Re-examination of the Act Amending the Act Preventing Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing and the Act on International Sanctions (640 UA), which was not announced by the President of the Republic
Session: 15th Riigikogu, 6th sitting, plenary sitting.
Date: 2025-09-17 18:57
Total Speeches: 185
Membership: 15
Agenda Duration: 1h 26m
AI Summaries: 185/185 Speeches (100.0%)
Analysis: Structured Analysis
Politicians Speaking Time
Politicians
Analysis
Summary
The third item on the Riigikogu agenda was the re-adoption of the Act amending the Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Prevention Act and the International Sanctions Act (640 UA), which the President of the Republic had left unpromulgated. The President had refused to promulgate the Act, citing a conflict with Sections 26 and 44 of the Constitution, arguing that it unduly restricts citizens' right to informational self-determination.
Ando Kiviberg, Chairman of the Constitutional Committee, and Maris Lauri, member of the Finance Committee, provided an overview of the committees' discussions. Both committees reached a consensus decision that the Act should not be re-adopted in its unamended form, thereby agreeing with the President's position. Hent-Raul Kalmo, the President's legal advisor, and representatives of the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU, or RAB in Estonian) who participated in the discussions, conceded that the basis for restricting data subject rights in the Act was too broad and needed clarification. Lauri also highlighted an unprecedented case in the Supreme Court, which has referred the matter to the European Court of Justice for clarification regarding the legal basis for the FIU's data processing.
During the negotiations, the opposition (Urmas Reinsalu, Varro Vooglaid, Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart, Peeter Ernits) sharply criticized the totalitarian nature of the Act, which would allow the creation of profiles of all citizens and companies using artificial intelligence, violating privacy and establishing a surveillance society. The opposition demanded the complete withdrawal of the Act, not just cosmetic amendments. Social Democrat Riina Sikkut emphasized the need for substantive discussion to find a balance between the secrecy of proceedings and trust in the e-state. In the vote, the adoption of the Act in its unamended form was rejected by 70 votes. The deadline for submitting amendments was set for October 1, 2025, at 5:15 PM.
Decisions Made 2
The Riigikogu rejected the re-adoption, in unamended form, of the Act amending the Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Prevention Act and the International Sanctions Act, which had been returned by the President of the Republic (70 against, 0 for).
The deadline for submitting amendment proposals to the Act amending the Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Prevention Act and the International Sanctions Act was set for October 1, 2025, at 5:15 p.m.
Most Active Speaker
Urmas Reinsalu (Isamaa, conservative) was exceptionally active and critical during the debate, demanding the complete repeal of the law, calling it a "shambles" and accusing the coalition of pushing through unconstitutional legislation.
Aseesimees Arvo Aller
AI Summary
Vice-Chairman Arvo Aller opened the third item on the Riigikogu's agenda, which was the re-discussion of the amendments to the Money Laundering and Sanctions Act that had been left unpromulgated by the President of the Republic. He introduced the procedure for handling the reports of the Constitutional Committee and the Finance Committee and invited the first rapporteur, Constitutional Committee Chairman Ando Kiviberg, to the podium.
Aseesimees Arvo Aller
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Arvo Aller opened the third item on the Riigikogu's agenda—the re-discussion of the amendments to the Money Laundering and Sanctions Act that the President of the Republic had declined to promulgate. He then detailed the procedural order, which included 20-minute presentations from the Constitutional Committee and the Finance Committee, a question round, debates, and a final vote, before inviting the first presenter to the podium.
Aseesimees Arvo Aller
AI Summary
The Riigikogu will continue with the third item on the agenda: the further discussion of the Act amending the Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Prevention Act and the International Sanctions Act (640 UA). The Chairman of the Constitutional Committee, Ando Kiviberg, and a member of the Finance Committee will deliver reports of up to 20 minutes each, followed by the opportunity to ask one oral question, subsequent debates, and a vote.
Ando Kiviberg
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Ando Kiviberg provides an overview of the extraordinary session of the Constitutional Committee, where the decision of the President of the Republic not to proclaim the amendments to the Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Prevention Act was discussed, on the grounds that they excessively restricted the right to informational self-determination. The committee agreed with the president's position, finding that the data collection powers granted to the Financial Intelligence Unit and the grounds for restricting the rights of the data subject are too broad and vague. Consequently, it was decided not to re-adopt the law in its unamended form, and the Ministry of Finance will prepare the necessary specifications.
Ando Kiviberg
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
The Constitutional Committee decided not to support the re-adoption of the amendments to the Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Prevention Act and the International Sanctions Act in their unchanged form, and referred them back for modification, concurring with the President. Chairman Ando Kiviberg was designated as the committee's representative.
Ando Kiviberg
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Ando Kiviberg provided an overview of the extraordinary session of the Constitutional Committee, where they discussed the decision of the President of the Republic to withhold promulgation of the amendments to the Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Prevention Act, as they unduly restricted the right to informational self-determination. The Committee agreed with the President's position that the provisions of the law are too broad and subject the rights of the data subject to the arbitrary discretion of the agency. Consequently, it was decided not to support the re-adoption of the bill in its unchanged form, and the Ministry of Finance was tasked with preparing the necessary specifications.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Chairman Lauri Hussar thanks the presenter and invites questions, turning to Peeter Ernits.
Peeter Ernits
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Peeter Ernits welcomes the fact that previous mistakes are not being repeated, and raises the question of how to amend a law that the president failed to promulgate so that it finally becomes a viable piece of legislation.
Peeter Ernits
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Peeter Ernits satirizes the situation, expressing delight that no one has run into a brick wall for the third time, and asks what should be done to amend this law, which the president has failed to proclaim, so that it can become a viable entity.
Peeter Ernits
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Peeter Ernits expresses qualified satisfaction that previous mistakes are not being repeated, but demands concrete proposals on how to amend the law that the president refused to promulgate, so that it might finally become a viable and functioning piece of legislation.
Ando Kiviberg
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Ando Kiviberg provided an overview of the preceding joint session of four committees, where the risks associated with personal data processing were addressed. He stressed that in order to balance the work of government agencies and the data protection rights of citizens, the legal grounds must be extremely clear and precise. This clarity is essential while simultaneously ensuring that the use of data (for example, in preventing money laundering) is always relevant, purpose-driven, and leaves a traceable audit trail.
Ando Kiviberg
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Ando Kiviberg recalled that the topic under discussion had been preceded by a joint session of four committees, where they thoroughly discussed the risks associated with agencies having too much freedom in processing personal data. He emphasized the need to establish very clear and precise legal grounds that would allow institutions to do their job (for example, preventing money laundering) while simultaneously protecting citizens' data from unnecessary surveillance, stressing that every data check must be traceable and non-anonymous.
Ando Kiviberg
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Ando Kiviberg recalled that a joint session between committees had preceded the event, during which they discussed the risks of processing personal data and the restrictions on excessive freedom, and emphasized the need for clear legal bases and traceability, adding that data would only be viewed for relevant purposes, such as preventing money laundering.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
The Chairman thanks the previous speaker/audience and invites Vladimir Arkhipov to take the floor.
Vladimir Arhipov
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Vladimir Arhipov asks whether the law unduly restricts the freedom of enterprise and the inviolability of private life.
Vladimir Arhipov
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Vladimir Arhipov thanked the presenter and raised the question of whether the draft law under discussion had been analyzed for its potential unduly restrictive effect on the freedom of enterprise and the inviolability of private life.
Ando Kiviberg
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Ando Kiviberg emphasized the issue of state credibility during the meetings of four committees, stressing that the draft bill could damage the trustworthiness of Estonian business and banking, and that granting overly broad powers to government agencies must be avoided.
Ando Kiviberg
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Ando Kiviberg pointed out that the question of the state's trustworthiness was repeatedly raised during the joint session of the committees. He warned that the planned legislation could harm the reputation of Estonia's business and banking sectors, and stressed the necessity of avoiding the granting of overly broad and unnecessary mandates to government agencies.
Ando Kiviberg
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Ando Kiviberg stressed that during the joint session of the four committees, the issue of the credibility of the state and the banking sector was repeatedly raised in connection with the draft legislation, meaning we must be especially careful not to grant authorities overly broad and unnecessary powers.
Ando Kiviberg
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Ando Kiviberg highlighted that during the committee sessions, concerns repeatedly surfaced regarding the potential deterioration of the credibility of the state, particularly the banking sector, due to this draft legislation. Therefore, extreme caution must be exercised to prevent granting authorities overly broad and unnecessary powers.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Chairman Lauri Hussar calls upon Rain Epler.
Rain Epler
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Rain Epler stresses the need to be vigilant and not grant uncontrolled and sweeping powers to the officialdom. He accuses the coalition of chasing the 3.5 million in European funding without sufficiently delving into the substance, and asks whether they won't be embarrassed by this later.
Rain Epler
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Rain Epler criticizes the rapporteur and the coalition, arguing that they repeatedly ignored warnings raised during the readings of the bill regarding the dangers of granting overly broad powers to officials, because the priority was the swift acquisition of 3.5 million euros from Europe. He asks rhetorically whether such a rush, without delving into the substance, causes embarrassment in hindsight.
Rain Epler
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Rain Epler criticizes the coalition, arguing that they voted for a bill that grants overly broad powers to the bureaucracy, doing so merely for the 3.5 million euros received from Europe. He ironically asked if they had simply chased the money "like greyhounds after a rabbit" without delving into the substance, and whether they now feel any retrospective shame.
Ando Kiviberg
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Ando Kiviberg explained that when answering a personal question, he always based his decisions on the thorough work of experts and, in this specific case, the Finance Committee, which served as the lead committee, emphasizing that financial considerations played no role in his agreement.
Ando Kiviberg
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
He confirmed that he trusted the experts, especially the finance committee, and agreed with their decision because money didn't play a role.
Ando Kiviberg
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Ando Kiviberg responded to a personal question, stressing that he relied on experts in his actions, particularly the meticulous work of the Finance Committee, which served as the lead committee. This is why he agreed to the decision, adding that financial considerations played no role for him.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Chairman Lauri Hussar calls upon Varro Vooglaid.
Varro Vooglaid
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Varro Vooglaid is demanding that the chairman of the Constitutional Committee and the faction engage in introspection and draw conclusions concerning the situation where the president refused to promulgate a law that was in clear conflict with the constitution. He criticized the apathetic voting of Riigikogu members, stressing the personal responsibility of every deputy for disregarding constitutional warnings.
Varro Vooglaid
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Varro Vooglaid sharply criticizes members of the Riigikogu for mindlessly voting in favor of unconstitutional bills, despite previous warnings. He demands that the parliamentary faction and the chairman of the Constitutional Committee engage in introspection and take personal responsibility to avoid such mistakes in the future, stressing that merely relying on experts is not enough.
Varro Vooglaid
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Varro Vooglaid emphasizes that warnings must be taken seriously in the case of a bill that has created a conflict with the constitution, and that every member must personally delve into the matter and take responsibility, rather than merely trusting experts, recalling the observations of June 19 and the president's decision not to promulgate the bill.
Ando Kiviberg
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Ando Kiviberg agrees with Vooglaid that the situation serves as an important lesson in vigilance, citing the example of speed cameras to emphasize that while some things might initially seem absolutely essential, it is always possible to find a better solution and do things just a little bit better.
Ando Kiviberg
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Ando Kiviberg said that this is a lesson in attentiveness, and he drew a parallel with the story of the speed cameras, confirming that things that seem indispensably necessary can later be done better.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Chairman Lauri Hussar calls upon Urmas Reinsalu to speak.
Urmas Reinsalu
Profiling Isamaa fraktsioonAI Summary
Urmas Reinsalu posed three specific questions: whether the law permits obtaining account transaction data or only account data; whether EU law and issues concerning entrepreneurs were misrepresented; and whether the coalition's plan to amend a single sentence and re-adopt the law constitutes a competent approach.
Urmas Reinsalu
Profiling Isamaa fraktsioonAI Summary
Urmas Reinsalu is presenting three specific questions concerning the recently adopted law regarding account data. He demands clarification on whether the law permits access to transaction information, whether the adoption of the law was based on false premises (e.g., regarding the EU requirement and the absence of issues for businesses), and whether the coalition's plan to restrict amendments to changing only one sentence is still the prevailing stance.
Urmas Reinsalu
Profiling Isamaa fraktsioonAI Summary
Urmas Reinsalu is raising three critical questions regarding the recently adopted law, demanding clarification on whether it grants access to account transaction data, and not just account numbers; whether the law was pushed through using false claims about the EU requirement and the support of entrepreneurs; and whether the coalition’s plan is merely to amend a single sentence in the legislation.
Ando Kiviberg
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Ando Kiviberg responded to Mr. Urmas, stating that the questions he had presented were not discussed by the committee in the exact form in which they were currently being raised.
Ando Kiviberg
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
He/She replies that the commission did not discuss the issues you raised in their current form.
Kalle Grünthal
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Kalle Grünthal reproaches the rapporteur, pointing out that the bill's conflict with the European Union directive has not been discussed despite the president's specific reference, and sharply questions how it is possible to adopt such a bill when a crucial component of lawmaking – consistency with EU law – has been completely left unaddressed.
Kalle Grünthal
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Kalle Grünthal expresses his indignation and asks the rapporteur why the fact raised by the President—that the proposed law conflicts with the European Union directive—has not been discussed during the legislative process, emphasizing that the law should not be adopted without addressing this crucial matter of compliance.
Kalle Grünthal
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Kalle Grünthal raised the question of why the law, which is allegedly in conflict with a European Union directive, has not been debated, and why this contradiction was not reviewed before its adoption.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Chairman Lauri Hussar turns to Kalle Grünthal and says, "Please."
Ando Kiviberg
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Ando Kiviberg explained that while the complex wording of the committee’s decision might have caused some misunderstanding, he confirmed that the committee agreed with the president, and the draft bill will be amended so that the shortcomings identified within it can be eliminated.
Ando Kiviberg
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Ando Kiviberg clarified that despite the complex phrasing of the committee's decision, the committee ultimately agreed with the president's position. Consequently, the draft bill will be sent back for revision in order to eliminate the identified shortcomings, meaning the current confusion is likely just a misunderstanding.
Ando Kiviberg
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Ando Kiviberg noted that the commission agreed with the president, and the draft bill will be amended to eliminate the shortcomings, even though the decision's wording was complicated and caused confusion.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Chairman Lauri Hussar calls upon Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart.
Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart
Profiling Eesti Keskerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart draws attention to the fact that the Riigikogu's final decision on the bill is still pending, and asks whether the committee chairmen have considered shelving the bill, as she sees no possibility of amending it in a way that would not violate the constitution.
Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart
Profiling Eesti Keskerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart asked whether, if the draft bill is indeed amended, the option has been considered or discussed among the committee chairmen to simply shelve it, because in its current form she does not see a way to bring it into compliance with the constitution.
Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart
Profiling Eesti Keskerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart emphasized that although the committee has made its decision, the final word rests with the Riigikogu, and expressed concern that since she sees no possibility of amending the draft bill to bring it into compliance with the constitution, the committee chairmen should seriously consider simply shelving the bill.
Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart
Profiling Eesti Keskerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
The speaker opened with a procedural clarification, noting that although the committee has formulated its position, the Riigikogu (Parliament) has not yet rendered a final decision on the bill in question. He then proceeded to discuss the complexities of the bill's further processing, posing a question to the committee chairmen regarding its future. The main concern centered on whether the option had been considered that, if the bill were to undergo amendments, it would simply be shelved. The speaker emphasized his profound skepticism about the bill's amendability, arguing that in its current form, there is no possibility of changing it in a way that would not conflict with the Constitution of the Republic of Estonia. Therefore, in his view, the scenario of shelving the bill is the only realistic way to circumvent constitutional problems.
Ando Kiviberg
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Ando Kiviberg explained that the committee chairmen have not met separately to discuss the future progress of the draft bill, but amendments to the legislation are expected from the Ministry of Finance, which will then be forwarded to the Finance Committee. He emphasized that his knowledge is limited only to the discussions held by the Constitutional Committee, as the draft bill in question does not fall under their purview.
Ando Kiviberg
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Ando Kiviberg explained that although the chairmen of the committees have not separately discussed the bill's further progress, the Ministry of Finance has promised to send the amendments to the Finance Committee, and he emphasized that he can currently provide information only about the discussions of the Constitutional Committee, as this is not a bill that they initiated.
Ando Kiviberg
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Ando Kiviberg stated that the committee chairmen have not met separately regarding the bill's next steps. He added that the Ministry of Finance promised to submit amendments, which will reach the Finance Committee (or perhaps already have), and he is currently discussing what the Constitutional Committee debated, given that this particular bill is not the Constitutional Committee's own bill.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
The Chairman thanked the presenter and announced that there were no further questions.
Ando Kiviberg
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Ando Kiviberg briefly expressed his thanks at the end of his address.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Chairman Lauri Hussar: Urmas Reinsalu raised a procedural question concerning the order of the sitting.
Ando Kiviberg
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Ando Kiviberg thanks for the questions.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Urmas Reinsalu asked a question about the procedures for conducting the session.
Urmas Reinsalu
Profiling Isamaa fraktsioonAI Summary
Urmas Reinsalu is asking whether, at the current procedural stage, the initiator is able to withdraw a bill that has not yet been promulgated, and when this right to withdraw arises, in order to determine if the substantive quality of the bill is defective and if it should be recalled.
Urmas Reinsalu
Profiling Isamaa fraktsioonAI Summary
Urmas Reinsalu believes that the draft bill under consideration is defective in terms of its substantive quality and should therefore be withdrawn. Consequently, he requests clarification as to the exact procedural moment when the initiator can purely legally exercise this right of withdrawal, especially concerning an act that has been left unpromulgated.
Urmas Reinsalu
Profiling Isamaa fraktsioonAI Summary
Urmas Reinsalu is demanding the withdrawal of the draft bill, which is considered fatally flawed in terms of substantive quality, and is requesting clarification regarding the procedural stage and the exact moment from which the initiator is legally entitled to withdraw it, particularly concerning a law that has not been promulgated.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Chairman Lauri Hussar explained to his colleagues the parliamentary procedural situation concerning the President's proposal regarding an already adopted law, stressing that if the proposal is supported, the bill will return to the committee for further deliberation. He then promised to take one more procedural question before proceeding to the report of the Finance Committee.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Chairman Lauri Hussar is giving procedural clarifications regarding an already adopted law, specifically concerning the vote on the President's proposal. He emphasizes that supporting the proposal sends the bill back to the committee, allowing the Government of the Republic to undertake the necessary procedural actions before the session moves on to the Finance Committee's report.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Chairman Lauri Hussar said that the law has already been passed, and they are currently voting on the president's proposal. If it is approved, the draft bill will be sent to the committee, where the necessary procedural steps will be taken; the initiator is the Government of the Republic.
Varro Vooglaid
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Varro Vooglaid inquired about the procedure for withdrawing a draft bill, specifically asking whether the initiator has the right to withdraw the bill at any stage of the proceedings. He suggested that this should be the logical solution, especially if the President has refused to promulgate the law due to its unconstitutionality, thereby avoiding repeated debate in the Riigikogu.
Varro Vooglaid
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Varro Vooglaid inquires whether the bill's initiator has the right to withdraw the draft legislation at every stage of the proceedings, and what the exceptions to that rule are. Furthermore, he posits a scenario where the president declines to promulgate the law because it is unconstitutional, leading the initiator to withdraw the bill so that the Riigikogu is spared the need to re-debate it.
Varro Vooglaid
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Varro Vooglaid inquired about the procedure for withdrawing a draft bill, specifically asking whether the initiator retains the right to withdraw it at any stage of the proceedings. This was posed particularly in the context where the President has declined to promulgate the law due to doubts regarding its constitutionality, suggesting that such a withdrawal would be a logical step to avoid a new debate in the Riigikogu.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Chairman Lauri Hussar explains the procedure for the bill returned by the President, highlighting the choice between adopting it without changes or sending it back to the committee. He then urges everyone to save time, promising to take only the last two questions before we move forward.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Chairman Lauri Hussar explained the decision facing Parliament regarding the returned bill—whether to adopt it in its unchanged form or send it back to the committee upon the President’s proposal—and subsequently suggested expediting the debate, allowing only the final two questions to be taken before moving forward.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Chairman Lauri Hussar outlined the two paths facing Parliament regarding the bill returned by the President (either adopting it without changes or sending it to a committee). He then urged the body to move forward with the debate based on procedural grounds, allowing only a couple of final questions.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Chairman Lauri Hussar stated that the act had been passed and subsequently returned by the President. A decision must now be made on whether to adopt it without amendments or to follow the President's proposal and send the draft bill back to the committee. He then put forward a motion, continued the negotiations, and opened the floor for discussion on the final remaining questions.
Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart
Profiling Eesti Keskerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart believes that, stemming from the principle of separation of powers, the Government of the Republic cannot repeal a law adopted by the Riigikogu, as this would mean overriding the parliament's decision. Therefore, the Riigikogu itself must make the final decision regarding the law's validity.
Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart
Profiling Eesti Keskerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
The speaker emphasizes the principle of the separation of powers and stresses that a law adopted by the Riigikogu cannot be revoked by the government; rather, the Riigikogu must now decide whether that law is still desired.
Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart
Profiling Eesti Keskerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart emphasizes that, according to the principle of separation of powers, the Government of the Republic does not have the right to annul a law adopted by the Riigikogu (Parliament), which is why the responsibility lies with the parliament itself to decide whether the law in question remains in effect or not.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Chairman Lauri Hussar offered his thanks and noted the clarification, before inviting Maris Lauri, a member of the Finance Committee, to the Riigikogu podium as the next rapporteur.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Chairman Lauri Hussar concluded the brief clarification topic, thanked the participants, and then invited Maris Lauri, a member of the Finance Committee, to the Riigikogu rostrum to deliver the next presentation.
Maris Lauri
Profiling Eesti Reformierakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Maris Lauri provided an overview of the Finance Committee meeting, where a consensus decision was reached not to support the adoption of the amendments to the Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Prevention Act in their current, unchanged form—amendments which had been returned by the President of the Republic. The committee found that the draft bill requires further deliberation. Furthermore, the discussion centered on an unprecedented case concerning the activities of the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU, *Rahapesu Andmebüroo*), which has been referred to the European Court of Justice to clarify the FIU’s data protection regulations and its obligation to release personal data. It was also noted that the databases used under the proposed bill require additional specification.
Maris Lauri
Profiling Eesti Reformierakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Maris Lauri announced that the Finance Committee decided unanimously not to adopt the amendments to the laws on the prevention of money laundering and terrorist financing and international sanctions in their unchanged form. The committee plans to discuss the draft bill again, with Lauri designating herself as the representative of the leading committee. The discussion also addressed the president's positions, the situation of the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU), and the unprecedented question raised by the European Court of Justice regarding data usage and personal data protection.
Maris Lauri
Profiling Eesti Reformierakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Maris Lauri provides an overview of the Finance Committee meeting, where members decided by consensus not to support the adoption of the anti-money laundering bill—which had been sent back by the President of the Republic—in its unamended form, instead demanding a new discussion. The meeting also focused on an unprecedented case in the Supreme Court concerning the activities of the Money Laundering Data Bureau (RAB), due to which a preliminary ruling is now awaited from the European Court of Justice regarding the release of RAB data and its legal status.
Maris Lauri
Profiling Eesti Reformierakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Maris Lauri announced that the Finance Committee had unanimously decided not to support the adoption of the anti-money laundering and terrorism financing prevention act in the unchanged form returned by the President of the Republic, concluding that the draft legislation requires new deliberation. The committee’s discussion centered on the legal dilemmas surrounding the data usage practices of the Financial Intelligence Unit (RAB), particularly concerning an unprecedented case where a preliminary ruling is awaited from the European Court of Justice regarding RAB’s status and the application of the General Data Protection Regulation, a process which could take up to a year.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
The Chair thanks the presenter and announces that there will be questions, turning to Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart.
Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart
Profiling Eesti Keskerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart inquired of the rapporteur—who is also a party colleague of the Minister of Finance—whether the government would withdraw the draft bill if Parliament rejected the law without amendments, thereby avoiding new proposals from the Ministry of Finance that she believes would inevitably infringe upon people's fundamental rights.
Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart
Profiling Eesti Keskerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart asks the rapporteur if they have communicated with the Ministry of Finance and what the fate of the bill will be if parliament rejects it without amendments, demanding that the government withdraw the bill rather than waiting for new proposals, which, in her view, inevitably violate people's fundamental rights.
Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart
Profiling Eesti Keskerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart asks if the rapporteur has communicated with the Ministry of Finance or the Minister of Finance, and whether, should Parliament fail to adopt the law again without changes or the government withdraw it, they will stop waiting for new proposals, as these proposals must not violate people's fundamental rights.
Maris Lauri
Profiling Eesti Reformierakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
A representative of the Ministry of Finance and the head of the Financial Intelligence Unit announced that the Ministry has proposals for amending the draft legislation.
Maris Lauri
Profiling Eesti Reformierakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Maris Lauri emphasized that the representative of the Ministry of Finance and the head of the Financial Intelligence Unit confirmed during the Finance Committee session that the ministry has specific proposals for amending the draft legislation.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Chairman Lauri Hussar invites Urmas Reinsalu to take the floor.
Urmas Reinsalu
Profiling Isamaa fraktsioonAI Summary
Urmas Reinsalu addresses Mrs. Lauri, reminding her of her staunch defense of the law late this spring, and demands an explanation as to what aspect allowed sensitive health data—data which could theoretically be used for prying—to be included in the legislation regarding the super database being created for money laundering matters.
Urmas Reinsalu
Profiling Isamaa fraktsioonAI Summary
Urmas Reinsalu reminds Mrs. Lauri how convincingly he defended the law and served as its leading rapporteur, and asks which aspect of health data pertained to the super database established by that law.
Urmas Reinsalu
Profiling Isamaa fraktsioonAI Summary
Urmas Reinsalu addresses Mrs. Lauri, reminding her of her previous staunch defense of the law that would permit the use of health data in a super database in the context of money laundering, and asks her to clarify what the connection of the health data was to the functions of that law.
Maris Lauri
Profiling Eesti Reformierakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Maris Lauri categorically refutes the claim that the discussion revolved around prying into health data, explaining that the provision allowing health data to be added to the database was removed from the draft bill’s original version. A discussion did, however, arise in the committee regarding how to handle data that enters the database accidentally (for example, a pharmacy transaction appearing via a bank inquiry initiated by the Financial Intelligence Unit). The Data Protection Inspectorate found that the handling of such incidental data—which is neither actually processed nor used—should be regulated by law.
Maris Lauri
Profiling Eesti Reformierakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Maris Lauri pointed out that although the initial version of the draft bill allowed health data into the database, that provision has been taken out. This raises the question of how that data will get there in the first place, and whether it should be requested or processed, because the Data Protection Inspectorate requires such data to be separately regulated in the law, and actually, it is forbidden to request or use it.
Maris Lauri
Profiling Eesti Reformierakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Maris Lauri refutes the claim that the discussion focused solely on rummaging through health data, explaining that although the provision allowing health data to reach the database was removed from the initial draft bill, an unresolved question remained: how to handle incidental accompanying data (such as pharmacy transactions) that might surface randomly during bank inquiries conducted by the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU). The Data Protection Inspectorate had specifically demanded that the regulation of this type of data be clarified in the law.
Maris Lauri
Profiling Eesti Reformierakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Maris Lauri refutes the claim of wanting to pry into health data, explaining that although the provision for including health data was removed from the initial version of the draft bill, concern is raised by the incidental health information (e.g., pharmacy transactions) that accompanies queries made by the Financial Intelligence Unit. Consequently, the Data Protection Inspectorate demanded that the law logically regulate the non-processing and handling of such data.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Chairman Lauri Hussar invited Varro Vooglaid to speak.
Varro Vooglaid
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Varro Vooglaid is demanding an explanation and accountability from a member of the Finance Committee concerning the committee's decision to support the adoption of an unconstitutional law, which the President refused to promulgate, and asks why earlier warnings from members of parliament regarding the law's unconstitutionality were disregarded.
Varro Vooglaid
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Varro Vooglaid questions the chairman of the Finance Committee regarding accountability for the adoption of the unconstitutional law—which the committee had approved—and inquires whether committee members were aware of prior warnings from MPs concerning the law's unconstitutionality, which led the president to refuse to promulgate it.
Varro Vooglaid
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Varro Vooglaid is asking the Chairman of the Finance Committee whether they took responsibility for passing the unconstitutional draft bill, and why he still supported it, despite being aware that both the President and the Chancellery had deemed the law unconstitutional.
Maris Lauri
Profiling Eesti Reformierakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Maris Lauri stressed that interpretations of laws can vary, and debates are a natural part of democracy. She added that the Riigikogu has the right to make choices, and the Supreme Court decides the final question of constitutionality.
Maris Lauri
Profiling Eesti Reformierakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Maris Lauri, speaking as the committee's representative, emphasized that the differing interpretation of laws and the debate over their constitutionality—which has led to the draft bill being challenged even at the presidential level—is a natural part of the legislative process and a fundamental element of democracy. She noted that the Riigikogu has the right to make choices, and the Supreme Court, acting as the final instance, has the right to rule on constitutional compliance.
Maris Lauri
Profiling Eesti Reformierakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Maris Lauri, representing the committee, stressed that the interpretation of statutory provisions is inevitably contentious, and the fact that laws passed by the Riigikogu reach the Supreme Court for constitutional review is a natural and logical component of democracy and the legislative process. Consequently, the ongoing disagreement should not elicit feelings of guilt.
Peeter Ernits
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Peeter Ernits criticized the rapporteur, whom he considers a finance expert, for failing to seek the opinion of the Financial Supervisory Authority during the handling of the bill deemed unconstitutional, despite his/her thorough knowledge of the banking world and the competence of Kilvar Kessler, the head of the Financial Supervisory Authority.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Chairman Lauri Hussar called Peeter Ernits.
Peeter Ernits
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Peeter Ernits accused the former Minister of Justice and current finance expert, alleging that the latter had deliberately failed to request the opinion of the Financial Supervisory Authority (Finantsinspektsioon) during the processing of the bill—which is considered unconstitutional—despite his thorough knowledge of the banking world and the competence of its leaders (such as Kilvar Kessler).
Peeter Ernits
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Peeter Ernits accuses his opponent of promoting an unconstitutional draft bill and questions why, as a finance expert, he failed to ask the Financial Supervisory Authority for their opinion or inquire about Kilvar Kessler’s competence.
Maris Lauri
Profiling Eesti Reformierakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Maris Lauri stressed that the president's concern regarding the constitutionality of the draft legislation is merely one opinion that necessitates legal discourse to identify superior solutions. She further affirmed that while the involvement of interested parties during the initial processing of the bill was limited (including the non-participation of the Financial Supervision Authority), all institutions and organizations are welcome to join future deliberations, as there is no cause for embarrassment in a legal discussion.
Maris Lauri
Profiling Eesti Reformierakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Maris Lauri emphasized that the President's doubt regarding the constitutionality of the law is just one opinion that requires legal discussion to find better solutions, and no one should be ashamed of their legally permissible position. She further explained that although the involvement of interested parties was modest at the initial stage of the bill (for example, the absence of the Financial Supervision Authority), all institutions and organizations are welcome to participate in the bill's subsequent discussions.
Maris Lauri
Profiling Eesti Reformierakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Maris Lauri clarifies that the president’s concern regarding the constitutionality of the draft legislation is merely one opinion that necessitates a legal discussion to identify superior solutions. She stresses that no one should feel embarrassed for proposing solutions they believe are legally permissible. Furthermore, she acknowledges that while the engagement of stakeholders during the initial debate on the bill was limited—leading, for instance, to the exclusion of the Financial Supervisory Authority—all interested parties are welcome to participate in future discussions.
Maris Lauri
Profiling Eesti Reformierakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Maris Lauri stressed that all interested institutions must be involved in the discussion of the draft legislation, adding that differing opinions are natural and there is no cause to be ashamed of voicing them.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Chairman Lauri Hussar calls upon Rain Epler.
Rain Epler
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Rain Epler expresses concern over the Orwellian tendency of recent draft legislation (including the bill currently under discussion, the use of police cameras, and the attempt to establish a "thought police"). This indicates the bureaucracy's desire to steamroll democracy and individual liberties, and he asks the addressee to clearly state their personal preference between freedom and control.
Rain Epler
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Rain Epler poses the question of whether he personally supports democracy and individual liberty or Orwellian control, referencing the set of bills currently under discussion and the use of police cameras.
Rain Epler
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Rain Epler highlighted a worrying pattern in several recent draft bills (including the police camera and the so-called 'thought police' initiatives), which suggest the bureaucracy desires to override democracy and personal freedoms, and asked Ms. Lauri for her personal position on whether she supports democracy and freedom or these Orwellian control tendencies.
Maris Lauri
Profiling Eesti Reformierakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Maris Lauri explained that she is appearing as the committee's rapporteur and is therefore deferring the expression of her personal opinion until the discussion phase.
Maris Lauri
Profiling Eesti Reformierakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
He/She is serving as the committee's rapporteur and refrains from expressing a personal viewpoint during the discussion phase.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
The Chairman thanks the rapporteur, announces that there are no further questions, and before commencing the debate, Rain Epler raises his hand and poses a question regarding the conduct of the session.
Rain Epler
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Rain Epler asked the Speaker of the Riigikogu for an assessment of the context of Maris Lauri’s answers, accusing her of inconsistency: Lauri emphasized that she was only representing the committee and not expressing a personal opinion, yet she simultaneously presented at length her successful CV and personal achievements, asking whether the presentation of such personal success stories was appropriate in this situation.
Rain Epler
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Rain Epler is asking the Chairman of the Riigikogu for an evaluation of the context surrounding Maris Lauri’s answers. He reproaches her, pointing out that although Lauri stressed that she was appearing only as a representative of the committee and refused to share personal opinions, she had previously presented at length her personal CV and the story of her successful career, questioning whether such behavior is appropriate.
Rain Epler
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Rain Epler is asking the Speaker of the Riigikogu for an assessment on whether Maris Lauri, acting as a representative of the committee, is allowed to present her CV and personal achievements in a situation where personal opinions are prohibited from being expressed.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Chairman Lauri Hussar thanked Rain Epler and stated that Maris Lauri had presented the committee’s position accurately and courteously, deserving recognition for her efforts. Maris Lauri also raised a question regarding the procedure for conducting the sitting.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Chairman Lauri Hussar commended Maris Lauri for the correct and courteous presentation of the committee's position, emphasizing the need to recognize her for it, and then turned to Lauri regarding the procedure for the conduct of the session.
Maris Lauri
Profiling Eesti Reformierakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Maris Lauri asks if it is possible to strike the words from the minutes that she did not say at the podium.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Chairman Lauri Hussar responded in the negative to the question concerning the procedure for conducting the sitting, clarifying simultaneously that a portion of the colleague's preceding remarks constituted a substantive objection, which could not be counted as procedural, and subsequently granted the floor to Peeter Ernits to pose a new procedural question.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Chairman Lauri Hussar stated that they would not be deleted, and pointed out that the objection was not a procedural matter and thus could not be taken into account as such. Concluding his remarks, he asked Peeter Ernits to pose a question concerning the procedure for conducting the sitting.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Chairman Lauri Hussar answered the question regarding the procedure for conducting the sitting in the negative, but clarified that the objection raised by his colleague did not qualify as a procedural question, and subsequently gave the floor to Peeter Ernits.
Peeter Ernits
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
The question is whether they can somehow be destroyed, not merely deleted, and the importance of respecting the lady is stressed.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Chairman Lauri Hussar said he didn't understand what was being asked and didn't deem it procedural, and wished to proceed to the negotiations, requesting three minutes of extra time since Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart was already on her feet.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Chairman Lauri Hussar expressed confusion regarding the substance of colleague Peeter Ernits’ question, refused to deem it procedural, and directed the session to continue with Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart’s speech, granting her three additional minutes from the Riigikogu rostrum upon her request.
Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart
Profiling Eesti Keskerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart expresses strong opposition to the super database law, warning that it would violate constitutional rights and increase state surveillance using artificial intelligence. She urges the government and the Ministry of Finance to withdraw the draft bill and refrain from submitting new versions in the future.
Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart
Profiling Eesti Keskerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart urgently demands that the government and the Ministry of Finance withdraw the super database bill and abandon it permanently, as it constitutes an unconstitutional attempt to establish a total surveillance society based on artificial intelligence, which severely infringes upon people's fundamental rights by collecting and profiling data on assets, health, and even thoughts under the guise of security, and warns that pushing through such bills undermines the credibility of the Riigikogu and wastes resources.
Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart
Profiling Eesti Keskerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart sharply criticizes the government's attempts to establish a total surveillance society through the super-database law and similar draft bills, arguing that this infringes upon fundamental human rights and violates the constitution. She urgently demands that the bill be withdrawn and never resurrected, viewing it as nothing more than a waste of millions and the sacrifice of freedom for the sake of European Union subsidies. She warns that profiling based on artificial intelligence will lead to a society controlled and monitored by the state.
Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart
Profiling Eesti Keskerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart demands the immediate and final withdrawal of the super database bill, warning that it is unconstitutional, severely violates people's fundamental rights, and is part of a broader movement to create a total surveillance society in Estonia under the guise of security, where ministries and state institutions compete to collect data, using artificial intelligence to do so, and creating profiles on citizens to which they themselves have no access.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Speaker Lauri Hussar thanked the previous speaker, invited his colleague Urmas Reinsalu to the Riigikogu rostrum, and granted his request for an additional three minutes of speaking time.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
The Speaker thanks the previous speaker and invites colleague Urmas Reinsalu to the Riigikogu rostrum to take the floor, and requests three minutes of additional time.
Urmas Reinsalu
Profiling Isamaa fraktsioonAI Summary
Urmas Reinsalu called on Parliament to reject the legislation, claiming that it constitutes the creation of an unconstitutional super database where people’s bank account details, transaction data, and health information would be consolidated, and which threatens the freedom and privacy of Estonian citizens.
Urmas Reinsalu
Profiling Isamaa fraktsioonAI Summary
Urmas Reinsalu, speaking on behalf of Isamaa, urgently demands that the Riigikogu scrap the unconstitutional and unprecedented law, which creates a surveillance state by means of a super database, allowing artificial intelligence to profile and rummage through five years of people's bank transactions, and promises that this "failed monstrosity" will be repealed immediately once the government changes.
Urmas Reinsalu
Profiling Isamaa fraktsioonAI Summary
Urmas Reinsalu categorically demands that parliament repeal and scrap the unconstitutional law which creates an unprecedented super database of people's bank transactions over the last five years. He accuses the government of establishing a surveillance state and ignoring expert warnings, promising that this failed "botched job" will be annulled later, even if it is pushed through with cosmetic changes.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Chairman Lauri Hussar thanked [the previous speaker] and then handed the floor over to colleague Peeter Ernits, asking him to come to the Riigikogu podium.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
The Chairman thanked [the previous speaker] and then invited colleague Peeter Ernits to the Riigikogu rostrum to take the floor next.
Peeter Ernits
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Peeter Ernits furiously attacks the coalition currently in agony, which is stubbornly and hastily attempting to ram through an unprecedentedly repulsive piece of legislation, likened to a "scabby badger," seeing in it a craving for clinging to power and surveillance, and stressing that the government, like a rotten tree, is spineless and subservient to unknown orders.
Peeter Ernits
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Peeter Ernits accuses the current coalition and Interior Minister Taro of creating hastily drafted legislation and a super database. He describes the coalition as a mangy raccoon dog and calls their talk of "we'll fix it a little" sheep talk.
Peeter Ernits
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Peeter Ernits sharply criticizes the failing coalition, whose time is up, calling their bills—which the president has rejected—a "mangy raccoon" and "sheep talk," which symbolize the government's unacceptable craving to spy and cling to power. He points out that the draft law was hastily pushed through by loyal party soldiers who are obeying an external command, thereby demonstrating that the Estonian state is slack and endlessly subservient to whoever dictates how it should act.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Chairman Lauri Hussar asked directly if the participants needed extra time.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
The Chairman asks if you need extra time and how much he is going to set.
Peeter Ernits
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Peeter Ernits confined himself to a brief remark, stating that he only needed a couple of minutes to deliver his message.
Peeter Ernits
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
The speech lasts three minutes.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Chairman Lauri Hussar asked for clarification, inquiring how large a contribution he should make.
Peeter Ernits
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Peeter Ernits requested three minutes of speaking time for his presentation.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Chairman Lauri Hussar politely requested an additional three minutes to finish his thoughts or extend the presentation.
Peeter Ernits
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Peeter Ernits sharply condemns the unsupported government coalition, which he calls the "mangy badger," accusing it of violating the constitution and rushing through surveillance measures in order to cling to power. He calls upon the people of Estonia to stand up against these undemocratic actions and to burn this "mangy badger" down.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
The Chairman requests three minutes of extra time.
Peeter Ernits
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Peeter Ernits is calling on the people of Estonia to voice their opinion regarding the coalition, which lacks public support and is attempting to cling to power through surveillance and fast-track legislation. He deems such behavior unacceptable and contrary to democracy and the constitution, and he concludes by saying: the raccoon dog, the mangy creature, must be burned.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Speaker Lauri Hussar then invited Varro Vooglaid to the Riigikogu rostrum.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Chairman Lauri Hussar thanked the previous speaker and then invited Varro Vooglaid to the Riigikogu rostrum.
Varro Vooglaid
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Varro Vooglaid sharply criticizes the Estonian Parliament (Riigikogu) for consecutively adopting its second law that violates the constitution. In this specific instance, the law essentially nullifies citizens' constitutional right to access data collected about them by the Money Laundering Data Bureau (RAB). The Parliament did this knowingly, despite repeated warnings during the legislative process. He emphasizes that in a state governed by the rule of law, the parliament must not adopt obviously unconstitutional acts. Furthermore, he views the broader trend of using artificial intelligence to create a "super database" that profiles all citizens as a serious problem, suggesting a move toward a totalitarian state structure.
Varro Vooglaid
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Varro Vooglaid warned that the Riigikogu is approving laws that violate the constitution, and that the bill restricting access to data from the RAB reflects a broader danger: the creation of a totalitarian state system and the mass profiling of citizens and entrepreneurs using artificial intelligence.
Varro Vooglaid
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Varro Vooglaid sharply criticizes the Riigikogu, arguing that it has knowingly adopted the second consecutive law that violates the constitution. This specific law, he points out, clearly and vaguely restricts citizens' constitutional right to access data collected about them, suggesting that members of parliament lack the capacity to assess the constitutionality of draft legislation. He stresses that in a state governed by the rule of law, unconstitutional laws must not be consciously adopted, and he sees in this initiative a broader danger characteristic of a totalitarian regime: the creation of a super database, utilizing artificial intelligence, designed to profile every citizen.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Three additional minutes are mentioned in the speech.
Varro Vooglaid
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Varro Vooglaid sharply criticizes the trend where a democratic rule of law is being replaced by a totalitarian surveillance society, where artificial intelligence is used to profile individuals and companies based on unknown criteria, and where attempts are made to punish people even for reading or watching the "wrong" things. He cites as an example secret license plate recognition cameras that totally monitor all citizens, emphasizing that such continuous and total surveillance violates constitutional rights. Consequently, the speaker demands that this thoroughly totalitarian draft bill be scrapped entirely and that society put the brakes on this dangerous trajectory.
Varro Vooglaid
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Varro Vooglaid sharply criticizes the trend in which a democratic state governed by the rule of law begins to totally monitor and profile citizens and businesses using artificial intelligence and undisclosed algorithms. He argues that continuous and total surveillance—which encompasses closing accounts, secret license plate recognition cameras, and punishing people for reading "the wrong things"—is a form of exercising totalitarian state power that consistently restricts constitutional rights. Therefore, the corresponding bill must be rejected in its entirety, and the state's current trajectory must be seriously halted.
Varro Vooglaid
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Varro Vooglaid emphasizes that the mass collection of data and the profiling of individuals and companies using artificial intelligence, without prior justification, coupled with constant surveillance, will lead to totalitarian state power, and therefore this bill should be thrown in the trash.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Chairman Lauri Hussar invited his colleague Riina Sikkut to the Riigikogu podium to speak.
Riina Sikkut
Profiling Sotsiaaldemokraatliku Erakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Riina Sikkut notes that although there is consensus in the chamber regarding the rejection of the current bill because it fails to ensure sufficient trust and privacy, we must set emotions aside and substantively discuss how to create a legal basis. This basis should allow state institutions (such as the Financial Intelligence Unit) to utilize modern data processing technologies to combat crime, while simultaneously ensuring strict parliamentary and internal oversight and continuous investment in IT security to maintain the credibility of the e-state.
Riina Sikkut
Profiling Sotsiaaldemokraatliku Erakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Riina Sikkut notes that although there is unanimity in the chamber regarding the rejection of the bill in its current form, emotions must be set aside to continue substantive discussions aimed at finding a balance between the fight against crime (utilizing modern technology) and maintaining public trust in data usage and protecting privacy, while emphasizing the need for strong oversight and continuous investment in IT security.
Riina Sikkut
Profiling Sotsiaaldemokraatliku Erakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Everyone is unanimous that this law must be amended and cannot be adopted in its current form. Furthermore, a balance must be struck between data usage, privacy, and the control of individual decisions, while ensuring oversight and IT security so that public trust is maintained.
Riina Sikkut
Profiling Sotsiaaldemokraatliku Erakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Riina Sikkut emphasizes that although there is consensus in the chamber regarding the necessity of amending the law, we must set aside emotions and focus on substantive discussion to find a balance between public trust (transparency in data usage) and the confidentiality of proceedings. Since criminals are utilizing the latest technology, law enforcement agencies must also be provided with a legal basis for using data, while simultaneously ensuring that decisions are made by a human, not a machine, and continuously investing in security and oversight to preserve privacy and mitigate risks.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
The Speaker offers his thanks and calls Kalle Grünthal to the Riigikogu podium.
Kalle Grünthal
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Kalle Grünthal expresses extreme concern regarding Estonia's trajectory toward a totalitarian surveillance society, referencing the illegal access to tens of thousands of bank accounts identified by the Chancellor of Justice and accusing the Social Democrats of legitimizing such activities. He stresses that this type of surveillance regime is unconstitutional and goes so far as to accuse the government—which submitted a bill that the President had already declared unconstitutional—of committing a crime against the state and inciting members of the Riigikogu (Parliament) to criminal acts, demanding resistance to this totalitarian societal model that is already taking shape.
Kalle Grünthal
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Grünthal asserts that the expansion of state surveillance and data collection is unconstitutional and threatens democracy, urging resistance against the formation of a totalitarian society.
Kalle Grünthal
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Kalle Grünthal expresses profound concern over the emergence of a totalitarian surveillance society, citing as an example the illegal accessing of tens of thousands of bank accounts identified by the Chancellor of Justice. He further accuses the government and the drafters of the legislation of promoting unconstitutional activity, which, in his assessment, qualifies as a crime against the state, referring to sections 235 and 236 of the Penal Code, and calls on the Riigikogu to stand against this model.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Speaker Lauri Hussar gave the floor to his colleague Rain Epler during the Riigikogu sitting, requesting that he approach the podium.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Speaker Lauri Hussar called his colleague Rain Epler to the Riigikogu podium to speak.
Rain Epler
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Rain Epler warned of a deepening democracy crisis, citing the concepts of a super database and thought police as symptoms of the turmoil. He specifically blamed the power-seeking ambitions of officials and technocrats, urging that the current coalition be consigned to the dustbin of history and that the social democrats not be allowed to take power.
Rain Epler
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Rain Epler argues that recent scandalous bills—such as the illegal databases and attempts to establish a thought police—are merely symptoms of a deeper crisis of democracy, caused by unelected technocrats and incompetent politicians. Therefore, both the current coalition and those who have allowed this situation to develop should be removed from governance.
Rain Epler
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Rain Epler sharply criticizes three recent draft bills—an illegal police database, a super-database aimed at compiling profiles of individuals, and the attempt to create a thought police—seeing them as symptoms of a broader democracy crisis. He argues that unelected officials and technocrats have seized control of the state’s governance, allowed by incompetent politicians, which is why the current coalition should be tossed into the dustbin of history.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Chairman Lauri Hussar announced that there were no further requests to speak and asked Riina Sikkut, whose name had been mentioned during the debate, to present an immediate response statement.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Chairman Lauri Hussar announced that there were no further requests to speak, but since Riina Sikkut's name had been mentioned during the negotiations, he offered her the opportunity for an immediate right of reply.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
The Chair thanked everyone and informed them that there were no requests to speak, but Riina Sikkut had been mentioned during the negotiations and was asked to give a response on the spot.
Riina Sikkut
Profiling Sotsiaaldemokraatliku Erakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Riina Sikkut categorically refuted Kalle Grünthal's assertions that the positions attributed to her and the Social Democratic Party were true, confirming that her actual stance is the opposite, and adding that she also finds the personalized state proposed by Eesti 200 to be too intrusive to privacy.
Riina Sikkut
Profiling Sotsiaaldemokraatliku Erakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Riina Sikkut refuted Kalle Grünthal's claims regarding her and the Social Democratic Party's positions, clarifying that her opinion on the boundaries of Eesti 200's 'personal state' privacy was contrary to what Grünthal had attributed to her.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Chairman Lauri Hussar declares the debates closed and submits to the Riigikogu for a vote the re-adoption, without amendment, of the Act amending the Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Prevention Act and the International Sanctions Act, which had been returned to the Riigikogu by the President of the Republic.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Chairman Lauri Hussar announced the closing of the debates due to the absence of requests to speak and put to a vote of the Riigikogu the re-adoption, in an unchanged form, of the law on the prevention of money laundering and terrorist financing that had been returned by the President of the Republic.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
The Riigikogu did not adopt the law in its unamended form (70 voted against, there were no abstentions); I set the deadline for submitting proposed amendments as October 1st at 17:15, and the third item on the agenda is concluded.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Chairman Lauri Hussar announced that the Riigikogu overwhelmingly rejected the adoption of the Act amending the Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Prevention Act and the International Sanctions Act in its unamended form (with 70 votes against). He further set the new deadline for submitting amendments as 17:15 on October 1st of this year.