<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
	<title>Financial Standard Comments - Coalition, small business reject super clearing house model</title>
	<description>A member of the Stronger Super Peak Consultative Group has rejected the Superannuation Clearing House model and has called for employers to be taken out of the superannuation payment process altogether.</description>
	<link>https://www.financialstandard.com.au/feed/latest?story=12129495</link>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Jul 2011 13:54:31 +1000</lastBuildDate>
	<pubDate>Wed, 20 Jul 2011 13:54:31 +1000</pubDate>
	<language>en-AU</language>
	<copyright>Copyright 2026 Financial Standard</copyright>
	<ttl>5</ttl>
	<item>
		<title>Comment by Ken Galbraith  ()</title>
		<link></link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
<p>This makes too much sense to ever be adopted. It doesn't have to be a PAYG deduction, it could just be another element of BAS - GST, PAYG deductions, SG contributions.<br>Superfunds already receive some types of member conts from the ATO so all have processes in place to handle them.<br>From a members persepctive the ATO will know if SG conts aren't being made so action can be taken early. Potentially there will be less default on members entitlelments if the ATO is chasing tax and conts at the same time.</p><p><a href="">Reply to article</a></p><p>For original story, <a href="">Click Here.</a></p>
]]></description>
		<dc:creator>Ken Galbraith  ()</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Jul 2011 13:54:31 +1000</pubDate>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment by Domenic Greco  ()</title>
		<link></link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
<p>The problem is - will a Gillard labour government go against the wishes of the Unions even though it is a better plan for all Australians, emplyees and employers alike?<br>Lets see how much guts this Government has or as I expect, they will do what the unions tell them to do!</p><p><a href="">Reply to article</a></p><p>For original story, <a href="">Click Here.</a></p>
]]></description>
		<dc:creator>Domenic Greco  ()</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Jul 2011 14:18:15 +1000</pubDate>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment by Richard  ()</title>
		<link></link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
<p>This makes so much sense to me : Treasury is expecting to receive the Stronger Super report from the Stronger Super Peak Consultative Group by Friday, but it is not expected that the recommendation will be included.<br>Typical of this govt, just make sure you look like you have adopted a consultative process, and then do what you want, ignore or preclude everything that doesn't fit your end goal. My wife calls it "selective deafness" and I sure as hell don't get away with it...!<br>Do what you think is best for all Australians.....even though the majority don't support that decision...sound familiar?</p><p><a href="">Reply to article</a></p><p>For original story, <a href="">Click Here.</a></p>
]]></description>
		<dc:creator>Richard  ()</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Jul 2011 15:46:06 +1000</pubDate>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment by Sam  ()</title>
		<link></link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false"></guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
<p>Some of the best suggestions I have ever heard. I agree Ken, it makes too much to ever be adopted</p><p><a href="">Reply to article</a></p><p>For original story, <a href="">Click Here.</a></p>
]]></description>
		<dc:creator>Sam  ()</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Jul 2011 10:40:30 +1000</pubDate>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>