John Armstrong: Civil Union Bill is no Dunne deal

COMMENT

Even though he failed to get the Civil Union Bill chucked out of Parliament on Thursday, Peter Dunne could justifiably claim a measure of victory in defeat.

For starters, the margin of the vote that saw the measure make it to a select committee gives the bill's supporters little cause for joy.

A significant number of MPs were willing to let the bill, which establishes what the Government calls a "parallel" alternative to marriage for both homosexual and heterosexual couples, get a full select committee airing.

They remain much less convinced that the Government-sponsored legislation should become law.

In the meantime, the bill's continued presence on the parliamentary order paper probably suits Dunne and his United Future colleagues, who, while opposed to it in principle, have exploited it as a valuable exercise in profile-raising.

Dunne can continue to drive opposition to the bill in the relative absence of National, which is circumscribed by Don Brash having voted for it.

United Future is taking a gamble, of course.

Its vociferous objection to gay couples being allowed to register their partnerships as civil unions has it being accused of exhibiting an intolerant, Christian fundamentalist face - something the party has largely managed to hide in the two years since its overnight success in the 2002 election, in which it captured nearly 7 per cent of the vote.

Furthermore, there is an incongruity in Dunne, who is irredeemably liberal, denying choice to a segment of the population.

But the gains outweigh the drawbacks.

If Dunne does not sound totally convincing, the Government sounds even less so.

The bill's opponents have successfully categorised civil union as marriage by another name - gay marriage in drag, if you like.

The Government has struggled to rebut that argument. If it was open and honest, it would be legislating to legalise marriage for gay couples rather than trying to construct a convenience that pretends not to be marriage.

But in the way that serves United Future's wider political interest, Dunne could probably not have written the bill better himself.

It has enabled United Future to distance itself from the Labour-led Government at the very time it needs to start moving out of Labour's shadow, but without undermining its confidence-and-supply agreement with Helen Clark.

Dunne's firm dictum is that support parties should not be seen to be undermining the Government they are backing.

New Zealand First and the Alliance were perceived to be doing that and were punished by voters accordingly.

In contrast, United Future has gone out of its way to be the exemplary support partner, avoiding adopting non-negotiable bottom-lines and being modest in the concessions it has sought to extract from its partner.

The big question is whether the good behaviour will be rewarded by voters. Or just ignored.

So far, the polls, which have United Future tracking at 2 to 3 per cent, suggest it will not be rewarded. Dunne, however, has cast his lot. He is just going to have to wait and see.

He has reason not to be too fussed by the polls. United Future is still registering. And with Dunne's Ohariu-Belmont seat negating the need to reach the 5 per cent threshold, Dunne can guarantee he and at least two of his colleagues will make it back into the next Parliament.

That means United Future will potentially again be a player in post-election talks surrounding the formation of the next government.

And that makes United Future a player in the campaign beforehand.

As Dunne sees it, there will be two election campaigns next year - the big one between Labour and National and a secondary, but no less intense one, between the two centre parties, United Future and NZ First, for the diminishing pool of non-aligned votes. The Greens and Act, hostage to the fortunes of Labour and National respectively, can shout from the sidelines, but will be largely irrelevant.

Little more than a year out from that poll, Dunne is already reminding voters that while United Future backs Labour for now, its policy is that the first option on forming a government should rest with the party securing the largest number of seats.

In recent speeches, he has made the point that United Future could work equally well with National; that his party's agreement with Labour expires at the end of this parliamentary term and may not necessarily be renewed.

Amid United Future's perceptible hardening towards Labour, National has softened towards United Future, with the "atmospherics" improving dramatically since Brash became leader.

National's recovery in the polls means it no longer sees United Future as a threat.

It has also been far less scathing of United Future's pet project, the new Families Commission, whose continuance is the closest thing Dunne's party has to a bottom line.

The behind-the-scenes warming has been matched by a combined outbreak of public sniping at NZ First.

With Act struggling, it is now very much in National's self-interest for United Future to flourish at Winston Peters' expense.

Brash's declared reluctance to work with Winston Peters is a message to non-aligned voters to choose Dunne instead.

Dunne likewise is saying he would have difficulty working with NZ First.

His campaign pitch will be straightforward: Do voters want a coalition partner with a track record of stability - or one prone to grandstanding and keeping everyone guessing?

Peters' angry riposte has been to paint United Future as too compliant; too much the lap-dog.

He made that point fairly brutally by shunting Dunne out of the way when Labour had to go cap-in-hand to NZ First for the numbers to pass the legislation vesting the foreshore and seabed in Crown ownership.

As always, the truth resides somewhere in the middle.

Since the debacle of the 1996-1998 National-NZ First coalition, Peters has sought to show his party can behave responsibly. Dunne's party, having spent the first year or so of this parliamentary term keeping its head down, is now proving to be a tougher customer in its dealings with Labour.

No matter. It is in the interests of United Future and NZ First to paint the other in the worst possible light. Expect the sniping to intensify.