By Andrew Klein 

This article argues that chronic,large-scale failures in government IT systems — exemplified by Victoria’s Fines Victoria debacle — constitute more than mere technical incompetence. They represent a profound, systemic injustice that actively betrays democratic principles and the rule of law. When a system is so poorly designed that it makes compliance or resolution nearly impossible for the average citizen, it ceases to be a tool of administration and becomes a weapon of bureaucratic abuse. We must name this for what it is: a form of institutionalised violence against the public trust, demanding not just fixes, but radical accountability.

1. The Anatomy of a “Designed-to-Fail” System

The hallmarks are depressingly consistent:

· Opaque Logic & Unclear Pathways: The user interface and process flow are unintuitive, making it easy to make errors or miss critical steps.

· Brittle Integration & Silent Failures: The system fails to connect properly with other government databases, leading to errors (like fines sent to the deceased), with no clear way for the user to correct them.

· Impenetrable Customer “Service”: Help functions lead to dead ends, call centres are understaffed with agents who lack authority, and communication is one-way—from the state to the citizen, never for dialogue.

  The result is not random failure,but a predictable outcome of a process designed without empathy, tested without rigor, and deployed without accountability. It is a system where success for the user is the exception, and frustration is the guaranteed default.

2. From Incompetence to Injustice: The Betrayal of Process

A dysfunctional IT system perverts the very legal and administrative processes it is meant to serve.

· The Presumption of Guilt/Incompetence: The citizen is forced to prove the system is wrong, reversing the onus of proof that underpins just administration.

· The Theft of Time and Agency: Citizens become unpaid, untrained debuggers for the state’s faulty software, spending hours navigating Kafkaesque loops to complete simple tasks. This is a direct, uncredited transfer of labour from the public to the state.

· The Erosion of Legitimacy: When the official channel for resolving a problem is broken, faith in the entire institution collapses. Citizens are forced to seek “workarounds”—media曝光, political intervention, legal action—turning rational processes into adversarial battles.

3. The Fines Victoria Case Study: A Masterclass in Systemic Harm

Victoria’s Fines Victoria IT system,exposed in a damning 2019 Ombudsman’s report, is the archetype. Its failures were not edge cases; they were systemic:

· It wrongly suspended licences, threatening livelihoods.

· It hounded the families of the dead with debt notices, adding grief to injustice.

· It created impossible payment scenarios (like a $1 balance that couldn’t be paid), manufacturing non-compliance.

  Here,the “designed-to-fail” model reached its zenith: the system itself generated the offences, prosecuted them, and then blocked the paths to resolution. The state was both the arsonist and the fire marshal, condemning the citizen to burn in the bureaucratic blaze.

4. Beyond “Glitches”: Demanding a Philosophy of Justice by Design

The solution is not merely better code.It is a fundamental shift in philosophy from “Can we build it?” to “How must we build it to be just?”

· Right to Understand: Citizens have a right to transparent processes with clear, human-language explanations of decisions affecting them.

· Right to an Effective Remedy: When the system fails, a simple, authoritative, and human-powered override channel must exist and be accessible.

· Right to Digital Due Process: Systems must be auditable, and citizens must have the right to challenge not just a decision, but the validity and fairness of the automated process that led to it.

· Accountability with Teeth: Ministers and agency heads must be held personally and professionally accountable for catastrophic IT failures that harm citizens. The standard must shift from “regrettable IT issues” to “gross failure of public duty.”

5. Conclusion: Refusing to Be the System’s Debugger

To accept a”designed-to-fail” system is to accept a role as a compliant subject in a broken kingdom. A just society cannot function when its citizens are forced to bear the labour costs of the state’s own incompetence. The fight against these systems is not a technical complaint; it is a defence of the democratic covenant. It is a declaration that the relationship between state and citizen must be founded on functional respect, not on the presumption that the public will quietly absorb the fallout of government failure. We must dismantle these digital scaffolds of injustice and build systems where the default setting is not failure, but fairness. The time for apologies is over. The time for consequences has begun.

An urgent inquiry into the systemic failure is essential.