By Plenary Sessions: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

The presenter focuses on the protection of religious freedom and voices opposition to new legislative amendments that would restrict the activities of religious associations by regulating their membership or personnel composition. He stresses that the Criminal Code is already in place to prevent illegal activities, and the question is rather whether—and which—additional specific restrictions need to be clarified, not the broad limitation of religious associations. This stance is value-based and critical of state interference in religious organizations; central to the argument are individual liberty and fundamental rights, and ensuring their viability alongside state priorities.

The most crucial topics are the transparency of the state budget and the role of the Riigikogu in handling the budget process. He is critical of the coalition's plans, which could potentially diminish parliamentary oversight and allow a minister to unilaterally make changes to the budget. In formulating his positions, he emphasizes adherence to the constitutional process and the relevance of Riigikogu decisions, guiding the debate by lawful and strong institutional principles. This is a strong oppositional stance, grounded in values and focused on legality.

A representative from the Reform Party emphasizes criticism of the tax policy, pointing out that new taxes will restrict the purchasing power of ordinary people and limit future investments. Their stance is firmly opposed to the government's tax policy. They refer to a critical argument regarding the draft legislation and fear that the negative effects might become noticeable within the current context. The political framework here is policy-driven, focusing specifically on the effect of taxes on the economy and consumers.

The opposition's viewpoint centers on the bill that strips benefits from pensioners living alone, and they are highly critical of the tax and budget decisions. They stress that money should be channeled toward the care reform, and that local government funding must be proportional and immune from legal challenge. The desire to dilute accountability and transparency signals political, not merely personal, pressure on the cabinet.

The opposition representative from the Centre Party, whose central priority is the transparency of the state budget and parliamentary oversight. He is strongly opposed to the current draft bill, stressing the crucial role of the Riigikogu and the visibility of every single line item for both expenditure and revenue. He proposes an alternative solution that would establish greater transparency for amounts up to the 500,000 euro threshold. Furthermore, he emphasizes the necessity of cooperating with the coalition to ensure the constitutional legitimacy of the budget development process.

He/She is strongly opposed to the current government's tax policy, emphasizing that sharply raising taxes will damage the economy and disrupt family finances and lifestyles. He/She praises a controversial comparison—one where the taxes are likened to Putin's taxes—arguing that this comparison is justified by the state's poor communication. The text embodies firm political and economic criticism and raises questions regarding the accountability of the Ministry of Finance leadership. There is no initial presentation of a clear alternative solution; the focus remains primarily on identifying tax policy as the problem itself.

The opposition position places central emphasis on tax amendments and the reduction of child benefits; the speaker accuses the government of causing the rise in household costs and price levels, and stresses the need to keep the accountability of state governance under control. The style is directed toward criticizing policy effectiveness and deficiencies in leadership capacity; implied alternative solutions were not directly offered.

The most crucial issues are the opposition to increasing healthcare costs—specifically, fees for specialist visits, hospital bed days, and medicine prices—and the criticism regarding the proposed changes to the educational requirements for the Secretary of State. He/She is clearly against these amendments and views the steps promoting them as problematic, particularly in the context of the livelihood of vulnerable populations and national security. Furthermore, he/she stresses the necessity of maintaining the consistency and constitutionality of legislation, emphasizing that the Secretary of State's role must prioritize the general public order over personal interests. Representing the opposition, he/she intends to reject the draft bill during the first reading.

Critical of the state's aviation policy and the management of Nordica; emphasizes accountability to taxpayers and the necessity for clear strategy and control. The statements indicate strong doubts regarding the sustainability of the national airline and the prevailing perception that the state should perhaps consider reprioritizing the role of state aviation institutions. The anticipated political direction suggests a preliminary state-level review and potential downsizing or reorganization, but concrete alternatives remain at the level of questions that have been raised.

The presenter concentrates on state budget transparency and anti-corruption measures, stressing the need to monitor the financing of large-scale projects such as Rail Baltica and Via Baltica. They are critical of the insufficient clarity surrounding the utilization of tax revenue and excise duties, arguing that this income should be channeled into road infrastructure. The presenter raises specific questions and calls on the relevant officials to clarify how these funds are actually being spent. This position is defined by an approach focused on improving the quality of policy and governance, rather than being tied to a strong political party grouping.