Is it selection bias, in that well planned expeditions with good logistics, and adequately trained members doing their job well doesn't make for a good story?
Early European history in Australia is littered with tales of groups taking grandfather clocks and sailboats to explore the inland but being forced to end things when a wagon loses a wheel and they realise they have neither the tools to replace it, nor a spare wheel. Many of the failed attempts seem to have lacked basic survival necessities, what was the cause of this?
This is a question I have as well. One of the histories of inland explorations I've read made the point that the outback was very deceptive: to a foreigner, it looks like there might be a stream or spring around the next hill, except there never is. Curious to know if this is a valid observation or not, never having been to Oz.
How early is "early"? In the 1600s most European explorations of Australia were by Dutch vessels, through navigational mistakes. Later on, they discovered the Roaring Forties, which means that rather than sailing N/NE from the Cape of Good Hope and following the central/northern parts of the Indian ocean to journey to Dutch East Indies, they could sail straight east from the Cape of Good Hope until they hit the coast of Australia, then follow it north to Dutch East Indies (today's Indonesia).
Or, are you specifically asking about early English exploration of Australia?