It was a smart arse response to a smart arse question.
Haven't come across that justification before.
If it was a smart arse question, I'd be guessing it was justified in the face of attempts at the Australian government at the time attempting to further their already advanced designs toward creating a surveillance state.
For the sake of clarification, I'm pointing it out as an example of denial-based justification of a virtually untenable position, in two contexts:
One: If the leader of a country would say something like that in public then, hey, make the request to repeal a privacy law, who knows, there may be enough greased palms for this to slide through. Not that I want to give them any ideas.
Two: the person to whom I was replying mentioned engineering challenges of bridge building and rocket science which could be made easier with some legislation that reduces the complexity of maths and physics (if Malcolm is to be believed) - for the sake of humour.
You haven't really looked at all then. Go find the video that shows the question as well, rather than the one you have that just shows an out-of-context response.
That'll make it clear.
It has nothing at all to do with anything you're pushing in the rest of your response.
Excerpt from: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/no-the-laws-of-australia-...
what we are seeking to do is to secure their assistance. They have to face up to their responsibility. They can’t just wash their hands of it and say it’s got nothing to do with them," Turnbull said when asked how the encryption should be broken.
As stated above by another commentator he made a smart arse response to a smart arse question, as is intuitively obvious to the meanest intellect, and then clarified that legal steps would be taken to ensure to cooperation of the major invested actors.