The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has welcomed a statement from independent arbiter, the Hon Mr Jeff Kennett AC who has instructed Coles to refund over $12 million to suppliers and has also allowed suppliers to exit the ARC program without penalty or have their Active Retail Collaboration (ARC) contribution rebates reviewed. In addition to the refunded amounts, this will result in further substantial on-going savings for Coles’ suppliers.
Retail clothing giant Zara has been accused of three separate instances of racial insensitivity within the course of one year. The clothing giant in the USA was most recently accused of racially profiling its customers as potential criminals. The brand first came under scrutiny earlier on when it sold a t-shirt that resembled a Nazi concentration camp uniform.
The Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) (the Act) establishes a scheme (the Comcare scheme) to provide compensation and rehabilitation support to injured Australian Government and Australian Capital Territory Government employees. The proposed changes to the Act by the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Improving the Comcare Scheme) Bill 2015 (the Bill) are an important step towards modernising a scheme that has not been comprehensively reformed since it was established in 1988.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (the ACCC) has accepted a s 87B undertaking of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) from Cabcharge Australia Limited (Cabcharge) under which rival payment processors (third parties) will be able to process Cabcharge cards on their own in-taxi payment terminals, a first in the Australian taxi payments industry.
The Federal Court has made what appears to be the first judgment on a case involving eligibility under the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth) in Mulligan v National Disability Insurance Agency  FCA 544. The Court considered an appeal from Hunter Valley man Dale Mulligan against a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal that he did not meet the disability requirements set out in section 24(1) of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth). The Federal Court upheld his appeal, finding that the AAT had made a global finding that did not suffice the “detailed consideration of each factor” under s 24(1) that was required by the legislation.