We have seen this happening over the past couple of years. While there was an option to use either, now supermarkets are hoping that they will train us all to use self-serve only, even though I imagine they have heavy losses from stealing at these points.

Before 10am, at some stores, there are no checkout operators so customers are forced to use self-serve.

On several occasions while queuing in the serviced lane I have been approached by a staff member who quite patronisingly remarks "come on dear, I will show you how to use the self serve." My comment always is this "I know how to use them, but I'm trying to save your job."

Personally I would be willing to pay more to keep jobs, but we shouldn't need to.

THERE'S a new political orthodoxy in town. It's called aspiration. At its heart is the claim that we all support tax cuts and lurks for the wealthy because we might all one day be wealthy.

Aspiration is just a con, the latest in a long line of cons crafted by the conservative establishment to justify and entrench inequity and unfairness. The last was "trickle-down economics". It sufficed for a good while, but was finally exposed as a fraud. A new political smokescreen needed to be found. And so, aspiration was born.

With trickle-down economics, we were asked to believe that if we were patient some of the largesse showered on the wealthy would eventually make its way down to lower levels. Now aspiration asks us to believe that if we are patient, we will all eventually earn enough to join the wealthy already cashing in.

With one, the money would come down to us. With the other, we simply have to climb up to the money.

The key political ingredient in both is patience. Patient people don't rock the boat. They wait compliantly at the bottom of the pile, or the back of the queue. They hardly notice what's going on at the top, or up the front. I believe the aspirational voter is a fiction being used to conjure a politically-inconvenient reality for Labor, to erect a straw man and accuse Labor of wanting to set fire to it. Labor should stick to its guns, call out aspiration for the fraud it is and continue to be the champion of fairness and decency.

ON Saturday my 19-year-old daughter attempted to try and pick up her friend safely from a hotel. She parked in Darby Street near King Street about 11pm in a spot that signs indicated didn't require fees this time of night. Whilst waiting for him to come out, she was approached by a security guard who insisted she move on.

She asked why, as the sign said it was okay to park there, but when she pointed this out he abruptly told her area was taxi pick-up only at that time of night. She was alone and unsure about arguing this point with him.

She then moved her car, only realising she couldn't turn around or get back due to the light rail. She had her friend walk alone to meet her on a side street where she was able to park the car safely.

Our kids try to keep each other safe, but in my opinion it appears public parking is being used as an area exclusively for cab drivers. Do they have the right to do this? Doesn't my daughter also have the right to safely pick up friends from safe locations without being told to move on despite signs saying otherwise? Perhaps signs are missing and not placed for all to see.

ALAN Metcalf (Letters 3/7) is absolutely on the right track when it comes to veterans knowing their medical treatment requirements.

I recently received a letter from the secretary of the Department of Veterans' Affairs who advised me that as far as she knew there were no veterans over 70 years of age in any advisory or policy role in her department.

Apparently, the department believes anyone over 70 could not possibly be of any benefit to the organisation.

Perhaps they believe over 70s couldn't possibly understand what is required to deny a veteran his entitlements. I write deny because that is generally their fall-back position.

A 20-something who never spent a day in uniform makes decisions in accordance with a book of rules. There's no outside the box thinking, just the book of rules.

The department will, of course, opine that they have ex-military personnel in advisory roles, but these people are usually of general rank, on significant superannuation and have not a clue as to how the other half live.

Mr Metcalf, I have written about the disgrace that I believe the Department of Veterans' Affairs is, and how in many other countries veterans' affairs is a hot topic in the run up to elections (Letters 23/4).

It's not in Australia, though.

Our government is so out of touch with veterans that it announced in February that from July 1 members of SEATO medical teams who served in Vietnam would now be entitled to a Gold Card.

What's wrong with that, you may ask. What's wrong is that any member of the Australian Defence Force who was totally and permanently incapacitated between 1992 to 1 July 2004 is not entitled to a Gold Card. It sounds unbelievable, but it's a fact.

JUST a thought for consideration for the next general election: gender equality is an issue for some, but not all.

We have several years, ample time in theory to form a new political party such as a wholly-female party with a totally new agenda, outlook etc.

Julie Bishop would be a great leader with her experience in federal politics as foreign affairs minister and deputy prime minister. I believe this would offer a fresh approach that would no doubt be forthcoming, and it could give the public a viable alternative to what we have now.

If nothing else, it would liven up the current parties to perform in accordance with the electorate's wishes. If the new party doesn't get a majority vote the first time around, in my opinion the subsequent election would likely be a landslide.

THE pen goes to Frank Ward for his letter on delays in the redress schemes for victims of historical child abuse.