____
Regarding your examples, they would both be considered hard power.
VCAA's distinctions between soft and hard power are very clear:
Military and economic = hard power
Cultural and diplomatic = soft powerAustralia's military is definitely not a threatening force but we're also allies with the US
Even if we're not, any usage of military power would be considered hard, no matter how weak it is.
The thing to remember is that hard power does not necessarily have to be threatening. For example, offering economic aid to another state would be considered hard power. I do agree that this is quite confusing, because offering aid seems more like 'the carrot' than 'the stick'. However the thing is most countries do not offer aid on pure altruism, it's more of a 'I'll help you with this, in exchange for that you must listen to what I say' kind of thing.
So going back to your examples, military bases would be 100% hard power because they send the message of 'don't mess with me'. Australia training Pacific Island states can be seen as aid, which is also hard power.
It's weird that your teacher would classify Australia's usage of military power as more soft than hard. I would suggest double checking with your teacher on that, because it doesn't line up with other sources.
Soft power would be referring to stuff like Australia letting foreign politicians pet koalas.
Have you read upon the distinctions between soft and hard power by Joseph Nye? He was the one who came up with the terms and VCAA stick very closely to his definitions and examples.