Australia was a member of one of ESA’s predecessor organisations, ELDO (European Launcher Development Organisation). When, in the mid-1970s, ELDO merged with ESRO to form ESA, Australia was offered associate membership in ESA; Australia declined under pressure from the US. Some try to paint that as yet another example of American malfeasance, but I think the Americans actually had a good point-given Australia’s notorious stinginess in space funding, the only way we’d have been able to pay for the kind of deep cooperation with ESA that associate membership would entail, would be by downgrading the relationship with NASA. If Australia had committed to a significant increase in space funding, I don’t think the US would have felt threatened by Australia joining ESA-but, of course, we wouldn’t do that.
To add, Australia is a big contributor to the space industry, and now works with ESA and NASA. It contributes to the ESA and NASA ground station network (antennas to talk to spacecraft), has a radio telescope array and JAXA (Japan) has landed two asteroid sample-returns in the outback! And as of a few years ago, Australia has its own space agency, too.
> To add, Australia is a big contributor to the space industry
I'm sorry but I just can't agree with you there. The fact is that Australia still punches well beneath its weight in the space field.
In 2019, Australia came equal second-last (tied with Turkey and ahead of Mexico) in the G20 in terms of government space budgets as a percent of GDP. [0] The top five countries (in order) were the US, Russia, Saudi Arabia, France, and Japan. On a percentage of GDP basis, Australia's national space budget is a fifth of Canada's and an eighth of the UK's; Argentina's is three times Australia's, Brazil's is double, Indonesia and South Arica are ahead of Australia too.
But yeah, we've always been more than happy to host NASA and ESA facilities–provided we don't have to spend much money to do so.
To quote Donald Horne's 1964 book The Lucky Country (whose title so many people have misinterpreted to mean something rather opposite from its author):
> Australia is a lucky country run mainly by second rate people who share its luck. It lives on other people's ideas, and, although its ordinary people are adaptable, most of its leaders (in all fields) so lack curiosity about the events that surround them that they are often taken by surprise
As an Australian, it makes me kind of sad to say that Horne's words are as true today as when he wrote them almost 60 years ago.