By Plenary Sessions: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

The representative of the Centre Party faction holds a position of strong opposition regarding the draft bill, emphasizing the privacy of individuals and the protection of fundamental rights, as well as the necessity for comprehensive risk analyses and contingency plans. He called for the second reading to be suspended and stressed the importance of a broad-based debate and public transparency, suggesting an approach that is likely policy- and value-driven.

The speaker's core position is that the 25 kg limit set by the e-scooter traffic insurance law unfairly targets a single market participant (Bolt) and is therefore unacceptable. He believes the decision was influenced by political donations and lobbying efforts, and that, if necessary, equal regulation must be ensured across all rental services; emphasizing consumer protection and market fairness. Furthermore, his stance focuses on anti-corruption oversight and the protection of public funds and public health, rather than prioritizing the interests of a single company.

The speaker places citizen privacy and constitutional protection first, and expresses strong opposition to the super-database law. He/She emphasizes that the draft bill violates fundamental rights and could threaten the functioning of democracy, and calls on the coalition and the government to withdraw the bill and refrain from submitting new versions. The position is firmly rooted in values and rights, focusing on maintaining limits and oversight, and adopting an uncompromising tone.

A critical and oversight-focused position. He/She emphasizes transparency and anti-corruption supervision within state institutions and remains skeptical regarding government decisions and the management of the office space acquisition. Specific questions are raised concerning the justification of expenditures and accountability, demonstrating a commitment to prioritizing the use of taxpayer money.

The main topic is increasing anti-corruption oversight and the transparency of the Riigikogu (Parliament). He is clearly in favor of greater openness and clarity regarding the mandate of the committees, especially concerning access to internal information. He emphasizes that parliamentary control must not be restricted on the basis of commercial confidentiality, and he seeks clarification on whether these restrictions are justified.

A commitment to strengthening the autonomy of local governments and a position opposing the transfer of Toompea (central government) politics to the local level. This stance defends the funding of local governments and emphasizes that the central government's tax policy increases the burden on municipalities and harms the quality of life for residents. If necessary, we are prepared to utilize the assistance of the Supreme Court, and we call on local residents to elect resistance and responsible representation.

The primary priorities are anti-corruption oversight and ensuring transparency across the financial and corporate markets. The speaker highlighted the risks associated with the Enefit Green buyback case, specifically concerning the leakage of insider information and the potential for illicit gains. They strongly stressed the need for a thorough investigation and full public disclosure. Furthermore, they emphasized the ongoing active work being conducted within the Special Anti-Corruption Committee.

The oppositional stance involves a critical attitude toward the expenditures of the government and the Health Insurance Fund. It stresses the transparency of taxpayer money and the need for cost savings, simultaneously highlighting the necessity of a comprehensive labor policy and the utilization of impact assessments. While it does not present a clear vision for compromise policy, it is actively prepared to seek changes to decisions at the Riigikogu (Parliament) level.

The main focus is the criticism of the government's tax policy and the resulting concerns regarding budget and social policy. The speaker describes the tax policy as unstable and detrimental to people's financial standing, leveling strong criticism at both the consistency of the taxes and the logic behind the decisions. The stance is strongly oppositional, emphasizing the need for transparency, accountability, and the protection of vulnerable groups' interests. It also points to potential negative impacts on specific groups (families caught in the poverty trap, people with disabilities, the elderly, rural areas) and highlights risks associated with corruption.

The speaker positions himself as a Member of Parliament who emphasizes the oversight of sectoral issues and fact-based debate. He highlights the problem of youth unemployment and the necessity of obtaining accurate data and understanding the root causes, referencing August data and the European context, which demonstrates an intensive yet moderately critical approach. Furthermore, he emphasizes transparency and accountability in governance, including the need for special scrutiny regarding RMK's long-term contracts, which can be interpreted as a focus on oversight and situational engagement.

The main points focus on opposition oversight and criticism of the state’s functioning: strong criticism has been leveled against economic policy, including the adoption of the car tax and the sugar tax, and the necessity of adhering to the Constitution and European Union law is stressed. Transparency in the state budget and the targeted use of public funds are also emphasized, often shifting toward direct criticism of the government. Optimistic forecasts for economic development are tempered, and the priority is strengthening checks and accountability, as well as holding ministers responsible (e.g., through motions of no confidence). The overall tone is policy- and value-based, rather than merely personal at the personnel level, and the stance is strongly oppositional.