Talk:Michael Costa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
Flag
Portal
 Michael Costa is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics.
Assessment comments
This article is part of WikiProject Organized Labour, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Organized Labour. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Organized Labour Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments.

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)
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)

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)

Contents

[edit] Section on Reserve Bank controversy

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)


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)
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)
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)

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

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)
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)
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)

[edit] Editorial Comment

"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)

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

[edit] Picture

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)

[edit] BLP and UNDUE

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)