A public servant claims the South Australian government has threatened him with a $4 million damages bill if he takes planned legal action to stop the controversial North Adelaide Golf Course redevelopment.
Edwin Kemp Attrill and Kaurna woman Janette Milera intend to lodge an injunction in the Federal Court next week, calling for works in the Adelaide Parklands to come to a halt.
The controversial $45 million redevelopment was green-lit after the state government passed legislation to take control of that portion of the parklands from the Adelaide City Council a year ago.
It followed the announcement that SA had secured the hosting rights to the LIV Golf tournament until 2031, with events from 2028 to be held at a redeveloped North Adelaide Golf Course.
The $45 million redevelopment of the North Adelaide Golf Course has been bankrolled by the state government. (Supplied: SA government)
The plans set aside 585 trees for removal and when the chainsaws roared to life in May, it fuelled protests in the parklands and on the steps of Parliament House.
Almost all of the trees have been cut down but work is continuing on other upgrades to the golf course.
Mr Kemp Attrill argued the state government should have referred the redevelopment to federal Environment Minister Murray Watt if there was a likelihood the work would impact on national heritage or environmental values of the site because of the its place on the National Heritage List.
His lawyer, Ted Hui, requested works stop and that the matter be referred to Mr Watt.
Protesters on the steps of Parliament House on May 13. (ABC News: Sarah Maunder)
Hefty damages if works halt
Mr Hui had previously estimated Mr Kemp Attrill could be required to pay the government $50,000–$100,000 if he lost.
But in a letter to Mr Hui and the principal of Mr Hui’s law firm, Nathan White, the Crown solicitor said the “actual cost to the state of any potential delay brought by this action would be closer to $40,000 per day to temporarily stand down works”.
“If demobilisation and subsequent remobilisation were required, further costs in the order of $3 million to $4 million may be incurred by the state,” the letter states.
In the letter, the Crown solicitor wrote that any order halting works on the golf course could cause “contractor delay claims” and incur other costs from “project disruption, site management obligations, demobilisation and remobilisation expenses [and] maintenance of partially completed works”.
“Should your client elect to commence proceedings, the State will defend those proceedings,” the letter states.
The Crown solicitor said the federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act allowed project proponents to self-assess their developments and the state government believed the golf course development did not alter the key attributes of the parklands that led to their heritage-listing, nor would it have any significant impact on the grey-headed flying foxes that live in the parklands.
The first of 585 trees marked for the chop were felled in mid-May. (ABC News: Carl Saville)
In a statement, Mr Kemp Attrill said he “won’t be intimidated” by the suggestion of a hefty bill.
“We may be in a David and Goliath battle, but I will not back down even if it sends me bankrupt and I lose my house,” he said.
Call for public debate
Mr Kemp Attrill has invited Premier Peter Malinauskas to meet him at midday on Saturday in Possum Park to “make his case” for the redevelopment before letting attendees gather decide what should happen in the parklands.
“Let the people of South Australia come and hear both sides,” Mr Kemp Attrill said.
Mr Kemp Attrill said his lawyer would lodge his case in the next week if the premier did not meet with him this weekend.
Mr Hui had previously said the injunction application would be lodged this week.
A government spokesman declined to comment on the Crown solicitor’s letter, except to confirm it was genuine.
“The premier has been focused on delivering the state budget and is not aware of any invitation,” he said.
Mr Malinauskas previously said he did not want to make Mr Kemp Attrill a martyr and that his job in the public service was not at risk.
