The Australian Rugby Union chief executive John O'Neill was this week at Sydney's Museum of Contemporary Art honouring seven Wallaby greats, one from each of the post-war eras. "Reconnecting with the dedicated rugby follower is something we believe it is very timely to do," he said.

He should have inserted union between the words rugby and follower given what he was saying to delegates at a conference in Hong Kong recently. Championing the International Rugby Board's experimental law variations, he said that in order for Australia to return to the top of the word rankings, he had to chase the television and sponsorship dollar.

That meant not just simplifying union but increasing the ball-in-play time. He was unapologetic: the variations were being carried on a commercial vehicle. His dedicated rugby follower was someone with a television remote in his or her hands rather than a match ticket.

It is not difficult to see where Australia are coming from, and it should not be forgotten that the country was responsible for one of the best and most productive law changes since the war when, at the end of the 1960s, a rule was introduced which stopped players from kicking the ball directly to touch from outside their 25s, but why is the IRB's executive pushing the bundle of ELVs so hard, desperate to pass off cat chow as caviar?

The British media are being treated to a lecture on the variations before Saturday's Heineken Cup semi-final between London Irish and Toulouse at Twickenham ahead of the IRB council meeting next week which will vote on whether any of the ELVs should be used in Europe on a trial basis next season. A three-quarters majority is needed, meaning that England, Wales and Ireland, who remain resolutely opposed, need only secure one extra vote to scupper the bid.

And so the IRB is going on a final offensive. Never have proposed law changes been so political. Is keeping Australia at the top table worth risking the core values of rugby union? Nor is anyone paying any attention to what might happen if the variations were adopted. It would not be hard to imagine Australia coming back and pointing out that, with the ball-in-play time higher than ever before, perhaps more than seven replacements were required. Any why not permit rolling substitutions?

England have pointed out that while professional players would adapt to any changes, it would be different for amateurs. Second and third-team players are hardly interested in an increase in the ball in play time. A pity for the IRB is that sevens does not do for rugby union what limited-overs matches, and now 20-20, have done for cricket in raising spectator and television interest without radically affecting the five-day game. Purists and diehards still have something to fall back on.

Australia are only too aware that the balance of power in the game has shifted to Europe, no matter that South Africa won the last World Cup. England and France have each contested two semi-finals in the last two tournaments, while South Africa, New Zealand and Australia have each played in one. The sport in the northern hemisphere has never been stronger commercially and it is acting as a magnet for leading players in the Tri-Nations, with the All Blacks this week conceding that they cannot hold on to Dan Carter.

It is an issue which needs to be addressed and the law variations are a sideshow in comparison. In years past New Zealand and South Africa have regularly led the way tactically; pioneering and innovative, but the professional era has encouraged many of their players to come to Europe. Australian websites insist that English rugby is boring and kick-infested, repeating the words like a mantra, ignorant of the metamorphosis the Guinness Premiership has undergone.

The Super 14 series has thrown up some exciting matches this year, but take out Canterbury Crusaders and the quality suffers; there is a lack of variety. One of the features of the Premiership this season has been the way a number of teams have thought their way out of trouble or to victory. There is no obsession with kicking and yet what the Super 14 series has shown is that a side-effect of the ELVs is an increase in the amount of aimless kicking out of hand.

Of greater concern to the IRB council next week than the future of the ELVs should be the migration of players from the south. Australia would argue that changing the laws and "making the game more entertaining" would help them increase revenue, but surely the same would be true in Europe, meaning Sanzar would be no better off.

It is a time for leadership, not gimmicks.