By Plenary Sessions: Mario Kadastik
Total Sessions: 51
Fully Profiled: 51
2025-10-15
The 15th Riigikogu, VI Session, Plenary Sitting
There is no direct confrontation; the speaker rather conveys various viewpoints, such as Estonia's wish regarding the cancellation of ETS2, which did not receive widespread support. The speaker also relays Mart Maastik's concern about the growth of bureaucracy.
2025-10-14
The 15th Riigikogu, 6th Session, Plenary Sitting
There is no direct confrontation or criticism. The speaker addresses the minister's original proposal neutrally (removing the photo for the sake of efficiency), but the committee's decision was a consensual modification, prioritizing security.
2025-10-09
15th Riigikogu, 6th Session, Plenary Sitting
Insufficient data
2025-10-08
The 15th Riigikogu, 6th Session, Plenary Sitting
The opposition is the Centre Party (Keskerakond), and the speaker is detailing the handling of their draft legislation. The criticism is indirect and procedural, pointing out that the Centre Party was unwilling to withdraw its bill, despite the government already working on identical solutions. Also mentioned is a question posed by Marek Reinaas (likely a member of the coalition) concerning the withdrawal of the Centre Party's bill.
2025-09-24
Fifteenth Riigikogu, sixth sitting, plenary sitting.
The opposition is aimed at the initiators of the draft legislation (Isamaa) and their proposal, which was deemed unreasonable and irrational. The criticism is rooted in the political and legal framework, pointing out conflicts with EU directives and inadequate risk analysis.
2025-09-23
15th Riigikogu, 6th session, plenary session
There is not enough data.
2025-09-17
15th Riigikogu, 6th sitting, plenary sitting.
The primary criticism is aimed at the bill's initiators (including Anastassia), who are accused of addressing the problem too narrowly and ignoring the actual situation. The criticism is based both on policy and motive, suggesting that the bill is merely a political "propaganda topic" designed to attack Bolt and gain votes. The speaker emphasizes that the bill fails to solve the actual underlying problem.
2025-09-10
15th Riigikogu, 6th sitting, plenary session
The primary objection is aimed at the claims and analysis put forth by the presenter, which are considered inaccurate regarding the impacts on the energy sector and the labor market. The criticism is substantive and policy-driven, focusing specifically on the soundness of the underlying assumptions within the context of the manufacturing industry.
2025-09-04
15th Riigikogu, extraordinary session of the Riigikogu
Insufficient data
2025-06-18
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
Opposition is mounted against those who claim oil shale is competitive and cheap, refuting these assertions with economic facts. The criticism is also aimed at the bureaucratic machine and the constant dragging out of procedures, which the draft legislation seeks to limit. The criticism is policy- and procedure-based.
2025-06-17
15th Estonian Parliament, 5th session, plenary session
The criticism is aimed at procedural delays and indecision ("we got stuck arguing"), which have resulted in large fines and financial losses. The Reform Party is urged to clearly support the draft bill to end this expensive situation and prevent the fine amount from increasing over the summer.
2025-06-11
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary sitting
The opposition is aimed at correcting the claims and interpretations put forward by specific colleagues (Lauri, Mart, Anti), who, in the speaker’s assessment, have misunderstood the substance of the draft bill. The criticism is policy- and fact-based, focusing on clarifying the actual impact of the support measure and the scope of the planning changes. The speaker refutes claims that this constitutes massive support or that it will drive up prices.
2025-06-10
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary sitting.
Insufficient data.
2025-06-05
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session.
Direct opponents are not criticized, but the speaker parries indirect objections and common concerns. For instance, it is explained that expert foreign labor is brought in only to specific sectors, not "randomly." Furthermore, economic activity that focuses solely on internal competition is indirectly criticized ("if all we do here is cut each other's hair").
2025-05-21
Fifteenth Riigikogu, Fifth Session, Plenary Session.
The main opponent is Urmas Reinsalu, who is being criticized extremely intensely and personally for systemic dishonesty and presenting numerical half-truths. The criticism is directed at the opponent's character and methods, not just his political positions. The speaker demands constant fact-checking of the opponent and finds that his presentation is "rubbish."
2025-05-14
15th Riigikogu, 5th sitting, plenary session
The opposition is aimed at specific colleagues (Rain, Aleksei, Aivar), and their arguments are being refuted using facts and calculations. The criticism is grounded in policy and data, focusing specifically on assertions regarding the immense burden placed upon the populace and the misstated duration of the economic downturn. The opponents' errors are corrected forthrightly and decisively, with the ultimate goal of completely discrediting their statements.
2025-05-07
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary sitting
The primary opponents are Urmas Reinsalu (Isamaa) and Rain Epler (EKRE), both of whom are criticized for erroneous calculations and a misunderstanding of market mechanisms. Reinsalu is accused of continually inflating figures and using unreliable sources (Hando Sutter), all delivered with an intense and personal tone. EKRE, meanwhile, is criticized for its excessively pessimistic worldview and claims regarding the "stifling of acute concern."
2025-04-24
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
The primary criticism is aimed at EKRE, criticizing their choice of experts and the low quality of the debate. The criticism is sharp, accusing opponents of presenting incorrect facts and prioritizing political interests (launching the local government election program) over national interests. Opposition to pro-Russian sentiment is particularly intense, calling Russia a "terrorist state" and declaring the use of any Russian technology "off limits."
2025-04-23
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
Strong criticism was directed at the Isamaa faction (Urmas Reinsalu) and Rain Epler, accusing them of employing populist rhetoric, using false figures (e.g., 120 million), and making mathematical errors. The speaker criticized Isamaa’s proposal regarding the financing of island services, arguing that it would be unfair to consumers. The speaker noted ironically that Isamaa is attempting to derail a bill specifically intended to keep the oil shale industry viable.
2025-04-16
15th Estonian Parliament, 5th session, plenary session
The main confrontation is with Mart Maastik (Isamaa), whose claims regarding the unrealistic nature of ENMAK inputs and the cheapness of oil shale electricity are systematically refuted using data from Enefit Power and market prices. The criticism is directed against political objectives (lowering the target level) and economic misconceptions, and is not personal.
2025-04-15
Fifteenth Riigikogu, Fifth Session, Plenary Session.
The main criticism is aimed at the disseminators of misinformation, who are accused of incorrectly interpreting the law. Specifically, "Forus taxi drivers" are named as an unreliable source of primary information, whose opinions are advised to be disregarded.
2025-04-09
15th Estonian Parliament, 5th session, plenary session
The opponents' stance is sharply criticized as inciting ignorance and fear, given that the bill's proponents rely on unfounded claims about the dangers of infrasound. The criticism targets the bill's fundamental lack of substance, as there are no proven causal links between infrasound and health risks. It refutes the opposing side's analogies (e.g., sonic weapons, radiation, and carbon monoxide).
2025-03-24
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session.
He/She strongly opposes the initiators of the bill who seek to terminate renewable energy subsidies, labeling their assertions regarding the market situation as incorrect. He/She sharply criticizes the narrative that fossil fuels (oil shale) are cheap, citing data from the head of Enefit Power which indicates the price of oil shale exceeds 200 euros per MWh. He/She rejects personal attacks, such as calling Hanah a Putinist, deeming it a despicable accusation.
2025-03-11
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary session
The criticism targets the government's actions concerning science policy and funding reforms, specifically focusing on the repercussions of the science agency reform. The opposition is rooted in policy and procedure, stressing that the fragmented allocation of funds has resulted in a significant detriment to fundamental sciences.
2025-01-29
15th Riigikogu, 5th session, plenary sitting
The direct opposition concerns Mart Maastik's protest against the procedural order, as he wished for the amendments to be considered separately, rather than being merged with SE 555. Furthermore, there is a legal dispute regarding the European Commission's position on the payment of the support, which is being addressed factually, not confrontationally.
2025-01-22
15th Estonian Parliament, 5th session, plenary session.
There is no direct confrontation or criticism aimed at specific opponents. The speaker is instead focused on clarifying issues and confusions raised by other members of the Riigikogu (e.g., the matter of the Lasnamäe direct line or Anti's question), concentrating on resolving political ambiguities.
2024-12-09
15th Riigikogu, 4th sitting, plenary sitting
The speaker calls into question the actual impact of the cut, indirectly criticizing the alleged savings objective of the measure's proponents. The criticism is directed against the substance and procedure of the policy, not at individuals.
2024-11-20
15th Riigikogu, 4th session, plenary sitting
The main confrontation is directed at the Isamaa party, which is accused of creating the income tax hump and ignoring the interests of those earning the average wage. The criticism is intense and substantive, accusing the opponents of being unwilling to improve the financial situation of teachers and rescuers. Furthermore, there is criticism regarding the abuse of procedural rules in order to secure longer speaking time.
2024-10-14
15th Estonian Parliament, 4th session, plenary sitting
There are no direct opponents or criticism. The discussion revolves around policy choices (the turnover threshold) and procedural matters (the legality of the hybrid solution), which are resolved by seeking consensus and legal counsel. During the handling of the draft bill, there were only a few neutral votes, but no votes against.
2024-09-18
15th Estonian Parliament, 4th sitting, plenary session
Identifies strong opposition from members of the EKRE faction (Henn Põlluaas, Jaak Valge, Ants Frosch, Rene Kokk, Martin Helme, Mart Helme, Kalle Grünthal), who submitted a multitude of amendments and raised questions regarding financing, environmental protection, and the advantages afforded to foreign companies. The Speaker rejects the claims that the draft legislation grants "free rein" to disregard nature conservation or that it will result in tax hikes.
2024-06-12
15th Estonian Parliament, 3rd session, plenary session.
The confrontation centers on refuting the opponents' claims, particularly regarding the immediate hundreds of millions in costs associated with the nuclear project and the assertion that the developer lacks outside support. The criticism is aimed at the substance of the policy and its factual accuracy, not at a personal level.
2024-06-11
15th Riigikogu, 3rd sitting, plenary session.
Insufficient data.
2024-06-06
15th Estonian Parliament, 3rd sitting, plenary session
The primary conflict arose with the Centre Party faction concerning their proposed amendments regarding the provisions for compensation for non-pecuniary damage. Although the committee attempted to substantively address the issues raised by the Centre Party, their proposals No. 8 and No. 14 failed to gain support. The disagreement was primarily procedural, as the Centre Party wanted the proposals to be officially marked as "not taken into account."
2024-06-05
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary sitting
The opposing side is treated neutrally as procedural parties, noting the receipt of the amendment proposal submitted by the Isamaa faction and its discussion within the committee. Criticism or attacks are absent; the opposition's contribution is handled as part of the routine legislative process.
2024-06-03
Fifteenth Riigikogu, third session, plenary sitting.
The opposition is aimed at the proposals put forward by the respected rapporteur concerning the total control of the internet and mandatory authentication. The criticism is fundamental, branding the proposed control measures as totalitarian and impractical.
2024-05-30
15th Riigikogu, 3rd sitting, plenary sitting
There is insufficient data. (The remark contains neither criticism nor confrontation, but is aimed at clarifying the information.)
2024-05-29
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary session
Direct opponents are not criticized, but the speaker refutes counterarguments regarding the cost, necessity, and security issues of nuclear energy, relying on analyses and studies. He also criticizes the view that would link the bill's proceedings to the European Parliament elections, dismissing it as coincidental. Furthermore, he warns against excessive reliance on cables and gas power plants after 2040.
2024-05-16
Fifteenth Riigikogu, Third Session, Plenary Session
There is no direct criticism aimed at political opponents. The speaker challenges the general pessimism among Estonian entrepreneurs and experts when assessing the economy's competitiveness, arguing that this occasionally inhibits operations.
2024-05-15
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary session
The main confrontation is with the EKRE faction, which is criticized for submitting obstructionist and insincere amendments that hinder the work of the Riigikogu. The criticism is procedural, emphasizing that the submission of a large volume of insincere proposals is not in line with the Riigikogu Rules of Procedure and Internal Rules Act. The opposition's proposals (with the exception of one stylistic proposal by Varro Vooglaid) were disregarded.
2024-05-09
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary session
There is strong opposition to EKRE’s tactic of challenging the election results, criticizing their lack of success and repeated procedural errors (e.g., the untimely filing of the complaint or addressing the wrong entity). The speaker considers the opponents’ concerns to be merely a political pretext for refusing to acknowledge the election results, rather than a substantive technical problem.
2024-05-08
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary session.
There is no confrontation; the speaker focuses on highlighting the practical and legal ambiguities associated with implementing the draft legislation (such as identifying insurance coverage and transposing limit standards). The criticism is directed more towards unresolved issues than political opponents.
2024-05-07
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary session
Opposing viewpoints are addressed head-on, comparisons to the Russian system are refuted, and a response is provided to Anastassia's comment regarding the risks of m-elections. The critique is primarily directed at disinformation and hypotheses concerning the system's security, emphasizing that no real incidents have been reported in the past 19 years. It is also stressed that the recommendations of critics (including the OSCE) have always been taken into account.
2024-04-18
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary sitting
There is no direct criticism of opponents, but the speaker actively tackles common fears and objections (waste, construction costs, market penetration), attempting to refute them using factual evidence. The criticism is aimed at previous political indecision, which has damaged Estonia's competitiveness, rather than specific political groups.
2024-04-17
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary sitting
The opposition is directed at those who present misconceptions about the e-voting system, especially regarding the software's auditability. The criticism is technical and fundamental, emphasizing that the opposing side lacks sufficient technological fluency to validate the system. The opponents' claims are deemed dangerous because they leave a misleading impression.
2024-04-10
15th Estonian Parliament, 3rd session, plenary session
The views of the opposition (e.g., proposals by the Isamaa faction for continuing the universal service, or questions from Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart and Mart Maastik regarding the rules of procedure) are reported neutrally, but the decisions of the committee majority are defended. Criticism was primarily procedural (concerning the committee's competence and the scope of involvement) and political (regarding the fate of the universal service). The speaker explains why the objections were rejected (e.g., requirements stemming from the directive, avoiding penalties/fines).
2024-04-03
15th Estonian Parliament, 3rd sitting, plenary session
Direct opposition is not expressed, but the speaker indirectly challenges the previous position held by the legal department and the Data Protection Inspectorate. The criticism is aimed at their procedural and technical interpretation, as these institutions operated based on a false premise regarding the positioning of the equipment.
2024-03-07
Fifteenth Riigikogu, third sitting, plenary session
The criticism is aimed at the previous lack of decisive action and the absence of a long-term plan in the energy sector, factors which have undermined investment security. [The speaker/text] expresses a direct disagreement with colleague Martin Helme regarding climate change, but stresses that a clean environment is crucial for everyone.
2024-03-06
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary session
There is no confrontational stance. The speaker is addressing the concerns raised in the committee (e.g., Mart Maastik's question regarding the EIA) and the doubts (Local Government autonomy) by providing clarification and fact-based responses. Instead of criticism, explanations and assurances regarding the objectives of the regulation are offered.
2024-03-05
15th Estonian Parliament, 3rd sitting, plenary session
There is no direct personal confrontation, but the speaker indirectly criticizes entrepreneurs who are "spoiling the market" in the liquid fuels sector, emphasizing the need to ensure fair competition. They oppose fossil fuels due to their unsustainability and the fact that they are covered by CO2 quotas.
2024-02-14
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary session
The speaker himself does not voice opposition, but rather assumes the role of a neutral rapporteur by referencing the critical questions raised by other members of parliament. The criticism focused on the necessity of discontinuing the universal service, the diminishing role of the Competition Authority, and the magnitude of the administrative costs associated with the LNG mooring pier.
2024-01-23
15th Riigikogu, 3rd sitting, plenary session
There is no direct criticism aimed at specific opponents or political groups. The criticism focuses instead on the system's structural shortcomings, which fail to ensure the continuity of long-term research projects.