Choudhary 'yes' after Brash 'no' should see Civil Union Bill through

Don Brash

National leader Don Brash has withdrawn his support for the Civil Union Bill, as intensive lobbying of MPs continues.

The decision came as a slap in the face for the Government, which had calculated his support would help undercut conservative opposition to its bill.

But it won a victory within its own ranks late yesterday, gaining the vote of Muslim MP Ashraf Choudhary.

That vote looks to have secured the Government the barest majority - 61 votes for the bill.

With the possibility emerging yesterday of NZ First MPs Brian Donnelly and Ron Mark pulling their vote in the third reading, it could only have counted on 60 votes yesterday.

The bill could then have passed only with abstentions.

National MP Pansy Wong is likely to continue to support the bill, but refused to confirm that on Monday and - out of the country - couldn't be reached yesterday.

Fellow National MP Lockwood Smith, Act MP Gerry Eckhoff and Labour MP Winnie Laban are still considering their options in what has become a nail-biting lead-up to the vote.

MPs are being extensively lobbied and intense negotiations were occurring in Parliament yesterday.

Gay Labour Minister Chris Carter was heard trying to change National MP Georgina te Heuheu's mind on the way into the debating chamber, while fellow Cabinet ministers Steve Maharey and David Benson-Pope held discussions with Mr Choudhary outside it.

There has been considerable tension within the New Zealand First caucus.

The party will move an amendment during the final reading next week calling for the bill, if passed, to be enacted only if it wins the support of a public referendum at the election.

NZ First deputy leader Peter Brown said on Monday that Mr Donnelly would vote against the bill if the amendment was voted down.

Mr Donnelly said yesterday that he would vote for the bill tomorrow.

But party sources said this did not mean he would finally vote for it if the amendment was rejected.

Fellow MP Ron Mark said that although he would vote for the bill tomorrow, his final support was not guaranteed, as he was being heavily lobbied by constituents.

Mr Brown said he would be deeply concerned if the MPs' votes secured the bill's passing, but leader Winston Peters said from overseas that they would not be pressured.

Dr Brash previously said the bill didn't threaten the institution of marriage and voted for its first reading.

But yesterday he said he wanted a referendum on the bill, which the Government was ramming through.

The country was deeply divided on the issue.

"People see it as a direct attack on the institution of marriage, and as part of a more general attack by this Government on the institutions of civil society.

"We should submit this issue to a referendum. I personally would vote in favour of allowing same-sex couples to form a legally binding relationship in that referendum."

The Government would not consider supporting a referendum unless backed into a corner.

Dr Brash's announcement came as a significant blow to the Government, several of whose MPs were still confident of his vote just hours before.

Dr Choudhary said his decision followed much soul-searching and was based on his belief the law should treat everyone equally. He abstained on prostitution law reform and when he took the same position on the first reading of the Civil Union Bill, came in for considerable flak.

He said that in recent years Muslims and other ethnic people had been subjected to a lot of pressure.

"Throughout this time we have asked for tolerance from the people of New Zealand and I believe it is incumbent on us to show tolerance for others."

FURTHER WORK DELAYS RELATIONSHIPS BILL

The Government planned to pass the Civil Union Bill alongside a companion bill designed to give people with civil unions and de facto couples the same "next of kin" status as married people.

But the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill has been delayed after MPs on the select committee examining it agreed it may confer some unfair obligations on the country's more than 330,000 de facto couples who may not want to be treated as if they were married.

The bill was to amend about 1000 provisions in 100 pieces of legislation, but does not affect major areas such as property carve-ups or issues to do with adoption or guardianship of children.

It would confer rights such as allowing a de facto partner to be covered by their partner's life insurance if the partner agreed.

While few would object to that, MPs are examining what obligations that flow from the changes could be more objectionable.

The bill will now be reported back early next year and may impose a broad time-frame, possibly three years, after which such couples will be given "married" rights and obligations.

As it stood couples would be treated as if married as soon as they began living together.

Other conditions might also apply and some issues may be referred for further consideration to a body like the Law Commission.