Archives: Curia

Curia was commissioned to do a poll of 1,200 Auckland residents on the upcoming mayoral elections, on behalf of Hon John Banks. The poll was done over five days last week.

The client, has given permission for the topline results to be released publicly.

There are some differences in methodology from other recent polls on the Mayoralty. These are:

1. The Curia poll sample and responses reflect turnout for the 2007 local govt elections. In other words, the proportion of responses from one particular territorial local authority is approximately the same proportion of votes cast in that TLA, as a share of the entire region.
2. The Curia poll has a large sample of 1,200 responses, which has a margin of error of only 2.9%. A recent other poll had a 4.6% margin of error.
3. The Curia poll asks respondents who would be their preference for Mayor, not who they think will be a better Mayor, as asked in a recent other poll.
4. The Curia poll was taken as a snapshot over five days, the other recent poll was taken over seventeen days.
5. The Curia poll was a short stand alone poll, not part of a longer omnibus poll.
6. Two questions were asked – first an unprompted question on which Aucklander they would like to be Mayor, and then a second question asking their preference if it is a choice between Auckland Mayor John Banks and Manukau Mayor Len Brown.

The first question was:

If an election was held today for Mayor of the new Auckland Supercity, which Aucklander would you most like to be Mayor?

1. John Banks 42.5%
2. Len Brown 38.1%
3. Bob Harvey 7.2%
4. Stephen Tindall 4.8%
5. Others 3.2%
6. Paul Holmes 1.4%
7. Mike Lee 1.3%
8. Michael Barnett 1.3%
9. Andrew Williams 0.4%

These are percentages of those who had an opinion. 34.1% of respondents could not or would not name a preferred Mayor unprompted.

The second question was:

If the choice for Mayor of the Auckland Super City was between Manukau City Mayor Len Brown and Auckland City Mayor John Banks, which one would be your preference?

John Banks 50.0%

Len Brown 50.0%

In a two way race, an identical number of respondents supported both John Banks and Len Brown.  14.8% of respondents were undecided, or would not express a preference.

The change since September

A poll was also done in September 2009 of 1,200 respondents. Changes between the two polls are:

• Banks Unprompted – from 39.0% in Sep 09 to 42.5% in Feb 10
• Brown Unprompted – from 44.5% in Sep 09 to 38.1% in Feb 10
• Banks Prompted – from 45.1% in Sep 09 to 50.0% in Feb 10
• Brown Unprompted – from 54.9% in Sep 09 to 50.0% in Feb 10

In my opinion this reflects the higher profile John Banks has had in the first two months of 2010, and lower profile of Len Brown.

John Banks’ press secretary, Scott Campbell, can be contacted on 021 426 342 or by e-mail if comment is desired.

Curia did a poll for Exceltium in August 2009 of 800 mobile phone owners. The full results are here: 090807 Curia Report

Key findings:

• 48% on Vodafone, 47% Telecom, 3% both and 2% other
• 33% said their choice of network was influenced by whether the people they call or text are on the same network
• 73% say mobile phone charges are higher in NZ than overseas and 3% disagree
• 81% believe Telecom and Vodafone are over-charging and only 5% disagree
• 86% say they should be able to call someone on a different network for the same cost as someone on the same network, and 88% say the same for texting
• 85% think it is wrong it often costs more to ring a mobile phone domestically than to call someone living overseas
• 37% trust companies to lower their prices voluntarily, 55% do not
• 81% want the Government to accept the Commerce Commission’s recommendation to lower the termination rate, and 14% do not
• 15% said they are more likely to vote for a party that lowered mobile phone costs through reducing the termination rates and only 1% said they are less likely

Curia did a poll for BDO Spicers and Ideas Shop of 400 small and medium sized businesses.

BDO Spicers report on one aspect here, being the three biggest challenges facing SMEs. They were:

1. Economy 37%
2. Cash Flow 36%
3. Attract and Retain talented staff 36%
4. Reduced Sales 28%
5. Red Tape 14%
6. Staff Costs 13%
7. Access to Capital 11%
8. Higher input costs 11%
9. Currency fluctuations 10%

It was interesting that despite increasing unemployment, there was still challenges in recruiting the right staff.

At Ideas Shop they have a report focusing more on the environmental, employment and charitable business practices of SMES:

• Around 10% of SMES formally report on their sustainable business practices
• 95% of SMEs undertake at least one environmentally sustainable business practice
• 35% of SMEs offer wellness benefits such as counselling, fitness subsidies or independent financial advice
• 93% of SMEs undertake at least one charitable activity
• Time and money are the biggest barriers to incorporating further sustainable business practices

The Green Party engaged in a shoot the messenger exercise yesterday and attacked the integrity of the poll done by Curia for Family First on the law that amended Section 59 in 2007.

I’m not planning to respond to the sillyness of the Greens “revealing” I worked in Parliament for National for eight years, as this revelation is on Kiwiblog and known to almost every political commentator in NZ.And anyway I try and keep the silly politics over on Kiwiblog. Curiablog is about polling.

In the release from the Greens, they contrasted the Curia finding of 80% opposition to the 2007 law, with a UMR poll that found only 28% opposition. Now how is this possible many people will wonder?

I thought it would be useful to use this as a case study, to look at how important the order and wording of questions is. Often comparing one poll to another is comparing apples and oranges.

I should make clear that I regard both Curia (obviously as I own and manage it) and UMR as very good professional polling firms, and that any discussion of differences is to help public understanding.

The UMR poll details are here. They did their poll of 750 responses in July 2008 and it was released by their client (Office of the Commissioner of Children) a week after the election.

The first question in the UMR poll was “Should children be entitled to the same protection from assault as adults”.

Unsurprisingly that proposition gets 89% support. It is probably useful to note at this stage that respondents will often give answers to a survey which may appear to be contradictory. For example in NZES surveys, many people say they want to go back to FPP but they like having lots of parties in Parliament.

The second UMR question was

“Are you aware that the law about physical punishment of children was changed last year”

Then UMR asked respondents to rate theri support or opposition for the law change on a 0 to 10 scale.  Only those who responded 0 to 3 were included in the 28% marked as oppossed. Those in the 4 to 6 range were marked as neutral.

Note that as far as I can tell, the law change was not described to respondents. They were simply asked firstly if they were aware of the law change around “physical punishment” and if so, then what they thought of it.

Now you may have people who supported the law change as an improvement on the status quo, but also wanted an examption for light smacking to be maintained. There is a difference between generally asking support for an undescribed law and a specific provision of the law.

Interesting UMR also went on to ask if people agreed:

There are certain circumstances when it is alright for parents to use physical punishment with children

And UMR found 58% of respondents agreed with this statement and only 20% disagreed.

When you look at that finding, then it is worth looking at the Curia poll. The first question was:

In 2007, Parliament passed a law that removes a defence of reasonable force for parents who smack a child to correct their behaviour, but states the Police have discretion not to prosecute if they consider the offence was inconsequential. What is your view of this law?

And 25% said they strongly or somewhat agreed with the law and 65% said they strongly or somewhat disagreed with it. Now when you look at the UMR poll which says 58% said it is okay to physically punish your children sometimes and 20% said it was never okay – well the two polls can actually be seen to be quite close to each other.

There is rarely a definitely right or definitely wrong when it comes to framing questions. It depends on what you are trying to find out. The Curia poll was inquiring very specifically about whether light correctional smacking should be legal. The UMR poll for the Children’s Commissioner was inquiring more generally into attitudes around child disclipline.

Incidentially there will be a referendum in July on the issue of whether light correctional smacking should be legal. It will be interesting to observe the outcome.

Family First have released details of a poll done by Curia in March 2009 on the 2007 law change to s59 of the Crimes Act that removed the defence of reasonable force for correctional purposes. Key findings:

• 83% said the law should be changed so it is not a criminal offence to lightly smack your child for correctional purposes
• 77% say the law will not reduce the rate of child abuse
• Only 31% understood that the law did not criminalise all smacking

Welcome to curiablog, if you have managed to find it despite me not yet promoting it.

This blog will be a specialist blog on polls and polling, with a mainly New Zealand focus.

I hope it will provide the following information:

1. A record of all public polls published within New Zealand, and links to the original data or at least media reports based on that data.
2. A guide to useful information on polls and polling including FAQS on issues such as exit polls, why polls disagree etc etc. I will generally link the best overseas content where appropriate.
3. Links to significant overseas polls.
4. Links to and commentary on blog posts on polling from some of the international specialist blog sites.

Over time, it may develop into a useful discussion forum for staff, directors and customers of New Zealand polling companies.

It is not intended to be a partisan debating forum, despite the fact I am politically active. There are many other blogs for that.

I hope this blog will develop into a useful addition to the blogosphere.