Last year, I wrote that Curia Market Research was found in breach of professional research standards by the independent industry group.

At the time, David Farrar, co-founder of Taxpayers Union, close affiliate of Jordan Williams, and National Party pollster, learned that the industry body RANZ was considering suspending or expelling Curia – among other disciplinary actions – so Farrar resigned.

Curia is National Party’s pollister

David Farrar

I’d been intending to provide an update for a while and here it is today.

But first – note that Curia Market Research has been found in breach of industry standards multiple times before:

Golden Mile Poll – Complaint Upheld

In November 2023, Spinoff’s Joel McManus wrote: “Who’s behind a bizarre new poll about Wellington’s Golden Mile?”

According to McManus [emphasis mine] –

The poll was released publicly on Wednesday afternoon, and picked up by The Post and RNZ the next morning.

It claimed 66% of respondents were opposed to the Golden Mile changes, including the majority of Labour and Green voters who were surveyed….

But the survey questions used emotive language, focused on the negatives of the project without mentioning any positives, and emphasised the costs of unrelated council projects…

The poll was run by Curia and commissioned by the Guardians of the Golden Mile….led by Barry Wilson…

On being contacted … Wilson…said.. “We have faith in the research.”

Wilson said Curia wrote the questions.

Farrar said the questions were mutually agreed upon…

Farrar denied the questions were loaded or intended to produce a particular outcome, and said he believed the poll was accurate.

Yes – the poll emphasised the costs of unrelated council projects and essentially provided a one sided view of the situation – while Farrar and his client doubled down that it was accurate and trustworthy.

However, RANZ upheld the polling complaint in February 2024, noting it was “not prepared in accordance with accepted research principles, methods and techniques.”

And, further, “The Poll did not use wording that ensured fair and unbiased results”.

Free Speech Union Academia Poll – Complaint Upheld

In 2023, Curia Market Research released another poll with a definitive sounding name:“The 2023 Academic Freedom Survey” – purporting to represent significant views of academia in New Zealand.

Curia claimed the results showed only 46 percent of academics agreed they “felt free to question received wisdom and state controversial and unpopular opinions.”

That report was prefaced with a foreward by Auckland University of Technology’s (AUT) Grant Schofield.

Professor Schofield specialises in physical activity and nutrition.

While Grant Schofield did hint at the “limited” response rate and sample size of the poll, he contorts it significantly to mischaracterise the situation.

“Even a more conservative estimate would indicate [we have] a large issue which we need to confront.”

And the head of FSU, Jonathan Ayling, also used the survey to argue that there was a “climate of fear” in NZ academia – and, citing Curia – claimed “50 percent of academics at some universities do not feel free to raise differing perspectives on key issues.”

That “limited” response rate Schofield hinted at earlier?

2.8%

That means, in a room of 100 academics, on average, only 2-3 chose to respond.

And of those 2-3, about 1 of them thought they didn’t feel free to express their views and challenge conventional wisdom.

Specifically — FSU received 452 responses from 16,000 email addresses they scraped from University websites.

Last year, University of Otago’s Associate Professor Ben Gray, who filed the complaint, noted:

“[Curia’s poll] claimed to have been done in accordance with the code of practice of the Research Association of New Zealand (RANZ), I lodged a complaint with RANZ and they upheld my view because as it turned out the response rate was only 2.8 percent.

So in fact, an accurate statement from Free Speech Union would be that 50 percent of 2.8 percent of academics held that view.”

In 2022, Professor Mohan Dutta from Massey University also called out the Free Speech Union and Curia Market Research on their poll results and conclusions:

“Lacking such detail, the survey could be read as a politically motivated campaign to deploy the tropes of “cancel culture” and “wokeism” to target the academic freedom of scholars….

In a political climate where the far-right has weaponised diverse forms of attacks on academic freedoms to uphold the hegemonic structures of whiteness, patriarchy, colonialism, and capitalism, the Free Speech Union’s survey of academic freedom is an exemplar of communicative inversion, directed at perpetuating a chilling climate in the name of promoting academic freedom.”

Dutta also noted the Free Speech Union was formed initially as the Free Speech Coalition “in response to the cancelling of an event at an Auckland Council-owned venue to be held by the far-right white supremacists Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux.”

Further,

Although it claims support from both sides of the political and ideological spectrum, the positions expressed by the Free Speech Union since its formation in 2018 seem to be concerned with the safeguarding of a particular form of free speech- the freedom to speech of those occupying positions of privilege.

This form of speech is organised to target and silence the speech, health and safety of those at the margins of societies.

Gender Affirming Treatment Poll – Complaint Upheld

And that brings me to the complaint that led to suggestions that Curia Market Research be suspended, or even expelled, from RANZ.

FF is featured proudly as a Curia client. Hobsons Pledge is another client.

That polling question was commissioned by Family First – an organisation marked by its opposition to abortion, gay marriage, cannabis, euthanasia, transgender etc.

The Standard’s lprent covers more about the Family First poll.

In August 2024, RANZ provided an update on the Curia resignation and complaint.

The RANZ Professional Standards Group has made a recommendation ….

The complaints process allows that, when such a recommendation is made, the Chair can establish an independent panel to review that recommendation and to make a final decision.

We were underway with this process when Curia tendered its resignation [on August 10]…

After consulting with David at Curia, the complainant, an external advisor and senior members of the RANZ Board and Executive, we have decided to continue the process and bring it to a conclusion.

And the conclusion is – as follows:

• The question…does NOT meet acceptable research principles, methods and techniques and, because the results were published, could bring discredit to the profession.
• The independent committee rejected three of the arguments put forward in Mr Farrar’s response to the independent subcommittee.
• Mr. Farrar also states that although he advises clients on the relative merits of questions, ultimately he will accept the question if the client insists. This is a particular risk where the client is lobbying for a particular outcome.

Full link: Independent Subcommittee Findings in Complaint against Curia Market Research

The panel notes Curia Market Research could choose to return to RANZ, if it so decided, subject to conditions such as “sufficient quality assurance in respect of their questionnaire design to ensure their questions meet best practice.”

The panel did not recommend suspension as that was reserved for cases such as “fraud, making up data, push polling etc”

Media complicit in Farrar’s success

Despite knowledge of Curia’s history of polling issues, and David Farrar’s acknowledgement he will accept clients’ questions if they “insist”, most media outlets in New Zealand continue to headline with Curia polling results – providing the organisation and its founder with desirable publicity, credibility and exposure.

Late last year, multiple polling organisations found National losing significant ground – all except Curia, who insisted the Coalition government was still doing well – and ahead of Labour and co.

In January of this year, Curia admitted National was losing ground – a surprise to no-one covering political polls – but that headline made nearly every major media channel.

After readers made multiple complaints to RNZ for quoting Curia unreservedly after the RANZ complaints, RNZ finally put this blurb at the end of Curia poll results:

That sounds like it could be a statement from David Farrar himself.

And as per above, RNZ, Stuff etc. have no qualms running with Curia Market Research market polls without scrutiny – despite the history of complaints.

In December, NZME’s Ryan Bridges referenced the dubious Treaty Principles Bill polls from Taxpayers Union-Curia – with Bridges arguing that poll proved David Seymour’s strategy was “working”.

None of these media outlets appear to print retractions or clarifications on their stories after complaints against Curia are upheld.

And now, with David Farrar at large, and “resigned” from RANZ, with no apparent repurcussions for him or his organisation, Curia is even more free – without the scrutiny of a professional and independent industry standards group behind him.

Think of what that will mean.

And what it was like even when Curia was part of RANZ.

And make no mistake, despite my onging and fervent desire to protect and preserve journalism and media outlets in New Zealand – Farrar and Curia Market Research couldn’t have done it all without them.

We need our media and journalists to be accountable for what they reproduce, and just as Stuff often repeats government narratives without fact checking or context, so too should they all – from Newsroom to NZ Herald to RNZ to The Post – be accountable for publishing polls and conclusions from groups that admit they will put questions suggested by clients if they just “insist”.

As RANZ’s independent committee noted: “This is a particular risk where the client is lobbying for a particular outcome.”

And isn’t that so.

Extras

Nicky Hager’s Dirty Politics featured Farrar and Williams heavily.

Excerpt from What Happened the the Curia Market Research Suspension? – Mountain Tui Substack