But the Assembly committee inquiry into the Dickson land swap has failed so far to locate any hard evidence, a smoking gun as it were, that connects the deal with the Tradies Club to the minister in question, now Chief Minister Andrew Barr.

What was the Dickson land swap?

The land swap came about after the government decided to sell a car park outside the Dickson club via a tender, but, the ACT auditor-general has found, the final late 2014 deal hammered out after two years of talks looked vastly different to the original tender.

Those changes saw the government ultimately accept a deal with the club that would see it buy two nearby blocks of land in Section 72 Dickson from the club, in return for selling the car park to the club. The audit office found the deal gave the club concessions worth up to $2.65 million.

Public servants voiced concerns that an atmosphere of political pressure surrounded the deal, given the club is closely linked to the ACT branch of the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union. But the audit office found no evidence of political interference.

Why is an assembly committee examining the deal?

Partly, it is politics. The Opposition sees this as an explosive government land deal involving fellow travellers of the Labor Party, while the government - seemingly self-assured there remains no evidence of political involvement to be found - would no doubt like the matter put to bed well before the 2020 election.

The Greens backed the Opposition's push to establish the inquiry, and believe it worthy of further scrutiny, though seem unconvinced it will lead to any substantial political ramifications, given the lack of evidence unearthed to date.

Beyond the basic politics, it goes to the question of integrity in government; integrity being something all want to project, particularly since the Greens first raised an ACT integrity commission in the 2016 election, which has since gained tripartite support.

The public accounts committee is examining the deal, given clear concerns that territory taxpayers lost out on up to $2.65 million in the final deal, and wants to verify whether the deal went to the highest political levels of government, or not.

Hampering both the committee and the audit office's efforts to resolve the issues one way or another is the seemingly lack of detailed records kept by the public servants involved in the deal - an issue that has come up numerous times in inquiries and audits of deals by the since-abolished Land Development Agency.

What did the audit office say?

In addition to finding the final deal differed significantly from the original request for tenders for the sale of the car park, the audit office found record-keeping was lacking, and the deal did not achieve the original sale objective of an open, contestable and transparent market process.

The office also found there was a high risk the sale may have been in breach of the Planning and Development Act, though the solicitor-general has challenged that finding during hearings.

It also made a range of recommendations regarding transparency, risk management and staff management of contracts, which the government says it either has already addressed, or will address in 2019.

What has happened in the inquiry so far?

There have been some explosive claims during the inquiry, including one that a former public servant involved believed a union official attempted to influence his decision-making on the deal, though the union has not responded to requests for comment on that claim.

That former public servant, Greg Ellis, also told the inquiry he was, unusually, receiving regular phone calls from a staffer in the then-minister's office checking up on progress on the deal. He interpreted the calls as a rush to release tender documents before the 2012 election.

His claim aired during the inquiry points to the union seemingly believing it could sway public servants involved in the deal, possibly due to its clear political connections.

The fact that Cabinet decided against a direct sale of the block to the club in October 2011 also clearly showed the government was aware of the perception of potential political interference, an issue the tender ultimately did nothing to quell, given the list of concessions made after it was awarded.

A raft of characters involved in the deal challenge the auditor's findings regarding the concessions made in the final deal, claiming taxpayers got the better deal, not the club as the audit office found.

What's next for the inquiry?

Having held a series of hearings in recent weeks, the inquiry stands adjourned until next year, with expectations of more public hearings some time in February, though who the witnesses may be is not yet public.

The key difficulty it faces is being able to locate any hard evidence, should it exist, that confirms any political involvement in the deal, a claim the government has repeatedly rejected.

Whether a witness comes forward with any such evidence remains to be seen, and short of that, the expectation is that a referral to the integrity commission could lead to a further inquiry that may garner more information than has come to light.

There remains a distinct possibility there is no evidence of direct political involvement in the deal, and possibly no actual involvement even if not recorded anywhere.

In that case, the inquiry currently under way may not lead too much further, apart from being a campaigning tool for any politicians looking to capitalise on any unanswered questions and being the running political sore for the government it has become.

But, if such evidence should be discovered, there also remains a chance the Dickson land swap could lead to significant political ramifications for the Barr government.