The Victorian Parliament was shaken today by a contentious debate over a petition lodged by Liberal MP Ann-Marie Hermans, calling for the removal of the name Guru Nanak Lake from a lake in Berwick Springs. The motion drew fierce exchanges about community consultation, cultural recognition, and the meaning of place. In the course of the debate, the Liberal Party revealed internal divisions, while the Sikh and broader Indian communities expressed hurt and frustration.
Hermans introduced the petition at 5:55 pm, urging that the parliament “take into consideration” objections raised by local residents. She framed the issue as one of local identity and the government’s failure to engage sincerely with affected communities.
“The parliament has a choice to make—a choice about how we treat our communities, a choice about how much consultation needs to be provided in order to show respect to the local community,” Hermans said.
“What is in a name, you say? ‘What’s in a name?’ said Shakespeare when he wrote about Juliet questioning why Montagues and Capulets could not get along. But a name is something that has identity and culture. Many people think it is part of their being.”
She accused the government of showing “complete and utter disrespect for this community” by changing the name of the lake without consultation.
“This is not about religion. This is not about race. This is about a government that has failed its community and completely disregarded who they are by lacking consultation,” Hermans said.
Her motion was met with opposition from other Liberal MPs, who refused to back her. That split exposed the tension between opposition to the naming on procedural grounds, and unwillingness to oppose recognition of the Sikh community more broadly.
In response to Hermans’s motion, the Member for Werribee, John Lister, offered a sharply contrasting view. He stated: “Our multiculturalism is our strength. Our Sikh community embody the best of Victoria—through their compassion, kindness and generosity. And they deserve to have their contributions recognised and reflected in modern Victoria.” Meanwhile, Dylan Wight, MP for Tarneit, declared: “Sikh Victorians have given so much to our state. Their contributions are significant and important—and they should be recognised in our multicultural and diverse communities.”
These statements set up a clear counterpoint to the petition’s framing: for some MPs, refusing the name felt like denying recognition to a community whose work and identity they believe should be publicly acknowledged.
Ministers from the Labor government came to the defence of the renaming. Ingrid Stitt, Minister for Multicultural Affairs, reminded the chamber that Victoria is shaped by migration and that many places should reflect the diversity of its people. She described the petition as deeply hurtful to Sikh and Indian communities, particularly at a time when they are preparing to celebrate Diwali and Guru Nanak Gurpurab. She argued the debate’s timing was insensitive. Stitt emphasised that the lake renaming fulfilled a 2018 election commitment to name a landmark in honour of Guru Nanak Dev Ji. She admitted there had been concerns about the process, but said the landmark naming had proceeded in good faith to reflect diversity.
Other voices in the chamber struck positions across the spectrum. Liberal opposition leader David Davis, while critical of the process, affirmed support for recognising the Sikh community, stating: “We cannot ride roughshod over communities. You need to start listening and engaging with communities properly. But equally … a community being recognised deserves support of this chamber.” Some Liberal colleagues, however, refused to support Hermans’s motion. David Limbrick and Evan Mulholland, speaking across the floor, both said while consultation had been inadequate, they did not support revoking the name altogether.
The Greens, represented by Sarah Mansfield, expressed strong displeasure that the petition had been allowed into debate. She called it divisive and asserted that public landmarks should reflect all communities, not serve as arenas for cultural conflict.
Outside Parliament we heard from community voices, including Harpreet Singh Kandra, who holds dual roles as academic and volunteer in Sikh organisations. He issued a public appeal: “While the Sikhs are celebrating … the Liberals are initiating a debate today on a petition about Guru Nanak Lake in Berwick!! This lake never had a name and Sikh and faith based Indian and multicultural communities are just being made a political football by the Opposition !!!” He called on local gurdwaras to reconsider invitations to Liberal politicians in upcoming festivals and urged community members to visit their local gurdwara during Gurpurab to witness Sikh teachings of compassion and brotherhood.
Kandra’s plea highlights how deeply this issue is felt among Sikh Victorians, many of whom see the naming not as appropriation or imposition but as overdue recognition of their place in Victoria’s story.
In historical context, the lake previously known as Berwick Springs had no official, gazetted name. The government and its supporters argue that the naming honoured a community long involved in public service, volunteerism, disaster relief and social cohesion. The renaming was part of a state “Name a Place” campaign meant to give landmarks that better reflect the cultures living in Victoria.
Opponents argue that, whether or not the lake was officially unnamed, the local community treated it as “Berwick Springs Lake” for decades, and to alter that—even under the banner of multicultural gesturing—without broad engagement feels disrespectful. They contend that identity and connection to place are rooted in local memory, and that a naming decision done without a full, transparent process undermines democratic norms.
In debate, Hermans insisted the issue was not about race or faith. She said, “It is a name that needs to be revoked out of respect, and the consultation process needs to take place. Guru Nanak can be placed somewhere, but not in the place that already had a name.” Her framing was procedural and symbolic: the community should have had meaningful input before a change was made.
But others saw the framing differently. Many Sikh community members and allies felt that rejecting the naming strikes a negative tone—that it equates recognition with political expense. John Lister’s message was intended to counter that narrative: he argued that rejecting the name sends a message of exclusion.
The outcome remains uncertain. The petition process will continue, and the government may be under pressure to revisit the decision or to design a more robust consultation framework for future naming decisions. The conflict has laid bare the tension between two principles: local community voice and cultural recognition of minority groups.
For many Sikh Victorians, the controversy is personal and symbolic. They see the lake as more than a water body—it is a marker of belonging, of waiting many years for a gesture that links their faith and history with the geography of Victoria. To litigate that gesture on procedural grounds risks making faith recognition conditional.
For opponents, the dispute feels like a break in trust: inclusion is acceptable in principle, but only when it aligns with existing norms, local sentiment and control. The petition reflects their deep unease when public authority exercises symbolic power without inviting communities into the decision.
In the coming days, attention will fall on what the government does: whether it re-engages residents, whether it pauses or reverses the name, or whether it stands by the decision and defends it politically. The question becomes clear: when does recognition become appropriation, and when does consultation become tokenism?
Support independent community journalism. Support The Indian Sun.
Follow The Indian Sun on X | Instagram | Facebook
