Agenda Profile: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

The speaker delivers the Center Party faction's critical assessment of draft law 415 SE: he/she expresses strong opposition to the doubling of all fine rates and calls for compromises regarding parking and warning fines. He/She stresses that the priority should be a proportional approach that takes into account people's ability to pay, noting that no prior analysis was conducted; he/she wants to limit the overall increase in penalties, focusing only on specific cases (e.g., speeding). He/She describes the draft law as a political and economic decision focused on state budget revenue, rather than the fragile consequences for society. He/She refers to the need for an approach based on discipline and law enforcement, advocating for decisive value-based and procedural consideration, rather than merely accelerating economic activity.

Highlighted is the skill of analyzing legal and budgetary operations: he/she mentions that previous analyses were lacking, and the discussion focused primarily on how much the fines contribute to the state budget. Terminology such as deterrent fine, warning fine, and ultima ratio is used, and he/she refers to the explanatory memorandum and the committee discussion as evidence of expertise. For the first time, connections between civil protection and insolvency theory regarding the impact of fines have also been noted, which demonstrates an effort to link the effect of penalties to behavior and social balance.

A serious, critical, and occasionally sarcastic tone; employing strong judgments and pointed questions (e.g., "Who exactly are you punishing with this?"). The discourse is dominated by an argumentation-based, logistical, and fact-driven approach, frequently citing the absence of necessary analyses and the disregard for bureaucratic decisions. The sentence structure is broad and detailed, featuring repeated references to the negative consequences of the draft bill, emphasizing both the ethical and economic repercussions.

Presence simultaneously in multiple debates on the same day (2024-06-06) and active participation in the bill's discussions and the committee: submitting amendments, emphasizing the need for compromise, and requesting clarification from colleagues. Highlights that the Centre Party faction submitted amendments, describing their impact and specific discussion scenarios (e.g., the reduction of parking fines). Refers to a parallel bill concerning changes to parking rules.

It clearly expresses opposition to the government coalition's draft bill, noting that none of the amendments proposed by the coalition were supported; it criticizes the decision-making process and the lack of necessary analysis. As an alternative, it outlines a point of compromise (maintaining the current levels of parking and warning fines) and stresses that contexts such as the burden on taxpayers and consumer price sensitivity must be considered. Despite the sharp criticism, it demonstrates a willingness to cooperate through the submission of amendments and negotiations.

Demonstrates a willingness to cooperate on alcohol enforcement operations, focusing on achieving substantive compromise: presented amendments and proposed compromises concerning speeding violations; emphasizes that he is the only one who submitted amendments and wishes to develop parking regulations concurrently with the relevant draft law. This stance suggests a constructive, yet limited-mandate, readiness for collaboration and the pursuit of broad consensus through prolonged debate.

The text mentions an example of regional impact, specifically regarding the solvency of families in Võrumaa and Valgamaa, and the availability of public transport services. It uses this regional case study to demonstrate the effect of fines on people's daily lives and the economy. This highlights local focus and emphasizes concrete regional consequences.

Economic viewpoints center on balancing income and affordability: it is emphasized that doubling fines may not increase revenue, as people may struggle to pay, potentially leading to a decrease in collections; the budget principle, which focuses on maximizing revenue rather than the welfare of the population, is criticized. The text compares the effects of the tax and fine systems on regional and social burdens and opposes the broader maximization of penalties.

It underscores the principles of social justice and proportionality: increasing penalties must be the last resort (ultima ratio), as this can lead to inequality and economic hardship for the population, especially for families and single mothers. It also points out that the temporal and social impact (e.g., defaulting on fine payments or serving time in a detention cell) can aggravate social insecurity and lead to an unreasonable defense of state policy/national defense.

The main emphasis is on the amendments related to the second reading of Bill 415 SE and bringing them to the forefront: the desire is to keep parking and warning fines at their current level and allow for the consideration of increasing speeding fines, but strictly avoid a general doubling of all fine rates. Reference is made to the necessity of conducting a proper analysis and considering the observations detailed in the explanatory memorandum, and it is stressed that the Center Party faction submitted amendments and is the only one that did so. The objection to the bill's rapid entry into force, as well as the context of the parallel bill concerning changes to parking regulations, are also key points of discussion.