Indigenous Cultural Competency For Legal Academics Program: WWW - Icclap.edu - Au

Indigenous Cultural Competency for Legal Academics
Program
Final report: 2019

Lead institution: University of New England
Partner institutions: The Australian National University, Queensland
University of Technology, RMIT University and the University of
Technology, Sydney
Project leader: Ms Marcelle Burns, University of New England
Team members: Professor Larissa Behrendt, University of
Technology, Sydney; Professor Anita Lee Hong, Queensland
University of Technology; Professor Mark McMillan, RMIT University;
and Professor Asmi Wood, The Australian National University
Report authors: Ms Marcelle Burns, Professor Anita Lee Hong and

Professor Asmi Wood
www.icclap.edu.au
Support for the production of this report has been provided by the Australian Government
Department of Education and Training. The views expressed in this report do not necessarily
reflect the views of the Australian Government Department of Education and Training.
With the exception of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms, and where otherwise noted, all
material presented in this document is provided under Creative Commons Attribution-
ShareAlike 4.0 International License creativecommons/4.0/license.
The details of the relevant license conditions are available on the Creative Commons
website (accessible using the links provided) as is the full legal code for the Creative
Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License creativecommons/4.0/legalcode.
Requests and inquiries concerning these rights should be addressed to:

Learning and Teaching Support
Student Information and Learning Branch
Higher Education Group
Department of Education and Training
GPO Box 9880

Location code C50MA7
CANBERRA ACT 2601
<learningandteaching@education.gov.au>
2019
ISBN 978-1-76051-661-1 [PDF]

ISBN 978-1-76051-662-8 [DOCX]
ISBN 978-1-76051-663-5 [PRINT]
Acknowledgements
The project team acknowledge the traditional owners and Elders of Country on which each
of us works and lives, and recognise that these have always been places of knowledge and
learning. Our vision for this project was to articulate what Indigenous cultural competency
(ICC) means in the context of legal education and to build a community of practice to
support the embedding of ICC in law curriculum. We realised from the beginning that this
important work required a collective effort, and that we did not have all the answers. A core
element of the project was to bring together a range of legal academics (both Indigenous
and non-Indigenous), Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal service providers, peak
professional and higher education bodies to explore these questions.
This work would not have been possible without the contributions of many people and
organisations who have generously shared their time and expertise, questioned our
assumptions, and engaged us in challenging and stimulating discussions. In particular we
thank:
• members of our national reference group – Magistrate Jacqui Payne, Professor
Colleen Hayward, Professor Erika Techera, Eddie Cubillo and Shane Duffy
• members of our local reference group based in Armidale – Uncle Steven Widders,
Aunty Barbara Bond, Associate Professor Amanda Kennedy and Donna Moodie
• participants in the ICCLAP Consultation Workshop and the ICCLAP Indigenous Cultural
Competency in Law: Deliberating Future Directions Workshop, especially our expert
panel – Eddie Cubillo, Annette Gainsford, Anthony Hopkins, Sharon Payne, Dr Amanda
Porter, John Rawnsley and Nicole Watson
• independent evaluators – Associate Professor Linda Te Aho (Waikato University) and
Professor Bradford Morse (Thompson Rivers University)
• ICCLAP staff – Bob Kirk (project officer 2017–18), Fiona Murray (project officer 2016),
and research assistants Robert Vidler, Janelle Speed, Ivan Ingram and Bianca Hill-Jarro.
We also acknowledge the support from our universities and colleagues, who have given us
much encouragement and timely assistance when needed. In particular we thank Belinda
Eastgate and Lyn Gollan (University of New England), Nicole Harman and Kim Lester (The
Australian National University), Bianca Hill-Jarro (Queensland University of Technology), and
Raema Behrendt (University of Technology, Sydney). For assistance with the grant
application we thank Distinguished Professor Aileen Moreton-Robinson, Georgia Smeal and
Rae-Ann Diehm (Queensland University of Technology). Also, a special thanks to staff from
the Department of Education and Training (and former Office for Teaching and Learning),
especially Glen Toohey, Paul Corcoran and Joanne Chivers, who have guided and supported
the project.
Indigenous Cultural Competency for Legal Academics Program iii

List of acronyms used
ALTA Australasian Law Teachers Association
ALTC Australian Learning and Teaching Council
ATSILS Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services
CALD Council of Australian Law Deans
ICC Indigenous cultural competency
ICCLAP Indigenous Cultural Competency for Legal Academics Program
OLT Office for Learning and Teaching
Indigenous Cultural Competency for Legal Academics Program iv

Executive summary
The Indigenous Cultural Competency for Legal Academics Program (ICCLAP) was designed as
a response to the Review of higher education access and outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander people (Behrendt review; Department of Education and Training 2012), which
recommends (Recommendation 32) that universities develop Indigenous cultural
competency (ICC) in staff and students, as one measure to promote Indigenous student
success. Universities Australia’s (2011a) Guiding principles for developing indigenous cultural
competency in Australian universities recommends (Recommendations 1, 2 and 4) that
Indigenous knowledges and perspectives be embedded in all university curricula and that
ICC be included as a graduate attribute, with the need for staff training to achieve this goal.
The project’s aim was to promote the inclusion of ICC in legal education with a view to
improving Indigenous student outcomes, and to build ICC in all students. An important step
towards this aim was to build the capacity of legal academics to engage with Indigenous
knowledges and ICC in their work. The project was led by the University of New England,
together with partner institutions The Australian National University, Queensland University
of Technology, RMIT University and the University of Technology, Sydney. The project’s final
report was completed in April 2018.
The project’s objectives were to:

• consult with legal academics and key stakeholders to identify knowledge gaps and
professional development needs for incorporating ICC in law curricula
• develop guiding principles for embedding ICC in legal education, a professional
development module and set of resources available online to assist legal academics in
implementing ICC in law curricula
• present the ICCLAP principles, professional development module and resources at a
pilot workshop for legal academics
• establish a community of practice of legal academics to support the embedding of ICC
in legal education through a consultation process and workshops.
The project’s approach was informed by Indigenous knowledges which emphasise

‘relatedness’ as a core principle of Indigenous ways of knowing, being and doing (Martin
2008: 69–87). The concept of ‘relatedness’ was central to the iterative approach adopted by
the project to enable legal academics and key stakeholders to develop a shared language
and vision around the ICCLAP goals and to involve potential users in the design of the
ICCLAP materials to promote implementation and embedding (Southwell et al. 2005: 20).
Indigenous Cultural Competency for Legal Academics Program v

The project’s key activities included:
 background research to assess the climate of readiness (Hinton et al. 2011: 9–13) for
embedding ICC in law, including a survey of law schools and a literature review on
ICC. The ICCLAP Law School survey report (2017) sets out key findings about the
current level of inclusion of ICC in law schools as of 30 July 2017
 the ICCLAP Consultation Workshop with legal academics and key stakeholders. It was
held in September 2016 to discuss what ICC means in the context of legal education.
The ICCLAP Consultation Workshop report (2016) outlines key issues discussed at the
workshop and the knowledge, attitudes and skills that academics and students need
to build ICC
 the Indigenous Cultural Competency in Law: Deliberating Future Directions
Workshop. This was held in September 2017 to bring together legal academics and
key stakeholders to develop guiding principles and strategies to promote the
embedding of ICC in law curricula. Presentations from leading Indigenous lawyers
and legal academics were featured at the workshop to stimulate reflection and
discussion. The Workshop final participant report (2017) outlines critical success
factors and barriers to incorporating ICC in curriculum, together with guiding
principles and priorities for action to incorporate ICC in legal education
 the ICCLAP team have presented papers at key Indigenous law and legal education
conferences including the National Indigenous Legal Conferences 2016 and 2017, the
Australasian Law Teachers Association Conferences 2017 and 2018, the Association
of Continuing Legal Education Conference 2017 (Montreal, Canada), and the Law and
Society Association-Canadian Law and Society Association Conference 2018
(Toronto, Canada). In addition presentations on ICC and law have been made at the
Queensland University of Technology, University of New England, the University of
Queensland, and University of Southern Queensland.
The ICCLAP Law School Survey provides a snapshot of the current state of ICC in legal
education. The survey found that very few law schools have incorporated ICC into their
graduate attributes and course learning outcomes. However a small proportion of law
schools currently include ICC in both core and elective units. These findings show that there
is a need to improve the inclusion of ICC in law curricula.
The project has been successful in building a community of legal academic and practitioner
commitment to incorporating ICC in legal education. The ICCLAP website has been
established to provide a focal point to support an emerging community of practice to
implement ICC in law curricula. The website hosts a Q&A forum for academics, resources to
assist academics develop ICC in their teaching practice, and news and information on ICC. A
special edition of the Legal Education Review on ICC in law has been initiated by the project
team and will be published early in 2019, providing additional resources for academics.
Indigenous Cultural Competency for Legal Academics Program vi

The ICCLAP final evaluation report (Te Aho & Morse 2018: 7) found that the project was
successful in achieving its main objectives, and that it was clear from the Consultation
Workshop that the project was viewed by key stakeholders as ‘highly necessary’. Feedback
from the Future Directions Workshop was very positive, with participants stating that the
workshop outcomes were likely to be acted on in the future. However, the incorporation of
ICC in legal curricula also requires strong leadership and an ongoing commitment from law
schools to ensure that the aims of the project are implemented and sustained into the
future. The following recommendations are directed to practical measures that will enable
this to happen:
1. Law schools adopt the guiding principles for the incorporation of ICC into curriculum,
and implement the embedding of ICC into law programs.
2. The Council of Australian Law Deans establish a working party to support the
incorporation of ICC in law curriculum, with members of the project team to provide
ongoing advice and guidance.
3. Law schools give priority to the recruitment and retention of Indigenous legal
academics to support the embedding of ICC in curriculum.
4. Law schools take measures to ensure the cultural safety of law schools to support
Indigenous academics and students.
5. The project team continue to develop the ICCLAP website to provide resources and
support for academics to implement ICC in law curriculum.
6. The project team investigate opportunities for ongoing collaboration with legal
academics and industry partners to support the embedding of ICC in law curricula.
7. The project team investigate funding to conduct research on the current experiences of
Indigenous law students to inform future approaches to embedding ICC in law
curriculum and providing culturally safe law school environments.
8. The project team continue to disseminate the project’s findings at key legal education
and Indigenous law conferences and contribute to ongoing professional developments
program to promote ICC in law.
9. The project team convene a working party to develop a strategy to lobby legal
admissions authorities and professional associations to include ICC in legal accreditation
and academic standards.
Support for this project has been provided by the Australian Government Department for
Education and Training. The views in this project do not necessarily reflect the views of the
Australian Government Department for Education and Training.
Indigenous Cultural Competency for Legal Academics Program vii

Table of contents
Acknowledgements................................................................................................................... iii
List of acronyms used ............................................................................................................... iv
Executive summary .................................................................................................................... v
Tables and figures ...................................................................................................................... x
Tables ..................................................................................................................................... x
Figures .................................................................................................................................... x
1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1
Background ............................................................................................................................ 1
Purpose and rationale ............................................................................................................ 1
Aim of the project .................................................................................................................. 3
Project approach and methodology ...................................................................................... 4
Research process ................................................................................................................... 5
Project management ............................................................................................................. 6
Project funding....................................................................................................................... 6
Project evaluation .................................................................................................................. 7
2 Literature review................................................................................................................ 8
Teaching and learning projects in law ................................................................................... 8
Indigenous teaching and learning projects............................................................................ 9
Pedagogical approaches .................................................................................................. 10
Indigenous cultural competency literature review ............................................................. 10
ICC in legal education....................................................................................................... 10
Critiques of ICC ................................................................................................................. 11
Towards deliberative democracy..................................................................................... 12
3 Project activities ............................................................................................................... 13
4 Key findings and recommendations ................................................................................ 15
The state of ICC in legal education ...................................................................................... 15
What does ICC mean in the context of legal education? .................................................... 16
Views of Indigenous legal service providers .................................................................... 16
Indigenous students experiences of law schools ............................................................ 17
Indigenous legal academics ............................................................................................. 17
Barriers and constraints to embedding ICC in law .......................................................... 18
A vision for ICC in legal education ....................................................................................... 18
Critical success factors for embedding ICC in law ........................................................... 19
Guiding principles for embedding ICC in law ................................................................... 20
Indigenous Cultural Competency for Legal Academics Program viii

Curriculum........................................................................................................................ 21
Legal accreditation and academic standards include ICC ................................................ 21
Indigenous knowledges ................................................................................................... 21
Resources and support .................................................................................................... 22
Recommendations ............................................................................................................... 23
5 Impact of the project ....................................................................................................... 24
6 Factors in project success and progress .......................................................................... 25
Critical success factors ..................................................................................................... 25
Factors impeding project progress .................................................................................. 25
References ........................................................................................................................... 26
Appendix A – Certification by Deputy Vice-Chancellor (or equivalent) .................................. 30
Appendix B – ICCLAP Final Evluation Report ........................................................................... 31
Findings and conclusions ................................................................................................. 35
Background to the Project ............................................................................................... 36
Context of the Project’s Operation .................................................................................. 36
Purpose of Evaluation ...................................................................................................... 40
Evaluation Framework ..................................................................................................... 40
Key evaluation questions ................................................................................................. 43
Appendix 1. International Context and Background of the Evaluators ........................... 46
Appendix 2: Programme for Indigenous Cultural Competency in Law: Deliberating
Future Directions Workshop ............................................................................................ 47
Appendix 3: Participating Organisations ......................................................................... 48
Appendix C – ICCLAP publications and reports related to this report .................................... 49
Appendix D – ICCLAP conference presentations and seminars............................................... 50
Indigenous Cultural Competency for Legal Academics Program ix

Tables and figures
Tables
Table 1: Barriers and constraints to embedding ICC in law……………………………………………….18
Table 2: Critical success factors for embedding ICC in law………………………………………………..19
Table 3: Guiding principles for embedding ICC in law..……………………………………………………..20
Figures
Figure 1: ICCLAP Law School Survey…………………………………………………………………………………..15
Indigenous Cultural Competency for Legal Academics Program x

1 Introduction
This project, the Indigenous Cultural Competency for Legal Academics Program (ICCLAP),
was funded by the Australian Government Department of Education and Training for a
period of two years, concluding in April 2018. The project was undertaken by Ms Marcelle
Burns (project leader, Lecturer, University of New England), Professor Asmi Wood (the
Australian National University), Professor Anita Lee Hong (Director, Oodgeroo Unit,
Queensland University of Technology), Professor Larissa Behrendt (Professor of Law and
Director of Research, Jumbunna Indigenous House of Learning, University of Technology,
Sydney) and Professor Mark McMillan (Deputy Pro Vice-Chancellor Indigenous Education
and Engagement, RMIT University; formerly at University of Melbourne).
Background
In 2013 the former Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching called for
projects to address the recommendations of the Review of higher education access and
outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people (Behrendt review) (Department of
Education and Training 2012).1 The review, together with Universities Australia’s Indigenous
cultural competency project, recommends that Indigenous cultural competency (ICC) be
developed across the higher education sector, as one measure to promote Indigenous
student success. The project team, all members of the National Indigenous Research and
Knowledges Network, saw an opportunity to collaborate with other Indigenous law
academics and legal service providers to conceptualise ICC in the context of legal education.
Purpose and rationale

It is widely recognised that Indigenous2 participation and outcomes in higher education are
well below parity levels. The Behrendt review (Department of Education and Training 2012:
8) identified that between 2005 and 2010 only 40.8% of Indigenous students commencing
degrees completed them during this time. Within Bachelor of Laws programs, Indigenous
student completion rates are alarmingly low. Data from the Department of Education show
that for Indigenous students commencing law degrees between 2003 and 2012 the
completion rate was only 26.53%. Although Universities Australia’s (2017: 25) Indigenous
strategy 2017–2020 reports significant growth in Indigenous student enrolments since the
Behrendt review, Indigenous student retention rates are still almost 10% less, and
Indigenous completion rates are 26% less than for other Australians.
Universities Australia’s (2011a) Guiding principles for developing Indigenous cultural

competency in Australian universities recommends (Recommendations 1 and 2) that
Indigenous knowledges and perspectives be embedded in all university curricula and that
ICC be included as a ‘formal graduate attribute or quality’. To achieve this goal the guiding
1
In particular, Recommendation 32, ‘that universities continue to develop and implement a range of strategies
to improve the cultural understanding and awareness of staff, students and researchers within their
institution, including the provision of cultural competency training’.
2
In this report we use the word ‘Indigenous’ as a collective proper noun to refer to the First Peoples of
Australia. We acknowledge that this term is not universally accepted, and that using specific names for the
distinct First Nations of country, such as is Gomeroi and Larrakia, is preferable. Others prefer the use of
‘Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders’. While ‘Indigenous’ serves as useful shorthand in this report, it is not an
ideal term.
Indigenous Cultural Competency for Legal Academics Program 1

principles recognise the need for ‘training teaching staff in Indigenous pedagogy for
teaching Indigenous Studies and students effectively, including developing appropriate
content and learning resources, teaching strategies and assessment methods’
(Recommendation 4). The Behrendt review (p. 96) endorses Universities Australia’s cultural
competency project and recommends the inclusion of ICC as part of developing ‘quality
teaching’ of Indigenous perspectives and to support an Indigenous graduate attribute.
Despite these recommendations Universities Australia (2011a: 29) identifies only one pilot
program for ICC in law, and the Behrendt review (pp. 97–98) found only two pilot projects
to embed ICC in law.3 Rodgers-Falk (2011: 1–3) suggests factors contributing to low
completion rates for Indigenous law students, including the culture of law schools and the
nature of legal curriculum. While there was also evidence that some law schools had begun
to respond to the recommendations to incorporate ICC into curriculum (Anthony 2011;
Burns 2013; Wood 2013), and that steps were being taken to introduce ICC in legal practice
(Kelly et al. 2013), there was a lack of discipline specific knowledge to implement ICC within
legal education. Therefore the need for a broader disciplinary approach to embedding ICC in
law curriculum became apparent. The project was designed to meet this evident gap in legal
education.
Universities Australia’s Indigenous strategy 2017–2020 recommends developing ICC for

senior staff and that universities increase the ‘cultural capabilities of graduates’. To this end
Universities Australia (2017: 30) recommends that:
By 2020, universities commit to have plans for, or have already in place, processes that
ensure all students will encounter and engage with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
cultural content as integral parts of their course of study.
This will give all Australian university graduates in the future the chance to develop
their capabilities to work with and for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and
communities.
Importantly Universities Australia’s Indigenous strategy recognises that Indigenous higher

education needs to become ‘core business’ in universities. The project team supports this
view, with this report outlining some strategies towards making Indigenous education core
business in the discipline of law.
3
These programs were Edith Cowan University’s cultural competency project, which included introducing units
on ICC into law and psychology, and University of Newcastle’s project on cultural competency in business and
law.

Aim of the project
The broad aim of the project was to support the inclusion of ICC in legal education with a
view to improving Indigenous student outcomes in law, and also building ICC in all students.
Universities Australia (2011a: 3) defines ICC as:
Student and staff knowledge and understanding of Indigenous Australian cultures,
histories and contemporary realities and awareness of Indigenous protocols, combined
with the proficiency to engage and work effectively in Indigenous contexts congruent to
the expectations of Indigenous Australian peoples… Cultural competence includes the
ability to critically reflect on one’s own culture and professional paradigms in order to
understand its cultural limitations and effect positive change.
An important step towards achieving this goal is to enhance legal academics’ knowledge and
understanding of the relationship between Indigenous peoples and the Anglo-Australian
legal system and build the capacity of legal academics to incorporate ICC into law curricula.
The project’s objectives were to:
• consult with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal services, key stakeholders and
legal academics to identify knowledge gaps and professional development needs for
incorporating ICC in law curricula
• develop guiding principles for embedding ICC in legal education, a professional
development module and set of resources available online to assist legal academics in
implementing ICC in law curricula
• present the ICCLAP principles, professional development module and resources at four
pilot workshops for legal academics
• establish a community of practice of legal academics to support the embedding of ICC
in legal education through a consultation process and workshops.
Our vision was to foster a cohort of cultural competent legal academics to support the
inclusion of ICC in legal education, in partnership with Indigenous academics and legal
service providers. The aim in doing so is to create culturally safe work and learning spaces
for Indigenous peoples in higher education, and improve legal services for Indigenous
communities in the long term.

Project approach and methodology
The project’s approach was informed by Indigenous knowledges which emphasise
‘relatedness’ as a core principle of Indigenous ways of knowing, being and doing (Martin
2008). The concept of ‘relatedness’ informed the project in three ways. Firstly, the project
team recognised the need to build ‘relatedness’ with key stakeholders through the
establishment of reference groups and a consultation process. Key stakeholders for the
project were identified as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services (ATSILS),
Council of Australian Law Deans (CALD), Law Council of Australia, Universities Australia,
National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Higher Education Consortium, Australasian
Law Teachers Association (ALTA), legal professional bodies, Indigenous judicial officers,
Indigenous lawyers associations and Indigenous and non-Indigenous legal academics.
Secondly, ICCLAP is informed by the need to generate a better understanding amongst legal
academics of the relationship between Anglo-Australian and Indigenous legal systems.
Thirdly, the concept of ‘relatedness’ guided the project’s objective of providing legal
academics with the knowledge and skills needed to create inclusive learning environments
for Indigenous students, and build ICC in all students.
‘Relatedness’ was central to the iterative approach adopted throughout the project to
enable legal academics and key stakeholders to develop a shared language and vision
around the project aims and objectives, and to involve potential users in the design of
ICCLAP to promote implementation and embedding (Southwell et al. 2005: 20).
Fundamental to the project’s approach is the understanding that Indigenous knowledges

and cultures are diverse. This understanding guided the project’s methodology which
recognised that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to embedding ICC in legal education –
each university exists within different Indigenous nations and must respond to its local
context. For this reason the project set out to develop guiding principles for embedding ICC
in legal education, rather than a model curriculum. The project adopted Nakata’s (2002)
view that Indigenous knowledges are not limited to ‘cultural’ knowledge and also include
knowledge of racism, colonialism and knowledges that are generated in response to
external pressures, both positive and negative, at the ‘cultural interface’.

Research process
An iterative approach was adopted in developing ICCLAP as this was crucial to building a
community of culturally competent legal academics, with dissemination viewed as ongoing
throughout the life of the project (Southwell et al. 2005: 6). The project’s activities were
designed to engage legal academics and professionals at each stage to ensure that ICCLAP
reflected the views of key stakeholders, promoting adoption and adaption (McKenzie et al.
2005: 121–126; Southwell et al. 2005: 20–24). The iterative approach also enabled the
ICCLAP team to respond to emerging issues and review activities in response to stakeholder
feedback. Explanations for changes to the research process and how the project adapted to
new information and circumstances is set out below.
The research process adopted principles of ‘relatedness’ in designing the project activities
and engaging with stakeholders. The key activities for the project included:
• establishing national and local reference groups with representatives from key
stakeholders groups to oversee the project and provide advice and feedback on
project plans, communication and evaluation strategies
• background research to assess the ‘climate of readiness’ for the project and to inform
engagement strategies with stakeholders and potential adopters (Hinton et al. 2001:
9, 13)
• a two-day consultation workshop to discuss what ICC means in the context of legal
education and to inform the development of guiding principles and resources to assist
academics embed ICC in curriculum
• four pilot workshops for legal academics (As the project progressed this was changed
to one major workshop, because the deliberative democracy process used for this
workshop was more resource intensive than original budget allowed for. A variation to
the grant conditions was approved by the funding body to allow project funds to be
redirected to one major workshop event).
• refining the ICCLAP materials in response to evaluation and feedback
• disseminating the ICCLAP findings through peak industry bodies, publications,
conference presentations and relevant websites.
The workshops were instrumental in establishing relatedness and developing a shared vision
and commitment to the project’s goals across a range of stakeholders – Indigenous and non-
Indigenous, academic and professional staff, the legal profession and the academy.
Although originally intended for legal academics, the participation of staff from Indigenous
support units, government legal offices and international academics, added a broader range
of perspectives to the workshop deliberations.

Project management
The project was conducted from January 2016 to April 2018, including an extension of three
months to consolidate project outcomes and measure its impact. ICCLAP was based at
University of New England, with a part-time project officer employed to perform the day-to-
day management of project activities and finances, supervised by the project leader.
Management of the project was also overseen by the project team, which held monthly
meetings. The reference groups met bi-annually during the life of the project, with these
meetings enabling feedback to be incorporated into project plans and activities. The
independent evaluators also provided advice on key aspects of the project and evaluation.
Project funding
The project was initially funded in December 2014, with Queensland University of
Technology as the lead institution. However with the relocation of the project leader to
University of New England in May 2015, both universities entered a subcontract for
University of New England to perform the substantive obligations under the funding
agreement. This contract took some months to negotiate, so the grants funds were not
available to the project team until late 2015. The original project timelines were extended
by 12 months to cover this change in circumstances.
Funding was critical to achieving the project’s objectives, particularly in providing resources
to support the ICCLAP workshops. As consultation with key stakeholders was integral to the
project’s design, this funding enabled the participation of a diverse range of organisations
(including ATSILS), and a broad representation of Indigenous nations. The funding also
enabled the project team and reference groups, dispersed across five states, to hold face-to-
face meetings at critical stages of the project. A part-time project officer and research
assistant were employed to support the project. The independent evaluators, and their
attendance at the workshops, was also covered by project funding.

Project evaluation
Evaluation of the project had two aspects. The first aspect was to evaluate the academic
workshops, which was carried out by the project team in conjunction with the deliberative
democracy facilitators. The second aspect was the appointment of two independent
evaluators of international standing to conduct an external evaluation of the project.
The independent evaluators for the project were Professor Bradford W. Morse, Dean of
Law, Thompson Rivers University, British Colombia, Canada; and Associate Professor Linda
Te Aho, Te Piringa, Faculty of Law, University of Waikato, Aotearoa (New Zealand).
The independent evaluation focused on measuring whether the project had achieved what
it had set out to do. The key evaluation questions were:
• What processes were planned and what were actually put in place for the project?
• Were there any variations from the processes that were initially proposed and, if so,
why?
• How might the project be improved if it is continued?
• What were the observable short-term outcomes?
• To what extent have the intended outcomes been achieved?
• Were there any unintended outcomes?
• What factors helped and hindered in the achievement of the outcomes?
• What measures, if any, have been put in place to promote sustainability of the
project’s focus and outcomes?
• What lessons have been learned from this project and how might these be of
assistance to other institutions?
The independent evaluation of the project was overwhelming positive, finding that the
project was successful in creating a community of legal academics committed to
incorporating ICC in law curricula and articulating key principles and action points for
embedding ICC in legal education (Te Aho & Morse 2018: 5). An important finding was that
key stakeholders saw the project as ‘highly necessary’, and therefore valued the opportunity
to work with the ICCLAP team to develop strategies on how to achieve the project’s aims (Te
Aho & Morse 2018: 7).
The evaluation found that, if anything, more time was needed for workshop participants to
engage with the topics and with each other (Te Aho & Morse 2018: 13). It also reported
that, ‘A positive outcome not explicitly intended was the cathartic and liberating sharing of
experiences, articulation of frustration, and in some cases, grievances, regarding the
invisibility and marginalisation of Indigenous laws and values in legal education. This proved
to be therapeutic for many participants’ (Te Aho & Morse 2018: 14). These findings
demonstrate the commitment of workshop participants to the ICCLAP aims and objectives,
and the importance they attribute to embedding ICC in law curricula.

2 Literature review
Teaching and learning projects in law
A review of teaching and learning projects in law revealed an awareness of low numbers of
Indigenous law students and high attrition rates amongst this cohort;4 however, there are
limited strategies to address this issue. The Learning and Teaching in the Discipline of Law:
Achieving and Sustaining Excellence in a Changed and Changing Environment identified a
number of factors contributing to high Indigenous attrition rates including ‘cultural clash’
and ‘perception by Indigenous people that law schools are not places for them’ (Davis &
Owen; 32). Although the report noted that law schools need to accommodate diverse
student needs, and that some schools included Indigenous perspectives in their graduate
attributes (Davis & Owen; 51, 56), no direct correlation was made between Indigenous
completion rates and curriculum.
Teaching and learning projects in law have recognised the importance of including generic
cultural awareness and cultural competency in curriculum to support global legal practice
(Bentley & Squelch 2012: 168), clinical legal education programs (Evans et al. 2013: 14), and
to enhance the capstone experience (Kift et al. 2013: 12, 51). For global practice cultural
awareness is defined as understanding different legal systems, traditions and cultures, and
cultural values including Indigenous rights (Bentley & Squelch 2012: 168–172). In clinical
legal education the challenge of dealing with clients from diverse backgrounds requires
‘exposure to multiple perspectives, including Indigenous perspectives’ (Evans et al. 2013:
14). The Curriculum Renewal in Legal Education project examined ways to improve the
capstone experience for law students, including enhancing students’ capacity to ‘engage
with diversity’ through teaching cultural competency skills (Kift et al. 2013: 12, 51). The
project recognised that law schools can contribute to building cultural competency in
students ‘by acting as role models and promoting diversity in the law school community’
and ‘developing curriculum that is inclusive of all students’ (Kift et al. 2013: 51, 52).
The Bachelor of Laws: learning and teaching academic standards statement also recognises
the potential for inclusion of Indigenous perspectives in legal curricula, stating that ‘[a]s a
discipline, law is informed by many perspectives (including Indigenous perspectives) and is
shaped by the broader contexts in which legal issues arise’ (Australian Learning and
Teaching Council 2010: 8). Although the standards have been criticised for their ‘silence’ on
Indigenous issues, and the absence of Indigenous knowledges and law (Rodgers-Falk 2011:
15–19; Watson & Burns 2015: 41–42), it is the contention of the project team that there is
substantial scope within the threshold learning outcomes to include Indigenous knowledges
and ICC within this framework. It is further contended that the inclusion of Indigenous
knowledges in legal education is essential to shifting unequal power relationships between
First Peoples and the Anglo-Australian legal system, and offer students the opportunity to
‘critically reflect on one’s own culture and professional paradigms in order to understand its
cultural limitations and effect positive change’ (Universities Australia 2011a: 9).
4
Gary Davis and Susanne Owen, in their report Learning and teaching in the discipline of law: achieving and
sustaining excellence in a changed and changing environment (2009: 19), say that in 2006–2007 Indigenous
students represented 1.5% of all law students, with attrition rates of 75%.

Indigenous teaching and learning projects
There have been a number of Indigenous teaching and learning projects with the primary
objective of improving Indigenous student outcomes and building ICC in all students. The
Can’t Be What You Don’t See project affirmed that ICC is fundamental to achieving a whole-
of-university approach to supporting Indigenous student success, and to shift the paradigm
of Indigenous ‘deficit’ and move towards Indigenous excellence (Kinnane et al. 2014: 3–8).
Developing ICC in staff is also necessary to support the embedding of Indigenous
knowledges in curriculum as a step towards building ICC in all students, and improving the
capacity of universities to engage with Indigenous communities (Kinnane et al. 2014: 59,
71). Importantly the project noted that the inclusion of Indigenous knowledges needs to be
‘properly integrated with meaning, purpose, perspective and context’ (Kinnane et al. 2014:
71), signalling the need for discipline specific approaches to embedding ICC.
Indigenous learning and teaching projects also expressed concerns about how ICC is
currently conceptualised and taught. Some have rejected the ICC terminology, preferring
‘inter-cultural capabilities’ (Nobin et al. 2013: 55), or ‘cultural responsiveness’ (McCluskey &
Felton 2015: 15), as better reflecting the ‘cultural interface’ (Nakata 2002) that occurs in
cross-cultural relationships. More recently ‘cultural empathy’ is used to mark a shift away
from knowledge-based approaches to ICC (Wain 2013: 10). The Creating Cultural Empathy
project criticised knowledge-based ICC training on a number of grounds, including:
• assuming that Indigenous cultures are static and homogenous
• assuming that competence is an achievable endpoint
• stereotyping by ‘using broad population-level data or knowledge-based information’
• a focus on cultural difference ‘obscures structural power imbalances’
• disempowering Indigenous people by labelling a population as disadvantaged (Wain
2010).
Other projects have questioned whether cultural ‘competency’ is attainable (McCluskey &
Felton 2015: 13), stressing the need for ICC to be ongoing (Kinnane et al. 2014: 71), and
recognising that ICC is a journey, not a destination (Ranzin et al. 2008: 19).

Pedagogical approaches
Indigenous learning and teaching projects articulate some key pedagogical principles to
address the problematics of ICC they describe. These principles are summarised as:
 critical self-reflection upon one’s own culture and profession, including how culture
influences identity and worldview (Nobin et al. 2013: 56)
 challenging assumptions, stereotypes and awareness of unconscious bias (McCluskey
& Felton 2015: 13; Wain 2013: 10)
 privileging Indigenous knowledges and voices (Mooney et al. 2017: 19; Nobin et al.
2013: 39; Turnbull 2014: 13; Wain 2013: 5)
 local-place-based community engagement (Bartleet 2014: 110)
 two-ways learning approaches (Dickson 2014: 6)
 use of Indigenous narratives to privilege Indigenous knowledges and expertise
(Mooney 2017: 18–19; Wain 2013: 10–11).
Indigenous teaching and learning projects have generated a significant discourse on ICC
which highlights the complexities involved in programs to develop intercultural awareness
and skills to work with Indigenous peoples. These ICCLAP literature review found similar
issues (as discussed below).
Indigenous cultural competency literature review
ICC in legal education

At the commencement of this project there was little evidence to show that ICC had been
incorporated into Bachelor of Laws programs. Outside of some minimal inclusion of
Indigenous knowledges within the Priestley 11,5 further engagement with Indigenous
knowledges was ‘largely limited to later year electives’ (Wood 2013: 63). The need to build
ICC in legal academics and lawyers working for legal aid was recognised (Burns 2013; Kelly et
al. 2013). Developing ‘cultural awareness’ in the teaching of criminal law has been explored
(Anthony 2011; Anthony & Schwartz 2013), together with the embedding of ‘Indigenous
perspectives’ in a range of subjects including administrative law, property, business,
foundational units and environmental resources law respectively (Graham 2009; Loban
2011; Meyers 2008; Reilly 2009). While offering good examples of how Indigenous
perspectives can be incorporated into legal education, they mostly predate the current
move towards embedding ICC in curricula.
5
Prescribed areas of legal knowledge that are required for admission as a legal practitioner; see Legal
Profession Uniform Admission Rules, Legal Professional Uniform Law, Schedule 1.

A few notable contributions have been added to the literature on ICC and law. Charles Sturt
University’s approach to embedding ICC is outlined by Browne, who notes, ‘presently there
is very little Indigenous content and even less community Elders’ perspectives addressing
histories, challenges and cultural requirements’ in legal education (Browne 2016: 51). An
example of teaching ICC in torts is discussed by Gerard, Gainsford and Bailey (2017). The
University of Newcastle’s strategies for Indigenising law curriculum are examined by
Maguire and Young (2015), offering approaches for embedding ICC. The appropriateness of
ICC is questioned by Hamman (2017), who argues that ‘cultural humility’ is a more
transformative learning framework, and that self-reflective, lifelong learning is needed.
Critiques of ICC
The literature warns that ICC may perpetuate stereotypes where they focus on knowledge
about Indigenous culture, constituting a form of ‘essentialism’ (Hollingsworth 2013; Wendt
& Gone 2011). Another concern is that ICC may lead to ‘othering’ of Indigenous peoples,
thus representing a ‘new racism’ (Pon 2009). This may create a (false) sense of security for
workers who are anxious about dealing with ‘others’ or frightened of being perceived as
racist (Hollingsworth 2013: 1051). In the context of internationalisation of curriculum,
engagement with local Indigenous knowledges is seen as a prerequisite to becoming a
global citizen (Goerke & Kickett 2013: 67). However globalisation may also essentialise
Indigenous culture if it does not acknowledge its ‘place-based and localized nature’ (Goerke
& Kickett 2013: 67). These concerns underscore the need for distinct graduate attributes on
intercultural competency and ICC (Goerke & Kickett 2013: 68).
Another potential problem is that ICC may unwittingly recentre ‘whiteness’ as the normative
standard against which ‘the other’ is measured, creating the impression that learning a
group’s history is enough, ‘with little need to strive for social justice’ (Fisher-Borne et al.
2013). Without considerations of power, ICC may also overlook how knowledge about
cultural others is produced through discourses that uphold whiteness as the ‘default
standard’ (Pon 2009: 59). It is also stressed that training must ‘acknowledge the
social/cultural values which privilege certain groups (i.e., white people)’ (Fisher-Borne et al.
2013). Therefore ‘grappling with racism and colonialism’ are seen to be more important
than ICC (Pon 2009: 59). ‘Cultural humility’ also ‘challenges us to ask difficult questions’,
rather than reducing Indigenous peoples to a set of perceived cultural norms (Fisher-Borne
et al. 2013).

ICC can also be problematic when it creates ‘knowers’, rather than ‘learners’, with the risk
that individuals assuming cultural knowledge may lead to paternalism (Goerke & Kickett
2013: 66). As McLaughlin (2013) states, if ICC is just about the dominant group getting
knowledge then it is a problem: to become culturally competent requires ongoing
engagement with Indigenous peoples and perspectives ‘to jar you out of your default
position.’ The tendency has led several commentators to stress the need for ICC to be seen
as a continuum of learning (Fisher-Borne et al. 2013; Goerke & Kickett 2013: 66;
Hollingsworth 2013: 1052; Lopez 2008: 46; McLaughlin 2013: 260; Pon 2009: 71).
These critiques of ICC echoed discussions at the Consultation Workshop, and highlighted the
need for an innovative approach to build ICC in legal academics. The ICCLAP team concurs
with these critiques however have continued to use ICC terminology as it was already bolted
into the project’s ‘branding’. Also noted is that the contested nature of the subject matter
makes it inevitable that hitherto accepted terminology may quickly fall out of favour.
Towards deliberative democracy

The shift from knowledge-based content to a process that actively built the capacity of
academics was seen as necessary to overcome the critiques of ICC. The ICCLAP team saw
this as an opportunity to try a novel approach for the academic workshop. A deliberative
democracy process was adopted because it is regarded as effective in engaging participants
in formulating policy and practices that are more likely to be implemented and sustained in
the long term, and emphasises a high degree of participation, ‘high quality discussion, and
co-operation’ (Hartz-Karp & Briand 2009). The norms of the process – inclusivity, open-
mindedness, reflectiveness and informed decision making – were compatible with ICCLAP’s
approach of engaging potential adopters to encourage implementation (Orr & Levy 2016:
22–23). The project team recognised that the participation of a critical mass of Indigenous
legal academics and professionals was essential to achieving these objectives and ensuring
that Indigenous knowledges were centred and reflected in the process and outcomes.

3 Project activities
Background research for the project commenced with a literature review of ICC conducted
in early 2016. The key findings from the literature review are discussed in chapter 2. The full
ICCLAP literature review is available at the ICCLAP website. A desktop survey of law schools
was also carried out; however, the project team found that the information sought was not
always available, or was sometimes incomplete, so an online law school survey was
conducted in July 2017 to gain a more complete picture. The survey was also designed to
raise awareness of ICCLAP amongst CALD members. Key findings from the survey are
discussed in chapter 4. The ICCLAP law school survey report (2017) is available at the ICCLAP
website. Other relevant reports are listed at Appendix C.
The ICCLAP Consultation Workshop was held in September 2016, bringing together key
stakeholders to discuss what ICC means in the context of legal education and how law
schools can be more responsive to the needs of Indigenous peoples. Over 25 people
participated in the workshop including representatives from ATSILS (3), CALD (2), ALTA (1),
National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Higher Education Consortium (1), judicial
officers (1) and Indigenous (12) and non-Indigenous legal academics (7), with some
participants belonging to more than one stakeholder group. The high representation of
Indigenous participants (70%) ensured that Indigenous knowledges and expertise were
centred in the discussions. The key findings from the workshop are set out in chapter 4. The
ICCLAP Consultation Workshop report (2016) is available at the ICCLAP website.
A survey of Indigenous law students was conducted at the recommendation of the national
reference group between December 2016 and February 2017. The response to the survey
was very low, with only 14 students completing the survey,6 therefore the data collected
does not provide a representative sample of student views. Upon reflection the timing of
the survey and the reliance on Indigenous support units to distribute the survey at a busy
time of year were factors that may have contributed to the low response. The project did
not have sufficient time or resources to try alternative research methods to gain student
perspectives (e.g. focus groups).
The Indigenous Cultural Competency in Law: Deliberating Future Directions Workshop was
held in September 2017, providing a forum for legal academics and key stakeholders to
develop guiding principles and actions for the inclusion of ICC in legal education. A total of
52 people participated in the workshop, representing 26 out of the 39 universities with law
programs. The workshop also attracted staff from Indigenous support units, lawyers from
government organisations, and academics from Aoteoroa (New Zealand). Presentations
from leading Indigenous lawyers and academics were featured at the workshop, helping to
stimulate reflection and guide discussion. A strong Indigenous presence at the workshop,
with Indigenous peoples constituting 34% of participants, which was crucial to creating an
environment where Indigenous voices were privileged and heard, influencing the guiding
principles and strategies to promote ICC moving forward. Pre-reading for the workshop
included the ICCLAP Consultation Workshop report and a seminal article from Nicole Watson
6
Data from the Law School Survey showed that there are at least 233 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander law
students.

(2005) on racism in legal education. Feedback on the workshop was very positive, with
participants stating that the workshop met or exceeded their initial expectations, and that
the workshop outcomes were likely to be acted on in the future. The barriers and
constraints, critical success factors, guiding principles and strategies to incorporate ICC in
curricula are set out in the key findings in chapter 4. The Indigenous Cultural Competency in
Law: Deliberating Future Directions Workshop final participant report (2017) is available at
the ICCLAP website.
ICCLAP activities and publications were promoted through the project’s email contact list
and in newsletters during the early stages of the project. Following the establishment of the
ICCLAP website in June 2017, information about ICCLAP events and news has been posted
to the website, and email updates distributed to contacts. The ICCLAP website provides a
platform for dissemination of the project reports and resources, and a focal point to support
an emerging community of practice, through the sharing of information and ideas on the
Q&A forum, bibliography of resources, and dissemination of news and events on ICC.
The ICCLAP team have also disseminated information about the project at key Indigenous
law and legal education conferences including:
 National Indigenous Legal Conferences 2016 and 2017
 Australasian Law Teachers Association Conferences 2017 and 2018
 Association of Continuing Legal Education, 53rd Annual Meeting, 2017
 Public Law in the Classroom Workshop 2018, University of New South Wales
 Law and Society Association-Canadian Law and Society Association Conference 2018.
Presentations on ICCLAP have been made to peak industry bodies including CALD (March
2017 and July 2018), and the NSW Judicial Commission (December 2016). A full list of
conference presentations and seminars is attached at Appendix D.
The project team have initiated a special edition of the Legal Education Review on ICC and
law, which is scheduled for publication early in 2019. This special edition will feature articles
from the project team, Indigenous experts from the Future Directions Workshop, and
practical examples of how ICC has been incorporated into law curricula, providing further
resources for academics to support the embedding of ICC.

4 Key findings and recommendations
The state of ICC in legal education
The ICCLAP Law School Survey was conducted to ascertain the level of inclusion of ICC in law
programs as of 30 July 2017. The survey was completed by 20 out of 39 law schools (51%).
To an extent the survey depended on respondents having some prior knowledge of what
ICC means, which itself is a term open to interpretation. The ICCLAP Law School Survey
report is available at the ICCLAP website and the key findings of the survey are as follows:
Figure 1: ICC in Law Programs
University/school supports inclusion of ICC 18
ICC in graduate outcomes 2
ICC in course learning outcomes 6
ICC in core units 10
ICC in elective units 13
Access to support to embed ICC 14
0 5 10 15 20
Law schools reported that where ICC was included in core curriculum it was mostly taught in
property, constitutional law, criminal law and procedure, and foundational law units. ICC
was also included in elective units on Indigenous peoples and the law, family and children’s
law, criminal law, human rights and law/society/culture units.
Law schools were asked to report the numbers of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
students and staff. The responses showed that there are 233 Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander undergraduate students and 25 postgraduate students across 10 law schools (some
schools did not provide data). There are 11 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander academics
employed at nine universities that completed the survey.
This survey shows that although only a small proportion of law schools include ICC as a
graduate attribute or course learning outcome, a significant number of schools are already
taking steps to incorporate ICC into their programs. Given the response rates, the results
suggest there is significant scope to improve the inclusion of ICC in law curricula. For almost
50% of law schools there is no data available.

What does ICC mean in the context of legal education?
The ICCLAP workshops provided a platform to explore the question of what ICC means in
the context of legal education, identify barriers and constraints to incorporating ICC,
formulate guiding principles with respect to pedagogy and curriculum, and identify
resources needed to support this work. The following findings represent a synthesis of
information gathered at both the Consultation and Future Directions workshops, and in
many ways reflect the literature on ICC.
The Consultation Workshop examined key issues relating to ICC and legal education.
Concerns were raised about whether ‘competency’ is the appropriate terminology to be
used due to the impossibility of becoming fully ‘competent’ in a culture different to one’s
own. Accreditation of ICC was viewed as problematic because it may create a false sense of
legitimacy and implies a level of knowledge that could be used to the detriment of
Aboriginal people (e.g. by misrepresenting Aboriginal culture, or stereotyping Aboriginal
people). Alternatives such as ‘cultural humility’, ‘cultural inclusion’ and ‘cultural intelligence’
were discussed. Despite the terminology employed however, there was broad support for
legal education to be more inclusive of Indigenous knowledges and law, and communication
skills for working with Indigenous peoples. A number of key principles were identified as
essential to promoting ICC in legal curricula, including:
• understanding that culture is impacting on every communication at some level
• engaging respectfully with Indigenous peoples in legal spaces
• appreciating Indigenous diversity to avoid stereotyping
• actively seeking the views of Aboriginal peoples and communities, rather than
assuming a level of understanding and imposing that view.
In this context cultural competency is primarily about fostering meaningful cross-cultural

dialogue, with the process being more important than the nomenclature. There was also a
strong perception that legal academics do not necessarily view Aboriginal legal systems as
equal, leading to the marginalisation of Indigenous law in legal education. Therefore an
emphasis on legal pluralism and the need to ‘disrupt’ the culture of Anglo-Australian law
were seen as important for developing ICC.
Views of Indigenous legal service providers

ATSILS expressed a strong desire to be able to employ Indigenous lawyers, seeing this as
essential to providing culturally appropriate legal services. Pathways for Indigenous students
and graduates to enter these services are needed to achieve this goal. It was also
acknowledged that Indigenous graduates may choose to pursue careers outside the
community sector, so there is also a need to build the capacity of non-Indigenous lawyers to
do this work. In the view of ATSILS, there were a number of areas where non-Indigenous
lawyers lacked capacity to work with Indigenous communities, with one participant stating,
‘It’s such a chasm between these people and the clients that they are serving’.
Key areas requiring attention were: a lack of knowledge of Aboriginal societies and
connection to community; the need to understand Aboriginal decision making and dispute
resolution processes; the ability to take instructions from communities rather than
individuals; and the ‘perverse adversarialism’ of the Anglo-Australian legal system which is a

major barrier to building effective working relationships. Work-integrated learning programs
were identified as valuable to developing cross-cultural understanding. While this is just a
snapshot of key issues identified by ATSILS and other legal service providers, their views are
also reflected in the key findings on pedagogy, curriculum and Indigenous knowledges
below.
Indigenous students experiences of law schools

With the presence of a number of Indigenous lawyers at the workshops, discussion
inevitably turned to their experiences of legal education. Key concerns highlighted were: the
inability of academics to provide culturally safe learning environments for Indigenous
students, especially during class discussions on Indigenous legal issues; and Indigenous
students being ‘put on the spot’ in class and looked upon as an authority on everything
Indigenous. Work placements were sometimes seen as tokenistic with minimal learning
outcomes for students. Indigenous support units were reported to provide culturally safe
spaces for Indigenous students. International study tours were highlighted as positive
experiences, enabling students to build solidarity with Indigenous peoples globally. The
need for further research to ascertain if there has been a shift in Indigenous student
experiences of alienation and racism, as reported by Douglas (2001) and Rodgers-Falk
(2011), was also identified.
Indigenous legal academics

The employment of Indigenous academics in law schools was highlighted as essential to
effectively teaching ICC in curriculum. However the low numbers of Indigenous legal
academics, the isolation they often feel working ‘one-out’ in a law school and the need to
ensure culturally safe work environments are critical factors that must be addressed to
achieve this goal. Indigenous academics also reported experiencing ‘push back’ from
students when teaching Indigenous content, carrying the burden of challenging entrenched
attitudes. Stereotyping of Indigenous academics should also be avoided — they should not
be pigeon-holed into teaching only Indigenous content.
Indigenous legal academics also make valuable contributions to universities, providing

advice, expertise and mentoring to non-Indigenous staff, which must be acknowledged.
However this contribution can also be undermined, with Indigenous academics commonly
employed at lower academic levels, feeling that their voices are not always heard and
respected, and the need to prove themselves. The high potential for burnout was also
raised. Recruitment and retention of Indigenous academics should be a priority, with
appropriate support mechanisms in place.

Barriers and constraints to embedding ICC in law
Participants at the workshops noted a number of barriers and constraints to the effective
implementation of ICC, drawing on their experiences at a number of universities and law
schools. These barriers and constraints are set out in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Barriers and constraints to embedding ICC.

University Law Schools
A perception that ICC is not core business to the Stubborn adherence to established law curriculum
neo-liberal economic order. and a reluctance to change.
An institutional focus on commercial rather than A perception that ICC is antithetical to core
social justice outcomes. curriculum and not within the expertise of individual
lecturers.
Funding cuts to Indigenous academic units.
Racism, ignorance and tokenism – perception that
all law students share the same privileges.
Positioning ICC as an Indigenous issue for Indigenous

people to solve.
Change fatigue and concerns about workloads.
Need to change the culture of law schools.
A vision for ICC in legal education

The ICCLAP workshops were instrumental in articulating a vision for ICC in legal education.
In particular, the Future Directions Workshop identified what an ‘ideal’ curriculum looks
like, and factors to measure the successful implementation of ICC in law schools (both short
and long term). Key measures identified were:
• ICC is included in learning environment and pedagogical methods – co-designed with
Indigenous peoples.
• ICC improves student learning outcomes, increases Indigenous enrolment, retention
and completion rates in law programs.
• There is a supportive law school environment for Indigenous academics. There are
more Indigenous people working as academics in law schools, practising law and in
positions of influence.
• Indigenous community feels a sense of ownership of the curriculum and it is endorsed
and supported by Indigenous specialists/contributors.
• ICC permeates lawyering, leading to changes in the Anglo-Australian legal system and
better recognition of Indigenous law and sovereignty.

Critical success factors for embedding ICC in law
Factors critical to the successful implementation of ICC in legal education, both at the
institutional and school level, were discussed at the Consultation and Future Directions
workshops. These factors are set out in Table 2 below.
Table 2: Critical success factors for embedding ICC.

University Law Schools
University leadership fosters a culture where ICC is Strong leadership from Deans to ‘drive’ the
promoted and supported, including university-wide embedding of ICC and manage resistance.
Indigenous strategies.
University graduate attributes include ICC. Course learning outcomes include ICC.
Curriculum review processes include ICC. Review of curriculum to identify inclusion of ICC.
ICC part of key performance indicators for staff, Support for non-Indigenous academics to build their
selection and promotion criteria, and professional capacity to teach Indigenous content including
development programs. generic and role-specific training.
ICC is valued and adequately resourced to ensure its Access to Indigenous expertise to support
sustainability. embedding of ICC.
ICC must become core university business. Resources including workload allocations that allow
time to develop relationships with Indigenous
Engagement with Indigenous communities. communities.
Universities commit to ‘truth-telling’ in partnership ICC evaluated both internally and externally by
with Indigenous communities. Indigenous experts.
It was also recognised that both ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’ approaches are needed, as
incorporating ICC may be more genuine where it is ‘intrinsically motivated’. A common view
was that academics need to take responsibility to engage with Indigenous knowledges as
they relate to their teaching, and to see this as an opportunity to contribute to justice:
academics need to understand they have power to influence, and they should use it.

Guiding principles for embedding ICC in law
The ICCLAP workshops identified guiding principles for incorporating ICC into law
curriculum. These principles reflect core values and pedagogical approaches to guide the
embedding of ICC in law programs.
Table 3: Guiding principles for embedding ICC in law

Adopting a whole-of-curriculum approach – with ICC integrated and a staged approach
*
across the curriculum, with knowledge applied to practical experience.
Identifying relevant learning outcomes and meaningful assessment tasks to ensure

*
students achieve learning outcomes.
* Including Indigenous knowledges and ontological approaches in the curriculum.
Recognising that Indigenous knowledges are place-based, and the value of place-based
*
learning.
Engaging with Indigenous communities at the national, regional and local levels. There is a
need to build long term, mutually beneficial relationships with Indigenous communities,
*
and ensure that Indigenous peoples can contribute to decision making, staff training,
curriculum development and teaching (guest lectures).
Conceptualising the law program within a framework of legal pluralism, which recognises
*
Aboriginal legal systems and respect for diversity.
Building students critical thinking and self-reflection, including critical reflection upon the
presumed neutrality of law and legal positivism; the historical, social and cultural
*
contingency of what constitutes law and legal knowledge; and awareness of the inherent
biases in the Anglo-Australian legal system.
Enabling work-integrated learning with Indigenous communities and organisations,

providing transformative learning experiences that are effective in changing attitudes. Such
programs must be done ethically, ensure cultural safety and be adequately supported so as
*
not to create a burden on communities or organisations. Indigenous and non-Indigenous
‘peer-to-peer relationships’ are effective at building cultural understanding and promoting
two-way learning.
* Exploring potential for online learning and teaching of ICC.

Curriculum
The Consultation Workshop developed a list of the knowledge, attitudes and skills that need
to be embedded into law curriculum to foster ICC in students, including:
 Indigenous experiences of colonisation (both historical and ongoing)
 ‘lived experiences’ of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, including ongoing
forms of colonialism, racism and intergenerational trauma
 key principles of Aboriginal culture
 role of ‘legal actors’ in historical and ongoing systems of oppression
 communication skills including the ability to take instructions from Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander clients
 self-reflection on own culture, and understanding of cultural difference
 content in Priestley 11 relating to Indigenous peoples
 understanding the holistic needs of Indigenous clients – including legal, social,
economic and health.
Teaching methods may include historical and comparative (international and

interdisciplinary), values based (social justice or respect for diversity), critical race theory,
narrative, and trauma informed approaches.
The full list of knowledge, skills and attitudes for ICC in curriculum is included in the ICCLAP
Consultation Workshop report on the ICCLAP website, together with the knowledge, skills
and attitudes that academics need to embed ICC in curriculum.
Legal accreditation and academic standards include ICC

The workshops recognised that the ALTC and legal accreditation standards are strong
drivers of the content in law curriculum. Therefore changing these standards to include ICC
was seen as important to ensuring its incorporation into legal education. Participants
proposed that ICCLAP lobby relevant bodies to seek these changes, with the support of
CALD, ALTA, Australian Law Students Association, legal professional bodies and Indigenous
lawyers and student associations. The need to identify champions amongst prominent
members of the legal profession and judiciary to advocate for change was also recognised.
Inclusion of ICC in the Closing the Gap targets was discussed as another avenue to promote
ICC in law curricula.
Indigenous knowledges
While the inclusion of Indigenous knowledges in curriculum is seen as important, concerns
were expressed about the culturally appropriate use of Indigenous knowledges. A key issue
is understanding the differences between Western and Indigenous constructs of knowledge,
and the cultural specificity of legal knowledge. It needs to be acknowledged that Indigenous
knowledges are place-based, and may be subject to rules about who has access to
information that are at odds with Western knowledge and an ‘entitlement to know’. There
must be recognition that Elders and community members are the owners of Indigenous
knowledge and must be consulted if Indigenous knowledges are to be used. Remuneration
should be provided to Elders and Indigenous community members for their contributions to
curriculum, teaching and community engagement. Protocols for the use of Indigenous

knowledge are needed, including the culturally appropriate use of technology and media,7
and resources on appropriate terminology and language.
Another concern was the tendency for Indigenous issues to be framed negatively within
curriculum (e.g. high incarceration rates). While students need to understand the lived
experience of Indigenous peoples, it is equally important that Indigenous knowledges and
cultures are valued, and seen as holding the solutions, rather than simply being framed as
the other. Valuing Indigenous cultures is also necessary to transform ‘deficit’ thinking and
the framing of Aboriginal people as a problem or ‘special needs’ group, towards an
expectation that all Australians should be educated about the First Peoples of this country.
Resources and support

The need for resources to support the embedding of ICC and Indigenous knowledges in
curriculum was highlighted. In addition to the list above, workshop participants said that the
following resources would support efforts to incorporate ICC in curricula:
• textbooks and materials that include Indigenous cultural perspectives
• a clearinghouse to assist academics incorporate content in a culturally appropriate
manner. This could include:
o materials for Priestley 11 units including lesson plans, appropriate materials
and resource kits for key cases
o a guiding principles document on how to embed ICC in law curricula
o a module for foundation law units covering the doctrine of discovery,
historical encounter with English common law, and Indigenous ways of
knowing, being and doing
o a bibliography of Australian and international resources.
• a website to share information, resources and network

• an ongoing network or community of practice for academics and support staff
• ongoing professional development including workshops and conferences
• a special edition journal on ICC in law, with examples from academia and legal
practice.
7
For example, Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (2012).

Recommendations
The following recommendations are directed to practical measures that will ensure that the
aims of ICCLAP are implemented and sustained into the future:
1. Law schools adopt the guiding principles for the incorporation of ICC into curriculum, and
implement the embedding of ICC into law programs.
2. The Council of Australian Law Deans establish a working party to support the
incorporation of ICC in law curriculum, with members of the project team to provide
ongoing advice and guidance.
3. Law schools give priority to the recruitment and retention of Indigenous legal academics
to support the embedding of ICC in curriculum.
4. Law schools take measures to ensure the cultural safety of law schools to support
Indigenous academics and students.
5. The project team continue to develop the ICCLAP website to provide resources and
support for academics to implement ICC in law curriculum.
6. The project team investigate opportunities for ongoing collaboration with legal
academics and industry partners to support the embedding of ICC in law curricula.
7. The project team investigate funding to conduct research on the current experiences of
Indigenous law students to inform future approaches to embedding ICC in law curriculum
and providing culturally safe law school environments.
8. The project team continue to disseminate the project’s findings at key legal education
and Indigenous law conferences and contribute to ongoing professional developments
program to promote ICC in law.
9. The project team convene a working party to develop a strategy to lobby legal
admissions authorities and professional associations to include ICC in legal accreditation
and academic standards.

5 Impact of the project
The key activities of the project were successful in building a community of practice
committed to embedding ICC in legal education. The ICCLAP workshops were instrumental
in generating discussion about what ICC means in the context of legal education and
articulating a vision for ICC in law curricula. Feedback from the Future Directions Workshop
was very positive with 84% of participants reporting that the workshop outcomes are likely
to be acted upon. The workshop reports and video resources provide a rich source of
information for potential adopters of ICC in law.
The project has had an immediate impact for the project team, with ICC being adopted in
their law schools in a number of ways. The Australian National University and Queensland
University of Technology have established working groups on Indigenous curriculum. The
University of New England adopted ICC as a course learning outcome for the Bachelor of
Laws with implementation referred to the School’s Education Committee as part of the 2019
curriculum review. The University of Melbourne has a project to incorporate ICC in the law
school. The project team have also been invited to speak at a number of law schools which
indicates strong interest for embedding ICC in law curricula.
The ICCLAP website provides an ongoing platform for dissemination of resources, and a
focal point to support an emerging community of practice. Since June 2017 there have been
over 6500 visits to the ICCLAP website and 250 downloads of ICCLAP resources. The planned
special edition of the Legal Education Review on ICC in law is also likely to have an ongoing
impact as legal academics engage with this scholarship.
The project’s impact has extended beyond the intended audience of legal academics. The
NSW Department of Justice has identified ICCLAP as having the potential to assist law
schools implement best practice in terms of ICC training for academics and students.8 The
project has also attracted international interest, especially in response to the Truth and
Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s ‘Calls to Action’ to include Indigenous issues and
intercultural competency in legal education (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of
Canada 2015: 168). This interest has prompted invitations for the project leader to present
at two conferences in Canada, and academics from New Zealand attending the Future
Directions Workshop. While to some extent the impact of ICCLAP is difficult to determine at
this stage, there are promising signs that the project will have a significant influence on legal
education into the future.
8
See NSW Department of Justice (2016). This review was a response to a recommendation of the NSW
Legislative Council Standing Committee on Law and Justice report The family response to the murders in
Bowraville (November 2014) that the NSW Government request that all accredited universities include
‘cultural awareness’ as a compulsory element of legal training.

6 Factors in project success and progress
Critical success factors
The contributions of Indigenous lawyers and academics to the workshops were essential to
ensuring that Indigenous knowledges were privileged and heard, and able to influence
strategies to move the ICC work forward. The reference groups were essential to the
success of the project, acting as both critical and supportive friends with a wealth of
experience and expertise, plus enthusiasm for the ICCLAP vision. Funding to support the
participation of key stakeholders groups, especially ATSILS, and a wide representation of
Indigenous nations in the project, was crucial to the project’s success.
The iterative process adopted by the project was successful in building commitment to the
ICCLAP goals amongst key stakeholders and participants, and an important step towards
building a community of practice for ICC in legal education. This commitment is
demonstrated through the ongoing contributions of participants (and in particular the
Indigenous experts) to the upcoming special edition of the Legal Education Review. Some
outcomes, including future dissemination and publications, updating website resources,
monitoring the Q&A forum, and ongoing collaborations to implement the project’s
recommendations, requires the commitment of the project team and key stakeholders,
beyond the life of the project.
Factors impeding project progress

Some factors impeded the progress of the project, but not to the extent that the success of
the project was compromised. The delayed start to the project set back timelines as core
activities could not be commenced without access to funding. This was overcome by an
extension being granted by the OLT of 12 months.
The original budget did not include the costs of facilitating a deliberative democracy
process, or the technology needed to support this approach. This issue was overcome by
holding one major event, rather than four workshops, and was delivered cost-neutral.
Project timelines did not anticipate the lead time necessary to organise a major event
involving expert facilitators, and their availability meant that the workshop was held
relatively late in the project, reducing the time available to progress other outcomes. An
extension of three months for submission of the final project report was granted to
overcome these factors. The budget did not anticipate some of the resources identified as
desirable by participants, and therefore some resources could not be delivered within the
budget or timeframes available. The budget did not include the costs for development of a
website, however, with in-house expertise this was achieved.

References
Anthony T. (2011). ‘Embedding specific graduate attributes: cultural awareness and
indigenous perspectives’. In S. Kift, M. Sanson, J. Cowley & P. Watson (eds). Excellence and
innovation in legal education. Chatswood, NSW: LexisNexis, 137–169.
Anthony T. & Schwartz M. (2013). ‘Invoking cultural awareness through teaching Indigenous
issues in criminal law and procedure’. Legal Education Review, 23(1), 31–55.
Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies. (2012). Guidelines for
ethical research in Australian studies. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander Studies.
Australian Learning and Teaching Council. (2012). Bachelor of Laws: Learning and teaching
academics standards statement. Sydney: Australian Learning and Teaching Council.
Bartleet B-L., Bennett D., Power A. & Sunderland N. (2014). Enhancing Indigenous content in
arts curricula through service learning with Indigenous communities, final report. Canberra:
Australian Government, Office for Learning and Teaching.
Bentley D. & Squelch J. (2012). Internationalising the Australian law curriculum for enhanced
global legal practice, final report. Canberra: Australian Government, Office for Teaching and
Learning.
Browne K. (2016). ‘Rural lawyers and legal education: ruralising and Indigenous Australian
legal curricula’. Proceedings of 6th Annual International Conference on Education and E-
learning, Global Science & Technology Forum: Singapore, 50-59.
Burns M. (2013). ‘Towards growing indigenous culturally competent legal professionals in

Australia’. International Education Journal, 12(1), 226–248.
Davis G. & Owen S. (2009). Learning and teaching in the discipline of law: achieving and
sustaining excellence in a changed and changing environment. Chippendale: Australian
Learning and Teaching Council.
Department of Education and Training. (undated). Completion rates of Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander Students in Law 2003–2012, obtained by the project team (copy on file).
Unpublished: Australian Government.
Department of Education and Training. (2012). Review of higher education access and
outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People: final report. Canberra: Australian
Government.
Dickson M. (2014). Creating a collaborative learning community for Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander health promotion students – enhancing access, progression and learning in
higher education. Canberra: Australian Government, Office for Learning and Teaching.

Douglas H. (2001). ‘The participation of Indigenous Australians in legal education 1991–
2000’. University of New South Wales Law Journal, 24(2), 485–514.
Evans A., Cody A., Copeland A., Giddings J., Anne Noone M. & Rice S. et al. (2013).
Strengthening Australian legal education by integrating clinical experiences: identifying and
supporting effective practices, final report. Canberra: Australian Office for Learning and
Teaching.
Fisher-Borne M., Montana J. & Martin S. (2013). ‘From master to accountability: cultural
humility as an alternative to cultural competency’. International Education Journal:
Comparative Perspectives, 12(1).
Gerard A., Gainsford A. & Bailey K. (2017). ‘Embedding Indigenous cultural competency in a
Bachelor of Laws at the Centre for Law and Justice, Charles Sturt University: a case study’.
Paper presented to the Australian Academy of Law, Future of Legal Education Conference,
2017.
Goerke V. & Kickett M. (2013). ‘Working towards the assurance of graduate attributes for
Indigenous cultural competency: the case for alignment between policy, professional
development and curriculum processes’. International Education Journal: Comparative
Perspectives, 12(1), 61–81.
Graham N. (2009). ‘Indigenous property matters in real property courses at Australian

universities’. Legal Education Review, 19(1), 289–304.
Hamman E. (2017). ‘Culture, humility and the law: towards a more transformative teaching
framework’. Alternative Law Journal, 42(2), 156–161.
Hartz-Karp J. & Briand M.K. (2009). ‘Institutionalising deliberative democracy: theoretical

and practical challenges’. Australian Parliamentary Review, 24(1), 169–170.
Hinton T., Gannoway D., Berry B. & Moore K. (2011). The D-Cubed guide: planning for
effective dissemination. Sydney: Australian Teaching and Learning Council.
Hollingsworth D. (2013). ‘Forget cultural competency; ask for an autobiography’. Social

Work Education, 32(8), 1048–1060.
Kelly L., Barac A., Hawkins S. & Barlo S. (2013). ‘Legal practitioners working more effectively
with Aboriginal clients: promising new cultural competency training by Legal Aid NSW’.
Indigenous Law Bulletin, 8(5), 3–7.
Kift S., Butler D., Field R., McNamara J., Brown C. & Treloar C. (2013). Curriculum renewal in
legal education, final report. Canberra: Australian Government, Office for Learning and
Teaching.

Kinnane S., Wilks J., Wilson K., Hughes T. & Thomas S. (2014). Can’t be what you don’t see:
the transition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students into higher education, final
report. Canberra: Australian Government, Office for Learning and Teaching.
Loban H. (2011). ‘Embedding indigenous perspectives in business law’. e-Journal of Business

Education and Scholarship of Teaching, 5(2), 11–21.
Lopez A. (2008). ‘Making and breaking habits: teaching (and learning) cultural context, self-
awareness, and intercultural communication through case supervision in a client-service
legal clinic’. Journal of Law and Policy, 28(37), 37–68.
Maguire A. & Young T. (2015). ‘Indigenisation of curricula: current teaching practices in law’.
Legal Education Review, 25(1), 95–119.
Martin K. (2008). Please knock before you enter: Aboriginal regulation of outsiders and the
implications for researchers. Teneriffe, Qld: Post Pressed.
McLaughlin J. (2013). ‘Crack in the pavement’: pedagogy as political and moral practice for
educating culturally competent professionals’. The International Education Journal:
Comparative Perspectives, 12(1), 249–265.
Meyers G. (2008). ‘Two examples of incorporating Indigenous issues in law school curricula:
foundation year courses and electives in environmental/natural resources law’. Indigenous
Law Bulletin, 7(9), 6–8.
Mooney J., Riley L. & Howard-Wagner D. (2017). Indigenous online cultural teaching and
sharing: kinship project. Canberra: Australian Government, Office for Learning and Teaching.
Nakata M. (2002). ‘Indigenous knowledge and the cultural interface: underlying issues at the
intersection of knowledge and information systems’. IFLA Journal, 28(5/6), 281–282.
Nobin K., Frawley J., Jackson T., McGinty S., Watkin-Lui F & White N. (2013). Relationships
are key: building intercultural capabilities for Indigenous postgraduate coursework students
and their teachers. Canberra: Australian Government, Office for Learning and Teaching.
NSW Department of Justice. (2016). Departmental review of the delivery of Aboriginal

cultural awareness training to law students, practitioners and judicial officers. Sydney: NSW
Department of Justice.
Orr G. & Levy R. (2016). The law of deliberative democracy. London: Routledge.
Pon G. (2009). ‘Cultural competency as new racism: an ontology of forgetting’. Journal of

Progressive Human Services, 20(1), 59–71.
Ranzin R., Nolan W., McConnochie K., Hodgson L., Spurrier W. & Passmore G. (2008).
Dissemination strategies for incorporating Australian Indigenous content into psychology

undergraduate programs throughout Australia. Chippendale: Australian Learning and
Teaching Council.
Reilly A. (2009). ‘Finding an indigenous perspective in administrative law’. Legal Education

Review, 19(1), 271–287.
Rodgers-Falk P. (2011). Growing the number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander law
graduates: barriers to the profession. Canberra: Australian Government.
Southwell D., Gannoway D., Orrell J., Chalmers D. & Abraham C. (2005). Strategies for
effective dissemination of project outcomes. Chippendale: Australian Learning and Teaching
Council.
Te Aho L. & Morse B. (2018). ICCLAP final evaluation report. Available: www.icclap.edu.au.
Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. (2015). Honouring the truth: reconciling the
future: summary report of the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
Ottawa: Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada.
Turnbull M. (2014). Creating an accessible and effective pathway for regional and isolated
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to tertiary study using block-release study mode,
final report. Canberra: Australian Government, Office for Learning and Teaching.
Universities Australia. (2011a). Guiding principles for developing indigenous cultural

competency in Australian Universities. Canberra: Universities Australia.
Universities Australia. (2011b). National best practice framework for Indigenous cultural
competency in Australian universities. Canberra: Universities Australia.
Universities Australia. (2017). Indigenous strategy 2017–2020. Canberra: Universities

Australia.
Wain T. (2013). Creating cultural empathy and challenging attitudes through Indigenous
narratives, final report. Canberra: Australian Government, Office for Learning and Teaching.
Watson I. & Burns M. (2015). ‘Indigenous knowledges: a strategy for Indigenous peoples’
engagement in higher education’. In S. Varnham, P. Kamvounias & Squelch J. (eds). Higher
education and the law. Leichhardt, NSW: Federation Press.
Watson N. (2005). ‘Indigenous people in legal education: staring into a mirror without
reflection’. Indigenous Law Bulletin, 6(6), 4–7.
Wendt D.C. & Gone J.P. (2011). ‘Rethinking cultural competence: insights from Indigenous
community treatment settings’. Transcultural Psychiatry, 49(2), 206–222.
Wood A. (2013). ‘Incorporating Indigenous cultural competency through the broader law
curriculum’. Legal Education Review, 23(1-2), 57–81.

Appendix A
Certification by Deputy Vice-Chancellor (or equivalent)
I certify that all parts of the final report for this OLT grant provide an accurate
representation of the implementation, impact and findings of the project, and that the
report is of publishable quality.
cArdle................................ .........................................Date: 1/3/2019.
Michael McArdle
Director
Office of Research
Queensland University of Technology

Appendix B
Indigenous Cultural Competency for Legal

Academics Program (ICCLAP)
Final Evaluation Report

30 April 2018
Linda Te Aho, University of Waikato, Aotearoa New Zealand

Bradford Morse, Thomson Rivers University, Canada

Indigenous Law
Explanation of images on Cover Page

These images are taken from a set of drawings made by an unknown Māori artist between
1860 and 1890.1 They depict an act of muru, or traditional compensation for wrongdoing, in
the Waikato region, in central North Island of Aotearoa New Zealand, the homelands of one
of the independent evaluators for this project, Linda Te Aho.
The images provide an example of the application of Māori law that existed prior to British
settlement, known as tikanga. Like peoples throughout the world, our ancestors developed
their own unique theoretical tradition in order to explain the mysteries of the universe, and
to understand their place within it. This tradition embodied a philosophy of life that was both
reflected in and reflective of, their social norms and practices. Māori continued to develop
this tradition over time immemorial as they journeyed throughout the Pacific, and further
refined here in Aotearoa over many centuries. The body of law that developed enabled Māori
to provide the foundations for a code of behaviour that allowed them to survive and to thrive.
The Indigenous Cultural Competency for Legal Academics Program project aims to build the
capacity of legal academics to incorporate Indigenous cultural competency into their
individual courses and the overall curricula within Australian law schools in order to: (1)
improve higher education outcomes and (2) reduce Indigenous disadvantage. The project also
aims to demonstrate that: Indigenous laws both pre-exist the arrival of the common law and
continue to be a vital part of the Australian legal landscape deserving of respect; Indigenous
laws have value in their own right that can provide important beneficial input into Anglo-
Australian law, such as, for example, in the areas of traditional dispute resolution and
environmental sustainability; and that non-Indigenous law students and lawyers becoming
more culturally capable or fluent improves their capacity to interact with and advise
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander clients and lawyers far more effectively.
There are a number of ways that law schools may incorporate Indigenous cultural
competency. They may explore and explain:
1. The content of Indigenous legal systems and the laws and institutions which
comprise them;
2. Indigenous peoples’ opinions and critiques of Anglo-Australian law; and
3. The way in which Anglo-Australian laws impact the rights and interests of Indigenous
peoples and communities.
1
https://teara.govt.nz/en/zoomify/36522/an-act-of-muru-waikato

In the coming years, the Panel wants higher education to become a natural
pathway for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Success in higher
education will lay the foundations for an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
professional class that can contribute to closing the gap and to Australia’s
broader wellbeing and economic prosperity. The Panel also wants to see more
high-quality Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander researchers in universities and
research agencies contributing to a national research agenda that values
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander perspectives and reflects Indigenous
development priorities.
REVIEW OF HIGHER EDUCATION ACCESS AND OUTCOMES FOR ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT
ISLANDER PEOPLE, “THE BEHRENDT REVIEW”.

Acknowledgement
The independent evaluators wish to sincerely acknowledge the traditional owners and Elders
of country who gave their time and expertise to participate in and thereby enrich this project.
Overview
1. Findings and conclusions
2. Background to the project
3. Context of the project’s operation
4. Purpose of the evaluation
5. Evaluation Framework
6. Key evaluation questions
a. What processes were planned and what were actually put in place for the project?
b. Were there any variations from the processes that were initially proposed, and if so,
why?
c. How might the project be improved?
d. What were the observble short-term outcomes?
e. To what extent have the intended outcomes been achieved?
f. Were there any unintended outcomes?
g. What factors helped and hindered in the achievement of the outcomes?
h. What measures, if any, have been put in place to promote sustainability of the
i. What lessons have been learned from this project and how might these be of
assistance to other institutions
7. Recommendations
8. Supplementary material (appendices)
a. International Context and Background of Evaluators
b. Programme for Programme for Indigenous Cultural Competency in Law:
Deliberating Future Directions Workshop
c. Lists of stakeholders and audiences

Findings and conclusions
The broad aim of the Indigenous Cultural Competency for Legal Academics Program (ICCLAP)
project was to increase the inclusion of Indigenous cultural competency (ICC)2 in legal
education with a view to improving Indigenous student outcomes in law, and also build ICC in
all students, leading to better legal service delivery for Indigenous communities. For the
purposes of this project, the project team adopted Universities Australia’s definition of ICC
being:
Student and staff knowledge and understanding of Indigenous Australian
cultures, histories and contemporary realities and awareness of Indigenous
protocols, combined with the proficiency to engage and work effectively in
Indigenous contexts congruent to the expectations of Indigenous Australian
peoples. Cultural competence includes the ability to critically reflect on one’s
own culture and professional paradigms in order to understand its cultural
limitations and effect positive change 3
The project’s aims align with the Australian Government’s commitment to enhancing the
sustainability, transparency and accountability of the tertiary education sector while ensuring
that student support is targeted to deliver the best outcomes for students and the Australian
economy, articulated as follows:4
every person who aspires to have a legal education and that has the capacity to
undertake it is given a genuine opportunity to do so. Higher education and the
opportunities it affords can transform the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Australians.5
The ICCLAP project has generated engagement with ICCLAP aims and created a community of
practice working towards incorporating ICC into legal education in order to improve higher
education outcomes and reduce indigenous disadvantage. The project has inspired the
development of successful ICC curricula which has the potential to dramatically improve legal
education in Australia for all law students.
Many of the project’s important outcomes have been achieved. The project has been
conducted to high academic standards in a professional and empathetic manner. The project
has helped to develop the capacity of the project team members and many of the participants
in its workshops. More specifically, the project has distilled key principles and action points
for the creation of a cohort of culturally competent legal academics to support the inclusion
of ICC in in individual courses and legal education generally.
2
The evaluators acknowledge here the discussion identified in the Final Report regarding the language of
‘indigenous cultural competency’. A significant part of the existing literature advocates other terms such as
‘inter-cultural capabilities’, ‘cultural responsiveness’, or ‘cultural empathy’.
3
Universities Australia, 2011a, 3.
4
Department of Education and Training https://www.education.gov.au/.
5
Review of Higher Education Access and Outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People, 2012,
Vision, p1.

Background to the Project
The ICCLAP Project aims to increase the inclusion of Indigenous cultural competency in legal
education in order to:
• Improve Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander student outcomes in law
• Produce more culturally competent and effective law graduates and future lawyers who
are better able to interact with Indigenous clients, witnesses and other lawyers; and who
are more effective in representing Indigenous traditional owners, corporates,
representative bodies, businesses and non-profits and providing legal services to
Indigenous communities
To achieve these aims the project team has initiated a co-ordinated process aimed at
enhancing legal academics’ knowledge and understanding of the relationship between
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and the Anglo-Australian legal system, and to
build the capacity of legal academics themselves to develop significant competency in their
own interaction with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples so as to be able to
incorporate cultural competency into law curricula. To these ends, the project team planned
to design a training programme and resources and to test these in a series of pilots in selected
centres.
Project team
Ms Marcelle Burns, Project Leader, University of New England
Professor Larissa Behrendt, University of Technology (Sydney)
Professor Anita Lee Hong, Queensland University of Technology
Professor Mark McMillan, RMIT University
Associate Professor Asmi Wood, Australian National University
Context of the Project’s Operation

The ICCLAP project team carried out the following research:
1. Literature review on Indigenous Cultural Competency, including critiques of this
terminology;
2. Desktop survey of Australian University websites;
3. Stakeholder perspectives on project objectives and outcomes via a workshop (2016);
and
4. The process of deliberative democracy as an engagement and facilitation process for
workshops.
Informed by the themes and findings of the stakeholder workshop in 2016, research and the
findings of both the Bradley Review6 and the Behrendt Review,7 the project team designed a
pilot workshop. The workshop was an important step towards enhancing legal academics’
6
Review of Australian Higher Education, Final Report, December 2008.
7
Review of Higher Education Access and Outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People, 2012.

knowledge and understanding of the relationship between Aboriginal and Torres St Islander
peoples and the Anglo-Australian legal system. It also sought to build the capacity of legal
academics to incorporate Indigenous cultural competency into their individual courses as well
as to the overall curricula within their law school.
Workshop 1: Stakeholder Perspectives, September 2016, Canberra
The project team held a stakeholder workshop on 6-7 September 2016 at Australian National
University in Canberra bringing together legal academics, both Indigenous and non-
Indigenous, legal service providers, and legal professional associations (the 2016 Workshop).
It was clear from the 2016 Workshop that the project is seen by these key stakeholders as
highly necessary. Over the course of the workshop the participants shared their experiences.
Through facilitated discussion, the participants’ refined the research questions and objectives
of the project. The project team produced a report in November 2016 which summarised the
rich discussion of the workshop and identified the knowledge, skills and attitudes required by
academics and students in terms of developing cultural competency, and strategies for
advancing the project’s objectives. This information will ultimately provide the platform for
the design of the training programme and resources.
Workshop 2: Deliberating Future Directions September 2017, Melbourne
The Future Directions workshop brought together a larger group of legal academics, both
Indigenous and non-Indigenous, legal service providers, legal professional associations and
representative organisations. Overall, 52 attendees participated, including representatives
from 26 universities (including 3 New Zealand universities).8 The key aims of the 2017
workshop were to:
1. Develop guiding principles for the embedding of ICC in legal education;
2. Identify knowledge gaps and resources needed to support the inclusion of ICC; and
3. Establish networks with other people engaged in this work.
The workshop was held over two days and was facilitated by experts in the field of
‘deliberative democracy’.9 This deliberative democracy process is fully described in the 2017
Workshop Final Report. In essence, participants were provided with readings prior to the
workshop to promote reflection and stimulate discussion. The discussion in the workshop was
initiated by a panel of experts, followed by interactive participation in small groups. The ideas
generated in the small groups were entered into a software platform, themed, and then
presented back to the whole workshop group. A participant report was circulated as a
summary of the deliberations at the end of Day 1. The core themes and ideas, and the
resulting priorities, form the basis of the 2017 Workshop Report.
8
See Indigenous Cultural Competency in Law: Deliberating Future Directions Workshop: Final Participant
Report, September 2017, p27. Participants are listed in Appendix 3.
9
See Appendix 2 for Programme.

The focus of Day 1 was on developing principles and discussion facilitated by the project team
on the following topic:
1. Developing Principles
a. What do you want most from the two days of deliberation?
b. What are your most important questions for the expert panel speakers?
c. What would success look like if we achieved an ideal ICCLAP curriculum?
d. What are the roadblocks, obstacles, tacit assumptions that get in the way of
achieving an ideal ICCLAP curriculum? and
e. What are the prioritised critical factors to achieve an ideal ICCLAP curriculum?
At the end of Day 1, participants were asked to complete extensive evaluation forms. Many
participants were new to the deliberative democracy process, and strongly advocated for
more time on Day 2 to discuss key issues and ideas. The agenda was changed for Day 2 to
allow more discussion on the following topics:
2. Developing Actions
a. How would we make significant progress in each of our ICC ideals within the
next year?
b. How can we be the change we want to see in the world (Ghandi)?
c. How can we implement the changes that need to be made to the ICCLAP
agenda and to realise these strategies? and
d. What are your best ideas for ICC on which you would like to work with others?
The participants’ responses to the questions posed for each Day are presented in their own
words in the 2017 Workshop Report and they provide rich information for designing a training
programme and associated resources. The following are a few examples of open feedback:
Feedback from Day 1: “Needed more time for discussion – just too much content for one
day. I appreciate the model – just more deep thinkers in the room without enough time to
explore ideas and potentials.”
Feedback after Day 2: “The two days were rich with ideas – many were familiar although still
lots of new information. The real benefit was identifying communities of practice. That is a
gift without measure. I liked the open space options, visited 3 tables.”
“Thank you for creating such a safe and rich dialogue on this issue. It gave important
opportunities to explore / exchange / learn.”
As noted in the Project Team’s Final Report, the workshops were instrumental in identifying
critical success factors, barriers and constraints and guiding principles to support the
embedding of ICC in curriculum. The key findings on these areas are set out below:

Critical Success factors prioritised at the ICCLAP Future Directions Workshop.
1. ICC included in learning environment and pedagogical methods – co-designed with
Indigenous peoples.
2. ICC permeates lawyering, thereby leading necessarily to changes in the Anglo-
Australian legal system and better recognition of Indigenous law and sovereignty.
3. Indigenous communities need to feel a sense of ownership of the curriculum and
that it is endorsed as well as supported by Indigenous specialists/contributors.
4. ICC improves student learning outcomes, and increases Indigenous enrolment,
retention and completion rates in law programs.
5. Providing supportive law school environment for Indigenous academics. There
would then be more Indigenous academics in law schools, practising law and in
positions of influence.
Additional Outcomes
The project team was granted an extension to incorporate the following additional outcomes:
1. Website – putting more resources on the ICCLAP website, including a Q&A forum
A popular request from the Indigenous Cultural Competency in Law: Future
Directions Workshop was to establish an online community for legal academics
and professionals to share ideas and resources, and discuss issues relating to
embedding Indigenous cultural competency in legal education and practice. The
ICCLAP Q&A Forum has now been created to meet this need. The Forum is
available on the ICCLAP website http://www.icclap.edu.au/.
2. The Project team’s proposal to the Legal Education Review for a special focus
edition on Indigenous cultural competency in law has been accepted. This
special edition will showcase a number of articles which focus on ICC in law, and
contribute to developing new knowledge and scholarship on how legal
academics and practitioners have engaged in this important work. The team has
received ten abstracts for the special edition, with final articles to be submitted
by 30 June 2018, with a view to publication online by the end of 2018, and in
print shortly thereafter.
3. ICCLAP Online Resources - video presentations from the ICCLAP Workshop 2017
have now been uploaded to the website as a resource for academics and others
who have an interest in this work.

Purpose of Evaluation
• To help identify what success for the project looks like;

• To assess whether the project will achieve its aims and objectives; and
• To provide recommendations and suggestions and generally contribute to making the
project as successful as possible.
Evaluation Framework
1. With reference to the grant application, the evaluators sought to assess the extent to
which the project delivers what it promised to deliver. What processes were planned
and what were actually put in place?
a. Action Points:
i. Review the grant application and assess whether the project will deliver
what it promises; and
ii. Evaluate the literature review and make suggestions as to possible
additions.
2. Develop evaluation plan
a. Action Points:
i. Communicate with project lead to develop a plan; and
ii. Present a plan for discussion at the September 2016 Workshop.
3. Analyse and interpret feedback from the September 2016 Workshop
a. Action Points:
i. Attend and participate at the September Workshop and pose the
following questions to stakeholders:
1. Do you see that you would personally have a continuing role after
the project? During implementation or roll-out?
2. What leverage might you be able to provide?
3. What input might you have into creating teaching materials and
shaping curriculum for your own law school and nationally?
4. What opportunities are there for inclusion of the training into
Continuing Professional Development programme for the
profession?
ii. Recommend that a survey be conducted before and after training pilots
for both rounds. Evaluators offer to help design survey and assess
feedback.
b. Assess whether the report from the workshop fairly reflects the discussion.
4. Continue to engage with project lead.
5. Assess whether the proposed design of the training programme reflects the feedback
from the workshop and the literature review.

6. Attend at least one pilot training programme from each round in 2017 and assess
feedback from participant survey.
7. Produce a report with conclusions and recommendations – Originally planned for
November 2017.
As evaluators of the project, we were interested in understanding the participants’ views
on:
1. Content: this includes relevance, quality and quantity of information, the sequence
of delivery, whether sufficient time was given for each topic, whether content was
appropriate for participants’ knowledge level and whether their expected outcomes
were achieved.
2. Facilitation: this includes the knowledge base of the facilitators’ mode and style of
delivery, whether enough opportunity was provided for participants to comment
and/or ask questions, whether topics were introduced clearly and appropriately and
so on.
3. What changes, if any, to your level of understanding occurred as a result of the
workshop?
4. How valuable do you see workshops like this for other law teachers, or other
occupations, and why or why not? Would you recommend attending a similar
workshop in the future to your colleagues?
5. How valuable do you see the provision of a refresher workshop in the future, and if
so, how frequently?
6. What resources would you like to see made available to enhance your
understanding? Examples might include: further reading, sample added text to add
to individual law course goals that addresses greater intercultural understanding,
sharing syllabi and reading lists, a website containing a blog to share experiences and
teaching materials.
These issues were covered in the evaluations conducted by the deliberative democracy
team. The evaluators chose to use this evaluation data to help inform our findings and to
reach conclusions, rather than conduct a separate and additional evaluation process so as
not to burden the participants.

Participants’ Views
“We must continue”
We highlight here some of the survey data below from the Future Directions workshop.
In respect of the process, survey data after Day 1 of the Future Directions workshop
demonstrated that participants were new to the deliberative democracy process, and
made strong comments about the dangers of theming (and thus not reflecting all ideas in
the feedback sessions during the workshop). The most common concerns included
reliance upon technology and the associated insufficiency of time to fully discuss the many
very important issues raised in the workshop. Participants did, however, acknowledge
that their participation and the sharing of their experience and expertise was encouraged
by the facilitation team. In terms of the substantive issues discussed and debated, the
majority of the 42 participants who completed the evaluation forms at the end of Day 1
(36-38/42) felt that they understood the key issues being discussed and learned more
about the issues and acquired more information; that the session on identifying
roadblocks, obstacles and assumptions was particularly valuable; and that, overall, Day 1
was a success.
After Day 2, 28-30 participants completed evaluation questions. 28 participants rated the
overall success of Day 2 quite well (13) or very well (15). The speaker presentations were
rated quite useful (13) and very useful (15). 23 of the participants found the session on
strategies quite useful or very useful. 26 rated the two-day workshop overall as advancing
the ICCLAP agenda at their university as having done so quite well, or very well. Open
comments were generally positive, particularly about the open space component where
participants were able to choose from a range of topics to engage with in round table
discussions:
“Thank you. Great job. Lots of new ideas to take back to my law school.
I enjoyed the open space.
Today was much more constructive. Lots of good ideas. I hope some are pursued.
The two days were rich with ideas – many were familiar although still lots of new
information. The real benefit was identifying communities of practice. That is a gift
without measure. I like the open space options and visited 3 tables.
We must continue.”

Key evaluation questions
This part of our report provides responses to key evaluation questions posed in the ALTC
Project Evaluation Resource.10
a. What processes were planned and what were actually put in place for the project?
Processes planned and put in place included: literature review and desktop survey,
think tank to design pilot workshops, delivery of one pilot workshop.
b. Were there any variations from the processes that were initially proposed, and if so,
why?
Four pilot workshops were originally envisaged, but only one was delivered. The
training programme and resources envisaged in the application for research funding
were not finalised during the course of the project.
With respect to the change from four to one pilot workshop, the project team has
advised that the decision to use the deliberative democracy process was the catalyst
for this change, which was partly in response to critiques of ICC knowledge-based
content. The deliberative democracy process was much more resource intensive. The
costs overall were substantial for both the facilitators and software/technology to
support the process, and also the costs of travel and accommodation for the
Indigenous experts which was funded by the project. These elements of the
deliberative democracy process made it hard to replicate within the existing budget
so the team decided to hold one major event, rather than four workshops. This change
from the original grant conditions was made with the approval of the funding body.
With respect to the change in approach regarding the development of resources as

set out in the original application, an extension was granted in order for the project
team to incorporate the following additional outcomes:
o Website – putting more resources on the website, including a Q&A forum. A

popular request from the Indigenous Cultural Competency in Law: Future
Directions Workshop was to establish an online community for legal academics
and professionals to share ideas and resources, and discuss issues relating to
embedding Indigenous cultural competency in legal education and practice.
The ICCLAP Q&A Forum has now been created to meet this need.
http://www.icclap.eduz`.au/.
o Development of a special edition of the Legal Education Review (LER) on
Indigenous Cultural Competency in Law; and
o Presentations and other dissemination activities.
10
https://docs.education.gov.au/documents/altc-project-evaluation-resource

Resources:
 The LER special edition will provide resources for academics.
 Videos and ICCLAP reports are also available on the website for potential
users to access.
 The project team will produce a guiding principles document which will
summarise the key findings of the report.
 Future funding of this project will enable the production of resources to
support teaching.
c. How might the project be improved if it is continued?

It became clear in both the 2016 and 2017 workshops that participants needed more
time to engage with the topics and with each other, as a support network and to share
ideas and resources. The outcomes identified in the research application were
ambitious, but are still extremely important. The important outcome of designing an
ongoing training programme, and resources to be used in support of such a
programme, should be implemented after testing the possible structures of such a
programme and the effectiveness of potential materials through a series of pilots.
d. What were the observable short-term outcomes?

The creation of a network of legal academics and legal professionals with a common
interest. The collection and collation of valuable information that will help this cohort
collaborate in designing curricula and resources for inclusion into their law schools.
The creation of a website with a question and answer forum.
e. To what extent have the intended outcomes been achieved?

Most of the intended outcomes were achieved. One of the two planned pilot
workshops was delivered. An extension was granted to enable additional outcomes
to be delivered such as the creation of a website (see above).
f. Were there any unintended outcomes?

A positive outcome not explicitly intended was the cathartic and liberating sharing of
experiences, articulation of frustration and, in some cases, grievances, regarding the
invisibility and marginalisation of Indigenous laws and values in legal education. This
proved to be therapeutic for many participants.
g. What factors helped and hindered in the achievement of the outcomes?

The need for the project is demonstrated in the desire of participants to share
experiences, though this took more time than was initially expected.

h. What measures, if any, have been put in place to promote sustainability of the
The creation of a network among the participants, the development and circulation of
a comprehensive literature review, and the development of a tangible collection of
principles and action points among the workshop participants will all help encourage
the sustainability of the project’s results. The addition to the outcomes of past and
future dissemination activities and the creation of a website to provide connectivity
increases the prospect that ICCLAP results will continue to be of benefit in the future.
i. What lessons have been learned from this project and how might these be of
assistance to other institutions?
 Building of Indigenous cultural competency takes time, commitment from many
key actors and significant resources.
 There is therapeutic value in bringing people together to share ideas and
resources that help create ongoing networks among those who believe the topic
is important.
 Deliberative democracy encourages participation and helps with theming and
prioritisation.
 Evaluations and appraisals are necessary for shaping agendas of future
workshops to maximise their effectiveness.

Appendix 1. International Context and Background of the Evaluators
The ICCLAP project takes place in a global context. The evaluation team for the project
consists of Professor Bradford Morse, Dean and Professor of Law, Thompson Rivers
University, Kamloops, British Columbia, Canada; and Associate Professor Linda Te Aho,
Associate Dean at Te Piringa Faculty of Law, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.
The evaluators bring experience as senior academics with expertise in issues relating to
cultural competency and indigenising curriculum.
Aotearoa New Zealand
Associate Professor Linda Te Aho is an Indigenous legal academic and Associate Dean Māori
at Te Piringa Faculty of Law. The Faculty was established in 1991 as a ‘meeting place of people
and their ideas and ideals; in a spiritual or metaphysical sense, aspiring towards justice and
social equity’. Its foundation principles are biculturalism, professionalism, and the teaching
of law in context. With a steady percentage of around 25% of students being indigenous, the
Faculty strives to interweave Māori law and Māori legal issues throughout the undergraduate
and post-graduate law degrees.
Canada
Professor Bradford Morse is the Dean of Law at Thomson Rivers University. The federal
Government of Canada created the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) as an
independent commission in 2008 expressly as a result of a massive out-of-court settlement
through Annex N of the Indian Residential School Settlement Agreement. He assisted in the
initial establishment of the TRC’s operations and co-chaired its national research meeting that
included representatives from other truth commissions from around the world. The TRC
issued a number of Calls to Action (CTA) on education, including:
 For the Federal Government to develop a strategy to eliminate educational and
employment gaps (CTA #7)
 To improve educational attainment levels (CTA #10 (ii))
 To develop culturally appropriate curricula (CTA #10 (iii))
In the area of Justice it issued Calls to Action to

 the Federation of Law Societies of Canada “to ensure that lawyers receive appropriate
cultural competency training” that would require “skills-based training in intercultural
competency, conflict resolution, human rights, and anti-racism.” (CTA #27)
 all Law Schools “to require all law students to take a course in Aboriginal people and the
law, which includes the history and legacy of residential schools, the United Nations
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Treaties and Aboriginal rights, Indigenous
law, Aboriginal-Crown relations. This will require skills-based training in intercultural
competency, conflict resolution, human rights and anti-racism.” (CTA#28)
All law schools and law societies across Canada have publicly embraced these Calls to Action
and are now working on implementation mechanisms.

Appendix 2: Programme for Indigenous Cultural Competency in Law:
Deliberating Future Directions Workshop
The workshop was guided by a deliberative democracy process facilitated by leading experts
in the field:
 Professor Janet Hartz-Karp (Curtin University Sustainability Policy Institute)
 Dr Ron Levy (ANU College of Law, Co-Director, Project on Deliberative Governance
and Law)
 Rob Weymouth, Curtin University
The workshop included presentations from an expert panel of Indigenous legal academics
and lawyers including:
 Marcelle Burns, Pre-Doctoral Fellow, School of Law, University of New England
 Eddie Cubillo, Former Director Community Engagement, Royal Commission into the
Protection and Detention of Children in the Northern Territory
 Annette Gainsford, Lecturer in Law and Justice and Indigenous Academic Fellow,
Charles Sturt University
 Anthony Hopkins, Senior Lecturer, ANU College of Law, Australian National
University
 Professor Anita Lee Hong, Director, Oodgeroo Unit, Queensland University of
Technology.
 Sharon Payne, Sharon Payne & Associates
 Dr Amanda Porter, Chancellors Post-Doctoral Research Fellow, Jumbunna Institute
for Indigenous Education and Research
 John Rawnsley, North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency
 Nicole Watson, Senior Lecturer, Sydney Law School, University of Sydney
 Associate Professor Asmi Wood, ANU College of Law, Australian National University
Pre-Reading
The following were recommended for pre-workshop readings:
 Nicole Watson, ‘Indigenous People in Legal Education: Staring into a Mirror without
Reflection’ (2005) 6 (8) Indigenous Law Bulletin 4, available at
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/journals/ILB/2005/1.html
 Indigenous Cultural Competency for Legal Academics Program, Consultation
Workshop Report – December 2016

Appendix 3: Participating Organisations
Australian National University
Bond University
Central Queensland University
Charles Sturt University
Curtin University
Deakin University
Flinders University
James Cook University
La Trobe University
Monash University
Northern Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency
Northern Territory Department of Attorney General and Justice
Queensland University of Technology
RMIT University
Sharon Payne and Associates
Southern Cross University
Tarwirri Indigenous Law Students and Lawyers Association of Victoria
University of Adelaide
University of Auckland (NZ)
University of Melbourne
University of New England
University of Notre Dame (Fremantle)
University of Southern Queensland
University of Sydney
University of Waikato (NZ)
Victoria University (NZ)
Western Sydney University
University of Wollongong
Total Attendees: 52

Appendix C
ICCLAP publications and reports related to this report

Reports
ICCLAP literature review 2016.
ICCLAP law school survey report 2017.
ICCLAP Consultation Workshop report 2016.
Indigenous Cultural Competency in Law: Deliberating Future Directions workshop – final
participant report 2017.
All ICCLAP publications and reports are available at the ICCLAP website.
Articles
Burns M (2018). ‘Are We There Yet? Indigenous cultural competency in legal education’.
Legal Education Review 28 (2) (forthcoming).
Burns M. & Nielsen J (2018). ‘Dealing with the “Wicked” Problem of Race and the Law: A
Critical Journey for Students (and Academics)’. Legal Education Review 28 (2) (forthcoming).
Burns M., Young S., & Nielsen J (2018) ‘”The Difficulties of Communication Encountered by
Indigenous Peoples”: Moving Beyond Indigenous Deficit in the Model Admission Rules for
Legal Practitioners’. Legal Education Review 28 (2) (forthcoming).
Wood A. & Levy R. (2018). ‘A Mini-public of Academics: Experimenting with Deliberative

Democracy and Indigenous Cultural Competency in Legal Education’. Legal Education
Review 28 (2) (forthcoming).
Watson N. & Wood A. (2018). ‘Seeing our Reflection in our Education: Indigenous People
and Law’, (2018), Legal Education Review 28 (2) (forthcoming).
Burns M. Cavanagh R. & O’Donnell M. (2017) ‘Yarning about Lawyering with and for Rural
and Regional Aboriginal Communities’ in Mundy T. Kennedy A. & Nielsen J. (eds). The Place
of Practice: Lawyering in Rural and Regional Australia. Leichhardt: Federation Press, 167-
194.

Appendix D
ICCLAP conference presentations and seminars

Wood A. & Watson N. 2019. ‘Indigenous People and Legal Education: A Critical Reflection’,
TC Berne School of Law Public Lecture, University of Queensland, St Lucia, 12 February.
Burns M. 2019. ‘Are We There Yet? Indigenous cultural competency in legal education’, USQ
Law and Justice Research Seminar, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, 12
February.
Wood A. 2018. Indigenous Cultural Competency into Clinical Practice, ANU Clinical
Psychology Class, 14 December.
Wood A. 2018. Indigenous Cultural Competency into Legal Practice, ANU College of Law, 14
December.
Burns M. & Hill-Jarro B. 2018. ‘Indigenous Cultural Competency in Legal Education’, Law
School Residential Retreat, Queensland University of Technology, Noosa Heads, 7
December.
Burns M. 2018. ‘Is There Justice for First Peoples in Legal Education? The Indigenous
Cultural Competency for Legal Academics Program’, paper presented to Australasian Law
Teachers Association Conference, Perth, 4-6 July.
Burns M. 2018. Panel Speaker: ‘Indigenising the Academy: Creating Culturally Safe Spaces
for Indigenous Academics’, Law and Society Association-Canadian Law and Society
Association Conference, Toronto CA, 9 June (via Skype).
Burns M. 2018. Panel Speaker: ‘Indigenous Issues, Perspectives and Law in the Public Law
Classroom’, Public Law in the Classroom: A Workshop for Teachers of Australian Public Law,
University of New South Wales, Kensington, 22 February.
Burns M. Wood A. & Lee Hong A. 2017. ‘Indigenous Cultural Competency for Legal
Academics Program’, School of Law Seminar Series, University of New England, Armidale, 24
November.
Burns M. Wood A. & Davis C. Panel: ‘Indigenous Legal Education’, paper presented to
National Indigenous Legal Conference, Adelaide, 16-17 November.
Wood A. 2017. ‘Indigenous Cultural Competency for Legal Academics Program’, paper
presented to the Australasian Law Teachers Association Conference, Adelaide, 5-8 July.
Burns M. 2017. ‘The ICCLAP Experience’, paper presented to Association of Continuing Legal
Education 53rd Annual Meeting, Montreal, 29-31 July (via Skype).
Burns M. 2016. ‘Indigenous Cultural Competency for Legal Academics Program’, paper
presented to National Indigenous Legal Conference, Canberra, 5-6 September.

Indigenous Cultural Competency For Legal Academics Program: WWW - Icclap.edu - Au

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Indigenous Cultural Competency For Legal Academics Program: WWW - Icclap.edu - Au

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Indigenous Cultural Competency For Legal Academics Program: WWW - Icclap.edu - Au

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Indigenous Cultural Competency for Legal Academics

Final report: 2019

Report authors: Ms Marcelle Burns, Professor Anita Lee Hong and

Requests and inquiries concerning these rights should be addressed to:

GPO Box 9880

ISBN 978-1-76051-661-1 [PDF]

Indigenous Cultural Competency for Legal Academics Program iii

Indigenous Cultural Competency for Legal Academics Program iv

The project’s objectives were to:

The project’s approach was informed by Indigenous knowledges which emphasise

Indigenous Cultural Competency for Legal Academics Program v

Indigenous Cultural Competency for Legal Academics Program vi

Indigenous Cultural Competency for Legal Academics Program vii

Indigenous Cultural Competency for Legal Academics Program viii

Indigenous Cultural Competency for Legal Academics Program ix

Indigenous Cultural Competency for Legal Academics Program x

Purpose and rationale

Universities Australia’s (2011a) Guiding principles for developing Indigenous cultural

Indigenous Cultural Competency for Legal Academics Program 1

Universities Australia’s Indigenous strategy 2017–2020 recommends developing ICC for

Importantly Universities Australia’s Indigenous strategy recognises that Indigenous higher

Indigenous Cultural Competency for Legal Academics Program 2

Indigenous Cultural Competency for Legal Academics Program 3

Fundamental to the project’s approach is the understanding that Indigenous knowledges

Indigenous Cultural Competency for Legal Academics Program 4

Indigenous Cultural Competency for Legal Academics Program 5

Indigenous Cultural Competency for Legal Academics Program 6

Indigenous Cultural Competency for Legal Academics Program 7

Indigenous Cultural Competency for Legal Academics Program 8

Indigenous Cultural Competency for Legal Academics Program 9

Indigenous cultural competency literature review

ICC in legal education

Indigenous Cultural Competency for Legal Academics Program 10

Indigenous Cultural Competency for Legal Academics Program 11

Towards deliberative democracy

Indigenous Cultural Competency for Legal Academics Program 12

Indigenous Cultural Competency for Legal Academics Program 13

Indigenous Cultural Competency for Legal Academics Program 14

Figure 1: ICC in Law Programs

University/school supports inclusion of ICC 18

ICC in graduate outcomes 2

ICC in course learning outcomes 6

ICC in core units 10

ICC in elective units 13

Access to support to embed ICC 14

Indigenous Cultural Competency for Legal Academics Program 15

In this context cultural competency is primarily about fostering meaningful cross-cultural

Views of Indigenous legal service providers

Indigenous Cultural Competency for Legal Academics Program 16

Indigenous students experiences of law schools

Indigenous legal academics

Indigenous legal academics also make valuable contributions to universities, providing

Indigenous Cultural Competency for Legal Academics Program 17

Table 1: Barriers and constraints to embedding ICC.

Positioning ICC as an Indigenous issue for Indigenous

Change fatigue and concerns about workloads.

Need to change the culture of law schools.

A vision for ICC in legal education