Men and women can be hurtful to one another during relationship difficulties, separation, divorce and custody matters. Their behaviour is not always the highest expression of themselves. However, statistics record that domestic and family violence is mostly occurring to women by men. Women should be free to leave a relationship without threats to their safety and wellbeing.

Ideally partners exist as equals within their relationships, irrespective of one's gender, sexual identity, culture and religion.

The Australian Institute of Criminology (2017) found on average that one woman in Australia is murdered every week by her current or former partner. One in four children in Australia are exposed to family violence. Australian police are estimated to attend a "serious domestic dispute" every two minutes (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2017). Additionally, VicHealth (2015) estimated that intimate partner violence is the leading cause of death, disability and illness in women aged 15 to 44.

Taken together, Australia is failing to reasonably protect women and children from domestic and family violence, and they are particularly at risk from offenders that wilfully breach their AVOs. Australia requires its policy makers to take a national approach that delivers best practice responses and outcomes, which acknowledges our multicultural diversity.

Should you be experiencing domestic and family violence, the following services can assist: 1800Respect 1800 737 732, Aboriginal Family Domestic Violence Hotline 1800 019 123 and Lifeline 13 11 14.

AT a family restaurant as I sat over my coffee, a group of disabled people and their carers arrived. Maybe slightly more enthusiastic about their visit than some others might be, they settled at tables away from the general stream of customers. They were obviously enjoying themselves and no more disruptive than any other group.

I know it's rude to eavesdrop, but what occurred during their visit so disgusted me that I couldn't help listening in. A charming, somewhat embarrassed waitress came and said that a customer who was in the restaurant when this group arrived had telephoned after he left, to complain about the length of time the group had been allowed to stay and that they were depriving would-be customers of seating. There were other groups sitting in the same area and there was definitely no shortage of seating, so unless this disgruntled caller has a problem with people who are disabled, I simply cannot see his reason for complaint.

Intolerance in any form is horrible, but against people who can't answer for themselves it is even more so. I commend the restaurant for the understanding and discretion demonstrated.

THE powerful message of the Stan Grant/Adam Goodes special The Australian Dream is revealing, in extremis, the racism of the ugly Aussie, shames us all. But how can the harm be arrested?

Our lecturing of other nations about human rights backfires. The prospect of maturity via an Australian republic will continue to elude us when we are marked down internationally by not emulating Canada, Norway and others with constitutional recognition of first nation peoples.

The cancer of racism will not evaporate with the achievement of an Australian republic. The very definition of a republic as a society with equality between its members should automatically prioritise constitutional recognition. Rather than defer, however, what is wrong with a joint ticket? A simultaneous referendum for a republic and Aboriginal representation in the parliament would, at once, shred the fiction of Terra Nullius and ensure that, to quote the Uluru Statement from the Heart, an "ancient sovereignty can shine through as a fuller expression of Australia's nationhood".

The promotion of a joint ticket would be more than a synergy. Win or lose, wouldn't engagement across causes dilute racism? Wouldn't a joint prosecution of the issues foster unity and understanding where racism is seen as a hurtful, constraining distraction? Sam Cooke sangs a change is gonna come. At least let's give the troglodytes pause for thought. The Stan Grants and Adam Goodeses of the world need urgent support.

IF there is strong consensus by all that offshore sand dredging is the first step in fixing Stockton beach, the hurdle seems to be that NSW legislation doesn't enable it to happen despite Queensland have been doing it for many years successfully.

What is stopping Jodi McKay, Tim Crakanthorp and their Labor team from presenting that same successful Queensland legislation as a private members bill to the floor of parliament? The wheel doesn't need to be reinvented in this case and time is against Stockton. All parties have had the information of where the sands have been shifting to and what was going to happen here for over 10 years. There should be no delays.

Just as importantly, has anyone looked to see if there is a sand dredger available and made a booking for its trip to Stockton?

BRUCE Niblett (Letters, 26/2) incorrectly claims that the profit made by the Stockton Holiday Park does not benefit the local community. In fact, state legislation requires 100 per cent of the profits of the holiday park to be spent maintaining and improving facilities within Rawson Park Reserve. To be clear, this means that the 16 cabins that had to be moved two weeks ago when huge seas eroded the beach immediately in front of them, are funding the maintenance of the Stockton Swimming Pool, the beach pavilion, Lexie's Café, Lynn Oval, the Mitchell Street Seawall and the Surf Club.

The relocated cabins cannot be used without an approved DA, which means the $1 million annually that the holiday park generates for Rawson Park Reserve is reducing with every day. Then there is the further economic cost on local businesses from the loss of tourists to Stockton. The community will rightly have their chance to decide whether the cabins should be permanently relocated through the public exhibition of a DA. But let there be no misunderstanding that while the 16 cabins belong to the City of Newcastle, the proceeds they generate belong only to the people of Stockton.

THE pen goes to Dr Michael Walton for his letter on domestic and family violence.

REMEMBER going "into town" and having lunch at Coles cafeteria in Hunter Street (later called the Mall)? The store of Coles itself closed many years ago and the building saw many other businesses, but none so memorable as Coles, the first of their iconic stores in the Newcastle area. Last week this and other buildings in the block between Hunter, King, Thorn and Wolfe Streets were being demolished. Some of the facades will be retained but the history/memory that was in that block has gone, as has so much of once was called Newcastle's CBD. Thank you for the several books that have been written with many photos of what I call the last of the best of Newcastle.

IN the words of Paul Simon, I need a photo-opportunity, I want a shot at redemption, don't want to end up a cartoon, in a cartoon graveyard ('Newcastle councillors up in arms over photo shoot", Newcastle Herald 28/2).

FOR John Ure (Letters, 27/2) English common law has conferred very few benefits on Aboriginal Australians. Considerably more benefits than Aboriginal law, I suggest. The only rights I believe were denied Aboriginal people were constitutional rights above and beyond what the rest of us enjoy. Mr Ure also labels me a climate denier because I don't believe humans are warming the planet as much and as fast as I am supposed to believe, and is curious to know how I reconcile my views with my Christian beliefs. I'm in favour of what is best for the common good, including equal rights and a sustainable planet, but I don't have to accept the green/left agenda as the blueprint.

CARL Stevenson (Short Takes, 21/2), our auto workers were taking home around $67,000. They earned a lot less than the average wage: $86,268 according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Never mind your double the average wage.

YOU know the thing that upsets me most in parliamentarians' misbehaviour (Sports grants: PM's office in 136 e-mail exchanges", Herald 27/2) is this line of defence that essentially goes "but they did it just as badly, just as secretively, so we're entitled to rip everyone off too." When it's the Prime Minister taking (screaming, actually) that line, where do we look for some future hope?

TUESDAY'S paper had a report on the federal government's latest report on greenhouse gas emissions ('Climate change debate heats up as emissions remain the same', Herald 25/2). It states that national emissions fell just 0.3 per cent in the year. Factors mentioned are renewals in electricity, drought, petrol use, as well as "fugitive emissions", land use and forestry. Can any of your readers explain how these indices are measured, or are they merely estimated? I constantly look over my shoulder and have yet to observe anyone attempting to measure my ongoing flatulence, which I would think would be part of the fugitive emissions assessment?