In all fairness, one could see some merit in the IPA, until one properly analyses the major CON-flicts the IPA solve with CON-jobs and cancer-like growth policies... Meanwhile I suspect Sinodinos is a fervent supporter of the IPA (a Liberal-CONservative think tank)

Here is a comparative study of the IPA's "policies"... GUS' COMMENTS IN CAPITAL LETTERS....

Economics & Deregulation

Economic policy research has been a core area of the Institute of Public Affairs since the IPA was founded in 1943. The IPA examines state and federal tax, spending and regulatory initiatives, looking carefully at the unintended consequences of government intervention in the economy. Of particular interest are tax reform, government spending, industrial relations, trade liberalisation, economic freedom, physical and intellectual property rights and regulation.

FROM THE TITLE OF THIS SECTION ONE CAN ALREADY SEE WHERE THIS IS GOING:

TO THE INTENTIONAL EXPLOITATION OF OTHER HUMAN BEINGS, WITHOUT RESTRICTION. 

IN MANY CASES THE MINIMISING OF REGULATION LEADS TO DOMINATION OF ONE GROUP OVER OTHERS. IT LEADS TO THE POOREST BEING EXPLOITED BY THE RICHEST. 

THIS ALSO LEADS TO UNFAIR COMPETITION, AGGRESSION WITH A MORE ACTIVE CLASS OF CON ARTISTS AND SNAKE-OIL MERCHANTS...

LAX REGULATION OF THE BANKING SYSTEM IN THE WORLD HAS LED TO THE GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS. THE DERIVATIVE MARKET IS STILL DANGEROUSLY POISED. 

SOME PRODUCTS ARE DANGEROUS: ASBESTOS, TAR, CEMENT, LEAD, SOLVENTS, CFCS , JUST TO NAME A FEW. 

NEW PRODUCTS ARE BEING "INVENTED" ALL THE TIME AND THEIR DANGERS ARE NOT FULLY UNDERSTOOD AS YET, INCLUDING GMO...  WE NEED STRONG REGULATIONS TO STOP THE CREATION OF NEW DIOXINS AND. 

ECONOMIC FREEDOM IN SUCH DEREGULATED ENVIRONMENT IS LIKELY TO LEAD TO ILL-HEALTH, MORE ENVIRONMENTAL DESTRUCTION AND DEATH. 

THE IPA IS ALWAYS IN FAVOUR OF TAX MINIMISATION WHICH IN TURNS LEADS TO REDUCE PUBLIC SERVICES... 

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS FOR THE IPA IS STRONGLY IN FAVOUR OF WORK CHOICES.  THIS MEANS MORE INSECURITY, LESS PAY AND LESS PROTECTION FOR WORKERS. 

------------------------------

Food & Environment

Australia is rich in both ecology and natural resources. The Institute of Public Affairs Food and Environment Unit seeks to determine our national and international role in feeding the world and protecting the environment. The IPA examines environmental and agricultural policies across the countries, with particular emphasis on climate change policy, water, agricultural biotechnology, resource management, and market-based solutions to environmental challenges.

INCREASING FOOD PRODUCTION MOSTLY NEEDS TAKING OVER MORE LAND WHICH INVARIABLY LEADS TO THE DESTRUCTION OF THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT. 

IN THIS EQUATION ONE HAS TO STRONGLY CONSIDER GLOBAL WARMING. THE IPA DOES NOT BELIEVE IN GLOBAL WARMING, THUS ITS STUDY IN THIS AREA IS COMPLETELY BOGUS

FEEDING THE WORLD IS "AMBITIOUS" AND ALSO ENVIRONMENTALLY DESTRUCTIVE. AGRICULTURAL "BIOTECHNOLOGY" IN THE IPA's SET UP IS MOST LIKELY TO BE GENETICALLY MANIPULATED CROPS. RESOURCE MANAGEMENT MEANS CONTROL OF WATER, REDUCING THE AVAILABILITY OF WATER FOR NATURAL WETLANDS. MARKET BASES SOLUTIONS TO ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES IS A FURPHY. 

AT THIS LEVEL, THE IPA STRONGLY FAVOURS OF DEVELOPING THE NORTHERN PART OF AUSTRALIA TO INDUSTRIALISATION AND USAGE OF THE LAND, PRESENTLY MOSTLY WILD AND ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND.

---------------------------------------

Governance & Service Provision

The Institute of Public Affairs examines the the critical area of government and public sector reform, the importance of a strong civil society and high levels of social capital, and the importance of choice and competition in the traditionally government provided sectors of health and education.

THIS INVESTIGATION IS BOGUS.

FOR ORGANISATIONS LIKE THE IPA THIS USUALLY MEANS REDUCING "PUBLIC SERVICE" IN AREAS SUCH AS WELFARE, HEALTH AND EDUCATION WHILE INCREASING POLICE TO MAINTAIN A "STRONG" CIVIL SOCIETY THAT FAVOURS THE RICH AND POWERFUL. 

THIS ALSO MEANS THE REDUCTION OR ELIMINATION OF "PUBLIC SCHOOLS' IN FAVOUR OF PRIVATE EDUCATION FOR THE RICH LEAVING INADEQUATE TEACHING FOR THE POOR AND DISADVANTAGE. 

---------------------------------

Ideas & Liberty

The Institute of Public Affairs examines the philosophical and moral case for liberty. By situating current political, economic and social debate in the history of Australian and international liberalism, it is possible to shed new light on the questions of today. The Institute of Public Affairs approaches political debate firmly grounded with an appreciation of entrepeneurship, civil liberties, individual responsiblity and free markets.

FREE MARKETS ARE NEVER FREE. 

SOME IDEAS ARE DANGEROUS. 

IPA's IDEAS ARE DANGEROUS TO SOCIAL COHESION. UNCHECKED COMPETITION ENCOURAGES UNFAIRNESS, REJECTION, RESENTMENT AND LEADS TO THE ELIMINATION OF MOST ARTISTIC VENTURES, WHILE PROMOTING WHEELING AND DEALING... IN ORDER TO DEAL WITH THE UNDER PRIVILEGED, ORGANISATIONS LIE IPA, FAVOUR CHARITY BEFORE SOCIAL EQUITY AND DIGNITY. 

ONE'S FREEDOM STOPS WHERE SOMEONE ELSE'S STARTS. IT'S ALWAYS A QUESTION OF FINDING WHERE THE BOUNDARIES OF FREEDOM ARE SET, ESPECIALLY BETWEEN THE VARIOUS MOIRES OF SOCIETY'S INDIVIDUALS. INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY ALSO NEEDS PROPER SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE SUCH AS AWARENESS OF GLOBAL WARMING AS PART OF GLOBAL RESPONSIBILITY.

-----------------------------

The IPA of course is strongly promoting the development of new cities in the northern part of this country... We know what this would do to the fragile environment... The IPA is also a strong supporter of Gina Rinehart's wage reduction ideal...

From Independent Australia

WE ARE seeing public servants sacked or threatened in Queensland, NSW and Victoria. The Federal Coalition and the SA Liberals are promising cuts if they get into office – Isobel Redmond even suggesting that a quarter of the state’s public servants could go – though she later backed away from this. (No doubt someone in her party reminded her you tell people that after the election, not before.)

I think this is more than just a knee jerk reaction, and it reflects a conservative view about limiting the role of government that is quite scary.

It’s true that conservative administrations attack the public service because they can. When they want to cut expenditure (rightly or wrongly), their own employees are the easiest target. They tell the electorate that, of course, they are not cutting the front line staff who deliver services to the public. It’s just those wastes of space in the back room — you know, the ones that run the systems that support the front line staff, so they can get on with their work.

They usually feel safe in doing this because lots of Australians love to hate public servants. Not the teachers and nurses and police, of course, but the paper pushers and the bean counters; the generators of red tape. Everyone has a rude public servant story. The concern felt for bank staff, or miners or vehicle builders who lose their jobs isn’t extended to public servants.

However there can be an electoral backlash – as appears to be the case in Queensland – if it seems that front line services will be affected. It is also true that the savings from getting rid of public servants are often illusory, as outsourced functions are expensive and often unsatisfactory. The Commonwealth public service has grown under Labor, at least in part because they turned some of the contract staff the Liberals had employed into salaried public servants, having almost certainly made the calculation it was cheaper that way.

But there are actually more fundamental reasons why conservatives don’t mind cutting the public service. They don’t want the state to do lots of the things that the public service currently does. Some of these things they think private enterprise should do. Others they don’t want done at all.

Getting things done by private enterprise comes in two different forms. The first is the extreme version of user pays. Consider the Baillieu government’s plans to cut TAFE funding and therefore TAFE jobs. Don’t we need people with the sort of training you get at TAFE, like trades apprenticeships, and technical training of all types? Yes, but there are now private providers who do that sort of thing. They are more expensive than TAFE, but that’s not the government’s problem. They are passing the cost back to the customer. Can’t afford it? Live in the country where there are no private providers? Tough luck. This is called taking personal responsibility. (See what Mitt Romney says about this.)

The second is the contracting out model. Both Liberal and Labor governments already use this model, for example out-sourcing significant functions like running prisons and immigration detention centres. In Britain, they are taking this much further, contracting out whole chunks of government activity — such as children’s services. In Devon, Virgin Care (as in Virgin airlines) and Serco (as in Adelaide busses) competed for a contract to run services for children and families at risk. Neither has experience in the area. And naturally they expect to make a profit. The services are still free at the point of contact, so profits have to come from somewhere else. The conservative theory is, of course, that private enterprise must be more efficient than a government-run one; what this usually means is fewer staff and less accountability. Are the Liberals planning to follow the lead of the British Conservative Party should they win government?

Though the Liberal Party is not telling us where they would make cuts to the public service, they are starting to talk about a revamped federalism, handing responsibility for some functions such as health and environmental matters back to the states. Given that this at a time when the states are themselves cutting their public services, who will take on these extra tasks? How will they be paid? The states – even the Liberal ones – will want extra money to take on extra responsibilities. Who knows where that will come from.  A rise in the GST, as is being urged by the NSW Liberal government? And how will differences between the willingness and capacity of the states to administer these areas be dealt with? This is looking very like an attempt to curtail what government actually does.

And then there are the things that conservative governments just don’t want to know about. The Liberals aren’t telling us much about what they will cut, but Shadow treasurer Joe Hockey says:

“The Department of Climate Change would be very high up the list for close scrutiny.”

No surprises there. Since climate change is a hoax, we don’t need anyone to do anything in that area. But wait… What about the Liberals’ direct action policy to reduce carbon emissions? Won’t that need someone to administer it? Whoops. Worry about that later. Then there’s all that regulation — the red tape they are going to do away with; this presumably means they will abdicate oversight in various areas where they think private enterprise should have free reign. Other, as yet unnamed, programs will also go — though we aren’t being told the criteria to be applied; a further reduction of state responsibility.

Read more at : http://www.independentaustralia.net/2012/politics/why-conservatives-love-sacking-public-servants/

See comments above in regard to the IPA.... (Institute of Public Affairs) an organisation that should be named "Institute or Private Antipathy towards the public service"

So now Bernardi has reluctantly departed the frontbench, behind a raft of beastly (pun intended) publicity in both the Australian and British press, for the gentle charms of Oxford and the European Young Conservative Freedom Summit.

He had apparently been due to give a speech on, I don't know, let's take a guess - why bandits prefer the burqa, how plain packaging can lead to flag-burning, or something.
Anyway, his frontbench spot didn't even get cold before Abbott promoted the NSW senator Arthur Sinodinos and the South Australian MP Jamie Briggs. Well, Bernardi did his boss a favour; Sinodinos and Briggs should have been frontbenchers long ago.
Both are good communicators. Their obsessions are focused on policy, not ideology. Sinodinos is a former chief of staff to John Howard. He understands better than any serving Liberal - including Abbott - the pitfalls of parliamentary politics, the vagaries of election campaigns and the hot-button issues that sway electoral mood.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/abbott-gets-his-man-eventually-20120922-26dih.html#ixzz27G4pNPZs

Paul daley is often spruiking for the Liberals (conservatives) regardless of the wrongness or rightness of their policies... As Paul explains rightly, Sinodinos is focused on "policy" not ideology — whatever this means since Sinodinos will sell you things you don't want, with confidence... He reminds me of a fat weasel who sees a couple of friends arguing about 

A BIZARRE attack on the federal Government’s current open inquiry was run in Melbourne’s Herald Sunnewspaper this week. Unfortunately, like so much printed in Murdoch publications on topics of national importance, it was riddled with factual inaccuracies, distortions and cheap political point-scoring.

Attributed to Simon Breheny a “research fellow” of the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) – as well as a BA/LLB student at Melbourne University – the piece opens thus:

Imagine if Australia Post opened and read all your mail. There would be outrage.

It wouldn’t be acceptable to treat our offline privacy with that kind of contempt. So why does the Federal Government think it’s OK to trash our right to privacy online?

There are four problems with truth here already.

Firstly, governments do have the power to intercept offline mail. Always have had.

Secondly, that any government would bother to “open and read all your mail” is infantile idiocy. Australia Post delivers five billion letters annually. Is it conceivable the government wants to read all our emails – which will soon outnumber snail mail a thousand to one? And all our tweets, sms messages, facebook posts and cat videos?

Thirdly, one main purpose of the current discussion paper ‘Equipping Australia against emerging and evolving threats’ is to maximise protection for privacy online.

‘Our law enforcement and security capabilities must keep ahead of terrorists, agents of espionage and organised criminals,’ the Parliamentary paper declares. ‘So our law enforcement and intelligence agencies must be equipped with contemporary skills and technologies, and backed by necessary powers – coupled with the appropriate checks and balances and oversight mechanisms society rightly demands.’

And fourthly, the Government has consistently and credibly maintained it has not reached any decision on data retention. Breheny offers no contradictory evidence.

This is facile scare-mongering is unworthy of a school essay, let alone an undergraduate.

Breheny claims:

Attorney-General Nicola Roxon recently gave her support to an extraordinary proposal to document the online activity of all Australians.

This is simply false. And the fact that The Herald Sun has peddled this nonsense before doesn’t make it any less so.

The discussion paper shows plainly what the Government wants and doesn’t want. The proposals appear under three distinct headings:

A. Matters the Government wishes to progress
B. Matters the Government is considering
C. Matters on which the Government expressly seeks the views of the Committee.

It is quite clear that references to ‘tailored data retention periods for up to 2 years’ are all in Part C – not Part A. The Government has said it is open to hearing arguments for and against. But it is not in the category of reforms it intends currently to pursue.

So, the question arises whether Breheny understood – or even read – the paper. Is the tawdry misrepresentation thereof accidental or deliberate?

A strong clue that this piece is simply party politicking is in the claim that

The last time the government attempted such an extraordinary invasion of privacy was 1986. That was when the Hawke Labor government tried to legislate a national identity card system.

Just blatantly false. One attempt since 1986 – and there have been several others – was when the Howard Government rushed through the Intelligence Services Act 2001 in a panicky response to the attacks on New York’s twin towers.

http://www.independentaustralia.net/2012/business/media-2/more-distortions-by-the-ipa-now-over-internet-privacy-laws/

In November 2009, just one month after the Waubra Wind Farm was fully operational, wealthy mining investment consultant, Peter Mitchell, acting as Public Officer for the “Western Plains Landscape Guardians” took out a full-page advertisement in the Pyrenees Advocate. Guaranteed to provoke a backlash to the wind farm and frighten the public, it warned of “Waubra disease”, which apparently included headaches, sleeping problems and an increased heart rate. Genuine complaints notwithstanding, scaring susceptible individuals is a doddle if you can come up with such commonplace symptoms.

Five months later, Mitchell angered locals when he stole the name of their town to create the Waubra Foundation. In spite of its claim to be independent from anti-wind advocates (cf. Clause 12 of its Objectives), the foundation is predominantly run by the Pecksniffian-sounding “Landscape Guardians” (see my investigation July 2011 and case study March 2012). Non-Guardian director, Dr Michael Wooldridge, a former Howard Government minister is, meanwhile, facing a ban from corporate boards.

In July 2010, Sarah Laurie joined as its Medical Director, first listing her qualifications as an MD (Research) Degree but later changing it to a BM BS after the University of Sydney’s Professor of Public Health, Simon Chapman, revealed her true qualifications.

The Guardians, started by Mitchell, are a powerful, well-resourced and rapidly expanding anti-windastroturf group.

The Australian Landscape Guardians, Waubra Foundation and Mitchell’s investment company, Lowell Resources Funds Management Limited which, tellingly, lists “coal in various forms” as its “stand out” investment performer, all share the same address and P.O. Box in South Melbourne.

The pressure group appears to be modelled on the U.K. climate-skeptic-run and nuclear-fundedCountry Guardians, set up by Sir Bernard Ingham, consultant to the nuclear industry and an acknowledged ‘black belt’ in the art of spin.

The foundation has no Waubra residents on its board, or any connection to the town of Waubra other than having hijacked its name then stigmatized it further with its cause célèbre, the medically debunked “Waubra disease”.

Karen Molloy tried to get the Waubra Foundation name changed through the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, without success.

“My children go to Waubra Primary School, my husband, Steven and I are in the Waubra Football Club. This is our town, use another name!” she said.

But when you Google “Waubra”, thanks to Google’s algorithms and an effective SEO strategy by the foundation’s webmaster, the name-stealing Waubra Foundation ensures it gets precedence over genuine Waubra-affiliated organisations, such as the Waubra footy club.

According to Doug Hobson, the newly-dubbed “Waubra disease” (as reported by the ABC News on 1 March 2010) was based on a sample of less than half a dozen people out of some 500-600 residents in the Waubra district. One is known to have had his symptoms prior to the arrival of the wind farm.

http://www.independentaustralia.net/2012/environment/waubra-fights-back-against-phony-foundation/

Mr Abbott's own parliamentary secretary, Senator Arthur Sinodinos, for example, said last week that Mr Brough was a bloke "with his heart in the right place" but conceded he "has got some questions to answer".
According to Senator Sinodinos, after listening to Mr Ashby's original complaint, Mr Brough "should have maybe distanced himself more" and that "getting involved in trying to facilitate" assistance for Mr Ashby had "created this perception that Mal has just cooked all of this up to knock off Slipper".
Indeed. And that's exactly why Mr Brough – who has made no comment since the judgment other than a brief written statement – has questions to answer before anyone can decide whether he "acted rightly" at all times.
And it's why Mr Abbott's "nothing to see here" response isn't sufficient – whether the Coalition leader has read the whole judgment or not.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/dogged-abbott-
Sinodinos knows something is not quite right...  I believe he knows the dirt.... Mal Brough is not smelling of roses and he won't be for a while... When flowers die in a vase of stagnant water, they start to stink...

Shareholders in a company linked to disgraced Labor Party power broker Eddie Obeid are suing Federal Assistant Treasurer Arthur Sinodinos.

The Federal Court claim argues the conduct of Australian Water Holdings (AWH), former chairman Mr Sinodinos and former Labor state treasurer Michael Costa was misleading and deceptive.

Liberal fundraiser Nick Di Girolamo is also being sued.

Mr Di Girolamo resigned as chief executive of the company when the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) announced hearings into the circumstances of the 25-year, $100 million infrastructure deal AWH was granted by Sydney Water.

The investigation will start on Monday.

Mr Di Girolamo has also been named in a parallel inquiry into Liberal Party fundraising, which will examine whether he entered into an agreement with a company called Eightybyfive in return for former resources minister Chris Hartcher favouring the interests of AWH.

Greens MP John Kaye says lobbyists need to be better regulated.

"Mr Sinodinis was the treasurer and then the president of the Liberal Party of New South Wales [and he] was a Senate-elect candidate when he was working for Australian Water Holdings," he said.

"This is an uncomfortable connection between the ruling party of New South Wales and a company that was vying for a contract with the New South Wales Government."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-15/sinodinos-sued-by-shareholders-of-company-linked-to-obeids/5323162

See what happens next... ?....

Assistant Treasurer Arthur Sinodinos has told Parliament he "will be vindicated" in relation to his involvement with a company linked to disgraced NSW Labor figure Eddie Obeid which is now the focus of a corruption inquiry.

Senator Sinodinos is one of several people connected to Australian Water Holdings (AWH), under investigation by the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC).

On Monday the ICAC hearing in Sydney heard claims that Senator Sinodinos, a former AWH board member, stood to make $20 million from an infrastructure deal awarded to the company by the state-owned Sydney Water Corporation in January 2012.

In Question Time today the Opposition sought to pressure the Government over the Senator's involvement.

"I'll be attending as a witness and - watch this space," Senator Sinodinos told the chamber.

"And I will be vindicated in terms of what I have said to the Senate."

In February last year, Senator Sinodinos told Parliament he had "foregone all and any entitlement to this shareholding" in AWH and had had "very limited" dealings with members of the Obeid family.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott told Parliament he retains full confidence in the Coalition frontbencher.

"The matters in question happened prior to his entering parliament and becoming a minister," he said.

http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/too-soon-for-malaysia-airlines-jokes-chasers-julian-morrow-points-finger-at-kyle-and-jackie-o-show-20140318-34zc1.html

"The matters in question happened prior to his entering parliament and becoming a minister," he [Tony] said. The same thing can be said of the 20 year old "supposed union affair" Tony pursued Julia Gillard with vengeance... The same thing can be said of Thomson who was pilloried for something "that happened nearly 10 years before". And the list goes on... According to Tony, if someone of the conservative variety has crapped in the pot plants, it smells of roses, but should the same happen with someone from the "left", all hell breaks loose.... HYPOCRITE!!!

Assistant Treasurer Arthur Sinodinos has stood aside from his frontbench post while a corruption inquiry investigates the dealings of a company he was involved with before entering Parliament.

It is the first ministerial casualty for the Abbott Government and a particular blow to lose a key minister from the Treasury portfolio less than two months before the Government hands down its first budget.

Senator Sinodinos is one of several people connected to Australian Water Holdings (AWH), which is under investigation by the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC).

On Monday, the ICAC hearing in Sydney heard claims that Senator Sinodinos, a former AWH director and NSW Liberal Party treasurer, stood to make up to $20 million from a contract with the state-owned Sydney Water Corporation in January 2012.

The Opposition had been pressuring the Senator to stand aside while the inquiry was underway, citing a conflict of interest with his role as Assistant Treasurer.

This afternoon, Senator Sinodinos told the Senate he would step down from his frontbench role for the duration of the inquiry.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-19/arthur-sinodinos-stands-aside-as-assistant-treasurer/5331388

However, Senator Sinodinos would not put a timeframe on the Prime Minister's leadership.

"The Prime Minister heeded the message and changed his behaviour. So we're all getting behind him to make sure that that change works," he said.

"But as I said, I'm judged on my performance, the Prime Minister is judged on his performance.

"My job is to get behind him and help him improve his performance and make it a sustained improvement could we win the next election."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-10/arthur-sinodinos-says-abbott-has-changed-behaviour/6292402

---------------------------

May I point out to Arfur that the purpose of government is not to win elections but to improve the quality of life of the people... Improving the performance of Turdy is an oxymoron... "His" improvements are more in the realm of better polished lies or shooting the messengers with arrows rather than bullets... Is Turdy changing his view on GLOBAL WARMING after having been a little shit on this subject? I guess not...

read also: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/hockey-plans-to-smash-a-worldclass-superannuation-system-20150309-13z1gc.html

read also: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/the-secrecy-surrounding-the-transpacific-partnership-has-community-groups-and-businesses-concerned-20150309-13ya0x.html

and: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/tony-abbott-is-a-bully-over-un-convention-against-torture-20150309-13zk4s.html

See toon at top...

Australian politics live with Amy Remeikis

Australian politics

Arthur Sinodinos says MPs must act on 'the best science' when it comes to climate – as it happened

Liberal senator gives final speech. Plus, Scott Morrison tells parliament IMF update ‘reflects the uncertainty of the times in which we live’

see more:

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2019/oct/16/economy-coal...

Read from top.