By Plenary Sessions: Andrei Korobeinik

The speaker demonstrates knowledge of the Riigikogu's rules of procedure, being aware of their right to ask two questions and knowing the committee's voting results (two members voted against). However, no substantive or technical subject matter expertise regarding the content of the bill under discussion is evident. The expertise shown is focused on procedural and representational issues.

The speaker demonstrates expertise in banking taxation and economic policy, utilizing specific data on banks' profit margins (e.g., 70%+) and potential tax revenue. For comparison, they highlight the experiences of other EU countries (particularly Lithuania and Latvia) in taxing credit institutions and emphasize the effect of income tax on job creation. Furthermore, they are familiar with the figures concerning subsistence benefits and car tax collection.

The speaker demonstrates interest in foreign policy (specifically the question of the legitimacy of the Georgian government) and Riigikogu (Estonian Parliament) procedures, particularly regarding motions of no confidence and the protocol for responding to questions. The expertise is more political and procedural rather than data-driven, but there is an existing awareness of the internal power dynamics within the parliament (evidenced by the reference to Lehtme's votes).

The speaker demonstrates a command of macroeconomics and social statistics, citing data on the duration of Estonia’s recession relative to global trends and comparing it to the impact of Russia’s war. Specific financial data is presented, such as banks earning over one billion euros in profit and the budgetary expenditure for the subsistence benefit (200 euros) totaling 50 million euros. This expertise is then used to substantiate the failure of the government's policy.