While the goal of rooting out corruption is universally supported, the sprawling nature of ICAC inquiries often raises concerns about the potential for collateral damage and political theater. Critics of the current process argue that these investigations can easily become tools for factional warfare, where the reputations of individuals are damaged by association even when they are not accused of any wrongdoing. The mention of high-profile figures like federal Opposition Leader Angus Taylor, despite his lack of involvement in any alleged misconduct, illustrates the risk of such inquiries becoming overly broad.
There is also a concern that the intense focus on internal party dynamics and historical events can overshadow the actual business of governing. When political parties are forced to spend significant time and resources responding to allegations, it can distract from the policy issues that matter most to the public. Furthermore, the use of leaked documents and 'shit sheets' as evidence in public hearings can create a sensationalized atmosphere that may not always lead to substantive reform, but rather to increased cynicism among the electorate.
Finally, the practical impact of these inquiries on the political landscape is often unpredictable. While they are intended to clean up politics, they can also lead to a 'chilling effect' where individuals are discouraged from participating in political life for fear of being caught up in a public investigation. A more balanced approach, which focuses on clear evidence of corruption rather than broad fishing expeditions, might better serve the public interest without unnecessarily damaging the reputations of those on the periphery of these investigations.