Shonkys 2023 Winners Announced

They got me the same way. After complaining, was offered a refund. Not received after three weeks! Dodgy mob, best avoided.

Yep they even block turning off the renewal during the trial, so i got charged too

I’d suggest Santos and Woodside for shonkys. For many reasons, but particularly essentially doubling the price of our gas. Our gas, cost of extraction hasn’t gone up that much (I’m guessing), they’re an oligopoly, and the international price shouldn’t effect aussie gas for aussies. I’d also note the effect on inflation.

The international gas business functions much like a cartel, it is mutually defensive and limited in competition.

There is no way to avoid the domestic price being affected by the international prices under the current regulatory arrangements. Much of the development of coal seam gas in the last 20 years has been specifically aimed at export. As a side benefit to the vendors domestic gas prices have risen about threefold, so the new fields (mainly in QLD and WA) allow huge amounts of additional product to be sold and at a much higher price too.

When all this started out if the federal government had created a reservation policy the local price might not be following the international price but that boat has well and truly sailed. Unless the global price tanks the price of domestic gas is never going back to the heady days when Bass Strait and the Cooper Basin gas (which is not CSG) was very cheap fuel for the east coast.

The solution is to find a cheaper fuel if you need fuel and to raise prices or go out of business if you need it for industrial feedstock.

Santos and Woodside don’t care one little bit if you think they are shonky. They played all our governments like Paganini and now laugh behind their corporate hands. If they got a Shonky they would keep giggling as their shareholders basically don’t care.

1 Like

Welcome to the community @douglassmith.

Considering the prior post if there’s a shonky it likely belongs to the many in government over the past decade. It’s an own goal knowing who put them there.

One gas industry response has been to blame government for not allowing even more development of gas reserves to meet the shortages of domestic supply. Unfortunately the already developed cheap to produce gas originally for domestic use is also going to help fill export markets. Soon the only gas that will be left for our future domestic needs will be the harder to get more expensive gas. Open to hear who that shonky should be awarded to. There are likely many candidates over time.

4 reasons our gas and electricity prices are suddenly sky-high


I reckon many of our governments deserve ‘Golden Shonkys’ for what they did or did not do and 'Platinum Shonky’s for deflecting blame. I doubt any of us could identify a government without at least one in their display case, and a few possibly having storage facilities for their overflow.


The reason why Woolworths and Coles net profit margin on products has increased as a result of ‘cost of living crisis’ is highly likely due to :

As well known and shown in Aldi’s net profit margins, store branded products are more profitable to the supermarkets. Trend towards store branded products is like to have a positive effect on net profit margins.

Is that saying it’s because they place a higher margin on store branded products compared to premium and well known brands?

Isn’t this the very definition of a rip off?
Taking 10c in the dollar from a $5 store brand vs 5c in the dollar from a $10 popular internationally known brand.

Given market dominance any monopoly, duopoly or … will take every action available to it to protect its return to shareholders and public listed market value.

Comparing Aldi, privately owned and playing its own version of branded products (most exclusive to Aldi) is difficult. Many of their products compete on equal terms with well known international brands and established reputation. How well Aldi exclusive brands compare with the Colesworth store brands might need more clarity? Aldi compete with a more limited product range, typically without brand choice and a no frills shopping experience. All factors that reduce overheads and increase purchasing power.

It isn’t ripping off as retailers are selling store branded products significantly cheaper than branded products. If one follows this line of argument, every retailer that sells stored branded products is ripping off its customers even though they are some of the cheapest products consumers can buy.

It is well known that store branded products provide higher retail margins to retailers. It is in the interests of retailers to sell store more store branded products providing it doesn’t significantly impact on gross revenue. Store branded products are a threat to branded products and bottom line of their manufacturers. Harvard Business Review provides a good assessment on impacts of store branded (private) labels:

Brands Versus Private Labels: Fighting to Win.

Aldi’s success is because they have been highly successful in selling store branded labels, particularly to consumers who don’t place value on brands.

Stored branded product quality has improved over past decades, possibly due to competition and to meet expectations of consumers. Choice testing has shown store branded are still a bit hit and miss in relation to their quality/performance. As they are store brands, their quality/performance can change over time as the supermarkets change suppliers/manufacturers to strive towards minimising the cost base for their store branded products. Minimising the cost base is important to maintain higher profit margins on store branded products as well as being competitive with branded products.

Saying again, that’s putting a greater percentage mark up on a cheap item than a more expensive item.


To the shareholder and board and senior executives it’s saying it’s OK for a business to mark up the less expensive product with a higher margin. Why! Because it’s still overall cheaper to the consumer than the more expensive product sold with a lesser margin.

To the consumer every extra cent saved counts. I agree with Choice. The Shonky awarded to ColesWorth is well deserved, assuming it’s as suggested.

Ultimately how any of us see it, we can all choose to think like a shareholder, CEO etc, or we can think like a consumer. For those consumers most likely to be preferring the less expensive store brands. It’s improbable they would be in a position to be a Colesworth Shareholder, or have the opportunity to think like one.

Expect most in the community think more like one and not the other.

So Kmart, Aldi etc which predominantly sell store branded products, with higher margins, are more deserving of the Shonky than Coles or Woolworths.

The argument that Coles or Woolworths deserve the Shonky because they sold a higher percentage of store branded products compared to branded products is absurd.

1 Like

It was suggested there is a greater per unit profit (markup) on these products. How is volume also not a factor in delivering a greater profit? Especially compared to the alternative of selling fewer lower cost store brands and higher volumes of independent brand products.

Who knows if they dodged a bullet (Choice Shonky) for profit gouging customers post Covid? KMart are not predominantly selling food products. They are in a different market segment. Aldi being a private company are not financially transparent. They are a no frills and limited product range/brand supermarket. Hence a lower overall cost base compared to Coles and Woolworths. Aldi usually wins in basket price comparisons.

It does, and as Choice has found in the past Aldi has a higher proportion of imported content in its products, thus giving it the ability to reduce its cost base and sell its products cheaper, still with higher overall margins.

Woolworths and Coles could also increase the imported content in its store branded products, but then I expect they would be accused of not supporting (ripping the guts out of) Australian farmers.

Usually at least two differing views on how it works, but.

A supplier puts Colesworths into perspective as seen from the bottom up. It reinforces Coleworths take care of their own bottom line by taking as little care of their own supply chain as they are able and keeping their own margins healthy.


Another view of the grocers from the bottom up.


We might learn if and how shonky the winners may be.


An article on how at least 56% of Gas exports are absolutely free for the exporters in regards to Royalties.

Australia Institute report that was the basis for the article:

What have we forgone in moving towards a renewable future by forgoing the benefits of the needed income by giving some Multinationals a Resource Tax free grab at our gas fields. Norway has for some time used the benefits of their energy resources to fund their move towards more renewable energy use. If we applied the same 58% special petroleum tax as Norway does we would have over $100 Billion added to our Federal budget. There would be no talk about deficits. That amount of income would equate to around $3,600 per person in Australia.

Norway provides another example of how some countries receive far greater returns from the development of their oil and gas resources. While Norway exports less gas than Australia, Norway’s Ministry of Finance projects that tax revenue in 2023 alone from oil and gas will be a staggering A$127 billion, or around $23,500 per Norwegian citizen. This results from a tax rate applied to oil and gas production of 78%, comprising a 22% corporate tax rate and a 56% special petroleum tax.[31]

31 The Australia institute (2022) Norway shows how Australia can get a fair return from oil and gas Norway shows how Australia can get a fair return from oil and gas - The Australia Institute

Definite one vote for at least one Government Shonky, and one for the industry.

The extra punch comes from the lack of payment of taxes on profits (not royalties) and the following is from the report:

Taxes are different to royalties. As discussed above, royalties are effectively a purchase price for a resource. By contrast, the two main taxes covering the oil and gas industry—company tax and the petroleum resource rent tax (PRRT)—are levied on profits. The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) has labelled the oil and gas industry as a “systemic non -payers” of tax.[14] In 2020-21, individual corporations Woodside, Exxon, Shell, Chevron, Inpex and APLNG paid no income tax or PRRT on $34 billion of income.[15] Record prices in 2021-22 saw these companies’ income leap to $56.3 billion while paying just $454 million in company tax payments.[16] Senate estimates hearings have revealed that the accumulation of tax credits under current rules could mean that much of the LNG industry could avoid paying PRRT indefinitely.[17]

14 McIlroy (December 2019), Oil, gas ‘systemic non-payers’ of tax, Oil, gas 'systemic non-payers' of tax
15 Australian Government (2022) 2020-21 Report of Entity Tax Information, Corporate Tax Transparency - Dataset -
16 Australian Government (2023) 2021-22 Report of Entity Tax Information, Corporate Tax Transparency - Dataset -
17 Greber (May 31,2023) PRRT tax credits grew three times faster than their use, PRRT tax credits grew three times faster than their use

Based on the 2021-2022 profits from our products and at the 22% Norway Corporate tax rate instead of $454 million we would have received in that year $12.3 BILLION in tax revenue. At our Corporate tax rate for base entities of 25% it would have been about $14 BILLION (caps for emphasis about how much we are losing out on).