The barrister, Philip Walker SC, also urged the ACT Legislative Assembly to immediately hold an inquiry into the government bill to make changes to exempt all child protection reports from the Freedom of Information Act.

Attorney-General Gordon Ramsay last week introduced the proposal as part of an omnibus bill to make a raft of separate changes to justice-related legislation.

Senior family law barrister James Haddock also said while he could not say the change was definitely motivated be a desire to hide systemic problems in the child protection system.

But he said it was his suspicion the proposed change was an attempt to close down debate on what had historically been a very difficult issue for the government for at least five years.

Mr Walker and Mr Haddock had previously highlighted the territory as having the nation's most secretive child protection system, and both are concerned the blanket ban on releasing any details in child protection reports would only make that worse.

Mr Walker said, while he had not been involved in many child protection cases in recent years, on the basis of a recent case he was, and the legislation now before the Assembly, it was time not only for an Assembly inquiry into the information-sharing of such cases, but more broadly into the entire system.

He said the current system was one of the nation's most restrictive when it came to information provision, but also arguments about privacy were a Trojan horse argument, when it seemed the new proposals was to protect welfare authorities, not children.

Mr Haddock said the proposal was deeply concerning due to the lack of any independent review of the decisions made by child protection authorities, except for taking matters to court, which could be costly for some of the city's most vulnerable families.

He said other jurisdictions had measures to allow tribunals to review such decisions, but the territory did not.

Mr Haddock said while the government had argued it was to protect people privacy, he regarded that as a palatable claim to sell the idea to the public.

He said the government was clamping down on information when the system had no independent review mechanism in place for authorities' decisions, asking why the ACT bothered to have a Human Rights Act, if the government was proposing such changes.

Mr Ramsay, in his first public comments on the matter, said the government had no intention of making chances that would have the propensity to dilute the territory's Freedom of Information scheme.

He also claimed, in contrast to the government's explanatory statement tabled with the bill, that the changes were minor and related to other reforms implementing the recommendations of the Royal Commission into child abuse in institutional settings.

It is not clear why Mr Ramsay's argument for the amendments has changed, though he said the changes would fix an anomaly in the drafting of Freedom of Information laws and ensures that there is a single set of rules governing access to sensitive information in child protection cases".

Mr Ramsay also said the changes would still allow people to request information under the Freedom of Information scheme, though he did not comment on whether they could release such information publicly.

He said he was confident the changes struck the 'right balance' between transparency and support for the protection of sensitive information.