Session Profile: Tanel Kiik

The speaker heavily emphasizes the importance of political continuity, criticizing parties that shift their stances depending on whether they are currently in government or in opposition. They firmly back the implementation of a tax on sweetened beverages, citing the 2017 precedent when the Centre Party, the Social Democrats, and Isamaa all supported it. The speaker clearly expects parties to adhere to their stated platform positions regardless of their political standing. Furthermore, they demonstrate strong support for cross-party cooperation on public health issues.

Demonstrates a deep understanding of the history of the sweetened beverage tax and health policy, specifically referencing the 2017 proceedings and the supporting political parties. Shows comprehension of the principles behind taxing unhealthy products, childhood obesity statistics, and issues related to religious freedom.

He/She employs passionate and compelling rhetoric in defense of the sweetened beverage tax. The speaker cites historical facts and criticizes the lack of consistency among political parties. The style is emotional and highly political, featuring direct accusations.

He spoke six times during the debate on the sweetened beverage tax, offering strong support for the bill. He drew historical comparisons with the 2017 debate and criticized the lack of consistency among the political parties.

The speaker strongly backs the sweetened beverage tax, highlighting the consistency of the Social Democrats' political stance. They sharply criticize other parties for shifting their positions due to political expediency and accuse them of hypocrisy.

They offered constructive cooperation regarding the sugar tax issues, emphasizing the need for consistent policy. They also called for increased inter-party collaboration.

The speeches lack a specific regional focus. The speaker concentrates on nationwide healthcare policy issues and legislative processes in the Riigikogu. He generally mentions European and global practices regarding the taxation of unhealthy products, but fails to highlight specific regional needs or projects.

Clearly supports fiscal measures—specifically higher taxation—designed to steer consumer behavior. This includes taxing unhealthy products such as alcohol, tobacco, and sweetened beverages. It argues that taxing healthy and unhealthy products equally is fundamentally wrong. It stresses that tax policy should be directional, not punitively high, citing a price increase of "a few dozen cents" on a bottle of soda as a reasonable measure. It views tax policy as an effective instrument for achieving societal goals.

It strongly emphasizes the need to protect children's health, noting that a third of certain age groups struggles with obesity. It supports the state's role in guiding children toward making healthy choices, arguing that children are unable to make all decisions on their own. Mental health concerns, lack of physical activity, and screen addiction are mentioned as significant problems. It expresses a clear stance that it is the duty of adults to help children make healthy choices, rather than entrusting this responsibility to "the advertising of soft drink companies." It supports Christian values and religious freedom, while condemning Kremlin propaganda and Russia's aggression in Ukraine.

They are actively participating in the debate surrounding the sweetened beverage tax, drawing on their experience as a former Minister of Health. They support introducing the tax to achieve crucial public health objectives.