It is strictly legally correct. Full stop.
Two examples you might like to comment on:
(1) Australian aircraft operating in international airspace, if there is any consistency between Australian rules and ICAO, which takes precedence?
(2) A aircraft operating within another state, whether or not it is an ICAO signatory state, where there is an inconsistency in the rules, which takes precedence?
An example of (1) would be separation standard, which in many areas widely vary from Australian separation standards.
Another would be the rules for a visual approach, the Australian "rules" promulgated by AIP may be very different in other countries.
IFR minima vary greatly from Australia, as does their application. This can get to be a very big deal, operationally, when negotiating the terms of an Operating Specification with FAA or elsewhere.
An example of (2) would involve insurance regulations that vary from country to country, you better comply, regardless of Australian "rules" or lack thereof.
It is not simply a matter of complying with which ever rules is the most restrictive, Australia or wherever you happen to be, and I believe the "the law" says you can operate to the rules of the state where you are.
Tootle pip!!