You are quite wrong, I'm sorry to say. If this is what people...

You are quite wrong, I'm sorry to say. If this is what people think, I recomend you look into it further.
A bit of googling will uncover this.
Here is a quick look at the actual laws around VA.
Australia’s voluntary administration
has two contrasting threshold tests: the widely-recognised insolvency test
and an embedded voluntary administration good faith test. This Part also
comparatively scrutinises the Chapter 11 good faith test. Using the theoretical
framework that Part II constructs, Part IV critiques the insolvency test and the
voluntary administration good faith test, proposing that the threshold requirements
include a new value maximising test. This new test is in addition to the
principal insolvency test that requires the directors to find that the company is
insolvent or likely to become insolvent. This test further requires the directors to
value the company before they appoint an administrator and conclude that
reorganisation will achieve the highest value for the company’s resources.
Clearly the legislative scheme is premised on the notion that the prescribed
procedure will be used only by those companies genuinely experiencing difficulties
in meeting payments.
Accordingly, while a company need not be insolvent in order for the board to appoint an administrator, what is required is that the board turn its
mind to the question and form genuine opinion as to the solvency (or likely solvency) of the company.
It is implicit in the statutory requirement that the opinion be bona fide and genuinely formed. Further, statutory decisions that are conditional

upon the formation of an opinion, satisfaction as to certain matters or other subjective criteria can be reviewed and vitiated.

The very letter that was claimed that a creditor was calling on a debt was simply a request for an extension of the due diligence process from OZB.

Insolvency is not a mere question of finance. The debtor’s ability to borrow
without security from external sources shows the debtor’s strong financial
standing and solvency. Courts may take into account the financial support
available to the debtor, its terms of credit.

The ‘improper motive’ standard examines the debtor’s nefarious reasons for
filing. In essence, this standard relates to whether the debtor seeks to change
and redistribute rights. An improper motive, in this sense, includes gaining a
tactical litigation advantage.

An interesting point I read was this;
"the directors’ power to appoint an administrator as a ‘fiduciary power’ in their
fiduciary capacity. An improper exercise of a fiduciary power by the directors is
a ‘breach of duty owed to the company rather than to any individual shareholder
or interested person"

The creditors trust of over 900k seems to be a conflict of a valid use.