If you bother to find the actual report it states this inside the front cover...
"Disclaimer: This Working Paper should not be reported as representing the views of the IMF.The views expressed in this Working Paper are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent those of the IMF or IMF policy. Working Papers describe research in progress by the author(s) and are published to elicit comments and to further debate"
As for the criticism it was widespread. And even the report itself measures 'profligacy' in three different ways and only their 'new' way of measuring (E.g 1 in 3 measurements) comes up with 2005-2007 years as profligate. However, their figure did not include the money that went into the Future Fund. Apparently, including that alone would have changed the outcome.
So it was and still is NOT an IMF Report. The Report measured 'profligacy' in the usal way and did not find any Howard years as profligate. It also tried a new way of measuring profligacy (controversial and gnerally attacked), which did find 2005-07 as profligate but did not include funds from Future Fund which would have changed the outcome.
As a further note. Rudd and Gillard years were not looked at. Shame...
