Daniel slams major parties as 'Coles and Woolies' over election reform deal

The federal government and the Coalition have quietly struck a deal on electoral reform, and independent MP Zoe Daniel is calling it what she sees: a cartel. The two major parties have agreed in principle to push through new election laws this year, though the changes won't take effect until after the next federal poll, due sometime before May 2025. Daniel's comparison was blunt—the major parties, she suggested, were behaving like Coles and Woolworths, Australia's dominant supermarket duopoly, rigging the rules to protect their own market share.

Senator Don Farrell, Labor's point man on the reforms, pushed back hard against the suggestion that the government was rushing anything through. The party had been discussing these changes for two years, he said, and anyone paying attention to electoral politics would know what was coming. There was nothing surprising in the bill, nothing hastily cobbled together. The legislation needed to pass this year—not because of any election urgency, but because the Australian Electoral Commission, the political parties themselves, and independent candidates all needed time to prepare for implementation. The next scheduled federal election after the current one is due around 2028, and that's when these new rules would actually kick in.

Farrell characterized the negotiations with Peter Dutton's Coalition as constructive. There had been good consultation, he said, and he was hopeful that by the time the bill came to a vote, it would have the broadest possible support in the Senate. He also noted that some independents had indicated they were willing to back the changes, though he didn't elaborate on who or how many.

The timing is politically delicate. The government is essentially asking Parliament to pass laws that will reshape how elections work, but not until after voters have already decided the next government. It's a structure that invites skepticism—why lock in rules now for an election years away? Why do it with the opposition's blessing rather than through the usual partisan debate? Daniel's supermarket analogy captured the unease: two big players setting the terms, with smaller competitors left to adapt or lose out.

What remains unclear is exactly which independents are on board and what specific provisions have drawn their support. Farrell's reference to "some independents" was vague enough to leave room for doubt about how solid that backing actually is. The bill must clear the Senate, where the government doesn't hold a majority, making Coalition and independent support essential. The government says it has the numbers, but the real test comes when the legislation is formally introduced and debated. Until then, Daniel's criticism stands as a marker: at least one voice in Parliament is watching to see whether electoral reform becomes genuine modernization or merely a way for the two major parties to cement their grip on power.