Well, actually, the three previous IGRs were critical documents for economists, academics, business and the community, so the next one does sound pretty much like the last three. Note that Joe left politicians off the list of types for whom the report will be critical – perhaps because politicians delivered and largely ignored the previous three. Oh, in fairness, they weren't entirely ignored. They were used as the reason to give policy a little nudge but never by enough to offend anyone. A Parliamentary Library report summarises it thus: "Following the delivery of each IGR, successive governments have implemented policies that have been explicitly linked to the relevant IGR. For example: The 2002–03 budget included measures such as a rise in co-payments for medicines supplied under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) and the introduction of the superannuation co-contribution.

The 2007–08 budget emphasised measures aimed at enhancing productivity and participation.

The 2010–11 Budget referred to the IGR as a basis for superannuation changes such as the phased increase in the superannuation guarantee from 9 per cent to 12 per cent.

Right – and the lift in compulsory superannuation has been put on hold. Phasing in the older pension age has really been about it. There's a fair chance that the pollies will do it again this time because the implications of taking the report seriously would mean offending just about everyone, because just about everyone has a vested interest or two that will need to be questioned. What the government is hoping is that Treasury's report will reload Hockey's discounted rhetoric about tough decisions and the old debt and deficit mantra that worked so well in opposition, as nothing has worked for him since. The problem is that Joe has only talked the debt and deficit talk – he certainly hasn't done the walk as both have blown out during his 17 months as Treasurer. There are indeed very serious challenges ahead for Australia, but Hockey now is the boy who cried wolf on debt and thus no one much is listening to him anymore. The contradictory mishmash of policies that characterised Hockey's first budget remains around the government's neck, the good lost among the bad, credibility, trust and confidence all damaged – I suspect irretrievably.

So what will Treasury spelling out our demographics do for Hockey? Only underline the precarious nature of his next budget, assuming he's still Treasurer in May, and our politicians' default option: dodge the tough stuff, mislead the public and push problems out beyond the next election. Anyone who has a remote interest in policy and our future has long known about the coming dive in our dependency ratio – the proportion of workers to non-workers – that Hockey seemed to discover in his speech this week. And only politicians trying to fool the public deny what has to happen to avoid serious trouble: a change to principle-based policy instead of vote buying; consistency in the handling of public largesse; genuine, politically painful tax reform as mapped out in the Henry Report for the long-term benefit of the nation. The excessive tax-haven aspects of superannuation have to be capped, we will have to tax a bit more as well as a lot smarter, social welfare expectations need to be constrained, the lurks and perks, bribes and rewards of government have to be done away with. As a small personal yardstick, I might start taking Joe Hockey seriously when he admits he was wrong to scrap the fringe benefits tax changes upon winning government and he reinstates them – at a great cost to the salary packaging industry that feeds off taxpayers.

There is one small hope flickering in the breeze of the government's performance: depending on how the IGR has been massaged, it might, just might, build the case for the coalition to differentiate between its "budget crisis" sloganeering of opposition days and sensibly geared investment in the nation's future. If a government really wants to plan for the future, limit tax pain later while continuing to provide our desired level of a social safety net, it needs to invest in Australia's productivity now. Commonwealth 10-year bonds are trading with a yield of 2.5 per cent. Right now, the government could borrow as much as it can dream of for very little, invest it in infrastructure development with a double-digit rate of return, improve the nation's productivity, overcome some of the shorter-term challenges of our structural adjustment, reduce unemployment, end its over-reliance on monetary policy and restore some of the inter-generational balance that has been lost by public sector investment falling to its lowest level in generations. But that would take leadership and trust and confidence in the leadership – not a boy who's been crying wolf. Michael Pascoe is a BusinessDay contributing editor.