Agenda Profile: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

The representative of the Centre Party is in opposition to the coalition, centering their focus on budget transparency and a cost-based framework. They are actively fighting against the ministers' ability to unilaterally change expenditure lines at any time, stressing the need for parliamentary control and open debate. Moreover, they are ready to advance their own bill and employ the disruption of the second reading as a means of limiting the coalition's influence. The position is characterized by an emphasis on strong criticism and legislative oversight, rather than being mere political rhetoric.

He demonstrates an understanding of the state budget procedure and parliamentary processes: referencing the Riigikogu Rules of Procedure Act and the necessity of an explanatory memorandum, the thoroughness of the discussions, and the roles of the ministries. He mentions specific nuances such as cost-based budgeting, performance indicators, and the connection between contracts and linkages, as well as references to the Auditor General and the complexity of the reports. He utilizes enumeration (e.g., 9 different sums regarding Rail Baltic, 23 million) and refers to technical aspects, which highlights his focus on the subject matter.

The rhetoric is combative, critical, and emotionally charged; it employs imagery like a rolling snowball and rhetorical questions such as "What are you asking?", which emphasize indignation and the necessity of transparency. Balanced arguments, coupled with concrete examples (responses from ministries, deficiencies in explanatory memoranda), provide stronger evidence. The tone is formal yet emotional, leaning toward direct and provocative rhetoric.

The speech was delivered on 13.11.2024 and encompasses several ideas that arose on the same day. It refers to committee discussions and the failure of items to be placed on the agenda. It is emphasized that the draft legislation is not currently on the agenda, and several examples of cooperation and discussion with various ministries are described. The text highlights regular contacts and a readiness to participate in committees, including delivering speeches and posing questions.

A significant opposition stance regarding the coalition: it is noted that the coalition has led the country into a deadlock, and the budget is a "rolling snowball" [a metaphor for accumulating problems or debt]. Transparency and an increased role for parliament are prioritized, and the opposition remains critical of the coalition's solutions, emphasizing legislative and oversight mechanisms. The intensity is high, and, if deemed necessary, the goal of disrupting the second reading of the draft bill and advancing their own supplementary documents has also been stated.

Focuses primarily on factional activity and the submission of draft legislation as a means of cooperation; refers to the role of other factions and committees, but emphasizes parliamentary independence and the necessity of limiting ministerial influence. It mentions the combined practice utilized in the Netherlands as an inspiration and demonstrates a readiness to interact with its own bills, but cooperation remains mainly intra-factional or at the level of corresponding draft legislation.

Central focus is placed at the national level, with regional discussions being absent; the budget and the activities of ministers are addressed across the entire country. There is no reference to specific regions or local interests; the emphasis is on national-level transparency and control.

The economic approach centers on transparency, cost-based budgeting, and the inclusion of key performance indicators (KPIs) within explanatory memoranda. The opposition emphasizes the need for clear demonstration and control over the use of funds, and criticizes the culture of taxation and austerity measures inherent in the coalition's policy. It also advocates for greater parliamentary oversight and transparency regarding subsidies provided to legal entities.

Not enough data. Speeches focus on the budget process, transparency, and anti-corruption oversight; they provide no examples or stances on social issues such as abortion, LGBTQ+ rights, immigration, or education.

Key Decision: Debate of the second reading of the Draft Act on Amendments to the State Budget Act (511 SE) and the submission of possible amendments; the faction's wish to correct or suspend the second reading, and the submission of additional initiatives (cost-based budget, performance indicators) for the explanatory memorandum. Emphasis is placed on the parliament's right, adherence to procedural steps, and ensuring the transparency of public funds.