By Plenary Sessions: Arvo Aller

The main targets of criticism are the Social Democrats (regarding their rhetoric and their demand for comparative analysis) and the coalition parties. The coalition is sharply criticized for its procedural rigidity, as they failed to consider the willingness of the initiators of the second bill to compromise and did not advance both bills equally. The criticism is aimed at procedural and political choices.

The criticism is aimed at the government's administrative reform, particularly regarding the establishment of the Land and Spatial Planning Agency and its placement under the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications. The criticism is policy-based, alleging that the reform strips the regional minister of regional policy instruments and creates an impractical structure.

The criticism is aimed at the government's policy and the budget drafting procedure, accusing the government of hypocrisy and failing to consider the Estonian people. It sharply criticizes the representatives of the Reform Party for their use of labeling and accusations, while simultaneously noting that the rapporteur managed to address the chamber respectfully. It criticizes the government's inability to take into account the opposition's substantive and concrete amendment proposals.

The main opposition is directed at the coalition and the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications, criticizing their lack of regional policy and the illogical nature of the reform. The criticism is policy-based, accusing the government of reducing the influence of the Ministry of Regional Affairs and Agriculture. The speaker also criticizes the rapporteur, who, in his estimation, doesn't need to know the content of the law but merely has to "parrot it."

Strong opposition is directed at the governing coalition, which faces criticism for lacking the political will necessary to support legislation beneficial to working people. The coalition stands accused of hypocrisy: they demand a massive impact assessment just to grant a single day off, yet they accept tax hikes without requiring one. The chance of reaching a compromise is viewed as a miracle, suggesting very low expectations for cooperation.

The opposition is directed at the coalition over the car tax issue, demanding economic justifications that would increase people's wealth and reduce regional inequality. Furthermore, the minister's record is being set straight regarding the years spent in the EKRE government, as they defend their political background against inaccuracies.

The confrontation is aimed at the government, directly criticizing the Minister of Justice’s actions regarding the closure of courthouses, viewing this as a distinctly negative issue. The achievements presented by the Prime Minister (such as Rail Baltic) are treated skeptically, with demands for their precise financial justification in order to verify the government's effectiveness.

The main criticism is aimed at government ministers (the ministers of education, social affairs, justice, and regional affairs) for decisions within their portfolios that damage regional policy, such as the closure of schools and service centers. The criticism is policy- and performance-based, accusing the government of stifling regional development and shifting responsibilities onto local municipalities. The speaker urges the government to heed the opposition's proposals.