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].
### ### 第三 dì sān 部分 bù fèn : : 預言機 yù yán jī 問題 wèn tí 與 yǔ 技術準 jì shù zhǔn 確性 què xìng
The Oracle Problem is a genuine technical concern in smart contracts.
這是 zhè shì * * * * 事實 shì shí 上 shàng 準確 zhǔn què 的 de * * * * 。 。
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)...
該主 gāi zhǔ 張識別 zhāng shí bié 的 de 核心 hé xīn 問題 wèn tí — — — — 判斷 pàn duàn 一趟 yī tàng 計程車 jì chéng chē 行程 xíng chéng 是 shì 為 wèi 了 le 醫療 yī liáo 目的 mù dì 還是 hái shì 娛樂 yú lè 用途 yòng tú — — — — 完美 wán měi 地 dì 說明 shuō míng 了 le 為 wèi 什麼 shén me 區塊 qū kuài 鏈無法 liàn wú fǎ 解決 jiě jué 數據驗證 shù jù yàn zhèng 問題 wèn tí [ [ 6 6 ] ] 。 。
In other words, say a disabled person caught a taxi.
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].
那次 nà cì 行程 xíng chéng 是 shì 為 wèi 了 le 治療 zhì liáo 計畫 jì huà 中 zhōng 的 de 某個 mǒu gè 地點 dì diǎn , , 因此 yīn cǐ 是 shì 合法 hé fǎ 支出 zhī chū , , 還是 hái shì 其他 qí tā 用途 yòng tú ? ?
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.
### ### 4 4 . . 英國 yīng guó 的 de 先例 xiān lì
### 4. The UK Precedent
該主張 gāi zhǔ zhāng 未 wèi 提及 tí jí 英國 yīng guó 政府 zhèng fǔ 在 zài 2016 2016 年 nián 開發 kāi fā 了類 le lèi 似的 shì de 區塊 qū kuài 鏈 liàn 福利 fú lì 提案 tí àn , , 但 dàn 完全 wán quán 放棄 fàng qì 了 le 。 。
The claim doesn't mention that the UK government developed a similar blockchain welfare proposal in 2016 but abandoned it entirely.
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].
澳洲 ào zhōu 的 de 計畫 jì huà 呼應 hū yīng 了 le 失敗 shī bài 的 de 英國 yīng guó 模式 mó shì 。 。
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.
Importantly, when Labor came to government in 2022, it inherited these compliance monitoring systems from the Coalition.
重要 zhòng yào 的 de 是 shì , , 當工黨 dāng gōng dǎng 在 zài 2022 2022 年 nián 執政時 zhí zhèng shí , , 它 tā 繼承 jì chéng 了 le 聯盟 lián méng 黨 dǎng 遺留 yí liú 的 de 這些 zhè xiē 合規監 hé guī jiān 控系統 kòng xì tǒng 。 。
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].
This is a cultural/political problem, not necessarily technical overreach, though technology can embed such culture.
### ### 專家 zhuān jiā 評估 píng gū
### Expert Assessment
區塊 qū kuài 鏈 liàn 專家 zhuān jiā David David Gerard Gerard 提供 tí gōng 了 le 平衡 píng héng 的 de 批評 pī píng : : 在 zài 承認 chéng rèn 防止 fáng zhǐ 詐 zhà 欺 qī 的 de 願望 yuàn wàng 是 shì 合理 hé lǐ 的 de 同時 tóng shí , , 他 tā 指出 zhǐ chū 區塊 qū kuài 鏈 liàn 具體 jù tǐ 沒有 méi yǒu 提供 tí gōng 任何 rèn hé 有 yǒu 幫助 bāng zhù 的 de 東西 dōng xī , , 反而 fǎn ér 可能 kě néng 啟用 qǐ yòng 在 zài 技術 jì shù 上 shàng 原本 yuán běn 不 bù 可行 kě xíng 的 de 監控 jiān kòng [ [ 8 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.
該主張 gāi zhǔ zhāng 有事 yǒu shì 實基礎 shí jī chǔ ( ( 確實 què shí 發生 fā shēng 了 le 區塊 qū kuài 鏈 liàn 試驗 shì yàn , , 合規系統 hé guī xì tǒng 確實 què shí 轉向針 zhuǎn xiàng zhēn 對 duì 參與者 cān yǔ zhě , , 預言機 yù yán jī 問題 wèn tí 確實 què shí 是 shì 真實 zhēn shí 的 de ) ) , , 但 dàn 透過 tòu guò 強調 qiáng diào 和 hé 混淆 hùn xiáo 產生 chǎn shēng 誤導 wù dǎo : :
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.
該主張 gāi zhǔ zhāng 有事 yǒu shì 實基礎 shí jī chǔ ( ( 確實 què shí 發生 fā shēng 了 le 區塊 qū kuài 鏈 liàn 試驗 shì yàn , , 合規系統 hé guī xì tǒng 確實 què shí 轉向針 zhuǎn xiàng zhēn 對 duì 參與者 cān yǔ zhě , , 預言機 yù yán jī 問題 wèn tí 確實 què shí 是 shì 真實 zhēn shí 的 de ) ) , , 但 dàn 透過 tòu guò 強調 qiáng diào 和 hé 混淆 hùn xiáo 產生 chǎn shēng 誤導 wù dǎo : :
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.