PM'S LATE DRUG RUN

When the president of the International Narcotics Control Board in
Vienna, Mr Antonio Martins, wrote to the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, a
month ago Mr Howard had a choice.

He could have responded formally to Mr Martins and left it at that.
Instead, he has written to the NSW Premier, Mr Carr, asking the NSW
Government not to proceed with its proposed 18-month trial of a
medically supervised injecting room. Mr Howard says, in the light of
Mr Martins's letter, he "cannot ignore assertions that what is
proposed could be in breach of Australia's international
obligations".

This is a late intervention by Mr Howard and a change of direction for
him, at least in his official position.

It comes two days after the Leader of the Opposition, speaking in the
Ashfield Uniting Church, endorsed the proposed NSW injecting room
trial. ("If we cannot keep addicts alive, we fail the most basic test
of all," Mr Beazley said.) It would be disappointing if even the
slightest consideration of political advantage affected Mr Howard's
decision to intervene now as he has done. If there is one area of
policy where political point-scoring should have no place, this is
it.

Mr Howard's intervention is also surprising because it is based on a
concern that Australia might be in breach of its international
obligations. It is far more usual to hear the Coalition showing far
less concern to meet international treaty obligations in areas such as
human rights and the environment, and asserting instead Australia's
right to manage its own affairs according to its own laws. For
example, there is the Administrative Decisions (Effect of
International Instruments) Bill now before Federal Parliament, which
is designed to overcome provisions of the UN Convention on the Rights
of the Child, a convention which Australia has ratified and which, the
High Court has ruled in Teoh's Case, requires immigration officials to
consider the rights of children in deportation cases.

Moreover, Mr Howard has known about the NSW proposal, as well as
similar proposals in Victoria and the ACT, for many weeks.

If he was really determined to halt them, he did not need the thin
excuse provided by the chance arrival of Mr Martins's letter.

And there should be no doubt that Mr Martins's letter is a very weak
reed indeed for Mr Howard to lean on. It is the predictable response
of such an agency as Mr Martins heads.

He is right to emphasise the importance of criminal sanctions and of
deterrence. But to suggest that as "the host of the year 2000 summer
Olympics, Australia should instead be promoting healthy lifestyles
free from any substances abuse" is gratuitous humbug.

Australia is as concerned as any nation to catch and punish the
criminals who trade in illegal drugs and to stop their use. But it is
entitled to adopt whatever approach it considers necessary to prevent
unnecessary deaths and to divert addicts towards treatment.

Mr Howard, while restating his "strong reservations about injecting
rooms", acknowledged in his letter to Mr Carr that his request now not
to proceed with the NSW proposal was a departure from his previous
public position - "that the health and other aspects of this matter
are essentially issues for the State and Territory governments". The
kindest interpretation of Mr Howard's change of position is that he
wants to seize a chance opportunity to register one more objection to
the proposed injection room so that he can later say he did all he
could to stop it. Be that as it may, the sooner he backs off and lets
the NSW, Victorian and ACT governments proceed with their proposed
trials the better.