Session Profile: Katrin Kuusemäe

The speaker's political position was primarily procedural, serving as the rapporteur for the Constitutional Committee on the Riigikogu's draft resolution concerning a referendum on electricity generation from oil shale. He stressed that Estonia lacks an internationally binding date for phasing out oil shale and that the national energy development plan is merely a visionary document, not a binding piece of legislation. Although he personally expressed neither support nor opposition, he conveyed the committee's proposal to reject the draft, also referencing the debate regarding the suitability of the referendum's timing (e.g., after 2026).

The speaker demonstrated strong expertise regarding the procedural rules of the Riigikogu and the work of the Constitutional Committee, presenting a detailed overview of the committee’s session and its procedural decisions. He/She also demonstrated knowledge concerning energy policy (oil shale, the energy economy development plan) and the legal bindingness of European Union funding agreements (280 million euros). His/Her role was the accurate conveyance of facts and the standpoints of the ministries.

The speaker’s rhetorical style was highly formal, neutral, and procedural, stemming directly from their role as the committee rapporteur. They concentrated on logical and fact-based arguments, presenting specific dates, figures, and voting results, thereby avoiding any emotional appeals. They repeatedly emphasized that their report should not be construed as containing a personal stance regarding the referendum.

The speaker’s pattern of activity involved providing the plenary session with a detailed report on the outcomes and procedural decisions reached during the Constitutional Committee’s sitting on April 15. His role was defined as the committee’s rapporteur, signaling his regular involvement in the committee's work and his readiness to report directly to the Riigikogu.

He did not express direct opposition to the initiators of the bill (the Centre Party faction), but he conveyed the position of the committee majority, which was to reject the draft legislation. He defended the trust between the government and the people, arguing that the situation was not so dire that the public would distrust the government, thereby opposing the necessity of holding a referendum at the present moment.

The speaker demonstrated internal committee cooperation by accurately relaying the committee's voting results and procedural decisions. They also highlighted the participation in the discussion of representatives from the ministries (the Ministry of Climate and the Ministry of Finance), which indicates a readiness to involve government agencies in the legislative process.

The focus was on national energy policy (oil shale) and international relations (funding agreements concluded with the European Commission). Specific regional or local issues were not covered in the speeches.

Economic positions came to light regarding the 280 million euros in European Union subsidies, where he/she stressed that these agreements do not compel Estonia to give up using oil shale if the economic situation demands it. This demonstrates a pragmatic approach to financing and energy security.

The speaker addressed the social issue concerning the organization of referendums and direct democracy. They expressed personal openness to referendums generally, but questioned the necessity of the timing of a specific referendum, while simultaneously defending the trust between the Estonian people and the government.

The legislative focus centered on the Riigikogu's draft resolution concerning the organization of a referendum on the issue of oil shale. The speaker acted as the rapporteur, supporting the committee's proposal to reject the draft, thereby focusing on procedural and timing-related considerations.