"He is specifically complaining about the lockdown."
Yes, he is.
And even more specifically, that the current policy fails to account for the economic and social damage inflicted by the lockdown, to wit:
"...the harm to our youth and the broader society is not acknowledged nor factored in sufficiently"
(Attrib. B McNamee)
"So we either have a lockdown, or he has another alternative."
He's running a company; he's not paid to formulate health policy in a crisis.
He's calling on those who are in fact paid to do so to pay proper attention to other factors - very significant factors - in the formulation of the strategy.
Perfectly reasonable thing to argue, on any objective measure.
For example, one of THEmost critical pieces of information is the total number of people that have been infected, because it is that figure that informs the true mortality rate.
I've heard the authorities in New South Wales seek to know that figure (in fact, they have commissioned study to that very end).
But I've not once heard any representative of the Andrews' administration even so much as mention it, let alone actively seek to discern it.
Which means they are running a biosecurity strategy with willful ignorance of the most important parameter.
And yet you seem to be suggesting that they should be above reproach.
