6 Survey results In total, 13 respondents reported working professionally in the native title space and two respondents responded that their only experience in native title was professional experience. Other characteristics of the 65 relevant respondents included: Board member, director, or otherwise involved in the governance of other (non-native title) organisations 37 Native title holders 29 Traditional owners but not native title holders 17 Board members of a Prescribed Body Corporate (PBC) 13 Native title claimants 12 Board members of a Native Title Representative Body (NTRB) 11 Board Members of Native Title Services (NTS) 3 On a land council 2 Unable to claim native title 1 0 10 20 30 40 Respondents 6.2 The results (a) Top issues for women in native title The survey results describe the most prominent issues for women in native title among the participants and their communities. Analysing the data made clear that the most prevalent issue for these women is that native title holders lack power under the Native Title Act. The table below depicts two different rankings of the issues presented in the survey. Table 1.1: Top issues for women in native title (ranked) Ranked overall Ranked by first preference Native title holders lack power under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) 1 1* B It is too hard to prove connection to country 8 4 C Native title processes force people to choose identities 6 7* D Unequal power dynamics with third parties (e.g. mining companies) funding negotiations 4 5 E Native title rights to offshore areas are limited 12 8* F Native title holders cannot choose how to set up PBCs 11 7* G It is hard to benefit economically from native title land 7 6 H Other laws like heritage laws do not protect native title 2 2 I Insufficient resources for PBCs 5 3 J No resources to heal from trauma which has surfaced in native title processes 3 1* K Onerous compliance requirements for PBCs 10 8* L Other, please specify 9 8* # Issue A *ranked equally with another issue Australian Human Rights Commission 41