The public received contrasting lessons in the politics of national security from Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull this week. Which one was more effective? Barrie Cassidy writes.

Bill Shorten this week got contrasting lessons in politics from Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull. Which one would he follow?

On national security and terrorism, Abbott showed him how to play the game in a take-no-prisoners style; raw and uncompromising; delighting his backbench as he did so.

Turnbull, on the other hand, was prepared to alienate his own colleagues with a more considered, nuanced argument that dismissed emotion in favour of the rule of law.

First, the Abbott lesson offered up in Question Time on Tuesday, or what could now be more accurately described as, "ignore the question, make a statement time".

Shorten started by asking Abbott what he meant when he said there would be political and personal consequences for ministers who leak from cabinet.

Abbott's answer was that "this Government has a strong and effective policy to keep our country safe". And that "anyone who raised a gun or a knife to Australians simply because of who we are ... has forfeited his or her right to consider themselves one of us".

That's what we believe, he said directly to Shorten. What do you believe?

Shorten tried another topic.

"Yesterday the Government's top economic adviser warned Australians that there is a housing bubble in Sydney and parts of Melbourne. Does the Prime Minister agree with his top economic adviser...?"

A reasonable question, given that if a bubble exists then home buyers should be warned about borrowing at the height of the bubble while interest rates are temporarily low.

Abbott, though, savaged Shorten, accusing him of wanting "your house to be worth less. Just imagine how you would go paying back your mortgage when your house is worth less".

Then warming to the theme, he continued: "That is the spectre that this Leader of the Opposition is now holding out to the people of Australia. He is not just saying the carbon tax comes back, he is not just saying the people smugglers come back, he is not just saying the superannuation tax comes on, but he wants your house to be worth less. Really and truly, this Leader of the Opposition is going from bad to worse."

So Shorten tried another issue.

"When asked about superannuation, the Secretary of the Treasury said: '...any government that doesn't have a process of review of their longer term commitments, I think, is letting the community down.' But given that the Prime Minister has ruled out making any changes to superannuation ever, does the Prime Minister agree with the advice of the secretary of his treasury department?"

Abbott repeated his pledge that there would be no adverse changes to superannuation and eyeballed Shorten: "We do not regard people's superannuation savings as an emergency fund to be raided by governments whenever government is short of money. You cannot trust your savings to the Labor Party, but your savings will be safe with this Government."

The strategy is simple. Brush aside the substance of the question and instead leave powerful messages in the mind of the public.

On terrorism, we're tough, you're soft.

We like rising house prices, you don't.

We will leave superannuation alone, you will raid it.

It might be crude, but it's the very reason so many Labor MPs fear Abbott. They fear what he achieved with such tactics from opposition, and they fear his ability in government to do the same thing.

So after taking such a pounding, how did Shorten end the week?

By declaring his support in principle for the Government's initiative to strip terrorists of Australian citizenship, if they're dual nationals.

He gave that undertaking even though he, and everybody else, is still in the dark as to whether a minister alone will decide who constitutes a terrorist and whether that judgment can be made on suspicion alone.

And his reward for reaching out to the Government and offering up bi-partisanship on national security?

Abbott dismissed his move saying contemptuously that "you support it today and you called it dog whistling yesterday!"

In another circumstance, he could have said, "thanks for your money, sucker!"

Lesson number two from Malcolm Turnbull. How to nuance an issue rather than capitulate to an uncompromising opponent.

Turnbull told a news conference: "Honest people, knowledgeable people, really well informed people can have very different views about what the right measures are on national security, and have very different views about the right balance between, say, citizenship and national security."

He explained - (yes a politician explaining; adding context) - that in the United States, citizenship cannot be revoked, no matter what. In Canada, the minister does have the power, but only when a conviction is recorded.

"Broadly, the same is true in France," he said. "In Britain, the minister does have enormous discretion ... but each of them are equally, passionately committed to the fight against terrorism."

Turnbull went on: "It is not good enough that laws simply be tough ... this is not a bravado issue ... you've got to get the measure right."

"What is the essence of a democracy?" he asked. "Some people would say a democracy is one where the majority get to do what they want. That's not a democracy, that's tyranny!

"The genius of a democracy governed by the rule of law - our democracy - is that it both empowers the majority through the ballot box and constrains the majority, its government, so that it is bound by law."

This - not from the Opposition, but from one of Abbott's own cabinet colleagues.

The upshot of all that is that Shorten, probably, has avoided a political wedge and saved himself the wrath of the majority that Turnbull speaks of. And Turnbull, probably, has in turn lost even more support in his own party room.

If that's the case, so ends the lesson; Abbott's lesson.

Barrie Cassidy is the presenter of the ABC program Insiders. He writes a weekly column for The Drum.