LIBERALS GET THE RIGHT TO AN OPINION - AND IT HURTS

Nine months after Jeff Kennett's inglorious exit from politics, a funny
thing has happened to the state Liberal Party - it has consultation fatigue.

Many Liberal backbenchers, unused to having their opinions taken into
account and having time to consult and consider, are fed up with the
prolonged public debate on drugs policy.

Rather than be pleased at Labor's decision last week to give them an extra
two months to ponder the merits of supervised injecting rooms, a number of
Liberals want to make a decision. Now.

"Most of them were brought up under Kennett," one senior Liberal says.
"They are not used to it. They want it to come to an end." Another MP says:
"The whole thing's definitely overcooked. A lot of us are just sick of it."

Underpinning this apparent lethargy is the broadly held conviction that the
opposition party room will kill off the injecting room plan, regardless of
when the vote is held.

Indeed, some senior Liberals have already turned their minds to the spin
they will put on their decision. "It won't be an outright rejection," one
key MP says. "There will be plenty of bells and whistles. We don't want you
guys (the media) to portray us as a bunch of troglodytes."

For injecting rooms to win in-principle support from the Liberals, at least
30 members of the 59-strong party room have to back it. Party sources
estimate a core group of 10 to 12 MPs are willing to support the plan, with
20 MPs definitely against. Sources said the remaining MPs had serious
reservations.

Ring around these MPs or listen to the public utterances of their leader,
Denis Napthine, and it's difficult not to form the impression the
opposition will vote it down.

Ask them what's wrong with the plan and they are quick to offer their
objections. They don't like it. It sends out the wrong message. The general
community doesn't support it. It's half-baked. There is insufficient
detail. The overseas experience is inconclusive.

But ask them the potential benefits of injecting rooms, and you'll often
get an uncomfortable pause down the phone line. Hello! Are you there?

During one lengthy conservation with The Age at the beginning of this
debate, Napthine chose to chuckle when asked if there were any merits in
injecting rooms.

In a more recent discussion, Napthine was slightly more effusive,
acknowledging that some of the arguments for injecting rooms were "valid
points, worthy of discussion". They include the claim that the facilities
might lead to a reduction in overdoses, and that they might be safer places
for users to inject.

Yet it's hard not to get the impression that Napthine will eventually
decide to vote the proposal down. One factor driving his thinking is his
political standing.

Napthine is languishing in the opinion polls. There is no guarantee he will
lead the opposition to the next election, (his main safety valve being that
there is no serious alternative - at this stage - on his front bench).

Senior Liberals predict Napthine will not be game to risk alienating large
sections of the community and, more importantly for him, a significant
chunk of his party room by supporting the facilities.

But Napthine continues to insist he has an open mind on the matter, despite
giving countless interviews and speeches bagging the government's approach.
He also won't allow a conscience vote, indicating that party discipline
rates above personal conviction.

He has warned that the facilities could turn suburbs into drug capitals;
that it isn't right to establish a legal haven for users to shoot up
illegal drugs; that the government's approach is over-simplistic.

Last week he told a Rotary Club lunch that injecting rooms should be
considered only after other issues had been tackled, including policing,
sentencing, drug imports, treatment and rehabilitation. Given that Napthine
doesn't believe Labor has adequately dealt with these issues, it does not
require a great leap of logic to conclude that he is unlikely to support
the facilities.

But after the lunch he continued to insist he had an open mind, keener to
slap down his troublesome health spokesman, Robert Doyle, than publicly to
reveal what he really thinks.

As each day passes, the Liberals' supposed agonising on this issue is
looking more like a charade.

Not that the government's approach is without blemish. Its performance in
recent weeks has been reactive rather than pro-active, preferring to belt
the opposition around the ears rather than engage in the policy hard sell.