Session Profile: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

An oppositional stance characterized by strong critical reframing. The representative stresses that the draft legislation aimed at increasing fines and state fees is driven solely by budgetary considerations and lacks adequate analysis; they are firmly opposed to these increases and call upon the faction to reject the bills. They emphasize the need to consider moral and social responsibility, arguing that the expansion of taxes and penalties should not be used to fund the budget, but rather must take into account issues of poverty and accessibility faced by the populace. A factional, value- and policy-driven approach in pursuit of prospective change.

The ability to analyze the broader impact of draft legislation has been demonstrated, along with referencing the explanatory memorandum and the lists of planned taxes (motor vehicle tax, tax on sweetened beverages, national defense tax, state fees). The concern is rooted in specific figures (parking fines 80/160, fare evasion fines 20/40, expedited passport processing 45 rising to 250 euros), and the necessity of a rigorous impact assessment is debated. The text directly addresses the relationship between the budget and taxation, criticizing their overall effect on society.

A competitive, combative, and boastful style. The texts employ strong accusations, emotional language, and rhetorical devices (such as the coalition's "transparent" pragmatic attitude, or "such taxation"). Long paragraphs and concrete examples are used to capture attention and emphasize moral and economic arguments.

Three separate speeches took place on the same day (30.04.2024), discussing the increase of fines and state fees. The representative’s speeches are consistent, focusing on the explanatory memorandum and the impact of these measures on private individuals, and he/she is preparing the faction’s unified response (rejection). This demonstrates continuous participation in plenary sessions and consistent criticism of coalition policy.

Elevated rhetoric and firm defiance against the coalition. The main criticism centers on the necessity of the draft laws and their impact on citizens, and it is stressed that the coalition is tragically attempting to meet budget targets through penalties and increased tax burdens. He is strongly opposed and asserts that the adoption of all the draft laws should be rejected.

Coordinated opposition at the party level emphasizes the unity and joint proposal of the Centre Party faction. The direct reference to the "Centre Party faction rejection proposal" indicates a structured opposition approach; there are no signs of extensive social or non-public cooperation with other parties.

Focused at the general national (state) level; lacking specific regional references or focuses on local areas or economic sectors/industries.

The focus on economic pressure highlights that increased fines and state fees are a "new source of income" for filling the budget, and this approach contradicts the idea of not burdening citizens. The position is critical of the coalition's economic policy: taxation and fine increases implemented for the sake of the budget must not push people into poverty, and the impact on people's livelihoods and the accessibility of goods and services must be assessed.

Social justice and accessibility are heavily emphasized: it is stressed that fines and state fees increase the economic burden on the elderly, people with disabilities, and other vulnerable groups. The focus is on trained staff, and the liberalization of settlements (e.g., digital applications) must not lead to increased service costs. If infrastructure is acquired as a result of the merger, it must be reasonable and fair.

The core focus of the proceedings involves the draft legislation for increasing fines and state fees, the assessment of their impact, and a thorough analysis of the explanatory memorandum. The necessity is highlighted not merely to fill the budget, but to evaluate the effect on behavior and traffic culture. The faction announces that a motion to reject the proposed decisions must be made, stressing the lack of sufficient analysis.