GPS was barely operational by 1990, so commercial interest would have been there, but probably not a great deal of exploitation.

Th 1994 shift must refer to the adoption of the Geocentric Datum of Australia 1994 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_Datum_of_Australia_... ).

Different datums (models of the shape of Earth) will put the same coordinates at different places. The 656 feet would be the average shift required to reconcile coordinates using the previous datum with coordinates using the new one (which is based on WGS84, the modern global datum).

Both the National Geographic article (linked above) and the NYT articles (linked in the Nat Geo) article are fairly low quality. No references or citations. Not up to HN's usual front page quality standard.

Also, the animation over-dramatises what is happening and makes it look like Australia is going to slam into Papua New Guinea soon. That's just.. bizarre.

Why? I think you'd see some earthquake or cresting of terrain when/if it two landmasses slowly but violently merge over years, but I wouldn't know.

First the plate is what's moving not just the landmass. Second it's moving really slowly. They are showing something like a million years of motion, and it's in the wrong direction. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Plate

Before GPS it wasn't terribly useful to know the exact position relative to the entire globe. With a few exceptions (like an ICBM) it is good enough to know location relative to something more local.