Stario does highlight the different approaches that Australia's state governments have had to encouraging and enforcing lockdowns.
Specifically on civil liberties, Stario highlights how the conservative government in New South Wales has asked for army help with enforcement of lockdowns.
The army has aided in lockdowns across Australia since the beginning - usually this help has come in the form of logistics expertise, or support manpower for testing centres and call centres. During Victoria's extended lockdown last year, the army were asked to help state police with lockdown management in a minimal-public-facing way - things like traffic management at police check points, and contact tracing at call centres. Jobs that allowed more police to focus on public facing duties. The Labour government went to great lengths to reassure the public that this wasn't going to be a case of military enforcement of civilian regulations and avoid the possible PR nightmare of a photo of someone in army uniform forcing someone to do something against their will. On the other hand, as mentioned, New South Wales' Liberal (conservative) government have directly referenced enforcement of lockdowns as the context under which the army will be operating - when taken alongside the areas of operation including some of Sydney's lower socio-economic suburbs - this is bound to generate friction - the army enforcing home detention to poorer suburbs with higher migrant and refugee populations. Wonderful PR.
I do find the role differentiation to be interesting. New South Wales' Liberal government did come to power on a law and order platform, and similarly to other Anglo-commonwealth governments, the Liberals have been known to toy with more direct and authoritarian style of leadership in the past. However one of the hallmarks of Berejiklian's Liberal government (and Australian Liberal governments of the last 30 years in general) has been in line with the global trend towards personal responsibility. They have resisted mask mandates, resisted lockdowns, resisted shop closures and leaned heavily on the language of responsibility. There is irony in her government using the army in an enforcement role, as opposed to Victoria's Labor government going to lengths to keep the army from an enforcement role, while at the same time pushing traditional Labor big government-interventionist policy.
Certainly it is a mixed message to stress personal responsibility in the Covid response, only to switch up and ask the army to enforce mandates when they do come along. I don't think you can blame anyone for being upset at this use of army resource after a year and a half relatively successfully minimising the use of lockdown.