Session Profile: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

Kuiheidu is highly critical of the government's anti-corruption efforts and transparency issues, stressing the need to restore credibility and address conflicts of interest. He takes a strong oppositional stance, accusing the government of withholding information and making hasty, untrustworthy decisions. His framing is centered more on values and the defense of legal certainty than on pragmatic collaboration.

The text focuses on issues of public order, anti-corruption oversight, and conflicts of interest. It cites specific figures (190,000 euros monthly for consultation, a criminal investigation in Italy, the bankruptcy of Nordica) and makes observations about government transparency. Furthermore, it emphasizes the lack of cooperation and legislative subtleties, such as the draft bill proposing changes to the role of the State Secretary. The context of special committees is utilized to substantiate its arguments.

The tone is occasionally focused on consequence and urgency, highly combative, and question-driven. It employs concrete examples and harsh accusations ("How is this possible?" "You are lying"). The address is fact-based, but emotionally impactful and carries a divisive tone.

Attendance at information sessions and a reference to the subsequent special committee meeting on anti-corruption; this also points to previous committee meetings and their respective agendas. It embodies an active parliamentary mandate, stressing the need to intervene and seek accountability. Cooperation with other political parties is noted, specifically through joint sessions and within the framework of legislative drafts.

The main argument of the opposition centers on criticizing government decisions and leveling accusations regarding issues related to corruption. He/She emphasizes the issue of public trust and the scourge of corruption, demonstrating that these matters are political and directly relate to bureaucratic transparency. Personal conflicts (conflicts of interest) can also be highlighted, and he/she demands answers and accountability.

The speaker is critical, emphasizes control, and stresses the need for transparency. Cooperation is either absent or limited, yet the speaker calls for special committee meetings and parliamentary oversight. They do not demonstrate clear partisan cooperation, but rather seek transparency and control over the legislative process.

At the national level, the focus is on specific issues (Nordica, special committees, the role of the Secretary of State), and there is a distinct lack of central attention paid specifically to regional matters. Notably, the concentration is on the country as a whole.

It highlights the magnitude of taxpayer spending and its connection to the handling of the Nordica case; it criticizes the scale of the expenditures and the imprudent signing of contracts. The broader economic context primarily addresses the issue of cost and accountability, rather than specific tax or fiscal policy recommendations.

The primary social issue is the fight against corruption, the protection of the rule of law, and the restoration of trust. Broader social concerns affecting the general public—such as welfare issues, social policy, or demographic topics—are not addressed separately. If these topics are mentioned, they are contextualized as a matter of fundamental values and the basis of law.

Focuses on the nuances of the draft legislation, particularly the changes to the role of the Secretary of State and the modification of the requirement for a higher legal education. It criticizes the haste and the uneven approach, emphasizing the need to ensure an independent and critical civil service. It also mentions that the Climate Law and other important legal acts have been addressed from the government's perspective, and there is a need to monitor the connections related to the adoption of these drafts beyond current oversight. It anticipates greater public scrutiny and transparency regarding the constitutional compliance of the laws.