They’re victims again
No joy for people chasing compo under Anti-Discrimination Act
VICTIMS of discrimination are questioning the value of the state’s anti-discrimination laws, saying the process for ensuring compensation payments is not working.
Former Zeehan man Alexander Devantier was found by the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal to have been discriminated against by three people — brothers Adrian, Andrew and Jamie Maine.
Almost five months after the tribunal ordered each of the brothers pay Mr Devantier $2000 within 28 days and provide a written apology, Mr Devantier is still waiting.
Mr Devantier has tried to have the tribunal’s orders enforced.
According to the Anti-Discrimination Act, a person, or the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner at the request of a person, may enforce an order made by the tribunal by filing a copy of the order — certified by the person who presided over the inquiry — in the Supreme Court.
Mr Devantier has filed the orders in the Supreme Court, and Anti-Discrimination Commissioner Sarah Bolt has since agreed to initiate proceedings against the Maines for failing to provide the apology, which is dealt with under a separate section of the Act. A Justice Department spokesman said the relevant documents would be sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions’ office.
Mr Devantier said it had been a complicated process.
“I still have to fight to get the money,” he said.
To recover the money, Mr Devantier said he has been told he needs to file sworn affidavits for each of the three men saying they have not complied with the orders, and pay $1200 — $400 for each of the men — for a bailiff to seize property.
“I just want the process to be simpler,” he said.
“People say to me, Alex, you’ll follow through, and you’re intelligent. If someone else is trying to do this they’d be lost.”
He said for the state’s antidiscrimination laws to be effective, the tribunal’s orders needed to be easily enforceable.
Hobart lawyer Roland Browne, who represented a gay couple who are still waiting for a compensation payeral Vanessa Goodwin to discuss registering the orders.
Mr Browne said while the Supreme Court did everything it could to help Mr Punch and Mr Doran recover the money, Mr King’s marriage had broken down and his only asset was in the name of him and his former wife.
“It may have been different if the recovery process had started earlier,” Mr Browne said.
He said Mr Punch and Mr Doran were “left to their own devices” to chase the money.
“Ideally the Commissioner should exercise his or her power under the Act to do the enforcement and it should be done rapidly,” he said.
“I think they should give them seven days to pay it. It’s not a large amount of money; the person’s either going to pay it or they’re not.”
Tasmania’s Law Society president Evan Hughes said one solution could be resourcing community legal centres to help people chasing unpaid compensation ordered by the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal.
The state’s Justice Department did not respond to the concerns expressed by Mr Punch and Mr Devantier about difficulties in having compensation orders enforced, other than to say the Anti-Discrimination Act provides for an order to be enforced in the Supreme Court.
A department spokesman also said the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner undertook her role as an advocate for the Act and in accordance with the powers given to her by the Act.
He said that since January 1, 2016, two decisions had been registered with the Supreme Court, but neither of those was finalised yet.
Mr Punch said that unless the process for enforcing orders was made easier, resolving LGBTI discrimination in Tasmania was “an absolute mockery with no real deterrents operating in this state”.