Which is why it's hard to comprehend that the ACT government, less than two years after that royal commission's final recommendations were handed down, seems to have forgotten that lesson.

In February, senior legal figures criticised the government for having the most secretive child protection system in Australia, saying it was designed to protect the government rather than the vulnerable people involved.

In March, the government moved to increase the veil of secrecy over child protection by proposing to exempt all child protection reports from freedom of information requests.

Just this week, that veil was extended to an inquiry into school violence.

Schools and the child protection system both centre on children, and have harboured abuse in the past. A prime example in a school was the case of an autistic child kept in a cage. In that instance, The Canberra Times protected the identity of the family and the child involved.

Another example, in child protection, was the murder of nine-year-old Bradyn Dillon at the hands of his father. Bradyn's mother said she spent three years trying to get the child protection system to listen to her.

Why is the ACT government so intent on hiding information that could help it build better systems and responses?

The government continues to claim it is to protect the children, carers and those involved. Yet there are already measures in place to protect those people.

This newspaper routinely protects vulnerable individuals and children in circumstances that warrant that protection.

Senior lawyer Philip Walker said recently: "Nobody needs to know their name, but it is absolutely appropriate that people see exactly what cases are advanced by welfare authorities and can judge whether they're discharging their responsibilities properly and effectively."

The question must be asked, is the secrecy to protect those involved, or to protect the government from scrutiny?

Education Minister Yvette Berry's decision to order a parliamentary committee to keep some evidence confidential during its upcoming inquiry into violence in Canberra schools is galling.

The opposition described it as a dangerous overreach.

The move, the minister stressed, was not about shying away from scrutiny. But when there are measures in place to protect the identity of children involved in these matters, through means that include redacting (blacking out) their name and identifying features, the minister can't defend this decision with that response.