It was a calculated risk the supermarkets took when they decided to reduce staff by asking the customers to the work.

All Mr Colesworth has to do now is get some system where the customers also stack the shelves and he won’t need to employ anyone. That would boost their profits!

A newspaper report named an insurance company that was refusing to pay out one in every three claims for total and permanent disability – and that does seem unfair.

Once up a time, children, there was an organisation called The Government Insurance Office. It was created because some insurance companies became greedy and were declining far too many legitimate claims. This organisation (the GIO) which was owned by the people was doing a good job when the Federal Government of the day decided to privatise it.

That wasn’t too bad because way back last a century ago a group of motorists had formed the NRMA and later created their own insurance company - and that kept the other insurance companies honest - but there was a big campaign and the NRMA Insurance was also privatised (they called it demutualised).

The result? The costs of all forms of insurance skyrocketed, as did the profits for the insurance companies. But that was not enough for some and they paid staff to find technical reasons why they should not have to pay legitimate claims – just like the giants in America’s health insurance companies do. It is a very unfair system.  In Australia our health insurer is our own government and, as we are all shareholders, there is no point in finding loopholes to avoid paying legitimate claims.

And that should be a warning to all politicians who would really like to privatise Australia’s excellent health system. It should never happen. 

Hands up anyone who understands what the Australian Air Force is doing in the fighting in the Middle East! Sure, it’s all to do with stopping ISIS from killing lots of innocent people who don’t accept their brand of religion. We are part of the campaign in Syria being conducted by the Americans but the Russians are also there also to stop ISIS but they seem to have a different policy and have quite different targets from those of the Americans.

And that surely indicates the bad decision made by someone in the Australian Government to become involved in that continuing mess in the Middle East. It also points out the need for a complete remake of the UN Security Council to make it far more effective - and democratic. 

There is no excuse for domestic violence but maybe we should look to the way society has changed in trying to find a solution. When I married a lovely young lady (a long while ago) it was accepted that a man’s role was to ‘provide for his family and to protect women and children’ – but a lot has changed since then.

We seem to forget that it was only in the middle of last century that the contraceptive pill was developed, the first practical and economical way of birth control. Before then, it was important that parents protected their girls from becoming pregnant before they had a man to ‘provide for and protect her and her children’. It was a very tough world in those days, particularly for girls - but it also meant that men had big responsibilities.

We seem to forget that man is still an animal and the human male was meant to be a hunter/warrior, the woman the carer and protector of her children. She also became very adept at language, to help train and educate her children, while the men were out hunting or protecting their tribe. That was not many generations ago on the evolutionary scale.               .

Things changed after ‘the pill’. I once opened the door for a girl at work – and she snapped “There is no need to open the door just because I am a woman!”  I immediately responded “I am sorry, I made a mistake, I thought I was opening it for a lady”. In my generation men were brought up to treat all women as ‘ladies’. A lot has changed since then.

But this is an important issue when we talk about domestic violence. Traditionally, the man was supposed to be the head of the family; it was his duty to protect and care for his wife and children and, in that role he had to be prepared to be aggressive and sometimes the fighter but that theory dates back to the days when women did not have paid employment and man was the sole provider – what is his traditional role now?

Equality of the sexes is simple logic but it has relegated man’s role as ’the provider and head of the family’ – characteristics that might still be in his genes but they are no longer his right.

And while there is no excuse for any man to abuse his wife or family, there is equally no excuse for the woman to denigrate the man. Verbal criticism can sometimes be as damaging as physical abuse. Evolution has given women, generally, much better language skills than many men and in my time as a working journalist it was obvious that some cases of family violence resulted from the woman verbally denigrating her man, even in front of their children.

Maybe we need to consider that it wasn’t long ago in mankind’s history that men needed some aggression if they were to protect and provide food for their wives and family. That role has changed dramatically. 

Ray Williams has been a Post columnist since retiring from the newsroom in 1993.