By Plenary Sessions: Ando Kiviberg

Opponents are criticized for disseminating untrue information, particularly regarding the alleged loss of sovereignty and the admission of dangerous individuals into Estonia. The criticism targets the fundamental misinterpretation of the bill's content, emphasizing that one can only challenge errors made during the procedure, not the substantive reasoning itself.

Opponents are being sharply criticized for opposing the draft bill, with accusers claiming they are protecting a monopoly and dramatically overstating the severity of the situation (calling it "a great crime against the Estonian people"). The criticism is both political (focusing on monopolism) and personal, suggesting that the opponents may be motivated by salaries received from outside the Riigikogu (Parliament).

The criticism is aimed at those who grant the status of ultimate truth to the assessments made by the President of the Republic of Estonia, and also at those who argue that severing ties with the Moscow Patriarchate infringes upon religious freedom. He acknowledges his colleagues' concerns regarding the security risks posed by immigration, but he stands against those who want to scrap the draft law, stressing the obligation to bring order to the legal framework.

The criticism is directed at two target groups: individuals who knowingly spread falsehoods to defame the judicial system, and the courts themselves. The actions of the slanderers are considered deliberate disruption on which it is pointless to waste energy. The courts are criticized for procedural uncertainty and for changing their positions during the course of the reform.

The direct political opponent is not criticized, but the speaker conveys the institutional opposition of the State Audit Office to the solution proposed in the draft bill regarding the auditing of the private sector. On a personal level, criticism is voiced concerning the current practice of supervising party financing, which requires an overhaul.

The criticism is aimed primarily at procedural shortcomings and market inefficiencies, rather than at the minister personally. Strong criticism is also leveled against two major waste handlers who have established an oligopolistic producer responsibility system that dictates prices and results in excessively high additional costs. Furthermore, concern is being expressed regarding the lack of trust between the state and local communities within the context of the water reform.