Golf course in court as parklands protesters take on SA government

A dispute over the redevelopment of a golf course in North Adelaide has escalated to the Federal Court. The conflict involves a public servant and a Kaurna Arabana woman who are challenging the state government's plan to cut down over 500 trees. The trial, expected to last five days, has already begun, with government lawyers scheduled to make their case on Wednesday.

Public servant Edwin Kemp Attrill and Kaurna Arabana woman Janette Milera are at the heart of this "David and Goliath" battle, arguing that the redevelopment violates federal conservation laws. Kemp Attrill described the legal process as "very nerve-wracking" and emphasized the pride they take in standing up for what they believe is right.

Milera, on the other hand, took legal action because she felt it was the "right thing to do," citing the importance of respecting cultural tradition and truth telling. The government, led by Premier Peter Malinauskas, sees the redevelopment as a way to host the LIV Golf tournament in the city. To make way for the expansion, the state government plans to cut down 585 trees, replacing them with new plantings.

The state government took control of the parklands earlier this year, removing the trees to facilitate the redevelopment. However, this move has sparked protests and legal action from Kemp Attrill and Milera. The lawyer representing the two plaintiffs, Arturo Dal Cin, highlighted the significance of the Adelaide parklands, which were granted national heritage listing in 2008.

He noted that over 400 trees have already been removed, accounting for 15% of all the trees in the area designated for the first stage of the development. Dal Cin argued that the removal of trees has had a considerable impact on the national heritage values of the parklands. The trial will also delve into the impact on Aboriginal cultural heritage and local flying fox populations.

Before the trial, government lawyers had warned Kemp Attrill that he could face a potential $4 million in costs if he lost. Outside the court, Kemp Attrill expressed concern over the government's stance, stating that it was "incredibly unfair" and an "assault on democracy in South Australia." Kemp Attrill even submitted an affidavit admitting his shock at the loss of trees.

During cross-examination, he was shown aerial photographs of the golf course before and after the tree removal. When asked if a significant number of trees remained following the works, Kemp Attrill confirmed that some trees were still visible, particularly when viewed from a distance. However, he maintained that the change in appearance was primarily due to the removal of grass, not trees.

Crown lawyer Alison Doecke KC questioned Kemp Attrill on the significance of the tree removal, suggesting that the altered view could be attributed to the loss of grass rather than trees. Despite this, Kemp Attrill stood firm, asserting that the difference was immediately noticeable as soon as the trees were removed. The trial, set to last five days, will see government lawyers present their response on Wednesday.