Why do we need to formally name this place?

Frankston City Council is a naming authority under the Naming rules for places in Victoria 2022 - Statutory requirements for naming roads, features and localities and is responsible for the naming and renaming of roads, features and localities within the municipality.

It is important for places to have a registered name to help ambulance, fire and police services reach the location quickly in an emergency. Frankston City Council encourages names that act as a reminder of local history, culture and citizens, whilst being mindful of needing to achieve a balanced representation of:

• Indigenous Australia
• Gender equality
• Local historical events or figures
• A multicultural present

About this proposal

Frankston City Council has been granted funding from State Government through the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action (DEECA) to undertake improvement works within and adjacent to the Seaford Wetlands.

The Seaford Wetlands Rejuvenation project has a number of components that include:

• installing a new viewing platform with additional seating, amenities and interpretive signage to replace the existing viewing platform at the southern lookout area;
• new wayfinding and interpretative signage to accommodate a self-guided tour through the wetlands, which will include significant ecological and cultural information. All facilities upgrades will ensure the environmental significance and natural aesthetics of the Seaford Wetlands.
• a walking and cycling bridge that has been constructed across the Kananook Creek Canal immediately north of the Wetlands.

Extensive consultation has been undertaken with the BLCAC as the project has progressed, in particular to develop a complex Cultural Heritage Management Plan for the wayfinding signage location and installation works, to incorporate Traditional Owners artwork into the interpretive signage designs, and to consider a Traditional Owner name for the viewing platform at the southern lookout of the Seaford Wetlands.

In June 2024, the Bunurong Land Council Aboriginal Corporation met with Elders and knowledge holders for this purpose and recommended the viewing platform located within Seaford Wetlands to be named as “Gananyu Bulukul Viewing Platform”. Visit the Seaford Wetlands Viewing platform webpage for further information on the overall project

About the name "Gananyu Bulukul" (Gan-an-yoo Bool-ook-ool)

It was selected by Bunurong Land Council for this location because the name links to the wetlands, to the important Kananook creek, to women's places and to women's material culture, including the digging stick.

Engagement Summary

Purpose of Engagement

The purpose of this engagement is to seek community feedback on the proposed name, Gananyu Bulukul Viewing Platform, to proceed with formally naming the feature with Geographic Names Victoria (GNV).

The community input will be used to report back to Council, as a naming authority, with the community feedback and seek a decision to approve the proposed name and proceed with formal naming with GNV.

Engagement is to consult on the proposed name for the viewing platform at Seaford Wetlands; specifically, to seek quantifiable support and any objections.

Participation

We aimed to achieve a participation target of approximately 90 people, representing 0.5% of an average Seaford suburb (based on Profile ID data 2021)

During the engagement period, the page was viewed 228 times with 45 contributions received.

Of the 45 contributors to the engagement, 29 were residents of Seaford

How did we provide participants with reasonable support to enable meaningful and informed engagement?

• Using an accessible, quick method of online engagement to encourage participation.

• Multiple methods of engagement, including:

• Online engagement

• In-person engagement at a pop up outside Seaford Community Centre

• Enabling translation into any language on Engage Frankston

How did we provide participants with access to objective, relevant and timely information to inform their participation?

• Simple explanations and project information on Engage Frankston.

• Providing an audio recording of the proposed name.

• Promoting the engagement via a range of methods for multiple audiences including email notifications to Engage Frankston members (710 recipients), letters/postcards delivered to residents nearby (1500 delivered), social posts, and signage (QR code scanned 31 times).

How will the community engagement process influence Council decision making?

• The community input will be used to report back to Council, as a naming authority, with the community feedback and seek a decision to approve the proposed name and proceed with formal naming with GNV.

How will we report back to the community on how this engagement has influenced Council decision making?

• Between engagement closing on 27 March and by 15 April, Council will publish an engagement summary on Engage Frankston. (this update)

• By 30 June 2025, Council will report back to community on the final GNV decision via its engagement platform. (Project Outcomes section on this page)

• Council will install signage with the successfully selected name onto the platform and wayfinding signage within the Seaford Wetlands.

Engagement Results

Throughout this section, where a number is shown in brackets indicates how many times that option was selected. eg supportive (9) means 9 contributors selected the option 'supportive'.

How do you feel about the proposed name "Gananyu Bulukul Viewing Platform"?

This question was answered by 45 contributors. Support for the name was divided, with 23 contributors selecting that they supported the name and 22 selecting that they did not.

From the list below, select up to three reasons why you do not support the proposed name.

For contributors who selected that they did not support the name, they could select up to three reasons why they felt this way. This question was answered by 22 contributors.

Reasons provided for being unsupportive were:

• It does not represent public interest or have a long-term benefit to the community (15 responses)
• It could create confusion for transport, communication and mail services (7)
• I do not like this name (7)
• The name could cause offence on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, disability, sexuality or gender (5)
• The name is not relevant to the local area (4)
  
• I do not support commemorating this event, person or place (2)
  
• It has similar spelling or pronunciation to another place name (1)

The most selected reason for being unsupportive was "It does not represent public interest or have a long-term benefit to the community" To better understand this response, comments about this reason have been analysed, and can be summarised as:

• Disagreement with using Aboriginal Language for the place name (7)
• Wanting a name that represents the broader community (4)
• Suggesting the name will cause division or racism (2)
• Unclear how the name is specifically and meaningfully relevant to the location (2)

The next most selected reason for being unsupportive was "It could create confusion for transport, communication and mail services" To better understand this response, comments about this reason have been analysed, and can be summarised as:

• Difficult to pronounce; to identify the location to emergency services (3)
• People will avoid using the name (1)
• Supportive of an easier to pronounce Aboriginal Language name (1)

Other reasons given

• "Alternative name - Seaford Wetlands Vista"
• "Too hard to pronounce properly and no connection to European heritage."
• "It is very difficult to pronounce"
• "no background is given for the name, is it historical, a recognised language etc"
• "It should be named after someone who protected and defended the wetlands. Seaford Councillor and resident William R.J. Klauer prevented the draining of the wetlands. His monument in front of the Seaford Community Centre was recently removed during 'improvements'. We need to remember these important citizens"
  

Was a gender impact identified in these results?

Results varied according to gender. Women tended to support the name and men tended not to.

• Contributons by women and non-binary people were 65% supportive and 35% unsupportive of the proposed name. This most selected option from this group was "Very supportive" (9)
• Women were most likely to be unsupportive because "It could create confusion for transport, communication and mail services" (4)
• Contributions by men were 44% supportive and 56% unsupportive of the proposed name. This most selected option from this group was "Very unsupportive" (8)
• Men were most likely to be unsupportive because "It does not represent public interest or have a long-term benefit to the community" (5)
• People who did not provide their gender were most likely to be unsupportive because "It does not represent public interest or have a long-term benefit to the community" (5)