if you're relying on that map, it's an old one not current with the text in the article actually, victoria and nsw moved only 1.5 m in it, less than average and

if you're relying on that map, it's an old one not current with the text in the article actually, victoria and nsw moved only 1.5 m in it, less than average and certainly less than the areas that moved the most, which are parts of the northern territory and western australia. that map was produced a few years ago, when gda2020 was defined. since then, victoria and nsw have moved about another 14-21 cm, hence the 1.8 m figure. i think there's a little padding included too to account for future drift. as to the question of if these two states alone jumped, yes, they would have, if you have a datasink that collects official maps and collates them. roads that align on the ground might not meet on your map, since victorian data is gda2020 and south australia is gda94. how do you deal with that in real life? it's a real concern to real people, and it is not clickbaity to report it. the article did a good job of explaining how it matters to a normal person, but not a good job of explaining why it matters. that is the correct criticism.