
Uber Eats offers delivery democracy sausages – but is it ‘unAustralian'?
'Democracy sausages' have long been a fixture of the Australian election – but this year food delivery behemoth Uber Eats is cashing in on the beloved tradition.
Uber Eats is offering voters 'democracy sausages' on 3 May for 'hardworking Australians' who don't have access to a snag on election day.
But unlike the regular democracy sausages, which are a fundraising opportunity for the schools, churches and community halls where polling centres are located, these snags are prepared at 'democracy sausage stores' operated by Maverick, an external marketing company.
In Sydney, for instance, they are being cooked and packed for delivery at a temporary kitchen available for hire in Ultimo, according to Uber Eats.
The sausages are only available in certain inner parts of Brisbane, Melbourne and Sydney on Saturday from midday until sold out, with 1,000 available in each city. Users outside the delivery zone are told they can buy ingredients to construct their own on the Uber Eats app.
Guardian Australia ordered a vegetarian sausage and a meat sausage with sauces and onion on Saturday afternoon. It cost $11.60 for both sausages including delivery and service fee. Uber said $3.50 for every sausage would be donated to Australian Red Cross partners, to the maximum value of $10,500.
The products arrived in less than 30 minutes, in green boxes which read 'democracy sausage delivered'. Inside the boxes were a single sausage on a piece of white bread, sauce sachets and another quote reading 'exercise your democratic bite'.
Sign up for the Afternoon Update: Election 2025 email newsletter
The sausages, which were reasonably cold, were contained in a sheet designed to look like ballot paper. But rather than listing candidates, the paper ticked the customer's preferences for sauces, onion and variety of sausage, with a disclaimer noting 'this is not an official voting form'.
The managing director of Uber Eats Australia, Ed Kitchen, said 'thousands' of Australians were likely to miss out on democracy sausages as not every polling place had a barbecue.
'For those of you able to make use of a local sausage sizzle, I strongly encourage you to support the community fundraising efforts first and foremost – that's what I'll be doing,' he said.
The company enlisted celebrity chef Iain 'Huey' Hewitson to promote the deal. He said he was 'pleased to don my sausage suspenders to help ensure finding a democracy sausage is obtainable this year in areas where the local school might not be turning over these tasty morsels'.
Some social media users raised their eyebrows at Uber capitalising on the trend.
Many polling centres are located at schools, which take the opportunity to fundraise by offering a barbecue, cake stall, or selling plants or books.
Sign up to Afternoon Update: Election 2025
Our Australian afternoon update breaks down the key election campaign stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters
after newsletter promotion
'That is so unAustralian,' one user posted on Facebook. 'Schools or community groups are meant to make a few dollars selling a sausage sizzle. Not some big corporations.'
Another labelled it a 'thoughtless tone deaf publicity stunt', while a third simply wrote: 'who wants a cold limp sausage? It's democracy manifest.'
The democracy sausage has grown in popularity in recent years and was listed as the word of the year by the Australian National Dictionary Centre in 2016, cementing its place in the Australian lexicon.
Alex Dawson from the Democracy Sausage project had uploaded more than 1,600 sausage stalls and other stands operating around the nation to its grassroots website days out from the election, 900 more than the last federal election in 2022.
There were reports of election day sausage sizzles at every continent in the globe this year – including Antarctica.
According to Kate Armstrong at the Museum of Australian Democracy (MoAD), the term 'democracy sausage' was coined around 2010 when a Snag Votes website first listed and mapped polling places offering a sausage in bread.
'The popularity of the democracy sausage is in part due to voting being compulsory in Australia,' she said.
'Polling places are typically primary schools and community halls, and polling days are on Saturday … naturally this presents an ideal opportunity for local associations and parents and friends' groups to fundraise by setting up food- or refreshment-based activities around their polling place.
'Early on it was cakes, jams and even crafts, but with the rise in popularity of the portable gas barbecue in the '80s, this extended to the much-loved Aussie sausage sizzle.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New Statesman
8 hours ago
- New Statesman
Australia is no model for assisted dying
Photo by Kelly Barnes / AAP Image via Alamy Australian laws on voluntary assisted dying (VAD) are deemed so similar to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill that three quarters of overseas witnesses invited to give evidence to MPs were from Australia. 'This is not a revolutionary law reform,' Alex Greenwich, a politician from New South Wales, told the bill's scrutiny committee earlier this year. 'It has been tried and tested, we have appropriate safeguards in place throughout Australia, and they work.' Although Australian states extend the six-month life expectancy requirement to a year for those with neurodegenerative conditions, in terms of eligibility, process and safeguards, their laws are similar to the UK's bill. The two differ only in that self-administration of life-ending drugs would be permitted here, and a multidisciplinary panel would review cases. So when Kim Leadbeater, Labour MP and the bill's sponsor, responded with a heart emoji and '#ChoiceAtTheEndOfLife' to a Guardian article published on 7 June that showed the Australian system being abused, eyebrows were raised. An elderly couple had been granted VAD when neither were terminally ill; medics in New South Wales effectively greenlit their suicide pact. 'Looks like the safeguards didn't work,' Mark Taubert, an NHS consultant and the vice-president of the European Association for Palliative Care, responded on X. According to the palliative care doctor Rachel Clarke, the story 'could not highlight more starkly the dangers of the law we are currently debating'. MPs hearing evidence on the bill had little time with six Australian witnesses, all of whom were supportive of VAD. Their arguments didn't always stand up to scrutiny. 'The medications are completely effective. I have not experienced any failures,' said Chloe Furst, a palliative care doctor from South Australia and board member of Voluntary Assisted Dying Australia and New Zealand. But, MPs pointed out, there is no requirement that a doctor be present when someone self-administers, nor is there provision for reporting complications. In Western Australia, where this information is collected, complications were recorded in 4.3 per cent of deaths in 2023-24. Asked if it was a concern that a 'large proportion of people who opted for assisted dying cited being a burden as their reason', another witness, Meredith Blake from the University of Western Australia, replied this was 'not the evidence that we have got'. Except it is. Official state figures showed 35 per cent of those seeking VAD cited being a burden on family, friends or carers as their reason for doing so. Blake replied: 'If there are people who are saying they are a burden, that does not mean that their decision is not voluntary.' While MPs were told Australian palliative care doctors had 'embraced' VAD, I have spoken with medics in Australia who are troubled by how the legislation operates. Academics and politicians are, too. Robert Clark, a former attorney-general and MP in Victoria wrote to the committee twice with his observations: the second time after his fellow Australians had addressed MPs. Numerous aspects of their evidence were 'factually incorrect or incomplete', Clark claimed. There was not adequate palliative care available to all terminally ill patients in Australia. Evidence didn't show any reduction in non-medically assisted suicide. The right of doctors to object to VAD was not respected. Many doctors 'feel unable to raise concerns about VAD… lest they suffer adverse professional or career consequences, or else they are leaving the hospital system altogether', he said. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe British palliative care doctor Alex Hughes recently relayed his experience of assisted dying while working in Australia. Hughes, who is neutral on VAD in principle, described a borderline case in which it seemed the patient had chosen to die because of poor alternative care options. In another, he suspected the man may have been influenced by depression, but this had gone unexplored in assessment. Were assisted dying to come to the UK, doctors would be 'at a heightened risk of unconscious bias… [and] may lean towards giving patients the 'benefit of the doubt', granting assisted dying to individuals who, in reality, have more than six months to live.' The events described in the Guardian confirm that risk is not merely hypothetical. Ahead of its return to the Commons on 13 June, 1,000 doctors urged MPs to vote against the assisted dying bill. They argued it is 'deeply flawed' and unsafe. Similar statements have been made by the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of Psychiatrists, which say they cannot support the legislation as it stands. Such concerns are not 'noise', as Leadbeater has suggested. Many critics have no issue with the principle of safe VAD. But the passage of the bill has revealed law-making at its worst: rushed debate, the views of the vulnerable ignored or downplayed, and crucial information on how the bill would work absent. Supporters say there will be time to iron out details later. That is too risky. Under current plans, some vulnerable people will be helped – in Hughes's words – to have 'an inappropriate assisted death'. He now poses two critical questions for MPs: how many vulnerable people slipping through the net is acceptable? And can adequate safeguards be put in place 'without creating a system so cumbersome that it becomes unworkable'? It's time for MPs to be honest with themselves and the public: enabling some an autonomous death through assisted dying will inevitably put others at risk of harm. [See also: Has any Chancellor faced a challenge this daunting?] Related


Daily Mail
a day ago
- Daily Mail
Here's how you'll be able to book a self-driving Uber from next year
Britons wanting to book a taxi will soon be able to hail an autonomous car as the Government fast-tracks self-driving vehicle pilots. Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander confirmed the Government will introduce self-driving commercial pilots on England's roads from Spring 2026, with firms able to pilot small scale 'taxi -and bus-like' services without a safety driver for the first time. It is likely these will be available to members of the public to book via an app. Uber has already confirmed its teaming up with Microsoft-backed AI partner Wayve to bring driverless ride-hailing to London next year. The announcement has been welcomed by the automotive industry and mobility groups as 'great news' with the Government estimating it will directly help create around 38,000 jobs, make roads safer and keep the UK among the 'world leaders in new technology'. The advancement is the first step in a wider rollout of self-driving cars which will see the Automated Vehicles (AV) Act become law from the second half of 2027. It follows Labour's delays to autonomous driving announced last month, when access to UK roads by unmanned vehicles was pushed back from 2026 to 2027. Technology Secretary Peter Kyle said: 'We can't afford to take a back seat on AI, unless it's on a self-driving bus. It's great to see the UK storming ahead as a global leader in using this technology - making our roads safer, travel easier and driving growth by spurring innovation across the country.' Self-driving vehicle trials have been underway in the UK since January 2015 with British firms Wayve and Oxa at the forefront of breakthroughs, recently securing a record-breaking investment of over £741 million ($1 billion), as well as announcing partnerships with Nissan and Uber. Its self-driving vehicles are already used at Heathrow Airport to improve baggage handling. Last month Labour delayed the introduction of legislation for driverless vehicles, with the Department for Transport confirmed provisions for safety driver-less AV pilots have been pushed back to 'the second half of 2027' at the earliest - a year later than the Tory Government had promised. The DfT said it was 'exploring options for short-term trials and pilots'. Today the Government has reiterated that 'innovation, world-leading regulation and road safety is at the forefront' of the pilots with s elf-driving vehicles aiming to reduce human error on the roads – which contribute to 88 per cent of all collisions. The AV Act will require self-driving vehicles to achieve a level of safety at least as high as competent and careful human drivers, and must undergo vigorous tests before being allowed on our roads. Because AVs have faster reaction times than humans, and are trained on real-world incidents, never get distracted or tired, and won't drink or drive, they can help reduce deaths and injuries caused by road collisions. In fact, the SMMT's Connected and Automated Mobility report found that AVs have the potential to save 3,900 lives and avert 60,000 serious collisions by 2040. Arun Srinivasan, Chair of RoadSafe, said, 'Collision avoidance and advanced driver assistance systems have already proved to be vital in reducing casualties and technology has further potential to prevent crashes. 'Developing and demonstrating the next generation of connected safety technologies is an essential step in achieving a shared vision of roads without fatalities or serious injuries. 'This initiative forms an important step in accelerating the development, deployment and adoption of self-driving vehicles as part of a strategic approach to enabling safe, accessible mobility on our roads.' The Government has also estimated that the speed up of AV tech will add £42bn to the UK economy by 2035, but the SMMT goes further predicting self-driving vehicles have the potential economic benefits as high as £66bn and an estimated additional 342,000 jobs by 2040. Importantly, AVs offer a wider array of accessible mobility solutions to disabled and older people. Andrew Miller, chief executive of Motability Operations, said, 'Automated vehicles have the potential to be transformative. Implementing this technology on the UK's roads could help our disabled customers be better connected to work, education, healthcare and wider society. 'We welcome this announcement, which is an important step in bringing automated vehicles a step closer, and we will work with the sector to ensure that when the time comes the transition to automated vehicles is smooth for our customers.' Mike Hawes, SMMT chief executive, said: 'Pilot rollout of commercial self-driving services from next year will widen public access to mobility, while the consultation will ensure the technology is deployed in a safe and responsible way. 'These latest measures will help Britain remain a world leader in the development and introduction of self-driving vehicles, a manifest application of AI at its finest.' Do people actually want self-driving cars? A YouGov survey of 4,087 Britons conducted in May found that only three per cent of the public said they would prefer being transported by a self-driving car over one piloted by a human driver. Two in five said they would want to be driven by another person, and half would rather do the driving themselves. While there is little preference for the driverless car option across social groups, the poll identified a marked difference in the driver versus passenger preference; while most men and over 25s (51 per cent and 64 per cent respectively) would prefer to at the controls, these figures fall to just 39 per cent among women and 26 per cent for 18-24 year olds. Concerns regarding self-driving vehicles likely result for the number of high-profile accidents - sometimes fatal - and near misses involving autonomous cars in the US.


Daily Mail
2 days ago
- Daily Mail
President Donald Trump unveils new $1,000 baby initiative in the U.S.
President Donald Trump has unveiled his administration's new $1,000 investment accounts for babies born during his tenure in office. The 'Trump accounts' will be given to every U.S. citizen born after December 31, 2024, and before January 1, 2029. The government's $1,000 contribution would be placed in an index fund tied to the stock market and managed by the child's legal guardians. During an event at the White House on Monday, the President said the accounts 'will make it possible for countless American children to have a strong start in life at no cost to the American taxpayer, absolutely no cost. It's going to have a huge impact'. Named after himself, Trump called the accounts a 'pro-family' initiative as he works to rally senators to support his proposed legislation. It is not the first time that Trump has made sure it's his name that Americans see on a financial statement. He also put his name on stimulus checks the government sent to millions of Americans during the Covid pandemic. Republicans changed the name of the program from 'MAGA accounts' to 'Trump accounts' before the bill passed the House last month. The Trump accounts will be funded by contributions from private businesses. Heads of Dell, Uber, Altimeter Capital, ARM Corp, Salesforce, ServiceNow, Robinhood and Goldman Sachs joined the President for the announcement. The accounts will also be accessible for additional financial contributions throughout the child's life from family, friends, parents, employers, or other entities. Trump noted: 'It is a pro family initiative that will help millions of Americans harness the strength of our economy to lift up the next generation, and they'll really be getting a big jump on life, especially if we get a little bit lucky with some of the numbers and the economies.' The recipient of the account could access some of the money when they turn 18 for things like education, training, or a first-time home purchase. The full balance would be available at age 30. Michael Dell, the CEO of Dell Technologies, said his company would 'match the government's contributions, dollar for dollar for every child born to a Dell team member'. He said: 'This is investment in our people, their families, our communities and America's future, and it embodies our core belief that opportunity should begin at birth.' Democrats are critical of the legislation, which they say will remove millions from Medicaid and add billions to the federal deficit. Some Republican senators, especially those who represent states with large rural areas, also have expressed concern about the cuts to Medicaid. The Senate can still amend the bill, which, if that happens, it would need to be re-approved by the House before it could go to Trump for his signature. Trump has said he'd like to have the bill on his desk by July 4. Some of his own family will benefit. The President's daughter Tiffany Trump and her husband Michael Boulos had their first child - a baby boy - on May 15, 2025. If the pilot program gets approved, Alexander Trump Boulos would qualify for it.