Session Profile: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

The speaker emphasizes the preservation of the apolitical nature and legality of civil service and strongly opposes the coalition’s plans to change the educational requirements for the state secretary and the coalition's general approach to the budget bill. They focus on protecting the independence of institutions and criticize the possibility of top positions being politicized to meet the coalition’s needs. Furthermore, they are highly critical of the coalition’s tax policy, arguing that raising income tax and VAT will damage the economy and the population, and increase poverty. The overall tone is that of a defender of the rule of law and the stability of institutions, for which stricter scrutiny of decisions is necessary.

It emphasizes the role of constitutional and legal frameworks and provides a precise description of the state secretary’s duties (participation in government meetings, ensuring the correctness of draft legislation, etc.). It refers to amending educational requirements and the need to present a separate law, and uses examples (discussion of the state secretary’s changing role, comparison with a long-standing existing law). It highlights signs that violations of the principles of the rule of law could allow for certain levels of political cleansing. It also refers to the Hungarian example as a warning sign of how legal manipulations are used to serve political objectives.

Speeches are characterized by a combative and direct tone, closely relying on facts and legal arguments. It utilizes emotional speech (trust in state institutions, the protection of the rule of law) and presents rhetorical questions (e.g., "Do you know where this is done?") to increase persuasiveness. Overall, the style is formal, but solid and critical due to the emotions and moral foundation.

Attendance at the Plenary Sitting of the XV Riigikogu, 4th Session Period – several speeches on precisely the same day, December 11, 2024. The recorded discussion concerns the same topic: bills relating to the State Chancellery and security issues, and the bill on transparency. The text demonstrates a regular rhetorical flow which directs attention to institutional responsibility and the scrutinizability of legislation, with no reference to extensive travel or external forums.

As a core enterprise, there is strong opposition to the coalition’s planned bill: the change to the state secretary’s education requirements, the content of the draft law on noise, and the plan for a security tax. It defends the rule of law and against the impartiality of institutions, using close criticism and emotional comparisons, arguing that such changes damage trust and promote political agendas. Powerful resistance is directed both at specific bills and at broader tax policy.

Although the tone is mainly critical, a certain degree of formal willingness to cooperate is discernible: it refers to the role of committees and negotiations as procedural safeguards (e.g., highlighting that a committee member could address speeches and find answers). However, the main style is oppositional, and when expressing a willingness to cooperate, it demonstrates less flexibility than pragmatic cooperation. It affirms that the transparency of decisions and the presentation of separate laws are necessary.

Not enough data.

Regarding the economy and taxes, he emphasizes that the coalition's tax policy is damaging to the economy and the population: he emphasizes that raising VAT and income tax has a negative impact, and the tax break for banks benefits the banks, which is unfair. He rejects ideas that increase taxation and deepen poverty; he cites the reduction in revenue of 43 million euros as an example of the government's weakness in economic activity. He adheres to the principles of economic growth and improving the well-being of citizens, not increasing taxes.

It emphasizes social vulnerability in the context of tax changes: noting that tax increases reduce people’s purchasing power and increase poverty and theft; highlights the vulnerability risks for pensioners and the middle class and the need to ensure social justice and stability. Criticism is based on moral and social considerations and emphasizes a more trustworthy and fairer state.

Priorities are clearly linked to the careful review of draft legislation: it emphasizes that amending the state secretary's education requirements should not be done via a workaround – a separate draft law must be submitted. The critique addresses the core elements of tax policy and the intention behind the security tax, and emphasizes the parliamentary procedural transparency and the role of committees. It represents a goal to improve legislative transparency, institutional independence, and the protection of the rule of law principles.