Civil unions: Final vote will be tight

The Government appears to have the votes to pass the Civil Union Bill next week, enabling same-sex and de facto couples to formalise their relationships from next April.

The bill passed its second reading by 65 votes to 55 yesterday.

That margin may narrow before next week's final vote, but most MPs have made up their minds.

Two New Zealand First MPs have indicated they might withdraw their support.

The bill passed its first reading 66-50, but this week several MPs decided to switch sides and others wavered.

The lobbying has been intense and although the Government has continued to maintain that it is confident it has the numbers, Cabinet minister Paul Swain's decision to change sides and vote for the bill yesterday is a sign of the pressure it has been under.

Mr Swain was out of Parliament and unavailable to comment. A spokesman said he would explain his decision next week.

Labour MP Ross Robertson changed sides to vote against the bill, and the Herald understands the Government did not know before the vote whether Tainui MP Nanaia Mahuta would continue to support it.

Ms Mahuta voted for the bill, and said afterwards she would do so again next week.

"I was pretty sure that I was going to vote for a bill that promoted tolerance and equality before the law."

Mr Robertson said he had been extensively lobbied and was mindful of the views of the many Pacific Islanders in his Manukau East electorate.

"I got the feedback, and in the end I went with my people and my conscience," he said.

Act MP Gerry Eckhoff was among several other MPs, including National leader Don Brash, who changed sides to vote against the bill.

But the bill continued to place strain between its sponsoring minister, David Benson-Pope, and the United Future party.

United leader Peter Dunne last night referred to Mr Benson-Pope as a "pompous prat".

Mr Benson-Pope is accused of misrepresenting United Future's position by saying the party was not making it a conscience vote.

He later accepted assurances that it was a conscience vote for United Future but yesterday on National Radio he was equivocal in accepting Mr Dunne's assurances.

"So he says and I respect that, but I'm not aware of any inaccuracies in what I've said," the minister said.

Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen told Parliament yesterday that he had "indicated to Mr Benson-Pope that there is a need to be careful in these relationships, and in fact that the Government's position is that the United Future Party is operating a conscience vote".

Mr Dunne said Mr Benson-Pope's conduct could threaten the relationship between the Government and United Future, which backs the minority Government in confidence and money supply votes.

Mr Dunne wrote to Prime Minister Helen Clark last week about the Civil Union Bill and referred to Mr Benson-Pope misrepresenting United Future's position.

"And I did say in that letter that this was imperilling an otherwise good working relationship."

It was not the first time United Future has raised Mr Benson-Pope's attitude with the Prime Minister, he said. And when he had asked Dr Cullen in the House yesterday if the Prime Minister had confidence in Mr Benson-Pope, he heard two voices from the Labour backbench saying "good question".

"The informal gossip we hear is that he is viewed by his own people as a pompous prat too."

Destiny Church leader Brian Tamaki sat in Parliament's debating chamber with a group of church members for much of the debate.

"This thing looks like it may pass," he said.

"It's been pushed by activists in the gay community. But I'd like to say our day's coming."

Mr Tamaki predicted that a lot of people would show their disappointment at the next election.

Most New Zealanders did not support the bill because they did not agree with homosexuality.

"It's a particular sexual practice that is not natural.

"I'm just getting right down to the basics. It's an unnatural and abnormal sexual practice."

Christians for Civil Unions spokeswoman the Rev Dr Margaret Mayman, also sitting with supporters in the gallery, called on those opposed to the bill to recognise it for what it was, "a modest proposal to support committed, loving couples who want to build stronger families and uphold human rights in NZ".

Dr Brash - who said during the debate, "I am not homophobic" - continued to push for a referendum.

"Millions of New Zealanders see this bill as an attack on the institution of marriage," he said.

They believed it was part of a broader Government plan to change society's moral and social fabric.

Act MP Stephen Franks said the gay community wanted privilege, not equality, and was now encouraging the Government to ban "hate speech" which would effectively prevent free speech.

Labour MP Lianne Dalziel, referring to some religious opponents of the legislation, said she was "saddened by the extent of intolerance extended by one minority against another".

"It's not gay marriage, it provides an alternative for those who can't marry."

Fellow Government MP Moana Mackey said opponents said they wanted to protect the stability of relationships, yet this was what the bill would do.

Research showed two-parent families were good for children, but it had not said two homosexual parents were worse than two heterosexual parents.

The bill's final reading will be next Thursday.

If passed, it will take effect from late April.

- additional reporting: Ainsley Thomson