Seven bills passed, three privilege motions tabled
TEAM HERALD
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
PANJIM: The Goa Assembly Speaker Rajendra Arlekar brought down the curtains on the long Assembly session that saw three privilege motions tabled and seven bills being passed on the last day.
One privilege motion was settled, the second was rejected and a third was sent to the privilege committee for examination.
The government also placed an action taken report on budget assurances before the House. This included the work order issued for phase II of the dental college at a cost of Rs 47 crore. On development plan for CCP the ATR says that a consultant has been appointed and the plan is being scrutinized.
Chief Minister Manohar Parrikar also defended amendments made to VAT, saying that there was absolutely no chance of a price rise and, in fact, no taxes had gone up, but they had in fact “come down.”
He said that the only increase was in excise and this was basically to keep pace with the price of the alcohol, and gave an example of the rise of price of beer from Rs 30 years back to more than Rs 60 now.
He was particularly vociferous in defending his position viz a viz the rise in real estate prices, arguing that the prices of flats would instead come down and that “except for commercial complexes” price of housing has all been reduced.
“This government has given benefit to the people while taxing the rich a little,” he said asking, “If one is buying a Rs 5 crore bungalow then what is there to pay Rs 5 lakh to the government?”
Also, he reiterated, “I have not taxed those who are traveling by motorcycle.”
On the Public Services bill the chief minister said that it would take at least two months before the bill would become functional as there were rules and regulations which had to be drafted. “Don’t expect results tomorrow,” he told the House.
In the bill, authorities would also have to face a fine and disciplinary action if children, women or senior citizens are not protected in public places.
