The Greens are at it again, all compassion in the abstract, little regard for the practical responsibilities of governing. 

They have never had to carry the burden of being in power federally, so they they keep doing what they do best: demanding more spending, denouncing fiscal restraint and pretending hard trade offs are a moral failure rather than an unavoidable part of government.

Their latest position on the NDIS fits this pattern perfectly. Faced with a scheme both major parties accept has become financially unsustainable in its current form, the Greens’ instinct is simply to oppose any tightening and insist the money keep flowing and growing.

'This is an extraordinary betrayal of disabled people by a Labor government that promised to protect the NDIS, not cut it,' leader Larissa Waters said. 'Australians with a disability and everyone who loves them are angry, and they’re not going to let Labor take away their dignity without a fight.' 

'Budgets are about choices, and Labor is choosing to cut the NDIS instead of taxing rich gas corporations. Labor needs to show courage, tax the big corporations and 1%, stand up to Donald Trump, and get these billions back into the essential services we all rely on.'

That’s the Greens playbook neatly summed up in one quote: Bash gas companies harder, soak ‘the rich’ a bit more and somehow ‘stand up’ to Trump, then the money will magically appear and the hard choices will disappear! 

It’s always easier to defend every entitlement than it is to choose who gets what from a limited pool of funds. But the Greens don’t see things that way. 

There are almost no limits to their fiscal profligacy: Free dental care, free university, more subsidies, more public spending, and certainly bigger government. The bill to pay for it all is treated as secondary, as though taxpayers can be tapped indefinitely and public spending can rise without consequence.

And when the question of funding gets pressed, the Greens answer is as predictable as their promises: just tax more. 

Tax business more heavily, tax profits more aggressively, and tax wealth more substantively. 

The productive side of the economy is treated less as the engine of national prosperity than as a standing reserve to be raided whenever another commitment needs paying for.

It’s economic escapism. Economic growth isn’t automatic and investments certainly aren’t guaranteed. Business confidence collapses when the sector is treated as an endless tap, and capital moves abroad, firms delay decisions, and investment dries up when governments treat enterprise as an inexhaustible source of revenue.

That’s especially true in the resources sector, where capital is mobile and sovereign risk matters. Keep telling investors they are hostages to the next Greens spending promise and they’ll act accordingly and flee. 

Punish economic activity heavily enough and the result isn’t social justice but slower growth, weaker job creation and a smaller pie from which to fund public services.

The Greens rarely seem interested in that side of the ledger. In fact they are in denial about how national economies work. 

Their politics begin with redistribution, not production, and they are preoccupied with dividing up a shrinking pie rather than helping it grow. 

It was former Labor PM Paul Keating who talked up the need to grow the pie so that everyone gets more, and he was right.

The Greens' misguided moral confidence is built on the assumption that prosperity will continue regardless of how much extra burden is piled onto the sectors that generate it.

None of this is to argue that disability support doesn’t matter, or that the NDIS should be cut for its own sake. The major parties aren’t saying that either. But it’s important to recognise that without discipline the NDIS will eventually become harder to sustain politically as well as fiscally. If it is to endure, it has to be tightly run and properly targeted.

The Greens are nothing if not predictable, resisting that reality because it disrupts the simplicity of their politics. A responsible system can support the vulnerable while still imposing limits and demanding value. But that requires tough decisions the Greens simply aren’t prepared to make, and don’t have to because they aren’t in government, and hopefully never will be.

The Greens campaign brilliantly, solidifying their narrow constituency, because they can always take the easier side of any argument. They can promise, condemn and moralise without having to balance competing demands or protect the long term health of the economy.

Someone else is always left to do that.