I think the only hypothetical objective that could be argued to have been even partly successful is demonstrating to other small countries the costs of ending up on Beijing's shit list. And even that isn't terribly convincing as everyone can see that, despite Beijing's otherwise intense pressure on Australia, nothing happened in relation to our major export, iron ore, for the simple reason that China needs it and there is no ready substitute. And those other small nations can also see that Australia has now weathered the storm of Beijing's fury without making significant concessions.
Indeed, during the period of China's "silent treatment" of Australia, anti-China sentiments and developments have been turbocharged throughout the nation and more moderate and pro-engagement voices silenced. Just this past week we have witnessed the performative removal of Chinese manufactured cameras from government buildings. Canberra's decision to ban Huawei from Australia's telecommunications sector was undoubtedly the product of increasingly hostile attitudes toward China percolating through the Five Eyes apparatus, but there is no doubt that China's response further energised those hostile sentiments, gave them popular support, and effectively neutralised more moderate voices that might otherwise have pushed back against e.g. proposals to construct permanent basing facilities for USAF bombers to be deployed to Australia.
Signals don't mean much, for the simple reason that there's a good chance the current government will be out of power a little over two years from now. It would have to be something actionable in the near-term. I think we can safely rule out that they're going to unban Huawei, roll back deployment of USAF bombers to Australia, cancel the nuclear submarine project, or cut off relations with Taiwan.