[www.dailymail.co.uk]
"That land would have been owned and lived on by generations of Aboriginal people."

Could "that land" and the two newly discovered underwater sites been "owned" by the male camps and not "Aboriginal people" in general (which would include women as owners also)?
Probably not. The hair at Juukan 2 was dated to around 4000 ka was shown to be linked to local populations which didn't move around much compared to earlier hunter-gatherers and that 4000 date fits in with several other major mid-Holocene changes. One of which was the beginning of the men's knives made from large blades (social identity) and the Australian Small Tool tradition. Coincidentally the dingo also showed up at around ca. 4000 ky also.
IMHO, the tools shown in this article look more like belonging to the Australian Core Tool and Scraper tradition which would make sense because 8500 to 7000 new underwater sites would be the same time water levels cut off Tanzanians who did not use large blades, microliths, nor did they have the dingo. Pretty safe to assume men's camp ownership came after the sea-level rise.