It's clear the legislation has been framed by middle-aged women empathising with the stereotypical case of Mum and three kids being abandoned by the cad who's had his head turned by a real blonde. Now in this specific instance the claim on future income has merit but the bill allows far too narrow a definition of the assets to be divided than at least economically is relevant. It is a financial perspective not an economic one. In this case the woman has ended up doing what she wanted to do while the bloke has sacrificed his choices in order to keep the partnership together. Let's say she turfed him out once the children had grown up and because his stories from the factory had become boring, at least in comparison to the tomfoolery of the postman.
Equity flies out the door.
The legislation is even worse. It doesn't take into account what assets partners took into a relationship. Consider the real blonde who hooks an ageing, affluent sugar daddy. It is clear that the permutations of circumstances that the legislation is attempting to apply fair and equitable divisions of property to, are too numerous for efficient resolution. The solution then lies in tax rather than social legislation - maybe in a combination of both.