Human Rights Commission president Professor Gillian Triggs says the HRC exists to stop matters going to court, but the controversial case involving three Queensland students had a level of substance.
Prof Triggs said the case proved difficult because the parties took different points of view and some of those involved had said different things, with different issues involving each.
She said about 40 per cent of some 20,000 complaints a year were dismissed at an early stage.
"But this was one that had a level of substance. The complaints were ones that attracted a certain measure of concern about the nature of the comments that were made," she told ABC television.
In that case, Cindy Prior, an indigenous administration officer at QUT, took action against the three students under the Racial Discrimination Act's controversial section 18C.
She argued she was unable to continue working face-to-face with white people following a series of Facebook posts made after one student was asked to leave an indigenous-only computer lab at the QUT in 2013.
"Just got kicked out of the unsigned indigenous computer room. QUT stopping segregation with segregation," he wrote.
The HRC terminated its handling of the complaint in August last year, but Ms Prior then took it to the Federal Court, which last week ruled there were no reasonable prospects of success.
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said the HRC had not done itself, its reputation or the respect for the law a service by bringing this case and it needed to "very soberly and carefully" reflect on how it was handling race hate-speech cases..
Prof Triggs said the HRC role was not to be a court and it was there to conciliate and stop matters going to court.
"When you get parties that are determined to pursue the matter and others that want to negotiate in good faith, it can be very difficult," she said.
Prof Triggs said it reached the point where finally she had to conclude it wasn't reconcilable and had to be terminated.
"That's what happened here," she said.
Share
