One of the fundamental criticisms of Mabo is that the consequences have not been thought through.
Some Political, Social and National Consequences
There is a serious possibility that if Mabo and the Commonwealth legislation which follows it, results in latitude being adopted by the Claims Tribunals in assessing claims, the result will be that large portions of Australia may be handed over to Aborigines. This can lead to a demand (even a realisation of that demand) for independent areas of territory by the Aborigines.
This will be analogous to the notorious South African homelands. But it will be different from the South African experience, in that the inhabitants of territories in Australia will sit on vast mining and economic resources. The productive agricultural land and the rich mining areas were outside the South African homelands. The beneficiaries in Australia will be a tiny minority and the deprived will constitute the vast majority of the people. In South Africa under apartheid the beneficiaries were a tiny majority and the deprived constituted the vast majority.
If the expectations of Aboriginal leaders (not necessarily all Aborigines) are realised, it is possible that about 1.5% of the population can lay claim to about 50% of the land area of Australia along with the territorial sea and the contiguous sea. This may seem to be an extravagant assumption. The words used should be carefully read, particularly the first part of the paragraph. Reasons are put forward in various parts of this publication of the possible escalation of claims.
If the possible claims are pushed through to any significant extent the economic and financial consequences are staggering. This will lead to a severe backlash from Australians other than Aborigines (white, yellow, brown and those in between).
If the expectations which have been raised in the minds of some Aborigines are not realised this could equally lead to a backlash.
The High Court must bear the consequence of all the escalating problems. They started the process in a case involving Meriam Islanders with no need to do so. Their decision stemmed from what 6 judges of the High Court thought was an injustice, which they thought they had responsibility to address.
The Economic Consequences
Supporters of Mabo and more radical extensions of it are
blissfully unconcerned about the consequences for Australian
tax payers, consumers and industry. This in an economic
situation where industry is struggling to avoid business
failures and retrenchment of staff and to provide jobs.
Dr John Forbes (Forbes 1993:51) Reader in Law at the University of Queensland says
"the High Court in its legislative jurisdiction has done what no single House of Parliament can do, it has passed an open ended money bill".
What will be the economic consequences of Mabo and the resulting legislation? I do not attempt a calculation. Much will depend on the legislation enacted by the Commonwealth Parliament and the proof required by the legislation and the adjudicators of tribunals before whom claims for native title are heard.
The cost of compensation which may run into billions will be borne by the people of Australia through taxation levied by the Commonwealth and States. The people as consumers will incur increased costs for goods and services where a corporation bears an extra financial burden as a consequence of Mabo and ensuing legislation.
Most people are unaware of the costs. But the costs will be apparent as the claim process gets under way. There is little doubt that this will engender growing public antipathy to the claimants.
Senator Peter Walsh's comments made in another context are nevertheless very relevant:
There is a small but very noisy group which says that many things are more important than economic growth. Almost inevitably, these people display the following attributes: they have jobs - usually well paid; they are either on the public tit or have secure jobs in the semi-public sector; they are vociferous demanders of more government services and handouts to their own pet causes and they are opponents of higher taxes, or at least higher taxes on themselves and their cronies.
Their stars often appear on television. One recently asserted that, if we do not have enough money for all the worthy causes, then we just have to find it. "Oh, for a magic pudding". Another participated in a recent Dateline discussion with Australia's destiny and place in the world. Geoffrey Blainey observed that unless we fairly quickly overcame our economic problems, Australia was destined for mediocrity and insignificance. The reply was "I could not disagree with that more". Obviously to such people long-term economic decline is not regarded as a problem.
The million or so Australians who do not have a job and who, a bit of churning aside, have no chance of getting one unless growth is high, disagree. But who cares about them? Certainly not those in comfortable public sector sinecures.
I feel that Ben Chifley's Labor Party, to which I made a personal commitment more than 40 years ago, has lost its way and mouthing Chifley rhetoric is a poor substitute for sharing his beliefs, especially his belief that economic growth, or development as he would have called it, has a paramount role in improving the life of ordinary Australians.
Does anyone believe that Ben Chifley would have closed down mines and banned exploration in a sequence of highly prospective mineral provinces, not for any serious environmental reason but to appease the secular religious sanctimony of Balmain basket weavers? Would Chifley have allowed the long-footed poteroo, or whatever fad was in vogue with the chattering classes, to take priority over a million unemployed. — (Extract from Peter Walsh's Last Blast, Personal Newsletter, Council for the National Interest, Vol 6, No 23, 25 June 1993, pp 1-2. )
The Mabo Edict is one example of the process Peter Walsh complains about.