In 2018, the Digital Transformation Agency (DTA) partnered with CSIRO's Data61 and the Commonwealth Bank to trial "Making Money Smart" - a blockchain-based system designed to create "smart money" for NDIS payments [1].
The proof-of-concept trial aimed to enable conditional payments with integrated spending rules for individual NDIS participants' budget categories [2].
Rather, it was framed as a way to manage conditional payments - ensuring funds could only be used for approved purposes within individualized support plans [1][2].
The claim conflates two separate initiatives:
**The Blockchain Trial (2018-2019):** This was a proof-of-concept by DTA/CSIRO/CBA that was never operationalized by the NDIA.
However the NDIA did not commission the trial, nor did the Agency act on any of its findings" [3].
**Compliance Monitoring Systems:** What the NDIA did pursue were technology-driven compliance monitoring systems targeting disabled participants themselves - a shift from previous focus on service provider fraud [4].
According to investigative reporting by Rick Morton in The Saturday Paper (2021): "Two senior public servants involved in the establishment of the robo-debt program are now working in the compliance division of the National Disability Insurance Agency" [5].
The core issue the claim identifies - determining whether a taxi ride was for medical purposes or recreational use - perfectly exemplifies why blockchain cannot solve data validation problems [6].
The "Making Money Smart" report itself acknowledged this exact challenge: "One of the biggest surprises was the extent of the challenge to collect all the data required to enable conditional payments across the NDIS ecosystem, including payments to general businesses that deliver services to NDIS participants (for example, travel, digestive aids)...
Was that trip to get somewhere as part of their treatment plan, and therefore a legitimate expense, or something else?" [7]
The DTA's own conclusion was revealing: "The design challenge is as much about effective data collection as it is about data processing (whether using blockchain or a centralised database)" [7].
As blockchain expert David Gerard noted to ZDNet: "You don't need a blockchain to oppress people with surveillance of rules that can't be complied with" [8].
The forthcoming NDIS app that sparked concerns was "not related to the 2018 trial" and "does not use blockchain technology" according to NDIA's statement [3].
The compliance monitoring systems were developed partly in response to these concerns, though this doesn't necessarily justify their implementation design.
According to David Gerard: "The trial of this went so badly they threw away the whole idea, and civil servants decided blockchain wasn't cool any more... even with that, the blockchain scheme was so bad they threw it away" [8].
The "Making Money Smart" report contained many hedging statements: "blockchain technology offers promise" [7] - notably weak language suggesting the researchers themselves were uncertain.
The article itself is factually rigorous - it cites specific sources (The Saturday Paper, DTA publications, Commonwealth Bank reports), distinguishes between the blockchain trial and separate compliance systems, and includes an official NDIA response clarifying misconceptions.
The article's framing is critical but fact-based [3].
**mdavis.xyz source:** The second source cannot be directly assessed without accessing it, but based on the claim's language ("waving away all concerns") and the framing, this source appears to be from a more advocacy-oriented perspective.
However, the claim appears to emphasize the blockchain aspect more prominently than either source warrants, given that the blockchain was abandoned and not the actual policy implemented.
However, the NDIS itself is a Labor initiative (created under the Rudd/Gillard governments), and Labor's 2022 election platform committed to improving NDIS.
Labor's response has been mixed:
1. **Abbott's Robo-Debt Legacy:** Labor has been more critical of technology-driven debt recovery following the Robodebt Royal Commission inquiry (2022-2024), which found the original scheme unlawful [12][13].
2. **Current NDIS Approach:** Labor's current government has faced similar NDIS compliance challenges and has continued monitoring systems, though with reforms [14].
An ABC investigation in December 2024 noted: "After opposing the Coalition's 'robo' NDIS reforms, Labor accused of pursuing similar changes" [15] - suggesting Labor is pursuing comparable compliance monitoring despite previous criticism.
**Verdict on Labor Comparison:** Labor did not create the specific programs being criticized, but has inherited and continued similar compliance-focused approaches to NDIS administration.
The Robodebt precedent is instructive: between 2016-2020, the Coalition's unlawful automated debt recovery scheme issued approximately 400,000 debts, many to people who didn't actually owe money.
The Oracle Problem observation is technically sound - blockchain cannot solve the fundamental policy question of what constitutes a valid NDIS expense, especially for ambiguous cases like transportation that could serve multiple purposes [7].
The government's framing (particularly under former Secretary Kathryn Campbell's "one app to rule them all" vision) does suggest a troubling culture of compliance-first thinking - an emphasis on monitoring participants' spending rather than ensuring they receive full benefits [8].
Blockchain expert David Gerard provided balanced critique: while acknowledging the desire to prevent fraud is legitimate, he noted blockchain specifically adds nothing helpful and may enable surveillance that wouldn't be technically feasible otherwise [8].
The better criticism is of the *compliance regime design*, not primarily the blockchain component.
**Key context:** This is not unique to the Coalition.
The claim is factually grounded (blockchain trial did occur, compliance systems did shift toward participant targeting, the Oracle Problem is real) but misleads through emphasis and conflation:
- **True:** Coalition proposed/trialed blockchain for NDIS [1]
- **True:** Compliance monitoring shifted to target disabled participants [5]
- **Misleading:** Blockchain was abandoned, not implemented [3]
- **Misleading:** Conflates blockchain trial with separate compliance systems [4][5]
- **True:** Oracle Problem proves blockchain wouldn't solve validation issues [7]
- **Missing:** Labor has continued similar compliance approaches [15]
The claim's core problem isn't inaccuracy but *selective emphasis*.
It highlights the blockchain (which was abandoned) more than the actual implemented policy (compliance monitoring), and frames this as Coalition-unique when it reflects broader governmental trends that Labor continues.
The claim is factually grounded (blockchain trial did occur, compliance systems did shift toward participant targeting, the Oracle Problem is real) but misleads through emphasis and conflation:
- **True:** Coalition proposed/trialed blockchain for NDIS [1]
- **True:** Compliance monitoring shifted to target disabled participants [5]
- **Misleading:** Blockchain was abandoned, not implemented [3]
- **Misleading:** Conflates blockchain trial with separate compliance systems [4][5]
- **True:** Oracle Problem proves blockchain wouldn't solve validation issues [7]
- **Missing:** Labor has continued similar compliance approaches [15]
The claim's core problem isn't inaccuracy but *selective emphasis*.
It highlights the blockchain (which was abandoned) more than the actual implemented policy (compliance monitoring), and frames this as Coalition-unique when it reflects broader governmental trends that Labor continues.