Curia Market Research Found In Breach Of Professional Standards

Written By: - Date published: 1:43 pm, August 16th, 2024 - 43 comments
Categories: David Farrar, taxpayers union - Tags: , , ,

This is an excerpt from Mountain Tui’s Substack.

David Farrar, a co-founder of Taxpayers Union, who he remains in lock-step with, has “resigned” his research firm, Curia, from The Research Association of New Zealand (RANZ).

For those of you who don’t know, RANZ is NZ’s only professional standards and industry group “dedicated to professional providers and users of research, data and insights. The Research Association New Zealand (RANZ) brand is a trust-mark .. and indicates that the bearer is a member of an expert community, which upholds the highest professional and ethical standards.”

Its code of conduct says, among other requirements:

Members must never undertake any activities, under the guise of research, that aim to manipulate, mislead or coerce individuals. This applies throughout the research process including proposal, recruitment, data collection, analysis and reporting.

It looks like the Professional Standards Group (PSG) of RANZ upheld complaints against Curia for bias, and were potentially on their way to suspending/expelling Curia Research – so Farrar resigned.

One of a series of complaints included Curia helping Jordan William’s other outfit, Free Speech Union, with compiling survey results. Curia omitted critical data points.

About the breach of professional standards, a few days ago, Farrar wrote:

“Yesterday I saw an e-mail from RANZ that, not only had the PSG upheld the latest complaint against me, but that it was considering a recommendation that could involve suspension to expulsion. I was absolutely stunned…with the deepest regret I resigned from RANZ.”

It will be interesting to see whether political parties and media still quote Curia, given the breach of professional standards. Perhaps Taxpayers Union will play a polling firm role, or maybe Williams and Farrar will just spin up a new name and organisation to stand behind.

Addendum: Here is an RNZ article from May 2024 regarding Curia’s poor standards

43 comments on “Curia Market Research Found In Breach Of Professional Standards ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Karolyn_IS 1
    16 August 2024 at 2:16 pm

    David Farrah's post does raise questions about polling by a range of companies. What counts as a leading question? How good is a lot of polling currently done in NZ? particularly ones on political issues.

  2. Patricia Bremner 2
    16 August 2024 at 2:44 pm

    Let us be clear The RANZ Standards found Curia Polls did not meet the standards required. That comment of yours smacks of "whataboutism " Karolyn_IS.

    Other Polls may have passed muster, so where is your proof to back that smear that all Political Polls are rigged.

    • infused 2.1
      16 August 2024 at 9:01 pm

      Tui is biased af against David. He's banned many people on Reddit who dare link his posts.

      [lprent: I see that you’re up to your old troll tricks again. Make two completely separate and quite unrelated statements and let the readers fill in the blanks.

      The first part can be viewed as opinion on the post although you have asserted it as fact. Hell I am ‘biased’ against Farrar because I view him as a unscrupulous arsehole on blogs with his frequent unsubstantiated insinuations that mix fact and speculation. But also because Curia has been notable for the use of slanted questions when I’ve rung by them in the past – ie the subject of this post.

      However you’ve made a direct assertion of fact in the second part which is an claim against an author. And the policy is pretty damn clear about the sites view on that.

      I am banning you until you provide some credible proof of that assertion of fact in the next couple of days. I don’t believe that it is true – mostly because I don’t think that tui has been a moderator at reddit. A link or screenshot to a actual ban should suffice for you to prove your assertion.

      Or an comment apology to tui would be seen in the mod queue and may cause me to change your ban duration.

      Otherwise you get a 4 week ban because you should know better – you have been commenting here since 2008 ummm (6006 comments). You should definitely know better. Slow learner. ]

  3. roblogic 3
    16 August 2024 at 4:52 pm

    Farrar's excuses are the finest hogwash. This guy was a significant part of Dirty Politics and is by no means neutral.

    He claims this is a political smear campaign. And he's saying how hurt and stressed he is.

    Diddums

  4. lprent 4
    16 August 2024 at 5:19 pm

    You'll note that the post wasn't about 'gender-critical' issues. In fact it didn't mention it.

    That just happened to be the question that Farrar chose to highlight amongst the ones he got pinged on. Presumably because of his general mischief meme, and the fools who fall into it.

    If you want to raise 'gender-critical' questions related to thise then try OpenMike, which is where I dumped all of the ones from here that referred to it here. I will also spend time being nasty in comments ab out the quality of the 'gender-critical' comments, because I feel that it is a worthwhile use of my time.

    Any further off-topic comments are likely to get a very abrupt response from me as a moderator.

  5. gsays 5
    16 August 2024 at 7:42 pm

    I was a tad suspicious about a recent (the latest?) Curia poll which asked questions about the Tana saga.

    Best I could find was that it was released exclusively to RNZ.

  6. AB 6
    16 August 2024 at 10:21 pm

    A Curia 2.0 is likely to turn up again in a different guise. Their purpose, in my view, is to influence public opinion, not merely to record it.

  7. Tom Hunter 7
    17 August 2024 at 9:19 am

    Interesting comment made by DPF in that archived link:

    I have done polling for Labour MPs and Ministers. I have polled for Green Party members and Alliance members standing in local body election. I have polled for lobby groups I agree with and lobby groups I totally disagree with. I have even polled for groups on opposing side of an issue such as euthanasia. I told both groups that I had been asked to poll for the other side also, and they both consented as they really wanted to use Curia and trusted me to be absolutely professional.

    I thought he just worked for National and corporates.

    • Graeme 7.1
      17 August 2024 at 11:29 am

      Three possibilities there,

      1 – Farrar did work for "opposition" entities to construct a veneer of impartiality

      2 – The "opposition" entities actively engaged Curia to check that his work was impartial by comparing it with the same work done by other agencies.

      3- Curia is actually as impartial as any of the other polling agencies, the entities that commission them, and the media that report them.

      I'm inclined to think all three are in play to varying degrees. Samuel Clements' maxim of journalism comes into play here, “<strong>get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please</strong>.”

  8. Psycho Milt 8
    17 August 2024 at 10:41 am

    It's quite possible for both these things to be true at the same time:

    1. David Farrar is a right-wing political activist.

    2. Left-wing political activists weaponise the RANZ complaints process against his company.

    Item 1 is definitely true. Item 2 not definite but highly likely to be true. The question of whether you believe his company biases its polls or not is likely to be a matter of how partisan you are for right or left.

    • Mountain Tui 8.1
      17 August 2024 at 2:56 pm

      As discussed here: https://www.reddit.com/r/nzpolitics/comments/1escg1f/curia_found_in_breach_of_industry_standards/

      It's very hard to get expelled from RANZ, and the proof is in his own statements. e.g. omitting critical data points about the FSU academia survey, asking leading questuons and also passing misinformation about gender topics etc.

      And as for the partisan point, a breach of RANZ industry standards – for an organisation that has major polling organisations and is friendly with Farrar (per his own words) is testament that this has never to do with partisanship – although some might want to paint it that way to protect Farrar and divert from what happened here.

      Which is pretty simple.

      • Psycho Milt 8.1.1
        17 August 2024 at 3:31 pm

        It's discussed there by partisans for the left, so of course the people discussing it believe Curia biases its polls.

        When I was young and naive, I used to believe respected professional organisations must inevitably be trustworthy in their ethical standards and decision-making, these days I know better. If RANZ genuinely was planning to expel Curia, it may be because Curia breached ethical standards, it may be because some individual has some personal axe to grind with Farrar and persuaded others, or it may be that some of its leaders are leftists. I wouldn’t put money on any particular one of the three.

        EDIT: On reflection, there’s a fourth possibility: people running RANZ are sick of having to deal with the constant complaints about Curia so find some reasons to justify expelling it.

        • Muttonbird 8.1.1.1
          17 August 2024 at 6:01 pm

          It's very on brand for the ACT adjacent RW to attack regulatory and advocacy institutions and organisations.

          They attack the regulations and oversight put in place to guard against a concentration of power by fewer and fewer wealthy individuals, and put in place to protect and support the disenfranchised.

          Regulatory and advocacy institutions doing their job in such a way is red meat to Farrar and Seymour. Although they pretend to worship rules based order, do they really? Seems not, when it suits them not to.

          I expected Farrar in the coming weeks to begin attacking RANZ for its effrontery, I didn't realise his proxies would start straight away.

        • Mountain Tui 8.1.1.2
          17 August 2024 at 6:05 pm

          In other words, you try to defend Farrar and Curia by claiming anyone's analysis that doesn't fit in with yours is "left wing" despite the rational and experienced analysis.

          And you now go further to try to paint professional lauded industry groups as tainted because your precious Taxpayers Union founder David Farrar, and Curia Research, was – after numerous infringements that are documented and clear breaches – in violation of professional standards.

          Yet Farrar himself speaks well of RANZ.

          But your take is is a standard tactic i.e. try discredit the organisation and motives to protect your people.

          • Psycho Milt 8.1.1.2.1
            17 August 2024 at 7:34 pm

            Sigh. I have a long history of opposing Farrar via comments on his blog dating back to 2005 and have (accurately) described the Taxpayers' Union as a right-wing astroturfing operation, so I'll just skip over the blather about my supposed enthusiasm for them.

            My point essentially is that argument from authority is a logical fallacy. RANZ's board may consist of people of the highest ethical standards, or it may not. I don't know one way or the other and I doubt that you do either. If they genuinely were going to expel Curia, it may mean Curia's acted unethically or it may not. What actually matters is what evidence exists. So far, what I've seen is decidedly underwhelming.

            • Mountain Tui 8.1.1.2.1.1
              18 August 2024 at 8:59 am

              "If they genuinely were going to expel Curia, it may mean Curia's acted unethically or it may not. "

              And if a person were to be arrested, but skipped the country before doing so, it may mean they acted criminally or not – if that were Farrar or Williams for you I presume.

              Please keep your attempts off this thread and bring them to Open Mike if you want to litigate for their cause.

              • Psycho Milt …
                18 August 2024 at 12:55 pm

                And if a person were to be arrested, but skipped the country before doing so, it may mean they acted criminally or not…

                Well, yes. If an alleged offender hasn't been tried, we don't know whether they're guilty of the offence or not. And in some cases, we can't even be confident they're guilty even if they have been tried, eg the Lucy Letby case in the UK is a recent example. A recognition that it's possible to be wrong about something isn't advocacy for any particular cause.

                • Mountain Tui …
                  18 August 2024 at 4:28 pm

                  So a person who skips the country because they were about to be arrested is quite possibly innocent according to you.

                  And you then lean on far reaching overseas cases as evidence of this and so, per your logic, anything is actually possible because that criminal is probably just an innocent boy escaping the jaws of the law, rather than being willing to face the evidence and a fair trial here in NZ.

                  For example, according to you then, should Philip Polkinghorne run away now to Colombia to prove his innocence?

                  Because in your defence of Farrar, these are the things you suggest are viable.

                  The wrinkle in all this of course would be Farrar's own post that reveals a lack of due diligence and professional standards such that the professional standards group that he is very friendly with (according to himself) found him guilty.

                  https://www.reddit.com/r/nzpolitics/comments/1escg1f/curia_found_in_breach_of_industry_standards/

                  • Psycho Milt …
                    18 August 2024 at 6:42 pm

                    OK, well excuse me for suggesting it's possible for humans to be wrong about something. I'll leave you to it.

                    • Muttonbird …
                      18 August 2024 at 6:48 pm

                      Is it possible you are wrong about this?

                    • Mountain Tui …
                      18 August 2024 at 6:53 pm

                      Humans can always be wrong, it's the running inteference that strikes my attention – especially for the obvious.

                      Here's an interesting article:

                      https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/516461/changes-made-after-criticism-of-free-speech-union-report

                      A part of the article:

                      The Free Speech Union has pulled a website link to a report on academic freedom that has been criticised as misleading.

                      The group also adjusted a recent media statement which referenced the report, in response to concerns raised by the company who conducted the survey.

                      The 2023 Academic Freedom Survey, conducted by Curia Market Research – owned by National Party's pollster and blogger David Farrar – said a survey of academics found only 46 percent agreed they felt free to question received wisdom and state controversial and unpopular opinions.

                      But the summary of the research was found to have fallen short of scientific standards and Curia had previously updated the research to include a warning that conclusions could not be treated as representative of all academics.

                      Despite that, the Free Speech Union (FSU) had continued to link to the unamended version of the report until approached by RNZ this week.

  9. mpledger 9
    17 August 2024 at 12:42 pm

    In small print in the "Academic Freedom" survey invitation that Curia emailed around to academics was this – "Please do not forward this email as its survey link is unique to you. "

    This is totally unnecessary if the point is to gauge people's opinions. However, if the point is to collect contact details of like-minded indivduals for later targeting then this met the bill.

    Not a good look.

  10. Mountain Tui 10
    18 August 2024 at 4:54 pm

    Here's one of the problematic Curia Research reports:

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/516461/changes-made-after-criticism-of-free-speech-union-report

    A part of the article:

    The Free Speech Union has pulled a website link to a report on academic freedom that has been criticised as misleading.

    The group also adjusted a recent media statement which referenced the report, in response to concerns raised by the company who conducted the survey.

    The 2023 Academic Freedom Survey, conducted by Curia Market Research – owned by National Party's pollster and blogger David Farrar – said a survey of academics found only 46 percent agreed they felt free to question received wisdom and state controversial and unpopular opinions.

    But the summary of the research was found to have fallen short of scientific standards and Curia had previously updated the research to include a warning that conclusions could not be treated as representative of all academics.

    Despite that, the Free Speech Union (FSU) had continued to link to the unamended version of the report until approached by RNZ this week.

    [lprent: removed bold and fixed the blockquote. ]

    • Muttonbird 10.1
      18 August 2024 at 6:02 pm

      Interesting.

      Broadly, TPU/Curia/Farrar/ACT as a rule are at odds with academia and the described but mythical managerial class, and this is just one of many attempts to defund tertiary institutions which they and their backers do not like.

      There's a worrying similarity between them and the dissociative old/red left which also complain hard about contemporary progressive politics.

      • Mountain Tui 10.1.1
        18 August 2024 at 6:55 pm

        I followed this at the time. And I believe I wrote a post about it somewhere.

        Essentially Free Speech Union (FSU) was running a campaign claiming they were standing up for academia and called on academics to join their fight for free speech.

        At the EXACT SAME TIME Taxpayers Union (TPU) – Jordan William's other outfit – was running a campaign attacking academics as 'elites'.

        The only question is how many people remain ignorant of their games and dirty tactics.

        • PsyclingLeft.Always 10.1.1.1
          19 August 2024 at 8:51 am

          Hi Mountain Tui. Just wondering, amongst all the David Curia Farrar and also Jordan Atlas/TPU Williams reveal, have you seen any connectivity with Simon throat cutter Lusk? Thanks as always for your Input on The Standard

          )

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.