Behind Bars for Vegemite: Australian Prisoner Sues for Right to the Nation's Spread

Prisoner Argues Vegemite Is Part of His Cultural Rights

Convicted murderer Andre McKechnie has launched a legal challenge against Victoria's prisons commissioner, arguing he should be allowed to eat Vegemite while incarcerated because it forms part of 'his culture as an Australian', according to court documents released to AFP.

Vegemite has been banned in Victorian prisons since 2006 amid concerns the yeast-rich spread can be fermented into improvised alcohol — often called 'pruno' or 'hooch' — and because inmates reportedly use its sticky texture to mask the smell of contraband from sniffer dogs. The ban appears on the official list of prohibited items used by corrections authorities.

McKechnie's complaint cites Victoria's human rights charter, which states people should not be denied the opportunity to 'enjoy their culture'. His case raises a legal tension between recognized cultural rights and the operational need to maintain safety and security inside correctional facilities.

Legal and practical questions
The courts will need to weigh whether a personal cultural preference for a national food product can override established safety rules designed to prevent illicit brewing and contraband concealment.

Vegemite itself was first developed in Melbourne in the early 1920s as a local alternative to British Marmite. The spread has a strong place in Australia’s culinary identity: in 2022 a Melbourne council described the aroma from a local Vegemite factory as having 'significant' heritage value, and earlier this year an Australian aerospace firm placed a small jar of Vegemite in the nose cone of an orbital test rocket as a quirky cultural nod.

But tastes vary widely. In 2018 Vegemite was included in Sweden’s 'Disgusting Food Museum', listed alongside fermented herring and other challenging foods — a reminder that cultural foods can divide opinion beyond their place of origin.

The case is likely to prompt debate about how prisons balance respect for cultural expression with practical safety measures. A ruling could clarify how far cultural rights extend inside custodial settings.