Well what about the spirit of that law, is its intent to stop every single big jet from taking off or can there be excusable exceptions when a storm delays refueling and a 380 load of pax will be stuck for 15 hours (crew duty..) with no hotels to put them in.
Yes. That is the intent. The intent is for NO aircraft to depart unless it's got a taxi clearance prior to 2300. The intent doesn't give a stuff about hotel rooms, crew tour of duty limits, etc. That is an operational issue that is the responsibility of the operator. They know the risks and choose to accept them
Do I think it's crap that the minister doesn't give more dispensations for weather related delays? Sure do but them's the rules. Do I think that we're over governed? Sure do but I have a choice in the matter. I can comply or I can seek a dispensation. Do I support a changing of the wording relating to Sydney departures so that weather related events don't require dispensation of the minister for (say) up to midnight local? Sure do and I've written that to the local member- I also live in a 'noise sensitive suburb' too.
Believe me, I'm the first person to look at the intent of a particular rule and try and work that rather than the letter- particularly if the letter of the law is an ass- but at the end of the day, I have to comply with the letter of the law even when it's stupid.