Historically, we used to have "At the Governor's pleasure" which basically meant life unless the Governor granted early release. This was a lesser sentence than "for the term of his natural life" for which there could never be release.

These days provisions exist for "never to be released" and "life without the prospect of parole". We went through some "truth in sentencing" stuff a while back, to make sentences mean what they said. Almost without exception, sentences in Australia are served concurrently. In fact, I'm not aware of any examples of consecutive sentencing within the same jurisdiction.

The problem you seem to face is that these numbers now mean nothing, beyond catchy sound bites or headlines. Time for some real reform over there - a pity I can't see it happening :(

I have no problem with a life sentence containing provision for parole in certain circumstances. Model prisoners who exhibit appropriate rehabilitation or on other grounds (such as medical) and depending on the original crime.

The idea that sentence lengths needs to be increased in some effort to prevent parole is just silly, though. If parole is to be prevented, allow for such stipulations in sentencing.