Literature Review: Rights and Obligations in Contemporary Australia

This literature review examines the critical balance between rights and obligations in contemporary Australia, focusing on the interplay between individual and governmental roles within the human rights discourse. The review delves into key aspects such as freedom of speech and religious freedom, analyzing how these rights are exercised and potentially limited within the context of Australian society. It considers the perspectives of various authors and researchers, examining the extent to which individuals and the government successfully balance their rights with their obligations towards others and society. The paper highlights the importance of respecting the rights of all individuals regardless of their backgrounds or beliefs, and emphasizes the need for a harmonious society where rights are enjoyed responsibly. It also discusses the challenges and complexities in balancing these rights, drawing on theoretical insights, academic research, and current media reports to provide a comprehensive overview of the topic. The review concludes by emphasizing the importance of maintaining this balance to ensure a just and equitable society.

Running head: BALANCE OF ‘RIGHTS’ AND ‘OBLIGATIONS’ IN CONTEMPORARY
AUSTRALIA
BALANCE OF ‘RIGHTS’ AND ‘OBLIGATIONS’ IN CONTEMPORARY AUSTRALIA
Name of the student:
Name of the university:
Author Note:

1BALANCE OF ‘RIGHTS’ AND ‘OBLIGATIONS’ IN CONTEMPORARY AUSTRALIA
Table of Contents
Introduction................................................................................................................................2
Literature Review.......................................................................................................................2
Conclusion..................................................................................................................................6
References..................................................................................................................................7

2BALANCE OF ‘RIGHTS’ AND ‘OBLIGATIONS’ IN CONTEMPORARY AUSTRALIA
Introduction
Implementing rights for the citizens of a nation helps to build the framework of the
society and empowers the people to enact according to these rights, thereby abiding by the
laws of the country. However, the government too expects the citizens to take responsibilities
in enabling the other people enjoy their rights as well without causing harm to the others
(Cusack, 2018). Hence, the people of a nation not only does enjoy the rights dictated by their
constitution but also should oblige to the rights of the other people such that everyone can
promote harmony in the society they are living in. According to Iliquini-Cinelli & Hutchison
(2016), the Australian contemporary society comprises of people of varied thought processes
about the rights of human and they generally tend to agree to the fact that each individual has
an inherent dignity and value to themselves and the human rights in their constitution helps
them to recognise each other’s worth in a better way.
Literature Review
According to Voon (2017), Tim Wilson, the Human Rights Commissioner conducted
a national consultation called ‘Rights and Responsibilities 2014’ that focused on examining
the though process of the people of the nation about the rights provided to them and how
responsibly are they enjoying their rights. The consultation examined whether the legislative
practices of the government were unnecessarily limiting the capacity of the individuals to
exercise the rights given to them or not. It also verified the significant role of the legislative
policies on the human rights whether they were undermining the role of the civil people by
determining restrictions. The survey arranged for the consultation obtained the views of the
citizens on the contemporary human rights, the legislative policies and practices and the
culture of respect for rights and responsibilities. The commissioner deliberately engaged with

3BALANCE OF ‘RIGHTS’ AND ‘OBLIGATIONS’ IN CONTEMPORARY AUSTRALIA
the common people of the nation in various parts of Australia to obtain a diverse range of
views from the country people.
While discussing the views of Lewandowski (2017), the right to ‘freedom in
expressing views’ is responsible for providing each individual of the country to establish an
autonomy while delivering their speech and expressing their ideas without bothering about
any external influence or factor. The individuals can enjoy this right to think by their own
perception and impart knowledge amongst other people considering their facts are right and
will not be guiding others by wrong information. By incorporating this right, the
contemporary Australian Society can establish for themselves a strong democracy where the
opinions or ideas can be expressed freely, irrespective of the fact that anybody is supporting
the particular cause.
However, Bateman (2019), states that the ability to express the right to speech is not
practised in every part or incident of the nation. There were contexts that even though the
Australian Society incorporates democracy, many regions of the country does not welcome or
encourage disagreements on political or social concepts. When it comes to dealing with
public affairs, the contemporary society of Australia does not always readily accepts the
views of the common people. The people who are homeless or incorporates a risk of losing
their homes are the ones who do not enjoy the right of speech on any topic in the society.
As said by the authors Mann et al., (2018), he Australian government restricts the
homeless or lower class people to speak openly even though they are the responsible citizens
of the nation. These people are being excused readily from the opportunities provided to the
mass of Australia and their voices are silenced effectively such that they do not get to express
their views regarding any serious issue that might affect their lives. Moreover, the
contemporary society of Australia does not incorporates views of the all people on certain

4BALANCE OF ‘RIGHTS’ AND ‘OBLIGATIONS’ IN CONTEMPORARY AUSTRALIA
issues such as the anti-protest laws, the laws that limits the speech on lawful expression, the
law that affects the freedom of media and changes on the policies of state or federal
government that might create an impact on the society. The author Howard (2018), state that
certain meetings in South Australia, Tasmania, Queensland and Victoria were held to raise
concerns about the anti-protest laws such as the ‘Workplaces Bill 2014’ or ‘Reproductive
Health Act 2013’ any a few more. However, these laws were responsible to restrict the
capacity of the common people of the society to debate or disagree on policy matters and in
addition, limit the ability of the people to express their views on these topics as a group.
Thus, if people are hindered from expressing their opinion about such serious concern it
undermines the spirit of the liberal democracy that is written in the constitution of Australia.
As mentioned by Ashok, Babie & Orth (2018), the views of the people in the society
are diverse and varies from one another on a broader spectrum. Some people may want the
anti-protest laws while some might accept them as the way they are. Although, the
government as well as the people in it should make sure that everyone has the right to express
their viewpoint without any issues. However one major platform for expressing views by the
people of the contemporary society of Australia is the exchange of information through the
social media platforms where people should not express anything that will be offensive for
anybody else. The obligation of the people to interact via social sites is to balance between
the freedom of expression and accepting the perception of other people as well.
As per the views of Poulos (2019), the right to freedom of thought, is another right
practiced by the contemporary people of Australia. The people should incorporate an
understanding about the diverse religions that exist in the nation and maintain dignity towards
others who belong to different religious backgrounds. The people who wills to practise their
own religion must acknowledge the existence of other religions too and that will help in
safeguarding the self-esteem of the human race in the country. This freedom to religion in the

5BALANCE OF ‘RIGHTS’ AND ‘OBLIGATIONS’ IN CONTEMPORARY AUSTRALIA
country includes key elements like choosing a religion or changing one, exercising the
religion either publicly or privately as per one’s own choice and believing in the forms of
worshipping, teaching or observing the religion.
According to Leslie (2017), the right to freedom of practising religion when interacts
with public policies and legislations from the Australian government, counts on various
measures like the anti-discrimination laws, the funding for religious organizations by the
government, discriminating people on the basis of religious backgrounds and equality of all
religions before the laws of Australian government. However, the laws are not justified in all
aspects and the government should be held responsible for the discrimination. For instance,
the Sex Discrimination Act, 1984 specifically mentions that people should not be
discriminated based on their sexual orientation or identity of gender. However, the law makes
exceptions for religious bodies or educational institutions. Hence, abiding by this law, the
homosexual people are deprived from getting education or visiting religious institutions
whereas the people not belonging to the LGBTI community are privileged with proper
education system and other considerable facilities. Thus, it is obligatory for the people to
consider the homosexual ones as one amongst them and build unity in this contemporary age
rather than discriminating them for their sexual orientation.
As per the researches of Rowe (2018), the right to religious freedom and equality is
one of the fundamental principle of the rights of human. With respect to this, the Marriage
Act 1961 states that marriage should be the union of people belonging to different gender and
can exist only between a man and a woman. Thus, it also states that marriage is deprived
amongst the same sex couples. However, according to Donnelly (2019), all human beings
should be treated the same way irrespective of their gender. Each individual in the nation
should have their own choices and preferences and they should be privileged to live by their
choices. Thus, the people of the contemporary age raised their voice against the law and

6BALANCE OF ‘RIGHTS’ AND ‘OBLIGATIONS’ IN CONTEMPORARY AUSTRALIA
demanded legislative reformation that will ensure marriage amongst the homosexual people.
By incorporating such measures the people of the contemporary society proves that they
belong to the religion of humanity more than anything else and respect others irrespective of
their gender, caste or religion.
Conclusion
The contemporary society of Australia are comprised of both the government who is
responsible for enacting and reforming the laws of the nation and the people of the society
who will abide by the law as well as oblige the rights of the other people to build up a society
of harmony. Hence, the contemporary people are not only responsible for enjoying their own
rights but oblige in a way such that others can enjoy it too. The Australian government
comprises of two major rights, the right to speak and the right to religious beliefs. On this
aspect, the discussions of different literatures are highlighted in this paper. The government
plays a key role in defining the rights and allow people to converse freely, yet it restricts
people to say anything offensive against each other in social media or make racist comments.
People should follow this to maintain harmony in the society. They should also ensure to
enjoy the right to religious beliefs for every individual of the nation irrespective of their caste,
creed or religion.

7BALANCE OF ‘RIGHTS’ AND ‘OBLIGATIONS’ IN CONTEMPORARY AUSTRALIA
References
Ashok, K., Babie, P. T., & Orth, J. V. (2018). Balancing Justice Needs and Private Property
in Constitutional Takings Provisions: A Comparative Assessment of India, Australia,
and the United States. Fordham Int'l LJ, 42, 999.
Bateman, E. (2019). 'His Garden a Wilderness'-The Balance between Equality and Freedom
of Religion in Australia and Canada. Available at SSRN 3354912.
Cusack, C. M. (2018). Vestigial States: secular space and the churches in contemporary
Australia. Modern Greek Studies (Australia and New Zealand), 18.
Donnelly, J. (2019). The concept of human rights (Vol. 19). Routledge.
Howard, T. M. (2018). Balancing the see-saw of natural resource governance: the interaction
of legislation, policy and practice in four Australian participatory
processes. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 25(2), 174-192.
Iliquini-Cinelli, L., & Hutchison, A. (2016). Constitutionalism, good faith and the doctrine of
specific performance: rights, duties and equitable discretion. South African Law
Journal, 133(1), 73-101.
Leslie, K. (2017). Balancing Tensions in Regulatory Reform: Changes to Regulation of
Health Professions in Australia, the United Kingdom, and Ontario, Canada (Doctoral
dissertation).
Lewandowski, T. A. (2017). Responsibility to protect. Balancing national interests and
international obligations through multilateralism. International Comparative
Jurisprudence, 3(1), 93-103.

8BALANCE OF ‘RIGHTS’ AND ‘OBLIGATIONS’ IN CONTEMPORARY AUSTRALIA
Mann, M., Daly, A., Wilson, M., & Suzor, N. (2018). The limits of (digital)
constitutionalism: Exploring the privacy-security (im) balance in
Australia. International Communication Gazette, 80(4), 369-384.
Poulos, E. (2019). Constructing the problem of religious freedom: an analysis of Australian
government inquiries into religious freedom. Religions, 10(10), 583.
Rowe, D. (2018). Cultural citizenship, media and sport in contemporary
Australia. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 53(1), 11-29.
Voon, T. (2017). Balancing Regulatory Autonomy with Liberalization of Trade in Services:
An Analytical Assessment of Australia's Obligations Under Preferential Trade
Agreements. Melb. J. Int'l L., 18, 373.