When I was thinking about this a few years ago, when the rotation of Prime Ministers was leading into it's third in three years (just before the 2013 election), which has since led to both sides losing support to new minor parties or people like Palmer and Hanson who gain a short-lived protest vote, but neither of them had policies that were to benefit ordinary Australians.
I saw that even though people were losing faith in the two major parties that were on either ends of the political spectrum, no one* was setting up a national Centrist party to capitalise on the disenchanted voters who have had enough of the "left-right point scoring at the voter's expense" (not getting anything meaningful done because both sides were too busy playing politics, to worry about tackling what the people really need - which is fixing the Australian economy so that we aren't paying off debts to foreign countries and can instead use that money on Australians instead, fixing the tax system to give struggling working families and people tax relief (including preventing tollroads that shouldn't exist if State Governments were able to manage their budgets properly), reducing the cost of living (including the high cost of electricity thanks to deregulation and privatisation - we already paid for the infrastructure with our taxes and now we have to pay for it again from the new private owners who raise prices to get their money back), putting the brakes on skyrocketing house and land costs to help people get into the market instead of prioritising those who already have a house or can afford multiple investment properties that renters will never be able to afford, remaining more neutral in global affairs so that we aren't dragged into conflicts the US provokes or starts, environmental policies for our kids to inherit a future with less contaminations and natural disasters without going too extreme to send individual people and the country broke before anything meaningful happens, and fixing up the electoral system to have set 4 or 5 year terms that align all the states and federal elections to one day to give us a break from campaigning and false promises, and have the voting process involve voting on major policies rather than just politicians and their parties, so that we get real representation of what we need and want, rather than being stuck with a basket of policies that we don't want (like this same-sex marriage issue - the government claims it was an election promise that people voted for, but they didn't get into power because of that policy... it was way down the list of things people were voting them in for). That way, you can have a "referendum" on major policies at each election at no extra expense to the normal election process, and you can get people more engaged in the election if they can actually get to voice their support for what they want, and know that who ever gets into power has to adhere to it even if it isn't their policy (like the same-sex marriage issue).

* Xenaphon has a some-what centrist party, and it has proven very popular in South Australia, but fails to gain traction in other states... so far. Unfortunately, the media often don't take him seriously, particularly if certain media owners are friends or donors of Liberal or Labor.

Some of the party names I had thought up at the time have since become unusable, either because of their usage overseas, it is already registered here, or someone notorious in Australia using it.
The comments in brackets are why the name either can't be used, or probably shouldn't be used.
- The Australian Independence Party (the similar name is now famous/infamous in the UK with UKIP being similar to our One Nation with very radical policies - it gained a lot of short-lived support due to the protest vote, but has lost almost all of its support)
- The Australian People's Party (opponents could use the scare campaign of it being a communist party, even though it actually would be putting people before big business and rich party lobbyists... and unfortunately, the wife of a well-known crime boss has taken on that name for her political ambitions)
- The New Workers Party (again, it would sound very "red" and communist, but the point would have been to highlight that everyone works in some way to earn their money or raise a family, not just the blue collar "working class", so everyone needs to be supported equally no matter their job... and it would help poach disgruntled Labor voters, in the same way that Palmer and Hanson are (mostly) poaching disgruntle Liberal voters - although, it could also see the name challenged for being too similar to the existing "Australian Worker's Party")
- Australia First Party (already registered in NSW with very limited support because it is a very far right party... so adopting that name or a similar name could see a mistaken identity of its purpose)
- Australian Alliance Party (name is currently available, and even though it sounds positive, it would be hard to convey what it would be an alliance of, particularly if the main focus would be to show party solidarity when the major parties can't)

It is worth noting that the Australian Democrats is now no longer registered (as of 2015), after being the third biggest party at one stage during the 80s and 90s. It would be a good name to have, but it would have a lot of baggage from the older generations remembering how that party imploded after aligning itself with Labor (when it promoted itself as neutral to "keep the bastards honest").

A party name is such a big thing, as it is the "face" that the media and marketing will use, so it needs to easily identify what you stand for if you are a new player on the stage, and needs to be easy to remember or say by having a short catchy name or acronym/abbreviation (like ALP or Libs or UKIP).