You're making the mistake of arguing on the basis of realistic rather than perceived risks and probabilities, no_one.
I think that the rules should be changed so that lifejackets are not sufficient for single-engine flights over water beyond gliding distance from land. A shark-proof cage should be carried as well, especially off Samurai and Stockton Beaches, which are well-known Noah territory. That and full-body suits to provide protection from bluebottles and box jellyfish. You tell me there's zero risk of shark attack and bluebottle and jellyfish stings after a ditching, and I'll change my mind.
It's OK to fly over tiger country single engine, because an unsurvivable forced landing in tiger country is a much nicer way to die than drowning or being chomped up by a shark. Therefore, the probabilities of the latter happening are higher than the former and greater and more expensive mitigation strategies are therefore justified. It stands to reason.
In any event, light aircraft should not be anywhere near military aircraft, because a Cessna doesn't look good as a hood ornament on an F/A 18. It's self-evidently a collision risk having them in the air at the same time within range of each other, and the fact that one of the aircraft is an expensive, super-sonic, highly manoeuvrable, sophisticated piece of weaponry piloted by highly trained ADF personnel means the risk of collisions with civilian aircraft should be reduced to zero.
One mid-air will prove that the restricted/controlled airspace around these places should be bigger, not smaller.
(In short, I agree entirely with you, no_one. It's a good solution that balances realistic risks and realistic costs/benefits. Not perfect; but there's no such thing.)