You have previously been highly critical of lowering the gambling tax. In Wednesday's final vote in the Riigikogu, you voted in favor of it. What should we make of this change of heart?

In fact, there's no change of heart here — this is still a very bad piece of legislation. I'd even go so far as to say it's the worst one this session. It drains money from the state budget, culture loses funding because of it and it also increases money laundering risks. I've always spoken out loudly whenever this issue has come up. I've urged others to think twice and not go through with it, especially MPs from Eesti 200, since this has really been the pet project of one or two members. It's no secret the coalition has been held hostage over it: the threat has been that if this bill doesn't pass, then the state budget won't get the votes and the coalition will fall.

I was critical of the substance and still am. Unfortunately, efforts to explain that fell flat. This bill would have passed with or without my vote. However, I saw a need to make savings in the state budget. I proposed cutting €9 million from the maritime transport subsidy for one year — that's over €40 million across four years. That was my compromise: if we're going to move forward with this bill anyway, then let's at least save money in the budget. I was ready to support it on those terms and the agreement was that the savings proposal would be submitted by the government.

Saving €9 million a year adds up to €41.2 million over four years and that money went to cover urgent needs that weren't accounted for in the budget: €1.5 million for culture, to support the Estonian National Symphony Orchestra (ERSO) and theaters that were facing closure; to cover the discount for the heavy vehicle tax and to invest in addiction prevention and addressing related problems that this other bill will exacerbate. My aim was to save money in the budget. And in fact, thanks to my original proposal, culture is actually getting additional funding.

Yes, the Gambling Tax Act takes money away, but on the other hand, we're putting money back in. For me, that was the compromise. I remain extremely critical of the Gambling Tax Act; it's a bad law.

Don't you think this gives the public and your voters the impression that, after sharply criticizing something, you're now simply abandoning your principles by voting for it?

No, I haven't abandoned anything, because I still say it's a bad law. I did the groundwork seriously and extensively back when there was still a chance to influence the outcome. But in parliament, it's hard to accomplish anything alone — you have to reach compromises. I didn't succeed in negotiating a compromise to stop this bill. What I did manage was a compromise on making budget cuts. What mattered to me was ensuring the savings package would be supported.

When coalition MPs were faced with an ultimatum — either the coalition collapses or this bill passes — I chose to be a team player and backed it. But I still say, on substance, that it's a very bad law. The main issue is for the cultural sector, which is losing funding. When people in the cultural field were still prepared to support this, I couldn't stand in their way.

As for money laundering, the risks are there, and now it's up to the Ministry of Finance, the Financial Intelligence Unit and the Tax and Customs Board to monitor that as best they can. From the perspective of the cultural sector, I can say that thanks to the €9 million saved by cutting the maritime transport subsidy, we were able to resolve the problems facing ERSO, Theatrum and the electron.art theater. That money is coming from the state budget, meaning that the Gambling Tax Act is taking money away from culture.

The compromise I made was to save money in the budget and redirect additional funds to sectors that need it. That was the price. In politics, you have to make compromises.

Is this compromise worth it?

It is worth it, because for me, saving €41 million in the state budget is important. It also matters that when the minister of culture raised concerns about needing support for ERSO and those theaters, at least now that money is going to them. Because as a result of the gambling tax changes, culture is set to lose €6 million next year. Thanks to my proposal, at least €1.5 million will be added back in — it's something for culture, and a significant saving for the state budget.

Was there any kind of "sweetener" offered to you in exchange for your support and your vote in favor?

Look, the "sweetener" was exactly this: I personally didn't get anything out of it — unlike, perhaps, some other MPs who made the coalition's survival their price. For me, the "sweetener" was saving €41.2 million in the state budget over four years. That's purely a statesmanlike decision — if you want to call that a sweetener, go ahead. But I had no personal gain in it; my goal was simply to reduce state spending.

Your fellow party member Liina Kersna abstained from the vote, while Signe Kivi and Aivar Sõerd did not vote at all. Did you consider doing the same?

I did consider it, but I had made an agreement tied to saving money in the state budget. The deal was that if this proposal received support — and it has now been submitted by the government — then the additional expenditures would be covered from those savings. It was backed in committee and will likely pass in the chamber next week, so I kept my word.

As for what agreements others had... I would have preferred if those same people had voiced their concerns more loudly earlier on — then maybe the vote could have been influenced. Abstaining or not voting didn't change the final outcome. That's why I saw no point in taking that route and chose to honor the deal I made.

If we had spoken out more strongly as a united group earlier, perhaps we could have stopped this bill from ever reaching the floor. I said as much to Eesti Ekspress and Madis Hindre about a month ago — that I hoped it would never make it to a vote. Unfortunately, it did. That has consequences: culture is losing money and certain risks are increasing. Those who pushed this bill forward must now take responsibility for that.

So what or who prevented you from speaking out earlier with a united front?

It was the coalition agreement, really. [Eesti 200 MP] Tanel Tein made it very clear that if this bill didn't go through, the coalition wouldn't survive. I don't consider that kind of "suicide vest" tactic appropriate in politics. The strength of parliamentary work lies in the fact that it can only function through compromise — no one individual ever gets exactly what they want. If these kinds of tactics become the norm, it does nothing to support the functioning of parliament.

That's also why I chose to compromise: because I understand that in this line of work, compromises are necessary and you have to decide what matters most to you as an MP at that moment. Improving the state budget's position — even if it's €41 million over four years — might seem small to some. But having seen how easy it is for people to spend tens of millions and how hard it is for those same people to cut even a hundred thousand, I consider €41 million a significant amount.

If we made a negative mark in the gambling tax column, then at least I took responsibility to ensure there was a corresponding positive one elsewhere and that we saved money.

You mentioned earlier that you made a deal in exchange for supporting this bill. Who did you make that deal with?

With the leaders of my party.

What kind of precedent does this kind of "suicide vest politics" by a coalition partner — your own words — set for future cooperation?

It's not a good one. If one party uses it, others may be tempted to do the same and in the end, it will blow up sooner or later. I've never supported this kind of tactic and I've spoken out against it this time as well. Accepting this kind of behavior — even starting from coalition negotiations — opens the door to these kinds of threats, which someone else may choose to use at an unexpected moment.

Having been involved in several rounds of coalition talks myself, often in a leading role, including in some cases alongside Kaja Kallas, I've always tried to avoid these kinds of situations. When striking agreements, I would always aim to steer clear of tactics like that.

Ironically, on Wednesday Latvia passed a tax hike for both online and land-based casinos. What's your take on how these developments might start to interact?

Actually, when I was finance minister, we decided to raise the same remote gambling tax. We raised it to a level that would bring in additional revenue for the budget because we needed money for defense spending and still do. When we were forced to raise income, value-added and vehicle taxes, we also looked at every other possible source of revenue. We raised excise duties, which are a form of taxing harmful habits and should go hand in hand with rising living costs. The remote gambling tax is in the same category — it's about taxing vices.

The plan was to raise it moderately, to bring in extra revenue without necessarily driving away service providers. And that's exactly what happened: we raised the tax to 6 percent and state revenues went up. Now, under this bill, it will drop to 5.5 percent next year. You can't expect much additional revenue when the tax rate is going down. When the rate was 5 percent for years, there was no rush of companies coming in, so 5.5 percent won't attract them either.

I think Latvia is acting responsibly and reasonably — they also need revenue for their state budget, both for defense spending and reducing the deficit. By raising taxes moderately, countries can generate more revenue and also invest more in preventing and treating gambling addiction. We shouldn't forget the addiction side of this — it's not just about making money.

Now we're heading into competition with Malta, which is essentially the Mecca of remote gambling. It was clear from the discussions that Malta isn't going to give up its tax base or its position as market leader.

If we continue lowering the rate and eventually drop below 5 percent — Malta's current rate is 5 — then they'll just lower theirs too. States and prevention efforts lose out on tax revenue and the only winner in this race is the remote gambling operator whose profits will grow. And most likely, so will gambling addiction. Latvia is on the right track, where Estonia used to be and in line with the kinds of decisions we made when I was minister. Now we're reversing course and I think we're heading in the wrong direction on multiple fronts.

Finally: In your view, is the current governing coalition capable enough to hold together until the next Riigikogu elections?

I would like to think so. On the whole, this coalition has also made a number of positive decisions. For example, eliminating the tax hump (Estonia's gradual basic exemption reduction scheme – ed.) — next year, that will put more money directly into people's bank accounts and provide meaningful relief in terms of daily living. We should stick to that principle, because the opposition wants to reverse it, which would, in effect, amount to a tax increase. Keeping this in place should be in the interest of both parties' voters and in Estonia's interest, too.

It's also in the interest of both parties' results in the 2027 elections that we follow through on our positive decisions and make sure they continue to work.

Of course, there are also some blemishes, like this Gambling Tax Act. I hope things will hold, but there are real risks. Those risks emerge when one coalition partner believes it's acceptable to present only their own demands. Parliamentary work can and must only happen through compromise. There's no room here for excessive individualism — fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it.

The article was updated to add the interview in full.

--

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