HE 9/2016 vpPassed with amendmentsSubmitted 18 Feb 2016

Supplementary budget for 2016

The supplementary budget for 2016, amending the central government budget for the current year. The votes mainly concern individual appropriation items and proposals in dissenting opinions from the opposition.

Status: Passed with amendments
Submitted: 18 Feb 2016
Latest event: 12 Apr 2016
Votes: 11
Speeches: 159
Statute: 260/2016
Source: eduskunta.fi ↗

How Parliament voted

The budget is not voted on as a whole. Parliament voted 11 times on individual appropriations and opposition alternatives, and the budget was adopted on the basis of those votes.

A passed act does not enter into force immediately: the President of the Republic confirms it, and it enters into force on the date set in the act.

Debate in the chamber

What was argued and where each group stood, followed by MPs' speeches verbatim from the parliamentary record. Speeches are shown in their original language.

159 speeches · 2 debates

Key points of the debate

The debate on the first supplementary budget for 2016 was contentious and deeply divided the Government and the opposition. The opposition criticised the proposal in particular for failing to include additional appropriations to tackle unemployment and for employment measures. In addition, the additional funding allocated to the Terrafame mine and entries concerning the reorganisation of Metsähallitus (the state forest enterprise) sparked dispute.

Should the supplementary budget increase appropriations for employment management and pay subsidies?
Is additional capitalisation of the Terrafame mine economically and environmentally justified?
Are the grounds for the police purchasing speed enforcement cameras on a sustainable footing?

National Coalition PartyIn favour
The National Coalition Party supported the supplementary budget and considered it important to ensure the entry into force of the Metsähallitus Act and to safeguard Terrafame's operations and jobs.
”Todella on niin, että tässä on kysymys samasta rahasta, tässä Terrafamessa vain teknisesti siirretään se pääomaksi.”
— Eero Suutari
Finns PartyIn favour
The Finns Party defended the solutions in the supplementary budget and considered that it safeguards jobs and the overall interest of the state in a challenging economic situation.
”132 miljoonaa euroa Arctia Icebreakingille ja Talvivaaraan 38,5 miljoonaa. Nämä ovat juuri sellaisia asioita, joilla hoidetaan työllisyyttä, pidetään työpaikoista kiinni.”
— Kaj Turunen
Centre PartyIn favour
The Centre Party supported the proposal because it addresses acute appropriation needs, implements key projects, and enables the reform of Metsähallitus (the state forest enterprise).
”Tämä lisätalousarvio on selvästikin vastaus näihin muutamaan akuuttiin kysymykseen, jotka pitää hoitaa.”
— Matti Vanhanen
Social DemocratsAgainst
The Social Democrats opposed the proposal and submitted a dissenting opinion because the supplementary budget did not address growing unemployment or increase appropriations for pay subsidies and employment.
”Tähän esitykseen sisältyy myös sosialidemokraattien vastalause, jossa kannamme jälleen kerran huolta työllisyysmäärärahojen riittämättömyydestä.”
— Pia Viitanen
GreensAgainst
The Greens opposed the proposal in particular due to the funding allocated to Terrafame and the forest transfers to Metsähallitus (the state forest enterprise) business operations.
”Vihreä eduskuntaryhmä ei voi hyväksyä esitettyä määrärahasiirtoa ympäristövahinkojen estämisestä Terrafame Group Oy:n oman pääoman korottamiseen.”
— Touko Aalto
Left AllianceAgainst
The Left Alliance strongly criticised the absence of employment measures and considered granting additional funding to the Terrafame mine economically questionable.
”totean, että tämän lisätalousarvion suurin puute ja heikkous on, että sillä ei reagoida nopeasti pahaan työttömyystilanteeseen, kuten täällä on moneen kertaan todettu.”
— Kari Uotila
Christian DemocratsIn favour with reservations
The Christian Democrats expressed reservations about the acquisition of speed cameras if the purchases are justified primarily by increasing fine revenues rather than traffic safety.
”Päätöstä perusteellaan muun muassa sillä, että hankinta maksaa itsensä nopeasti takaisin lisääntyvien sakkotuottojen muodossa.”
— Peter Östman

This digest was generated by AI from 159 speeches 13 Sep 2026. Group positions are read from the speeches, not from votes; quotations were checked verbatim against the record. The longest speeches were shortened in the digest's source material.