By Plenary Sessions: Priit Sibul

Highly critical of the ruling coalition (Reformierakond, Eesti 200), accusing them of implementing taxes and then partially revoking them purely for political gain. It employs personalized criticism, questioning the honesty, consistency, and the true motives behind the political agreements of opponents (Mart, Anti, Jevgeni).

The primary opposition is directed at the minister and the government’s waste management reform. The criticism is policy- and procedure-based, calling into question the logic of the reform and its potential impact on local municipalities. It is suspected that the reform does not serve the public interest, but instead grants local governments (LOAs) the right to generate revenue without performing any actual activity.

The confrontation is directed at the government coalition and the minister, criticizing both the social handling of the prison system and the specific policy concerning the transfer of inmates. The criticism is intense, casting doubt on the previous stance of the coalition partner (Anti Haugas) and accusing the government of allowing dangerous criminals into Estonia.

The confrontation is focused on the substantive and procedural quality of the draft legislation, particularly concerning the Church Law, where critics point to the parliament exceeding its competence and replacing genuine substantive problems with merely formal amendments. In the case of the healthcare bill, the drafters are criticized for using a misleading title and including unnecessary, non-medical provisions. The criticism is policy- and procedure-based, not personal.

The opposition is directed at the bill's shortcomings, particularly concerning the delegation of regulatory authority to the minister, and the concern that the problems cited by the Chancellor of Justice will remain unresolved. The criticism is both substantive (policy-based) and procedural, emphasizing the necessity of regulating essential details through law, rather than by regulation.

The opposition is directed at the minister and the waste reform proposed by the government, criticizing the fact that the total cost to the taxpayer was left unmentioned in the reform’s introduction. The criticism centers on political and financial transparency, demanding accountability and the exact sum.

The opposition is aimed at the government (the Minister), criticizing both the justification and the timing of the supplementary budget. The criticism is procedural and political, centering on why these expenditures cannot be covered by next year's budget. The speaker casts doubt on the Minister's stated reasons regarding the limited capacity for arms acquisition.