It’s become tedious even to observe that it’s tedious to see Tony Abbott sticking his head up again. That’s how tediously predictable the whole thing is.

But to get to the fact of it: yesterday, Abbott popped up on 2GB to complain about Malcolm Turnbull’s creation of a super department to handle national security. “The advice,” he said of his time as PM, “was that we didn’t need the kind of massive bureaucratic change which it seems the prime minister has in mind.”

Not quite content with sticking to bare facts himself, he laid down a test for Turnbull: “I can only assume the advice has changed since then – no doubt the prime minister will give us more information in due course about the official advice that he’s had on this.”

Abbott may well have a point. As recently as March this year, it was reported by Samantha Maiden that both Duncan Lewis, head of ASIO, and Andrew Colvin, head of the Australian Federal Police, had advised against the creation of a homeland security–style department.

On the other hand, presumably Turnbull was telling the truth when he said that he had “not received objections from our agencies”.

Now, it could be the case that there is some fine line between “objections” and “advice”, or “reservations”. It could be the case that the official advice has changed, and there is also the possibility that we are talking about different proposals. Earlier this week, Turnbull was clear in saying that the new department was “not a United States–style Department of Homeland Security”, but rather “similar to the United Kingdom’s Home Office arrangement – a federation, if you will, of border and security agencies”.

It would certainly be interesting to know which of these scenarios, if any, is correct.

Whatever the case, we have here the usual pattern: Turnbull makes an announcement and Abbott finds a reason to criticise it.

This week’s intervention seems in particular bad faith. For two years, conservatives have been demanding that Turnbull talk more about national security. He spends the whole week talking about just that, and still they find something to pick at.

I couldn’t help laughing in sympathy at Turnbull’s answer to radio host Neil Mitchell on catching up with Abbott: “I was going to say I’ve known him for a million years – it may feel like a million years – it’s about 40 years.”

It feels that way to us, too, PM.

But the better Freudian slip came on Wednesday, when Turnbull said he had not managed to catch up with Abbott since he had returned from overseas.

“I catch up with him irregularly and look forward to doing so in the future.”

As irregularly as possible, I’d imagine.

In other news

• Read of the day: Indigenous Australians have been here for at least 65,000 years, and were among the most sophisticated tool makers on Earth at that time.
• Also well worth reading: Superannuation is really hurting women.
• The Federal Court has recognised a native title claim over land occupied by a Fortescue mine.
• Refugees: Peter Dutton says Manus Island will close in October. Meanwhile, the situation on Manus grows worse. Kevin Rudd argues the history [$]. It seems that Tamil asylum seekers may be excluded from the US deal [$].
• Opinions: David Crowe says free advice doesn’t always come cheap [$]. (He’s absolutely right.) Niki Savva says Barnaby is right behind Malcolm [$].
• Economics: Some more good news about jobs. And even the prime minister says interest rates will go up [$]. Chris Bowen on tax loopholes [$].
• James Jeffrey has a masterful brief history of tsardom [$].
• Fair weather: The Bureau of Meteorology is going on strike. Not a lightning strike, either – three weeks’ worth.
• Media: Peter van Onselen threatens to sue Mark Latham [$].
• US: Trump would not have hired his Attorney-General. Former Republican presidential candidate John McCain diagnosed with brain cancer. 

---