Session Profile: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

The Centre Party representative is in strong opposition to the government’s tax policy, emphasizing that laws must improve people’s lives, not increase their burdens. He fights against the raising of fines, state duties, and the car tax, and stresses the necessity of constitutionality and inclusive lawmaking. He focuses on protecting the interests of vulnerable groups (e.g., people with disabilities, families, low-income citizens) and symbolizes reform as the need to significantly better plan and analyze proposals before any vote.

The speaker demonstrates a strong knowledge-based approach to the legal framework and the analysis of regulatory impacts: they highlight constitutional review, analyze the effects of European Union legal acts, and present numerical examples (e.g., 3,200 euros in compensation for non-pecuniary damage, 80-euro fines, 250 euros for expedited ID card processing). The topics discussed cover the transparency of the motor insurance system and the principles for establishing state fees, utilizing specific examples and a research background. Non-pecuniary/pecuniary damages and references to case law illustrate the impact analysis.

The delivery is driven, confrontational, and rhetorically imitative. When speaking, he employs questions, examples, and irony, and sharply attacks written texts and decisions. The objective is to achieve influence through a strong critical tone and emotional appeal, while simultaneously striving to remain argumentative and grounded in facts. Furthermore, historical references and anecdotes of personal experience are utilized throughout the text.

Repeated remarks were heard during the plenary sessions held on the same day: several speeches emphasized minor amendments and participation during late-night hours (referencing the night-hour debates), and reference was made to the work of the committees and the submission of amendments (e.g., 22 substantive amendments from the Centre Party faction). This creates an impression of continuity, active involvement, and constant attention being paid to the draft legislation, as well as a desire to influence constitutionality and the quality of lawmaking.

The main opposition strategy is criticism of the government's tax policy and the methods used to cover budget deficits. They emphasize that increasing fines, state fees, and land tax primarily burdens the less affluent and constitutes a violation of the principles of legal certainty and solidarity. The opposition also focuses on protecting the administration of justice and ensuring constitutionality, considering the capacity to make reasonable draft amendments essential.

The strategy involves elements of both demands and cooperation: he confirms that the Centre Party submitted many substantive amendments, and some of these changes were accepted. At the same time, he stresses his willingness to cooperate going forward and advance their positions through the “second bill.” It seems he wants to find a broad-based solution and involve the coalition, but simultaneously continues to criticize the coalition's actions.

The focus is primarily on issues with broad, nationwide implications, though it highlights regional disparities. Specifically, it points to the regional irrelevance of land tax increases and parking fines (for example, for families living in Võru County) and the inability of small municipalities to increase tax revenue without experiencing population loss. It calls attention to regional impacts and the resulting inequality among local governments.

At the heart of the economic discussion are scale taxes and costs, where the central point of criticism is the government’s unreasonably escalating taxes and fines, which undermine people’s ability to cope financially and exacerbate social inequality. It argues that hiking fines and state fees is an economic policy that amounts to a "tax on government incompetence," and stresses the necessity of not increasing the burden on the poor and the middle class. It calls for transparency and fair compensation (for example, increasing damages awarded for non-pecuniary harm).

Emphasizes social impacts and justice: conveying concern for vulnerable groups (people with disabilities, low-income families, pensioners) and stressing the fairness of the principle of the inviolability of the home and compensation for non-pecuniary damage. Criticism extends to the impact of rapid tax increases and fines, which could deepen social inequality and exacerbate livelihood problems. A strengthening approach for the protection of people and the increase of transparency is put forward.

The speech focuses on specific legislative bills and amendments, including regulations regarding the car tax, parking fines, state fees, and compensation for non-pecuniary damage. It emphasizes the need for constitutional review and inclusive lawmaking. It refers to criticism of lawmaking from the Supreme Court and respected legal experts, and highlights which changes have been adopted or taken up for discussion (e.g., the publication of the 20 largest non-pecuniary damage compensations, issues concerning e-residency state fees). It demonstrates both a proactive and reactive approach, as well as a commitment to improving the quality of lawmaking.