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.
The aggregate picture of the economy may seem healthy enough after two years of heavy immigration, over 800,000, and the return of students and tourists. But the elephant in the room remains. Australia is a two-tiered society sharply divided between people who own homes and people who do not. The generational divide is worsening.
In December, the Vatican issued ‘Fiducia Supplicans’ (‘Supplicating Trust’), licensing priests to bless partners in same-sex and other ‘irregular’ relationships (divorced and remarried couples, couples ‘living in sin’, etc ) when they are approached in good faith.
The key to combatting increasing levels of loneliness and social isolation will likely start in the way we think about cities, public spaces and social care to enable meaningful connections between people, and help to guard against harms caused by habitual loneliness. But we'll need to get creative.
To encourage young men to adopt a more fully human understanding of what it means to be a man and to live by more expansive rules is an urgent task. It lies at the heart of reducing the level of domestic violence.
The main purpose of government is to promote the welfare of its people. And yet over the last few decades, through numerous inquiries, it’s become clear that the Australian government has failed to provide services for the Australian population as well as might be expected.
If the treatment of persons is unethical, it will inevitably lead to ethical corruption in the people and the institutions involved in administering it. It is almost impossible to participate in a policy based on such unethical premises without being complicit in it. If we do, we become blinded to what we owe one another by virtue of being human.
Months after the referendum, can we allow this referendum to die while preserving the essence of its vision and optimism? This is akin to our response to the loss of a loved one — we hold onto their memory, reluctant to let go. How do we keep the deeply treasured aspirations of the referendum journey alive while facing the reality of its death?
Despite a 'fatherhood revolution', government policies continue to neglect the positive impact fathers can have on child development, educational success, and even social well-being. Bridging the gap between the surging research on fatherhood and concrete policy measures ultimately means better outcomes for families.
In a hierarchical society, we routinely celebrate and reward various dominating and competitive behaviour. When children and young people replicate this in the playground, we call it bullying. Anti-bullying measures may be more effective shifting the focus away from perpetrators and on the social and institutional context.
The referendum result was a disaster for the country and a tragedy for First Australians and there has been little appetite for public discussion about lessons to be learnt from this abject failure. If we are to move forward, it’s time to begin the conversation about past mistakes.
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?
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?