After all, there have been major catastrophic failures because some IT tech followed the orders of a CEO to give them access to a mission-critical system from their insecure home PC. Isn’t that essentially what the whole “but her emails!” (and, it turned out later, his emails) was all about?
At best you have some independent experts with no stake in the game, but even then politics will often result in a compromise that is suboptimal for all involved.
Unfortunately, this was rushed through in a matter of days, and in fact the Parliament doors were locked to force an immediate decision, trying to make people throw caution to the wind.
(Probably didn’t actually help national security, but that’s a separate problem).
This led to my point, though I made it in a roundabout way. None of these laws are made in a vacuum. When you get a law that seems to cause undue harm to industries or to general consumers, it's unlikely the case that lawmakers wrote up something due to negligence of the issues, but because another entity specifically pushed to have these laws written in this way.
Experts were consulted, and ignored. A lot of experts came right out and said these laws were insane. The Australian tech industry were not in favour, and the consulted experts were not favourable.
However, the experts that were listened to were the ones who worked for ASIO, who said that these laws were absolutely necessary just for the agency to continue operating, and it was urgent that they were deployed in the last few days of Parliament. So the laws got rushed.