Technology – no lithophile metallurgy existed anywhere in the world before Humphry Davy in 1807 – and lack of understanding of soil fertilisation would have made it virtually impossible to settle Australia before the British did so in 1788.
Even today, the antiquity (over 600,000,000 years vis-à-vis just 10,000 years for almost all European soils) and resultant nutritional poverty of almost all soils in the relatively well-watered northern districts of Australia remains an insurmountable obstacle to agriculture. The nutritional importance of the chalcophile elements (copper, zinc, selenium) in which northern Australian soils are even more deficient than they are in the macronutrients phosphorus and sulfur (except in the Wet Tropics where effectively all soil sulfur is organic sulfur) was not known until the 1950s. Southern Australian soils – except for a roughly crescent-shaped area between Singleton and Birdsville – are almost equally old (300,000,000 years) and nutrient-poor.
Polynesians and early Europeans knew – even if they lacked words to express it – just how impoverished almost all coastal soils in Australia are, and one can be sure no explorer possessed desire to look further.
If Australia had remained un-taken after Humphry Davy discovered how to smelt lithophile metals via electrolysis, there would be the possibility of the Dutch settling Australia. In such a scenario, I imagine an even more racially intolerant early twentieth-century Australia, quite likely modelled after the Boer Republics. Whether the large landowners would have captured such as “Boer” Australian state I do not know. If they would have – given that the countries Australian most resembles ecologically and economically are the Arab Gulf oil monarchies, with the difference being that Australia’s resources are coal and lithophile metals rather than oil – Australia would remain an absolute monarchy even today. If the large landowners would not capture the state (less likely) Australia would be a very conservative republic even today.
I'm certain by 1858 that at least in America (and in India, same cause cotton) the lithophile (soils) problem will be suspected and fertilization will be a necessary revolution as it became. The possibility of settlement in Australia still depends a bit on British politics and trade routes and exploitables. The iron deposits of New Caledonia for example, (France, the British missed that one.) but I digress.
However, what if the Dutch do settle southern Australia? Why would not they suffer the same New Amsterdam/New York/South Africa/Boer Republic outcome? It would still mean a LOT of heartburn for the 20th Century unpleasantness known as WW II.
Specifically in that case, the butterflies would madly flap ill winds in a wide variety things such as local politics (Imagine MacArthur trying to deal with Conrad Helfrich, a very difficult man and ally politically, though stubborn and courageous.), and in such things as relations with the indigenous peoples. The British origin Australians were fair to excellent with the south Pacific peoples. The Dutch were decidedly not as good.
I can see a host of other negative effects, primarily logistical and inter-allied co-operation due to
a different set of economic development pathways and interests. Suffice it to say, that there would be fewer Anzacs fighting and a lot more Japanese further south than historically. This is not because a Dutch Australia would be any less courageous or willing, it would have more to do with the manpower base and extent of infrastructure. Whyalla, Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, Fremantle, Perth would likely not be as well developed based on Indonesian history
as naval bases. Darwin might have been better organized due to its proximity to Dutch Indonesia.
IOW, a very different Pacific naval war. For example, why develop Singapore? No reason if no empire east of the Malay Strait.