1. Its always good to have a surplus for a rainy day. Which was used by Labor when storm clouds where looming (how effectively is another matter).
Yes, but not at the cost of running down infrastructure. There's no point having a few billion dollars in the bank if the roads are in gridlock, the schools are falling apart, hospital waiting lists are blowing out and businesses in Sydney are stuck on satellite internet.
2. this government does not have a good record in spending money.
In some cases that's quite true. But the same can be said of any Government. I might also point out that if you don't invest in any projects, then there's no opportunity to spend too much on them!
3. although an ideal to aspire to (fast internet for everyone) perhaps not the best way to go about it:-
Wireless or other technologies improving before NBN is completed.
Govt. money instead of free enterprise (always dangerous for taxpayers)
The technology decisions of the NBN are those recommended by technology experts as the best solutions. There are no tech experts predicting wireless will ever eclipse the capability of fibre, that argument is strictly one of technological incompetents like Andrew Bolt and Alan Jones. Seriously, go and find a SINGLE telecommunications company that thinks/says wireless can replace fixed networks in urban areas. There simply isn't one. There are no other technologies with a prospect either.
Yes, it's true that there is a risk to "taxpayer's" money. But the same could be said of any Government spending. We could spend money on roads, only to have teleportation invented in the next decade. But, there aren't any physicists saying that's likely, just as there aren;t any telecommunication engineers saying fibre will be obsolete anytime soon.
4. Probable blow out of cost to implement.
So because the cost of something may "blow out" that's a reason to just do nothing? Should we apply that reason to everything we do, or just to Government projects? Or just to the NBN? If not, what makes it different to everything else?
5. There are other projects which would make us more prosperous.
New infrastructure for mining industry and opening up WA
Better roads and possibly rail.
Better funding of hospitals etc
We've been through this several times. The NBN provides a return. It doesn't effect our ability to invest in other projects. You can't simply "redirect" the NBN money unless....
a) Whatever you redirect it to also provides a return (eg: a toll road); OR
b) You find the money in the budget.
Either way though, whether the NBN is built or not makes not one iota of difference.
I'd also like to point out that even if the NBN provided zero return, and every cent of the $27bn Govt investment was on-budget. That is still less than 3% of the money Australian Governments will spend on public healthcare over the 10 year build of the NBN. What would we have to show for it if we increased the public health budget by 3% over 10 years do you think?