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.
If you made a list of top Australian scientists, who would make your top three? Robyn Williams, host of The Science Show since 1975, discusses the rise of new scientific areas, incredible breakthroughs and thousands of Australian men and women pushing the boundaries of human knowledge.
The main purpose of government is to promote the welfare of its people. And yet over the last few decades, through numerous inquiries, it’s become clear that the Australian government has failed to provide services for the Australian population as well as might be expected.
February marks 15 years since the Black Saturday fires in Victoria when some 400 fires raced through 78 locations, taking 173 lives, injuring hundreds more, destroying more than 2,020 homes and the entire township of Marysville. In a warming climate, that reality of loss is likely to be repeated ad infinitum.
Much of the discussion about tax reform is about the mechanisms of collection; around changes to things like negative gearing, stamp duty, land tax, capital gains tax, and superannuation. But what is missing is a statement of values about what we expect our tax system to fund.
Kevin Rudd's Apology to the Stolen Generations in 2008 seems to belong to a different age. It can never be unsaid. It can, however, be disregarded. For that reason it continues to be important. It is a measuring stick by which both Parliamentary behaviour and the treatment of Indigenous Australians can be judged.
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?
Proving genocide is an onerous task, notably on the issue of intent. The acts alleged must be specifically intended to destroy the group members in question. The UN Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect considers this element ‘the most difficult element to determine.’
In the midst of the fifth and deadliest war between Israel and Hamas, a retrospective analysis uncovers a history of missed chances and rising extremism that fueled this crisis. From Netanyahu's policies bolstering Hamas to declining support for the two-state solution, the situation raises a pivotal question: could a different approach have averted this catastrophe?
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.
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.
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.
37-48 out of 200 results.