Malcolm Turnbull is currently in the position of endorsing privacy and democracy destroying laws, while simultaneously believing that they will be completely ineffective against preventing serious crime. The metadata retention scheme comes into effect on the 13th of October, which will see records of all your Internet-based activity recorded for two years.
In a television interview he indicated that there were multiple services that would allow you to avoid the metadata retention scheme. If it is possible to explain to an ordinary citizen how to avoid falling into government surveillance, a person who wants to commit heinous crimes will easily be able to avoid detection.
These laws impact on the ability of individuals to blow the whistle on illegal and corrupt behaviour. If all communications are being recorded, an individual that works for or with the government will find it harder to report crimes without fear of retribution.
The freedom with which government agencies will have access to this data mean that individuals are open to exploitation, extortion and political blackmail. In an imaginary world where the government ministers will not use such systems for their own gain, individual lower level employees will have access to extensive records of individuals. This includes employees of various government agencies and of the ISP is that will now be forced to store all browsing behaviour. This is a security risk on a grand scale. The detailed location and behaviour of individuals being stored constantly and openly available to numerous people puts individuals at risk of stalking and harassment.
Behaviours which are uncouth but maybe not immoral or illegal will also be recorded through the system, leaving individuals with what they believe to be embarrassing situations open to exploitation and possibly monetary or political extortion. The treatment of David Campbell and his secretive sexual preference is just a taste of things to come in future politics where no information is private.
He has the choice to remove democracy destroying legislation; if he chooses not to, he implicitly endorses it.