Fuel security deficit is compounded by loss of oil and gas exploration

Governments have been too complacent about fuel supplies.

Our complacency towards domestic fuel stockpiles highlights our naivety on geopolitical upheaval (“Red light flashing over fuel security”, 7/1). This is probably due to the lack of threats since World War II. But history shows that countries underprepared for the unexpected eventually suffer.

To compound our fuel security deficit is the public and political trend to discourage oil and gas exploration. The flow-on effect is that refineries have gradually closed. Australia now imports more than half of its refined petroleum products. Consequently, our military and political strength is undermined. This security shortfall has been identified but have we the fortitude and leadership to address this issue before it is too late?

Don McMillan, Paddington, Qld

The prospect of running out of fuel in a crisis tends to concentrate the mind, with images of 2km queues to the bowsers, cars abandoned, and the inevitable blame game. Luckily l am only a long walk to the supermarket, but what if its shelves become empty? It is too awful to contemplate. This could lead to anarchy and economic depression.

What’s the government going to do about it?

David Hall, Coombabah, Qld

Outplayed by India

Peter Lalor and Will Swanton, I usually love reading their cricket reports — normally with creative wit and incisive reporting — until their criticism of the Australian team. Playing to be likeable? Not having any aggression or mojo?

The Tests I have been watching, I saw a game bunch of Australians mostly outplayed by a much more talented team. Simple statistics say it all: five top Indian batsmen averaging over 50 in Test cricket. Most of our guys average in the 30s. How did we even manage to win one Test? Guts and quiet determination from a seriously understrength and lesser talented bunch of cricketers. I don’t remember Bob Simpson, Richie Benaud or Bill Lawry playing and winning with anything other than quiet steely determination.

Ed Elgar, Toormina, NSW

Sweden’s drug failure

Ray Whitfield (Letters, 7/1) asks why governments don’t take over the manufacture of illegal drugs to ensure their safety. The first reason is that certain drugs are illegal because they cause serious harm to users — whether the drug is pure or impure.

The second is that countries that have tried this approach have learned the hard way that it makes the problem worse. In 1965, Sweden allowed doctors to prescribe drugs such as morphine and amphetamines to addicts. Users were allowed to determine the dosage and were given a few days’ ration with an option to refill.

Unsurprisingly, this freely available supply of addictive drugs often ended up in dealers’ hands. The policy was abandoned in 1967, when a young girl was found dead from an overdose of morphine and amphetamine prescribed for someone else.

Sweden now has a restrictive drug policy and fewer addicts than most other Western nations.

Roslyn Phillips, Tea Tree Gully, SA

Learn from the past

Ross Fitzgerald clearly described the appalling consequences that would beset the nation should a Shorten-led government be elected (“Labor’s policy gift to Coalition”, 7/1). Malcolm Turnbull was often urged to carry the fight up to Labor.

He failed, and the result was a loss of 15 seats and almost a loss of government. I hope the Coalition has learned from Turnbull’s failures and will now focus on Labor’s detrimental policies, shift focus from Coalition personalities and concentrate on government success and the sound policies being implemented, and to finally accentuate its strengths.

N. Bailey, Nicholls, ACT