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.
This week, the Federal Government quickly introduced a new policy in response to a recent High Court decision that prevents them from indefinitely detaining a small number of individuals they wish to remove from Australia.
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.
Throughout recent decades of Australian history, the stance every government has taken on asylum seekers has reflected the shifting political landscapes and challenging humanitarian issues that have continually shaped Australia's response to those seeking refuge.
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.
How has Australia's asylum seeker policy changed over the past thirty years? The approach of every government has reflected the shifting political landscapes and challenging humanitarian issues that have continually shaped Australia's response to those seeking refuge.
Kathleen Folbigg's release, prompted by the discovery of a genetic mutation that created reasonable doubt in her conviction, marks a significant intersection of science and law. However, the case highlights the need to critically assess the weight and limitations of scientific authority in our justice system, acknowledging the inherent uncertainty embedded within human affairs.
Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger continues to be a subject of fascination and controversy, with his role in statecraft garnering praise and criticism. Amidst the accolades and accusations, questions of justice and accountability remain as Kissinger reaches his centenary.
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.
Recent books Statements from the Soul and An Indigenous Voice to Parliament explore different perspectives on the Uluru Statement, including the relationship between the land and Indigenous people and the legal impact of the proposed constitutional change, while demonstrating the need to appeal to hearts and minds in rallying support for an Indigenous Voice.
With the prosecution of low-level soldiers like SAS trooper Oliver Schulz for war crimes in Afghanistan, we should consider: what is the scope of accountability for war crimes under international and Australian law, and how does it apply to commanders who should have known about the crimes?
In recent days, if you were to listen to the media reports, you could be forgiven for thinking that religious educators want to retain a right to exclude children or teachers from their schools on the basis of their gender or sexual orientation. Nothing could be further from the truth. Or nothing should be further from the truth.
We have a lot of work to do if there is to be any prospect of a successful referendum on the Voice to Parliament, which Indigenous people have put to us as the mode by which they want to be recognised in the Constitution. They have said they want a Voice. Now, we can debate whether it be a Voice to Parliament or a Voice to Parliament and government, or a Voice just about particular laws.
1-12 out of 134 results.