A detailed Q&A unpacking the government’s 12-hole plan for Moore Park Golf Course, and why many in the golf community believe the so-called “compromise” doesn’t stack up.
The future of Moore Park Golf Course has been one of the most hotly debated issues in Australian golf over the past two years. The NSW Government recently confirmed that the Moore Park Golf Course will be reduced from 18 holes to 12.
While the change has been framed as a “compromise” to deliver more open space for Sydney’s growing population, many questions remain about the process, the evidence, and what it means for one of the country’s busiest public golf facilities.
To better understand the situation, we spoke with Jared Kendler, Vice-President of Moore Park Golf Club, who took the time to answer our questions on both the long-running proposal and the latest announcement. Few people have a deeper understanding of the full story behind the changes to Moore Park Golf Course than Kendler, making him a valuable voice in what continues to be a complex and contested issue.
Q: The government is calling this a compromise. Is it?
A: A true compromise usually involves both sides giving something up. In this case, Moore Park Golf Course loses six holes permanently, while the surrounding parklands gain an additional 20 hectares of space despite already sitting within a much larger 360-hectare precinct.
Critics argue that calling this a compromise is more about language than reality. With such a vast amount of existing parkland next door, the change feels less like a negotiated outcome and more like reallocating one form of open space into another.
Q: Has the government actually changed its plans in any meaningful way?
A: The core outcome of the Moore Park Golf Course changes remains the same: an 18-hole public course becomes a 12-hole layout.
While the messaging has shifted to focus on balance, connectivity and broader community use, the physical impact on golf has not materially changed. For Sydney public golf, the permanent loss of six holes still represents a major reduction in capacity at one of the busiest public-access courses in the country.
Q: Is this really about creating more open space?
A: Supporters argue that Sydney needs more accessible green space as population density increases. Opponents counter that Moore Park Golf Course is already open space, just in a different form. It provides trees, habitat, walking, fresh air and recreation, alongside its role as a sporting facility.
They also point out that Centennial Park sits directly across the road, forming one of the largest urban parklands in the southern hemisphere. The debate is less about whether Sydney needs open space, and more about whether this particular site needed to change at all.
Q: Has the government had any independent bodies or reports related to this?
A: Yes, and this is where the entire process becomes extraordinary.
The Full Business Case found that retaining the existing 18-hole public golf course delivered the strongest economic and social return for NSW. In plain English, the government’s own analysis concluded the best outcome was to leave the course intact.
That should have ended the discussion. Instead, the government continues to ignore its own evidence, highly paid consultants and community consultations and is proceeding anyway.
Even more remarkably, the final 12-hole configuration now being promoted was never properly tested in the original business case process. So, the government has effectively landed on a politically convenient “compromise” without fully assessing whether it actually works operationally, financially or safely.
Importantly, the government hasn’t actually reduced the amount of land being taken from the course. They’ve simply decided to squeeze 12 holes into the same footprint previously allocated to nine.
Q: Is demand for Moore Park Golf still high?
A: Moore Park is widely regarded as one of Australia’s most heavily utilised public golf courses, with thousands of rounds played each week. It also serves as an entry point into the game for beginners, juniors and social players who may not have access to private clubs.
For many in the golf community, reducing capacity at a time when participation is growing feels counterintuitive, particularly in a major city where affordable public golf options are limited.
Q: Could this have been handled differently?
A: Absolutely.
This was never a choice between golf and parkland. Sydney could have delivered more open space while retaining one of the country’s most important public golf courses. The tragedy is that balanced solutions were repeatedly put forward and never genuinely considered.
The Moore Park Collective (Golf Australia, PGA, Golf NSW and Moore Park Golf Club) submitted multiple plans to the government that showed how, with good planning and design, you can easily have a win-win – better recreation and an 18-hole course. Instead, the government ignored the golf community because politics and back-room deals mattered more than good planning outcomes.
Q: So is this an attack on golf?
A: At this point, it’s hard to conclude otherwise.
There’s a perception in some planning and political circles that golf courses are just large pieces of underutilised land occupied by a narrow demographic. The problem is that perception is completely detached from the reality of Moore Park.
Moore Park is one of the busiest public golf courses in Australia. It’s where juniors learn the game, where tradies and teachers play after work, where beginners can access golf without private club memberships that are out of reach.
This isn’t some exclusive eastern suburbs enclave. It’s public recreation infrastructure, and I think a lot of decision-makers fundamentally underestimated how many ordinary Sydneysiders use and value it.
Q: Are their bigger issues underneath all of this?
A: Definitely.
Moore Park is really a story about planning failure and political deal-making between the state government and Clover Moore after decades of density approvals without enough local recreation space.
The government’s central argument is that Green Square, Waterloo and Zetland need more open space because of rapid population growth. That argument has some merit – but it immediately raises another question: why was so much density approved in the first place without enough local recreation spaces being delivered alongside it?
Now the state and local government are trying to retrofit open space after the towers are already built – and they’re doing it by cannibalising an existing public recreational asset that was already functioning successfully. They are also using a population that is up to 2km away to justify their actions.
This is some of the worst reactive urban planning Sydney has seen in decades.
There is also a much bigger issue here… and that’s the complete disregard for facts, community consultation and evidence-based policy. If governments can ignore their own business cases and proceed regardless, communities will stop believing engagement matters.
From the start, this was a captain’s call by the Premier. Since the initial announcement in October 2023, teams of public servants and consultants have spent years trying to justify a decision that still fails the basic test: proving that what replaces the existing Moore Park Golf Course is genuinely better for the community than what already exists.