Agenda Profile: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

The representative of the Centre Party is vehemently opposed to the increase in state fees; he emphasizes that 250 euros is disproportionate and violates the legal principle that state fees must cover only the costs associated with the procedure and should not become an additional source of revenue. This position is clearly oriented toward public interest, accessibility, and justice, and he intends to protect the interests of vulnerable groups—minors, pensioners, and people with disabilities—and will boycott the current fee structure of the draft legislation. While previous opinions seem to emphasize economic growth and ensuring the availability of services, the representative offers a prioritized vision that is policy- and value-based and highly critical of the government's tax policy.

The speaker demonstrates knowledge of the principles of the State Fees Act (revenue must cover costs, but simultaneously, the state fee must not be a source for the main budget) and provides examples: the price of an expedited document (45 → 250 euros), passport and ID card, and the increase in fees for procedures concerning minors/pensioners or people with disabilities. They require a supporting reference based on the interpretation provided by the Supreme Court and the explanatory memoranda of the law to emphasize the possibility of a lower fee due to public interest considerations. Furthermore, they highlight the costs of digital services and digitalization and raise the question of their impact on the total cost.

A polemical and emotionally charged tone is used, utilizing strong claims ("incompetence tax," "punishment for poor economic policy"). The speaker employs numerical examples and personal anecdotes (such as a child's ID failure right before exams), and addresses questions directly to the audience ("why...?"). The text is structured, yet remains emotional and critical, blending fact-based argumentation with ethical and moral considerations.

The delivery is actively and continuously partisan; he noted that the Center Party faction submitted 22 substantive amendments and that he defended them before the committee. He mentions that several amendments did not receive support, but simultaneously highlights other considerations (e.g., concessions for hunters). He refers to various sittings and the need to call a temporary recess (10 minutes).

The Centre Party (Kesk) is firmly opposed to the draft legislation and highly critical of the government’s tax and state levy policy. Their criticism targets both the argument for budget execution and the "multi-tiered increase in state fees," while simultaneously emphasizing the need for proportionality and consideration of public interest. Highlighting principles and priorities that differ from those of the coalition, Kesk continues to stress that the interests of vulnerable groups must not be jeopardized.

Shows readiness for cooperation: mentions that the faction submitted 22 amendments and defended them in the committee, although most did not receive support from the coalition. Nevertheless, he/she still raises the possibility of parallel discussion and compromise with the coalition, but primarily maintains an independent and critical role. In solving societal and technical issues, he/she attempts to demonstrate a more inclusive approach.

Not enough data

From an economic standpoint, the position is against increasing state fees, emphasizing that these fees must only cover the costs of the procedures they relate to and should not be used to generate supplementary income. It is argued that the €250 expedited state fee is onerous, and that this revenue-raising measure implemented solely to meet budget targets defies economic logic. Furthermore, the rising expenditure on the digital system is criticized, with the observation that the costs may exceed the benefits.

The Centre Party faction criticised the increase in state fees, emphasising that the state fee for expedited passports and ID cards should not be inadequate – the proposed tax of 250 euros exceeded the previous 45 euros. They submitted 22 substantive amendment proposals, but generally wanted to keep fees at a lower level and did not support general increases, including for minors, pensioners and people with disabilities. The focus of the discussion was public interest and access to services: promises of digitisation should not increase the burden on citizens, and state fees should not be a tool for budget execution, but proportionally justified.

The draft bill is clearly focused on the discussion of the second reading concerning the amendment of the State Fees Act and related legislation (Draft Law 417 SE). It highlights that 22 amendments have been submitted and that the proponent is working to defend them within the committee; it emphasizes the proportionality of state fees and refers to the necessity of discussing budgetary and public interest considerations. It indicates a desire to make the bill more amenable to compromise and to protect the interests of vulnerable groups.