SPEAKER'S. CASTING VOTE

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 21319, 21 October 1932, Page 10

SPEAKER'S. CASTING VOTE

"When the Legislative Council voted on the second reading of the Religious Exercises in Schools 3-Cn-abling Bill yesterday, the ayes and the noes proved equal in number. Thus arose a circumstance of rare occurrence in New Zealand Parliamentary proceedings; it became necessary for Mr. Speaker to exercise his casting vote. The responsibility might be expected to weigh heavily, but there are plenty of precedents to guide the occupant of the chair. Actually he needs only to accept the guidance of his own conscience, for the theoretical position is thus described by Sir Erskine May:—"lf the numbers in a division are equal, the Speaker, who otherwise does not vote, must give the casting voice. In the performance of this duty he is at liberty to vote like any other member, according to his conscience, without assigning a reason." By established practicehe does not customarily do this. Sir Erskine May proceeds: "but in order to avoid the least imputation upon his impartiality, it is usual for him to vote in such a manner as not to make the decision of the House final, and to explain his reasons, which are entered in the journal." The Speaker of the Council followed the principle here expressed. Had ho voted against the second reading, that would have ended the career of the bill. As it is, there will be opportunity for further discussion and other votes. Sir Walter Carneross said he would follow the practice laid down 100 years ago. He was undoubtedly referring to a precedent established in 1796 by Mr. Speaker Addington. There having been a tie on a motion that a bill be read the third time on the following day, ho voted for it, explaining that "upon all occasions when the question was for or against giving to any measure a further opportunity of discussion he should always vote for the further discussion, more especially when it had advanced so far as a third reading; and that when the question turned upon the measure itself—for instance that a bill do or do not pass —he should thtrn vote for or against it, according to his best judgment 1 of its merits, assigning the reasons on which such judgment would be founded." The records show this attitude to have guided many Speakers subsequently, and was undoubtedly the precedent Sir "Walter Carneross followed yesterday.