In God they trust?

Each of these three Labor Prime Ministers was exposed to extensive Christian teaching in childhood. Of the three, Hawke's (Congregationalist) faith lasted until his early twenties and Curtin's Catholicism until his early teens. It is not entirely clear whether Julia Gillard was ever a Christian, but she had certainly renounced any (Baptist) faith by her late teens. All three substituted the Labor movement for the Church. The key questions are: (i) why each of them lost their childhood faith (if any), (ii) whether Curtin regained a Protestant form of faith before he died, and (iii) whether there is any serious prospect of Hawke and/or Gillard regaining theirs. It is interesting that, of the six past Prime Ministers still living, Bob Hawke was by far the most supportive of Julia Gillard – certainly in public and, one imagines, in private as well. Gillard, by the way, is not correctly categorised as an atheist.

The fellow-travellers

• Chris Watson (Labor: 1904)
• Stanley Melbourne Bruce (Nationalist: 1923-29)
• John Gorton (Liberal: 1968-71)
• Gough Whitlam (Labor: 1972-75)

The term "fellow-traveller" was coined during the Cold War. It was used by anti-Communist hardliners to describe people who, while not Communists themselves, were broadly in sympathy with the goals (if not the methods) of people who were. In 1973 Gough Whitlam applied the term to himself. He did so tongue-in-cheek in answer to a question about his religion: "Let's say I am a fellow traveller with Christianity". It is a resonant and useful term, in my view, and perfectly captures the state of mind of four of our former leaders. None of them could be classed as practising Christians. But all four admired Christianity and followed its basic non-theological precepts. It is possible that one or more of them did rather more than that.

The gentlemanly agnostics

• Edmund Barton (Protectionist: 1901-03)
• Harold Holt (Liberal: 1966-67)

Barton and Holt were both from the upper-middle class. Both belonged on the non-Labor side of politics, but were essentially moderate in their socio-political views. Both were lawyers and capable administrators. Both served less than a full term as prime minister. Both were urbane and well-liked, with a hedonistic streak. Both were capable of concentrated spells of work when the inclination took them. Both were nominally of the Church of England. Were either of them anything more than nominal? In Barton's case there is some basis for doubt – but not much. In Holt's case it is virtually certain that he had no religious convictions to speak of.