The decision does not concern the status of a Government Owned Corporation or a subsidiary of a government owned corporation, both specifically included in the definition of agency in s 14 of the act. Such bodies are within the ambit of the RTI act if established as a body corporate under an Act or the Corporations Act; and declared by regulation to be a GOC (Government Owned Corporations Act 1993 s5.)
The case revolved around what constituted a public authority, defined in s 16:
Meaning of public authority
(1) In this Act, public authority means any of the following entities - …
(a) an entity - … (ii) established by government under an Act for a public purpose, whether or not the public purpose is stated in the Act.
 In the present case the requirement imposed by the FAAA that prior approval was obtained was fulfilled and, therefore, the Coordinator General might be said to have acted consistently in conformity with the FAAA in taking the further step of applying to register the company under the Corporations Act.
 That is not the same thing as saying the company was established under (in accordance with) the FAAA. I accept CNI’s proposition that there must be a sufficient connection between an action taken under an Act and the legal constitution of the entity such that the entity can be said to have been established under that Act.
 The Treasurer’s approval to applying to register CNI, if it had not been acted upon, would not have been sufficient to establish it under the FAAA. Until it was registered under the Corporations Act, CNI did not exist.
 The company was brought into existence by an action undertaken by government under (in accordance with) the Corporations Act, i.e. by the application to register the company. The company was established, in the sense that it derives its legal character, by acts done in accordance with the Corporations Act, not the FAAA
"All bodies that are established or funded by the government or are carrying out functions on behalf of government, should be covered by FOI,unless it is in the public interest that they should not be covered."
In the absence of that register I have no idea how widespread the practice is in Queensland of creating special purpose vehicles, or of the significance of the fact that this sector of government activity is beyond the reach of the RTI act as a result of this decision. Queenslanders better placed than me may choose to comment, or raise questions themselves.