Minutes
ELS2SBR
EVENT SUMMARY
CONSULTATION
FORMAT
EVENT TYPE
UNCLASSIFIED
ISSUE DATE
CLASSIFICATION
ELS2SBR SWD TWG – MINUTES
FILE REF:
N/A
TITLE:
eCommerce Software Developer (SWD) Technical Working Group (TWG)
VENUE:
Phone conference call: 1800 857 853, then 843433#
EVENT DATE:
14th of August 2014
START: 2:04pm
FINISH:
CHAIR:
Brian Shepherd
MINUTE TAKER:
Michael Serena
CONTACT:
SILU
CONTACT PHONE:
1300 139 062
ATTENDEES:
NAMES/SECTION
Andrew Ritchie, Atif Mehmood, Brian Shepherd, Dheerender Palani, Gary Anderson, Hristo
Pavlov, Jack Wee, Lisa Masin, Liz Cure, Martin Najjar, Melissa Oxman, Michael Serena,
Mike Behling, Raj Sadasivam, Raj Veerachettiar, Rambabu Challagulla, Santosh
Thankachan, Scott Hughes, Sethu Madhavan, Ted Simes, Thomas Tschirschwitz, Tim De
Hann, Vitaly Sidorenko, Wendy Tse
APOLOGIES:
NAME/SECTION
Mwaniki Wa-Gichia
NEXT MEETING:
11nd September 2014
2:55pm
AGENDA TOPICS
ITEM 1
INTRODUCTION
BRIAN SHEPHERD
DISCUSSION

Roll-call conducted as attendees joined the hook-up.

Attendees welcomed by Brian S.
CONCLUSIONS

N/A.
ACTION ITEMS

Draft
PERSON RESPONSIBLE
DEADLINE
None.
Page 1 of 5
Minutes
ELS2SBR
REVIEW PAST MINUTES FOR 24TH JULY 2014
ITEM 2
BRIAN SHEPHERD
DISCUSSION

Comments invited for the minutes circulated as pre-reading.

Martin N commented that his attendance had been missed from being recorded in the minutes.
CONCLUSIONS

eCommerce SWD TWG accepted minutes with the caveat that the attendance section be updated to reflect all attendees.
ACTION ITEMS

Amend minutes to reflect presence of Martin Najjar
ITEM 3
PERSON RESPONSIBLE
DEADLINE
Michael Serena
Complete.
DISCUSS SWD ISSUE LIST
BRIAN SHEPHERD
DISCUSSION

Brian S summarised changes/updates to the issues since the last eCommerce SWD TWG

SWDI20 (SWDD12) – Combining validation response with final business response for intermediary batch was
discussed in last eCommerce SWD TWG and agreed. Issue resolution and status updated to refle ct this; and Brian S
proposed to close this issue.
o


No objections raised, issue closed.
SWDI21 (SWDD13) – Batch sizes set at 1000 initially with the belief that a 60minute SLA could be achieved but
performance testing revealed that for a small number of transmissions it could take as long as 97 minutes.
o
Brian S proposed that rather than reduce batch sizes the SLA be increased to 120 minutes and asked
if any SWDs had objections to this proposal.
o
Both MYOB and Catsoft expressed no particular preference.
o
Brian S invited further feedback via the eCommerce SWD TWG <[email protected]>
inbox for SWDs that didn’t voice an opinion during the SWD TWG.
o
Brian S mentioned he would proposed the options to ATO Business and TPALS to see if they had a
preference for one or the other.
o
Also noted was we would not be locked in and that this could be changed any a future date if
required.
o
Brian S stated the issue would remain open until there was a firm decision.
Brian reiterated that any feedback or any new issues could be forwarded to the eCommerce SWD TWG
<[email protected]> inbox.
CONCLUSIONS

eCommerce SWD TWG accepted the issues spread sheet proposals discussed.
ACTION ITEMS
DEADLINE

Close issue SWDI20
Michael Serena
20/08/2014

Discuss preference for reduced batch size or increased SLA
times with ATO Business and TPALS
Brian Shepherd
27/08/2014
ITEM 4
Draft
PERSON RESPONSIBLE
WALK-THROUGH RELEASE 2 REPORT DESIGN
BRIAN SHEPHERD
Page 2 of 5
Minutes
ELS2SBR
DISCUSSION

Brian S commenced the walk-through initially with an apology for the late delivery of the slide deck; and asked if
everybody had received it and had a copy to reference during the walk-through. No comment returned.

Brian S commenced; expressing this was the main focus for the meeting, as requested last meeting and proceeded
covering off slides 1, 2, 3 inviting comments to which there were none.

Slide 4 attracted a by a SWD regarding the request of a report. Once the request is submitted, how do we know
when it is ready to get?
o
Brian S replied:

Compulsory: It will be published in the MIG; a scheduled date/time that it can be Pulled

Subscribed (regular daily EFT): Time to be set and also published in the MIG

On-demand:

For a single client, - processed timely ( MIG will give guidance e.g. in a minute, up to 5
minutes)



For up to a 1000 clients, or a report for the whole tax-practice( may be longer)
o
Brian S asked if that answered the question; to which the SWD replied YES, however there may some
more questions down the track.
o
Brian S asked if clarification around the MEPs was required for collecting reports; to which there was
no comment.
Slide 5 - question was raised when discussing a Tax Agent. Is there a different treatment for a practice with one
Agent id or many Agent ids? Most of the current ELS reporting are based on the whole practice.
o
Mel O replied that it would likely be attached to the AUSkey.
o
Comment that ELS is per Agent; is it now per AUSkey?
o
Brian S asked if this question could be drafted and emailed to the eCommerce SWD TWG
<[email protected]> inbox for follow up.
o
During agenda item 7 - Other Items: Mel O advised she had followed up this SWD question, and that;

There was one TAN per request. To get the whole practice would need multiple requests.

To which the SWD replied that this was the answer being sought and there would be no
need to draft the question for follow up.
Slide 6 – question regarding the possibility that reports are lost in transit; after a one-way push will the following
pull et the next report
o
Brian S replied that the pull is destructive (a one off), and you can’t pull again; however the agent
can send the request again.
o
Question – What if there is a time-out and the report is not received? To which Brian S replied that
the ATO provided MSH (Embedded client) should handle this; submission is confirmed for a single
response, the report will not be deleted until the MSH confirms deliv ery.
o
Brian S invited questions on GetReport.

Will it need the agent identifier? Yes. This is in the eb:From field within eb:PartyInfo, as
well as in the XBRL context identifier.

Slide 7 – General question on whether there was anything else on the portal that Agents will need to do to enable
access for SBR
o
Brian S replied No; this will match what the agent can do on Portal. The mock -up shows that the
permissions are “channel agnostic”. Permissions would apply to any channel. This answer was
accepted.

Brian S invited further comments and questions
o
o
Comments returned was that this was a good high level view and that it would be good to see the MIGs
Brian S set an action item to find out expected delivery of the MIG for this report design.
CONCLUSIONS

N/A.
ACTION ITEMS
Draft
PERSON RESPONSIBLE
DEADLINE
Page 3 of 5
Minutes

ELS2SBR
Inform SWD TWG the delivery date for the MIG for R2 report
design.
ITEM 5
Brian Shepherd
28/08/2014
EMBEDDED CLIENT – LICENCE UPDATE
LIZ CURE
DISCUSSION



Controlled testing is now complete for the ATO ebMS3 client within the SBR2 EVTE for the initial four software
developers engaged.
ATO is now inviting and encouraging others to join and participate in further testing.
Instructions will be released via SILU on the process to engage.
CONCLUSIONS

N/A.
ACTION ITEMS

Circulate instructions for SWD on how to commence the on
boarding process.
ITEM 6
PERSON RESPONSIBLE
DEADLINE
Liz Cure via SILU
22/08/2014
ELS PRIOR YEAR FORMS
LIZ CURE
DISCUSSION


Liz C commented that clarification will be sent out regarding the years that would be made available.
Mel Oxman added that this was available in the ELS DIS document
o
Comment by SWD that this identified only up to 2014; to which Mel O replied that the next year’s A06
document would be updated to include the 2015 forms available.

SWD question – what is the date of the re-release of the ebMS3 client documents.
o
Liz C to follow up and inform SWD TWG.
CONCLUSIONS

N/A.
ACTION ITEMS
PERSON RESPONSIBLE
DEADLINE

Circulate miscommunication
Michael (on behalf of Liz C) via
SILU
15/08/2014

Advise SWD TWG of date to re-release ebMS3 client
documentation
Liz Cure
28/08/2014
ITEM 7
OTHER ITEMS
BRIAN SHEPHERD
DISCUSSION
Draft

Brian S invited any other items/issues/questions or discussion points.

Gary A highlighted date for the next SWD TWG is the 11/09/2014.

Mel O added comments related to discussion for agenda item 4 on the AUSkey and TAN which I have inserted at item 4
marked in italics.

Brian S invited feedback comments on today or anything relevant to ELS2SBR to the eCommerce SWD TWG
<[email protected]> inbox.
Page 4 of 5
Minutes
ELS2SBR
CONCLUSIONS

N/A.
ACTION ITEMS

PERSON RESPONSIBLE
DEADLINE
None.
OBSERVERS
RESOURCE PERSONS
SPECIAL NOTES
Draft
Page 5 of 5