Right time for House reform

Right time for House reform

Frank Feulner, Jakarta

The recent heated public discussion about the planned increase
in salaries of legislators has once again made apparent the
necessity of reform of the House of Representatives. Similar to
the eminent reduction of fuel subsidies, it is clear to many
observers and House members that such reform is vital.

However, both the timing and the way to introduce these
changes have to be chosen carefully. While the increase in fuel
prices could be introduced in stages, parliamentary reform is
needed immediately.

Discussions concerning the operational expenses of legislators
are just the tip of the iceberg in relation to reforms needed for
the House. Other critical issues include internal House budget
allocations, organizational structures, and operating practices
and procedures. Most current practices have so far survived
almost unchanged Indonesia's democratic transition, and are no
longer appropriate for the assembly's change in role from a body
merely approving government decisions to its new role as an
independent legislature tasked with both law-making
responsibilities and acting as a counterweight to the executive.

The planned increase in salaries for house members comes only
five months after the newly elected legislature started its
session. This is quite unusual for a new parliament that has had
little time to build up a positive track record in the field of
effective deliberation and decision-making.

To the contrary, in the public view, members of the new
parliament seem as self-interested in personal gain as members of
the previous one. This perception was created earlier by the
political fighting between party factions for the leadership of
various House commissions and committees.

Discussing the allowances of legislators is never an easy
matter, whether in Indonesia or elsewhere. Every country with a
democratically elected parliament experiences similar
controversies. The public should be entitled to clear accounts as
to how the House uses its funds, as well as complete transparency
concerning legislators' wealth and finances. In some countries,
independent auditors and consultants are even used to determine
salaries and allowances for parliamentarians.

Yet, in Indonesia, the salary debate has served to shed light
on many other House practices and procedures which deserve
immediate attention. Among the issues frequently mentioned by
House members is the issue of inadequate staffing. To date,
members only have one personal assistant helping with mainly
administrative and clerical tasks. Regardless of the magnitude of
their tasks, members can not rely on additional professional
experts or public relations specialists.

In addition to the lack of personal support for each member,
the House also suffers from a very limited number of around 120
qualified experts. These experts are divided into two groups:
Some are political appointees working for the party factions;
others are independent experts working for the eleven
commissions, whereby each commission has only three experts
assigned. This total is risible if one considers the large
portfolios of some of the commissions. House Commission I, for
example, covers issues as diverse as defense, foreign affairs,
and information.

Another issue of concern among members is that of access to
information concerning matters of the house itself, in particular
regarding the operating budget. So far, members are unable to
answer questions regarding their own salary breakdown because
their salary slips do not provide sufficient detail. Equally, the
current operating budget of the House seems a mystery to most
members, even though, ironically, it is the legislators who are
tasked with passing the overall state budget.

The most recent financial note prepared by the Ministry of
Finance on the planned state budget for 2005 allocates around
0.25 percent of the planned state budget for the House. By
international comparison, this is a figure within the range of
budget allocations to elected legislatures in other countries. It
must be noted, however, that the use of these funds can vary
widely.

In countries like Canada or the United States, the majority of
the operating budget is used to finance the work of the members
and expert services, with only a minority of the budget being
used on administration and building maintenance. Yet, little is
known about the allocation of funds within the House, and as no
data is available, it is a matter open to much speculation.
Information and transparency are the keys to the building of
trust and good relations with the public.

Many critical issues are connected to the internal rules and
procedures of the house, and so therefore, particularly attention
is needed in this area. Procedures are intended to regulate how
members can perform their work effectively and efficiently.
However, recent events, with legislators in heated debates with
guests from the government and judiciary, reveal the extent of
unclear regulations regarding procedures for speaking at plenary
sessions and questioning of those requested to appear at
commission meetings.

Existing house procedures state that the chair of a meeting is
charged with seeing that the sitting proceeds in conformity with
House rules and procedures. However, various articles of the
rules are open to interpretation, and the provisions on speaking
times, and mechanisms of enforcement, are unclear. A clear set of
reformed and revised rules could detail all these issues,
including from how a meeting or plenum should be organized and
conducted, to the announcement of the meeting and the setting of
the agenda, and to the organizing of the debate and the
timeframe.

An amendment of the House rules is currently being prepared by
the House's Legislation Council, but it remains to be seen if the
discussion will be conducted in a transparent manner with an eye
to the establishing of effective guidelines for parliamentary
business, or if political and party interests will hijack the
agenda.

The time is right for House members to start building a track
record of efficient and effective work. This includes reforming
outdated and outmoded institutional structures and practices.
Democratic parliamentary practices need to be established, with a
focus on transparency and performance. The public will then be
more appreciative of the work of their legislators, and debates
on salaries and allowances will be less acrimonious.

The writer is an expert on parliamentary reform and can be
reached at ffeulner@cbn.net.id