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.
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.
The Australian Indigenous Voice referendum has been rejected, as anticipated by many, with the meaning and consequences now up for debate. This debate may be as crucial as the referendum debate itself to determining the future of reconciliation and what it means to be Australian in the 21st century.
In a world where every politician has something to say, only a select few wield their words well. As we grapple with the failure of the recent Voice referendum, it's worth drawing from these leaders and questioning what truly guides political decisions - morality or self-interest?
The voices of Australia's First Nations communities are asking to be heard. With the upcoming referendum, the nation faces a decision both about equity and identity. How might genuine hope and understanding impact Australia's path forward and address longstanding disparities?
As the Voice Referendum campaign intensifies, many Catholic groups rally behind the Voice. But Australia's church leaders remain above the fray, maintaining neutral positions. As the lines between faith, politics, and indigenous rights blur, should the bishops be more prescriptive on how to vote?
The Kimberley region stands as a testament to both the enduring spirit of Australia's Aboriginal communities and the shadows of colonisation. As the Referendum looms, the potential for a united Voice beckons, inviting Australia towards a harmonious future.
Encompassing the indictment of Donald Trump, the Russia-Ukraine conflict and Australia's Indigenous Voice referendum, the quest for justice has evolved into an abstract and bitter fight, obscuring our common humanity, and requiring us to find a restorative, forgiving route.
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.
Frank Brennan’s book An Indigenous Voice to Parliament is important in pointing out the difficulties facing the Referendum, the conditions to be met if it is to be passed, and in implicitly judging the current state of play.
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 60 results.