Mike Baird's controversial shake-up of the Independent Commission Against Corruption last year was met with some stinging criticism and concern the feared watchdog may have been turned into a lapdog.
The overhaul precipitated the resignation of ICAC's widely respected then chief Megan Latham after she was told she needed to reapply for her job and dire warnings from a former assistant commissioner, Anthony Whealy, that corruption prevention in NSW had been set back years.
There were fears the move from a one commissioner model to a chief commissioner and two part-time assistant commissioners would reduce the likelihood of public hearings as the chief and one assistant need to agree before they are held.
Finally, Labor warned that whoever replaced Latham would be timid, knowing that they risked the same fate should they dare to investigate, as she did, sensitive issues such as Liberal Party election funding rorts before the 2011 state election.
The good news is that, while it is early days, there are some positive signs.
In an appearance before the parliamentary oversight committee for the ICAC this week, inaugural chief commissioner Peter Hall made it clear that, like Latham, he will be no pushover for the government.
He told MPs that the reduction in the number of investigation teams from four to three - a consequence of a funding cut imposed under Baird - was having an adverse affect on the agency's functions, adding that "at the moment, current demands can't be satisfactorily met by existing numbers".
In unusually candid evidence, he also flagged that ICAC would be asking for about $2.5 million extra in its submission to Treasury before the 2018 state budget.
Part of that money would be used to replace about nine investigators following the redundancy round sparked by the reduced funding under Baird.
But the rest, Hall revealed, would be used to hire two specialist intelligence analysts and associated infrastructure for what he termed a shift to a "proactive" investigation model.
Instead of mainly relying on complaints and referrals, ICAC wants to begin gathering and analysing intelligence on public sector agencies.
This, Hall explained, was necessary because of new forms of service delivery such as public-private partnerships and outsourcing of service delivery to the private sector "all bring with them new corruption risks and threats".
If that sounds familiar, it's because it is precisely the types of models the Berejiklian government is accelerating the use of for massive infrastructure projects such as the Sydney Metro and WestConnex and key service delivery.
"While public sector agencies may encourage the involvement or the engagement of private enterprise inter-ventures or partnerships, such relationships may bring with them increased corruption risks, for example arising from conflicts of interests, gifts and benefits," Hall said.
Investigations will "increasingly be intelligence-led, identifying and targeting areas of medium-high to high risk," he added.
Under the approach, data from government departments and agencies, councils and "other organisations" is collected, collated and analysed.
Corruption commissions in Queensland, Victoria and West Australia have either implemented the approach or intend to. Hall hopes to have it up and running in NSW by mid-next year.
The case was compelling and it would beggar belief if the government knocked back his funding request, particularly given it has just recorded a $5.7 billion surplus for 2016-17.
But Hall's evidence also emphasises the absurd and shortsighted nature of the Baird government's decision to slash ICAC's funding in 2016-17 by $800,000.
The government argues it will always consider "additional" funding requests from ICAC and that base funding of about $24 million is being maintained.
To this point it's true that in September the government handed over $843,000 at Hall's request, which he indicated was to ensure it can proceed with "an important investigation".
But Hall's disclosure that he is now juggling investigators between cases after the investigation team cut exposes ICAC's recurrent funding as inadequate.
The NSW government is fond of boasting that it is embarking on an $73 billion infrastructure program.
Hall's evidence about the associated corruption risks should sound a loud warning about the need to end the game playing about the funding of NSW's critically important anti-corruption body.
