Thank you.
You write that "the parties enter into the
union of marriage on their wedding day, and they
agree that's what they're voluntarily doing when they wed."
Ultimately, even though I disagree with the concept that marriage should necessarily default to combining a couples finances, if couples were made aware that they were entering into this agreement (they are not) at the then I can see no issue with it.
What I have a massive issue with is this agreement being forced onto defacto couples. They have not signed anything and at no point have agreed to be subject to these perverse standards.
It is absurd to say "If it seems perverse, then perhaps it is best to reach agreement without the court's involvement, isn't it?" as one party is able to have all the bargaining chips since they can simply refuse to reach an agreement and then legally steal half of the other's wealth against their will. When one party has an entire government and justice system in their corner then the negotiation cannot be fair or equitable. In this area of family law the justice system is not on the side of fairness and equality, it is on the side of wealth redistribution.
Finally, even though I understand that the remedy to this madness is a BFA - these usually start at around $3000 and can cost much more. Furthermore, many lawyers flat out refuse to be involved with them because of how readily the courts discard them and can then leave the lawyer liable for repercussions from the client.
The entire issue seems to me to be a blatant attempt to redistribute wealth among the population in order to reduce the welfare burden upon the state.
Simply saying that a marriage is "assumed" to and "automatically" involves the combining of finances is an arbitrary assertion - based on nothing but "tradition" and ulterior motives by the government. It is nonsense - and I have still not heard a single valid objective justification for it.
Each person and couple is different. We all come in to relationships with our financial autonomy intact, so why is it destroyed by the courts upon divorce (where no agreement is made)?
According to this article, 65% of Australian couples now keep separate bank accounts - and the numbers are much higher for the younger couples:
Should you and your partner keep separate accounts? | The New Daily
So if the majority of Australian couples no longer live by this "assumed standard", then why is it still being enforced?
The current "standard" is outdated, perverse and inappropriate for modern marriages. Couples should have the right to make up their own mind about how much of their finances they want to share with their partner, or anyone else - not have 50s era values thrust upon them by the courts - and no party should have that bargaining chip in their corner.