In fact, I'd make the case that it is horrifying that anyone reading that statement doesn't understand exactly what it means.
Don't underestimate your opponents here. They are smart, well educated and know what is possible and what isn't.
Illegal or not, it actually still happens, this is a fact that can not be argued. Pretending that making it illegal automatically stops all bad things from happening is also bad.
All that said, I'm pretty glad that hurling bullets is not legal because shooting someone is rarely ever good (argue self-defence, etc) but the whole privacy debate is a different monster.
Do you think the journalist who asked the question thought that mathematical law and national laws were the same kind of thing? Shouldn't you be mocking the journo just as much for asking such a silly question? People wonder why politicians hedge everything they say these days, and refuse to say much of substance. This is why: they get crucified on any single comment which sounds funny when taken out of context.
Disclaimer: not a conservative voter, and indeed generally vote on the far opposite side to Turnbull.
I see it differently. The standard operating procedure for a career politician is to "pivot" and "stay on message". You cannot ignore the enemy. You shouldn't underestimate them.
Look at this stupid war on drugs. This isn't funny. We have no option than to assume that this is the message and we must oppose it.
Have a read of the comment in context. He's primarily saying that the G20 is going to lean on the providers as the method of action. The journalist throws out a quip and he quips back. The journalist raises the point of 'what about outside the jurisdiction of the G20' and he responds that we've gotta start somewhere.
I think it's a misguided push missing some fundamentals and am totally opposed to it, but in context it's clear that they're not trying to legislate maths to behave differently.