The blind leading the blind, as usual.
Nobody's changed their interpretation of 166: everyone continues to agree that it obliges VHF-equipped aircraft in the vicinity of a non-controlled aerodrome to use the frequency "in use" at the aerodrome.
There are merely diametrically opposed views as to what the frequency "in use" at an unmarked aerodrome is. The answer to that question isn't found in 166.
But given that there is "full industry defiance of the CASA CTAF ruling", surely there's no safety problem?