Time and time again, we hear that changing our head of state is really complicated, and that some legal requirement is too hard for us to fulfil, or if it is able to be fulfilled, it’s not worth the effort. Sadly, these claims rest on misunderstanding and fear of change, and are not based in reality. Often what appear to be reasonable objections have already been discussed at length and dissected by academics, in Aotearoa and overseas in similar jurisdictions.

A common claim for example is that all statute law (law passed by parliament) that mentions the King (or Queen) would have to be re-written. The recent succession of Charles to the throne demonstrates that this simply isn’t the case - a simple provision deeming all references to the Sovereign or Governor-General as being references to the Head of State is all that is required.

Newshub canvassed this on Newshub Nation yesterday. Based on Dr Dean Knight’s paper espousing “soft” republicanism, the article sets out a practical evolution from the status quo to a New Zealand citizen as head of state. The simple truth in this is that change is straightforward. Yes, there are certain requirements for it (for example, a Treaty clause), but nothing about this proposed change is beyond our capabilities. That’s key - we often hear reasons for not changing being put forward that appear to imply New Zealanders are too dim or unsophisticated to make the change or work through its legal implications. In fact, the opposite is true.