Session Profile: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

The Center Party faction is strongly opposed to three specific pieces of legislation: the whistleblower act, the hate speech bill, and the provisions allowing the Competition Authority to impose large fines. The faction characterizes these as directives that have simply been copied, arguing that their implementation in the Estonian context will generate significant administrative burden without providing any added value. This stance reflects criticism of the coalition’s activities and emphasizes the necessity of adapting EU legislation specifically for Estonia, rather than merely duplicating it.

Regarding the substance of whistleblower protection, a limited list is mentioned (nuclear safety, financial markets, transport safety, environmental protection, radiation protection), and it is noted that corruption is not included in this list—an important technical observation. The necessity of protection is acknowledged, but in line with the clarification, it is crucial to differentiate which notifications fall under protection. Emphasis is placed on the need for training and clear distinctions, as well as the impact of the specificity of the EU directive on the Estonian legal system. The need for rigorous analysis and sufficient resources for ministries during the transposition of the EU directive is also mentioned.

The discourse is highly critical and profoundly analytical, consistently employing negative assessments regarding redundancy and administrative burden. Rhetorical questions are posed (e.g., what proportion of notifications falls upon small businesses, or how much time is spent calling schools), which reinforce the argument concerning the absence of added value. The text is lengthy and formal in its presentation, yet the fact-based assertions and accusations leveled against the coalition inevitably induce weariness.

There is insufficient data regarding the frequency of speeches or other previous public appearances for this period. Not enough data.

The primary resistance is aimed at the coalition's plans and their rationale: the draft bills have been copied from directives and are ill-suited to Estonian circumstances; it is stressed that these measures will harm businesses and local governments and fail to offer the desired protection to the public. The intensity is high, and compromise is currently not a priority.

The willingness to cooperate with the coalition does not appear to have been emphasized; the speech focuses instead on the opposition and criticism of the coalition's plans. No geographical or significant readiness for compromise was highlighted, although the concerns of various interest groups and discussion activities were mentioned, suggesting a broader debate but not a concrete foundation for cooperation.

The focus is at the national level, and the impact on small businesses and local municipalities is addressed; the emphasis is on influencing the operation of the Estonian legal system and business regulations. Separate regional studies or a local concentration are not mentioned.

Economically, critics highlight the bureaucracy and administrative burden these draft laws would create: small businesses and local governments would be overwhelmed by the load, and the legislation itself would fail to provide any significant added value. There is strong criticism regarding the proposed penalty measures and the overall negative effect on the business environment. The preference is for less regulation and a greater focus on practical implementation.

Attention is drawn to the social issue concerning the opposition to the normalization of a snitching culture and the culture of hypersensitivity. The discourse emphasizes that whistleblower protection and cultural contexts are complex, and the mechanisms created may not actually protect anyone; a danger is seen that laws might promote an informant culture rather than the protection of legitimate rights.

The legislator's priorities include a critical analysis of both the necessity of transposing EU law and the practical application of adapting those laws to the Estonian legal system. It is argued that a more thorough analysis must be conducted and the quality of legislation improved, rather than simply copying EU directives. The impact of implementing draft legislation, the need for training, and the reduction of bureaucracy have been highlighted as crucial aspects that have not received sufficient attention.