Insert Document Title s5

UNCLASSIFIED MINUTES COMMITTEE 19 JULY 2013 MTG SEGMENT FORMAT ISSUE DATE CLASSIFICATION

MINUTES

TITLE: SuperStream Technical Architecture Sub Group

VENUE: Australian Taxation Office 52 Goulburn St, Sydney Teleconference 1800 857 853, 937 309

EVENT DATE: 19 July 2013 START: 2:00pm FINISH: 3:40pm

CHAIR: Philip Hind

CONTACT Grace Ng CONTACT PHONE: 02 937 482024

ATTENDEES: Philip Hind ATO NAMES/SECTION Ty Winmill ATO Matt Cheeseman ATO Graham Sammells IQ Group/ASFA E-Commerce Group Francis Cox IFF Stevhan Davidson Sunsuper David Kerr AAS Jamie Hancock Australian Payroll Association Stuart Heriot GBST Grant Doherty Westpac Craig Jarman AMP Andrea McIintre MLC/ NAB Matt Giuliano

APOLOGIES: Daniel Keys ATO NAME/SECTION Andrew Blair MLC Glenn Mayne ATO

UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED

OTHER ATTENDEES

NEXT MEETING: 26 July 2013, 2pm - 3pm - Teleconference 1800 857 853, 937 309

AGENDA ITEM: 1 Ty Winmill opened the meeting at 2.00pm, welcomed members.

TOPIC: Acceptance of minutes 28/6/2013 Minutes from 28 June 2013 were accepted.

TOPIC: Review of Action Items Action Items were reviewed. A list of action items listed at the end of the minutes.

TOPIC: Review of Issues Log Ty ran through the current issues as posted to the SILU site.  Multiple tuples validation message Ty advised that this had been forwarded onto a subject matter expert and were awaiting feedback regarding this query  Conversion ID and Part ID – Final proposed specification Discussed in Agenda Item 2

AGENDA ITEM: 2 TOPIC: Conversation ID/ Party Id’s specification

 Grant gave members the background of this discussion and provided the proposal  Advised that the ATO need to make a decision sooner rather than later as this may cause major issues.  It was advised that funds such as Sunsuper, Supersun, ANZ and Comsuper had over 40 characters.  Philip enquired, was there a workaround available and if so what was an acceptable lead time for the changes to be made?  Ty gave a suggestion that alternative keys could be used  Stuart advised that there were little resources available for code changes  Grant, David, Craig all stated the induction in date would be acceptable  Discussion on impact for Band1&2 was conducted  Philip suggested cut off date should be prior to Band 3  Grants suggested that the recommendation of 80 characters receiving and 40 sending to be endorsed by members and included in plans ASAP  Grant also discussed and wanted endorsement on o Context ID- maximum length of 40 characters proposed? o Member ID – maximum length of 20 characters proposed?

UNCLASSIFIED 2 OF 7 UNCLASSIFIED

o Locality name – maximum 50 characters proposed?  Grant to provide paper to members for feedback ACTION ITEM: 19072013/001 DUE DATE: CHARACTER Open COB 23/07/2013 CONFIRMATION WITH BANDS RESPONSIBILITY: Colleen Gibson/Ty Winmill

 The ATO to contact Band 1&2 clients to confirm character limits, possible changes and impacts prior to induction dates and circulate position to members

ACTION ITEM: 19072013/002 DUE DATE: Open CHARACTER ERROR 08/08/2013 MESSAGE RESPONSIBILITY: Ty Winmill

 The ATO to identify appropriate error message if character limit of above 80 is exceeded

ACTION ITEM: DUE DATE: 19072013/003 Open 08/08/2013

RESPONSIBILITY: Ty Winmill

 The ATO to provide further guidance on usage of locality name

AGENDA ITEM: 3

TOPIC: Gateway interoperability testing, issues Ty opened discussion and gave a brief update of testing and current issues  Stuart requested the SuperStream rules regarding EBms properties and wanted to know what the ATO’s expectations on headers etc were?  Discussion regarding source and target ABN’S  Grant advised it was an EBms issue  Andrea clarified an issue regarding source and target ABN’S

ACTION ITEM: DUE DATE: 19072013/004 Open 08/08/2013 EBMS RECEIPTING RESPONSIBILITY: Ty Winmill

 The ATO to clarify use of ebMS receipting in its guidance materials

ACTION ITEM: 19072013/005 DUE DATE: Open SOURCE AND 08/08/2013 TRANSFERRING RESPONSIBILITY: Ty Winmill

 The ATO to clarify use of ABNs in message headers for source and target funds in its guidance materials

AGENDA ITEM: 4

TOPIC: Rollover Transaction message issues Matt Giuliano provided a 1 page process regarding the MIG rule validations. Matt went through in detail when a rollover within a RTR message is rejected  Main discussion was concerning PRN and when to use the same PRN if message is rejected  Grant advised that the schematron checks if the message is valid and once this is approved then the next check is via business validation and then payment validation.  Normal process is if file is non conforming then reject – members agreed  It was agreed that if a message is rejected, then re-use the same PRN

ACTION ITEM: DUE DATE: 19072013/006 Open 08/08/2013 PRN GUIDANCE RESPONSIBILITY: Ty Winmill

 The ATO to review MIG guidance on PRN and determine if further interpretive guidance is needed

AGENDA ITEM: 5

TOPIC: Review of Oasis AS4 TC issue

Paper provided by Ty on issues being raised and tracked by the OASIS committee. These covered both AS4 and ebMS 3.0 issues.  Most of the issues are minor and involve correcting or clarifying documentation in the standard  Philip advised members to be cautious in interpreting OASIS issues categorised as ‘bugs’ – these are not programming errors but possible errors in the standard  Philip advised that, apart from exceptional circumstances, adoption of changes by the OASIS technical committee will not automatically flow in the Australian legal context of Superstream. Either the legal instrument would have to be changed and reference a new ‘version’ of AS4 or ebMS 3.0; or alternatively, authoritative guidance might be provided on alternative implementations if that was deemed urgent or critical

 The Committee agreed there were no urgent or critical issues which need to addressed at this stage and watching brief should be maintained by the ATO.

ACTION ITEM: DUE DATE: 19072013/007 Open 08/08/2013 OASIS AS4 RESPONSIBILITY: Ty Winmill

 The ATO to provide documentation on the SILU site which would cross-reference the OASIS Issues Management database and provide context on how the Committee is monitoring these issues

AGENDA ITEM: 6

TOPIC: New and emerging issues

Ty went around the table/phone to each member for the following new issues:

 David requested that a discussion on fund look up and contributions is needed soon  Philip added that he was preparing a paper that provides details and was expecting to have design workshops regarding implementation, pass through and error messages  We should plan to have a dedicated TA sub group meeting in August or early September

ACTION ITEMS FROM PREVIOUS MEETING

ACTION ITEM: DUE DATE: 28062013/003 Open 05/07/2013 KEY STORE RESPONSIBILITY: Glenn Mayne

 Glenn to broker a discussion between Grant and the AUSkey team to resolve the issue.

ACTION ITEM: DUE DATE: 28062013/004 Closed 04/07/2013 SCORING RESPONSIBILITY: Ty Winmill

 Ty to circulate a more detailed scoring paper to the group.

ACTION ITEM: DUE DATE: 28062013/006 Open 05/07/2013 SUPERTICK RESPONSIBILITY: Graham Sammells

 Graham to send questions about usage of SuperTICK to Shane Moore and we will respond via updating the User Guide or other guidance.

 Grant D raised prospect of devising a standard message for managing the issue of refunds.  Philip advised this has previously been considered in MIG design process but further analysis could be considered in the context of finalising details for the contributions implementation. No change should be contemplated to rollovers at this stage.

ACTION ITEM: DUE DATE: 28062013/007 Open 05/07/2013 REFUND MESSAGE RESPONSIBILITY: Ty Winmill

 Schedule discussion for future TA subgroup meeting on possible standard message for processing refunds

 Craig J – can there be naming convention for product names especially those known by their acronyms/ alias?  It was noted that this issue needs to be managed through the industry’s on- boarding process with their employers and explaining to them what employers need to do in an e-commerce world on a practical level.

 Jamie H – employers may be confused with the usage of MySuper IDs and USI’s and where they are different, how to manage that education piece.  It was agreed that this is an employer education piece and the role of the funds. Product names tend to be marketing driven by funds so ‘technical guidance’ can only have limited influence.  The ATO will talk to funds and reinforce existing guidance about the rationale of having multiple IDs for one product and the need to consider how this impacts the user experience, future error rates, etc

Recently closed Action Items:

26022013/009 28062013/005, 28062013/008, 28062013/009, 28062013/010 17052013/007 13062013/002, 13062013/003, 13062013/004

UNCLASSIFIED 7 OF 7