Rewriting Australian planning from the margins

If planning is the conscious formulation of a preferred.future and deliberate actions to realise that future in the landscape, then Indigenous Australians have long been involved in planning settlements and regions. Yet such actions - pre and post-contact - are absent from the history of Australian planning, as evidenced by some major texts on the subject. That also passes without serious comment in the planning literature and contemporary practice are the theoretical implications of admitting key aspects of recent Indigenous history - such as prior occupancy, ongoing sovereignty, resistance strategies, ghettoisation and Native Title. There are, therefore, significant gaps in the history and theory of Australian planning which impact negatively on its current teaching and practice. The consequences of such omissions range.from incomplete histories to ongoing injustices in Australian planning practice. My larger research project will collate these absences before reworking the history of Australian planning from the perspective of those systematically excluded from it -women, migrants from racially marked non-white backgrounds and Indigenous Australians. This paper will consider only a small part of this larger project. It will first examine some of the key texts which construct the history of Australian planning before examining one place - Lake Condah in Western Victoria - as one site of permanent settlement by the Gundijmara people who lived in stone houses arrayed in villages around an engineered sophisticated fish farming enterprise. Here then is but one example - admittedly subject to contestation over its scale, anthropological and archaeological fundamentals - which challenges the view of indigenous Australians as not only nomadic and "primitive" but also as legitimately placed outside the history of Australian planning. I will conclude by speculating on what this example might mean to any reworking of that history.<br />