo B says:

01:12pm | 23/11/09

She makes out like she was a little naive girl. She was 33 for heaven’s sake! As for her hubby, well! A rolled up newspaper?

I couldn’t care less about Mr Rann’s sex life and neither should anyone else. Sounds like she’s done alright out of it, $100,000?

WhoCares? says:

01:12pm | 23/11/09

Let him do his job. The woman is money hungry. Nothing more, nothing less. Wow a premier had an affair. None of my business. Go run the state Mr Rann.

GC says:

01:11pm | 23/11/09

I was watching Sunday Night, and I don’t believe that lady who was interviewed.

She did’nt seem genuinely sorry in her interview. I can tell by her facial expression, there was no sign of tears in her interview.

Yeah, I am a man, but I am on Mike Rann side on this issue !!

Allan says:

01:09pm | 23/11/09

The woman claims that even though she was paid for the interview the money means nothing.

If it means nothing then give it to charity and make your story more beleiviable.

I think she did it for the money. She claim on air that her husband’s business was going down hill.

I say no more

Margaret says:

01:08pm | 23/11/09

This husband is an idiot. He wants a parliamentary enquiry into his wife having an affair? Get over it.

AM says:

01:05pm | 23/11/09

He hasn’t lied and if he did not admit to any sex with her,.. well that is his business. He may have wanted to protect her and her family, but she has decided to play the scandal card. What a load of rubbish. I think her ex husband is in on this whole charade to make money out of the issue.  Has the media examined the possibility that this is a case of extortion rather than scandal?

The Birdman says:

01:01pm | 23/11/09

Do I detect the whiff of an election some time next year? Surely there wouldn’t be any political motive behind all this publicity.

Did she consent - yes or no? Has an offence been committed - yes or no? Has someone been charged - yes or no?

The great thing about this stuff is that Rann is deemed guilty in the absence of evidence proving his innocence.  I seem to recall the media upholding its duty to protect human rights, except the right to a fair trial (where one’s due). Oh yes, no-one charged because no offence committed.

Ray says:

12:55pm | 23/11/09

Sacking offence? She was the married one. She took the money from the media. Rann and her poor husband take the collateral damage as usual and the woman just pockets the money. When I say poor husband I mean it. She’s shown her colours, and will be aided and abetted by the family court when the boom comes down on her marriage and she decides to financially decimate her husband and retain child(ren). Women really are priceless.

Frank says:

12:52pm | 23/11/09

I feel sorry for the dude whos wife cheated on him. But he needs to realise that if his wife cheated on him it was her, not Mike Rann. If my wife cheated on me with an unmarried state pollie (omg how lame) I would ditch her in an instant. Says more about her than him. Im not voting for Labor though for different reasons.

Nick says:

12:50pm | 23/11/09

I can’t help wondering why the Libs are so quiet on this one, perhaps Chanters was appealing to both sides of the house.
Why her husband is so upset at the loss of this woman is beyond me, as is the media’s idea that this is newsworthy!

chandra says:

12:49pm | 23/11/09

This is an incident that happened four years ago between two consenting adults…The lady has no right to accuse the premier now of destroying her family life.Where was her conscience when she was ‘befriending’ a male while she was still married?
this whole hype seems to be created and fanned by the media-which is stooping to the lowest point ever…

Danny says:

12:45pm | 23/11/09

Slightly off the point, but the media always refer to Michelle Chantelois as a barmaid.  It may sound less salacious, but hows about mother, parliamentary staffer or even uni student?  Anyways, we cannot have lying politicians in office. 

Simon says:

12:44pm | 23/11/09

In these days where morals don’t seem to matter, marriage is treated with disrespect, nothing seems to matter.
However, morals do matter and lack of morals in dealing with others as in this instance is sure to affect one’s behavious elsewhere, and not for the better.

Wayne says:

12:42pm | 23/11/09

Well Nick, no wonder they are lying low, they are like little children who have done the mischief, and now they are acting like perfect little angels, and some of us can see right through it.
Shame on Channel 7, and New Idea, for paying.

Tinman says:

12:42pm | 23/11/09

I see the Spin doctors and Rannites are out in force on the blogs, Claiming disinterest ( yet interested enough to comment) Claiming Media Grubs looking for Scandals ( Yep that’s their job ) Media Bias ( funny how the Liberals and Labor both claim this when it suits them !)  , Blaming the woman (typical in any type of event concerning a man V woman dispute )  Questioning her motives (Her Motive was Money ! yep that’s how you get people go public with things they prefer kept quite , Offer to good to refuse )  I lay odds that in years to come Rann will also take money for the story (or write a book)  if it continues as a he said she said ! Rann has ZERO credibility has run/ won on total spin and a weak opposition for 7 years ! Any normal person even suspected of such conduct would be sacked ! Fail Honesty , Fail integrity , Fail Morals , Failed voters !

Andrew says:

12:38pm | 23/11/09

Publicly, its not about what was done, its about a high profile persons ability to tell the truth.

Peter from the Bush says:

12:37pm | 23/11/09

Three years later and this woman wants to make money.Sorry BUT this is pathetic.
Who is she trying to screw up…..this happened so long ago,she has lost her husband so why should she stuff up another life.
All I can say is for this woman to ‘get a life’wake up to yourself and DONT be so bloody greedy and also get your 15 minutes of fame at the expense of a Premier

Al says:

12:36pm | 23/11/09

Unlike most comments on here, I actually agree that this is a sacking offence if it can be shown that ANY ‘sexual encounters’ between them occured during work time. As she has stated that it included sex on his MPs desk that indicates that it occured during work time. ANY such encounter with a staff member during work time is a serious breach of the Parlimentary Code of Ethics . Had it occured entirely out of work areas this would be a non-issue.

Sean says:

12:34pm | 23/11/09

Is anybody surprised that this aired on “Sunday Night” fronted by former Channel 9 bover boy Mike Munroe? Channel 7 curent affairs programmes have no credibility took a dive with their phoney “Skase Chase” & New Idea has its own problems with the story on Bec Hewitt. The best place for this story is the bottom of the birdcage!

Radical Chick says:

12:30pm | 23/11/09

A woman on her 30’s who despite being married was willing to have sex with a premier who was also willing is NONE of my business…
But let me tell you…as a woman I feel offended that the TV will think I want to know what the sexual affairs of old people are…it only gives voice to revengeful women and makes TV Producers look positively silly.
Don’t ask don’t tell policy should surely apply.

Allan says:

12:27pm | 23/11/09

Just goes to show that channel 7 has sunk to new low in competing with channel 9 for tabloid rubbish, it just reaffirms my decision to not watch the garbage they dish up and call journalism. As if anyone believes she didn’t do it for the money, bet she was coached by the interviewer to make it a salacious as possible. 7 & 9 lost all creditability for me years ago.

Jeff says:

12:23pm | 23/11/09

Was she underage? No
Was she married? Yes
Was he married? No
Did she give informed consent? Yes
Did she tell her husband at the time? No
Did she enjoy it? Yes, by her admission

Why is he the problem?
Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

KK says:

12:23pm | 23/11/09

Although he was a single man at that time, please remember she WAS a married woman (and he ought to know better as a ordinary man and more so as the PREMIER!) I doubt she would have come clean with this story if it hadn’t been for her husband still suffering over the breakdown of their marriage, assaulting Rann in public, his life moves on (the Premier) whilst it stopped for them) And to think Rann changed his phone number when their affair was exposed by her husband, what a cowardly act, he is not fit to be a Premier! I find her interview to be believable and credible.

Alison says:

12:14pm | 23/11/09

Seriously the guy was supposed single, she was the one with the commitment to be married . And her reason for coming out now, I want to clear my name for my children’s benefit, yeah that is going to help your kids the entire country knowing your mum had sex with someone else while being married. Why do these women have to use the media for money once they have consented to doing something for an entire year , not just a one off mistake. Women like this who gets paid for telling stories have no integrity, having an affair is her own business we are NOT Interested nor are we concerned in her attempt to bring someone else down. Let it be known I live in WA and do not care about SA politics but come on as a society we need to start making the people who come and tell everyone about there sex life for personal gain a scape goat. No one cares if I had an affair .

Fred says:

12:13pm | 23/11/09

“the voting public is starting to disbelieve him. Last night in a poll on AdelaideNow a sizeable majority - 57 per cent - said they thought he should quit.”

An internet poll! Could have been Liberal staffers voting dozens of times each, for all anyone knows. Totally worthless and not representative of anything.

Chris says:

12:01pm | 23/11/09

I don’t care so much about the sex, but its Mr Ranns lies and “spin” that have lost him the trust of South Australians. He has to go (and take liar Hoon Tom with him as well…)

alex says:

11:50am | 23/11/09

why doesn’t Rann just do the obvious and say he did not have sex in his office? confirm or deny, lots of people are waiting.

steve says:

11:49am | 23/11/09

I’m not a fan of the premier but I also find the woman’s story a bit hard to believe. If it is true then I think he should be sacked since someone who shows such dishonesty (and does it on work time in his work office) really shouldn’t be trusted with such an important job. All sounds rather sensationalised to me though. The fact that the woman got such a big payout for the interview doesn’t do anything to help her credibility.

Martin says:

11:47am | 23/11/09

Why should anybody including a politician be required to talk publicly about his/hers sex life?  If he wants to deny it, he has every right to do so. It is NOT our business, unless he gave away state secrets!

Balanced says:

11:43am | 23/11/09

Come on; be fair on the lady. Mr Rann is numero uno in SA and she clearly responded to his interest in her over an extended period, sexual or otherwise. You can’t bag her because she found him attractive; he’s no Clarke Kent but power is sexy, ask anyone in politics. Now she’s lost her husband, she’s had to apologise to her child, and let me assure you she will have to leave clubby Adelaide, or hide in the Adelaide Hills. If she can pick up a couple of hundred thousand for the story, good luck to her. She’s attractive, articulate and photogenic. If she uses her brain, she will come out of this well, in another city of course.

Steve says:

11:43am | 23/11/09

Mike Rann should be allowed to keep on governing the state without past sexual encounters become front page news. I am sick of journalists trying to bring politicians to their knees, bypassing the democratic process. If people don’t like Mike Rann, then they will have the oppurtunity to express their opinion at the looming state election.

paulm says:

11:38am | 23/11/09

If the Premier is comfortable blatantly lying to the public then the whole democractic process is underminded.  Its that simple.  So the issue needs to be investigated further so the truth comes out.  No doubt there are 100 journalists digging in the dirt right now and we’ll find out as the week unfolds….

Kate (from 10.33, not the other Kates) says:

11:37am | 23/11/09

@ Stu

The thought occurred to me while I was reading on this story earlier that perhaps this woman is still in some way ‘invested’ so to speak in her relationship with her ex ... if they are still ‘ex’. When there’s children involved it’s to be expected there is usually still a relationship of sorts.

Then I read the info I’ve linked to below.

I don’t know of the truth of this, but I on another web site there’s mention of murmurs in ‘political circles’ that her ex set up the i/v.

The thought occurs he needs either (a) money or (b) positive press for his future court appearance.

I hope Punch don’t mind too much if I link to the ‘source’ page : http://www.vexnews.com/news/7394/unfaithful-barmaid-bimbo-accuses-premier-but-did-she-lie-for-loot-and-does-it-matter-anyway/

Frankly the page reads very much like a gossip mill so I’m not putting too much into what it’s saying, but I thought it an interesting angle.

Julie Ann says:

11:31am | 23/11/09

If Ms. Chantelois is telling the truth about her alleged afair with Mike Rann,then he should admit to it and not try to spin his way out of it. After all he is the Master of Spin. There is one way for the truth to come out and that is if Michelle is lying or stretching the truth, then Mike Rann could sue her for defamation BIG TIME!!!
If true, it seriously casts doubts on Mike Rann’s character and judgement and he should consider doing the honourable thing and resign.

Barbara says:

11:24am | 23/11/09

I find it quite ironic that in this age where sexual preference and how much sex you have had seems to be the big discussion point on TV, radio, music etc it is all you hear about and yet a man who was single at the time may or may not have had sex with an adult women (the fact that she was married and had an affair in totally on her as she could have said no) could end his career.  As for Craig Hendry at 8.15 saying we don’t want liars in Parliament are you for real?  We have always had liars in Parliament.

Balanced says:

11:20am | 23/11/09

Without wishing to comment on the veracity of the various claims and counter-claims of the particular matter, it has often amazed me to observe people in positions of power exercise poor judgement, get caught, and try to lie their way out of it. You can’t deny that the lady isn’t very attractive, and that she is credible. Phone records can be checked, and if her claims about the number of them is correct, then it is clear the Mr Rann has taken a great deal of interest in a particular member of the Parliament House staff, with or without sex, and that she was married at the time. In the old days, the Husband would have challenged him to a duel, or a round or two of fisticuffs, and I suspect Mr Rann would have come off the worst for the claimed dishonour. He should know that everything in life comes with a price. Jay Leno asked Hugh Grant “what were you thinking?” Mr Rann is an accomplished politician. Even if he didn’t have sex with her on his desk, against the wall, on the floor or in the Park, emulating the said erotic video, you just wonder what was he thinking? Oh dear.

Barnsey says:

11:09am | 23/11/09

Come on journos, start digging. She met him at a school function then got a job at Parliament House - digging to be done. Have senior public servants been sacked for similar indiscretions? - digging to be done and maybe hypocrisy to be divulged. Was he truly single when all this happened? Just because you’re not engaged or married doesn’t exactly mean you’re single. He told Sasha all about it - yeah he told her he had a plutonic friendship, is that all about it? You seem to very reluctant to follow up on some very obvious points.

stu says:

10:55am | 23/11/09

Ms. Chantelois was asked if her appearance on Channel 7 was motivated by the money she was being paid. She replied that she wasn’t motivated by money but that Rick, her husband, “deserves to know the truth”.

So why not just tell him face-to-face? No need to blast it over the airwaves and pocket tens of thousands of dollars in the process.

Detective Goran says:

10:53am | 23/11/09

What surprises me is following: this lady has been interviewed and filmed for 11 (ELEVEN) hours, claims Channel 7. Therefore what she says must be true, claims Channel 7….....In the practice of interrogation, usually people are willing to say anything after 10hours of interrogating. Besides that, of the 11 hours, what did we see ? Snippets, in total maybe 10 minutes ??

Bethany says:

10:39am | 23/11/09

Q: “...even if he did have sex with a married barmaid, what does that have to do with his ability to run the state?”
A: Absolutely nothing.

paul cambell says:

10:32am | 23/11/09

Well well well. Guess the bias is noitable . When I see MARRIED BARMAID? like hello. Gee aint it strange how the politicaly correct is very quickly dropped when its a woman saying this about a labor poli. Why si she called a BARMAID. That went years back so why is it the newspaper and media outlets are so selective when it writes the story calling her a married barmaid. what a disgrace and what a show od immeadiate hey she is onlya barmaid. Trying to make gher look like the lower side and just the old barmaid . I thought she was an attendant at the Gov dining area when this happened. Or do they call them waiters and barmaids? I think not. You have shiowed your biased media on this one.

H of SA says:

10:28am | 23/11/09

With even further thought on this it becomes even less of an issue.

To me, the job of the state government is to support the public service departments to do the best job they possibly can with the available resources - and begin new programmes that will be beneficial to the lives of South Australians.

If the premier were to lie about sex to the public (which is still not proven) that’s poor leadership - but in the end when I vote next year I will vote for the party I feel will make the best use of tax payer money. Now if a Premier were caught misusing public money….....

DJGF says:

10:27am | 23/11/09

Is it 2009 or the Victorian era. What a disgrace that we are dicussing Two consenting adults having or not having sex. Thats what this is about. It’s notabout honesty or deciet. Its nobodies business but theres. It’s not the husband’s business iether. If he doesnt like it he can leave or she can leave. If it did happen it certainly was’nt Rann’s role to maintain the couples marriage vow’s. I think it has been very decent of him not to discuss any sexual matters, until now.

dancan says:

10:21am | 23/11/09

You know I don’t care if he slept with her or not.  But i’d still back Rann over Ms Chantelois simply because she’s only doing this as some spiteful cash grab.  There is nothing to be gained other than money from this whole thing and it was only ever started for money

Kate says:

10:19am | 23/11/09

why do politicians set such a bad example and why do they think they will be able to get away with it always amazes me.
If they do this what else are they capable of doing

Prince Albert says:

10:17am | 23/11/09

Hey Paul,
No it’s not a sacking offence.  I don’t know about you, but even though I am a total angel and have never done nothing wrong in all my life, I bet there is at least someone in the past that would like to build a case against me if I ever become premier of South Australia.  If we get rid of Rann for this, then we are setting up future politicians for ruin if an old girlfriend should come out and say she was treated badly.

Ben says:

10:09am | 23/11/09

There will be a lot sensational comment on this issue, much of it probably as tacky as Ms Chantelois and the current affairs program which aired it.
I suspect not many people have gained an impression that Ms Chantelois is some sort of unwilling victim of a sexually rapacious politician from her interview. Her language and her past actions clearly undermine any such impression.
It is fair to assume that she was paid for the interview on the condition that she went into the salacious details, on which basis you have at least respect her integrity - once bought she stayed bought! But she was very ill advised to try and assume the high moral ground at the same time as spill the beans. If as she claims she wanted to come to clean to her ex-husband she could have done that in another way.

The question I ask Mark Riley is what is the relevance of the all the salacious detail?? If you believe that this affair reflects badly on Mike Rann’s character then isn’t revealing the fact that it allegedly occurred enough?

This is the problem with seven network’s approach. Once they agreed to pay they clearly wanted to make a massive profit and went for all the sensation they could provide.

As for the issue of lying I think to get some perspective. Moral relativism is not desirable at the extreme end of the spectrum, but is lying when asked if you are having an extra marital affair an issue of character? What would you expect? It can hardly be compared to lying about something to do with the governance of the state with which he is presently entrusted.

Kate says:

10:09am | 23/11/09

Whether the content of the interview be true or not - it is hardly worth Channel 7 paying for it and no-one’s business.

RAVEN says:

10:08am | 23/11/09

It’s all about character, lying is not a nice trait to have. I want a premier that is above approach both in public and in their private life. What you do in one you’ll do in the other. Resign Mr Rann….....you’ve been caught out.

Jordan says:

09:55am | 23/11/09

WROTE:  Ante Androvic says: 09:34am | 23/11/09
John A Neve, your very defensive of Mr Rann.
Yes,  who cares about his sex life.
But I hope he doesnt manage his party the way he manages his sexual affairs.
Its the lies, deceit manipulation and denial, if true,  that has interested most people who voted for him.”

What lies, deceit and manipulation?

Let me ask you this Mr. Ante Androvic: Have you ever had an affair with a man/women who was in a relationship, married or otherwise?

jumpin jack says:

09:54am | 23/11/09

It’s not so much that he may have had sex with the woman in question but the fact he was pushing the family values wheelbarrow while he was allegedley having sex with a married woman is the killer here.

James says:

09:54am | 23/11/09

The chief issue is character: Mike Rann accused this woman of lying; and then (until today) lied to the Australian people. This woman has EVERY right to defend herself.

Calliope says:

09:52am | 23/11/09

It isnt the alleged sex, it is the alleged sex in a Parliamentary office, that is so disrespectful to South Australia.  Add to that, at the time of the initial attack that Rann said publically he had no idea why he was attacked, when he obviously did.  A couple of days later he was singing Ms Chantelois’ praises and virtue, now he is condemning her.  I think everyone involved is very tawdry.

Tyler says:

09:51am | 23/11/09

For once in his career he should tell us the open truth, unvarnished truth and let the public judge what should happen.

oleg says:

09:48am | 23/11/09

High ranked politicians must have more than legal / illegal concept of behaviour. They are our leaders. And personally, I expect crystal clear moral standards from them. The one, who is not able to take care of his/her personal messy affairs, cannot take care of our society.

Ecinor says:

09:46am | 23/11/09

I feel extremely sorry for the woman’s children, they are being put through some truly unsavoury details and must have little respect for their mother.  She was married, he wasn’t, they were both adults.  She made the mistake, didn’t say no, now she’s trying to milk the system for all it’s worth.  Time to take responsibility for their own actions and accept an error in judgement.

Peter says:

09:45am | 23/11/09

We have a right to expect integrity from our leaders, even if lies weren’t involved, the premiers private life DOES matter.  Both parties should agree to a lie-detector test to put the matter to rest.  Then this story can either die the death it deserves, or Rann should resign in disgrace.

Stephen Griffen says:

09:43am | 23/11/09

Two consenting adults. Let’s get out of their bedroom and concentrate on issues of importance….

Nathman says:

09:38am | 23/11/09

Meh, this thing happens all the time. There’s allot of bored married people out there. In the meantime, I’ll stay a happy single without the useless baggage of a relationship.

Simple Symon says:

09:34am | 23/11/09

Not for one second am I purporting to be a paragon of moral virtue but then again I’m not holding one of the highest offices in the country and the highest office in the state of SA.  Quite apart from any moral debates, I just resent the apparent disdain these politicians have for their constituents and the manner in which the urinate taxpayers monies up against a wall.  They don’t have money for keeping schools for the disabled open or adding cancer drugs to the PBS etc but they do have money to waste on politicians’ largesse (all sides of politics), grant regular payrises, increase electoral allowances etc.  This wouldn’t be so bad were they any good at doing what they’re ostensibly there to do ie serve the people.  Instead blokes like allegedly Rann, Della-Bosca, Hawke, even Evans with Kernot, whilst mouthing moral platitudes, are doing to their liaisons what they’re doing to their respective states and countries and doing so royally!

Brett says:

09:33am | 23/11/09

If he was truly not married at the time, he should have just told the truth and apologise. But to deny it will only makes it worse. The truth will come out one way or another. He should have nailed it before the show, then maybe the show would have dropped it’s price to her.
He should have said, “yes we had a fleeting relationship, I was a single man and she was unhappy. I moved on and meet my beautiful wife”

Kate says:

09:32am | 23/11/09

I couldn’t care less if it was true or not whether they had sex. TMI. If they did, as many have pointed out - _she_ was the one who was married, _She_ was the one who made vows. If they did, who says he knew she was married?

With regards to saying he didn’t have sex with her - if he did .... well isn’t he damned if he says yes, regardless of the fact he was single? Men aren’t supposed to kiss and tell, it reflects poorly on their characters if they do.

As to whether they did have sex or not - maybe this is my prejudice towards blondes coming to the fore, but she came across as being like an emotional vampire to me. That is, someone who thrives on the attention received from melodramatic circumstances to the extent that they propagate the melodrama themselves. As others have said - she supposed to be an adult and yet she’s supposedly not responsible, he is.

The whole story reeks and I couldn’t care less. Tabloid journalism.

Now if it had been someone who campaigned on religious family values that would be another story. I already tend to treat ‘religious’ politicians as a bit on the whiffy side as I think rather than standing for all their constituents they’ll probably just stand for the beliefs of those who follow their specific religion, so if one’s actions were found to be hypocritical of their own beliefs I would be baying for their blood.

Matt says:

09:31am | 23/11/09

Only people in Adelaide could care about this! Stop being such a bunch of puritanical Christians!

Paul C says:

09:23am | 23/11/09

What is wrong for two adults to have fun at their own will? The problem is now that one of them is prepared to sell the past fun for money. Even worst is Media is going to pay the money for these rubbish old ‘news’.

adelaide lady says:

09:22am | 23/11/09

we need a person who is a fit and proper person for the role of premier. this brings the role into disrepute and ridicule.

he will go eventually anyway. but his ego will not let him yet.
meanwhile his family and everyone else is exposed to this matter.

the energy would be better served in managing this state. we are the losers. but time will take care of it i expect.

Keni says:

09:20am | 23/11/09

I think Sunday and channel 7 engage in gutter journalism and that the fact that Mike Rann had an affair with a married woman while he was single is his own business.  However, what concerns me is Mike Rann is the Premier of SA and his integrity is know in question.  Mike Rann is the author of SA’s code of conduct for Ministers and this code implicitly states that this type of behaviour is unacceptable of a Minister.  Also, it was only a few months ago when Mike Rann spoke out against the behaviour of some sportspeople, saying that these people a role models as as such and theri actions should face the full weight of the law.  Hypocritical ? ... I think so!

Brian says:

09:21am | 23/11/09

It’s not the fact he had sex that’s the problem it’s the fact he has lied to the South Australian public. When he was attacked by the husband he claimed he didn’t know who the man was, then it’s revealed he recieved/sent over 200 text messages to the woman in question, then he claimed they had a close friendship (even though formerly he claimed he had no idea who the husband was), and as a Premier, Mike Rann is expected to uphold certain morals in that position. If indeed he did have sex with a married woman in a government office, then yes it is a sackable offence. Given that this woman has several people who have signed stat decs saying they had knowledge of the affair years ago, and the fishyness of a premier who is having a “close friendship” with a married woman, it’s quite obvious to anyone with common sense that Mike Rann hasn’t been truthful and most probably did have an affair with this woman - and if he is lying to the taxpayers of South Australia about that, then what else is he lying about? I believe he should stand down as Premier of this state.

Anne says:

09:19am | 23/11/09

Her comments about his morals last night were ludicrous he was single and she wasn’t. Her choice. Her conscience. Her Husband. Who cares this is a storm in a T cup and to me even if he is lying its irrelevant .
Sexual conduct between consenting adults is between them.
Her payment for her story really only suggests this person has questionable morals all round. She cuckolds her husband and then announces it on Tv for money I have to wonder where Othelo is when you need him.
Um the fact that he asked her to hide the affair had nothing to do with her ,oh please really this woman needs some serious help and guidance.

H of SA says:

09:18am | 23/11/09

Probably not a sacking offence. Lets face it you could pick just about anyone to lead Labor to the next state election and they would win. The SA Liberals are bankrupt financially and unable to campaign - and I don’t think sex, real or alleged, is enough to make the voters change.

P.S. Please show your audience the respect of not publishing Adelaide now polls as if they had some credibility - it reminds me of the the polling of Frontline

Jordan says:

09:17am | 23/11/09

This is all about Mark Riley attempting to make the BIG SCOOP!

Who is Mark Riley to preach his sense of morals onto the rest of the community?

Question to Mark Riley: “Can you tell us whether or not you ever have had an affair with a married women/man, or ever had an inappropriate relationship of any kind?

Diana says:

09:15am | 23/11/09

If Rann resigns, it will be mainly about the lies, if the allegations are true. Rick Phillips certainly seems to believe that the affair happened - why would he have assaulted Mike if there was no reason! If Mark Brindal resigned over his sex scandal, then so should Mike Rann if found to be lying. I think that there are three important points if the allegations are true: It appears that Mike Rann has knowingly affected a marriage, he may have had sex in Parliament House (Brindal got the stick for that too!) and he could be lying, which is the worst offence in relation to the trust his constituents have placed in him. How could you trust this man further to run the state?

Wayno says:

09:15am | 23/11/09

To all those who are saying its OK it was consensual sex whats the problem, you are missing one important thing, its adultery. In adultery of course both parties agree to have sex but that doesn’t make it right. How would you feel if your partner was having an affair I don’t think you would be so forgiving, even if it was consensual.

Hard up Liberal says:

09:14am | 23/11/09

Its always the Labor guys who get upto no good! Whats up with that?

Baz says:

09:11am | 23/11/09

As the writer points out, sex scandals generally bring the end of a politician’s political life, but it is not because of the sex, it is because of the lies told to try to cover up the sex. I find it incredible to think that this bird has gone to such an exent for a bit of money and 5 minutes of fame. And if it is successful, I think she will very much regret the telling of this story, as much as Monica Lewinsy regrets the hoo haa her story caused. What woman would like to go down (no pun intended) in history as the girl with the stained dress!!!!

Sarah says:

09:10am | 23/11/09

TV stations and journalists who pay ex lovers to do tell all sex stories deserve the total contempt of the public.What interest is it to the public if anyone of us has a sexual relationship.This is GUTTER Journalism at its worst.Mr Rann and his wife have accepted there was a past relationship with this woman.He was not married at the time .Voters have much more important things to consider than someones private sex life.

GJM says:

09:10am | 23/11/09

When she was confronted about ‘You are being paid for this interview’ and she replied ‘It’s not about the money….’?!?!

Then why take the money and sell the story to a womens mag as well - give the money to charity and I’ll believe you had the right intentions.

JC says:

09:09am | 23/11/09

Best to spill the beans, apologise and move on. Dont feed the media circus.

Brendan Maclean says:

09:09am | 23/11/09

A comment which sums up my opinion:

“Why is sex between two adults newsworthy?? He wasnt married & wasnt voted in on a ‘no casual sex’ platform, so whats the deal??”

jim says:

09:09am | 23/11/09

I get worried when people are paid for stories. Are they telling the truth or making it up to get paid more. I get more dubious about stories when channel 7 & the new idea are involved, they have in the past never let the truth stand in the way of a story. Look at new ideas handling of the hewits story & the lies.
But what makes it all look dodgy is this all happened 6 years ago & it just comes out now in the lead up to an election.If this is all true why did they not use it last election or did the then leadership have a bit more integrity.

SM says:

09:09am | 23/11/09

If only it was Rees instead…

John A Neve says:

09:08am | 23/11/09

Craig Hendry @ 0916hrs. you obviously know a lot more about Mike Rann’s
live than most of us!!  I am unaware that he has denied the relationship, or that the affair was still taking place when he was courting. As to deceiving the “ladies” husband, surely she was the one doing that? Regarding government and the people, I can only repeat, I fail to see how the man’s private life has any thing to do with his job. Do you know who your local doctor slept with last night? More importantly, does it matter?

Jason says:

09:06am | 23/11/09

The fact that this woman asked to be and was paid to say what she did leaves a sour taste in my mouth. If she truly was doing the interview to “stop the lies” and take responsibility for her actions then she would have done it for no money at all. I really couldn’t care less if Mr Rann did have sex with her. They are both consenting adults,the fact that she was the married one with children, makes what she did far worse.
I would think that the more this story is discussed the more she will wish that she never did the interview. Maybe she thought that this would smooth things over with her family and things would go back to the way they were but i would think it can only make it worse.
Regardless if these allegations are found to be truthful or false it will hurt Mr Ranns image. So either way if she wanted to get back at him in some way it was a job well done but at what cost. I don’t care what a politician does in their personal life as long as it isn’t illegal. If this sort of thing costs a politician their job, then i think all that are involved should hang their heads in shame.

louise says:

09:05am | 23/11/09

Ms Chantelois did not come out of that interview looking like a credible source. I watched it all and she is not taking any responsibility for her actions. From Rann’s response today, neither is he. Take politics out and it sounds like a scorned lover.

With so much going on in South Australia at the moment this will be a sad distraction. The Liberals will have a field day with this, but it won’t change much. Their internal bickering will not see them come out on top.

At the end of the day, 7 will be the biggest looser here. Like to see them get anything out of a Labour press secretary now. With the lead up to an election, their news service has just lost even more credibility.

Ray says:

09:04am | 23/11/09

In last nights TV interview she said money was not the motivator for giving the story, if this is true then let us see her donate the money to a much needed charity. She feathered her own bed, now she must lay in it, there is always two sides to a story.

Paul Kuhn says:

09:03am | 23/11/09

I see the issue being that if a politician is in question for his personal behavior, then what would he/she be quite at ease with doing to the public?  Those of you not in SA might not recall Rann said he didn’t even know the husband when he got smacked with a rolled up magazine, denied knowing who he was, then all of this unfolds subsequently.  So obviously Rann is prepared to lie to cover his own arse.  Lies are used as deception, so we have lies and deception. Then as some point out, he was single so it was OK. It was not OK, she was married and he had no respect for that. I wouldn’t care if he was Labor, Liberal or Yellows, there are clearly a lack of morality and ethics here. Affairs always harm more than just the affairees, Ranns current wife, her children, her ex-husband and probably others.  The reason why this is important is that if he has been shown to be untrustworthy and unbeleiveable then what else is he prepared to do? What else has he lied about?  Our leaders - of ANY ilk - MUST be beyond reproach. Any trust in him as a senior figure of community values has been wiped out regardless of anything aired last night or what she says.

Jeff L says:

09:01am | 23/11/09

Consensual sex between two adults. Who cares. What a tacky media driven beat up.

Nicola says:

09:01am | 23/11/09

It is hard to interpret this as anything but opportunism and motivated by money.
Even if the affair did occur, Chantelois is happy to portray herself as essentially a foolish victim who was powerless putty in the hands of Mike Rann, when she was in fact a grown woman who could have easily said no. If there was no money for her story, would we even be hearing this? She is disgracing herself more than anyone else. If indeed she is telling the truth, this is a personal matter that she is making public for her own gain.

Paul Horn says:

08:59am | 23/11/09

What I find more far more fascinating is the depths of depravity the filthy press will stoop to in order to get a good story!! It makes me laugh on the disgraceful snippets I have heard aired during commercials that this women wants to come clean. Why does she need to vent her story to the public in order to clear the air!  One simple reason - money! 100 grand should make her feel vindicated. Just think about it she could make a career out of this!

There should be a Royal Commission into the dirty tactics employed by the press with a full disclosure of what she has been paid before the “report” goes to air. Nothing but voyeuristic fantasies for the masses!!! 

Amazing is it not how sexual impropriety is a badge of honour to modern woman. In decent times she would have gone to great lengths to keep her indiscretions secret now they howl it out to the world !!!
We are a preverted lot!

Graeme says:

08:58am | 23/11/09

It would seem to me that, at this stage, there is an unsubstantiated claim by a female (Michelle Chantelois) that she committed adultery with a male (Mike Rann) who, if the story is correct, was not committing adultery as he was not married at the time. If every politician who had a legal sexual relationship was supposed to have done something that affected their performance as a politician then there would be no one in parliament. At this stage it would seem there is no substantiated evidence to indicate that he is lying. Channel 7 and New Idea are hardly impartial where something that might help their sales is concerned. Mike Rann, on what has been shown so far, has not committed any indiscretion that should even be newsworthy.

Jeremy C Browne says:

08:54am | 23/11/09

Rann LIED!!!  What part of that doesn’t he understand?  He has consistently lied to the people of South Australia that he didn’t have sex with her.  Either he did or he didn’t.  If he didn’t then why didn’t he say so???
NEXT !

L.B.Loveday says:

08:54am | 23/11/09

Premier Rann claims he is a “victim of a crime”. Not long ago, before Mr Rann and his ilk inverted criminality and perverted morality, what happened to him was called “just deserts” and he would have been expected to take it “like a man”.

Kevin Rennie says:

08:52am | 23/11/09

Not our business. Perhaps it’s time that others started publishing the sex lives of journalists. Then we might hear some real debate about privacy and ethics.

Paid, published and damned!

Steven says:

08:52am | 23/11/09

Just because she was paid, doesnt mean she made it up.  I would want to be paid too if I was going to air my dirty laundry for the country to hear.

tim says:

08:51am | 23/11/09

Between two consenting adults ,no crime committed and really nobody else’s business. Seems like theres money to be made attempting to chop down a tall poppy. Not surprised grubs like Ch7 are involved.

Patrick Bateman says:

08:51am | 23/11/09

Are people missing the key facts here?  No-one cares that two adults slept with one another.  But there are other, more significant aspects to this story.  Firstly, this man campaigned at the last election on “family values” and yet had an affair with a married woman and used his fiance as a pawn to try to cover up the affair.  Secondly, when asked about it after the attack at the Wine Centre, he both denied it and sent out his ministers to deny it.  Thirdly, the unhappy husband of the woman mysteriously hasn’t been charged despite there apparently being many witnesses to his alleged crime, which is highly suspicious given the timing of the next election and the fact that certain information would no doubt be disclosed if and when he is brought before a court.  This story is about integrity and honesty, not about whether adults can sleep with one another.

jimmy says:

08:51am | 23/11/09

Havent you people heard, that $200,000 figure was made up by the labor party prapaganda machine. He Lied, and is continuing to lie. The sooner he tells the truth the sooner he will sleep better. P.s. people not from Adelaide probably haven’t heard of Rann denying that he even knew who Mr Phillips was (when Mr Phillips attacked him with the newspaper). Yeah right!! Tell the truth.  Who cares about the affair? ( other than the families involved), We care about honesty.

Homz says:

08:51am | 23/11/09

Sex, who cares.  Character is a different issue.  Two things for me:

1.  Is it true MR used his partner to try and fake out MC’s Husband. Question of character.
2.  Why hasn’t MC’s Husband been charged yet?  Given the DPP has no love for MR either, so you know it would be in trial by now.

P.S. Good to see the Labour spin machine in here dealing with the comments.  Be interesting to see the source IP of these comments.

Ian-32 says:

08:49am | 23/11/09

I am a Labor leaning voter, originally from country NSW, then lived in SA for 7 years before moving to Vic 2 years ago. I think Mike Rann’s problem isn’t the affair per se, but rather the possibility (probability?) that has ‘mis-spoke’  (i.e. lied) about the issue. Chequebook jornalism isn’t a good like either. Although he is an effective premier, I always found something slightly untoward, shifty, untrostworthy about him. Morris Iemma had, and John Brumby has a very similar vibe. Ditch him and replace with Jai Weatherill, bring on the new blood! Just my two-cents worth, have a good day….

Jimmy F says:

08:46am | 23/11/09

If he had sex with a Parliament House staffer in his office he should resign immediately as it would show he is untrustworthy and unfit to hold office. Have to say this has just confirmed my opinion that Rann is all about his image and has no real substance. He has been very crafty with his statements thus far and hasn’t actually denied anything if you read them carefully. Journalists should have probed him further but they all seem to become a pawn in his masterful manipulation of the media.

Had enough says:

08:45am | 23/11/09

Do we really need the sex life of anyone paraded in the media? I for one am sick of everywhere having the ‘breaking news’ story of Mr Rann and this woman and what may or may not have happened. It should be between the 2 people and their partners to sort out. My in laws didnt run to the media to announce that one of them was cheating in the marriage, nor have thousands of others. Get it off the tv, out of the paper. It is being broadcast for the sensation, not because anyone really cares.

Bill Williams says:

08:45am | 23/11/09

Premier Rann and the spin doctors should think very carefully how they play this game. They have only one chance to get this right. If he decides to come clean about this and tells the absolute truth then he will have to weather a degree of public outcry yet will appear to be at least an honest politician. Should Mike however fail to tell all, to leave out those most crucial details or heaven forbid to lie outright and be caught out with irrefutable evidence as it is claimed then he can say goodbye to his Premiership, as the Labor party in SA can to it’s hold on power. People may or may not care about whether their leaders are sleeping with a married woman but they will not tolerate blatant deception.

anteandrovic says:

08:44am | 23/11/09

So all you you Rann Die Hards, do you think she set this all up with her husband, the attacked, calculated extortion etc etc ... or does a bar staff worker just sneeze at $100,000,  to reveal intimate details.
Either way Rann the LAIR is finished.

Jack says:

08:44am | 23/11/09

Care factor = zero.

paul says:

08:43am | 23/11/09

Its the lies and deceit, not the sex. All a bit tacky but Rann’s problem is it shows him to be a liar, and someone who contributed to a marriage breakdown. All we need now is a lovechild to complete the story…...

Judy says:

08:41am | 23/11/09

I am stunned as to why this woman has decided to come “clean”. She claims that she has not done this for the money…. rather she wants her husband to know what happened. I think her husband may have had an idea just quietly. But really, who cares? It was over before he got married, so build a bridge honey, and get over it!

Grumpy Middle Aged Man says:

08:40am | 23/11/09

I don’t care whether or not Mr Rann did it, let’s face it, power is a aphrodisiac and he is human.  We all saw this coming when he was assaulted and then didn’t know why, we all started to smell the fact that something wasn’t quite right.  Now she comes out and tells her story in the media.  She says that she and the premier were sexually intimate, where and when in my opinion is of no consequence.  What is however is his denial of it all.  Sorry I believe her and her estranged husband who is alleged to have assaulted Mr Rann, and if the premier can’t be honest about this then he needs to resign NOW.  He has no credibility and if his spin doctors can’t see that then they should be stood down too.  The libs are staying out of this which is morally the right thing to do, although in politics I don’t know if it is the right thing to do, but they are doing the morally right thing.

Stacey says:

08:39am | 23/11/09

Seriously, this woman needs to take responsibility for her actions.  SHE was the married one, SHE made a choice and SHE continued to make those choices for over a year!!  SHE chose to ruin her marriage and should be held accountable for her actions!!  SHE is not a victim!!!

Sean says:

08:38am | 23/11/09

I’m sorry Craig where’s the proof of a sexual relationship?  His now spouse was aware of thier relationship, which ended before they married. It hasn’t had any effect on how Mr Rann has run the State. Channel 7 has always been involved in grubby tabloid journalism. It’s also funny that when her estranged husband attacked Mr Rann she asked the media for privacy, until money was offered.

slueth says:

08:38am | 23/11/09

Media Mike in meltdown mode. Bring it on.

shooterscooter says:

08:37am | 23/11/09

I am sure that if a public servant had sex in his/her office they would not last long.

Dylan says:

08:37am | 23/11/09

The thing that turned me against this man is his ‘IM the victim here’ speech regarding his vicious newspaper assault. He hailed himself as a hero of the state for putting up with random attacks and assaults over the years and getting on with the job when in actual fact the assault occured because he failed to respond to letters from the ‘offender’ who was upset over an “alleged” affair. What decent man would not have the deceny to respond to the man whos marriage he may have ruined, and whos family he may have split up? if anything he should have responded to get the record straight, that is IF nothing occured. If its true, for a premier to treat a south australian family this way tells me that he is not suitable for the job and does not practice what he preaches, and therefore should be removed from the job. I have strong family values and expect that the leader of our state would lead by example and expect nothing less. If he has any decency and respect to his state, party and own family and friends as well as the family he has effected then he should resign and let a better man take over the job. Thank you for your time Mr Rann, but the damage is done. It is time for you to go.

Jim says:

08:37am | 23/11/09

The affair doesnt concern me but If he’s found to be lying makes you wonder what else he’s said to the public that is a lie. Then on the other hand, all politicians are snakes

Eric says:

08:37am | 23/11/09

Is it a sacking offence? That depends on what the definition of “is” is.

Crow says:

08:36am | 23/11/09

Gutter Journalism at it’s best, and besides one would have to wonder just how much of an involvement the Conservative side of Politics would have had in this fiasco.

Ante Androvic says:

08:34am | 23/11/09

John A Neve, your very defensive of Mr Rann.
Yes,  who cares about his sex life.
But I hope he doesnt manage his party the way he manages his sexual affairs.
Its the lies, deceit manipulation and denial, if true,  that has interested most people who voted for him.

Hes cheated on them AS WELL.

I wont vote for him again if its true, and he should resign

Monica says:

08:33am | 23/11/09

“I did not have sexual relations with that woman” Sound familiar?

John Stoiber says:

08:32am | 23/11/09

MIke Rann should simply apologise and move on - it was consensual between 2 adults, she bombarded him with some hundreds of text messages (strangely not mentioned during the interview) and could have ended it at her will. Only 5 weeks ago her solicitors stated publicly that their client wanted no contact with the media - strange what $200,000 does to a person. So what - politicians in Europe (e.g. the French Prime MInister, French politicians) have had mistresses on the side for years! Apolgise to the lady, family and people of SA and get on with it - who cares!

Spin Cycle says:

08:30am | 23/11/09

Rann has continually claimed he couldn’t comment because the matter of his alledged assault was before the courts. But Ch 7 claimed the guy hasn’t been charged. So what is the truth? Rann can’t afford weasel words to cloud an already murky issue. If the guy hasn’t been charged then why is Rann spinning that line? Is that a lie or just a bending of the truth or is he going to pretend not to know what the police did in respect to this matter. Surely Rann didn’t influence the police to prevent charges from being laid? Has Rann actually provided a statement to police yet? Is that why no charges have been laid? Yes you are right - it’s not the sex that hurts - it’s the lies. The people of SA are entitled to transparency in this matter - this is not Bill Clinton’s USA where he stared down the media as more and more scandalous behaviour unfolded resulting in the resurgent right wing conservative movement that gave the world GW Bush!

Ben says:

08:28am | 23/11/09

Great work Libs, perfect timing for a smear campaign. I dont care if Mike Rann had an orgy with ten women and a gimp, doesnt affect the way I vote.

Lachlan says:

08:28am | 23/11/09

If I were the ALP, I wouldn’t talk to to Channel 7’s political correspondant ever again - he has always been biased and this is just plain grubby.

Annie West says:

08:26am | 23/11/09

I can’t read womens magazines becausee they obsess about who is sleeping with who.  Now our main stream media is obsessing about it.  They all need to go and get a life!

Lou says:

08:25am | 23/11/09

I’m a Liberal Supporter and not a Mike Rann supporter, but this is a load of rubbish.  The woman got a quick $200,000 payment and is laughing all the way to the bank.  I bet Channel 7 ends up with egg on their faces.  She didn’t seem to believable to me.

Jonno says:

08:18am | 23/11/09

Barbara Flowers is spot-on. They were two consenting adults so who’s to judge who ‘seduced’ the other…...and does it really matter? Perhaps she was ‘attracted’ by his position and power and used her own certain ‘charms’ to satisfy her own needs. Rann was a single middle-aged man at the time…Chantelois was married.
Maybe it matters only to Chantelois’s husband at the time?
Rann doesn’t deny a relationship existed but he says ‘no sex’...she says ‘yes sex’. Surely, Rann is innocent of any accusation of lying until actually proven guilty? I don’t think one cheating wife’s paid-for accusations amount to proof.

Justin McMurray says:

08:17am | 23/11/09

I didn’t care much about this until I read Rann’s unbelievably obfuscating response. He comes right out of the blocks casting aspersions on her character (“family difficulties”), that her account contains ‘some’ totally false accusations (ie most of it’s true?) and then says it occurs before his engagement. Ha. He means he was screwing around with this girl albeit before he officially popped the question.  Rann has again proved the political truth; it’s not what you do, it’s how you respond (or cover it up). All he had to say was ‘yes, had the affair but it’s a private matter’. Then sort things out with the current wife. Instead, he’s come out (over)swinging and over reaching. Despicable. He’s a goner.

KD says:

08:17am | 23/11/09

I watched the interview last night and found it to be very tacky. There was definitely an emphasis on the details of the supposed sex encounters. I found myself disliking Michelle C rather than supporting her.  She was stressing that she needed to come clean and take responsibility for her actions, the six figures payment for the interview certainly helped the situation! She stated that it broke her heart when her son found out about the ‘affair’ yet she is willing to drag this whole saga in the media / public again. If she wanted to come clean she should have done it sooner and her credibility would not suffer if she did it without a financial incentive. She is not ‘victim’ and should not be treated like one; she was in her 30’s and certainly not naive or immature to know the difference between right and wrong. Sex between consenting adults should be treated as that. Many people have affairs and the public don’t make a fuss about it or their encounters being dragged into the media. The only difference here is that it involves a high profile politician and a ‘barmaid’. Just read this title and it already invokes a seedy image and certainly to date this story has been sensationalised…

Craig Hendry says:

08:16am | 23/11/09

In response to John A Neve @ 08:46am
The public have a right to transparency and accountability from our elected officials.  It is a bit rich of Rann to state that he did not have a sexual relationship with this woman when he clearly did. (lies)  It is a bit rich of Rann to plan to deceive her husband and his fiancé while promoting “family values” (deception) It is a bit rich of him to seek to bring in laws which can imprison people for five years for who they know as opposed to what they do, when his own actions are clearly destructive to a responsible government. (hypocrisy).
I trust this clears things up for you John.

Bob Macpherson says:

08:11am | 23/11/09

She was paid for the interview that is enough for me, just another wanky yanky

Jay Kay says:

08:10am | 23/11/09

if he was single (or even if he wasnt), what does it have to do with how he runs the State? Fair enough, from a moral standpoint, he should have known better, but for this female to then receive blood-money for telling the nation about it on a tabloid news programme really doesnt show much for her moral fibre either. Whether Channel 7 has irrefutable evidence or not, i wouldnt imagine it will show he was negligent in his overseeing of the State.

Jay Tee says:

08:09am | 23/11/09

Was it consensual?  Then what’s the problem?  SHE was the one who took the vows of “forsaking all others”.  and SHE was the one who accepted money for the interview last night.  ENOUGH SAID!!!

lj says:

08:08am | 23/11/09

Don’t care about the sex, it’s a bit dodgy/grotty having a shag in the premiers public office but I guess for me the only issue is that if he really did lie to everyone about it, it does question his ability to be taken at his word…
And she seemed a bit of a bimbo anyway…

Deb says:

08:01am | 23/11/09

There are far more important things in life to be so concerned about!!!
Who cares whether a ‘single’ Rann had a ‘friendship’ with a consenting adult???? What doea this say about her???

shabangabang says:

08:00am | 23/11/09

Della Bosca still has bragging rights because his mistress was far prettier and younger. He was well and truly punching above his weight.

sean says:

08:00am | 23/11/09

Why is it that the ALP is so full of this sort of behaviour.

Sherlock says:

08:00am | 23/11/09

I think most people couldn’t care less if Rann had sex with a barmaid. It’s none of our business. However if he’s been caught out and is now lying about it then that goes to his honesty and that a different matter altogether.

John says:

07:57am | 23/11/09

The emphasis seems to be on Mike Rann being guilty, I think the credibility of what Ms Chantalois has said should be carefully examined before any assumptions are made,money makes some people do and say some terrible things.

Peter Cummins says:

07:58am | 23/11/09

There is a deeper issue of lies and vague statements that miss lead the general pubic no matter who gets hurt. Why has the husband not been charged with assult ? Rann must go he is now been exposed for the man he is.

LeanneK says:

07:55am | 23/11/09

Power of the office? Coerced? Get real, she knew what she was doing and now she does what plenty of willing participants do, squeal - except she is getting paid to squeal. What a disgusting woman. I don’t see it as a sackable offence if true, either. If the truth be known the ex husband is on on this too. She’s one tacky woman in my opinion.

Steve says:

07:53am | 23/11/09

“The fact that Chantelois was paid a sum by Channel 7 - believed to be in excess of $100,000 - for her story gave a strong imperative to make her account as detailed as possible. She delivered an account of a sexual relationship between two adults.”

What a load of rubbish. I live in Vic, but this guy gets my vote.  For the simple reason it sounds like he is being exploited, by her, and now trial by media.  ..Here, chow down some leading information to sway your opinion, and now its over to you

Ron says:

07:47am | 23/11/09

Has the guy been charged or not?  The program mentioned that he was not charged yet news reports refer to charges that have been laid.

John A Neve says:

07:46am | 23/11/09

Craig Hendry @ 0816hrs, says “it’s about lies, deception and outright hypocrisy”. So tell us Craig, what lies, what deception and what hypocrisy?

At this stage I am unaware who Rann deceived, who he lied too or how having sex is hypocritical?

But I m sure you will explain Craig.

SM says:

07:44am | 23/11/09

If his relationship with the woman was more than platonic, to deny it is a monumental error

Bruce says:

07:33am | 23/11/09

Really do not care what he did, if its even true. However, hopefully no promises or were made in the heat of the moment !! Also, hopefully he will not preach to us about being “good honest people” .

Libbie says:

07:30am | 23/11/09

How does a politician ever prove it didn’t happen? For Rann, whether he did it or not, sadly the mud will stick. The show was promoted suggesting there was “proof” of the affair. I failed to see any. What I saw was a woman making some claims. A woman who wais paid. She may be telling the truth, but cheque-book journalism takes away much of her credibility. I too think it is a credit to the Liberal Party that they don’t try to capitalise on this grubbiness - and I’m a Labor voter.

Retired Soldier says:

07:23am | 23/11/09

Channel 7 said they would reveal irrefutable evidence of the relationship over the next week.

Craig Hendry says:

07:16am | 23/11/09

As you have pointed out in your article.  It is not about the sex between two consenting adults.  It is about the lies, the deception, and the outright hypocrisy of a person in power seeking to impose draconian laws on a voting public under the guise of law and order while resisting an independent commission against corruption.  This behavior smacks of total disregard for those that put him into that position.  He recently wrote a ministerial paper on how ministers ought to behave and yet he was engaging in behaviour contrary to what he was espousing, if the parliamentary office table scene while parliament was sitting is true.  He needs to go so that this whole saga does not become a complete fiasco.  We do not liars in parliament as that is corruption.

Barbara Flowers says:

07:16am | 23/11/09

I never get why women are supposed to be lack responsbility when we decide on a course of action.  It’s highly patronising, not to say ‘colonial’ in its undertones.  She, like Rann, were consenting adults.  Frankly I think her disclosures to SN (and I only watched the very first bit before a fabulously gossipy phone call interrupted my viewing) was tacky.  Tabloid TV, with a bit of genetic manipulation, seems to be creating a whole new type of human being.

Paul says:

07:12am | 23/11/09

It’s ironic that Rann, who played a significant role in killing the Murray Darling, our food bowl, an export rich area, and the aspirations and careers of the next generation of farmers in family businesses - could be sacked over girl ‘friendship’. Political justice is a fickle beast! Anyway good on you Punch for publishing this, I was beginning to think the Punch was a breathless pro-Rann Marketing channel. Razz him up on some bigger state issues lest the man gets to full of himself and his own turgid spin. Please.

Colin Campbell says:

07:08am | 23/11/09

While I find Rann a bit shifty as a politician, most of his senior Labor colleagues in South Australia are pretty dodgy too. Better the devil you know. He does seem to be able to get things done for South Australia. Not sure how his credibility will be affected by this. I say fess up and move on. Nothing much going on here. Ask Bill Clinton.

Dan says:

06:37am | 23/11/09

I don’t care at all about politician’s private lives unless it either affects their career, is clearly illegal or if it exposes a hypocricy. What Rann did wasn’t illegal and it doesn’t seem to have affected his job (the current scandal notwithstanding). Whether or not it exposes a hypocricy depends on whether or not he has spoken up against similar acts. He may have campaigned on family values, but family values are generic and subjective.

If he did have sex with a married woman (which isn’t an affair as arguably only the married partner can have an affair),  the idea that he ‘preyed on her vulnerabilities’ is absurd. She’s an adult. She can make her own decisions, and if she doesn’t like what happened, then she should take responsibility for it. The suggestion that because the woman suddenly regrets what happened, just like in the Matthew Johns episode, then she must have been exploited or been preyed upon is ridiculous and shows a complete absence of responsibility. It may very well be that he used his office to seduce her, but so what? She could say no.

I don’t have any sympathy for Chantelois. She made her bed and it appears that she’s not taking any responsibility for it. I would hope that, whatever happens to Rann, she doesn’t get any more media attention. If she’s so unhappy about the affair (which is 50% her fault), then she shouldn’t expect to profit out of it any more than she already has.

Nick says:

06:33am | 23/11/09

I am a liberal voter and am heartened that theey are taking a low profile and are not adding to this digusting attack.

I will never watch 7 news or current affairs again.

John A Neve says:

06:27am | 23/11/09

I fail to see why Mike Rann;s sex life is even a topic for debate? If it’s true, he enjoyed it, she agreed to it and his wife (who came later), knows about it.

So what’s to discuss?