Session Profile: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

The Centre Party faction represents a strong opposition to the coalition's budgetary policy, emphasizing transparency, performance-based budgeting, and a clear connection of state money to performance indicators. They have been sharply critical of tax increases and the car tax, arguing that these exacerbate inequality and worsen the ability of families to cope. Parliamentary oversight and the parliament's influence in budget preparation are considered essential, and the possibility for ministers to change spending plans at any time is seen as a safeguard against parliamentary censorship. At the same time, they are presenting their own bills to amend the State Budget Act in order to restore better explanation and transparency standards for expenditures and revenues.

Representatives point to the nuances of financial procedure (explanations, agenda preparation, draft processing), the complexity of the state budget’s transparency and the bases for support to legal entities. They cite notes from the Ministry of Finance, the Auditor General, and assessments from the Institute for Economic Research and the Institute for Forecasting regarding the economic and social impact. Their observations demonstrate both knowledge of the technical details of the budget process as well as questions regarding investment priorities, for example in the field of IT and artificial intelligence.

The tone of the speeches is combative, brutally critical, and emotionally charged, often employing rhetorical questions and personal names. Irony also emerges in the texts, along with the use of quoted references from history (e.g., the mention of Louis XIV) to emphasize the incomprehension of the government’s attitude. Keyword-laden and fact-filled presentations, often brimming with clichés, are frequently balanced with a morally motivating message directed towards the public.

The proportion of debate is significant and regularly continues in plenary sessions and committee meetings; the focus is on budget process and agenda issues. It is noted that written inquiries and questions have been sent to ministries and various experts or interest groups have been invited to discussions to influence budget transparency. The posing of questions and the awaiting of answers are in a tightly structured framework.

A clearly oppositional attitude towards the coalition’s budget policy and the expansion of ministerial powers; the criticism is both political and procedural. Personal attacks and accusations primarily target the attitude and approach of coalition ministers, while standing up for families and vulnerable groups is seen as a priority. Their position is not one of warm cooperation, but the need to declare and discuss responsibly and transparently is emphasized.

It demonstrates a willingness to involve stakeholders and experts in committee discussions (e.g., written feedback from stakeholder groups and the inclusion of various experts), but at the same time emphasizes the need for parliamentary oversight and the coordination of conflicting, ongoing changes within the coalition. The collaboration aims to increase budget transparency, but does not envision extensive, bipolar cooperation with the coalition.

The primary conflict lies at the national level; rural situations and family coping mechanisms are also mentioned, along with references to the Tallinn City Council as a comparison of local power. Regional aspects encompass the importance of IT investments and the country's digital development (comparable on a global scale). It speaks of a broader Estonian context and the specific needs of families and regions.

Economic policy reflects skepticism regarding tax increases and emphasizes the need for a spending-based budget and transparency; it is believed that economic growth requires improved domestic demand and investment directed towards IT and AI services. Criticism is voiced concerning the impact of tax changes and their tendency to increase budget deficits, with reference made to IMF forecasts, and a call is made to approach the economy with a more flexible and consumer-protective vision. Their positions focus on the transparency of resource allocation and the prioritization of investments as an opportunity to improve growth potential.

Emphasis is placed on protecting vulnerable groups, such as single individuals and pensioners, as well as patients; criticism is directed at the increase in daily hospital rates and decisions increasing healthcare costs that damage access to services. The well-being of families is a priority, and criticism is leveled at the impact of tax increases on lower-income households. The need to maintain social equality is highlighted, and to avoid tax policies that deepen inequality.

The focus is on the process of bills and increasing the Riigikogu’s control; the need to amend the state budget law is emphasized (a budget based on expenditure, performance indicators), the timely placement of bills on the agenda, and limiting the possibilities for ministers to amend the budget after the Riigikogu’s approval. With confirmations, the need to improve the integrity of explanatory notes and data is emphasized, and plans are presented for katkes.