Session Profile: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

As a representative of the Centre Party faction, a bill has been introduced accompanied by strong criticism directed at the opposition: the faction does not support the increase in car tax, state levies, and fines, and stresses the need for broader consideration of exceptions and exemptions. They argue that the proposed amendments are cohesive and cannot be voted on separately, which, in their view, symbolizes an impractical procedure. The constitutional and European Union legal basis is the central argument: the bill is, in their assessment, unconstitutional and contrary to EU law. Furthermore, the focus is on the power to highlight the distress of groups with special needs (people with disabilities, large families, families with children requiring special educational support), emphasizing that tax changes must not burden this segment of the population.

The speaker demonstrates legal and constitutional competence: referencing the preamble of the Constitution, European Union law, and observations made by the Supreme Court; pointing to the existence of explanatory memoranda and legal analyses, and emphasizing the necessity of a transparent procedure. They mention that specific derogations and exemptions must be reviewed separately, noting that their absence from the proposed amendments constitutes a problem. The text reflects a clear understanding of the draft legislation's legal framework and procedural rules.

The tone of the speech is combative and accusatory, characterized by frequent rhetorical questions and emotional delivery. Tropes such as “a sad day for democracy,” symbolic references, and strong accusations regarding the coalition’s intentions are employed. The text is formalized yet emotionally charged, and the strategic criticism of the speech, along with rhetorical questions directed at specific participants, lends it a demagogic color.

Actively participates in the work of the Plenum and various committees: notes having "defended" personal amendments within the committee, submits 22 substantive amendments from the Centre Party faction, and raises several related points and procedural matters (e.g., a separate vote, a motion to interrupt proceedings). Speaks on June 5–6, 2024, emphasizing that the coalition is fast-tracking the processing of bills and referencing previous repeated debates held in the committee.

The core focus is critical of the policies of the government and the coalition: it opposes the raising of the car tax and state fees, and accuses the government of making unreasonable and unfounded decisions. Questions are often raised as to why amendments cannot be voted on separately, and it is emphasized that the coalition's priorities are uncoordinated and that the taxes impose too heavy a burden on the people. There is intense and widespread criticism, coupled with direct opposition to the content of the presented draft bill.

It shows some willingness to cooperate (e.g., noting that compromises could be reached regarding speeding violations) and refers to the necessity of cooperation concerning coalition bills. However, it also notes that the Centre Party's proposed amendments did not receive support, and the coalition does not appear ready for broader adjustment. References to "cooperation" and "attempts to defend" were used in the committee, but in practice, cooperation was successful only to a limited extent.

Economic and social issues are at the forefront, but emphasis is also placed on the impact on rural areas and local residents: specific reference is made to Võru and Valga counties, as well as the context of public transport and parking regulations applicable in rural regions. It is highlighted that the tax changes increase the burden on rural residents and that national defense and social security considerations must be addressed regionally.

A key criticism in economic policy targets all increases to the car tax, state fees, and fines, as well as taxation implemented purely for the sake of meeting budget targets. It is argued that state fees and fines are increasing oppressively and could actually reduce overall revenue if people are unable to pay them. Critics stress that the state should ensure services remain affordable and avoid disproportionate measures that would damage the economy. The primary objective should be protecting economic growth and living standards, and fostering entrepreneurship, rather than penalizing it.

Emphasis is placed on the protection of vulnerable groups: people with disabilities, large families, and families with children requiring special educational needs (SEN) must receive exemptions from the car tax and related levies, and placing additional burdens on these individuals is not supported. The criticism suggests that the proposed support measures might be theoretical rather than practically implementable, and may fail to address the actual needs of the families. A strong focus is placed on safeguarding constitutional rights and the system of social justice, as well as protecting cultural and social diversity (e.g., motorcycle and car collections).

The priority is the separate consideration of the car tax and state fees bill, along with its proposed amendments. Emphasis is placed on the need to adhere to procedural rules and review the explanatory notes. Criticism is raised regarding the referencing of legal analyses (specifically the constitution and applicable EU law), and a recommendation is made to hold separate votes on exemptions. Motions to suspend proceedings and intense debate concerning taxes intended to fulfill the budget are anticipated. Furthermore, proportionality and fairness related to the increase in fines and state fees, as well as the proper execution of procedures, remain central points of focus.