PRINCIPLES OF LEGISLATION.

Taranaki Daily News, 23 March 1932, Page 4

PRINCIPLES OF LEGISLATION.

Dispassionate readers of the report of Monday’s debate in the House of Representatives on the Mortgagors’ and Tenants’ Relief Bill must have been extremely disappointed by the speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. H. E. Holland). He seems to have made it more than usually apparent that’ he and his party have a very poor conception of the duties of the Opposition. They appear to think that they fulfil their purpose in Parliament when they merely oppose the Government and subject it to pin-pricks, but an Opposition that places all its reliance on such methods is obviously ineffective. Its real business should be that of criticism, and white its criticism should be sternly denunciatory on the proper occasion, it should always aim to be lucid and helpful. This objective, of course, can only be achieved by men who are competent to analyse legislation and can appreciate the fact that no legislation is worth anything that is not based on sound principles. In the case of the Mortgagors’ and Tenants’ Relief Bill Mr. Holland addressed himself almost entirely to matters of petty detail, and on the one question of principle he discussed his views were anything but reassuring. He complained, for instance, that mortgagors who sought consideration of their position would have to pay fees. He is not concerned with the mortgagee who may have to pay a fee in order to obtain a fair deal from a mortgagor, yet it is surely a sound principle of legislation that it should affect all parties equitably. He complained of 'a provision in the Bill that under certain circumstances the court might make an order for costs. Most people would regard such a provision as a necessary safeguard against the possible wasting of the court’s time and the country’s money in dealing with vexatious applications, but again Mr. Holland has failed to grasp a salutary principle. Equally regardless of principle is Mr. Holland’s view of the personal covenant in a mortgage. He would simply wipe it out. It 'would mean nothing to him if in so doing he reduced a mortgagee to penury and left the mortgagor with means to live in comparative luxury. Nor ■would he be concerned to think that he had accomplished the violation of a solemn contract. There is a principle involved, and principles are not his strong point. It is a pity. If the Opposition would try to understand the principles of legislation it could do the nation a real service under the difficult conditions Parliament has to meet to-day.