Was good until you spoiled it by getting political:

>"The Abbott Government has capitalized on the failure of the Experience+ program and has demonized older Australians and their healthcare needs."

I was going to contribute on policy development, design and implementation and how it is a project and should be managed with formal project management and project performance measurement process. This is something Dr Peter Shergold, head of PM&C and head of the public service, was implementing in the public service during the Howard government, but all stopped when Rudd took over as PM.

However, your partisan political comment suggests your post is driven by motivated reasoning, so I doubt you'd be much interested in other views.

...It is the politicians of low caliber Malcolm King, which drive political agendas; (unfortunately for us)! Was that the lesson learned?

All good Malcolm.

The thing that strikes me like a torpedo in the face is that you are capable of writing good stuff with a logically flowing succession of points…. and yet you are so incredibly off the planet regarding population growth and all those who espouse anything other than a massive continuous unending increase to our population.

Perhaps you need to think about this in terms of policies of all sorts and the implementation thereof... and how it affects your credibility if you are going to write serious articles about other matters.

its heaps easier to talk big
but the fruits judge the life.

policy is one of those things that cant be done wrong
cause policy only lasts/between election cycles/the rest is done by public service[if only they would refuse 'policy'..as being unlawfull order

ie nothing allows the govt to declare war on its own people
yet we have theese real wars by govt on kids caled a war on druggies
[its ok to name call dopers and no hopers but not sex nor race

where lies the policy?
its modified by UNLAWFULL CONTRACT CALED TREATY
see only the living can be bouND BY CONTRACTED OATH..so amny treaty can only exist between living entities[no external parties]

but..individuals and corperations/now can invade and oot by policy-alone

our policy iws sel it all at one third the cost and a quarter its value

contract to buid saomething else capitalists wont rish their own money on/then sel some more and build a slush fund here

see policy..has too many levels..in too many realms/of too many reason and meaning..thing is party policy shoud be ratified or nulified at electoral defeat

ie win the next election to ratify your poicy before the people
you must have a clear win/to get that policy officialy in

but treason does its nest feathering too well
private public service funds no worries/medical researtch
JOBS FOR THE BOYS SLUSH-fund..no sweat.

I WAS TOLD GOVT POLICY[ALP]WAS NO DRUG WAR
HE LIED..that day policy..[legislated..into revenue raising sin tax..as if real-law..died...as was blind faith iN ANY POLICY

INSURANCE policies are fraud...all POLICY IS FRAUD
THATS THE POLICY I POLICE MY MORALS BY

POLICY=policing..by other shame/name scam

Yes Diver, I'm afraid that was a major problem too. We could never get timely or consistent information from Ministerial offices.

Shergold's thinking and writing were a major positive influence on my career. It's not a case of Lib or Lab, it's a case of making sure the implementation phase is factored in to the initial policy development.

Malcolm, can you see from your premise - the perverse inability of political organisations to act rationally - your conclusion is daft that the solution is more political solutions?

Can you see that if governments adds costs to employing people, the result will be more difficulty for people getting employment?

Can you see how, if government has a policy to increase aged employment to address a "fiscal gap", the conclusion that the government has the competence to manage demography, taxes, and employment, is based on an assumption that is not supported by the facts?

Can you see that, if there are valid reasons for not employing young people because of lack of experience, and invalid reasons for not employing them because of age prejudice, it is irrational to assume that the reason is always invalid because of age prejudice?

And the same for older workers?

It is very annoying when people running an irrational belief system keep insisting that it's right even when they are swimming through facts that show the obvious possibility that their assumptions are wrong.