OK, not the sharpest knife in the drawer, I know, but who deemed constitutional change necessary and why? Surely the answer is the same in Australia as it is in the UK or US: promulgation and enforcement of reasonable regulations regarding equality before the law, of opportunity, education and access to services? Both the US and UK have such laws and regulations - the issue lies in consistent enforcement, which still doesn't happen in too many places. Does Australia have no such laws and regulations? Or are these also unenforced?

It just strikes me that going down the complicated and extreme path of constitutional change is over-egging the pudding. Especially when the entire 'debate' seems to have been at playground level, and the campaigns amateurish.

But then, what do I know?