When their peaceful life in rural southern Tasmania was marred by discrimination, Julian Punch and Brian Doran turned to the state's Anti-Discrimination Tribunal.
The tribunal ordered they be compensated for homophobic harassment and vilification by their former neighbour, Benedict King.
That was seven years ago.
They received the $6,000 compensation payment, plus interest, in February this year.
"It's been a huge battle to try and get recognised what was happening," Mr Punch said of the process of making a complaint, the tribunal hearing and ensuring the compensation was paid.
"It should be a lot easier, because it just prolongs that justice happening," Mr Doran said.
The couple put a caveat on Mr King's property, and, when the house sold in February, they finally received the money.
The tribunal, in its 2016 decision, found Mr Punch and Mr Doran were entitled to compensation for sexual harassment and offensive conduct that happened in 2013 and 2014.
It gave Mr King 60 days to pay the compensation.
"When you get to the stage of a tribunal hearing in a case like this where they've been significantly bullied over their sexual identity, you're not going to expect the respondent to cooperate, and they often don't, and that was the case here," lawyer Roland Browne said.
Equality Tasmania President Rodney Croome said compensation, for many victims, was not about the money.
"Compensation is about recognising the trauma they've experienced, and sending a message that discrimination and hate against LGBTIQA+ people is unacceptable," Mr Croome said.
In 2019, the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal ordered former Zeehan man Alex Devantier to be paid a total of $6,000 in compensation by three people — brothers Adrian, Andrew and Jamie Maine — after they were found to have discriminated against Mr Devantier by verbally abusing him on the basis of his sexual orientation in March 2017.
They were given 28 days to pay the compensation, but Mr Devantier said he was still waiting.
States need to take responsibility
Human rights and discrimination lawyer Robin Banks, who has a PhD in discrimination law, and is a former Tasmanian anti-discrimination commissioner, said for people who bring a complaint of discrimination, the burden is always on them to prove the complaint and enforce any orders the tribunal makes.
"Most people who are discriminated against are significantly disadvantaged in our society, so we're asking the most disadvantaged people to do all the work of making our society more equal," Dr Banks said.
She said the state should take more responsibility — as it does in other areas of civil law — both in pursuing complaints and enforcing orders of the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal.
Sydney University Law Professor Simon Rice said the situation was similar across Australia.
"You get vilified, you get discriminated against, the law says, 'that shouldn't happen', and then the law says, 'you do something about it, you start a case, you prove a case, you get a result, you pursue the damages, you pursue compliance with the orders'," Professor Rice said.
"What we need is a system where the state not only prohibits conduct, but takes responsibility for ensuring that the process is followed and the remedy is achieved."
He said discrimination law should work more like workplace health and safety law, where the state pursues breaches and compliance with any legal orders made.
Dr Banks said while the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Commissioner did have some power to bring a complaint of their own volition, but was not properly resourced to do so, and "culturally, it hasn't become part of discrimination law".
Tasmanian Attorney-General Elise Archer said complaints about discriminatory behaviour, which are not criminal conduct, "are best identified and initiated by the individual to the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner".
Anti-Discrimination cases that go to the tribunal are now heard by the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which Ms Archer said was "a more consistent and accessible approach to resolving civil matters".
Do we need a victims of discrimination fund?
Dr Banks also said the way compensation was paid was "an area ripe for reform".
In criminal courts, people convicted of crimes can be ordered to pay a victims of crime compensation levy. Victims then receive payments from that fund.
The state enforces those orders.
Dr Banks said a similar scheme could operate for anti-discrimination cases, which are civil matters and therefore heard in civil, rather than criminal, jurisdictions.
In cases where a crime is committed, Rodney Croome said reforms were needed there, too.
"Currently in Tasmania, only racial hatred can be considered an aggravating factor when judges pass sentences for hate-motivated crimes," Mr Croome said.
"This sends the message that hate against LGBTIQA+ people, or other disadvantaged groups, including people with disability, is less serious.
"All victims of hate crime should have equal protection under the law."
Ms Archer said she has asked Tasmania's Sentencing Advisory Council to consider potential reforms to the relevant section of the Sentencing Act.
