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.
Nuclear energy has snuck its way onto the table of Australian public policy. Given that Australia is a country that hosts military nuclear platforms, the impetus to translate it into a civilian context is proving powerful.
Love is a much-used word, and, like domestic cutlery, it tends to lose its shine. Its boundaries then shrink to the average rather than to the inspiring. For that reason we need stories that stretch the ceiling of love beyond anything we could imagine. Not because we think that we could reach such far places, but because it enlarges the horizon of our lives.
Recognition is not simply an acceptance of facts. It involves also entering the experience of the people affected. Reconciliation must begin with truth telling, flow into empathy, and be followed by a conversation aimed at building decent relationships.
After two years, the attack on Ukraine by Russia on February 24 has left half-a-million dead, traumatised a generation, and promises little in the way of a halt to hostilities. The unpalatable reality to this conflict is that some diplomatic solution will have to be found in this war of murderous attrition.
Later this year, Australians will vote on a referendum to enshrine an Indigenous Voice to Parliament, but many Indigenous Australians remain undecided, reflecting the complexities of the issue. The debate over the Voice to Parliament extends beyond the referendum question to encompass broader concerns about the constitution, treaties, and achieving true equality.
How should our nation reckon with its colonial history and its lasting impact on contemporary society? From the stark realities of early settlement to the enduring legacies of injustice towards Indigenous peoples, this piece explores what it means for a country to grapple with its identity amidst a backdrop of change.
In a global landscape increasingly marked by fluid alliances, Prime Minister Albanese's diplomatic foray from Washington to Beijing had the dual aim of warming frosty relations with China and reinforcing the significance of foundational ties. This is not merely diplomatic choreography; it’s a story of Australia redefining its place in a complex global narrative.
Can the essence of human frailty—our inconsistencies, our biases, our passions—really be replicated in ones and zeros? And if so, what becomes of the human voice once the machines learn to speak?
This vote will be remembered as an opportunity for Australians to grapple with the injustices of history, and imagine a more just way forward. My hope is that each person voting will have done just that – and whether they vote ‘yes’ or ‘no’, that they are making their vote bearing in mind what they think will best reconcile our nation’s past and look forward to a more just future.
The looming referendum challenges us to confront our shared history and consider a united path forward. Amidst the deep-rooted pain and the quest for truth, reconciliation and healing, can this vote be the turning point that signals a brighter, more inclusive future for all?
You might think that, if anyone could pull off the establishment of a treaty, a great poet and a great policy maker, working in harmony, would surely have the best chance. But this was not the case: when Judith Wright and H.C. Coombes advocated for a treaty throughout their lifetimes, they were unsuccessful.
The wording of the proposed change to the Australian Constitution to enshrine a First Nations Voice might not be perfect. But whatever the imperfections and the risk of future complications, it is high time that Australia’s First Peoples were recognised in the Constitution in a manner sought and approved by a broad cross-section of Indigenous leaders.