McPhillimy and Gold Coast Motor Events Co.
(1994 S0130, 31 October 1996)
The Information Commissioner determined that the respondent (a partnership initially comprising some private interests but later bought out entirely by the Queensland government) was not an "agency" for the purposes of the FOI Act. The Information Commissioner decided that the respondent was not a public authority under s.9(1)(a)(i) as it was not established by an enactment, nor under s.9(1)(a)(ii) as it was not established under an enactment. The Information Commissioner discussed whether the words "under an enactment" qualify the word "established" or the words "for a public purpose", but did not find it necessary to form a conclusion. The Information Commissioner also discussed the other provisions of s.9 but found that none applied to the respondent.
The Information Commissioner also considered the application of s.8(2) which, in my view, operates in a similar way to s.9(2); that is, the obligations of an agency under the FOI Act are enlarged to the extent that an agency must also discharge those obligations in respect of bodies which stand in a relationship to it, of a kind described in s.8(2)(a) or 8(2)(b). This has the effect that documents of such a body come within the terms of the FOI Act. The Information Commissioner noted that the use of the word "enabling" in s.8(2)(b) gives the provision a restricted scope of application. On the facts of the case, because the respondent, and any relevant identifiable agencies were separate legal entities, the respondent was not "part" of an agency, for the purposes of s.8(2)(a). Nor did it exist mainly for the purpose of enabling an agency to perform its functions, under s.8(2)(b).
