Agenda Profile: Aivar Sõerd
Draft law amending the State Budget Act (511 SE) - Second Reading
2024-11-13
15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary session.
Political Position
The politician expresses strong opposition to the current activity-based budget, stressing its inefficiency, artificial metrics, and the lack of connection to actual expenditures. His position is strongly policy-driven and results-oriented, demanding that the budget be established as law in its traditional cost- and resource-based format. He criticizes the government's goal of merely improving the budget, proposing instead a structural change where the activity-based aspect would serve only as an informative supplement.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates deep expertise in the state budget and budgeting methodology (activity-based and cost-based budgeting), utilizing technical terminology such as performance indicators and metrics. He supports his claims with concrete examples drawn from ministry budget programs and metrics (Ministry of Justice, road investments). Furthermore, he references the National Audit Office's analysis of five years of activity-based budgeting practice and last year's annual report.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The rhetorical style is critical, analytical, and logical, focusing on the deficiencies in policies and procedures, as well as factual examples. The speaker uses formal and technical language, repeatedly posing rhetorical questions ("Why couldn't it be so?") to underscore the system's inadequacy. He/She attempts to avoid generalizations, bringing forward concrete examples of artificial connections.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
The speaker is actively engaged in legislative oversight, citing repeated questions posed to ministerial representatives during Finance Committee discussions and the Riigikogu's budget proceedings. This indicates consistent and detailed work regarding the budget process.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The main criticism is directed against the methodological guidelines of the Ministry of Finance and the government's budgeting practices, which are considered ineffective and excessively formal. The criticism is policy- and procedure-based, accusing the system's creators of establishing artificial and non-existent links between costs and results. He also criticizes the position of the Chairman of the Finance Committee that the system can simply be improved.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
Insufficient data.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
The focus is entirely national, addressing the structural problems of the State Budget Act and the adequacy of ministries’ funding decisions. Regional or local topics are addressed only as examples (e.g., local government lighting or the safety of one's home street) to illustrate the inadequacy of national metrics.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
Economic views focus on fiscal transparency and accountability, preferring a cost-based budget to see what the money is actually spent on. The speaker notes with concern the growth of the debt burden and interest costs, linking further financing to an increased risk of insolvency. He criticizes the inefficient use of state funds, citing as an example the 13% of budgetary resources that remained unused.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
Social issues are addressed merely as examples of inadequate performance indicators, such as the number of traffic fatalities or a neighborhood safety metric. These examples are provided to illustrate the criticism of the budget methodology, not to analyze the substance of social policy.
3 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The main legislative focus is on the deliberation of the draft Act amending the State Budget Act (511 SE), to which the speaker is strongly opposed in its current form. He/She wishes to change the structure of the Act so that the budget is established as law based on expenditure and resources, leaving activity-based metrics as an informative supplement.
3 Speeches Analyzed