Mike Baird's decision to protect ICAC's previous findings and review how it operates is politically sound. But perhaps even more importantly, it's also fair.

It's politically sound because the introduction of legislation to ensure anyone already found corrupt stays that way reflects the strong support ICAC has received from the NSW public in its three decades of operation.

Crucially for Baird it also deflects any perception he is trying to punish the Labor party and protect his Liberal party mates as it will validate the investigative work ICAC has already carried out in cases where it has yet to deliver findings.

That means last year's spectacular public hearings involving Obeid-linked Australian Water Holdings and alleged rorting of donations laws by Liberal party figures remain alive.

Both investigations involved Liberal party figures who were almost certain to be the subject of adverse findings from ICAC before last month's High Court decision removed its ability to do so.

Now, advice on the question of whether ICAC should be able to make corruption findings in these cases and others is being sought from the panel chaired by eminent jurist Murray Gleeson - at arm's length from the government. That's fair.

Baird will no doubt cop some criticism for going down the path of retrospective legislation, particularly from some on his own side of politics who were happy the High Court decision had nobbled a watchdog they believed was already too powerful.

The same people will be infuriated by his move to allow the Gleeson panel to even contemplate recommending ICAC be given powers it thought it had prior to the High Court finding to investigate private citizens who seek to deceive public figures.

But Baird has demonstrated he values a strong anti-corruption body which has proved its worth many times.

The Premier is not out of the woods yet. As he said on Tuesday, this is the first of several steps to decide how ICAC works from hereon in.

The Greens have expressed a legitimate concern that the review opens the door for the government to curtail ICAC's powers.

If that's what the Gleeson panel recommends, then Baird will be faced with the question of whether or not to follow the advice.

Regardless of who recommends it, a government which chooses to nobble ICAC would be eyed with deep suspicion - if not resented - by the majority of the NSW public. Tuesday's decision shows Baird knows only too well that's the case.