Agenda Profile: Varro Vooglaid
Draft law amending the Child Protection Act and other laws (427 SE) – second reading
2024-10-10
Fifteenth Riigikogu, Fourth sitting, plenary session.
Political Position
The political position is strongly opposed to certain provisions of the amendment to the Child Protection Act (427 SE), particularly concerning the enhanced duty of care imposed on coaches and the potential failure to definitively exclude the employment of pedophiles. The focus is value-driven and risk-centric, emphasizing the need to ensure children's protection without introducing new legal risks or obligations. The speaker criticizes the draft's shortcomings, specifically that it does not absolutely prohibit convicted pedophiles from working with children.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates expertise regarding the details of the draft legislation, especially concerning the legal implications of the enhanced duty of care and its practical consequences for the role of coaches. They are knowledgeable about the Riigikogu's procedural rules, inquiring about the options for submitting amendments and requesting a recess based on the rules of procedure. This expertise is further evident in their analysis of the balance between the Child Protection Act and the inviolability of family privacy.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The rhetorical style is analytical, interrogative, and at times incisive, employing hypothetical scenarios (e.g., the coach's investigative task) to highlight the risks of the draft bill. It demands an exhaustive explanation from the opponent and poses challenging questions regarding the coalition's inaction. The tone shifts to procedural when an inter-factional debate and the suspension of the reading are requested, citing the "cross-factional concern" prevalent in the chamber.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
The Member is actively involved in the legislative process, participating in the second reading by posing detailed questions and submitting procedural motions. His course of action is aimed at exposing the substantive deficiencies of the draft bill and pausing the proceedings so that amendments can be made.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The confrontation is aimed at the coalition and the commission, criticizing them for their inability to present amendments that would exclude convicted pedophiles from working with children. The criticism is focused on both policy and procedure, accusing the coalition of failing to act in accordance with their own stated personal positions. The new risks that the draft bill creates for coaches are also being criticized.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
The speaker is actively seeking cross-party consensus, noting the existence of a shared concern among both opposition and coalition members in the chamber. He proposes taking a recess to discuss the matter and send the draft bill back to the committee for amendment, demonstrating an openness to a compromise that would satisfy everyone's conscience.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
Insufficient data.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
Insufficient data
3 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
The primary social focus is ensuring child protection and safety, requiring the absolute prohibition of convicted pedophiles from working with children. A crucial topic is also the balance between the right to privacy and mandatory reporting (due diligence), with the speaker highlighting the danger that coaches may be compelled to pry into the private lives of children’s families.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The legislative focus is the critical opposition to and amendment of the draft bill (427 SE) concerning changes to the Child Protection Act and other legislation. The speaker is attempting to prevent the adoption of the bill in its current form, demanding its return to the committee and the inclusion of absolute exclusion clauses. He/She is concentrating on the specific details of the bill regarding the scope of the duty of care.
3 Speeches Analyzed