By Plenary Sessions: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

The acceptability of the car tax is the main issue. The speaker is strongly opposed to the draft bill, stressing that the car tax contradicts the constitution and European Union law and poses a threat to vulnerable groups. He emphasizes the need to withdraw the bill and present specific exemptions and alternative solutions that would guarantee social and legal certainty.

The main topics highlighted are healthcare funding and children's health. He is critical of the government's tax policy, especially the plans led by the Reform Party, and stresses the need to change healthcare funding priorities. He emphasizes that taxes alone will not solve health challenges and prefers a systemic approach—a sustainable funding model, quality, and prevention. Therefore, his position is strongly policy- and value-based, stressing a fundamental shift in healthcare priorities.

Animal welfare and the establishment of a nationwide pet register are her/his primary focus areas. She/He is a strong proponent of a unified register, emphasizing that it will expedite the process of owners finding their animals, increase the efficiency of shelters, and reduce bureaucracy for local municipalities. Her/His approach is policy-driven and practical, focusing on cooperation between political parties and the avoidance of conflicts.

The speaker emphasizes the protection of the constitutional state and human dignity, and is strongly critical of the draft car tax law. He demands exceptions for people with disabilities, arguing that inadequate provisions could exacerbate their inequality and violate the principles of the social state. Simultaneously, he is critical of the government's intentions regarding the draft administrative penalties law, noting that it threatens the legal system and the business environment. His rhetoric is value-based, yet firmly rooted in the legislative process and emphasizes the need for legal clarity.

A representative of the Centre Party is vehemently opposed to the proposed car tax and stresses the need for social safeguards for larger families. They are critical of the tax policy put forth by the government, suggesting that the support promised before the election could later be withdrawn. As an alternative, they propose an excess profit tax on banks. This stance is deeply rooted in values and policy, centering on the constitutional principle of the welfare state and the special consideration due to families with children.

The most crucial issues are the opposition to the car tax, its inherent unfairness, and its impact on poorer citizens and those living in rural areas. The arguments presented include: objection to the car tax itself and its potential conflict with European Union law. Emphasis is placed on the social harm caused to low-income families, pensioners, and rural residents. This has been promoted as a strong opposition movement, offering alternatives (such as an excess profit tax) and utilizing proposed amendments as a procedural opening. The focus is on a value-based and economically transparent turning point—namely, reforming the tax system.

Speaking as a representative of the opposition, [he/she] is unequivocally against the proposed car tax and demands that the bill be withdrawn or replaced by a tax on banks' excess profits. He/She stresses that triple taxation (VAT, excise duty, and the car tax) places a heavy burden particularly on rural areas, low-income individuals, and families, and deems it detrimental to the budget and the economy. He/She highlights the necessity for comprehensive impact assessments and ensuring legal certainty, describing the alternative as fairer and more functional. The rhetoric emphasizes the importance of order and ethical principles, while strongly positioning the alternative political solution—the taxation of banks' excess profits—as the preferred way forward.