State Environment Minister Steven Miles said Josh Frydenberg had taken credit for measures listed in the joint Reef 2050 Plan when it had been largely thanks to his own government.
"He did seem to claim this was all about what they had done and that's pretty clearly not the case," he told AAP on Thursday.
RELATED STORY:
Great Barrier Reef not endangered: UNESCO
Mr Frydenberg earlier described the UNESCO decision was a "big win for Australia".
"We've received a strong endorsement that our Reef 2050 Plan... on enhancing the resilience of the reef is working," he told ABC Radio on Thursday.
Mr Frydenberg said several steps had already been implemented, including reducing nitrogen run-off and tackling the crown of thorns starfish.
"We're taking every action possible to ensure this great wonder of the world stays viable and healthy for future generations to come," he said.
But Dr Miles said it was primarily work done by the state government over the past two-and-a-half years that convinced the World Heritage Committee to endorse the management and protection strategy.
"When the Palaszczuk government was elected we made very substantial changes to that plan," he said.
Dr Miles said the language used by UNESCO to describe the improvements was diplomatic for saying "things are going a lot better now than they were before".
Despite its endorsement of the long-term management plan, the World Heritage Committee expressed "serious concern" about the health of the reef.
It urged Australia to accelerate its efforts to improve water quality, describing it as "essential to the overall resilience of the property".
Dr Miles said the Queensland government had committed to spending a record $63m to address the issue.
"We could always do more if the commonwealth provided us with more support," he said.
He said it had also committed to re-introducing tougher land clearing laws, following a defeat by the LNP and crossbenchers in August 2016, if it won with a majority at the next election.
Dr Miles said if his government wasn't able to pass the legislation, the World Heritage Committee may have a "different view down the track".
