Agenda Profile: Pipi-Liis Siemann
Draft law amending the Act on the Status of a Member of the Riigikogu (528 SE) – first reading
2024-12-10
15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary session
Political Position
The political position is primarily procedural and policy-driven, focusing on the handling of the draft amendment to the Riigikogu Member Status Act (528 SE). While the speaker acknowledges that regulating the absences of members of parliament (for instance, due to health issues or caregiving responsibilities) is a genuinely important issue, they support the majority proposal of the lead committee to reject the bill due to its lack of maturity and overly concise nature. This stance is moderate, emphasizing the integrity of the legislative process and the quality of the proposed bill.
1 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates authority in explaining the work and procedural decisions of the Riigikogu Constitutional Committee, presenting precise voting results and detailed discussion points. He/She is an expert on the regulation of statutory work duties and absences for members of parliament, noting that currently there is no legally prescribed possibility for absence. The speaker uses technical terms such as "referenced by the delegation norm" and refers to the continuous and uniform nature of work duties as stipulated by law.
1 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The speaker's style is formal, analytical, and focused on facts, particularly in conveying the details of the Constitutional Committee session and the procedural decisions made. He criticizes the unconstructive nature of the plenary debate, labeling it "whataboutism" and a deviation from the topic, contrasting this with the constructive work of the committee. The appeal is logical, and its objective is to ensure that listeners understand the actual content of the draft bill and the procedural course.
1 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
The pattern of activity is linked to the work of the Steering Committee, encompassing a meeting held on Tuesday, December 3rd, and several procedural decisions concerning the inclusion of the draft legislation on the agenda. The speaker will address the plenary session as the designated representative of the Steering Committee to communicate the committee's positions and the results of the vote.
1 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The criticism is aimed at the unconstructiveness and deviation from the topic observed during the plenary debate, citing "whataboutism" and the introduction of irrelevant subjects (such as European and American investments). There is no direct political confrontation; instead, the focus of the criticism is solely on the quality of the procedure and the standard of the discussion.
1 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
The style of cooperation is open and objective, reflecting the constructive discussion in the committee. The speaker honestly conveyed the views of the representative of the bill’s initiators (Lauri Laats), including the acknowledgment of the bill’s prematurity and the need for amendments. The committee’s decisions were made by a vote, where the proposal for rejection received majority support (5 in favor, 3 against).
1 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
Insufficient data.
1 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
Insufficient data. The speaker is simply distancing the bill under consideration from irrelevant arguments presented by others, which concerned corporate investment plans between Europe and America.
1 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
Social issues are addressed within the context of the work obligations of Riigikogu members, highlighting the need to account for the burden of caring for family members and health-related absences. This is more a statement of the problem, which the draft bill attempted to address, rather than a specific social policy stance.
1 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The legislative focus is on the draft Act amending the Riigikogu Member Status Act (528 SE), which concerns the regulation of justified and unjustified absences of members of parliament. The speaker, representing the leading committee, submitted the motion to reject the draft Act, as the draft was not sufficiently developed and required substantial amendment.
1 Speeches Analyzed