Welcome to Eureka Street
Looking for thought provoking articles?Subscribe to Eureka Street and join the conversation.
Passwords must be at least 8 characters, contain upper and lower case letters, and a numeric value.
Eureka Street uses the Stripe payment gateway to process payments. The terms and conditions upon which Stripe processes payments and their privacy policy are available here.
Please note: The 40-day free-trial subscription is a limited time offer and expires 31/3/24. Subscribers will have 40 days of free access to Eureka Street content from the date they subscribe. You can cancel your subscription within that 40-day period without charge. After the 40-day free trial subscription period is over, you will be debited the $90 annual subscription amount. Our terms and conditions of membership still apply.
There are more than 200 results, only the first 200 are displayed here.
In a world that has become increasingly more divided in the aftermath of the pandemic, Executive Director of Catholic Social Services Victoria Joshua Lourensz is questioning how we might best re-develop a sense of the commons to reignite our communities and foster social responsibility?
With large moral and ethical questions, I find myself slipping and sliding along a continuum of 'always yes' to 'definitely no', and never fully landing on either. Am I kidding myself? Is this inability to take a side lack of moral clarity or fibre? Or should I make a decision and stick to it?
How can we make progress on the question of whether debate can do harm, and if it can, whether that’s a sufficient reason to suppress particular debates? Or should we adopt a ‘no debate!’ approach to particular topics ourselves?
What links the debate about the conduct of the war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, the detention of children in a crowded and under-resourced Cairns watch house, and British legislation to send asylum seekers to Rwanda?
This rush to the missile age is part of a broader escalation of the arms race in previously peaceful regions, distancing countries like Australia and New Zealand from their roles as honest brokers in a nuclear-free Pacific.
Public hospitals around the country introduced mixed gender rooms during the noughties to get patients to their rooms quicker after being in emergency. It has since become common practise, without significant debate or research.
For a national day of celebration, Australia Day has had a varied, higgledy-piggledy and divisive history. In this, it echoes Australia itself and so provides a useful lens for reflecting on our national life.
Even the best forecasting gets it wrong, and every year has its own 'Black Swan' events, characterised by their unpredictability and impact. They remind us that the future is unpredictable, perpetually lurching between prediction and confusion.
After a minor accident, in the face of institutional apathy, we were treated to a picture of human kindness. It highlighted that, even in a politically divided country, there exists an undercurrent of unity and empathy, often overlooked but ever-present.
In contrast to the United States, we in Australia ‘don’t do God’, and we rarely acknowledge the religious dimension of our national identity. In an age of declining adherence to the Christian faith, has Australia found a new civil religion? And will it serve us well?
It’s that time of year when futurists and prophets play fast and loose, projecting visions rife with both promise and peril, weighing the possible against the improbable. As we contemplate competing pictures of the future, although every forecast risks missing the mark, one thing is certain: 2024 won’t be a year for the faint-hearted.
As the government drafts legislation to stem the rising tide of misinformation circulating online, the nation debates: will these measures sufficiently regulate online content and curb potential harms or threaten freedom of expression? This moment is a critical test for the integrity of Australia's public discourse.
49-60 out of 200 results.