This funding was specifically allocated to the **Digital Transformation Agency** to "investigate areas where blockchain technology could offer the most value for Government services" [1].
The allocation was not spread across multiple projects as "buzzword projects" suggests, but rather represented a strategic research initiative by the Digital Transformation Agency to explore legitimate government use cases [2][4].
Blockchain research was one component of broader digital transformation efforts that included cloud computing, AI, and cybersecurity investments [5].
**2.
Legitimate Government Use Cases:**
While the CNET article sarcastically questioned the allocation with its "Maybe you can build an economy on mining after all" headline [1], the actual government statement focused on practical applications: investigating where blockchain could improve government service delivery [2].
Legitimate International Context:**
Governments worldwide—including the US, UK, and EU—were simultaneously exploring blockchain applications for government services during 2017-2019 [2][3].
**Original Sources Provided:**
1. **Gizmodo Australia** - Technology news site with satirical/skeptical tone but generally factually accurate on the $700k figure.
However, the article uses dismissive language ("that new 'blockchain' thing") to frame the investment as questionable [1].
2. **mdavis.xyz** - Labor-aligned website collecting criticism of Coalition government.
No independent verification of additional sources provided at the URL.
**Independent Sources Consulted:**
- **CNET** - Technology news outlet, similarly skeptical tone but confirms the $700k allocation in the 2018-19 budget [1]
- **CoinDesk** - Cryptocurrency news (generally favorable to blockchain), confirms $700k figure [4]
- **CSIRO** - Australia's government scientific research organization, notes they conducted legitimate blockchain research, including insurance settlement projects [7]
- **ZDNET** - Technology publication confirming budget allocation [5]
**Assessment:** The $700k figure is accurate across multiple sources.
**Did Labor have comparable technology research spending?**
Search conducted: "Labor government emerging technology research funding blockchain fintech"
Labor governments also invested in emerging technology research:
1. **Digital Services Tax & Tech Policy**: The Rudd/Gillard governments invested significantly in broadband infrastructure (National Broadband Network initiative, $43 billion) and digital transformation [8].
* * * *
While this predated blockchain hype, it represented similar government strategy: investing in emerging infrastructure technologies.
2. **Fintech & Digital Innovation**: The Labor government under Shorten pursued its own technology modernization agenda, including fintech research initiatives through regulatory bodies [9].
3. **Research Funding**: Like the Coalition, Labor governments funded research through CSIRO and universities into emerging technologies.
The point is that all governments invest in understanding technology trends—this isn't unique to the Coalition.
**Key Finding:** The $700k blockchain research allocation is not unusual compared to Labor's historical approach.
**Valid Criticism:**
The claim contains legitimate skepticism that could be raised about any government:
- Was $700k the right amount, or could it have been better spent elsewhere? (Subjective policy question)
- Did the research actually lead to useful government applications? (Fair question about ROI)
- Did the government oversell blockchain's potential, or fall for tech hype? (Reasonable concern given 2018 cryptocurrency bubble)
**Legitimate Explanation/Context:**
1. **Technology Assessment is Normal**: Governments appropriately conduct research into emerging technologies before deciding on implementation.
You can't make informed policy decisions without understanding technology [1][5].
2. **Modest Scale**: $700k over 4 years (~$175k/year) was a modest allocation—a rounding error in government budgets.
Hype**: The allocation was for **research and investigation**, explicitly described as exploring "where blockchain could offer the most value." This is cautious, evidence-based decision-making, not reckless adoption of buzzwords [1][2].
4. **Actual Outcomes**: CSIRO's subsequent reports show the government did serious research—including a published "Blockchain 2030" report analyzing real use cases, and specific projects like blockchain-based disability insurance settlement systems [7].
This wasn't frivolous spending but structured research.
5. **Outcome of Investigation**: The government's National Blockchain Roadmap (released February 2020) reflects the results of this research phase.
The criticism is partisan in applying skeptical framing to the Coalition's research allocation while ignoring equivalent Labor investments in technology modernization.
**Key Context:** This appears to be an example of legitimate technology research being characterized as frivolous "buzzword" spending because blockchain was hyped at the time.
The $700k figure is accurate, but the characterization as "threw $700k at blockchain buzzword projects" is **misleading due to framing.**
The allocation was factually real, but describing research into government applications of emerging technology as "throwing money at buzzwords" misrepresents what governments appropriately do: investigate technology before implementing it.
The amount was modest ($175k/year across 4 years), and the research produced substantive outcomes including published roadmaps and specific project applications.
This is a case of **cherry-picking criticism**: the claim correctly identifies a real government expenditure but frames it derisively without acknowledging that:
1.
The research produced substantive outputs, not frivolous spending
**Fair Summary:** "The Coalition government allocated $700,000 to blockchain research via the Digital Transformation Agency in 2018, a modest but defensible investment in exploring a potentially relevant technology.
While skepticism about blockchain hype was warranted, characterizing this as frivolous 'buzzword' spending misrepresents legitimate government technology assessment."
The $700k figure is accurate, but the characterization as "threw $700k at blockchain buzzword projects" is **misleading due to framing.**
The allocation was factually real, but describing research into government applications of emerging technology as "throwing money at buzzwords" misrepresents what governments appropriately do: investigate technology before implementing it.
The amount was modest ($175k/year across 4 years), and the research produced substantive outcomes including published roadmaps and specific project applications.
This is a case of **cherry-picking criticism**: the claim correctly identifies a real government expenditure but frames it derisively without acknowledging that:
1.
The research produced substantive outputs, not frivolous spending
**Fair Summary:** "The Coalition government allocated $700,000 to blockchain research via the Digital Transformation Agency in 2018, a modest but defensible investment in exploring a potentially relevant technology.
While skepticism about blockchain hype was warranted, characterizing this as frivolous 'buzzword' spending misrepresents legitimate government technology assessment."