Discounting the Intergenerational Report

"[H]ow often does the IGR [Intergenerational Report], in five pages vaunting public investment in infrastructure, use the term 'cost benefit analysis'? Not once. Clearly, suggesting that public investment only be undertaken when the benefits exceed the costs is no longer politically correct." Extract from Henry Ergas in The Australian

Henry Ergas is—as ever—right on the money. The 2010 IGR has been written like a government press release. It does not seriously evaluate the evidence nor even offer cost-benefit analysis of the current government's infrastructure programs (that it praises) in the light of the changes it projects.

What can we make, for example, of an IGR whose chapter on 'Climate' fails even to mention the impacts of migration policy or population growth when evaluating the efficacy and economic impacts of a proposed emissions cap/objective/trading scheme?

Why do we need an IGR that merely regurgitates what the Government has already claimed about its own policies? An inter-generational report must be an independent and rigorous review of the evidence about policy outcomes to be of any use in the necessary debates about growing our wealth or maximising our opportunities. The current edition is a poor effort from such a talented group (Treasury).

Tags for this entry: policy evidence australia emissions investment