Title: / SuperStream Technical Committee (SSTC)
Venue: / Australian Taxation Office –52 Goulburn Street Sydney
Teleconference |Phone: 1800 857 853 | Access Pin: 937 309#
Event Date: / 08October 2014 / Start: / 10:00 / Finish: / 12:00
Chair: / Ty Winmill
contact / Matt Cheeseman / Contact Phone: / 02 62165648
Attendees:
Names/Section / Ty Winmill
Mark Napier
Matt Cheeseman
Scott Jeffery
Shane Moore
Sue Morford
Lauren Douch
Matt Guiliano
Andrew Blair
Caesar Baddah
Francis Cox
Lun
Joe Brasacchio
Grant Doherty
Greg Pritchard
Gary Jacobs
James Hancock
Mike Leditschke (Observer) / ATO
ATO
ATO
ATO
ATO
ATO
BRR
IQ Group, ASFA E-Commerce Group
MLC/NAB
AMP
IFF
GBST
Intunity/PWC
Westpac
Superchoice
BT Financial
Australian Payroll Association
ComplianceTest
Apologies:
Name/Section / John Shepherd
Philip Schofield
Graham Dawson
Ian Colhoun
Caesar Baddah
Joseph O’Leary
Ben Pearce / David Kerr
Frank Gilmartin
Stuart Heriot
Ian Gibson
John Kennedy
Matthew Rea
next Meeting: / Teleconference only
Wednesday 22 October 2014
10:00am -11:00am
Agenda item: / 1
TOPIC: / Acceptance of minutes

Minutes from 10September 2014 were accepted.

Agenda item: / 2
TOPIC: / Action Items

Action Items were reviewed in master action items list.

Agenda item: / 3
topic: / Oasis Technical update

Ty asked the opinion of the group on how to deal with the issues listed in the screenshot circulated to the group. It was decided that a smaller working group would be setup out of session to discuss issues and bring them back to this group with a standing agenda item.

This affects gateways operationally as well affecting the standard so we may benefit by having some representatives from that group in the working group.

Agenda item: / 4
Topic: / BIP 11 – For information

Ty raised BIP11 for the information of the group. This was ratified within GOG in respect of the SOAP action parameters.

There is no IBM response as yet. Scott agreed to raise this with IBM.

Mike Leditschke has provided this to the ebms3 technical committee and they are intending on adding something in line with BIP11 to their list of clarifications. Mike agreed to track progress and update group.

Agenda item: / 5
Topic: / BIP 12 Discussion

Ty raised BIP12 for discussion. It was put forward by the GOG to include a record count property in the message to identify the number of records in a payload.

This would be a change to the creation of the XBRL and we are unable to support changes at this point in implementation. This should be noted for inclusion in later release.

Feedback received included:

  • That the definition of ‘records’ should be more overt. Rollovers would be a member however contributions could be a member or employer.
  • There is no obligation to report message sizes to the ATO. We support the understanding of being more transparent in the network and that is what the BIP is seeking to do.

Any further feedback should be sent to Chris from SuperChoice.

The way forward would be to determine if the implementation phases suggested in the paper make sense and if we look to put out guidance to support it.

Agenda item: / 6
Topic: / Multiple employer records

Ty raised two papers on multiple employer records for discussion.

The following points were raised in discussion:

  • We are waiting on stats to see the potential size of this issue.
  • The expectation is, that as a fund, if you have an ID that has been provided to you by a super fund, you would include it as a reference in the contribution.
  • This was provided to the ATO last year and the suggestion that the design be modified was rejected. The suggestion that we use an alternative field (other details) is probably the best option at this point.
  • The data itself can’t be validated as the right employer ID being provided to the employer. There will be instances where the field won’t be understood correctly and the member ID will be put there instead.
  • The first task is matching the registry around the USI etc. Once there, it is matching the employer. With only an ABN it could be problematic. The main situation where this would be important information with would new member registrations.
  • There needs to be a consistent approach. Gary to take back to ASP to find out what refit would be required prior to draft guidance being written.
  • There needs to be a check with a number of SAS business management system providers after we have a position.

Agenda item: / 7.1
Topic: / ASP practice guides - ATO Services - Traffic Light proposal

Gary spoke to the ATO Services - Traffic Light proposal paper.

The following points were raised in discussion:

  • People are reliant on ATO services – STICK, ETICK, EPF etc. They are embedded in our processes so any reliability issues raise incidents internally. The transparency and formalisation of getting status updates from the ATO is not there.
  • This was raised to get a view from the ATO.
  • This will be sent to Chris Thorne to reinvigorate the conversation.

Agenda item: / 7.2
Topic: / ASP practice guides - Outcome responses for contributions

The meeting held last week regarding outcome responses for contributions as well as the potential to adopt the co-contribution as the message format for the outcome responses are going to have an impact on this paper. This paper should be parked awaiting finalisation of the way forward.

Grant will hold another working group between now and the next meeting and this issue will be raised at the November SSTC.

Agenda item: / 7.3
Topic: / ASP practice guides - ASP Feedback on MR4 super design walkthrough

Gary spoke to his paper regardingASP Feedback on MR4 super design walkthrough.

The following points were raised in discussion:

  • Although the January timeframe is thought to be too soon, the ability to use spread sheetsfor the FVS won’t be turned off for some time after January.
  • At the time we were looking at new authentication none of the major B2B providers supported the SAML implementation. The goal end state is to support SAML implementation on requests however we don’t see this to be supported by industry or the vendors at this point. Both the AUSKey and SAML token are required at the moment as we are using information in the SAML token to authorise the request but the request is authenticated using the AUSKey.
  • The way forward on the third point around MEPs also supporting a push model is to try to incorporate the option into future releases. Scott to take to Chris Thorne. The timing of publication should be specified in the MIG.

Agenda item: / 7.4
Topic: / ASP practice guides - Address field lengths

Gary raised his paper regarding address field lengths for information.

The paper is essentially giving advice that people should truncate the 50 characters to 38.

This should be incorporated into existing guidance on addresses being written by Graham.

The group endorsed the practice guide.

Agenda item: / 7.5
Topic: / ASP practice guides - FVS and security

Gary raised his paper regarding FVS and security for information. This will be superseded once the FVS goes into ebms.

Agenda item: / 7.6
Topic: / ASP practice guides - Source Assurance paper

Gary spoke to his paper regardingSource Assurance.

The following points were raised in discussion:

  • The GOG issued BIP note 6 in an attempt to address this. This says that the entry gateway receives the credentials from the party that is trying to connect to them (employer or employer service provider) and they can then look at those credentials and its part properties to makes sure they are consistent.
  • This paper is to say it is hard for the trustees to be sure they are processing things accurately according to the wishes of the appropriate party and the only thing they have to rely on are these part properties and the sender details within the XBRL.
  • There is then the linkage between the part properties and the XBRL. In terms of rollovers, should the source ABN and the sender identifier context ABN always be the same?
  • Compliance Test’s comment is that the USI was really intended from responses because the response says that you have to put the target entity ID into the source entity ID when you are responding.However the MIGs say you can put a USI or an ABN in the source.
  • The next question is should the source ABN and the part properties be the same as the sender identifier? The data is in a CSV file, passed to another provider who transforms it to XBRL. Would they put in their ABN or the employer’s ABN? There is no guidance around this.
  • Grant answered questions asked with the following:
  • With rollovers, the source ABN is the sender context ABN. Historical data can verify that.
  • With contributions you should never use a USI for the source entity ID. You should use the ABN and it should match the sender context. As a gateway, if you don’t inspect the contents, all you’re doing is validating that the source entity ID part property matches the credentials you’ve been provided, and then the recipient of the message can check that the XBRL matches those part properties.
  • This should be discussed at the interoperability group prior to guidance being written to be tabled at the SSTC for endorsement.
  • The MIGs do say that the source identifier must identify the entity to whom response messages must be routed.

Agenda item: / 8
Topic: / Other business & Close

The default values guidance has been published on SILU. A residual issue still exists where employers don’t have an ABN. Graham is working through this.

Add generation of the SAF files guidance to next agenda withMike Leditschketo present.

Meeting closed at 12:00pm.