As a slew of ICAC inquiries tear through NSW politics, a group of experts pitch their ideas to fix government. Do these plans have merit, and are there other proposals that should be pushed? Beverly Parungao writes.

The St James Ethics Centre held a major debate last week on ways to fix NSW's political donations system. The debate follows a NSW Government proposal to review the electoral laws via an independent committee, due to report by New Year's Eve.

In the meantime the five panel members, all from different political parties, speaking at the St James Ethics Centre have come up with urgent proposals to improve democracy.

The debate has been fierce, following intense public scrutiny after a slew of ICAC inquiries. The top 10 ideas advocated during the course of discussion were:

1. Proactive disclosure of government documents

Sean Nicholls, state political editor of the Sydney Morning Herald, pushed for the disclosure of certain classes of cabinet documents to pull back the curtain on decision making. This would follow similar measures in Queensland, put in place by former premier Anna Bligh, where cabinet documents are routinely published online following a set period of time.

2. Real-time publication of ministerial diaries - on a daily basis

The publication of ministerial diaries in real time was proposed by Adam Searle, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the NSW Legislative Council. John Kaye, member of the Greens in the Legislative Council, stressed all meetings of ministers with lobbyists must be disclosed, and with it, the topics of discussion. Since July 1, NSW ministers have been required to publish quarterly diaries of scheduled meetings.

3. A system of contesting commercial in confidence

Commercial in confidence is a provision allowing certain information arising from government tenders and contracts to remain confidential. Searle advocated a greater system to contest the use of commercial in confidence as a device to withhold information that should be made public.

4. Larger penalties and jail time for breaches

Nicholls advocated beefing up penalties imposed on politicians who break laws. Currently, the maximum penalty for a breach of political donations law by a political party is $22,000 and $11,000 for everyone else. He argued the penalty should be increased to at least multiples of tens of thousands of dollars, and politicians should face potential imprisonment in the worst cases.

5. Establishing a citizen's jury

Kathy Jones, director of the newDemocracy Foundation, pushed for the introduction of a citizen's jury that would deliberate on important issues. This would involve a 30-50-strong group of randomly selected members of the public who form decisions following 3-6 months of consultation from a diverse range of stakeholders of their own choosing.

6. Professional public servants should be the main source of government information

Liberal MP Jonathan O'Dea argued government should rely primarily on professional public servants for information, rather than lobbyists. Searle proposed that greater transparency in the public service could emerge by bringing back permanent tenured public servant department heads. The removal of permanency has allowed, beyond a certain level, for public servants to be terminated or moved around by executive government at will.

7. Greater transparency surrounding decisions made by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP)

A finding of corruption against politicians by ICAC is believed by many to have less of an impact in comparison to a criminal prosecution. This is because ICAC is not a criminal court although it does have the power to refer matters to the DPP. Searle argued that there is a public benefit in the DPP reporting to parliament on a decision to act on these referrals, and the reasoning behind such decisions.

8. Political donations reform: the New York City model

There was broad consensus from the panel that moving to a model of 100 per cent public funding of election campaigns would be impractical. Kaye is a proponent of the New York City political donation model, whereby political parties that receive small donations up to $175 receive six times that amount in public funding. He also wants a push to extend bans on developer donations to sectors like mining and public-private partnerships.

9. A public fund to support the democratic process

The possibility of establishing a public fund, to which individuals can make donations to support the democratic process rather than a specific political party, was raised by St James Ethics Centre executive director Simon Longstaff. A statutory fund would ensure donations for minority parties.

O'Dea argued a good outcome, constitutionally-speaking, may emerge from an opt-in opt-out system of public funding. This would allow for the provision of public funding only to parties that adhere to rules, for example, not accepting private donations above $100.

10. A voluntary "politician's pledge"

Longstaff is an advocate of a voluntary "politician's pledge" that is made by politicians aside from party commitments. It is a pledge in which a politician commits to the ethical pursuit of power - such as abiding by the constitution, rule of law, and advancing the public interest before any personal, sectarian or partisan interest. He believes the biggest enforcement mechanism stemming from this pledge is the expectation from the people that politicians who make this pledge will abide by it.

Beverly Parungao is an intern with the ABC's 7.30 program in NSW and a media and communications student at the University of Sydney. View her full profile here.