Aldi is trialling grocery delivery in Australia. We put it to the test against Coles and Woolworths
Last week, the German-owned supermarket chain took another step into the Australian mainstream, trialling a grocery delivery service with DoorDash in Canberra ahead of a potential expansion around the country.
Aldi has long resisted offering deliveries, given the service would make a basket of groceries more expensive, undercutting its price advantage over Coles and Woolworths.
Guardian Australia tested it out.
I normally take an ad hoc approach to grocery shopping and visit a few different stores, rather than doing a weekly shop. There's an Aldi near my home, as well as a Coles, and a family-owned fruit and vegetable store.
Using my DoorDash account, I added 10 popular items to my Aldi basket, listing a Canberra address for delivery. These comprised a dozen free range eggs, a head of iceberg lettuce, a two-litre bottle of A2 brand light milk, a loaf of multigrain sourdough bread, a pack of RSPCA-approved chicken breast fillets, five brushed potatoes, five bananas, a 1kg bag of carrots, a pack of four beef mince burgers, and a 250g block of tasty cheese.
This came to a total of $52.57, or $58.88 once DoorDash's $6.31 service fee was included. I was offered free delivery on my first order.
Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email
According to the DoorDash website, its loyalty program, DashPass, which costs $9.99 a month or $96 a year, would give me free delivery on orders over $30. Aldi would not disclose the standard delivery fees for Canberra, other than to say they are based on distance.
In Canberra, you can order from Coles on DoorDash, where a basket of 10 comparable items cost me $75.36 and from Woolworths on Uber Eats, where my basket worked out to $71.19 without any eggs, which weren't available. Both of these totals included service fees, but not delivery.
So, if I use a third-party platform like DoorDash to purchase from the major chains, the price increases significantly. But most shoppers would choose the supermarkets' in-house delivery services.
Unlike Aldi, Woolworths and Coles have built their own delivery services. Both require a minimum $50 spend to order from their websites.
My basket of 10 items came to $61.23 from the Woolworths website, and $56.17 from Coles, excluding delivery. This suggests Aldi – where my basket came to $58.88 including the DoorDash service fee – loses its usual significant discount to the major chains due to the costs associated with its third-party delivery platform.
The delivery fees are cheaper if you plan ahead, but, for the sake of comparison, I chose the fastest option possible, with Coles offering an 'as soon as possible delivery option', in an estimated 64 minutes, for $15.
The supermarket's website tells me if I signed up for a Coles Plus membership – for $19 a month or $199 a year – I would be eligible for free delivery.
Woolworths also offered a $15 fast delivery in 'approximately 50 minutes'. Its website tells me I would be eligible for free delivery on orders of $75 or more with a Delivery Unlimited subscription, for $15 a month or $119 a year.
The calculations change according to delivery fees, which in Aldi's case can vary according to how far you live from a store.
Aldi has acknowledged the cost of running an online shopping service will affect its prices.
The total cost of an online Aldi order includes the item prices, a DoorDash markup, delivery fee and service fee, all of which are set by the delivery platform.
Sign up to Breaking News Australia
Get the most important news as it breaks
after newsletter promotion
A spokesperson for Aldi said it was committed to being the most affordable supermarket on DoorDash but acknowledged some of its prices on the platform 'may vary slightly' from those in-store.
'This reflects the added convenience of having everyday essentials delivered quickly and easily,' they said.
I visited an Aldi store in person to check out prices, bearing in mind that my local is in Melbourne, not the same store as one of those delivering from Canberra.
Most of the prices were identical, although the iceberg lettuce, eggs, bananas and potatoes were a bit cheaper in the store.
Overall, my basket cost $48 when shopping in person, saving more than $10 compared to going through the DoorDash site with its service fee.
But I also had to factor in a 25-minute round trip on the tram to get there, which comes with its own costs – or a 40-minute walk or 20-minute bike ride up and down a steep hill.
Aldi tried a similar service with a third-party delivery provider in the UK, but it didn't last. The chain is also hesitant to build its own delivery system because that would add significant costs to the business, which would either result in higher grocery prices, or less profits for its German owners.
Prof Gary Mortimer, a retail expert at the Queensland University of Technology, says Aldi has had to respond to the delivery trend.
'Online food and groceries now represent anywhere between 10 to 12% of supermarket revenue,' Mortimer says.
'As Aldi enters into that space, even using a third-party provider like DoorDash, Coles and Woolworths will be looking at how they go about defending that market share.'
The retail expert Bronwyn Thompson says Aldi considers the competitive advantage of a delivery service to be worth the additional expense.
'If they're trying to be more of a 'whole shop' destination, this is part of that,' Thompson says.
'They've come a long way from just being a place where you'd get a few things.'
The Aldi Australia chief commercial officer, Jordan Lack, said: 'We know Australians will rejoice at the news of Aldi taking our first step in offering customers this convenient shopping format'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
3 hours ago
- Daily Mail
The sneaky way Anthony Albanese will turn Australia into a high-taxing European nation with new super tax
Anthony Albanese risks turning Australia into a high-taxing European nation with his plan for a radical new tax on superannuation savings, an investment group warns. The federal government wants to impose a new 15 per cent tax on unrealised gains on super balances above $3million, where capital growth would be taxed before assets are sold. Wilson Asset Management chairman Geoff Wilson said this departure from taxing capital gains after assets are sold would see Australia share a similarity with European nations, which are renowned for their high taxes and targeting the rich. 'Australia is proving to be no different from Norway, Spain and Sweden, where taxing unrealised gains led to capital exodus and therefore lower than expected tax revenue,' he said. In 2023, the Labor government announced that from July 1, 2025, 0.5 per cent, or 80,000, of super balances with more than $3million would be hit with a new 15 per cent tax on unrealised gains. This would be in addition to the 15 per cent tax on earnings that already exists for all super during the accumulation or working phase. The debut of a new tax on unrealised gains also marks the biggest change to the capital gains tax since it was introduced in Australia in 1985. Previously, European nations have been the main enthusiasts for taxing the notional or paper value of assets, based on gains during a financial year. Norway applies a 38 per cent unrealised gains tax on the wealth of those who leave. Sweden does a similar thing, but with a 30 per cent exit tax on unrealised gains. Spain also has an exit tax, based on unrealised gains, if someone with a large investment portfolio leaves the country to become a tax resident elsewhere. Germany during the 1970s and 1980s taxed unrealised gains on wealth, but the policy was notoriously difficult to administer. France still has a wealth tax that applies on assets worth more than €1.3million (AU$2.1million) of real estate assets, but it stops short of taxing unrealised gains. Other European nations, renowned for having higher income taxes to fund more services, do not touch retirement savings in the way Labor is proposing to do. US Democrat presidential candidate Kamala Harris last year campaigned to tax unrealised gains on wealth - but only for the ultra rich with assets worth US$100million (AU$152million) or more. Australia would be the first to apply an unrealised gains tax to superannuation, in a bid to raise $2.3billion a year in Budget revenue. Left-leaning crossbench senators David Pocock and Jacqui Lambie last year declined to back Labor's Better Targeted Superannuation Concessions bill, because they are opposed to taxing unrealised gains. The Greens back taxing unrealised gains but want the threshold reduced to $2million, but indexed to inflation. They hold the balance of power in the Senate, and Labor is still negotiating amendments with the minor party. The government has previously flagged giving Australians a year's notice from the time legislation is passed, with Mr Wilson noting panic selling was already occurring in self-managed super funds to avoid the potential new tax. 'Despite requiring Senate approval, the proposed tax on unrealised gains has already prompted a rush to liquidate assets ahead of the 30 June 2026 implementation date,' he said. Wilson Asset Management has proposed an alternative super tax strategy to Labor's plan to tax unrealised gains, in a submission to the government's Economic Reform Roundtable, where it argued it would raise $2.433billion in revenue. 'The outcome of the proposal would allow the government to increase tax revenue from high balance accounts without breaching the realisation principle of the tax act,' Mr Wilson said. 'Our proposal is in the national interest and a Budget-positive alternative to the government's proposed policy to tax unrealised gains in superannuation.' He proposes to keep the existing structure of taxing realised capital gains, but adding a new 15 per cent tax to balances of $3million to $6million. A 17.5 per cent tax would apply for balances of $6million to $10million, rising to 20 per cent for balances of $10million to $20million and 25 per cent for balances above $20million.
The Guardian
5 hours ago
- The Guardian
Are Australians about to see US beef on supermarket shelves? And why is Donald Trump celebrating?
Donald Trump has claimed victory over Australia's decision to lift restrictions on the import of US beef, but don't expect to see the product on supermarket shelves anytime soon, says industry. Much has been made of the timing of the decision, which followed a decade-long process by the agriculture department, and coincides with a push from the Trump administration to open up Australia's market to US exporters. The government has said there will be no weakening or compromise of Australia's biosecurity in opening the gates to more US beef, and most in the cattle and farming industry doubt we'll see much increase of US exports. Here's what you need to know about what impact it could have in Australia. Sign up: AU Breaking News email More than 99% of beef available in Australian pubs, supermarkets and restaurants is Australian beef, says Meat and Livestock Australia. The industry body, as well as Cattle Farmers Australia and the National Farmers' Federation, believe it's unlikely the restriction change will have any significant material impact. Dr Kate Sievert at Deakin University said US beef can't compete with the strong domestic cattle industry. She said it's unlikely Australians could see more US beef on the supermarket shelf, but it could be used more in fast-food or prepackaged meals. 'It's more likely to be used in specific segments of the food system, so areas like food service, particularly in fast-food service or ultra-processed products like ready meals,' Sievert said. 'The US relies a lot more on confined animal feeding operations where it's cheaper to produce.' That doesn't necessarily make it cheaper overall than Australian beef. The cattle industry has also pointed out that of the more niche or exclusive cuts of beef that the US produces, almost all are available already in Australia. Sievert said the rule change would put Australia more in line with countries such as Japan and South Korea that have been importing more beef from the US. But the US has also been facing a steady decline in its cattle herds, and production fell about 1% in 2024. 'Cattle herd sizes are the lowest they've been in decades,' Sievert said. Asked whether the decision on beef will change the dynamic with the US administration, the trade minister, Don Farrell, told the Lowy Institute thinktank on Friday: 'I'm not too sure. 'We haven't done this in order to entice the Americans into a trade agreement,' he said. 'President Trump thinks it's a good decision, [he's] taking credit for it. We have to pursue our national interest, and our national interest is the removal of all of those tariffs.' The government has been at pains to say the decision is not linked to the trade relationship, or the demands for open access from the US. Farrell said the government shouldn't 'give up' on the ambition to have the tariffs removed. He also said Australia's exports have been increasing to the US, ever since the tariffs were announced. 'We do $4bn worth of beef exports to the United States, and it's increasing by the way, we export huge amounts of beef to China, again, that's increasing.' On Thursday, Donald Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social, 'The other Countries that refuse our magnificent Beef are ON NOTICE.' The Nationals said those comments from Trump sit at odds with the government's assertion that the decision was separate to the tariffs. The deputy leader of the Nationals, Kevin Hogan, said in a statement that Australia cannot use 'our science-based biosecurity standards as a bargaining chip'. 'We have the US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer directly connecting this decision to the US-Australia trade relationship, but the Albanese Government is saying the complete opposite,' he said. Australia introduced a ban on US beef imports in 2003, in response to an outbreak of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) or mad cow disease. Any country seeking market access to import fresh beef products must undergo a BSE risk assessment. In 2015, Australia granted the US a category 1 status, following a risk assessment, meaning the US had 'comprehensive and well-established controls' to prevent BSE outbreaks in cattle. Category 1 countries are able to import fresh and processed beef into Australia so long as they comply with other conditions. In 2017, Australia released the beef review, which assessed applications for market access from countries that had passed the BSE risk assessment, including the US. That review should have been the final step in allowing access to the Australian market – except it specified that the animal from which the beef was derived must have been 'continuously resident' in the approved country since birth. In 2019, the government began allowing beef imports from cattle traceably born and raised in the US. Imports were also subject to an ongoing biosecurity review that, in practice, has still meant no imports of fresh beef. The restriction changes now allow beef exports that are sourced from cattle born in Canada or Mexico, which the US has been importing to bolster its national herd. That cattle must be traceable, and legally imported and slaughtered in the US. The US imported an average of 700,000 cattle, buffalo or bison from Canada each year between 2019 and 2023 and 1.2 million per year from Mexico over the same period. However, live cattle imports from Mexico have been banned in the US since May, due to the spread of a flesh-eating pest.
The Guardian
5 hours ago
- The Guardian
Workers like Jason question ‘broad brush' return to office mandates as WFH tussle heads to Fair Work showdown
Jason Sennitt loves his job, but can't imagine going back to the office up to four days a week. The 53-year-old lives in an outer suburb of Geelong with his wife and two school-age children as well as his elderly mother who has dementia and needs someone to be home. An employee of one of Australia's largest energy providers, Sennitt has been told to return to the office at least three days a week, and four days a week from next year. 'Even though I have to travel five hours to do an eight-hour shift, I'm happy to do that a couple of times a week,' says Sennitt, who works in customer service. 'But being in the office … it's not necessary for me to do my job well and it feels like the business hasn't really considered this.' Sennitt has applied for an exemption to the office mandate, but he believes the company's 'broad brushstroke' policy doesn't take proper consideration of its workers. His comments come ahead of the 1 August submission deadline for a Fair Work Commission process designed to modernise the award for clerical and administrative workers by taking into account work-from-home arrangements. The clerks award, which informs the working conditions of millions of Australians, is seen as a test case for the broader workforce amid a growing tussle over flexible work. Sign up for a weekly email featuring our best reads While employees can request flexible arrangements, there is no assumed right to work from home in Australia. Sennitt's employer, Origin Energy, says it supports its office-based employees to work from home up to two days a week, with the ability to request additional flexibility. 'We believe a balance between work and home locations enables connection, collaboration, productivity, and health and wellbeing benefits,' an Origin spokesperson says. Once seen as a rare perk, remote work exploded during the early stages of the Covid-19 pandemic. After pandemic conditions eased, the significant time and financial saving from reduced commuting, and flexibility to care for family members, has made many workers resistant to return to the office. Many employees also report being more productive working from home. Some employers, however, are worried about being compelled to offer flexible arrangements when it is not practical for their business. There is also the enduring suspicion that some workers slack off at home. The issue has pitted employer association Australian Industry Group against the Australian Services Union (ASU), which has a large base of administrative and clerical members, including Sennitt. AI Group has reportedly proposed to give employers the right to trade off overtime, penalty rates and breaks in exchange for allowing employees to work from home. The confidential proposal was first reported in The Australian. The ASU's national secretary, Emeline Gaske, told Guardian Australia that AI Group wanted to use working from home as an excuse to strip away basic entitlements. 'This is a lurch back in time by the [AI Group] that wants to drag workplace standards back decades if a worker seeks to work from home,' Gaske says. An ASU members' survey found that the ability to work from home was 'not a perk, but an essential condition that makes work possible', allowing many workers to manage health conditions, disabilities and caring responsibilities. Employers and their representative bodies are expected to use the Fair Work process to test whether current provisions are suited to flexible work. For example, the clerks award ensures employees have at least 10 consecutive hours off after working overtime. If an employer doesn't comply, the worker earns double their hourly rate. Sign up to Five Great Reads Each week our editors select five of the most interesting, entertaining and thoughtful reads published by Guardian Australia and our international colleagues. Sign up to receive it in your inbox every Saturday morning after newsletter promotion Employer groups question if that 10-hour rule should apply if a worker is at home, and therefore does not need to commute. They are also raising questions about what constitutes normal working hours in an at-home setting, given penalty rates often apply outside those hours. The Fair Work process may also bring clarity to how flexible work interacts with right to disconnect laws. The AI Group chief executive, Innes Willox, says there is an obvious need to free up restrictive provisions that either prohibit working from home or discourage employers from implementing them. He says the union is engaging in a 'misleading scare campaign'. 'We aren't arguing that overtime and penalty rates should not apply simply because someone is working from home,' Willox says. He says the clerks award contains archaic rules that require all ordinary hours are worked continuously and within strict timeframes. 'If employees want to take breaks during their ordinary hours of work to attend to personal matters, like picking their kids up from schools, and instead work those hours in the evening or early in the morning, they should be able to do that, if their employer agrees,' Willox says. 'Obviously, an employer shouldn't have to pay a penalty for agreeing to an employee request to work this way, but that seems to be what the unions want.' During the federal election, the Coalition spectacularly reversed its policy to restrict work from home arrangements for the public service. Polling found during the campaign that the public service proposal was unpopular, especially among women and working families who have come to rely on flexible work arrangements. As the submission deadline for the Fair Work process nears, there are growing expectations Labor could legislate a work-from-home right for workers. Another Melbourne corporate worker, who asked not to be identified, told Guardian Australia that greater flexibility would lead to increased productivity and improved morale. For them, the only public transport option from their outer-Melbourne home requires a 40-minute bus ride followed by a 55-minute train commute. The bus schedule also doesn't line up with work hours. 'I leave home at 4.30am to get a ride with my husband,' the worker said. 'I'm not allowed to leave [work] early. I still have to stay until 4pm.' 'We find the days [in the office] to be the most unproductive days there are.'
