Reviews are going to be flawed if they are prioritising the wrong things as being most important. Saving lives should be the most important factor, and if there were economical issues that impacted on the citizens of a particular country, it is not the fault of the current government, but the fault of decades of previous governments for prioritising resources to just 4 largest capital cities to create a petrie-dish of concentrated virus transmission, and a more significant hit to the economy when just one of those 4 cities has to lockdown to save lives. Instead of having over 5 million people all condensed into one location, driving up the cost of housing and the cost of living, there should have been a long-term period of developing infrastructure and business incentives to five other cities in the state, so that living there is more affordable, and shutting down one or two cities because of a virus (or natural disaster) doesn't impact on the rest of the country and economy (and it is a lot cheaper to fund through welfare payments).
People got upset over the lockdowns, but they were stuck having to live in cities that shouldn't be this big, because of crises like this and other natural disasters. It's like the expression - don't put all of your eggs in one basket... and this is why.

I think Australia was one of the few countries that put aside politics long enough to do the right thing... to stall long enough until a vaccine was available and covering 90% of the population so that the virus didn't crash our hospitals, businesses and welfare systems. And if the review was focussing more on the economy, lockdowns helped protect businesses by limiting the number of people infected before there was a vaccine, which would have shut down businesses due to lack of available staff (a lot worse than what we saw when the variants hit at the end of last year).