Auditing Government Expenditure. Collecting More Taxes and Benefits of Long Term Planning

Hi, I know this is a 'mouthful' but we as the public see so many exposures by the media and whistleblowers about waisted Government spending. Examples of which are rorts praised by NDIS providers, many of whom are not even registered, Centrelink payments, Expenditure on our well-deserved Indigenous fellow citizens, where there is often no follow uo to see its effectiveness, In addition not taxing major international Companies and large Australian companies' sufficient tax because of loopholes, lobbyists and the lack of investigators at the ATO. In the long run the general public will benefit as the tax income collected can be spent of providing more services. Further to this Partly because of the relatively short election cycle Government adopt a band aid approach. A prime example, but there are many, is dealing with Youth Justice. Certainly, there are many underlying problems associated with this, some of which impact on vulnerable and abused young people, but after several warnings why can't youths who are sometimes bailed dozens of times, be admitted to Centres where there is sufficient well-trained staff and receive a second chance by being schooled or trained as apprentices or other activities? In the long run these changes will assist many our young 'troubled' young people and save so much money in the future as the number of crimes committed, with the consequent suffering by victims, will be reduced. There will be less trials and prison costs!
Another point is why when sentencing people found guilty by a jury do judges have the entire 'say' in sentencing? The most important role of the Judge is to ensure that the trial process is conducted fairly and according to correct legal procedure. But sentences imposed by many Judges are questioned. My proposal is that there is a Panel of three who should be used for sentencing someone found guilty of a crime. One of course should still be the Judge, but I would also advocate that a Criminal Psychiatrist or the like, together with someone who is a qualified Advocate of victims of crime should be appointed. Unfortunately, this is unlikely due to the inflence of law practioners both inside and outside Parliament. In some ways you could say that lawyers aee 'a law unto themselves'!
My apologies for the brainstorming!
Any views or comments?