"If you ask whether a typical layperson who cracks open this budget will always get a clear picture of where the state's money comes from and what it's spent on, then unfortunately, the answer is probably not," Kiik told ERR.

According to the committee member, various budget presentation slides will give you an understanding of the bigger numbers, such as volumes of revenues, expenditures and investments, but delving deeper into the budget still requires a degree of previous experience or even the opportunity to consult directly with officials.

"Not everyone interested in the budget will always have that option," Kiik noted. "There's certainly room for improvement here, to make the budget clearer, easier to read. Also something to consider is whether the budget together with its letter of explanation needs to be so massive – which probably puts most readers off immediately."

He pointed out that it had also been agreed in coalition talks that the state budget should be clear and transparent.

"In the letter of explanation to the state budget for 2025, we will start publishing a budget based on cost accounting in parallel with the activity-based budget," the coalition agreement inked this summer states. "We will then decide on the need to continue with an activity-based budget and on changes to the budgeting process."

Kiik acknowledged that since this summer was an intense one for the government – with a change of government in the middle of summer and several additional tax changes being agreed on – there just wasn't time to draw up a new kind of budget, and the Ministry of Finance drew up the budget based on previous practice.

"This clearly may have also hindered the possibility of focusing on the simplicity or improved readability of the budget," he added.

Even so, he is optimistic that the 2026 state budget process will already take into account both what was agreed on in coalition talks as well as public criticism of the current budget.

"I very much hope that now, with significantly more time to go before next year's budget and this process, it will be possible in the meantime to make the necessary legislative changes as well, where reasonable, and for the Finance Ministry to think through how to best address this criticism," Kiik said, adding that the Finance Committee will certainly be keeping an eye on the process.

"I for one am optimistic that we won't see a change in government every summer," he noted.

"The state budget bill is after all the Estonian state's most vital document, based on which life in virtually all areas is organized, in terms of the financial aspect," the SDE MP emphasized. "It would make sense that this be accessible and understandable to every voter, to every citizen."

Korobeinik: Hard to understand bill undermines parliament role

Finance Committee deputy chair MP Andrei Korobeinik (Center) said that he believes the state budget bill is in conflict with the Constitution. Chancellor of Justice Ülle Madise recently emphasized as well that the budget bill is likely unconstitutional.

"The Constitution is clear in that the state budget must reflect the precise distribution of expenditures and revenues, not just the allocation of funds between ministries," Korobeinik said. "It's important that it's clearly stated for what and how money will be used. The current budget bill is lacking this transparency, which is why, in my opinion, it can be considered a breach of the Constitution."

He pointed out that even MPs have to constantly make additional inquiries and question ministers – who often themselves don't have answers to these questions – to understand what's behind specific budget lines.

"The process looks more like detective work, which shouldn't be necessary to review and approve the budget," the Center MP emphasized.

The budget's lack of transparency highlights another serious problem as well, Korobeinik noted.

"According to the Constitution, the Riigikogu has the right to amend the budget, but exercising this right is difficult if there is no accurate and detailed information about the amount on each budget line," he said.

"Such a situation undermines the role of parliament and leaves more and more decisions up to ministries, where the real decisions are often made not by ministers but by officials," he continued. "Eventually we could end up in a situation where there is insufficient clarity regarding the actual state of the budget – not just in the Riigikogu, but more broadly."

For example, large unspent sums may turn up at the end of the year, which Korobeinik says is indicative of not efficiency, but planning errors.

"Taavi Rõivas has called the process a failed experiment – and I concur," he said. "Trying out new things is necessary, but even more important is the ability to recognize your mistakes and correct them. Now is the last chance to do so."

Terras: Justice chancellor's criticism appropriate

MP Hendrik Terras (Eesti 200), chair of the Constitutional Committee of the Riigikogu, considers the 2025 state budget bill a confusing document as well. According to him, the budget should be cost-based, as required by the Constitution.

"Ms. Madise's criticism is certainly relevant to some extent," Terras acknowledged. "It's not so clear what exactly these expense lines are. "Section 115 of the Constitution stipulates that there should be expenditures and revenues. Right now we've shifted to an activity-based budget, which does have its strengths, but according to the Constitution, it should be cost-based."

He noted that nothing has been done poorly here. "But it would be worthwhile to take steps to make it more readable and transparent," he said.

"This activity-based idea isn't inherently bad; it demonstrates what the state's priorities are, and that's a good thing," Terras continued. "But the question is, how does it align with regulations? Expenditures and revenues should be in the law, not in the letter of explanation. And this activity-based plan should be in the letter of explanation, not the law. I think it would make sense to make that switch. And that should be considered in the context of next year."

In a recent interview with ETV news broadcast "Aktuaalne kaamera," Chancellor of Justice Ülle Madise said that the 2025 state budget bill is likely unconstitutional, as it lacks revenue and expenditure lines that the Riigikogu could amend, or based on which it would be possible to understand from where and how much money is actually coming and where taxpayers' money will be going over the course of the year.

"And, also important, where cuts could be made, and where the Riigikogu believes more money is needed, and what [budget] line that should then be added to," Madise added.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!