Government's Green Paper on constitutional change did just that on some issues -- but raised more questions on others.

Ms Smith denied it was the Progressive Labour Party Government's intention to have the British Government approve the changes through an Order in Council without any prior debate as alleged by the Opposition.

Instead, she said she was waiting for the British Government's direction, which, when it came, was that a House of Assembly debate would suffice. She did not state what Government's own preference would have been.

If it is true that the British Government did say a House debate was enough, that still does not mean that limiting debate to that is right. Clearly, there was no bar on extending the debate.

Ms Smith was of course right when she said it was the duty of Members of the House of Assembly to find out the views of their supporters and to bring them to the House for debate -- that is the basis for representative government.

But that does not mean the people should have no direct say on the most momentous constitutional changes proposed since the 1960s. Where is the harm in debating the issues in public meetings and hearing a range of different views? Is there not a possibility that a voice might be heard which could be ignored by a constituency MP otherwise? Premier Smith has said that she is now "open'' to the idea of one public meeting, because she feels the Government's plan has not been fully understood, not out of any interest in hearing other points of view.

At this point the debate on the changes is a matter of perception.

Premier Smith seems to believe that Government has a mandate from the General Election and therefore has no need to do any further direct consultation.

That mandate consisted of 54 percent of the vote on a platform which contained more than 200 promises including those on constitutional change.

No one would suggest that Government should hold a referendum or public debate on each of those promises, which range from twice-weekly garbage collection to mining the seabed for manganese nodules.

But some issues are more important than others and the changes proposed to the Constitution must surely rank among the most vital.

According to the Bermuda Sun poll -- conducted by Walton Brown, who was the PLP's pollster in the 1998 election -- published on Wednesday, some 57 percent of registered voters want a constitutional conference. Some of them doubtless support the idea of single seat constituencies and fewer seats. But that does not mean they oppose a dialogue lasting longer than one House of Assembly debate.

The Premier may believe that announcing the proposals for constitutional change in the House of Assembly and putting the Green Paper and the Constitution in Government Information Services offices is enough. The public appears to disagree.