Auditor-General Maxine Cooper has done us all a favour in painstakingly taking us through the processes, repeatedly underlining the departures from good practice, good management, good leadership and proper regard for both the law and commonsense on the part of an array of officials in the Land Development Agency.

She has, sensibly, decided to embark on a far wider inquiry, and she would be wise to extend its range and its depth, whether to the LDA's role in land development on Canberra's outskirts and to its enthusiastic adoption of some of the present government's gee-whiz schemes. It may well morph into the first integrity commission investigation, assuming that the ACT Supreme Court continues to conceal from taxpayers how the Brumbies misplaced a $7.5 million ACT government grant.

Chief Minister Andrew Barr is fond of thinking that the chief obstacle to the success of most of Labor's gee-whiz schemes, particularly in old north and south Canberra, is the relentless conservatism of older Canberrans. All the while, he believes he is being quietly cheered on by a silent majority of younger citizens, all anxious both for new jobs and some fun and excitement in city areas.

Perhaps, but a searching examination by the Auditor-General may well show that the citizens who have been most truly dudded by the LDA have been younger folk keen to get into the housing market. People are now forced to pay four or five times what their parents did for land in the outer suburbs. This buys blocks of land only half the size, in which children can't play. Even those entering the now almost-saturated apartment market are paying enormous sums for what they get, even as (according to the latest figures) more than one in five ends up selling out at a loss.

It would be quite unfair to blame all of this just on the LDA. It is, primarily, the fault of the politicians. They gave the LDA contradictory objectives. The government wants it to improve housing affordability, which means, in effect, cheaper land. It also wants it to maximise profits, and to manipulate supply so as to bring to the ACT Treasury as much money as possible each year – at least for as long as there is any supply of land left.

It can't achieve both aims at once. Indeed, many Canberrans have vested interests in seeing high land prices maintained. They may whinge about increasing rates and land taxes, but will not stand for a government that lets land prices drift downwards. In fact, they expect land value to increase faster than inflation, except for rating purposes.

Ministers and the administration can hardly effect ignorance of the contradictions, confusion and poor management of the LDA. The problem is not isolated within the LDA or the Economic Development Directorate. It percolates through the government.

The LDA has, after all, been located within the chief minister and treasury portfolio, where the best and brightest, and most attentive, ACT public servants are supposed to be. Land development has been Barr's big thing. He, like a number before him, has seen his job to be the chief spruiker for Canberra's economic development.

For the moment, the ACT's prime capital asset is being squandered in meeting shortfalls in recurrent spending. And most of the gee-whiz schemes – whether for yuppy flats by the lake, or real estate redevelopments around Manuka oval – are focused on even further diminishment of this capital, mostly by transferring value from the common weal into the hands of developers.

But some of the bureaucratic advisers of successive ACT governments also deserve a kick in the pants for the poor practical management of the territory's resources, and of its public services. Canberra is supposedly the city of government. It may have the best-educated and most bourgeois citizens of any city in the world but it has never seemed to have exemplary public administration.

ACT agencies pay generous subscriptions to bodies, such as the Institute of Public Administration Australia, supposedly to sponsor and promote good public sector management. They certainly hold conferences enough, and award each other enough medals, occasionally exclaiming in public that they are the acme of good administration. I'm afraid they believe too much of their own propaganda. On almost every measure of efficiency and effectiveness at the state or territorial service level the ACT lags behind other similar administrations. The shortfall is often disguised by the community's wealth and providence.

Nearly 30 years of self-government has seen no fundamental reviews of education, health, community services or law and justice: all chug along, with occasional cosmetic changes, in models devised in the 1970s.

A long pattern of politicisation of senior public service appointments is aggravated by Labor's long tenure in government and comfy personal as well as professional relationships. A new administration would be right to be suspicious of some of the senior officials briefing them.

As the arguments about the need for a corruption or integrity commission show, the challenge of good government is also bedevilled by over-familiarity among players in politics and the public and private sectors. There are frequent conflicts of interest, mates, cronies, and an apparent indifference to what the public might think. Everyone knows each other; roles are constantly changing.

All political parties now agree – belatedly – on the need for such a standing commission, but this is only a part of the reform needed. The ACT has the weakest freedom of information and public accountability laws in Australia. The justice system is weak. Facilities for the mentally ill, for prisoners, and for juveniles in trouble with welfare or the law fall short of the territory's duties to those in trouble.

I'm agnostic about the tram, a peculiarly political decision bound to have a constituency in Canberra. But the saga of the tram might perfectly illustrate an ACT government pattern of reluctance to be frank with the community, to properly consult, to share information, or to justify decisions with evidence and cost-benefit equations. The material trotted out by politicians has been poor enough. The ACT public administration is no longer an academy of ideas that can propose, test and argue policy. That it can produce only crude and unconvincing propaganda suggests that radical reforms to the ACT system of government are necessary.

But there is reform and reform. Alongside the ACT Auditor-General's report last week was a report, commissioned from inside, by former federal auditor-general Ian McPhee. He was asked to write a "governance framework review" – "to provide assurance that sound governance arrangements are in place, particularly with respect to key decision points ... so as "to enable the divisions to deliver their respective outcome effectively".

He didn't trip over any funny business, but no doubt his brief was to leave that to Cooper. His analysis of weaknesses seemed to come from textbooks, rather than an experienced weather eye.

A well-equipped search party could find his report deep within the thickets of the LDA's website. I'd be surprised if most readers could make head or tail of it. But the Chief Minister seemed to have no difficulty, given that his decision to defenestrate the body followed a briefing on this, as well as Cooper's report.

I've been reading and writing about management and public administration for only 40 years, so readers will understand that I'm not up to reading sentences such as: "While utilising the CMTEDD core capability framework would further the understanding and integration of staff, opportunities for more structured presentations concerning the roles and responsibilities of the LDA and the divisions, legislation affecting their responsibilities including the use of delegations and authorisations, discussions about the code, public sector values and how to manage potential conflicts of interest should they arise, and opportunities to hear from the leadership group on divisional performance, illustrations of higher-risk scenarios and current issues, would all contribute positively to the cohesion of the divisions and awareness of the standards expected."

Cooper is more forthright. Here she is dealing with the revolving door problem:

"Significant expenditure has been incurred by the Land Development Agency on consulting firms for services in relation to the City to the Lake Project. A large proportion has related to services provided by a former LDA executive, whose role in the organisation had concluded, but who continued to provide services through a consulting firm in a 'marriage of convenience'. These services were arranged through successive single‐select non‐competitive procurement processes.

"The services of another former executive of the Economic Development Directorate were also arranged through the same consulting firm. As the contracting arrangements relied on successive single‐select non‐competitive procurement processes there is no assurance that the services are an effective use of public money ... Such arrangements are problematic as there is potential for conflict of interest and they do not promote transparency and accountability…

"In April 2012, Elleven Consulting Pty Ltd was engaged to provide financial services assistance to the EDD. The ... total value of the services was in the order of $150,000. The majority of services provided related to a former executive of the EDD [who] finished as a temporary employee of the EDD on April 21, 2012, and commenced as a consultant on April 21, 2012. The principal of Elleven Consulting Pty Ltd advised that they were approached to employ the former executive as the executive's employment role had concluded at the EDD, but that they were too valuable to not be further employed.

"In September 2012, Elleven Consulting Pty Ltd was engaged to provide services to the EDD for the City to the Lake Project. The total value of the services was in the order of $550,000 ... The chief executive of the LDA approved the exemption of the procurement exercise from the government procurement regulation, which requires seeking public tenders. The September 2013 variation to the services provided for an additional month's services for an additional cost of $90,000. At the agreed rate of $165 per hour this equates to approximately 545 hours of work. This is impossible for one person to do within one month.

"The November 2013 variation provided for additional services by a second former executive of the LDA, who had finished as an employee of the EDD on 19 September 2012 and commenced as a consultant on 20 September 2012. In June 2014, Elleven Project Coordination Pty Ltd was engaged [without tender] to provide services to the LDA for the City to the Lake Project. The total maximum value for the services was identified as $1,176,000. A significant proportion ... was provided by a former executive of the LDA.

"Since 2011 approximately $2.66 million in payments have been made to Elleven Consulting Pty Ltd and Elleven Project Coordination Pty Ltd for services to the LDA or EDD. These services were all approved on a single‐select non‐competitive basis, with the chief executive of the LDA approving their exemption from the requirements of the government procurement regulation. A significant proportion of these payments relates to services provided by former executives of the LDA or EDD."

Nice work if you can get it.

Jack Waterford is a former editor of The Canberra Times.