"HATS OFF!"

Northern Advocate, 8 July 1925, Page 5

"HATS OFF!"

KULE RIGIDLY ENFORCED DISTINCTION DRAWN. r' . BETWEEN MEMBERS AND VISITORS. (Special to "Northern Advocate.") WELLINGTON, This Day. •A member of Parliament can wear fcis hat in any part of Parliament Buildings, even in the Chamber itself, when a member is addressing the House, but the constituent who puts Itiffi there once he enters the sacred portals is met with a peremptory order to take his hat off. The democratic Kew Zealander, unused to this for many years until the old custom was revived last session by Mr Speaker, has in several instances resented the new order. Hie seems to think that Jack is as good as his master and perhaps a bit better, but he makes a mistake, for is not Parliament the highest Court in • the land ?

This session the order of "hats off in the prescincts" has been stiffened up and for the past few days a messenger has been stationed opposite the ■door of Mr Speaker's private apartments and another at the end of the long passage on the ground floor. These messengers politely, but firmly, insist that every man passing must remove his hat.

The matter was brought up in the House yesterday afternoon as a question of privilege by Mr P. Fraser, the •member for Wellington Central, who sflid that this year as last year visitors 'who eame to Parliament House to l see members were sometimes, in a peremptory fashion, ordered to remove their hats. Som etim es, wjhpn . constituents were speaking to a member they were approached by a messenger and told to take their hats off. He understood that members of the Press Gallery were subjected to the same sort of treatment. They had to pass to and fro from the gallery into the cold corridors. He (Mr Fraser) | would prefer to see this rule abrogated and that th«v should revert again to L the procedure . that had been in operation formcrly. There was, so far as he could see, no justification for the rule and lie thought it should be laid aside.

The Prime Minister said the matter was one that was entirely in the hands of Mr Speaker and he was perfectly satisfied to leave it to him to decide what was required in regard to the messengers. In his humble opinion it was excellent. Mr Fraser said he made no charge against the messengers. They had always carried out their duties a® courteously as possible under certain orders;. Mr Holland said there were two aspects of the matter —one. that there was a distinction drawn between the member of Parliament and. . ,his constituents, and the other that a member could go through the House with his . ihat on and no objection was taken at all. If there were a rule "it should ap- ; ply 'to every bedv. .. ■< • Mr Atmote: "Nonsense." Mr Holland- said, in regard to the . newspaper men, that they had to go out' of, a heated- chamber inta the lobbies ana they ran the risk off 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 not "brought the matter to him privately. > It was one that was entirely under the , jurisdiction of the Speaker. If they valued the privileges and the dignity , of the House they had a right to expect visitors to show ordinary courtesy. (Hear, hear.) In entering the House -of Commons a visitor was at oncc relieved of his hat and coat and any stranger in the lobby mua,t remove his tat. The rule had been in force here formerly, but had fallen into disuse, and one of the oldest members of Parliament had suggested to him that it ,-Bh#ald be re-enforced. He agreed with Tiijn and issued the instructions. There wsfe a great distinction between strangers and members of the. House. Mem- • ■ bars of Parliament had privileges that tfiey should jealously guard. As "Speaker of the House he would insist •on Tfhat he thought was his duty until the House directed him to do otherwise.