Agenda Profile: Jaanus Karilaid
First Reading of the Draft Act on the Amendment of the Penal Code and the Amendment of Other Related Acts (Increasing the Fine Unit) (Bill 415 SE)
2024-04-30
Fifteenth Riigikogu, Third Session, Plenary Session.
Political Position
The political position is strongly opposed to the draft amendment of the Penal Code (the increase of the fine unit), emphasizing the low quality of the bill's preparation and the absence of an impact analysis. The speaker accuses the government of dishonesty, claiming that the actual goal is filling the state treasury, not influencing behavior. This is primarily a position criticizing the government's actions and the quality of the legislative procedure.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates expertise in the quality of drafting legislation and procedural requirements, thoroughly referencing the impact assessment procedures and the control questionnaire used by the Government Office and the Ministry of Justice. Furthermore, the financial forecasts of the draft bill and specific quotes from the explanatory memorandum (e.g., 10 million versus 8.4 million) are utilized to highlight the inaccuracy of these projections. The role of the Ministry of Justice as the primary guardian of legislative quality is repeatedly underscored.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The rhetorical style is sharply critical and accusatory, focusing on logical arguments rooted in violations of legislative procedures. Direct and ironic expressions are employed (e.g., "Lipa-lapa," "ehku peale") to emphasize the government's deficient work culture. The speaker quotes both official documents and critical statements made by former Prime Minister Andrus Ansip.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
The speaker's activity patterns are confined to the debate surrounding the first reading of a specific draft law (Bill 415 SE) in the Riigikogu. Mention is made of reading the explanatory memorandum and citing external sources (Andrus Ansip), which indicates thorough preparation for that specific debate.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The main confrontation is directed at the government and the Reform Party, who are criticized both for procedural shortcomings (the arrogant attitude of the Ministry of Justice) and for political motives. The criticism is intense, accusing the government of visionlessness and of patching up the deficit created by smoothing out the tax hump. The confrontation culminates in a proposal to reject the draft bill.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
The style of cooperation is oppositional; the speaker proposes rejecting the draft bill on behalf of the Isamaa faction. There is no information regarding openness to compromises or cross-party cooperation.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
There is insufficient information.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
Economic commentators are critical of the government’s fiscal policy, accusing it of implementing hidden tax hikes (such as raising the fine unit) in an effort to offset the €400 million shortfall created by the Reform Party’s tax reform. They are demanding greater transparency regarding the goals for replenishing the state treasury and are criticizing the government’s attempt to grab money "a little bit from everywhere."
3 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
Social issues are addressed indirectly, by referencing the goals of promoting law-abiding behavior and reducing traffic fatalities. These goals are challenged as dishonest façades for the actual purpose of raising money.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The legislative focus is on the rejection of Bill 415 SE (the increase of the penalty unit). The speaker is acting as an opponent of the bill and emphasizes their role as a guardian of legislative quality, demanding strict adherence to impact assessment criteria from the Ministry of Justice.
3 Speeches Analyzed