Session Profile: Hanah Lahe
15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary session
2024-10-08
Political Position
The speaker positions himself as a responsible politician who calls into question the necessity and justification of the draft legislation. He strongly objects to the proposal to exempt pensioners and disabled persons from the hunting rights fee, stressing that this would lead to lost state revenue (at least 32,400 euros), funds which are earmarked for the promotion of hunting. His approach is policy- and results-driven, focusing on the financial impact and the inadequate justification provided by the bill's initiator.
1 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates expertise in hunting regulations and financial aspects, citing specific figures regarding the number of hunters, the percentage of pensioners, and potential revenue loss. They rely on assessments provided by experts from the Ministry of Climate, differentiating hunting from fishing based on the complexity and cost involved in these activities. This expertise is closely tied to the legislative process and the utilization of data.
1 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The rhetorical style is formal, procedural, and analytical, focusing on conveying the results of the commission's work and deliberations. The speaker employs logical arguments and presents data (e.g., calculations of lost revenue), refraining from emotional or personal appeals. The tone is neutral and fact-based, with the aim of explaining the rationale behind the commission's decision.
1 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
The Speaker's scope of work involves active participation in the legislative committee's activities (the Environment Committee), including leading the discussion of draft legislation and engaging experts (from the Ministry of Climate) and the initiators [of the bills]. Their role is to present the committee's position and the consensus decision to the plenary session.
1 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The opposition is aimed at the bill's initiator (Kalle Grünthal), who is being criticized for failing to provide exhaustive answers to the questions raised. The criticism is based on both policy and procedure, as the bill was rejected due to insufficient justification and a failure to demonstrate its necessity. The opposition was strong, which led to a consensus proposal to reject the bill.
1 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
The speaker emphasizes consensus-based cooperation among the committee members, given that the proposal to reject the draft bill was made unanimously. This cooperation also involves engaging ministry experts (Ministry of Climate) to obtain facts and analysis, ensuring that decisions are evidence-based.
1 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
Not enough data
1 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
Economic perspectives favor fiscal discipline, opposing the waiving of fees, which would result in a direct and quantifiable loss of revenue. It is stressed that the revenue collected is essential for the interests and promotion of hunting, thus highlighting the need to maintain earmarked funding.
1 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
Among the social issues discussed is the potential exemption of the elderly and disabled people from the hunting license fee. The question was also raised regarding the possible problems the elderly face when using the digital environment, which points to the recognition of certain social obstacles.
1 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The legislative focus is currently on hunting and environmental regulations, specifically addressing the draft bill concerning the hunting rights fee. The speaker is a proponent of rejecting this bill, stressing the necessity for comprehensive analysis and proper justification before any legislative amendments are adopted.
1 Speeches Analyzed