Interesting comment to the article here:

"No one owns the rock, no matter what some people might believe.
It's not as if the aborigines built it, or carried it there.
It was there long before humans, and will be there long after we are gone."

Does this make it "different" to climbing a man-made sacred site? Presumably the person who posted the comment believes so.

I would be interested to know how many of the climbers did so because others had already done so and would not have done so if no-one else was. The presence of chains referred to in the article is almost an invitation. It reminds me of the rungs on the Cork Stone (another entirely natural rock that has been damaged by climbing).