Editorial: Not a natural selection for Speaker

Parliament's presiding member, known in the English tradition as the Speaker, is not a position that receives much public attention. Not many are probably aware that the Speaker stands third in New Zealand's official order of precedence, after the Governor-General and the Prime Minister. The nomination of Attorney-General Margaret Wilson to succeed Jonathan Hunt in March will put women one, two and three in the country's positions of protocol. Add the Chief Justice, who can deputise for the Governor-General on occasions, and we have a clean-sweep.

One senior member of Parliament, Richard Prebble, criticises the choice of Ms Wilson as a gender promotion but her selection is contentious for more serious reasons. She is not the moderate, affable type of senior parliamentarian normally chosen for the chair. She might struggle to win the confidence of the Opposition, as a Speaker must if debates are to remain focused on the issues of legislation and not be distracted by endless points of order challenging the fairness and judgment of the chair. For that reason it is advisable that a senior member of the Government quietly consults other party leaders before making a nomination. On the testimony of at least one party leader, Winston Peters, that was not done in this case. Mr Peters, of course, is an MP likely to present any Speaker with persistent difficulties.

Ms Wilson might also struggle for the respect the position demands because she has not served her apprenticeship, so to speak, in Parliament's lesser ranks. She came in on Labour's list in 1999 and went straight into the Cabinet. She has not known what it is to be in the wilderness of Opposition without the easy attention that governments attract and depending largely on the debating chamber to make an impact. She has not even done time on the back benches of a government to ask the planted "patsy" questions that ministers want to answer and wait patiently for the rare opportunities to demonstrate political competence.

Ms Wilson was a rising star of the Labour Party 20 or more years before she entered Parliament. She preferred to serve in the party organisation, becoming its president in the 1980s. Anytime during that decade or the next she could have had a safe Labour seat in Parliament if she had wanted it. She had other priorities, which is no criticism of her, but it does not suggest the dedication to the institution of Parliament that normally characterises the aspiring Speaker.

For all that, she seems better equipped than others in Labour's ranks said to be interested in the role. She is a clear and concise thinker and has an air of natural authority. She is sensible, fair-minded, constructive and has never shown much interest in the nasty or petty sides of politics. If she is more strict and dogged in her views than Speakers normally have been, she has an academic's ability to understand a contrary point of view. Her capabilities seem suited to much more important posts than that of Parliament's presiding officer. It would be surprising if she sought the position.

She went into Parliament because Labour lacked a suitably qualified lawyer to be Attorney-General. Her academic career had been largely in employment law and she also became Minister of Labour, piloting the Government's legislation to restore union recognition and bargaining privileges. She lost that job in the Prime Minister's last reshuffle but gained the legally interesting commerce portfolio to add to her other long interest, Waitangi issues in Treaty negotiations.

With enough on her plate, surely, to sustain her appetite for Cabinet work, it is hard to understand the attraction of a neutral role. Perhaps in her short time in Parliament she has fallen under its peculiar spell. It can happen to the best of them.