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.
The Federal Government looks set to bring in legislation which would make it more difficult for new candidates to put themselves forward in future elections. In a nation where more than a third of voters opted not to vote for one of the two major parties, this should concern everyone.
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.
How can we make progress on the question of whether debate can do harm, and if it can, whether that’s a sufficient reason to suppress particular debates? Or should we adopt a ‘no debate!’ approach to particular topics ourselves?
Over 200,000,000 Indonesians are currently weighing up who to elect from three candidates as their next president. Australia has nothing to gain from a Prabowo presidency and a lot to lose.
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.
Last year, the late Cardinal George Pell anonymously published a memorandum that criticized Pope Francis and his vision of a synodal church and condemned the Synod as a ‘catastrophe’, Cardinal Pell's memo signals building tensions between different visions for the future of the Church in Australia.
To close the year for Eureka Street, the editorial team wanted to nominate who we considered to be the Eureka Street ‘person of the year’ based on this year's newsmakers.
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.
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.
In the lead up to the Voice referendum, there's a subtle yet seismic undercurrent at play: How do we sustain a meaningful democratic conversation when the foundational truths seem so fragmented? Our ability to connect, converse, and find consensus could be the real referendum of our times.
In our data-driven age, numbers shape perceptions, often shadowing reality. But should they define our entire understanding? Perhaps it's time to occasionally detach from the numerical deluge and truly value the essence of what and who matter.
1-12 out of 200 results.