Jack Gramenz
FEBRUARY 24, 2020
news.com.au
The alcohol industry has taken aim at a “vastly inaccurate” new study claiming children could be buying booze on the internet.
Online alcohol delivery services need more regulation according to public health researchers who believe they’re opening the door to dangerous consumption of alcohol, but the industry thinks there’s no problem.
The team from the University of New South Wales Sydney analysed the websites of the 65 most popular online platforms for alcohol delivery in research published in the Australasian Professional Society on Alcohol and other Drugs journal Drug and Alcohol Review.
They found 69 per cent of the websites were willing to leave packages unattended without verifying the shopper’s age, potentially giving children a way to buy alcohol.
Almost 15 per cent of them also gave shoppers the ability to use a buy-now-pay-later service such as Afterpay or Zip Pay.
More than 80 per cent of them gave consumers a discount the more alcohol they bought.
This included the four outlets owned by supermarket giants Woolworths (Dan Murphy’s and BWS) and Coles (First Choice Liquor and Liquorland), which made up the top four most popular outlets in the study.
Almost 5 per cent of total alcohol sales in 2019 were conducted online, with estimated sales of $569.4 million.
The latest data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (from 2017) reports 4186 alcohol-related death across the country that year.
Alcohol is also an occasional factor in domestic violence offences.
Study co-author and UNSW master of public health graduate Stephanie Colbert said the research showed the law wasn’t keeping pace with technology.
“This is creating new problems around minors accessing alcohol, the sale of alcohol to intoxicated persons and easy access to cheap alcohol,” Ms Colbert said.
“The liquor industry recognises they can get away with more online: a recent industry report about online alcohol sales stated: ‘Unlike many liquor related industries, the Online Beer, Wine and Liquor Sales industry operates under a low level of regulation and policy’,” she added.
“I told a friend who brews beer for a living that delivery drivers don’t need a Responsible Service of Alcohol (RSA) to deliver alcohol to retail customers – he was shocked, and he works in the alcohol industry.”
“Many people would be shocked to find out that this is simply not the case and that’s why, based on our findings, we call for online standards to be just as tough as when you walk into a pub or a bottle shop,” co-author professor Robyn Richmond said.
“The regulations are very, very lax online. The fact that online alcohol is accessible to minors, intoxicated persons can just get a top-up and it’s so easy to access cheap alcohol, at any time from any location, are all major concerns.
“Even their sales talk mentions customers going ‘thirsty’ if they don’t leave clear delivery instructions for the driver,” she added.
The ability to use buy-now-pay-later services was also of particular concern, as they aren’t subject to the National Credit Code.
Accepting transactions through online payment platform PayPal was another way the researchers felt liquor delivery businesses were making it easier for underaged customers to make purchases.
But the industry hasn’t taken kindly to the study or its characterisation within.
“Any evaluation of the online alcohol sale and delivery sector must be done in conjunction with a thorough review of retailers’ delivery practices, as the online website is only half of the transaction,” Retail Drinks Australia (RDA) CEO Julie Ryan said in a statement on Monday.
She said the researchers merely looked at the websites of alcohol retailers and didn’t audit the actual delivery practices, meaning they reached “vastly inaccurate conclusions”.
“Instead of reviewing the Australian delivery environment, the UNSW study vaguely attempts to reference mystery shopping in the Netherlands from more than seven years ago to draw the conclusion that minors may access alcohol in Australia. This is clearly irrelevant in an Australian context.”
Ms Ryan further disputed the regulations around online liquor sales were inadequate, and said the industry body’s own “self-regulatory framework” (a voluntary code of conduct that doesn’t appear to have any real legal bindings) “works hand-in-hand with state and territory regulation”.
Ms Ryan also said the researchers never tried to contact RDA, which “probably says something about the rigour of their study that they make statements without attempting to research the facts”.
Ms Colbert said the researchers didn’t bother contacting the RDA because it “represents the interests of liquor retailers, so they have a vested interest in helping their members to sell alcohol to make a profit”.
She also doubted the sincerity of the RDA’s code of conduct.
“The alcohol industry’s attempt at self-regulation is an industry strategy to put in place minimal controls and prevent government regulation,” Ms Colbert told news.com.au.
“It is not a legitimate route to harm minimisation. They engage in the same tactics as the tobacco industry to prevent or delay government regulation and undermine good public policy.”
Subscribe to our free mailing list and always be the first to receive the latest news and updates.