From the outset, it was obvious to anyone with any nous that the NBN was both foolish and a frivolous waste of taxpayer funds.
1) Telstra managed to offload its aging technology to the taxpayer.
2) There was a serious risk of the technology being outdone by wireless technology, as has been the case with 5G and Starlink.
3) There was a lack of cost planning and accountability. I recall a Tasmanian bowling club getting NBN at a cost of something in the order of 100,000, and hearing stories of rural properties having 100s of meters of cable installed up their driveways.
4) The creation of a new government-owned and run monopoly utility provider when we had only just got rid of the awful Telecom in the preceding decade.
5) The rollout methodology was expensive and sloppy. The standard of workmanship has been appallingly low, and the rectification costs are ongoing.
If we had to address internet speeds in Australia their must have been half a dozen better ways to address the issue.
1) Mandate minimum speeds for downstream networks and equipment with improvements by stipulated dates.
2) Removal of the government licensing requirements.
3) Regulatory changes allowing equipment owned by one organisation to be used by other organisations (we still desperately need this for our mobile phone towers).
4) Tendering of improvements to existing telcos, for them to own and operate.
5) Almost anything else except the super expensive NBN disaster.
The NBN is a classic example of the knowledge problem Hayek warned about: governments lack the information, incentives and adaptability necessary to efficiently allocate capital in dynamic markets.
What began as a politically grandiose nation-building project became a multi-decade exercise in cost overruns, technological obsolescence and bureaucratic revision. By the time the state finished debating copper versus fibre, private innovation had already moved toward low-earth orbit satellite networks and rapidly evolving wireless technologies.
And the NBN is not an isolated case. Snowy 2.0 has followed a remarkably similar trajectory: exploding costs, repeated delays, engineering complications and governments continually revising projections while taxpayers absorb the risk. What was sold as transformational nation-building increasingly resembles another centrally planned infrastructure project where political ambition outran commercial discipline and operational reality.
The same mindset now permeates the latest Chalmers Budget: bigger government, larger subsidies, industry “transformation” funds, politicised capital allocation and growing belief that Canberra can successfully direct investment, energy systems, housing markets and long-term economic development from the centre.
But markets evolve through experimentation, competition and decentralised decision-making. Governments operate through political cycles, monopoly structures and taxpayer-backed risk. The result is increasingly predictable: delayed delivery, distorted incentives, weak productivity growth and billions diverted from the productive private economy into politically managed projects that struggle to keep pace with innovation itself.
The deeper issue is not merely whether the NBN cost $40b, $57b or $70b, or whether Snowy 2.0 doubles again in cost. It is the recurring assumption that governments can successfully forecast technological, commercial and economic evolution over decades in highly dynamic sectors of human enterprise.
A freer economy — with lower barriers to entry, stronger private investment, genuine competition and less political interference — would almost certainly deliver more innovation, better infrastructure outcomes and higher long-term prosperity than increasingly centralised economic management from Canberra.
Infrastructure matters. Energy matters. Housing matters. But the lesson of the NBN, Snowy 2.0 and now Budget 2026 is that government expansion and central planning are not synonymous with progress.
I remember when I lived in the US, a basic cable TV and internet plan cost about US$20/mo which gave you 100Mbps... in 2010. This now costs about $50USD in Australia. I'm on Gigabit NBN, the fastest home connection. When I tried to upgrade, and because NBN is treated like some scarce public utility, my old ISP told me I "didn't need it" because I live alone and the "hyperfast" (LOL) speed is only suitable for "large households." Irrelevant. I want it, I have the money to pay for it, give it to me. Nope. And we all pay the price.
As Thomas Sowell said, “It is difficult to imagine a more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions into the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.”
From the outset, it was obvious to anyone with any nous that the NBN was both foolish and a frivolous waste of taxpayer funds.
1) Telstra managed to offload its aging technology to the taxpayer.
2) There was a serious risk of the technology being outdone by wireless technology, as has been the case with 5G and Starlink.
3) There was a lack of cost planning and accountability. I recall a Tasmanian bowling club getting NBN at a cost of something in the order of 100,000, and hearing stories of rural properties having 100s of meters of cable installed up their driveways.
4) The creation of a new government-owned and run monopoly utility provider when we had only just got rid of the awful Telecom in the preceding decade.
5) The rollout methodology was expensive and sloppy. The standard of workmanship has been appallingly low, and the rectification costs are ongoing.
If we had to address internet speeds in Australia their must have been half a dozen better ways to address the issue.
1) Mandate minimum speeds for downstream networks and equipment with improvements by stipulated dates.
2) Removal of the government licensing requirements.
3) Regulatory changes allowing equipment owned by one organisation to be used by other organisations (we still desperately need this for our mobile phone towers).
4) Tendering of improvements to existing telcos, for them to own and operate.
5) Almost anything else except the super expensive NBN disaster.
The NBN is a classic example of the knowledge problem Hayek warned about: governments lack the information, incentives and adaptability necessary to efficiently allocate capital in dynamic markets.
What began as a politically grandiose nation-building project became a multi-decade exercise in cost overruns, technological obsolescence and bureaucratic revision. By the time the state finished debating copper versus fibre, private innovation had already moved toward low-earth orbit satellite networks and rapidly evolving wireless technologies.
And the NBN is not an isolated case. Snowy 2.0 has followed a remarkably similar trajectory: exploding costs, repeated delays, engineering complications and governments continually revising projections while taxpayers absorb the risk. What was sold as transformational nation-building increasingly resembles another centrally planned infrastructure project where political ambition outran commercial discipline and operational reality.
The same mindset now permeates the latest Chalmers Budget: bigger government, larger subsidies, industry “transformation” funds, politicised capital allocation and growing belief that Canberra can successfully direct investment, energy systems, housing markets and long-term economic development from the centre.
But markets evolve through experimentation, competition and decentralised decision-making. Governments operate through political cycles, monopoly structures and taxpayer-backed risk. The result is increasingly predictable: delayed delivery, distorted incentives, weak productivity growth and billions diverted from the productive private economy into politically managed projects that struggle to keep pace with innovation itself.
The deeper issue is not merely whether the NBN cost $40b, $57b or $70b, or whether Snowy 2.0 doubles again in cost. It is the recurring assumption that governments can successfully forecast technological, commercial and economic evolution over decades in highly dynamic sectors of human enterprise.
A freer economy — with lower barriers to entry, stronger private investment, genuine competition and less political interference — would almost certainly deliver more innovation, better infrastructure outcomes and higher long-term prosperity than increasingly centralised economic management from Canberra.
Infrastructure matters. Energy matters. Housing matters. But the lesson of the NBN, Snowy 2.0 and now Budget 2026 is that government expansion and central planning are not synonymous with progress.
I remember when I lived in the US, a basic cable TV and internet plan cost about US$20/mo which gave you 100Mbps... in 2010. This now costs about $50USD in Australia. I'm on Gigabit NBN, the fastest home connection. When I tried to upgrade, and because NBN is treated like some scarce public utility, my old ISP told me I "didn't need it" because I live alone and the "hyperfast" (LOL) speed is only suitable for "large households." Irrelevant. I want it, I have the money to pay for it, give it to me. Nope. And we all pay the price.
As Thomas Sowell said, “It is difficult to imagine a more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions into the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.”