Golf course in court as parklands protesters take on SA government

A legal battle has commenced in the Federal Court as two South Australians challenge the state government's plan to redevelop the North Adelaide golf course. Public servant Edwin Kemp Attrill and Kaurna Arabana woman Janette Milera argue the project, aimed at attracting the LIV Golf tournament, violates federal conservation laws.

“

It's a big uphill battle for us but we're really proud to be standing here.

Outside the court, protesters voiced their opposition to the parklands project. Mr. Kemp Attrill described the legal process as "nerve-wracking" but expressed pride in their stand. Ms. Milera emphasized the case's importance in respecting cultural tradition and truth-telling, stating, "This case is about respecting cultural tradition and truth telling. For [SA Premier] Peter [Malinauskas], it's a new golf course. For me, it's a bloodline." She asserted that the parklands belong to the people and require protection.

“

This case is about respecting cultural tradition and truth telling. For [SA Premier] Peter [Malinauskas], it's a new golf course. For me, it's a bloodline. This case we're doing is because the parklands belong to the people and they need to be protected.

The state government's plan involves redeveloping and expanding the golf course, which includes cutting down 585 trees to be replaced with new plantings. Laws were passed earlier this year to transfer control of the parklands from the Adelaide City Council to the state government to facilitate the redevelopment. However, the removal of trees has ignited protests and led to the current legal challenge.

“

Recognition of parklands necessarily includes recognition of established trees, because a necessary element of parklands is established, mature trees.

The plaintiffs' lawyer, Arturo Dal Cin, informed the court that the Adelaide parklands were granted national heritage listing in 2008. He stated that over 400 trees have already been felled, representing 15% of the trees in the area designated for the first stage of development. Mr. Dal Cin argued that recognizing parklands necessitates acknowledging established trees and that the tree removal significantly impacts their national heritage value. Evidence will also be presented regarding the effects on Aboriginal cultural heritage and local flying fox populations. Government lawyers had previously warned Mr. Kemp Attrill of potential liability for $4 million in costs if he loses the case.

“

A fundamental issue in this case, one of the fundamental issues, is the extent to which your Honour finds the removal of trees to this scale to be a significant impact on what the appellants will be contending is a national heritage value, namely the parklands and their protection.