Session Profile: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

The speaker places citizen privacy and constitutional protection first, and expresses strong opposition to the super-database law. He/She emphasizes that the draft bill violates fundamental rights and could threaten the functioning of democracy, and calls on the coalition and the government to withdraw the bill and refrain from submitting new versions. The position is firmly rooted in values and rights, focusing on maintaining limits and oversight, and adopting an uncompromising tone.

The speaker demonstrates a strong command of knowledge concerning the Constitution, data protection, and the risks associated with surveillance, specifically mentioning the principle of interference (or proportionality) and the role of artificial intelligence in data analysis. Reference is made to the positions held by representatives of the Ministry of Finance, the Police and Border Guard Board (PPA), and the Health Insurance Fund. The discussion also involved a review of costs and values (e.g., the noted 3.5 million euro grant received from the European Union). The operational scope is characterized by strong legal and data protection foundations, along with a consistent emphasis on the role of institutions.

The speech is alarming and critical, employing strong rhetorical devices such as the Orwellian reference and emotional questions. The emphasis is on moral and fundamental rights argumentation, rather than a neutral technical discussion; the style combines narrative elements and factual referencing, but leans more toward a profound moral warning.

The addresses were delivered during the same session (September 17, 2025) and comprised several lengthy, substantive presentations, frequently referencing committee deliberations and the necessity of debating or withdrawing the draft legislation. The text repeatedly refers to votes, the scrutiny of committee positions, and the ensuing dialogue with the government and various ministries. The speaker consistently utilizes the rostrum and allotted speaking time to forcefully advance their viewpoints.

The opposition to the bill, expressed at least in part, includes criticism over the prioritization of coalition interests and lobbying, accusations of corruption-like schemes, and the infringement of fundamental rights and democracy. It is stressed that the government is unwilling to compromise, that the bill cannot be justified through amendments, and that it should be withdrawn entirely. The intensity is high, the tone is aggressive, and generally, there is no consideration given to risks or potential compromise.

Critical, yet it partially demonstrates a readiness for discussion and external consultation, referencing the hearing of viewpoints from other institutions and officials (PPA, Health Insurance Fund, Ministry of Finance). However, it emphasizes that any compromise must be grounded in fundamental rights and established conclusions, and calls on the government to withdraw the draft bill, which suggests an unreliable capacity for cooperation with the coalition. While a search for cooperation is partially evident, it is preceded by a strong block of criticism.

The context of Tallinn is clearly highlighted in the regional focus: as a member of the Tallinn City Council, the need for local regulation of light personal transporters and micro-mopeds is brought up, as well as the legislative issues that stem from this. In addition, while there are discussions at the national level, due to regional specificities, the examples and practical effects on the urban landscape that are emphasized are those specifically related to Tallinn.

The economic focus centers on criticizing the bill's cost and the risks associated with the government budget. Specific mention is made of 3.5 million euros from the European Union Recovery Fund, alongside a discussion of sustained long-term cost increases and the resulting impact on taxpayers. He/She emphasizes the need to reduce costs related to consumer protection and the Health Insurance Fund, but does not support proposals that would incur additional expenditures or grant advantages favoring a single business entity.

The social agenda plays a central role in protecting privacy and individual rights, as well as ensuring family and child welfare. Emphasis is placed on the necessity of reviewing mechanisms related to school meal subsidies and food VAT, alongside providing state support to improve the resilience and coping abilities of vulnerable families. There is an ongoing discussion regarding the financial burden placed on parents and the corresponding need for adequate external state assistance for school meals to safeguard children's health and development. Particular importance is attached to protecting individual freedoms and fundamental values, and the necessity of state intervention within the social sphere.

The main objective is the Super Database Bill, the associated constitutional and privacy risks, and the withdrawal or radical restructuring of this draft law. Attention is also being paid to discussions concerning traffic insurance regulations for light personal mobility devices and potential solutions for regulating micro-mopeds, but the focus remains strongly on decisions related to opposing the bill and reviewing the process. The speaker emphasizes that further changes must comply with the Constitution and the fundamental principles of consumer protection and rights protection.