Agenda Profile: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart
Second reading of the draft law amending the Police and Border Guard Act (670 SE)
2025-09-24
Fifteenth Riigikogu, sixth sitting, plenary sitting.
Political Position
The Centre Party faction is oppositional and critical of the draft law; it emphasizes the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms and fears the expansion of surveillance, calling for a thorough debate and the rectification of deficiencies. It states directly that the second reading should be suspended and does not rule out demanding greater scrutiny or amendments in the future if transparency and analysis are lacking in this sector. The position is based on core principles and values, and the faction remains critical of the government’s push to expand a surveillance system that raises security concerns.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
It presents the knowledge base related to monitoring and privacy policy, referencing threat analyses, proportionality, and the need for transparency and subsequent analyses. It raises specific questions concerning data access and statistics (e.g., 1,400 officials, the volume of data viewed, the number of crimes solved). He/She provides assessments and comparisons with Sweden and the Netherlands, emphasizing the necessity for detailed drafting of the legislation.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The speaker's characteristic tone is combative regarding established norms and increasingly overtly critical. They utilize the form of questions, create visual imagery, and employ strong repetition ("imagine," etc.). The problem is described as a disturbing and rapid shift, and the speaker emphasizes the lack of expert debate. The text exhibits a noticeably buffoonish, yet simultaneously fact-focused, approach.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
Two speeches are scheduled for the same day (September 24, 2025), both focusing on the same subject. The emphasis is placed on the limitations of parliamentary procedure and the necessity of suspending the bill's second reading. Reference is made to the committee and internal audit, and the lack of public debate is highlighted. The prevailing pattern of activity is characterized by opposition rhetoric and questioning, rather than efforts to find common ground.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
A fundamental and strongly worded objection has been raised against the draft bill; it accuses the government of a lack of transparency and of failing to ensure consistency between legal norms and the practice of states; it emphasizes that the control mechanisms regarding the number of cameras and data access have not been sufficiently analyzed, and that debate is absent.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
The emphasis on opportunities for cooperation is limited; the speaker presents the viewpoint of their faction ("The Centre Party does not support this bill") and refers to the need for broad discussion, but does not demonstrate an open willingness to compromise with other parties; the focus is on entrenching the opposition stance.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
The state/national level is the main focus; it characterizes the debate and the overall impact of the bill and refers to international comparisons, but focusing on a separate regional or local area is not emphasized; it mentions the cross-border context (buying alcohol on the Latvian border) as an example, not as a regional priority.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
Not enough data; economic issues (e.g., the impact of taxes, resources, and expenditures) are not clearly presented, beyond a general discussion referencing the economic consequences related to the scale of data collection and monitoring.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
The protection of personal data, privacy, and civil liberties were highlighted as key features; it criticizes the government’s extensive surveillance and the lack of oversight in the public sphere; and emphasizes the necessity for broad debate and transparency.
2 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The main objective is to halt or significantly amend the second reading of the draft bill. Emphasis is placed on the need for a thorough risk analysis, proportionality, and transparency, as well as the lack of answers to questions concerning access for 1,400 officials and the 194 cameras. Reference is also made to comments raised in the committee and the threat of potential artificial intelligence usage.
2 Speeches Analyzed