In just nine weeks, the ACT has gone a long way toward winning the fight against COVID-19.
There have been no new cases recorded in the past fortnight. If coronavirus is still lurking in the nation's capital, it is doing a sterling job of concealing itself.
Political leaders and health officials could hardly have hoped for a better outcome when the territory's first case was detected on March 12.
But COVID-19 has always been a two-headed monster. A battle on two fronts.
Winning the second fight - wrenching the ACT out of a financial crisis of unprecedented proportions - may prove far harder than the first.
The shutdown has infected far more people, and the ripples will be felt long after a vaccine or effective treatment has been found.
Given the strength of the health response, the ACT government can afford to now shift its attention to the economic recovery.
He says the changes will aim to "improve the efficiency" of the approval system without weakening "necessary" protections. Details are scant, but it appears they would align with the work already underway to simplify the convoluted territory plan.
Any changes that speed up the assessment process and help get projects - however small - off the ground will be welcomed by the construction sector. The sector's peak bodies have pitched the industry as the ACT's economic saviour, capable of creating jobs and investment in the territory's greatest hour of need.
But those groups are adamant the sector cannot do it alone; they need the government to cut red tape, remove regulatory barriers and fast-track approvals for projects.
While Canberra's construction sector continued to operate through the shutdown, there are grave concerns about the next wave of projects - those due to start six to 12-months down the track.
The arguments for reform is strong. The construction sector employs about 20,000 Canberrans. It has been a pillar of the capital's economic boom. Should that pillar start to crumble, the consequences would be severe.
But in plotting any changes to the planning system to support construction activity, the government is walking a very fine line - particularly in an election year.
As mentioned, details are scant, so one can only speculate as to how consequential the reforms might be.
But if changes are made which undermine the credibility of the system for the purpose of supporting private interests, then Canberrans would rightly be furious.
They'd be right to question if the government had used the crisis as cover to push through reforms which wouldn't even have been contemplated in normal circumstances.
Barr has been accused in the past of being friendly too developers and too reluctant to listen to the views of the community. Canberrans, particularly those in the inner south, won't soon forget his government's handling of the unsolicited bid to transform Manuka Oval precinct, which it ultimately rejected in the lead in to the 2016 election amid a storm of community anger.
If proper planning processes are sacrificed though these latest changes, its reasonable to expect a similar reaction.