VAILO Company

The Hon. B.R. HOOD (15:42): Under new workplace laws introduced by the federal Labor government, intentional wage or superannuation underpayment by employers is now a criminal offence. Employers who knowingly withhold payments due under the Fair Work Act or relevant industrial agreements or intentionally fail to meet their obligations are liable.

The administrators of Mr Aaron Hickmann's failed medicinal cannabis company revealed that, according to ATO records obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, the company employed nine people as of 30 June 2021. The ATO has lodged formal proof of debt for unpaid superannuation charges totalling $155,656, covering the period from 1 October 2019 to 31 December 2021. Naturally, questions arise regarding whether concerns about Mr Hickmann's business practices were flagged to the Premier before VAILO was awarded the Adelaide 500 race sponsorship.

The administrators also reported outstanding invoices, including one creditor owed $846,343 since 2020, which remains unpaid. The administrators' report identified potential failures by Mr Hickmann to exercise reasonable care, allegations of insolvent trading, unpaid statutory debts, breaches of good faith obligations and misuse of position for personal gain, including consulting payments without apparent benefit to the company and asset sales to related entities.

Last week, The Advertiser reported that the AFP and the Australian Taxation Office raided Mr Hickmann's VAILO offices in Adelaide and Queensland, a rare event given AFP raids have averaged only about eight per year over the last decade. The government claims ignorance on the reasons behind the AFP raid; however, sources have informed the opposition that last year Mr Hickmann was investigated for claiming over $1 million in tax rebates at BBS Pharmaceuticals for fraudulent research and development activities that never occurred. The question remains: when has the Premier been made aware of this?

Furthermore, sources have advised the opposition that the tender process for AV equipment awarded to Mr Hickmann's VAILO company is questionable. They claim the contract awarded to VAILO was much more than the market price, which allowed the government to finally secure a naming rights sponsor for the event. The glaring issue is that the secured sponsor funds the sponsorship with an overpaid government contract. It is no wonder the Treasurer refused to provide information on the contract when asked, and I quote the Hansard:

Mr COWDREY: Given your knowledge of the contract and how it [is] put together, are you able to advise as to whether the contract was back-ended [or] whether any cash component was required by the naming rights sponsor to be provided to the government in the first year of the contract?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I do not have any knowledge of that contract, so commensurate with my lack of understanding of it, I cannot provide [any] advice, but my assumption is that [the] naming rights sponsor usually provides a cash component in order to secure that right. If that is not correct, I am happy to bring back a correction to the committee.

Mr COWDREY: Are you happy to take [that] on notice [as] there was a cash component taken on the first year of the contract?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: No, I am not happy to take [it] on notice. These sorts of sponsorships—

Mr COWDREY: Well, that is what you just did.

South Australian taxpayers deserve answers from the Premier and his government regarding these serious matters.