Open Letter, to the Hon Dr Jim Chalmers MP Treasurer of Australia

To the Hon Dr Jim Chalmers MP Treasurer of Australia Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600

Dear Treasurer,

Your department has authorised a $1.1 million grant to CHOICE Magazine for a supermarket pricing survey that, in our view, fails to meet the standards of methodological integrity, transparency, and value-for-money expected of taxpayer-funded research.

We note the following sequence of events, all now on the public record:

A formal complaint was first submitted via the Prime Minister’s Office and directed to your department.

Two subsequent complaints were submitted directly to your office and remain acknowledged but unanswered.

Treasury subsequently informed us in writing that it had referred our complaint to CHOICE the subject of the complaint for response.

CHOICE then responded to CHATO International with a broad defence of its process, offering generalised justifications without addressing the specific issues raised.

This circular handling of complaints constitutes, in our professional view, a failure of procedural governance. It places the subject of a grant-funded inquiry in the role of self-adjudicator, contradicting the principles of independence and accountability outlined in the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act (PGPA Act) and the Commonwealth Grant Rules and Guidelines (CGRGs).

What concerns us most is the inconsistency in CHOICE's own practices:

In its self-funded sunscreen testing, CHOICE applies rigorous, internationally recognised ISO methodologies, third-party laboratories, and robust quality assurance protocols.

In its publicly funded supermarket pricing survey, however, CHOICE omits core principles of standardisation, equivalence, and statistical control—resulting in a report that is difficult to reproduce or verify, and ultimately of limited public utility.

Both methodologies are on the public record. Our critique of each, including a detailed comparison, is detailed in the current white paper. We urge your office to examine these discrepancies not in isolation, but as symptoms of a broader issue concerning the stewardship of public funds.

Accordingly, we call for:

Immediate suspension of Treasury funding for the CHOICE supermarket pricing survey pending an independent review.

Referral of the program to the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) for independent examination.

Clarification from your office as to whether the grant has been assessed for compliance with the CGRGs, and whether CHOICE’s reporting obligations have been independently verified.

This is not an attack on CHOICE as an institution, nor on its staff. It is a reasoned request for transparency, due diligence, and integrity in the administration of taxpayer-funded research. The failure here is not operational but structural. It concerns oversight, accountability, and the public right to expect proper standards.

A white paper containing our full analysis, titled "Governance and Methodological Failures in CHOICE's Supermarket Pricing Survey," is available by request under licence. Interested parties may apply via andrew@chatointernational.com.

Sincerely, Andrew Dyhin Director, CHATO International Pty Ltdandrew@chatointernational.comwww.chatointernational.com

This letter reflects the considered opinion of CHATO International Pty Ltd based on independent analysis and publicly sourced data. It is offered as a contribution to public discourse and consumer policy reform.