Part F – Data Tables
PART F: DATA TABLES
Notes:
1. Where qualitative feedback was received by interviewees (as distinct from
quantitative responses such as “yes/no” or ratings), responses have been
categorised by the Project Team.
2. In some tables the number of responses differs to the number of respondents
as some questions allowed respondents to provide more than one response.
3. Unless otherwise stated, the source for this data is consultation feedback and
Project Team analysis only.
115
Table F1: NTRB lawyers as at 31 December 2004 – Breakdown by NTRB, location
and gender
No. NTRB Lawyers
Total male
Non-ATSI
male
ATSI
male
Total
female
Non-ATSI
female
ATSI
female
3
1
1
1
8
4
2
0
2
14
3
1
1
1
8
4
2
0
2
14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
8
4
2
2
0
14
0
2
2
2
8
4
2
2
0
14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
4
1
2
9
0
0
1
1
4
1
1
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
4
3
1
0
0
1
10
1
4
3
1
0
0
1
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CLC
Alice Springs
NLC
Darwin
Northern Territory Total
4
4
8
4
4
8
0
0
0
0
4
4
0
4
4
0
0
0
SA
ALRM
South Australia Total
4
3
4
3
0
0
3
4
1
2
2
2
3
2
1
0
3
3
2
1
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
1
2
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
0
0
40
38
2
36
33
3
As percentage of total number of lawyers
52.6%
As percentage of total number of male lawyers
As percentage of total number of female lawyers
95%
5%
91.6%
8.4%
State
NTRB
Location
WA
Goldfields
KLC
Ngaanyatjarra
SWALSC
Yamatji
Perth
Broome
Perth
Perth
Perth
Geraldton
Hedland
Karratha
Western Australia Total
Qld
Carpentaria
CQLC
CYLC
Gurang
NQLC
QSRB
TSRA
Queensland Total
Mt Isa
Mackay
Cairns
Bundaberg
Cairns
Brisbane
Thursday Island
NT
NSW
Adelaide
NSWNTS
Sydney
Coffs Harbour
Dubbo
New South Wales Total
Vic
NTSV
Victoria Total
National Total
Melbourne
49.4%
Source: NTRB annual reports, consultations, Project Team analysis
116
Part F – Data Tables
Table F2: NTRB lawyers as at 31 December 2004 – Average number by NTRB
No.
lawyers
per NTRB
Average
per NTRB
% of
national
total
5.6
36.8
2.7
25.0%
6.0
15.8%
7.0
9.2%
5.0
6.6%
5
5.0
6.6%
289
4.5
100%
Stat
e
NTRB
Location
WA
Goldfields
Perth
KLC
Broome
3
Ngaanyatjarra
Perth
3
SWALSC
Perth
Yamatji
Perth, Geraldton, Hedland and
Karratha
Western Australia Total
Qld
28
Mt Isa
1
Central
Queensland
Cape York
Mackay
4
Cairns
4
Gurang
Bundaberg
2
North Queensland
Cairns
4
Queensland South
Brisbane
1
TSRA
Thursday Island
3
19
CLC -- NTU
Alice Springs
4
NLC
Darwin
8
Northern Territory Total
SA
3
16
Carpentaria
Queensland Total
NT
3
ALRM
12
Adelaide
7
South Australia Total
NSW
NSWNTS
7
Sydney, Coffs Harbour, Dubbo
5
New South Wales Total
Vic
NTSV
5
Melbourne
5
Victoria Total
National Total
76
Source: NTRB annual reports, consultations, Project Team analysis
289
This figure includes full-time and part-time lawyers.
117
Table F3: Comparison of NTRB workload indicators by State, as at 19 January
2005
Number of…
WA
QLD
NT
SA
NSW
VIC
28
19
12
7
5
5
Active native title applications
137
196
197
27
77
20
Finalised native title applications
345
235
25
20
313
50
NTRB lawyers
290
Determinations to date
11
ILUAs
291
22
292
6
1
293
294
15
1
295
2
84
37
3
4
12
Outstanding future act notices
636
143
20
21
3
21
Active objection applications
614
81
1
0
0
0
5,490
41
298
0
6
0
39,298
84,349
50,785
12,542
69,180
12,744
296
Finalised objection applications
Indigenous persons living outside
major cities
Source: ABS Census 2001, Tribunal website, NTRB annual reports, Consultations
290
Nine of these determinations were that native title was found to exist; in the remaining two, native title
was found not to exist.
291
Twenty of these were positive determinations (native title found to exist in whole or part of the
determination area).
292
All were positive determinations.
293
The De Rose Hill case went to trial in the Federal Court in June 2001. On 1 November 2002 Justice
O’Loughlin found the claimant group had lost their spiritual and physical connection to the claimed area
and consequently found that native title did not exist: De Rose Hill v State of South Australia [2002]
FCA 1342. On appeal, the Full Court of the Federal Court decided that Justice O’Loughlin had not
applied the correct legal test for connection when he decided the case. The court called for further
detailed submissions regarding connection. Judgment has been reserved.
294
Only one of these was a positive determination; the remaining 14 determinations were that native title
did not exist.
295
Native title was found not to exist: Yorta Yorta v Victoria (2002) 214 CLR 422.
296
Figures provided by the Tribunal on 27 January 2005. These figures should not be interpreted as
indicating the actual extent of future act activity. Rather, they represent only the number of notices
which have been issued and for which the closing date is still pending at a particular point in time.
Over the course of a year, far greater numbers of future act notices can be received. For example,
NSW NTS receives over 1500 future act notices a year (NSW NTS, Submission to the 2004
Parliamentary Inquiry, p 6) and in the 2002-03 reporting period, 820 future act notices were received by
just one of the five Representative Bodies in Western Australia (Goldfields, Submission to the 2004
Parliamentary Inquiry, p 2). According to the Tribunal, since the commencement of the Native Title Act
30,160 future act notices have been issued nationally (figure provided on 27 January 2005). See
Part C Section 3.6.3 for further discussion on future acts.
118
Part F – Data Tables
Table F4: NTRB lawyers as at 31 December 2004 – Average age by State
State
Aged 20-24
Aged 25-29
Aged 30-34
Aged 35-39
Aged 40-44
Aged 45-49
Aged 50+
6
2
1
Western Australia
3
3
No. NTRB lawyers
7
6
Queensland
1
1
4
3
3
3
2
Northern Territory
0
0
6
1
2
1
2
South Australia
0
3
0
1
1
1
1
New South Wales
0
1
2
0
1
0
1
Victoria
0
0
3
0
0
2
0
National Total
4
8
22
11
13
9
8
11%
11%
21%
7%
4%
Queensland
6%
6%
24%
18%
18%
18%
12%
Northern Territory
0%
0%
50%
8%
17%
8%
17%
South Australia
0%
43%
0%
14%
14%
14%
14%
New South Wales
0%
20%
40%
0%
20%
0%
20%
Victoria
0%
0%
60%
0%
0%
40%
0%
National Total
5%
11%
30%
15%
18%
12%
9%
Western Australia
% of State total of NTRB lawyers
25%
21%
119
Report into the Professional Development Needs of NTRB Lawyers
Table F5: NTRB lawyers as at 31 December 2004 – Universities attended
No. NTRB
lawyers
studied
As %
of all NTRB lawyers
who studied in
Australia
11
7
18
15%
10%
25%
28
1
1
1
1
4
1%
1%
1%
1%
5%
19
0
2
2
0%
3%
3%
12
8
4
12
11%
6%
17%
7
5
5
1
1
1
2
1
16
7%
7%
1%
1%
1%
3%
1%
22%
5
10
4
1
1
16
14%
6%
1%
1%
22%
5
ANU
Tasmania
2
2
4
3%
3%
6%
Uni of South Africa
Rand Afrikaans Uni
1
1
2
State
University
WA
UWA
Murdoch
Western Australia Total
Qld
Queensland
QUT
James Cook
Griffith
Queensland Total
NT
Charles Darwin
NTU
Northern Territory Total
SA
Adelaide
Flinders
South Australia Total
NSW
Sydney
UNSW
Legal Pr AB
Macquarie
Southern Cross
UTS
Wollongong
New South Wales Total
Vic
Melbourne
Monash
Deakin
RMIT
Victoria Total
Other Australia
Total Other Australia
Overseas
Total Overseas
National Total
297
This does not include data for Gurang Land Council.
120
297
74
100%
No. lawyers
working in this
State
76
Part F – Data Tables
Table F6: Factors inhibiting effective client representation in the NTRB system –
NTRB lawyers’ responses298
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
298
Lack of experience
Lack of training
Too much work
Lack of sufficient numbers of
legal staff
Lack of sufficient numbers of
support staff
Lack of sufficient quality support
staff
Lack of sufficient communication
between legal staff at your
NTRB
Lack of sufficient communication
between legal staff at different
NTRBS
Lack of sufficient communication
between NTRBs at
organisational level
Higher turnover rates of legal
staff
Community dynamics
Difficulty communicating with
clients
Morale/organisational culture
Distance/remoteness/cost of
communicating with clients
Travel demands
Clients'lack of understanding of
NT law
Lack of access to relevant
documentary resources
Lack of access to adequate
equipment/facilities
Lack of professional
support/advice
Lack of understanding from
other institutions
Lack of communication between
legal and non-legal staff
Lack of understanding of cultural
issues affecting clients
NT law unbalanced
Bureaucratic red tape
Administrative workload (ATSIC
and ATSIS, ACAA
requirements)
Over-resourcing of other
‘players’ – eg. third parties,
government and NNTT
Nepotism
Third parties lack of
understanding of NT law, crosscultural blindness, lack of
appreciation of the difficulties of
NTRB representations and
consultations
No
strong
opinion
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Total
Responses
4
9
5
8
24
27
21
19
12
9
21
21
48
48
49
48
5
9
16
18
48
0
14
5
12
16
47
3
16
10
14
4
47
0
5
18
17
7
47
0
5
24
8
10
47
0
11
3
22
12
48
0
0
4
8
5
6
25
28
13
6
47
48
1
0
7
3
5
10
25
26
10
9
48
48
1
1
6
7
15
11
17
19
7
10
46
48
0
12
12
14
9
47
1
14
13
12
10
50
0
11
8
20
8
47
0
4
8
21
14
47
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
1
0
1
0
7
3
1
0
0
See question L25 in Appendix 2.
121
Report into the Professional Development Needs of NTRB Lawyers
Table F7: New NTRB lawyers as at 31 December 2004 – Age, educational background, location and length of experience
State
NTRB
No.
new
lawyers
New to NTRB system in 2004
Average
Studied in
age
same
State
Studied in
different
State
No.
new
lawyers
New to NTRB system in 2003
Average
Studied in
age
same
2003
State
Studied in
different
State
Western Australia
as percentage of total lawyers in State
as percentage of national total of new lawyers
9
31%
43%
33.7
7
2
3
10%
50%
34.0
2
1
Queensland
as percentage of total lawyers in State
as percentage of national total of new lawyers
5
29%
23%
34.8
0
4
2
12%
33%
48.0
1
1
Northern Territory
as percentage of total lawyers in territory
as percentage of national total of new lawyers
2
17%
10%
30.5
0
2
1
8%
17%
34.0
0
1
South Australia
as percentage of total lawyers in State
as percentage of national total of new lawyers
3
43%
14%
27.3
3
0
0
0%
0%
0
0
New South Wales
as percentage of total lawyers in State
as percentage of national total of new lawyers
2
40%
10%
45.0
2
0
0
0%
0%
0
0
Victoria
as percentage of total lawyers in State
as percentage of national total of new lawyers
1
20%
5%
48.0
1
0
0
0%
0%
0
0
National Total
as percentage of national total
22
30%
37.3
13
8
6
8%
3
3
122
38.7
Part F – Data Tables
Table F8: NTRB lawyers as at 31 December 2004 – Average commercial law experience (CLE) of NTRB lawyers by State and gender
No. NTRB lawyers
State
Average CLE of
lawyers with CLE only(years)
Average CLE of
all NTRB lawyers (years)
Total
With CLE
Female
Male
Total
Female
Male
Total
Western Australia
28
15
3.6
7.1
5.4
1.8
4.1
2.9
Queensland
19
9
2.7
13
7.9
0.8
8.7
4.8
Northern Territory
12
7
1.5
2.5
2
0.8
1.6
1.2
South Australia
7
4
2
5.2
3.6
0.7
3.9
2.9
New South Wales
5
2
0
13.5
13.5
0
9
4.5
Victoria
5
5
1.8
11.5
6.7
1.8
11.5
6.7
76
42
1.9
8.8
6.5
1.2
5.3
3.3
National Total
123
Report into the Professional Development Needs of NTRB Lawyers
Table F9: NTRB lawyers as at 31 December 2004 – Previous employment relevant to
NTRB role
No. NTRB
lawyers
7
3
2
2
Prior role
Commercial legal practice, advising clients in native title matters
Advising governments involved in native title matters
Aboriginal land council advising on land rights claims
Providing legal advice to native title claimants in other capacities
Total respondents:
14 NTRB lawyers
Table F10: Source of new NTRB lawyers by previous employment sector where
relevant to NTRB work
No NTRB
lawyers
6
4
3
2
1
299
6
Previous employment sector
Private practice – small law firms
State Government departments
Commonwealth Government departments
Bar
Private practice – top tier firms
Other
Total respondents:
22 NTRB lawyers
Table F11: Difficulties in recruiting NTRB lawyers – all responses
Is it difficult to recruit NTRB lawyers?
NTRB Lawyers
300
Yes
No
24
2
NTRB Managers
Yes
No
Sometimes
7
3
2
Other interviewees
Yes
No
Sometimes
Total respondents:
Responses
41
0
1
26 NTRB lawyers (inc. 8 PLOs)
54 other interviewees (inc. 12 NTRB managers)
299
Two of these were students immediately prior to commencing employment in the NTRB system. The
remaining four came from non-legal private sector roles.
300
Includes eight principal legal officers.
124
Part F – Data Tables
Table F12: How became attracted to NTRB work – NTRB lawyers’ responses (by
State studied in)301
Alternative to
mainstream
law
Interested
through
university
Interested
through travel
experience
Personal
contact
Other
16
16
6
3
21
Breakdown of total by State
WA
QLD
NT
SA
NSW
VIC
ACT
TAS
3
2
0
1
6
3
1
0
6
5
1
0
3
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
3
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
8
3
0
4
2
3
0
1
Breakdown of total by experience
0-1 years
1-2 years
2-3 years
3-5 years
5-10 years
10+ years
unknown
1
3
3
4
3
2
0
1
1
3
8
3
0
0
1
0
1
1
2
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
4
4
1
5
6
0
1
Total responses
Total respondents:
54 NTRB lawyers
Table F13: Value of student interns at NTRBs for promoting careers in native title –
NTRB lawyers’ and managers’ responses
Valuable
NTRB lawyers
NTRB PLOs
NTRB managers
Total respondents:
301
5
1
2
Not
valuable
4
1
0
Maybe
3
0
0
14 NTRB lawyers (inc. 2 PLOs)
2 NTRB managers
See question L7 in Appendix 2.
125
Report into the Professional Development Needs of NTRB Lawyers
Table F14: Value of student interns at NTRBs generally – NTRB lawyers’ and
managers’ responses302
NTRB lawyers
NTRB PLOs
NTRB managers
Valuable
13
4
4
Total respondents:
Not valuable
5
3
0
Maybe
22
3
2
50 NTRB lawyers (inc. 10 PLOs)
6 NTRB managers
Table F15: Value of commercial law experience (CLE) for NTRB lawyers – NTRB
lawyers’ responses303
CLE not
valuable
CLE of some
value
CLE very
valuable
Lawyers’ responses
0
19
27
PLOs’ responses
0
1
5
0-1 year
0
3
5
1-2 years
0
3
5
2-3 years
0
3
3
3-5 years
0
6
9
5-10 years
0
3
7
10+ years
0
2
3
Breakdown of total by length of experience
Breakdown of total by State
NSW
0
2
1
NT
0
5
4
Qld
0
4
9
SA
0
2
2
WA
0
6
15
Vic
0
2
1
Total respondents:
52 NTRB lawyers (inc. 6 PLOs)
302
See question L64 in Appendix 2; see question M28 in Appendix 3.
303
See questions L62 in Appendix 2.
126
Part F – Data Tables
Table F16: Minimum length of commercial law experience necessary to be of value –
NTRB lawyers’ responses304
Minimum length
2 years or greater
1-2 years
Less than 1 year
Total respondents:
Responses
14
10
5
29 NTRB lawyers
Table F17: Proposed incentives for attracting or retaining NTRB lawyers – NTRB
lawyer responses
Incentives
Availability of mentors
Study leave opportunities
Sabbatical programs
Secondments to commercial law firms
Exchanges to other NTRBs
Total respondents:
Not
valuable
0
1
2
7
3
Valuable
32
23
23
15
13
Maybe
18
22
20
26
32
50 NTRB lawyers
8 former NTRB lawyers
Table F18: Appropriateness of engagement by NTRBs of counsel usually acting for
respondents – other interviewees’ responses
Representation of claimants by counsel usually acting for respondents
Not an issue
Should be encouraged
Potentially problematic
Should be avoided
Total respondents:
Responses
8
5
4
1
18 other interviewees
Table F19: Difficulty in retaining NTRB lawyers – NTRB lawyers’ and other
interviewees’ responses
Is it difficult to retain lawyers?
Yes
No
Sometimes
Total respondents:
304
Lawyers
PLOs
18
0
0
5
1
0
Other
interviewees
51
5
1
24 NTRB lawyers (inc. 6 PLOs)
57 other interviewees
See question L63 in Appendix 2.
127
Report into the Professional Development Needs of NTRB Lawyers
Table F20: NTRB lawyers as at 31 December 2004 – Average length at current NTRB
and in NTRB system
Avg.
length in
NTRB
system
Female
Avg.
length in
NTRB
system
Male
Avg.
length in
NTRB
system
Total
Avg.
Length at
current
NTRB
Avg. No.
NTRBs
worked at
Western Australia
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.4
1.1
Queensland
3.4
3.8
3.6
2.4
1.4
Northern Territory
2.5
7.4
5.8
4.6
1.5
South Australia
1.4
4.6
3.2
3.2
1.0
New South Wales
3.0
2.1
2.4
2.0
1.2
Victoria
7.4
2.5
5.4
1.5
1.8
National Total
3.1
4
3.6
2.8
1.3
State
Table F21: Deterrents to NTRB work – NTRB lawyers’ and former NTRB lawyers’
responses
Deterrent
Organisational issues
Workload
Remoteness
Non-legal roles
Inadequacy of outcomes
Salaries
Political aspect of the job
Other
Total respondents:
128
Total responses
30
25
16
15
11
7
5
9
53 NTRB lawyers
8 former NTRB lawyers
Former lawyers’ responses
5
3
4
3
3
0
3
2
Part F – Data Tables
Table F22: Deterrents to NTRB work – other interviewees’ responses
Deterrent
Workload
Political aspect
Organisational issues
Remoteness
Management issues
Inadequate outcomes
Damages career path
Non-legal roles
Salaries
Native title law and system issues
Isolation from mainstream legal profession
Organisational culture
Travel demands
Long trials
Pressures from other parties
Inadequate professional support
Inadequate support staff
Management issues
Pressure re administrative requirements
Risk of violence
Demanding personal involvement
Inadequate corporate knowledge
Inadequate resources
Clients ungratefulness
Risk of organisations imploding
No training/professional development provided
Governance issues
Other
Total respondents:
Responses
26
21
20
15
11
9
8
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
5
65 other interviewees
Table F23: Level of workload – NTRB lawyers’ responses305
Level of workload
Too heavy
Appropriate
Too light
Other
Total respondents:
305
Responses
30
20
0
6
56 NTRB lawyers
See question L22 in Appendix 2.
129
Report into the Professional Development Needs of NTRB Lawyers
Table F24: Hours worked per week by NTRB lawyers – NTRB lawyers’ responses306
Hours per week
70-80
60-70
50-60
40-50
35-40
Total respondents:
Number of respondents
4
12
19
17
2
54 NTRB lawyers
Table F25: Level of satisfaction with access to resources at own NTRB – NTRB
lawyers’ responses307
Very
satisfied
Satisfied
Sometimes satisfied,
sometimes
dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Very
dissatisfied
Total responses
3
16
17
15
7
Breakdown of total by gender
Male
Female
2
1
8
8
7
10
6
9
3
4
Breakdown of total by State
WA
NSW
QLD
NT
SA
VIC
2
0
1
0
0
0
7
1
1
5
1
1
2
2
6
3
1
3
8
0
1
2
3
1
3
0
4
0
0
0
Breakdown of total by city size
> million
< million
2
1
11
5
7
10
8
7
1
6
Total respondents:
58 NTRB lawyers
306
See question L11 in Appendix 2.
307
See question L23 in Appendix 2.
130
Part F – Data Tables
Table F26: Involvement in any matters from initiation to resolution – NTRB lawyers’
responses308
Matters involved in from initiation to resolution
None
Some future act matters
Negotiations
One claim
Two or more claims
Other
Total respondents:
Responses
19
14
12
4
1
8
55 NTRB lawyers
Table F27: Extent of time spent on non-legal tasks – NTRB lawyers’ responses309
Spend too much time on non-legal tasks
Yes
No
Maybe
Total respondents:
Responses
31
14
8
53 NTRB lawyers
Table F28: Proportion of time spent on non-legal tasks – NTRB lawyers’
responses310
Proportion of work-time
0-5%
5-15%
15-25%
25-35%
35-50%
Over 50%
Total respondents:
Number of respondents
2
8
7
8
8
6
39 NTRB lawyers
308
See question L14 in Appendix 2.
309
See question L12 in Appendix 2.
310
See question L12 in Appendix 2.
131
Report into the Professional Development Needs of NTRB Lawyers
Table F29: Types of non-legal tasks performed by NTRB lawyers – NTRB lawyers’
responses
Tasks
Administrative and secretarial
Organising meetings
Managerial
Dealing with non-native title concerns of claimants
Travel
Dispute resolution
Logistics
Organisational policy and strategy
Total respondents:
Number of responses
57
20
17
16
7
4
4
2
57 NTRB lawyers
Table F30: Level of satisfaction with the physical environment at own NTRB – NTRB
lawyers’ responses311
Very
satisfied
Satisfied
Sometimes satisfied,
sometimes
dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Very
dissatisfied
Total responses
4
19
18
11
6
Breakdown of total by gender
Male
Female
2
2
9
10
8
10
4
7
3
3
Breakdown of total by State
WA
NSW
QLD
NT
SA
VIC
3
0
1
0
0
0
8
1
2
4
3
1
1
2
5
5
1
2
7
0
0
1
1
1
3
0
3
0
0
0
Total respondents:
311
58 NTRB lawyers
See question L23 in Appendix 2.
132
Part F – Data Tables
Table F31: Issues affecting satisfaction with physical environment at NTRBs – NTRB
lawyers’ responses312
Issue
Issues with equipment and funding
Building quality (including issues with air conditioning and safety)
Inadequate privacy and space, too much noise
Other
Total respondents:
Responses
42
16
11
7
36 NTRB lawyers
Table F32: Inductions received and their value – NTRB lawyers’ responses313
Lawyers’ responses
PLOs’ responses
Breakdown of total by State
WA
NSW
QLD
NT
SA
VIC
Total respondents:
Induction
received
Induction
not
received
Induction
would be
valuable
Induction
may be
valuable
Induction
would not be
valuable
10
0
39
10
37
8
7
1
1
0
7
0
0
2
1
0
16
3
16
7
2
2
20
1
13
7
2
2
3
0
1
2
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
59 NTRB lawyers (inc. 9 PLOs)
312
See question L24 in Appendix 2.
313
See question L27 in Appendix 2.
133
Report into the Professional Development Needs of NTRB Lawyers
Table F33: Topics to be covered in NTRB lawyer inductions – NTRB lawyers’ and
other interviewees’ responses
NTRB lawyer suggestions
Other interviewee suggestions
•
•
•
•
•
•
Cross-cultural competence
Understanding client community context
Running meetings with claimant group
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Presentation skills
Who key people are
Understanding of NT law and processes
How to deal with experts
How to do a general discovery
How to run a genealogy
HR management
Knowledge of particular areas of law
Management
Managing contracts and consultants
Mediation and negotiation
Negotiation
Organisation'
s methodologies and procedures
Political analysis
Training in possibilities of non-NT outcomes
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Cross-cultural awareness and communication
Understanding client community context
Mediation of intra-client disputes and between
groups
Taking instructions and ascertaining consensus
Running claim group meetings
Plain English
Introductory anthropology
Aboriginal languages
Legal and professional ethics
Commercial negotiation
Drafting commercial agreements
Knowledge of particular areas of law, eg mining
Litigation
Mediation, negotiation and arbitration
Understanding of native title law and practice
Practice management
Drafting court documents
Organisational systems and procedures
Total respondents:
51 NTRB lawyers
18 other interviewees
Table F34: Preferred induction format – NTRB lawyer responses
Preferred Format
Formal course
Written manual
Other
Total respondents:
134
Responses
14
9
13
36 NTRB lawyers
Part F – Data Tables
Table F35: Issues that arise in relation to taking instructions – NTRB lawyers’
responses314
Issues in taking instructions
Assessing levels of consensus
Issues around informed consent
Intra-Indigenous disputes
Issues around who is client – claimant or employer
Language barriers
Lack of cultural awareness
Poor meeting attendance
Difficulties communicating to large group
Conflicting claims
Complexity of legal concepts being explained
Difficulties establishing relationship with client group
Middle-person between lawyer and client, eg interpreter
Lawyers'inability to communicate in lay terms
Lack of telephone communication
Lack of regular contact
Intra-office politics
Insufficient funding for field support
Cost of meetings
Other
Total respondents:
314
Responses
27
16
13
7
6
5
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
47 NTRB lawyers
See question L54 in Appendix 2.
135
Report into the Professional Development Needs of NTRB Lawyers
Table F36: Barriers to effective communication with clients – NTRB lawyers’
responses315
Barriers
Lack of lawyers’ cultural awareness
Complexity of native title system/concepts
Language difficulties
Cultural/social barriers between lawyers and clients
Lack of relationship with clients/mistrust of lawyers
Lack of regular contact with clients
Lawyers’ communication problems
Intra-Indigenous disputes
Diversity of claimant group/complexity of claimant group relations
Lack of knowledge of claimant group by lawyers
Clients’ unrealistic expectations
Gender
Cost
Lack of sensitivity by lawyers
Difficulties in communicating with large group
Lawyers’ inexperience
Total respondents:
Responses
27
17
16
15
15
12
8
8
7
6
6
4
5
3
1
1
55 NTRB lawyers
Table F37: Skills developed since beginning work as an NTRB lawyer – NTRB lawyer
responses316
Skills developed
Cross-cultural communication
Negotiation
Drafting
Understanding NTA
FCT processes
History and politics
Understanding of Aboriginal culture
Advocacy
Other
Total respondents:
45 NTRB lawyers
315
See question L57 in Appendix 2.
316
See question L26 in Appendix 2.
136
Responses
29
20
11
9
6
4
4
3
20
Part F – Data Tables
Table F38: Importance of various aspects of NTRB lawyer’s role – NTRB lawyers’
responses317
1
Taking Instructions from Clients
1
Not
Important
0
28
Total
Responses
42
2
Communicating With Clients
1
0
8
33
42
3
Advising Clients on Legal
Process and Options
0
0
7
29
36
4
Assisting to resolve intra
community conflicts
1
10
12
20
43
5
Other interactions with clients that
involve cross-cultural sensitivity
(e.g. protocols, etiquette)
0
1
16
23
40
6
Awareness and understanding of
local Aboriginal culture and
history
0
2
17
22
41
7
Professional ethics involved in
dealing with multi-person claimant
groups
Understanding anthropology,
genealogy etc.
0
3
14
25
42
0
1
26
14
41
Using plain English in an
Aboriginal context
0
1
11
28
40
10 Cross-cultural issues in the work
place
1
2
20
15
38
11 Living and working in remote
areas
6
7
1
1
15
12 Working in a team of lawyers
0
5
24
13
42
13 Working in multi-disciplinary
teams
0
0
18
24
42
14 Running meetings (incl. Handling
content, facilitating discussions,
making presentations, etc.
0
0
14
26
40
15 Establishment/management of
corporate entities (e.g. PBCs)
3
12
17
10
42
16 Organisational strategic planning
1
14
17
9
41
17 Strategising native title and other
options and approaches on
individual cases
18 Project management
0
3
17
22
42
0
2
28
11
41
19 Management of
staff/management skills
2
10
20
8
40
20 Time Management
0
1
16
23
40
21 Commercial and other
negotiations
1
2
19
18
40
22 Drafting commercial agreements
0
4
20
16
40
Irrelevant
8
9
317
Of Some
Importance
13
Crucial
See question L31 in Appendix 2 (first column only).
137
Report into the Professional Development Needs of NTRB Lawyers
23 Drafting court documents
0
Not
Important
4
19
Total
Responses
40
24 Representing clients in mediation
3
3
16
20
42
25 Future act processes and
hearings
3
7
19
12
41
26 Future act negotiations
1
8
18
14
41
27 Court room advocacy
5
12
15
9
41
28 Preparing witnesses
4
8
15
11
38
29 Evidentiary matters
2
5
16
14
37
30 Proofing witnesses (i.e. '
dry run'
of where from, who from and
how to take evidence)
3
8
13
14
38
31 on country assessment of
evidence
5
9
9
12
35
32 Working with clients to prepare
for trial
33 Briefing counsel
7
10
13
11
41
4
3
17
16
40
34 Briefing consultants (e.g.
anthropologists, historians,
archaeologists)
35 Understanding relevant Federal
Court role, practice and
procedure
0
6
21
14
41
0
5
15
19
39
36 Understanding NNTT role,
practice and procedure
37 Familiarity with Native Title
statutory scheme
1
5
18
15
39
0
2
10
29
41
38 Familiarity with native title
jurisprudence
0
4
10
26
40
39 Familiarity with other statutory
schemes (e.g. cultural heritage
and State-based land rights
legislation
0
2
19
20
41
40 Commercial law
1
6
23
10
40
41 Mining law
2
3
22
13
40
42 Trusts Law
3
4
25
8
40
43 Tax Law
7
12
17
5
41
44 Administrative law
2
10
19
9
40
Computer skills - legal research
and word processing
0
0
0
1
1
Environmental law
0
0
1
0
1
General comprehensive NT
overview
0
0
0
1
1
Referrals re e.g. accounting or
tax matters
0
1
0
0
1
Table F38 continued
138
Irrelevant
Of Some
Importance
17
Crucial
Contract law
0
0
1
0
1
Familiarity with State/Territory
Legislation and institutions
relevant to environmental
management, fisheries, property
law and parks management
0
0
1
0
1
Property law
0
0
1
0
1
Part F – Data Tables
Table F39: Importance of training on various aspects of NTRB lawyer’s role for
lawyers at current level of experience – NTRB lawyers’ responses318
1
Taking Instructions from Clients
4
Not
Important
14
4
Total
Responses
37
2
Communicating With Clients
5
14
12
6
37
3
Advising Clients on Legal Process
and Options
2
13
16
7
38
4
Assisting to resolve intra
community conflicts
Other interactions with clients that
involve cross-cultural sensitivity
(e.g. protocols, etiquette)
4
11
16
6
37
3
10
14
9
36
Irrelevant
5
Of Some
Importance
15
Crucial
6
Awareness and understanding of
local Aboriginal culture and history
3
14
11
8
36
7
Professional ethics involved in
dealing with multi-person claimant
groups
2
12
14
10
38
8
Understanding anthropology,
genealogy etc.
3
9
23
2
37
4
16
12
5
37
1
16
16
2
35
10
17
8
1
36
12 Working in a team of lawyers
4
21
12
1
38
13 Working in multi-disciplinary teams
4
19
11
3
37
14 Running meetings (incl. Handling
6
10
15
5
36
15 Establishment/management of
6
10
15
7
38
16 Organisational strategic planning
8
11
17
2
38
17 Strategising native title and other
2
10
15
9
36
18 Project management
4
5
21
5
35
19 Management of staff/management
5
11
15
4
35
20 Time Management
2
10
17
7
36
21 Commercial and other negotiations
2
9
19
7
37
22 Drafting commercial agreements
2
11
17
6
36
23 Drafting court documents
4
8
19
6
37
Using plain English in an
Aboriginal context
10 Cross-cultural issues in the work
place
11 Living and working in remote areas
9
content, facilitating discussions,
making presentations, etc)
corporate entities (e.g. PBCs)
options and approaches on
individual cases
skills
24 Representing clients in mediation
2
12
15
7
36
25 Future act processes and hearings
4
12
17
3
36
26 Future act negotiations
4
11
16
5
36
318
See question L31 in Appendix 2 (second column only).
139
Report into the Professional Development Needs of NTRB Lawyers
27
Court room advocacy
5
Not
Important
11
28
Preparing witnesses
6
11
29
Evidentiary matters
3
6
16
6
31
30
Proofing witnesses (i.e. '
dry
run'of where from, who from
and how to take evidence)
4
12
11
6
33
31
on country assessment of
evidence
4
11
10
6
31
32
Working with clients to
prepare for trial
5
14
7
7
33
33
Briefing counsel
4
14
14
1
33
34
Briefing consultants (e.g.
anthropologists, historians,
archaeologists)
2
13
17
2
34
35
Understanding relevant
Federal Court role, practice
and procedure
3
12
14
5
34
36
Understanding NNTT role,
practice and procedure
2
16
11
2
31
37
Familiarity with Native Title
statutory scheme
1
9
17
7
34
38
Familiarity with native title
jurisprudence
1
9
16
7
33
39
Familiarity with other
statutory schemes (e.g.
cultural heritage and Statebased land rights legislation)
2
9
21
3
35
40
Commercial law
2
12
16
5
35
41
Mining law
2
9
17
6
34
42
Trusts Law
3
11
16
4
34
43
Tax Law
7
15
10
4
36
44
Administrative law
3
13
14
5
35
Computer skills - legal
research and word
processing
Environmental law
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
General comprehensive NT
overview
0
0
0
1
1
Referrals re e.g. accounting
or tax matters
0
1
0
0
1
Table F39 continued
140
Irrelevant
Of Some
Importance
16
Crucial
5
Total
Responses
37
11
8
36
Contract law
0
0
0
0
0
Familiarity with State/Territory
Legislation and institutions
relevant to environmental
management, fisheries,
property law and parks
management
0
0
1
0
1
Property law
1
0
0
0
1
Part F – Data Tables
Table F40: Importance of training on various aspects of NTRB lawyer’s role for new
NTRB lawyers – NTRB lawyers’ responses319
1
Taking Instructions from Clients
0
Not
Important
0
34
Total
Responses
43
2
Communicating With Clients
1
1
5
31
38
3
Advising Clients on Legal
Process and Options
0
2
7
28
37
4
Assisting to resolve intra
community conflicts
2
6
13
21
42
5
Other interactions with clients
that involve cross-cultural
sensitivity (e.g., protocols,
etiquette
0
2
10
30
42
6
Awareness and understanding
of local Aboriginal culture and
history
0
4
13
24
41
7
Professional ethics involved in
dealing with multi-person
claimant groups
Understanding anthropology,
genealogy etc.
0
1
12
29
42
0
3
19
20
42
9
Using plain English in an
Aboriginal context
0
2
13
25
40
10
Cross-cultural issues in the work
place
1
4
21
12
38
11
Living and working in remote
areas
4
12
13
10
39
12
Working in a team of lawyers
0
12
22
7
41
13
Working in multi-disciplinary
teams
0
5
21
21
47
14
Running meetings (incl.
Handling content, facilitating
discussions, making
presentations, etc.
Establishment/management of
corporate entities (e.g. PBCs)
0
4
13
22
39
3
5
19
14
41
Irrelevant
8
15
Of Some
Importance
9
Crucial
16
Organisational strategic
planning
6
10
19
5
40
17
Strategising native title and
other options and approaches
on individual cases
2
4
15
20
41
18
Project management
1
8
18
11
38
19
Management of
staff/management skills
5
9
16
8
38
20
Time Management
5
15
21
41
21
Commercial and other
negotiations
1
1
20
20
42
22
Drafting commercial
agreements
1
2
19
19
41
23
Drafting court documents
1
4
16
19
40
319
See question L31 in Appendix 2 (third column only).
141
Report into the Professional Development Needs of NTRB Lawyers
Table F40 continued
Irrelevant
Not
Important
Of Some
Importance
Crucial
Total
Responses
24
Representing clients in
mediation
1
5
15
19
40
25
Future act processes and
hearings
2
2
17
20
41
26
Future act negotiations
1
6
15
19
41
27
Court room advocacy
4
7
18
12
41
28
Preparing witnesses
3
6
20
9
38
29
Evidentiary matters
1
3
19
15
38
30
Proofing witnesses (I.e. '
dry run'
of where from, who from and
how to take evidence)
on country assessment of
evidence
1
7
17
11
36
2
7
14
12
35
32
Working with clients to prepare
for trial
2
9
16
9
36
33
Briefing counsel
2
34
Briefing consultants (e.g.
anthropologists, historians,
archaeologists)
35
Understanding relevant Federal
Court role, practice and
procedure
Understanding NNTT role,
practice and procedure
31
36
6
19
9
36
6
17
15
38
1
1
15
22
39
1
5
14
18
38
37
Familiarity with Native Title
statutory scheme
2
10
27
39
38
Familiarity with native title
jurisprudence
4
9
25
38
39
1
1
17
21
40
40
Familiarity with other statutory
schemes (e.g. cultural heritage
and State-based land rights
legislation
Commercial law
1
11
17
10
39
41
Mining law
1
5
19
12
37
42
Trusts Law
2
8
20
9
39
43
Tax Law
5
16
9
8
38
44
Administrative law
1
12
13
12
38
Computer skills - legal research
and word processing
0
0
0
1
1
Environmental law
0
0
1
0
1
General comprehensive NT
overview
0
0
0
1
1
Referrals re e.g. accounting or
tax matters
0
1
0
0
1
Contract law
0
0
0
1
1
Familiarity with State/Territory
Legislation and institutions
relevant to environmental
management, fisheries, property
law and parks management
0
0
0
1
1
Property law
0
0
1
142
1
Part F – Data Tables
Table F41: Existence and adequacy of formal training provided to NTRB lawyers –
NTRB lawyers’ responses320
1
Taking Instructions from Clients
6
1
Total
Responses
40
2
Communicating With Clients
33
4
2
39
3
Advising Clients on Legal Process and
Options
29
8
2
39
4
Assisting to resolve intra community
conflicts
25
11
2
38
5
Other interactions with clients that
involve cross-cultural sensitivity (e.g.,
protocols, etiquette
24
11
2
37
6
Awareness and understanding of local
Aboriginal culture and history
29
7
3
39
7
Professional ethics involved in dealing
with multi-person claimant groups
30
7
1
38
8
Understanding anthropology, genealogy
etc.
27
8
1
36
9
Using plain English in an Aboriginal
context
28
7
3
38
10
Cross-cultural issues in the work place
29
6
2
37
11
Living and working in remote areas
27
4
1
32
12
Working in a team of lawyers
31
6
2
39
13
Working in multi-disciplinary teams
32
4
1
37
14
Running meetings (incl. Handling
content, facilitating discussions, making
presentations, etc.
Establishment/management of
corporate entities (e.g. PBCs)
30
6
21
57
36
2
2
40
15
None
Provided
33
Adequate
Inadequate
16
Organisational strategic planning
34
3
1
38
17
Strategising native title and other
options and approaches on individual
cases
32
4
1
37
18
Project management
32
3
1
36
19
Management of staff/management skills
32
3
1
36
20
Time Management
30
6
1
37
21
Commercial and other negotiations
34
1
2
37
22
Drafting commercial agreements
34
2
2
38
23
Drafting court documents
31
6
3
40
24
Representing clients in mediation
33
3
2
38
25
Future act processes and hearings
30
5
1
36
320
See question L31 in Appendix 2 (fourth column only).
143
Report into the Professional Development Needs of NTRB Lawyers
26
Future act negotiations
4
1
Total
Responses
36
27
Court room advocacy
32
2
3
37
28
Preparing witnesses
30
3
3
36
29
Evidentiary matters
29
2
3
34
30
Proofing witnesses (I.e. '
dry run'of
where from, who from and how to take
evidence)
29
2
3
34
31
on country assessment of evidence
28
2
2
32
32
Working with clients to prepare for trial
30
3
2
35
33
Briefing counsel
29
3
3
35
34
Briefing consultants (e.g.
anthropologists, historians,
archaeologists)
30
5
1
36
35
Understanding relevant Federal Court
role, practice and procedure
29
3
3
35
36
Understanding NNTT role, practice and
procedure
25
7
2
34
37
Familiarity with Native Title statutory
scheme
26
6
3
35
38
Familiarity with native title jurisprudence
26
7
3
36
39
Familiarity with other statutory schemes
(e.g. cultural heritage and State-based
land rights legislation
29
5
2
36
40
Commercial law
30
4
1
35
41
Mining law
29
3
2
34
42
Trusts Law
29
4
1
34
43
Tax Law
31
1
3
35
44
Administrative law
27
6
2
35
1
0
0
1
Table F41 continued
Computer skills - legal research and
word processing
None
Provided
31
Adequate
Inadequate
Environmental law
1
0
0
1
General comprehensive NT overview
1
0
0
1
Referrals re e.g. accounting or tax
matters
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
Contract law
144
Familiarity with State/Territory
Legislation and institutions relevant to
environmental management, fisheries,
property law and parks management
1
0
0
1
Property law
1
0
0
1
Part F – Data Tables
Table F42: Who instructions are taken from – NTRB lawyers’ responses321
Who are instructions taken from?
Individual group spokesperson
Named applicants
Representative working group
Whole claimant group
Total respondents:
Never
28
8
7
0
Sometimes
11
21
20
21
Usually
1
8
14
17
Always
0
3
4
5
45 NTRB lawyers
Table F43: Professional development provided through NTRB and undertaken –
NTRB lawyers’ responses322
Training/workshop type
Internal NTRB training
NNTT workshops (ILUAs, PBCs, ‘bundle of rights’, registration test, future
act matters)
State government workshops
Law Society seminars, workshops and courses
ATSIS courses (administrative law and governance; contract law;
contracting procedure and management)
Mediation courses (LEADR, Leo Cussens; Bond University)
Law firm seminars
Total respondents:
No NTRB lawyers
undertaken
22
15
8
4
4
4
1
53 NTRB lawyers
Table F44: Attendance at and value of annual native title conference – NTRB
lawyers’ responses
Responses
Have attended at least one native title conference
Yes
No
32
6
Content of native title conference of value?
Yes
No
Maybe
12
8
6
Networking opportunities at native title conference of value?
Yes
No
Maybe
19
3
1
Total respondents:
38 NTRB lawyers
321
See question L53 in Appendix 2.
322
See question L29 in Appendix 2.
145
Report into the Professional Development Needs of NTRB Lawyers
Table F45: Value of professional development undertaken, and reasons training is
and is not valuable – NTRB lawyers’ responses
Responses
Training/workshops of value
Yes
Maybe
No
27
12
4
Reasons training of value
Relevant content
Networking opportunities
Other
32
14
3
Reasons training of no value
Cost and/or time prohibitive
Too simplistic
Too specific
Irrelevant content
Other
15
8
3
1
2
Total respondents:
43 NTRB lawyers
Table F46: Appropriateness of various training formats and NTRB lawyers’
preferences – NTRB lawyer responses323
Format
Group-based workshops
Individual by correspondence
Lectures
Web-based
Total respondents:
Appropriate
40
16
29
27
Inappropriate
3
24
12
11
Depends
1
1
1
1
44 NTRB lawyers
Table F47: Appropriate timing for training – NTRB lawyers’ responses324
Preference
Periodic ongoing
Two-day intensive
One-week intensive
Other
Depends
Total respondents:
Responses
16
15
11
3
2
47 NTRB lawyers
323
See question L37 in Appendix 2.
324
See question L36 in Appendix 2.
146
Preference
35
1
5
3
Part F – Data Tables
Table F48: Sufficiency of level of communication among NTRBs – NTRB lawyers’
responses325
Level of communication between NTRBs
Not enough
Sufficient
Sometimes sufficient
Total respondents:
Responses
42
11
1
54 NTRB lawyers
Table F49: Strategies for knowledge sharing within and across NTRBs – NTRB
lawyers’ responses326
Strategy for knowledge sharing
Within NTRBs
General communication
Staff meetings
Internal document sharing systems
Emails
Staff presentations
Internal training days
Partnering on claims
Across NTRBs
Native title conference
Emails
PLO meetings
General communication
State-wide meetings of NTRB staff
Presentations by lawyers from other
NTRBs
NTRB exchanges
Total respondents:
Responses
26
7
7
6
2
2
1
11
4
3
3
1
1
1
34 NTRB lawyers
325
See question L50 in Appendix 2.
326
See question L30 in Appendix 2.
147
Report into the Professional Development Needs of NTRB Lawyers
Table F50: Level of access to documentary resources – NTRB lawyers’ responses327
Precedents with annotations
Model agreements with annotations
Internal library
Model agreements
Precedents for court submissions, affidavits
etc.
Legal opinions
General reports (e.g. judgments and
summaries
Relevant journals and newsletters
Relevant forms with annotations
Case specific research (e.g. anthropological
reports, historical documentation)
Other NTRBs’ annual reports
Case law (e.g. judgments and summaries)
Internet resources
Other NTRBs’ strategic plans
Legislation
Relevant forms (e.g. NNTT and FCA)
Total respondents:
Excellent
access
0
1
4
2
2
Adequate
access
9
9
13
19
20
Inadequate
access
28
28
23
20
18
Irrelevant
to my work
0
1
1
1
2
1
4
21
20
18
17
0
0
0
3
3
23
19
19
17
13
13
0
3
3
4
6
10
3
8
5
17
27
24
12
28
31
9
8
7
6
5
4
10
0
0
9
0
1
42 NTRB lawyers
Table F51: Sources used by NTRB lawyers to keep abreast of developments in
native title – NTRB lawyers’ responses328
Source
Journals/newsletters
Discussion with internal colleagues
NNTT Alert Service
Internet
Discussion with other NTRBs
Internal library
Emails from internal colleagues
Emails from non-NTRB contacts
Discussion with non-NTRB contacts
Loose leaf services
Yahoo Native Title Users Group
Documents from other NTRBs
Emails from other NTRBs
NT Fact sheets
Total respondents:
53 NTRB lawyers
327
See question L40 in Appendix 2.
328
See question L38 in Appendix 2.
148
Responses
24
21
18
15
10
9
6
4
4
2
2
1
1
1
Part F – Data Tables
Table F52: Journals and newsletters used – NTRB lawyers’ responses329
Journal/newsletter
Various NNTT publications
Indigenous Law Bulletin
Various AIATSIS publications
Alternative Law Journal
Australian Indigenous Law Reporter
Australian Mining Law Journal
Talking NT
ACL Weekly
ADJR Bulletin
AG'
s Case Notes
Anthropology journals
Law Institute Journal
Total respondents:
329
Responses
31
11
10
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
43 NTRB lawyers
See question L44 in Appendix 2.
149
Report into the Professional Development Needs of NTRB Lawyers
Table F53: Internet sites used – NTRB lawyers’ responses330
Website
NNTT
AustLII
Federal Court
Various State govt departments
AIATSIS
ScalePlus
General search engines (including Google)
Various Cth govt departments
NTRB.net
ATNS.net
Lexis Nexis
Mining companies
State Law Societies/Institutes
ABC
ASIC
ATSIC
Individual NTRB websites
Private law firms
Newspapers
Mineral Policy Institute
Mining Ombudsman
Registrar of Aboriginal Corporations
Stakeholder specific ie pastoralists
State Law Publisher
University libraries
Total respondents:
Responses
43
41
18
14
9
8
6
6
4
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
50 NTRB lawyers
Table F54: Usefulness of proposed website – NTRB lawyers’ responses331
Value of proposed website
Of value/useful
May be of value
Total respondents:
51 NTRB lawyers
330
See question L41 in Appendix 2.
331
See question L46(i) in Appendix 2.
150
Responses
45
6
Part F – Data Tables
Table F55: Particular aspects of proposed website that would be of value – NTRB
lawyers’ responses332
Particular aspects you would use
Searchable database of NTRB lawyers
Template agreements
Court document precedents with and without annotations
All
Case summaries
NTRB-only message board and discussion forum
Links to relevant documents
Case commentaries
Help-line
Focused search engine
Directory of NTRB professionals
Directory of training resources
Total respondents:
Responses
15
13
15
9
7
7
4
4
1
1
1
1
44 NTRB lawyers
Table F56: Willingness to make available own contact details and professional
biographical information for inclusion on proposed website – NTRB lawyers’
responses333
Inclusion of details
Happy to be included
Unsure
Other
Total respondents:
Responses
40
4
2
46 NTRB lawyers
332
See question L46(ii) in Appendix 2.
333
See question L48 in Appendix 2.
151
Report into the Professional Development Needs of NTRB Lawyers
Table F57: Value of various forms of assistance from law firms – NTRB lawyers’
responses334
Type of assistance
Legal advice on particular matters
Mentoring of NTRB lawyers
Secondments of commercial lawyers to NTRBs for
a particular project or matter
Secondments of commercial lawyers to NTRBs for
general purpose
Preparation of precedents
Internships for Indigenous non-legal NTRB staff
Total respondents:
Would be
very
valuable
Would be
valuable
Would
not be
valuable
Unsure
17
9
10
25
16
25
1
3
2
4
17
9
8
16
6
14
15
11
26
18
1
1
4
12
47 NTRB lawyers
Table F58: Access to, and value of, mentors – NTRB lawyers’ responses335
NTRB Lawyer
PLO
Have mentor
Yes
No
Maybe
15
28
3
6
1
0
Value of mentors
Valuable
May be valuable
Not valuable
37
6
3
7
0
0
Total respondents:
53 NTRB lawyers (inc. 6 PLOs)
Table F59: Value of access to network of NTRB alumni – NTRB lawyers’
responses336
Current NTRB lawyer
Former NTRB lawyer
Total respondents:
Would be
valuable
37
6
47 NTRB lawyers
7 former NTRB lawyers
334
See question L61 in Appendix 2.
335
See question L21 in Appendix 2.
336
See question L67 in Appendix 2.
152
Unsure
6
1
Would not be
valuable
3
0
Other
1
0
Part F – Data Tables
Table F60: Willingness to stay involved in field in various ways – NTRB lawyers’
responses337
Ways of staying involved
As mentor to particular NTRB lawyer
As part of NTRB alumni
Contribute in voluntary capacity to website
Giving advice
One-week per year involvement
Promoting careers at NTRB to uni students
Running workshops
Working for another NTRB
Workshops on communicating with clients
Other
Total respondents:
Number of current
NTRB lawyers willing
to stay involved in this
way
37
37
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
Number of former
NTRB lawyers willing
to stay involved in
this way
4
4
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
43 NTRB lawyers
7 former NTRB lawyers
Table F61: Those currently approached to discuss issues relevant to legal work –
NTRB lawyers’ responses338
Source of support
Internal colleagues
External native title contacts
Supervisor
External non-native title contacts
None
Other
Total respondents:
Responses
41
28
25
15
5
1
57 NTRB lawyers
Table F62: Value of field officers in assisting lawyers in communicating with clients
– NTRB lawyers’ responses339
Value of field officers
Critical
Helpful
Sometimes helpful
Of limited help
Total respondents:
Responses
23
18
8
3
52 NTRB lawyers
337
See question L68 in Appendix 2.
338
See question L20 in Appendix 2.
339
See question L56 in Appendix 2.
153