By Plenary Sessions: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

An oppositional and critical stance on the coalition's budget management; demands for faster and stronger measures to improve budget transparency and adherence to promises. Supports bills that increase transparency and criticizes the coalition's late procedures and the non-mandatory nature of explanatory notes.

Supports the presented bill; emphasizes the need for financial order and cost control. Expresses concern over the growth of ministers' salaries due to indexing, which indicates a critical attitude towards the burden on the state budget. Furthermore, it emphasizes the importance of substantive input in discussions about tax increases, preferring substantive debate over simply endorsing proposals with button presses.

The speaker emphasizes the preservation of the apolitical nature and legality of civil service and strongly opposes the coalition’s plans to change the educational requirements for the state secretary and the coalition's general approach to the budget bill. They focus on protecting the independence of institutions and criticize the possibility of top positions being politicized to meet the coalition’s needs. Furthermore, they are highly critical of the coalition’s tax policy, arguing that raising income tax and VAT will damage the economy and the population, and increase poverty. The overall tone is that of a defender of the rule of law and the stability of institutions, for which stricter scrutiny of decisions is necessary.

The opposition spokesperson, who is strongly critical of the government's tax policy. They emphasize that security taxes and other tax increases disproportionately burden those with lower incomes and pensioners, and they draw attention to bank benefits as an injustice. They stress social solidarity and believe that banks should contribute more, rather than continuing consumption and income tax increases which harm the population.

The main theme is restoring the Riigikogu's trust and improving its image; the speaker expresses a strong desire to close trust gaps and increase the credibility, but doesn’t outline specific measures regarding the draft. They defend the idea of the draft as a potential tool for strengthening trust, but remains cautious and doesn’t assert a concrete solution.

The primary position is oppositional and fiscally focused: the decision not to raise alcohol excise tax for 2025 alone is highlighted, along with general criticism of increasing taxes, given that revenue collection has been optimistically low in previous months. It emphasizes that tax policy must be based on realistic forecasts and that increasing taxes can reduce total revenue and damage purchasing power. The framing is politically driven and focuses on sustainability and financial stability, not an ideological manifesto of tax certainty. It draws attention to the fact that past tax increases may not yield the desired revenue, which means the discussion about excise taxes needs to be approached with a different consideration.

The speaker focuses on the problems of state-owned enterprise participation policy and the state property law, emphasizing the need to improve the misalignment of owner expectations and strategies. They are strongly critical of the current coalition's plan, which could lead to politicians being brought back onto boards. They highlight the issues of dispersed responsibility and a lack of transparency, and demand clarity on how decisions consider the interests of consumers and taxpayers. They want analysis, openness, and accountability in the management of state assets.

The main focus is on tax policy and the transparency of decisions: the speaker is critical of tax increases and emphasizes that business people were lacking in the decision-making process. They stress the need for evidence-based and thoroughly considered measures, and the involvement of experts. This position is policy- and results-oriented and focuses on systemic criticism regarding the necessity of well-thought-out decisions.