Action Items Were Reviewed in Master Action Items List

The minutes from September2015 were accepted.

Action items were reviewed in master action items list.

Mike Leditschke had nothing to report this month.

Graham Dawsonupdated the group on Guidance notes.

The following key points were raised in discussion:

• G038 Basic character set for string elements in Super Stream messages has been published
• G039 Essential information for refund of SuperStream contributionshas been updated from previous discussions. The main points have been provided for each of the four scenarios and the parameter description has been made explicit.

• In terms of the parameters there are some questions on implementation, refund payment reference number and original payment reference number. There were some comments that the refund payment reference number noted as mandatory in addition there were some comments that may require changes for some existing solutions.
• There was discussion around payment reference number naming which reflects the feedback from ASP. The guidance follows pre-existing recommendations from ASP.Ty Winmillquestioned if the parameter names align with the contributions. Mark Napier flagged misalignment and advised that published in rollovers there are the original PRN and refund PRN. The guidance note has original payment reference number and refund payment reference numberto align with the ASP guidance. Mark Napier questioned if enough people implemented the ASP guidance around response messages or if they can be pulled back to match what is in the rollover MIG?And if we can’t, do we accept the misalignment between the rollover parameters? Reba Kearnsadvised they use the ASP guidance and that work is in progress.
• Progressive response was discussed, specifically if you are using the progressive responses that should only span our business documents, progressive responses should not go outside the business documents and the model noted here is the simplest model and that the CTR payment amount is at the context error level, there is no accumulative total for the CTR that’s derivable so payment amount is at the error level. The PRN spans the whole CTR and there’s simple payment that matches that PRN which is the sum of all the refunds. Reba Kearns asked if that can that be made explicit, so all these payment reference numbers should be the same for every single event item in there but amounts will be what it is for that context. Graham Dawson agreed to emphasize that.
• Ty Winmill suggested we go with the more flattened structure initially.I think we do that and it’s aligned to what ASP/most players are doing not technically the best approach, it means we can get on and start doing the response messages and then revisits that in the MIG 2. Flattening, adding some parameters that are aligned with existing process.
• Graham Dawson to update guidance note.

Members noted the update.

Mike updated the group on SAFF.

The following key points were raised in discussion:

• Similar question as payment of refund amount in relation to understanding what’s intended to be put in the payment amount column in the payee/receiver section of the SAFF file. I realise in a lot of cases where you have clearing houses and service providers who are providing some degree of financial aggregation, this column may be completely ignoredalong with the payment reference number column, none the less, if we do have scenarios such as this, the file is being provided to the fund but payments being made separately and it needs to be clear of what the interpretation the payment column should be and the two options that are outlined. One is a per row column and the validation on the per row items in which case you have to sum off the row of actual payment amount or it’s the total payment amount for the ABN or USI.
• Grant Doherty explained the SAFF file is representing XBRL elements, this is in the payee context,it’s intended to be the payee amount and therefore it should be the total payment, it’s essentially a pairing with the payment reference
• Mike Leditschke did not disagree and went on to say with a given ABN or USI the contents of the payee section should be identical for every row and the amount should be what you expect to see in the payee context of the XBRL which is a total across all of the members
• Graham Dawson advised that some clarification should be given
• There was discussion around SAFF filebeingan interim -not a permanent solution
• And it was agreed that we can put a preferred usage map into the MIG and the rest we can say to be defined by service provider

Members noted the update.

GrahamDawson updated the group on Source Assurance.

The following key points were raised in discussion:

• Since the last meeting the final was published. It was circulated more widely to the GOG and the Gateway Testing Group the main other feedback was around the fact the examples from the default fund to the choice fund weren’t descriptive enough or clear around the SMSF scenario as there are subtle differences there in terms of the identity id.
• Additional description will be provided around clarifying the two scenarios and it will be run by the Gateway testing group tomorrow and circulate version 1.2. Updates will be made and circulated to the group; the final version will be published.

Members noted the update.

Ty updated the group on Response Messaging.

The following key points were raised in discussion:

• We have covered off the guidance note whichwill be circulated to this group and the design group that has been involved in response messaging. There was a framework document and the comments that were received were taken on-boardand implemented it will be distributed tomorrow.
• Update around the pilot we have had a number of players sending response messages since the 9th of September and we have enough now to commence in production on the 19th, noting that it is a gradual implementation, there have been a number of funds that have come forward and said that they cannot meet that date and are seeking an extension and that’s fine as long as they have a plan. The ATO will publish and put the list out to explain when those funds will come on board.
• Typo in MIG “Superannanuation”. A guidance to be developed to say funds should use the correct spelling on the service provider side is to allow for both spellings.

Members noted the update.

Ty Winmillupdated the group on SAFF Consultation.

The following key points were raised in discussion:

• Looking at what we know now after we have been using the SAFF for some time there has been some discussion around additional fields that are not sticking inside the guidance so we want to know about those and workout how to deal with them.In the interim they are probably going to be a tuple realistically and some rules implemented in the back end to deal with those.There are some business scenarios that actually define the process and look at the exceptions and the DB fields. The ATO is committed to put that guidance together. On the sending side there were a lot of issues because those that are dealing with DB funds have to build complexity to accommodate those additional fields.
• Jamie Hancock commented in one instance the potential cost for one particular fund is going to be massive, I would make the recommendation that they be excluded until they can handle XBRL. Jamie to take discussion offline.

Members noted the update.

RE: IanColhoun updated the group onMIG 2

• Rollover document was published the only thing that is not published is the summary of the feedback the ATO received. We haven’t done something’s people have asked us to do and we are still looking at some feedback around timing. We are kicking off with ASP tomorrow on contributions to understand where we are. Some of the discussions today will come up again around refunds. MIG 2 is moving forward. We have only published schedule 4B at the moment. There is still work to be done in schedule 6. We can do some progressive update of schedules in draft. Building changes to schedule 6 around Response Messaging.
• MIG to be finalised in December with a February release for contributions
• A meeting with ASP will be held regarding cut over scenarios the aim is toget a small group together and ask what are the scenarios we think might happen and how will they be dealt with so we can bring them back to a wider group to get some feedback on them. I hope that gives us some basis to have some conversations around the risks