ACMS I hope I am misreading your comments but you come across as very self-important. Why shouldn't you accept the shorter parallel runway in SYD?
Why is your fatigue any more important than the next guy, why is your fuel burn on taxi more vital than the next carrier or why is your delay more critical than another pilot who does accept the duty runway?
Having 'only' a 300m surplus is a weak excuse. The performance figures that you derive are factored so you'd know full well that as long as you put it down on the aiming point you have far more runway in surplus. By your own figures of 1951m LDR you have an un-factored landing distance of 1169m. That leaves over a kilometer of excess runway on 16L/34R.
You say "we are not in the business of close enough is good enough" but if a pilot can not land within a Km of the aim point then that is not good enough to be in this business. Regardless of whether they have been flying for 10 hours.
I understand your statement that it is our job to minimise risk but it must be within reason. If every pilot flying into Sydney wants to completely minimise risk and pull off the runway after landing with 2Km of unused tarmac ahead of them then Sydney will become a single runway airport.
But you know that won't happen, because someone else will land (quite safely) on the shorter runway, it just won't be you because you are saying your needs take priority over other pilots needs.
It is not a battle between you and ATC because ATC don't lose in this situation, it's the other pilots who comply with the rules who suffer from your "requirement".
*Obviously there are certain circumstances where requiring a runway is entirely appropriate, I accept that. *