Today's attack on Triggs and her Commission's report on children in detention is really disgusting. It is exactly the same moral worth as those Catholics who, faced with evidence of decades of abuse and failure to take action, bleat on about "But what about the other churches? What about teachers in the State schools?"
And I see that he is continuing to seek to get credit as tough on security by commenting in Question Time on apparent evidence to be used against the two guys who are alleged to have been about to go out and behead someone as a PR stunt for Islamic State. Surely a politician shouldn't be carrying on like this when the matter is months away from trial??
I used to think he was just an incompetent out of his depth.
I am moving towards just considering him a disgusting moral pygmy who is likely to go down as the worst PM we've ever had.
Update: at the end of Question Time, Abbott congratulated himself with a smirk on a "magnificent" answer. (Before having to clearly re-visit his use of "holocaust" in his previous answer.) What an absolute moron.
Only matched by the stupidity of anyone who thinks the government performed well today.
Update 2: the Holocaust comment was crass and stupid, but probably counts as a slip - one that a normal competent politician would never make, but a slip nonetheless. The deliberate reference to evidence that may well be contested in a criminal trial was, however, calculated, cynically used for political benefit, and a much more serious issue:
Prominent barrister Robert Richter QC has accused the Prime Minister of using parliamentary privilege in an attempt to influence the judicial process for two men accused of a terror plot.
Tony Abbott told Parliament one of the men arrested in Tuesday's terrorism raid in Sydney made a video threatening violence under an Islamic State (IS) flag.
In Question Time, Mr Abbott quoted detailed threats made by the man in the video that have not been aired in court.
Mr Richter said if the statements had been made outside of Parliament, Mr Abbott would have been in contempt of court.
"To make those sorts of inflammatory utterances is calculated to influence the judicial process and it's being done for a political purpose," he said.