When the founders of federation came together to frame an Australian constitution their concern for gastronomy did not obviously extend much beyond their own dinners. Nevertheless, their law-making had a profound influence on the new nation’s cuisine - directly or indirectly affecting the foodstuffs available to households and what they did with them.

In fact, the project of nation-building was underpinned by food regulation, from the white invasion of Australia onwards. Its progress from convict colony to multicultural nation is intimately linked with the development of its food supply and its food culture.

This symposium explores some of the food issues that have substantially changed the nature of federation. A century after the decision to bring the colonies together to form one ‘nation’, are we finally creating a ‘federated cuisine’? And is it a cuisine for a nation or for its privileged enthusiasts?

• Food Security: What does ‘food security’ mean in the Australian context? What should be the role of government? Can food supply a feeling of security if it does not also bring contentment?
  
  
• A Good Constitution. The Constitution represents the way Australians decided to govern themselves and, to a degree, the kind of nation the founding fathers envisaged. It made no mention of food, though its provisions enable the federal government to exercise considerable power over food production, distribution and quality. Should Australia’s gastronomic aspirations be enshrined in the Constitution? And should eating for future health become a national goal?
  
  
• Legislating Good Taste. Food regulation has historically focussed on adequacy of supply, fair distribution and the avoidance of harm. Has our understanding of harm been too narrow (in excluding, for example, mediocrity)? Is it time to appoint a Minister of Gastronomy? (‘Rita’, Cottage Cookery, 1897.) Should Voltaire on food be essential reading for ministers?
  
  
• Gastronomic Leadership. A few parliamentarians have used their positions to pursue gastronomic aspirations; others, through their policy making, have influenced Australians’ attitudes and values concerning food. The gastronomic legacy of these leaders and opinion makers might be considered.
  
  
• Is our future royalist or republican? Although Australia took fright at the idea of being called a ‘banana republic’ and could not be persuaded to become a constitutional republic, the republican ideal has not gone away. What are the gastronomic implications of choosing the republican path?
  
  
• The Heritage of Absence. One of the first consequences of European settlement was the displacement of indigenous foodways. (Inga Clendinnen, Dancing with Strangers, 2003.) Incomers ate their oysters, netted their fish and gave back boiled beef, bread and spirits. Can there ever be an ‘Australian cuisine’ which excludes indigenous food? What can be done to reconnect Australia’s cuisine with its heritage?