On the observation about the Australian Senate being a highly partisan body, I observed the same thing. Some of us went down and were guests of the Clerk of the Australian Senate, who confirmed the extraordinarily partisan nature of that body. But he also drew our attention to the fact that it was largely the result of their peculiar balloting process, in which you can effectively tick off the party list with one tick. Something like 90% or 95% of voters do that.
All the Australian states are bicameral. Other Australian states have adopted methods that seem to provide some protection against excessive partisanship, where individuals can be voted for as individuals. Given that you have multiple candidates running at the same time, you sometimes get people who are more independent within their party--or are even outright independents. The clearest example of this is in Tasmania, where in their upper house they effectively have a great deal more independence and less partisanship.
You can see I'm not really asking a question here; I'm making a statement. But I just wonder if you agree with me that certain mechanisms can be built in, such as the ones used in Tasmania--the assurance that the party can't choose where to place you on the ballot, for example--that will allow open nominations as opposed to closed nominations, that will allow people to be elected on their own merits and not to simply be pawns of the party bosses.