Well guys (Al and Stg), my answer is pretty simple:
When a politician (more specifically a Labor or Liberal politician, probably many others) says a generalized "How I feel" stance it's usually rubbish.
If the politician says something but actually states a PLAN- or even describes said plan, THEN I get excited, because it means that THIS politician may actually mean it and intends to actually DO it.

For example, the Republic.
"I believe it is our destiny to be a Republic one day, although I have strong endorsement towards the Queen and a system that has served us well. I would equally support either the direct-election or the parliamentary-appointment model"
If it sounds familiar, it would be because it's the familiar "make a lazy generalized speech to sound non-denominational and all-encompassing to all voters" trick that Malcolm Turnbull used so well- to the point where he was categorized as a "Small L Liberal/moderate" when he never actually SAID anything more than similar to the above!

In practice, that's why the Bill of Rights was put to a committee under Frank Brennan- probably the least credible person and most definitely destined to fail to bring it out. Pro-Bill advocates would have assumed "Well it was only fair a "conservative" was put in charge to make it happen" and the process tried and failed fairly- the others just happy it died.

I concur TBC, Julia has yet to define what our government means by 'sustainable' and how this will be achieved. But it is early days.

Why do we care so much about what is really very personal about our PMs - whether they are religious or not is not as important as what they do for the electorate they serve.

The only instances where religion or non-religion may be of concern is if deeply entrenched dogma intefere with the rights of others in a secular democracy. This can happen with an atheist or a religious PM. We have already seen the bias and pressure from the ACL in the Chaplaincy program in publicly funded public schools.

Access to religion is already possible through one's Church or private school and in the home. However, freedom from religion in the public domain is not always assumed as a right.

Even religious PMs like Howard and Rudd understand the importance of separaration of state and religion albeit their own leanings influenced decisions about chaplaincy programs.

Whatever the leader, there should be a push for more participation and decision making from the electorate wherever possible via referendum. We have an election coming up why not use that to allow the electorate to make choices on a number of issues.

If we want separation of church from state, and rightfully so, then equally there should be a separation of Atheism from state. Load the joint up with agnostics.

Given that JG has openly declared her atheism, an pre election conversion could only attract scorn and damage her credibility. Restating her position is only restating the obvious.

StG
You mistake my meaning - separation of Church and State includes atheism, in the sense that one person's own dogma or lack of it, should not influence the rights of others to practice a faith within the law.

JG has stated she respects the rights of others and hopes they respect her own personal stance, as we should.

Agnostics would not necessarily do the job any better than a Christian, a Muslim or an Atheist.

I think Julia Gillard has this hot chilli quality about her which will help her withstand corporate controlled media running her down like they did with Rudd