In recent public discourse about trade agreements the initials PC have taken on dual meanings – political correctness and the Productivity Commission. It is simply not politically correct these days to criticise any aspect of a trade agreement. Anyone with the temerity to question a clause in an agreement is branded anti-trade or worse, a racist peddling xenophobia

By inviting the key participants in the National Reform Summit to a meeting on Thursday, Turnbull is signaling a new philosophical approach to the task of government.

When speaking of productivity growth and workforce participation, economists argue that the low-hanging fruit was picked in the 1980s and 1990s. They are wrong. In front of their eyes is an orchard full of unpicked fruit: preventative programs for chronic diseases and mental health. These have for too long been consigned to the social policy basket. 

There are no silver bullets in tax reform. It's a long slog of balancing the pros and cons across the system.

Reform The National Reform Summit did not create all-round agreement. But it started a mutual understanding essential to compromises and reforms in the future.
 

This week’s National Reform Summit produced a 17-page statement agreed by major business groups, organised labour, civil society groups, seniors groups and a representative youth organisation. Some have asked how this was possible. The answer in one word is: trust. 

The Abbott government has cranked up rhetoric and 'xenophobia and racism' as it defends its China FTA. But there are better ways of securing this crucial deal that all sides can agree upon.

The major organisations participating in the National Reform Summit agree that vested interests should not be allowed to override the national interest. Next Wednesday’s meeting can be a start to recapturing the reform zeal of the 1980s that led to almost a quarter century of growth and prosperity.

Economic policy The Coalition might be the party of business but its likely treatment of the Harper review shows that it can always be relied upon to put support for vested interests ahead of a proper economic outcome.

The success of the National Reform Summit depends on sticking to core players and economic issues, and putting results ahead of broad participation.

Earlier in the year this column argued the need for a National Reform Summit to help bridge the political divide in Canberra by finding common ground on a new economic reform program.

Whose side are you on?

Ultimately, the public judges political leaders not by the words they say but by the values they convey.

Last week's national accounts that embarrassed the clowns warning of dark clouds on the horizon actually revealed continued falls in living standards and declining productivity growth. Yet as far as Treasurer Hockey is concerned, this "terrific set of numbers" confirms all is well in Rainbow Land.

The federal government is playing a very large game of pretend when it tells us our economic ogres have been banished by a bit of budgeting fairy dust.

Budget in trouble? Just assume a surplus. The budget creation process has too many contrivances. That is delaying the task of budget repair.

The Coalition likes to dismiss attacks on tax perks as tax increases and class envy. But Labor should support the government on pension reform.

Australia rose to prosperity on the big idea of an open economy. Now it needs some more ideas to keep up the momentum. We need a culture that nurtures new ideas instead of consigning them to the conflict zone of political partisanship.

Hauling multinational corporations before a Senate committee to be interrogated about tax minimisation might not be pretty but it’s pretty effective at exposing the insidious demolition of Australia’s company income tax base. The hearings chaired by Senator Sam Dastyari possibly involve an element of rough justice, since some of the corporations making invited appearances might have done little or nothing wrong. Yet all have claimed there is no issue here; that they are entitled to minimise their tax within the law. But are they?