Agenda Profile: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

The Centre Party faction opposes the draft bill, deeming it unsuitable for the Estonian context and merely copied from a European Union directive. It emphasizes that the legislation fails to adequately protect whistleblowers and increases the administrative burden on small businesses and local governments, a path that leads toward a punitive state. The faction stresses the need to adapt EU legal acts specifically for the Estonian legal system and to incorporate genuine added value, rather than simply copying them to avoid penalties. Consequently, the faction has decided to adopt this draft bill.

It presents a comprehensive analysis of the transposition of European Union legal acts and their suitability for the Estonian legal system. It outlines a list of limitations (nuclear safety, financial markets, transport safety, environmental protection, radiation protection) and emphasizes the need to abandon broader scope when dealing with corruption whistleblowing. It notes that literal copying does not enable functional implementation and that the state level must examine how this impact actually operates within companies and local governments. It supports giving critical attention to the necessary resources for administrative processes and training.

An emphatically critical and challenging tone is employed, utilizing the platform to present fact-based arguments and concrete examples, thereby drawing attention to the list's limitations and the associated economic costs. The text constitutes a critical analysis of lawmaking and public administration, frequently employing rhetorical questions and repetition to underscore the ultimate lack of expected added value.

The speech indicates that he has previously addressed these same topics and emphasizes the debate and vote occurring during the third reading. He mentions that the bill will immediately be put to a vote, referencing the broader Riigikogu debates and the legislative process. This single appearance during this specific session highlights enduring themes and the regularity inherent in parliamentary practice.

The fundamental stance is clearly expressed across all key elements: the opposition (Center Party faction) does not support the draft bill. The criticism is policy-driven and focuses on the copying of existing law, low added value, and significant administrative burdens. It warns against the burdensome impact on employers and local governments and stresses that an adapted, truly beneficial solution must be adopted. The intensity is high; the criticism is firmly political and principled.

Not enough data

At the national level, the discussion focuses on the Estonian legal system and the practice of transposing European Union law; local governments and small businesses are mentioned, but no specific geographical regional focus or concrete regional projects are highlighted. The focus remains on the wider national level and more detailed institutional impact assessments.

It opposes the draft bill on the grounds that it constitutes excessive regulation, arguing that it increases the administrative burden on businesses and local municipalities, generating costs and requiring unnecessary training. It argues that the bill offers no substantial benefit and could disrupt the daily economic operations of companies. The criticism is rooted in its economic detriment and its potential to restrict competition.

It opposes granting greater rights and protection to whistleblowers, yet simultaneously maintains a critical stance, arguing that the bill fails to ensure genuine protection and could instead foster a culture of denunciation. It stresses the substance of whistleblower protection and its practical implementation, and critically examines civil liberties and legal safeguards within the context of state regulation.

The consideration of the draft bill takes place in the context of the third reading. The focus is on adapting the bill to the Estonian legal system and avoiding non-value-adding replication. It holds the position that the impact on small businesses and local governments must be assessed more precisely, and that broader disclosure of corruption within the list should be considered. It resolves not to support the draft bill and recommends either making the necessary amendments or replacing it with an alternative solution.