Conversely, many argue that the ICAC inquiry is a necessary and vital exercise in transparency and accountability. From this perspective, the allegations surrounding the Reformers faction—including the potential use of developer money and the misuse of resources—strike at the heart of public trust in the political system. Proponents of the inquiry maintain that regardless of whether specific payments were made, the evidence of a 'shake down' culture and the use of professional resources for factional branch-stacking activities warrants a thorough investigation. They argue that the public has a right to know how political factions are funded and whether those funds are being used to subvert democratic processes within party branches.
This viewpoint holds that the high profile of those mentioned, such as Angus Taylor, is irrelevant to the necessity of the investigation. If the commission finds that political actors were involved in questionable financial arrangements, it is the duty of the watchdog to follow the evidence wherever it leads. The risk of ignoring these allegations, according to this perspective, is far greater than the risk of political embarrassment for any individual or party. By examining these practices, the inquiry serves as a check against the influence of money and power in politics, ensuring that all participants adhere to the same standards of conduct.
Ultimately, those who support the inquiry argue that the 'factional hit job' narrative is a convenient distraction from the substantive issues of governance and ethics. They contend that if the Liberal Party had maintained robust internal standards, such an inquiry would not have been necessary in the first place. By bringing these practices into the light, the commission is performing its essential role in protecting the integrity of the state's political institutions, ensuring that the influence of developers and other interest groups is kept within the bounds of the law.