"HATS OFF."

Press, Volume LXI, Issue 18428, 8 July 1925, Page 9

"HATS OFF."

AN ORDER OBJECTED TO. BREACH OF PRIVILEGE RAISED. ■ srr.cui. to "tue press.") WELLINGTON. July 7. A member of Parliament can wear his hat in any part ot the Parliament Buildings, oven in the Chamber itself, and when a member is addressing the House, hut the constituent who puts him there once he enters tiie sacred portals is met with a peremptory order to take his hat off. The dcmo'-ratii; New Zealandcr, unused to this for many years, until the old custom was rewvo.i last .session by Mr speaker, has iit several instances resented tiie new order, ho scorns t<» think that "Jack is as good as his master,'' and perhaps a hit better, but he makes a liu-taK.', for is not i'arlianient the highest Court in the land.;' This session, the order of hats off ill the precincts has been stiffened up. and lor the past few days a messenger lias been stationed opposite the (too., of -Mr .Siwaker's private apartments, and another at tiie end of the l"'i r ; passage on the ground floor. The--: messengers politely hut firmly insist that every man passing must remove his hat. The matter was brought up in the House this afternoon, as a question of privilege, by Mr P. Fraser, the Member for Wellington Central, who said that this year, as last year, visitors who came to Parliament House to *><->' members were sometimes in a peremptory fashion ordered to remove then" iiats. Sometimes, when constituents were speaking to a member, they \v:re approached by a messenger and toll to take their hats off. He understood that members of the Press gallery wiso .subjected to the same sort of treatment. They had to pass to and iro from the gallery into tho cold corridors. He (Mr Fraser) would prefer to see this rule abrogated and that they should revert again to the procedure that had been in operation formerly. There was, so far as he couid see, no justification for the rule, and he thought it should be laid aside. The Prime Minister said the matter was ono that was entirely in the hands of Mr Speaker, and lie was perfectly satisfied to leave it to him to decidewhat was required in ic-gurd to the messengers. In his humble opinion, ; t uas excellent. Mr Fraser said he made no charge against the messengers. They had always carried out their duties as courteously as possible under certain orders. Mr Holland said there were two aspects of the matter; one, that there was a distinction drawn between tho member of Parliament and his constituents, and the other, that a member could go through the Houso with his hat on, and no objection was taken at all. If there was a rulo it should apply to everybody. Mr Atmoro: Nonsense. Mr Holland said, in regard to Pressmen, that they had to go out of a. heated chamber" into the lobbies, and they ran tho risk ot getting colds under such circumstances. The main objection, however, was to the marked distinction that was made between, members of Parliament and the general public outside. Mr Speaker, in the first instance, complained that Mr Fraser had notbrought the matter to hint privatc'y. It was one that was entirely under the jurisdiction of the Speaker. If they valued the privileges and tho dignity of the House, they had a right to expect visitors to show ordinary courtesy (Hear, hear.) In entering the Ho lse of Commons, a visitor was at once re lieved of his hat and coat and sjis!:. Any stranger in the lobby must remove his hat. The rule had been in force here formerly, but had fallen into disuse, and one of the oldest members of Parliament had suggested to turn that it should be re-enforced. He agreed with him and issued the instructions. There was a great distinction between strangers and members of the Hou?». Members of Parliament had privilege* that they should jealously guard. As. tho Speaker of tho House, he wo-iu.-insist on what he thought was his duty, until tho Houso directed him to do otherwise. .