The ACT government claims to have the best transparency laws in the country.
It is true that significant reforms supposed to improve the public's right to know came into effect in January last year.
But have they worked?
Well I guess that depends on whether you think waiting well over a year for a relatively simple request to be determined is reasonable.
That's how long it took Transport Canberra to make a decision about a freedom of information request lodged by one of my colleagues in April 2018 about light rail stage two.
And - surprise, surprise - most information was withheld deemed "cabinet in confidence". 14 months after the application was lodged.
If these are the country's best FOI laws then we've really got a problem.
Delays like this not just frustrating to the journalist involved, they are stopping Canberrans from being involved in conversations about city-shaping projects, delivered through their tax dollars.
The government has also refused to disclose the costings for light rail stage two, saying it would affect its commercial viability.
I don't deny there could be legitimate commercial reasons for redacting expected costs - which include making sure the territory is getting value for money.
But when there's a broader culture of withholding information it's easy to speculate there's an agenda at play.
It's hard not to conclude that many delays are simply tactics, because information received months or years down the track is often no longer relevant. At the least it would have lost some of its sting.
The laws were supposed to shift the goal posts to favour disclosure over refusal and introduce a public interest test.
But when decision makers are top executives within the department, and could be directly affected by any disclosure, there is an obvious conflict of interest the laws don't fix.
Take Canberra Health Service's - and the minister's - steadfast refusal to disclose specific areas of concern it was notified about within ACT's public health services after an independent review into its culture.
This is despite pledges to be as transparent as possible about the review and how changes are being made.
Its reasons for not doing so are curious at best - like citing individual privacy as a reason not to disclose broad areas of concern.
The culture of non-disclosure appears to extend to ACT Policing.
The most striking example was the six months it took police to tell the public a two-year-old girl, Safa Annour, had likely been murdered, and the culprit was still unknown.
While police may have had their strategic reasons, is the public not entitled to know of a suspected murder in their neighborhood, and how effective can a public call out for information be six months after the fact?
A year and a half since Safa's tragic death, no one has been charged.