The rule is basically saying that you should check your fuel state en-route (I'm guessing a fair percentage of those that have run out probably didn't check very well en-route). If this check tells you that you'll be landing having eaten into your fixed reserve, then you should be diverting to a place where you can still land with the reserve intact.
This rule doesn't say outright that just because you have touched your fixed reserve it is an offence. The offence is to not divert to a place where you can land with the reserve intact but rather continuing and knowingly burning into the reserve.
In the Apollo Bay to King Island example yep that's a bit more of a tough one. Probably should have done a calculation prior to the PNR I suppose.
I'm with Bloggs on this. If I end up eating my fixed reserve because of something a bit more drastically unplanned (headwinds greater than expected would be a piss poor excuse) then I'll happily say g'day to the magistrate. For example you arrive over an aerodrome with legal fuel but your mate ahead of you bellies in and blocks the only runway. No fuel to go elsewhere so the locals grab the Troopie and drag the plane off the strip for you to land. What is the safer option, eat some reserve or divert somewhere and run out on the way?
Oh and why haven't we been getting stuck into these rules yet? Probably still too busy dealing with the part 61 debacle, upcoming fatigue rules and the myriad of other changes all being dumped on us at once.