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.
When High Court rulings challenge government policy, they usually prompt reflection and refinement. But for the Federal Government, a recent decision on non-citizen rights has sparked a legislative overreach, mirroring the Opposition’s hardline stance.
Last week, Australia’s High Court blocked government restrictions on non-citizens with criminal records. As Parliament scrambles to impose new restrictions, Chief Justice Stephen Gageler’s court remains steadfast against policies deemed discriminatory and excessively punitive.
The Government is making another valiant effort to rein in the adverse effects of ungoverned digital platforms. But in debating such a detailed bill without the backstop of a constitutional or statutory bill of rights recognising the right to freedom of expression, there are no clear guard rails for getting the balance right.
In the aftermath of the failed Voice referendum, questions arise about the legal profession’s role in public discourse. Was this a missed opportunity for legal experts to provide critical analysis and guidance on such a significant constitutional matter?
Following the failure of the Voice referendum, many believed that the path to constitutional recognition is closed for Indigenous Australians. But they may be wrong.
The Albanese government’s refugee and asylum policy is in a mess. When Minister Giles introduced his Migration Amendment Bill, they bypassed typical parliamentary procedures, wanting to be seen as tougher than Peter Dutton in getting unvisaed non-citizens out of the country. It’s time for the government to return to due process in this whole field.
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.
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.
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.
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.
1-12 out of 200 results.