Document library

“Flat paddocks of Queen Elizabeth Park (a recreation reserve) have been mowed two or more times since farming ceased, once was after Cyclone Gabriel and one was quite recently perhaps shortly after Christmas. The hay was baled and taken away.  

Would you please identify how many, where and when this mowing occurred? 

For each of these occasions; 

·      What was the motivation and reasoning for mowing these flat lands? 

·      Are there any emails or papers that discuss the pros and cons of this decision? 

·      Were there commercial considerations and, if so, what were they ? 

·      Approximately how many bales were produced? 

·      If so, did GW get an income from the bales? 

·      If not, what was the quid-pro-quo or benefit to GW? 

·      Who were the recipients of the hay bales? (This question is asking for a general answer, not the names of the recipients. E.g. They were sold to bidders at an online auction. They were given to people (or person) who… 

The whole of QEP has been classified in terms of wetlands. 

Did mowing occur on any of the classified wetlands? 

The reason for this OIA request is that the areas mowed are partly drained wetlands and low sand dunes. I saw native reeds that were mown. The mown land, especially the drained wetlands, should be left to revert to a natural state, or revegetated, perhaps weed controlled, but not mown. They contain some native plants and animals, especially insects which are part of the QEP environment and contribute to the overall biodiversity of the park, as food for birds and fish and in their own right. Mowing is not consistent with the Reserves Act. Areas should not be mowed without good reason. 

If this was a GW operation and not some local arrangement, then the bales obtained money or were swapped for services, or for some other purpose. I am interested to know what that was. 

Finally, will mowing of QEP paddocks, like those that this OIA request questions, be happening again?”