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 demonstrated in debates around the Voice, increasingly divergent perceptions of reality affect our dedication to our societal obligations and the upkeep of our shared core values. If left unchecked, this drift away from a shared understanding of the common good will further undermine trust and mutual respect that bind us, challenging the very foundations of a humane, civilised and inclusive society.
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.
In the wake of the referendum, how can a curriculum be used to foster a sense of reflection, understanding, and dialogue among young minds? As classrooms become the backdrop for conversations around Indigenous voices, democracy, and social change, what does it mean to truly listen?
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 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.
This month we navigate the dual milestones of a failed constitutional referendum and the First Assembly of the Synod of Bishops. Seemingly disparate, these events converge in debates over tradition, leadership, and discourse. Their outcomes promise to shape the nation's spiritual and secular contours for generations.
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.
An examination of school reading lists and libraries unveils striking parallels with the debates and concerns surrounding the Referendum, highlighting the pervasive societal anxieties and the intricate interplay of national identity and values, and the ongoing need for empathy.
From cherished family anecdotes to narratives that divide societies, stories have a way of bonding groups and affecting our thinking on the challenges facing our nation. It is our stories that either draw people closer or keep us from recognising the humanity in each other.
Can genuine dialogue influence societal change? In discussion with Professor Joe Camilleri, Michele Gierck explores initiatives to achieve productive public discourse, and the transformative power of conversation as our most effective catalyst for global change.
25-36 out of 200 results.