Vanna, a lot of people do not have a Tax File number.
Enough so that it could be used to change marginal seat results.

There is another reason for it not to be used, it breaches the secret ballot rule.

Bazz
If someone does not have a taxfile number, then why should they be voting (and even pensioners are required to have a taxfile number)

Systems for the public to vote inline can be established, and heavily audited to ensure they remain secure.

Consider the alternative, where the public is at the mercy of political parties untill the sun finally runs out of hydrogen.

The problem with the Westminster system is it completely fails to function in the way it was intended when the Parliament is divided into large factions (i.e. political parties). 2-party politics just doesn't work in a system of parliamentary government. Westminster really assumes that the Australian parliament is composed of 150 independents.

Take Question Time, it was meant to assume that non-ministerial MP's (all of them) would use that time to ask questions of the executive, with a view to obtaining information based on which they would be continually reassessing whether or not the government still held their support. This was supposed to ensure better government, since the cabinet knows it can be replaced at any time if it doesn't perform, whereas in a Presidential system an incompetent President must be suffered until the next election. What really happens in our system is the ruling party knows it will never lose a confidence motion (the present situation notwithstanding), since the parties can enforce voting blocks. Therefore, it has no motivation to honestly answer hard questions during QT. The opposition, knowing it will never win a confidence motion, similarly has no reason to ask a sensible question or offer a constructive suggestion. So the whole thing turns into this ridiculous exercise of mindless mud-slinging and back-slapping.

Certainly there are some solutions which might help. Removing partisan pre-selection in favor of some sort of broader election for party candidates is one way. Proportional representation is another. The trouble these or any other solution you can think of is that they make the system more prone to deadlock during a more rigorous deliberation process, reducing the ability of the parliament to efficiently pass legislation. Now I actually think that’s a good thing, but I also think Australian’s overall find legislative efficiency to be a strength of our system, which they are reluctant to compromise. Which is fine, but I think that means there are some inherent downsides to our system we simply have to accept.

The fundamental flaws in the Westminster system are arguably as old as this archaic system of govt; designed to limit the power of Kings?
The first is, I believe, it seems to attract power hungry psychopaths?
Clearly the electorate has had a belly full, with the rejection of Kevin Rudd by an electorate waiting with baseball bats; and more recently, by the quite massive rejection of apparent arrogant autocrat, Anna Bligh. This is the real lesson for Canberra, particularly, given the electorate often votes quite differently in state and federal elections!
NSW and Vic, opted for a revolving door approach to both seemingly problematic leadership, risible incompetence and enduring entrenched endemic corruption?
We need a bill of rights, with a citizens' initiated referendum front and centre. Secondly, we need a divorce from state parliaments and politicians. The 70 plus annual billions we'd save could be far better spent, on endlessly unmet need!
We need to elect a government; and a house of review, but not an endlessly antagonistic opposition, which simply adds billions to the cost of running the country and endlessly deferred capital projects, which double in cost with every decade of delay!
There plainly is enough diversity of opinion inside cabinet and caucus to ensure sufficient debate and or divergent views! The money saved by jettisoning the road blocks to real progress, could be far better used to create a truly massive sovereign fund, which would secure our future, well beyond the mining booms. Rhrosty.

How would we be able to distinguish and select merit?
I know, we could simply reject political parties per se; and then hold primaries, controlled by only the grass roots and or the whole electorate, or rather, those who cared enough about how well their electorate fared; and or, how well the country was run; to bother to show up?
The country could and or should be called corporate Australia; and only those with real and very successful corporate or business experience ought to be invited to apply for pre-selection; via a primary process?
This could follow the original Westminster system, and be unpaid positions, with only real expenses refunded.
This would preclude the possibility of unsuccessful incompetents being attracted to politics, to shore up or fund a singularly unsuccessful business or private financial venture; or untried untested intellectual concepts?
We would reject the dilettantes and their bookish ideas, which include dismantling our manufacturing base and replacing that with services; or, the privatisation or off-selling of income earning assets!
[One notes that the only currently successful European economy is Germany, which rejected this advice and fought with determination and endless innovation, to retain a manufacturing based economy!]
A share holders annual general meeting; could invite the elected board to justify various decisions and or, CEO selection etc.
This would allow a process that enabled the outing and the early rejection of company harming corp. psychopaths, who see only power in parliament, when in truth there is only onerous responsibility! Rhrosty.