Agenda Profile: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

Speaking as a representative of the Centre Party, the presentation is strongly opposed to Bill 511 SE. He/She stresses that all expenditure and revenue lines must be made visible, and the Riigikogu’s decision-making role must not be delegated to the executive branch. He/She is critical of the bill, viewing it primarily as offering cosmetic improvements that fail to solve the transparency issue. He/She offers an alternative, emphasizing the need to strengthen parliamentary oversight, rather than granting ministers the free right to amend the budget. He/She personally prioritizes achieving the goals of transparency, anti-corruption control, and the reduction of earmarked funds, in cooperation with the government.

The speaker discusses in detail the transparency of the State Budget and the visibility of expenditure lines, citing specific arguments (revenue and expenditure lines, the prior practice concerning 100,000 euros, and evidence regarding the lack of tablets). He/She references criticism leveled by the Chancellor of Justice, the Auditor General, and the special anti-corruption committee, and offers examples of the risks posed by non-transparent allocations. Furthermore, the speaker mentions the broader budgetary process and sectoral restructuring that could potentially reduce parliamentary oversight.

Critical and emotional in tone, often employing questions and examples to highlight the lack of transparency. The text consists of long, well-developed sentences and occasionally uses stronger judgments (e.g., 'cosmetic' fixes, 'hypocritical'). It combines facts with the deployment of a strong ethical argument.

The proceedings are taking place on the same day (October 16, 2024), emphasizing the urgent need for action and changes to the agenda. Recent news and the work of the committees (the Finance Committee and the Special Committee on Combating Corruption) were mentioned, and both the coalition and the opposition were urged to cooperate. He/She emphasizes that the processing of the draft legislation should be expedited and discussions must continue.

A clearly oppositional stance toward the coalition: The criticism of the bill rests on several constitutional grounds and a lack of transparency. They emphasize that the bill reduces the Riigikogu’s (Parliament’s) oversight and opposes ministers making budget amendments after its adoption. They support the selection of an alternative bill and stress the necessity of open urban planning and proper oversight.

The individual/party is seeking cooperation between both the opposition and the coalition, inviting the coalition to participate in the discussion and place its draft bill on the agenda. They emphasize that joint efforts are necessary in the interest of transparency. Furthermore, while they are ready to accept cooperation, it must be conditional on increasing parliamentary oversight.

There is insufficient data to indicate a specific regional focus (disciplinary examples are absent). While it does mention the broader state budget and government regional expenditures, it fails to specifically highlight concrete local or regional projects. Not enough data.

Regarding economic policy, he focuses on budget transparency and accountability, stressing that the disclosure of all expenditure and revenue lines is a matter of monetary policy and the jurisdiction of the Chancellor of Justice, and that the state budget must be understandable to everyone. Granting ministers the right to amend the budget after its approval is presented as a justification for a security risk and the weakening of parliamentary oversight. He does not present specific tax or income plans, but emphasizes the importance of fairness and control over funding.

There are no direct positions related to social issues or social rights (e.g., abortion, LGBT, immigration)—data is unavailable. It focuses primarily on ethical and democratic values and the principles governing the accessibility of public information.

The main topic is the first reading of the Bill on Amendments to the State Budget Act (511 SE), followed by parliamentary scrutiny and transparency. He is a representative of both the initiating and opposition positions, seeking further discussion and acceleration of the bill's proceedings. However, he simultaneously submits an alternative bill and stresses that the state budget must be fully and transparently disclosed, as required by law. He also points to the necessity of giving the coalition an opportunity to review the agenda and explore possibilities for cooperation with all parties.