Agenda Profile: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

The main position is improving budget transparency and control through amending the basic law and strengthening the linkage between expenditure and revenue lines and the explanatory memorandum. It was pointed out with a strong critical tone that the current budget, due to its simplification (decluttering) and delegation practices, contradicts constitutional requirements, necessitating a legislative amendment. It demonstrates an effort to cooperate between the coalition and the opposition, citing examples where reforms are failing and the Ministry of Finance's practices are deficient, while emphasizing a pragmatic, system-improving approach.

Expert knowledge encompasses the structure and processes of the state budget: the arrangement between the explanatory memorandum and the law, the budget classifier, and the public disclosure of expenditure line details. It highlights examples related to Rail Baltic and the flaws in the description of ministerial cuts, using them as illustrative cases. It mentions the Chancellor of Justice, the Auditor General, and the necessity concerning the handling of the Ministry of Finance and special control committees. Furthermore, it addresses the specific need for a separate legal articulation (or framework) for the base law governing revenues and expenditures.

Rhetorically, the address is highly critical, emotional, and narrative; it uses strong examples and questions ("are you kidding me?") and visual imagery (the variants of the Rail Baltic figures). At the same time, the tone is also constructive and cooperative, emphasizing the need to discuss and find compromises between the two readings. The text contains scathing irony and fact-based argumentation, but maintains official and constitutional language.

The text repeatedly addresses the context of the first reading, outlining a clearly defined schedule: 10–14 days for submitting amendments, the second reading, and the third reading. Emphasis is placed on prior debate and committee hearings, along with the opportunity to submit collaborative amendments. It also references previous discussions and initiatives, as well as the plan for drafting the upcoming year's budget.

The main critics are the government and the Ministry of Finance. The accusations leveled include a lack of transparency, inconsistent figures, and poor planning (e.g., variant 294 versus variant 11 regarding Rail Baltic funding). The rhetoric is intensely critical but also expresses a readiness for cooperation; following standard opposition procedure, they are attempting to push the draft bill to a second reading and ensure the adoption of the best amendments.

This represents a style focused on cooperation and compromise: it emphasizes that the coalition and the opposition should work together to propose amendments and advance the draft legislation to the second reading, while also highlighting the necessity of considering feedback from committees and interest groups. Furthermore, it demonstrates a readiness to listen and engage others, and underscores the objectives promised in the coalition agreement.

Tallinn and its surrounding areas have been brought to regional attention through several key issues: the establishment of the Tallinn Hospital, the closure of the Kopli rescue station, the engagement of North Tallinn residents, and the support provided by local municipalities (such as the procurement of equipment for schools and kindergartens). These examples clearly demonstrate the connection to the quality of local services and planning.

The economic policy narrative focuses on budget transparency and the clear segregation of expenditures and revenues; criticism is primarily procedural, rather than targeting the proposed new tax changes. The need for increased control and efficiency is emphasized. At this critical moment, attention is focused on the budget structure, not merely cost cutting; valid examples are emerging as budgetary threats, alongside the necessary reorganization of the ministries' budget management system.

The text emphasizes the critical importance of social services—including school psychology, prevention programs for suicide and addiction, support for pensioners, healthcare services, and the cost of prescription drugs—and the funding required for them. Budget cuts in these sectors raise emotional and ethical questions and are viewed as detrimental to people's health and well-being. The procurement of technology for schools and decisions regarding support for elder care are cited as examples where cuts have significant societal importance.

The main legislative priority is the amendment to the State Budget Act (the foundational law), the purpose of which is to link expenditure and revenue lines with the explanatory memorandum and to ensure budget transparency. The address highlights the proposed amendments to be made during the first reading and the opportunities for cooperation during the second reading; the goal is for the 2026 budget to comply with the new principles and be more transparent. Furthermore, it is stressed that this is an initial step and that other parliamentary bodies et al. will follow suit regarding balance and transparency.