I'm going to look to parts of the reasoning here, but in essence, the minister made a decision, according to the judge, “contrary to the evidence and to the assessment and recommendations by his own department”.
I am looking at the amendment here that would change it from “shall” to “may” and would put the discretionary clause for the minister--“any other factors that the Minister considers relevant”--at the end. For me, what I see is the government trying to get around having to follow the law and trying to get around judges who have told them that they are doing the wrong thing. Is that essentially your assessment?