Agenda Profile: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

The focus is on the increasing need for Riigikogu (Parliamentary) control and budget transparency. It takes a critical stance regarding the role of the Ministry of Finance and considers the current activity-based budget reform to have failed, thus demanding further, substantive decisions and greater parliamentary participation. It supports the coalition's critical rhetoric but seeks changes to the State Budget Act to ensure the justification of expenditures and clear performance indicators. It ritually stresses that the national budget must be debated at the Riigikogu level, rather than being adopted as a decision pre-approved by ministers.

Emphasizes the technical aspect of the budget process: activity-based versus cost-based budgeting, and the need to clarify transparency and cost components. It refers to State Audit Office audits and issues encountered in 2023–2024, addressing the critical importance of accuracy in the lists of grants for legal entities and their accompanying explanatory memoranda. The text utilizes specific examples from ministry responses and demonstrates a strong, highly educated understanding of budget structures and control mechanisms.

The tone is critical and forceful, employing numerous examples and metaphors (such as the snowball effect). It utilizes questions and a style that emphasizes inherent dangers and the repetition of past errors. While balancing emotional anxieties with facts and concrete examples, it maintains the context of a formal public debate. The goal is to prompt proactive and decisive action, not just a verbal objection.

He/She is actively involved in pre-budget discussions, referencing the sessions of the Auditor General and the special committee on combating corruption. He/She submits motions and participates in debates during extraordinary sittings, and releases conclusions in speeches delivered the same day (2024-11-06). This demonstrates a continuous push toward monitoring governmental and ministerial responses and strengthening parliamentary oversight.

The text highlights, as objects of opposition or criticism, the Ministry of Finance, the uncoordinated cuts made by various ministries, and the coalition, which, in the author's estimation, decided on the budget solely at the ministerial level. It uses strong language ("are you kidding me?") and levels accusations of incompetence and a lack of transparency. The author regrets that the coalition is failing to ensure the fuller exercise of the Riigikogu’s (Parliament’s) rights regarding budget oversight.

Demonstrates readiness for cooperation: refers to making materials available to the National Audit Office and special committees, and is cooperative with other political parties (e.g., mentioning a position jointly cited with colleague Aivar Sõerd). Desires a broad-based debate in the Riigikogu and coordinated rules of the game that would improve transparency and accountability.

Not enough data

Firstly, it emphasizes the clear justification and visibility of state budget expenditures; it advocates for expenditure accounting and indicators that report where the money goes. It includes views critical of cost cutting and budget transparency, and stresses the necessity of parliamentary oversight and clear explanatory notes. It describes the loss of control by the Ministry of Finance as a risk, and suggests that budget allocation should be made more transparent and comprehensible.

Not enough data

Primary Goal: Amending the State Budget Act to strengthen the framework of the expenditure-based (or clearly indicator-based) budget and the role of the Riigikogu (Parliament). It seeks to include criteria for subsidies to legal entities in the explanatory notes and to clarify which organizations receive support. It officially affirms the necessity for the Riigikogu to be able to inquire, debate, and propose amendments, ensuring that ministers cannot simply begin altering expenditure lines excessively or without proper justification.