For those on the libertarian/small government right, such as Chris Berg, Abbott was not ideological enough. And I think it is true that Abbott's ideas seemed to not follow any consistent line. His overly generous parental leave plan, for example, won applause only from a handful of feminists who would normally align with Labor; his approach to climate change attempted (unsuccessfully) to straddle the divide between those who accept and those who reject science in his party; similarly, he seemed awkwardly positioned on manufacturing policy - not willing to completely abandon shipbuilding in Australia as a rigorously "dry" economic approach may suggest, but not doing enough to make the current industry feel viable, either.
But from my point of view, over allegiance to ideology is bad in politics anyway. Successful government responds to situations in a practical matter, without getting too concerned as to whether it fits in with preconceived theories or world views.
The problem with Abbott came down to the opportunism and the lack of practical sense in the contradictory nature of so many of his policies.
Not being consistently ideologically driven can indeed lead to good, sensible government. It didn't work that way for Abbott, though. He needed a set of policies that made sense in a practical and global sense, but not necessarily from a purely ideologically consistent sense. He failed.