Superannuation Industry Engagement Forum

Discussion groups

Meet Industry experts

[EXTERNAL/UNCLASSIFIED]

Consultation and co-design

Discussed elements of our co-design approach

For consideration

Discussion themesCo-design vs consultation• We have a cyclical approach to co-design that cycles through budget changes, co-design, then implementation. The co-design process is good but we need to look at how we consult better more broadly. Consultation helps provide the strategic “why” information. We also need to be mindful of the risk of building early before a design is locked down and work together to mitigate.• Consult early - we don’t have to have resolved all the issues, but if we can communicate meeting outcomes and questions more broadly this is important for the broader group and could help us validate some of the meeting outcomes.

How will we know we engage the right people?• The Transaction Service Working Group (TSWG) model has evolved and improved. We can continue this established approach and fine tune it rather than reinventing the wheel. People have been self-identifying who is missing and we tap into those that deal with a number of entities.• We need to keep the group sizes manageable, there is a lot of interest but we can’t co-design if the group sizes are too large.• Funds have both business and technical representatives and have the dilemma of who to send if numbers are limited. Providing upfront clarity about what the meeting is about e.g. business or technical, will enable the appropriate representative to attend (noting for some issues you may need both). A suggestion to include people who are across both and where not feasible look at a mix across funds e.g. fund A has a technical rep. fund B has a business rep.• Good to have others involved when appropriate including opportunities to increase cross government collaboration e.g. Treasury, DHS, APRA.

How will we know if we “consult too much”?• Our recent experience is ATO and industry learning from each other and providing considered supported and efficient outcomes. This supports implementation as the administration approach is more relevant and better understood.• We need to balance between being too accommodating and the inability to deliver.• If we have representation and people in the room, it is a sign that they are engaged and we aren’t overdoing it.

Clear overarching design principles – such as a focus on the members best interest, the long term view and reasons for the change, efficiencies and the collective view. Also collaboration principles such as trust and common interest (where we design for the majority, noting there will be outliers, and consider our individual trade-offs later).

Sustainability – maintaining the current knowledge and handing it over so that future initiatives are informed.

Varied viewpoints – Including other service providers to disrupt ourselves and inject new thinking to manage the risk of having too much familiarity and becoming complacent.

Varied interactions – consulting quickly using a variety of available channels such as Let’s Talk or Webinars.

Our broader consultation approach and early consultation/commu-nication to the wider industry group.

Balancing business and/or technical fund representation during co-design.

Formally gathering Fund irritants with Rollovers V2 to consider for V3.

[EXTERNAL/UNCLASSIFIED]

Page 2

Readiness and implementation

For consideration

Discussion themesApproach the ATO takesThere group recognised the ATO’s efforts to keep industry informed of all changes across the system. This starts usually from the time a change is announced all the way through to deployment and onboarding.

The industry roadmap was seen as a critical document in relation to the forward plan for change. There was an interest in also having regular compliance dates identified.

The business case prepared for the move to event based reporting was seen as a useful artefact that recorded the decisions made.

What support is available for MAAS & MATSLet’s talk SuperStream Readiness and Implementation page on ato.gov.au is the one stop shop for all implementation plans timelines, advice, checklists, user guides, protocols and technical artefacts.

Fortnightly Implementation working group meetings are run by the ATO Readiness & Implementation team (R&I) to keep everyone up to date with on boarding and to provide an opportunity for questions.

Generally around 6-8 months before any deployment the R&I team contact funds to talk through approach and expectations at a high level, contact is again made 6-8 weeks before on boarding. It is vital to keep the communication channels open.

How performance testing works Industry needs to set up their own test environment, ATO provides EVTE for testing sizes up to 1,000.

PVT is undertaken on the day of implementation and sufficient time be allowed, while actual processing is completed in minutes there may elapsed time to get all responses. The ATO tracks every record end-to-end.

The ATO continues to review polling advice and will confirm any changes to existing advice.

• Both Industry and the ATO require sufficient build time for changes• Funds should confirm with their build areas they can work from the final build draft documents as confirmed by the ATO and accept there may be some small changes • It was suggested that there could be an opportunity to simplify the FAQ facility on Let’s Talk• Some industry reps advised that disseminating information from Super News is challenging when there are multiple links • When technical artefacts are updated it can be difficult to see what has changes, consider publishing two versions, one with tracked changes.

[EXTERNAL/UNCLASSIFIED]

Page 3

Member experience

For consideration

Discussion themesThis was not about general engagement with Super, but about the member experience when there are interactions between members, the ATO and fund.

There will always be a role for agents, advisors and funds in translating messages and information for individuals and helping members make informed decisions.

The ATO needs to make its messaging clear, accurate and help stop people exceeding their caps.

Members will find general information at ato.gov.au. Information about their particular circumstances can be found on myGov (ATO online).

We need to understand where each other are coming from and the information the ATO will be displaying e.g:• What will the ATO be displaying and saying about employer SG compliance?• When and what letters do we send?• Understanding each other’s BAU and scripting to help each other out.

Can the ATO make available a depository for all the letters we send so funds can better understand what we’re saying and support members?

Can we manage a “warm transfer” or joint complaints resolution service to avoid people falling through the cracks or circular referrals so they can make an informed decision – while managing privacy and business sensitivities.

InsightsIndustry and ATO service commitments are not aligned – how do we bring them together (especially when members/funds need to act quickly) to help each other.

Issues for members arise when they “fall through the cracks” or get caught in circular referrals, e.g:• Funds don’t have all the info, the ATO has the info, but can’t give financial advice• ATO says “talk to your fund” and the fund says “talk to your ATO” so everyone gets confused and frustrated

[EXTERNAL/UNCLASSIFIED]

Page 4

Enabling services, improvements and emerging opportunities

For consideration

Discussion themesWhile discussion was open to anything services or data standards related, including EVTE and NPP, the discussion focused on updates to the SuperMatch Terms and Conditions and the ATO Superannuation Dashboard.

Presented were a summary of changes to the SuperMatch Terms and Conditions and a mock up of graphs showing batch metrics for MAAS batch processing.

Questions that are more likely to be meaningfully answered are: 1. How far has my file progressed? 2. How long is it taking to process files of comparable size at this time?

In other words, while we can report progress we are not able to predict the actual outcome for a given file.

It was suggested that the polling process currently used to collect fully processed files might be modified to deliver file processing status information at the file level. This approach would answer question (1).

The role of the Dashboard in a polling-for-status context would be to complement the status information by reporting higher level throughput rates and stability of throughput rates by file size class. This would answer question (2).

The purpose of the Dashboard is to support business and technical audiences within service user organisations. As such, metrics need to continue to be presented using clear visual indicators and be consumable via API.

Development of a polling-for-file-status process

Development of Dashboard indicators that support service user batch scheduling and file sizing

InsightsAnnual SuperMatch Terms and Conditions compliance reviews (taking into account Know Your Client, Multifactor Authentication) will:• Serve to ensure the intent and purpose of the services is not being undermined• Be performed with to business workload levels in mind• In part take the form of self-assessment against T&Cs requirements

In a bulk processing environment the Dashboard needs to answer the question ‘When is my file coming back?’ or at least provide indicative information as to when a file is likely to be returned. This information is key to service user scheduling and file sizing.

This question is challenging because while concurrent processing is employed the SBR2 channel supports data flows for more than the Enabling Services.

[EXTERNAL/UNCLASSIFIED]

Page 5