if people are only there because they want to avoid a fine, you're very unlikely to get a considered vote, whichever method people use to pick a name
That's a fair point buffet. It's worth mentioning that technically it's not the actual voting that's compulsory in Australia, it's going to the polling place and getting your name ticked off, but that obviously doesn't change the point you're making.
It is true that being at the top of the ballot paper gives a slight advantage, which is one reason why names order is randomised rather than being alphabetical (see also: donkey vote).
Where I think the Australian system is superior is that if everyone knows they have to vote, it's just something that you do. You don't forget it (ok some people do), you don't put it off, you don't think ooh I'm really not in the mood to go out in the rain today. It adds a financial incentive (or whatever the opposite is) to the picture. And financial incentives are well-known for causing changes in behaviour (just think of the window tax, or narrow Dutch buildings, for example).
So absolutely, the threat of fine can't force engagement, it can only force going to a polling place on election day. That said, I do think that it increases engagement (I grew up in Australia, but I do come from a socioeconomic group that has high voter engagement anyway, so my experience might not be typical).
Hope that makes vague sense, not feeling the best today.