Different combinations of words mean different things to different people. If that were not the case we wouldn't need 501,000 solicitors in Australia. They make a fortune playing their game, arguing all sorts or abstract positions. That then involves the umpires (judges) who adjudicate and set a precedent for future games.
Every piece of legislation follows that line as often there are unintentional meanings possible. To stop all the wheels grinding to a halt while legislation is amended or redrafted, both options that can again allow the same multiple interpretations, the law follow precedent, most often the intent of the legislation.
I would suggest that rather than jump up and down over legalities people should just keep doing what is being done and shut up and fly. If you think something is wrong and changing it will provide a better outcome for everyone then by all means go for it but I fail to see that this conversation is doing that.