Session Profile: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

The coalition is prepared to cooperate on the opposition's draft bill, and the Centre Party stresses the importance of cooperation, driven by the desire to reduce bureaucracy, demonstrating an approach centered on reform and collaboration. However, there is strong opposition to a bill that would create a centralized "super-database" via the Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Prevention Act, potentially jeopardizing constitutional principles and individual rights. Given this conflict, emphasis is placed on adhering to constitutional limits and the necessity of holding an emergency debate and seeking the required consensus. (This is not a significant signal towards radical zero- or single-issue initiatives; the focus remains on the functioning of democracy and fostering cooperation.)

Demonstrates a strong understanding of the subject matter concerning the collection of personal data and constitutional rights: itemizes detailed database sources and data typologies (e.g., the money laundering database, the population register, the commercial register, ultimate beneficial owners, the land register, etc.), and emphasizes the risks stemming from a lack of control and independence. References the Constitutional Committee and the crucial nature of discussions prior to the third reading.

The tone is critical, highlighting the protection of constitutional rights, while remaining cooperative. It issues strong warnings about the “imitation society” and the threat of unconstitutionality, and utilizes emotional expressions to emphasize the protection of the fundamental rights of the parties. The text is long, filled with technical details and recommendations, but this is balanced by a certain willingness to cooperate.

Demonstrates high activity during the same day's plenary session: several lengthy addresses, continuous participation, and the emphasizing of principles for convening an extraordinary session. Interventions made at an unusual time, references to the presence of the Finance Committee, and the expressed desire to organize the recess period. Points to the cultivation of cooperative and procedural activity when planning extraordinary debate and decisions.

The most direct objection to the draft bill in question: criticism against the creation of the “super database” as being unconstitutional and infringing upon individual rights; intense, almost principled opposition, emphasizing the need for constitutional limitations and the protection of privacy. This essentially constitutes the main substantive counterpoint to this bill and stresses that the debate must not be one-sided.

This clearly demonstrates a willingness to cooperate: It recognizes the coalition's readiness to work together and hopes that similar cooperation will continue regarding future bills submitted by the Centre Party. It recommends organizing an extraordinary committee session and contacting the Chairman of the Finance Committee to find a solution at a broad-based level.

Insufficient data

The critical and evaluative topic of discussion concerns the funding and economic background: it emphasizes that the “3.5 million euros” in European Union funds must not justify the violation of fundamental human rights; it criticizes the fact that the economic pretext (money originating from the EU) does not justify the implementation of widely interconnected data collection systems. Skepticism is expressed regarding the correlation between large-scale expenditure and security measures.

The main focus is on people's fundamental rights and privacy; criticism is directed against the emergence of a surveillance society; concern is raised regarding the extensive collection and profiling of personal data and its impact on the access and control that undefined parties have over this data. It emphasizes the right to know what data is being collected and what the profiles entail.

The primary focus is on the opposition to the legislation aimed at preventing money laundering and terrorist financing, and the associated establishment of a “super database.” [The party/group] demands the removal of the bill from the agenda, and the suspension of the extraordinary committee session and the third reading, in order to prevent constitutional conflicts. It recognizes the necessity of constitutional review and the existence of independent checks, and rejects the hasty procedure.