"Minimal" changes

New Zealand Monarchy writes:

Any attempt to replace the Queen of New Zealand as Head of State, to some other system, requires a lot more than the minimalist republicans would have us believe.

Of course, it suits opponents of a New Zealand republic to make this argument. Making change seem more complex, dangerous and risky will keep the public supporting the status quo even if they understand that the monarchy is constitutionally useless and symbolically irrelevant.

As evidence, New Zealand Monarchy cites both Sir Geoffrey Palmer and the late Lord Cooke of Thorndon, from his 1994 essay The Suggested Revolution Against The Crown. Neither source actually backs the contention made above: both Cooke and Palmer are arguing against a "simple" act of Parliament to abolish the monarchy. The article makes it appear that Lord Cooke said a New Zealand republic would "require" a revolution. Actually he said nothing of the sort. While the use of the term "revolution" gets monarchists all excited (think: they want another French Revolution! Republicans with guillotines!) there was a word before it that might've just let on that the late privy counsellor might've meant something entirely different. Lord Cooke actually said that a New Zealand republic would be a "legal revolution". Not the same thing.

As for Dean Knight, his paper, with napkin-based amendments is here.