Andrew Fraser has made a valuable contribution to the debate over the role of republicanism in Australia. He has raised an important, and generally ignored, question: would Keating's model for an Australian republic achieve a republican republic? A corollary of this is a further question: is it in any event desirable that an Australian republic be based upon the strong republicanism favoured by Fraser? On the former question, I would agree with Fraser that Keating's model would not imbue the Australian nation with Fraser's version of republicanism and that, if Fraser's version of republicanism were to be accepted, Australia would remain an unrepublican republic. However, as to the latter question, we would disagree. Fundamentally, I do not see Fraser's version of strong republicanism as being viable.
Fraser has significantly broadened the discussion of republicanism and has widened perceptions of what the ideology, for want of a better word, might encompass. However, while much of his criticism of my article, “A Republicanism Tradition for Australia?”, is explicable on the basis that he and I obviously share very different starting-points and approaches, I feel that he has misconstrued my argument in some respects.