Let's not be too hasty. It may appear like that, but let's not forget until DSE actually called for a trading halt just recently, no one really, conceivably thought this was going to come about. Or at least no one of influence claiming it as such now made such a claim. Most of the "experts" who are now branding everything around this and claiming this and that knowledge about are likely judging post facto - rather dubious way to garner credit.
As I also said, we can draw as many conclusions between seeming conspiracies as we can. Unless the consumer bodies are really interested in pinning down what are perceived as dishonest practices in earnest, there's no point getting hatched up about it. Even with the ACCC on side, the ability to legally connect the dots is ridiculously difficult. The ACCC would most likely make a judgement against DSE on the balance of what is eventually, mostly a supposition. Finally, if ACCC or the other legal bodies find an action / judgement against DSE, where is the cash strapped latter going to draw the money to compensate those who might have been affected by this mess? The creditors such as suppliers or even those customers with outstanding lay-bys etc., represented in part by the administrators, will argue strongly for being paid first before the aforementioned affected customers.
In my opinion, those who make judgements about why a company failed now and so on rarely do so because they had the real skill to see that something would happen, viz. they would have the true right to say, "See, I told you so!". Many make themselves seem very superior based on post facto judgement. Otherwise, they would have been wise to recommend prophylactic action to the most vulnerable parties will in advance of a collapse, unless said people who judge are also those who simply like to watch the world burn.