Session Profile: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

The oppositional, value- and principle-based approach focuses on protecting the rights and legal certainty of large families. It criticizes the government's tax policy (especially the car tax and sugar tax), which it considers primarily a result of filling budget deficits and pre-election political maneuvering. It supports financing measures that would direct resources toward families and child support programs, and favors alternative tax policies (such as a tax on banks' excess profits or a digital tax) as a broader, better-targeted solution. This stance is allegedly aimed at protecting constitutional and legal certainty principles, while simultaneously criticizing the government for being fiscally repressive and acting purely for the sake of election results.

Made extensive use of arguments concerning constitutional law, European Union law, and budgetary legality (e.g., the principle of constitutionality, Section 28 regarding large families, and conflict with EU law concerning the car tax). The text refers to specific numerical examples (€4.9 million, a €17 salary increase, the salaries and number of positions for Tallinn teachers) and utilizes inquiries and analyses (e.g., a legal analysis of the car tax). Knowledge of social policy, education funding, and the impact of tax and benefit systems is highlighted.

The tone is assertive, aggressive, and interrogative. It frequently employs rhetorical questions, accusations, and examples to highlight contradictions with the coalition's stance. The content maintains a balance between factual information and emotional moral emphasis. While the form is official, the complex sentence structures and long, argumentative paragraphs result in a powerful argument.

Highlighted is the consistent participation in plenary sessions and the submission of inquiries; this refers to several separate speeches within the framework of the same topic and the continuous monitoring of issues. It repeatedly references previous events (such as the teachers' strike, the gap between government promises and support measures) and emphasizes the need for ongoing reflection and the expectation of answers from the government.

Clearly oppositional: characterized by strong political criticism directed at the government and the coalition; it accuses the authorities and local governments of failing to deliver on promises made or pledged, and therefore holds them accountable. It partially supports alternative solutions, but primarily emphasizes the divide and resistance to the government's policies.

The criticism carries a negative tone, yet it indicates some willingness to utilize alternative taxes (such as a digital tax or an excess profit tax on banks) and to cooperate on relevant issues via parliamentary inquiries. There is no emphasis on broad coalition compromise, but rather a demonstrable readiness to propose solutions and demand answers.

The focus is clearly on the region, especially the city of Tallinn and its local municipalities. The situation regarding Tallinn teachers' salaries and the filling of vacant posts is improving, though Ida-Virumaa reflects similar problems concerning funding. There is nervous attention at the national level directed toward the role of local governments and resource management.

Macroeconomically critical of the government's tax policy; opposes the expansion of sugar and car taxes, arguing this increases the burden on large families, and emphasizes the resulting decrease in purchasing power and the impact of the economic crisis. It recommends that, alongside addressing the budget shortfall, the state should increase revenue through a bank excess profits tax or a digital tax, while simultaneously curbing broad-based tax policies that harm the most vulnerable.

It focuses on the well-being of families and children: large families, children with disabilities and special needs, school lunch subsidies, and school sports subsidies. It advocates for the rights of these groups, criticizes unequal treatment, and demands crystal-clear exceptions and guaranteed support mechanisms. It criticizes state prioritization that results in inadequate protection of children's health or social resources when tax hikes affect the most vulnerable.

The primary emphasis is placed on criticizing draft legislation and laws (the car tax, the sugar tax), parliamentary interpellations, and general parliamentary oversight. It is claimed that over 300 amendments have been proposed, and there is an emphasis on the necessity of obtaining accurate data and establishing effective oversight mechanisms. There is an interest in guaranteeing legal certainty and constitutional adherence; it seeks to implement alternative funding measures and underscores the state's capacity and responsibility when preparing draft legislation.