Qantas asked for an amendment to the Arbey Two approach
Your take is one AOPA seemed to run with, and I don't know if they misinterpreted something along the line or deliberately adopted a QF-bashing line for some odd reason.
Someone in ASA can correct me, but my recollection is that for some time Virgin, QF, Jetstar and some of the internationals had reported a problem as a result of one of the initial NAS changes, specifically due to the base of CTA north of 30 ML having lifted from 6500 to 8500. This meant that the heavies operated by these companies could no longer fly the normal 3 deg descent profile to ML RWY 16 without leaving CTA i.e. to stay in CTA (presumably with at least a 500ft buffer to the lower limit), they had to fly a significantly steeper than normal profile which added to the workload.
I recall Cathay and/or
VB were the first to formally request remedial action, and QF supported the investigation. To address the problem, a small wedge of CTA base 7500 was added, which had industry support (apart from AOPA).
So I don't know why QF has been made out to be the sole company involved and the others ignored (becasue they certainly weren't), apart from fitting nicely with the line of CASA ASA ATSB DOTRS etc. etc all running scared of QF and them calling the shots.