That shows a gross lack of knowledge of the topic P.
I was in a profession that dealt with tax. There was a Judge whose view was, broadly, that if the law wanted you to do something it should say so. If it did not, it was open slather - and so it came to pass. It is probably the single worst Judge in our history - CJ Barwick, IMO. We actually made hay under him. The poor ATO had nowhere to go - they finally drafted Part IVA. But before that the Guvnuts said that they would legislate to make the High Court apply the "intent" of the legislation and CJ Hill (?), from memory, immediately came back in a High Court Case and said that the High Court had to apply the "intent", etc so making sure that they were not hamstrung by Guvnut legislation. (BTW Barwick was gone by this time.)
So, this is a complex area. You really cannot blame any particular Guvnut. The Courts are the final arbiters. My view is that the Guvnuts can do two things. Introduce a system of MINIMUM sentences and no latitude for Courts to give lesser sentences than that under any circumstances. The second is to legislatively provide "guidance" to the Courts in the interpretation much like what they threatened to do with tax cases. That is, make it hard for Judges and keep screwing them tight so they cannot bring their lefty/far/ultra/extreme lefty feelings in cases!! And the same for the extreme righties, of course, but I do not think the Judiciary suffer from righty causes!!
