Federal government needs to take control of coal and gas decisions before it’s too late

With the Queensland government poised to oppose new coalmines (“Axe hangs over ‘clean’ coal plant”, 9/8) and India indicating it sees Russia as the alternative source for metallurgical coal to make steel if Australia phases out these exports, shouldn’t the foreign and defence ministers be involved at an early stage in view of the implications for Australia’s strategic military alliance?

If the answer to my question is yes, don’t we also need the federal government to take control of coal and gas extraction in states and territories where refusal to allow mining increases not only domestic but also international energy prices, to the detriment of our allies who wish to purchase it and to the advantage of rogue governments whose economies are based on energy exports?

There is no justification for states and territories being able to prejudice national security for which they are not accountable. The same considerations apply to new coal-fired power stations because an effective and reliable electricity supply is key to defence.

Stewart Harvey, Pialba, Qld

I note the Queensland government may refuse permission for a new coal-fired plant on environmental grounds.

The EU is building 27 new coal-fired plants, taking the total there to 468. China is building 1171 new plants, taking its total to 3534. Japan is building 45 new plants, taking the total to 135. The Philippines has 19 and is building 60 new ones. India has 589 and plans to build 446 new ones, taking the total to 1035.

Australia has six and plans to close them all for the benefit of the environment. Go figure

Reg Maxwell, Mt Clear, Vic

Wentworth woes

The report on the Liberal result in Wentworth (“Red faces over teal challenge”, 9/8) misses the main problem. Following Glasgow and the 2050 commitment many conservatives I spoke to felt there was very little difference between Liberal and Labor, and Glasgow was the final straw. Some were philosophical, others were very angry

The alienation of conservatives went a long way to the eventual defeat at the polls. Conservatives probably still voted Liberal. They did not, however, bring their experience to the local campaigns, they did not write cheques and they did not roll up on polling booths. I was getting plaintive emails from Trent Zimmerman’s office during the final week of the election to help on a polling booth, not in a marginal seat but in North Sydney.

The Liberal Party will survive and rise again but it will not be the party of Kean and the so-called moderates, it will offer a real alternative to voters who have strong traditional values and are not afraid of the scare tactics of the left.

John Hill, Willoughby, NSW

Super clear

I refer to “Industry super funds’ secrecy under the microscope” (2/8). As the peak body for the $1.6 trillion profit-to-member superannuation sector, the Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees supports transparency. However, the current regime of annual members’ meeting notice regulations requires overly detailed disclosure of superannuation fund expenditure that is confusing for fund members and inconsistent with other public information.

Every year super funds hold an annual member meeting and give members the opportunity to ask questions of the board and executive. Prior to that meeting, funds send out a meeting notice and the law requires certain information to be disclosed to members in that communication, to help facilitate an understanding of the fund’s operations. So far, so good. However, the information provided should be meaningful and relevant, and not an overwhelming shopping list of all the expenditures of the fund, which could amount to hundreds of individual line items.

We support the government’s proposed revision of AMM not­ices and believe reporting on the proposed changes in the past week or so in this newspaper and elsewhere misunderstands the intent and effect of the amendments. Disclosure of expenses in aggregate, for political donations, marketing and sponsorships, industrial body payments and related party payments as proposed under the revised regulations, provides a level of accountability and transparency that will achieve a higher level of member engagement and understanding than line by line disclosure.

The requirement to hold an annual member meeting does not change, which means members will continue to have the opportunity to hear from directors and executives and ask them questions.

We appreciate the opportunity to set the record straight on behalf of profit-to-member superannuation funds and their millions of members across Australia.

Eva Scheerlinck, chief executive, Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees