By Plenary Sessions: Arvo Aller

The main criticism is aimed at the government and the Ministry of Finance for initiating the draft bill and for the flawed process, particularly due to the failure to involve key interest groups (the Central Union of Farmers, the Private Forest Union). The criticism is both procedural and substantive, accusing the government of shifting a money-extraction measure onto local municipalities. The criticism is intense and concludes with a proposal to reject the bill.

The confrontation is directed against the government and its ministers (the Prime Minister, the Minister of the Interior), criticizing their inaction and incompetence. The criticism addresses both procedural issues (the Prime Minister avoiding answering questions) and the poor handling of security (the border, the EE-alarm system).

The confrontation is directed at the government's tax policy, specifically the changes regarding the taxation of pensions. The criticism is both policy-based and procedural, citing a lack of answers and the disregard for Isamaa's proposals. Furthermore, there is sharp criticism aimed at the activities of banks, which are viewed as constantly taking money from the public.

The main criticism is directed at the Ministry of Climate and the ruling coalition, particularly regarding the goals of climate policy and development strategy. The criticism is intense and politically motivated, accusing the government of encroaching upon private property rights and creating illusory activities (waste reform, preparation for phosphorite mining). The Minister's decision to redirect compensation for protected areas into CAP funding is especially criticized.

The main opponents are the government (the prime minister, the finance minister, and the minister) and specific officials, especially the Deputy Secretary General, who is criticized for spearheading the introduction of labor from third countries. The criticism targets both political decisions (cuts to local government funding, lack of economic stimulation) and ethical issues (conflict of interest stemming from the Bolt issue and the Deputy Secretary General’s background).

The criticism is aimed at the explanatory memorandum and the regulations put forth by the government, which create inequality for residents in rural areas and include requirements that are technically impractical. The opposition is focused on policy and procedure, concentrating on the illogical elements of the draft legislation and its practical consequences.

The opposition is aimed at the respondent to the inquiry (likely a government representative), who is being criticized for providing an inadequate response and for their inability to address a large-scale security threat. The criticism specifically targets their inaction and the misplacement of priorities.

The primary criticism is aimed at the Minister of Education, who stands accused of avoiding responsibility and making failed political decisions. The criticism is intense and focuses both on the substance of the policy (school closures, funding shortfalls) and on the Minister's conduct (specifically, a lack of interest in the resignation of their Lithuanian counterpart). There is no sign of a willingness to compromise; instead, the focus remains squarely on demanding accountability.

The primary target of criticism is the government, which is criticized for its governing culture (the "steamroller" approach) and for ignoring legislative procedures, specifically due to the lack of a formal intent to draft. The criticism is intense and highly political, culminating in the proposal by the faction of the Estonian Conservative People's Party to reject the bill during its first reading. Previous governments (the Social Democrats/Sotsid) are also criticized for the effects of excise duty increases and the resulting border trade.