1 - The majority decision in Marquet held that s51xxxviii of the Constitution was the basis for enacting the Australia Acts.
2 - I concede that Marquet is not directly related to your question (or at least what I think your question is) - However it is somewhat related - Kirby at around 200 onward is the relevant paragraph of the decision. He said referendum was a prerequisite to any fundamental change to the Constitution, such as those involved in enacting the Australia Acts.
There is other commentary around these paragraphs from the man himself. His views about the validity of the Australia Acts weren't accepted by many at all and even he himself later concedes that he'd changed his mind about the Australia Acts - Shaw v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. In fact I recall he goes into detail with the Acts being inconsistent with s106 of the Constitution.
3 - Your incorrect use of latin (such as dicta) along with words such as 'entrenched', coupled with the references to Putin, killing fields in the Philippines and varying aspects of the Constitution which are off point is confusing to say the least.
4 - My comment about the 99 referendum was not 'off-point'. You stated (incorrectly) that the monarchy had been abolished - It hasn't - Hence why I drew your attention to the referendum, notwithstanding the my comments regarding Australia being a constitutional monarchy.
5 - You've made several references to the Australia Acts not being lawful? I'm not aware of any solid basis for this assertion.
6 - You're talking about a section (s74) that was enacted by the imperial parliaments. It provided two possibilities of appeals from the HC to the PC:
1) There could be an appeal granted if the HC issued a certificate that it was appropriate for the PC to determine an inter se matter - meaning a matter that was to do with the relations between the Cth and one or more States;
2) There could be appeal with the permission of the PC. The HC wasn't keen on issuing said certificates and in Viro v R held that they would no longer be bound by PC decisions. Section 74 has not been amended, and as you have so eloquently pointed out, the Constitution can only be amended by way of s128 referendum.
However, s11 of the Australia Acts effectively makes s74 a 'dead letter', as far as it is legislatively possible to. Accordingly, the Australia Acts limited the remaining avenues of appeal to the PC that were left.
My comment pertaining to Hank's book was not meant to be offensive. Peter is a pre-eminent constitutional mind in Australia and his book is widely used across Australia when teaching public/constitutional law at Unis - It contains a mountain of background information/history that extends much further than the run of the mill general info you'd find on the internet.