You would need to check that it correctly plots the data from the reference papers - helpfully shown in the keys to the Graph itself. (Looks like Baker et al was in your neck of the woods too.)
Not easy but leave me to it. I've found an email address for one of the Eastern Australian people, forwarded a copy of the graph and asked a simple question.
Don't wait up.
Surprise, surprise!! I got a response .... FWIW:
I’m sorry, the research we published in 2005 did not interpret sea level change, so is clearly not a relevant input to a graph like this. Are you sure you have the right reference?
Baker et al 2005 was a report broadly classifying and describing seabed features. It may have referred to other research relating to sea level rise in the region which was available at the time as part of the literature review and included graphs from previous research.
However, based on better data and techniques, far more detailed and reliable scientific research on sea level history has been published since and should be used in preference to this.
Australia is just regular stralia that's been gold-plated.
"World leading sea level expert Prof. em. Nils Axel Mörner presents some stark examples that show how the IPCC and climate activists are wildly exaggerating their claims of rapid sea level rise.
Mörner studied the Kattegat Sea between Denmark and Sweden. In this region sea level has not increased as announced by climate alarmists, but instead decreased. The actual oceanic increase in the past 125 years can be estimated as modest at 0.9 mm per year. Stockholm’s tide record is the second longest in Europe; the mean long-term change in sea level is a decline of 3.8 mm per year. The country itself is rising 4.9 mm per year due to the post-glacial rise of the continental landmass. The difference of 1.1 mm per year is the true oceanic component. Nova Scotia: sea level 700mm higher back in 16th century"
Tuesday, 12 February 2019 UN IPCC Scientist Blows Whistle on Lies About Climate, Sea Level
"STOCKHOLM, Sweden — The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC) is misleading humanity about climate change and sea levels, a leading expert on sea levels who served on the UN IPCC told The New American. In fact, it is more likely that sea levels will decline, not rise, explained Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, the retired head of the paleogeophysics and geodynamics at Stockholm University. A new solar-driven cooling period is not far off, he said. But when Mörner tried to warn the UN IPCC that it was publishing false information that would inevitably be discredited, they simply ignored him. And so, dismayed, he resigned in disgust and decided to blow the whistle. "
Although mean sea levels are rising by 1mm/year, sea level rise is local rather than global, and is concentrated in the Baltic and Adriatic seas, South East Asia and the Atlantic coast of the United States. In these locations, covering 35 percent of tide gauges, sea levels rose on average by 3.8mm/year. Sea levels were stable in locations covered by 61 percent of tide gauges, and sea levels fell in locations covered by 4 percent of tide gauges. In these locations sea levels fell on average by almost 6mm/year
If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed, if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed. -- Mark Twain
"The NOAA has updated its tide gauge data for 2018 and says theaverage global sea level rise rate is 1.7-1.8 mm/yr. Thats a measly 5.6 inches by 2100. The map of relative sea level trends provides an overview of variations in the rates of local sea level change at long-term tide stations (based on a minimum of 30 years of data in order to account for long-term sea level variations and reduce errors in computing sea level trends based on monthly mean sea level). The variations in sea level trends seen here primarily reflect differences in rates and sources of vertical land motion. Areas experiencing little-to-no change in relative sea level are illustrated in green, including stations consistent with average global sea level rise rate of 1.7-1.8 mm/yr. These are stations not experiencing significant vertical land motion."
Here we have an MSM headline for the masses. The whole report is full of maybe's, if's and probable's not to mention other factors. The propensity for building on beaches and cliff faces isn't at all to blame!