The first European record of Australia is 1606, i cant find a Asian record of Austrailia, but it seems like the Makassar people would fish off the north coast of Austraila in the early 1700s but I can't find anything referencing earlier. The Majapahit empire extended to timor at its peak. Which isnt too far off the coast of austrailia and there are plenty of small islands in between that would allow island hopping. Its seems like it would have be so easy for Australia to begin trading with the kingdoms in south east asia so why did it seemingly just not happen?
There was some interaction - the dingo was introduced from Asia at some point around 1000 years ago, and some cultures of northern Australia speak languages unrelated to the rest of the continent, likely due to a later wave of migration from Asia. The Kimberley, Tiwi Islanders and Arnhem Land all had sporadic contact with Asian seafarers, like the Makassans you mention, and their trade and cultural exchange was significant to them and to wider Australian history. The people of Cape York and the Torres Strait Islanders also had significant and consistent contact with New Guinea - TSI people are Melanesian and have little in common with mainland Australia beyond Cape York, besides a shared history of colonial invasion.
The reason it seems like little happened can be explained by material and social culture. Aboriginal Australians did not domesticate plants and animals (which usually comes from trying to get higher agricultural yields), did not value most things a settled society would think of as precious (like Australia's massive wealth of gold and iron deposits), and had a different concept of luxury - thus, when the low class fishermen from Asia or the ruthless Dutch merchantmen of the VOC arrived, they offered to trade them the tools they used or the food they grew/hunted - valuable to sailors, but not high value trade goods. Aboriginal people were slow to see any value in the cheap goods that these people offered in exchange (besides the rare offers of glass, axes, or textiles), or didn't want what they saw as poor exchanges, or didn't want to trade with hostile invaders (the Dutch constantly assaulted women and kidnapped men as translators). They also valued their own goods and culture highly - if a spear makes you a man, why would you want a gun? They were also superstitious of death - most Aboriginal cultures have strong taboos around death, spirits and locations, and the violence and diseases brought by hostile ghost-like invaders would give plenty of reason to avoid them.
Why no colonialism then? The Makassans were lower class fishermen, neither in contact with the elites of their society nor wealthy enough themselves to fund expensive colonial projects, and the Dutch VOC spent a fortune scouting out the coasts of New Holland and only ever found sand and reefs. With no evidence of vast wealth or trade goods, there was little incentive for the minor lords of Indonesia to fund a hostile invasion of another continent, which is something the Dutch VOC were already doing quite successfully in Indonesia itself, at great risk and expense. Both cultures would also likely find the climates of the tropical savannah north and arid desert west too harsh for their lifestyles or their agriculture - northern Australia is similar to Timor, but not Sulawesi or Java, and nothing at all like the Netherlands, meaning growing crops would take an enormous amount of trial and error to adapt to local conditions.
Sources:
The First Footprints - Scott Cane
The Rise and Fall of Ancient Australia - Geoffrey Blainey
The Savage Shore - Graham Seal