I find that to be a very curious question. I think it arises out of a scrambling of the various responsibilities of the judiciary on the one side and Parliament on the other. It is Parliament that has the responsibility to establish social policy; judges do not. When Parliament passes legislation, every legislative scheme makes certain definitions and usually restricts or permits something or other. If what you are saying is that every time a piece of legislation is passed it shows a disdain for the judiciary, I would disagree with you.
We went from common law, which was what judges interpreted on a regular basis, and brought in statutes to change that common law. Did that show a disrespect for the judiciary? No, it indicated a specific social policy that governments and Parliament wanted to see implemented.
In all of our legislation, what we have said is, as a matter of social policy, we are bringing forward certain pieces of legislation. That doesn't show a disrespect for the judiciary. Even if it restricts their discretion, that is the nature of law-making and the responsibility of lawmakers in Parliament.