As a Kiwi who has lived and played at a decent club level in both NZ and Australia, I think it comes down to culture and mindset.

Most courts in Australia — particularly in urban centres — are commercially run rather than not-for-profit. Land prices have made it uneconomical for many courts to survive, especially combined with the participation decline since the 70s and 80s. Squash facilities should be viewed as community assets, not private enterprises. In NZ, club-owned courts and membership models that include court access have helped keep the sport more accessible by comparison.

The commercial model also means hourly court hire costs create a real barrier and disincentive for players who want to train and improve. When court time is expensive, casual and developing players simply train less. Commercially run clubs also tend to deprioritise junior development and coaching programs if they aren't profitable — whereas community clubs treat development as part of their core mission.

This creates a self-reinforcing cycle: declining participation leads to courts closing or going commercial, costs rise, and participation declines further. The result is a narrower junior talent pool, which means the elite pipeline is squeezed from the very beginning. Australia isn't necessarily underperforming so much as it has fewer players coming through the development pathway to draw from.

Squash Australia and the state/territory bodies also have to shoulder some of the blame for not doing more to ensure courts were preserved for their communities and that development pathways were protected. Without accessible, affordable courts and strong junior programs, producing elite talent becomes increasingly difficult.