I know absolutely nothing about the Dickson deal which suggests otherwise than that it was, as CFMEU secretary Dean Hall put it, as a "win-win" and "outstanding deal for the government." But fulsome (in both senses of the word) tributes to the nature of the bargain granted mean little in business deals. As with so many ACT government deals, the problem is the look of the thing, rather than, necessarily, the thing itself.

Even the LDA, noble as it is, excites suspicion because of its enthusiasm for deals. The integrity of the CFMEU has also been impugned, on occasion, no doubt fairly. One might expect that this would make players on both sides especially cautious about complete transparency and openness, if only for the sake of appearances. Especially because of the risk of the appearance of conflicts of interest.

The conflicts of interest come from the fact that officials of the union are often simultaneously wearing four or five different hats, and that it is sometimes difficult to know just which one, or ones, the union secretary, Dean Hall, happens to be wearing at any particular moment.

As union secretary, he is the champion of his workers, a man renowned both for seeking just rewards and good working conditions for his members. In another guise, he is a director of the two Canberra Tradies Clubs, at Dickson and Woden, subsidiaries of the union. These clubs operate poker machines (and could well stand to benefit from the casino pokies deal), and have development aspirations from which they hope to make profits.

The union, or the clubs, or both, have also been developers in their own right. It invested a loose $133,000 into the IQ apartment development in trendy Lonsdale Street Braddon, and parlayed it into a $2.9 million profit. There may have been additional benefits, demonstrating how different hats can work nicely.

The prime developer had been in trouble, and sought CFMEU investment of cash because presales had been below budget. The CFMEU insisted on being involved in choice of builder, and required it to sign CFMEU enterprise bargaining agreements, putting wages up perhaps 10 per cent, if also (Andrew Barr would feel) guaranteeing a safe workplace. There were suggestions at the trade union royal commission that this, as well as other deals, involved the purchase of dummy union memberships which could be "voted" in support of the union hierarchy at union elections – a clear potential conflict of interest between the union and its membership.

Another of Dean Hall's hats is as a very senior and influential player in ACT ALP affairs, based on the union's affiliation and on generous donations to the ALP (and to the Greens). The relationship extends to a long-standing memorandum of understanding between unions and successive Labor governments by which the government agrees to provide a list of tenderers for each contract and allows the unions to tell the government whether applicants meet their criteria.

I repeat that I know of no reason to believe that anything was awry with the complicated series of land swaps by which the LDA acquired a 5000-square-metre block for $3.9 million, plus another block, and the Tradies acquired the Tradies carpark, between their club and the shopping centre, for $3.18 million. Independent valuations were obtained, although the relationships between prices and valuations was obscured by an array of concessions, on either side, involving rent holidays, continuing tenancies and the like.

David Dawes, head of the LDA, told Kirsten Lawson of Fairfax Media that he had authorised the purchases. He did not say whether the transaction went through Cabinet.

Andrew Barr has already been briefed on the findings of a report on governance at the LDA by the former Commonwealth Auditor-General Ian McPhee. This was inspired by another Dawes initiative in buying a chunk of land at Glebe Park at the higher of two valuations because it might come in handy for the Barr government's City to the Lake dream.

Barr has also been briefed on the contents of another report, by Maxine Cooper, the ACT Auditor-General, into the LDA. Barr's office told me on Thursday that the Cooper report will be given to the Assembly Speaker soon, then issued. The McPhee review will come at the same time.

It was on Wednesday, after being briefed on the reports, that Barr announced that the LDA was henceforth to be confined to managing revenue-raising land developments in the outer fringes of the city. A new agency, the City Renewal Agency, will take over management of pet projects such as City to the Lake, the Northbourne Avenue corridor, and, no doubt, sporting and casino proposals.

"These important, city-shaping, long-term projects need strong strategic planning, strong corporate governance, and leadership from individuals with a variety of skills," Barr said on Wednesday. "The new authority will be responsible for coordinating the development of City Gateway, CBD, City to the Lake, administering precinct development agreements, and managing developments in partnership with the private sector."

Barr said the existing LDA will be responsible for making sure the ACT government releases more greenfield land and meets our affordable housing targets.

That sounds fairly humiliating for some of the more gung-ho LDA operators, a number of whom have raised eyebrows over the years by the smoothness by which they moved between the private and public sector. It has added to the worries caused by the promiscuity with which everyone in the property game – ministers, officials, developers and unions – mixes and deals, and eats and drinks with each other. It had seemed to be crony capitalism at its worst.

Some of the more adventurous offerings, such as the Manuka Oval proposal, finally galvanised significant community opposition, as much focused on governance issues, and the need for more checks and balances, as on outright conservative opposition to change and growth.

Heaven knows what the focus groups have been telling Barr, and what they say about Labor's re-election prospects in a few weeks. But it seems clear that he has recognised the need to retrieve ground. He intervened to kill the Manuka Oval bid he had earlier encouraged. He has significantly de-emphasised his ambitions for casino, stadium and swimming pool developments in Civic, even if one can expect them to be re-adopted as mandate items if the government is returned.

And on Monday he announced that Labor would legislate to ban developer donations, and would itself refuse them from Monday on. It would legislate to broaden the definition of "lobbyist" to catch a greater number of the former-staffers, urgers, mates, cronies, representatives of industry associations, in-house government relations staff, former MLAs and ministers, and project management liaison officers who make money by playing broker, middle-man, agent and bagman.

(The task of course will prove impossible, unless there is a complementary obligation on ministers and senior bureaucrats to log and describe those making pitches at them).

And, he announced, Labor will have an ACT Integrity Commissioner, "assisted by a team of specialist investigators, who will investigate, conduct hearings, and have the power to recommend prosecutions for serious breaches of integrity across the public sector".

He was very short on detail. But ACT Labor was the last to give in, after the Liberals and the Greens, and most independents had announced they were for it. And the ACT is the last state or territory level jurisdiction to be dragged reluctantly to admit a need for the thing.

Some have seen significance in the fact that Barr has used "integrity" rather than "corruption." But a study of systems about the states shows that nothing much turns on that. The details which are missing are about how far the remit goes from outright corruption into misconduct falling short of corruption and maladministration.

Whether it will be a secretive and essentially unaccountable body preparing briefs for prosecution, or whether it will be a means by which bad administration is exposed, and shame is visited upon those who misuse public power, authority or responsibility, for some extraneous and wrongful purpose, such as private advantage.

Another question is whether its net will sweep up party officials who are stewards of millions in public money, and private contractors of government.

If the Northern Territory Martin report is any guide, the outfit ought to cost ACT taxpayers about $5 million a year. It need not have scores, or hundreds of staff, as in NSW or Queensland, but should be able to contract in specialist investigators, and, probably, not bother to conduct public hearings until private inquiries had shown a matter of significant concern.

A part of the grace through clenched teeth being displayed by Barr is a promise of better public consultation, if with a twist.

Opposition to many of his bright ideas tends to come from older folk, many of whom are simply opposed to any development or change, he believes.

The same older busybodies and bullies are always the ones making the noise, and holding the angry meetings. Meanwhile he believes he represents the silent, absent majority who favour his bold, progressive let-er-rip plans. Even if they never show up unless (in small numbers) they have been invigilated by Young Labor.

His idea, perhaps borrowed from Muammar Gaddafi's Green Book, is that there should be "representative" consultation. The views of older folk, or folksingers, or the wheelchair-bound would weigh according to the proportion they make up of the population, rather than the amount of noise they make.

The median age of the ACT is 34. The views of those under 34 (however ascertained) should be weighed equally with the fuddy duddies aged 35 or more, just as the views of men are balanced by women, and, no doubt, with the views of Indigenous folk being accorded 2 per cent weight.

(Of course about one in five of the population is under the age of 14. Perhaps their views could be expressed by a representative group of nannies, teachers and members of Young Labor. The median age of those aged 15 plus is 41, but even that puts Master Andrew, aged 43, in with the oldsters.)

Reports from auditors-general, past and present, may give some life to the final weeks of the campaign. Of even greater interest will be whether voters should be entitled to know whether it was a rugby club, or a private developer, who got the benefit of the waiver by the Barr government of about $7 million in betterment charges.

As Barr has pointed out, if the gift went awry, it's the club's, not the government's fault. But it might not be a good look for the (old) Barr style of government intervention. That is if we are allowed to look, (or, having looked, as I have, to tell the world) what we know, and what a credible report prepared by KPMG on the subject has to say.

The litigation is over, having been settled by mediation, but the court suppression order, imposed by Justice Richard Refshauge, lingers on, with all the parties having no particular compulsion to let the public in on the secret of how business is done in Canberra. If suppression of the report was ever in the public interest, which I doubt, it is no longer.

Correction: An earlier version of this article contained the wrong amount that the Canberra Tradesmen's Union Club is paying for the Dickson car park site. The figures have been updated.