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.
As Australia approaches a pivotal referendum, voters face a critical choice: endorse a new chapter in the Constitution providing a 'First Nations Voice' or leave it untouched. Whichever way the vote goes, we will be left with a Constitution not fit for purpose in the 21st century.
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.
Accusing someone of being ‘un-Australian’ is easily done, but what crimes or potential threats to the security and safety of Australians should trigger the practice of stripping someone of their citizenship?
No doubt there were some who genuinely believed that privatising employment services would result in better services at a lower cost to the public purse. But the engineers of the socially destructive projects of the neoliberal era knew very well that they were more likely to result in the enrichment of some to the detriment of many.
As Australian students receive their year-end academic results, a stark educational divide comes into focus, with high-fee-paying private and selective government schools leading the ranks. This trend highlights significant socio-economic disparities across the country, raising urgent questions about the accessibility and true cost of academic excellence in a nation grappling with inequality.
Last month, the High Court overturned a controversial 2004 decision, reaffirming the principle that asylum seekers cannot be detained indefinitely without prospects of deportation. This ruling not only corrects a historical misstep but also reasserts the High Court's commitment to limiting executive overreach.
Charged with breaching national security for exposing alleged war crimes by Australian forces in Afghanistan, former Australian military lawyer David McBride's trial in Canberra rekindles a debate that tests the boundaries of military obedience and public interest. At the heart of this legal battle lies the question: when does the duty to expose wrongdoing outweigh the duty to follow orders?
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.
Next week, former army lawyer David McBride will face trial, accused of leaking classified defence information. Meanwhile, the prospect of meaningful whistleblower reforms that would shield Australian public servants who contemplate exposing wrongdoing through the media seems remote.
The proposed Misinformation Bill straddles the delicate balance between freedom of speech and the rising threat of misinformation, posing a challenge that could redefine the landscape of media and public conversation. The problem goes beyond discerning the truth, but determining how a democratic society identifies it amid a sea of conflicting voices.
Following the Hamas attack on October 7, the world is forced to grapple with the profound complexities of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, a mire of historical grievances, selective narratives, and devastating violence. With both sides weaponising the weight of their tragedies for the international stage, the tragedy's core remains: innocent lives lost in a perpetuating cycle of violence.
A large part of my feelings of connectedness to Jews in Israel and around the world can be explained by my link to Jewish history. There is the cultural and broader history and my own family history. So many of the Jewish festivals commemorate Jews escaping persecution.
13-24 out of 200 results.