By Plenary Sessions: Rene Kokk

The main criticism is aimed at the Climate Minister and the government, who are accused of lobbying for business interests and reducing the requirement for public engagement. The criticism is intense, labeling the government's actions as hypocritical and foolish. The opposition targets both the substance of the policy (a faster exit from oil shale) and procedural flaws (the reduction of public involvement).

There is no direct confrontation or criticism aimed at specific opponents or political groups. The questions are directed to the minister in order to find solutions for the shortcomings in policy implementation.

The main opposition is directed against the government's car tax policy, which is considered poor and detrimental. The criticism is policy-based, citing the lack of procedural solutions and challenging the Ministry of Finance's stance regarding the accessibility of transport in rural areas. Mart Võrklaev, noted as a car tax expert, was also mentioned, and his absence as a presenter caused disappointment.

The primary opponent is the government, which is fiercely criticized for breaking political promises and implementing a cascade of taxes that harms families. The criticism is policy-driven and results-oriented, accusing the government of putting families under attack and stripping stay-at-home mothers of their health insurance.

The primary opponent is the rapporteur—a self-proclaimed social democrat—and, more broadly, the government's excise policy. The criticism is intense, focusing on the policy's illogical nature and accusing the opposing side of failing to grasp the core issue and of generating smuggling. The speaker casts doubt on the opponent's integrity, noting that their stance shifts depending on whether they are in opposition or part of the ruling coalition.

The speaker is taking an oppositional stance toward the presenter, criticizing the lack of transparency and the incompleteness of the materials submitted. The criticism is strictly procedural, focusing on the unavailability of the referenced documents and the ambiguity surrounding the date of the committee discussion. The intensity of the challenge is moderate but targeted, repeatedly demanding that the information be made public.