READERS are concerned with the burden of Australia's ageing population, Nick Minchin's comments on local government and the lessons of history.

Enough growth

WILLIAM Bourke is spot on ("Immigration won't cure our old age", The Advertiser 23/4/13).

Australia already has a sufficiently increasing annual population growth without adding the extra strain of increased immigration, which will put unacceptable pressure on both our environmental and man-made resources.

Think of our limited water supply (the River Murray in particular), and our finite arable land for producing food. How is Australia to be the "food bowl of Asia" as reported in The Advertiser recently if the built environment to house a vastly increased human population has to take over what farming and growing land we do have?

Here in Adelaide, ruining our inner-rim suburbs with high-rise density to house unknown quantities of new arrivals as per the 30-year Plan for Greater Adelaide is no solution.

But the regional cities in South Australia would probably welcome sustainable growth, which could be subsidised.

And how are our limited man-made resources going to cope with increased immigration?

Consider our welfare system, as we already have an unacceptably high number of people living at or below what is regarded as the poverty line in this country.

Throwing extra population intake at the ageing demographic "problem" is a short-term, shortsighted response.

Adelaide was never destined to be another version of Sydney.

It is a delightfully liveable regional city.

There is no reason why entrepreneurs cannot thrive here, but they need specialist or niche areas on which to focus.

Immigrants want to come to Australia and South Australia to escape from overcrowded, polluted, insolvent countries; for clear skies, clean air, space, and quality of life.

So why should we want to change our environment to be like those from which they have come?

JILL AMERY, Norwood.

A mere handful

A POPULATION of only 23 million is a mere handful compared with the rest of the world.

We have amazing resources but a government who can't manage the budget.

D. GOODWIN, Kadina

Pushing limits

I'M normally a fan of columnist Jessica Irvine's insightful commentaries, but her contribution to the population debate (The Advertiser, 24/4/13) in my opinion makes the wrong conclusion.

Unfortunately, Ms Irvine takes the same lazy line as politicians in believing that nothing can be done to stop the "ever-expanding population of proud Aussie".

Admittedly, there are tough issues to face, but face them we must or we'll populate ourselves out of existence.

How far are we prepared to push the limits of our finite resources?

Have we learnt nothing from the Murray-Darling experience? Is it satisfactory to "delay the demographic time bomb" with an influx of migrants, knowing that when those migrants age, the bomb will be even bigger?

Are we really so selfish that we only care about what happens to us in the here and now and don't give a damn for future generations?

We know the Port Stanvac desalination plant will max out in 2029 if we endure extremely dry years.

If there are long-term plans for our state to subsist on multiple desal plants and genetically modified crops (for it's guaranteed that's what it will take), I demand our government leaders declare it now.

Take your heads out of the sand, show us your hand and tell the truth for once.

C. FAULKNER, Cheltenham.

Fund the future

OVER the next few decades, something like six million baby boomers are going to start putting their hands out for taxpayer support - if not for old age pensions, at least for subsidised medical and pharmaceutical benefits.

How do those proposing a stable population think we are going to fund that?

It will be a crippling burden for future taxpayers.

Here in South Australia, we lose our best and brightest young people to the more populous states.

If we're to encourage them to stay, or to come home, we need more people to achieve the kind of critical mass that will make us the vibrant city we so desperately want to be.

JOAN SCOTT, Magill

Major overhaul

WITH Australia's population growing at 1.7 per cent, is there going to be money spent on more roads and infrastructure?

That percentage growth is equivalent to a city the size of Adelaide every three years.

Unless there is a major overhaul of our main transport corridors, the congestion will become untenable.

ALAN RILEY, Salisbury Heights

Slow progress

THE Advertiser seems to have a confused position on population growth.

In its editorial last Tuesday, it stated there is a middle ground between "pundits who believe our current population is already placing undue stress on resources" and "those who believe growth must be pursued at all costs".

But it then described that middle ground as "Strong population growth".

The Advertiser believes this strong population growth must be balanced by "environmental sustainability as well as key infrastructure in health, housing, transport and education" .

However, the point that stable population "pundits" such as myself constantly make is that we simply do not have the money to pay for any further expansion in infrastructure.

Studies have shown that each additional inhabitant of Australia requires at least $200,000 in expanded infrastructure - paid for by the existing residents - if services and amenity are not to be degraded.

In 2006 the Productivity Commission found that population growth (that occurs mainly through immigration) improves the lives of the immigrants but at the expense of the wealth of existing residents.

So why are we doing this, especially when it reduces our food, water and energy security and degrades our natural environment?

The self-interested promoters of growth criticise South Australia for its relatively slow expansion (which is nevertheless faster than in most of the developed world).

However, SA's relatively good performance nationally in terms of employment, schools, hospitals and cost of living/housing is mainly due to the fact that it is growing more slowly than the rest of Australia. Don't ruin the future for our children by pushing for fast growth.

MICHAEL LARDELLI, Kensington Park

No comparison

THE 60 per cent hit to the population of Australia's original inhabitants during the last Ice Age apparently took a leisurely 3000 years (The Advertiser, 25/4/13).

Imagine finding a means of comparing that with the overall impact on Aboriginal culture and society in the past 225 years.

RICHARD BENNETT, Dingabledinga

Keep it stable

TWENTY-three million, and yes, our population growth rate is setting us on a course to 50 million by 2050. I can recall when it was 9 million.

Australia's population growth is exponential and undesirable.

Kevin Rudd and the nation's economists and politicians, all with dollar signs in their eyes, will be delighted.

But already we have water shortages, traffic problems, terrorism risk level ratings and loss of prime agricultural land to suburbs, among other issues, as a result of our current population.

When will we see the finite nature of our country and its resources recognised by those in power? The answer is never.

The solution lies in voting for parties/individuals who have policies for a sustainable Australia - a stable population.

ALISTER WRIGHT, Blackwood

Honoured still

I WOULD like to tell Brian Prince (The Advertiser 25/4/13) that his father's sacrifice in the battle on Ambon is not forgotten.

The efforts and sacrifices made by Australian soldiers during World War II was, and still is, greatly appreciated by the people of Ambon.

I visited Ambon in Makuku in 1994 on an Indonesian language and culture scholarship.

The war cemetery in Ambon is a beautiful, peaceful place with spectacular views over the harbour, red flowering trees and immaculate lawns.

A lecturer at the university spoke of how he and other young boys had risked punishment from Japanese soldiers by placing food in holes along the side of the road where Australian POWs were working.

The fact that the Australians had stayed to defend Ambon despite the likelihood of defeat was seen not only as a brave act but also as a sign of Australia's commitment to supporting the Indonesian people in their time of need.

JILL ROSE, Unley

Change needed

NICK Minchin (The Advertiser 25/4/2013) shows that he has been away from "The House" too long to keep abreast of matters.

The recognition of local government in the Australian Constitution is not a Labor Party initiative but is a matter that local governments have desired for some time.

We in local government are very much aware that in the past federal governments have provided funds directly to councils - such as the thousands of dollars in the Roads to Recovery Program.

Mr Minchin seems unaware that that this process has been challenged in the High Court and found to be not within the Constitution - thus the effort for constitutional change.

By supporting the proposed changes, Mr Minchin will be doing his bit to make sure that South Australia will still be able to receive federal funds to assist councils in providing improved infrastructure for our communities.

LAURIE COLLINS, Mayor, District Council of Tumby Bay

Bit of backbone

IN an attempt to retain my sanity enduring the daily bus commute while our train line is being electrified, my attention was drawn to an office building along South Rd.

It brought a moment of mirth to break the monotony. Our much beloved ex-seagull Transport Minister Patrick Conlon's soon-to-be extinct electoral office is shared with a business that specialises in spine rejuvenation.

MARK WARD, McLaren Flat.

White muzzle

FULL marks go to Terry Hewton for the excellent analysis in his letter about the purpose of teaching history in our schools (The Advertiser 24/4/13).

To have an understanding of our nation's history, we all need to be aware of the positive and negative aspects that are part of that history.

Christopher Pyne, by not wanting to include references to the appalling way Australian Aborigines were treated during the early days of the European invasion, indicates that he has the same approach to the teaching of history as did John Howard.

This approach is dishonest and involves censorship of the truth.

Some people describe this approach as the "white muzzle of history".

If the Coalition takes government later in the year, it should desist from rearranging our school history curriculum to ensure that the history young Australians are taught is censored, incomplete and politically biased.

ANDREW ALCOCK, Forestville

Indirect funds

NICK Minchin is right at times, such as in his concern about foreign state-owned enterprises having control of strategic Australian assets (The Advertiser, 26/2/13), but on other issues, such as climate change and his criticism of Dean Jaensch he is, to use his own words, dead wrong.

The Federal Government does not provide funds to local government but only to states with a request to pass it on.

Prof Jaensch explained (The Advertiser, 24/4/13) how this is abused - and in recent years, it's been getting worse.

A constitutional amendment to ensure that the appropriate funding flows direct to local government is essential.

DARIAN HILES, Adelaide

Slow learners

AS we commemorated our fallen on Anzac Day, it was so sad to think that history has taught us nothing.

There have been many wars in the past and there will be in the future as long as despots, corrupt dictators and fanatical terrorists occupy this planet.

These people have no concern for the wellbeing of other human beings, but we cannot seem to be rid of them.

LYNDON FOREST, Marino.