Here is a link to a “Quantum” program on ABC that I hope my shed some light on the matter. http://www.abc.net.au/quantum/stories/s10572.htm

from the transcript -
“Theoretically, carbon dating should give ages back to 70,000 years or so. But charcoal sometimes absorbs more recent carbon from the soil making it seem much younger than it really is. Alan Thorne considers the implications. ôIt doesn't mean that there's a sudden rush of people into Australia at that time. ItÆs just simply the physics of radio carbon. What it means is that most of these sites dated to thirty five to forty thousand are probably much older than that.”
“And ancient stone tools were unearthed from sands dated at more than 116,000 years old. The site was called Jinmium. Fuelled by intense media scrutiny it has reignited the debate about the first Australians. “

Good try aqvarivs, but no banana.

Firstly, as the above link shows, the Wiki stuff is based on outdated theories and data.
It does contain some theories allright, but again not a grain of evidence or a link to a grain of evidence.,
But at least it is not as bold in its assertions as the above article. Peppered throughout the Wiki information are words like the following which indicate the limited credibility of the information.
“It is believed that “
“It is also possible that”
“There is no clear or accepted origin of the indigenous people of Australia.”
“It is thought”
“The exact timing of the arrival of the ancestors of the Indigenous Australians has been a matter of dispute among archaeologists.”
“it is estimated that”
“are likely to have been”
and so on on and so forth.
By the Wiki author's acedemic standards, even the Holden article could be considered an authoratative primary source.

Oliver,
let us know when you track down West or Wells.
Also, Mungo man was not the first person in Australia. There is no evidence that he did not have ancestors in Australia for thousands of years.

Sorry King Canute, but those dates for Jinmium were well and truly debunked years ago.

This is a more recent article which should bring you up to speed:

J. F. O'Connell and J. Allen. 2004. "Dating the colonization of Sahul (Pleistocene Australia–New Guinea): a review of recent research". Journal of Archaeological Science. Volume 31, Issue 6, June 2004, Pages 835-853.

Abstract:

The date for the initial colonization of Sahul is a key benchmark in human history and the topic of a long-running debate. Most analysts favor either a 40,000 BP or 60,000 BP arrival time, though some have proposed a much earlier date. Here we review data from more than 30 archaeological sites with basal ages >20,000 years reported since 1993, giving special attention to five sites with purported ages >45,000 years. We conclude that while the continent was probably occupied by 42–45,000 BP, earlier arrival dates are not well-supported. This observation undercuts claims for modern human migrations out of Africa and beyond the Levant before 50,000 BP. It also has critical but not yet conclusive implications for arguments about a human role in the extinction of Sahul megafauna.

But as I suggested above, you don't need to make spurious claims in order to refute Holden's ignorant folk wisdom. Current reputable scientific data does that quite nicely :)

Have a look at this abstract http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/104/21/8726 Mitochondrial DNA and Y DNA analysis indicates that "prehistoric Australia and New Guinea were occupied initially by one and the same Palaeolithic colonization event circa 50,000 years ago, in agreement with current archaeological evidence. The deep mtDNA and Y chromosomal branching patterns between Australia and most other populations around the Indian Ocean point to a considerable isolation after the initial arrival. We detect only minor secondary gene flow into Australia, and this could have taken place before the land bridge between Australia and New Guinea was submerged 8,000 years ago."

In oher words, the evidence points to a single migration, with a minor admixture of later arrivals, most likely more than 8,000 years ago.

I note that Keith Windschuttle is a proponent of the multiple origin hypothesis http://www.sydneyline.com/Pygmies%20Extinction.htm Why would Windschuttle be interested? Because "pan-Aboriginalism, the notion that all Australian indigenous people had a common political interest, was always dependent on the idea that they were one people." Most of his "evidence" is dubious, relying on anthropometry and craniometry. Looks like Windschuttle will have to crawl back under his rock on this one.

My point, and what everyone seems to agree on, is that the "aboriginals" came from some other place first. It was never my intention to suggest that the various tribes of Australian "natives" had no right to property of other rights enjoyed by every other Australian whether they be of Slav, Nordic, Mid East Asian, Asian or of any other origin. Or just plain white and black, which in my thinking is more to the point in the persistent to and fro between the aborigines and Government.
It isn't so much the "invasion" since the Aborigines invaded themselves but rather it was done by white men. Had it been blacks come 1780s I suggest the native would have been assumed and nary a word known today of the original tribes but mythology. The disparity between black and white shows itself in many of histories human clashes and conflicts.
A case in point is Africans trading in Africans. Africans were knee deep in selling their captured tribal enemies into slavery thousands of years before the Portuguese started to middleman for the Spanish in South America and then the United States. It's still going on today. Hardly hear a peep about it because whites aren't involved. Talk about whites using black slaves and OH MY GOD. Those racist bastards. The whites are trying to keep the black man down.
Very few people on both sides of the colour divide have the ability to overcome that barrier. I don't know who the guilt trippers are in political Australia between the two societies. What I do know is that I don't owe the aboriginals any apology or sympathy for their existence today, nor did my father or grandfathers. It's not my government. My forefather was dragged here in chains from Canada to pay a debt to the King. He wasn't considered part of society.

King Canute,

--ALL’S WELLS THAT ENDS WELLS--

Your sarcasm is noted. Wells … Dr Spencer Wells:

“60,000 years ago the world was in the grip of an ice age. So a lot of land mass was uncovered which is now buried in the sea and that is how I believe our ancestors travelled. This was the first migration wave. I believe that the ancestors of Australian aborigines come from here. The second wave took place 45,000 years ago.” – Wells

Wells is working in close consort with the National Geographic Society and the [US] National Science Foundation.

Johnj refers to another crossing 8,000 BP.

--WACKY WIKI--
Wikipedia is not an authoritative source. The data contained there are not peer reviewed. Anyb looney can post. Contrarily, typically, it takes a year or two of revisions to make into print in a good journal. Moreover, there are significant intellectual property rights issues, when Wiki authors cut and paste or paraphase unauthorised from other parties. No one should regard it Wacky reliable or many of its authors even ethical.

Did Wiki triangulate disciplines to consider immediately [a few thousands years in millions of years] after human arrival, there was an immense mega-funa extinction [Leakey].

Further, Polar ice cores can be used to confirm the climatic conditions under which Wells and Leakey’s scenarios took place.

--JIMMI’S BEEN JUMBLED--
“The team considers this is how the age of the Jinmium deposit originally came to be overestimated. The latest technique of single-grain analysis by OSL is considered far more accurate and reliable. Standard OSL methods gave a maximum date of 22,000 years for the bottom layer of the Jinmium deposit, and single grain analysis showed that the true age was younger still, no more than 10,000 years for the whole deposit.” – CSIRO

Your source has jumped the gun and your Wacky wiki author should have noted this situation. The studies reported by CJMorgan seem much more reliable.

"(There has been) a plethora of formal apologies from Parliaments around Australia, churches, community groups, ethnic organisations, schools, local governments, unions, peak NGOs, and the thousands of individual Australians who have signed petitions, written letters and publicly declared their sorrow." Mick Dodson in The Age (quoted on the HEROC site).

So how much apology is necessary, or is it all about $$ - the hope by some activists that an apology by the PM will result in large scale compensation? How much money out of our taxes has already been spent on legal challenges to attain this result?

Given the rounds of apologies that have already taken place, shouldn't activists come clean and admit that "Show me the money" is the real motivation?