By Plenary Sessions: Madis Timpson

A speaker harshly criticized the practice of government agencies using private law firms to draft legislation, seeing this as a threat to the state's legal sustainability. The criticism targets a procedure that compromises the credibility of public institutions and wastes taxpayer money.

The pushback is aimed at those who criticize the budget as a whole, claiming there is nothing good in it. The speaker acknowledges the differences between the various political parties but focuses instead on highlighting their own party's achievements and substantively defending the budget.

The opposition is expressed by rejecting a specific accusation (that the government is hostile to children), but this is a brief and neutral comment. The criticism is aimed more at political labeling than at a specific opponent; there are no personal attacks.

There is no direct political confrontation, but the speaker refutes the concern raised by the Association of Estonian Cities and Municipalities regarding the creation of new financial obligations, citing the Ministry's counterarguments. The speaker also indirectly criticizes members of the Riigikogu who, during committee meetings, inquire about topics that fall outside the scope of the draft bill and the mandate of the Ministry of Social Affairs.

The confrontation is aimed at colleagues (Kingo, Solman), who are being criticized for distorting the content of the draft bill and spreading misinformation. Specifically, they are refuting claims that the bill would legalize pedophilia or allow individuals who have changed their names to evade the registry. The criticism is direct and focuses on the factual inaccuracy of the political statements.