The collapse of MA Services Group has exposed a security industry rotten with gaps.Some of Australia's biggest retailers, including Coles, Bunnings and Amazon, have been drawn into investigations into suspected foreign worker exploitation and a multimillion-dollar tax evasion scandal centred onthe Australian security company MA Services Group. The fallout demonstrates not a failure of individual bad actors, but a regulatory system stretched too thin to prevent the kind of systemic abuse that allows thousands of workers to be underpaid while major corporations continue using the company's services.
The retail giants using MA Services Group's security guards have joined its other clients – including the Australian Grand Prix Corporation, several AFL clubs and government agencies and departments – in scrambling to deal with their exposure to growing investigations.Allegations include the underpayment of 'thousands of workers' and the denial of basic entitlements such as superannuation and penalty rates.The company allegedly operates a 'shadow' migrant security workforce employed by front companies who utilise corrupt payroll firms to underpay workers and evade tax, including the subcontractors Auswide Management Solution, RMK Management Services, and LSS (which have since collapsed).
The scandal widened when personal misconduct allegations emerged against the company's owner.Micky Ahuja, who is also owner of MA Services Group, is implicated in multiple incidents involving women and alleged impropriety, including hounding a vulnerable single mother for sexual favours offering cash payments of $1000 in return.Administrators were appointed to MA Services (a Melbourne-based provider of security, cleaning and maintenance services) and up to 1,700 roles may be impacted nationally.
Cracks in the regulatory framework had been visible for years, but the industry's fragmented oversight structure allowed them to widen.There are twice as many private security operatives in Australia as there are police. Yet Australia has no national licensing system; instead, regulation varies sharply across states.Despite each State's independent licensing and training approach, national and standardised security licensing has been repeatedly recommended but has failed approval over the past two decades. This patchwork makes it easier for unscrupulous operators to exploit gaps and for misconduct to go undetected across borders.
Victoria is currently transitioning its system.The transition to licences must be completed by 19 June 2026, and those wanting to continue to work in the private security industry must apply for a private security licence before 12 months have passed.This aims to stop sham contracts, and works together with Commonwealth and state laws. Yet tighter individual licensing does not necessarily address the deeper problem: the absence of coordinated national standards and the fragmentation of enforcement authority across multiple jurisdictions.
The role of corporate clients also demands scrutiny.Victoria's Labour Hire Authority chief, Steve Dargavel, alleged Coles' $50 million-a-year contract with MA Services could not have supported proper pay and conditions for guards, and that the company knew workers would be exploited.Coles maintains their contract explicitly required legal minimums to be met for anyone guarding its stores. The disagreement highlights a troubling gap: major businesses can contract with security providers without bearing clear accountability for verifying compliance, relying instead on contractual language and the assumption that regulators are doing their job.
Experts acknowledge the scale of what needs to change.A system of accountability has been proposed that would include comprehensive licensing covering all occupations involved in security work, national regulation, a national system of criminal history checks and power over licensees through an enforceable Code of Conduct, mandated training standards and basic competencies, and proactive regulatory agencies. So far, this remains a blueprint rather than policy. What happened with MA Services was not an isolated failure but the inevitable product of an industry where oversight is weak, responsibilities are diffused, and accountability is optional.