To be honest, I do think he is on some level speaking for Australians in general. Not formally speaking for the state of course, but the only reason we care about his opinion is that he is a national leader and not a private citizen.
We (Australians) also care about his opinion because he was an avid sportsman and took out a British record for downing a yard glass of beer.
Although I suppose the law degree and Rhodes scholarship add a little weight.
The main point here, though, is we are able to seperate his personal opinions from his role as Prime Minister just as I would hope that many Catholics would be able to seperate the opinions of the Pope on Python (if in fact there were any, given that this entire story seems to lack a direct primary Pontiff quote) from the Pope's official statments re: Catholicism and the wider Christian beliefs.
I suspect however that perhaps devout members of a religious flock that regard a person as a direct agent of God on earth might be less discerning about that person's opinions than the citizens of a democratic country are about the opinions of their temporay prime political representative particulalry as a good number of those citizens might not even support that representative.
TLDR: democratic citizens are likely more critical of their ephemeral leaders than religuos flocks are about their designated "voice of the lord".
Saying the Pope is "the voice of God" is inaccurate. He is an appointed leader who gets the last word on certain issues. There are plenty of Catholics critical of any Pope even with regard to his opinions on Catholic beliefs. Take a look at what rad trad Catholics say about the current Pope, for example.
The extent to which Catholics would give extra weight to the Pope's opinions outside his official role varies wildly. Much the same is true of any leader: e.g. the weight given to the opinions of a president of a democratic country by their supporters and opponents. The last president of the US is a particularly good example of this :)
