Second Reading of the Draft Act (344 SE) on the Amendment of the Riigikogu Election Act and Related Amendment of Other Acts
Session: 15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary sitting
Date: 2024-04-17 17:02
Participating Politicians:
Total Speeches: 397
Membership: 15
Agenda Duration: 8h 41m
AI Summaries: 397/397 Speeches (100.0%)
Analysis: Structured Analysis
Politicians Speaking Time
Politicians
Analysis
Summary
The first item on the agenda was the second reading of Draft Legislation 344, concerning the amendment of the Riigikogu Election Act and related acts. Based on the discussion, two major themes primarily emerged: (1) the bundling of amendment proposals, meaning the consolidation of insincere or identical proposals into a single package for debate during negotiations; and (2) procedural and technological issues related to the potential implementation of e-voting and future m-voting solutions. Additionally, the inter-compatibility of the affected acts was addressed, as well as the role of the Riigikogu Board and leading committees in guiding procedures, which highlighted the limits of applying constitutional principles and the issues likely to be raised in litigation.
The second major theme concerned the technological and security context: how transparency, secrecy, and reliability of elections are intended to be ensured in both paper-based and digital (e- and m-voting) scenarios. The discussion also raised international and Chancellor of Justice arguments, as well as recent positions of the Supreme Court concerning the broader interpretation of the Riigikogu's right to self-organization and the competencies of its committees. The entire day proved intense and procedurally complex, reflecting the difficult balance between necessary improvements and the smooth functioning of parliamentary work.
Decisions Made 4
The Committee decided to consolidate a large number of proposals—up to 108 amendments submitted specifically for obstructionist purposes—into a single amendment, while considering Draft Bill No. 1 separately. This decision was based on procedural considerations and aimed to reduce the vague and protracted debate in a way that would allow the proceedings to be organized more efficiently.
The Committee adopted two significant amendments: No. 6 (along with the collection of others) and No. 7, which were demonstrated to be fully consistent with the positions of the Constitutional Committee and the lead committee. The voting results were recorded as follows: Amendment No. 6 – 53 in favor, 8 against, 0 abstentions; Amendment No. 7 – 54 in favor, 9 against, 2 abstentions.
The steering committee decided to conclude the second reading and move the proceedings to the order prescribed for the next stage, which meant the further progression of the agenda and the continuation of debates during the third reading or subsequent stages. This was a collegial decision, which was not attributed to the involvement of individual persons.
Furthermore, the board decided (citing correspondence from the Senior Council and established parliamentary customs) to examine supplementary mechanisms and address critical issues sequentially at a later date. However, they did not entirely discontinue the subsequent activities directly pertaining to the procedure. The immediate follow-up involved deliberation and planning the next steps in collaboration with the committees, which had become the focal point of differing opinions between the coalition and the opposition.
Most Active Speaker
The most active speaker on this agenda item was Martin Helme (EKRE faction). His appearances were repeatedly characterized by the raising of specific procedural and substantive questions, as well as a critical assessment, referenced in several places, regarding the preparation and regulations surrounding advance voting and e-voting (m-voting). In terms of political positioning, he can be categorized as a member of the Riigikogu representing the right-wing bloc (with deviations), whose role was to emphasize the necessity of opposition criticism and parliamentary oversight, while simultaneously injecting broad questions about the electoral system into the wider public debate.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Toomas Kivimägi announced that the first item on the agenda was the second reading of Draft Act 344, the Act amending the Riigikogu Elections Act and relatedly amending other acts. He also pointed out the issue of the “black hands” that had appeared on the screen and posed a question to Martin Helme regarding the rules for conducting the session.
Martin Helme
Profiling Eesti Konservatiivse Rahvaerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Martin Helme stated that the handling of the draft bill is purely procedural and accused the committee of unauthorized improvisation, arguing that the amendments proposed by Riigikogu members were not sent to the floor, and even the members of our own faction cannot locate them. Therefore, in his opinion, the bill cannot be processed on the floor in this manner.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
The Committee has forwarded 96 amendments to the chamber, which are available in the Riigikogu information system and ready for voting.
Helir-Valdor Seeder
Profiling Isamaa fraktsioonAI Summary
Helir-Valdor Seeder criticized the fact that the proposed amendments to the draft bill had been arbitrarily and forcefully merged together, arguing that this endangers fundamental rights and creates confusion regarding how the interconnected amendments will be voted upon, as well as what the board's position is on this matter.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Toomas Kivimägi confirmed that the Riigikogu Board does not intervene in the work of the committees, noting that the committees are independent. He added that the justifications must be provided by the committee rapporteur, and further highlighted that the Supreme Court’s most recent ruling has expanded the committees' mandate regarding the bundling of proposed amendments.
Jaak Valge
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Jaak Valge pointed out that a deadlock has arisen in the processing of the collective petition concerning e-voting, because the commission was required to justify the rejection, but the justifications provided were merely the personal opinions of the commission chairman, and the board refuses to intervene in the substantive work, leaving the initiators in the dark about whom to approach next and what the purpose of the board even is.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Toomas Kivimägi stressed that the Riigikogu Board must not re-evaluate decisions already made by the committees, and the final decision rests with the plenary session, because it is neither possible nor realistic for the Board to be present in every committee and listen to all the discussions.
Martin Helme
Profiling Eesti Konservatiivse Rahvaerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Martin Helme stated that the committee has excluded his faction's amendments from the list, violating the Rules of Procedure Act and the fundamental rights of the members of parliament, and therefore he cannot agree to the handling of the draft bill today.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Toomas Kivimägi stated that the grouping of amendments and their submission to the chamber is solely within the jurisdiction of the lead committee, and the debate is restricted to the justification for the grouping, not why certain proposals failed to reach the floor.
Kalle Grünthal
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Grünthal emphasized that although the committee has very significant decision-making power, the board must ensure the legitimacy and legality of the decisions made, and he asked whether the board would allow unlawful committee proposals to proceed in the Riigikogu chamber.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Toomas Kivimägi explained that the board does not evaluate whether the committees' decisions comply with the law, as that is the committees' jurisdiction, but the final decision is made by the plenary session, and there have been precedents even for decisions that contradict existing laws, and the linguistic amendments did not reach the floor of the assembly.
Helle-Moonika Helme
Profiling Eesti Konservatiivse Rahvaerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Helle-Moonika Helme stated that the process for ensuring cybersecurity must comply with § 60 of the Constitution. She submitted a related proposal, which the leading committee disregarded, and subsequently asked whether the committee's decisions and the positions of its members must adhere to the Constitution.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
He emphasizes that things must follow their natural course, and then turns to Jaak Valge.
Jaak Valge
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Jaak Valge apologized and then asked whether the commission had failed to comply with the law, according to the initiators of the appeal, and whether the board should take a stance on the matter. If the board shouldn't take a stance, he asked where the NGO Honest Elections should turn next.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Toomas Kivimägi said that this question was not related to today's agenda, and turned to Martin Helme.
Martin Helme
Profiling Eesti Konservatiivse Rahvaerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Martin Helme affirmed that amendments may only be linked if they are identical and solely with the consent of the initiator. Furthermore, although there has been a practice of marking [them] "not supported" yet considering them in another [context], proposals must not be allowed to disappear or be altered into different text without the initiator's approval, as this is inconsistent with both the Rules of Procedure Act and previous practice.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Toomas Kivimägi stated that the assessment is subjective and cannot be uniquely defined within the framework, praised the committee for its dignified and professional handling of the 96 amendments, and suggested that separate proposals—those not submitted for the purpose of obstruction—should rather be brought to the floor individually instead of being bundled together. Finally, he announced that the last two procedural issues must be resolved before proceeding with the agenda, and he invited Helir-Valdor Seeder to speak next.
Helir-Valdor Seeder
Profiling Isamaa fraktsioonAI Summary
Helir-Valdor Seeder stated that the current situation is unprecedented and the forceful bundling together of amendments violates both the law and the rules of procedure. He added that the board should convene, assess the situation, and discuss today's agenda in order to avoid proceeding down the path of further legal violations and prevent a vote on those amendments.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Toomas Kivimägi confirmed that three Supreme Court assessments have demonstrated the legitimacy of the board. He explained that the board intervened due to a letter from the Isamaa faction, and noted that his role as chairman is to provide recommendations upon which the commission could base its decision, taking into account the legal and analysis department's opinion regarding the 51-vote requirement. However, the final decision still rests with the commission.
Kalle Grünthal
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Grünthal expressed bewilderment regarding the board’s standpoints, stressed that state power is exercised pursuant to the Constitution and laws, referred to Section 3, and proposed calling a board meeting to discuss the legality of the draft bill’s procedure in order to resolve the contradictions.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Toomas Kivimägi emphasized that the Riigikogu Board cannot assume the role or powers of the committee, because otherwise the committees would become meaningless. He added that the committee is not accused of violating laws and promised to conclude the procedural questions, but if everyone agrees, he will take the last two questions—Martin’s and Varro’s.
Martin Helme
Profiling Eesti Konservatiivse Rahvaerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Martin Helme alleges that the Supreme Court acknowledged that the established procedure had been violated, but permitted the violation, and that the current board and coalition—the liberal regime—are using this situation to provide political cover for EKRE.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Toomas Kivimägi stated that it was impossible to meet the deadlines, and while one could argue that the Riigikogu Board violated the law, the underlying reason was the sheer volume of interpellations that could not be added to the agenda within the 20 sitting days.
Varro Vooglaid
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Varro Vooglaid asks the session to confirm whether his understanding is correct: that as a member of the Riigikogu, he does not possess the subjective right to demand that the amendments he has submitted not be merged or linked with those of another member against his explicit wishes, except in the case of proposals identical in content, pursuant to § 102, subsection 2; and furthermore, that if the committee decides to link his proposal with another member’s against his will, he will subsequently have no recourse to protest.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Toomas Kivimägi said that the commission's authority is not absolute, and in some cases, it is warranted, and the decision-making power remains with the commission. Furthermore, they agreed not to take any more questions or generate more debate.
Varro Vooglaid
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Vooglaid emphasizes that making decisions requires a clearly documented and verifiable criterion and standard, and asks where these written criteria and standards can be found going forward.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Toomas Kivimägi emphasized that under conditions of obstruction, the framework for organizing the work of the Riigikogu must be broader, and the most crucial forum for debate is the committees, where all major factions are represented and where dissenting opinions can be expressed, allowing the board to evaluate them later. This approach is based on the first item on today’s agenda: the second reading of Draft Act 344 concerning amendments to the Riigikogu Election Act and related amendments to other acts.
Hendrik Johannes Terras
AI Summary
The report details the draft legislation intended to resolve issues concerning the organization of elections, incorporate stakeholder opinions, and regulate e-voting and information systems. It also justifies the committee's decision to consolidate 108 obstructionist amendments into a single proposal and conclude the second reading, thereby ensuring effective parliamentary debate and procedural efficiency. Additionally, it outlines the next steps for specifying technical requirements and achieving entry into force on October 1, 2024.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Toomas Kivimägi thanked the presenter for the comprehensive overview, noting that the answers had largely covered their questions and that the committee chairman had thoroughly introduced the committee’s standpoints. He finally requested that the concerns raised by Varro Vooglaid and Kalle Grünthal be reflected in the minutes.
Kalle Grünthal
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Kalle Grünthal noted that the presenter was speaking very quickly, which makes compiling the transcript difficult, and asked them to speak more slowly and clearly enunciate the word endings so that the officials wouldn't have to correct the work later.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Toomas Kivimägi stated that the presentation had been clear and understandable, pointed out that the pace of speech varies among individuals, and assured that the session department handles control over this in the event of technical issues, before asking Varro Vooglaid to pose his question.
Varro Vooglaid
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Varro Vooglaid said that he couldn't speak at the same time.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Deputy Chairman Toomas Kivimägi informs you that your microphone is on.
Varro Vooglaid
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Varro Vooglaid once again requests a moment to pose a question, noting that questions cannot be asked while the discussion is underway.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Toomas Kivimägi agrees to grant his colleague extra seconds.
Varro Vooglaid
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Varro Vooglaid asks whether it is fundamentally illogical to combine mutually exclusive amendment proposals and vote on them as a single package, for instance, due to different dates of entry into force.
Hendrik Johannes Terras
AI Summary
If this amendment is considered, or if it passes in the plenary session, the reading of the draft bill will be halted, and the process will revert to the committee. This is necessary to draft new proposals and ultimately select the date that will be incorporated into the law, because writing three versions simultaneously would make them mutually exclusive and cause confusion within the legislation.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Helle-Moonika Helme is invited to speak.
Helle-Moonika Helme
Profiling Eesti Konservatiivse Rahvaerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Helle-Moonika Helme emphasizes that e-voting must comply with the Constitution and the principles governing the assurance of cybersecurity, criticizing the committee's decision to disregard her substantive amendment proposal and questioning whether members of the committee and the Riigikogu must always adhere to the Constitution.
Hendrik Johannes Terras
AI Summary
Terras stated that all Estonian citizens should act in the spirit of the constitution, and if the idea is to add the phrase "must comply with the constitution" to the end of every law, then it really ought to be at the end of every single paragraph, though he admitted that this is not practical.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Deputy Chairman Toomas Kivimägi calls upon Mart Maastik to speak.
Mart Maastik
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
The public asks why a draft bill is being brought before the Riigikogu when the problems are significant and implementation is impossible, and when experts and the chairman of the electoral commission have said that it will create even more problems, although the speaker claimed the opposite.
Hendrik Johannes Terras
AI Summary
Hendrik Johannes Terras noted that during the commission meetings, concerns were highlighted and solutions were found. The role of the State Information System Authority (RIA) and the decision-making rights between the electoral commission and the state election service were defined. Furthermore, voting using Smart-ID could improve the lives of Estonian people and help ensure the inclusion of votes cast by people traveling during school holidays.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Deputy Chairman Toomas Kivimägi calls Jaak Valge to the stage.
Jaak Valge
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Jaak Valge emphasizes that the problem of ensuring confidentiality is the main reason why nationwide internet voting has not been adopted in Europe, and that the introduction of mobile devices in e-elections would increase the vulnerability of that confidentiality. This vulnerability is highlighted by EKRE’s opposition and Katri Raik’s example in Narva, raising the question of whether the adoption of mobile phones dampens or amplifies the existing deficiency.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Toomas Kivimägi thanks the audience.
Hendrik Johannes Terras
AI Summary
Hendrik Johannes Terras confirmed that the Estonian state is distinct from other European countries, noting that the example of our e-state proves the secrecy of elections is firmly guaranteed. If an individual is compelled to vote, they have the option to later secretly cast their vote again electronically. Furthermore, since 2021, citizens have been able to visit a physical polling station on Sunday, where secrecy is also guaranteed.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Deputy Chairman Toomas Kivimägi notes that the idea suddenly comes to mind later.
Hendrik Johannes Terras
AI Summary
He promises to elaborate later if anything comes to mind.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Toomas Kivimägi invited Martin Helme to speak.
Martin Helme
Profiling Eesti Konservatiivse Rahvaerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Martin Helme asserts that the digital state is untrustworthy, citing the Apotheka health data breach and the failure to organize children's entrance exams, as well as the continuing e-voting system, which has been linked to similarities with Russia. He further notes that while the Election Service has mapped the risks, solutions are absent, and he asks whether there are any other known risks and how they will be legally addressed.
Hendrik Johannes Terras
AI Summary
He/She thanks the questioner and points out that electronic voting is available in most cantons in Switzerland and in various municipalities across Canada.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
The core of the speech is a request for silence.
Hendrik Johannes Terras
AI Summary
Terras emphasized that the risks associated with mobile voting conducted in Canada must be highlighted now, and the draft law would grant the Republic Electoral Committee the right, but not the obligation, to decide on the use of mobile voting in the future, adding only one extra tool to the e-voting system, and mitigating risks is a prerequisite for making the decision.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Toomas Kivimägi makes a brief call: "Aleksandr Tšaplõgin, please!"
Aleksandr Tšaplõgin
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Aleksandr Tšaplõgin repeats his earlier question and demands a specific answer regarding who and how it can be proven in the case of e-elections that the person cast their own vote and did so voluntarily.
Hendrik Johannes Terras
AI Summary
He confirmed that forcing someone to vote constitutes a legal violation and must be reported to the police. He also stressed that the secrecy of the ballot must be guaranteed, and any undue influence must be reported.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
At the beginning of the address, Kert Kingo is invited to speak.
Kert Kingo
AI Summary
Kert Kingo claims that the draft bill is merely cosmetic and designed to make an impression, since she submitted ten substantive amendments that were disregarded, and she asks what the actual purpose of this bill is and what specific changes will make electronic elections more tamper-proof.
Hendrik Johannes Terras
AI Summary
Hendrik Terras confirmed that e-elections are verifiable and there is no basis to doubt their reliability; the proportion of their use has grown from 2% to 52%, which demonstrates the country's innovation and its plan to continue both e- and m-voting under the leadership of the State Electoral Office and RIA.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Toomas Kivimägi turns to Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart and asks her to speak.
Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart
Profiling Eesti Keskerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
The speaker asserts that the Constitutional Committee overstepped its bounds of discretion by merging substantive amendments from various sectors into a single proposal. Consequently, the amendment regarding the creation of a voice verification application for mobile devices cannot be put to a separate vote.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Deputy Chairman Toomas Kivimägi simply expressed thanks in his speech.
Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart
Profiling Eesti Keskerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
You have linked this to the other proposals.
Hendrik Johannes Terras
AI Summary
He/She is asking the other party to specify the number because he/she cannot recall it right now.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Toomas Kivimägi asks for the microphone to be handed over to Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart, and requests a brief moment of waiting until she takes the microphone.
Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart
Profiling Eesti Keskerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
The amendment clarifies the wording of the original provision of the draft bill.
Hendrik Johannes Terras
AI Summary
Hendrik Johannes Terras asks what number that was.
Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart
Profiling Eesti Keskerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
He refers to subsection 5 or 6 of Section 483 and mentions that he has it as a separate draft bill.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Vice-Chairman Toomas Kivimägi thanked the audience and said that the proceedings would now move forward.
Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart
Profiling Eesti Keskerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
The problem is that it has been bundled together with other amendments.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Deputy Chairman Toomas Kivimägi briefly thanks the audience.
Hendrik Johannes Terras
AI Summary
All the proposed amendments are interconnected and were grouped together so that if even one of them receives support, the overall purpose of the legislation would not be lost.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
The presentation states that clarification can be sought later or a second question can be posed, and Ants Frosch is asked to take the floor.
Ants Frosch
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Ants Frosch raised a question regarding the retention period for anonymous logs, noting that the current one month after the end of the elections is insufficient. Options discussed included variants up to 50 years or longer, alongside simultaneously shorter timeframes, such as one year or ten years. He requested the board's position on what duration would be reasonable.
Hendrik Johannes Terras
AI Summary
Currently, the duration is one month, and if a dispute arises, it will be extended, but once the election results are confirmed, I see no reason to retain them any longer.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Deputy Chairman Toomas Kivimägi invited Mart Helme to speak.
Mart Helme
Profiling Eesti Konservatiivse Rahvaerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Mart Helme said that the Supreme Court has not granted permission to violate laws, but the right to organize e-elections has been delegated to the electoral commission and the election service, and the law should precisely spell out these boundaries so that a lower-tier institution cannot act on its own initiative — these questions remain unresolved.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Toomas Kivimägi thanks the audience.
Mart Helme
Profiling Eesti Konservatiivse Rahvaerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
If the bill is adopted and the m-elections are held, the conflict will increase even further.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
He thanks the listeners.
Mart Helme
Profiling Eesti Konservatiivse Rahvaerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
He/She asks if there is a problem here.
Hendrik Johannes Terras
AI Summary
He/She thanks the colleague for their input, affirms complete trust in the Estonian national election service, and sees no reason why any problems should arise here.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Deputy Chairman Toomas Kivimägi calls upon Helir-Valdor Seeder to speak.
Helir-Valdor Seeder
Profiling Isamaa fraktsioonAI Summary
Helir-Valdor Seeder criticized the fact that the most crucial substance of the draft bill was left unaddressed, and the committee instead focused on illegal bundling, even though the risks associated with voting via smart devices and the lack of control remain.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Toomas Kivimägi simply said, "Thank you!" expressing his gratitude.
Helir-Valdor Seeder
Profiling Isamaa fraktsioonAI Summary
Helir-Valdor Seeder repeatedly points to the risks that remain unresolved.
Hendrik Johannes Terras
AI Summary
The report emphasized that risks have been assessed and mitigated, and decision-making competence is shifting from the Electoral Service to the Electoral Commission, which includes representatives of independent institutions. Furthermore, cooperation between the State Information System Authority and the Electoral Service enables the development of smartphone voting, which is a positive development for the country.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
At the beginning of the speech, a request was made to invite Varro Vooglaid.
Varro Vooglaid
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Varro Vooglaid points out that trust in e-voting is very low in Estonia, and that it neither increases voter turnout nor reduces costs, but rather lowers confidence in the electoral system, which is why the problem must be taken seriously and trust must be restored.
Hendrik Johannes Terras
AI Summary
E-voting in Estonia has been adopted more and more widely with every election, and research indicates that the majority of voters trust the system.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
This is a brief request directed to Helle-Moonika Helme.
Helle-Moonika Helme
Profiling Eesti Konservatiivse Rahvaerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Helme stressed that the Supreme Court has previously addressed the need to increase the trustworthiness of e-voting, and he subsequently submitted amendment proposal No. 40. The objective of this proposal is to guarantee one hundred percent reliability and legitimacy of the election results, while he also questioned whether the commission members truly understand that the state election service is responsible for ensuring this.
Hendrik Johannes Terras
AI Summary
He thanked the colleague for the question, noting that he represents the commission and therefore cannot disclose the thoughts of other members, and confirmed that he trusts the current e-voting system one hundred percent.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Toomas Kivimägi invited Henn Põlluaas to speak.
Henn Põlluaas
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Henn Põlluaas called for an impartial and independent audit to prove the security of e-voting. He accused the Reform Party government of canceling the relevant international audit and asserted that without reliable verification, 40% of Estonian voters do not consider e-voting trustworthy, adding that the credibility of the government depends on this.
Hendrik Johannes Terras
AI Summary
He thanked the colleague for their input, stressed that he currently represents the Constitutional Committee and cannot speak on behalf of the government, and advised directing that question to a member of the government.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Toomas Kivimägi calls upon Kert Kingo to speak.
Kert Kingo
AI Summary
Kert Kingo criticized the fact that Estonia isn't yet a truly digital state, noting that a large portion of the population lacks stable internet connectivity. She then asked what steps have been taken within the scope of the draft bill to improve the transparency and reliability of elections, especially since approximately 40% of Estonian residents don't trust e-voting and her proposed amendments have been disregarded.
Hendrik Johannes Terras
AI Summary
Hendrik Johannes Terras stated that he was unsure about the validity of the claim that most people in Estonia lack internet access, and he believed the assertion was false.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
The server should stick to their response and avoid getting drawn into a discussion.
Hendrik Johannes Terras
AI Summary
Terras stressed that e-voting is both controllable and auditable, noting that over 50% of voters used it during the last election, approximately 60% trust the system, and there is no basis to believe that anything has been falsified—a point also confirmed by the ODIHR mission.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart was invited to speak at the beginning of the address.
Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart
Profiling Eesti Keskerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart stated that the clause regarding the creation of a vote verification application for mobile devices should be removed from the draft bill, because the biggest problem with mobile voting is that it can only be carried out via the Google and Apple app stores, and Estonian systems cannot do this. She then asked if we are prepared to give third parties the opportunity to interfere with the running of elections.
Hendrik Johannes Terras
AI Summary
Hendrik Johannes Terras explains that if the amendment is not supported, a control application will be created, and he asks whether they favor not creating the application.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Toomas Kivimägi urged his colleagues not to hold a debate here in this manner, but rather that the solution can be achieved through negotiations.
Hendrik Johannes Terras
AI Summary
The issue of third parties is pertinent, and mechanisms addressing it will be established via the State Information System Authority (RIA). Furthermore, this draft legislation creates a future opportunity: should mobile voting prove sufficiently reliable, the National Electoral Committee will be able to make that decision, provided they factor in third-party risks and the crucial role risk mitigation plays in the overall decision-making process.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Toomas Kivimägi makes a brief call: "Evelin Poolamets, please."
Evelin Poolamets
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
The report emphasizes that campaign materials, calls to vote, and political advertising are prohibited in the polling area, and asks how compliance with these requirements is ensured during e-voting.
Hendrik Johannes Terras
AI Summary
He thanks for the question and stresses that the law must be followed by all citizens of the Republic of Estonia and by all persons residing there.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Deputy Chairman Toomas Kivimägi invites Ants Frosch to the stage.
Ants Frosch
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Ants Frosch criticizes the over-reliance on technology and questions why facial recognition isn't being used for authenticating m-voting, given that the same technology has already been implemented for pension payouts and in notarial transactions.
Hendrik Johannes Terras
AI Summary
Hendrik Terras praises his colleague's idea, noting that if up to about 65% of the population turns out to vote, the voting period could be extended and the security risk increased due to the authentication process. However, he gives the idea his strong approval and hopes that an Estonian company or RVT will develop the corresponding technology so that it can be used in the future.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Toomas Kivimägi invites Mart Helme to speak.
Mart Helme
Profiling Eesti Konservatiivse Rahvaerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Mart Helme emphasizes that although the Supreme Court has resolved individual complaints, there is no comprehensive assessment regarding the constitutionality of e-voting, and if that assessment ever comes, all the current work may prove to be futile.
Hendrik Johannes Terras
AI Summary
He thanks the colleague for that statement and notes that this was not a question; a voice sounded from the audience.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Arvo Aller is invited to the stage to begin his address.
Arvo Aller
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Arvo Aller notes that the risks associated with voting via smart devices have not been sufficiently mitigated, and that a technology-neutral approach divides responsibility between the State Electoral Service (RVT) and the Electoral Commission. At the same time, he asks why this entire insecure system is being placed specifically under the purview of the Republic's Electoral Commission.
Hendrik Johannes Terras
AI Summary
Terras said that although the representation of the Republic’s Electoral Commission ensures independence and the discussion rightly belongs there, the commission is not obligated to solve the problem, because the system is still being developed by the Election Service and the State Information System Agency in cooperation with the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications, and ultimately, the Electoral Commission has the right to decide whether the system is secure enough, rather than carrying out the development themselves.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Toomas Kivimägi calls on Martin Helme to speak.
Martin Helme
Profiling Eesti Konservatiivse Rahvaerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
According to Martin Helme, face recognition is technically difficult or impossible, the data is neither accessible nor verifiable, IT development has been handed over to Google and Apple, and the election system is completely unreliable.
Hendrik Johannes Terras
AI Summary
Hendrik Terras confirmed that the e-voting software is being developed in cooperation with Estonian state institutions—specifically RIA and the Electoral Service—and not via Apple or Google. He noted that while the risk of personal data leakage is potential, all e-elections are mathematically verifiable, and the State Electoral Service is ready to assist with that mathematical verification.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
This is merely a brief request directed at Anti Poolamets.
Anti Poolamets
Profiling Eesti Konservatiivse Rahvaerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Anti Poolamets describes vote-buying in Rakvere: people go from house to house with a computer, insert an ID card, and pay 40 euros, which results in the formation of the city government, and the police are unable to expose it. The use of mobile phones makes surveillance difficult, and the situation is becoming progressively more complicated and conspiratorial.
Hendrik Johannes Terras
AI Summary
Terras emphasized that vote buying is illegal and must not occur, noting that there have been isolated incidents in Estonia. He added that although the draft bill expands the definition to include mobile devices, this does not exacerbate the problem because the control mechanisms remain unchanged, and the core of the discussion revolves around what qualifies as a computer or a smart device.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
The Deputy Speaker invites Evelin Poolamets to speak.
Evelin Poolamets
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Evelin Poolamets raises the question of how to ensure the security and uniformity of e-voting, and asks how it can be guaranteed that the voter’s computer is free of malware and that voting doesn't become unequal due to older operating systems.
Hendrik Johannes Terras
AI Summary
Hendrik Johannes Terras said that if voting is not possible in any other way, people can also vote at the polling station right up until the very last moments of Sunday evening; and if someone cannot move due to a mobility impairment, it is possible to request a ballot box be delivered to their home. He sees no problem with that.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Vice-Chairman Toomas Kivimägi asked Lauri Laats to come.
Lauri Laats
Profiling Eesti Keskerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Lauri Laats pointed out that paper ballots allow anomalies and traces of fraud to be identified after elections, and based on the Tallinn case, these can be verified. However, regarding e-voting and mobile voting, he questioned how the mechanism guarantees that the voter can be absolutely certain after casting their vote about the ballot's correctness and that its falsification is prevented.
Hendrik Johannes Terras
AI Summary
He/She said that there is a downloadable application available for verifying votes cast via e-voting, and in his/her opinion, this system is sufficient.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Deputy Chairman Toomas Kivimägi asked Henn Põlluaas to speak.
Henn Põlluaas
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Henn Põlluaas emphasizes that e-elections are unverifiable, pointing to the OSCE's observations and the lack of confidence among approximately 40% of voters, and calls on the commission to organize an international independent audit to prove their reliability.
Hendrik Johannes Terras
AI Summary
Terras said that in recent months he has met with OSCE representatives and the ODIHR mission to discuss e-voting. He noted that they did not raise such a question with him; rather, they inquired about how to transfer this knowledge to other OSCE countries.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Vice-Chairman Toomas Kivimägi invites Vadim Belobrovtsev to speak.
Vadim Belobrovtsev
Profiling Eesti Keskerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Vadim Belobrovtsev asks why e-elections and m-elections are not widely used globally, citing Germany's experience regarding the difficulty of ensuring security. He then questions how it is possible that this works in Estonia when others cannot manage it, mentioning Russia's usage, and expressing doubt as to whether we want the same situation.
Hendrik Johannes Terras
AI Summary
I believe that this comparison with a terrorist aggressor state and its elections is inappropriate, because Estonia possesses strong digital state capabilities. We have a voter register and verification mechanisms via ID cards, Mobile-ID, and Smart-ID, which allow the use of data and which should be further developed in the future.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Toomas Kivimägi asks Arvo Aller to take the floor.
Arvo Aller
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Arvo Aller stressed that with e- and mobile voting, only the certificate's validity is checked, not the identity of the person. He noted that while the electoral commission's proposals have been acknowledged, nothing has been done regarding them. He also pointed out the necessity of assessing compliance with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the security risks posed by unofficial applications, and questioned how one could truly achieve one hundred percent security.
Hendrik Johannes Terras
AI Summary
Hendrik Johannes Terras stressed that the National Electoral Commission must identify the risks, and should the law be adopted, they can then address those problematic areas and mitigate the risks. Ultimately, the decision regarding the system's usability rests with the commission.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Toomas Kivimägi invited Leo Kunnas to speak.
Leo Kunnas
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Estonia began developing its e-voting system in the early 2000s, becoming a genuine pioneer in this IT sector. Although we hoped that most democratic nations worldwide would follow suit, the only country that has truly adopted this model is Russia, while other democracies have avoided this path. This raises the question: are we exceptionally clever, or do we have a fundamental problem?
Hendrik Johannes Terras
AI Summary
Hendrik Johannes Terras cited the development of Singapore’s commercial ports, which required significant expenditure on drainage and cleaning. He added that Estonia has the same potential, thanks to its population size and its digital state system, which allows users to log in in three seconds and use that very same system for elections.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
This is simply an invitation for Alar Laneman to speak.
Alar Laneman
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Alar Laneman points out that a belief-based approach is insufficient, highlights the contradiction between the issue of security and the role of voters, and emphasizes that the state is responsible for security, not the voters, who retain the option to cast a paper ballot if needed.
Hendrik Johannes Terras
AI Summary
The state must offer voters various voting options. E-voting increases the participation of citizens living abroad, and when a citizen has a choice, they decide for themselves how they wish to cast their vote.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Toomas Kivimägi called Anti Poolamets over and asked whether they should continue or take a break.
Anti Poolamets
Profiling Eesti Konservatiivse Rahvaerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Anti Poolamets noted that elections in social welfare institutions are one of the weakest links, and the buying of votes and the misuse of ID cards are widespread. Therefore, he made a proposal for reforming the system, but the commission rejected it, jeopardizing the interests of vulnerable people.
Hendrik Johannes Terras
AI Summary
He said that based on the study, no anomalies have been discovered in e-elections where significantly more elderly people would vote electronically in a short period than by paper ballot, and if that were true, it would be illegal and condemnable, but no such problem has been identified currently.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Toomas Kivimägi requested Lauri Laats to come forward.
Lauri Laats
Profiling Eesti Keskerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Lauri Laats pointed out that even though votes can be cast using both paper and electronic ballots, and every vote can be verified, there is no solid guarantee that the wishes of all voters are accurately reflected, and that certainty simply doesn't exist.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Toomas Kivimägi thanked the audience twice.
Hendrik Johannes Terras
AI Summary
Although one-to-one matching is complicated due to personal data protection requirements, the application created for verifying the vote has been audited and its code reviewed. Therefore, a voter using this application can be certain that the result is accurate.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Deputy Chairman Toomas Kivimägi invited Vadim Belobrovtsev to speak.
Vadim Belobrovtsev
Profiling Eesti Keskerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Vadim Belobrovtsev asserts that e-voting and m-voting devalue the core principles of elections, arguing that people can be engaged in other activities while at their computer and still manage to cast their vote.
Hendrik Johannes Terras
AI Summary
I don't think this should be treated dramatically; people are capable of making decisions, but it is important to me that the digital state moves forward, that we remain progressive, and that we develop the modern e-services that are already in use.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Vice-Chairman Toomas Kivimägi addresses Leo Kunnas and asks him to speak.
Leo Kunnas
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Leo Kunnas points out that while the e-identity is enviable overseas, it is tied to a specific individual and is not classified, and its use in elections leads to the metamorphosis of the process, resulting in the loss of personal privacy.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Toomas Kivimägi thanks the listeners.
Leo Kunnas
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Kunnas claims that our identity is lost, but it recovers, and it is even possible to mathematically prove this.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Deputy Chairman Toomas Kivimägi offers his heartfelt thanks.
Leo Kunnas
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Leo Kunnas asks how this can actually be reconstructed in a mathematically verifiable way.
Hendrik Johannes Terras
AI Summary
Terras noted that the process is verifiable and accountable at every stage, and to prevent the leakage of personal data, the input and output must be mathematically the same number, which guarantees that no illegal activity takes place during the elections.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
The speech calls for Alar Laneman to be invited to speak.
Alar Laneman
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Alar Laneman points out that the processing of amendments is based on the criterion of "insincere" or "not insincere," which, in his opinion, is neither objective nor transparent, and asks what units of measurement and scale are used to evaluate them, and how insincerity and sincerity are actually measured.
Hendrik Johannes Terras
AI Summary
He thanked the colleague and noted that if amendments can be submitted constructively to achieve a substantive goal, and in a form requiring less time in the chamber, but this opportunity is not utilized, then, in his opinion, the proposal is not sincere.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
A brief request was made to Kalle Grünthal during the speech.
Kalle Grünthal
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Kalle Grünthal, who appealed to the Supreme Court, claims that during electronic voting, only the validity of the ID card is verified, not the identity of the voter. He is therefore requesting clarification on how this change guarantees that the actual person is casting the vote, rather than merely confirming the ID card's validity.
Hendrik Johannes Terras
AI Summary
He/She emphasizes that the ID card has PIN1 and PIN2 to ensure security, which are known only to the user, and voting on behalf of another person is illegal and must be reported to the police.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
The Vice-Chairman invited Mart Maastik to the stage to speak.
Mart Maastik
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Mart Maastik asks how, in the case of mobile voting, it is guaranteed that the phones being used do not contain spyware and that the vote reaches the correct destination.
Hendrik Johannes Terras
AI Summary
Terras said that mobile voting is under discussion and requires a corresponding bill. Before the Election Commission makes a decision, it must pass several security checks, and if the development moves forward, Estonian cybersecurity experts will devise solutions, the specifics of which cannot be disclosed at this time.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
This sentence means that Kalle Grünthal is being called to the stage.
Kalle Grünthal
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Kalle Grünthal thanks Terra and notes that the elections are not uniform: in paper voting, identity is verified, while in electronic voting, only the validity of the ID card is checked, and electronic voting allows the vote to be changed, which is not possible with paper voting.
Hendrik Johannes Terras
AI Summary
Hendrik Johannes Terras stressed that every individual has one vote, which eventually ends up in the ballot box, and even if that vote is later changed, only one vote will always remain there.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
The Deputy Chairman called Siim Pohlak up to the stage.
Siim Pohlak
Profiling Eesti Konservatiivse Rahvaerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Siim Pohlak highlights that when organizing e-voting, the independence of election commissions and the role of the local government in certifying results may be lost due to the necessity of purchasing identification, digital signing, and registration services.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Deputy Chairman Toomas Kivimägi thanks his esteemed colleague.
Siim Pohlak
Profiling Eesti Konservatiivse Rahvaerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
He/She points out that neither the local government nor anyone else has formally approved or appointed these people to those positions, and asks how you view the situation.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Deputy Chairman Toomas Kivimägi thanks his good colleague.
Siim Pohlak
Profiling Eesti Konservatiivse Rahvaerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
He/She ponders whether the normal organization of elections involves risk or conflict.
Hendrik Johannes Terras
AI Summary
Hendrik Johannes Terras offered his thanks and said that the draft bill has 11 pages and 6 sections, adding that he could not currently say exactly which point was being discussed, and apologized.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Vice-Chairman Toomas Kivimägi invited Siim Pohlak to the stage.
Siim Pohlak
Profiling Eesti Konservatiivse Rahvaerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Siim Pohlak is criticizing a draft bill under which the national electoral service could sign a contract with a private company for the provision of identification, digital signing, and registration services. He notes that this would be non-transparent, arguing that the company has neither been elected nor approved by anyone.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Toomas Kivimägi thanks the audience.
Siim Pohlak
Profiling Eesti Konservatiivse Rahvaerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
The speech raises the point of how strange it is that the commission is confirmed in one case.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
He/She thanks you very much from the bottom of his/her heart.
Siim Pohlak
Profiling Eesti Konservatiivse Rahvaerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
It says here that all the procedures are performed, but they still retain a service provider.
Hendrik Johannes Terras
AI Summary
Hendrik Johannes Terras thanked his colleague for the question and stated that the State Electoral Service has previously viewed the lack of legal authority as a concern that complicates their work, and although the parallel with local governments is thematically similar, it is nevertheless not a one-to-one comparison, because nationwide systems face different challenges.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Jüri Ratas thanked the rapporteur for his report and answers, said that there were no further questions, opened the debate, and asked Mart Maastik to take the Riigikogu rostrum.
Mart Maastik
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
The topic of the speech was the amulet.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Ratas simply asked the question: "What is it?"
Mart Maastik
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
The speech is about an amulet.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker of the Riigikogu Jüri Ratas said that Mart brought it and he will forward it to the Chancellery of the Riigikogu.
Mart Maastik
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Mart Maastik highlighted the existence of major security risks associated with m-voting, noting that solutions are currently lacking and that control over the voter application could end up remaining with tech giants Google and Apple. He also stressed the importance of retaining paper-based voting and thoroughly improving the security of e-voting.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas requested three additional minutes.
Mart Maastik
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Mart Maastik states that the security of e-voting is not one hundred percent, and cyberattacks could potentially alter or delay election results. He adds that although Venezuela and Russia utilize similar solutions, Estonia should not assume that we are unique in this regard, which is why he does not support the draft legislation.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
The Deputy Speaker thanks [the previous speaker] and gives the floor to Jaak Valge.
Jaak Valge
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Jaak Valge requests three additional minutes from the Chair to speak from this rostrum.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas said that this was not a matter of trust proposed by him, but he is pleased that your wish has been fulfilled and you are present, and you immediately have three minutes available.
Jaak Valge
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Jaak Valge emphasizes that trust in election results is the core of democracy, and e-voting increases opacity and costs without boosting participation. Therefore, greater control, auditability, and the right to challenge the results are necessary.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas thanks [the assembly] and asks to give the floor to Ants Frosh at the Riigikogu rostrum.
Ants Frosch
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Ants Frosch warns that the Estonian parliamentary system is completely broken and is moving toward autocracy. He describes violations related to e-elections and the destruction of logs, and cites the Otepää case as an example where the municipal mayor, along with social workers, pressured elderly residents to vote by distributing honey and sausage to them.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Chairman Jüri Ratas asks if you have a firm wish.
Ants Frosch
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Ants Frosch confirms that he is completely convinced of it.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
He explains that he didn't understand when he was told "paluks," and then asks for three more minutes.
Ants Frosch
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
He claims that manipulating e-elections is futile and their credibility cannot be improved, and makes a Trump-like appeal to hackers: attack so that the elections would fail.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas thanked [the assembly] and invited Kert Kingo to the Riigikogu rostrum. Kert Kingo then requested additional time—eight minutes.
Kert Kingo
AI Summary
Kert Kingo is highly critical of e-voting, noting that identity verification is flawed and that PIN codes fail to guarantee that the person casting the vote is indeed the individual whose ID card is logged into the system. She also highlights double standards and the possibility of voting using someone else's ID card, arguing that this necessitates a fundamental overhaul of the system and stricter identity protection.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
The Deputy Speaker thanked [the previous speaker] and requested that Mart Helme be granted the Riigikogu rostrum.
Mart Helme
Profiling Eesti Konservatiivse Rahvaerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Mart Helme claims that e-elections are not in compliance with the constitution because their rules have been delegated to the Electoral Commission and the Electoral Service without public competition or oversight. This creates mistrust and jeopardizes the secrecy of the vote and the transparency of the final outcome.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas asks for three minutes.
Mart Helme
Profiling Eesti Konservatiivse Rahvaerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Mart Helme asserts that e-voting is unacceptable under the constitution, because if the journey of the vote could be tracked from start to finish, anonymity would be compromised, and the current system remains insecure and uncontrollable until the Supreme Court confirms the corresponding regulations.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Jüri Ratas informs the waiter that his time is up.
Mart Helme
Profiling Eesti Konservatiivse Rahvaerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
He greets the manager and notes that time is infinite in the universe.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Ratas reminds the chamber that, according to the Rules of Procedure and Internal Work Act, eight minutes are allocated for the sitting. He confirms that three additional minutes were granted, and invites Helle-Moonika Helme to the Riigikogu rostrum.
Helle-Moonika Helme
Profiling Eesti Konservatiivse Rahvaerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
The report argues that e-voting has been problematic and unreliable from the very beginning, and emphasizes the need for transparency, the publication of log files, and 100% auditability in accordance with the Supreme Court's guidelines, to ensure the legitimacy of the elections and public confidence.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Chairman Jüri Ratas requests the attention of the audience.
Helle-Moonika Helme
Profiling Eesti Konservatiivse Rahvaerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Helle-Moonika Helme claims that the Estonian state and the Riigikogu may be illegitimate, that the adoption of e-voting does not make the election results one hundred percent reliable or legitimate, and that the current bill only deepens the illegitimacy, rather than solving the problem.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas asked the Riigikogu to grant the floor to Lauri Laats.
Lauri Laats
Profiling Eesti Keskerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Lauri Laats emphasizes that elections must be conducted using paper ballots, arguing that only paper ballots can guarantee proper supervision, control, and security. He adds that e-voting does not offer the same reliable level of control, a fact demonstrated by the case involving the Tallinn City Council elections.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas begins his speech by saying that he apologizes.
Lauri Laats
Profiling Eesti Keskerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Lauri Laats said: "Yeah, extra time" – he wants more time.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
She does believe it, but the phone rings, and she asks for someone to help.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
The landline phone isn't ringing.
Lauri Laats
Profiling Eesti Keskerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Lauri Laats notes that the phone is somewhere.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas invited Laats to take the floor, asking him to press the button (to register the request) and grant an extension so that the speech could continue.
Lauri Laats
Profiling Eesti Keskerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
He/She wants extra time and hopes that the half minute spent silencing the phone will also be guaranteed to him/her.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Jüri Ratas said it was your mistake, but you will be guaranteed that time.
Lauri Laats
Profiling Eesti Keskerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Lauri Laats stated that the draft bill appears to be an obstruction aimed at silencing the voice of the opposition, and that the country’s urgent economic issues and concerns regarding people’s livelihoods should be addressed. He hopes that this draft law will not pass in its current form and that the Centre Party faction will not support it.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas thanked [the assembly/previous speaker] and invited Helir-Valdor Seeder to the Riigikogu rostrum to speak.
Helir-Valdor Seeder
Profiling Isamaa fraktsioonAI Summary
Helir-Valdor Seeder thanks the chair and requests 16 minutes of speaking time.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
He says that 16 minutes is divided in half, and in the end, only eight minutes remain.
Helir-Valdor Seeder
Profiling Isamaa fraktsioonAI Summary
He stresses that he is acting both on his own behalf and on behalf of the faction, and asks if there is anything he needs to do.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Jüri Ratas stresses that the address must be delivered both on one's own behalf and on behalf of the faction, and one must return to the floor, speaking first on one's own behalf and subsequently on behalf of the faction.
Helir-Valdor Seeder
Profiling Isamaa fraktsioonAI Summary
Helir-Valdor Seeder asks if it is somehow possible for him to have a conversation.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas said that there would be no discussion.
Helir-Valdor Seeder
Profiling Isamaa fraktsioonAI Summary
He expresses discomfort when he has to take a break and leave something unfinished.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas said that a recess needed to be taken and requested an eight-minute break.
Helir-Valdor Seeder
Profiling Isamaa fraktsioonAI Summary
Helir-Valdor Seeder says that the foundation of democracy is democratic elections, and trust in elections will not increase due to the bill allowing voting via a smart device, as it creates risks related to secrecy, transparency, and oversight, and does not offer sufficient solutions for mitigating these risks.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Riigikogu Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas thanked the rapporteur, stated that it was possible to have one more round of remarks as a representative of the committee, and that the Constitutional Committee could grant this. He confirmed that if anyone had something to say, they must come to the podium, and finally requested extra time—eight minutes—for Henn Põlluaas at the Riigikogu rostrum.
Henn Põlluaas
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Henn Põlluaas points out that although e-voting is fast and convenient, it is neither secure nor verifiable, and this experiment should be ended in Estonia because an impartial international audit is lacking and public trust in e-voting is low.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Jüri Ratas thanks the assembly and asks that the Riigikogu speaker’s stand be given to Kalle Grünthal, and Grünthal requests extra time—eight minutes.
Kalle Grünthal
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Grünthal argued that the proposed bill violates the constitution because the systems for paper voting and electronic voting are neither uniform nor do they guarantee the same level of secrecy. He stated that this necessitates constitutional oversight and the consideration of modern secure solutions, such as identification conducted via video link.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas thanked the floor and invited Hendrik Johannes Terras to speak. Terras requested additional time, and he was granted eight minutes.
Hendrik Johannes Terras
AI Summary
Hendrik Johannes Terras, speaking on behalf of Eesti 200, stated that the success of the Estonian digital state relies on the continuous development of e-voting and digital identity. He added that the bill's objective is to allow logging in with Smart-ID, expand support for the voter application to include Android and iOS, and maintain the option of a paper ballot, in order to increase inclusion and trust and keep Estonia as the flagship of global innovation.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker of the Riigikogu Jüri Ratas called Martin Helme to the floor. Helme requested an extension of eight minutes and asked whether the time would be counted against his individual allowance as a member of the Riigikogu or as a representative of the faction.
Martin Helme
Profiling Eesti Konservatiivse Rahvaerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
He begins his speech by saying that he is speaking as a member of the Riigikogu.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas said that everything was clear and asked to proceed.
Martin Helme
Profiling Eesti Konservatiivse Rahvaerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Martin Helme claims that e-elections are neither verifiable nor fully auditable, because only a portion of the system is audited and monitoring the entire process is ruled out. Furthermore, the secrecy of the vote and the movement of data are uncontrollable, and in the future, Google and Apple applications may be integrated. For these reasons, he is opposed and demands the suspension of the second reading.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Vice-Speaker Jüri Ratas called Evelin Poolamets to the Riigikogu rostrum.
Evelin Poolamets
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Speaker Evelin Poolamets emphasizes that e-voting is a closed and uncontrollable system that could conceal its actual operation and favor specific political parties. She demands genuine verifiability—both individually and end-to-end—so that votes remain traceable right up until the tallying.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
He/She says that you already have those things.
Evelin Poolamets
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Poolamets emphasizes that the lack of transparency in Estonia’s e-voting system is a major disgrace, arguing that the concealment of logs and the hiding of technical failures enables manipulation. He calls for the public disclosure of voter lists and greater system oversight, so that reliance is placed not on the trust of individuals.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker of the Riigikogu Jüri Ratas called upon Helir-Valdor Seeder, the representative of the Isamaa faction, to deliver a speech and allotted him eight minutes.
Helir-Valdor Seeder
Profiling Isamaa fraktsioonAI Summary
The Isamaa faction seeks to suspend the second reading and continue the debate based on a thorough review of expert proposals and all submitted amendments, in order to enhance the credibility of elections and avoid frequent and uncoordinated changes.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Jüri Ratas asks if the commission's representative can come here.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas stated that he agrees with Helir-Valdor Seeder’s proposal concerning the future, as it is sensible and saves time, and invited Leo Kunnas to the rostrum.
Leo Kunnas
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Leo Kunnas asks for three more minutes.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas announces that it is available immediately, and they have a total of eight minutes.
Leo Kunnas
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Leo Kunnas stressed that specific enhancements are necessary to guarantee the reliability of electronic voting, including international auditing, the involvement of observers, facial recognition for identity verification, ensuring the immutability of the vote, risk analysis, and technical penetration tests. He also criticized the commission for declaring these proposals insincere, yet still urged support for proposal 31.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas offered thanks and invited Anti Poolamets to speak from the Riigikogu rostrum.
Anti Poolamets
Profiling Eesti Konservatiivse Rahvaerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Anti Poolamets stressed that while e-voting may seem convenient, it is a black box system whose trustworthiness cannot be verified by people without specialized technical expertise. Consequently, there is a need for an election process that is visible and allows for subsequent auditing, and which all observers can monitor.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
He is asking for three minutes of extra time.
Anti Poolamets
Profiling Eesti Konservatiivse Rahvaerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Anti Poolamets stresses trust as the key issue of the elections and calls for either restoring confidence in e-voting or abolishing it entirely, citing the risks of violating secrecy, vote buying, and potential control by an external power.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Speaker Lauri Hussar concluded his address and invited Mario Kadastik to the Riigikogu rostrum.
Mario Kadastik
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Estonian e-elections are technologically auditable and verifiable: the code and cryptography enable independent assurance that the same software is running on the end-user device and that votes remain anonymous. Consequently, privacy and security are guaranteed, a fact confirmed by experts and regular training sessions.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
The Chair thanked [the previous speaker] and then called upon Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart, who requested three minutes of extra time.
Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart
Profiling Eesti Keskerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart notes that the proposed e-voting and mobile election system jeopardizes secrecy, transparency, and reliability, and increases dependence on large corporations. Therefore, strong security measures and democratic procedures are needed before its implementation, rather than coalition-binding amendments or limiting recesses.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
The Speaker invited Arvo Aller to the Riigikogu podium, and Aller requested three minutes of additional time.
Arvo Aller
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Arvo Aller asserts that the trustworthiness of e-voting has declined and that the system is susceptible to internal manipulation. Consequently, he does not support the current draft legislation and urges a full, comprehensive review in collaboration with the National Electoral Committee.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Chairman Lauri Hussar thanked [the previous speaker/the assembly] and invited Siim Pohlak to the Riigikogu rostrum.
Siim Pohlak
Profiling Eesti Konservatiivse Rahvaerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Siim Pohlak claims that e-elections are unreliable and opaque. He emphasizes the trustworthiness of the traditional paper ballot system and highlights the danger posed by m-voting (mobile voting). He calls for an immediate end to e-elections because public trust is currently insufficient—approximately 40% of people do not trust the electoral system.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Chairman Lauri Hussar asked for three extra minutes.
Siim Pohlak
Profiling Eesti Konservatiivse Rahvaerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Siim Pohlak claims that Estonian e-elections pose major security risks and fail to offer sufficient transparency, thereby threatening democracy. He makes these claims by referencing Drew Springall's research and calls for the e-elections to be terminated.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
The Speaker thanks and invites Martin Helme to the Riigikogu rostrum on behalf of the faction.
Martin Helme
Profiling Eesti Konservatiivse Rahvaerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Martin Helme requests eight minutes of time.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Chairman Lauri Hussar requests three more minutes.
Martin Helme
Profiling Eesti Konservatiivse Rahvaerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Martin Helme claims that the processing of the draft bill shatters the fundamental rules of the Riigikogu and the right to process amendments and recesses, resulting in the disappearance of parliamentary democracy and the legitimacy of democracy in Estonia due to e-elections.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
The Chairman offered his thanks and invited Vadim Belobrovtsev to the podium.
Vadim Belobrovtsev
Profiling Eesti Keskerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Vadim Belobrovtsev stresses that the draft bill has two main problems: a procedural one, where the amendments were arbitrarily bundled together, stripping the opposition of the ability to influence the process, and the debate was restricted and rushed through with a vote of confidence; and a substantive one, where ongoing concerns about the reliability and transparency of electronic elections persist, and attempts are being made to simplify them even further—for instance, by allowing voting via smartphone, which would ultimately reduce oversight.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Chairman Lauri Hussar asked for three minutes of additional time.
Vadim Belobrovtsev
Profiling Eesti Keskerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Vadim Belobrovtsev claims that the e-voting bill poses three major risks: control over the acquisition of the voter application largely passes into the hands of Google and Apple, verification of authenticity and integrity is not possible, and trust in e-voting will be lost, which devalues the election process. Consequently, he does not support the bill, and the Centre Party faction is doing the same.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Chairman Lauri Hussar thanked [the previous speaker] and invited Alar Laneman to the Riigikogu rostrum.
Alar Laneman
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Alar Laneman asserts that draft bill 344 is very poor, arguing that the organization of elections must reflect the will of the citizens, be verifiable and fraud-resistant, and not be implemented simply for the sake of convenience, since trust is the glue of society.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Speaker Lauri Hussar requests three minutes of extra time.
Alar Laneman
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Alar Laneman criticizes the unfairness in the organization of elections and the curtailment of democracy, stressing that the public’s trust in the state has been undermined, which in turn leads to higher taxes and a lower standard of living.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
The Speaker thanked him and invited Aivar Kokk to the Riigikogu rostrum.
Aivar Kokk
Profiling Isamaa fraktsioonAI Summary
During the discussion concerning the amendment of the Riigikogu Election Act, Aivar Kokk emphasized the crucial importance of transparency and open source code for electronic voting. He confirmed that the state election service is permitted to publish the system’s source code before the elections, but not the source code for the voter application. Furthermore, he stressed the need to ensure parity between paper and electronic ballots and highlighted restrictions on the ability to change a vote in order to prevent manipulation.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Chairman Lauri Hussar announces three minutes of added time.
Aivar Kokk
Profiling Isamaa fraktsioonAI Summary
Aivar Kokk stressed that to improve the reliability of e-voting, the verification period must be extended, the option for paper-based auditing must be maintained, and the number of times an e-vote can be cast needs to be clarified so that the votes do not give political parties an unfair advantage.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
The Chairman concludes the debates and directs the review of the 96 proposed amendments. The first amendment, which is on the list of submitters, is recommended for rejection by the leading committee, and Helle-Moonika Helme has taken the floor.
Helle-Moonika Helme
Profiling Eesti Konservatiivse Rahvaerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
He/She thanks for the opportunity to speak, noting that there are many proposed amendments, and takes a 10-minute break before the vote, pending the board's authorization.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
The question is whether to put it to a vote first.
Helle-Moonika Helme
Profiling Eesti Konservatiivse Rahvaerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Helle-Moonika Helme confirms that she wants to put it to a vote.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Chairman Lauri Hussar says they want to put this to a vote and take a 10-minute break before the vote.
Helle-Moonika Helme
Profiling Eesti Konservatiivse Rahvaerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
He said the answer was correct and thanked them.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Chairman Lauri Hussar thanked the attendees and announced that a 10-minute break would follow.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Chairman Lauri Hussar announced that voting on the amendments to Bill 344 was beginning, and he put Amendment No. 1 to a vote, which the lead committee recommends rejecting.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Twelve members of the Riigikogu voted in favor of the amendment proposal, 49 were against, and there were no abstentions; the first amendment failed to gain support. This was followed by amendment proposal No. 2, submitted by Helle-Moonika Helme, Mart Helme, and Rain Epler, but the lead committee recommended that it not be taken into consideration. Mr. Martin Helme, you have the floor!
Martin Helme
Profiling Eesti Konservatiivse Rahvaerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Martin Helme said that the EKRE faction is requesting a 10-minute recess before the vote.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Chairman Lauri Hussar asks if the public also wishes to vote on this.
Martin Helme
Profiling Eesti Konservatiivse Rahvaerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Martin Helme offers his apology and states that he is calling for a vote on the matter, which will be preceded by a 10-minute recess.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Chairman Lauri Hussar announces that a 10-minute recess will be taken before the vote, at the request of the EKRE faction.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Chairman Lauri Hussar announced a 15-minute recess due to technical reasons, explaining that the break would take place before the vote, and the voting would resume afterward.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Chairman Lauri Hussar asked those present to register and ensure that the voting machine was working flawlessly before the vote on Amendment Proposal No. 2, and then to cast their vote; the proposal was submitted by Helle-Moonika Helme, Mart Helme, and Rain Epler, and the leading committee’s position is to reject this amendment.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
The proposal received 12 votes in favor, 51 against, and was consequently rejected; next is Amendment Proposal No. 3 (submitted by Varro Vooglaid), which the lead committee recommends rejecting; Martin Helme, please proceed.
Martin Helme
Profiling Eesti Konservatiivse Rahvaerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Martin Helme stated that the system failed, which proves that Estonia's digital state is not working. He also claimed that the obstruction was not performed by a 'rat' trained by their side, and he requested a 10-minute break before the vote on the proposed amendment.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
The Chairman thanked [them] and announced that a ten-minute recess would be called at the request of the EKRE faction.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
Chairman Lauri Hussar submits Amendment Proposal No. 3 to the Riigikogu for a vote, noting that the leading committee wishes to disregard it, and asks [members] to take a position and vote.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
The proposal received 17 votes in favor, 48 against, and there were no abstentions; the proposal failed to gain support. Next, amendment proposal No. 4 will be presented, submitted by Alar Laneman, which the lead committee recommends rejecting.
Martin Helme
Profiling Eesti Konservatiivse Rahvaerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
He requests a vote on the amendment, and before that, he is seeking a 10-minute recess for the EKRE faction.
Esimees Lauri Hussar
AI Summary
A ten-minute recess was called at the request of the EKRE faction.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Toomas Kivimägi announced that the recess requested by the EKRE faction had concluded, and subsequently put Amendment Proposal No. 4 up for a vote, requesting that everyone take a stand and cast their ballot.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
The proposal failed to gain support: 14 in favor, 50 against, 0 abstentions. Amendment proposal No. 5 was submitted by Helle-Moonika Helme and Mart Helme, and the lead committee recommends that it be disregarded.
Martin Helme
Profiling Eesti Konservatiivse Rahvaerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
He/She thanked them and requested a 10-minute break before the vote.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Toomas Kivimägi announced that the recess would last ten minutes.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Toomas Kivimägi declared the recess closed, put amendment proposal No. 5 submitted by the EKRE faction to a vote, and announced that the lead committee recommends rejecting it.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Proposal No. 6, which was submitted by the Constitutional Committee and concerning which the lead committee had stated its position, failed to gain support; the vote tally was 13 in favor, 50 against, and 0 abstentions.
Martin Helme
Profiling Eesti Konservatiivse Rahvaerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
He/She emphasizes that these issues are interconnected and cannot be voted on together, and requests a separate vote to demonstrate their opinion; this will be preceded by a 10-minute break.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Deputy Chairman Toomas Kivimägi announces a 10-minute break.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Toomas Kivimägi announces the end of the recess requested by the EKRE faction, puts amendment proposal No. 6, submitted by the Constitutional Committee, to a vote, and asks members to state their position and cast their vote.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
The motion was supported: 53 votes in favor, 8 against, and 0 abstentions. Amendment No. 7 was submitted by the Constitutional Committee, and the leading committee intends to fully incorporate this position. Martin Helme, you have the floor.
Martin Helme
Profiling Eesti Konservatiivse Rahvaerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
He/She expresses thanks, confirms that there is a free vote within their faction, and requests a 10-minute recess before the seventh vote.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
The announcement states that the break will last ten minutes.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Toomas Kivimägi announced that the recess requested by the EKRE faction had ended, and put amendment proposal No. 7 to a vote. This proposal was submitted by the Constitutional Committee, and the lead committee's position is to fully adopt it; he then called for a position to be taken and a vote to commence.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
54 members of the Riigikogu voted in favor of this proposal, 9 were against, and 2 abstained; the amendment received support, and the Board decided to convene the Council of Elders, the invitation for which has been sent out and which will take place today at 8:45 PM in the office of the Chairman of the Riigikogu, which is why I, as the presiding officer, will now take a recess for 30 minutes.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Toomas Kivimägi announced that the Chairman would call for another 30-minute recess due to the duration of the Council of Elders meeting, specifying that the maximum allowed time for the break is 30 minutes, and the plenary session will resume after those 30 minutes.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
The Riigikogu Board decided, ahead of the vote on the amendments to Bill 344 SE, not to allow 10-minute recesses in order to prevent obstruction and ensure the efficient functioning of the parliament. Jüri Ratas registered a dissenting opinion and wanted to put the matter to a vote before the plenary session. Procedural issues are now being discussed, led by Siim Pohlak.
Siim Pohlak
Profiling Eesti Konservatiivse Rahvaerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Siim Pohlak filed a protest against the interpretation of the Supreme Court's decision, stating that a single night session is not an emergency and that the work of the parliament must not be obstructed. He accused them of exceeding their authority and using recesses without due consideration, adding that the EKRE faction does not agree with this.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Toomas Kivimägi, the Deputy Speaker, stated that he did not share his colleague’s objection recorded in the minutes, adding that it would be incomprehensible if 100 members of the Riigikogu were forced to wait for a single person who had not yet reached the parliamentary chamber.
Kalle Grünthal
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Kalle Grünthal asserts that the board made the decision for a 10-minute recess before the vote in a completely unlawful manner, arguing that the law and the Riigikogu Rules of Procedure supersede the board's discretionary power, and therefore the board has no authority to call such a recess.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Toomas Kivimägi said that the board has not yet reached a decision, and its form depends on the Riigikogu Rules of Procedure and Internal Rules Act; he added his personal view that taking recesses as a form of obstruction is illegitimate, and announced that four more procedural questions would be addressed before the vote.
Helir-Valdor Seeder
Profiling Isamaa fraktsioonAI Summary
Helir-Valdor Seeder argues that if the Riigikogu plenary session adopts a decision based on this proposal, it would violate the decades-old Rules of Procedure and Internal Rules Act, as well as the Supreme Court ruling regarding the toleration of obstruction. He emphasizes that the current situation does not constitute long-term or extensive obstruction, and he poses two questions: Does the proposal apply only to the current bill procedure and not to broader parliamentary practice? And what constitutes a reasonable number of recesses, and what limits should be set on the number of amendments (for example, 10 recesses for 96 amendments, or 4 recesses for 40 amendments)?
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
He noted that the draft bill only concerns procedural matters and does not create binding decisions. Although an agreement was not reached, the Riigikogu emphasized the legitimate goal of ensuring effective functioning when restricting the rights of members of parliament, adding that taking recesses as a form of obstruction is illegitimate.
Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart
Profiling Eesti Keskerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart emphasizes that the opposition's obstruction regarding a single bill is a permissible and proportional means of standing up for the voters, citing the position of Chancellor of Justice Ülle Madise, and that limiting the taking of recesses would be disproportionate and infringe upon the mandate, which is why she asks the Council of Elders to discuss the matter again.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Toomas Kivimägi stated that the opposition's main focus is not on calling recesses, but on using the floor in the Riigikogu, and stressed that the agenda must be processed and the nuclear energy debate scheduled for tomorrow must take place.
Siim Pohlak
Profiling Eesti Konservatiivse Rahvaerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Siim Pohlak registers his protest and requests the Board to clarify how they intend to differentiate between those 'bad,' obstructionist recesses and the genuinely necessary meetings held before the discussion of amendments. Furthermore, he demands that this discussion be revisited by the Council of Elders, or at the very least by the Board, because the current plan is crude and disproportionate.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Toomas Kivimägi emphasized that the draft resolution of the board addresses only its procedural handling, and no discussion has taken place on the matter. He is open to discussions, and an agreement or compromise would reduce the pressure to link amendments and would avoid wasting time on taking 10-minute breaks.
Rain Epler
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Rain Epler asks whether effective Riigikogu work would mean merely the swift adoption of a specific bill and driving the opposition away from the chamber, or rather a genuine debate and the avoidance of precedents being set, and requests clarification on how effectiveness is intended to be understood.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Toomas Kivimägi argues that efficiency is viewed negatively because the 10-minute breaks taken before voting on every amendment, combined with the use of the quorum call, render the process ineffective. He also notes that the decision specifically concerns Helle-Moonika Helme.
Helle-Moonika Helme
Profiling Eesti Konservatiivse Rahvaerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Helle-Moonika Helme gives thanks and notes that Anti Poolamets is certainly before me.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
He said that you raised your hand and that he wasn't prepared to take those procedural steps anymore.
Helle-Moonika Helme
Profiling Eesti Konservatiivse Rahvaerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Helle-Moonika Helme protested the procedure, stating that she had a pertinent question, but that no further questions were being taken. She requested that they at least listen to the people visible on the screen, asserting that she had been on the list already and had not added herself to the list afterward.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Toomas Kivimägi stated that if the chamber agrees, he will accept those three final questions; if not, he will conclude answering procedural questions and take those three final ones, and then call upon Anti Poolamets.
Anti Poolamets
Profiling Eesti Konservatiivse Rahvaerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Anti Poolamets stressed that this is a precedent-setting decision, and for that reason, critical viewpoints are needed in the protocol, as this will determine the activities of the Riigikogu over the next 10 to 20 years, and this precedent is, above all, for you yourselves.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Toomas Kivimägi said that he won't flinch if the coalition uses the same tactics against him as they did when he was in the opposition, that he doesn't feel slighted by it, that he is a straightforward type of leader, and that he neither likes nor tolerates wasting time.
Karmen Joller
AI Summary
He says it is very funny when the opposition calls a recess to discuss an amendment proposal they themselves submitted, and emphasizes that it is totally logical to vote in favor of their own proposals.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Toomas Kivimägi asks Mart Helme to be quiet.
Karmen Joller
AI Summary
Karmen Joller says that there is no need for discussion before this point, and that it is illogical. She thanks Anti Poolamets for addressing the substance of the matter, and emphasizes that there is no point in wasting time on hypocritical comments.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
The Deputy Speaker thanks [the previous speaker] and calls upon Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart to take the floor.
Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart
Profiling Eesti Keskerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart claims that you made an arbitrary conclusion regarding the duration of the obstruction being 19 hours, even though the opposition had no such plan, and that is why you are limiting recesses without sufficient consideration.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Toomas Kivimägi notes that the colleague is not a member of the EKRE faction and therefore is unaware of the matter, and asks Helle-Moonika Helme to pose the final procedural question, after which we will proceed to a vote.
Helle-Moonika Helme
Profiling Eesti Konservatiivse Rahvaerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Helme claims that what is happening here is a steamrolling not only of EKRE's proposed amendments but also those of committees and other parties, and he stresses that the use of obstruction has always existed in the Riigikogu, and his own party also used it while in opposition, therefore, it is illegitimate in the current context.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Toomas Kivimägi admitted that taking recesses has previously been used for the purpose of obstruction, and the Reform Party has likely done the same. However, he added that the situation in the parliament's final year has been entirely different, and the proceedings are now moving to a vote, during which the EKRE faction submitted a request for a 10-minute recess.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
Toomas Kivimägi announced that there is a lack of consensus among the board members, and a proposal will be put to a vote to prohibit factions from taking recesses before the vote on the amendments to draft bill 344, in order to ensure the effective functioning of the Riigikogu.
Aseesimees Toomas Kivimägi
AI Summary
The proposal was supported: 54 votes for, 19 against, 0 abstentions.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas announced that we have reached the next amendment and requested that Siim Pohlak address the procedural matter.
Siim Pohlak
Profiling Eesti Konservatiivse Rahvaerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Siim Pohlak thanked everyone and noted that voices were heard in the hall before the vote.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Jüri Ratas strongly urges.
Siim Pohlak
Profiling Eesti Konservatiivse Rahvaerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Siim Pohlak asks before the vote whether the board convened and discussed the protests, and what the final outcome was, since Mr. Kivimägi did not respond.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Jüri Ratas stated that the Speaker of the Riigikogu addressed the protests continuously, and no new ones accumulated during the last ten minutes, and Kalle Grünthal raised a procedural question concerning amendment proposal no. ...
Kalle Grünthal
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
He/She notes that the board has made a decision and asks where to find the official record of that decision.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Once the formalization is complete, it must be uploaded to the EMS as quickly as possible; I promised during the procedural question that it would be submitted there as soon as possible; You already wish to vote; Amendments No. 8–13 were submitted by Rene Kokk, Helle-Moonika Helme and Mart Helme, Rain Epler, Jaak Valge, Alar Laneman, and the Isamaa faction, and the lead committee has decided not to take them into account; Helir-Valdor Seeder, please proceed!
Helir-Valdor Seeder
Profiling Isamaa fraktsioonAI Summary
The speaker thanks the esteemed Chair and asks that we vote in favor of this amendment.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Jüri Ratas called for preparations for the vote to commence. He announced that he would put to a vote amendment No. 13, submitted by the Isamaa faction, as well as the issue of disregarding the leading committee's position, subsequently requesting that a stance be taken and a vote cast.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Amendment proposal No. 14, submitted by the Isamaa faction, failed to gain support, as the vote concluded with 4 in favor, 53 against, and no abstentions, and the leading committee recommends that it be disregarded.
Helir-Valdor Seeder
Profiling Isamaa fraktsioonAI Summary
He/She thanks you and asks you to vote in favor of this amendment.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas announced the preparation of the vote, presented Amendment Proposal No. 14 from the Isamaa Faction, stated that the position of the leading committee was to disregard it, and requested that members take a position and proceed to a vote.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
The voting result was 4 in favor, 52 against, with no abstentions; the proposal did not receive support. Amendment proposal No. 15 was submitted by the Isamaa faction, and the lead committee recommends rejecting it.
Helir-Valdor Seeder
Profiling Isamaa fraktsioonAI Summary
He thanks you and asks that you vote in favor of this amendment.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Jüri Ratas, the Deputy Chairman, announced the preparation of the vote, put Amendment Proposal No. 15, submitted by the Isamaa faction, to the vote, and noted that the lead committee's position was to disregard it, asking everyone to take a position and vote.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
The voting result was 4 in favor, 51 against, with no abstentions; amendment proposal No. 16, submitted by the Isamaa faction, failed to gain support, and the leading committee decided to reject it.
Helir-Valdor Seeder
Profiling Isamaa fraktsioonAI Summary
Seeder thanks you and asks that you vote in favor of this amendment.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas opened the vote, introduced Amendment Proposal No. 16, which had been submitted by the Isamaa faction, and announced the Lead Committee’s position regarding its rejection.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Jüri Ratas announced that the vote on the amendments concluded with 4 votes in favor, 50 against, and no abstentions, and that the majority of the proposals were disregarded in accordance with the leading committee's positions. Finally, he addressed Helir-Valdor Seeder.
Helir-Valdor Seeder
Profiling Isamaa fraktsioonAI Summary
Helir-Valdor Seeder calls for supporting and voting for the 67th amendment.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas announced that the 67th amendment proposed by the Isamaa faction would be put to a vote. He noted that the lead committee recommends rejecting the proposal, and requested that members take a position and cast their votes.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
The Management Board informs that although the Steering Committee wishes to conclude the second reading of Bill 344, the proposals by the EKRE, Isamaa, and Centre Party factions to suspend the second reading are substantively similar and will be put to a vote; Siim Pohlak, please.
Siim Pohlak
Profiling Eesti Konservatiivse Rahvaerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Siim Pohlak pointed out that even though there were three essentially similar proposals, they should nevertheless be put to a separate vote.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas confirms that it is unnecessary, calls upon Siim Pohlak, and asks if anything was left unfinished.
Siim Pohlak
Profiling Eesti Konservatiivse Rahvaerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
Siim Pohlak calls for a 10-minute recess before the vote.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas requested a 10-minute recess.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas welcomed his colleagues and requested that Kalle Grünthal present a procedural question.
Kalle Grünthal
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Kalle Grünthal thanks the Chair and points out that the focus is a specific problem.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas asks where he should look.
Kalle Grünthal
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Kalle Grünthal asks just one question: "How?"
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Chairman Jüri Ratas simply said that it was clear and that he had understood the matter.
Kalle Grünthal
Profiling Fraktsiooni mittekuuluvad Riigikogu liikmedAI Summary
Kalle Grünthal criticizes the fact that while laws are mandatory for the country's citizens, with sanctions potentially applying if they are not followed, members of parliament themselves are violating the Riigikogu Rules of Procedure and Internal Rules Act, including the rule on 10-minute breaks. He goes on to question whether demanding compliance with laws in this manner is right and just, noting that today’s meeting resembles a party meeting of the Soontaga collective farm from the Soviet Union.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker of the Riigikogu Jüri Ratas stated that the matter was not procedural, but emphasized the importance of direct eye contact, and then asked Helir-Valdor Seeder to present a procedural question.
Helir-Valdor Seeder
Profiling Isamaa fraktsioonAI Summary
He offered a procedural clarification, stating that Soontaga had a sovkhoz, not a kolkhoz.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Jüri Ratas stated that this was a procedural question, and that, acting on a joint motion by the Isamaa, Centre Party, and EKRE factions, they requested the suspension of the second reading of Draft Law 344 and called for a vote.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
The result of the vote was 19 in favor, 47 against, and there were no abstentions; the steering committee decided to conclude the second reading.
Mart Helme
Profiling Eesti Konservatiivse Rahvaerakonna fraktsioonAI Summary
The EKRE faction announced their protest against the arbitrary actions of the board and the coalition by walking out of today's session with the entire faction.
Aseesimees Jüri Ratas
AI Summary
Deputy Speaker Jüri Ratas announced that the first item on the agenda had been concluded, and the discussion of the second item could not proceed because the designated rapporteur, Andrei Korobeinik, was absent.