Talk:Michael Costa (politician)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Is it true this is the guy that a prostitute named on live radio as one of her clients?

Yes it is, why someone reverted my edits I don't know. They didn't give a reason, just reverted.

Unsourced and potentially libelous information is allowed to be shot on sight. Rebecca 03:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well it was sourced from a radio show. How does one properly attribute that?
There are several Sydney Morning Herald articles referencing this matter.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/07/05/1151778984400.html http://blogs.smh.com.au/thedailytruth/archives/2006/07/the_art_of_not.html

There is also a current case for libel before the courts. The claim was made by an anonymous caller, who was immediately cut off after making the allegation. The radio show subsequently offered an unconditional apology. Jeendan 23:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On an unrelated matter, can a source please be provided for the reference to "Dr Beeching the 2nd"? I have never heard anyone use this nickname. Jeendan 23:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Section on Reserve Bank controversy[edit]

This section is accurate and well supplied with sources. However, I wonder whether it deserves its prominence and this level of detail, especially in comparison with the overall length of the article. As an issue, it was a one-day wonder in the media and I doubt it rates in anyone's top ten issues of importance in NSW economic management.

To be honest, it was not much of a 'controversy' at all - a conga-line of politicians, State and Federal, have joined with Costa in challenging the independence of the Reserve bank and demanding that governments of the day intervene to influence its decisions. Paul Keating boasted that he had the Reserve Bank in his pocket. Then-shadow Treasurer John Howard repeatedly called on Hawke to strongarm the Bank into lowering interest rates. Costa is not exactly Robinson Crusoe on this issue, and the media interest in the story reflected that.

I am interested in others views on whether the "Reserve Bank controversy' section can be pared down to reflect its actual importance. If there is broad agreement (or if no one cares at all), I will do some revisions in about a week's time. Let me know what you think.

A more useful section might also be a general discussion of Costa's economic approach, including a reference to his Reserve Bank comment in the context of thoughts on the independence of the central bank and its interest rates role. The twists and turns of Labor economic policy over the last ten years in NSW would be an interesting addition to this article, and to the one on former Treasurer Egan. I am working on something along these lines for possible addition here. Jeendan 05:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Point taken about its length in relation to the remainder of the article, though I don't think this on its own is a compelling reason to remove content. Sadly we lack, to my knowledge, a biography of the man with which to flesh out the article. More sections on Costa's spells of intense media coverage are called for.
What makes this episode interesting is that today (unlike the 1980s context of the Howard and Keating examples) an attack on central bank independence is widely viewed as economically illiterate - and this from a treasurer presiding over an underperforming state economy. This would be similar to mentioning events such as the Waterfall disaster or Nola Fraser's allegations on the relevant ministers' pages. In any case, the episode meets the criteria for notability. Joestella 02:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We agree it should be mentioned, but I think it is too long (12 lines - almost as much as all the rest of Costa's political career put together). I don't think it is/was of such earth-shattering importance that it justifies this level of inclusion.
On an unrelated point, I am not sure that Nola Fraser's allegations warrant much coverage at all anywhere - a claim was made by a member of the public, it was investigated and found to be without foundation, and that is that. If we festooned every politician's page with details of unsubstantiated allegations by individuals, each page would be thousands of lines long and contain the most extraordinary and irrelevant nonsense (remember when some guy from Arkansas claimed that then-Governor Clinton had murdered two young boys by tying them to a railroad track and having them run over? Should this be added to the Clinton article?)
All that said, let's whittle down the Reserve bank section to retain the key points while not according it status out of proportion to its actual impact. Jeendan 20:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jeendan, the RBA criticism is relevant to the NSW election campaign (coverage of which I'm working to expand) and speaks directly to Michael Costa's record in office. I don't think you have made a compelling case to remove content. Perhaps the section should be expanded to 'Costa as Treasurer' since it also covers the state's economic performance (which is not tied to Costa's views on central bank independence).
Nola Fraser's allegations about the health system were substantiated in part - her allegations of political corruption were not. Joestella 21:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added subheadings for his major ministerial roles. There is some scope for adding to these. Joestella 21:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is this likely to be an election issue? Has the shadow Treasurer made election comment on it? I suspect there will be complete silence from the Coalition on this - they would support an independent Reserve Bank but not want to say so publicly for fear of appearing uncaring on interest rates.
Economic management will be an election issue, but there are a thousand more burning matters that will be raised under this heading than an esoteric discussion about the structure of the Reserve Bank. This, like the references to Carr's 'mail order bride' or Peter Black's drinking issues, will be irrelevancies during the campaign.
All that said, I don't care enough to argue much more about it. I like your subheadings approach, and think it would be good to add more to the Treasurer section than just the Reserve Bank issue. But if you want to keep it the way it is, I'll not die screaming in a ditch. Jeendan 02:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Central bank independence is hardly esoteric; Costa's position came in response to concerns about his record and speaks to his approach to the role. You're right that there's more to Costa than the odd unorthodox pronouncement on monetary policy—but that's a case for adding, not deleting content. I'll try to add more when I get a chance. No doubt both parties will do the research on each other for us in the weeks ahead ;) Joestella 10:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Central bank independence will not play any significant role in the upcoming NSW election. And Michael Costa plays no role in central bank independence. To that extent, I think it is an esoteric subject. I also think his comments were a throwaway line to shift responsibility for a set of economic data, akin to the occasion when John Howard rather spuriously claimed that the price of bananas was responsible for all the interest rate rises last year.
Costa's comment was ill-advised, but I don't think you can justifiably hold the view that it was the result of a serious consideration of the role of the Reserve Bank, or represents some kind of massive ALP policy shift against bank independence. It was a silly one-off comment by a politician who should know better. Show me any politician (Labor or Liberal) who hasn't done the same.
Like I said, no one is trying to remove the reference. I just don't think a one-off silly comment should be represented as the single most important economic statement in the Treasurer's career. Jeendan 23:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editorial Comment[edit]

"Mr Costa wants the public to blame the bank, not the Iemma Government and its economic management," an editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald ran. "Mr Costello has rightly dismissed this call with contempt. It is irresponsible to call for such a move: it would only undermine the bank's successful fight against inflation, which has underpinned Australia's economic wellbeing."

The Herald added that Costa's foray into monetary policy "calls into question the claim to economic responsibility which Labor has been painfully attempting to re-establish since the last election."

I don't think quoting opinion editorials adds anything substantial or relevant to the article (who wrote the editorial, are they experts or represent an interested party, etc). There is already relevant responses from the Treasurer, Opposition Treasurer, and the business community. Recurring dreams 15:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - probably overlong before. (The "editorial" understood to be written by the editor, otherwise it's "opinion".) Joestella 16:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture[edit]

I don't think the picture is better than nothing. It is of poor quality and obscured by text. It gives two other people equal prominence. Being a screenshot from a political attack ad also raises POV issues. Am removing until better image found. Recurring dreams 15:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BLP and UNDUE[edit]

After coming across this article entirely by accident this evening I noticed large sections of it were in complete violation of Wikipedia policy. As a result large sections of it have had to be removed - they were simply editorial and commentary. I think the article needs attention from people with knowledge of Wikipedia policies and a better understanding of the NSW state scene than mine. Orderinchaos 10:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When will his resignation become effective?[edit]

This ABC report says:

The former treasurer's resignation takes effect two days after the October 18 by-elections in four state seats.

However, s.22J of the NSW Constitition Act 1902 says:

22J. Any Member of the Legislative Council may, by writing under his hand, addressed to the Governor, resign his seat therein, and upon the receipt of the resignation by the Governor, the seat of that Member shall become vacant.

I read that as a similar procedure as occurs in the federal House of Reps/Senate. When a member/senator resigns, it become effective the moment the Speaker/President receives it, and neither party has any power to change that. I would have thought that Costa's resignation became effective the moment the NSW Governor's office received his fax, last night. So what's this about 2 days after 18 October? Maybe all he's done at this stage is to formally signal his intention to resign on 20 October, but hasn't actually formally resigned yet, despite what's been reported in the media. That would mean he's able to change his mind between now and then. Anyone have any ideas about this? -- JackofOz (talk) 08:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Governor's advice to the Legislative Council seems to make clear the resignation was an actual resignation and not just notice of it:
The Honourable Peter Primrose MLC
President of the Legislative Council
Dear President,
I have the honour to inform you that I have received a letter from the Honourable M Costa MLC tendering his resignation as a Member of the Legislative Council of New South Wales. This was received by my Official Secretary on the morning of 23 September 2008.
I have acknowledged receipt of the letter from Mr Costa and have informed him that you have been advised of his resignation.
Yours sincerely
Marie Bashir[1]
As you point out above, I don't think you can advise te Governor that you intend to resign on some future date - either you resign or you don't and in this case the Governor has acknowledged a resignation. Costa was also neither present nor apologised for in yesterday's proceedings, so it seems likely he's already gone. I can't explain the ABC statement about resigning on October 20 - might simply be journalistic crossed wires. Euryalus (talk) 23:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's the most likely explanation. I can't speak authoritatively on NSW, but there are some recent examples in the federal parliament where people have indeed made public statements about a forthcoming resignation. These have usually been reported as "Mr X has resigned", which is not strictly speaking true. A resignation only happens when the presiding officer receives a piece of paper with the words "I resign"; it takes effect immediately and there's no provision to give notice of a resignation. I can't see much point in formally advising the speaker/governor about their intention to resign w.e.f. some future date, because it would be of no effect. Thanks. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fifth paragraph of this article also refers to Costa ceasing to be paid on 23 September. Euryalus (talk) 00:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That seems pretty conclusive now. I remember a time when Auntie ABC could be relied on to get it right; never made a spelling or factual error etc. I think she's showing signs of Alzheimers these days. Ah, the good old days ... -- JackofOz (talk) 00:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Bipolar disorder?[edit]

Doesn't there need to be some citation for Costa having bipolar disorder? It's not mentioned at all in the article, but this has been put in the category "People with bipolar disorder". I've no idea whether it's true or not, but an allegation like that needs some evidence. Giles Martin (talk) 22:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's spoken about it publicly - [2], [3], [4], [5]. Rebecca (talk) 03:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He is bipolar, but it certainly should be cited as per WP:BLP --Surturz (talk) 08:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Michael Costa (politician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Michael Costa (politician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael Costa (politician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Costa_(politician)&oldid=1205747889"